PDA

View Full Version : Republicans vote to raise taxes



depittydawg
12-04-2010, 02:07 PM
The party of NO continues its outrageous neglect of the will of American citizens. And the party of Patsies continues its policy of cave in. Neither is surprising. This practice of allowing a threat of filibuster to suffice to halt legislation has to stop. The spineless dems need to make the Republicans exercise their filibuster and stand up and explain to America why it is they want to raise taxes on the middle class.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/04/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-plan-that-leaves-out-high-earner/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk1|188120

sandyg
12-04-2010, 02:16 PM
Nice spin. 180 degrees from the truth. I'm not surprised. It's all Bush's fault!

subroc
12-04-2010, 02:26 PM
The headline should read:


Republicans stood together with a few democrats to prevent obama and lame duck democrats from raising taxes on all United States taxpayers.

road kill
12-04-2010, 03:17 PM
The party of NO continues its outrageous neglect of the will of American citizens. And the party of Patsies continues its policy of cave in. Neither is surprising. This practice of allowing a threat of filibuster to suffice to halt legislation has to stop. The spineless dems need to make the Republicans exercise their filibuster and stand up and explain to America why it is they want to raise taxes on the middle class.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/04/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-plan-that-leaves-out-high-earner/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk1|188120


That is a flat out LIE.....and YOU know it.

Your party got bitch slapped in the Nov elections and you are too stoopid to understand.

We'll fix it in '12.


stan b

gman0046
12-04-2010, 03:30 PM
This post is just like all of dippy's posts. Pure BS. He's not bright enough to figure it out.

subroc
12-04-2010, 03:34 PM
...He's not bright enough to figure it out.

agree.....

YardleyLabs
12-04-2010, 06:19 PM
Which administration passed the law raising taxes in 2011? Why did they do it. Answer that question honestly and there is a reasonable basis for discussion of options now. Personally, I hope the stalemate on this issue lasts forever.

road kill
12-04-2010, 06:21 PM
Which administration passed the law raising taxes in 2011? Why did they do it. Answer that question honestly and there is a reasonable basis for discussion of options now. Personally, I hope the stalemate on this issue lasts forever.
You know better, or should.

The tax breaks end Dec 31st, 2010.
No vote, taxes go up.

And that creates jobs how????:confused:



RK

YardleyLabs
12-04-2010, 06:23 PM
You know better, or should.

The tax breaks end Dec 31st, 2010.
No vote, taxes go up.

And that creates jobs how????:confused:



RK
Couldn't bring yourself to answer a simple question, could you? What a surprise.

road kill
12-04-2010, 06:31 PM
Couldn't bring yourself to answer a simple question, could you? What a surprise.
Neither could you, but I wouldn't have read your customary 6 paragraphs of BS anyway!!:p

Unemployment is what....9.8%????

Raising taxes creates JOBS how????:confused:


RK

subroc
12-04-2010, 06:53 PM
Which administration passed the law raising taxes in 2011? Why did they do it...

compromise to prevent democrat filibuster and stalemate.

YardleyLabs
12-04-2010, 07:02 PM
Neither could you, but I wouldn't have read your customary 6 paragraphs of BS anyway!!:p

Unemployment is what....9.8%????

Raising taxes creates JOBS how????:confused:


RK
Neither could I what?

The unemployment rate will probably increase even more if the number of jobs continues to grow.True unemployment was probably closer to 16-17%, but doesn't get measured when people stop looking for work because there is none. When jobs start to grow, they re-enter the market and unemployment, which only counts those actively seeking work, grows as well. Even with healthy job growth, it would take months for for unemployment to go down.

I agree that some additional stimulus would probably help at this stage, but only if it is short term and immediate -- for example a one year extension of lower tax rates for those earning less than $200k. However, continuing the tax cuts without offsetting spending cuts adopted simultaneously is just crazy.

luvmylabs23139
12-04-2010, 07:17 PM
Jeff,
You really don't get it do you?
Let's just say a family member has a small business and they have a ton of work. Due to not knowing their tax rate if you had that business would you gamble on who knows what including needing clarification on the helathcare bill and hire aperson or 2, or play it safe and work double your norrmal hours to cover the work and have your wife also do all of the client stuff that she is more than capable of?
We took the bust our butts attitude and I'm not a real happy camper, but better I do it for the rest of the year than we hire at least one person and then get screwed. If our tax rates go up next year we have 3 choices.
1. Pay the feds more so they can waste it/
2. Monitor everything and turn down work at a certain point.
3. GET A DIVORCE and accept an additional amount of possible work. $150,000 more work ( net income) could be accepted with a divorce.

YardleyLabs
12-04-2010, 07:45 PM
Jeff,
You really don't get it do you?
Let's just say a family member has a small business and they have a ton of work. Due to not knowing their tax rate if you had that business would you gamble on who knows what including needing clarification on the helathcare bill and hire aperson or 2, or play it safe and work double your norrmal hours to cover the work and have your wife also do all of the client stuff that she is more than capable of?
We took the bust our butts attitude and I'm not a real happy camper, but better I do it for the rest of the year than we hire at least one person and then get screwed. If our tax rates go up next year we have 3 choices.
1. Pay the feds more so they can waste it/
2. Monitor everything and turn down work at a certain point.
3. GET A DIVORCE and accept an additional amount of possible work. $150,000 more work ( net income) could be accepted with a divorce.
I get it just fine. Everyone wants all the services without paying the bill. The result is a deficit that has bankrupted our country. The solution to that will include substantial tax increases and substantial spending cuts. Both have the effects of slowing the economy. However, deficit spending has the effect of bankrupting our economy. There is no nice middle ground.

The tax cuts implemented in 2001 and 2003 were implemented even while spending grew faster than at any time in our history. Spending went up, revenues went down, a bubble grew and then popped. It's that simple. The tax cuts were a major source of the problems we face today.

The tax cuts that are now expiring are expiring because that was the only way the Bush administration could get them passed without proposing spending cuts to prevent a growth in the deficit. It was unwilling to do that. They wanted both -- higher spending and lower taxes. Nothing has changed. The song is the same but soon we will be needing to sing it in Chinese.

Everyone who cares about the deficit should be demanding that no tax cuts be extended without exactly the types of sending cuts rejected under Bush. If a temporary stimulus is needed, implement a temporary program. If a temporary program will not do any good, then don't implement it. Save the money. Otherwise, we are simply adding another few trillion dollars to the deficit that we do not have.

depittydawg
12-04-2010, 07:49 PM
Nice spin. 180 degrees from the truth. I'm not surprised. It's all Bush's fault!

Why don't you give us the truth Sandy? Lets hear your SPIN of it.

depittydawg
12-04-2010, 07:50 PM
The headline should read:



Perhaps you can explain this reverse logic. It makes absolutely NO sense.

luvmylabs23139
12-04-2010, 08:08 PM
The gov't needs to cut spending period. What does the average person do? They cut spending. Businesses cut spending. The gov't does not.
CUT THE DARN SPENDING END OF STORY.
NOw we are even going to have to pay for other people's kids dinners twice! GET A DAMN GRIP!!!!

luvmylabs23139
12-04-2010, 08:11 PM
. If a temporary program will not do any good, then don't implement it. Save the money. Otherwise, we are simply adding another few trillion dollars to the deficit that we do not have.
BUMMA wasted almpst 1 trillion that way!!!! One trillion! Why should I have to pay for that? He should fork it out!

YardleyLabs
12-04-2010, 08:12 PM
The gov't needs to cut spending period. What does the average person do? They cut spending. Businesses cut spending. The gov't does not.
CUT THE DARN SPENDING END OF STORY.
NOw we are even going to have to pay for other people's kids dinners twice! GET A DAMN GRIP!!!!
I have no problem with cutting spending. And when we have a bill that cuts spending by a trillion dollars, we can go ahead and extend $700 billion in tax cuts. Cut spending another trillion, and cut taxes another $700 billion. Eventually we will have a balanced budget. But until those cuts are passed, rule number one is don't do anything that makes the problem worse.

luvmylabs23139
12-04-2010, 08:19 PM
I have no problem with cutting spending. And when we have a bill that cuts spending by a trillion dollars, we can go ahead and extend $700 billion in tax cuts. Cut spending another trillion, and cut taxes another $700 billion. Eventually we will have a balanced budget. But until those cuts are passed, rule number one is don't do anything that makes the problem worse.


Are you willing to concede that extending unemployment benefits should be a no go?
How about getting rid of that new dinner twice crap for kids?

luvmylabs23139
12-04-2010, 08:20 PM
By the way the 700 billion is over 10 years. The waste of a stimulus was thrown away in less than 1 year and cost more.

luvmylabs23139
12-04-2010, 08:22 PM
NOw lets add in the money we have not gotten back from the car companies and letsuse the real accounting not the illegal accounting by bumface.

depittydawg
12-04-2010, 09:39 PM
Are you willing to concede that extending unemployment benefits should be a no go?
How about getting rid of that new dinner twice crap for kids?

Personally, I have no problem with ending the employment benefits. I can see the extension to 12 months. But this now pushing 2 years. Thats nuts.

depittydawg
12-04-2010, 09:45 PM
By the way the 700 billion is over 10 years. The waste of a stimulus was thrown away in less than 1 year and cost more.

Actually much of it was never spent. That's one of the problems. Somehow our genius' in Washington got it up their rears that giving money to Banks increases demand and stimulates the economy. There is absolutely no economic theory that supports this.

The same is true of the tax breaks for wealthy individuals or Corporations. Generic tax cuts to the investment class do nothing to stimulate economic activity. On the other hand, targeted tax cuts, for example, for a company to put a manufacturing plant in America, do stimulate the economy.

cotts135
12-05-2010, 07:30 AM
You know better, or should.

The tax breaks end Dec 31st, 2010.
No vote, taxes go up.

And that creates jobs how????:confused:



RK

What I find unbelievable is that as Americans we still fall for this tax cutting bs. These tax cuts are not what they are cut out to be. The Congressional budget office has said that the tax cuts were the least effective stimulus in the Recovery act with even extending Unemployment benefits ahead of the cuts.http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/cbo-tax-cuts-were-least-effective-stimulus-in-recovery-act.html I have said it before, that politicians campaigning on tax cuts benefit almost more than anyone else.
How can anyone take any of these politicians seriously when they say on one hand they want to balance the budget and in the next breath they insist that tax cuts for the rich be extended for two years knowing that this costs billions of dollars. You can't have it both ways, sorry, Tough choices will have to be made to fix this problem and unfortunately raising taxes will be one of them.

subroc
12-05-2010, 10:11 AM
What I find unbelievable is that as Americans we still fall for this tax cutting bs. These tax cuts are not what they are cut out to be. The Congressional budget office has said that the tax cuts were the least effective stimulus in the Recovery act with even extending Unemployment benefits ahead of the cuts.http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/cbo-tax-cuts-were-least-effective-stimulus-in-recovery-act.html I have said it before, that politicians campaigning on tax cuts benefit almost more than anyone else.
How can anyone take any of these politicians seriously when they say on one hand they want to balance the budget and in the next breath they insist that tax cuts for the rich be extended for two years knowing that this costs billions of dollars. You can't have it both ways, sorry, Tough choices will have to be made to fix this problem and unfortunately raising taxes will be one of them.

why is the tough choice to raise taxes?

why not eliminate some program that you advocate? consider that first, then we will see if "you" are serious.

luvmylabs23139
12-05-2010, 11:32 AM
What I find unbelievable is that as Americans we still fall for this tax cutting bs. These tax cuts are not what they are cut out to be. The Congressional budget office has said that the tax cuts were the least effective stimulus in the Recovery act with even extending Unemployment benefits ahead of the cuts.http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2010/11/cbo-tax-cuts-were-least-effective-stimulus-in-recovery-act.html I have said it before, that politicians campaigning on tax cuts benefit almost more than anyone else.
How can anyone take any of these politicians seriously when they say on one hand they want to balance the budget and in the next breath they insist that tax cuts for the rich be extended for two years knowing that this costs billions of dollars. You can't have it both ways, sorry, Tough choices will have to be made to fix this problem and unfortunately raising taxes will be one of them.
They just need to cut spending period. Reduce the money going out end of story. Many of us are tired of stupid spending like bridges for turtles etc.
The gov't needs to realise that this is not their money to spend. Every dime they spend was taken from someone who actually earned it.
When you work for money you expect to keep it rather than the gov't taking it from you and giving it to someone who sits on their very fat ass or boobs( big enough to conceal 4 pairs of stolen boots).

mjh345
12-05-2010, 12:03 PM
They just need to cut spending period. Reduce the money going out end of story. Many of us are tired of stupid spending like bridges for turtles etc.
The gov't needs to realise that this is not their money to spend. Every dime they spend was taken from someone who actually earned it.
When you work for money you expect to keep it rather than the gov't taking it from you and giving it to someone who sits on their very fat ass or boobs( big enough to conceal 4 pairs of stolen boots).

