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.
THAT was suppsed to be informative, looked liked nothing more than the sam old Right-wing BS to me, means opened and read it ROY, not wrth further comment. By the way, do you ever start threads that do NOT have a link to a right-wing web site or talking head that you want to get others to watch and believe, I think NOT.
Casper
I don't know about you but too many left leaners here don't really know who and now budgets get passed by. So very few know that there were two years with Democrat control of the Congress that we didn't have a budget. In fact, Dirty Harry could stand to read that part of the Constitution to find out why they are supposed to pass a budget each year. I don't think that many Dems really understand just how wrong Reid was when he said that.
Of course, not understanding about budgets and why they are to be passed by the Congress instead of taken care of by the Executive Department as they have been the last two years.
Yep, I think there was a good civics lesson right there and also think that letting you of the left understand that the Dems have been responsible for the last 4 budgets and only did it twice to keep Bush from doing what Obama has.
I will watch to see you get excited about my threads from now on to see if you really do understand the purpose of them. Yes, this blog is a righty one but do you really think I would post from a left one? How about you and the right? You expect me to do what you would do and shoot at me for doing what I do. Is that not a great example of left handed attacking the messenger?
If you're unable to present an argument on your own, I'm not interested in your taunts.
How about if I post something about the gay life? Would that be more to your liking?
Taunts? Do you find telling the truth about something like our national budget to be a taunt? I guess I won't bother to ask your permission any more than I did this time. It has to be painful for you of the left lean to see truth like this that you can't deal with other than with your attacks of the messenger.
Anyone who feel that the current economic issues aren't tied to 8 years of Republican lead politics and the Bush administration, simply aren't living in the realm in reality.
I think everyone knows when the economy started going in the tank, and it wasn't in 2009.
Jeez, I thought that the link said it was 2007 when the Dems had control of Congress during Bush's term. I guess maybe you at least attacked the message, with some false info, but at least you didn't attack me instead of even mentioning the message.
Congress can control spending but they do NOT have the power to end wars. The power only lies with the president. The Democrats only could have de-funded the wars, which was not a serious option. Bush got us in to both Iraq and Afghanistan while LOWERING taxes. I'm not trying to say we shouldn't have been in Afghanistan but it didn't need to be accompanied by a tax cut. Lowering taxes while increasing spending is going to get you a deficit.
What you are saying is essentially true roy, but it is also twisting the truth at the same time.
People like you should talk to their Democrat Congress persons about what happens when we increase spending. Raising taxes won't bring in more money either since small businesses don't expand and hire more people to bring in more tax payers. Do you understand that?
Could you point out the mentions of some wars in that link? For some reason I just don't see any mention of wars other than in your post.
It seems like a whole passel of Dems responded although all but one was attacking the messenger, me, and that one was talking about wars instead of deficits. They don't really like to talk about deficits any time.
People like you should talk to their Democrat Congress persons about what happens when we increase spending. Raising taxes won't bring in more money either since small businesses don't expand and hire more people to bring in more tax payers. Do you understand that?
Could you point out the mentions of some wars in that link? For some reason I just don't see any mention of wars other than in your post.
The increase in spending didn't start under the Democratic congress though roy. It started when the Republicans were still in charge of congress.
And what you say about taxes isn't true, because if that worked, the lower taxes under Bush would have actually INCREASED government revenue due to increased economic activity. That never happened.
And, no, the link doesn't mention the wars... which is kind my point about how it distorts the truth.
Jeez, I thought that the link said it was 2007 when the Dems had control of Congress during Bush's term. I guess maybe you at least attacked the message, with some false info, but at least you didn't attack me instead of even mentioning the message.
Lets say, for instance, that the congress is the ones to make or break the economy.
During the first several years of the Bush administration, it was a Republican congress, right? How many years does it take for an economy to turn around based on government intervention? 1 year, 3, 6? Its usually at least 4 years before policies can have a real effect on the economy. Part of what gets us in trouble is when we try and change things to quickly. The free market economy doesn't fair well with radical shifts of money addition. Its part of what lead to our current economic situation, radical change when patients was needed.
But again, now we have a Republican congress, have been for almost two years. If Democrats in 2007 (2 years) after they really took power in congress. The 2006 election was the year the Democrats took the Senate.
Both parties are screw ups, the current economic mess is both Democratic and Republican, but can we all agree that the last President had a lot to do with it also? The current hasn't helped matters either.
My point is, you keep trying to deflect from the Republican party, the party that is trying to continue the very Bush ideals of the last administration. Less taxation, coupled with less spending. In reality, we spent more and taxed less already, and if we lower taxes anymore it isn't going to balance the budget. And we can't cut our way to a balanced budget either. Both parties must accept that cuts will need to be made, and revenue increased. Then we can get serious about balancing our budget, and moving on with our merry little country. But pointing out that one party is to blame, and not the other isn't helping move anything forward.
It seems like a whole passel of Dems responded although all but one was attacking the messenger, me, and that one was talking about wars instead of deficits. They don't really like to talk about deficits any time.
The increase in spending didn't start under the Democratic congress though roy. It started when the Republicans were still in charge of congress.
And what you say about taxes isn't true, because if that worked, the lower taxes under Bush would have actually INCREASED government revenue due to increased economic activity. That never happened.
And, no, the link doesn't mention the wars... which is kind my point about how it distorts the truth.
Actually revenues INCREASED under Bush.
2006, 2007 and 2008 were the 3 biggest years in history for federal income tax revenue. That's right under George Bush the feds took in more in taxes than any president in history
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008
More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record
WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent. The U.S. economy benefits from a solid foundation, but we cannot take economic growth for granted and economic indicators have become increasingly mixed. President Bush will continue working with Congress to address the challenges our economy faces and help facilitate long-term economic growth, job growth, and better standards of living for all Americans.
'The U.S. Economy Benefits From A Solid Foundation
* Real GDP grew at a strong 4.9 percent annual rate in the third quarter of 2007. The economy has now experienced six years of uninterrupted growth, averaging 2.8 percent a year since 2001.
* Real after-tax per capita personal income has risen by 11.7 percent - an average of more than $3,550 per person - since President Bush took office.
* Over the course of this Administration, productivity growth has averaged 2.6 percent per year. This growth is well above average productivity growth in the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s.
Don't confuse the orator supporters with facts like this. They are all running for their Kos links or dem underground support team to refute em. lol. Nice work.
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.
