PDA

View Full Version : Tonight at 8 pm est, CNN And Time Magazine



Gayle in MD
06-05-2011, 09:30 AM
A thorough presentation of the Repiglican assault on our future and our health.
"Restoring The American Dream: How To Innovate" an interesting Special, presented in conjunction with Time Magazine.

Fareed Zakaria:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>All the talk these days in the United States and Europe is about deficits and debt.

In Washington the battle over America's debt ceiling continues.

But let me tell you about the REAL crisis we face in America, and Europe has its own version of this, a crisis which could cripple America's Econoomy, and its society, AND would make the debt p[roblem, much, much worse.

It is America's Jobs crisis.

The number of Americas unemployed, has roughly doubled, since the financial crisis and recession hit, and though that number is declinging, it is doing so very slowly.

Most new jobs are for part time work, and wages that average $19,000,00, that is half the median income.

The official unemploymennt number, does not include the millions who have stopped looking for work, or are working part time.

So if you add these numbers together, the actual number of Americans who are working without a full time job, is closer to twenty-four million.

Everyone is expecting that the normal pattern of growth annd job creation will start up soon, except that it hasn't.

Two years into the recovery growth is stuck at about 2% and job creation has reached two-hundred and fifty thousand a month, which might sound high, but is actually barely enough to keep pace with all the new workers entering the job market for the first time.

If unemployment doesn't drop a great deal, fast, and it shows no signs of doing this, problems proliferate in all directions. The most significant impact is on the lives of the unemployed.

Studies show that after a few years of not working, people lose their talents, their skills the work habits that make it possible for them to work productively, and to be productive citizens. They risk becomming a Lost Generation, lost to their country, their communities, their families.

The new normal of slower growth, and lower job creation also means lower tax revenues, more unemployment and health benefits to be paid out, therefore, a much larger deficit.

President Obama's budget assumes that the economy will create twenty million jobs, over the next ten years. that would be a dramatic excelleration. Over the past ten years it has produced only 1.7 million.


Congressman Paul Ryan's plan, envisions unemployment dropping to fifty year lows, to make his budget numbers work. That would require magic, at this point.


If you assume unemployment stays high, the deficit and debt become unimaginably higher in ten years.

So, what to do? Well, there are several things we could do to spur job creation, I wrote about them last week in Time Magazine, you can find them at Time.com, but briefly.

Create a regulatory tax climate that helps small businesses, since they create most of the new jobs.

Revive manufacturing by focusing on research, technical training and apprenticeship.

Help growth indsutries like entertainment and tourism, to expand.

And perhaps, most urgently, rebuild America's dilapidated infrustructure, and put millions of people in construction and housing industries, back to work.

The crucial point here is that if you care about Americas' Economy, including and centrally including the deficit, you need to get people back to work, being productive, spending money, and paying taxes, and we need to do this, fast!

Let's get started!



</span> </div></div>


Too bad, that so many do not understand, that cutting investment, in the midst of the worst economic meltdown in history, is the WRONG path!

Without investing in JOBS, and by focusing on deficits, at a time like this, is the WORST move we can make.

Our Recovery, was filibustered, by the same Repiglicans, who created our collapsed economy.

Cutting taxes, in wartime? Unprecedented.

Invading and occupying Iraq? Huge spending, no oversight of contractors, 10 billion dollars a month, for what? We got nothing of value out of the mess Bush made in the Middle East, annd in fact it made our foreign problems, WORSE!

Failing to address our growing energy FIASCO! Repiglican policy, since Reagan.

Big spending, and borrowing the country into a debt ditch?
Repiglicans had borrowed us into that threatened economy, before the end of 2006.

Fueling the housing crisis with low interest rates?

Exactly what Greenspan did, for the Bush Ownership Society.


Failing oversight of the financial industry? We should all be able to agree, by now, was central to our current difficulties, as central as ignoring unprecedented rising health costs, growing market irrational exuberence, and rising energy costs, and actually promoting the gouging of every American Family's spending dollars, as Corporate monopolies were soaking up Middle Class wages, which had been on the decline, through every Repiglican Administration since annd including Reagan.

We have a spending problem, which proves, that the economists, were right. We should have spent MORE, on the rEcovery, NOT LESS!

When times are critically bad, a country, which is not a "Family" but a COUNTRY, MUST INVEST, NOT go irrationally into a bunch of political rhetoric, about austerity!

Our recovery, was filibustered, by the same Repiglicans whose policies led to, and exacerbated our declining economy.

We were in a recession a whole year, before Bush would admit to it!

"The fundamentals of our economy, are strong!"
Bush, over and over and over again, as the hidden coming crisis, continued to grow into a nightmare, and Greenspan, continued to flame it with those Bushy friendly, "Ownership Society" low interest rates, while ignoring the Ponzi Scheme, on Wall St.

We need spending Increases, NOT CUTS!!!!



G.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 09:39 AM
It's too bad that you don't understand the article is talking about building private sector jobs, and not spending tax dollars to put more people to work for the givernment (no, I didn't mis spell it, that is what they have become), of sending more money straight to the unions who support the Dems.

But, to your credit, you actually posted something that has some valid points. Bravo!

Steve

LWW
06-05-2011, 09:53 AM
From your link dear heart:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charlotte's link:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you assume unemployment stays high, the deficit and debt become unimaginably higher in ten years.

So, what to do? Well, there are several things we could do to spur job creation, I wrote about them last week in Time Magazine, you can find them at Time.com, but briefly.

Create a regulatory tax climate that helps small businesses, since they create most of the new jobs.

Revive manufacturing by focusing on research, technical training and apprenticeship.

Help growth indsutries like entertainment and tourism, to expand.

And perhaps, most urgently, rebuild America's dilapidated infrustructure, and put millions of people in construction and housing industries, back to work.

The crucial point here is that if you care about Americas' Economy, including and centrally including the deficit, you need to get people back to work, being productive, spending money, and paying taxes, and we need to do this, fast!

Let's get started!
</div></div>

All of which the regime opposes.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2011, 10:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's too bad that you don't understand the article is talking about building private sector jobs, and not spending tax dollars to put more people to work for the givernment (no, I didn't mis spell it, that is what they have become), of sending more money straight to the unions who support the Dems.

But, to your credit, you actually posted something that has some valid points. Bravo!

Steve </div></div>

The word is "Misspell" Bubba.

