Do you think Obama should have called the Cambridge Police Stupid?
- Thread starter miaheatlvr
- Start date
oscardeuce
Active Member
Originally Posted by VinnyRaptor
http:///forum/post/3097090
i believe he'll deliver because so far his track record proves so.
Exactly what track record?
150+ days in the senate?
Porkulus?
Nationalizing the banks, auto industry, and health care?
Cap and Tax.
Tax on health insurance benefits?
Calling cops "Stupid"?
Accusing Drs. of taking out tonsils for the money?
Ayers, Wright, etc?
Throwing out the Constitution in favor of socialism?
http:///forum/post/3097090
i believe he'll deliver because so far his track record proves so.
Exactly what track record?
150+ days in the senate?
Porkulus?
Nationalizing the banks, auto industry, and health care?
Cap and Tax.
Tax on health insurance benefits?
Calling cops "Stupid"?
Accusing Drs. of taking out tonsils for the money?
Ayers, Wright, etc?
Throwing out the Constitution in favor of socialism?
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeucehttp:///forum/post/3099158
Exactly what track record?
150+ days in the senate?
Porkulus?
The pork is from the Bush legacy and CONGRESS. Not Obama
Nationalizing the banks, auto industry, and health care?
None of those industries have been 'nationalized'. The Federal Govt. LOANED the money to the banks and auto makers with the provision they have to pay the money back. It's called LONG TERM INVESTING. You want them to pay mutil-billion dollar loans back in two months. If they don't pay the loans back within the next two or three years, then you have a valid gripe.
Cap and Tax.
Plan sucks. However, provide a better solution for lowering greenhouse gases and carbon emission. And don't roll your eyes that there's not some form of global warming happening. My area has been in a drought going on 23 months, and Oregon and Washington are seeing 100+ temps for the first time in decades.
Tax on health insurance benefits?
What taxes? My health insurance hasn't been taxed. Just one of the many proposals going through the healthcare debate.
Calling cops "Stupid"?
He said the cops "Acted stupidly" in regards to the Gates incident. He didn't directly call this cop stupid. I do agree he had no business making the statement in the first place. If he had kept his mouth shut, this would've been just another 'racial profiling' case.
Accusing Drs. of taking out tonsils for the money?
The statement was a little off base, but not entirely inaccurate. There have been numerous lawsuits brought against doctors for performing uneccessary operations and procedures. I actually had a friend whose doctor was wanting him to get his daughter's tonsils taken out because of the numerous sore throats she seemed to get. He went for a second opnion to an ENT Specialist, and he found she had specific allergies that was causing the chronic sore throats. Put her on allergy medications, and the sore throats have gone away. Did the tonsil doctor want to do it for money, or was he incapable of deducing what was wrong with her?
Ayers, Wright, etc?
What, no Hawaii birth certificate to go along with these other conspiracy theories?
It's sad you have to resort to character assasination to try and get your point across.
Throwing out the Constitution in favor of socialism?
Listen to credible reporters instead of sensationalists like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, and you may find there's fallacies to this ridiculous claim.
Exactly what track record?
150+ days in the senate?
Porkulus?
The pork is from the Bush legacy and CONGRESS. Not Obama
Nationalizing the banks, auto industry, and health care?
None of those industries have been 'nationalized'. The Federal Govt. LOANED the money to the banks and auto makers with the provision they have to pay the money back. It's called LONG TERM INVESTING. You want them to pay mutil-billion dollar loans back in two months. If they don't pay the loans back within the next two or three years, then you have a valid gripe.
Cap and Tax.
Plan sucks. However, provide a better solution for lowering greenhouse gases and carbon emission. And don't roll your eyes that there's not some form of global warming happening. My area has been in a drought going on 23 months, and Oregon and Washington are seeing 100+ temps for the first time in decades.
Tax on health insurance benefits?
What taxes? My health insurance hasn't been taxed. Just one of the many proposals going through the healthcare debate.
Calling cops "Stupid"?
He said the cops "Acted stupidly" in regards to the Gates incident. He didn't directly call this cop stupid. I do agree he had no business making the statement in the first place. If he had kept his mouth shut, this would've been just another 'racial profiling' case.
Accusing Drs. of taking out tonsils for the money?
