# House Passes 1.1 Trillion With 5,000 Earmarks? Say it Ain't So



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

Congress passed a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill.  Has 5,000 in earmarks, what was Obama campaigning about earmarks?
I guess it's "Same as it always was" type of politics.  Where's the change?

A $1.1 trillion spending bill laced with budget increases and more than 5,000 congressional pet projects passed the House on Thursday amid criticism from Republicans and watchdog groups.
The package  which combines six annual spending bills into one  includes $447 billion in operating expenses, with an average increase of 10%, and more than $600 billion for Medicare and Medicaid.

It was approved 221 to 202 and now moves to the Senate. No House Republicans voted for the bill, and 28 Democrats broke with their party to oppose it
Earmarks 'robust' in House $1T spending bill - USATODAY.com


----------



## Claudette (Dec 11, 2009)

Change you can believe in doncha know.


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

Claudette said:


> Change you can believe in doncha know.



With the economy in the state that it is, I just can't believe that Congress can't control themselves.  It does speak volumes of how out of touch the DC crowd really is.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 11, 2009)

And no earmarks for Republicans in it?

Just what is an earmark anyway?  Considering the stimulus plan most anything in there can be considered an earmark.


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> And no earmarks for Republicans in it?
> 
> Just what is an earmark anyway?  Considering the stimulus plan most anything in there can be considered an earmark.



 I'm not going to do your homework for you, UScitizen.  Look up the definition yourself, I've done it plenty of times.  But, in the economical environment we're facing, with increases in debt...this ain't the time for earmarks.  Also, Obama campaigned against earmarks stuck in bills like this.  I guess Congress didn't get the message.
No republicans voted for the bill, but if they had earmarks in it, they are no better than the democrats.


----------



## Vel (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Congress passed a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill.  Has 5,000 in earmarks, what was Obama campaigning about earmarks?
> I guess it's "Same as it always was" type of politics.  Where's the change?
> 
> A $1.1 trillion spending bill laced with budget increases and more than 5,000 congressional pet projects passed the House on Thursday amid criticism from Republicans and watchdog groups.
> ...





If anyone was wondering just how Nancy was able to pass her health care takeover bill, well now you know. And look...the addition of 600 billion to Medicare. Hmmm... Do they really think the public is so stupid that they won't understand that particular back door deal?


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

Vel6377 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Congress passed a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill.  Has 5,000 in earmarks, what was Obama campaigning about earmarks?
> ...



Excellent point, Vel.  I'm starting to feel good about next years election, there will be some major changes going against the democrats, I believe.


----------



## Claudette (Dec 11, 2009)

Gotta agree Meister. The Dems are committing suicide with this Healthcare, Crap and Trade and the green agenda  bs. I think they will be paying for it big time in the future.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2009)




----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


>



You didn't address Obama's campaign promise.
What ever happened to the "Hope and Change" jingle?


Projects, known as earmarks, are inserted into annual budget bills at the request of members. Stephen Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense said his organization identified *5,224 earmarks in the bill worth about $3.9 billion.*
Earmarks 'robust' in House $1T spending bill - USATODAY.com

3.9 billion is not chump change, BFGRN


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> With the economy in the state that it is, I just can't believe that Congress can't control themselves.



Why is it hard to believe?  The American people won't hold them accountable for it so of course they're going to do it.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 11, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


>



Are we to assume from your post that throwing away billions of dollars in money we don't have is perfectly OK with you?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 11, 2009)

the CATO institute!....ouch.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 11, 2009)

I have a question and this is a respecful question for all those who voted for President Obama keeping in mind, I have a daughter who I am very proud of who voted for President Obama as well.  During the campaign,  President Obama  brought many young people, and  old and  , those of color, together on the promise of change to Washington D.C.  That change included, openness, getting rid of paid lobbyists, and yes earmarks or pork spending, just to name a few.  All these things  I will admit to you as a Republican held great appeal to me especially someone who has long thought the DoD was in dire need of  all those things.  However, all that said, do you think now that the house and senate have gone on a year long spending  binge  for everything, from turtle tunnels, studying  mice  and my personal favorite is the one in SC where they used Stimulus money to hire someone to locate more Stimulus money.  Does all this and with the latest thing, and the things to come, square with all those campaign promises that so many thought would finally change  Washington for the better? or do you think that congress, has basically ignored the Presidents  campaign promises and  used his election as an excuse to ram through everything they please?  I have my thoughts on the matter, and  as most of you know,  I am one that will tell you point blank when I say congress I make no distinction between republican or democrat, past  or present.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the CATO institute!....ouch.



LOL, thanks I love that.

Not even from but one of the premere conservative sites


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 11, 2009)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > With the economy in the state that it is, I just can't believe that Congress can't control themselves.
> ...



Most of the American people have no right to complain about govt spending, they have not done very well on managing their money either.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 11, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I have a question and this is a respecful question for all those who voted for President Obama keeping in mind, I have a daughter who I am very proud of who voted for President Obama as well.  During the campaign,  President Obama  brought many young people, and  old and  , those of color, together on the promise of change to Washington D.C.  That change included, openness, getting rid of paid lobbyists, and yes earmarks or pork spending, just to name a few.  All these things  I will admit to you as a Republican held great appeal to me especially someone who has long thought the DoD was in dire need of  all those things.  However, all that said, do you think now that the house and senate have gone on a year long spending  binge  for everything, from turtle tunnels, studying  mice  and my personal favorite is the one in SC where they used Stimulus money to hire someone to locate more Stimulus money.  Does all this and with the latest thing, and the things to come, square with all those campaign promises that so many thought would finally change  Washington for the better? or do you think that congress, has basically ignored the Presidents  campaign promises and  used his election as an excuse to ram through everything they please?  I have my thoughts on the matter, and  as most of you know,  I am one that will tell you point blank when I say congress I make no distinction between republican or democrat, past  or present.



In recent history all politicians say all kind of good stuff to get elected and then do what they please.  They get away with it because of our stort term memory and being programmed by the vidiot tube/panel.

Remember Bush's promises?  Not into nation building, for balanced budget, smaller govt, etc.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 11, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > I have a question and this is a respecful question for all those who voted for President Obama keeping in mind, I have a daughter who I am very proud of who voted for President Obama as well.  During the campaign,  President Obama  brought many young people, and  old and  , those of color, together on the promise of change to Washington D.C.  That change included, openness, getting rid of paid lobbyists, and yes earmarks or pork spending, just to name a few.  All these things  I will admit to you as a Republican held great appeal to me especially someone who has long thought the DoD was in dire need of  all those things.  However, all that said, do you think now that the house and senate have gone on a year long spending  binge  for everything, from turtle tunnels, studying  mice  and my personal favorite is the one in SC where they used Stimulus money to hire someone to locate more Stimulus money.  Does all this and with the latest thing, and the things to come, square with all those campaign promises that so many thought would finally change  Washington for the better? or do you think that congress, has basically ignored the Presidents  campaign promises and  used his election as an excuse to ram through everything they please?  I have my thoughts on the matter, and  as most of you know,  I am one that will tell you point blank when I say congress I make no distinction between republican or democrat, past  or present.
> ...



So I take it by your response then that you agree that congress is  bascially  watering down the message for  President Obama  by it's spending  to the point where the  "Change" message looks more or less like the  "Same old thing"?  I'm quite well aware of the Bush Administrations  negatives however as the Bush Administration is no longer in power about the only thing we can do there is to say, "oh well".  However, in this case if you as a democrat feel that congress is not  holding up it's end of the bargin then you can do something.  Let me give you jsut one small example,  it's not secret that progressives and many Democrats want  healthcare reform but what perhaps is lost in all this is, so do a lot of  Republicans. Do you know that had we not bailed out  GM and Chrysler, to prevent  bankruptcy which by the way they  did anyway,  and done the Stimulus which so far has failed miserably in terms of job creation then guess what, all that money spent  could have been spent on a robust  fix of Medicare program for everyone.  Just a thought.


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

uscitizen said:


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



One of the most ignorant posts I have ever read.  Thank you for taking the ignorant posts to a new height.


----------



## Vel (Dec 11, 2009)

uscitizen said:


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




 Really? Are you serious? You think it's ok for the federal government to piss away taxpayer money because.. well gee.. the public's not that good at handling their personal finances? It's no wonder this country is in the mess it's in with ideals like that being propagated. Did it occur to you that we HIRED those idiots in Washington because they were SUPPOSED to be able to handle the finances? I swear if USMB had an idiot post of the day award, your post would win it.


----------



## PeterS (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Congress passed a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill.  Has 5,000 in earmarks, what was Obama campaigning about earmarks?
> I guess it's "Same as it always was" type of politics.  Where's the change?



It's down by 10,000 over the last con budget. That's a change isn't it?


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Congress passed a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill.  Has 5,000 in earmarks, what was Obama campaigning about earmarks?
> ...



You don't really understand, do you?
Your just posting with an emotion, and without any real thought process.
Try to understand what the thread stated, and read what others have commented on.


----------



## PeterS (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> PeterS said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I thought I understood just fine. This is the lowest earmarks have been since FY96. That's good isn't it? That is a change isn't it; the type of change conservatives want? Or do cons want us to go back to the last con budget that contained nearly 15,000 earmarks? What is it?


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> You didn't address Obama's campaign promise.
> What ever happened to the "Hope and Change" jingle?
> 
> 
> ...



Compared to 1.1 Trillion it is.  .35% of the total to be exact.

*It is also a much smaller amount than in similar Republican spending bills passed while they held the majority.*


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the CATO institute!....ouch.




Nice graphic, mind if I steal it for another thread?


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > the CATO institute!....ouch.
> ...


Sure go ahead, it doesn't have any impact on this thread


----------



## PeterS (Dec 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't address Obama's campaign promise.
> ...



Yeah but it seems so small when you say it like that. How can you bash Obama when you say it like that???


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PeterS said:
> ...



OK...let's take a few steps back.  With the state of the economy as it is, and our debt rising as it is, should we really have the earmarks.  Forget about what history has, I'm talking about right now, Pete.  
Also....Obama said he was going to get rid of the earmarks, this was the change he was suppose to bring to DC.
Please try not to use the....."well they did it, so I'm going to do it, too" excuse...it's weak.


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



3.9 Billion?  Of coarse the mindless sheep wouldn't think it was much. after all, WELL, BUSH DID IT, SO WE CAN TOO.
3.9 billion is a lot of money when you don't have it.  Please try and wake up to that fact, and please don't make some pathetic excuses.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 11, 2009)

"We need earmark reform,And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

B Obama



Need we say more?


----------



## PeterS (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> PeterS said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



We've had earmarks since our very first budget. Do you really think Obama is going to do what the founders couldn't. That isn't an excuse but a simple fact. And you want to talk about now? Well now we have a 65% decline in earmarks. This is no doubt the largest reduction in history. No congress, republican or democrat, has accomplished this in the past. What is it you want me to bash Obama over? 

Here is my position: if it is a choice between 5,000 earmarks and 15,000 earmarks I'll take the 5,000. If that makes you unhappy I really couldn't care...


----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PeterS said:
> ...



I don't want you to bash Obama, you don't have it in you, Pete.  You would follow him over a cliff, I understand that.  But still...and I say it again, with this economy the way it is, and massive debt increases we can't afford the 3.9 Billion dollars.  Let alone the 1.1 trillion budget bill, I will get to that in another thread.


----------



## PixieStix (Dec 11, 2009)

uscitizen said:


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


 

If that is all you've got as an excuse making statement. I would say you have failed miserably.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> I don't want you to bash Obama, you don't have it in you, Pete.  You would follow him over a cliff, I understand that.  But still...and I say it again, with this economy the way it is, and massive debt increases we can't afford the 3.9 Billion dollars.  Let alone the 1.1 trillion budget bill, I will get to that in another thread.



OK, let's get real here.

Republicans spent massive amounts of money on Republican spending plans, with money going mainly to Republican states.  With many, many earmarks.

They also took money from Social Security to fund their massive amounts of over-spending.

Now Democrats are trying to run the government, with all the massive bloated programs the Republicans left in place, and they are actually cutting spending from what it was.  

But now, you people, (whether you be "Libertarians" or "Conservatives" or whatever) who did in fact support the Republicans by voting for them in multiple elections, are now screaming that *you want the Democrats to be the bad guys, cutting programs, and raising taxes.   That way next time around they can lose a whole bunch of elections and you can start the process all over again???*

You see, that way, Republicans can keep on funding all their little pet projects, and then they can point the finger at the Democrats because Democrats had to cut Medicare and Social Security and whatever.

I'll tell you what, why don't you elect some people that don't just repeat talking points about "Lower Taxes and Fiscal Responsibility", and then when the Republicans that YOU VOTED FOR are actually in office, we can reduce the deficit and cut programs.  And they can be "the bad guys" because they live up to their campaign promises.

K?


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 11, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the CATO institute!....ouch.



We don't know what numbers Mr. Piperni was looking at when he created that picture or what spending specifically he was referring to or at what point in time.  You're using a visual aide that you don't understand.

The national debt increased by roughly $5 trillion under Bush, which was an absolute abomination.  Under Obama it has increased another $2 trillion and they're prepared to raise the debt ceiling another trillion.  That's over one-third of what was spent during the Bush administration and he hasn't been in office even a full year yet.

That aside, pointing to somebody else's wrong to justify your own doesn't make what you've done any less wrong.  The bottom line is debt spending is taking us down a quick path to national bankruptcy and it needs to stop immediately.  It doesn't matter what Obama's predecessors have done.  He's the president now and has the power to stop it.


