The lefty WaPo says that there MUST be tax increases on the middle class as well as on the rich. We all knew this was coming, despite hussein saying that 'only the mega rich will pay'. Lying sack of scheit..........
In order to 'pay' for hussein's agenda, we gotta dig deeper now.
link to story Bend the Revenue Curve
Health Reform Alone Won't End Deficits
By Henry J. Aaron and Isabel V. Sawhill
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Anyone who thinks that health-care reform alone is going to close the massive current -- and even larger projected -- U.S. budget deficit is deluded. President Obama has pledged that health-care reform will not make matters worse. But that isn't good enough. There is no way to restore this nation to fiscal health without higher taxes -- for the middle class as well as for the rich. The only question is when. Those increases should be enacted now, phased in gradually after the recovery is well established, and tied to the increased spending that health-care reform will generate.
This Nation needs a congressional cleansing come 2010.
Lying sack of scheit..........
I only refer to this turd and the Liar In Chief - the word 'president' is not allowed in my household when used in reference to BHO..
In order to 'pay' for hussein's agenda, we gotta dig deeper now.
Yep.. Comin' as sure as winter in Montana..
This Nation needs a congressional cleansing come 2010.
An enema is more like it.
JM.
DC couldn't be a more fiting place to stick the tube.
Anyone with half a brain saw this coming. You can't cut taxes while increasing or even maintaining spending. We've had a deficit spending since time immemorial. No one is willing to cut spending - every administration increases it. And eventually someone has to pay.
Deficits do matter.
Unfortunately, even without Obama spending on thin dime, we'd need to either increase taxes or cut spending. BHO is just putting gas on an already raging fire.
Washington has been on life support for far to long.....
Let 2010 be the year we pull the plug and start a new!!
What this country need os unemployed politicians
What this country need is unemployed politicians
Anyone with half a brain saw this coming. You can't cut taxes while increasing or even maintaining spending. We've had a deficit spending since time immemorial. No one is willing to cut spending - every administration increases it. And eventually someone has to pay.
Deficits do matter.
Unfortunately, even without Obama spending on thin dime, we'd need to either increase taxes or cut spending. BHO is just putting gas on an already raging fire.
The above is not always true. Ronald Reagan cut taxes or stopped the rate of tax increases durning a recession and the result was that new businesses were started and old businesses hired more workers. The workers made more money and therefore paid more taxes while keeping more money for themselves also.
The result of Ronald Reagan's action was a era of prosperity not seen since which included the govt. collecting more in total tax revenue than before.
"The case for Reagan's greatness is: 1) He ended the crisis of stagflation and malaise, restoring our country to prosperity and self-confidence. 2) He cut taxes and reduced the size of government. 3) He rebuilt America's military strength and won the Cold War. 4) He lent dignity to the office, unlike a more recent ex-president one could name."
JM----- add tabasco to that enema and send them home. Web
Another reason to vote in 2010. Need to remove a bunch from congress and vote in people that have at least some interest in their constituents rather than their own pet projects.
We really need to put congress in our favor. Thats the only way to balance out the mess we are in now. Until 2012. I don't know if the country can bear 3 more years.
I saw a poll on cnn or fox or msnbc a while back that said only 10% of americans polled approved of the job congress is doing, but something like 80% approved of the job that there congressmen are doing. Until everyone starts to see that 90% of those a-holes need to get the hell out we will continue down the same path.
I have at least one senator who needs to go and I have never voted for him. I have one representitive that needs to be unemployeed too. They will not get my vote. So it is possible to pick and choose who stays and who goes. kwg
In 2010 no matter who you vote for business will stay the same.
Can anyone be suprised? No matter how the economy fares, the Democrats want to raise taxes. Look at the high tax, high bureaucracy states...Are they doing well?
There was a question during the campaign; Even if it doesn't raise more money, should taxes be raised on "the rich"? After a little thought, the answer was...Yes, to make things more FAIR!
Bill
Increasing tax rates will not bring in any more revenue, because high taxes are what is preventing economic recovery right now.
Every time Clinton increased taxes slightly, the economy stalled.
