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 05-23-2012, 11:19 AM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,048,770 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Yes it is, and it has been since 2001. Where have you been?
You know where they have been, under the Republican Rock of Amnesia™.

 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:26 AM
 
20,458 posts, read 12,381,706 times
Reputation: 10254
It should be pointed out that the last budget that Obama submitted to congress, it was voted down 414-0 in the house... and 99-0 in the senate...

Seems even democrats think Bammer is an idiot.
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ferd View Post
It should be pointed out that the last budget that Obama submitted to congress, it was voted down 414-0 in the house... and 99-0 in the senate...

Seems even democrats think Bammer is an idiot.
So you're one of those 8-9 percenter who think Congress has it right and is working for the people.

See, I'm not THAT S M R T... I try to engage in a debate with someone like you.
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:34 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Then you have no understanding of macroeconomics. Spending more in an economic liquidity trap improves the economy not makes it worse. Every freshman that ever took ECO 101 knows that.
How the frick can you in all seriously say in 1 posting that spending more improves the economy, and then in the other say Obama didnt spend more. Are you now saying Obama did nothing to improve the economy because both cant be true..

This is why you liberals get laughed at all the time because you credit Obama with improving the economy, and then you say Obama didnt increase the spending, but you then say it was Obams spending increase which improved the economy.

Furthermore, to ask you the same dam question I asked you yesterday on another thread which you hurried away from, WHERE DOES THE MONEY COME FROM IN ORDER FOR GOVERNMENT TO SPEND?
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:36 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
So you're one of those 8-9 percenter who think Congress has it right and is working for the people.

See, I'm not THAT S M R T... I try to engage in a debate with someone like you.
Clearly you think ONE member of Congress is as smart as Obama is right? What the hell does peoples opinion of Congress have to do with the budget proposal by Obama?
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:38 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Yes it is, and it has been since 2001. Where have you been?

Federal Tax Revenue, 2000: $2.5 Trillion, 20.6% of the GDP
Federal Tax Revenue, 2009: $2.1 Trillion, 15.1% of the GDP (lowest since 1950)
Population, up from about 282 million to 305 million.
The federal government doesnt govern as a percentage of GDP, and the higher percentage of spending doesnt equate to an improved economy. Otherwise the great depression would be called boom economic years and the roaring 20's would be considered a depression.

Seriously stop and think before you key this crap.
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Clearly you think ONE member of Congress is as smart as Obama is right? What the hell does peoples opinion of Congress have to do with the budget proposal by Obama?
They do when they work on the premise. Can't handle it? Don't step into it.

As for smartness... how about you speak for self. And since you're invested so much into this issue, going far enough to project how you and them share ideological grounds that Obama is against, spell out why you believe democrats didn't support Obama's proposal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The federal government doesnt govern as a percentage of GDP, and the higher percentage of spending doesnt equate to an improved economy. Otherwise the great depression would be called boom economic years and the roaring 20's would be considered a depression.

Seriously stop and think before you key this crap.
What do you mean "govern"? Numbers presented are facts, and affect governance. Are you that incapable of working with numbers? Heck, even the republican budgets speak in terms of percentage of GDP. Would you like to get educated on that as well? You're looking for crap because that is all you're good at, and getting something useful. Acknowledge it.
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:44 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
They do when they work on the premise. Can't handle it? Don't step into it.
they do what? You think we elect followers? Then why arent they following?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
As for smartness... how about you speak for self. And since you're invested so much into this issue, going far enough to project how you and them share ideological grounds that Obama is against, spell out why you believe democrats didn't support Obama's proposal?
Dont change the subject, do you think ONE member of Congress is smart enough to support the President?
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Texas
37,949 posts, read 17,865,154 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Without rehashing fighting two wars, extending "temporary" tax cuts you have a point, a small one but a point.
If Congress wanted to cut the budget most of our troops would be back home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
You will be refusing your social security and medicare payouts?
I will not be refusing to receive BACK my own money that was taken from me against my will.

Are you going to refuse a tax refund? Are you going to refuse the $20 you lent to a buddy and he wants to pay it back?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
And what's your position on two multi-billion dollar fighters, an air superiority fighter that can't be flow away from its base and the other that just doesn't work?

Pentagon restricts F-22 flights, safety a concern - Boston.com
Turn them into a ride at the fun park. We need to cut our offensive military budget drastically by bringing the troops home so we can protect our borders and make it safer for Americans.
All that saved money plus the added income received by the troops living and spending their money at home will go towards taking care of commitments in the entitlement programs. It must be recognized that the entitlement programs have to change or there will be nothing left for future generations.

Our current form of government ruined the equity of the lower and middle class and made the youngest generation the first to have a bleaker outlook than their parents. When the big government party in power changes only the hand picked winners and losers differ. Business as usual. What's puzzling me, is the nature of your game.
 
Old 05-23-2012, 11:46 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
What do you mean "govern"? Numbers presented are facts, and affect governance. Are you that incapable of working with numbers? Heck, even the republican budgets speak in terms of percentage of GDP. Would you like to get educated on that as well? You're looking for crap because that is all you're good at, and getting something useful. Acknowledge it.
I didnt say the numbers were wrong, I'm calling into question your claim that the % per GDP is actually to blame for deficits.. Thats beyond asinine. Hey why dont you tell me what the percentage was in say, 1900, when the deficits were lower because according to you, the only way that could happen is if the government was pulling in an astronomical % of revenues per GDP..
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.


Closed Thread


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 10:56 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