----------



## oreo (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> Congress passed a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill.  Has 5,000 in earmarks, what was Obama campaigning about earmarks?
> I guess it's "Same as it always was" type of politics.  Where's the change?
> 
> A $1.1 trillion spending bill laced with budget increases and more than 5,000 congressional pet projects passed the House on Thursday amid criticism from Republicans and watchdog groups.
> ...





They just can't stop using that no-limit credit card--can they---  Heck they've moved past our grandkids & are now into the great-great--grandkids for repayment.

*MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL YOU BROKE CITIZENS!*

Hope you at least have one of these temporary jobs!


----------



## manu1959 (Dec 11, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> And no earmarks for Republicans in it?
> 
> Just what is an earmark anyway?  Considering the stimulus plan most anything in there can be considered an earmark.



eramraks are the same as a bribe......put a mill in there for my pet project in my home district and you have my vote.....there were 5000 of those.....wonder who got more than one....

and yep the dems are as bad as the pubs.....yet you keep voting the same idiots into office and expect things to change......


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)

so whats the trillion total so far ???? Pelosi need to save more fish???


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


>



from the boston globe??? yeah right


----------



## PeterS (Dec 11, 2009)

Meister said:


> PeterS said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Oh give me a break. I'll bet a dollar against your nickle that you had no clue how grotesque pork had become under republicans nor that even today republicans are still amongst the leads of the pork pack. Whine all you like about 'what we can't afford' but until those you vote for listen don't expect me to...


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)

uscitizen said:


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



good reason to tax them to death huh ????


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PeterS said:
> ...



so the dummies need to catch up on their pork chops right ?????


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)

So far, they've uncovered gems ranging from $700,000 for a shrimp fishing project in Maryland to $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative to $200,000 for a visitor's center in a Texas town with a population of about 8,000. 

way ta go dummies !!!!!


----------



## antagon (Dec 11, 2009)

there's different schools of thought as to what the government should do when the economy sux.  

with obama, and a ship full of old-school democrats in charge, you shouldve been aware that the government was going to spend time and a bunch of money trying to micromanage recovery.

the republican 'cut taxes and it'll all work out strategy' may be up against its diminishing returns if bush's fiscal disaster cuts 5-6 years ago had a lesson at all.  at any rate, if you wanted more of that hack-job stimulus-check economic strategy, you shouldve voted twice.

earmarks are a very valid part of government funding.  that it became like crack for republicans during the last decade has been remediated. change.

wonder how many marks the GOP had in the package.  hypocrit votes.  makes it _worse_ than those who supported the bill to me.

relax. theres still senate scrutiny. the house always shoots for the sun.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 11, 2009)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > the CATO institute!....ouch.
> ...



That is patently false.

1.2 Trillion of this year's 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit was already in place by January 7th, before Obama was inaugurated.

So it has only increased another 100 Billion under Obama.  So far.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 11, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Counting moneys that Bush did claim would be returned? How about all the projected spending this years congress has already approved and plan on approving even more. This trillion wasn't approved by Bush, when does it count? Fact is that this congress is spending money like it actually does grow on a tree. And if it doesn't stop soon the USA will not be a financial power to anyone except maybe a few 3rd world countries. And current deficit is still 1.5 trillion + and growing.


----------



## namvet (Dec 11, 2009)




----------



## Meister (Dec 11, 2009)

PeterS said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > PeterS said:
> ...



I'm so sorry you lost that dollar...I hope it wasn't your last, Pete.  I was complaining about how the republicans were spending under the Bush administration.  I was complaining about how Bush couldn't find his veto pen when all this spending was going on.
I see you can't complain about how Obama spends the money, or his Congress, and Senate....like I said he would lead you over a cliff, and you would go willingly.  That's the difference between you and me, Pete.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 12, 2009)

namvet said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



The pie chart, via economist Mark Thoma of the University of Oregon

McCain's bizarre earmark obsession | FP Passport


----------



## Sarah G (Dec 12, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > And no earmarks for Republicans in it?
> ...



Of course Manu.  They were sent there to work for their state.  It's their job.  That ratio of earmarks to spending is very low, you all just need a different thing everyday to complain about.


----------



## namvet (Dec 12, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



completely bogus. thats not even close to reality.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 12, 2009)

namvet said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > namvet said:
> ...



It's simple math you moron... the above chart represents 0.5% of the Federal budget. The current earmarks represent an even smaller sliver... 0.35%...that's 0.0035


EARMARKS FOR FUN AND PROFIT.

Brookings' Thomas Mann is tired of the diversionary fracas surrounding earmarks:

    Earmarks constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget. In most cases, they dont add to federal expenditures but merely allow Congress to direct a small fraction of program funding that would otherwise be allocated by formula or grant competition. Abolishing all earmarks would therefore have a trivial effect on the level of spending and budget deficits. While earmark reform and reduction is a worthy cause, it is a relatively minor one. It would do nothing to slow the rate of federal spending or improve our long-term budget outlook. Moreover, hyperbolic attacks on earmarks do a disservice to the public, encouraging people to concentrate way too much attention and energy on a largely symbolic issue and ignore the critical decisions that we face in the months and years ahead.

Representative James Clyburn goes even further in the Politico. Earmarks, he argues, are a good thing. This system of government we have, the one where we elect congressmen from different districts, is built to ensure that federal funds are responsive to local needs. Earmarks are that process in action.

It used to be that I'd link to Earmark Watch's interactive map which lists earmarks by district. But that seems to be down. So if you want to page through the earmarks that are giving everyone such heartburn, head over to the Appropriations Committee web site and download the "statements" portion of the Omnibus bill's various sections.

Most people, when digging through these lists, end up surprised by how worthy the majority of the projects prove. Sometimes, of course, earmarks fund the comically parochial: You can read about those projects on John McCain's twitter feed. But more often, they're sensible local priorities. Pat Roberts of Kansas secures $250,000 so Topeka, Kansas can "establish a secure database that connects law enforcement and emergency management personnel to private sector resources needed in a catastrophic event." Congressman Ralph Hall appropriates $143,000 for a "drop-out prevention program" in Mount Pleasant, Texas. Congressman Bill Foster gets $76,000 for "occupational training programs" at Sauk Valley Community College in Sauk, Illinois. "May include equipment," specifies the earmark. These appropriations rarely make McCain's twitter feed, of course. But they're the reality of the practice.

Irony Update: According to a document floating around the House of Representatives, Ron Paul has requested over $126,000,000 in earmarks.


----------



## namvet (Dec 12, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




who's math you fuckin idiot ???? they hide pork spending from the public. ever hear of behind closed doors??? 
bogus totally fuckin bogus !!!!


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 12, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Navy1960 said:
> ...



I have seen no indications that a lot fo Republicans want health care reform.

Unless you call wanting to do away with medcare/medicaid a reform?


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 12, 2009)

I wish they would have earmarked a couple million to put ALL of the members of the House and the Senate, as well as the entire White House Administration on a nice cruise ship to Somalia.....


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 12, 2009)

Guess our country is going to be like my ex-wife.  Keep spending money until there is no more to spend and nobody will give you credit.  Then, being unable to produce any cash to buy anything, simply become a freeloader off of relatives and whoever else will give a handout.  How do you spell large new Third World country?  I'd like to thank all the Democrats and our terrific (sic) President Obama.  Special thanks to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 12, 2009)

Meister said:


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



I must know you from another board?

Or are you just a natural asshole?


----------



## Meister (Dec 12, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



You don't know me from anywhere else, UScitizen....but I see you don't take criticism very well.
Just don't post ignorant posts as you did with that one, and I won't call you on it.


----------



## namvet (Dec 12, 2009)

every prez/house/senate since Johnson has wanted reform. its been pass the buck ever since. we have to fix it but............they've ripped off medicare cause it was a golden goose. and never paid back a red cent. 

of course the GOP wants reform. but not at the expense of imploding the economy. fix it. the Dums have now thrown millions/trillions at it. 

for christ sake why didn't Osama do it back in Jan when he had the $$$$???  instead he's ops all our $$$$ away on useless stim packs/pork. including this one. now were broke. and all his little eggs are now in one basket. its sink or swim here.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 12, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> That is patently false.
> 
> 1.2 Trillion of this year's 1.3 Trillion dollar deficit was already in place by January 7th, before Obama was inaugurated.
> 
> So it has only increased another 100 Billion under Obama.  So far.



No, that is not correct.  In March he signed off on the $410 billion omnibus bill.

In February he signed a budget with a $1.75 trillion deficit.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 12, 2009)

namvet said:


> completely bogus. thats not even close to reality.



No, that chart is actually pretty accurate. Earmark spending really is a very small percentage of the Federal  budget, usually between one to two percent.  Defenders of the status quo will use that small percentage as a justification that it is perfectly okay to do.  Of course, when you're talking about a budget of $3 trillion, one or two percent is a hell of a lot of money and the bottom line is whether it's a lot or not, there is no excuse for wasting it when we already have insurmountable debt to pay off.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I see the the it is not my fault it is the government's fault all the time.
Strange from the party of personal responsibility.

The govt is just operating the same way many of us did during the boom.  Leverage upon leverage.


----------



## Yurt (Dec 12, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the CATO institute!....ouch.



do you have an actual cato institute link for that....your cartoon is from bartcop.com yet you're dishonestly trying to pass it as if its directly from cato....unless you have an actual link to cato, it is entirely possible it is false...

further, obama's stimulus didn't just add 4% to the 2009, that is a freakin lie, which is why i believe the cartoon is false and your misrepresentation is dishonest


----------



## Yurt (Dec 12, 2009)

uscitizen said:


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



dumbest post of the month award....

usc hates the 1st amemdment....and guess what people, if you managed your finances badly this year usc wants to take away your right to free speech....


----------



## Maple (Dec 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > And no earmarks for Republicans in it?
> ...




Obama promised that he would not sign any bills with earmarks and turned right around and signed the 410 billion dollar omnibus bill with 9,000 earmarks in it. Bush had threatened to veto it because of all the earmarks, so the dems held it over for their guy to sign. Here we go again.

The only change you can beleive in is the pocket change you are gonna have left after this administration is through.


----------



## namvet (Dec 12, 2009)

Yurt said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > the CATO institute!....ouch.
> ...



when god offered nookie a brain he asked why


----------



## Meister (Dec 12, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



  You really don't have a clue, I'm truely sorry for that, UScitizen.


----------



## rdean (Dec 12, 2009)

Most people don't even know what an "earmark" is.  Republicans have demonized it so that people just assume it's "bad".  Republicans are good at demonizing things.  It's so much easier than offering solutions.  

Republicans will say, "The solution is to cut spending" or "The solution is to drill baby drill".  Those are not "solutions".  They are "sound bytes".

For instance, the Republicans demonized a study that looks into the cause of the disappearing honeybees.  To Republicans, honeybees are just insects that sting and so they should die.  Oh these people.  Their determined ignorance will be the death of us all.


----------



## slackjawed (Dec 12, 2009)

rdean said:


> Most people don't even know what an "earmark" is.  Republicans have demonized it so that people just assume it's "bad".  Republicans are good at demonizing things.  It's so much easier than offering solutions.
> 
> Republicans will say, "The solution is to cut spending" or "The solution is to drill baby drill".  Those are not "solutions".  They are "sound bytes".
> 
> For instance, the Republicans demonized a study that looks into the cause of the disappearing honeybees.  To Republicans, honeybees are just insects that sting and so they should die.  Oh these people.  Their determined ignorance will be the death of us all.



There are almost as many earmarks in this bill sponsored by repugnants as dunbocrats.
Both parties deserve to be demonized in a non-partisan way.


----------



## Meister (Dec 12, 2009)

rdean said:


> Most people don't even know what an "earmark" is.  Republicans have demonized it so that people just assume it's "bad".  Republicans are good at demonizing things.  It's so much easier than offering solutions.
> 
> Republicans will say, "The solution is to cut spending" or "The solution is to drill baby drill".  Those are not "solutions".  They are "sound bytes".
> 
> For instance, the Republicans demonized a study that looks into the cause of the disappearing honeybees.  To Republicans, honeybees are just insects that sting and so they should die.  Oh these people.  Their determined ignorance will be the death of us all.



Are those the same bees that ended up with having a virus, or bacteria...those bees?  Or are they the ones where cell phone towers where killing them?  Get real


----------



## rdean (Dec 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Most people don't even know what an "earmark" is.  Republicans have demonized it so that people just assume it's "bad".  Republicans are good at demonizing things.  It's so much easier than offering solutions.
> ...



The new study of sick bees disclosed fragments of ribosomal RNA in their gut, an indication of damage to the ribosomes, which make proteins necessary for life, according to a study in Tuesday's issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

New clue found to disappearing honey bees - Science- msnbc.com

Thank you for proving my point "Meister" baitor.  So, your next question is "Why are honeybees important?"

Republicans are like "children's scissors, cute, colorful, not too sharp.

I almost wish I was a Republican.  For them, everything is "simple".  The questions are "simple".  The answers are "simple".  They speak "simpleton".