He increased them on the middle class, and cut rates in half for the rich, and the stock markets took off. He raised taxes slightly again, and had a recession before he left office. Bush ended the recession with a tiny across-the-board tax cut for everyone.
The stimulus spending will produce no net jobs, because it is killing 2 private jobs for every public job it creates.
If that $1.2 trillion in stimulus money had instead been a susupension of income taxes for 2009, or 2008, there would have been all that money in the economy instantly, and in the hands of those who know how best to invest it.
Likewise, instead of spending trillions to bail out failed mortgage banks, a fraction of that money could have paid off the mortgages of people with jobs, and job skills, who are productive members of society. Let the banks go under and the execs lose their bonuses. Let the illegal aliens and unqualified minority home owners lose their houses and the working middle class buy them up cheap.
In 2010 no matter who you vote for business will stay the same.
You are likely right. Unless there is a sudden and amazing groundswell of support for a new party and candidates it will be same old/same old with the ususal crooks and liars the prevailing parties put their diseased stamp of approval on.
Anyone with half a brain saw this coming.
BHO is just putting gas on an already raging fire.
well, at least no one here voted for Obama.
In 2010 no matter who you vote for business will stay the same.
You are likely right. Unless there is a sudden and amazing groundswell of support for a new party and candidates it will be same old/same old with the usual crooks and liars the prevailing parties put their diseased stamp of approval on.
The problem is our flawed system of government. It was assumed by the Founders that everybody would play nice and follow the Constitution. Unfortunately, human nature is human nature and when push comes to shove greed and power will always win out. The only way to changed Washington is to replace the entire system of government.
Why Hell I've done my part for over fifty years. I've voted against the incumbent in almost every election since time began.
Lee 24, I don't think you have your history correct. When did the economy stall under Clinton? It was under Bush 1, and then again under Bush 2.
BTW: cutting taxes for the top one-half percent and raisnig it on the middle class is not tax reform. It's a country club insider game.
I'm not a fan of big government, but I do want effective government to do those things we need as a country. To have a sound defense, a solid infrastructure, and the other things that allow our way of life and economy to work, we need to pay taxes.
You don't know squat about the stimulus money and what it's doing and how closely it's being tracked. I do.
I agree with you about the banks and wall street. They are the ones that created the economic crisis, and Wall Street adds no value to the system...they just take value from it. I understand and applaude venture capital that drives innovation and new (value adding) products. But market manipulation blows I'm especially ticked at futures traders who jerk us all around.
Another BTW: The Dems didn't cause the banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers all by themselves. Everyone wanted it at the time. Look at who benefitted most: builders, developers, and banks. The money tells the tale.
Why Hell I've done my part for over fifty years. I've voted against the incumbent in almost every election since time began.
So you vote democrap half of the time?
Lee 24, I don't think you have your history correct. When did the economy stall under Clinton? It was under Bush 1, and then again under Bush 2.
BTW: cutting taxes for the top one-half percent and raisnig it on the middle class is not tax reform. It's a country club insider game.
I'm not a fan of big government, but I do want effective government to do those things we need as a country. To have a sound defense, a solid infrastructure, and the other things that allow our way of life and economy to work, we need to pay taxes.
You don't know squat about the stimulus money and what it's doing and how closely it's being tracked. I do.
I agree with you about the banks and wall street. They are the ones that created the economic crisis, and Wall Street adds no value to the system...they just take value from it. I understand and applaude venture capital that drives innovation and new (value adding) products. But market manipulation blows I'm especially ticked at futures traders who jerk us all around.
Another BTW: The Dems didn't cause the banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers all by themselves. Everyone wanted it at the time. Look at who benefitted most: builders, developers, and banks. The money tells the tale.
WIth four posts, I have this to say... I fared much better and felt much better under both Bush's than I did under the idiot Klinton and same under this new idiot. Wonder why my take on this varies from liberals?
The lefty WaPo says that there MUST be tax increases on the middle class as well as on the rich. We all knew this was coming, despite hussein saying that 'only the mega rich will pay'. Lying sack of scheit..........
