Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[Informed Opinion]

tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

<quoted text>This question makes you look like a left wing nut. This country has the best armed forces in the world and they will do what ever it takes to protect each other and the USA. You would rather play nice with the ones who would kill you? "War is Hell"

Having enlisted in in the Marine Corps after high school, and served 22 years in law enforcement, I hardly need you to lecture me on the dangers present today.

Your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are far less than being killed by an American young white male with a gun and a bad attitude.

So put your pacifier back in place and run home to mommy and let her know that your scared of the boogeyman.

In light of your chosen name, it must be exhausting for you to be around you.

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Please identify the errors.
Didn't the bank disaster develop over the 8 years of the Bush Administration while Bush was explaining big business shouldn't be regulated because that was a good thing ?

Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie and Freddie. Making home loans to people that could not pay the money back.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bush-adviser...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
By the way,
Bush inherited a balanced budget and left office with a 2009 $1.4 Triilion 2009 Deficit (2009 was Bush's budget approved in 2008).
Bush increased the "official" debt by over $ 5 Trillion which did not include the "off budget" wars he loved so much, as long as his draft dodging butt was never in danger.
Don't you hate those darn pesky facts ?

The national debt was 5.6 Trillion when Clinton left. Facts are true not imformed Opinions.

[Informed Opinion]

tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

<quoted text>Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Fannie and Freddie. Making home loans to people that could not pay the money back.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bush-adviser...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Yep, President Frank and President Dodd were in charge from 2000 to 2008 when the unregulated banks went crazy marketing "Liar Loans" and selling them off using Credit Default Swaps and Tranches, after they were high credit ratings by companies that said, "they'd rate dog crap AAA, if they were paid enough".

Oh wait... Frank and Dodd were never presidents,

that was some guy named Bush who told us all how we didn't need to supervise or regulate the mega banks, or the credit rating agencies, after all we can trust bankers and rating corporations to do the right thing.

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Having enlisted in in the Marine Corps after high school, and served 22 years in law enforcement, I hardly need you to lecture me on the dangers present today.
Your chances of getting killed by a terrorist are far less than being killed by an American young white male with a gun and a bad attitude.
So put your pacifier back in place and run home to mommy and let her know that your scared of the boogeyman.
In light of your chosen name, it must be exhausting for you to be around you.

Tell that to the familys of the 2,977 people that were killed on 9-11-01 or the 13 killed at Fort Hood.

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, President Frank and President Dodd were in charge from 2000 to 2008 when the unregulated banks went crazy marketing "Liar Loans" and selling them off using Credit Default Swaps and Tranches, after they were high credit ratings by companies that said, "they'd rate dog crap AAA, if they were paid enough".
Oh wait... Frank and Dodd were never presidents,
that was some guy named Bush who told us all how we didn't need to supervise or regulate the mega banks, or the credit rating agencies, after all we can trust bankers and rating corporations to do the right thing.

Frank and Dodd had a lot of power. Did you even look at the links. Three branches of Goverment..

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep, President Frank and President Dodd were in charge from 2000 to 2008 when the unregulated banks went crazy marketing "Liar Loans" and selling them off using Credit Default Swaps and Tranches, after they were high credit ratings by companies that said, "they'd rate dog crap AAA, if they were paid enough".
Oh wait... Frank and Dodd were never presidents,
that was some guy named Bush who told us all how we didn't need to supervise or regulate the mega banks, or the credit rating agencies, after all we can trust bankers and rating corporations to do the right thing.

If you gonna quote people back it up with a fact or two. Give a link to what you say. Left wing hack sites don't count.

[Burned Out]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Having enlisted in in the Marine Corps after high school, and served 22 years in law enforcement, I hardly need you to lecture me on the dangers present today.

I hope you have retired.

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

http://www.huduser.org/publications/txt/hdbrf...

A must read for Informed people with opinions.

[Informed Opinion]

tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

<quoted text>If you gonna quote people back it up with a fact or two. Give a link to what you say. Left wing hack sites don't count.

Read and weep.

Typical ... Instead of paying off the debt having been handed huge surpluses, Republicans waste money on illegal wars, corporate welfare, and tax cuts for their rich buddies.

