# Democrats to blame if there is a shut down



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 28, 2011)

Time short, tempers flare in budget showdown - Yahoo! News

The Republican House proposed spending bills and the Democratic Senate refused all of them. And the Democrats refuse to get serious on Budget cuts.

The Republicans submitted budgets with 60 billion in cuts, the Senate Democrats rejected them and came back with a paltry 10 billion in cuts.

The House was won on a promise to CUT the budget. The House is living up to that promise while the Democrats play with fire.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 28, 2011)

Absolutely agree.  The national debt is one of the top concerns of the American people and the Democrats are continuing the same arrogant, condescending attitude they had when they were in the majority, ignoring what the people want.

On the same token, though, the Republicans aren't delivering either.  Rand Paul came up with $500 billion in cuts the GOP leadership scoffed at it.

Both parties are dicking around with us.


----------



## Lorissa (Mar 28, 2011)

So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals, but it's all the Democrats' fault for not blindly agreeing with them? That's essentially what you're saying - it's all _their_ fault for not "going along to get along."


----------



## Intense (Mar 28, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Absolutely agree.  The national debt is one of the top concerns of the American people and the Democrats are continuing the same arrogant, condescending attitude they had when they were in the majority, ignoring what the people want.
> 
> On the same token, though, the Republicans aren't delivering either.  Rand Paul came up with $500 billion in cuts the GOP leadership scoffed at it.
> 
> Both parties are dicking around with us.



Both Party's are screwing around with us. Agreed. It will be a tough road ahead.


----------



## Toro (Mar 28, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Absolutely agree.  The national debt is one of the top concerns of the American people and the Democrats are continuing the same arrogant, condescending attitude they had when they were in the majority, ignoring what the people want.
> 
> On the same token, though, the Republicans aren't delivering either.  Rand Paul came up with $500 billion in cuts the GOP leadership scoffed at it.
> 
> Both parties are dicking around with us.



The problem is that people say that they want budget cuts, they just don't want anything cut that matters.  So the politicians just play to the crowd.

Harris Interactive: Harris Polls > Cutting Government Spending May Be Popular But There Is Little Appetite For Cutting Specific Government Programs

This has to come from the ground up.  The politicians will respond if the people demand it.  But first, people have to accept that they have to pay a price in real spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the deficit, rather than expecting everyone else to feel the pain but not themselves.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 28, 2011)

Lorissa said:


> So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals, but it's all the Democrats' fault for not blindly agreeing with them? That's essentially what you're saying - it's all _their_ fault for not "going along to get along."



We are spending TWICE what we get in revenue. And the Democrats proposed 10 billion in cuts? That is the JOKE. They lost in November because they can not understand we can not keep spending trillions each year. 60 billion given the deficit is a MINOR cut. 10 Billion is an insult.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 28, 2011)

Toro said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely agree.  The national debt is one of the top concerns of the American people and the Democrats are continuing the same arrogant, condescending attitude they had when they were in the majority, ignoring what the people want.
> ...



You know.......the unions showed they were willing to work and take some cuts across the board, with the exception of collective bargaining.  That's an example of the common people wanting to help, knowing that the country is going broke.

The top 2 percent however?  They never have, and never will be, willing to look at tax hikes for the millionaires.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 28, 2011)

In my debt tracking thread have noticed a major slowdown in the debt clock since the republicans took office on January 3rd, 2011.

Prior to that we were consistently adding $100 Billion to the debt every 22 days & in December 2010 It jumped $200 Billion in just 32 days. Culminating in a $14 Trillion debt on January 3rd 2011.

But now since the republicans have taken over the House at the $14 Trillion mark on January 3rd 2011. It has taken 84 days to rack up $260 Billion more debt. That is only about $68 Billion every 22 days compared to over a $100 Billion every 22 days when the Democrats controlled the House.

Republicans have slowed the debt train down by 38%. - - - Thank You Repubs !!! 

That must be why Gold's rapid rise has slowed over this same time period.


----------



## Lorissa (Mar 28, 2011)

> The top 2 percent however? They never have, and never will be, willing to look at tax hikes for the millionaires.



The Bush-era tax cuts (2001) will cost the nation $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts were never meant to be permanent.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 28, 2011)

Big deal.....every time the Republicans take the House they shut down Government. It's the only form of compromise they know

Ask Newt


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 28, 2011)

Lorissa said:


> So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals, but it's all the Democrats' fault for not blindly agreeing with them? That's essentially what you're saying - it's all _their_ fault for not "going along to get along."



What is unreasonable about a mere $60 billion in spending cuts when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 28, 2011)

Lorissa said:


> > The top 2 percent however? They never have, and never will be, willing to look at tax hikes for the millionaires.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush-era tax cuts (2001) will cost the nation $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts were never meant to be permanent.



So why was Obama so gung ho about extending them?  Even if they were sunset as planned, it still wouldn't be near enough to cover the deficit for just this year.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 28, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Big deal.....every time the Republicans take the House they shut down Government. It's the only form of compromise they know
> 
> Ask Newt



This is a total Republican tactic. They've done it before and they want to do it again. Look for an impeachment attempt as well.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 28, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Big deal.....every time the Republicans take the House they shut down Government. It's the only form of compromise they know
> 
> Ask Newt



One time is every time?    

And I've got news for you, it's not the Republicans who are trying to shut down the government.  In fact, they've repeatedly stated they have no desire to do so.  The Democrats on the other hand, have been strongly advocating it, Schmuck Schumer in particular.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Big deal.....every time the Republicans take the House they shut down Government. It's the only form of compromise they know
> ...



