Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,872 posts, read 8,093,497 times
Reputation: 2971

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
No spoending pput us in the hole.The bama soending 1.2 trillion of borrowed moeny in 11 months made it worse afetr oit had actully gone down in 2008.That is why we need to cut spending and live withion a budget.
Great. Sounds good. Where shall we start? Veteran's Affairs? HHS? How about SS?

I know, highways...let's cut off the States first. Let's raise ALL corporate taxes back to 90%, tax dividends back to 50%, and raise ALL taxes back to early 1950's levels. Anyone(FAMILY) making over and adjusted income of $200,000 gets taxed at 91%. $10,000/yr @ 38% through $199,999 @ 89%.

Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003 (TruthAndPolitics.org)

I'm in. Thanks for your support.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:02 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,300,771 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post
maybe Clinton should have invested some of that surplus into our military and anti-terror operations? would we have prevented 9-11?
The Bush 43 Administration was told explicitly when it took office that the biggest threat to national security was terrorism and Al-Qaeda in particular. Nobody in the administration REALLY took that advice seriously. It was the lack of vigilance by the Bush 43 Administration that lead to the massive intelligence failure which contributed to 9/11/2001.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:07 PM
 
59,040 posts, read 27,306,837 times
Reputation: 14281
2006, 2007 and 2008 were the 3 biggest years in history for federal income tax revenue. That's right under George Bush the feds took in more in taxes than any president in history
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
5,872 posts, read 8,093,497 times
Reputation: 2971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
2006, 2007 and 2008 were the 3 biggest years in history for federal income tax revenue. That's right under George Bush the feds took in more in taxes than any president in history
And yet, when you put all three of them together, they still don't make a positive increase in tax revenue taken in under Bush. Sad really..shows who really bankrupt America. And those who would want to take us back to it.

Bush also BORROWED and put on our "credit card" MORE than ANY PRESIDENT COMBINED IN OUR HISTORY.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
19,025 posts, read 14,201,797 times
Reputation: 16747
Quote:
Originally Posted by txgolfer130 View Post
It's all a house of cards, but it is one of the only ways to make sure the "elite" and shadow government can not completely take over. It's been tried at least once already against FDR. I'm sure there have been plans and other failed spurts to start. We shall see if it indeed occurs again. I know the elite are restless and concerned about their flailing influence.
You are mistaken. The rulers of America - the usurer / socialist alliance, and all their allies, have ruled America for generations.

Stop and think.
Do free people really need to ask permission (get a license) to wed, drive, fly, transmit, build a house, buy and sell medical care, enter occupations, operate a business, and even own a dog?
Do really free people have to pay a tax to live, work, buy and sell?

They've been taking a skim for generations. And like all arrogant scoundrels, demand our gratitude that they allow us to regrow our skin before they skin us again, and again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:26 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,300,771 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post
Bush dealt with 9-11, and the economy nicely.
thanks Bill for leaving us a weakened military 7 nat'l defense team
George Bush Jr. had been in office for less than 9 months when 9/11/01 occurred. So in nine months time radically he changed the military to the point where special operators could go into Afghanistan and basically with the help of the Northern Alliance take down the Taliban in less than 90 days. That's just pure bull****. The operational capability that allowed JSOC and CIA special operators was well in place long before George Bush Jr. took office.

If you really believe that crap you are sadly misinformed as the military capabilities of the United States of America. Now if you want to criticize Bill Clinton criticized him for how he used and deployed U.S. military assets but from an operational readiness standpoint they were not in any way lacking in during the Clinton Administration.

If anything the Bush Administration should be held accountable for not giving JSOC and CIA special operators the additional military support they requested it during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001 when they had Osama Bin Laden CORNERED. But he was allowed to get away when JSOC and CIA special operators had to depend on Afghans instead of U.S. troops to capture Osama Bin Laden and those Afghans turned on them and refused.

The Bush 43 Administration is accountable for not making the activities of Al-Qaeda a national security priority and the Bush 43 Administration is accountable for botching a chance to capture Osama Bin Laden. They are also responsible for taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to reassert themselves when they started a war based on false and misleading intelligence with Iraq. On top of that they totally botched the invasion of Iraq by not having enough boots on the ground to deal with maintaining security after Saddam Hussein was deposed. This was directly accountable for allowing the ensuing Iraqi insurgency to flourish. The U.S. military achieved success in Iraq in spite of George Bush Jr. and one of the biggest ass***** of all time Donald Rumsfeld.