Agreed that the focus needs to be on spending and reducing the size of govt.

However this deficit problem is enormous and needs to be addressed immediately. That is going to entail cuts in spending and {hopefully} interim increases in revenue
The amount of money we pay on interest on the deficit is one of our largest{and theoretically most controllable} costs.
To eliminate the huge deficit and attendant interest costs, we need to cut expenditures and raise revenues.
All the politicians are screaming this. If they are serious about reducing and eliminating the deficit they should vote for spending cuts{ extended unemployment benefits}, and to raise revenue {Bush tax cuts} However their special interests will win out, I guarantee it.
They will have a compromise extending both unemployment, and the "temporary" tax cuts; thereby increasing spending while reducing revenues. Any idiot knows that this is will have exactly the opposite effect on the deficit than what they all say they are interested in.

The Santa Claus mentality of pandering to their special intersts that caused this problem in the first place will continue on in the interest of compromise by these elected "great statesmen"

Roger Perry
12-05-2010, 01:48 PM
The gov't needs to cut spending period. What does the average person do? They cut spending. Businesses cut spending. The gov't does not.
CUT THE DARN SPENDING END OF STORY.
NOw we are even going to have to pay for other people's kids dinners twice! GET A DAMN GRIP!!!!

Ok, you said Government needs to cut spending. How about being more specific. Just where do we cut spending. Looks like to me that the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services and Social Security take up most of the budget. Do we need to cut out these department spending??? Dumbya did not even figure the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars anywhere in the budget so the costs are not even reflected here. But just think of the money we could have saved if the wars were never started.

Read more: Estimated War-Related Costs, Iraq and Afghanistan — Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html#ixzz17GdnwDXe) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933935.html#ixzz17GdnwDXe







http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif (http://www.federalbudget.com/chartinfo.html)

luvmylabs23139
12-05-2010, 05:48 PM
My cuts in order:
1. All foreign aid. Flat out we are broke and need to keep our money at home
2. Get out of Eraq and Afganastan
3. Eliminate many gov't agencies. Start with Dept of Ed. State and locals do a better job and federal beurocrats just screw things up. Dept of Agriculture can go too. stop paying farmers to let their land sit idle. Thats just stupid. Get rid of this notion that only certain people can grow peanuts on certain land. I bet the price of peanuts would go down. Let the free market prevail.
4. Cut federal employees. There are way too many. This can be done in a nice way by simply not replacing anyone when a person leaves for any reason. If one dept must have another employee it must come from another dept.
5. all welfare, section 8 must be pay for play. You must do something for the benefit.
This is just a start. I could go on and on.

depittydawg
12-05-2010, 07:40 PM
My cuts in order:
1. All foreign aid. Flat out we are broke and need to keep our money at home
2. Get out of Eraq and Afganastan
3. Eliminate many gov't agencies. Start with Dept of Ed. State and locals do a better job and federal beurocrats just screw things up. Dept of Agriculture can go too. stop paying farmers to let their land sit idle. Thats just stupid. Get rid of this notion that only certain people can grow peanuts on certain land. I bet the price of peanuts would go down. Let the free market prevail.
4. Cut federal employees. There are way too many. This can be done in a nice way by simply not replacing anyone when a person leaves for any reason. If one dept must have another employee it must come from another dept.
5. all welfare, section 8 must be pay for play. You must do something for the benefit.
This is just a start. I could go on and on.

Here's a scary thought for you. I agree, to a certain degree, with just about everything on your list.

dnf777
12-05-2010, 07:51 PM
My cuts in order:
1. All foreign aid. Flat out we are broke and need to keep our money at home
2. Get out of Eraq and Afganastan
3. Eliminate many gov't agencies. Start with Dept of Ed. State and locals do a better job and federal beurocrats just screw things up. Dept of Agriculture can go too. stop paying farmers to let their land sit idle. Thats just stupid. Get rid of this notion that only certain people can grow peanuts on certain land. I bet the price of peanuts would go down. Let the free market prevail.
4. Cut federal employees. There are way too many. This can be done in a nice way by simply not replacing anyone when a person leaves for any reason. If one dept must have another employee it must come from another dept.
5. all welfare, section 8 must be pay for play. You must do something for the benefit.
This is just a start. I could go on and on.

I would not eliminate the Dept. of Ed. It is too important to not have a national-level involvement. I've been part of the education systems in 5 different states as a student and parent. While some would do better if left alone, several need some help! I would be for eliminating the unfunded mandates from the Bush era, and a re-vamping of NCLB. The goals are laudable, but the logistics were flawed.

mjh345
12-05-2010, 09:09 PM
My cuts in order:
1. All foreign aid. Flat out we are broke and need to keep our money at home
2. Get out of Eraq and Afganastan
3. Eliminate many gov't agencies. Start with Dept of Ed. State and locals do a better job and federal beurocrats just screw things up. Dept of Agriculture can go too. stop paying farmers to let their land sit idle. Thats just stupid. Get rid of this notion that only certain people can grow peanuts on certain land. I bet the price of peanuts would go down. Let the free market prevail.
4. Cut federal employees. There are way too many. This can be done in a nice way by simply not replacing anyone when a person leaves for any reason. If one dept must have another employee it must come from another dept.
5. all welfare, section 8 must be pay for play. You must do something for the benefit.
This is just a start. I could go on and on.

I think your list is a good start.
Your item #5 I particularily agree with. However the welfare mentality of getting something for nothing applies to all regardless of social or economic status. For instance, corporate welfare and bailouts. Additionally the ill concieved wars started by Bush and his wealthy supporters need to be paid for.
This means the "temporary" Bush tax cuts set to expire this month need to be allowed to expire. They should have never been implemented in the first place in a war time as per your "pay for play" analogy.

I certainly don't want a higher tax bill, but it is only fair that it be paid by my generation, who incurred the debt rather than be shuffled off to a future generation. We all need to buck up and get this deficit under control; the interest on it is scary

M&K's Retrievers
12-05-2010, 09:46 PM
Personally, I have no problem with ending the employment benefits. I can see the extension to 12 months. But this now pushing 2 years. Thats nuts.


Here's a scary thought for you. I agree, to a certain degree, with just about everything on your list.

Where is DS and what have you done with him?:confused::confused:

cotts135
12-06-2010, 06:25 AM
My cuts in order:
1. All foreign aid. Flat out we are broke and need to keep our money at home
2. Get out of Eraq and Afganastan
3. Eliminate many gov't agencies. Start with Dept of Ed. State and locals do a better job and federal beurocrats just screw things up. Dept of Agriculture can go too. stop paying farmers to let their land sit idle. Thats just stupid. Get rid of this notion that only certain people can grow peanuts on certain land. I bet the price of peanuts would go down. Let the free market prevail.
4. Cut federal employees. There are way too many. This can be done in a nice way by simply not replacing anyone when a person leaves for any reason. If one dept must have another employee it must come from another dept.
5. all welfare, section 8 must be pay for play. You must do something for the benefit.
This is just a start. I could go on and on.

I agree mostly with your ideas. Number 5 is a particularly good one though. What I would propose would be if you collect welfare or even unemployment benefits (after a certain time frame) then you would have to work on building up this country by working on infrastructure projects. It would be a start

Marvin S
12-06-2010, 12:51 PM
My cuts in order:
1. All foreign aid. Flat out we are broke and need to keep our money at home
2. Get out of Eraq and Afganastan
3. Eliminate many gov't agencies. Start with Dept of Ed. State and locals do a better job and federal beurocrats just screw things up. Dept of Agriculture can go too. stop paying farmers to let their land sit idle. Thats just stupid. Get rid of this notion that only certain people can grow peanuts on certain land. I bet the price of peanuts would go down. Let the free market prevail.
4. Cut federal employees. There are way too many. This can be done in a nice way by simply not replacing anyone when a person leaves for any reason. If one dept must have another employee it must come from another dept.
5. all welfare, section 8 must be pay for play. You must do something for the benefit.
This is just a start. I could go on and on.

Didn't you at one time post that you were not a citizen of the US?

1. Some foreign aid serves a purpose. The 4 Bil $ that we send to Israel contains some really bad people at a cost far less than we would be able to do that.

2. My wife said that recently & while I do not agree with the game plan, I also do not want to abandon those young women to a life of servitude when I believe they can contribute to making their countries a better place to live.

3. Agree to a point - I believe Richard Halstead was a plant scientist, & that part of the DofA I would continue. The subsidies would go along with the associated jobs. I have been involved in Education as a student, (coming from a fairly dysfunctional background it was standardized testing that provided me opportunities) a parent in large school systems & a School Board member. The deeper my involvement the more contempt I developed for a system that is broken as there is no escape from a bad system. The educators want to keep it that way, at the local, state & federal level. & it is people like DNF that are enablers of a bad system.

4. This is funny, there is a big article in the Seattle Times today about the plight of the underappreciated Federal employee whom the paper mislabels as workers. The poor thing is lamenting that she has a MA in Public Administration & is paid a little over 100K per year :(, which she believes insufficient. I wouldn't wait for attrition, I would do like the aerospace industry did in the early 70's, let them find other employment. It's not hard, but sometimes it requires some ingenuity.

5. Many years ago we lost a grievance at the mine where I was employed. The General Manager stated " the ruination of this country will come from paying people who do not do the work". I think welfare is in this category.

But to this I will add -

6. No more immigration until employment is below 4%. While people negotiate Unemployment benefits as part of their work package, the extension by the Feds is welfare & should have a work stipulation, regardless of that persons preference. Some people have become unemployable because they have too many stipulations in their implied contract before they perform :-P.

7. No more retirement packages for elected officials - a 5 year requirement after they are voted from office before they can have any contact with the government or it's officials.

8. Rethink the 30 years to retirement thing - many people are leaving their positions at the peak of their productivity & the taxpayer is not getting the return they paid for.

JMO

Roger Perry
12-06-2010, 01:52 PM
My cuts in order:
1. All foreign aid. Flat out we are broke and need to keep our money at home
2. Get out of Eraq and Afganastan
3. Eliminate many gov't agencies. Start with Dept of Ed. State and locals do a better job and federal beurocrats just screw things up. Dept of Agriculture can go too. stop paying farmers to let their land sit idle. Thats just stupid. Get rid of this notion that only certain people can grow peanuts on certain land. I bet the price of peanuts would go down. Let the free market prevail.
4. Cut federal employees. There are way too many. This can be done in a nice way by simply not replacing anyone when a person leaves for any reason. If one dept must have another employee it must come from another dept.
5. all welfare, section 8 must be pay for play. You must do something for the benefit.
This is just a start. I could go on and on.

As far as your cuts go
1. We need our allies and we do not need for them to look to other unfriendly countries for aid.
2. We should never have started the war with Iraq and should have been out of Afghanistan when Bin Laden disappeared. Now we are left fighting the Taliban which was never our intention and we f'ed up both countries so now we have to stay until they are stable again.
3. Our school children are far behind in their studies compared to China and India we may never catch up in the future.
4. 3&4 are just a drop in the bucket as far as spending goes.
5. Bush put the people and Companies out of work and on the welfare roles and now you just want them to fend for themselves.

Obama should never agree to the extending the Bush tax cuts because that will cost the Country Trillions of dollars. I also believe a 15 cent tax increase on gasoline is needed to help pay down the debt. I say this even though I drive a suburban which gets about 14 miles to the gallon. Y'all didn't have a problem when gasoline was almost $5.00 a gallon during the Bush years.

sandyg
12-06-2010, 02:20 PM
As far as your cuts go
1. We need our allies and we do not need for them to look to other unfriendly countries for aid.
2. We should never have started the war with Iraq and should have been out of Afghanistan when Bin Laden disappeared. Now we are left fighting the Taliban which was never our intention and we f'ed up both countries so now we have to stay until they are stable again.
3. Our school children are far behind in their studies compared to China and India we may never catch up in the future.
4. 3&4 are just a drop in the bucket as far as spending goes.
5. Bush put the people and Companies out of work and on the welfare roles and now you just want them to fend for themselves.

