Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: Newsday

President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs.

Comments (Page 5,311)

Showing posts 106,201 - 106,220 of109,597
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Teddy R

Satellite Provider

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115391
Jun 1, 2012
 
Say the Truth wrote:
Hey has anyone heard from Pfluger? With all the election stuff spooling up I would think that he'd be posting up a storm. Semms like he just fell off the map a year ago.
FUBO!
Yeah, good question.

I miss the sense and sensibility of Phlug.
joe

San Rafael, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115392
Jun 2, 2012
 
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Cutting deficits is not woking simply because for all the jibber-jabber,...
What a bunch of utter nonsense, meant, primarily for the fools Republican spinmeisters are used to defrauding. Go peddle it to the the tea party and economically naive.

BTW, can the drivel about the "eevul rich". No one cares about the rich. They always end up screwing themselves with greed. And at what magically minuscule point will the "rich" start investing in America? Isn't that how your trickle down plan was supposed to work?

What an infantile concept.
joe

San Rafael, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115393
Jun 2, 2012
 
Sly Fox wrote:
<quoted text>No. What we need is leaders at the top that: 1) LOVE the USA and 2) Believe in the American Enterprise system ie CAPITALISM!!!!
And by what means will you use, what criteria to judge whether a candidate "loves the USA..."

Got an inside track on that or would that be just your mighty OPINION?
Teddy R

Oman

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115394
Jun 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

joe wrote:
<quoted text>
What a bunch of utter nonsense, meant, primarily for the fools Republican spinmeisters are used to defrauding. Go peddle it to the the tea party and economically naive.
BTW, can the drivel about the "eevul rich". No one cares about the rich. They always end up screwing themselves with greed. And at what magically minuscule point will the "rich" start investing in America? Isn't that how your trickle down plan was supposed to work?
What an infantile concept.
Infantile? Sure, joe. Spoken like a true California wanker.

And "No one cares about the rich??" Get serious, joe. The present Incompetent-in-Chief certainly says you're dead wrong. He's betting his entire political future on the presumption that there are enough Useful Idiots out there that care about soaking the rich - he sure thinks he can get re-elected on the back of a class warfare campaign of BS like the "Buffett Rule" and "eat the Rich!" rhetoric.

How's the People's Democratic State of California doing, by the way, joe? You know, land of all those extra-smart economic geniuses who have run California's economy and finances so far into the ditch they can't even get an accurate measure of how deep the hole they've dug themselves into is.

The same geniuses who keep sending lefty idiots like Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi to Washington so they can bring down an entire nation into the same bottomless pit they're driven California into.

Here's some advice, joe - you might want to consider the absence of credibility any California progressive has on matters economic and financial before you start lecturing others on their economic "naivete."

You just come off as ridiculous.

Get back to us when Sacramento has done what they need to do to save California from being the first State in US history to go bankrupt. And good luck relying on Jerry Moonbeam and the same Conspiracy of Dunces that drove the State into the ditch in the first place.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115395
Jun 2, 2012
 
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not?
You post as if foolishness were a virtue.
You give every appearance of wanting to be taken seriously, but when you post these ridiculous rants about denying firmly established constitutional free speech rights to corporate persons without having thought through even the most trivial of the questions involved, and showing no embarrassment over your thoroughly embarrassing posts, it's impossible to take you as anything more than a foolish troll.
<quoted text>
Useless and foolish notion. Multinational corporations have "headquarters" and home offices and pay taxes in every country in which they operate.
<quoted text>
I'm sure you do.
Instead, I will simply pants you and your intellectually bankrupt notions by noting the obvious truth that corporate persons, "foreign" (wtf that means ...) or otherwise, have the same free speech rights that the Constitution affords FOREIGN ALIENS on US soil. These aliens, with no right to vote, still have every Constitutional right to "participate in our political process" by saying whatever they like, buying ads on TV to say whatever they like, and doing all those things that our Constitution protects as Free Speech.
Or are you, OKB, pressing to strip foreign persons of their free speech rights simply because they are aliens with equally virulent prejudice with which you wish to strip "foreign" corporate persons (even though you cannot even define for us what that is)?
Didn't think so. Hell, you're probably cheering that corrupt and treasonous excuse for a USAG, Holder, for ACTUALLY PREVENTING FLORIDA FROM PUTTING AN END TO VOTER FRAUD BY ILLEGAL ALIENS IN THEIR STATE, right?
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/06/01/holder-d...
First, you use a lot of words to say you don't have a definition which suits your purpose.

