U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 14,732,531 times
Reputation: 4583

Advertisements

Well in good news, perhaps Sir Jowls may finally have some time to get the "Lifestyle Lift" he needs so badly.

Ashley Judd doesn't rule out run for US Senate | Reno Gazette-Journal | rgj.com

 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,001,037 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The job losses stopped before Obamas stimulus bill was funded.
If we took your word for it, we should count private sector jobs under Obama's policies from the time the stimulus bill was funded. That would be February 2010, right? That would also mean that the deficit should only be counted since the funding.

Now allow me to educate you on my point you responded to.
- The economy shedded 8.8 million private sector jobs in two years.

The point has NOTHING to do with stimulus bill, but with something that partly explains lowered tax revenue, state of economy and need to help it recover.

Quote:
And we do have lower tax rates, and the wars were indeed funded, (the same way the deficits are currently, that you applaud)..
Thank you for reiterating my point... deficit spending under republicanism -> war.

Quote:
Your wasted decade of economic growth, began the minute Democrats took over Congress.. Bravo.. lets celebrate and blame the Republicans..
Now this is your usual self... the parroting of: the economy was doing great... 2001-2006 were the times this country could re-live day in and out. The economy was solid, as was the pathetic private sector employment, and greatly explained by one of the slowest employment turnaround following a recession in 2001.

When THAT defines your standard, need I add more?

PS. Calling that DUMB may be injustice to the word.
 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:44 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,591,148 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
If we took your word for it, we should count private sector jobs under Obama's policies from the time the stimulus bill was funded. That would be February 2010, right? That would also mean that the deficit should only be counted since the funding.

Now allow me to educate you on my point you responded to.
- The economy shedded 8.8 million private sector jobs in two years.

The point has NOTHING to do with stimulus bill, but with something that partly explains lowered tax revenue, state of economy and need to help it recover.

Thank you for reiterating my point... deficit spending under republicanism -> war.

Now this is your usual self... the parroting of: the economy was doing great... 2001-2006 were the times this country could re-live day in and out. The economy was solid, as was the pathetic private sector employment, and greatly explained by one of the slowest employment turnaround following a recession in 2001.

When THAT defines your standard, need I add more?

PS. Calling that DUMB may be injustice to the word.
No **** deficit spending under Republicans went to war, we were at war

Other than that, Bush had almost balanced budgets through most of his term, untl your Democrats took over Congress.

The fact that we shedded jobs while DEMOCRATS HELD CONGRESS, and did NOTHING to stop it, has me wondering why you're blaming the GOP.
 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:49 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,397,919 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F View Post
Dems will totally rule this country. But their system of unlimited deficit spending is unsustainable.
Unlimited deficit spending is also a Republican system. Democrats want to borrow money to spend on entitlements and infrastructure. Republicans want to borrow money to grow the global police force, ie. US defense spending well beyond what it takes to defend the US (hence Romney's extra $2 trillion in defense spending).

How do Republicans REALLY respond when someone comes along with true conservatism and talks about reducing deficit spending all around AND wins delegates to the GOP convention based on that message? They quickly get together to find out what rules they have to change to make sure that his delegate wins amount to nothing and that he is barred from speaking at the convention and has to instead speak at a Tampa area football stadium.

So BOTH parties are on the deficit spending bandwagon. You're attempting that Republican slight of hand where they want deficit spending for defense but say they want to cut deficit spending, where they try to get government regulating homosexual choices and marijuana choices but say they want small government, where they say their candidate's government will create 12 million jobs but say that government doesn't create jobs. Why do Republicans' rhertoric on issue after issue differ from the policies they are actually pushing?
 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,777 posts, read 24,001,037 times
Reputation: 12105
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
No **** deficit spending under Republicans went to war, we were at war

Other than that, Bush had almost balanced budgets through most of his term, untl your Democrats took over Congress.
1-Name one year (NONE)
2-Did his budgets include war spending? (NO!)
3-Bush's last budget: $1.4 Trillion deficit.

Facts.

Quote:
The fact that we shedded jobs while DEMOCRATS HELD CONGRESS, and did NOTHING to stop it, has me wondering why you're blaming the GOP.
Democrats got hold of congress in 2007 because of the pathetic running of the government by the republicans, and the state of the economy. The greatest of republican economic achievements, however, was riding high on housing bubble. What exactly do they have to show for outside of it?