In order to 'pay' for hussein's agenda, we gotta dig deeper now.
How else will the chosen one keep his promise to his worthless, no-account, ignorant, shiftless, lazy assed constituents? Deys all gots to have car and mortgage payMENTS from the workin tax payers.
All praise due to Allah, ya know.
Dudejch,
Clinton and the media bashed GHW Bush with the untrue slogan, "worst economy in 50 years". A slight slowdown in the economy was over before the 1992 election.
Clinton had a recession in 1996 that had him trailing in the polls until he could blame the Oklahoma City bombing on "right wing talk radio" and run a huge deficit to bounce the economy.
In 1998, Wall Streeters cashed out of the IPOs created with their 14% tax bracket given to them by Clinton in 1993, hidden in his tax increase on paycheck workers. The Dot.Com crash followed as the IPOs proved to be hollow.
Clinton left office with his worst recession, which the media blamed on GW Bush. Bush's tax cuts ended the recession by June, and would have been on a boom had the 9/11 attacks not set things back. Bush still had better economic growth than Clinton.
This recession is due to a massive bank fraud, perpetrated not by Wall Street, but by Democrats using FHA, FNMA, FMAC and ACORN to sell 11,000,000 homes to unqualified minority buyers, over 2,300,000 of them to illegal aliens.
Today, they try to pit Americans against 'the rich'. Every Democrat Senator is a multimillionaire. Many became rich off their wive's lobbying and buying real estate from one lobbyisy and selling real estate to another lobbyist.
We need a flat, low income tax, or no income tax.
The above is not always true. Ronald Reagan cut taxes or stopped the rate of tax increases durning a recession and the result was that new businesses were started and old businesses hired more workers. The workers made more money and therefore paid more taxes while keeping more money for themselves also.
Unfortunately, this widely held opinion turns out not to be true. The Federal deficit and national debt both increased under Reagan. Cutting taxes did not result in more revenue - at least with the increased spending that occurred under Reagen. In fact, Dick Cheney argued the 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter'.
In the last 20 years new deficit records were set by Reagan, Bush and Bush II. Only Clinton decreased the annual deficit. Obama is going to put everyone else to shame.
![[Linked Image]](https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/2009/2/17/saupload_09_02_16b_budget_deficit.png)
Lee 24, I don't think you have your history correct. When did the economy stall under Clinton? It was under Bush 1, and then again under Bush 2.
BTW: cutting taxes for the top one-half percent and raisnig it on the middle class is not tax reform. It's a country club insider game.
I'm not a fan of big government, but I do want effective government to do those things we need as a country. To have a sound defense, a solid infrastructure, and the other things that allow our way of life and economy to work, we need to pay taxes.
You don't know squat about the stimulus money and what it's doing and how closely it's being tracked. I do.
I agree with you about the banks and wall street. They are the ones that created the economic crisis, and Wall Street adds no value to the system...they just take value from it. I understand and applaude venture capital that drives innovation and new (value adding) products. But market manipulation blows I'm especially ticked at futures traders who jerk us all around.
Another BTW: The Dems didn't cause the banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers all by themselves. Everyone wanted it at the time. Look at who benefitted most: builders, developers, and banks. The money tells the tale.
Dude, go [bleep] troll somewhere else. You are full of scheit.
There is no excuse for GW Bush going along with the deficits of 2001-2006, because the increased tax revenues due to economic growth were enough to pay for the war on terrorism and balance the budget. Instead, Bush and some of the GOP went along with huge increases in education and Medicare spending favored by Democrats.
The deficits of 2007 and 2007 were much larger, because the Democrats had a majority that could override Bush's vetoes. The 2008 deficit was more than double the largest deficit that we can blame on Bush. The 2009 deficit will be four times as large as the largest Bush deficit. So will 2010 and 2011.
I remember when a 200 billion dollar deficit (Reagan) was the Big Bad Wolf that was going to eat us alive. So was Social Security and Medicare.
Not saying it WOULDN'T, but, it's a little scary that we are now so far gone that things like that aren't hardly even talked about anymore.