Second, the courts have ruled that foreign people on US soil can not contribute to a campaign.

So what is that definition for a foreign corporation again?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115396
Jun 2, 2012
 
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Cutting deficits is not woking simply because for all the jibber-jabber, NO ONE'S ACTUALLY DONE IT YET!! Not here, not in Europe. All this blather about austerity in Europe is just so much noise, because NOBODY EXCEPT THE GERMANS have yet summoned up the will to DO IT. The Germans did, and they're doing just fine, thank you, when they're not being dragged down by their parasitic partners in the EU.
And it's not about cutting deficits, it's simply about CUTTING GOVERNMENT SPENDING back to within long-term sustainable limits as a % of GDP. Do that, and deficits take care of themselves.
Corporations and individuals aren't "sitting on piles of cash." They're looking at the massive overhang of bad debt that's still sloshing around the system looking for a sucker to eat it, or an corrupt Government to bail it out with taxpayer money. And they are de-leveraging as fast as they can - EXACTLY what the economy requires in a recession caused by excessive financial leverage in the first place. And it's EXACTLY what the federal government ISN'T doing, because it's run by an incompetent POTUS and a permanent professional political class that's only in it FOR THEMSELVES.
The economy needs a positive business environment helped by a federal government that is incentivizing new investment in growth and employment, not waging class warfare with talk of punitive taxes on the 'eevul rich' lumbering American businesses with even higher labor cost structures with goo-goo social meddling like ObamaScare.
You have yet to agree that taxes should be set at 18% of GDP to go along with your spending plan. Face it, you would never decrease the debt either.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115397
Jun 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Infantile? Sure, joe. Spoken like a true California wanker.
And "No one cares about the rich??" Get serious, joe. The present Incompetent-in-Chief certainly says you're dead wrong. He's betting his entire political future on the presumption that there are enough Useful Idiots out there that care about soaking the rich - he sure thinks he can get re-elected on the back of a class warfare campaign of BS like the "Buffett Rule" and "eat the Rich!" rhetoric.
How's the People's Democratic State of California doing, by the way, joe? You know, land of all those extra-smart economic geniuses who have run California's economy and finances so far into the ditch they can't even get an accurate measure of how deep the hole they've dug themselves into is.
The same geniuses who keep sending lefty idiots like Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi to Washington so they can bring down an entire nation into the same bottomless pit they're driven California into.
Here's some advice, joe - you might want to consider the absence of credibility any California progressive has on matters economic and financial before you start lecturing others on their economic "naivete."
You just come off as ridiculous.
Get back to us when Sacramento has done what they need to do to save California from being the first State in US history to go bankrupt. And good luck relying on Jerry Moonbeam and the same Conspiracy of Dunces that drove the State into the ditch in the first place.
God your rants are rediculous. This whole speil about "punishing the successful" over taxes is a bogus dog bone.

Tell us Teddy, if we do not tax the successful (people that can afford to pay taxes), do we tax the unsuccessful? Do we ust not tax anyone?

I said before, I could go for a flat tax provided it applied to 100% of all income regardless of source to include corporate income.
Teddy R

Oman

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115398
Jun 2, 2012
 
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you use a lot of words to say you don't have a definition which suits your purpose.
I don't need one. I'm content with existing law.

You're the progressive control freak meddler that wants to abridge the free speech rights of corporate persons.

Your problem to define the class of corporate persons whose rights you want to limit.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>Second, the courts have ruled that foreign people on US soil can not contribute to a campaign.
And yet by bizarro OKB logic you're ok with Obobo's treasonous AGUS blocking Florida from doing their due diligence to prevent aliens from voting.

