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.
Don't bother. Those who live in the political alternative reality cannot even be reasoned with, as their absurd vision of what they think is reality is too set in their minds.
Thank you for your insight and opinion.
You are obviously more educated than I am. You are well founded in your beliefs and views.
I ask a simple question and beg for an answer..
How is it possible to spend your way out of debt. Please inform me of how this is possible.
In the world I live in...That can't be accomplished!!
I'd hate to break it to you how far off the facts you are.
Your own post refutes what you say. You say that there was no increase in revenue but then you say that there was. The Bush tax cuts were enacted in 2001 with a second cut in 2003. Time was needed to get that revenue.
Here are the tax revenues from 2001 to 2007, taken DIRECTLY from the historical tables published by the Office of Management and Budget:
Total federal government receipts rose from $1.782 trillion in 2003 to $2.567 trillion in 2007 — an increase of $785 billion, or 44 percent. You can argue it all you want, but outlays (spending) increased during that time frame. So our problem is not the tax cuts, it is the spending.
I am not sure what invented source you are using but it seems to come from FantasyLand as so many liberal ideoligies do. Ground yourself back in reality and be a little more honest with yourself about the actual numbers.
It has to be repeated, even though it's fairly obvious in post #2:
After you read that link, it will be time for you to whine, but not before. Did you even look at it? Heck, you didn't even click on it, and you know it.
Can I have an answer from you, roysoldboy?
I got down to the part where those people tried to prove that the first part of that claim about the increase of our national debt in the first year and found them saying that the claim was totally false. Well now that is certainly truth but when they went on admitting that the increase was nearly a full $8 trillion for the first three years I saw them saying false although the growth was so huge and growing with much more to come according to our administration. I stopped reading at that point because it was obvious what Annenberg was attempting to do there.
At least I looked at your link far enough to see what it amounted to although none of those people I accused even clicked on the link but sure as hell tried very hard to defend things that they didn't even know, for sure, about. I give links to those same people all the time and have them come back with their off topic deflections all the time. You may pay attention to this and see that I am not lying about that part.
Most of the excessive government spending was in the initial year of stimulus packages. Since then, the increases in spending have been minimal, and mostly because a Republican house refuses to allow taxes to be raised for the programs that are passed.
Your words have such a nice sound but have you given any thought to the fact that many of those programs that we need to raise taxes for aren't really needed? Try giving some thought to that part of it all.
Golly, bob, I wonder about some of the "accomplishments" listed in your group. I especially wonder about number 8 thru 11 posted here for everyone to see.
8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House
11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration
The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act? I guess these lovely ladies haven't studied up much on how the DOJ is handling "Fast and Furious" and requests from Congressional committees. Many other stone walls have been erected by the White House and yet these people talk about transparency.
The part about lobbyists is funny, too, although he did promise to keep them out. How many times did Andy Stern visit Obama one to one in the first year of his administration?
31. If a previous president had released a fraudulent long form birth certificate and was factually proven ineligible to be the president whether he was born on American soil or not (father had dual citizenship Kenya/Britain) would you have not demanded impeachment?
Stupid is as stupid does....
In other words you are willing to accept that possibly forged document? I knew you would say yes to that question but had to get it out there.
I truly don't see the majority of Americans any better off then we were before Obama took office, be true to yourself. We travel for our business, i see, not as great as what people make things out to be.
Lousy policies and spneding habits, that he was not going to do, i remember his words well.
Infact as of this morning gas prices are rising. His words not mine, there is no silver bullet, not an easy fix. However you would all be screaming your a---- off if this were any one but Obama.
I don't find he has kept his word, he has gone after those viciously those who disagree with his stance on anything, or those who oppose him.
The Country is going down the tubes, and there are those who have to pretend, that we are fine, my gosh, can't you guys see, that no we ain't fine no matter what your Messiah tells you.
Please provide evidence/examples of anything you described above.
I see no evidence that:
1) He hates the united states. 2) He is doing everything he can to destroy the foundations this country
3) the most anti-biblical president this country has ever had. (as if that is even important -- but Thomas Jefferson was probably more so.)
4) or that his policies are Marxist or Communist.
5) Mr. Obama does not "sit at the feet of" Rev. Wright. But if he did, wouldn't that contradict the claim that "[h]e is the most anti-biblical president this country has ever had?"
Your post sounds like a Glenn Beck rant and really can't be taken seriously.
He has said that the Constitution is holding him back and is doing all he can to skirt its provisions, especially those about separation of powers, between Congress and President and you say he doesn't want to destroy this country. The only President before him who tried this hard to destroy that document was FDR.
Don't bother. Those who live in the political alternative reality cannot even be reasoned with, as their absurd vision of what they think is reality is too set in their minds.
Hee, hee, hee, hee.
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.