Government is NOT in the way of business. We've had the best manufacturing year in fifteen years.

Taxes are low at Bush Levels, and this notion that we've had a big push in Government regulations, is absurd. Only in the financial industry, have we increased regulations, and anyone who would assert that the financial industry, was formerly over regulated, is off their rocker.

The interest rte on the ten year bond, went below 3 %. So obviously good things are going on, which have nothing to do with government getting in the way of business.

Our unemployment issues are bad, but they were far worse, when Bush was losing 700,000 a month.

The President is doing a good job, and in spite of the FACT, the Repiglicans, have filibustered job growth, by switching to austerity, yapping about debt, after they ran up more debts than all previous Congresss combined, at a time when we face a new global economy, in the midst of recovering from Bush's legendary JOB LOSSES!

The lies from the Repiglicans are blatant.

Nothing new about that.

Gingrich:
Anyone who quotes what I just said, is a liar. LMAO! Typical Repiglican BS.

The Recovery would have been far more successful, if we hadn't been dealing with a party, whose ONLY interest, was to win back the White HOuse, and the Congress.

The ONLY thing the Repiglican Candidates are talking about is Gay Marriage, and abortion. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

You can't get this country on a firm path to better employment numbers, after eight years of losing jobs, without investing in jobs.

Republicans have not created one single jobs bill. Not one.

BUT, they have plenty of time to destroy rights!

G.

LWW
06-05-2011, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We've had the best manufacturing year in fifteen years.

G.

</div></div>

Not according to the regime:

TRUTH VS FANTASY (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/)

Not only is our capacity down, but our percentage of capacity is also down.

sack316
06-05-2011, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Fareed Zakaria:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>All the talk these days in the United States and Europe is about deficits and debt.

In Washington the battle over America's debt ceiling continues.

But let me tell you about the REAL crisis we face in America, and Europe has its own version of this, a crisis which could cripple America's Econoomy, and its society, AND would make the debt p[roblem, much, much worse.

It is America's Jobs crisis.

The number of Americas unemployed, has roughly doubled, since the financial crisis and recession hit, and though that number is declinging, it is doing so very slowly.

Most new jobs are for part time work, and wages that average $19,000,00, that is half the median income.

The official unemploymennt number, does not include the millions who have stopped looking for work, or are working part time.

So if you add these numbers together, the actual number of Americans who are working without a full time job, is closer to twenty-four million.

Everyone is expecting that the normal pattern of growth annd job creation will start up soon, except that it hasn't.

Two years into the recovery growth is stuck at about 2% and job creation has reached two-hundred and fifty thousand a month, which might sound high, but is actually barely enough to keep pace with all the new workers entering the job market for the first time.

If unemployment doesn't drop a great deal, fast, and it shows no signs of doing this, problems proliferate in all directions. The most significant impact is on the lives of the unemployed.

Studies show that after a few years of not working, people lose their talents, their skills the work habits that make it possible for them to work productively, and to be productive citizens. They risk becomming a Lost Generation, lost to their country, their communities, their families.

The new normal of slower growth, and lower job creation also means lower tax revenues, more unemployment and health benefits to be paid out, therefore, a much larger deficit.

President Obama's budget assumes that the economy will create twenty million jobs, over the next ten years. that would be a dramatic excelleration. Over the past ten years it has produced only 1.7 million.


Congressman Paul Ryan's plan, envisions unemployment dropping to fifty year lows, to make his budget numbers work. That would require magic, at this point.


If you assume unemployment stays high, the deficit and debt become unimaginably higher in ten years.

So, what to do? Well, there are several things we could do to spur job creation, I wrote about them last week in Time Magazine, you can find them at Time.com, but briefly.

Create a regulatory tax climate that helps small businesses, since they create most of the new jobs.

Revive manufacturing by focusing on research, technical training and apprenticeship.

Help growth indsutries like entertainment and tourism, to expand.

And perhaps, most urgently, rebuild America's dilapidated infrustructure, and put millions of people in construction and housing industries, back to work.

The crucial point here is that if you care about Americas' Economy, including and centrally including the deficit, you need to get people back to work, being productive, spending money, and paying taxes, and we need to do this, fast!

Let's get started!



</span> </div></div>
</div></div>

Very good piece. I actually agree with all of it I do believe.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We need spending Increases, NOT CUTS!!!!
</div></div>

I would specify a little more on this, as (for either side) it really isn't as simple as a black and white "increase" or "cut". Odd as it sounds, we need BOTH.

We cannot just increase spending period, because regardless of economic circumstance the debt is a problem that will have to be addressed eventually. And preferably, we don't want to make it worse. We also cannot just cut spending period, because as mentioned in your post, some degree of investment is imperative to turn the job situation around (I'm personally preferable to a focus on private sector, but that's another discussion entirely).

What we NEED is, as I said, both. We need to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending. And ensure that the spending we do is focused, with purpose, efficient, and effectively applicable to the <u>needs</u> of the nation as a whole.

Washington seems so sucked up into the "either or" approach... and both sides actually have a valid and necessary "answer" to particular problems, but their implementation (on both sides) this far has been counterproductive. I really wish they would work together, as I'm sure fair and reasonable debates and compromise could yield some solid approaches to bettering the country.

Unfortunately right now it looks more like this: Me and you are a little hungry and need a loaf of bread and lunch meat for sandwiches. But it costs $1. Money is pretty tight, but we NEED to eat. So we make a deal with a buddy, who will give us the $1 we need if we give him it back with interest later on. Well, we've got the $1 now... but still realize money is tight for us, so it is proposed by one of us that instead of spending our usual $1 that we cut spending in half and only allow ourselves to spend $0.50. Now we're in debt for that $1 plus interest, and still can't buy that $1 bread since we can only spend fifty cents. Nothing was accomplished, and both problems just got worse.

Well that didn't work. So we then decide to go ahead and eat. Well we're good on eating for a day or two. But in a few days we will be hungry again, and not only saddled with our original money crisis, but owe our buddy that $1 plus interest on top of it. Again, both problems just got worse.

Both scenarios above are what we do (or propose to do) currently. Seems so simple, though, that we could have invested in our bread and meat, ate a sandwich each, and then sold our other sandwiches. We would eat that day, make money to repay our debt with some left over to repeat the process the next day with our own money now, and probably have a little left to put away for a rainy day.