The statement was a little off base, but not entirely inaccurate. There have been numerous lawsuits brought against doctors for performing uneccessary operations and procedures. I actually had a friend whose doctor was wanting him to get his daughter's tonsils taken out because of the numerous sore throats she seemed to get. He went for a second opnion to an ENT Specialist, and he found she had specific allergies that was causing the chronic sore throats. Put her on allergy medications, and the sore throats have gone away. Did the tonsil doctor want to do it for money, or was he incapable of deducing what was wrong with her?
Ayers, Wright, etc?
What, no Hawaii birth certificate to go along with these other conspiracy theories?
Throwing out the Constitution in favor of socialism?
Listen to credible reporters instead of sensationalists like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, and you may find there's fallacies to this ridiculous claim.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099337
Plan sucks. However, provide a better solution for lowering greenhouse gases and carbon emission. And don't roll your eyes that there's not some form of global warming happening. My area has been in a drought going on 23 months, and Oregon and Washington are seeing 100+ temps for the first time in decades.
Ok, I need to call you on this. Stop and think about this. Really think about what you just said.
100+ temperatures have not been seen regularly in those states in Decades. But decades (not centuries) ago there were 100+ temps. Are you trying to tell me the greenhouse gases and carbon emmissions lowered miraculously to bring those temps in those regions back down and now they have skyrocketed again? Because you are saying the temps are a direct result of this and that there is no way those regions should be able to reach 100+ on a regular basis essentially. So I want to know what caused those temps decades ago.
23 month long drought? where in the U.S. do you live? Because I can not find a single story stating ANY region of the U.S. is in a 23 month drought. I live in the driest climate of the U.S. and even we are not in a drought.
So because no one has come up with a better idea, we go ahead with the bad idea of cap and trade. Is this seriously your stance? We go ahead with bad/dumb ideas because no one has come up with a better way.
I have a splinter in my finger, I can't get it out. It could get infected and fester turning into a huge problem, maybe. So instead I am just going to cut off my arm. I can't think of a better idea, I know this is a bad idea, but what choice do I have.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3099341
Ok, I need to call you on this. Stop and think about this. Really think about what you just said.
100+ temperatures have not been seen regularly in those states in Decades. But decades (not centuries) ago there were 100+ temps. Are you trying to tell me the greenhouse gases and carbon emmissions lowered miraculously to bring those temps in those regions back down and now they have skyrocketed again? Because you are saying the temps are a direct result of this and that there is no way those regions should be able to reach 100+ on a regular basis essentially. So I want to know what caused those temps decades ago.
23 month long drought? where in the U.S. do you live? Because I can not find a single story stating ANY region of the U.S. is in a 23 month drought. I live in the driest climate of the U.S. and even we are not in a drought.
So because no one has come up with a better idea, we go ahead with the bad idea of cap and trade. Is this seriously your stance? We go ahead with bad/dumb ideas because no one has come up with a better way.
I have a splinter in my finger, I can't get it out. It could get infected and fester turning into a huge problem, maybe. So instead I am just going to cut off my arm. I can't think of a better idea, I know this is a bad idea, but what choice do I have.
South Texas has been really dry, and hot. And more dry and hot than normal. Typical weather pattern for "El nino." As for the 23 months. In the Edwards Aquifer area (San Antonio and the hill country) they're always running around with their heads cut off saying they are in the worst drought ever.
But unlike the rest of the USA Texas has been record breaking hot. All these record lows in the rest of the USA aren't happening here. Cuz you know, Texas being hot is verifiable evidence that Global warming is happening...
http:///forum/post/3099341
Ok, I need to call you on this. Stop and think about this. Really think about what you just said.
100+ temperatures have not been seen regularly in those states in Decades. But decades (not centuries) ago there were 100+ temps. Are you trying to tell me the greenhouse gases and carbon emmissions lowered miraculously to bring those temps in those regions back down and now they have skyrocketed again? Because you are saying the temps are a direct result of this and that there is no way those regions should be able to reach 100+ on a regular basis essentially. So I want to know what caused those temps decades ago.
23 month long drought? where in the U.S. do you live? Because I can not find a single story stating ANY region of the U.S. is in a 23 month drought. I live in the driest climate of the U.S. and even we are not in a drought.
So because no one has come up with a better idea, we go ahead with the bad idea of cap and trade. Is this seriously your stance? We go ahead with bad/dumb ideas because no one has come up with a better way.
I have a splinter in my finger, I can't get it out. It could get infected and fester turning into a huge problem, maybe. So instead I am just going to cut off my arm. I can't think of a better idea, I know this is a bad idea, but what choice do I have.