Obama should never agree to the extending the Bush tax cuts because that will cost the Country Trillions of dollars. I also believe a 15 cent tax increase on gasoline is needed to help pay down the debt. I say this even though I drive a suburban which gets about 14 miles to the gallon. Y'all didn't have a problem when gasoline was almost $5.00 a gallon during the Bush years.

Are you kidding me?!?!? EVERYONE had a problem when gas was $4.00 a gallon during the Bush years.

And if YOU want to pay more taxes, pay more taxes! The IRS won't return your check if you want to send them a few extra thousand.

Libs love to talk about raising taxes but they're the first to avoid them by maximizing their deductions. Some don't pay them at all, a la Rangel and Geithner.

Roger Perry
12-06-2010, 02:41 PM
Are you kidding me?!?!? EVERYONE had a problem when gas was $4.00 a gallon during the Bush years.

And if YOU want to pay more taxes, pay more taxes! The IRS won't return your check if you want to send them a few extra thousand.

Libs love to talk about raising taxes but they're the first to avoid them by maximizing their deductions. Some don't pay them at all, a la Rangel and Geithner.

Bush entered office with a balanced budget. When he left office there was a record debt. Just who do you think should pay it off????? Your kids, grandkids or great grandkids?????????????????? And yet the Republicans are crying for tax cuts:confused: Just doesn't make sense to me.

For those who have hidden cash in the Cayman Islands, stashed swag in Switzerland or bagged a bundle in the Bahamas, the day of reckoning with the Internal Revenue Service (http://www.bizjournals.com/profiles/us/dc/washington/internal_revenue_service/1212142/)

Read more: IRS goes after taxpayers who have money hidden in foreign accounts | South Florida Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2009/04/20/story7.html#ixzz17MY2PsWn)
http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2009/04/20/story7.html

Any bets that most of the people with secret foreign bank accounts are fat cat Republicans???????????

sandyg
12-06-2010, 02:52 PM
Bush entered office with a balanced budget. When he left office there was a record debt. Just who do you think should pay it off????? Your kids, grandkids or great grandkids?????????????????? And yet the Republicans are crying for tax cuts:confused: Just doesn't make sense to me.

And now that Obama is in office there is a new record!!
I think folks like you should pay off the debt. Start feeding your dog the cheapest garbage you can find, stick a brick in your toilet tank to save water, use the new mercury-filled light bulbs to save energy, ride your bike to work to save gas, and send all of the savings plus a few thousand more to the government. You know that they'll spend it wisely now because Bush is out of office.

C'mon, do your part to save the country!!!

Roger Perry
12-06-2010, 03:04 PM
And now that Obama is in office there is a new record!!
I think folks like you should pay off the debt. Start feeding your dog the cheapest garbage you can find, stick a brick in your toilet tank to save water, use the new mercury-filled light bulbs to save energy, ride your bike to work to save gas, and send all of the savings plus a few thousand more to the government. You know that they'll spend it wisely now because Bush is out of office.

C'mon, do your part to save the country!!!

You righties call Obama "The Messiah" but it would have taken a lot more than miracle to get us out of the debt Bush left us in. Do you honestly believe McCain could have done any better??????????????????
We were headed for a certain depression (even Sarah Palin said so Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Wednesday that the United States could be headed for another Great Depression if Congress doesn't act on the financial crisis. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872350/) that Obama averted. McCain would have kept on the same track that Bush had us on.

sandyg
12-06-2010, 03:32 PM
You righties call Obama "The Messiah" but it would have taken a lot more than miracle to get us out of the debt Bush left us in. Do you honestly believe McCain could have done any better??????????????????
We were headed for a certain depression (even Sarah Palin said so Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin said Wednesday that the United States could be headed for another Great Depression if Congress doesn't act on the financial crisis. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872350/) that Obama averted. McCain would have kept on the same track that Bush had us on.

Why are you posting a two year old link? How do you know what McCain would have done? I must have really gotten you flustered. Now wipe the drool off of your chin and take a nap!

Roger Perry
12-06-2010, 03:49 PM
Why are you posting a two year old link? How do you know what McCain would have done? I must have really gotten you flustered. Now wipe the drool off of your chin and take a nap!

Didn't think you would believe me if I said Bush had us going into a Depression without a Rightie point of view. Between McCain and Palin, they did not have brain between the two of them.

menmon
12-06-2010, 05:15 PM
Make up your mine...do you want deficit reduction or not. You all go on about how they are leveraging the country. Cutting taxes is the same as spending. Bush cut taxes but did not cut spending, so in essence he spent money he did not have. These democrats might get reelected if they did what were elected to do, and let go of the tax cuts is away of paying for what has been spent on war and the recession.

Let talk unemployment a minute. If they would quit extending the period of elgibility, the unemployment rate would go down. So before you bash him too hard for not making jobs, think about how good the number would look if he had not extended the time.

Gone to the ranch

gman0046
12-06-2010, 05:41 PM
Make up your mine? What an ignorant post by an ignorant individual. Didn't Obongolo provide jobs for 63 Republicans last month? What a failure and a fraud as POTUS. Sad, sad day when this imbecile was elected.

cotts135
12-07-2010, 06:52 AM
You have to love our politicians. Screaming that we have to reduce debt the Democrats compromise on tax cuts to the wealthy and the Republicans allow and extension of unemployment benefits. Both of which are unfunded and go on the credit card. Brilliant stuff here.

road kill
12-07-2010, 07:17 AM
You have to love our politicians. Screaming that we have to reduce debt the Democrats compromise on tax cuts to the wealthy and the Republicans allow and extension of unemployment benefits. Both of which are unfunded and go on the credit card. Brilliant stuff here.


Yep, that is quite the leader you got there!!:D


RK

ducknwork
12-07-2010, 07:43 AM
Yep, that is quite the leader you got there!!:D


RK

Yes, his 'spine of steel' bent to the R's a tad, didn't it?

road kill
12-07-2010, 08:33 AM
Yes, his 'spine of steel' bent to the R's a tad, didn't it?
Where I come from we call that getting "bitch slapped!"

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!


RK

dnf777
12-07-2010, 08:41 AM
Where I come from we call that getting "bitch slapped!"

HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!!!!


RK

You can call it "bitch slapped", personally I agree, but will this finally end the whining and crying that he's not bipartisan????? Hell, he's a republican!

Sadly, what happened, is an agreement was reached whereby we give you a 700 billion unpaid-for perk, and in return we get a 200 billion unpaid for perk...and the country and deficit take it on the chin to the tune of just under a trillion dollars added!

road kill
12-07-2010, 08:57 AM
You can call it "bitch slapped", personally I agree, but will this finally end the whining and crying that he's not bipartisan????? Hell, he's a republican!

Sadly, what happened, is an agreement was reached whereby we give you a 700 billion unpaid-for perk, and in return we get a 200 billion unpaid for perk...and the country and deficit take it on the chin to the tune of just under a trillion dollars added!
Sorry Dave, I was being an ass!

How long before we find out the "rest of the story?"

Cause there is more.


RK

M&K's Retrievers
12-07-2010, 08:59 AM
Wonder how you get on the gravy train rather than be the caterer?:confused:

dnf777
12-07-2010, 09:28 AM
Wonder how you get on the gravy train rather than be the caterer?:confused:

To put this in household terms, what the gov't just did is like coming home and saying, "honey, I just bought a new F-350 PowerStroke King Ranch, oh, and I cut back my hours at work, so I'll be taking a pay cut. By the way, have the debt collectors quit bothering us yet?

ducknwork
12-07-2010, 09:37 AM
As much $$ as you make, you could have your hours cut and still buy 2 said trucks.....rich commie b@st@rd....:-x:-xWhat do you have to complain about??

































;);)<------Please notice these....:D

ducknwork
12-07-2010, 09:55 AM
Here's the bottom line...

With the amount of debt and deficit that we currently have, raising taxes enough to make a difference would be crippling to not only our economy, but to each and every family that still has to put food on the table. It is probably not possible to cut spending enough to fix the problem and still have a functioning govt/country. While I am against raising taxes, I think that the only solution would be a combination of the two.

I saw a step in the right direction when O froze govt pay. Good, they should have to suck it up like the rest of us. There are plenty of areas of abuse that can be cut and make a big difference. You lefties are going to start screaming about the wars, but at this point, they are what they are, and we can't stop spending money tomorrow, next week, next month, etc...We need to get out as soon as safely possible.

My solution would be something along these lines--
1. End earmarks so we don't keep spending money on BS that we don't need.
2. Put in place a system that finds abuse with govt money and eliminate the abuse. ie...drug tests for anyone collecting govt money, reduce food available for purchase with food stamps to only food that is healthy/necessary, ban sale of cigs/beer to food stamp holders as a second transaction after they purchase a cartfull of frozen dinners with their food stamps...etc etc
3. Raise taxes TEMPORARILY and with a plan to pay down debt, similar to what someone working a debt free plan (Dave Ramsey) would do in their household. Cut all unnecessary spending and increase income as much as possible without crippling economy for a short period of time, until budget is balanced, debt is eliminated etc...ie...have a 10 yr plan to eliminate debt/deficit-raise taxes X% in year 1, reduce taxes X-1% in year 2, bla bla bla...in year 10, taxes will be back to pre year 1 level and deficit/debt eliminated...

Just a couple ideas I had. Maybe they don't make sense, but they do to me...

dnf777
12-07-2010, 11:42 AM
Believe me, medicine ain't what it used to be!
I feel blessed and fortunate to do what I do, and I'm not starving, but the guys who made it through the 70s, 80s and 90s LAUGH at what we're paid today.

'08 GMC WT regards.....
(even have window cranks!--figure at least THEY won't break down like the A/C and radio already have)

menmon
12-07-2010, 12:13 PM
Here's the bottom line...

With the amount of debt and deficit that we currently have, raising taxes enough to make a difference would be crippling to not only our economy, but to each and every family that still has to put food on the table. It is probably not possible to cut spending enough to fix the problem and still have a functioning govt/country. While I am against raising taxes, I think that the only solution would be a combination of the two.

I saw a step in the right direction when O froze govt pay. Good, they should have to suck it up like the rest of us. There are plenty of areas of abuse that can be cut and make a big difference. You lefties are going to start screaming about the wars, but at this point, they are what they are, and we can't stop spending money tomorrow, next week, next month, etc...We need to get out as soon as safely possible.

My solution would be something along these lines--
1. End earmarks so we don't keep spending money on BS that we don't need.
2. Put in place a system that finds abuse with govt money and eliminate the abuse. ie...drug tests for anyone collecting govt money, reduce food available for purchase with food stamps to only food that is healthy/necessary, ban sale of cigs/beer to food stamp holders as a second transaction after they purchase a cartfull of frozen dinners with their food stamps...etc etc
3. Raise taxes TEMPORARILY and with a plan to pay down debt, similar to what someone working a debt free plan (Dave Ramsey) would do in their household. Cut all unnecessary spending and increase income as much as possible without crippling economy for a short period of time, until budget is balanced, debt is eliminated etc...ie...have a 10 yr plan to eliminate debt/deficit-raise taxes X% in year 1, reduce taxes X-1% in year 2, bla bla bla...in year 10, taxes will be back to pre year 1 level and deficit/debt eliminated...

Just a couple ideas I had. Maybe they don't make sense, but they do to me...

You make a very good point here.

When my bank customer get underwater, I always warn them that you might not be able to sell you way out of this. In other words, look at ways to cut cost.

Obama should have stuck to his guns on the Bush tax cuts. My point too was that Bush did not need to cut taxes, but he got elected on that promise, so he hurt the budget by honoring it. We went to war shortly after it, and he should have gone back to the people and told them he needed money to fund it.

Case in point, more sales will help the situation, but I don't believe that some robust economy is anywhere on the horizion, so they have to cut spending and raise taxes. They have promised to me for decades that they are going to cut the fat and waste out of things, but it is just talk from both sides.