That is patently false.  It is the Democrats who are calling for a government shut down.

You do realize, by the way, that a shut down isn't really a shut down.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Big deal.....every time the Republicans take the House they shut down Government. It's the only form of compromise they know
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2011)

Lorissa said:


> So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals,


How are they unreasonable?


----------



## jillian (Mar 28, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Big deal.....every time the Republicans take the House they shut down Government. It's the only form of compromise they know
> ...



That's simply untrue. Schumer just says if the loons want to shut the government, let them.

It's the tea party rightwingnuts who want to make a name for themselves by shutting down the government. They don't want government to work. They hate government. They shouldn't be running government.

It's really not that complicated an equation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2011)

Lorissa said:


> > The top 2 percent however? They never have, and never will be, willing to look at tax hikes for the millionaires.
> 
> 
> 
> The Bush-era tax cuts (2001) will cost the nation $3.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Those cuts were never meant to be permanent.


You blame The Obama for that -- right?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2011)

jillian said:


> It's the tea party rightwingnuts who want to make a name for themselves by shutting down the government. They don't want government to work. They hate government. They shouldn't be running government.


Wow...
You lie about this, you lie about your education, you lie about your credentials -- is there anythig you -won't- lie about?


----------



## jillian (Mar 28, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > It's the tea party rightwingnuts who want to make a name for themselves by shutting down the government. They don't want government to work. They hate government. They shouldn't be running government.
> ...



poor little pissant... i lie about nothing. 

you're sad and pathetic. but that's what rightwingnuts are.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2011)

jillian said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Another lie.
:roll:


----------



## jillian (Mar 28, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



how do you know when a rightwingnut is lying?


his lips are moving.

nutbar. 

go buy a bigger gun, you'll feel like you have genitals.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 28, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Lorissa said:
> 
> 
> > > The top 2 percent however? They never have, and never will be, willing to look at tax hikes for the millionaires.
> ...



I did. Did a whole thread on it. Was an excellent move politically..and terrible for the country.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2011)

jillian said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Not just a liar, but one completely devoid of original thought.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 28, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2011)

Sallow said:


> A. Our debt is entirely servicable


Yeah?  For how much longer?


----------



## Care4all (Mar 28, 2011)

KissMy said:


> In my debt tracking thread have noticed a major slowdown in the debt clock since the republicans took office on January 3rd, 2011.
> 
> Prior to that we were consistently adding $100 Billion to the debt every 22 days & in December 2010 It jumped $200 Billion in just 32 days. Culminating in a $14 Trillion debt on January 3rd 2011.
> 
> ...



But what exactly did the republicans do on January third, their first day in office to slow the debt accumulation....for the month of January?  Did they enact a law that caused this slow down? 

 Or does the debt automatically, year after year slow down in January?  Is there a trackable trend in how our debt accumulates by month year after year?  

for example, the accumulated debt ALWAYS SLOWS DOWN in the month of april because in april is when they collect our income taxes....in the month of December, debt should go up because our contractors want to close their year end books and be paid for their year's work that has not  been paid yet?

there has to be some year after year common trend for monthly debt accumulation that we can examine?

curious minds want to know!


----------



## jillian (Mar 28, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



whatever makes you feel better about being such a loser. it's all good.


----------



## Care4all (Mar 28, 2011)

well, many on this site wanted a divided government so to have GRIDLOCK and this appears to be what is happening.

the Republicans did win the majority in the House, but the Democrats did win the majority in the senate......a divided gvt.

cutting the Defense Budget, reforms for Medicare and Medicaid, and tweaking of SS are the only things that will make major impact on the budget deficits....

not knocking the effort of 60 billion in cuts from the House, though I have no idea what they cut to get this 60 billion so I reserve the right to complain later!


----------



## KissMy (Mar 28, 2011)

Care4all said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > In my debt tracking thread have noticed a major slowdown in the debt clock since the republicans took office on January 3rd, 2011.
> ...



You can find the daily debt to the penny here at: treasurydirect.gov

The repubs likely just stopped allowing the passage of crazy spending bills. Divided government worked well under Clinton & it is off to a good start now.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 28, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Your right it isnt difficult at all, the Democrats in the Senate want no cuts while the House proposed a minuscule cut of 60 billion from a 1.1 trillion dollar budget. What did the Dems offer? 10 billion.

You ARE the loon if you think the American people elected Republicans in record numbers for no cuts. IF the Government shuts down it will be because the lame duck Democrats refuse to get real on cuts. Something the American people were clear about wanting in November.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 28, 2011)

jillian said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....

I prefer a point to discuss; so, do you think say, 60 billion dollars is to much to cut from the rest of the years budget? 

Do you have a counter offer?

Do you know how much we are borrowing each and every day?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 28, 2011)

jillian said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...


Yes - this is -clearly- rhetoric typical of someone with a BA and JD.



It's not MY fault you don't exhibit the qualities of a person educated past the third grade.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 28, 2011)

Trajan said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



Of course the Liberals do not have a proposal, they think they can force a shut down and then blame the Republicans and KEEP spending like there is no tomorrow.

The Republicans offered 60 billion in cuts from a 1.1 trillion dollar budget.  They should ask for more. The democrats want no cuts so offered a paltry 10 billion. And Jillian and company have the gall to claim the Republicans are being loons.