Sack

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Government is NOT in the way of business. <span style="color: #FF0000">LMAO! </span> We've had the best manufacturing year in fifteen years.
<span style="color: #FF0000">No need to shoot this one down, as it has already been done </span>

Taxes are low at Bush Levels, and this notion that we've had a big push in Government regulations, is absurd. Only in the financial industry, have we increased regulations, and anyone who would assert that the financial industry, was formerly over regulated, is off their rocker.

<span style="color: #CC0000">I would agree that when giverment gets involved with banking, they can certainly screw things up...one need only look at the fed, fanny and freddy for proof. </span>


Our unemployment issues are bad, but they were far worse, when Bush was losing 700,000 a month.
<span style="color: #CC0000">That one is completely worn out. What has Obama's "stimulus" done to create jobs? We aren't even creating enough jobs right now to keep up with new workers coming into the job market, much less do anything about the 20% who are unemployed or under employed. How long do you think you can allow Obama to continue screwing things up and blame it on Bush...Obama has been there for 2 1/2 years. At some point, you have to accept the fact that he is an idiot. Let's see...you didn't even give Bush 8 months before you said he was responsible for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen....even though Clinton supposedly knew about it and did nothing during his entire term. </span>

The President is doing a good job,



G.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">OK, I admit I had to stop reading after I read that last comment and ended up spitting iced tea through my nose!

Steve </span>

eg8r
06-05-2011, 02:37 PM
Another example of lefty partisanship. No thanks.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
06-05-2011, 05:56 PM
The usofa iz stuffed.
The usofa thinx that debt shood be reduced.
But, & this iz the funnyst bit, even if say the usofa decided (which it wont) that more gov spending iz needed, & that the gov will hav a bigger deficit, this wont help.
HAAAHHHHAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
This iz really really funny. U see, u havta hav brains to hav a proper deficit. What u need iz a non-funded deficit.
But what the usofa would do/hav iz more of what they hav dunded/had in the past, ie they would hav a funded deficit.

A funded deficit works like this.
Say the usofa sent big trucks full of bread to Joplin.
[HOORAY FOR THE USOFA, HOORAY].
But az the trucks were leeving Joplin they were loaded with & took away meat and cheeze and milk.
[hooray for the usofa, hooray].
mac.

Sev
06-05-2011, 07:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It's too bad that you don't understand the article is talking about building private sector jobs, and not spending tax dollars to put more people to work for the givernment (no, I didn't mis spell it, that is what they have become), of sending more money straight to the unions who support the Dems.

But, to your credit, you actually posted something that has some valid points. Bravo!

Steve </div></div>

The word is "Misspell" Bubba.

Government is NOT in the way of business. We've had the best manufacturing year in fifteen years.

Taxes are low at Bush Levels, and this notion that we've had a big push in Government regulations, is absurd. Only in the financial industry, have we increased regulations, and anyone who would assert that the financial industry, was formerly over regulated, is off their rocker.

The interest rte on the ten year bond, went below 3 %. So obviously good things are going on, which have nothing to do with government getting in the way of business.

Our unemployment issues are bad, but they were far worse, when Bush was losing 700,000 a month.

The President is doing a good job, and in spite of the FACT, the Repiglicans, have filibustered job growth, by switching to austerity, yapping about debt, after they ran up more debts than all previous Congresss combined, at a time when we face a new global economy, in the midst of recovering from Bush's legendary JOB LOSSES!

The lies from the Repiglicans are blatant.

Nothing new about that.

Gingrich:
Anyone who quotes what I just said, is a liar. LMAO! Typical Repiglican BS.

The Recovery would have been far more successful, if we hadn't been dealing with a party, whose ONLY interest, was to win back the White HOuse, and the Congress.

The ONLY thing the Repiglican Candidates are talking about is Gay Marriage, and abortion. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

You can't get this country on a firm path to better employment numbers, after eight years of losing jobs, without investing in jobs.

Republicans have not created one single jobs bill. Not one.

BUT, they have plenty of time to destroy rights!

G.

</div></div>

Wonker.

pooltchr
06-05-2011, 10:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The word is "Misspell" Bubba.


The interest rte on the ten year bond,

<span style="color: #FF0000">Since you want to be petty, the word is rate, girlie! </span>

Our unemployment issues are bad, but they were far worse, when Bush was losing 700,000 a month.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Tell us what the unemployment rate was when Bush left office, and tell us what it is today, and then tell us how it is better now than when Bush was in office. As I recall, this administration "suggested" that the unemployment rate wouldn't go past 8% with the passing of stimulus. That should tell you it was below that rate when Obama took office. Now, remind us again, where has it been for the last two years? </span>

The President is doing a good job,

G.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">I tried, I really did, but I still can't get past that statement to finish reading your rant!

Steve </span>

LWW
06-06-2011, 01:54 AM
What's funny is that in a concurrent thread a cabalist is arguing that Obama got us to 9.1% UE by creating more jobs and Bush got us to 4.4% by creating fewer.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Fareed Zakaria:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>All the talk these days in the United States and Europe is about deficits and debt.

In Washington the battle over America's debt ceiling continues.

But let me tell you about the REAL crisis we face in America, and Europe has its own version of this, a crisis which could cripple America's Econoomy, and its society, AND would make the debt p[roblem, much, much worse.

It is America's Jobs crisis.

The number of Americas unemployed, has roughly doubled, since the financial crisis and recession hit, and though that number is declinging, it is doing so very slowly.

Most new jobs are for part time work, and wages that average $19,000,00, that is half the median income.

The official unemploymennt number, does not include the millions who have stopped looking for work, or are working part time.

So if you add these numbers together, the actual number of Americans who are working without a full time job, is closer to twenty-four million.

Everyone is expecting that the normal pattern of growth annd job creation will start up soon, except that it hasn't.

Two years into the recovery growth is stuck at about 2% and job creation has reached two-hundred and fifty thousand a month, which might sound high, but is actually barely enough to keep pace with all the new workers entering the job market for the first time.

If unemployment doesn't drop a great deal, fast, and it shows no signs of doing this, problems proliferate in all directions. The most significant impact is on the lives of the unemployed.

Studies show that after a few years of not working, people lose their talents, their skills the work habits that make it possible for them to work productively, and to be productive citizens. They risk becomming a Lost Generation, lost to their country, their communities, their families.