Either 200-billion deficits and SS and Medicare have become non-issues... or, the problems have grown to the point where they are dwarfed. Obviously it's the latter.
We are like a family that used to worry about $3000 in credit card debt, but now has $25k of credit card debt... suddenly that $3000 is looking pretty good!
[bleep], back to elk camp preperation... mustn't... talk... politics! Musn't... talk... politics!
Going hunting alone Jeff? I can't imagine anyone wanting to be around you for any reason.
Jeff I'd go huntin with you I don't care what they say.
At this point there's only one thing which will keep the government from bleeding the country even drier than it already is.
Secession,...and the government is going to kill a lot of people in an attempt to keep that from taking hold.
The world is going to start getting very interesting very soon.
Why you laugh?
It was tried before and the government killed off a lot of people because of it.
The fact is,...the crooks who control the government have destroyed the American standard of living,..and now their policies are in the process of destroying America's monetary system.
As long as our current government is in control,..things will continue to get worse.
The pattern was established a long time ago and has rarely wavered.
Different era, different population, different more powerful government,different technology, different population mindset and different weaknesses and strengths than that era.
You couldn't put 200K folks together for something such as that, outside the Internet, for anything significant lasting longer than i month. You'd have to have absolutely have nothing in this world to lose and I'm guessing once these brave secessionist warriors realized their wife,kids and loved ones were sitting in a prison camp awaiting their daddy's return, the brass lustre of the new liberty fighters would very quickly lose it's shine.
This battle needs be won with the mind and strength of the voter, not wannabe Alamo day dreamers.
Jeff I'd go huntin with you I don't care what they say.
Yeah, something like Brokeback Mountain huh??
This battle needs be won with the mind and strength of the voter,
You can't vote away the federal government.
But in any event,..I made no claims as to the likelyhood of secession ever occurring.
I just said that that's the only way the people will keep the government from bleeding them completely dry.
Those who believe differently are the ones who were swayed by claims of HOPE!,...and CHANGE!
It was nonsense then,..it's nonsense now.
I'm guessing once these brave secessionist warriors realized their wife,kids and loved ones were sitting in a prison camp awaiting their daddy's return,
At least you seem to be aware of the nature of our government.
Of course I am. Are you still aware while writing what you did above?
I think you are and that's why you got the LOL.
It's actually the nature of winning. Even the wrong want to win!
Of course I am. Are you still aware while writing what you did above?
I think you are and that's why you got the LOL.
It's actually the nature of winning. Even the wrong want to win!
Care to word all of this in a coherent manner?
The alphabet is a wonderful thing when it's arranged in a way which conveys thoughts.
Try to follow along with each post between us. It makes perfect sense unless, of course, you just don't want to hear it. It's part of your problem actually. You're so used to just grabbing snippets and mischaracterizing what one has written, instead of grasping the entire context, that you have trouble staying up with those that actually do.
If you're still confused after actually reading the entire comment, let me know and I'll hand hold you through it.
If you're still confused after actually reading the entire comment, let me know and I'll hand hold you through it.
Your motive materializes,.....no thanks.
LOL...I used to try silly crap like that above when I had nothing substantive to say in response, as well.
Thanks for the HS nostalgia!
LOL...I used to try silly crap like that above when I had nothing substantive to say in response, as well.
Thanks for the HS nostalgia!
Nostalgia takes many forms.
I sometimes experience it when someone advocates the idea that voting matters.
I used to think that too,...before I became an adult.
You became an adult in your 40's,huh?
In 2010 no matter who you vote for business will stay the same.
Then why not just kill yourself then? I mean jeez, are you proposing we do nothing or support some fringe kook? jorge
The above is not always true. Ronald Reagan cut taxes or stopped the rate of tax increases durning a recession and the result was that new businesses were started and old businesses hired more workers. The workers made more money and therefore paid more taxes while keeping more money for themselves also.
Unfortunately, this widely held opinion turns out not to be true. The Federal deficit and national debt both increased under Reagan. Cutting taxes did not result in more revenue - at least with the increased spending that occurred under Reagen. In fact, Dick Cheney argued the 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter'.