The American people want cuts that was the entire reason the Democrats lost so many seats in both the House AND the Senate.

The Republicans need to start a public education program, they need to start advertising that all they ask for was 60 billion and the dems refused even that small cut. They need to get the word out so if the Dems insist on shutting down the Government every knows who caused it.


----------



## Care4all (Mar 28, 2011)

the republicans should ADVERTISE what programs they plan to cut to the public....i agree...


----------



## Care4all (Mar 28, 2011)

the democrats don't want a shutdown....RGS.....  they never want gvt to be shut down, they love our gvt too much.....and the gvt spending that goes with it, so the Republicans used to say....  and now you seem to be changing your tune on that to cover up the tea party members that have told the GOP that they ain't gonna compromise anymore, ''if that results in a gvt shutdown, then so be it.''  you did read the link provided on that in the military would not get paid thread, didn't you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 29, 2011)

Care4all said:


> the democrats don't want a shutdown....RGS.....  they never want gvt to be shut down, they love our gvt too much.....and the gvt spending that goes with it, so the Republicans used to say....  and now you seem to be changing your tune on that to cover up the tea party members that have told the GOP that they ain't gonna compromise anymore, ''if that results in a gvt shutdown, then so be it.''  you did read the link provided on that in the military would not get paid thread, didn't you?



What part of only a 60 billion cut don't you understand? More to the point the Senate only offered 10 billion. 10 billion from a 1.1 trillion dollar budget. What part of we CAN NOT afford to keep borrowing don't you get? What part of " the American people elected Republicans to cut spending " don't you get.

As for specifics? Guess what? Those bills were available to the public to see what cuts were in them.

Once again the democrats are not in charge anymore, the House is run by the Republicans and the Senate is barely in Democratic control. The Democrats were voted out because they were spending like drunken sailors on shore leave. What part of ELECTIONS have consequences don't you understand?

The MERE fact the dems think they can get away with only offering 10 billion in cuts and that YOU support them blindly as they keep spending money we FUCKING don't have, is proof enough who the hell the loons are.

Once again JUST for you, YOUR party thinks they can get away with out cutting the budget and then blaming any shut down on Republicans doing the will of the people.

And YOU defend them.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 29, 2011)

Actually.......I want companies like GE to pay their fair share.

I mean......they earned 14.6 Billion, and got a tax credit for 3.5 Billion.

I earned 17,000 bucks last year.  I still owe the government.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 29, 2011)

woa..  right wingers blaming democrats for something?


STOP THE PRESS!


----------



## jillian (Mar 29, 2011)

Trajan said:


> hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....
> 
> I prefer a point to discuss; so, do you think say, 60 billion dollars is to much to cut from the rest of the years budget?
> 
> ...



yes... i do know. which is why is was such an absurd move to continue the bush tax cuts. 

also, the cuts they're making all target the middle class. none of it targets corporations and the wealthy. (and no, i'm not interested in hearing them called job creators because if they were job creators, the tax cuts, which have been in effect for more than 10 years, would already have worked).

to me the drumbeat of the freshmen is to do exactly what was said years ago... starve government until you can drown it in a bathtub.

until you have a dialogue about military spending, we are going to run on deficits. i also don't think it's appropriate to cut budgets and taxes in the face of a fragile recovery. i also think it's clear that there's an agenda there, because it helps the repubs in 2012 if unemployment is still high.

does that make me a cynic? i don't know. i think it makes me a realist.

and visceral? maybe.


----------



## Care4all (Mar 29, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > the democrats don't want a shutdown....RGS.....  they never want gvt to be shut down, they love our gvt too much.....and the gvt spending that goes with it, so the Republicans used to say....  and now you seem to be changing your tune on that to cover up the tea party members that have told the GOP that they ain't gonna compromise anymore, ''if that results in a gvt shutdown, then so be it.''  you did read the link provided on that in the military would not get paid thread, didn't you?
> ...



no, I think the Democrats want to CUT THE DEFENSE BUDGET, and they are playing moves to get that to take place.

the total defense budget has risen from 290 billion in 2000, to $850 BILLION PLUS, a year.....

and it is what is the major thorn in the side, that caused most of our National debt, thus far.

Yes, the Democrats and Obama did get blamed by the voice box, for spending on tarp and the gm bail out and the entire recession.....even though it was a build up and occurred under the Bush reign...including the bail out for gm....it was president bush that went around congress and began that bail out....

I realize facts may not matter to you.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 29, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....
> ...



how are we supposed to "have a dialogue" about military spending with obie wan running around unilaterally starting wars in the middle east? pray sistah tell us how?


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 29, 2011)

Care4all said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...



obie wan has three wars going now,, and now you want to gut military spending? Kool beans.


----------



## Care4all (Mar 29, 2011)

850,000 millions  A YEAR, is too much money....even if there were 10 wars going on!


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 29, 2011)

Care4all said:


> 850,000 millions  A YEAR, is too much money....even if there were 10 wars going on!



then you mights needs to tell him to stop his wars,,but he won't, he's a war mongerer.


----------



## WillowTree (Mar 29, 2011)

I remember when President Bush was in office, the hypocrites screamed over each piece of equipment the soldiers didn't have, now they want to take it all away from them now that they izz war mongerers, soldiers can shoot spit balls.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 29, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> I remember when President Bush was in office, the hypocrites screamed over each piece of equipment the soldiers didn't have, now they want to take it all away from them now that they izz war mongerers, soldiers can shoot spit balls.