----------



## Meister (Dec 12, 2009)

rdean said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



If only I was a republican rdean.  What I had stated was from the studies of their time, and you found one of this time, and there will be another one after this one.  Your the one that got baited, typical far left democrat


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 12, 2009)

Navy1960 said:


> I have a question and this is a respecful question for all those who voted for President Obama keeping in mind, I have a daughter who I am very proud of who voted for President Obama as well.  During the campaign,  President Obama  brought many young people, and  old and  , those of color, together on the promise of change to Washington D.C.  That change included, openness, getting rid of paid lobbyists, and yes earmarks or pork spending, just to name a few.  All these things  I will admit to you as a Republican held great appeal to me especially someone who has long thought the DoD was in dire need of  all those things.  However, all that said, do you think now that the house and senate have gone on a year long spending  binge  for everything, from turtle tunnels, studying  mice  and my personal favorite is the one in SC where they used Stimulus money to hire someone to locate more Stimulus money.  Does all this and with the latest thing, and the things to come, square with all those campaign promises that so many thought would finally change  Washington for the better? or do you think that congress, has basically ignored the Presidents  campaign promises and  used his election as an excuse to ram through everything they please?  I have my thoughts on the matter, and  as most of you know,  I am one that will tell you point blank when I say congress I make no distinction between republican or democrat, past  or present.



The answer... My way, or no way.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifjRVLVjzA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jifjRVLVjzA[/ame]


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 12, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> "We need earmark reform,And when I'm president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."
> 
> B Obama
> 
> ...



No worries mate. They will rewrite definition of word earmark to suit their needs.


----------



## antagon (Dec 12, 2009)

Maple said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



bush has no idea what a veto is. bollocks.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 12, 2009)

antagon said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



How then he vetoed 12 bills?


----------



## antagon (Dec 12, 2009)

Ame®icano;1802587 said:
			
		

> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



first look up hyperbole.

then look up how many vetos his predecessors have excercised.... any of them... ever.

now you can come to grips with that kid not having a clue about veto power.


history is a neocon weak point; ignorance their strong point, what with the bliss and all.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 12, 2009)

Bush vetoed what he felt he should. Whether he was right or wrong is another subject.


----------



## antagon (Dec 12, 2009)

i think its poor policy, the void of vetos in his first term and the puny 12-13 he laid out.  mind you, sarge, he noted his disagreement with bills in writing several times, but did not uphold the obligation of the chief to check the legislature with a veto but these 12 instances.

there's your republican budget disaster: cut taxes, ignore spending.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 12, 2009)

I never made any claim that Bush was right in his spending. I have said many times he spent too much and did not admit that it was too much. That he was far from conservative. I've also said that what we need right now in Washington is fiscal conservatives. This drunken sailor spending has got to stop and stop soon.


----------



## antagon (Dec 12, 2009)

do we really need a fiscal conservative?

the 'fiscal conservative' label carries too many 'earmarks' when looked at in the context of GOP econ policy.  i think that cutting taxes is near its diminishing returns.  its not demonstrated that republicans understand the contradiction between borrowing and conservatism.  in a less and less industrialized economy, trickle-down isnt such a plausible mechanism -- but for affecting nepotism.  ok, steer clear of outright protectionism, but greasing the rails for businesses to manufacture overseas has been a demonstrated GOP agenda, with no effort to moderate its effects at least.

all the while clinton is the conservatism poster-child! its expected his party will be the one to produce the next, albeit progressive, conservative.  

the GOP has got a long way to go to show that they can be trusted in the oval.  it would be welcomed if they purge the house.  if theres got to be a pelosi, id rather she be a minority leader.

i recognize youre probably not looking at this from a partisan perspective, but in the end, we have to rely on these parties to change in order for any real change to come about.  i dont buy into the idea that some independent force could do as much.


----------



## Meister (Dec 12, 2009)

antagon said:


> do we really need a fiscal conservative?
> 
> the 'fiscal conservative' label carries too many 'earmarks' when looked at in the context of GOP econ policy.  i think that cutting taxes is near its diminishing returns.  its not demonstrated that republicans understand the contradiction between borrowing and conservatism.  in a less and less industrialized economy, trickle-down isnt such a plausible mechanism -- but for affecting nepotism.  ok, steer clear of outright protectionism, but greasing the rails for businesses to manufacture overseas has been a demonstrated GOP agenda, with no effort to moderate its effects at least.
> 
> ...



I guess your saying that obama is a fiscal conservative, if not then your deflecting as to the problem we are having today.


----------



## antagon (Dec 12, 2009)

Meister said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > do we really need a fiscal conservative?
> ...



somewhere in between, really.  if youre clammoring to call obamas presidency on his first 10 months, i suspect you listen to radio-republican.  i dont, so like a lot of indy voters, im waiting to see what the government will be up to for the next year or more. im focusing on getting me and my employees out of the downturn unscathed.

democrats believe in micromanagement of the governments role in the economy.  that is all about keynesian displacement for them when its in the dumps like this.  its more effective than war spending, i think. it may be more sound than conservatism for some of the reasons above. 

from the pressure our debtors (china) are putting on us and the fledgling party legacy of budget parity, maybe we'll see a serious turn toward clinton-style conservatism in 2011.  thats way past the limbaugh fan's attention span, but back to veto power, if the GOP could do next year what they did in 94,  all obama could do is play clinton.

as for 'the problem we're having today', i seen it unfold for years, but if you miss your exit on the freeway, should you slam on the brakes?


----------



## Meister (Dec 12, 2009)

antagon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



Next year or more could ruin our economy in the way he is muscling his polices, and it will take 3 generations to clean it up, if it will be possible at all.  Our credit rating as a nation is at risk, our dollar is weaking, and our deficit is rising.  Inflation could very well kick in this coming year if we don't put on the "brakes"


----------



## antagon (Dec 13, 2009)

so you say.  im with the take the next exit and back-track group.  all of the neoconservative brilliance on the economy should have been brought to bare the last decade.  arguably it has, but it just wasnt that brilliant.

understanding monetary policy and all that, i still marginalize the role of government as just a part of the picture.  maybe because ive been a businessman from before i could vote, i see my actions playing a bigger role than obama's in my life.  cumilatively, the business community outplays the government in the national economy.  republicans feel that way when theres a republican president stinking it up, but now, like in 92, its a different story.

the man said its going to take a while before we turn this shit around, you hold him to your 3 generations if you want.  i think thats a bit overboard.


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> the CATO institute!....ouch.



so he's a little worse than Bush, who has the reputation of being the worst president ever.  Good for the boyking.


----------



## rdean (Dec 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



I never said you were a Republican, but if it looks like a duck and talks like a duck.....Quack!


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

rdean said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


for you, anyone to the right of Karl Marx is a republican.


----------



## rdean (Dec 13, 2009)

Merriam-Webster has added a definition of the term "earmark" to the latest edition of its dictionary: "A provision in congressional legislation that allocates a specified amount of money for a specific project, program or organization."

Merriam-Webster dictionary adds 'earmark' definition - Los Angeles Times

The problem isn't the earmarks, but what the money is spent on.  Building a single bridge to nowhere is a waste of money.  However, starting a program that rebuilds at least the worst of the nations 70,000 bridges that have been deemed unsafe is a good investment.  Those would be quality jobs that would spur tax revenues which would in turn create more jobs.

Republicans will say, "Rebuild bridges, why?"  Then Democrats point out the Minnesota bridge that collapsed during rush hour in 2007 and point out that once again, Republicans did NOTHING.  Why, because we had to pay Halliburton and Blackwater in Iraq.  Republicans say screw the US.  And Republicans want another shot at it.

Infrastructure is what was reported Obama's plan, but so far, I haven't seen things move in that direction.  Studies won't do it.  We need earmarks that create long lasting jobs which in turn will produce self sustaining revenue.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2009)

antagon said:


> so you say.  im with the take the next exit and back-track group.  all of the neoconservative brilliance on the economy should have been brought to bare the last decade.  arguably it has, but it just wasnt that brilliant.
> 
> understanding monetary policy and all that, i still marginalize the role of government as just a part of the picture.  maybe because ive been a businessman from before i could vote, i see my actions playing a bigger role than obama's in my life.  cumilatively, the business community outplays the government in the national economy.  republicans feel that way when theres a republican president stinking it up, but now, like in 92, its a different story.
> 
> the man said its going to take a while before we turn this shit around, you hold him to your 3 generations if you want.  i think thats a bit overboard.



Do not confuse the GOP with conservatives. The GOP hasn't been conservative for quite a while now.


----------



## antagon (Dec 13, 2009)

understood, but i wonder when it ever was.  reagan's conservatism was such a flash in the pan, it hardly can be distiguished on a 30-year tmeline.

i digress to all issues govt and political being inevitably partisan.  especially in november, espescially in that booth.


----------



## Meister (Dec 13, 2009)

antagon said:


> so you say.  im with the take the next exit and back-track group.  all of the neoconservative brilliance on the economy should have been brought to bare the last decade.  arguably it has, but it just wasnt that brilliant.
> 
> understanding monetary policy and all that, i still marginalize the role of government as just a part of the picture.  maybe because ive been a businessman from before i could vote, i see my actions playing a bigger role than obama's in my life.  cumilatively, the business community outplays the government in the national economy.  republicans feel that way when theres a republican president stinking it up, but now, like in 92, its a different story.
> 
> the man said its going to take a while before we turn this shit around, you hold him to your 3 generations if you want.  i think thats a bit overboard.



Neoconservative?  That's all I need to know about where you stand, antagon.  You too would follow *YOUR* messiah over the cliff with the rest of *YOUR* far left buddies.  Hopefully the republicans, or a strong third party can cut into this super majority that *YOUR* party is enjoying right now.  With this administration, gridlock would be a win for conservatives.
The government is trying to get into the the private sector, antagon.  Look at their stake in the lending institutions, auto indsustry, and trying to get a foot in the door of healthcare.  Have you been sleeping through that, or just ignoring it?  Maybe you encourage it? 
 You boasting about being a businessman really does not equate to your intelligence.  I've seen a lot of stupid businessmen in my years.


----------



## Navy1960 (Dec 13, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Then I invite you to read this Republicans  postings on the subject. While I don't think that Republicans are opposed to healthcare reform, I do think , myself among them, that most are not happy with a bill that actually raises premiums, cuts medicare, and imposes billions of unfunded mandates on the states is quite what you would call reform.  In fact in many of my postings I have long advocated shoring up Medicare and have offered many suggestions for  reform.


----------



## GHook93 (Dec 13, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> And no earmarks for Republicans in it?
> 
> Just what is an earmark anyway?  Considering the stimulus plan most anything in there can be considered an earmark.



You do realize the last Presidential candidate for the Republicans has never taken an earmark and consistently votes them down. Mr John McCain.


----------



## antagon (Dec 13, 2009)

Meister said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > so you say.  im with the take the next exit and back-track group.  all of the neoconservative brilliance on the economy should have been brought to bare the last decade.  arguably it has, but it just wasnt that brilliant.
> ...



*MY* messiah. 

i call bush's brand of conservatism neocon.  i think its a flattering term, all things considered.

i think big biz is stumbling.  an emerging reality, but the other end of the spectrum from my lil deals.

i used to talk trash about the govt seizing banks, but the paybacks trickling back at a profit knocked the wind out of my fiscal calamity arguement.  the automakers, on the other hand, might not pose a good investment op.  the point there is that they needed uncle sam to pry the union off of them.  its like helping an old lady accross the street.  its hard to imagine letting gm perish catastrophically to uphold free enterprise principals.  youre into that stuff?  too textbook for the real world's how i see it.

im proud of my lil companies, but theres nothing huge to boast about, i know that in great detail.  operating them's more humbling than some lil online pot-shots at my smarts, buddy.

while some people dont think any method's been applied to *MY* messiah's work with the economy, i just point out that there's just as much or more merit to his approach as the increasingly less credible post-reagan conservative angle.

i said earlier, im all for the gridlock, but republicans got to step it up beyond the limbaugh crowd to affect it.


----------



## Maple (Dec 13, 2009)

What is a neo- anything? I have seen that term used and I don't have a clue as to what it implies.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> What is a neo- anything? I have seen that term used and I don't have a clue as to what it implies.



Neo = new, doesn't make much sense about half the time it's used.


----------



## Yurt (Dec 13, 2009)

Maple said:


> What is a neo- anything? I have seen that term used and I don't have a clue as to what it implies.


----------



## Claudette (Dec 14, 2009)

manu1959 said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > And no earmarks for Republicans in it?
> ...



YOur so right. Both parties spend like drunken sailors. THats why they keep getting re-elected.


----------



## antagon (Dec 14, 2009)

Claudette said:


> manu1959 said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



for an alternative view...

earmarks allow the federal government to fund things without them being part of an elaborate government program, or pork-barrel spending.  republicans have gotten real handy with earmark spending for political reasons, yes, but also as a practical way to get things done in their districts without 'making a huge project out of it'.

no coincidence obama came riding in on the cut the earmarks horse, aiming for the balls of the republican promise machine. 

i say its more a matter of how theyre used and for what.  the same applies to the pork-barrel, which is not what you want to necessarily show preferrence toward.  you seen that pie chart with the relative value of the earmark spending above.  take it to heart.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2009)

antagon said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > manu1959 said:
> ...



