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 07-25-2011, 12:58 PM
 
5,756 posts, read 3,988,985 times
Reputation: 2308

Advertisements

Wow so many whinny crying lefties on here spewing their crap and getting away with it along with all the hate,untruths,insults.... war for oil ...lol....if that were the case we would be rich instead of the ditch that the Congress put US in during the CLINTON years with bad trade bills,mortgage housing crisis,de-regulations more government and entitlements.It kills me BUSH gets blamed for everything and he was never a part of that WASHINGTON D.C. crowd show where BUSH was a Congressmen,Czar,Dept.Head or any other position of policy making? JMO
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-25-2011, 01:36 PM
 
45,400 posts, read 26,983,057 times
Reputation: 23760
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
Thru 8 years of runaway spending from the idiot frat boy from Texas Republicans said nothing.
The debt was $458 billion when Bush left. It's $14 trillion now in 2.5 years with trillions more allocated. Want to define runaway again?


Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
Aside from their lust for the invasion of Iraq that killed somewhere around a million people (solely for the benefit of the M.I.C. and oil companies) they now are targeting the American poor under the guise of "financial responsibility", the tragically sad part is they have convinced their clueless followers to vote against their own best interests, and the interests of America.
Stupid question - why would the poor need to be targeted? Being poor, they have nothing the rich want.

Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny View Post
The GOP "War on the Poor" has picked up steam since their transparently phony attempts to "stop spending" has not ONE instance of making the wealthy pay their fair share, nor does it cut their pork barrel spending on ag. subsidies, tax loopholes/breaks for the wealthiest, or cut the Golden Goose defense budget.
What is the wealthy's fair share? Is 1% of the people paying 40% of all tax revenue not enough? Is 25% of the people paying 90% of the taxes enough?

Define fair share in concrete terms.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Pluto's Home Town
9,982 posts, read 13,732,686 times
Reputation: 5689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dumbdowndemocrats View Post
Wow so many whinny crying lefties on here spewing their crap and getting away with it along with all the hate,untruths,insults.... war for oil ...lol....if that were the case we would be rich instead of the ditch that the Congress put US in during the CLINTON years with bad trade bills,mortgage housing crisis,de-regulations more government and entitlements.It kills me BUSH gets blamed for everything and he was never a part of that WASHINGTON D.C. crowd show where BUSH was a Congressmen,Czar,Dept.Head or any other position of policy making? JMO

Ok, I'll throw Clinton under the bus. He did a bunch of stuff to help deregulate the economy, drinking the neoliberal Kool aide.

Now, time to do the same with Grover Norquist. We cannot allow a bunch of congress people to sign a pledge to a guy that directly undermines their ability to balance the budget. If we are going to launch a war on terror, raise the damn taxes to do it!! We cannot combine militarism with protecting the riches spoils and expect the money to come anywhere from out of the middle and working classes or the social safety nets we constructed to make out country worth living in.

I am not against tax cuts or tax hikes. Neither is the end of the world, so long as revenues and expenditures can be balanced. That is what we put people in the government to do. Make these decisions in an open and thoughtful way, not based on ideology. Or worse, fawning over demagogues like Norquist and all his corporate supporters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 01:44 PM
 
Location: Flyover Country
26,212 posts, read 19,471,341 times
Reputation: 21678
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC View Post
The debt was $458 billion when Bush left. It's $14 trillion now in 2.5 years with trillions more allocated. Want to define runaway again?
What are you talking about? Since I don't listen to FOX or Limbaugh, I really don't know where you get your numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 05:44 PM
 
5,756 posts, read 3,988,985 times
Reputation: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Ok, I'll throw Clinton under the bus. He did a bunch of stuff to help deregulate the economy, drinking the neoliberal Kool aide.

Now, time to do the same with Grover Norquist. We cannot allow a bunch of congress people to sign a pledge to a guy that directly undermines their ability to balance the budget. If we are going to launch a war on terror, raise the damn taxes to do it!! We cannot combine militarism with protecting the riches spoils and expect the money to come anywhere from out of the middle and working classes or the social safety nets we constructed to make out country worth living in.