Don't we still have a military strength larger than the next ten nations combined?


----------



## Intense (Mar 29, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > I remember when President Bush was in office, the hypocrites screamed over each piece of equipment the soldiers didn't have, now they want to take it all away from them now that they izz war mongerers, soldiers can shoot spit balls.
> ...



You are very wrong about that.


----------



## Intense (Mar 29, 2011)

GlobalFirepower.com: Strength in Numbers 

History and Warfare
If history has shown the observer one thing, it is that war follows man like a shadow. According to one source, documented history has recorded an estimated 300 years of known peace on our planet - leaving thousands of years open to conflicts of varying degrees. Interestingly enough, this mostly unknown fact forces us to recognize that there has been some source of conflict - be it religious, ethnic, territorial or otherwise - between two or more groups on our planet on a consistent basis for thousands of years. 

GlobalFirepower.com (GFP)
GFP provides a unique analytical display of information covering nations from around the world with statistics based on various public sources. Countries covered include the major global players prominent in today's international landscape along with other smaller nations making the news - this spectrum helping to produce a broad comparison of military strengths from across the globe. This is a personal and experimental site meant for entertainment and to stir up dialogue.

Things You Should Know
The user should note that nuclear capability is not taken into account. This listing is purely a "numbers game" meant to spark debate and including such game-changers as nuclear weapons would clearly defeat the purpose of such an experiment. In any case, most any nation going to war would more than likely refrain from using such destructive warfare being that since the atomic bombs dropped in 1945, no nation has utilized this form of warfare for at least 60+ years despite there being a good amount of conflicts since then and more nuclear powers at play in the world. If there is a World War 3, it will most likely still be of the conventional sort. 

The comparisons here are for consideration in a "straight-up" war based solely on a nation's capabilities from land, sea and through the air with other statistics covering the logistical and financial aspects of waging such a campaign. Statistic sources and years are stated whenever possible. Some statistics may be estimated if concrete numbers are not available.

Final Thoughts
It goes without saying that lists such can be completely subjective, though the GFP intention is to be wholly unbiased. No list could ever offer a proper display of accurate military firepower unless one had a full-time staff researching these numbers daily with many connections to these world governments. This listing is updating approximately once every 12 months based on new (if any) information garnered from various print and online sources. 

The GFP final ranking is based on an in-house formula used to generate an average of all applicable statistics found on this website when compared against each country with applicable modifiers (bonuses and penalties) added to each nations score to present a more accurate list. The last major statistics review was in February of 2009. The GFP ranking list was updated in May of 2009. Changes to the list now include factors for current/recent military experiences, training levels and equipment quality. Denmark, South Africa and Georgia are new-adds bringing the country total to 42 nations.

Enjoy the numbers! It is hardly a super-accurate scientific measurement of military strengths but still entertaining to consider at the very least.

World Military Strength Ranking


----------



## Trajan (Mar 29, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 29, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....
> ...



Getting rid of government........wouldn't that make them anarchists?

And......you're right.......the Bush Jr. tax cuts have had a full decade to prove if they worked or not.  Its readily apparent to even the most casual observer they didn't.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 29, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > 850,000 millions  A YEAR, is too much money....even if there were 10 wars going on!
> ...



Speaking of war mongers.....wanna talk about Newt and McStupid?  When Libya first came out they both said we needed a no fly zone.

Then, after Obama did it, they did a complete 180 and said we should stay out of Libya because we had no national interests there.

Now?  They're giving grudging support but still state they are against it.

Yeah.....sure.......Obama is the "war monger"/sarcasm.


----------



## kwc57 (Mar 29, 2011)

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Edumacation is a onerful thang! Unilateral - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....
> ...


Didn't you mean that it "was such an absurd move - *for Obama *- to continue the Bush tax cuts"?

No surprise that you left that part out - admitting to the truth would require you to criticize your secular messiah.



> Until you have a dialogue about military spending, we are going to run on deficits.


Until you have a dialogue about entitlement spending, we are going to run much larger deficits


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 29, 2011)

Actually, Obama wanted to stop the tax cuts.  It's the GOP that stopped him and forced a compromise.

I'm still wondering why I have to pay taxes, and GE not only owed NOTHING, but they also got a 3.5 BILLION dollar tax credit.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 29, 2011)

jillian said:


> It's the tea party rightwingnuts who want to make a name for themselves by shutting down the government. They don't want government to work. They hate government. They shouldn't be running government.
> 
> It's really not that complicated an equation.



Is Howard Dean a tea party right wing nut?

NationalJournal.com - Howard Dean: Democrats Should Be 'Quietly Rooting' for Shutdown - Tuesday, March 29, 2011


----------



## Sallow (Mar 29, 2011)

Intense said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > WillowTree said:
> ...



Yeah..its probably more like all the nations, combined.

This country could destroy all life on the planet..many times over.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2011)

Care4all said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Care4all said:
> ...


Defense spending FY2000: $295B
Defense spending FY2009:  $655B
*Increase, defense spending, FY2000-2009: $360B, 122%*

Entitlement spending FY2000: $1031B
Entitlement spending FY2008: $1788B
Entitlement spending FY2009: $2288B
*Increase, entitlement spending, FY2000-2009: $1257B, 122%*

Increase, entitlement spenidng, FY2008-2009: $500B
Increase, defense spending, FY2000-2009: $360B
*The increase in entitlement spending -- in one year --- is 140% the increase in defense spending over 10 years.*

But, defense spending causes the defecits and runs up the debt.


http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/AppendixF.shtml


----------



## Sallow (Mar 29, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, Obama wanted to stop the tax cuts.  It's the GOP that stopped him and forced a compromise.
> 
> I'm still wondering why I have to pay taxes, and GE not only owed NOTHING, but they also got a 3.5 BILLION dollar tax credit.