Cite the case and the court in which it was decided, please.
Teddy R

Oman

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115399
Jun 2, 2012
 
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
God your rants are rediculous. This whole speil about "punishing the successful" over taxes is a bogus dog bone.
Tell us Teddy, if we do not tax the successful (people that can afford to pay taxes), do we tax the unsuccessful? Do we ust not tax anyone?
I said before, I could go for a flat tax provided it applied to 100% of all income regardless of source to include corporate income.
I have nothing to add to the crystal-clear posts I have made previously on federal income tax policy, and I see no value in further repetitious "debate" with you on that topic.
Aussie Bob

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115402
Jun 2, 2012
 
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>I have nothing to add to the crystal-clear posts I have made previously on federal income tax policy, and I see no value in further repetitious "debate" with you on that topic.
It made sense to me. I agree with you as well for the most part.

You do need to understand that in the US there are some extremely greedy parasites at the tippy-top of the food pyramid. This 0.01 percent of your population owns more than 90 percent of the net wealth.

I think those particular people should be bled for all the tax that they are worth, mind you, they did already lose a bundle off the whole Goldman & Sachs incident..

Which led to the GFC..

Which led to the Euro financial crisis...

Which will lead to yadda yadda yadda....

It is time the Semites pay their taxes, that's all I'm saying...
Sly Fox

Jensen Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115403
Jun 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

joe wrote:
<quoted text>
And by what means will you use, what criteria to judge whether a candidate "loves the USA..."
Got an inside track on that or would that be just your mighty OPINION?
Clearly Obama does not. Surely you cannot challenge that.
Politics as usual

Melville, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115404
Jun 2, 2012
 
it is comical to hear arguments about the democratic party as if they are the party of the little guy, they are not, they are the party of lies and corruption,

from the trillion dollar payoff to their supporters disguised as stimulus, the billions spent on the green job scams so as to pay back campaign contributors and bundlers, the millions spent on expensive date nights, separate planes for the obamas on trips to the same place at our expense, expensive taxpayer subsidized vacations, big raises to michelle obama when she worked in chicago in exchange for earmarks,

lets just look at elizabeth warren, typical democrat, she masqueraded as a native american in order to get ahead, made money off the backs of foreclosed citizens, and lied about it,

this is what the democratic party really stands for, kickbacks and payoffs,

what the little guy really wants is government to get out of the business of deciding winners and losers in order to pay off supporters,

what the little guy wants is a fair shake, without government intervention, and that is only going to happen when the democratic party, the party of payoffs, and kickbacks is ridden out of power, and and when their propaganda machines, the corrupt mainstream media, lose what little credibility they still have left

this election is not about trickle down, or taxing the rich, this election is really about the democratic party which wants government as big as possible, to maximize their potential for payoffs and kickbacks to their friends and supporters,

and the republican party that wants people's success to be based on their own hard work, their own risks and successes, without the liars and thieves in the democratic party taking what they have worked for in order to pay off their friends and supporters.
Sly Fox

Jensen Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115405
Jun 3, 2012
 
Politics as usual wrote:
it is comical to hear arguments about the democratic party as if they are the party of the little guy, they are not, they are the party of lies and corruption,
from the trillion dollar payoff to their supporters disguised as stimulus, the billions spent on the green job scams so as to pay back campaign contributors and bundlers, the millions spent on expensive date nights, separate planes for the obamas on trips to the same place at our expense, expensive taxpayer subsidized vacations, big raises to michelle obama when she worked in chicago in exchange for earmarks,
lets just look at elizabeth warren, typical democrat, she masqueraded as a native american in order to get ahead, made money off the backs of foreclosed citizens, and lied about it,
this is what the democratic party really stands for, kickbacks and payoffs,
what the little guy really wants is government to get out of the business of deciding winners and losers in order to pay off supporters,
what the little guy wants is a fair shake, without government intervention, and that is only going to happen when the democratic party, the party of payoffs, and kickbacks is ridden out of power, and and when their propaganda machines, the corrupt mainstream media, lose what little credibility they still have left
this election is not about trickle down, or taxing the rich, this election is really about the democratic party which wants government as big as possible, to maximize their potential for payoffs and kickbacks to their friends and supporters,
and the republican party that wants people's success to be based on their own hard work, their own risks and successes, without the liars and thieves in the democratic party taking what they have worked for in order to pay off their friends and supporters.
Are you implying that the errors on the tax returns of various Obama Administration employees might not have been accidental? You mean they really should pay the nearly a billion dollars of unpaid taxes. You mean Barney Frank & Co really might have proffited from the Housing Scams? I AM SHOCKED!
Teddy R