But hey, providing you these facts took all of 3 minutes. No wonder Fox Noise folks have no idea - 3 minutes of research - Wow.

10-YEAR ESTIMATE OF BUDGET SURPLUS SURGES ONCE MORE
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: December 29, 2000

The Clinton administration handed a parting gift to President-elect George W. Bush today, projecting that the federal budget surplus would swell substantially, to nearly $5 trillion, over the next decade.
Administration officials said they expected the surplus to total $4.996 trillion in the 10 years beginning with the start of the next fiscal year, on Oct. 1, 2001. That amounts to an increase of just over $800 billion from the administration's previous projection, of $4.193 trillion for the 10 years that started this October.
Although such long-range projections are subject to change with ups and downs in the economy and are not a tool of great precision, the new estimates give Mr. Bush more wiggle room in his efforts to convince Congress and the public that his tax cut proposal, valued at some $1.6 trillion over 10 years, is affordable.
Clearly aware that the figures would further intensify the pent-up Republican demand for tax cuts, President Clinton used the release of the new projections to make a case for using the surplus to eliminate the $3.4 trillion national debt faster.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr. Clinton said the debt could be paid off by 2009 or 2010, two years ahead of his previous estimate. And he said that staying a course of debt reduction would yield benefits to consumers and the economy in the form of lower interest rates and the flexibility to allocate tax revenue to more productive uses than paying interest on Treasury bonds.
The upbeat estimates Mr. Clinton is handing off to Mr. Bush stand in contrast to the bad news on the budget delivered to Mr. Clinton in late 1992 by the departing administration of Mr. Bush's father. As he prepared to take office, Mr. Clinton was informed that the budget deficits he was inheriting would be even worse than previously projected.
Now the surplus projections continue to rise despite the recent slowdown in the economy.
The administration did not release the economic growth assumptions it used in its calculations. Jack Lew, the White House budget director, said the assumptions were ''consistent with updates'' on economic conditions through last month, and continued the practice of assuming moderate growth rates.
In any case, much of the improvement came not from economic changes but from the change in the time frame covered by the projections. The new estimate drops the surplus projection for the current fiscal year and adds the much higher projection for 2011.
The new figures also incorporate the added government spending signed into law by Mr. Clinton this month after long negotiations with the Republican Congress.
They assume that spending will continue to increase in line with inflation, but do not include the costs of any big initiatives like the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare or the addition of private investment accounts to Social Security.
The administration's projections are to be followed next month by new surplus estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, whose figures are more typically used in turning proposals into legislation. The budget office is also likely to show the surplus rising hundreds of billions of dollars, probably to a level higher than the figure of nearly $5 trillion used by the White House today.

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

An Opinion piece from a left wing hack at the New york times is all you got. You call that facts? Again Clinton left office with a Debt of 5.6 Trillion. What part of that do you not understand?

[Numbers]

tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

<quoted text>
No the national debt was 4.4 Trillion when he came in and 5.6 Trillion when he left.

"Clinton's last four annual budgets had surpluses:
1998 $69 billion
1999 $125 billion
2000 $236 billion
2001 $128 billion

But they didn't 'leave' us a surplus; at the end of 2001 we were still $5.8 trillion in debt.

Debt added by the last five presidents' budgets:
Reagan (budgets submitted for years 1982 to 1989):$1.9 trillion
H. W. Bush (1990-1993):$1.5 trillion
Clinton (1994-2001):$1.4 trillion
W. Bush (2002-2009):$6.1 trillion
Obama (2010-2013)$5.7 trillion

Note that each president submits the budget for his successor's first year. If these figures were by years in office, W. Bush (2001-2008) would show 4.7 trillion and Obama 6.3 trillion."

Source; "Ask"

[Certainty]

tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

<quoted text>
This question makes you look like a left wing nut. This country has the best armed forces in the world and they will do what ever it takes to protect each other and the USA. You would rather play nice with the ones who would kill you? "War is Hell"

You don't know Jack shit about war!