Eventially we will pay for this through inflation which is a tax, and it will be much more painful than a higher marginal tax rate. It will be several years before it catches up with us, but it is going to happen.

Bottomline, there isn't anything you can do about it either, but go about you business and position yourself to take advantage of it as it plays out.

One thing is clear, neither the right nor the left have our back, so I'm back to who is going to spend where I personally benefit the most. So if the republicans are doing you best, please hang with them, but I'm not wealthy enough for that crowd.

Clint Watts
12-08-2010, 12:49 AM
John F. Kennedy had it right on tax policy. It has been proven to work. What was his plan to stimulate the economy and increase revenue to the government? Did it work? Has it been tried since? If so, did it work again?

What was Carters plan and did it work?

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 10:28 AM
John F. Kennedy had it right on tax policy. It has been proven to work. What was his plan to stimulate the economy and increase revenue to the government? Did it work? Has it been tried since? If so, did it work again?

What was Carters plan and did it work?


Looks like Bill Clinton's plan worked just fine. He passed a balanced budget down to George W. Bush. Bush's plan didn't work with a damn.

Clay Rogers
12-09-2010, 12:01 PM
Looks like Bill Clinton's plan worked just fine. He passed a balanced budget down to George W. Bush. Bush's plan didn't work with a damn.

Dude, when are you going to find something else to talk about and someone else to blame? I bet every thing bad that happens to you is Bush's fault, huh?

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 12:29 PM
Dude, when are you going to find something else to talk about and someone else to blame? I bet every thing bad that happens to you is Bush's fault, huh?

So Bush's economic plan was a good one?????????????? and Clinton economic plan got us in debt?????????????????????

Or is it you can't bring yourself to admit G W Bush's Presidency was a failed one.?????????????????????????????

david gibson
12-09-2010, 12:36 PM
So Bush's economic plan was a good one?????????????? and Clinton economic plan got us in debt?????????????????????

clinton failed to budget for a devastating attack on our homeland.

dnf777
12-09-2010, 12:41 PM
clinton failed to budget for a devastating attack on our homeland.

Didn't need to. We didn't have a devastating attack on his watch.
Why do republicans continue to bring up ancient history anyway? :confused:

Although, being that Clinton was the last president with enough fiscal responsibility to sign a balanced budget, I can see their longing for the "good ol' days"! :D

sandyg
12-09-2010, 01:22 PM
The party of NO continues its outrageous neglect of the will of American citizens. And the party of Patsies continues its policy of cave in. Neither is surprising. This practice of allowing a threat of filibuster to suffice to halt legislation has to stop. The spineless dems need to make the Republicans exercise their filibuster and stand up and explain to America why it is they want to raise taxes on the middle class.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/04/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-plan-that-leaves-out-high-earner/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk1|188120

Which is the party of NO?
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12353675

Clay Rogers
12-09-2010, 01:39 PM
So Bush's economic plan was a good one?????????????? and Clinton economic plan got us in debt?????????????????????

Or is it you can't bring yourself to admit G W Bush's Presidency was a failed one.?????????????????????????????


So your not willing to admit that when the dems took over the senate and the house in 2006 that things got worse? Thats what you fail to see. It's not just the president who has control. Just ask your president now, who by the way is starting to see how hard it is going to be to get things done now that he doesn't have complete control.

Clay Rogers
12-09-2010, 01:44 PM
Didn't need to. We didn't have a devastating attack on his watch.
Why do republicans continue to bring up ancient history anyway? :confused:

Although, being that Clinton was the last president with enough fiscal responsibility to sign a balanced budget, I can see their longing for the "good ol' days"! :D

Actually, it kinda did. There is no way that attack was planned, prepped and carried out in 8 months.

Why do republicans continue to bring up ancient history? Dude, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You moderates:rolleyes: and dems can't make a post without Bush's name in it. Whether you want to accept it or not, its been 2 years since the Messiah took office, it's his to own now brother.

david gibson
12-09-2010, 02:02 PM
Didn't need to. We didn't have a devastating attack on his watch.
Why do republicans continue to bring up ancient history anyway? :confused:

Although, being that Clinton was the last president with enough fiscal responsibility to sign a balanced budget, I can see their longing for the "good ol' days"! :D

90% of 9/11 was planned on his watch after attacks on the cole etc. he should have known.

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 02:09 PM
So your not willing to admit that when the dems took over the senate and the house in 2006 that things got worse? Thats what you fail to see. It's not just the president who has control. Just ask your president now, who by the way is starting to see how hard it is going to be to get things done now that he doesn't have complete control.

During 2006 - 2008 Democrats couldn't pass anything because if Republicans did not get their way, Bush would veto it. So, in 2006 - 2008 Democrats couldn't do anything. They tried, but the GOP shot down everything that the Dem's tried to do.

Clay Rogers
12-09-2010, 02:13 PM
During 2006 - 2008 Democrats couldn't pass anything because if Republicans did not get their way, Bush would veto it. So, in 2006 - 2008 Democrats couldn't do anything. They tried, but the GOP shot down everything that the Dem's tried to do.


So what your saying is your not willing to admit it, right? Thought so.

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 02:20 PM
90% of 9/11 was planned on his watch after attacks on the cole etc. he should have known.

The attack on the USS Cole was October 12, 2000. Bush took office in January 2001. There was not much time difference between October 2000 and January 2001. There was a much bigger span of time between January 2001 and September 2001 when the attack took place.

Another thing, the FBI did not tell Clinton of an impending attack by planes on the U.S. Bush was told of an impending attack in August 2001 and chose not to look into it.

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 02:26 PM
So what your saying is your not willing to admit it, right? Thought so.

What specifically did the Democrats do that caused the economy to go to hell other than the fact they had the majority of elected officials in Congress????????????? As President GW Bush had veto power to over ride anything the Democrats tried to do so can you please be specific as to how the Democrats put us in debt.

david gibson
12-09-2010, 02:52 PM
What specifically did the Democrats do that caused the economy to go to hell other than the fact they had the majority of elected officials in Congress????????????? As President GW Bush had veto power to over ride anything the Democrats tried to do so can you please be specific as to how the Democrats put us in debt.

maybe trillions and trillions of dollars into "shovel non-existent" projects has something to do with it?

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 03:04 PM
maybe trillions and trillions of dollars into "shovel non-existent" projects has something to do with it?

Please give links for the period of 2006 to 2008.

Looks like you and stump cannot provide any specific references as to what the Democratic Congress did to put the U.S. in debt between the years 2006 and 2008. Whats the matter, are you both stumped??????????????

sandyg
12-09-2010, 03:45 PM
Please give links for the period of 2006 to 2008.

Looks like you and stump cannot provide any specific references as to what the Democratic Congress did to put the U.S. in debt between the years 2006 and 2008. Whats the matter, are you both stumped??????????????

And while you're at it, give me the names and addresses of everyone who died on the Titanic...

Obama put us deeper in debt in 2009 and 2010 than the last 200 years combined!!!

dnf777
12-09-2010, 03:48 PM
And while you're at it, give me the names and addresses of everyone who died on the Titanic...

Obama put us deeper in debt in 2009 and 2010 than the last 200 years combined!!!

Check the facts, then come back.
As of now, you're clueless.

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 03:53 PM
And while you're at it, give me the names and addresses of everyone who died on the Titanic...

Obama put us deeper in debt in 2009 and 2010 than the last 200 years combined!!!

It was Bush's failed economic policies that put us in debt. We went from a balanced budget in 2000 to being trillions in debt at the end of 2008. Did you expect Obama to waive a magic wand and wipe out debt and unemployment???????????? It is going to take years for us to rebound from the Bush administration failed policies and no president Democrat or Republican could provide a quick fix for the economy.

Clay Rogers
12-09-2010, 04:00 PM
Please give links for the period of 2006 to 2008.

Looks like you and stump cannot provide any specific references as to what the Democratic Congress did to put the U.S. in debt between the years 2006 and 2008. Whats the matter, are you both stumped??????????????


Actually not stumped, just stumpholehunter.:p I don't have references to provide because I am at work and don't have access to the entire internet. But I seem to recall that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd where chairman of some committees that were to oversee the housing market and the banks, but were too busy getting kickbacks and fat pockets to pay attention to what was going on. I think even your Messiah was second only to Frank in donations from Freddie and Frannie. So expalin to me how they could be contributing money to presidental campaigns and be broke at the same time?

Clay Rogers
12-09-2010, 04:01 PM
Check the facts, then come back.
As of now, you're clueless.


Maybe not the last 200 hundreds years, but he did double the deficit in only 2 years.

sandyg
12-09-2010, 04:20 PM
Check the facts, then come back.
As of now, you're clueless.

You're right. I checked the facts. I wasn't even close!! Especially if inflation is factored in. I'll be more careful next time.

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 04:26 PM
Actually not stumped, just stumpholehunter.:p I don't have references to provide because I am at work and don't have access to the entire internet. But I seem to recall that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd where chairman of some committees that were to oversee the housing market and the banks, but were too busy getting kickbacks and fat pockets to pay attention to what was going on. I think even your Messiah was second only to Frank in donations from Freddie and Frannie. So expalin to me how they could be contributing money to presidental campaigns and be broke at the same time?

2 people do not make a Congress. Bush had control of both the House and Senate plus the presidency for the first 6 years he was in office. If he was not happy with the way Freddie and Fanny were run he had the horses to make changes which he chose not to do.

road kill
12-09-2010, 04:30 PM
2 people do not make a Congress. Bush had control of both the House and Senate plus the presidency for the first 6 years he was in office. If he was not happy with the way Freddie and Fanny were run he had the horses to make changes which he chose not to do.

Sort of like your guy raising taxes on the rich, or closing GITMO, or allowing gays in the military, or socialized medicine.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What a colossal boondoggle!!!


RK

Roger Perry
12-09-2010, 04:41 PM
Sort of like your guy raising taxes on the rich, or closing GITMO, or allowing gays in the military, or socialized medicine.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What a colossal boondoggle!!!


RK

At least Obama has tried to reform the Health Care system something Bush never attempted, he was too busy planning how to attack Iraq. And, how about his brain storm idea about putting the social security money into the stock market???????????? That was a good one. hahahahahahaha

Clay Rogers
12-09-2010, 06:48 PM
At least Obama has tried to reform the Health Care system something Bush never attempted, he was too busy planning how to attack Iraq. And, how about his brain storm idea about putting the social security money into the stock market???????????? That was a good one. hahahahahahaha

Actually, I would like the chance to take my money from social security and invest it as I see fit. That way if I am upside down when I try and retire, its my fault, not the governments. As it is now, I will never get to enjoy all the money I have put in there, because there will be nothing left. And I know, I know, its Bush's fault.

Cody Covey
12-09-2010, 07:59 PM
At least Obama has tried to reform the Health Care system something Bush never attempted, he was too busy planning how to attack Iraq. And, how about his brain storm idea about putting the social security money into the stock market???????????? That was a good one. hahahahahahaha

Tried to reform and failed even with 60 votes in the senate and a majority in the house? I'm not even sure how you fail when there is nothing to stop you but he managed it I guess.

Clint Watts
12-10-2010, 01:55 AM
Looks like Bill Clinton's plan worked just fine. He passed a balanced budget down to George W. Bush. Bush's plan didn't work with a damn.

Why is there zero political honesty here, Who controlled the House in both situations? Clinton had a free ride from Reagon winning the cold war, Bush failed economically and Obama is making it worse.

People are really good at fighting and pointing fingers, nothing will ever get solved this way. Guess if we all got along this forum would stink.

Clint Watts
12-10-2010, 02:18 AM
2 people do not make a Congress. Bush had control of both the House and Senate plus the presidency for the first 6 years he was in office. If he was not happy with the way Freddie and Fanny were run he had the horses to make changes which he chose not to do.

Its called not having managerial courage. At the time it wasn't seen as an issue to the general public. It was a lose lose for any politician in that time frame to stand against affordable housing for the less fortunate. Barney Frank and the media would have had a field day with that one. But you are correct a true leader would have led the charge, Bush was not that leader. We must remember the times and not armchair quaterback. Hindsight is always 20/20. Obama has the opportunity to correct alot of the issues that plague our government, the people have spoken loudly, if he will listen to the will of the majority. We all know that will never happen. He stands against the will of the people. Hopefully a true leader of the people will arise, we all should be looking.

ducknwork
12-10-2010, 07:22 AM
Guess if we all got along this forum would stink.

