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)
 
Old 04-21-2012, 05:00 AM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,673,869 times
Reputation: 9174

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hnsq View Post
The real question is when will Americans stop sitting on their a**es waiting for politicians to make their lives better and start creating better jobs for themselves.

It isn't the government's responsibility if a citizen doesn't make a decent salary.
Truer words were never spoken.

It's not the government's job to provide jobs.

Good Grief. Teet suckers!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-21-2012, 05:05 AM
 
Location: Area 51.5
13,887 posts, read 13,673,869 times
Reputation: 9174
Quote:
Originally Posted by DT113876 View Post
Hospitals call me all the time bugging me about medical bills.

This just proves that most of the right-wing loons here don't know what they are talking about.
And your post just proves that you can't comprehend what you're reading.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 07:59 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Do you ever think before you post your nonsense? When did Clinton reduce spending?

FYI, he didn't. Spending grew 30% while he was prez, up every year.
Clinton cut the growth rate of the government, while reducing taxes which actually increased the tax revenues. Exact OPPOSITE of Obama.

p.s. your chart is wrong because it onlyd eals with public spending, not intragovernmental. Try again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 08:02 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by hawkeye2009 View Post
Who cares. The promise of the US is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, NOT EQUAL OUTCOMES. Obama promises financial ruin and poverty for EVERYONE.
Dont be so harsh, Obama doesnt give financial ruin and poverty to his buddies like Warren Buffet, who's wealth has grown substantially during the Obama term.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 08:18 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,202,822 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Clinton cut the growth rate of the government, while reducing taxes which actually increased the tax revenues. Exact OPPOSITE of Obama.

p.s. your chart is wrong because it onlyd eals with public spending, not intragovernmental. Try again.
Nice try detecting, government spending did not go down under Clinton, with intra government spending or not.

Fact, if the government cut spending (by 60%, the suggestion I responded to) it would lead to another great recession.

You were wrong that Clinton cut spending, and therefore did NOT proved me wrong.

That chart is correct, it lists government spending (not debt, not deficits), Thanks for playing.

Last edited by buzzards27; 04-21-2012 at 08:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 08:22 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Nice try detecting, government spending did not go down under Clinton, with intra government spending or not.

You were wrong that Clinton cut spending, and therefore proved me wrong.
Please educate yourself before proclaiming others are wrong because you clearly dont know what the hell you are talking about

Clinton to Cut Spending Further - The Tech

CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN - The Spending Cuts - A Wide Swath, on Earth and in the Sky - NYTimes.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Fact, if the government cut spending (the suggestion I responded to) it would lead to anotjer great recession.

Thanks for playing.
Bull ****. Cutting spending at a federal level, allows people to keep more of their money and therefore spend it, BOOSTS the economy, it doesnt crash it. Return to school.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 08:36 AM
 
Location: South Carolina - The Palmetto State
1,161 posts, read 1,859,623 times
Reputation: 1521
Can anyone explain how "being concerned" helps poor people put food on the table???

I am now realizing being a helpless waif in need of constant coddling is now considered being a great American by way too many.

Sad....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Hinckley Ohio
6,721 posts, read 5,202,822 times
Reputation: 1378
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Please educate yourself before proclaiming others are wrong because you clearly dont know what the hell you are talking about

Clinton to Cut Spending Further - The Tech

CLINTON'S ECONOMIC PLAN - The Spending Cuts - A Wide Swath, on Earth and in the Sky - NYTimes.com

Bull ****. Cutting spending at a federal level, allows people to keep more of their money and therefore spend it, BOOSTS the economy, it doesnt crash it. Return to school.
Forgot who I was speaking to. You are wrong, Clinton never cut spending, spending grew EVERY YEAR he was prez. A 60% cut in government spending would devastate this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 09:08 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,118,301 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
Forgot who I was speaking to. You are wrong, Clinton never cut spending, spending grew EVERY YEAR he was prez.
So now you are calling Clinton a lier?
http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm

Cut federal spending by $255 billion over 5 years.
Already cut the Federal Workforce by over 200,000 -- on the way to lowest level in 30 years.
Over 180 new recommendations will save $70 billion. Eliminated 284 federal advisory committees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
A 60% cut in government spending would devastate this country.
Who the hell is discussing a 60% cut? Are you just making things up? Wow, why dont we go for 180% cut, woo hoo.. I mean if you are going to just pull figures out of your ass, then make them good ones so we can laugh even harder at you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-21-2012, 09:37 AM
 
9,229 posts, read 8,551,670 times
Reputation: 14775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yooperkat View Post
Romney started STAPLES. Staples employs over 70,000 people.

Obama turned down the Keystone Pipeline. Romney will approve it. 20,000 well paying jobs just like that. What's Barack going to do?
There are currently 154.9 million civilian workers employed, under President Obama's administration. 70,000 low-wage jobs seems fairly paltry, doesn't it? Do you know one adult, head of family that is earning a livable wage at Staples?

I looked into average annual job growth by presidential term, using Wikipedia, and charted their table of data. See attached.

You might notice that the steepest job growth averages since Ike's terms have all been accomplished by Democrat Presidents, and the steepest declines by Republicans. That's because while Republicans like to tell us that benefiting business means benefiting Americans, they leave out the part about it being the 1% that are benefited. They earn money by cutting jobs and adding to their profits for their shareholders, not for their workers.

Of all the presidents that have taken office, you might also notice that only GWB was able to drive the numbers below zero.

President Obama listened to his constituents (like me) that raised their voices against the Keystone Pipeline because of the long-term dangers and costs it represented, in the face of too little gain. 20,000 jobs over a short-term to not out-weigh environmental and health dangers that would prevail over centuries.

It is the attentiveness to the people, and the concerns for their futures that makes President Obama the better candidate.
Attached Thumbnails
50% earn less than ,363.55 or 72 Million Americans - Is Romney Concerned about them?-avgjobgrowthbypres.jpg  
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 10:05 AM.

© 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