In the last 20 years new deficit records were set by Reagan, Bush and Bush II. Only Clinton decreased the annual deficit. Obama is going to put everyone else to shame.
Tod,
I think you need to recognize why we had a surplus under Clinton, and it was two fold. First because a Republican House and Senate had a majority for the first time in 40 years, and cut spending-not enough-but they did cut. Too bad they lost their way. Second, because the wunderkind from Government Sachs, Robert Rubin, was SecTreasury and refi'd most of our deficits on a short term basis, lowering the interest paid annually. They actually did away with the 30 year T Bond, which was brought back under Bush the Younger.
The combo of those two things allowed it to look as if we had a surplus. Since Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Military, and Civil Service pensions were still carried off the books as unfunded liabilities, and their revenue was used in the General Fund, there really was no surplus, just a shell game to make it look so.
Also, the debt issued during the Clinton Administration had to be turned over after Clinton left office, and that may or may not have been at a lower rate and longer term, adding to the interest payment in future "budgets", if you want to dignify them with that name.
The last coupla' posts before the last posts defined an answer.
Giving these ( Gov ) pathetic, and incompetent morons alla' this undeserved, and panic sricken airtime is embarassing.
knock it off.
Mike 762,......Rave on,....
GTC
You became an adult in your 40's,huh?
Nobody actually does until then,..some people never.
You seem to be a member of the second catagory.
Mike762,
I'm not trying to give Klinton any credit, just pointing out the numbers -particularly how rare a budget surplus has been in the last 20+ years. Democrats increase spending and increase taxes. Republicans increase spending and decrease taxes. In both cases, we've increased spending. The suggestion that Republicans are more fiscally responsible than democrats is pure hooey. Both sides are perfectly happy to spend taxpayer money and then some. Typically, it's taxpayer money to their pet projects or their good friends.
The average Joe gets screwed in the process.
Jeff I'd go huntin with you I don't care what they say.
that figures, DD.
You became an adult in your 40's,huh?
Nobody actually does until then,..some people never.
You seem to be a member of the second catagory.
+++++++++++++++
Ouch Bristoe!! You're really unloading your big guns on me!
I give, man! Uncle...
Mike762,
I'm not trying to give Klinton any credit, just pointing out the numbers -particularly how rare a budget surplus has been in the last 20+ years. Democrats increase spending and increase taxes. Republicans increase spending and decrease taxes. In both cases, we've increased spending. The suggestion that Republicans are more fiscally responsible than democrats is pure hooey. Both sides are perfectly happy to spend taxpayer money and then some. Typically, it's taxpayer money to their pet projects or their good friends.
The average Joe gets screwed in the process.
klinton had NOTHING to do with the balanced budget. It was the Republican "revolution" of 1994 that scared him and they forced him to balance the budget. In fact klinton submitted three deficit budgets before he finally saw the writing on the wall. If anything klinton hd political savvy. jorge
Too bad the Party got cocky after being in power and started spending like dems. Seems like Washington corrupts everybody.
Lee 24, I don't think you have your history correct. When did the economy stall under Clinton? It was under Bush 1, and then again under Bush 2.
BTW: cutting taxes for the top one-half percent and raisnig it on the middle class is not tax reform. It's a country club insider game.
I'm not a fan of big government, but I do want effective government to do those things we need as a country. To have a sound defense, a solid infrastructure, and the other things that allow our way of life and economy to work, we need to pay taxes.
You don't know squat about the stimulus money and what it's doing and how closely it's being tracked. I do.
I agree with you about the banks and wall street. They are the ones that created the economic crisis, and Wall Street adds no value to the system...they just take value from it. I understand and applaude venture capital that drives innovation and new (value adding) products. But market manipulation blows I'm especially ticked at futures traders who jerk us all around.
Another BTW: The Dems didn't cause the banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers all by themselves. Everyone wanted it at the time. Look at who benefitted most: builders, developers, and banks. The money tells the tale.
Dude, go [bleep] troll somewhere else. You are full of scheit.