Oman

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115406
Jun 3, 2012
 
Aussie Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
It made sense to me. I agree with you as well for the most part.
You do need to understand that in the US there are some extremely greedy parasites at the tippy-top of the food pyramid. This 0.01 percent of your population owns more than 90 percent of the net wealth.
I think those particular people should be bled for all the tax that they are worth, mind you, they did already lose a bundle off the whole Goldman & Sachs incident..
Which led to the GFC..
Which led to the Euro financial crisis...
Which will lead to yadda yadda yadda....
It is time the Semites pay their taxes, that's all I'm saying...
Bob -

Thanks, mate - nice to see we agree more than differ on this stuff. I reckon 1 day a month of martial law with you & I in charge and we'd have that snake-pit in Washington sorted out right & proper by year-end.

I do agree that distribution of wealth and income in the US is presently skewed toward the high side of the normal cycle - maybe higher than the norm for Oz, but nothing out of the historical norm for the US. Distribution of wealth and income in the US goes thru a natural cycle, like the tides. Concentration of wealth in the US has been at these levels or higher before.

I'm sure you are correct that "there are some extremely greedy parasites at the tippy-top of the food pyramid." I would say, however, these folks are outnumbered by people at the tippy-top who are there because they are highly talented, motivated, fortunate, hard-working, and productive.

As for your battle-cry to 'EAT THE RICH!!', these guys already get bled pretty good. The top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more earn only 19% of the total income in the US, but pay 36.9% of the total federal income tax (2007 data). Half of US households pay no federal income tax at all.

Natural economic cycles play a bigger role in reversing the wealth concentration pendulum than taxes ever will - these creatures at tht tippy-top have way more to lose, too, as you suggest. And they are losing. The US lost 129,000 millionaires last year. The number of US citizens renouncing US citizenship and fleeing with their wealth to countries with more lenient tax regimes who are happy to welcome all that fresh capital into their economies with open arms jumped to 5 times the historical rate last year as well. Push US federal taxes up to te punitive levels that the 'EAT THE RICH!!" are shrieking for, and you'll see that wealth-and brain-drain run up to 5 figures annually.

As for your last point regarding Semites, I don't follow you. We don't have Semites or other kinds of -ites in the US.

We just have Americans.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115407
Jun 3, 2012
 
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Bob -
Thanks, mate - nice to see we agree more than differ on this stuff. I reckon 1 day a month of martial law with you & I in charge and we'd have that snake-pit in Washington sorted out right & proper by year-end.
I do agree that distribution of wealth and income in the US is presently skewed toward the high side of the normal cycle - maybe higher than the norm for Oz, but nothing out of the historical norm for the US. Distribution of wealth and income in the US goes thru a natural cycle, like the tides. Concentration of wealth in the US has been at these levels or higher before.
I'm sure you are correct that "there are some extremely greedy parasites at the tippy-top of the food pyramid." I would say, however, these folks are outnumbered by people at the tippy-top who are there because they are highly talented, motivated, fortunate, hard-working, and productive.
As for your battle-cry to 'EAT THE RICH!!', these guys already get bled pretty good. The top 1% with gross income of $328,049 or more earn only 19% of the total income in the US, but pay 36.9% of the total federal income tax (2007 data). Half of US households pay no federal income tax at all.
Natural economic cycles play a bigger role in reversing the wealth concentration pendulum than taxes ever will - these creatures at tht tippy-top have way more to lose, too, as you suggest. And they are losing. The US lost 129,000 millionaires last year. The number of US citizens renouncing US citizenship and fleeing with their wealth to countries with more lenient tax regimes who are happy to welcome all that fresh capital into their economies with open arms jumped to 5 times the historical rate last year as well. Push US federal taxes up to te punitive levels that the 'EAT THE RICH!!" are shrieking for, and you'll see that wealth-and brain-drain run up to 5 figures annually.
As for your last point regarding Semites, I don't follow you. We don't have Semites or other kinds of -ites in the US.
We just have Americans.
In the past, what events or what tools were used to stop the concentration of wealth at the top?