The new normal of slower growth, and lower job creation also means lower tax revenues, more unemployment and health benefits to be paid out, therefore, a much larger deficit.

President Obama's budget assumes that the economy will create twenty million jobs, over the next ten years. that would be a dramatic excelleration. Over the past ten years it has produced only 1.7 million.


Congressman Paul Ryan's plan, envisions unemployment dropping to fifty year lows, to make his budget numbers work. That would require magic, at this point.


If you assume unemployment stays high, the deficit and debt become unimaginably higher in ten years.

So, what to do? Well, there are several things we could do to spur job creation, I wrote about them last week in Time Magazine, you can find them at Time.com, but briefly.

Create a regulatory tax climate that helps small businesses, since they create most of the new jobs.

Revive manufacturing by focusing on research, technical training and apprenticeship.

Help growth indsutries like entertainment and tourism, to expand.

And perhaps, most urgently, rebuild America's dilapidated infrustructure, and put millions of people in construction and housing industries, back to work.

The crucial point here is that if you care about Americas' Economy, including and centrally including the deficit, you need to get people back to work, being productive, spending money, and paying taxes, and we need to do this, fast!

Let's get started!



</span> </div></div>
</div></div>

Very good piece. I actually agree with all of it I do believe.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We need spending Increases, NOT CUTS!!!!
</div></div>

I would specify a little more on this, as (for either side) it really isn't as simple as a black and white "increase" or "cut". Odd as it sounds, we need BOTH.

We cannot just increase spending period, because regardless of economic circumstance the debt is a problem that will have to be addressed eventually. And preferably, we don't want to make it worse. We also cannot just cut spending period, because as mentioned in your post, some degree of investment is imperative to turn the job situation around (I'm personally preferable to a focus on private sector, but that's another discussion entirely).

What we NEED is, as I said, both. We need to cut wasteful and unnecessary spending. And ensure that the spending we do is focused, with purpose, efficient, and effectively applicable to the <u>needs</u> of the nation as a whole.

Washington seems so sucked up into the "either or" approach... and both sides actually have a valid and necessary "answer" to particular problems, but their implementation (on both sides) this far has been counterproductive. I really wish they would work together, as I'm sure fair and reasonable debates and compromise could yield some solid approaches to bettering the country.

Unfortunately right now it looks more like this: Me and you are a little hungry and need a loaf of bread and lunch meat for sandwiches. But it costs $1. Money is pretty tight, but we NEED to eat. So we make a deal with a buddy, who will give us the $1 we need if we give him it back with interest later on. Well, we've got the $1 now... but still realize money is tight for us, so it is proposed by one of us that instead of spending our usual $1 that we cut spending in half and only allow ourselves to spend $0.50. Now we're in debt for that $1 plus interest, and still can't buy that $1 bread since we can only spend fifty cents. Nothing was accomplished, and both problems just got worse.

Well that didn't work. So we then decide to go ahead and eat. Well we're good on eating for a day or two. But in a few days we will be hungry again, and not only saddled with our original money crisis, but owe our buddy that $1 plus interest on top of it. Again, both problems just got worse.

Both scenarios above are what we do (or propose to do) currently. Seems so simple, though, that we could have invested in our bread and meat, ate a sandwich each, and then sold our other sandwiches. We would eat that day, make money to repay our debt with some left over to repeat the process the next day with our own money now, and probably have a little left to put away for a rainy day.

Sack </div></div>

Sack,
I agree that we need to cut WASTEFUL spending, but I think we can do so without allowing hungry people to starve, or preventing our citizens from getting birth control, and free check ups, for example, from places like planned parenthood.

Currently, because of a lobby, we are spending fifty million dollars in the mid west to capture and haul wild horses to the east, and sell them. They are hurting no one, but the Cattleman's Association, doesn't want them free grazing, eventhough they don't graze anywhere that cattle graze.

This is the kind of government waste, that needs to be stopped. Special interests, cause this kind of waste.

Also, I must say, I am never impressed with analogies being used to address our Government issues.

Sorry, but they are far too simplistic, IMHO, to take into account so many broad government programs, and the impact of things like lobbyists, the link between health issues, and pollution, the demage to our environmennt from energy lobbyists, for another example.

Our country is trying to adjust to a global economy, in the midst of what was a near Depression. Taking money away from people who have to spend it, to give it to those who already have everything, is crazy.

Social engineering to give more and more to the top, when they are the crux of the greed, is pure crazy. Obviously, when CEO salaries, go from 36 dollars to one dollar per employee, to 360 dollars per one employee, ( not the actual figures, but close to worse) there is greed at work, and the Middle Class, and Upper Middle Class, which is where new jobs, new businesses, and our money kept in circulation, exist.

We need to invest in infrastructure, education, technology, energy solutions, and make the banking and financial industry, as well as the health and energy related industries, end the gouging. GREED!

What Coal and oil is doing to this country is totally unexceptable! Yet, Republicans call it unAmerican, when we try to hold BP to the fire!! Disgusting!

We also need to End the Bush tax cuts, which were, and still are, greatly responsible for the huge deficits.


Repiglicans refuse to negotiate unless they get everything THEIR WAY. Grossly irresponsible, under the conditions prevailing!

G.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 06:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Social engineering to give more and more to the top, when they are the crux of the greed, is pure crazy.
</div></div>

But social engineering to steal from those who work to increase their personal wealth and give it to the lower or non-performers is perfectly fine?


Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 06:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Government is NOT in the way of business. <span style="color: #FF0000">LMAO! </span> We've had the best manufacturing year in fifteen years.
<span style="color: #FF0000">No need to shoot this one down, as it has already been done </span>

Taxes are low at Bush Levels, and this notion that we've had a big push in Government regulations, is absurd. Only in the financial industry, have we increased regulations, and anyone who would assert that the financial industry, was formerly over regulated, is off their rocker.

<span style="color: #CC0000">I would agree that when giverment gets involved with banking, they can certainly screw things up...one need only look at the fed, fanny and freddy for proof. </span>


Our unemployment issues are bad, but they were far worse, when Bush was losing 700,000 a month.
<span style="color: #CC0000">That one is completely worn out. What has Obama's "stimulus" done to create jobs? We aren't even creating enough jobs right now to keep up with new workers coming into the job market, much less do anything about the 20% who are unemployed or under employed. How long do you think you can allow Obama to continue screwing things up and blame it on Bush...Obama has been there for 2 1/2 years. At some point, you have to accept the fact that he is an idiot. Let's see...you didn't even give Bush 8 months before you said he was responsible for allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen....even though Clinton supposedly knew about it and did nothing during his entire term. </span>

The President is doing a good job,



G.