No it wouldn't...We could sing a truly inspiring round of Kumbaya!:D

road kill
12-10-2010, 07:24 AM
No it wouldn't...We could sing a truly inspiring round of Kumbaya!:D

You'll pardon me if I choose not to participate?:D


RK

ducknwork
12-10-2010, 07:30 AM
You'll pardon me if I choose not to participate?:D


RK

No, we need you for the tenor section.

ducknwork
12-10-2010, 07:39 AM
What specifically did the Democrats do that caused the economy to go to hell other than the fact they had the majority of elected officials in Congress????????????? As President GW Bush had veto power to over ride anything the Democrats tried to do so can you please be specific as to how the Democrats put us in debt.


Please give links for the period of 2006 to 2008.

Looks like you and stump cannot provide any specific references as to what the Democratic Congress did to put the U.S. in debt between the years 2006 and 2008. Whats the matter, are you both stumped??????????????


Can we give links to stuff pre 06? See Roger, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. It didn't get screwed up in 6 years or 4 years or 2 years. The foundation was laid many years before Bush was president. I would certainly hope that you would know that and you are simply trolling with your constant Bush bashing. Perhaps the country was in good shape economically pre 2000, but some of the root causes of our debt/recession were already in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Controversies_and_criti cisms

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 11:22 AM
Can we give links to stuff pre 06? See Roger, it's not as simple as you make it out to be. It didn't get screwed up in 6 years or 4 years or 2 years. The foundation was laid many years before Bush was president. I would certainly hope that you would know that and you are simply trolling with your constant Bush bashing. Perhaps the country was in good shape economically pre 2000, but some of the root causes of our debt/recession were already in existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Controversies_and_criti cisms

In 1988 Canada and the United States signed the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement) after which the U.S. Congress approved implementing legislation. The American government then entered into negotiations with the Mexican government for a similar treaty, and Canada asked to join the negotiations in order to preserve its perceived gains under the 1988 deal.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#cite_note-canworld-0) The climate at the time favored expanding trade blocs, such as the Maastricht Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty), which created the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) in 1992.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Free_Trade_Agreemen t&action=edit&section=2)] Negotiation and ratification

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio,_Texas), on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush), Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney) and Mexican President Carlos Salinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Salinas), each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

So you are saying it is George H.W. Bush's fault because he laid the foundation for NAFTA????????????

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act), also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_bank), commercial banking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank), and insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance) services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) Phil Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm)

Say, wasn't Phil Graham a Republican Senator????????????? So are you placing blame on the Republican party now??????????

road kill
12-10-2010, 11:31 AM
The party of NO continues its outrageous neglect of the will of American citizens. And the party of Patsies continues its policy of cave in. Neither is surprising. This practice of allowing a threat of filibuster to suffice to halt legislation has to stop. The spineless dems need to make the Republicans exercise their filibuster and stand up and explain to America why it is they want to raise taxes on the middle class.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/04/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-plan-that-leaves-out-high-earner/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk1|188120


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!:D


RK

ducknwork
12-10-2010, 11:51 AM
In 1988 Canada and the United States signed the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-United_States_Free_Trade_Agreement) after which the U.S. Congress approved implementing legislation. The American government then entered into negotiations with the Mexican government for a similar treaty, and Canada asked to join the negotiations in order to preserve its perceived gains under the 1988 deal.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#cite_note-canworld-0) The climate at the time favored expanding trade blocs, such as the Maastricht Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty), which created the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) in 1992.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Free_Trade_Agreemen t&action=edit&section=2)] Negotiation and ratification

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1986 among the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Antonio,_Texas), on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H. W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush), Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Mulroney) and Mexican President Carlos Salinas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Salinas), each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

So you are saying it is George H.W. Bush's fault because he laid the foundation for NAFTA????????????

In 1999 the Congress enacted and President Clinton signed into law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act), also known as the "Financial Services Modernization Act". This law repealed the part of the Glass-Steagall Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act) that had prohibited a bank from offering a full range of investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment_bank), commercial banking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_bank), and insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance) services since its enactment in 1933. A similar bill was introduced in 1998 by Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) Phil Gramm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm)

Say, wasn't Phil Graham a Republican Senator????????????? So are you placing blame on the Republican party now??????????

No Roger, I am not trying to blame anyone.:roll: What I am trying to do is put a little bit of sense into that thick noggin of yours and hopefully make you realize that it wasn't just Bush's fault. I know that is very advanced thinking for you, but if you keep trying, you might just get it. I am not concerned with this petty R vs D BS that you are obsessed with. I don't care what party someone claims and I thought we had cleared that up a long time ago. It is everyone's fault. Why can't you understand that?

But if you do want to play that game, your hero Clinton (DEMOCRAT) signed NAFTA into law. If it was such a bad thing and the democrats are here to protect us, he could have just as easily refused to sign it...So he is equally to blame for that one.

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 12:17 PM
No Roger, I am not trying to blame anyone.:roll: What I am trying to do is put a little bit of sense into that thick noggin of yours and hopefully make you realize that it wasn't just Bush's fault. I know that is very advanced thinking for you, but if you keep trying, you might just get it. I am not concerned with this petty R vs D BS that you are obsessed with. I don't care what party someone claims and I thought we had cleared that up a long time ago. It is everyone's fault. Why can't you understand that?

But if you do want to play that game, your hero Clinton (DEMOCRAT) signed NAFTA into law. If it was such a bad thing and the democrats are here to protect us, he could have just as easily refused to sign it...So he is equally to blame for that one.

So if no one is at fault then we must not have any National Debt, Unemployment must be newr 0% and the economy booming.:confused:

All I am saying is when GW Bush took over the reigns we had a balanced budget, unemployment was low and the economy seemed to be in pretty good shape. When he left office unemployment was at 7% and rising, our National Debt was in the Trillions and we were headed for a depression. If Gore had been elected President in 2000 and the Country went to hell in 8 years everyone would be blaming him including me so it is not a Republican VS Democrat thing for me.
I did not make one critical comment about GW Bush the first 4 years he was in office.
The reason I chose to become an Independent was because of the direction the Republican party was headed. I did not condone all the lies that the Bush's administration fed the American people. I did not condone all the issues that the Bush administration found to declare Executive Previledge when it had nothing to do with National Security.
When I found out that Bush was told of an impending attack by airplanes against the U.S. and did nothing about it, I was pissed off. When I found out that Bush and his cronies lied about WMD in order for him to invade Iraq I was pissed off. When over 4,000 of our military personnel were killed needlessly I was pissed off. I also have compassion for the hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children killed because we invaded their Country on false premise. And NO, I will never forgive Bush and his administration for that until the day I die. Y'all saw how fast Colin Powell bailed out of the Bush camp when he found out the truth about the administration.

ducknwork
12-10-2010, 12:26 PM
So if no one is at fault then we must not have any National Debt, Unemployment must be newr 0% and the economy booming.:confused:

You are so thickheaded. I didn't say it was nobody's fault, just that the purpose of my post was not to point fingers. In fact, if you read the entire thing, I said just what I think about who is to blame.

All I am saying is when GW Bush took over the reigns we had a balanced budget, unemployment was low and the economy seemed to be in pretty good shape. When he left office unemployment was at 7% and rising, our National Debt was in the Trillions and we were headed for a depression.


All I am saying is that it is not all his fault, regardless of what you want everyone to believe.

Do you really think that there were no causes of the recession that occurred prior to Bush being elected?

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 12:42 PM
All I am saying is that it is not all his fault, regardless of what you want everyone to believe.

Do you really think that there were no causes of the recession that occurred prior to Bush being elected?
The National Debt Clock is a billboard-sized running total (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_total) dot-matrix display (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-matrix_display) which constantly updates to show the current United States gross national debt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) and each American family's share of the debt. It is currently installed on Sixth Avenue (Avenue of the Americas) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Avenue_(Manhattan)) in Manhattan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan), New York City (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City).
The idea for the clock came from New York real estate developer Seymour Durst (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Durst), who wanted to highlight the rising national debt. In 1989, he sponsored the installation of the first clock, which was erected on 42nd Street (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/42nd_Street_(Manhattan)) close to Times Square (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square). At the time, the national debt remained under $3 trillion but was rising. The clock was temporarily switched off from 2000 to 2002 due to the debt actually falling during that period.
In 2004, the original clock was dismantled and replaced by the current clock at the new location one block away. In 2008, the U.S. national debt exceeded $10 trillion for the first time, leading to press reports that the clock had run out of digits.
The original clock outlived Seymour who died in 1995, with Seymour's son Douglas taking over responsibility for the clock through the Durst Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Durst_Organization&action=edit&redlink=1). As of September 2009, Douglas Durst's cousin Jonathan "Jody" Durst, with whom he currently shares a co-presidency of the company, is in the process of taking over the day-to-day operations as president. In an interview with The New York Times, Jonathan Durst has said that maintenance of the clock is planned "for years to come."

Obama has continued to run up the National Debt. Cutting taxes will not get us out of the hole we are in. We have millions of people that have been out of work since 2006 that are drawing unemployment benefits which help contribute to our National Debt. If unemployment benefits run out for them they will have to seek welfare benefits in order to survive and can you tell me please how that will help bring the National Debt down?

ducknwork
12-10-2010, 02:12 PM
First of all, what does any of that have to do with the question I asked you? Did you not want to answer it? Dodge, dodge, dodge...

Second, what's the difference if we pay people via welfare or unemployment? Both will increase our debt, right? So what is the point of your last comment?

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 02:24 PM
First of all, what does any of that have to do with the question I asked you? Did you not want to answer it? Dodge, dodge, dodge...

Second, what's the difference if we pay people via welfare or unemployment? Both will increase our debt, right? So what is the point of your last comment?

We as a Country were sitting pretty until fearless leader got us into 2 wars. It was a shame Al Gore never got the chance to be President. I would have liked the chance to see where he would have taken our Country.

Right now all the righties are blaming Obama for the National Debt, unemployment rate and the economy. If he would have inherited a Country with a balanced budget, low unemployment and a triving economy and turned it into a Country trillions in debt, 7% unemployment and rising and headed into a depression, I would be the first in line to point a finger at him. However the righties just want to place the blame elsewhere and will not stand up and take it on the chin.

Cody Covey
12-10-2010, 02:42 PM
We as a Country were sitting pretty until fearless leader got us into 2 wars. It was a shame Al Gore never got the chance to be President. I would have liked the chance to see where he would have taken our Country.

Right now all the righties are blaming Obama for the National Debt, unemployment rate and the economy. If he would have inherited a Country with a balanced budget, low unemployment and a triving economy and turned it into a Country trillions in debt, 7% unemployment and rising and headed into a depression, I would be the first in line to point a finger at him. However the righties just want to place the blame elsewhere and will not stand up and take it on the chin.MOST righties aren't blaming Obama for this mess. Most righties are blaming Obama for continuing this mess!

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 03:07 PM
MOST righties aren't blaming Obama for this mess. Most righties are blaming Obama for continuing this mess!

What choice does he have. The American people are not willing to make the sacrifices it will take to reduce the debt.
Cut the deficit, but not my programs

http://www.polls.newsvine.com/_vine/images/users/500/allison-linnmsnbc/5619665.jpg
By Allison Linn, senior business writer




The majority of Americans think the federal deficit needs to be reduced, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. They just don’t like many of the ways of doing it.

http://lifeinc.todayshow.com/_news/2010/12/09/5619633-cut-the-deficit-but-not-my-programs

Here is a bi-partisen pannel recomendation to reducing the National Debt (you know bi-partisan is Republicans and Democrats) yet no one wants to go along with it because it affects them not just the other guy. Well, we are in a mess now no matter how we got there and there are not many ways to get out of the situation. It only took us about 6 years to get there but it will take more than a decade to get us out of it and we need to start now.