No he didn't.

Especially after the mid terms.

Politically it would have been bad for him to increase taxes during a recovery.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, Obama wanted to stop the tax cuts.  It's the GOP that stopped him and forced a compromise.


Your spin doesn't hold up to the facts.

The tax cuts had to be extended by an act of Congress.

-The Dem-controlled house, at The Omama's urging, chose to pass a bill that extended them.
-The Dem-controlled senate, at The Obama's urging, chose to pass a bill that extended them.
-The Obama then chose to sign them into law.

:shrug:


----------



## Sallow (Mar 29, 2011)

Trajan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 29, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 29, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 29, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> For every dollar you give the top 2 percent in tax cuts, it generates 1.03 on the economy.
> 
> For every dollar you give for the unemployed, the poor, and the middle class, it generates 1.63 on the economy.
> 
> Repeal the Bush Jr. tax cuts.



What did the unemployed, poor, or middle class do to earn that money?


----------



## Intense (Mar 29, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



World Military Strength Ranking


----------



## Intense (Mar 29, 2011)

U.S. Arms Transfers: Government Data 
Recent News | FAS Resources | Other Databases | Reports 


American arms manufacturers have two major channels through which they can sell major weaponry to foreign countries: foreign military sales ("FMS"), in which a government-to-government agreement is negotiated by the Pentagon; and direct commercial sales ("DCS"), in which industry negotiates directly with the purchasing country and must apply for a license from the State Department.

The United States government also transfers arms to other countries by giving away weapons from U.S.military stocks for free or at greatly reduced prices, classified as excess defense articles (EDA) or emergency "drawdowns." The United States also provides military training to many foreign countries. These transfers are also managed by the Defense Department. For more information about types of U.S.arms transfers, read the "Ways and Means" chapter of The Arms Trade Revealed.

&#8226;Reporting on Exported Articles and Services Needs to Be Improved, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 21 September 2010.
&#8226;"What is the "Total Package Approach"?," DSCA Director's Blog, 6 October 2009. 
&#8226;Defense Trade Data, U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO-06-319r, January 2006.
&#8226;Congressional Reports and DSCA Reports Control System, Appendix Five, Security Assistance Management Manual, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, U.S. Department of Defense. January 2006.
Recent News

&#8226;Section 655 Report on Direct Commercial Sales Authorizations for Fiscal Year 2009, March 2011
&#8226;"Documents Obtained by FAS Shed New Light on US Arms Transfers," Strategic Security Blog, 25 February 2011.
&#8226;"Agreements with and Deliveries to Major Clients, 2002-2009," Congressional Research Service, 20 December 2010.
&#8226;"Major U.S. Arms Sales and Grants to Pakistan Since 2001," Congressional Research Service, updated 4 january 2011.
&#8226;"DSCA Releases FY2010 Sales Figures," Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 10 November 2010.
&#8226;"Pentagon plans $60 billion weapons sale to Saudi Arabia," Washington Post, 21 October 2010.
&#8226;Historical Facts Book, U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, October 2010.
&#8226;U.S. Agencies Need to Improve Licensing Data and to Document Reviews of Arms Transfers for U.S. Foreign Policy and National Security Goals, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 28 September 2010.
&#8226;Reporting on Exported Articles and Services Needs to Be Improved, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 21 September 2010.
&#8226;"Report reveals $11.7 billion in arms deliveries in 2009, but sheds little light on individual exports," Federation of American Scientists, 16 August 2010. 
&#8226;"U.S. Saudi Sale May Have 84 F-15s, Total $30 Billion,"  Bloomberg, 22 July 2010. 
&#8226;"U.S. Defense Department sold more than $15 billion in arms in the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2009, report reveals,"  FAS Issue Brief, 23 April 2010. 
&#8226;"Eight Recommendations for Improving Transparency in US Arms Transfers,"  FAS Issue Brief, 8 January 2010. 
&#8226;"Record High Foreign Military Sales,"  DSCA Director's Blog, 22 October 2009. 
FAS Databases

&#8226;Database on Small Arms Shipments from the US, 1990-2000. US State Department data (obtained under the Freedom of Information Act) on commercial small arms shipments. Searchable by couuntry, region and year. 
&#9702;"A Guide to the US Small Arms Market, Industry, and Exports, 1998-2004 by Tamar Gabelnick, Maria Haug, and Lora Lumpe, Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper 19.

Federation of American Scientists :: U.S. Arms Transfers: Government Data


----------



## The T (Mar 29, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Time short, tempers flare in budget showdown - Yahoo! News
> 
> The Republican House proposed spending bills and the Democratic Senate refused all of them. And the Democrats refuse to get serious on Budget cuts.
> 
> ...


 
I see another CR coming...and this had better be the LAST ONE. Otherwise?

_Shut it DOWN except Constitutionally mandated tasks._

_*Seriously*_


----------



## Trajan (Mar 29, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## Trajan (Mar 29, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 1, 2011)

I know where there's more than $700 Billion available...


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 2, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lorissa said:
> 
> 
> > So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals, but it's all the Democrats' fault for not blindly agreeing with them? That's essentially what you're saying - it's all _their_ fault for not "going along to get along."
> ...



