Blaming Republicans

[Freedom]

Using a different name to make bad points.

It is the middle class that make jobs. Give them more money and there will be more jobs. Give rich people more money and there will be more jobs overseas.

Republicans are bad for everyone except the super rich. Vote out Republicans so we can get this country going again. Yes I am talking to the majority.

[Freedom]

I guess when you can't win the battle you use the other persons name "SeeItBefore United States".

[Freedom]

SeenItBefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry but Obama gives bailouts to companies so they can use our tax money to build overseas then send jobs overseas. Wake up numb nut!

I lost my job because they were building cities of empty buildings for companies to move, over seas when Bush was President. How do I know that, we started a company over there and that is what our CEO told us from going over there, inspecting areas to move. Since President Obama became President, I have gotten my job back. How smart do you have to be to figure it out. You are the small minority that want to enslave the rest of us for the benifit of the rich. We are learning and will vote AGAIN in less than two years. BYE BYE!!!

[Oneal]

Freedom wrote:

<quoted text>
I lost my job because they were building cities of empty buildings for companies to move, over seas when Bush was President. How do I know that, we started a company over there and that is what our CEO told us from going over there, inspecting areas to move. Since President Obama became President, I have gotten my job back. How smart do you have to be to figure it out. You are the small minority that want to enslave the rest of us for the benifit of the rich. We are learning and will vote AGAIN in less than two years. BYE BYE!!!

What did Obama do that got your jobs back for you? Not a setup question. Just curious.

[Batch 37 Pain Is Good]

Oneal wrote:

<quoted text>
What did Obama do that got your jobs back for you? Not a setup question. Just curious.

He is thinning the gene pool in the poor communities with abortions....... Less competition generationally....... Planned Parenthood started with Margaret Sangers creed to kill black babies in the 20's and she was a Progressive.... Liberal Fascism.......

[vox veritatis]

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:

He is thinning the gene pool in the poor communities with abortions....... Less competition generationally....... Planned Parenthood started with Margaret Sangers creed to kill black babies in the 20's and she was a Progressive.... Liberal Fascism.......

True...it's no accident that most abortion clinics are in predominently minority neighborhoods. And yet they flock to them like sheep to the slaughter.

[Really]

SeenItBefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh, so I was right in what I took it to mean in the first place.
Yes, why should the welfare rolls be up by your number of 47%. Why must we keep rehashing that, even according to you, the private sector should be the ones hiring, yet they haven't been. Why must we keep rehashing that they haven't been hiring because of taxes when Bush cut them twice and still they didn't hire. Instead they moved operations out-of-country.
The corporate taxes are far lower than they were when this country was on a prosperous upswing and the taxes were 91% then down to 75% on profits over $3million, so the "reasons" of taxes is a non sequitur.
So I refer back to my rebuttal point of post #468.

Whatever. Your constant whining and bitching about business in this country is pure unadulterated hypocrisy.

[Really]

Freedom wrote:

Using a different name to make bad points.
It is the middle class that make jobs. Give them more money and there will be more jobs. Give rich people more money and there will be more jobs overseas.
Republicans are bad for everyone except the super rich. Vote out Republicans so we can get this country going again. Yes I am talking to the majority.

Yes please. Let's make the President, The House, and the Senate all be Democrats. Then, sit back and watch what happens. By the way, did you see article in the GR Press today? "Due to the Sequester, the city chooses Neighborhood Associations over Legal Aid." Ummmmm, GR is run by Dems. And here I thought the Dems were so gung ho to help the poor???? Neighborhood associations? Really? Just one example of what you will see IF you choose to pay attention.

[Batch 37 Pain Is Good]

Really wrote:

<quoted text>Whatever. Your constant whining and bitching about business in this country is pure unadulterated hypocrisy.

Even the poor in this country are richer than most in the world and they suck us dry......

[SeenItBefore]

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:

<quoted text>Even the poor in this country are richer than most in the world and they suck us dry......

Even the poor in this country are the richer than in most of the world? Where do you come up with this crap. Yes most of them are. But then our economy is the largest in the world. And that doesn't factor into it for you?

BUT, and that is a BIG BUTT compared to the rest of the rich nations we have the second highest poverty rate.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/salas.356/usa_vs._...
That isn't embarrassing to you? The largest economy on the planet and we have the second highest poverty rate.

If Mexico is taken out of consideration as it is in the figures in the above link we have the highest poverty rate.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-pover...
That doesn't make you sick? At least it makes you look like, well to be polite, profoundly misled.

[SeenItBefore]

I'll answer your question about defense spending here Batch;

For being a self proclaimed history buff it apparently doesn't mean that much to you. Except of course where it agrees with your mind set.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was the commanding general of the allied forces during WWII before he became president of the United States. In his departure speech from being president he said;
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I'll let you read the rest.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisen...

Like any other enterprise, when found to be successful it's leaders tend to promote and/or create the circumstances for it's usage to the degree of their desired level of existence. Incomes hang in the balance. Profits hang in the balance. Jobs hang in the balance.