That's very insightful Manny. Quite an addition to the discussion. Do you get out often?
The above is not always true. Ronald Reagan cut taxes or stopped the rate of tax increases durning a recession and the result was that new businesses were started and old businesses hired more workers. The workers made more money and therefore paid more taxes while keeping more money for themselves also.
Unfortunately, this widely held opinion turns out not to be true. The Federal deficit and national debt both increased under Reagan. Cutting taxes did not result in more revenue - at least with the increased spending that occurred under Reagen. In fact, Dick Cheney argued the 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter'.
In the last 20 years new deficit records were set by Reagan, Bush and Bush II. Only Clinton decreased the annual deficit. Obama is going to put everyone else to shame.
Tod,
I think you need to recognize why we had a surplus under Clinton, and it was two fold. First because a Republican House and Senate had a majority for the first time in 40 years, and cut spending-not enough-but they did cut. Too bad they lost their way. Second, because the wunderkind from Government Sachs, Robert Rubin, was SecTreasury and refi'd most of our deficits on a short term basis, lowering the interest paid annually. They actually did away with the 30 year T Bond, which was brought back under Bush the Younger.
The combo of those two things allowed it to look as if we had a surplus. Since Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Military, and Civil Service pensions were still carried off the books as unfunded liabilities, and their revenue was used in the General Fund, there really was no surplus, just a shell game to make it look so.
Also, the debt issued during the Clinton Administration had to be turned over after Clinton left office, and that may or may not have been at a lower rate and longer term, adding to the interest payment in future "budgets", if you want to dignify them with that name.
I'd vote for you unless you're kin to Paulson.
Lee 24, I don't think you have your history correct. When did the economy stall under Clinton? It was under Bush 1, and then again under Bush 2.
BTW: cutting taxes for the top one-half percent and raisnig it on the middle class is not tax reform. It's a country club insider game.
I'm not a fan of big government, but I do want effective government to do those things we need as a country. To have a sound defense, a solid infrastructure, and the other things that allow our way of life and economy to work, we need to pay taxes.
You don't know squat about the stimulus money and what it's doing and how closely it's being tracked. I do.
I agree with you about the banks and wall street. They are the ones that created the economic crisis, and Wall Street adds no value to the system...they just take value from it. I understand and applaude venture capital that drives innovation and new (value adding) products. But market manipulation blows I'm especially ticked at futures traders who jerk us all around.
Another BTW: The Dems didn't cause the banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers all by themselves. Everyone wanted it at the time. Look at who benefitted most: builders, developers, and banks. The money tells the tale.
Folks are telling the truth with such rapidity, I need to go lay down, or is it lie down?
Lee 24, I don't think you have your history correct. When did the economy stall under Clinton? It was under Bush 1, and then again under Bush 2.
BTW: cutting taxes for the top one-half percent and raisnig it on the middle class is not tax reform. It's a country club insider game.
I'm not a fan of big government, but I do want effective government to do those things we need as a country. To have a sound defense, a solid infrastructure, and the other things that allow our way of life and economy to work, we need to pay taxes.
You don't know squat about the stimulus money and what it's doing and how closely it's being tracked. I do.
I agree with you about the banks and wall street. They are the ones that created the economic crisis, and Wall Street adds no value to the system...they just take value from it. I understand and applaude venture capital that drives innovation and new (value adding) products. But market manipulation blows I'm especially ticked at futures traders who jerk us all around.
Another BTW: The Dems didn't cause the banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers all by themselves. Everyone wanted it at the time. Look at who benefitted most: builders, developers, and banks. The money tells the tale.
Dude, go [bleep] troll somewhere else. You are full of scheit.
That's very insightful Manny. Quite an addition to the discussion. Do you get out often?
often enough pal. I just don't waste time bandying words with liberal dumb [bleep] in these sorts of 'discussions'.
Go sell your Obamamania to some other crowd.
often enough pal. I just don't waste time bandying words with liberal dumb [bleep] in these sorts of 'discussions'.
Go sell your Obamamania to some other crowd.