Your a good party man for your messiah antagon.  Good sheep, that's what you are.   Yes  it's a small piece of the pie....but the pie IS 1.1 trillion dollars, and the little piece of the pie IS 3.9 billion.  Our economy sucks, and unemployment sucks....time to reel in the spending...I don't care if it's republicans, or democrats the politicians need to stop it.  Obama campaigned on no earmarks, and he doesn't back up his words with actions.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


 
Obama Vows To Restore Fiscal Discipline


----------



## antagon (Dec 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



ya got your mind made up who i am and all.  its funny.

but i was trying to point out that the alternative to earmarks is the substantially more expensive pork-barrel measures.

mccain's the no earmarks man, but theyre less common for senators, anyhow.  obama campained on reviewing and slashing earmarks; i made the point it was no coincidence, coming from a democrat, since their MO is to pork-barrel anyhow.

either way, earmarks down 60%, what do you want?

so you know, you real in the spending when the economy is good.  pass it on to your conservative hack club at your next meeting.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 14, 2009)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > the CATO institute!....ouch.
> ...


 
just pointing out where and who's spending the lions share is - and it's not my spending. Do you maybe think that not spending money at all would have helped the economy after it was left in a shambles by the Bush administration?


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2009)

antagon said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > antagon said:
> ...



I am a conservative, and proud of it, you are a bleeding hear liberal.  All your talking points come back to your liberal ways. antagon.  Why don't you try and look at where the money is being spent with the earmarks.  We need to raise the debt ceiling by 1.2 trillion dollars, and you don't get it. The earmarks are no more than buying a vote in a time where we need to cut back on spending.  Just like the 1.1 trillion is too big of a budget.....it's just another day at Disneyland for the politicians.  Your too liberal to get past your ideology.  Go back to the flock of sheep antagon, your in good company there.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 14, 2009)

As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
If so you are a partisan hack not a true conservative.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Counting moneys that Bush did claim would be returned? How about all the projected spending this years congress has already approved and plan on approving even more. This trillion wasn't approved by Bush, when does it count? Fact is that this congress is spending money like it actually does grow on a tree. And if it doesn't stop soon the USA will not be a financial power to anyone except maybe a few 3rd world countries. And current deficit is still 1.5 trillion + and growing.



The current deficit is actually 1.3 Trillion, and shrinking.  The moneys returned by the banks have made that the case.

Which means that, up to this point, only 100 billion dollars has been added to the deificit under the Obama administration.  

More than that was spent on the Stimulus package.  Which means that that 100 billion dollars was spent as stimulus.

Which makes your "This congress has been spending money like it's growing on trees" statement patently false.

But hey, what do you peoplel care about those pesky "facts".  You're all on a "Faith Based" system of reality.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...


 
And NOT the all-Encompassing Conservative contigent here was too thrilled with Bush either and his lack of _Veto Pen..._

_You assume too much there Knuckster..._


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
> If so you are a partisan hack not a true conservative.



It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen.  We have a two party system in place right now.  If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004.  If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him.  But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation.  What were the choices, UScitizen?
So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.


----------



## antagon (Dec 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
> ...



you and your sheep obsession.

we do agree on kerry and gore.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

Claudette said:


> YOur so right. Both parties spend like drunken sailors. THats why they keep getting re-elected.



Yes, this is true.

The main problem with people who generally call themselves "Conservatives" though, and this is certainly not true of all Conservatives, is that they only want to cut spending on things that they personally don't like.

For instance, the military makes up about 25% of the budget.  We spend more on our military expenditures than the rest of the world combined.  Thus it is obvious that we can certainly cut a hell of a lot of spending in this area.

But most "Conservatives", and again there are some exceptions, won't hear of it.

They think we can cut the needed 2 Trillion dollars worth of yearly spending simply by cutting programs that make up less than 1% of our federal budget, like welfare, and education.

Well, that's not going to happen.  

On the other hand, if we cut military spending in half, and pulled our troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan, we would balance the budget.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen.  We have a two party system in place right now.  If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
> Your party, UScitizen put up the likes of Al Gore in 2000, and John Kerry in 2004.  If you had put up a worthwhile candidate in either of those two elections, perhaps I would have voted for him.  But, the democratic party puts up two goofballs that have no clue about the everyday citizens of this great nation.  What were the choices, UScitizen?
> So go pander your drivel to the sheep whom you flock with.



Yet, Al Gore was part of the administration that had balanced the budget in the previous 8 years under Clinton, and didn't plan to change that record.

Shouldn't that have been a reason for "conservatives" to vote for him?


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 14, 2009)

"And NOT the all-Encompassing Conservative contigent here was too thrilled with Bush either and his lack of Veto Pen...

You assume too much there Knuckster..." 


of course I would appreciate you pointing out in which post I contended all conservatives were thrilled with Bush and his actions?


----------



## antagon (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen.  We have a two party system in place right now.  If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
> ...



al gore was horrible.  the DNC should have run a real primary that year.  as much as bush stunk it up, i shudder to think of gore's handling of 9/11.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > It's not quite as simple as you think UScitizen.  We have a two party system in place right now.  If I vote for anyone else but the candidates from the 2 parties it's a vote wasted.
> ...



Your joking, right?
Al Gore was, and always will be a goofball.  Bill Clinton was at the heart of his administration, and when he lost the house during his administration he came back to just left of center.  Gore is nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps.  I wouldn't have voted for Gore.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

antagon said:


> al gore was horrible.  the DNC should have run a real primary that year.  as much as bush stunk it up, i shudder to think of gore's handling of 9/11.




Oh yeah, I shudder too...

He probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and might have actually thought about things in advance enough to have captured Bin Laden right away.

Instead we had a "Faith Based" reaction to 9/11 that got hundreds of thousands of people killed that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Yeah, I'm sooo sure Al Gore's reaction would have been worse than that.

Al Gore is a thinking man.  George Bush is a "Shoot from the hip" man.

Al Gore's main problem is that he had a slight lisp.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> Your joking, right?
> Al Gore was, and always will be a goofball.  Bill Clinton was at the heart of his administration, and when he lost the house during his administration he came back to just left of center.  Gore is nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps.  I wouldn't have voted for Gore.



Yes, instead you voted for George W Bush, perhaps the worst president in the history of the United States.

Seriously, do you think that makes you a good judge of character as far as presidential candidates go?

I didn't happen to think Al Gore was the strongest candidate in the world myself, but he was a hell of a lot better than the alcoholic-in-chief that was running against him.

And if _"Gore was nothing more than a rich father's son who he followed in his Dad's footsteps."_,* what the hell was Bush???*

At least Gore got through college without relying on daddy to bail out his C- ass.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...


 
As _most_ know? OwlGore was being groomed by his daddy (Whom was at the forefront of the _opposition_ to Civil Rights movement of the 1960's), to be POTUS one day in the FUTURE...

He lost his chance, and therefore *WE* are stuck with the risiduals...(Scum/Froth, if you will) of his failed attempt at the presidency. Yes, yes we know he was in this enviro-whacko movement before his attempt (Book: Earth in the Balance)...Which kinda sealed his _fate_ to wit he carries on to this day. He took on the cause of wayward _Communists_ (Since the Berlin Wall _fell_), called _Militant Enviromentalism..._

Gore was and *IS* a fuckin' _JOKE._

_*I* _wouldn't have voted for his whacko ass either.


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Your joking, right?
> ...



C-.....and he still did better than Kerry in school. 
Look my pick wouldn't have been Bush, but we have to vote for someone.  Al Gore would have screwed up 9-11 as Clinton did after the 93' Trade Center bombing....like he did with all the terrorists attacks we had under the Clinton administration.  Clinton downsized our military, and fragmented our intell.  Yeah Gore would have been the prize.  Give me a break.  At least Bush had balls, unlike the 2 candidates that ran against him.  Don't throw Iraq on me, because I wouldn't have pulled the trigger on that one, and don't pull that Bush spent too much....yeah he did, and I bitched about that, too.But, Obama spending is way over the top, and he isn't going to slow down with the cap and tax crap that is going to be hitting the fan next year.
I know you won't complain about that at all, because it's OooooooooooooBaaaaaaama.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

The T said:


> As _most_ know? OwlGore was being groomed by his daddy (Whom was at the forefront of the _opposition_ to Civil Rights movement of the 1960's), to be POTUS one day in the FUTURE...
> 
> He lost his chance, and therefore *WE* are stuck with the risiduals...(Scum/Froth, if you will) of his failed attempt at the presidency. Yes, yes we know he was in this enviro-whacko movement before his attempt (Book: Earth in the Balance)...Which kinda sealed his _fate_ to wit he carries on to this day. He took on the cause of wayward _Communists_ (Since the Berlin Wall _fell_), called _Militant Enviromentalism..._
> 
> ...



OK, seriously, you and your right-wing buddies have been wrong about SOOOOOO many things in the past 8 years, especially who you chose for presidential candidates.

There is undeniable proof that Global Warming is in fact happening right now, as we speak.  Whether the causes are as Al Gore described them, or not, he has essentially been CORRECT about the fact that Global Warming is occurring for the past 30 years, sincne he started talking about it in the 80's.

In addition, Al was one of the main proponents of government funding of the internet, something you and your right-wing buddies have endlessly railed on him for, but in the end he was CORRECT to help fund the internet.  Or are you denying that too?

In fact, it seems that Al Gore is CORRECT on most issues.  In fact, I can't think of something he has been proven wrong about.

Now, as for his likeability, that was a major factor in his losing race, but comparing him unfavorably to George W Bush, our country's biggest mistake, is a fucking joke.


----------



## antagon (Dec 14, 2009)

gore was a big-league fake.  this was the start of a period in american politics where people werent as easily snared with political tricks as strategists thought.  gore jumped from one trick to the next and imparted this idea that he was desparate to win the election, more than giving us a glimpse of what a gore presidency is all about.  he distanced himself from clinton thinking that people really gave a shit about lewinsky.  kerry: ditto... thats 2 coulda shoulda won elections.  mccain: ditto, but i dont think he had a shot to win obama.  nevertheless from joe the plumber to palin to the replica change slogan, mccain campaigned this way too.  

youve got to be yourself to win a presidential election.  you cant be one weeks practice at what your advisors say you should be like.  that said, bush was an idiot.  i refrained from voting at all in 2004.  took my year-ender in november that year.  st. maarten, i recall.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Dec 14, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Well, as we've seen, spending $2 trillion has done nothing to improve it.  Regarding the Wall Street bailout, I am of the belief that had we not given the banks this money they would have exercised a lot tougher options in order to survive.  For example, it's not in a bank's interest to foreclose on a home.  If they didn't get the lifeline from the Feds I think a lot more of them would have renegotiated the terms of the bad loans to keep the owners there.  Foreclosures actually went up after the bank bail out was passed and one of the main points of it was to decrease foreclosures.  The bail out actually gave them the liquidity to avoid the tough decisions.  

In the short term, sure, it could have gotten worse.  More banks may have been shut down and more people may have been out of a job, but why do you assume that just because it would have been worse means it shouldn't have happened?


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > As _most_ know? OwlGore was being groomed by his daddy (Whom was at the forefront of the _opposition_ to Civil Rights movement of the 1960's), to be POTUS one day in the FUTURE...
> ...


 

NO there Isn't. It's a LIE.

We bring you back to the regularally scheduled Thread...

_______________________


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1798853-post1.html

Congress passed a 1.1 trillion dollar spending bill. Has 5,000 in earmarks, what was Obama campaigning about earmarks?
I guess it's "Same as it always was" type of politics. Where's the change?

A $1.1 trillion spending bill laced with budget increases and more than 5,000 congressional pet projects passed the House on Thursday amid criticism from Republicans and watchdog groups.
The package  which combines six annual spending bills into one  includes $447 billion in operating expenses, with an average increase of 10%, and more than $600 billion for Medicare and Medicaid.

It was approved 221 to 202 and now moves to the Senate. No House Republicans voted for the bill, and 28 Democrats broke with their party to oppose it
Earmarks 'robust' in House $1T spending bill - USATODAY.com


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

Meister said:


> C-.....and he still did better than Kerry in school.
> Look my pick wouldn't have been Bush, but we have to vote for someone.  Al Gore would have screwed up 9-11 as Clinton did after the 93' Trade Center bombing....like he did with all the terrorists attacks we had under the Clinton administration.  Clinton downsized our military, and fragmented our intell.  Yeah Gore would have been the prize.  Gove me a break.  At least Bush had balls, unlike the 2 candidates that ran against him.  Don't throw Iraq on me, because I wouldn't have pulled the trigger on that one, and don't pull that Bush spent too much....yeah he did, and I bitched about that, too.But, Obama spending is way over the top, and he isn'rt going top slow down with the cap and tax crap that is going to be hitting the fan next year.
> I know you won't complain about that at all, because it's OooooooooooooBaaaaaaama.



The people responsible for the '93 bombing were caught and prosecuted, and are currently in jail serving time.

It was Bush I who started the downsizing of our military.

Bush had "balls" like a professional wrestler has "balls".  What you want in a president is someone who thinks first and then acts, not a fucking idiot with a hard-on for invading Iraq.

You wouldn't have pulled the trigger on Iraq?  OK, did you vote for Bush AGAIN in 2004?  Yes, you did.

And Bush spent WAY more than Obama.  1.2 Trillion dollars of this year's deficit was already alotted by January 7th of this year, as per the CBO report at the time.

Which means that the current deficit of 1.3 Trillion dollars is actually LOWER than it was at the beginning of the year, once you take away the stimulus money.

The federal *budget* for 2008 was 3 Trillion dollars.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/Historicaltables09Jun09web.XLS

The federal budget for 2009 was 3.1 Trillion Dollars.

2009 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The increase is due entirely to a 40 Billion dollar increase in Social Security, a 20 Billion dollar increase in Medicare, and a 40 Billion dollar increase in Unemployment Benefits.

Said budget was proposed, as it always is, by the previous president.  George W Bush.

In other words, Obama hasn't spent any money at all that was not already being spent before he got into office.


