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.
there are 15 to be exact, yes unnecessary burdens do to green idiots is one yes!!! putting the gulf back to work is another cant think of the rest of them!!!
The tyranny of lower utilities bills is a burden that must be stopped!
See, according to the wingnuts, Obama is a radical Socialist. Never mind that his policies are rather centrists. They forget that Richard Nixon instituted anti-capitalist wage and price controls and wanted to pass a health care reform that is nearly identical to the one Obama signed.
You see, it's ok to be a redistributionist, as long as you're transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent, like Ronald Reagan. But transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, and you're a Socialist class warfare fighter.
See, according to the wingnuts, Obama is a radical Socialist. Never mind that his policies are rather centrists. They forget that Richard Nixon instituted anti-capitalist wage and price controls and wanted to pass a health care reform that is nearly identical to the one Obama signed.
You see, it's ok to be a redistributionist, like Ronald Reagan, who transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. But transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, and you're a Socialist class warfare fighter.
Raise taxes on the poor and middle class while cutting social programs and cutting taxes for the rich even more = not class warfare.
Trying to protect the middle class = class warfare.
Ah, so not only are you uninformed you're a racist too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
2) I tell my kids that they have to sit in the back and it's clearly not a pejorative. Telling a black man that he has to sit in the back of the bus is clearly one.
It was OBAMA who said they had to sit in the back
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
Krugman is absolutely right while you are absolutely wrong. Not only are there NOT 200,000 more employees, but there are 400,000 fewer than 1990.
Winter, you see, the right can only argue talking points. Throw in a few facts, like Bush was in favor of the very light bulb law they accuse Obama and the Dems of government control and Republican presidents were just as likely to use government power and they have nothing substantive to add.
If we are discussing federal employees, the total matters, not just the number that confirms your narrow point.
What you are saying is that employees in the following agencies do not count:
Social Security Administration
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
General Services Administration
Office of Personnel Management
Smithsonian Institution
Postal Service
Judicial branch
Legislative branch
That's preposterous.
As anyone can plainly see, TOTAL federal government employment is lower now than in 1990.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
Still waiting for a link to that Obama proposal to cut the deficit, surely you have one other than a blog, right?
WASHINGTON — President Obama will unveil a plan on Monday that uses entitlement cuts, tax increases and war savings to reduce the federal deficit by more than $3 trillion over the next 10 years, administration officials said.
Oher than blame Obama for everything, what has the Tea Party class done to improve this country? With the momentum the Republicans had in taking the house away from the Democrats, you would've thought they would never have the lowest approval rating in history.
NOTHING GOOD
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.