Obama supporters. I have one question

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2541088
Yeah, that is why, after 8 freakin' years of complete Republican control, we are almost 10 trillion dollars in debt....
Are you saying that the republicans racked up 10 trillion dollars of debt?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/2539395
Let me quote a reply, since Strdreb27 hasn't jumped on this one yet ....
Didn't mean to jump too early on it Stdred -- feel free to add
So saying something like
Of the $159 billion in legislative savings, 76 percent came from from higher tax revenues, while only a meager 17 percent came from spending restraint and 7 percent came from debt service. Furthermore, all of the net spending restraint came in 1996, under the Republican controlled Congress. In the FY 1996 appropriations process alone, Republicans were able to pare $19 billion from the deficit. Contrast this with a net spending increase of $12 billion during , FY 1993, 1994 and 1995 combined.
By tracing CBO's deficit revisions, we have determined that roughly 35 percent stems directly from President Clinton's legislative efforts, which are mostly tax hikes.
vs using salacious language such as
In 1992, 10 million Americans were unemployed, the country faced record deficits, and poverty and welfare rolls were growing. Family incomes were losing ground to inflation and jobs were being created at the slowest rate since the Great Depression. Today, America enjoys what may be the strongest economy ever.
It uses unstastainable growth as a basis for statements such as Under the Clinton-Gore budget, we are on track to pay off the entire publicly held debt on a net basis by 2009.
It attempts to give credit to stuff out of the president's control such as home ownership, Median Family Income increase, and inflation.
But both are opinion pieces, but one attempts to pass itself off as factual reporting and the other one is clearly written as an opinion piece.
There is a difference between sensationalist reporting and using actual numbers to back up an opinion.
Funny HW raised taxes to balace the budget and gets villified, Clinton raises taxes to balance the budget, gets simular results and is cannonised.

 

[suzy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2541165
Are you saying that the republicans racked up 10 trillion dollars of debt?
From JM:
Suzy, do you understand the process our Government uses to make pass a budget each year?
I thought I did. Congress passes a spending bill, then the president vetoes it or signs it. But, I must be wrong, because we had a Republican congress and a Rep president the last few years. When we had a Dem president, we had surpluses, but when the Reps took over, it got squandered and now we have a enormous debt. So, why don't you two CONServatives tell me why it is the Dems fault?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2541597
From JM:
Suzy, do you understand the process our Government uses to make pass a budget each year?
I thought I did. Congress passes a spending bill, then the president vetoes it or signs it. But, I must be wrong, because we had a Republican congress and a Rep president the last few years. When we had a Dem president, we had surpluses, but when the Reps took over, it got squandered and now we have a enormous debt. So, why don't you two CONServatives tell me why it is the Dems fault?
So when the Republicans took over you are saying there was no national debt?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2541597
From JM:
Suzy, do you understand the process our Government uses to make pass a budget each year?
I thought I did. Congress passes a spending bill, then the president vetoes it or signs it. But, I must be wrong, because we had a Republican congress and a Rep president the last few years. When we had a Dem president, we had surpluses, but when the Reps took over, it got squandered and now we have a enormous debt. So, why don't you two CONServatives tell me why it is the Dems fault?
That is the process.
Under Clinton, we had surpluses, ONCE the Republicans took over Congress and began passing fiscally conservative budgets. President Clinton did not want to sign those budgets. It was only after the Republicans shut down the government on two seperate occasions (2 different years) that he signed the responsible budgets.
The Republicans pushed for a balanced budget amendment in 1994 and 1995. Repeatedly the various amendments were voted overwhelming in favor of by Republicans and overwhelmingly against by Democrats.
The National Debt:
$2,136,961,091 in 1900
$20,516,193,887 in 1925
$257,357,352,351 in 1950
$4,064,620,655,521 in 1992
$5,674,178,209,886 in 2000 (Yes, that's right, the debt increased 1 1/2 trillion dollars under Clinton even with "surpluses".)
$9,007,653,372,262 currently http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm
The Democratic party, historically, was the Party in control of Congress (and spending) for the majority of the 20th century... From the Great Depression until 1980 Democrats were dominant in both the White House and Congress. Don't forget, many of the social programs that are biting us in the rear today were passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.
History doesn't lie. The 20th Century was in the hands fo the Democrats. When the Republicans did gain control of Congress in the 90's the Democrats opposed any move to make a balanced budget a reality.
Spending, without a doubt, was out of control the last 8 years. As it was out of control the previous hundred years.
I want spending cuts. I want a balanced budget. The Democrats have never stood for either. In fact, they have fought against both...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2541088
Yeah, that is why, after 8 freakin' years of complete Republican control, we are almost 10 trillion dollars in debt....
'Cause history proves Libs spend more the Cons!