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 14, 2009)

*When you hear a birther-handjob say,* 
*"Obama is killing the economy..."* 





*say, "Go fuck yourself!" and show them this.* 
*Going from 104 to 141 is no small feat.*


----------



## Jay Canuck (Dec 14, 2009)

*Going from 8,292 to 10,437 is a 25% increase.*


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

antagon said:


> gore was a big-league fake.  this was the start of a period in american politics where people werent as easily snared with political tricks as strategists thought.  gore jumped from one trick to the next and imparted this idea that he was desparate to win the election, more than giving us a glimpse of what a gore presidency is all about.  he distanced himself from clinton thinking that people really gave a shit about lewinsky.  kerry: ditto... thats 2 coulda shoulda won elections.  mccain: ditto, but i dont think he had a shot to win obama.  nevertheless from joe the plumber to palin to the replica change slogan, mccain campaigned this way too.
> 
> youve got to be yourself to win a presidential election.  you cant be one weeks practice at what your advisors say you should be like.  that said, bush was an idiot.  i refrained from voting at all in 2004.  took my year-ender in november that year.  st. maarten, i recall.



Seriously dude, you voted for BUSH and you're all expecting us to take your word that Gore would have been a worse choice.

I mean, there's a serious judgement issue that precedes your statement.

You voted for BUSH.

How exactly would Gore have been WORSE?  Would he have invaded TWO countries that had nothing to do with 9/11?

Who knows, maybe Gore would have caught Osama Bin Laden, instead of letting him get away and leaving Al Qaeda to grow back to their old strength with a nice safe-haven in Pakistan.

Oh, I know, maybe Gore would have ruined the economy?  LOL, Bush took care of that, can't really see how Gore could have fucked it up worse.  

Hell, maybe Gore would have tried to regulate Wall Street.  Maybe not,, but who knows?

The point is, that when you have someone who did such an amazingly horrible job as president, pretty much anyone else would have done better.

Hell, Micky Mouse could have done better than George Bush.

And you expect us to take your word on it that a former Vice President from a successful prior administration couldn't have done better than such a colossal failure?

Seriously?

ROFL.


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

Jay Canuck said:


> *Going from 8,292 to 10,437 is a 25% increase.*



That's nice, but where's the jobs??????????????????


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

The T said:


> NO there Isn't. It's a LIE.
> 
> We bring you back to the regularally scheduled Thread...



Since you separated this post into two parts with completely different points, I'll just post and answer the first part:

Which part is a "lie"?  That the earth is warming?

You seriously think that there's some giant global conspiracy among the vast majority of the world scientific community, to fool you into thinking that the earth is warming?

Do you also believe the moon landing was a fake?  and that Elvis killed JFK?


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *Going from 8,292 to 10,437 is a 25% increase.*
> ...



Same place they were for 2 1/2 Years after Reagan took office.

Jobs are the last thing to recover.  They always are.

At least this time the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized and is coming slowly down.

.2% in the last month isn't a whole lot, but it is an improvement.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
> If so you are a partisan hack not a true conservative.



The last 3 Presidential elections I voted against someone instead of for someone. Pretty sorry state of affairs. And if a Dead dog runs against Obama in the next presidential I'll vote against Obama. Unless there happens to be a conservative running, then I'll vote for that conservative.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Counting moneys that Bush did claim would be returned? How about all the projected spending this years congress has already approved and plan on approving even more. This trillion wasn't approved by Bush, when does it count? Fact is that this congress is spending money like it actually does grow on a tree. And if it doesn't stop soon the USA will not be a financial power to anyone except maybe a few 3rd world countries. And current deficit is still 1.5 trillion + and growing.
> ...



Only 100 Billion and we haven't seen any of his spending or his budget kick in yet. But we do know it's out there and coming straight at our wallets like a giant train wreck don't we?

Obama has a projected Deficit of how much? I don't se how you can claim it to be shrinking when we can look at the clock and see it growing every second.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Explain that please.........


----------



## antagon (Dec 14, 2009)

thats my voting record; i could imagine gore doing worse/didnt imagine bush doing so poorly.  its easy to call that one a decade later, but i remember 2k.  gore was conjuring up campaign stories, mauling his wife in public, plastering on rouge, behaving like a robot.  he was gore.

alas, ive backed myself into defending a blittering idiot.  i surrender.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > YOur so right. Both parties spend like drunken sailors. THats why they keep getting re-elected.
> ...



Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? That figures. Cut the military spending in half and use the money to teach the people which language? Farsi or Chinese maybe?


----------



## namvet (Dec 14, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> As a conservative did you vote for Bush in 2004?
> If so you are a partisan hack not a true conservative.



did you vote for Osama in 08 ??? If so you are a partisan hack. period


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > NO there Isn't. It's a LIE.
> ...


 
Translation: akjdsklfjdsgklfjeoritewporuewipo dsjgfdskfjy[otyiu[pioqwertn qwoiewoitedfdsnfdf,lgmnm,ams!

In short? YOU are an IDIOT.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


 

They can't. They MEAN to make it larger, and speed the clock up...all for their power.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> Jay Canuck said:
> 
> 
> > *Going from 8,292 to 10,437 is a 25% increase.*
> ...


 
Being LOST to others or being Obliterated altogether...


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? That figures. Cut the military spending in half and use the money to teach the people which language? Farsi or Chinese maybe?



Here are the actual Military spending figures as of 2004 including the top 3 spenders:

_*World Wide Military Expenditures *

World Total                          $1100 billion            
Rest-of-World [all but USA]     $500 billion 

United States                         $623 billion 
China                                     $65 billion  
Russia                                    $50 billion  _

Source:  World Wide Military Expenditures

If we cut the military budget in half, we'd still be spending _*five times *_as much as our closest competitor, the Chinese.

Now, are you trying to say that the US is inferior in military technology, in that it takes them 10 times as much money to create as much military might as the Chinese?

Because I think America can do better than _that_.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

The T said:


> Translation: akjdsklfjdsgklfjeoritewporuewipo dsjgfdskfjy[otyiu[pioqwertn qwoiewoitedfdsnfdf,lgmnm,ams!
> 
> In short? YOU are an IDIOT.



Translation:  "The T" has nothing to say, because his talking points have run out.

ROFL.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

The T said:


> They can't. They MEAN to make it larger, and speed the clock up...all for their power.



Ahh, yes, this would be the completely nonsensical Glenn Beck "Drive up the debt to increase the power of the Executive" conspiracy.

Yeah, I love how Beck "Connected the dots" in that episode by having his guest, a Fox Business Channel host, declare it was so.

LOL.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

The T said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Jay Canuck said:
> ...



Talking point # 20482

You don't really have much of your own stuff, do you T?


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 14, 2009)

I think I am beginning to see a pattern on some posters on here.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

uscitizen said:


> I think I am beginning to see a pattern on some posters on here.




There are a few that spit out the same old talking points.

There are a couple of websites devoted to giving them the talking points to post.

You can grab most of them off of Rush Limbaugh's site, or NewsMax.com, but there are more specific places, like Townhall.com.  You need to sign up for them though.

Here's an example from Townhall.com:



> *Congress Needs a Little Fiscal Discipline *
> Cesar Conda: Congress is preparing to raise the Federal debt ceiling by a whopping $1.8 trillion...
> http://www.townhall.com/


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am beginning to see a pattern on some posters on here.
> ...



I am on a couple of right wing viral emails lists.  I have heard most of this before they post it.  Pretty sad really.


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


 

Just as MUCH as *YOU DO* Mother Fucker*


----------



## The T (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


 

YOU don't have anything but what YOU glean fron the Internet _asshole._STOP pretending to be _smarter than what you actually are._

You may DROP the pretense assclown.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan? That figures. Cut the military spending in half and use the money to teach the people which language? Farsi or Chinese maybe?
> ...



We spend more because we have better training and equipment. Not to mention the highest paid soldiers in the world. I don't know how much the Chinese private gets paid but I'd bet you couldn't live on it. But you go ahead and cut our military by half,again, because that has already been done once since the end of the cold war. But see who attacks us when you have done that.  As long as I'm Alive I'll fight to keep a strong military thank you.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

The T said:


> YOU don't have anything but what YOU glean fron the Internet _asshole._STOP pretending to be _smarter than what you actually are._
> 
> You may DROP the pretense assclown.



ROFL.  

Seriously dude, I hardly ever get topics from Left-Wing sites.

Read my stuff, it's usually original, I don't like plagiarism, and when I quote facts I give credit to the original sources.

Just because you have some issues with originality, don't project them onto me.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 14, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> We spend more because we have better training and equipment. Not to mention the highest paid soldiers in the world. I don't know how much the Chinese private gets paid but I'd bet you couldn't live on it. But you go ahead and cut our military by half,again, because that has already been done once since the end of the cold war. But see who attacks us when you have done that.  As long as I'm Alive I'll fight to keep a strong military thank you.



Yes, it was cut, by Bush I,

and, as I'm sure you well know, it was raised right back up again by Bush II and company.  

*To a high of 535 Billion in 2006, staying around 500 Billion until this year.*

U.S. Military Spending, 1946&#8211;2009 &mdash; Infoplease.com

*And those figures DO NOT INCLUDE THE IRAQ AND AFGHAN WARS.*

Which are about a Trillion dollars *so far*, not including all the secondary and tertiary costs, like continuing veterans' health outlays that result directly from the wars.

COSTOFWAR.COM - The Cost of War


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > We spend more because we have better training and equipment. Not to mention the highest paid soldiers in the world. I don't know how much the Chinese private gets paid but I'd bet you couldn't live on it. But you go ahead and cut our military by half,again, because that has already been done once since the end of the cold war. But see who attacks us when you have done that.  As long as I'm Alive I'll fight to keep a strong military thank you.
> ...



Gee half of Obamas spendulus plan...........


----------



## Meister (Dec 14, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > C-.....and he still did better than Kerry in school.
> ...



You are talking about the 2008, and 2009 budgets where the democrats controlled the Congress, and the Senate....right.  I see....
The 93' WTC bombing was a Bin Laden pet project....did you have selective memory on that.  What did Clinton do?  Isn't that where he bombed an asprin factory?
Bush I may have down sized the military to some extent, but Clinton really dumbed it down in his years in the office.  Also, let the CIA, and FBI fragment to where the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.  Worked out real well when the terrorists attacked on 9-11....all there was, was the finger pointing.
When I said Bush had balls I wasn't referring to iraq, I agree with you on that, I'm talking about going after the terrorists, something that the democrats lacked the prior 8 years.  Sorry you can't admit to it, and I know you can't.
Yes, I voted for Bush because I couldn't bring myself to vote for a rodent with the name of John Kerry, and I do laugh at you for voting for him.
I didn't agree with Bush on spending, and the Iraq war, he was better than those other 2 goofballs your party had put up....you were begging to get beat in 2000, and 2004.


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

uscitizen said:


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




You can speak for yourself., I have done quite well managing my own finances,and don't spend money that I do not have in my hand. No credit cards either nor do I own a house I can't afford. The government needs to take lessons on how to manage money and I would be glad to give it.

Who were the Republicans in the senate that voted for this???? The house repubs all stood against this added monstrosity, but there obviously were some in the senate who voted for it. I am really pissed at them even more so than I am at the dems, I expect this from the democrats, but not the Republicans,  this takes the cake. They increase the budget to 4 times the rate of inflation, absolute insanity, 5000 more earmarks. I want the names of those Republican senators.. What are we going to have to do, go up there and physically remove these morons from their seats??? Anyone wonder why the tea party's, you don't have to look far.


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

These people are assholes. Fire them all!!!!!!

Senate to vote on $1.1 trillion spending bill - Yahoo! Singapore News

The Senate Budget Committee's senior Republican, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, pushed the creation of a bipartisan deficit reduction task force as a condition for raising the debt ceiling to near $14 trillion. "If we don't do this, we'll be passing on to our kids an insolvent country, which basically means they're going to confront massive inflation or massive tax increases," he said on "Fox News Sunday


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2009)

Start calling your Senators and tell them to go along with the majority parties program.  We elected them to get healthcare reform.  We elected them to increase labor wages and bring jobs home.  We elected them to cut wasteful defense spending.  We elected them to stop funding the war for profit.  We elected them to get the bankers under control.  We elected them to make trade agreements fair for American workers.  We elected them to end the unfair tax breaks to the rich.  

The GOP run government cut a lot of good social programs and still increased spending.  Amazing.  Now after 8 years of ignoring the citizens and countries infrastructure, you want the government to get frugal?  During a recession too?  And the bankers are the ones getting most of the handouts?  Don't you smell a bank robbery?  But still you defend the mega corporations that own us and run our government as a shadow government?  Oh yea, I'm a conspicacy theorist.  NOT!  Its all fact.  Yet you defend the bankers.  Why?  

And you don't want the government to reign in the mega corporations, oil companies and healthcare giants who don't manufacture jack shit.  They are just money skimming middle men.  And remember Bush let the oil companies fake an increase in oils value and got $4 a gallon from you.  Kiss your tax break goodbye.


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 14, 2009)

I guess that Congress is going to shit that 1.1 trillion dollars.  Where else they going to get it?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> These people are assholes. Fire them all!!!!!!
> 
> Senate to vote on $1.1 trillion spending bill - Yahoo! Singapore News
> 
> The Senate Budget Committee's senior Republican, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, pushed the creation of a bipartisan deficit reduction task force as a condition for raising the debt ceiling to near $14 trillion. "If we don't do this, we'll be passing on to our kids an insolvent country, which basically means they're going to confront massive inflation or massive tax increases," he said on "Fox News Sunday



See, we can get Lieberman's vote when we need it.  And next we will pay off a few Republicans to go along with our liberal agenda.  We have an even bigger majority than GW had for 6 years.  This is only year one.  We will get this country running again folks.  