South Texas has been really dry, and hot. And more dry and hot than normal. Typical weather pattern for "El nino." As for the 23 months. In the Edwards Aquifer area (San Antonio and the hill country) they're always running around with their heads cut off saying they are in the worst drought ever.
But unlike the rest of the USA Texas has been record breaking hot. All these record lows in the rest of the USA aren't happening here. Cuz you know, Texas being hot is verifiable evidence that Global warming is happening...
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3099356
South Texas has been really dry, and hot. And more dry and hot than normal. Typical weather patern for "el nino." As for the 23 months. In the Edwards Aquifer area (san antonio and the hill country) they're always running around with their heads cut off saying they are in the worst drought ever.
But unlike the rest of the USA Texas has been record breaking hot. All these record lows in the rest of the USA aren't happening here.
Yep. It's the media calling it a 23-month drought, not me. I guess it depends on how you define 'drought'? Do we get occassional heavy rains? Of course we do. But they base our drought conditions on our water supply (.i.e the Edwards Aquifer). We've been in Stage 2 water restrictions for as long as I can remember. I do know we're about to break the 'consecutive 100+ days' mark. I think the old record was 36.
A local auto dealer is so confident that we're not going to get out of our drought dilemma anytime soon, they're offering a free car. A local Nissan dealer has a promotion whereby you buy a brand new Altima, and if it rains more than 2 inches at the San Antonio International Airport on August 8th, they will pay off your note. Forecasters are calling for Sunny, Hot, and 102 for the 8th...
http:///forum/post/3099356
South Texas has been really dry, and hot. And more dry and hot than normal. Typical weather patern for "el nino." As for the 23 months. In the Edwards Aquifer area (san antonio and the hill country) they're always running around with their heads cut off saying they are in the worst drought ever.
But unlike the rest of the USA Texas has been record breaking hot. All these record lows in the rest of the USA aren't happening here.
Yep. It's the media calling it a 23-month drought, not me. I guess it depends on how you define 'drought'? Do we get occassional heavy rains? Of course we do. But they base our drought conditions on our water supply (.i.e the Edwards Aquifer). We've been in Stage 2 water restrictions for as long as I can remember. I do know we're about to break the 'consecutive 100+ days' mark. I think the old record was 36.
A local auto dealer is so confident that we're not going to get out of our drought dilemma anytime soon, they're offering a free car. A local Nissan dealer has a promotion whereby you buy a brand new Altima, and if it rains more than 2 inches at the San Antonio International Airport on August 8th, they will pay off your note. Forecasters are calling for Sunny, Hot, and 102 for the 8th...
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3099341
Ok, I need to call you on this. Stop and think about this. Really think about what you just said.
100+ temperatures have not been seen regularly in those states in Decades. But decades (not centuries) ago there were 100+ temps. Are you trying to tell me the greenhouse gases and carbon emmissions lowered miraculously to bring those temps in those regions back down and now they have skyrocketed again? Because you are saying the temps are a direct result of this and that there is no way those regions should be able to reach 100+ on a regular basis essentially. So I want to know what caused those temps decades ago.
23 month long drought? where in the U.S. do you live? Because I can not find a single story stating ANY region of the U.S. is in a 23 month drought. I live in the driest climate of the U.S. and even we are not in a drought.
So because no one has come up with a better idea, we go ahead with the bad idea of cap and trade. Is this seriously your stance? We go ahead with bad/dumb ideas because no one has come up with a better way.
I have a splinter in my finger, I can't get it out. It could get infected and fester turning into a huge problem, maybe. So instead I am just going to cut off my arm. I can't think of a better idea, I know this is a bad idea, but what choice do I have.
Hey, I don't know what you call it. All I know is there's been some really strange weather patterns that have occurred over the last couple years that are 'out of the norm' for both winter and summer all over the country.
I never said Cap and Trade was a good idea, or we should just go with it because that's all there is on the table. But if it's so bad, why hasn't there been alternative solutions brought up? I don't buy the 'just stay with the status quo' solution, and just roll the eyes about emissions problems.
http:///forum/post/3099341
Ok, I need to call you on this. Stop and think about this. Really think about what you just said.
100+ temperatures have not been seen regularly in those states in Decades. But decades (not centuries) ago there were 100+ temps. Are you trying to tell me the greenhouse gases and carbon emmissions lowered miraculously to bring those temps in those regions back down and now they have skyrocketed again? Because you are saying the temps are a direct result of this and that there is no way those regions should be able to reach 100+ on a regular basis essentially. So I want to know what caused those temps decades ago.