</div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">OK, I admit I had to stop reading after I read that last comment and ended up spitting iced tea through my nose!

Steve </span> </div></div>

You can spit it through your ears, for all I care, since there is nothing between them, it should work pretty well for you.

President Obama has created more jobs than BUSH, already, most in the private sector.

He also saved many public sector jobs, although most were created in the private sector.

Only an ignorant Bubba, would deny it.

The last months of Bush, and those immediately following, is exactly when most jobs were lost, although Bush's overall Job production, was in the pits all along, anyway.

If not for the stimulus, unemployment would likely be three times what is is currently, FYI, according to MOST economists, unless they are on the dole from the Repiglicans.

Most of our deficit, is still from the Bush Administration's spending, warring, cutting taxes and borrowing, and failing any oversight, easing regulations. did that work for them? Hell No!

The fact that you righties, are still living in denial, is nothing new.

You take the spin, and use it to lie even further.

Nobody "Promised" 8% unemployment, that was the TARGET! Manny economist said we could have gone as far as thirty percent, without the TARP and the Stimulus.

No one realized immediately, how bad Bush had screwed up the country, either. He lied about everything, and hence, the whole first year of his recession, he was STILL claiming that the "Fundamentals of our economy, are strong."

The right was on here during that time, denying the recession, right along with Bush! LMAO! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

You righties are a joke!

G.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If not for the stimulus, unemployment would likely be three times what is is currently
G. </div></div>

Care to provide some supporting data to uphold this statement, or was this something you reached deep up in your backside to pull out?

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

If not for the stimulus, unemployment would likely be three times what is is currently
G. </div></div>

Care to provide some supporting data to uphold this statement, or was this something you reached deep up in your backside to pull out?

Steve </div></div>

As I have stated, many times, everything I write, has already been documented with links.

I'm not going to bother with all of the odcumentation, that anyone who was paying attention, should already know by now.

You can't even keep up with how much money Edwards was lent, so I"m sure you could grasp it anyway.

I can't even count the number of economists, who have said, all aong, and are still saying, that the stimulus should have been larger, and without it, we would have either fallen completely into the BUSH DEPRESSION, s total economic collapse, globally, and likely ended up with unemployment as high as thirty percent, including Bush and Paulson!

WAKE UP BUBBA!

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 08:14 AM
And for every one of your economists who says there wasn't enough stimulus, I can find one who says we had no business creating a trillion dollar slush fund with taxpayer dollars..

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And for every one of your economists who says there wasn't enough stimulus, I can find one who says we had no business creating a trillion dollar slush fund with taxpayer dollars..

Steve </div></div>

No you can't. Those economists I reference were from the right, and the left.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">creating a trillion dollar slush fund </div></div>

That's what Bush did when he invaded Iraq, and the Repiglican Blank Check Congress, with their unprecedented spending, for six years, adding entitlements, without a thought as to how they would be paid for....only it was six trillion, or more.

Our debts are the result of eight years of BUSH FAILED POLICIES.

Our recovery, fragile as it may be, has produced more jobs than Bush did in eight years, IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND saved jobs.

The repigs are so dishonest, they can't even give credit to the president for saving the automobile industry, which has now taken the largest slice of the automobile pie, than they have had in a very long time.

Your economic theories, have all failed, over and over, you just refuse to learn.

Hence, you applaud your state wasting money on the Edwards trial, eventhough experts are scratching their heads, saying it is irrational, to waste money on something that the judge will either throw out, or Edwards, will not be convicted.

Everyone knows this, but YOU!

G.

eg8r
06-06-2011, 08:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that we need to cut WASTEFUL spending, but I think we can do so without allowing hungry people to starve, or preventing our citizens from getting birth control, and free check ups, for example, from places like planned parenthood.
</div></div>The issue here is that you will not allow it to happen. If a Rep was to say he wanted to cut funding to some program that provided clothing/shelter/medicine to homeless children, you guys would be spending all night and day looking for an article that says the Reps are trying to take money from homeless kids when you never bothered to even look to see how the cut was implemented. Did it mean the facility no longer left the lights on all night, no longer provided extra amenities for the employees, or did it mean kids were turned away? You never know because all you did was look for an article that had the worst case example and you jumped on it.

There is so much waste in Medicare that it should be receiving huge cuts in spending but that can never happen with blood thirsty lefties looking for spots in DC. My father is currently dealing with all the Government inefficiencies with Medicare right this moment. He is trying to get surgery scheduled and the Government has stepped in his way every turn he has made to make this the most difficult medical situation he has ever been.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 09:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I agree that we need to cut WASTEFUL spending, but I think we can do so without allowing hungry people to starve, or preventing our citizens from getting birth control, and free check ups, for example, from places like planned parenthood.
</div></div>The issue here is that you will not allow it to happen. If a Rep was to say he wanted to cut funding to some program that provided clothing/shelter/medicine to homeless children, you guys would be spending all night and day looking for an article that says the Reps are trying to take money from homeless kids when you never bothered to even look to see how the cut was implemented.

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Presumptuous of you Ed. </span> </span>


Did it mean the facility no longer left the lights on all night, no longer provided extra amenities for the employees, or did it mean kids were turned away? You never know because all you did was look for an article that had the worst case example and you jumped on it.

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'> Again, presumptuous of you. </span> </span>

There is so much waste in Medicare that it should be receiving huge cuts in spending but that can never happen with blood thirsty lefties looking for spots in DC.

<span style="color: #990000">Not True. The AHCA already made cuts which provided better oversight, and used a profit for preformance, instead of the waste that was in the Medicare Advantage. </span>

My father is currently dealing with all the Government inefficiencies with Medicare right this moment. He is trying to get surgery scheduled and the Government has stepped in his way every turn he has made to make this the most difficult medical situation he has ever been.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Sorry for your Dad, But I have had no problem, here, after going through Cancer, and treatment, and continuing treatment in the form of my medicine, to this day.