Last edited by JazzyTallGuy; 09-25-2010 at 06:36 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:30 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,707,126 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by txgolfer130 View Post
Over 750,000 in 90 days...your Bush thumpers should be worried. At this rate, he will create just under 1 MILLION jobs per quarter...Bush had 8 years.

Republican's are awesome for showing how bad their failures are!


Recovery.gov

Bush thumpers should be worried? Umm, I've got news for you... G.W. Bush isn't running for office in November. And, you can throw out all the fake stats you want about Obama, but the voters will have their say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:40 PM
 
13,900 posts, read 9,769,934 times
Reputation: 6856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guamanians View Post
Bush thumpers should be worried? Umm, I've got news for you... G.W. Bush isn't running for office in November. And, you can throw out all the fake stats you want about Obama, but the voters will have their say.
Obama isn't running for office in November either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:44 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,707,126 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by JazzyTallGuy View Post
George Bush Jr. has been in office for less than 9 months when 9/11/01 occurred. So in nine months time radically changed the military to the point where special operators could go into Afghanistan and basically with the help of the Northern Alliance take down the Taliban in less than 90 days. That's just pure bull****. The operational capability that allowed JSOC and CIA special operators was well in place long before George Bush Jr. took office.

George Bush Jr. has been in office for less than 9 months when 9/11/01 occurred. So in nine months time radically changed the military to the point where special operators could go into Afghanistan and basically with the help of the Northern Alliance take down the Taliban in less than 90 days. That's just pure bull****. The operational capability that allowed JSOC and CIA special operators to accomplish their missions was well in place long before George Bush Jr. took office.

If you really believe that crap you are sadly misinformed as the military capabilities of the United States of America. Now if you want to criticize Bill Clinton criticized him for how he used and deployed U.S. military assets but from an operational readiness standpoint they were not in any way lacking in during the Clinton Administration.

If anything the Bush Administration should be held accountable for not giving JSOC and CIA special operators the additional military support they requested it during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001 when they had Osama Bin Laden CORNERED. But he was allowed to get away when JSOC and CIA special operators had to depend on Afghans instead of U.S. troops to capture Osama Bin Laden and those Afghans turned on them and refused.

George Bush Jr. has been in office for less than 9 months when 9/11/01 occurred. So in nine months time radically changed the military to the point where special operators could go into Afghanistan and basically with the help of the Northern Alliance take down the Taliban in less than 90 days. That's just pure bull****. The operational capability that allowed JSOC and CIA special operators to accomplish their missions was well in place long before George Bush Jr. took office.

If you really believe that crap you are sadly misinformed as the military capabilities of the United States of America. Now if you want to criticize Bill Clinton criticized him for how he used and deployed U.S. military assets but from an operational readiness standpoint they were not in any way lacking in during the Clinton Administration.

If anything the Bush Administration should be held accountable for not giving JSOC and CIA special operators the additional military support they requested it during the Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001 when they had Osama Bin Laden CORNERED. But he was allowed to get away when JSOC and CIA special operators had to depend on Afghans instead of U.S. troops to capture Osama Bin Laden and those Afghans turned on them and refused.

The Bush 43 Administration is accountable for not making the activities of Al-Qaeda a national security priority and the Bush 43 Administration is accountable for botching a chance to capture Osama Bin Laden. They are also responsible for taking their eye off the ball in Afghanistan and allowing the Taliban to reassert themselves. On top of that they totally botched the invasion of Iraq by not having enough boots on the ground to deal with maintaining security after Saddam Hussein was deposed. This was directly accountable for allowing the ensuing Iraqi insurgency to flourish. The U.S. military achieved success in Iraq in spite of George Bush Jr. and one of the biggest ass***** of all time Donald Rumsfeld.
hey, I'm no Rumsfeld fan You make some good points, but you are also blowing a lot of smoke. If you were in the military during the 90's then you know what a drastic change it was during his 8 yrs.
Now, if you want to say that the terrorists could & would have attacked us regardless of our security then ok.
But, you can't say that Bush didn't retailiate. I seem to remember a few occasions (WTC -1993, kobar Towers, USS Cole, etc.) where the U.S. military did not respond to terror attacks. Where was your hero then?
As far as comparing Clinton vs Bush on the economy: well, Bush decided to retailate after 9-11-01. newsflash... that costs money
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-25-2010, 06:48 PM
 
3,378 posts, read 3,707,126 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks View Post
Obama isn't running for office in November either.
no, but it is his party in power. and his party is on the chopping block

they are already planning a special Apprentice on Nov 3rd.
Donald Trump walks into Nancy Pelosi's office and says... YOU'RE FIRED
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:56 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top