Really? so what are you doing now? Bandying? Try stating something beyond name calling. you know, posit a thought...
BTW: there is no such theng as obamamania. rather it's a sigh of relief after 8-years of unbridled dangerous stupidity. I'm guessin' you liked those 8 years, huh?
a sigh of relief after 8-years of unbridled dangerous stupidity. I'm guessin' you liked those 8 years, huh?
Well a hell of a lot better than the 8 months of this marxist, who's tripled the debt, nationalized the banking and auto industry and now poised to ruin medicine, not to mention get bitch-slapped by the Russians, Iranians, Venezuelans, and not to mention leaving our troops out hanging, because he just doesn't care. Oh and did I forget about now letting homos serve in the armed forces? jorge
jorgeI,
Looking at your post and your sig line, I'm gonna take a wild guess you don't really understand all that much about how we arived at where we are, or how to get out of it.
Health care insurance has ruined itself with no help from anyone. Obama inherited the economy. And I have no clue what you're talking about with the comment about leaving the troops hanging out (were they hanging in before?), or getting bitch slapped. None of that makes any sense. In fact you post makes no sense and has no relation to reality.
If anyone left the troops hanging out it was Rummy, Cheney and Bwad. They abandonded Afghanistan, and then went into Iraq without a plan and without sufficient force to maintain the peace...so everything fell apart and lots of American lives were lost as result. GENIUS!
And exactly where do you want "homos" to serve? I say if they're willing to fight, let 'em. If they want to get married, let 'em. It's no skin off my nose. I really don't care if their gay so long as they don try to gay on me or my family. In fact, I tend to pity them a bit (altough I'm sure they don't want my pity)...their lives must be tough.
great news jorge
a hero showed up just in the nick of time to show you how your thought processes are all screwed up....give or take
I bet you're relieved.
jorgeI,
Looking at your post and your sig line, I'm gonna take a wild guess you don't really understand all that much about how we arived at where we are, or how to get out of it.
Health care insurance has ruined itself with no help from anyone. Obama inherited the economy. And I have no clue what you're talking about with the comment about leaving the troops hanging out (were they hanging in before?), or getting bitch slapped. None of that makes any sense. In fact you post makes no sense and has no relation to reality.
If anyone left the troops hanging out it was Rummy, Cheney and Bwad. They abandonded Afghanistan, and then went into Iraq without a plan and without sufficient force to maintain the peace...so everything fell apart and lots of American lives were lost as result. GENIUS!
And exactly where do you want "homos" to serve? I say if they're willing to fight, let 'em. If they want to get married, let 'em. It's no skin off my nose. I really don't care if their gay so long as they don try to gay on me or my family. In fact, I tend to pity them a bit (altough I'm sure they don't want my pity)...their lives must be tough.
Wild (and clueless) guess about covers it. Health care was ruined by years of constant government intervention with ridiculous regulations strangling the free market, and protection by many in Congress of the Trial lawyers, not to mention medicare, welfare and all the other unfunded mandates politicians heaped upon it. Obama inherited a good part of what is going on, but you forget the democraps obstructionist tactics in dealing with what precipitated this mess, the issue of Mortgage Reform. As early as 1995, quite a few Republicans from Ron Paul to John McCain and even President Bush tried in vain to control Fannie and Freddie Mae, but as usual, the democraps obstructed any reform. Even Klinton admitted as much(you know him, the dope smoking draft dodging, liar and felon don't you?).
As far as the war in Afghanistan & Iraq, we (yep, I took part in some of that) we went in there and cleaned up, but yes we went with too few troops to win and hold, but in the end, the Surge, which I am sure you were against was very successful. Afghanistan didn't go "south" until Bush left and even if it was "Bush's fault" like everything else, the marxist (obama) has been in office now for nine months. It's his war and HIS general is asking for troops and all he can do is waffle. This is now HIS economy. You know, the one he said if we do the stimulus the unemployment rate would never go above 8%?