If the people that want the Dems to fail would just shut the fuck up and get back to work, we'd be even better off.  Remember we rallied around Bush after 9-11?  And the economy got better.  Of course labor didn't get to share any of the record profits they made 04-07, but whatever.  And have any of you gotten any bailout?  Who's getting it?  The rich.  The bankers.  Time for the rich and the corporations to start paying their fair share.  What they paid back in the 90's.  They say they can't afford it?  Of course.  What else would you expect them to say?  Wake up!  And unions need to go back up to 25% of American labor.  Its around 9% now?  is that right?  Labor got left behind.  Only Democrats create a middle class.  Hoover and Bush don't.  

Reagan was a fake.  He ran us into debt.  It was HW Bush's raising taxes that created the 90's economy.  It cost him a second term, but he was right to do it.


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Start calling your Senators and tell them to go along with the majority parties program.  We elected them to get healthcare reform.  We elected them to increase labor wages and bring jobs home.  We elected them to cut wasteful defense spending.  We elected them to stop funding the war for profit.  We elected them to get the bankers under control.  We elected them to make trade agreements fair for American workers.  We elected them to end the unfair tax breaks to the rich.
> 
> The GOP run government cut a lot of good social programs and still increased spending.  Amazing.  Now after 8 years of ignoring the citizens and countries infrastructure, you want the government to get frugal?  During a recession too?  And the bankers are the ones getting most of the handouts?  Don't you smell a bank robbery?  But still you defend the mega corporations that own us and run our government as a shadow government?  Oh yea, I'm a conspicacy theorist.  NOT!  Its all fact.  Yet you defend the bankers.  Why?
> 
> And you don't want the government to reign in the mega corporations, oil companies and healthcare giants who don't manufacture jack shit.  They are just money skimming middle men.  And remember Bush let the oil companies fake an increase in oils value and got $4 a gallon from you.  Kiss your tax break goodbye.




With 10% unemployment and rising a debt of approximately 13 trillion dollars who the hell do you think is going to pay for your social programs, seally bobo??? The cookie monster??? Get freggin real.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2009)

Big Black Dog said:


> I guess that Congress is going to shit that 1.1 trillion dollars.  Where else they going to get it?



The rich.  The corporations.  They got 8 years of tax breaks.  Didn't they?


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > These people are assholes. Fire them all!!!!!!
> ...



Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition. 

That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.


" The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people's money. " Margaret Thatcher.

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Start calling your Senators and tell them to go along with the majority parties program.  We elected them to get healthcare reform.  We elected them to increase labor wages and bring jobs home.  We elected them to cut wasteful defense spending.  We elected them to stop funding the war for profit.  We elected them to get the bankers under control.  We elected them to make trade agreements fair for American workers.  We elected them to end the unfair tax breaks to the rich.
> ...



Time to fix NAFTA and our bad trade agreements I guess.  And we closed those offshore tax shelters that some 50,000 Americans were using in places like UBS and Caymens.  

Hey, if you want to fix the real problem, stop paying attention to the billions the democrats are spending and check out the trillions that the Federal Reserve is looting from us.  

And we continue to fund Iraq.  Why?  And we doubled the contractors in Iraq to protect the oil companies.  Do you think they share the spoils with you?  Maybe 10c a gallon they do.  But did you cry about the cost of Iraq?   Because I think that money was just stolen from us.  The government gets back the money it spends inside America.  

And you and I will pay some too.  Its worth a stong economy.  We can afford a little more, right?  And maybe it'll mean higher wages for you, or that you don't get screwed by an insurance company.  

I guarantee your quality of life is better because of liberal policies, not conservative policies.  Unless you are rich.  Are you?


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



You're telling us liberals now that the middle class is shrinking?  We just spent 8 years arguing with you the opposite.  Oh yea, you guys are big time flip floppers.  I forgot, Obama's president now.  Now you take the exact opposite position on everything because now Dems are in charge.  LOL>  

How did Fred do running for President?  Who else you gonna quote, Palin?  Huckabee?  Newt?  Rudy?  

You a big Margaret Thatcher fan?  Was she middle class?


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that Congress is going to shit that 1.1 trillion dollars.  Where else they going to get it?
> ...



I don't know how many times I need to tell you this, but our corporate tax rate is the 2nd highest in the world, 35-38%, they go overseas to get away from that. You want to raise taxes on business, then business will just lay off more people, and more business will go over-sea's where they are appreciated. Pretty soon there will be NO jobs for anyone, so whose going to support your big social agenda Seally, when no one is working therefore no one can pay taxes, therefore the government is not taking in any money to give to you. Does that make it easier for you to put together or do I need to draw you a map. Maybe one with a crayon would work better, and you would be able to piece what economics is all about.

The rich already pay over 90% of the taxes in this country and they are rich enough to leave too. BTW- Reagan passed one of the largest across the board tax cuts in history, it's called "trickle down," it worked creating 20 million new jobs, which INCREASED revenue to the government. When everyone is working everyone is paying taxes. When there are less people working, there are less people paying taxes.

Obama has a "flood the basement" keynesian theory and those people do not create jobs in the private sector. They pay off debt. The 787 billion dollar stimulus bill did nothing but stimulate government growth, nothing for the private sector which is the economic engine of our economy.


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Margaret Thatcher, do you even know who she was, was a brilliant woman and prime minister of England.

Did you happen to notice that I want the names of the Republican senators that voted for this 1.1 trillion dollar monstrosity with 5,000 earmarks, because you can bet your buckwheat they will be hearing from me.

How's this for a quote, especially for you, who is intent on the spreading of misery.

" A government  big enough to GIVE you everything you need, is big enough to TAKE everything you have. Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Another quote just for you Bobo.

" Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King Jr.

And::::

" I am in favor of taking dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." Frank Lloyd Wright.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



Jefferson also said a lot of things that would go against your way of thinking.  What would those things prove?  If that your reply and you have nothing else to say, I would say you kind of lose the debate.  Because you are suggesting that the government is trying to give me and you everything you need.  Give me a fucking break.  

That's why rich republicans vote for the GOP.  Because they give them more of their money back.

Poor Republicans only think the GOP gives them more of their hard earned money back.  You are sadly mistaken.  You are more likely to benefit from the Democratic spending.  The construction worker might spend money in your store.  

To benefit from GOP spending, you have to be a Cayman banker, Iraqi warlord like Mook Tada El Sadr, or banker at the UBS.  Or yacht salesman.  Or mortgage banker, who all got rich fucking over all of us on our homes, or wallstreet ceo, who got rich fucking us on our 401k's.  Do you know the facts?  I bet you have very selective memory.

And I bet you don't benefit from GOPanomics.  You're probably a hard on over god gays and guns.  Wedge issues.  That's how they con broke ass conservatives to vote GOP.  YOu're all voting out of your pay grades.


----------



## sealybobo (Dec 14, 2009)

Maple said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...



"The only intelligent conservatives are the ones with lots of money.  The rest are either greedy, ignorant, brainwashed and/or racist.  sealybobo

Or you could be underinformed, or misinformed.  You're definately not uninformed.  You're just a field slave who thinks massa treats you good.  

They got you thinking your government is the enemy and corporations are the almighty.


----------



## Maple (Dec 14, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...




First of all you need to provide those Jefferson quotes, that you say exist. I need some links, he was for limited, smaller more efficient government. 

The government is going to benefit me? yeah sure they are, they are going to tax the crap out of me, my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren so they can give the seally bobos' of the world single payer health care and fullfill your every desire at their expense. Of course, with the debt, their STANDARD OF LIVING will be reduced by approximately 35%, but who cares about what kind of shack they can afford as long as Seally Bobo gets what she wants out of it. There are lots and lots of Seally Bobo's with their hands out for someone else to fill up, but you and your kind are an absolute drain on productive, responsible working people of this country. NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING, NO ONE. Not the rich, not the evil corporations, not business, not Bush, not the government, NO ONE OWES SEALLY BOBO ANYTHING.


----------



## antagon (Dec 15, 2009)

maple, trickle down economics never increased government revenue; it was supposed to, but instead began an all-but-clinton debt-building extraveganza.  reagan can be credited with many things, and i would call him a great president, but by 1984, he was hacking up massive deficit spending behind the tax breaks you laud him for.  by 87 the markets had enough.  it also precipitated the S&L crisis.  familliar? the reagan recovery was the first of the contemporary 'jobless recoveries', what you hack at obama for.

trickle-down economics never worked, not in england, not in the US.  i think there was just too much tax pre '79, and there was room to improve.  reagan, certainly dubya, went overboard and borrowed japanese or chinese money to do this retarded trickling with.  statistically, it never did the 'down' part to where the middle class could appreciate it.  it is the middle class you want to target directly with all the preference the government can offer, how i see it.

sealybobo makes some good points, but he can go to hell with that union bullshit.  that has nothing to do with american prosperity, quality of life, or worker's rights at this point.  that 25% would constitute a labor elite with their own corrupt corporate hierarchy.

furthermore, wealthy people arent out to getchya or any of that 'corporate greed' nonesense.  there's a case for progressive taxation and all of that, but nobody's out to punish the wealthy.  we're not the second highest corporate tax environment on the planet like the maples out there think.  they may have never left the country, perhaps.  we are one of the best, perhaps the best, environment for business - something we've got to protect for the benefit of all americans.


----------



## antagon (Dec 15, 2009)

tj on taxes...

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution [maple!?]] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson 

tj on _progressive_ tax...

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 16, 2009)

Meister said:


> You are talking about the 2008, and 2009 budgets where the democrats controlled the Congress, and the Senate....right.  I see....
> 
> And that was the Obama administrations responsibility... how?  And what *new* spending plans did the Democrats add during their two years of being continuously vetoed exactly?
> 
> The 93' WTC bombing was a Bin Laden pet project....did you have selective memory on that.  What did Clinton do?  Isn't that where he bombed an asprin factory?



OK, seriously, you need to lay off the right-wing talk-radio.

First of all, Osama Bin Laden was in Somalia at the time of the 1993 attacks.  Al Qaeda was based in the Sudan at the time, and was a relatively small operation.

More importantly, neither Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the 1993 WTC Bombing.

From WikiPedia:



> The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.



The bomber Ramzi Yousef, had no ties to Bin Laden at all.



> Bush I may have down sized the military to some extent, but Clinton really dumbed it down in his years in the office.  Also, let the CIA, and FBI fragment to where the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing.  Worked out real well when the terrorists attacked on 9-11....all there was, was the finger pointing.



Having actually been in the military at the time, the Army to be specific, I can assure you that the drawdowns all started happening during the Bush administration, as the Cold War had ended.  Clinton actually had little to do with proposing the force reductions, he pretty much just sat back and allowed them to continue under his watch.

The problems with the CIA and FBI had little or nothing to do with the military drawdown, but had more to do with inter-agency turf wars.



> When I said Bush had balls I wasn't referring to iraq, I agree with you on that, I'm talking about going after the terrorists, something that the democrats lacked the prior 8 years.  Sorry you can't admit to it, and I know you can't.



So he caught Osama Bin Laden then?   Great!

And he destroyed Al Qaeda?  Excellent!

Oh no, wait, he didn't do any of that.  Instead he invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

*If by "having balls" you mean Bush apparently kept his head in the area of his balls (more specifically up his ass), then you would be 100% correct.*  Hell I'm surprised he didn't invade Mexico.



> Yes, I voted for Bush because I couldn't bring myself to vote for a rodent with the name of John Kerry, and I do laugh at you for voting for him.
> I didn't agree with Bush on spending, and the Iraq war, he was better than those other 2 goofballs your party had put up....you were begging to get beat in 2000, and 2004.



So you cast your vote for the President of the United States based on_ likeability _rather than _ability_, and then you were surprised when the man that you "would rather have a beer with" fucked everything up?

Wow.  And you still don't see where you went wrong, eh?


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 16, 2009)

Maple said:


> Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition.
> 
> That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.




Strange then that the gap between rich and poor has expanded so rapidly.

Since 1980 the share of this country's total income that went to the the top 10% increased from 34% to 50%.







Now who was it that you claim is making the middle class shrink?


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 16, 2009)

Hey and look at the last time the country had such a large income gap!

How interesting!

It's also interesting to note that the lowest capital gains tax rates ever coincided with those exact periods.

And of course it's very interesting to note that each of those periods was followed by a market crash and deep economic crisis...


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 16, 2009)

And look!  During WW2, the wage gap shrunk, and socialism abounded...

And the US had the most productive 5 years ever in the history of the country.

And for the 25 years that followed, the country enjoyed an extremely profitable, productive period.

And guess what?  the wage gap remained small!

What an interesting phenomenon.  I wonder why that was?


----------



## obama2ndterm (Dec 16, 2009)

In 2001, President Bush waged a largely successful campaign to curb the estate tax. But eight years after denouncing that scourge of the ultra-rich, Republicans have resurrected their "death tax" talking point, complete with its repeatedly debunked claims about the impact of estate levies on small businesses and family farms. Even as they decry the deficit spending the Bush recession has required, Congressional Republicans aided and abetted by some Democrats are pushing an estate tax windfall for the wealthiest Americans that within a decade could drain up to $1 trillion from the U.S. Treasury.