Now we have the old dimbulb acting like the 61 billion cut proposed was in any way significant. Those cuts were all concerning ideological goals, none of which had anything to do with real attemps to balance the budget.

To balance the budget, we are going to have to not only cut spending, but also increase revenue. Time to get big business off of the government subsidy tit. Make a real corperate tax of 25%. You have $100 in profits, you pay $25 in tax. Put a real tax on the wealthy. Those making $1,000,000 or more pay 40%. No deducts.

Mortgage deducts only on homes $500,000 or less. 

Cut all overseas military bases except those with heavy lift capabilities. Appoint a committee to oversee military spending the same way that the WPA spending was overseen.

Cancel all the Bush tax cuts. Including those for the middle class. Those of us that are working can afford them. Those that are not, aren't middle class anymore.

Without real tough action, involving all of us, this whole Teabagger routine is a fucking sham. Real deficit solution will require both spending cuts and tax increases. Doing it all on either side of the ledger is a fantasy.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 2, 2011)

We are to the place where we are blaming the government shutdown on some group before the sutdown has even come.  The games being played is appalling.  The Shumer open mike showed us that.


Obama's quote from campaigning , "I will cut the deficit in Half" says it all.  He had no intentions of doing such thing.  The closest he came was freezing government salaries.

He increased the deficit and is no way helping this crisis, but acerbating it by spending more.

The Democrats thinks the have the Republicans where they want them and we haven't heard from Boehner on this issue talk to the people.  We want some leadership from somewhere!  They had better not be weak on this.  It's showing their stripes as well.


----------



## Old Rocks (Apr 3, 2011)

The T said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Time short, tempers flare in budget showdown - Yahoo! News
> ...



Yes, by God, Yes, that worked so well for Newtie. I mean we have this recovery going, and it it continues to drop the unemployment, folks might get comfortable, and re-elect the President. So just shut the government down and blame it on Obama. That really worked well for Gingrinch with Clinton, didn't it?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 3, 2011)

Toro said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely agree.  The national debt is one of the top concerns of the American people and the Democrats are continuing the same arrogant, condescending attitude they had when they were in the majority, ignoring what the people want.
> ...



Yep like drill baby drill but not in front of my beach front home.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 4, 2011)

Talk about games;

*House passes 'force of law' budget bill*

WASHINGTON, April 1 (UPI) -- The GOP-led U.S. House Friday narrowly passed a "force of law" bill that would make an earlier spending bill law without Senate or White House action

Wow, gamesmaship and Party over Country is all one can expect from the GOP...that and an increase in the wealth gap.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 4, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> Talk about games;
> 
> *House passes 'force of law' budget bill*
> 
> ...


You passed, civics 101, right?
Expalin how this can happen.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 5, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > Talk about games;
> ...



I did, did the Republican members of the House?  They are the ones confused on the Constitutional separation of power...but they misrepresent the Constitution habitually so I suppose I understand why you don't think it's a big deal that theyve done it again.

It's too bad people are calloused to the GOP.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 5, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...


I dont see your explanation as to how this can happen...


----------



## Dark Starscream (Apr 5, 2011)

KissMy said:


> In my debt tracking thread have noticed a major slowdown in the debt clock since the republicans took office on January 3rd, 2011.
> 
> Prior to that we were consistently adding $100 Billion to the debt every 22 days & in December 2010 It jumped $200 Billion in just 32 days. Culminating in a $14 Trillion debt on January 3rd 2011.
> 
> ...



You do realize that this year's budget was made last year while Democrats were in power, right?

You should be saying "Thank you, DEMS!"


----------



## Polk (Apr 5, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Absolutely agree.  The national debt is one of the top concerns of the American people and the Democrats are continuing the same arrogant, condescending attitude they had when they were in the majority, ignoring what the people want.
> 
> On the same token, though, the Republicans aren't delivering either.  Rand Paul came up with $500 billion in cuts the GOP leadership scoffed at it.
> 
> Both parties are dicking around with us.



The national debt is an issue a lot of people say they care about, but have absolutely no interest in doing anything about.


----------



## Polk (Apr 5, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Lorissa said:
> 
> 
> > So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals, but it's all the Democrats' fault for not blindly agreeing with them? That's essentially what you're saying - it's all _their_ fault for not "going along to get along."
> ...



Which has much more to do with declining revenue than increasing spending.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 6, 2011)

> I dont see your explanation as to how this can happen...



I really don't know how the GOP could have passed such ridiculous legislation.  I'll agree with you that it shows their utter lack of Constitutional knowledge and their preference for their Party over their country, both standard Republican values on display...again.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 6, 2011)

> Which has much more to do with declining revenue than increasing spending.



Declining revenue has more to do with declining revenue than increased spending...by definition.

Let's increase our revenue AND cut spending.  Wow, what an idea!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 6, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Because Cantor is stupid.

He's the idiot teabagger who never watched Schoolhouse Rock about how a bill becomes a law.  He stated PUBLICLY AT A NEWS CONFERENCE that if moves were not taken, the expiration date of the force of law would make it automatically the law of the land, totally bypassing the Senate and the President.

What's more......there are some idiots in the GOP that are doubling down on Cantor's stupidity.

And..........the tea baggers are starting to turn agains Boehner, so he's got a power struggle going on with Cantor.............

Finally..........Trump the Chump is taking second in the GOP straw polls, actually beating serious candidates.  Trump is going to do to the GOP what Palin did for McCain's campaign, in other words.......tank it.

