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 06-26-2012, 12:37 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,116,580 times
Reputation: 2037

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
well if you are too ignorant to understand the difference between a democrat and a liberal (two different entities)...just like there is a difference between a conservative and a republican

...and a neo con is still a progressive liberal




our debt..and our problems stem from the fascist liberal policies

you think the entire down fall happened in 2001-2009????


let this INFORM you, these problems stem from: 1993, 1995, and 1999 and you can thank the liberals for it, and most of it goes back to the clinton era. why because ECONOMICS run in 10(+/-4) year CYCLES and what we are facing NOW is in DIRECT RELATION to what happened back in the 90's

1993 NAFTA-originally pushed by Brezezenki and his puppet carter,,moved along by reagan----negotiated by another brezezenki puppet bush1--- passed in 1993 by the democrat controlled congress, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton-inceased with CAFTA by bush2--the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 2 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.(and obamy wants to increase it too,,,hmmm)

1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy

1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.) causing MONOPOLIES, which can RAISE PRICES
1998 clinton does not allow drilling for OUR OWN OIL..the liberals say 'it will take ten years before we seee the oil'...guess what its been ten years
1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry
2000 clinton signs the China trade bill
2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)
2000/1 clinton pushes to get china into the world bank
2003/4/5 republicans try to reighn in fanny and freddie...the liberal opposition leaders (barney frank and cris Dodd) say "there is nothing wrong with fanny/freddy..its a witch hunt"........boy does barney have egg on his face now

1965 liberals push medicare....say it will only cost 10 billion by 1995....in 1995 it cost 100 billion...in 2010 it cost 500 billion AND CLIMBING



it aint the gop.....its the liberals that have cost us
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and clinton/newt NEVER had a surplus

what surplus

Fiscal
Year........ YearEnding.... ..National Debt........Annual budget Deficit

FY1994..... 09/30/1994.... $4.192749 trillion...... $281.26 billion
FY1995..... 09/29/1995.... $4.973982 trillion...... $281.23 billion
FY1996..... 09/30/1996.... $5.224810 trillion...... $250.83 billion
FY1997..... 09/30/1997.... $5.413146 trillion...... $188.34 billion
FY1998..... 09/30/1998.... $5.526193 trillion...... $113.05 billion
FY1999..... 09/30/1999.... $5.656270 trillion...... $130.08 billion
FY2000..... 09/29/2000.... $5.674178 trillion...... $17.91 billion
FY2001..... 09/28/2001.... $5.877463 trillion...... $133.29 billion




so here is the question


IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.7 trillion to 5.87 trillion????????????????????????
Links? Also, where did I say anything about the difference between a liberal and a democrat? Besides, if you really knew the difference then why are you defending either side?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-26-2012, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Long Island
32,816 posts, read 19,478,139 times
Reputation: 9618
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
So you have no idea about the private sector.... whether or not we should be more concerned or not.
private sector debt to whom???


any 'debt' that is too much is done with the company closing its doors


the facts are we (our country) has a debt problem..and the problem comes from spending too much
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 12:49 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,116,580 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
private sector debt to whom???


any 'debt' that is too much is done with the company closing its doors


the facts are we (our country) has a debt problem..and the problem comes from spending too much
Really....? I can barely get into your first sentence without an ulcer... how do you expect me to get through the rest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 06:49 AM
 
5,719 posts, read 6,446,691 times
Reputation: 3647
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
and clinton/newt NEVER had a surplus

what surplus

Fiscal
Year........ YearEnding.... ..National Debt........Annual budget Deficit

FY1994..... 09/30/1994.... $4.192749 trillion...... $281.26 billion
FY1995..... 09/29/1995.... $4.973982 trillion...... $281.23 billion
FY1996..... 09/30/1996.... $5.224810 trillion...... $250.83 billion
FY1997..... 09/30/1997.... $5.413146 trillion...... $188.34 billion
FY1998..... 09/30/1998.... $5.526193 trillion...... $113.05 billion
FY1999..... 09/30/1999.... $5.656270 trillion...... $130.08 billion
FY2000..... 09/29/2000.... $5.674178 trillion...... $17.91 billion
FY2001..... 09/28/2001.... $5.877463 trillion...... $133.29 billion




so here is the question


IF there was a surplus.for 2-3-4 years...........why did the DEBT go from 3.7 trillion to 5.87 trillion????????????????????????
Ever heard of interest?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 07:07 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
And what happened between 2001-2006?
The economy grew and they increased spending, hence
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
When will liberals learn that to cut the deficits, you grow the economy, not increase spending, or taxes.. ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
You make the argument, you bring the proof. Still waiting for proper links in this thread and another.
Again, what relevance does it hold to the discussion? I didnt bring up the debt from the private sector, you asked me what it was out of thin air.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 07:08 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by juppiter View Post
Ever heard of interest?
Those figures include interest
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 07:11 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx View Post
So how ya planning to grow the economy? What are your specific programs?
Everyone knows you grow the economy by leaving more money in it, well except the current President who wants to remove more, and then act surprised that the economy isnt improving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 07:12 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,096,009 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Links? Also, where did I say anything about the difference between a liberal and a democrat? Besides, if you really knew the difference then why are you defending either side?
Figures come from the US Treasury office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2012, 11:37 AM
 
30,896 posts, read 36,949,177 times
Reputation: 34521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Perhaps, but many of us can see that paying a couple percent more ourselves, if done across society, would be more than worth it, in balancing the federal budget and investing for the future. Our parents did precisely that. I reject the phony notion that Democrats want to tax everyone else. They are generally also willing to pay higher taxes themselves. That is why most are open to revenue and cutting solutions to the deficit problem. And although we want to remove government inefficiency as much as any tax payer, we are smart enough to know that axing public sector jobs in a recession is not likely to help the current situation.
Sorry, but I think that's mostly BS. Our government is wildly inefficient in many ways. Just the way we spend money on health care alone is wildly inefficient. Just the amount we spend on Medicare/Medicaid alone would be enough to cover 100% of the population with decent health care in other countries. Maybe higher income Dems are willing to pay more in taxes, but the lower income ones, the ones who benefit from most of the Dem. programs are definitely not, and they are not willing to give up any benefits either. They are also not willing to give up the way of life of having kids out of wedlock, which is what keeps people in poverty or semi-poverty.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:00 AM.

© 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