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.
The Big Dog was phenomenal! Best speech he's ever made. I particularly loved the irony of the fact that it was Bill Clinton - not the Republicans - who gave Dubya a compliment!
If only Clinton hadn't been limited to two terms, he would have been re-elected easily and there never would have been a Dubya, a 9/11 or the Wall Street meltdown.
Funny, I believe that the phrase 'congenital liar' was coined by the late William Safire, and it was originally said in reference to none other than Bill Clinton.
Again your beliefs fail you. Congenital liar was not "coined" by Mr. Safire, and he said it about Hillary, not Bill.
Democrats are seeking to re-instate the Assault Weapons Ban and other controls such as eliminating person to person private treaty gun sales between law abiding citizens. It is part of the DNC platform.
Of course their platform says nothing at all about more strict enforcement of current gun control laws. They only want to limit the liberty and ownership of the law abiding!
You have made another useless thread that is only another evidence of republican/conservative's paranoia.
Your threads and posts always revolve around guns, guns, guns and guns... trust me: I'm not mocking you, but I'd love to understand where such paranoia come from.
USA is facing countless serious issues and you're concerned only about the so-called right to own several assault weapons... I'd love to understand if other rights are important to you.
Also, government regulate car sales between private citizens, why it shouldn't do the same with guns? Explain me, please.
The Big Dog was phenomenal! Best speech he's ever made. I particularly loved the irony of the fact that it was Bill Clinton - not the Republicans - who gave Dubya a compliment!
If only Clinton hadn't been limited to two terms, he would have been re-elected easily and there never would have been a Dubya, a 9/11 or the Wall Street meltdown.
The Big Dog was phenomenal! Best speech he's ever made. I particularly loved the irony of the fact that it was Bill Clinton - not the Republicans - who gave Dubya a compliment!
If only Clinton hadn't been limited to two terms, he would have been re-elected easily and there never would have been a Dubya, a 9/11 or the Wall Street meltdown.
The Republicans did not even want Bush at the RNC...what does that tell us?
The Big Dog was phenomenal! Best speech he's ever made. I particularly loved the irony of the fact that it was Bill Clinton - not the Republicans - who gave Dubya a compliment!
If only Clinton hadn't been limited to two terms, he would have been re-elected easily and there never would have been a Dubya, a 9/11 or the Wall Street meltdown.
Those are good words, and true, what a different world we would be living today... And, my cousin would still have his leg he left in Afganistan.
Wow, I just watched that video and I highly doubt 2/3 of the delegates were in favor of the reinstatement.
Those bigots with the "Arab American Democrats" really made me sick to my stomach.
There was NO WAY 2/3 of that audience voted for the reinstatement of those terms. I was actually embarrassed for them....what a spot to be in! They had to put it back in the platform to try and hold on to their constituents.
Pretty ironic that the Democratic party felt they had to make a mockery of the democratic process tonight to pander for votes.
There you go again...twisting the words we say around. Not very original . I thought the blame game was over, you guys said so, it's now on Obama. but, as Bill said tonight ? It takes more than one term to right all the carnage ,damage,etc. Caused by GW and gang.
I am so far attempting to catch up on all the posts, so, I did not open all yet, they just keep coming, and not in order. Again, read the speech it will give you all the answers in a nice way , you know how Slick Willy is , gifted.
I saw the speech as it happened on C-Span, I don't need to reread the double-speak.
Look, first page front-and-center on the CBO website:
Quote:
What Policy Changes Are Scheduled to Take Effect in January 2013?
Among the policy changes that are due to occur in January under current law, the following will have the largest impact on the budget and the economy:
A host of significant provisions of the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-312) are set to expire, including provisions that extended reductions in tax rates and expansions of tax credits and deductions originally enacted in 2001, 2003, or 2009. (Provisions designed to limit the reach of the alternative minimum tax, or AMT, expired on December 31, 2011.)
Sharp reductions in Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’ services are scheduled to take effect.
Automatic enforcement procedures established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) to restrain discretionary and mandatory spending are set to go into effect.
Extensions of emergency unemployment benefits and a reduction of 2 percentage points in the payroll tax for Social Security are scheduled to expire.
And what's going to happen if Obama/Romney don't allow that to occur and take some sort of stay-the-course strategy or some other quasi approach?
Quote:
Real GDP would be higher in the first few years of the projection period than in CBO’s baseline economic forecast, and the unemployment rate would be lower. However, the persistence of large budget deficits and rapidly escalating federal debt would hinder national saving and investment, thus reducing GDP and income relative to the levels that would occur with smaller deficits. In the later part of the projection period, the economy would grow more slowly than in CBO’s baseline, and interest rates would be higher. Ultimately, the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to a level of federal debt that would be unsustainable from both a budgetary and an economic perspective.
How about the entitlement programs and the budget outlook you ask?
Quote:
First, it is not possible both to keep taxes at their historical average share of gross domestic product (GDP) and to keep the laws unchanged for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
The reason we can’t repeat that historical combination of policies is that the aging of the population and rising costs for health care are making those large entitlement programs much more expensive than they used to be.
It is possible to keep taxes at their historical average share of GDP—but only by making substantial cuts relative to current law in the large entitlement programs that benefit a broad group of Americans at some point in their lives. Alternatively, it is possible to keep the laws for the large entitlement programs unchanged—but only by raising taxes substantially on a broad group of Americans.
Changes in other federal programs—besides the large entitlements—can affect the magnitude of the changes needed in taxes or that handful of large programs, but they cannot eliminate the basic tradeoff I’ve just described. Even if spending on all of those other programs—including national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—fell to a smaller share of GDP than we’ve seen at any point since World War II, debt would still be on an unsustainable upward trajectory without substantial changes in taxes, the large entitlement programs, or both.
But it's okay, suck up all of Clinton's juices, he's very familiar with that.
Meanwhile, back on the ranch, there's not a person running for office that's telling you what you actually need to be hearing, they're all feeding you lip service (no pun intended Mr. Clinton).
And just in case you were curious:
Quote:
U.S. ACTIONS REGARDING IRANIAN AND OTHER
ARMS TRANSFERS TO THE BOSNIAN ARMY, 1994-1995
On April 5, 1996, the Los Angeles Times reported that "President Clinton secretly gave a green light to covert Iranian arms shipments into Bosnia in 1994 despite a United Nations arms embargo that the United States was pledged to uphold and the administration's own policy of isolating Tehran globally as a supporter of terrorism.
The Republicans did not even want Bush at the RNC...what does that tell us?
I know, but I did think the fact Clinton acknowledged Bush spoke volumes. Stop the BS in the House.
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.