G. </span> </span>

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 09:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Our debts are the result of eight years of BUSH FAILED POLICIES.

G.

</div></div>

There is no polite way to put this, Gayle. You are full of it.

Our national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion in the 8 years that Bush was in office. That means the debt increased 4.4 trillion under 8 years of the Bush administration, or about 1/2 trillion per year. Certainly not good by any means. But... From 2008 to 2010, it went from 10 trillion to 13.5 trillion, a 3.5 trillion increase in 2 years or about 1.75 trillion per year. It is now well over 14 trillion and we are not quite half way through the year.

Obama has more than doubled the rate of increasing the national debt over what Bush did.

Read the chart...it's simple enough that even you should be able to understand it.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Our debts are the result of eight years of BUSH FAILED POLICIES.

G.

</div></div>

There is no polite way to put this, Gayle. You are full of it.

Our national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion in the 8 years that Bush was in office. That means the debt increased 4.4 trillion under 8 years of the Bush administration, or about 1/2 trillion per year. Certainly not good by any means. But... From 2008 to 2010, it went from 10 trillion to 13.5 trillion, a 3.5 trillion increase in 2 years or about 1.75 trillion per year. It is now well over 14 trillion and we are not quite half way through the year.

Obama has more than doubled the rate of increasing the national debt over what Bush did.

Read the chart...it's simple enough that even you should be able to understand it.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Steve </div></div>



http://www.factcheck.org/2011/06/palin-whoppers-on-debt-oil-imports/





The public debt on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took office was $6.3 trillion. So "all those other presidents combined" were responsible for $6.3 trillion in debt. Under Obama, it has grown by $3.4 trillion to $9.7 trillion, as of May 27, the most recent figures available. The debt is certainly a major issue these days — Democrats and Republicans are still wrangling over spending and the debt ceiling. But Palin is off by several trillion dollars.

Even if we look at the total outstanding debt, which includes money the government owes to itself, Obama hasn't accumulated more debt than all other presidents. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Total outstanding debt was $10.6 trillion when the president was sworn in; it has increased by $3.7 trillion to $14.3 trillion.</span>Palin isn't the first Republican to make more of debt accumulation under Obama than the facts warrant. Two years ago, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Sen. Jon Kyl made a claim similar to Palin's, saying that Obama's "budget adds more debt to our country’s future than all of the debt from 1789 when George Washington was president right up through Franklin Roosevelt and – and Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush." Wrong. The budget projected at that time showed the debt nearly doubling in 10 years. Even if the budget played out as envisioned then, the debt growth wouldn't have been particularly historic</span>.<span style='font-size: 20pt'> The debt nearly doubled under Bush and nearly tripled under Reagan.</span>

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Our debts are the result of eight years of BUSH FAILED POLICIES.

G.

</div></div>

There is no polite way to put this, Gayle. You are full of it.

Our national debt went from 5.6 trillion to 10 trillion in the 8 years that Bush was in office. That means the debt increased 4.4 trillion under 8 years of the Bush administration, or about 1/2 trillion per year. Certainly not good by any means. But... From 2008 to 2010, it went from 10 trillion to 13.5 trillion, a 3.5 trillion increase in 2 years or about 1.75 trillion per year. It is now well over 14 trillion and we are not quite half way through the year.

Obama has more than doubled the rate of increasing the national debt over what Bush did.

Read the chart...it's simple enough that even you should be able to understand it.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Steve </div></div>


http://www.ask.com/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

National debt by U.S. presidential terms
From Wikipedia(View original Wikipedia Article) Last modified on 22 May 2011, at 16:38
From Wikipedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Economic commentators have noted a pattern between changes in US national debt and US presidential terms over the last few decades. These commentators observe that changes in US national debt have been correlated with the political ideology of the ruling administration.

Economist Mike Kimel notes that the last five Democratic Presidents (Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness.[1] Economic historian J. Bradford DeLong observes a contrast not so much between Republicans and Democrats, but between Democrats and "old-style Republicans (Eisenhower and Nixon)" on one hand (decreasing debt), and "new-style Republicans" on the other (increasing debt).[2] Similarly, Republican David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s.[3]


Table of Contents
1 Gross federal debt
2 Public debt
3 Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 External links



Gross federal debt
This table lists the gross U.S. federal debt[4] as a percentage of GDP by Presidential term since World War II.[5] The current gross federal debt as a percentage of GDP (83.4% at the end of 2009) is currently the highest it has been since the late 1940s. The debt briefly reached over 100% of GDP in the aftermath of World War II.

The President proposes the budget for the government to the congress, which can amend it before passing. The U. S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 7 grants exclusive right to originate revenue related bills to the House of Representatives; the President's proposals are an indication of spending desired, but it is the House which defines the spending through the final wording of the bills. Since the budget resolution is a “concurrent” congressional resolution, not an ordinary bill, it does not go to the President for his signature or veto.[6] While this leaves substantial room for the legislature to change the deficit, congressional historian Louis Fisher observes that, "Congress rarely appropriates more than what the President requests." In the case of Nixon, who fought fiercely with Congress over the budget, he writes, "Congress was able to adhere to the President's totals while significantly altering his priorities." [7]





http://www.ask.com/wiki/David_Stockman?qsrc=3044

Stockman's power within the Reagan Administration waned after the Atlantic Monthly magazine published the famous 18,246 word article, "The Education of David Stockman",[3] in its December 1981 issue, based on lengthy interviews Stockman gave to reporter William Greider. It led to Stockman's being "taken to the woodshed by Reagan" as the White House's public relations team attempted to limit the article's damage to Reagan's perceived fiscal-leadership skills. Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.

After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of "being taken to the woodshed by the president" over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became inspired with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt.</span>

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 10:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The public debt on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took office was $6.3 trillion. So "all those other presidents combined" were responsible for $6.3 trillion in debt. Under Obama, it has grown by $3.4 trillion to $9.7 trillion, as of May 27, </div></div>

LMAO!!!! OK, let's use your numbers. Obama, in 2 and a half short years is acccountable for 3.4 trillion....half of all the debt accumulated by all those other presidents. He is still on track to have doubled the total debt by the end of his first term.

So, from what you have posted, you actually agree that you were wrong.