What is the percentage of households that pay capital gains taxes?

What is the percentage of households that pay SS and Medicare taxes at the maximum rate of $15.3% on all income?

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115408
Jun 3, 2012
 
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past, what events or what tools were used to stop the concentration of wealth at the top?
What is the percentage of households that pay capital gains taxes?
What is the percentage of households that pay SS and Medicare taxes at the maximum rate of $15.3% on all income?
And when will you admit you are lying?
I replied to all your Bull and you have nothing once again.
It really surprises me that you are still on here being proven wrong over and over again.
That shows you have no morals what so ever.
Now let me ask you this:
Why do you harp on the rich so much?
After all the demlosers in congress and the senate all have ties to companies and make millions to!
You "try" like your daddy does to smear the repubs as money hungry.
Yet your losing team that you support are just as rich.
Like Pelosi for instance. Her husband is a business owner. They are multi millionaires.
How much did obama make? He doesn't own any company now does he?
What about Kerry?
What about the Kennedy's? They were the richest political family.
So get off the broken record. Your team will lose here soon so get over it.
And then America can recover from 3 years of reckless spending and the worst policies ever!

Since: Sep 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115409
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past, what events or what tools were used to stop the concentration of wealth at the top?
What is the percentage of households that pay capital gains taxes?
What is the percentage of households that pay SS and Medicare taxes at the maximum rate of $15.3% on all income?
OK in case you missed it you fool. Here you go:
Your questions and my replies:
1. Do you really not know why President Obama did not veto a Bill that was already enacted into law?

*****(No it was approved by Obobo and I gave you back up for that proof of mine. I even showed you what the demolosers spent after it was approved. Yes well above what was signed by yours truly Obama! If you recall OBOBO had signed the stimulus nearly 1 trillion dollars. Remember? And it was supposed to save jobs. NOw the idiot in the WH is claiming that congress didn't pass more spending!! It's all over the news today. Seriously he said "if this stimulus passes? I promise to put all those Americans back to work" quote on quote!)*****

2. In early January, before President Obama became President, the CBO predicted that the "bush" budget would result in a deficit of over $1 Trillion.

*****(Prove it with facts to back your theory. Since you have been on here all you ahve done is talk with no proof)*****

3. The real question is why didn't bush veto the budget.

*****( Once again I gave you proof of what Bush asked for. I even showed you who signed it "obobo" and who was in control of the spending? Demolosers which spent way more than what was asked for and passed. Yes the dems surpassed what was signed for!!!!!)****
once again you are lying!

4. None of this does anything to substantiate whether too much, now enough or an amount just right has been and continues to be spent.

*****(NO I will not admit to that cause it is not true. The recession was end result of the DOTCOM bubble burst and you know it. I showed you proof a few years ago. But you once again refuse to accept that your party is crap! And nothing but liars like yourself.
Now how is Bush responsible for 9/11??? After all it was Clinton who coward from responding to the World trade center bombing the first time. And how is it Bush's fault for dems passing all the spending once THEY TOOK CONTROL OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE? They out spent the previous 6 years in 4 years. Easily surpassing that. Yet either you really are a moron or you do not know how to read? Or you don't care how dishonest you really are. I am guessing that you are dishonest.)*****

5. If you want to hold President Obama accountable from day one, fine. Just admit that bush is 100% responsible for the 2001 recession, 9-11, the housing bubble and the financial collapse.

*****(But I am already on record that bush either was not responsible or is only minimally to blame for any of them. Now you want to claim that????? LOL for over 3 years all you did was blame Bush. Now that I show you facts with back up to support spending you once again back pedal. You must be good at dodge ball cause you sure dodge every fact thrown at you.)*****

6. Of course he did sign the first budget to authorize $2 Tril in spending and the first budget authorize $3 Tril in spending and was the first President in history to have a $1 Tril deficit projected for his budget.