I've got a feeling the GOP is gonna really fracture in around 6 months to a year.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...


Still waiting for that explanation.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 6, 2011)

> Still waiting for that explanation.



Because more Republicans voted in favor of its passing than there were Democrats opposed to its passing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > Still waiting for that explanation.
> 
> 
> Because more Republicans voted in favor of its passing than there were Democrats opposed to its passing.


Oh.  
Well, then, why doesn't - every- bill passed by any majority automatically by-pass the Senate and the White House, and automatically become law?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 6, 2011)

This is what the idiots in DC are arguing over


----------



## Yurt (Apr 6, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



you obviously never read warren buffet and his uber billionaire/millinaire friends saying raise taxes on them....i think there was quite a bit of them

next seek facts before speaking


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 6, 2011)

The uber rich haven't paid in a cent more than their lawyers and tax accountants said they had to.

However, the unions are quite ready to take cuts NOW to save the state budget.


----------



## Yurt (Apr 6, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> The uber rich haven't paid in a cent more than their lawyers and tax accountants said they had to.
> 
> However, the unions are quite ready to take cuts NOW to save the state budget.



thats not what you said...you said they have never been willing to "look" at tax hikes...that is not true

further, your analogy is completely false.  because the rich, like buffet, gates, etc....give BILLIONS of their wealth to charity and various causes.  

don't hate the rich with a blind passion, it will only cause you to be ignorant like you've been so far


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 6, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> The uber rich haven't paid in a cent more than their lawyers and tax accountants said they had to.


Neither has anyone else.



> However, the unions are quite ready to take cuts NOW to save the state budget.


Given the costs they create for the state, that's only fair.


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 7, 2011)

Lorissa said:


> So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals, but it's all the Democrats' fault for not blindly agreeing with them? That's essentially what you're saying - it's all _their_ fault for not "going along to get along."



Actually the Dems are to blame for not passing the budget last year.


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 7, 2011)

jillian said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > hummmm....sounds kind of visceral to me.....
> ...



Adding this war in Libya at 100 million per day, will make it kind of hard to cut military spending. 
LIBYAN WAR COSTING YOU $100 MILLION PER DAY « The Burning Platform


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 7, 2011)

M14 Shooter said:


> Nic_Driver said:
> 
> 
> > > Still waiting for that explanation.
> ...



It appears games are all we can expect from the GOP _and_ its supporters.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 7, 2011)

> (and no, i'm not interested in hearing them called job creators because if they were job creators, the tax cuts, which have been in effect for more than 10 years, would already have worked



Demand creates jobs, not corporations or tax cuts.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has been telling this whopper over and over again, in one form or another: "Cutting the federal deficit will create jobs."

It's not true. Cutting the deficit will create fewer jobs. Less government spending reduces overall demand.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2011)

Let the fucking government partially shut down for a few days.  So the fuck what.

It just might show you fucking sheep that we don't need government as much as you think we do.


----------



## Claudette (Apr 7, 2011)

I don't care if it shuts down either. 

My State Govt is up and running just fine.


----------



## Nic_Driver (Apr 7, 2011)

> don't hate the rich with a blind passion, it will only cause you to be ignorant like you've been so far



It's interesting to note the 61 billion the GOP wants to cut from the budget is about what would have been brought in from the quarter of a million club with a return to pre-Bush tax rates.

No hate, just facts...weird though don't you think?  The poor are being asked to make up for the wealthy's windfall.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 7, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> Let the fucking government partially shut down for a few days.  So the fuck what.
> 
> It just might show you fucking sheep that we don't need government as much as you think we do.



Anyone here remember the last shutdown?  I do, I was serving on active duty in the US Navy at the time.

Not only did it prove to be a horrible strategy for the Republicans (they lost heavily in the following elections), but it also turned out bad for the taxpayer...........

The last shutdown cost the taxpayer 1.4 Billion dollars.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 7, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Nic_Driver said:
> ...


I see that you cannot actually answer the question with anything of substance.
Perhaps that should be a signal to you.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 7, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > (and no, i'm not interested in hearing them called job creators because if they were job creators, the tax cuts, which have been in effect for more than 10 years, would already have worked
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes more money left untaxed in the hands of income earners will leave those folks with more money to spend on their own.  So then jobs are created.

Or is your arguement that only government spending creates jobs, and not private sector spending?


----------



## theHawk (Apr 7, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Let the fucking government partially shut down for a few days.  So the fuck what.
> ...



Which is why Repubs don't want a shutdown, the Dems do.  Anything to harm our nation, especially the troops, is always supported by Dems.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 7, 2011)

theHawk said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Hey stupid.....it's the teabaggers in the GOP that are at the Capitol chanting "shut it down".  Interesting how the GOP says they don't in their press conferences, yet when the teabaggers show up, they're down with 'em chanting and saying shut it down.

Nothing like being a hypocrite, eh?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Let the fucking government partially shut down for a few days.  So the fuck what.
> ...



It didn't affect me at all.  i still went to work and paid my bills.

Maybe the fucking idiots in DC should try doing that.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 7, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Yeah......and the military had to go 3 weeks without a paycheck, yet we were still required to show up for work.

I'm guessing you've never served, have ya?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 7, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



You get meals and a place to sleep.  If you can't get by for a couple weeks without a paycheck that's your own poor planning.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 7, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



If you've got a family (which most people do) you're screwed.  What next, you gonna tell me that a family wasn't issued to you, so therefore people shouldn't marry while on active duty in the military?