The panel's controversial recommendations include:
-Collapsing today's five income tax rates into three brackets: 8 percent for the lowest incomes, 14 percent for middle incomes and 23 percent for the wealthiest.
-Lowering the corporate tax rate to 26 percent from 35 percent today.
-Ending $1.1 trillion in popular tax breaks to permit these low rates, ranging from deducting mortgage interest to receiving health insurance from employers on a pre-tax basis. That would broaden the tax base and make virtually all Americans pay more in taxes.
-Taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income rather than at today's 15 percent rate.
-Raising payroll taxes on the wealthy so that 90 percent of taxable wages would be subject to the payroll tax by 2050.
-Increasing the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon to pay for transportation improvements.
-Raising the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits - to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 - reflecting that Americans are living and working longer.
-Allowing early retirement benefits for career manual laborers.
-Boosting benefits for Americans aged 81 to 85.
-Capping spending on almost all government programs through 2020 except for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some defense programs.
-Requiring the president to propose annual limits on war spending, a major change when America is fighting two wars without a tax increase to pay for them, which has never happened before in U.S. history.
-Imposing a three-year freeze on congressional pay, which now increases annually.
-Freezing pay for civilian federal workers.
-Gradually reducing the government's civilian work force by 10 percent.


Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/12/01/1391004/deficit-reduction-panel-offers.html#ixzz17k0DeBLO

road kill
12-10-2010, 03:10 PM
The party of NO continues its outrageous neglect of the will of American citizens. And the party of Patsies continues its policy of cave in. Neither is surprising. This practice of allowing a threat of filibuster to suffice to halt legislation has to stop. The spineless dems need to make the Republicans exercise their filibuster and stand up and explain to America why it is they want to raise taxes on the middle class.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/04/senate-republicans-block-tax-cut-plan-that-leaves-out-high-earner/?icid=main|netscape|dl1|sec1_lnk1|188120

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/10/131966984/sen-bernie-sanders-filibusters-tax-cut-deal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!:D:cry:



RK

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 03:14 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/10/131966984/sen-bernie-sanders-filibusters-tax-cut-deal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!:D:cry:



RK

I'm glad you think it's funny because I believe Obama will be a one term President and everything will be dumped in the lap of the Republicans with a debt so big they will never dig their way out thanks to the "new Republican Congress";) I'll bet the new congress can come up with a whole lot more ways to increase the national debt in the next 2 years.

Cody Covey
12-10-2010, 03:17 PM
What choice does he have. The American people are not willing to make the sacrifices it will take to reduce the debt.
Cut the deficit, but not my programs

http://www.polls.newsvine.com/_vine/images/users/500/allison-linnmsnbc/5619665.jpg
By Allison Linn, senior business writer




The majority of Americans think the federal deficit needs to be reduced, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. They just don’t like many of the ways of doing it.

http://lifeinc.todayshow.com/_news/2010/12/09/5619633-cut-the-deficit-but-not-my-programs

Here is a bi-partisen pannel recomendation to reducing the National Debt (you know bi-partisan is Republicans and Democrats) yet no one wants to go along with it because it affects them not just the other guy. Well, we are in a mess now no matter how we got there and there are not many ways to get out of the situation. It only took us about 6 years to get there but it will take more than a decade to get us out of it and we need to start now.

The panel's controversial recommendations include:
-Collapsing today's five income tax rates into three brackets: 8 percent for the lowest incomes, 14 percent for middle incomes and 23 percent for the wealthiest.
-Lowering the corporate tax rate to 26 percent from 35 percent today.
-Ending $1.1 trillion in popular tax breaks to permit these low rates, ranging from deducting mortgage interest to receiving health insurance from employers on a pre-tax basis. That would broaden the tax base and make virtually all Americans pay more in taxes.
-Taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income rather than at today's 15 percent rate.
-Raising payroll taxes on the wealthy so that 90 percent of taxable wages would be subject to the payroll tax by 2050.
-Increasing the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon to pay for transportation improvements.
-Raising the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits - to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 - reflecting that Americans are living and working longer.
-Allowing early retirement benefits for career manual laborers.
-Boosting benefits for Americans aged 81 to 85.
-Capping spending on almost all government programs through 2020 except for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some defense programs.
-Requiring the president to propose annual limits on war spending, a major change when America is fighting two wars without a tax increase to pay for them, which has never happened before in U.S. history.
-Imposing a three-year freeze on congressional pay, which now increases annually.
-Freezing pay for civilian federal workers.
-Gradually reducing the government's civilian work force by 10 percent.


Read more: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2010/12/01/1391004/deficit-reduction-panel-offers.html#ixzz17k0DeBLO
Thats odd I say cut the stupid programs and reduce the deficit. The American people aren't in charge the legislature is and they are the ones that make the decision so don't go blaming the American people just because they are ignorant :)

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 03:19 PM
Thats odd I say cut the stupid programs and reduce the deficit. The American people aren't in charge the legislature is and they are the ones that make the decision so don't go blaming the American people just because they are ignorant :)

So you are for the bi-partisin's pannel reccomendations for reducing the National Debt????????????
The panel's controversial recommendations include:
-Collapsing today's five income tax rates into three brackets: 8 percent for the lowest incomes, 14 percent for middle incomes and 23 percent for the wealthiest.
-Lowering the corporate tax rate to 26 percent from 35 percent today.
-Ending $1.1 trillion in popular tax breaks to permit these low rates, ranging from deducting mortgage interest to receiving health insurance from employers on a pre-tax basis. That would broaden the tax base and make virtually all Americans pay more in taxes.
-Taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income rather than at today's 15 percent rate.
-Raising payroll taxes on the wealthy so that 90 percent of taxable wages would be subject to the payroll tax by 2050.
-Increasing the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon to pay for transportation improvements.
-Raising the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits - to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 - reflecting that Americans are living and working longer.
-Allowing early retirement benefits for career manual laborers.
-Boosting benefits for Americans aged 81 to 85.
-Capping spending on almost all government programs through 2020 except for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some defense programs.
-Requiring the president to propose annual limits on war spending, a major change when America is fighting two wars without a tax increase to pay for them, which has never happened before in U.S. history.
-Imposing a three-year freeze on congressional pay, which now increases annually.
-Freezing pay for civilian federal workers.
-Gradually reducing the government's civilian work force by 10 percent.

Cody Covey
12-10-2010, 04:24 PM
So you are for the bi-partisin's pannel reccomendations for reducing the National Debt????????????
The panel's controversial recommendations include:
-Collapsing today's five income tax rates into three brackets: 8 percent for the lowest incomes, 14 percent for middle incomes and 23 percent for the wealthiest.
-Lowering the corporate tax rate to 26 percent from 35 percent today.
-Ending $1.1 trillion in popular tax breaks to permit these low rates, ranging from deducting mortgage interest to receiving health insurance from employers on a pre-tax basis. That would broaden the tax base and make virtually all Americans pay more in taxes.
-Taxing capital gains and dividends as ordinary income rather than at today's 15 percent rate.
-Raising payroll taxes on the wealthy so that 90 percent of taxable wages would be subject to the payroll tax by 2050.
-Increasing the federal gas tax by 15 cents a gallon to pay for transportation improvements.
-Raising the age at which Americans can get Social Security benefits - to 68 by 2050 and 69 by 2075 - reflecting that Americans are living and working longer.
-Allowing early retirement benefits for career manual laborers.
-Boosting benefits for Americans aged 81 to 85.
-Capping spending on almost all government programs through 2020 except for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and some defense programs.
-Requiring the president to propose annual limits on war spending, a major change when America is fighting two wars without a tax increase to pay for them, which has never happened before in U.S. history.
-Imposing a three-year freeze on congressional pay, which now increases annually.
-Freezing pay for civilian federal workers.
-Gradually reducing the government's civilian work force by 10 percent.
How does early retirement and boosting benefits reduce deficit?

Roger Perry
12-10-2010, 04:36 PM
How does early retirement and boosting benefits reduce deficit?

That was probably put in by the bi-partisen Republicans:D

Cody Covey
12-10-2010, 05:39 PM
That was probably put in by the bi-partisen Republicans:D

I highly doubt the republicans put in things for laborers you know only the democrats care about them!

ducknwork
12-10-2010, 11:28 PM
We as a Country were sitting pretty until fearless leader got us into 2 wars. It was a shame Al Gore never got the chance to be President. I would have liked the chance to see where he would have taken our Country.

Right now all the righties are blaming Obama for the National Debt, unemployment rate and the economy. If he would have inherited a Country with a balanced budget, low unemployment and a triving economy and turned it into a Country trillions in debt, 7% unemployment and rising and headed into a depression, I would be the first in line to point a finger at him. However the righties just want to place the blame elsewhere and will not stand up and take it on the chin.

So you still refuse to answer my question? Wow....:rolleyes:

depittydawg
12-11-2010, 12:08 AM
MOST righties aren't blaming Obama for this mess. Most righties are blaming Obama for continuing this mess!

Same for the lefties.

Roger Perry
12-11-2010, 11:23 AM
So you still refuse to answer my question? Wow....:rolleyes:

What question????????????????????????
If you are asking for National debt here are some articles. Bush's 2001 Budget:


The $1.6 trillion for a tax cut included in the President.s budget substantially
understates the true cost of implementing the tax changes the President has
proposed. Taking into account the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates of the
House-passed portions of the President.s plan, and the cost of fixing the
alternative minimum tax (AMT) (to keep a substantial part of the cuts promised
by the President from being taken away by the AMT), the President.s tax plan
would cost more than $2.6 trillion (including interest) . or virtually all of the non-
Social Security, non-Medicare HI surplus . over the next decade.
. The Senate concluded that even a $1.6 trillion tax cut is too big. It passed a
budget resolution that would limit a tax cut to $1.188 trillion over the 2002-2011
period in order to ensure that resources are available to meet high priority national
needs.http://budget.senate.gov/democratic/background/2001/analysis_bush_april9_budget.pdf
Bush 2003 budget:
WASHINGTON, DC, February 4, 2002 (ENS) - President George W. Bush has released his fiscal year 2003 budget, dramatically boosting military spending and slashing domestic programs. The $2.13 trillion spending plan represents 3.7 percent increase over the current year, but includes cuts in numerous programs, including conservation spending. Already spending in trillions
Bush 2004 Budget:
Feb. 4, 2003 -- President Bush's $2.23-trillion budget, sent to Congress on Monday, proposes increased funding for defense and homeland security while calling for $670 billion in income tax cuts over 10 years to stimulate the economy. It also projects a record $307 billion deficit in fiscal 2004 and continued shortfalls through 2008.http://www.npr.org/news/specials/budget/fy2004/index.html
Bush 2006 budget:
A report scheduled to be released by the Treasury Department tomorrow is expected to show the true deficit in the Bush administration's 2006 federal budget to be an astounding $3.5 trillion in the red, not $248.2 billion as previously reported. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53366
Bush 2008 budget:
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday submitted a $3.1-trillion budget for the next fiscal year that reflected his strategy for dealing with a costly war and a troubled economy: substantially boost military expenditures, rein in domestic spending -- including for Medicare -- and more than double the deficit.
The proposal set the stage for a long election-year struggle, drawing sharp criticism from the Democratic majority in Congress as well as a scattering of Republicans concerned about the president's habit of leaving large chunks of the spending out of his annual budget blueprint.
Bush 2008 Budget:
White House aides acknowledged that the new numbers don't reflect the full amount that will be needed to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next year. The president has regularly handled the conflicts as emergency spending and therefore outside normal budget channels.
War spending was not included in the budget.
Obama 2009 Budget:
February 26, 2009 — President Obama unveiled a multi-trillion-dollar budget Thursday, an ambitious plan to boost clean energy development, access to education and health care coverage. Some of those costs would be offset in part by allowing tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest households. Here, an overview of the spending plan: We all now know that will not happen Thanks Republicans
For the first time, the war costs for both Iraq and Afghanistan are included in calculating the projected deficit.


:

Roger Perry
12-11-2010, 12:50 PM
Here is some more information for you Ducknwork------

Debt Climbs; Bush Legacy of
Debt — The gross federal debt
reached $9.0 trillion at the end of
2007, according to CBO
estimates. CBO projects that the
debt will rise by a total of
$3.8 trillion under the
President’s tenure, from
$5.6 trillion when the President
took office to $9.4 trillion at the
end of 2008. The unprecedented
rise in debt means that future
generations will be forced to pay
the price for the
Administration’s fiscally
irresponsible policies.