The battle lines have been joined over the expiration of the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire next year. Included in that bonanza for the rich was the gradual reduction and temporary elimination of the estate tax. As the Washington Post noted, under President Obama budget, 99.76% of estates would pay no taxes whatsoever. We  must stop giving money to `the rich!Of course, the complete falsehood of a statement is no barrier to Republicans uttering it. Now as in 2001, Republicans wrongly claimed that the estate tax led to the loss of family farms. When President Bush blasted opponents who say "the death tax doesn't cause people to sell their farms" with a mocking "don't know who they're talking to in Iowa," neither Hawkeye State farmers nor researchers could name one. As David Cay Johnston, among the nation's leading journalists when it comes to tax issues, conclude in the New York Times eight years ago:

    Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said. Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.

As it turns out, the rotting corpse of the "death tax" isn't the only fraud recently exhumed by the Republican Party. During the stimulus debate, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders falsely claimed the Obama would raise taxes on small business owners, less than 2% of which are impacted by the move to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 annually. And as the budget battle heats up, Republican leaders parrot the epic lie that the President's proposed cap and trade system would cost American families $3,100 a year.

Sadly, the American media refuses to decapitate the "death tax" and other zombie Republican talking points that just won't die.
*[Copyrights
© 2004 - 2009, Perrspectives.com. You may not reuse or redistribute Perrspectives images or other materials without permission.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 16, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> And look!  During WW2, the wage gap shrunk, and socialism abounded...
> 
> And the US had the most productive 5 years ever in the history of the country.
> 
> ...



Part of that is because so many women who joined the work force (Ruby the riveter) refused to leave the work force after the war was over. Somehow there were jobs for all and spending was high because of all the two job incomes. Until inflation reared it's ugly head and those two incomes were almost a necessity instead of a bonus. My wife and I are proud that she never had to work outside the home. She has always been a proud home maker.


----------



## Meister (Dec 16, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You are talking about the 2008, and 2009 budgets where the democrats controlled the Congress, and the Senate....right.  I see....
> ...



A left wing spin....I see, Vast.  No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.


----------



## Maple (Dec 16, 2009)

antagon said:


> maple, trickle down economics never increased government revenue; it was supposed to, but instead began an all-but-clinton debt-building extraveganza.  reagan can be credited with many things, and i would call him a great president, but by 1984, he was hacking up massive deficit spending behind the tax breaks you laud him for.  by 87 the markets had enough.  it also precipitated the S&L crisis.  familliar? the reagan recovery was the first of the contemporary 'jobless recoveries', what you hack at obama for.
> 
> trickle-down economics never worked, not in england, not in the US.  i think there was just too much tax pre '79, and there was room to improve.  reagan, certainly dubya, went overboard and borrowed japanese or chinese money to do this retarded trickling with.  statistically, it never did the 'down' part to where the middle class could appreciate it.  it is the middle class you want to target directly with all the preference the government can offer, how i see it.
> 
> ...



I respectfully disagree with your post. For one, I lived through the Jimmy Carter years and I also grew up during the cold war where we had air-raid sirens go off once a month on Fridays and we kids were told to crawl under our desks in case of a Russian nuclear attack. We were taught to do this. It was a constant fear in our community as I live very close to Norad, the defense command center for entire U.S and Canada.  We were always told that our city was the number 1 hit for a nuclear bomb. You people are probably too young to remember, but it is something I will never forget. I lived it.

Reagan ended that cold war without firing one shot, yes he ran up the deficit and out spent the Russians on defense, they caved and fell as a nation, no longer able to keep up with our defense spending and no longer the threat they used to be.

Reagan inherited a deep recession from Jimmy Carter, the weakest President in history only to be surpassed by Obama in the near future. I remember, because I lived through it, 21% interest rates on mortgage loans, 14% inflation, very high unemployment. It was misery and it was shared misery by the entire nation.

Reagan spent 8 months after he was elected and passed an across the board tax cut, that stimulated the economy creating 20 million new jobs, with more people back to work and more people paying taxes he increased government revenue. 

I never stated that he did not deficit spend to accomplish this, but what he did achieve was a great thing through deficit spending, which lead eventually to a balanced budget during Clinton's term. 

What we see currently is a whole bunch of deficit spending that is doing little to nothing to create private sector jobs and instead is going to study why " pigs stink" in Iowa.

There'r your difference and it is night and day.


----------



## Maple (Dec 16, 2009)

Reagan Administration Accomplishments 1981-1989 &#8212; The Forerunner This is just a small list of the great accomplishments of Reagan and the great President and Leader that he was.

Reagan Administration Accomplishments 1981-1989
By Editorial Staff 
Published December 1988

1. President Reagan&#8217;s economic policies stimulated the economy, creating 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half.

2. We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagan&#8217;s tax reforms.

3. The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%.

4. We are now experiencing the longest and strongest peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation.

5. We are experiencing the best peacetime relationship with the Soviet Union in our history. We have also seen the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

6. We are now keeping the peace. We drew the line in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and no countries have fallen to communism during the Reagan era.

7. The U.S. military was refurbished and strengthened.

8. There is now a call for prayer in schools. The Republican adminstration has been lobbying to give this deserved religious freedom.

9. We have seen a return to traditional values. Under Reagan, we have seen a cut in federal funding of abortions; emphasis on a strong family unit; and the development of family-oriented public policy.

10. Educational leaders are now working to sustain moral values and reestablish a clear understanding of right and wrong. The need for values in the curriculum has been trumpeted by the Reagan administration.

11. People from other nations are flocking to America to follow our example. Our principles of civil and economic freedom are now being copied all over the world.

America Just Prior to the Reagan Administration

1. Seven million Americans were unemployed.

2. We were told to live on less, to buckle our belts and to prepare for scarcity.

3. Americans went through two of the worst years of inflation in 60 years. There was a 13% inflation rate. Family income dropped and we had the highest tax bill in our history.

4. We were on the verge of a major recession.

5. With our cold wars during the &#8217;70s, we inspired our enemies not to be afraid of us. The Soviets refused to come to the bargaining table. Cultural exchanges between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. came to a halt.


----------



## jeffrockit (Dec 16, 2009)

I'll tell you what, why don't you elect some people that don't just repeat talking points about "Lower Taxes and Fiscal Responsibility", and then when the Republicans that YOU VOTED FOR are actually in office, we can reduce the deficit and cut programs.  And they can be "the bad guys" because they live up to their campaign promises.

K?[/QUOTE]

How about we stop with the partisan BS and the politicans decide at some point to do the right thing and not wait for the next cycle. Neither side truly cares for the people who put them in office. They (dems and reps) care about 1 thing...power. To believe otherwise is just foolish. Why can't any of them be "the good guys"?


----------



## antagon (Dec 18, 2009)

Maple said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > maple, trickle down economics never increased government revenue; it was supposed to, but instead began an all-but-clinton debt-building extraveganza.  reagan can be credited with many things, and i would call him a great president, but by 1984, he was hacking up massive deficit spending behind the tax breaks you laud him for.  by 87 the markets had enough.  it also precipitated the S&L crisis.  familliar? the reagan recovery was the first of the contemporary 'jobless recoveries', what you hack at obama for.
> ...



i made a point to say reagan was a great president, and for many of the reasons you'd pointed out, specifically in contrast to carter's and pre-reagan tax ethics.  i couldnt control my bowels or walk 10 feet without falling when reagan was elected, and i could only remember how the mid eighties was.  my parents were rabid republicans at the time, and partly because of reagan (the rabid part)

i gotta challenge you on the employment record.  he had the where's the jobs syndrome for years and years, a way trickle-down _did not_ work.  that was the beginning of an era, for better or worse, that the economy's performance was based on the fairly wealthy's investment behavior in stocks and debt, rather than jobs and tangible productivity.  we've got a diverse economy, despite that, but similar policy under thatcher has specialized their economy to the banking and investment sector to the degree that theyre still in a contraction phase a couple months since we started to expand here.

i think its fetching to tie reagans deficit spending legacy to clinton's budget responsibility.  i tie it to bush's disregard for deficit.  he did a lot of 'worked for reagan' moves, but without the insight reagan shown.  with war, for example.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> A left wing spin....I see, Vast.  No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.



Which part is "Left-Wing" spin?

The part where I said Republicans had raised spending unbelievably before the Democrats took over congress in 2006?  That is a fact.  Look it up.  (Of course when you look up the budgets, you might want to check out all the additional hidden spending the Federal Government did in the form of war spending, etc.)

The part where Osama Bin Laden had nothing to do with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing?  I can assure you that that is 100% factual information.  Just look it up.

Or was it the part where Bush *didn't* catch Osama Bin Laden,* or *reduce the number and power of Al Qaeda after 5 years, Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of people dead?  Because that is also a FACT.  Look it up.

Maybe you meant the part where I referred to the fact that people voted for George Bush "Because he's the kind of guy they'd like to have a beer with"?  Also factual information.

Or the part where George Bush fucked everything up?  Well, ok, maybe that single sentence is a bit of spin.  He only fucked MOST things up.

Or maybe you're trying to imply that "stating the facts" is actually "spinning".


----------



## Meister (Dec 18, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > A left wing spin....I see, Vast.  No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.
> ...



I'm stating your a spin machine...and your still spinning...get over it...I did.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 18, 2009)

Meister said:


> I'm stating your a spin machine...and your still spinning...get over it...I did.




Uh huh.  As much as you were "spinning", if we define "spinning" as "stating the facts as we honestly see them".

Of course, that would mean everyone in the world is "spinning" anytime they speak.


----------



## Meister (Dec 18, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > I'm stating your a spin machine...and your still spinning...get over it...I did.
> ...



Your the spin machine, VLW....your the spin machine.  What a goofball 
In 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim militants. Again, bin Laden was considered one of the men behind the terrorist attack.
Osama bin Laden


----------



## The T (Dec 18, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > A left wing spin....I see, Vast. No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.
> ...


 
If you dear reader don't pay attention to _anything else_?

Notice the SPIN/Deflection of VLWC?

As If George Bushs' LACK of Veto Pen was WORSE than what the DemocRATS (Who did _indeed take over in '06)_, and CONTINUE their spree is ANY BETTER?

I Guess that VLWC is _oblivious_ to the fact that GWB was taken (metephorically), to the WOODSHED by Conservatives for it...

But The DemocRATS spending us into Slavery for a couple Generations is any better_?_

_VLWC? *YOU need to get a GRIP*, and SHED your Partisan hackery. Your partisan 'SLIP' shows...and it isn't a pretty sight._

DemocRAT SPENDING this Republic into Slavery of the YET TO BE BORN isn't any better NOW as it was THEN under GWB...


----------



## LilOlLady (Dec 19, 2009)

What may be pork to some, is filet mignon to others.

Schools projects, foreign language classes, Job Corp and other training programs, medical research, community centers and parks, research of lobster and fisheries, our food source, performing art and theater, and a host of other projects are not pork. Most of this spending will put people back to work, benefit the less fortunate, small town America and not the elite.


The elite dont know zit about what it is like to be an under privileged child in a substandard school in the inner city or without a job or healthcare. That do not have access to a library, arts or theater and complainers never had to account for a dollar. I did not hear this kind of opposition to government spending when Bush was doing the spending.


----------



## Meister (Dec 19, 2009)

LilOlLady said:


> What may be pork to some, is filet mignon to others.
> 
> Schools projects, foreign language classes, Job Corp and other training programs, medical research, community centers and parks, research of lobster and fisheries, our food source, performing art and theater, and a host of other projects are not pork. Most of this spending will put people back to work, benefit the less fortunate, small town America and not the elite.
> 
> ...



All you had to do was turn on your hearing-aid, LilOLady.  Conservatives were complaining big time about Bush not vetoing the spending bills that he signed.  You do know that spending did go up 23% since 2007...right?  This last election was a backlash from republicans to their party.
Your idea of earmarks is a VERY liberal take on spending.

Pork-watchers are only just beginning to sort through the earmarks, which typically are goodies set aside for the districts of members of Congress, as the bill tracks toward a final vote. So far, they've uncovered gems ranging from *$700,000 for a shrimp fishing project* in Maryland to *$30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative *to *$200,000 for a visitor's center in a Texas town with a population of about 8,000*
*Republicans, *though, have hardly shied away from the earmarks. Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., is *pushing $200,000 for the Washington National Opera.* *Sen. Judd Gregg, a fiscal hawk, is behind a $1 million earmark for renovation at the Portsmouth Music Hall.*
-- $150,000 for educational programs and exhibitions at the National Building Museum. 

-- *$400,000 for renovation of the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.* 

-- $150,000 for exhibits at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation in Buffalo, N.Y. 

-- *$500,000 for Mississippi River exhibits at the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque, Iowa. *

-- $200,000 for the Washington National Opera. 

-- $30,000 for the Woodstock Film Festival Youth Initiative. 

-- $2.7 million for the University of Nebraska Medical Center, to support surgical operations in space. 

-- $200,000 for a visitor's center in Bastrop, Texas. 

-- $700,000 for a project called, "Shrimp Industry Fishing Effort Research Continuation," at the National Marine Fisheries Service in Silver Spring, Md. 

-- $292,200 for the elimination of blight in Scranton, Pa. 