So yes I believe there are areas in defense spending that could be greatly cut back on. Based on a budget proposed for the Pentagon with them saying they did not want nor need what was proposed.

[Batch 37 Pain Is Good]

SeenItBefore wrote:

<quoted text>
Even the poor in this country are the richer than in most of the world? Where do you come up with this crap. Yes most of them are. But then our economy is the largest in the world. And that doesn't factor into it for you?
BUT, and that is a BIG BUTT compared to the rest of the rich nations we have the second highest poverty rate.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/salas.356/usa_vs._...
That isn't embarrassing to you? The largest economy on the planet and we have the second highest poverty rate.
If Mexico is taken out of consideration as it is in the figures in the above link we have the highest poverty rate.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-pover...
That doesn't make you sick? At least it makes you look like, well to be polite, profoundly misled.

First you say its crap then you say we are OK...... Poverty rate is subjective and we are still better off...... Tax the poor for being poor

[Batch 37 Pain Is Good]

SeenItBefore wrote:

I'll answer your question about defense spending here Batch;
For being a self proclaimed history buff it apparently doesn't mean that much to you. Except of course where it agrees with your mind set.
Dwight D. Eisenhower was the commanding general of the allied forces during WWII before he became president of the United States. In his departure speech from being president he said;
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
I'll let you read the rest.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/eisen...
Like any other enterprise, when found to be successful it's leaders tend to promote and/or create the circumstances for it's usage to the degree of their desired level of existence. Incomes hang in the balance. Profits hang in the balance. Jobs hang in the balance.
So yes I believe there are areas in defense spending that could be greatly cut back on. Based on a budget proposed for the Pentagon with them saying they did not want nor need what was proposed.

That was easy, get rid of your appliances as they were developed by the defense dept.....

[SeenItBefore]

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:

<quoted text>That was easy, get rid of your appliances as they were developed by the defense dept.....

So that's your answer to what may be out-of-proportion defense spending? Maybe there will be some new household appliance and/or gadget developed?

So what household appliances and/or handy new gadget can you expect to be developed by the US Embassy in Iraq?

And how does that fit in with your strong advocacy for private business profits, tax breaks and subsidies? I thought they were the ones that did all the developing of new products. Remember all that talk about they suffer all the costs of R&D so that's why they have the legitimate right to obscene profits and wealth.

[Oneal]

Phil wrote:

Obama in his meeting with Republicans told them that it wasn't his decision, it was the Secret Services decision to close the White House tours. There were some laughs heard. Can you really blame them?

Especially since one White House official initially said it was the White House's decision, then Obama went on ABC and typically passed the buck, and then another White House spokesperson later "clarified" the statement by stressing that "the decision to cancel the tours never came to the Oval Office, falling personally to Obama, but that it was ultimately made by White House staff".

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/...

Another awesome example of Obama's "transparency", to say nothing of his continued habit of trying to blame everyone else but himself.

[Freedom]

Larry wrote:

<quoted text>
Judging by what you said, no Jason you are not learning.

No! it is you guys that are not learning. The rest of the country is and that is a relief

[Freedom]

Freedumb wrote:

<quoted text>Ever think that maybe you lost your job becuase you're a whining idiot?

That is why they hired me back moron!
Vote Republicans OUT! so the country can move on.

[Go Blue Forever]

Oneal wrote:

<quoted text>
Especially since one White House official initially said it was the White House's decision, then Obama went on ABC and typically passed the buck, and then another White House spokesperson later "clarified" the statement by stressing that "the decision to cancel the tours never came to the Oval Office, falling personally to Obama, but that it was ultimately made by White House staff".
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/03/...
Another awesome example of Obama's "transparency", to say nothing of his continued habit of trying to blame everyone else but himself.

Excellent.....My George, you have found yet another discrepancy....we can whip up some outrage for that....this might be what return's the Republican party to relevence......

[Oneal]

Go Blue Forever wrote:

<quoted text>Excellent.....My George, you have found yet another discrepancy....we can whip up some outrage for that....this might be what return's the Republican party to relevence......

Yep, we found another Obama Lie. Might not amount to a Solyndra or Benghazi or "not one dime", but it sure is fun tallying them up for ya'll!

Actually, I have to give credit to O'Blamer on his creative scam of making some ridiculous decision, then denying he ever did it while blaming someone else, and finally promising to swoop in and solve the problem by reverse what he did in the first place.

If he were half as good at actually leading as he is at self-promotion we might actually have progressed an inch past the Bush era.

President Obama, our little Playa-In-Chief.

[Batch 37 Pain Is Good]

SeenItBefore wrote:

<quoted text>
So that's your answer to what may be out-of-proportion defense spending? Maybe there will be some new household appliance and/or gadget developed?
So what household appliances and/or handy new gadget can you expect to be developed by the US Embassy in Iraq?
And how does that fit in with your strong advocacy for private business profits, tax breaks and subsidies? I thought they were the ones that did all the developing of new products. Remember all that talk about they suffer all the costs of R&D so that's why they have the legitimate right to obscene profits and wealth.

There is something wrong with you.;...... Make some money so the O can take it to give to non producers...