Outlook Opposite of Administration Predictions — When the President took office in 2001,
CBO projected budget surpluses from 2002-2011 of $5.6 trillion. The Administration could
have chosen to safeguard projected surpluses; instead, Republicans chose to enact large tax cuts
that wiped out the surplus. The President promised we could have it all: huge tax cuts and
funding for important programs, while deficits stayed away. Democrats urged caution,
supporting tax reductions within a fiscally responsible framework. Those calls for moderation
were ignored. Rather than preparing our country for the fiscal challenges ahead, Republican
policies have placed our nation in a fiscal hole, weakened the economy, and risk the living
standard of future generations.http://budget.house.gov/analyses/08cbo_report_jan_baseline.pdf

Roger Perry
12-11-2010, 01:27 PM
All I am saying is that it is not all his fault, regardless of what you want everyone to believe.

Do you really think that there were no causes of the recession that occurred prior to Bush being elected?
To answer your question regarding causes of ressession prior to 2001:
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The world's largest economy sank into a recession in March (2001), ending 10 years of growth that was the longest expansion on record in the United States, a group of economists that dates U.S. business cycles said Monday.

The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), composed of academic economists from Harvard, Stanford and other universities, joined a chorus of economists and investors who were saying that a recession had already begun. The group posted its decision on its Web site.

It ruled that the long expansion ended in March and the nation's tenth recession since the end of World War II began at the same time. The declaration means the longest expansion lasted exactly 10 years. The previous record for uninterrupted economic growth was set in the 1960s, a period of eight years and 10 months lasting from February 1961 to December 1969.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/gdp_3q_00.gif At the White House, President Bush, whose father lost the White House partly as a result of the country's last recession, said the declaration added urgency to the need to get a package of economic stimulus measures approved by Congress and passed into law.

"I knew the economy was not in good shape right after I took office," he said. "We will do everything we can to enhance recovery."

The president called on Congress to move quickly to pass an economic stimulus so that he will be able to "sign it before Christmas."

The country's last recession begin in July 1990 and lasted until March 1991. But he NBER did not officially declare the downturn over until December 1992. Democrat Bill Clinton used the economy's troubles as a major weapon in his successful campaign to unseat the first President Bush in 1992.

The group also said the economy might have been able to avoid a recession without the impact of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack, which all but shut down the economy for several days and has had a lasting impact on tourism, the airline industry and other businesses.

"The attacks clearly deepened the contraction and may have been an important factor in turning the episode into a recession," said a statement from the private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization.

The most common definition of a recession is two or more quarters of a shrinking economy; the nation's gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, fell 0.4 percent in the third quarter and many analysts said it is probably declining more sharply in the current quarter.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/11/26/economy/recession/

So to answer your question, looks like during the Clinton yeas we were not in a ressession. And let me remind you I DID NOT VOTE FOR CLINTON IN EITHER OF HIS 2 TERMS AS PRESIDENT.

ducknwork
12-11-2010, 03:05 PM
Good grief, you are so dense Roger...Let me try to rephrase the question for you to attempt to understand it again.

Do you really believe that the most recent recession (not the ones from years ago you just rambled about) was completely, entirely, 100% caused by Bush and the actions of his adminstration? Or do you not think that there were policies, regulations, laws, etc put in place during the tenure of previous presidents that had a hand in the recession?

mjh345
12-11-2010, 03:15 PM
clinton failed to budget for a devastating attack on our homeland.

And Bush failed to prevent it; despite ample intelligence of it

YardleyLabs
12-11-2010, 05:48 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2010/12/10/131966984/sen-bernie-sanders-filibusters-tax-cut-deal

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!:D:cry:



RK
Not sure what you are laughing at. You do know that Sanders is not a Democrat, don't you?

road kill
12-11-2010, 05:50 PM
Not sure what you are laughing at. You do know that Sanders is not a Democrat, don't you?


Yeah, yeah , yeah his is a middle of the road independent...right??


Look at his voting record.
Who does he caucus with?
You do know that, don't you?



RK

luvmylabs23139
12-11-2010, 06:07 PM
He is a self admitted socialist. At least he admits it unlike most of them who claim to be dems rather than being honest .

YardleyLabs
12-11-2010, 06:16 PM
Yeah, yeah , yeah his is a middle of the road independent...right??


Look at his voting record.
Who does he caucus with?
You do know that, don't you?



RK
No, he's a self described socialist who considers democrats to be much too conservative. Lieberman caucuses with democrats as well and is more conservative than a fair percentage of republicans. Both parties cover a lot of political turf.

Roger Perry
12-13-2010, 11:08 AM
Good grief, you are so dense Roger...Let me try to rephrase the question for you to attempt to understand it again.

Do you really believe that the most recent recession (not the ones from years ago you just rambled about) was completely, entirely, 100% caused by Bush and the actions of his adminstration? Or do you not think that there were policies, regulations, laws, etc put in place during the tenure of previous presidents that had a hand in the recession?

If the Country was left in the condition that Bush passed on to Obama I would have to say yes the policies of the previous administration had a hand in the ressession. But, in 2001 Bush was left with a surplus and proceedced to pass tax cuts and started 2 wars which pretty much put us in a hole which we never dug our way out of.

If you think Barney Frank was responsible for all the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac loans that went bad here is an article for you to read. It was Bush that wanted everyone to own a house. Bush even talks about wanting Freddie and Fannie to lower their lending standards so more low income people can own houses. And then the Republicans try to turn things around and put the blame on the Democrats.:shock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68
Bush even jokes about the housing situation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1oG5oVpdgg&feature=related
Jeff Dunetz at Big Government must have passed the right-wing media journalism test. He follows in the same hollowed ethical standards as Andrew Breitbart (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912150025) himself, James O’Keefe (http://www.salon.com/news/james_okeefe/index.html) and Kevin Pezzi (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050030). Dunetz swears this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but - Blame Barney Frank for the Recession, Not George Bush (http://www.google.com/search?q=Blame+Barney+Frank+for+the+Recession%2C+N ot+George+Bush&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated.” Exaggerated? Thanks to Fannie and Freddie the housing market collapsed and we fell into this “great recession.”
That paragraph is 99% meaningless nonsense. Republicans controlled the House in 2003 and Tom The hammer Delay of K-Street infamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay#The_K_Street_Project) was House Majority Leader. The House, unlike the Senate is ruled by simple majority. Delay controlled the agenda and Bush 43 was in the White House. Frank could have set himself on fire and still had absolutely zero effect on any Republican attempts to legislate new regulations or create regulatory reform. Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing bubble or the Great Recession. The numbers don’t add up. In addition Fannie and Freddie did not have that kind of power. Most of their loans were not subprime (http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html).
Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie.

That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-myth-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-barney-frank-the-housing-bubble-and-the-recession/

I realize that during the Clinton years you were probably in grade school riding a bicycle instead of paying for gasoline and were too young to remember things like the price of gasoline was just above $1.00 and were probably in high school when gasoline was above $4.00 a gallon during the Bush years.

ducknwork
12-13-2010, 12:02 PM
If the Country was left in the condition that Bush passed on to Obama I would have to say yes the policies of the previous administration had a hand in the ressession. But, in 2001 Bush was left with a surplus and proceedced to pass tax cuts and started 2 wars which pretty much put us in a hole which we never dug our way out of.

If you think Barney Frank was responsible for all the Fannie Mae Freddie Mac loans that went bad here is an article for you to read. It was Bush that wanted everyone to own a house. Bush even talks about wanting Freddie and Fannie to lower their lending standards so more low income people can own houses. And then the Republicans try to turn things around and put the blame on the Democrats.:shock:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68
Bush even jokes about the housing situation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1oG5oVpdgg&feature=related
Jeff Dunetz at Big Government must have passed the right-wing media journalism test. He follows in the same hollowed ethical standards as Andrew Breitbart (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200912150025) himself, James O’Keefe (http://www.salon.com/news/james_okeefe/index.html) and Kevin Pezzi (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008050030). Dunetz swears this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but - Blame Barney Frank for the Recession, Not George Bush (http://www.google.com/search?q=Blame+Barney+Frank+for+the+Recession%2C+N ot+George+Bush&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a)

Frank aggressively fought reform efforts by the Bush administration. He told The New York Times on Sept. 11, 2003, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s problems were “exaggerated.” Exaggerated? Thanks to Fannie and Freddie the housing market collapsed and we fell into this “great recession.”
That paragraph is 99% meaningless nonsense. Republicans controlled the House in 2003 and Tom The hammer Delay of K-Street infamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_DeLay#The_K_Street_Project) was House Majority Leader. The House, unlike the Senate is ruled by simple majority. Delay controlled the agenda and Bush 43 was in the White House. Frank could have set himself on fire and still had absolutely zero effect on any Republican attempts to legislate new regulations or create regulatory reform. Fannie and Freddie did not cause the housing bubble or the Great Recession. The numbers don’t add up. In addition Fannie and Freddie did not have that kind of power. Most of their loans were not subprime (http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/fannie_mae_and.html).
Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie.

That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.http://thelonggoodbye.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-myth-of-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-barney-frank-the-housing-bubble-and-the-recession/

I realize that during the Clinton years you were probably in grade school riding a bicycle instead of paying for gasoline and were too young to remember things like the price of gasoline was just above $1.00 and were probably in high school when gasoline was above $4.00 a gallon during the Bush years.

You know nothing about me, so I'll ignore your childish BS.

However, you still danced around the question. Big surprise. Why is a straight answer so difficult?

Roger Perry
12-13-2010, 12:12 PM
You know nothing about me, so I'll ignore your childish BS.

However, you still danced around the question. Big surprise. Why is a straight answer so difficult?
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=716949#post716949)
If the Country was left in the condition that Bush passed on to Obama I would have to say yes the policies of the previous administration had a hand in the ressession. But, in 2001 Bush was left with a surplus and proceedced to pass tax cuts and started 2 wars which pretty much put us in a hole which we never dug our way out of.

How much more of an answer do you want????????????? The righties here have put the blame on Obama even before he took office.
Oh, and correct me if I am wrong but didn't you once say you only got interested in politics a few years ago????????????? Therefore you probably don't know what went on during the Clinton years or the early Bush years.

ducknwork
12-13-2010, 12:16 PM
So you think the recession was 100% caused by Bush and his administration?

Once again, you know nothing about me, so your attacks are meaningless and petty.

Roger Perry
12-13-2010, 01:57 PM
So you think the recession was 100% caused by Bush and his administration?

Once again, you know nothing about me, so your attacks are meaningless and petty.

What attack:confused:

luvmylabs23139
12-13-2010, 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=716949#post716949)
Oh, and correct me if I am wrong but didn't you once say you only got interested in politics a few years ago????????????? Therefore you probably don't know what went on during the Clinton years or the early Bush years.

Roger,
You really need to pay a bit more attention to who is who on the list. Duck has more than once stated his age on the list. A few years, based on your age, would be a lifetime for Duck. He is much more aware than almost all his age.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Heck, he's only been legal to drink for a few years!

ducknwork
12-13-2010, 03:19 PM
What attack:confused:

You sure know how to avoid directly answering a question.

ducknwork
12-13-2010, 03:28 PM
Roger,
You really need to pay a bit more attention to who is who on the list. Duck has more than once stated his age on the list. A few years, based on your age, would be a lifetime for Duck. He is much more aware than almost all his age.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Heck, he's only been legal to drink for a few years!

Thanks.........I think......:p:p

Roger Perry
12-14-2010, 12:43 PM
You sure know how to avoid directly answering a question.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6, 2007 Brother, Can You Spare $9 Trillion?

Mark Knoller On The Nation's Historic, And Rising, Debt


(CBS) This article was written by CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller.


Few took notice, but for the first time in U.S. history last Friday, the national debt hit an all-time high of $9 trillion.

To be exact, the total liabilities of the U.S. Government hit $9,005,648,561,262.70, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt at the Treasury Department.

Numerically, that’s in excess of the debt ceiling set by Congress, which stands at $8.965 trillion.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/06/notebook/main3238787.shtml

Maybe you can explain to me how in 2007 the National Debt reached 9 Trillion under a Republican Congress and Republican President???????????

Marvin S
12-14-2010, 01:12 PM
WASHINGTON, Sept. 6, 2007 Brother, Can You Spare $9 Trillion?

Mark Knoller On The Nation's Historic, And Rising, Debt

Maybe you can explain to me how in 2007 the National Debt reached 9 Trillion under a Republican Congress and Republican President???????????


Roger, you need to get over it before it gets worse.