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2541597
I thought I did. Congress passes a spending bill, then the president vetoes it or signs it. But, I must be wrong, because we had a Republican congress and a Rep president the last few years. When we had a Dem president, we had surpluses, but when the Reps took over, it got squandered and now we have a enormous debt. So, why don't you two CONServatives tell me why it is the Dems fault?

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2541724
That is the process.
was only after the Republicans shut down the government on two seperate occasions (2 different years) that he signed the responsible budgets.
The Republicans pushed for a balanced budget amendment in 1994 and 1995. Repeatedly the various amendments were voted overwhelming in favor of by Republicans and overwhelmingly against by Democrats.
The National Debt:
$4,064,620,655,521 in 1992
$5,674,178,209,886 in 2000 (Yes, that's right, the debt increased 1 1/2 trillion dollars under Clinton even with "surpluses".)
$9,007,653,372,262 currently http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm
The Democratic party, historically, was the Party in control of Congress (and spending) for the majority of the 20th century... From the Great Depression until 1980 Democrats were dominant in both the White House and Congress. Don't forget, many of the social programs that are biting us in the rear today were passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Democratic President.
Just goes to show either the ignorance or the intellectual dishonesty of the left. Suzy actually believes we had no debt before W Bush took over.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2539214
Racism today in many ways is unspoken... meaning that they won't call you name in your face or have a sign that says "Whites Only", but they discriminate based on saying your pants are too baggy, or we are full... when none of those are true... they'll basically come up with some sort of untruth and use it against you...
As far as drug dealers... I think this is important.. not because I like what they do, I also acknowledge the destruction drugs do to the community... With that said it is a concern for me because the drug war affects the black community in a very negative way... It its a cycle that fuels the inablity to earn a living because of the felony conviction, it is a leading cause for single family homes, it is a leading cause for other crimes including murder, it affects us all because the jail population is mostly made up of these individualswho are nonviolent and whom are very low level participants ...There are so many residuals from it...
There has to be a solution to break the cycle... I believe that 1st drug crimes should be prosecuted equally...
I also believe that prison is not the answer for many of these people... I believe in punishment... but our society would be better if we could educate and prepare these individuals for trades... My concentration would be on rehabilitation and with the opportunity to go back home and being able to feed their family w/o having to resort back to dealing drugs.
For drug users... I would concentrate on rehab... these people have addictions... and no matter if they spend a year in jail or not... they still have the same habit... I would concentrate on treatment and changing previous habits...
All this would be cheaper and do more for the economy than our current prison system.

Is that like the SPOKEN racism when BHO read from the works of Pastor Wright? I heard it on the radio, from Barack's own mouth. Obama read from the sermon where Rev Wright points out cruise ships throw away more food than some towns eat. Then Obama read the "white greed" part. Now he parses words, and states he "does not agree with everything Rev Wright says". Apparently he agreed with it enough to read it. Don't argue "he just read someone elses words." to me. I think thare would be an uproar is McCain read passages Mein Kampf. Even if McCain said, "I don't agree with this, but..."
Imagine what would happen were a conservative to make a similar commen abot black folks.
Wright is a racist, I'm pretty sure Mrs Obama is an America-hating racist, and I'm thinking Barak is too the more I hear about him. I will not support him, not because his skin color is different, but because he is an America-hating socialist.

 

[suzy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2541821
Just goes to show either the ignorance or the intellectual dishonesty of the left. Suzy actually believes we had no debt before W Bush took over.

You guys are a hoot! "Yeah, we had surpluses because of the wonderful Republicans" but now we don't because of the terrible left wing!
Even though the REPUBLICAN congress submitted a REPUBLICAN budget to a REPUBLICAN president who signed it into law, it is the DEMOCRATS fault we are in fiscal hell!
I can't read your responses without laughing. You guys must be splitting a gut writing them!
You are right, STD. I am just too stupid to understand how it works! Good thing we got you brilliant right wingers to show us how it really is!

 

[darthtang aw]

suzy do you know the difference between the deficit and the budget?
even under clinton the deficit increased 1.5 trillion. This is with the surplus (which only came about because he cut our military in half).
Incidentally had clinton not cut the military so much we would not have so many serving multiple tours.

 

[suzy]

Obviously I don't, because I think the budgets submitted by the Republican congress over the last 8 years consumed our surplus and left us with a huge deficit. Why don't you explain it to me, because you are of the much smarter party?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2542059
You guys are a hoot! "Yeah, we had surpluses because of the wonderful Republicans" but now we don't because of the terrible left wing!
Even though the REPUBLICAN congress submitted a REPUBLICAN budget to a REPUBLICAN president who signed it into law, it is the DEMOCRATS fault we are in fiscal hell!
I can't read your responses without laughing. You guys must be splitting a gut writing them!
You are right, STD. I am just too stupid to understand how it works! Good thing we got you brilliant right wingers to show us how it really is!