But hey, there is a reason you're a republican.
 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,397,919 times
Reputation: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
No **** deficit spending under Republicans went to war, we were at war
Other Republican presidents past have done the fiscally responsible thing while at war. War in Afghanistan wasn't the issue. War ON THE CREDIT CARD, ie. war while keeping huge tax cuts WAS- it was totally irresponsible. A second, totally unnecessary Iraq War, also on the credit card, made it much worse. It's not ok to bankrupt the nation just because you are going to war. Deficit spending is deficit spending. War is no excuse. Republicans always want to use war as an excuse, and they want to use expanding the military to police every corner of the globe and operate bases in every corner of the globe as an excuse to engage in deficit spending. At the end of the day, it's still deficit spending and it still puts America in an awful financial position.
 
Old 11-12-2012, 10:59 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,591,148 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
1-Name one year (NONE)
2-Did his budgets include war spending? (NO!)
3-Bush's last budget: $1.4 Trillion deficit.

Facts.
LIE, Bush DEBT included war spending. Another ignorant Democrat who relies upon Obama lies for their talking point.

You cant spend a DIME without it being accounted for somewhere, the fact that they created seperate budgets for it, doesnt mean the totals werent calculated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Democrats got hold of congress in 2007 because of the pathetic running of the government by the republicans, and the state of the economy. The greatest of republican economic achievements, however, was riding high on housing bubble. What exactly do they have to show for outside of it?

But hey, there is a reason you're a republican.
Bull crap, one of the first things Democrats did was increase the minimum wage saying the economy was strong enough to substain any increase. Now you're telling me the Democrats took over because the economy was bad..

Give it a break, your lies are so easily proven wrong.
 
Old 11-12-2012, 11:01 AM
 
Location: Riverside
4,088 posts, read 3,545,353 times
Reputation: 3073
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F View Post
If Reps become too much like Dems we will have one party rule just with two different names... the one called "Democrat" would still win.

Issues like giving women free birth control are trivial compared to record deficit spending and all the ramifications of it.
I'm not suggesting the GOP become LIKE Dems, just that they adopt the winning tactics the Dems used to broaden their appeal. Liberal v. conservative, remember?

Keep in mind, BOTH parties want to spend money- it's all about priorities. I happen to favor those of the Dems, but your results may vary!

If Romney had stuck strictly to a financially conservative pitch, and had the balls to face down the Far Right at any point on their looney social issues, he might have won. For an example of how that's done, review Clinton's Sistah Soulja smack-down.

But do we really want a guy who clearly lacks balls as prez???
 
Old 11-12-2012, 11:04 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 53,591,148 times
Reputation: 9357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
I'm not suggesting the GOP become LIKE Dems, just that they adopt the winning tactics the Dems used to broaden their appeal. Liberal v. conservative, remember?
We wont need to adopt because the liberal utopia society is unsubstainable. At some point when the dollar crashes, and we cant issue anymore debt, the country wont have a choice but to resort to conservative practices. Cuts will be needed EVERYWHERE.. and those very people who voted in iresponsible spending, will be hurt the most.
 
Old 11-12-2012, 11:04 AM
 
1,727 posts, read 972,858 times
Reputation: 844
I still believe both parties should be treated like a monopoly and broken up into smaller pieces, as well as allowing publicy funded elections and doing away completely with privately funded campaigns. I mean do we really need nearly 2 years of constant ADS airing on tv/radio ? Do we really need 10+ primary debates ? How about we limit it to 3 months ? Also I'd be happy with getting rid of ALL special interests/lobbying groups. Also I'd put into law and if I had to RAM it through congress that if you are a politician or work for a politician you are not allowed to to go work for a company your supposed to be overseeing. Meaning someone who works overseeing the defense department should not get a job with Lockheed martin OR anyone within that persons family for at least 10 years AFTER they leave office. No more citizens united and re-instate glass steagall as well as the other laws that limited the power of these large corporations. And while we are at it I'd suggest a breaking up of the oil monopoly and the telecommunications monopoly.
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top