-- *$750,000 for exhibits at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates in Iowa.* 

-- *$1.6 million for a tram between the Marshall Flight Center and Huntsville Botanical Garden in Alabama. *
-- $655,000 for equipment at the Institute for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Research in Los Angeles. 
FOXNews.com - Watchdogs Cry Foul Over Thousands of Earmarks in Spending Bill

Most of this should be done at the city and state level, and not at the federal level, LilOLady.
With our economy in the state that it is, we just can't afford it.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 19, 2009)

Meister said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > What may be pork to some, is filet mignon to others.
> ...




And just wait until we find out whats in this so called healthcare bill. Any takers on how much pork is fit into it to buy the votes? (or were they maybe promised it in additional bills?)


----------



## Meister (Dec 19, 2009)

Everything is so transparent with this administration, it should be a cakewalk to follow the money...Kind of like the Yellow Brick Road.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 19, 2009)

Meister said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



That is a completely false statement.

The United States government has specifically stated that there is no suspicion at all that Osama Bin Laden was in any way connected to the 1993 World Trade Center attacks.

Your link doesn't provide any proof at all to back up that statement.

Remember just because you read it on the internet doesn't make it true.

What is true is that some other people, who later became members of Al Qaeda, were in fact  vaguely connected to a small amount of the financing of the 1993 WTC bombing, and that some relatives of the perpetrators of WTC 1993 bombing later became members of Al Qaeda.

But that does not point to any direct connection at all between Osama Bin Laden and the 1993 bombing.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 19, 2009)

The T said:


> If you dear reader don't pay attention to anything else?
> 
> Notice the SPIN/Deflection of VLWC?
> 
> ...



The only time George Bush had a "lack of veto pen" issue was when the Republicans held congress.

Once the Democrats took over congress, Bush Vetoed just about every major piece of legislation they sent to his desk.  Many other pieces of legislation were put in the "Don't even bother" category due to the fact that the Democrats didn't have enough votes to override the expected veto.

The only time Republicans "took Bush to the woodshed" was after he had been shown to be a massive failure, and he had begun to be a drag on Republican popularity.

It was only after Bush was seen as a detriment to winning votes that the Republicans turned on him.

And *95%* of the DEBT that this country has incurred happened *UNDER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATIONS*.

I'm sure you have some spin to try and contradict that fact, but it is a FACT nonetheless.


----------



## Meister (Dec 19, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Yet, we all have to believe that your source of wiki is proof positive. 
You have your sources and I have mine...this is why I say get over it, your not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change your mind.


----------



## Ame®icano (Dec 20, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't address Obama's campaign promise.
> ...



Yeah, what's really 0.35%? 

Next time they should pass annual budget of $4 trillion, it would result in much smaller percentage of pork spending and say... "it's only 0.1%".


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 21, 2009)

Ame®icano;1826646 said:
			
		

> Yeah, what's really 0.35%?
> 
> Next time they should pass annual budget of $4 trillion, it would result in much smaller percentage of pork spending and say... "it's only 0.1%".



And hey, just go on ignoring the second half of the post, where the point was made.

Here, I'll post it for you again:

*It is also a much smaller amount than in similar Republican spending bills passed while they held the majority.*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 21, 2009)

Seems as though people want to ignore the point. The Republicans aren't in power anymore. And when they were we were not in a recession. Now the economy is in the toilet, and it doesn't matter why, the Democrat congress is spending like drunken sailors at a time when we need fiscal responsibility.
And that is the point.
Regardless who is in power they all should be smart enough to know that you cannot get out of debt by doubling that debt. But Bush did it just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 23, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Seems as though people want to ignore the point. The Republicans aren't in power anymore. And when they were we were not in a recession. Now the economy is in the toilet, and it doesn't matter why, the Democrat congress is spending like drunken sailors at a time when we need fiscal responsibility.
> And that is the point.
> Regardless who is in power they all should be smart enough to know that you cannot get out of debt by doubling that debt. But Bush did it just doesn't cut it.



Yeah, but that's not how it works.

Cutting the budget is a PROCESS.  You can't just all funding off at once, it would lead to the collapse of the national infrastructure, you have to cut things gradually.


----------



## The T (Dec 23, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Seems as though people want to ignore the point. The Republicans aren't in power anymore. And when they were we were not in a recession. Now the economy is in the toilet, and it doesn't matter why, the Democrat congress is spending like drunken sailors at a time when we need fiscal responsibility.
> ...


 
Is this why the RUSH to get all these Socialist-NAY-Marxist projects done?

Try again...


----------



## antagon (Dec 23, 2009)

The T said:


> Is this why the RUSH ....


Limbaugh??


----------



## The T (Dec 23, 2009)

antagon said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Is this why the RUSH ....
> ...


 If *I* had _meant LIMBAUGH_ the word would have been embedded with a link, or a Sourced QUOTE.

YOU haven't been around here LONG enough to know this, so _*I*_ give you the BENEFIT..._of DOUBT..._


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 24, 2009)

The T said:


> Is this why the RUSH to get all these Socialist-NAY-Marxist projects done?
> 
> Try again...



There has never been a "Rush" on any of the proposals from the current congress, except in the minds of people who want to stand in thier way.

Public Health Insurance, for instance, has been debated since the early 70's, since Nixon proposed it.  That's 38 years of waiting and debate.  

If some people don't have an idea of what should go into a health bill by now, then they're just a bunch of morons.

As far as the actual current legislation goes, it has already been discussed for the past 6 months, I think that's plenty of time to go over a bill.

*Of course obstructionists paid by the private insurance industry would love to see the legislation be delayed for another decade or so.*


----------



## antagon (Dec 25, 2009)

most of the private insurance industry is backing this deal as they stand to gain substantially from having the government mandate their customers' consumption.


----------



## antagon (Dec 25, 2009)

The T said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



there... you said it.  so you give out benefits, too.  whose the Socialist-NAY-Marxist now?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 26, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Is this why the RUSH to get all these Socialist-NAY-Marxist projects done?
> ...



I can promise you that 3/4 of the Senators whoi voted for this legislation have no fucking clue what it is they have voted for nor do they have any clue what would have actually worked best for the country. And yes they are pushing it, and rushing it when they don't even have it finished behind closed doors and already talk about how quickly they want to pass it. Not vote on it but pass it. Why because they had already spent 6 months writing it so that they could buy the votes they needed to pass it. 

End result is nothing less that a rushed through, nobody knows whats in it, and nobody gives a shit, lets go home for Christmas, we fucking made history, Some kind of health insurance, something or other Bill.


----------



## Meister (Dec 26, 2009)

antagon said:


> most of the private insurance industry is backing this deal as they stand to gain substantially from having the government mandate their customers' consumption.



Yep, your right.

Reduces costs.....nope
Lowers premiums.......nope
Everyone will have insurance.....nope
Rationing care.....yep

Just off the cuff, it looks like a failure as to what the democrats were looking for...oh wait,  Government expansion......yep

Ah....there it is, a big win for obama, pelosi, and reid.


----------



## PatekPhilippe (Dec 27, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Seems as though people want to ignore the point. The Republicans aren't in power anymore. And when they were we were not in a recession. Now the economy is in the toilet, and it doesn't matter why, the Democrat congress is spending like drunken sailors at a time when we need fiscal responsibility.
> ...



Kinda like getting off heroin right???


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 29, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> I can promise you that 3/4 of the Senators whoi voted for this legislation have no fucking clue what it is they have voted for nor do they have any clue what would have actually worked best for the country. And yes they are pushing it, and rushing it when they don't even have it finished behind closed doors and already talk about how quickly they want to pass it. Not vote on it but pass it. Why because they had already spent 6 months writing it so that they could buy the votes they needed to pass it.
> 
> End result is nothing less that a rushed through, nobody knows whats in it, and nobody gives a shit, lets go home for Christmas, we fucking made history, Some kind of health insurance, something or other Bill.



How can you "promise" me anything about what Senators do and do not know about this bill?

Are you some sort of mind-reader?  Do psychic powers run in your family?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 29, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > I can promise you that 3/4 of the Senators whoi voted for this legislation have no fucking clue what it is they have voted for nor do they have any clue what would have actually worked best for the country. And yes they are pushing it, and rushing it when they don't even have it finished behind closed doors and already talk about how quickly they want to pass it. Not vote on it but pass it. Why because they had already spent 6 months writing it so that they could buy the votes they needed to pass it.
> ...



Troll elsewhere or at least address the true meaning of what people are saying.


----------



## Maple (Dec 29, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Is this why the RUSH to get all these Socialist-NAY-Marxist projects done?
> ...




6 months is not enough time when it amounts to 2 trillion dollars being added to the already enormous deficit and a take-over of 6% of our economy. We all agree to health care reform, tort reform, open competition, encourage health savings plans, group small business, make it portable and make it undeniable for pre-existing conditions. This could have all been done to lower the cost of health care and make health insurance much more affordable and it could have been done WITHOUT spending any money to do it.

It's called LEGISLATING  and REGULATIONS ON insurance companies. The American people would have been overwhelmingly for this type of reform, it could have passed with complete bi-partisanship but ooooooooooooooooooooooh noooooooooooooooo, that can't be done, because the agenda of this administration and the liberal congress and senate is not really health care reform it's about power over YOU and YOUR dollar. That's the agenda and it has nothing whatsoever to do with improving health care or lowering the costs of health care or health care insurance.


----------



## antagon (Dec 30, 2009)

Maple said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > The T said:
> ...



its about putting a bunch of customers in the healthcare system.  thats blindingly obvious... the bill also addresses some significant reforms in exchange for that carrot, but without putting a hurt on the medical industry or indemnifying them from their mistakes with tort reforms.  then it taxes the industry and consumers such as to mitigate a lot of the cost involved in expanding medicare/medicaid, which are also huge revenue sources for the private health industry.

its more taxes if youre making 10 times the national average, are riskin it without insurance, even if you can reasonably afford it, or abusing the deductibility of care plans.  i dont see what the huge deal is... then again, ive got no kids or any medical problems, and im one of the 10% who buys their own medical coverage, anyhow.  seems like a lot of positives for the care industry and the economy.  theres some hit-or-miss opportunities for the insured to benefit.

republicans are whipping.  there wont be any bipartisan action with a minority position like that.  not in american politics.  as a hint, when obama said he wanted to make a bipartisan bill, he wanted to make the GOP look like villains for doing their job, really.  

i think all of you guys have been around for longer than i have, ya ought to know thats how the game goes.  politics will be politics.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 30, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



You said, specifically:  

_"I can promise you that 3/4 of the Senators whoi voted for this legislation have no fucking clue what it is they have voted for"._

Which is a statement that has been repeated many times, by many different people, on the right-wing side of the fence.

So, I want you to back up what you said.  If you can't then you should not make assinine assumptions like this.

Or, perhaps you can explain what you were trying to convey.  Be my guest, spin away.


----------



## Vast LWC (Dec 30, 2009)

Maple said:


> 6 months is not enough time when it amounts to 2 trillion dollars being added to the already enormous deficit and a take-over of 6% of our economy.



But it is enough time to prove both these statements to be completely false, which has been done. 

This bill lowers the deficit, and in no way "takes over 6% of our economy".



> We all agree to health care reform, tort reform, open competition, encourage health savings plans, group small business, make it portable and make it undeniable for pre-existing conditions. This could have all been done to lower the cost of health care and make health insurance much more affordable and it could have been done WITHOUT spending any money to do it.



Regulating takes money.  One must pay regulators to do the regulating.



> It's called LEGISLATING  and REGULATIONS ON insurance companies. The American people would have been overwhelmingly for this type of reform, it could have passed with complete bi-partisanship but ooooooooooooooooooooooh noooooooooooooooo, that can't be done, because the agenda of this administration and the liberal congress and senate is not really health care reform it's about power over YOU and YOUR dollar. That's the agenda and it has nothing whatsoever to do with improving health care or lowering the costs of health care or health care insurance.



Apparently you haven't actually read any of the bill at all.  You should really check it out for yourself, and stop repeating the right-wing talking points.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 30, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Nice misdirection. But anyone with any unbiased sense knows that we have had nothing nut rushed through BS and bribery with this congress, but you go on and believe what you want. We understand that you cannot go against anything even remotely liberal. It's against your religion. And I don't make assumptions, the Bill was not out of committee long enough to be read and comprehended before it was voted on. Hence, they knew not what they voted for. No spin just simple unbiased fact.


----------



## Meister (Dec 30, 2009)

The bill hadn't even been written when the voted on it.  They voted on the concept of the bill.


----------



## antagon (Dec 30, 2009)

Meister said:


> The bill hadn't even been written when the voted on it.  They voted on the concept of the bill.



they voted on _two_ concepts of the bill.  even more bizaare. it was by xmas though.


----------



## elvis (Dec 30, 2009)

Vast LWC said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



Isn't it true that senators and congressmen hire people to read through the bills?  on BOTH sides of the fence?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Dec 30, 2009)

elvis3577 said:


> Vast LWC said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...



Yes they all have aides which read different sections and write summaries, but there is little time for even that the way they have been rushing things. I still say there were very few if any Senators who could have told you everything that was in the bill or supposed to be in the bill when they voted for it.


----------



## antagon (Dec 30, 2009)

SFC Ollie said:


> elvis3577 said:
> 
> 
> > Vast LWC said:
> ...



no, nobody could recite pelosi's novel verbatim, but i wont come close to saying that senators particularly, even congressmen had a detailed grip on the issue at hand.  particularly the centerist democrats.  republicans and shoe-in liberals may have had theyre yeas and nays ready since last year.

there's plenty of time.  lawyers and their offices plow through more in less time.  these guys are no different, unless you apply the cynicism that mone of them give a shit or arent hard-working, whatsoever.


----------

