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.
Sorry but the middle class has been gone for a long time.
If anything Obamadung has made what little middle class was left into a welfare group as he has lost 9 million jobs and put everyone on welfare.
His budget for 2011 that was made last year included massive raises for welfare. Wonder how he knew then that record numbers of people would be on welfare even before the moron took office?
If anything Obamadung and the dems have perfected to kill off any middle class we have left.
Yeah, like a 3 day old thanksgiving turkey, you repubs didn't leave much of the middle class left after you slipped out the back door.
Which reminds me of what Republicans want to do to you. Today the Republicans unveiled their “ Pledge to America.” It’s 21 pages long. Does it really take that long to say “destroy the middle class”? This plan doesn’t move America forward, it divvies America up between the rich. “The Pledge to America!” At least they’re smart enough not to use the term “contract” any more. Too many mob jokes last time. But is “pledge” the best term to use when your plan is being introduced by John Boehner? When I think John Boehner and pledge, I think Lemon Pledge—brings out wood’s natural shine! Well, the plan was unveiled today by Boehner at a lumber company in Virginia! Honestly. John, we told you never to pose in front of wood! Your complexion makes you blend right in. A lumber company? Perfect. I can’t think of a better place to present a bunch of dead wood.
If the GOP was truly serious about reducing the deficit and all of that jazz, they'd adopt Paul Ryan's plan, but they won't touch it with a 10-foot pole.
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
After Bill Clinton raped the military & homeland defense down to nothing. It stands to reason, some money was going to need to be spent to get the military back in shape, after 9-11. But you would never understand that. You do realize Clinton destroyed our military, that Reagan had built, in order to cut government spending. Look how the weak get attacked. We got our asses handed to us on 9-11, even after the bombing of the WTC and the CIA in 93 under Clinton's watch.
Down to nothing?
Why do you need a large welfare organization, er military, when there is no war?
I work in the military community... we don't need half of what we have, even now.
Our military is not destroyed.
The WTC bomber was captured, tried and serving his time in a high security prison.
Where's bin Laden?
bentbow - regarding clinton and defense spending. giuliani started that myth a couple years back...
Quote:
Rudy’s Historic Rewrite
Giuliani falsely blamed President Clinton for cuts in the military that happened mostly under a Republican administration:
Giuliani: Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It’s called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases, very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military. President Bush has never made up for that. We – our Army had been at 725,000; it’s down to 500,000.
Actually, most of the cutting to which Giuliani refers occurred during the administration of George H.W. Bush. At the end of fiscal year 1993 (which was Bush’s last one in office), the Army had 572,423 active-duty soldiers – a far cry from 725,000. In fact, to get to that number, one has to go back to 1990, during the first gulf war. Moreover, Clinton’s cuts in the military, while large, were nowhere close to 25 percent to 30 percent. Between 1993 and 2001, the Army went from 572,423 to 480,801, which is a decline of 16 percent. The entire military went from 1,705,103 to 1,385,116, a decrease of 18.8 percent.
Compare that with the far larger cuts made during the first Bush administration: In 1989, the military stood at 2,130,229 and the Army had 769,741 soldiers. By 1993, those numbers had declined by 19.9 percent and 25.6 percent, respectively.
And as we’ve pointed out before, it was the first Bush administration – specifically then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney – that began bragging openly of the peace dividend.
(source factcheck.org)
bentbow - regarding clinton and defense spending. giuliani started that myth a couple years back...
Thanks for the clarification. Yes, even the Republicans understood we were over spending in defence and that it was bankcrupting us. The purpose of Reagan's massive build up was to counter USSR, and it fulfilled that goal when USSR fell, so it was time to scale back. In 1995 we spent $320 billion in defence, which was actually more than during Reagan era ($290 billion) and now it is over $730 billion, and as far as I am aware that does not even include war spending. It's an overkill.
Anti-poverty programs don't work. We have been throwing billions at the poor and we still have poor people.
Actually they do work. Compared to 1960 there are substantially fewer poor people as a percentage of the overall population today than there were 50 years ago. Also so-called anti-poverty programs only take up 14% of the federal budget. If you REALLY want to attack federal spending cut down defense spending.
Actually they do work. Compared to 1960 there are substantially fewer poor people as a percentage of the overall population today than there were 50 years ago. Also so-called anti-poverty programs only take up 14% of the federal budget. If you REALLY want to attack federal spending cut down defense spending.
1-n-7 people live in poverty in the USA. The most ever since WW-II
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.