You are a stupid piece of shit.  Why the fuck do you have a CAG-7 squadron patch as your avatar if you're gonna make stupid comments like that?


----------



## Meister (Apr 7, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



ABS, don't be questioning another persons service record unless you have absolute proof.  Skull deserves all the respect for his service, as you do.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 7, 2011)

Yeah......telling servicemembers to suck hind tit is a sure fire way to prove you've served, eh?

And......FWIW........I wask ASKING if he served because he'd stated that it doesn't matter if the gov't shuts down, because the military gives you room and board.

If he actually had, he'd know the wrongness of that statement.


----------



## ogibillm (Apr 7, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



not everyone earning a paycheck with their military service is provided such things.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 7, 2011)

Sallow said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


----------



## blu (Apr 7, 2011)

Toro said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Absolutely agree.  The national debt is one of the top concerns of the American people and the Democrats are continuing the same arrogant, condescending attitude they had when they were in the majority, ignoring what the people want.
> ...



there is no need for tax increases. end the wars, reduce military spending by half, end medicare and phase out social security for people under 40.

problem solved.


----------



## Essencial (Apr 7, 2011)

They are all at fault.The Democrates for their social programs.The Republicans for their big money.The tea party wants to take over the IRS.Send it to India.This will be a big mistake as they won't be able to handle it.It breaks my heart that the troops won't get paid.People are being labled with essencial and non essencial jobs.If the nonessencial jobs are not occupied the work will not get done.There is no such thing as a non essencial government job.The Congress seems to be non essencial at this time as they arn't doing any thing.I pray to the God I am not to mention as it may offend someone.Our Great country is on the road to ruin if something isn't done about this.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



So you have a family stop whining.  that was your choice and if you can't save a little bit of money for an emergency that's your fault not mine.

I've gone without a paycheck for a while because of a fire where I used to work but I had some money put aside for emergencies and got by on that.

So it seems to me you're the dumb fuck because you have no plan to take care of yourself or your family other than living paycheck to paycheck.

And it's a VA 34 patch.  My Dad was a Navy pilot and was shot down in Nam not that it's any of your business.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 8, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Doesn't negate the fact that people should be able to get by for a couple weeks even if their paychecks are held up temporarily.

Anyone who can't doesn't know how to be responsible with their money and that's not anyone's fault but theirs.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 8, 2011)

The Republican House passed the Defense bill. The Senate refuses to act on it and Obama said he would veto it. Sure sounds like any short comings for the military rest squarely on the Dems shoulders.


----------



## Bill Angel (Apr 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Let the fucking government partially shut down for a few days.  So the fuck what.
> ...



If the Government functions are shut down, it will be disruptive to corporate as well as to government activities.
I wonder how many executives at American corporations are currently thinking that if they outsource more of their manufacturing jobs to China (and office jobs to India) they can avoid having their corporate activities disrupted by the services they need the government to perform in order to keep their businesses running smoothly and profitably. 
After all, there will never be a threat of the government shutting down in Communist China


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 8, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Actually, as a first class petty officer in the Navy, the most I've ever pulled down for pay is 37,000/yr, and that was with special qualification pays that totaled to roughly 250/month.

Most people are at the E-5 level and below, and many of those who are at the E3/E4 level who are married DO live paycheck to paycheck.  

Like I said......you have no idea of how the enlisted of the military actually live.

And yes, I know it's a VA-34 patch, they are part of CAG-7, which is the same CAG that VFA-131 Wildcats belonged to when I was stationed with them.

So, based on your response, your parent served, but you never did.  Good to know that you're clueless because of your ignorance and not your idiocy.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 8, 2011)

ABikerSailor said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



My Dad died in service to his country so As far as I'm concerned I don't owe this country shit.


----------



## The T (Apr 8, 2011)

Skull Pilot said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...


 
Don't sweat it 'Bro.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 14, 2011)

Lorissa said:


> So the Republicans submit unreasonable proposals, but it's all the Democrats' fault for not blindly agreeing with them? That's essentially what you're saying - it's all _their_ fault for not "going along to get along."


Yep, dimwits fault. For two years they told the repubs go along or not and pushed the biggest socialistic grab of power in the history of the US, obamaturdcare. Now they are crying and lying to make them look good, too late, they already look like cry babies, idiots.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Apr 14, 2011)

Sallow said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Big deal.....every time the Republicans take the House they shut down Government. It's the only form of compromise they know
> ...


No, it is a dimwit tactic to make the repubs look bad. Impeachment? OH YES!


----------



## The T (Apr 16, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
And the O..._will be..._


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 18, 2011)

Nic_Driver said:


> > don't hate the rich with a blind passion, it will only cause you to be ignorant like you've been so far
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Which is less than 1% of the deficit. Taxing the evil, filthy rich won't out a scratch in reducing the deficit. BTW Obama defines rich as someone making 250k or more year.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Apr 18, 2011)

Considering that the wealthy (top 2 percent) are paying taxes at around the same rate they did in the 1950's while the rest of us have seen an increase SINCE the 1950's, yeah......I'd say the rich are getting away with it.

And......what's even worse........they want to reduce it from 35 percent down to 25 percent.

If the wealthy aren't making out like bandits, wanna tell me why they've seen a 236 percent increase in their income while the rest of us have only seen 11 percent increase?

And.........don't tell me its so they will create jobs.......they're too busy shipping them to China and India.


----------

