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.
Well, it depends on the perspective. You might believe they're racist "teabaggers" (although the term is not really appropriate since Andersen Cooper is likely not calling), but others might believe they're not interested in paying for something they already have.
It doesnt matter what other people think of them. What's Anderson up to these days btw?
the sad part is that most americans are truly optimistic (which is a good thing) and want to think that the government is actually looking out for them.
if they didn't learn from the wall street bailouts, the GM and GMAC financing arm bailout, the IMF money, the perpetuation of wars, the cap and trade tax proposal, the push for illegal immigration, and now this health care fiasco- i don't know what else to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
if this government actually cared about the poor, which it does not, it would be addressing the employment situation so that the poor would not have to work so hard to find a job and settle for lower wages when they do find a job.
WHO DO YOU THINK THE POOR COMPETE WITH FOR JOBS? DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT CARES?
Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy
i can see that we need to clear this up. here is the list:
The numbers below do NOT reflect the actual National Debt. Instead, they reflect the amount of the INCREASE in the National Debt during each presidential term.
> Ronald Reagan’s First Term – $656 billion increase
> Ronald Reagan’s Second Term – $1.036 trillion increase
> George H.W. Bush’s Term – $1.587 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s First Term – $1.122 trillion increase
> Bill Clinton’s Second Term – $418 billion increase
> George W. Bush’s First Term – $1.885 trillion increase
> George W. Bush’s Second Term – $3.014 trillion increase
> Barack Obama’s First “Year†– $1.573 trillion increase
To summarize, the National Debt increased by huge amounts under each of these presidents. The largest increase for a complete term occurred during George W. Bush’s second term. The largest increase during a single year occurred during Barack Obama’s first year.
Or, to put it another way, after one year, Obama is already in fourth place for increasing the national debt behind George W. Bush II, George W. Bush I, and George H.W. Bush. He’s already out-paced Bill Clinton’s entire eight years in office, and is only a few hundred billion dollars away from passing Reagan’s two terms.
Anyone want to guess where this is headed ?
also, as you can see that every president has increased the debt of every other president. anyone can also see that george bush jr was a disaster for this country and spent like a liberal, which is why the liberal congress never opposed him. he gave tons of money to foreign countries, just as any other liberal would, and just as obama does.
Reagan ruined America. He started a debt bubble that is destroying America.
Actually, you'd have to roll back the blame...
Roll it to 1933?
(Bankruptcy, House Joint Resolution 192, Bank Holiday Act, etc?)
Nope... further.
Roll it back to 1913?
(Federal Reserve Act? Debt based currency?)
Nope... further.
1873?
(Coinage Act of 1873, the "Crime of 1873" (See: Cross of Gold speech)?)
Nope... further.
1865?
(14th Amendment, clause 4? Public debt cannot be questioned?)
Nope... further.
1787?
Yup.
Article 1, Section 8 and Section 10 set up America to eventually collapse from usury and scarce precious metal coin.
Usury is mathematically impossible to pay in a finite money token system.
(Do the math... the exponential equation invariably results in an aggregate debt that is far greater than the whole set of all money.)
Everyone will become poorer under this administration. Reagan gave us fantastic opportunity and those well equipt to take advantage of it prospered. The dolts sitting on the couch did not. Happens under a free economic society, some will win and some will lose. You cant correct those things by stripping away everyone elses wealth. Has failed in every country that has tried it.
Yeah, those 'equipped' with the larger tax cuts that Reagan doled out to the rich- yeah 'some will win and some will lose'- real fair playing field- trickled down all over those below didn't it- more like p***ed down on those below
if this government actually cared about the poor, which it does not, it would be addressing the employment situation so that the poor would not have to work so hard to find a job and settle for lower wages when they do find a job.
WHO DO YOU THINK THE POOR COMPETE WITH FOR JOBS? DO YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT CARES?
What does this mean?
It *is* addressing the employment situation, see recovery.gov and the business news.
How exactly do you think the fed govt can intervene? You seem to want... a government handout!
The poor... yes, the government "cares," as much as a government can. Duh.
Careful. The Obamatrons might report you to the FBI for using the word crash and federal government in the same sentence.
so what, no federal goverment is better than what we have now or have had in the past 100 years.
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.
