marks2065

QuoteReagan was very good with speeches and getting the correct message delivered at the right time. Obama is a very good speaker but unless someone gives him the correct words to say he sucks.(great speech bad content) You can see the difference from running for president and being president and Obama needs to go back to having the handling he had before he was elected.

Thanks for clarifying that! No problem. I think they each should get a chance in a reeducation camp first. They could be subjected to such horrible tortures as Mathematics, Biology, and Civics until they see the error of their ways. and I would give the left lessons in paying your own way, hard work and i can spend my money how I want

there are lists of bankrupt companies every year like this, the only difference is they are bigger companies this year.

not enough only because of gov waste but not equal considering the new cars that don't use gas.

So it reduces the benefit from giving, but does not eliminate it. And this is probably for adjusted gross income of $250,000. Which means that you take all the business deductions first. That means that if you're a small business owner taking home $250,000 (already less than 20% of small business owners), you are vanishingly unlikely to have this as an issue. Donald Trump is likely to be impacted. Wendy W. Re-read my post. My point was/is that Obama said people earning less that $250K won't have a tax hike, then we find the number is $209K for having certain deductions reduced or cut altogether. Gross or net, business owner or W-2 employee, it's still a sham. A reduction in deductions IS a tax hike. And here's another good one. You know why Obama is giving tax rebates rather than just cutting the tax rate? Because you'll have to pay income taxes on your rebate!! $13 extra per week in your pocket? Try more like $8 or $9. Welcome to change, comrades. this is a loosing battle, the koolaid is too strong, the left doesn't believe in hard work, pay your own way, and donate to things you care about. the left believes in government knows best and welfare for the lazy and unmotivated. when was the last time government took something over and did a better job at a cheaper price than letting private companies do the job with compitition?

Off course it has. Have you ever wondered why? Could it be because most other western countries have government organizations looking after issues that are left to charities in the USA? would you rather donate money to causes that you want or have the government take that money from you and donate it to a cause that you opose?

Good point. Real Americans, you know the ones who support the Constitution, would never condone depriving someone of life, liberty, or property without due process. I guess Texans don't fit that description. FDR didn't think enemy combatants were alowed constitutional rights and privliges and were only subject to the geneva convention and we should hold that belief today.

doesn't change the fact that stipulations like being a union company or a minority are in the package and cover most of the money in the infrastructure and green jobs areas.

to easy to get around on the odometer reading. most cars you can just unplug the speedometer and plug it back in before inspection.

alot of the stimulus money is tied to restrictions like needing to be union or a minority. So if you don't fit into those catagories you are probably SOL.

don't worry, after the increase in taxes they won't have any money to donate. semms people forgot about the fact that the largest amounts of donations in this great country is from the ones that Obama wants to over tax. The US has been one of the most charitable nations in the world until now, no money left after taxes will greatly reduce that.

I'm sorry, you were saying? Seems that you are now straying from "it was all the Dems fault" and conceding that leading Republicans actually led the charge. Progress! The problem is not rep or dem it is government itself. both sides are to blame and we are to blame for voting them in. The reason people side with a party is because the ideals they represent are closer to what they want to see happen. unfortunatly politicians lie and cheat to the point that the message they gave to get elected hardly represents what they do. The bottom line is who signs the bill and who do we elect to sign that bill. unfortunatly our choices are not good and our voting is influenced by emotion. Look what emotional voting did for Illinois, we got someone worse in Blago, and I am afraid America did the same in this presidential election by electing Obama. They got pissed at the rep party and sent a clear message that they didn't like what has happened eventhough alot of the problems stem from their other elected people from a while ago. (like the deregulation sign into law by Clinton that has been blowing up fo 8 years) People can't seem to understand that the person currantly in charge is riding the wave set in motion by his predecesor. When something is signed into law it takes a while to see the results of those actions. alot of the things that happened under Bush's terms was set in motion under clinton and alot of what happens in Obama's presidency will be the result of what Bush did. The final verdict on Bush won't be in for years to come and history might just be more favorable to Bush than the public is now. I feel the things set in motion so quickly by Obama will haunt us for years to come and will cause us and our children to suffer financially for a long time to come. Over reaction is ussually worse than no action and the results will cause everything to be worse.

QuoteIt seems like the right has taken up mortgages as the sole reason for our financial problems. I never hear anyone on the right talk about how the Bush administration allowed a loophole in offshore oil speculation that caused the gas prices to rise dramatically last year. it wasnt Bush but under clinton that caused the gas prices to go up. now before you go of half bent understand that the deregulation that caused the futures market to rise was actually passed in Clintons years. cox admitted to it acording to this article.http://www.stwr.org/multinational-corporations/how-big-oils-lobbyists-contributed-to-big-finances-crash.html isn't it kinda funny the democrats, banks and companies mentioned in this article are all failing except for the oil companies?

so if i read this correctly it is saying the guy appointed by Clinton wanted the merger that opened the door to the mess we find now.