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 10:48 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

The public debt on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took office was $6.3 trillion. So "all those other presidents combined" were responsible for $6.3 trillion in debt. Under Obama, it has grown by $3.4 trillion to $9.7 trillion, as of May 27, </div></div>

LMAO!!!! OK, let's use your numbers. Obama, in 2 and a half short years is acccountable for 3.4 trillion....half of all the debt accumulated by all those other presidents. He is still on track to have doubled the total debt by the end of his first term.

So, from what you have posted, you actually agree that you were wrong.

Steve </div></div>

Typical Steve non thinking.

"On Track" means you are doing what you always do. Creating a worse case scenario, to fit your slanted partisan agenda, as you always do, along with your fellow nitwit, and suggesting that you can see the future.

If we look at the past, we can easily see, that when it comes to deficits, Repiglicans are the pros at expanding them, as my links, clearly prove.

IOW... you're full of it.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 10:59 AM
How many years did it take "all those presidents" to get the debt to 6 trillion? (your number)
How many years did it take Obama to add another 3 trillion? (again, your number)
Should we all just sit around and watch him double it in one term before we actually start to do something about it???

On track means exactly that. If it doesn't turn around right now, we will be there sooner than you want to see.
If you are driving the wrong direction on the highway, how far do you want to go before you turn around. The farther you go in the wrong direction, the farther you have to travel to get to your destination.

Are you really that thick headed, or do you just pretend to be stupid?

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 11:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How many years did it take "all those presidents" to get the debt to 6 trillion? (your number)
How many years did it take Obama to add another 3 trillion? (again, your number)
Should we all just sit around and watch him double it in one term before we actually start to do something about it???

On track means exactly that. If it doesn't turn around right now, we will be there sooner than you want to see.
If you are driving the wrong direction on the highway, how far do you want to go before you turn around. The farther you go in the wrong direction, the farther you have to travel to get to your destination.

Are you really that thick headed, or do you just pretend to be stupid?

Steve </div></div>

You have no point whatsoever.

We ARE trying to turn around the failed policies of the Bush Administration.

Why the hell do you think this president has had to spend, to avoid a Depression!

You're truly a waste of time.


Repiglicans ran up the debts, then they filibustered the recovery.

Now, they STILL haven't learned, that tax cuts, do not pay for themselves, and their refusal to let the Bush Era Tax cuts, expire, has only driven the debt higher.

It is a FACT, trickle down economics, is VOODOO, a myth.

Tax cuts during war time, is VOODOO economics, on steroids.

History proves, Repiglicans cannot handle money, period!

The stimulous should have been bigger, 1.3 trillion, at least.

Repiglicans spend when we should be cutting back, (Eight years under Bush, and six under Repubs, blank check spending, during wartime) and they cut spending when we should be increasing investments in a stronger, faster recovery.

G.

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 11:20 AM
Are you actually saying that the debt doesn't matter??????

You seem to support Obama continuing to run it up at a faster pace than anyone in our history!


Steve

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 11:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you actually saying that the debt doesn't matter??????

You seem to support Obama continuing to run it up at a faster pace than anyone in our history!


Steve </div></div>

Obviously, I was Quoting your own words, stated while Bush and the Repiglican, blank check Congress, was busy digging us into the debt ditch, and setting us up for the worst economic crash since The Great Depression, as you well know.

Your stupid little tactics are not only boring, but childish.

G.

Gayle in MD
06-06-2011, 11:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 14pt'>After Stockman's first year at OMB and on the heels of "being taken to the woodshed by the president" over his candor with Atlantic's William Greider, Stockman became inspired with the projected trend of increasingly large federal deficits and the rapidly expanding national debt. On 1 August 1985, he left OMB and later wrote a memoir of his experience in the Reagan Administration titled The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed, in which he specifically criticized the failure of congressional Republicans to support a reduction in government spending as necessary offsets to the large tax cuts, in order to avoid the creation of large deficits and an exploding national debt. </span> </div></div>

pooltchr
06-06-2011, 11:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you actually saying that the debt doesn't matter??????

You seem to support Obama continuing to run it up at a faster pace than anyone in our history!


Steve </div></div>

Obviously, I was Quoting your own words, stated while Bush and the Repiglican, blank check Congress, was busy digging us into the debt ditch, and setting us up for the worst economic crash since The Great Depression, as you well know.

Your stupid little tactics are not only boring, but childish.

G. </div></div>

I'm just trying to get it straight. Bush running up debts of half a trillion a year was bad, but Obama running up debts of 1.75 trillion a year is ok with you? That sure sounds like you are saying debts don't matter, as long as there is a dem in the white house, anyway!

Steve

sack316
06-06-2011, 12:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Also, I must say, I am never impressed with analogies being used to address our Government issues.

Sorry, but they are far too simplistic, IMHO, to take into account so many broad government programs, and the impact of things like lobbyists, the link between health issues, and pollution, the demage to our environmennt from energy lobbyists, for another example.
</div></div>

See, I look at it the opposite way. The solutions to our problems are difficult because we have made Government (or perhaps operation of government is a better way to phrase it) too complicated. Too much red tape, too many departments, too many cogs in the machine (and to agree with you, too many cogs outside of the machine that have influence on its operation as well).

So yes I agree my analogy was quite over simplistic in reality, but I don't think it's the analogy that is the problem... if ya know what I'm saying. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

sack316
06-06-2011, 12:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What <u>Coal</u> and oil is doing to this country is totally unexceptable! Yet, Republicans call it unAmerican, when we try to hold BP to the fire!! Disgusting!
</div></div>

Meant to include this in my other response... but Carter's energy plan was coal based. Could you imagine?

Sack

eg8r
06-06-2011, 12:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, presumptuous of you. </div></div>Presumptuous, maybe, but it proves I have learned my lesson on this board.

Medicare should be up on the tax cut block, first and foremost. It is one of the top 4 biggest drains on our budget every single year and there is always room to cut. Since sofla tried to make a point in a thread a while back that it did not make sense to make lots of small cuts on little programs I am sure he would agree then that going after the big expenditures makes most sense. There are a million ways to cut Medicare costs but we have to make sure neither party decides to exploit the cuts as a vote buying scheme. If there was a shred of honesty in DC this is where they would start attacking first and foremost.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 06:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, presumptuous of you. </div></div>Presumptuous, maybe, but it proves I have learned my lesson on this board.