The US spends more on it's military than do the next thirteen nations COMBINED, including Russia and China, yet can not defeat an insurgency made up of an estimated 50 - 80,000 poorly armed, poorly equipped, poorly organized (supposedly) religious fanatics who have no intention of invading America. Instead, they're bleeding us to death, as they've been doing for the past decade, and the Army is powerless to stop them.

Other nations fear us, as well they should, but don't respect us, as we like to think they do. America is the bully, the war-monger!

It's all about power and profits for the military/industrial complex!

[Bored]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Read and weep.
Typical ... Instead of paying off the debt having been handed huge surpluses, Republicans waste money on illegal wars, corporate welfare, and tax cuts for their rich buddies.
But hey, providing you these facts took all of 3 minutes. No wonder Fox Noise folks have no idea - 3 minutes of research - Wow.
10-YEAR ESTIMATE OF BUDGET SURPLUS SURGES ONCE MORE
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: December 29, 2000
The Clinton administration handed a parting gift to President-elect George W. Bush today, projecting that the federal budget surplus would swell substantially, to nearly $5 trillion, over the next decade.
Administration officials said they expected the surplus to total $4.996 trillion in the 10 years beginning with the start of the next fiscal year, on Oct. 1, 2001. That amounts to an increase of just over $800 billion from the administration's previous projection, of $4.193 trillion for the 10 years that started this October.
Although such long-range projections are subject to change with ups and downs in the economy and are not a tool of great precision, the new estimates give Mr. Bush more wiggle room in his efforts to convince Congress and the public that his tax cut proposal, valued at some $1.6 trillion over 10 years, is affordable.
Clearly aware that the figures would further intensify the pent-up Republican demand for tax cuts, President Clinton used the release of the new projections to make a case for using the surplus to eliminate the $3.4 trillion national debt faster.
Speaking to reporters at the White House, Mr. Clinton said the debt could be paid off by 2009 or 2010, two years ahead of his previous estimate. And he said that staying a course of debt reduction would yield benefits to consumers and the economy in the form of lower interest rates and the flexibility to allocate tax revenue to more productive uses than paying interest on Treasury bonds.
The upbeat estimates Mr. Clinton is handing off to Mr. Bush stand in contrast to the bad news on the budget delivered to Mr. Clinton in late 1992 by the departing administration of Mr. Bush's father. As he prepared to take office, Mr. Clinton was informed that the budget deficits he was inheriting would be even worse than previously projected.
Now the surplus projections continue to rise despite the recent slowdown in the economy.
The administration did not release the economic growth assumptions it used in its calculations. Jack Lew, the White House budget director, said the assumptions were ''consistent with updates'' on economic conditions through last month, and continued the practice of assuming moderate growth rates.
In any case, much of the improvement came not from economic changes but from the change in the time frame covered by the projections. The new estimate drops the surplus projection for the current fiscal year and adds the much higher projection for 2011.
The new figures also incorporate the added government spending signed into law by Mr. Clinton this month after long negotiations with the Republican Congress.
They assume that spending will continue to increase in line with inflation, but do not include the costs of any big initiatives like the addition of prescription drug coverage to Medicare or the addition of private investment accounts to Social Security.
The administration's projections are to be followed next month by new surplus estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, whose figures are more typically used in turning proposals into legislation. The budget office is also likely to show the surplus rising hundreds of billions of dollars, probably to a level higher than the figure of nearly $5 trillion used by the White House today.

Boring-Boring-Boring.
Same oh crap-same oh crap-same oh crap.
A feeble mind-a feeble mind-a feeble mind.
Locked in a rut-locked in a rut-locked in a rut.
A crazed spirit gone amuck-a crazed spirit gone amuck-a crazed spirit gone amuck.

[General Robert E Lee]

NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.

Imagine that!

[Wondering]

Clinton admin decree started the housing problem which brought down the banks which caused the downturn in the economy you cannot blame the bushes. It is the give me attitude in society that is the problem. As a nation so many people want something for nothing. Well something has to come from somewhere

[General Robert E Lee]

Bill Clinton Supports NRA Proposal.

Clinton unveiled the $60-million fifth round of funding for “COPS in School,” a Justice Department program that helps pay the costs of placing police officers in schools to help make them safer for students and teachers.

