Really

Berrien Springs, MI

#53 Feb 15, 2013
And Bob continues to ramble on and on about "abuse" in the "free" cell phone program. What's the problem? The left finally figured out it wasn't a "free" program. It is confusing, however, since the left insists that there is no abuse in food stamps or medicaid. Hmmmm, apparently the left has issues with cellphones?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#55 Feb 15, 2013
Phil wrote:
<quoted text>
The article says that basically Clinton was a loser and he destroyed the economy but made it look good by shifting money. "Based on the income-spending identity, he concludes it was Clinton’s surpluses that lead to the accumulation of private debts that subsequently triggered the financial crisis." So he and your party did destroy the economy for Bush. You can apologize for blaming Bush all these years because your link shows it was not his fault, it was your party.
Seeing as you are far too bigoted to recognize it, I am not afraid to link to where even the warts are in view and acknowledged. Whereas you and your ilk need to make it entirely one sided.

If you knew how to read Clinton did not destroy the economy for Bush. But that is the only way you know how to take it.
Chip

Madison, WI

#56 Feb 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course we know what a left-wing organization Forbes is, now don't we.
"But using sectoral balances to reach back in time to blame Bill Clinton for the financial crisis is an argument that doesn’t fit the facts."
And then there's the left leaning Politifact
http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statemen...
And yes I am aware of all the "non-partisan" ones that go to great lengths to say it isn't true.
And lets not forget the left-wing Factcheck
"Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-a...
But we should believe Fox News shouldn't we. I agree we should never believe them.
"Not one Republican member of Congress supported the Clinton Budget Bill of 1993. Yet eight years and 23 million new jobs later, President Clinton had converted the $300 billion into a $1 trillion surplus.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/05/two...
He insisted on cutting spending $500 billion, offending the liberals who wanted him to stimulate the economy with more deficit spending, not to cut spending.

We get this all the time out of obama, who says there is no spening problem in Washington.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#57 Feb 15, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
He insisted on cutting spending $500 billion, offending the liberals who wanted him to stimulate the economy with more deficit spending, not to cut spending.
We get this all the time out of obama, who says there is no spening problem in Washington.
Show me where all the time Obama has said there's no spending problem in Washington. Or is you just like the attention of being responded to so you put this CRAP out there.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#60 Feb 15, 2013
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
"he concludes it was Clinton's surpluses that lead to the accumulation of private debts that subsequently triggered the financial crisis" I'll make it a bit shorter for all the SOB's reading this "that subsequently triggered the financial crisis" I hope the lowly educated can read and understand this now. I love the way you just want everyone to believe what you want them to believe out of your links. I suppose we are only to look at what you say it is ok to look at, we have to ignore the rest. You are bigoted not Phil
You and Phil don't know how to f***n read. The conclusion is simply written;
"Weisenthal is right to be skeptical of the simplistic view that it is always good for the government to run surpluses or even balanced budgets; the right budget balance for an economy will change over time depending on underlying conditions in the private sector. But using sectoral balances to reach back in time to blame Bill Clinton for the financial crisis is an argument that doesn’t fit the facts."
The exact same I quoted in my original post.

What a couple of idiots.
Chip

Madison, WI

#61 Feb 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where all the time Obama has said there's no spending problem in Washington. Or is you just like the attention of being responded to so you put this CRAP out there.
"President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and the uninhibited, retiring Democratic senator from Iowa Tom Harkin have all said in recent weeks that Washington does not have a spending problem. Period."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-part...
For real

Alice, TX

#62 Feb 15, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Your problems are more than a typo dip-$hit. First you need to grow up then you need to get a real job. Topix is not a real job buster and I don't mean Keaton. Its you and your kind, your generation, who thinks they have all the answers because they heard all they know on Faux News. You're in for a very rude awakening if you think all you have to do is spout off on Topix and that makes you all smart and important.
Fox news is more reliable than MSNBS!
Chip

Madison, WI

#63 Feb 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
You and Phil don't know how to f***n read. The conclusion is simply written;
"Weisenthal is right to be skeptical of the simplistic view that it is always good for the government to run surpluses or even balanced budgets; the right budget balance for an economy will change over time depending on underlying conditions in the private sector. But using sectoral balances to reach back in time to blame Bill Clinton for the financial crisis is an argument that doesn’t fit the facts."
The exact same I quoted in my original post.
What a couple of idiots.
Interesting that as a basis for this conclusion He cites that Bush did nothing about it. However that is simply not true.

The White House Warned Congress About Fannie Mae Freddie Mac 17 Times In 2008, Alone

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/09/21/the-w...
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#64 Feb 15, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
"President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and the uninhibited, retiring Democratic senator from Iowa Tom Harkin have all said in recent weeks that Washington does not have a spending problem. Period."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-part...
Then I guess you won't be complaining in a couple of weeks when the sequester takes a whack out of the defense budget. The only cure for a spending problem is to cut spending!
pipedream

Flint, MI

#65 Feb 15, 2013
Been working real hard, digging really deep there huh chipster finding these crazy right wing blog shops trying to act real smart and clever. lol

You're a piece of work.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Mount Morris, MI

#66 Feb 15, 2013
The O wants to promote pre K education with half the Country's Makers money at least $10,000 per kid.... Funny, one of his first acts was to stop aid to a program in DC that allowed Students to take a voucher to another school.... Poor children never got the investment to pull themselves up......