Medicare should be up on the tax cut block, first and foremost. It is one of the top 4 biggest drains on our budget every single year and there is always room to cut. Since sofla tried to make a point in a thread a while back that it did not make sense to make lots of small cuts on little programs I am sure he would agree then that going after the big expenditures makes most sense. There are a million ways to cut Medicare costs but we have to make sure neither party decides to exploit the cuts as a vote buying scheme. If there was a shred of honesty in DC this is where they would start attacking first and foremost.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed,

The whole reason why Medicare came about, was because senior citizens could not get Health Insurance.

The major underlying problem, is HEALTH COSTS!

We pay far more here for health care, yet our quality of care, is way down as compared to other countries.

Both Health Care Costs, and Health Insurance costs, contributed to the foreclosures, as well as predatory lending practices, and Wall St.'s irresponsible, greedy behavior.

Rising energy costs, as well, play a roled in our future, a tremendous role.

Carter, BTW, cut our foreign oil imports, nearly in half. He wanted to go to coal, TEMPORARILY, as we implemented better conservation, annd more research and development into Solar, wind, and other clean renewables.

I believe had we done that, we would be way, way ahead of the game, on every economic, level, including a healthier environment, and healthier people, and lower Medical Costs.

Those rising health Care, and energy costs are unsustainable.

Seniors, cannot get by in this country, without Medicare.

Throwing them to the merciless health Insurance Industry, should not be an option. A voucher program, is exactly what Repiglicans want, and their own merciless attitudes, and policies, are a disgrace to the values and principles of America, IMO. One in four children in this country are HUNGRY!
The only meals they get are in school! REpublicans want to cut those programs, too.

We do have proof, and plenty of it, that more and more illnesses are linked to pollution in our country. Higher cancer rates, and phenomenons known as Cancer Clusters, are linked to chemicals and pollutants from corporate filth, in our air, and water.

The world is running out of oil, period. Why do you think the Chinese are investing in renewable fuels?

What this President, and Democratics, have done, is to address the unsustainable costs of health Care, and the many who were dumped by their health Insurers when they became ill, and link costs to quality. We are 86 or 87, down on the list of various country's health care quality. President Obama is addressing the major problems we face, both in dealoing with pollutants, and in dealing with unsustainable Health Care costs.

Republicans are blocking that, for their campaign dollars, from OIL AND COAL!

Bush actually censored findings on oil pollution and it's impact on the environment, and whhy do you think he did that???

Nothing coming from Republicans, addresses pollution, and the resulting link to more illness, unsustainable health costs, the reprehensible policies of for profit, health insurance monopolies, the impact of pollution on our health, and in fact, they vote to allow all of that to get worse, not better.

Destroying medicare for you, and your children, and their children, will not end up being a policy that you like. Trust me!\

More oil spills in the Gulf, will not make you happy. Trust me! The deregulatory nature, of Republiocan policies, and their rah rah more oil, rah rah deregulate, rah rah cut taxes, is hurting our country, in every arena, from Wall St., to energy!

Remember, it was a Republican, who admonished our investigating committee, for trying to hold BP to the fire, for what they did in the Gulf, calling it unAmerican, to hold them to their responsibility for their destruction!

When PROFITS are more important than the health of our citizens, our planet, our future, the first thing to do is research who it was that was most responsible for the legislation which has allowed unchecked pollution, and the effects on our health, to go on for decades.

I don't have to tell you which party has been the protectors of the polluters, the gougers, and the greedy.

G.

eg8r
06-07-2011, 07:59 AM
So you completely ignore the subject and set up a strawman to argue about why Medicare is in place. Sorry but I am not playing your game. If you don't want to comment on the subject keep your comments to yourself.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you completely ignore the subject and set up a strawman to argue about why Medicare is in place. Sorry but I am not playing your game. If you don't want to comment on the subject keep your comments to yourself.

eg8r </div></div>

Again, Ed, you never comment when the facts go against your partisan views.

Additionally....


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">keep your comments to yourself.

</div></div>

You are not the forum dictator.

G.

LWW
06-07-2011, 08:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you completely ignore the subject and set up a strawman to argue about why Medicare is in place. Sorry but I am not playing your game. If you don't want to comment on the subject keep your comments to yourself.

eg8r </div></div>

That's pure Alinsky.

LWW
06-07-2011, 08:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
What <u>Coal</u> and oil is doing to this country is totally unexceptable! Yet, Republicans call it unAmerican, when we try to hold BP to the fire!! Disgusting!
</div></div>

Meant to include this in my other response... but Carter's energy plan was coal based. Could you imagine?

Sack </div></div>

Don't forget ... she condemns the republicans for not following the Carter energy plan because they instead wanted to follow the Carter energy plan.

And, FWIW, the Carter energy plan was based on:

1 - Burn baby burn, coal that is.

2 - Drill baby drill, oil that is.

eg8r
06-07-2011, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, Ed, you never comment when the facts go against your partisan views.
</div></div>If you want to change the subject I am going to call you out for it and I will not comment.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you don't want to comment on the subject keep your comments to yourself.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are not the forum dictator.
</div></div>
As far as being forum dictator, I am just following your lead. I also quoted my entire statement instead of the little part you cut out to make sure you understand the similarities. Maybe you would prefer me to quote you...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle the acting forum dictator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either address the subject, Non Denila, Denials, of Rove and Colburn, or keep your unreleated comments to yourself, please.
</div></div>

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 09:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Again, Ed, you never comment when the facts go against your partisan views.
</div></div>If you want to change the subject I am going to call you out for it and I will not comment.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you don't want to comment on the subject keep your comments to yourself.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are not the forum dictator.
</div></div>
As far as being forum dictator, I am just following your lead. I also quoted my entire statement instead of the little part you cut out to make sure you understand the similarities. Maybe you would prefer me to quote you...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle the acting forum dictator</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Either address the subject, Non Denila, Denials, of Rove and Colburn, or keep your unreleated comments to yourself, please.
</div></div>

eg8r </div></div>

I think I put a good deal of effort into addresing the subject of this thread.

I don't think I change the subject, without addressing it, I usually add things that I think are pertinent, and still along the same lines.

However, you are free to stop reading my posts, anytime you wish.

G.

eg8r
06-07-2011, 12:02 PM
Don't get pissy when my post resembles your own.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2011, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't get pissy when my post resembles your own.

eg8r </div></div>

I wasn't annoyed. I am simply addressing your own criticisms.

G.