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 01-03-2013, 10:21 AM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,673,547 times
Reputation: 4254

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
No, a response to this:


No, I was addressing YOUR point of how spending cuts led to balanced budget under Clinton. Here's that post for your inconvenience:


You can't. It is why you rely entirely on parroting right wing talking points.
Says you, and then you post spending increase stats to falsely try to imply Obama reduced federal sending, when Obama simply rolled trillion dollar emergency spending funds into every year of federal spending.

It's like you made a one time purchase of $20,000 for a new car in 2009, and then your wife added $20,000 in additional household spending each year afterwards, and claimed she had not increased household spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:26 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,512,088 times
Reputation: 25816
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brill View Post
All this stimulus spending was done by Obama. It certainly wasn't an automatic program that kicked in.
Hello? Remember TARP?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:28 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,806,382 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post
Says you, and then you post spending increase stats to falsely try to imply Obama reduced federal sending, when Obama simply rolled trillion dollar emergency spending funds into every year of federal spending.
Correct my numbers. BUT, may be third time will be a charm... weren't you talking about Gingrich, Clinton and balanced budget?

Quote:
It's like you made a one time purchase of $20,000 for a new car in 2009, and then your wife added $20,000 in additional household spending each year afterwards, and claimed she had not increased household spending.
The numbers I presented span EIGHT presidential terms, with spending increase calculated by term. Aren't those facts handful?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:30 AM
 
20,187 posts, read 23,844,914 times
Reputation: 9283
The tax questions are DONE... the liberals have NO leverage in the negotiations with spending cuts. It is going to happen once you hit the cap... I wonder what is going to happen... No need to wonder...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,806,382 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by evilnewbie View Post
The tax questions are DONE... the liberals have NO leverage in the negotiations with spending cuts. It is going to happen once you hit the cap... I wonder what is going to happen... No need to wonder...
In other words, we're getting massive spending cuts. Wasn't that the right wing demand? Why are they shedding tears now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:25 AM
 
Location: North of South, South of North
8,704 posts, read 10,893,859 times
Reputation: 5150
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
The fight will start in earnest and will need a lot of people to exercise their voices in what needs to be done. First of all, make sure Congress allows for the payment of bills they rang up.

Matt Miller: Obama’s debt ceiling path to victory - The Washington Post
Well, neither side (includes the president) has a plan to balance the budget. So I guess it doesn't matter.

I wish all the partisan hacks here would wake up and realize there isn't enough income to be taxed to cover the spending and neither side has proposed actual budget cuts. They only talk in terms of fairy tale reductions in future increases and claim that is a cut....lol

It's all a sad joke. BOTH sides are working together to fool the ignorant and the overwhelming majority of people buy into it.

Continue on with your side sucks and my side is good commentary. You are all WRONG!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 11:41 AM
 
47,525 posts, read 69,672,493 times
Reputation: 22474
With the fast growing welfare class, the debt can only keep rising. Plus Obama has in mind a very huge amnesty and after that many more foreigners will be added to disability rolls and wanting their piece of the free American pie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:11 PM
 
1,834 posts, read 2,694,042 times
Reputation: 2675
www.usdebtclock.org and usdebt by president. They are all very quilty of destruction. As you can see from the data. Each and every politician must be watched daily to save the nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,806,382 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
With the fast growing welfare class, the debt can only keep rising. Plus Obama has in mind a very huge amnesty and after that many more foreigners will be added to disability rolls and wanting their piece of the free American pie.
$600 billion cuts to Medicare and Defense (taking the spending back to 2000 levels) ... half of the deficit gone. Good idea?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 12:14 PM
 
Location: North of South, South of North
8,704 posts, read 10,893,859 times
Reputation: 5150
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
$600 billion cuts to Medicare and Defense (taking the spending back to 2000 levels) ... half of the deficit gone. Good idea?
There are no real cuts. There are only theoretical reductions in future increases, called cuts instead.

If I am spending $100/week on food today and "plan" on spending $200 next week, but then decide to only spend $150 next week, I did not impose a cut. I actually imposed a 50% increase. However, the politicians will tell you it is a cut.

Pure silliness, but eagerly accepted by the willing.
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 05:57 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