Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Talk to GM employees, they have a different story. They told me (at least 1 of them did) last week that Obama screwed them in order to favor the unions. Furthermore, BUSH BAILED OUT GM.. Not Obama
Just like romney claimed that he did. Btw did that one person happen to be in management?
There are a lot more poor people today with Obama's policies!
If you think that it is bad now just wait until mitt gets in!
It just amazes me that people think that a man with serious character flaws in regards to priviledge is really going to give a damn about anyone making under 250k a tear
No I have been voting for the person who would do the least amount of damage, therefore I can care less about a dumbocrat or a refutican
If people quit voting on one issue and think of the country as a whole we would be better off. Besides anything that is back by large corperations can't be good for the common people
"We have a spending problem" may make a bumper sticker but it's not true. Since Bush lowered taxes in 2001, the government has gone from surplus to deficits every year.
Federal taxes are near historic lows and much lower, in particular, than at any point during the conservative Ronald Reagan presidency.
Bull ****.. federal revenues are low because of the ECONOMY, not the tax rates, while spending has climbed by 25% over the last THREE YEARS ALONE..
Furthermore, there was no DAM SURPLUS.. Stop posting the same old lies and educate yourself..
Bull ****.. federal revenues are low because of the ECONOMY, not the tax rates...
But GDP grew. Why didn't federal revenue? Average Growth in federal revenue by decade (constant 2005 dollars):
1981-1990: +2.21%
1991-2000: +4.41%
2001-2010: -1.47%
Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
Quote:
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
It won't have to pay $45.4 billion in taxes on future profits.
I see, we buy up a car company, and then we give them tax breaks, while criticizing tax breaks, while screwing the stock holders/bond holders, and boosting the profits of the business by hiding "losses", so they can resell the stock based upon "fake" earnings, and the whole time.. taxpayers pickup the tab..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.jpg)