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#67 Feb 15, 2013
Let's not vote for him, again......Whatever would some of us do with our days?
pipedream

Flint, MI

#68 Feb 15, 2013
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
The O wants to promote pre K education with half the Country's Makers money at least $10,000 per kid.... Funny, one of his first acts was to stop aid to a program in DC that allowed Students to take a voucher to another school.... Poor children never got the investment to pull themselves up......
And you were one of those kids left behind right? And who's flagship program was that? Oh that's right your uncle George's.
Water Boy

Mount Morris, MI

#70 Feb 15, 2013
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Then I guess you won't be complaining in a couple of weeks when the sequester takes a whack out of the defense budget. The only cure for a spending problem is to cut spending!
You even look at a chart (yes it is in color) that shows how much is spent on the defense compared to entitlements...... Defense does not even come close.....
Water Boy

Mount Morris, MI

#71 Feb 15, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
And you were one of those kids left behind right? And who's flagship program was that? Oh that's right your uncle George's.
Does not negate the facts..... Obama hates black people.....
pipedream

Flint, MI

#72 Feb 15, 2013
Water Boy wrote:
<quoted text>Does not negate the facts..... Obama hates black people.....
ya sure thing hot sauce boy. Why are you posting with a different name now? Don't like your other one anymore?
pipedream

Flint, MI

#73 Feb 15, 2013
Hey water boy ... a strong back like yours in a terrible thing to waste. Here's an idea. Get off the keyboard, phone and video games and get yourself a real job. make uncle George proud of you.
pipedream

Flint, MI

#74 Feb 15, 2013
Water Boy wrote:
<quoted text>You even look at a chart (yes it is in color) that shows how much is spent on the defense compared to entitlements...... Defense does not even come close.....
Lets see your chart hot sauce boy. Here's your chance to shine.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#75 Feb 15, 2013
Chip wrote:
<quoted text>
"President Obama, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer and the uninhibited, retiring Democratic senator from Iowa Tom Harkin have all said in recent weeks that Washington does not have a spending problem. Period."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-part...
I just love it;
"Harkin particularly expressed the view that Republicans believe is the true — although mostly hidden — Democratic position:“We have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.” Meaning, Washington needs to be in the business of reallocating capital and wealth. Good for him. I’m eager for a Democrat to take the next step and say how much wealth is too much, and how much wealth, per person, needs to be guaranteed by the government."

Notice the MEANING? They're after a yes or no answer but don't bother to ask what does “We have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.” mean. The author decided to asses it as "Meaning, Washington needs to be in the business of reallocating capital and wealth.. without asking if that's what Harkin meant. That doesn't surprise me. He made no attempt whatsoever to clarify. He got the answer he was willing to accept so he could parse it into something he didn't know was actually there.

I'll ask you this. Do we have a revenue problem? Where Obama has compromised on the spending issue the Republicans have refused to give way on the revenue issue. SO, do we not have a revenue issue?

If you will bother to read this do so all the way through.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112399/sta... #
Chip

Madison, WI

#76 Feb 15, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
I just love it;
"Harkin particularly expressed the view that Republicans believe is the true — although mostly hidden — Democratic position:“We have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.” Meaning, Washington needs to be in the business of reallocating capital and wealth. Good for him. I’m eager for a Democrat to take the next step and say how much wealth is too much, and how much wealth, per person, needs to be guaranteed by the government."
Notice the MEANING? They're after a yes or no answer but don't bother to ask what does “We have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth.” mean. The author decided to asses it as "Meaning, Washington needs to be in the business of reallocating capital and wealth.. without asking if that's what Harkin meant. That doesn't surprise me. He made no attempt whatsoever to clarify. He got the answer he was willing to accept so he could parse it into something he didn't know was actually there.
I'll ask you this. Do we have a revenue problem? Where Obama has compromised on the spending issue the Republicans have refused to give way on the revenue issue. SO, do we not have a revenue issue?
If you will bother to read this do so all the way through.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112399/sta... #
Fiscal cliff:$1 in spending cuts for every $41 in new taxes. Who comprimised more? I'll give you a hint $42 is greater than $1.

Trillions in debt, sure sounds like there is no spending issue in Washington under obama.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) 10 hr Buffalo Bull 1,491
Lets Chat (Mar '08) Wed Trouser Cough 40,169
Al Sharpton's Marchers in New York City Chant "... Tue Gville Jim 5
facts of life Tue Sneaky Pete 6
Experience a historical Christmas in downtown G... Tue Mr Wiggley 69
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Tue a commenter 976
50 Most Influential Women in West Michigan (Mar '08) Tue knowwhatitslike 47
Grand Rapids Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:40 pm PST

NBC Sports 1:40PM
Cutler realizes Bears could be in for changes - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 3:09 PM
Lions head to house of horrors in Green Bay - NBC Sports
Bleacher Report 4:16 PM
Breaking Down Lions Game Plan vs. Packers
NBC Sports 8:22 PM
Bears re-sign Austen Lane to replace Willie Young
Bleacher Report10:09 PM
Bears vs. Vikings: Breaking Down Minnesota's Game Plan