I'll take your word for it that you've been saying that all along. To my ears (eyes) it sounded a little different, but maybe that was my interpretation. Now all I'll ask is that you back that up. Nothing you or anyone else has posted has come close to proving that statement. And yes, I've read what people have posted, and watched the videos. In reaching your final conclusion above, you're making lots of assumptions that I and others have pointed out are not accurate. you are correct that the mortgage bubble is not entirely to blame, poor oversight on wall street and poor fiscal responsibility by everyone that over extended themselves also had alot to do with it, but the mortgage crisses played the major roll in the colapse of the financial industry and that caused the other businesses to faulter. I guess trickle down economics does work and maybe the currant government should use this as a model for putting it right again. If you fuck up the top end it fucks up the bottom and if you fix the top it fixes the bottom.

Holy shit, every citizen of the United States is a freeloading shitbag. How depressing. Oh thank God, there's one decent person left in the whole country. I feel much better now.

The way it works is we go further into debt to try to generate commerce that will stimulate the economy, create jobs, get back on track, and eventually pay off said debt. It has been shown to work (usually), but does not reduce the total pain. When has it worked? Details. please. It has never worked! What is suprising is that the liberal's teach things like history but they never seem to learn. The new deal in the thirties is a perfect example, alot of spending but no fiscal responsibility, causing a large debt and only small temporary relief. The new deal lasted only a couple years before things headed back to what they were at the beginning of FDR's 1st term. This left a large debt for people to pay along with the interest. I for one would rather pay the cheaper price now than the interest inflated price later. there is no backbone left in America, all we have is alot of weak minded poeple looking for the easy way out by sending their problems down the road to someone else. I don't want money from the government, I don't want to pay for their bailouts, and I don't want to work hard only to have my earnings taken from me and given to the lazy, irresponsible people of this country. once again the hard work of many is being used to offset the few that can't seem to pay their own way. on a side note, I heard last night on the news(and I don't know how true it is) that if you took every penny from everyone that makes over 250k you could still not pay off the debt that this government is spending. A sobering thought that even those making less than 250k should seriously think about!

Mark, you repeatedly make this mistake, despite correction. The GOP controlled Congress from 95 till 07. That means the latter 6 years of the Clinton Adminstration, and the first 6 of the Bush Administration. There is absolutely no doubt that the GOP generated the deficit growth this decade by cutting taxes while creating new departments and wars. what mistake ? the 2 worst year for spending in bush and clintons admin were when the dem's controled the house. the rep party did not control the 107 senate so the rep party didn't control congress from 97 to 05 only from 95-2000 and 02-07. and I remember both sides voted for the wars

The architect of the bill was Treasury Secretary Paulson. However, Bush's increases in government spending, running up a $5trillion debt, started long before that. The President doesn't make the budget, Congress does. So, we had a Republican and then a Democratic Congress all pouring slops into the hog trough as fast as they could. Both sides share blame in the matter - trying to say it's all the fault of a single side is a moronic ploy. It's just sheer coincidence that over last 40 years deficits have been consistently higher under Republican presidents than under Democrats, regardless of the make-up of Congress. I have a nice bridge you might like to buy. It seems to be better for us when the rep side controls the house. the last 4 years of clinton the rep party controlled the house (clintons best year for fiscal responsibility) and the last 4 years of bush the dem party controlled the house (the worst spending under bush). It also shows better when one party doesn't control congress and excec branches at the same time.

While I agree that Burris should have refused the appointment, I see no perjury or deceit in his answer to the impeachment committee. Watch the video: He was asked if he had any contact with X, Y, or Z... and he replied "Yes". He was NOT asked with whom he had contact, or what they talked about. When I've given depositions under oath, I've always been instructed only to answer the exact question asked. I can't see the Burris can be faulted for answering the way he did. I can, because I'm viewing his testimony from the perspective of a citizen, not as a lawyer. If he'd given that testimony while a cadet or midshipman at a military academy, it would have qualified as "quibbling", for which he'd have been expelled for violating the honor code. He was deceptive by deliberate omission: he should have made the disclosure to the citizenry and the Senate; and that he did not is an intolerable violation of ethics. In my opinion. i agree with you, wow.

Agreed. I've been in Circuit City twice to try and grab a good deal. Even after their price cuts, Best Buy was still cheaper. No wonder they're going out of business. that is because it is off manufacturer list price not off what they sold it for previous to the close out sale.

Quote>Ambition and desire makes someone a success not how well they did in >english class. Ambition and desire are great. But without action and the will to do what it takes to get to your goals, they mean nothing. A guy who is full of ambition and desire, but has done nothing for most of his life, is destined to spend his time flipping burgers. Quotei guess he didn't have ambition and desire then did he.

I'd support educational programs to improve their literacy skills so that they'd stand a better chance of productive success in the modern world. Ambition and desire makes someone a success not how well they did in english class. but then why would you want to worry about the real reason for an issue since spelling errors are the cause of all problems according to the left.

letting 50k out now would be a disaster, maybe shorter terms and a gradual release would be better on the economy of california. or maybe just make them serve thier time in poor conditions might make them not want to go back.

I'd support educational programs to improve their literacy skills so that they'd stand a better chance of productive success in the modern world. so they can read better when they go back to jail when they get caught stealing to eat because there are no jobs?