I am not against tax cuts or tax hikes. Neither is the end of the world, so long as revenues and expenditures can be balanced. That is what we put people in the government to do. Make these decisions in an open and thoughtful way, not based on ideology. Or worse, fawning over demagogues like Norquist and all his corporate supporters.
We don't need to raise taxes just a fair tax system NO MORE WRITE OFFS then that money would be revenue to make up the difference THAT WOULD BE LIKE NEW REVENUE you think?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 06:03 PM
 
5,756 posts, read 3,988,985 times
Reputation: 2308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
The repubs HAVE passed bills.

The dem controlled Senate not only have NOT passed anything, the haven't even proposed anything.

I think you need to get up to speed.
Cap & Trade was passed under the Dimos then sits in the SENATE due to the HC fiasco thank God it would of been another nail in the coffin.Why are we paying these people in the Senate they aren't doing the work of the people.Harry Reid is a walking talking do nothing door locking disaster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 06:44 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,992,474 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
It could be that a short tern ceiling is not a bad idea. I don't know why the GOP would want this issue alive in the heat of the Campaign, considering how it's helping the Dems now. Brightness is not a trait of the current RW extreme GOP.
It is only helping if you believe that 80% of the nation supports Obama, as he claimed it did. Reality though says otherwise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,105,746 times
Reputation: 21738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
They have "won" for all Americans, including you, Bob.

The spending spree could not have gone on forever without disasterous consequences to the nations. Obama and the democrats were completely unwilling to address the spending issue. If the democratic congress was still in power, spending would have continued and resulted in a "Greece type" of economic chaos.
It would be more disastrous than that. It would be traumatic for many Americans, but of the sudden widespread changes. People generally do not adapt to rapid change very well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
You are correct. Additionally, though the "Budget Cuts" have been discussed, the real question is, are they really cuts, or bits and slices like Obama wanted, that actually will increase the budget because they aren't really cuts at all.
That remains to be seen. $4 TRILLION over 10 years is not a budget cut.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jw2 View Post
Even that is deception as his definition of a millionaire is a couple that makes more than $250,000 annually.
And even that wouldn't be so bad except that Obama is too stupid to understand that because of extreme variances in cost-of-living, $250,000 in Los Angeles does NOT equal $250,000 in Cincinnati.

Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
It could be that a short tern ceiling is not a bad idea. I don't know why the GOP would want this issue alive in the heat of the Campaign, considering how it's helping the Dems now.
Because when people see what happens as a result, they will know the Republicans were right all along.

The Election isn't tomorrow, it's 16 months from now (and the big guns haven't announced their candidacy yet).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 07:38 PM
 
26,680 posts, read 28,624,812 times
Reputation: 7943
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
The Dems took over for 2 years and ran through money like it was no tomorrow with no concern. They didn't even pass a budget in 2010. The effects of the stimulus wore off and we're back to where we started out.

Republicans have been in the House only for 6 months and you call "Republican's fault" ?

Blind partisanship is all I can attribute this to.
Not a word from you about the fact that we went into a deficit under Republican control in 2003. And then you castigate others as "blind partisans"? Pfft.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2011, 07:46 PM
 
30,024 posts, read 18,596,563 times
Reputation: 20807
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
You are right, I am among the privileged that would continue to benefit from the Republican agenda, "It's the Uppers that deserve the Ups". The thought of that being the reality, just goes against my sense of what is right and just. I would be less comfortable with that than apparently, you.

I guess you need to re evaluate what is "right and just". Do you think that it would have been "right and just" for annual deficits of $1.6 trillion dollars to continue until insolvency and anarchy erupted? Of course not. I do not think it is "right and just" to doom my children to economic servitude for the pleasure of the dependent class today.

The fact is that the democrats are emotional and weak and unable to make hard decisions. Their "solution" is to continue spending, not offend anyone, keep getting re- elected, and wait for anarchy to unfold. While this approach is not offensive to anyone along the way, keeps everyone happy for the short term, and keeps the politicians re-elected, it is the worst possible plan for the nation.

Do you really think, Bob, that the deficit spending could have gone on forever? Of course not. Everyone knows that- however, it takes adults to make hard decisions and the democrats are simply unable to make these hard decisions anymore.
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 07:26 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