23 month long drought? where in the U.S. do you live? Because I can not find a single story stating ANY region of the U.S. is in a 23 month drought. I live in the driest climate of the U.S. and even we are not in a drought.
So because no one has come up with a better idea, we go ahead with the bad idea of cap and trade. Is this seriously your stance? We go ahead with bad/dumb ideas because no one has come up with a better way.
I have a splinter in my finger, I can't get it out. It could get infected and fester turning into a huge problem, maybe. So instead I am just going to cut off my arm. I can't think of a better idea, I know this is a bad idea, but what choice do I have.
Hey, I don't know what you call it. All I know is there's been some really strange weather patterns that have occurred over the last couple years that are 'out of the norm' for both winter and summer all over the country.
I never said Cap and Trade was a good idea, or we should just go with it because that's all there is on the table. But if it's so bad, why hasn't there been alternative solutions brought up? I don't buy the 'just stay with the status quo' solution, and just roll the eyes about emissions problems.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099364
Yep. It's the media calling it a 23-month drought, not me. I guess it depends on how you define 'drought'? Do we get occassional heavy rains? Of course we do. But they base our drought conditions on our water supply (.i.e the Edwards Aquifer). We've been in Stage 2 water restrictions for as long as I can remember. I do know we're about to break the 'consecutive 100+ days' mark. I think the old record was 36.
I've got a solution, I'll decide to go white water rafting. It will of course flood and close all the rivers to traffic. (every time I've gotten a trip together in high school and college that has happened)
http:///forum/post/3099364
Yep. It's the media calling it a 23-month drought, not me. I guess it depends on how you define 'drought'? Do we get occassional heavy rains? Of course we do. But they base our drought conditions on our water supply (.i.e the Edwards Aquifer). We've been in Stage 2 water restrictions for as long as I can remember. I do know we're about to break the 'consecutive 100+ days' mark. I think the old record was 36.
I've got a solution, I'll decide to go white water rafting. It will of course flood and close all the rivers to traffic. (every time I've gotten a trip together in high school and college that has happened)
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3099385
I've got a solution, I'll decide to go white water rafting. It will of course flood and close all the rivers to traffic. (every time I've gotten a trip together in high school and college that has happened)
Yesterday, some non-denominational group went outside in New Braunfels and prayed for rain. The got an 1 1/2" soon after. Devine intervention?
http:///forum/post/3099385
I've got a solution, I'll decide to go white water rafting. It will of course flood and close all the rivers to traffic. (every time I've gotten a trip together in high school and college that has happened)
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099372
Hey, I don't know what you call it. All I know is there's been some really strange weather patterns that have occurred over the last couple years that are 'out of the norm' for both winter and summer all over the country.
.
The Dust bowl of the early 20th century was out of the norm as well. Was our emissions then greater or lower? Was the total global emissions greater or lower?
In 1921 and 1935 average U.S temp spiked dramatically to the same levels they spiked in 2006 and 1998. Strangely 2008 the average U.S Temp dropped down to where it sat during most of the 20th century.
So tell me, how emissions and greenhouses caused all these changes? when at one point the emissions and gases were not at the level they are today, but we saw much of the same things. Based off the 2008 levels we don't need to do anything.
http:///forum/post/3099372
Hey, I don't know what you call it. All I know is there's been some really strange weather patterns that have occurred over the last couple years that are 'out of the norm' for both winter and summer all over the country.
.
The Dust bowl of the early 20th century was out of the norm as well. Was our emissions then greater or lower? Was the total global emissions greater or lower?
In 1921 and 1935 average U.S temp spiked dramatically to the same levels they spiked in 2006 and 1998. Strangely 2008 the average U.S Temp dropped down to where it sat during most of the 20th century.
So tell me, how emissions and greenhouses caused all these changes? when at one point the emissions and gases were not at the level they are today, but we saw much of the same things. Based off the 2008 levels we don't need to do anything.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3099392
The Dust bowl of the early 20th century was out of the norm as well. Was our emissions then greater or lower? Was the total global emissions greater or lower?
In 1921 and 1935 average U.S temp spiked dramatically to the same levels they spiked in 2006 and 1998. Strangely 2008 the average U.S Temp dropped down to where it sat during most of the 20th century.
So tell me, how emissions and greenhouses caused all these changes? when at one point the emissions and gases were not at the level they are today, but we saw much of the same things. Based off the 2008 levels we don't need to do anything.