[Informed Opinion]

tiredofstupidpeople wrote:

An Opinion piece from a left wing hack at the New york times is all you got. You call that facts? Again Clinton left office with a Debt of 5.6 Trillion. What part of that do you not understand?

Here's more- wait - I know, the Weekly Standard is also making up numbers.

Let me know if you still want to pretend Bush's own claimed debt of $10.6 Trillion is a lie.

Wait - Bush must be lying about his own budge too - well he was - his debt didn't include the $2 Trillion he was spending on illegal wars.

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt
by JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
January 25, 201112:41 PM
partner content from:
Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year...

[Informed Opinion]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>Here's more- wait - I know, the Weekly Standard is also making up numbers.

Let me know if you still want to pretend Bush's own claimed debt of $10.6 Trillion is a lie.

Wait - Bush must be lying about his own budge too - well he was - his debt didn't include the $2 Trillion he was spending on illegal wars.

The Weekly Standard: Obama Vs. Bush On Debt
by JEFFREY H. ANDERSON
January 25, 201112:41 PM
partner content from:
Jeffrey H. Anderson is a former professor of American government and political philosophy at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the director of the Benjamin Rush Society.

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will reportedly issue a call for "responsible" efforts to reduce deficits (while simultaneously calling for new federal spending). In light of the President's expected rhetorical nod to fiscal responsibility, it's worth keeping in mind his record on deficits to date. When President Obama took office two years ago, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. It now stands at $14.071 trillion — a staggering increase of $3.445 trillion in just 735 days (about $5 billion a day).

To put that into perspective, when President George W. Bush took office, our national debt was $5.768 trillion. By the time Bush left office, it had nearly doubled, to $10.626 trillion. So Bush's record on deficit spending was not good at all: During his presidency, the national debt rose by an average of $607 billion a year...

And some more.

Now here after stating the facts, the author offers opinion that makes a heck of a lot of sense.

ZFacts ..... January 11, 2012. Republicans blame the "Democratic Congress" for their debt increases. The trouble is that Congress was only Democratic 8 out of the 20 years, and in those 8 years, on average, Congress passed smaller budgets than the Republican presidents requested. The specifics are all right here: It Was the Republicans.
So, let's add up the debt under Reagan and the Bushes. We can't blame Reagan for the debt's increase until his first budget took effect, October 1, 1981. Then, for 12 years until Sept. 30, 1993, the Republicans ballooned the debt. Later, George W. Bush took over.
Under Reagan and Bush:$3.4 Trillion increase in the debt.
Under George W. Bush:$6.1 Trillion.[1]
Total:$9.5 Trillion.(without counting interest)
But wait, there's interest on that debt ... continued below the graph.

The debt went up during Clinton's years only because of $2.2 Trillion interest on the Reagan-Bush debt. Otherwise Clinton would have paid off most the remaining WWII debt. G.W.Bush got sand-bagged by Reagan.
Just like a mortgage, the debt incurs interest, so the Reagan-Bush-I debt grew during the Clinton years. The average debt interest rate in those years was about 6.5%, which would increase it over 50% without compounding, but with compound interest the total debt – including interest – increased by $2.2 trillion.
Total Republican debt from above:$9.5 trillion
Interest on Reagan-Bush debt under Clinton:$2.2 trillion
Interest on $11.7 trillion after G. W. Bush:$0.3 trillion
(detailed calculation)
Grand Total Reagan-Bushes Debt:$12 trillion (as of Sept. 30, 2010).
If the Republicans had not run up this $12 trillion debt, we could easily have pulled out of the Great Recession.

[tiredofstupidpeo ple]

From The same article: How do Bush and Obama compare on closer inspection? Just about like they do on an initial glance. According to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, during his eight fiscal years, Bush ran up a total of $3.283 trillion in deficit spending (p. 22). In his first two fiscal years, Obama will run up a total of $2.826 trillion in deficit spending ($1.294 trillion in 2010, an estimated $1.267 trillion in 2011 (p. 23), and the $265 billion in "stimulus" money that was spent in 2009). Thus, Bush ran up an average of $410 billion in deficit spending per year, while Obama is running up an average of $1.413 trillion in deficit spending per year -- or $1.003 trillion a year more than Bush.