Leonard Pitts (One of your guys) calls it BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome :-P :-P ;-)

road kill
12-14-2010, 01:18 PM
Roger,
You really need to pay a bit more attention to who is who on the list. Duck has more than once stated his age on the list. A few years, based on your age, would be a lifetime for Duck. He is much more aware than almost all his age.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Heck, he's only been legal to drink for a few years!
That's relevant....how???



RK

luvmylabs23139
12-14-2010, 02:11 PM
That's relevant....how???



RK

reread Roger's comment to Duck. He impied Duck had been ignoring politics for many years. Duck isn't old enough to have been ignoring politics for most of his adult life. A few years to me is about 4-5 years. That would be almost all
of Duck's adult life. It was just another Roger response when he had no real answer to Duck's actual question.
Oh I missed the part you highlighted. That was a hint to Roger about Duck's age.

Roger Perry
12-14-2010, 02:21 PM
reread Roger's comment to Duck. He impied Duck had been ignoring politics for many years. Duck isn't old enough to have been ignoring politics for most of his adult life. A few years to me is about 4-5 years. That would be almost all
of Duck's adult life. It was just another Roger response when he had no real answer to Duck's actual question.
Oh I missed the part you highlighted. That was a hint to Roger about Duck's age.

If you re-read my posts, I said to dick that he was probably in grade school during the Clinton years (maybe even diapers) and maybe was in high school during the Bush years when gasoline was $4.00 a gallon. I was suggesting he go back and read the history (it would almost be ancient history for him) about the Clinton years and the budget surplus Bush inherited. See #119
I realize that during the Clinton years you were probably in grade school riding a bicycle instead of paying for gasoline and were too young to remember things like the price of gasoline was just above $1.00 and were probably in high school when gasoline was above $4.00 a gallon during the Bush years.

ducknwork
12-14-2010, 10:40 PM
And my age is relevant how? All you are doing is trying to discredit anything I have to say and imply that I am not fit to have any conversation regarding politics. Like I said multiple times already, you know nothing about me, so stop assuming. Why don't you stop making excuses and trying to make me look stupid and just answer the question...if you understand it. I really don't understand why you keep dancing around it and posting information that is not relevant to the discussion.

david gibson
12-14-2010, 10:59 PM
And my age is relevant how? All you are doing is trying to discredit anything I have to say and imply that I am not fit to have any conversation regarding politics. Like I said multiple times already, you know nothing about me, so stop assuming. Why don't you stop making excuses and trying to make me look stupid and just answer the question...if you understand it. I really don't understand why you keep dancing around it and posting information that is not relevant to the discussion.

oh i think you know why... ;-)

ducknwork
12-14-2010, 11:00 PM
I know nothing. I'm too young to know anything.

david gibson
12-15-2010, 12:16 AM
I know nothing. I'm too young to know anything.

i forgot that part...;-)

Cody Covey
12-15-2010, 01:17 AM
i forgot that part...;-)

that's because you are to old :)

luvmylabs23139
12-15-2010, 11:14 AM
i forgot that part...;-)


Just like Roger managed to forget the gas lines during the DUMOCRAT CARTER era,1979 to be more specific.
I remember being sent to sit in the gas lines by my dad, I had just gotten my license. If I wanted to use the family cars I had to "earn" it by being the one to sit in the gas lines.:rolleyes:

Buzz
12-15-2010, 11:26 AM
Just like Roger managed to forget the gas lines during the DUMOCRAT CARTER era,1979 to be more specific.
I remember being sent to sit in the gas lines by my dad, I had just gotten my license. If I wanted to use the family cars I had to "earn" it by being the one to sit in the gas lines.:rolleyes:

Yup, OPEC was all Carter's fault, lol!

luvmylabs23139
12-15-2010, 12:12 PM
Yup, OPEC was all Carter's fault, lol!

Just as much as Katrina was Bush's fault. Read Roger's post. He blames all high gas prices on republicans rather than world events and tries to claim that gas prices are lower under democrats just because dem's are in control.
He can't have it both ways.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
BY the way wasn't the OPEC embargo in the early 70's not the Carter admin?
If I recall correctly that is when CT had odd even gas rationing.:rolleyes:

luvmylabs23139
12-15-2010, 12:14 PM
Oh, lets just add in a reminder about what home mortgage interrest rates hit under Carter.
Were not they almost 18%?

mjh345
12-15-2010, 01:05 PM
BY the way wasn't the OPEC embargo in the early 70's not the Carter admin?
If I recall correctly that is when CT had odd even gas rationing.:rolleyes:

Carter didn't take office until 1977. Nixon was in office in the early 70's

Seems to me you would have remembered that since you had just gotten your license and had to sit in gas lines to earn driving priviledges.

Tell us how old you are, and we will try to help you with the math.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste regards

Roger Perry
12-15-2010, 02:04 PM
Oh, lets just add in a reminder about what home mortgage interrest rates hit under Carter.
Were not they almost 18%?

The home intrest rates under Regan were 14% in 1983. By the way, I voted for Regan;)

1982 to 2003 Interest Rates - Refunds & Delinquencies

YearInterest Rates1982 and prior6%198314%198412%198513%

road kill
12-15-2010, 02:30 PM
The home intrest rates under Regan were 14% in 1983. By the way, I voted for Regan;)

1982 to 2003 Interest Rates - Refunds & Delinquencies

YearInterest Rates1982 and prior6%198314%198412%198513%


I voted for Reagan!!:D


RK

dnf777
12-15-2010, 02:46 PM
This is almost funny.

Obama, in a huge showing of bipartisanship (or some would say capitulation) agrees to terms laid out by congressional republicans.

Now, the republicans are balking because "they don't like what the deal costs"!

What? We want tax cuts, but don't want to add to the deficit. I believe the old adage about having cake and eating it too applies perfectly.

Buzz
12-15-2010, 02:55 PM
This is almost funny.

Obama, in a huge showing of bipartisanship (or some would say capitulation) agrees to terms laid out by congressional republicans.

Now, the republicans are balking because "they don't like what the deal costs"!

What? We want tax cuts, but don't want to add to the deficit. I believe the old adage about having cake and eating it too applies perfectly.


As I said in another thread:

Don't worry, that day of reckoning is coming. I am convinced that it is a goal of the Republicans to force the government into default, or something close to it. Then there will be no choice, the programs they hated since the new deal will be decimated.

I figure that I have an extra 1/2 million to save to make up for social security. The problem is, there is no amount of money that I can probably save to make up for the loss of medicare. Medical costs will break us all.

ducknwork
12-15-2010, 03:26 PM
The home intrest rates under Regan were 14% in 1983. By the way, I voted for Regan;)

1982 to 2003 Interest Rates - Refunds & Delinquencies

YearInterest Rates1982 and prior6%198314%198412%198513%

I wasn't going to call you out because I just assumed you hadn't viewed this thread today. But since you are still around, how about answering the question you have dodged numerous times?

dnf777
12-15-2010, 03:36 PM
As I said in another thread:

Don't worry, that day of reckoning is coming. I am convinced that it is a goal of the Republicans to force the government into default, or something close to it. Then there will be no choice, the programs they hated since the new deal will be decimated.

I figure that I have an extra 1/2 million to save to make up for social security. The problem is, there is no amount of money that I can probably save to make up for the loss of medicare. Medical costs will break us all.


I hope you're wrong, but I'm afraid you're right.

Bernie Sanders is on record saying essentially the same thing. That the republicans will have the audacity to come back when we're in an even deeper hole, and attempt to revoke the social security program, as they've wanted to do since its inception, using the deficits created by this deal as justification. It will start with attempts to privatize (oops, already happened) and combining the funds with the general funds to expedite its insolvency.

The ironic and frustrating part of it is, it will be the very same ones voting for these changes, that will be broke in retirement, and coming to those of us who actually saved for retirement, to tax us to support their sorry butts.

Cody Covey
12-15-2010, 06:17 PM
I hope you're wrong, but I'm afraid you're right.

Bernie Sanders is on record saying essentially the same thing. That the republicans will have the audacity to come back when we're in an even deeper hole, and attempt to revoke the social security program, as they've wanted to do since its inception, using the deficits created by this deal as justification. It will start with attempts to privatize (oops, already happened) and combining the funds with the general funds to expedite its insolvency.

The ironic and frustrating part of it is, it will be the very same ones voting for these changes, that will be broke in retirement, and coming to those of us who actually saved for retirement, to tax us to support their sorry butts.
Isn't that happening now?

luvmylabs23139
12-15-2010, 08:29 PM
Carter didn't take office until 1977. Nixon was in office in the early 70's

Seems to me you would have remembered that since you had just gotten your license and had to sit in gas lines to earn driving priviledges.

Tell us how old you are, and we will try to help you with the math.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste regards

I know when the imbargo was. I also know we had long lines for gas in 1979 during the Carter administration. Those were 2 seperate gas issues. During the inbargo we had rationing in CT. 1979 did not have odd even rationing just the long lines.
Roger just likes to say that everything bad happens under republicans.:rolleyes:

Roger Perry
12-16-2010, 10:55 AM
I wasn't going to call you out because I just assumed you hadn't viewed this thread today. But since you are still around, how about answering the question you have dodged numerous times?

When Clinton took office there was a national debt. When Clinton left office the budget was balanced. 7 years into Bush's term with a Republican Congress for 6 of those years we were 7 Trillion in debt. There is no one else to blame for that but Bush and his Republican Congress. You can spin it any way you like but the republicans were running the country from 2001 to the end of 2006

ducknwork
12-16-2010, 11:47 AM
When Clinton took office there was a national debt. When Clinton left office the budget was balanced. 7 years into Bush's term with a Republican Congress for 6 of those years we were 7 Trillion in debt. There is no one else to blame for that but Bush and his Republican Congress. You can spin it any way you like but the republicans were running the country from 2001 to the end of 2006

I give up. You can't just say yes or no. :roll::roll: That tells me what I need to know and really shows who you are.

Roger Perry
12-16-2010, 01:21 PM
Just like Roger managed to forget the gas lines during the DUMOCRAT CARTER era,1979 to be more specific.
I remember being sent to sit in the gas lines by my dad, I had just gotten my license. If I wanted to use the family cars I had to "earn" it by being the one to sit in the gas lines.:rolleyes:

I lived in Texas in 1979 and do not remember standing in any gas lines there.

paul young
12-16-2010, 03:07 PM
hmmmm....i have lived in Ct. since 1975 and i can't recall waiting in line for gasoline.

that all took place in the early seventies while i still was in college in Massachusetts.

bought my first house in 1978 when the mortgage rate was 8.5%. it skyrocketed during the Reagan years. i was glad to have bought when we did.-Paul

luvmylabs23139
12-16-2010, 03:40 PM
Independence Day, 1979: Lines at gas pumps stretch for blocks, and President Jimmy Carter is scheduled to address the nation. But when he cancels last minute and disappears from the public eye, rumors spread of a health problem or, even worse, that he's left the country. After 10 days, he reemerges with a speech — to address the energy crisis, unemployment, inflation and something else a bit more .....

I got this one from that oh so conservative NPR>

luvmylabs23139
12-16-2010, 04:09 PM
NBC Evening News for
Saturday, Jun 02, 1979

Headline: Gasoline Shortage / Truckers' Demonstration

Abstract:(Studio) 100's of truckers reported to have blocked fuel pumps at truck stop in Southington, Connecticut, protesting high fuel prices. 4 government investigations of current gas shortage said underway.
REPORTER: John Hart
(DC) Letter from FTC (Federal Trade Commission) official to Congress stating current gasoline shortage

road kill
12-16-2010, 04:42 PM
I lived in Texas in 1979 and do not remember standing in any gas lines there.

Probably becuase you were sitting in your car.:confused:


RK

luvmylabs23139
12-16-2010, 05:56 PM
I lived in Texas in 1979 and do not remember standing in any gas lines there.

Texas actually had odd/even rationing in 1979. Maybe that's why the lines were short. Only 1/2 the cars could get gas on any given day.

Buzz
12-17-2010, 08:58 AM
So, was Carter responsible for the actions of OPEC?

I imagine that Bush would have went to war and turned the middle east into a glass parking lot.

road kill
12-17-2010, 09:04 AM
So, was Carter responsible for the actions of OPEC?

I imagine that Bush would have went to war and turned the middle east into a glass parking lot.

That is the "KEY" word here.:D

RK