I'm not talking just temperature levels, but weather patterns in general. I just find it interesting that areas that are normally cool in the summer, are now having higher-than-normal temperatures. East Coast usually gets up in the 80's during the summer, and they get their first snowfall sometime in October or November. Last winter, New York was still experiencing 70 and 80 temps in the winter, and this summer, most of their temps haven't gone over 70. We got drenched two summers ago, and now we get so little rain, I've given up on the grass in my yard. Is it the Earth just playing around with us, or is it because all the carbon emmissions that have been dumped out there over the last 60 years finally catching up?
http:///forum/post/3099392
The Dust bowl of the early 20th century was out of the norm as well. Was our emissions then greater or lower? Was the total global emissions greater or lower?
In 1921 and 1935 average U.S temp spiked dramatically to the same levels they spiked in 2006 and 1998. Strangely 2008 the average U.S Temp dropped down to where it sat during most of the 20th century.
So tell me, how emissions and greenhouses caused all these changes? when at one point the emissions and gases were not at the level they are today, but we saw much of the same things. Based off the 2008 levels we don't need to do anything.
I'm not talking just temperature levels, but weather patterns in general. I just find it interesting that areas that are normally cool in the summer, are now having higher-than-normal temperatures. East Coast usually gets up in the 80's during the summer, and they get their first snowfall sometime in October or November. Last winter, New York was still experiencing 70 and 80 temps in the winter, and this summer, most of their temps haven't gone over 70. We got drenched two summers ago, and now we get so little rain, I've given up on the grass in my yard. Is it the Earth just playing around with us, or is it because all the carbon emmissions that have been dumped out there over the last 60 years finally catching up?
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099337
Listen to credible reporters instead of sensationalists like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck, and you may find there's fallacies to this ridiculous claim.
You mean like Keith Oberman
By the way, The Ossiah has increased spending far and above over what Bush did.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3099437
You mean like Keith Oberman
By the way, The Ossiah has increased spending far and above over what Bush did.
I don't take any credance to what that wacko says either.
I don't know where this 'increased spending is'. His proposals that he want's to spend will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is that good? Not really. But if we'd 'stayed the course' with what Bush left him, it would be that 2.4 trillion plus more.
http:///forum/post/3099437
You mean like Keith Oberman
By the way, The Ossiah has increased spending far and above over what Bush did.
I don't take any credance to what that wacko says either.
I don't know where this 'increased spending is'. His proposals that he want's to spend will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is that good? Not really. But if we'd 'stayed the course' with what Bush left him, it would be that 2.4 trillion plus more.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099452
I don't take any credance to what that wacko says either.
I don't know where this 'increased spending is'. His proposals that he want's to spend will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is that good? Not really. But if we'd 'stayed the course' with what Bush left him, it would be that 2.4 trillion plus more.
He will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion, but how much is the total increase over that 10 year period...he has already spent far more than the last president in less time, even if he reduces it 2.4 trillion he still has spent more than ever....
http:///forum/post/3099452
I don't take any credance to what that wacko says either.
I don't know where this 'increased spending is'. His proposals that he want's to spend will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is that good? Not really. But if we'd 'stayed the course' with what Bush left him, it would be that 2.4 trillion plus more.
He will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion, but how much is the total increase over that 10 year period...he has already spent far more than the last president in less time, even if he reduces it 2.4 trillion he still has spent more than ever....
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3099471
He will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion, but how much is the total increase over that 10 year period...he has already spent far more than the last president in less time, even if he reduces it 2.4 trillion he still has spent more than ever....
What has he spent it on? The bailouts? The war in Afghanistan? What else? I don't think anyone here would argue the benefits of funding the Afghan stuff. As far as bailouts, you're assuming that money will never be recouped from the banks or auto manufacturers. The terms of the agreement were for the 'bailees' to pay back everything they borrowed. Now if they go belly-up before they do pay it back, then you have every right to complain about how Obama dumped money into a lost cause. But you need to give it more than a couple of months to see whether the gamble to INVEST the money in these companies will pay off or not.
http:///forum/post/3099471
He will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion, but how much is the total increase over that 10 year period...he has already spent far more than the last president in less time, even if he reduces it 2.4 trillion he still has spent more than ever....