Obama (the marxist) surrounds himself with known communists, terrorists, Mao-worshipers, "green" cooks and general 'I hate America" crowd, he's trying to turn this country into a socialist state
As far as the military and homos, er sorry "gays" they've always been there and as long as the maintained discretion nothing happened. To let them openly serve would destroy unit cohesion and morale. As far as my signature line, it fits democraps to a tee. They are willing to sell this country and our way of life to the highest bidder just as long as they gain absolute political power. obama could give a rat's ass about health care reform. All he and the democraps care about is the population addicted to the government teat and perpetual power.
Today, about 47% of the population pays no federal income tax and coupled with true socialists, marxists they will continue to bleed this country dry. jorge
Anyone with half a brain saw this coming. You can't cut taxes while increasing or even maintaining spending. We've had a deficit spending since time immemorial. No one is willing to cut spending - every administration increases it. And eventually someone has to pay.
Show me a Democratic administration except JFk's that didn't raise taxes,tax rates whatever>
Anyone with half a brain would not have voted for the most under qualified president we have ever had. Those are the words of Clinton and Biden when running against him BTW.
Look at the tax rates when JFK was president ..they were low and we had prosperity but ever since that limp dick Johnson became president with his "Great Society" we the taxpayer have been screwed..this imbecile that is currently POTUS has no clue and if his supporters don't get ousted from the senate and congress we are another Venezuela in the making.
Health care was ruined by years of constant government intervention with ridiculous regulations strangling the free market, and protection by many in Congress of the Trial lawyers, not to mention medicare, welfare and all the other unfunded mandates politicians heaped upon it.
Apparently you don't know that health care insurance was granted exclusion from regulation and has been free to screw itself up.
Obama inherited a good part of what is going on, but you forget the democraps obstructionist tactics in dealing with what precipitated this mess, the issue of Mortgage Reform. As early as 1995, quite a few Republicans from Ron Paul to John McCain and even President Bush tried in vain to control Fannie and Freddie Mae, but as usual, the democraps obstructed any reform. Even Klinton admitted as much(you know him, the dope smoking draft dodging, liar and felon don't you?).
ummm, I think you missed something here. Think about it for a minute. who benfitted most from low income mortgages. that's right, builders, developers, and bankers. There is plenty of blame to share from all sides on the brain child.
I don't recall Democrats being obstrcutionist. I do remember them being weak kneed and going along with aand caving in to bad ideas, lest they appear obstuctionsit, or weak on defense.
Afghanistan didn't go "south" until Bush left and even if it was "Bush's fault" like everything else, the marxist (obama) has been in office now for nine months. It's his war and HIS general is asking for troops and all he can do is waffle.
You've been listening to Dick Cheney, huh? dick sure don't "waffle" do he? he just goes out and does whatever dumb thing he thinks of...like peppering his pals face.
What makes you think people Hate America. That is so lame.
All he and the democraps care about is the population addicted to the government teat and perpetual power.
Wasn't it the R's with Tom Delay who tried to create to continual power machine with K Street? (yes it was.) You've got things all mixed and jumbled up.
It's a well known fact of psychology that people very often accuse others of the very thing they themselves are guilty of. I guess it's because, subliminaly, they know what they're doing is wrong, and they juset know someone else is bound to do it (just like themselves) and so they're sure the others are just as guilty as they are, so they make the accusation fully beleivieng others are just a creepy as they are.
Today, about 47% of the population pays no federal income tax and coupled with true socialists, marxists they will continue to bleed this country dry. jorge
where do you get these figures? I suppose if you include children this might be close, but you really shouldn't count them.
I don't know about Marxists "bleeding" this country but I know Mormons do in fact call it "bleeding the beast." Here in Idaho the Mormons take over the public schools so it caters to their interests and their kids. Each school has a Morman "seminary" built next to it even before ground is broken to build the school. I'll give the Catholics credit, at least they pay for their schools.
Back to the subject: you guys like to toss out terms like socialist and Marxist at the drop of a hat with no sense of whether it's appropriate or not. That emotionally driven drivel is a big part of the porblem in this country. No one puts our the effort to think for themselves, and instead are willing to be spoon fed gibberish from their favorite outlet.