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2542081
suzy do you know the difference between the deficit and the budget?
even under clinton the deficit increased 1.5 trillion. This is with the surplus (which only came about because he cut our military in half).
Incidentally had clinton not cut the military so much we would not have so many serving multiple tours.
Yawn, this is just too easy.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2542092
Obviously I don't, because I think the budgets submitted by the Republican congress over the last 8 years consumed our surplus and left us with a huge deficit. Why don't you explain it to me, because you are of the much smarter party?
Why, you wouldn't believe me if I did.

 

[suzy]

Oops! You are right. I do have it wrong. The REPUBLICAN president submitted the budgets to the REPUBLICAN congress over the last 8 years. Years when the dems did not have any veto power, or could have over rode a veto. So, explain to me again how it is the Dems fult we are 10 trillion in debt? To China and even Mexico?
Yeah, STD, it is Clintons fault our military is so over stretched....

 

[suzy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2542096
Why, you wouldn't believe me if I did.

You are right. Neither will any one else. Except the people who want to keep believing a government controlled by one party will keep spending down. And, those who want other people to pay for the services they use.
How can you guys keep believing this trickle down voodoo economic crap when we are so far in debt? We have over 9,000,000,000,000 reasons to see it doesn't work.

 

[jmick]

Anyone have any numbers on how much our debt to China has grown under the Bush administration?

 

[suzy]

Or how many of our banks they own?
The only good thing behind us owing so much to China is that if they try to collect, our economy will hit lower than ever and we won't be able to buy any more lead filled toys at Walmart!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2542092
Obviously I don't, because I think the budgets submitted by the Republican congress over the last 8 years consumed our surplus and left us with a huge deficit. Why don't you explain it to me, because you are of the much smarter party?

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2542113
You are right. Neither will any one else. Except the people who want to keep believing a government controlled by one party will keep spending down. And, those who want other people to pay for the services they use.
How can you guys keep believing this trickle down voodoo economic crap when we are so far in debt? We have over 9,000,000,000,000 reasons to see it doesn't work.
You don't even know what our deficit is vs the 9 trillion dollar federal debt. You are ignorant. Just like the supplyside economics (which your clinton bought into that previously quoted Greenspan, volker and other buy into it) has nothing to do with the national debt.
The beautiful thing is you don't even know wht those 9 trillion things are.
Why don't you do some research to see how wrong your statements are.

 

[suzy]

Maybe if I research Faux news, I can found out why I am so ignorant, right?
Get real. I am not going to believe a thing that comes out of anyones keyboard that obviously has no clue about how our economy works. Try to blame anyone else for the failed policy of the last 8 years, maybe some teenagers who read this will believe you. But, I don't think many will. Everyone can see the banks going under, entire neighborhoods cranking up their credit card loans before they file bankruptcy, and the raging war on their TVs. You guys keep talking points, maybe you can keep convincing yourself of the myths of the failed policies of the last administration. Really, it's all just to justify your vote for Dubbya to begin with.
Really, most of the country doesn't blame you for voting for all these failed policies. Some of us do though. But to keep pushing it at this point, with all the evidence to the contrary, is really astonishing. YOU call ME ignorant? Really......

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2542144
Maybe if I research Faux news, I can found out why I am so ignorant, right?
Get real. I am not going to believe a thing that comes out of anyones keyboard that obviously has no clue about how our economy works. Try to blame anyone else for the failed policy of the last 8 years, maybe some teenagers who read this will believe you. But, I don't think many will. Everyone can see the banks going under, entire neighborhoods cranking up their credit card loans before they file bankruptcy, and the raging war on their TVs. You guys keep talking points, maybe you can keep convincing yourself of the myths of the failed policies of the last administration. Really, it's all just to justify your vote for Dubbya to begin with.
Really, most of the country doesn't blame you for voting for all these failed policies. Some of us do though. But to keep pushing it at this point, with all the evidence to the contrary, is really astonishing. YOU call ME ignorant? Really......
darn a guess an economics degree with a 3.5 gpa means nothing.

I know nothing about economics.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Suzy
http:///forum/post/2542113
You are right. Neither will any one else. Except the people who want to keep believing a government controlled by one party will keep spending down. And, those who want other people to pay for the services they use.
How can you guys keep believing this trickle down voodoo economic crap when we are so far in debt? We have over 9,000,000,000,000 reasons to see it doesn't work.
There is little reason in trying to separate a person from the religion of liberalism.

I'll try to respect your religious views from now on and not disprove them anymore.