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.
It is important to know who is specifically responsible for the problems or they can never be fixed. When it comes to spending, we need look no further than Congress. The House is responsible for all appropriations, but the Senate can amend like any other bill. The spending priorities are determined by the Speaker of the House. We can blame Speaker Pelosi for the reckless and irresponsible spending spree from 2007 until 2011, but from 2012 on it will Speaker Boehner's spending priorities. It remains to be determined whether Speaker Boehner will be blamed or credited for those spending priorities. All to often the President (both Democrat and Republican) gets blamed, or credited, for the actions taken by Congress.
Well said G.
It seems that there is a lot of discussion and dissatisfaction with this administration as there was with the last one also. It also seems that spending is increasing no matter who is in office. And I'm fairly sure if a Democratic cabinet / House could put more money in our collective pockets, a lot of Republicans would be less vocal. After all, when we lose over half our pay (and counting) to taxes (income, Medicare, Social Security, sales, use, property etc) we tend to get pretty freaking cranky.
True....but when it comes to the middle east, i don't buy the "friendly" tag either. Temporarily Useful is a better term.
A true 'friend' would be Saudi Arabia - who forced countries to buy OPEC oil in US dollars. Why else do you think the Bin Laden family were the first that Bush allowed to fly out of the US after 9-11?
It seems that there is a lot of discussion and dissatisfaction with this administration as there was with the last one also. It also seems that spending is increasing no matter who is in office. And I'm fairly sure if a Democratic cabinet / House could put more money in our collective pockets, a lot of Republicans would be less vocal. After all, when we lose over half our pay (and counting) to taxes (income, Medicare, Social Security, sales, use, property etc) we tend to get pretty freaking cranky.
Spending did indeed increase when Republicans controlled the House from 2001 through 2006, and they paid dearly for that mistake in the mid-term election of 2006. Which is how Democrats came to control the House in 2007. The GOP also continued to pay the price of their spending folly into the election of 2008.
We should have known that Democrats would out spend Republicans by over five fold. In 2006, under a Republican controlled House, we had a $248 billion deficit. In 2010, under a Democrat controlled House, we had a $1.416 trillion deficit, and the 2011 deficit is expected to be $1.65 trillion. The Democrats have not even passed a budget in the last four years.
Democrats providing a tax cut?!?!? ROFLMAO! "Tax cut" is not in the Democrat vocabulary. To a Democrat, a "tax cut" is a tax increase but not as much of an increase as they wanted. Oh, and by the way, you (and the average American) are already paying more than 50% of your income in taxes of one form or another.
A true 'friend' would be Saudi Arabia - who forced countries to buy OPEC oil in US dollars. Why else do you think the Bin Laden family were the first that Bush allowed to fly out of the US after 9-11?
Yea, well SA has their reasons too. Like they're scared to death of Iran.
"The US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defence Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee's rep orts on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning."
1986. Baghdad University purchased an assortment of germs from the American Type Culture Collection, for “medical” research.
The collection serves as a global lending library for scientists doing research to combat infectious diseases to improve global health. Overseas customers were required to obtain a Commerce Department export license for the most virulent strains. These licenses had always been a formality since these germs were intended for peaceful research only, and the courtesy was extended to all who asked for legitimate reasons. Moscow, too has a vast collection of infectious diseases.
True....but when it comes to the middle east, i don't buy the "friendly" tag either. Temporarily Useful is a better term.
Hey, how 'friendly' are American corporations to each other? Economic warfare embraces the notion of figuratively 'killing' the competitor. Thats's how business is done in a capitalist society and world. You are 'friends' as long as there is something in it for you. Same principle applies to countries, but when the 'killing' becomes literal, then I guess we are at war.
You should post some of your link so folks will read it
While most of the points are right, the one about unemployment is not. And it can be contributed to
Quaddafi involving himself in western ways e.g.
privatization etc.
Here's also a good read excerpt that explains it better
than I can:
Gaddafi has opened up Libya’s economy for foreign investment and forged close relationships with the Berlusconi regime of Italy, the former colonial master of Libya. One of the champions of military intervention in Libya recently, Britain, was a major arms supplier for Gaddafi regime. The economic liberalisation policies pursued by Gaddafi regime in the last decade has increasingly destroyed the Libyan state economy, removed subsidies from basic foodstuffs and introduced more privatisation, [all of ] which have contributed to the decline of living standards of ordinary Libyan people and fueled social discontent that led to the current uprising.
Gaddafi had put back more oil profits back into
social programs for his country, than any other
country in the middle east.
And, most people that had any interest in the Pan Am bombing, and have looked into it - know it was never a slam dunk that Lybia was responsible. But that's a different thread all together.
But, sanctions were previously lifted against Libya in 2003.
Though Libya has never admitted responsibility for the 1989 UTA bombing, it has already paid $34 million to France after a Paris court convicted six Libyans in absentia for the killings.
We should have never intervened in Libya. And if
Gaddafi ends up dead as a result, the motives
behind that - it will be questioned for years.
We are using preempted humanitarian intervention
as an excuse to disguise overthrowing a government we no longer like, need, or serves our purpose for what
ever goal that is.
This notion that Libya as a whole was clambering for western democracy has been blown way out of proportion.
I guess that's our new government sound bite,
since cold war rhetoric doesn't work anymore.
Is he the monster the west is trying to portray him as now, to justify this war? Just ask Joe Lieberman, who after visiting him in 2009 stated ""an important ally in the war on terrorism."
I guess, Washington just woke up one day, and deemed
him Hitler
"The Central bank of Libya is a wholly-owned by the Libyan Government and is run as a state bank, issuing all government loans free of interest."
I knew there was a connection to the World Bank.. Gaddafi is the new Abe Lincoln.
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.
ROFLMAO! "Tax cut" is not in the Democrat vocabulary. To a Democrat, a "tax cut" is a tax increase but not as much of an increase as they wanted. 
Oh, and by the way, you (and the average American) are already paying more than 50% of your income in taxes of one form or another.