What has he spent it on? The bailouts? The war in Afghanistan? What else? I don't think anyone here would argue the benefits of funding the Afghan stuff. As far as bailouts, you're assuming that money will never be recouped from the banks or auto manufacturers. The terms of the agreement were for the 'bailees' to pay back everything they borrowed. Now if they go belly-up before they do pay it back, then you have every right to complain about how Obama dumped money into a lost cause. But you need to give it more than a couple of months to see whether the gamble to INVEST the money in these companies will pay off or not.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099526
What has he spent it on? The bailouts? The war in Afghanistan? What else? I don't think anyone here would argue the benefits of funding the Afghan stuff. As far as bailouts, you're assuming that money will never be recouped from the banks or auto manufacturers. The terms of the agreement were for the 'bailees' to pay back everything they borrowed. Now if they go belly-up before they do pay it back, then you have every right to complain about how Obama dumped money into a lost cause. But you need to give it more than a couple of months to see whether the gamble to INVEST the money in these companies will pay off or not.
Take away the banks, (done by Bush), and the auto "loans". I am talking about THE stimulus package...the one that gave out money...THAT spending package
http:///forum/post/3099526
What has he spent it on? The bailouts? The war in Afghanistan? What else? I don't think anyone here would argue the benefits of funding the Afghan stuff. As far as bailouts, you're assuming that money will never be recouped from the banks or auto manufacturers. The terms of the agreement were for the 'bailees' to pay back everything they borrowed. Now if they go belly-up before they do pay it back, then you have every right to complain about how Obama dumped money into a lost cause. But you need to give it more than a couple of months to see whether the gamble to INVEST the money in these companies will pay off or not.
Take away the banks, (done by Bush), and the auto "loans". I am talking about THE stimulus package...the one that gave out money...THAT spending package
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3099575
Take away the banks, (done by Bush), and the auto "loans". I am talking about THE stimulus package...the one that gave out money...THAT spending package
I thought THE stimulus package WAS the bank and auto loans.
What else is he stimulating?
http:///forum/post/3099575
Take away the banks, (done by Bush), and the auto "loans". I am talking about THE stimulus package...the one that gave out money...THAT spending package
I thought THE stimulus package WAS the bank and auto loans.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099607
I thought THE stimulus package WAS the bank and auto loans.
What else is he stimulating?
The bank and auto loans were 2 separate bills. The one most of us are complaining about is this one.
http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt
and a decent graph breakdown as cliff notes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020100154.html
How can you not know this?
http:///forum/post/3099607
I thought THE stimulus package WAS the bank and auto loans.
The bank and auto loans were 2 separate bills. The one most of us are complaining about is this one.
http://readthestimulus.org/hr1_final.txt
and a decent graph breakdown as cliff notes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020100154.html
How can you not know this?
deejeff442
Active Member
senator chris dodd ,just on the news has prostate cancer.
we'll see how he likes it in the rear .
i cant wait to vote in 2010.
odd here in fort worth its been raining for two weeks and the temps are around normal.
carbon footprint.
trees carbon dioxide in oxygen out been like that since the begining of this planet .2/3 of the earth is water .people have only developed 1/3 of land .so how could we have global man made warming when we only use up next to nothing of the worlds recources.
what a crock.
cap and tax is just something pelosi and buffet stirred up tho sell windmills.now buffet has come out recently and backed away from some of these green energy producing ideas.
we'll see how he likes it in the rear .
i cant wait to vote in 2010.
odd here in fort worth its been raining for two weeks and the temps are around normal.
carbon footprint.
what a crock.
cap and tax is just something pelosi and buffet stirred up tho sell windmills.now buffet has come out recently and backed away from some of these green energy producing ideas.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3099452
I don't take any credance to what that wacko says either.
I don't know where this 'increased spending is'. His proposals that he want's to spend will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is that good? Not really. But if we'd 'stayed the course' with what Bush left him, it would be that 2.4 trillion plus more.
When a politician tells you they will do something over x years it's time to look at the math. You can't blame this on Bush either. While he did and should have used his power to veto the spending bills they have all been created in the House of Representatives which has been under the control of the Pelosi since 2007.
http:///forum/post/3099452
I don't take any credance to what that wacko says either.
I don't know where this 'increased spending is'. His proposals that he want's to spend will reduce the debt by 2.4 trillion over the next 10 years. Is that good? Not really. But if we'd 'stayed the course' with what Bush left him, it would be that 2.4 trillion plus more.
When a politician tells you they will do something over x years it's time to look at the math. You can't blame this on Bush either. While he did and should have used his power to veto the spending bills they have all been created in the House of Representatives which has been under the control of the Pelosi since 2007.