*****(You are making claims that Bush signed 2 trillion budget. Show REAL proof!!!!)*****

NOw you puppet is was on TV crying the repubs are to blame for alck of job growth.
How come your guy surpassed the budget he signed when he took office to only pay back the unions?
It was supposed to go for job growth!!!!! Which your boy said "I will create jobs to get those Americans back to work by the end of summer the 1st year! Unemployment is still higher than when he took office.
Also funny how they keep adjusting the real numbers 2 months later of unemployment figures.
So that tells me he is lying and always has lied about the reality of it all!
Teddy R

Oman

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115410
Jun 3, 2012
 
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
In the past, what events or what tools were used to stop the concentration of wealth at the top?
What is the percentage of households that pay capital gains taxes?
What is the percentage of households that pay SS and Medicare taxes at the maximum rate of $15.3% on all income?
Jeebus wept - it's the walking rhetorical quiz show again.

FO.

You got a point? Make it. Enough with the "Who Doesn't Want To Be A Millionaire" imitation.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115411
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bill_S wrote:
<quoted text>
OK in case you missed it you fool. Here you go:
Your questions and my replies:
1. Do you really not know why President Obama did not veto a Bill that was already enacted into law?
*****(No it was approved by Obobo and I gave you back up for that proof of mine. I even showed you what the demolosers spent after it was approved. Yes well above what was signed by yours truly Obama! If you recall OBOBO had signed the stimulus nearly 1 trillion dollars. Remember? And it was supposed to save jobs. NOw the idiot in the WH is claiming that congress didn't pass more spending!! It's all over the news today. Seriously he said "if this stimulus passes? I promise to put all those Americans back to work" quote on quote!)*****
2. In early January, before President Obama became President, the CBO predicted that the "bush" budget would result in a deficit of over $1 Trillion.
*****(Prove it with facts to back your theory. Since you have been on here all you ahve done is talk with no proof)*****
3. The real question is why didn't bush veto the budget.
*****( Once again I gave you proof of what Bush asked for. I even showed you who signed it "obobo" and who was in control of the spending? Demolosers which spent way more than what was asked for and passed. Yes the dems surpassed what was signed for!!!!!)****
once again you are lying!
4. None of this does anything to substantiate whether too much, now enough or an amount just right has been and continues to be spent.
*****(NO I will not admit to that cause it is not true. The recession was end result of the DOTCOM bubble burst and you know it. I showed you proof a few years ago. But you once again refuse to accept that your party is crap! And nothing but liars like yourself.
Now how is Bush responsible for 9/11??? After all it was Clinton who coward from responding to the World trade center bombing the first time. And how is it Bush's fault for dems passing all the spending once THEY TOOK CONTROL OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND SENATE? They out spent the previous 6 years in 4 years. Easily surpassing that. Yet either you really are a moron or you do not know how to read? Or you don't care how dishonest you really are. I am guessing that you are dishonest.)*****
5. If you want to hold President Obama accountable from day one, fine. Just admit that bush is 100% responsible for the 2001 recession, 9-11, the housing bubble and the financial collapse.
*****(But I am already on record that bush either was not responsible or is only minimally to blame for any of them. Now you want to claim that????? LOL for over 3 years all you did was blame Bush. Now that I show you facts with back up to support spending you once again back pedal. You must be good at dodge ball cause you sure dodge every fact thrown at you.)*****
6. Of course he did sign the first budget to authorize $2 Tril in spending and the first budget authorize $3 Tril in spending and was the first President in history to have a $1 Tril deficit projected for his budget.
*****(You are making claims that Bush signed 2 trillion budget. Show REAL proof!!!!)*****
NOw you puppet is was on TV crying the repubs are to blame for alck of job growth.
How come your guy surpassed the budget he signed when he took office to only pay back the unions?
....So that tells me he is lying and always has lied about the reality of it all!
1.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_Stat...

2.
http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/...

3.#1 and #2 explain this.

4. More partisan Bill rant.

5. More partisan Bill rant.

6.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/washington/...

http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/12statab/...

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115412
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Jeebus wept - it's the walking rhetorical quiz show again.
FO.
You got a point? Make it. Enough with the "Who Doesn't Want To Be A Millionaire" imitation.
You stated wealth accumulation occured in cycles. I asked what events or tools were used to reverse accumulation at the top in past.

Afraid to answer?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 106,201 - 106,220 of109,597
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••