An America Without Unions

[M14 Shooter]

The government runs their fiscal year from Oct. 1 to the next Sept. 30. Bush's last budget ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Ok then....

If you're going to blame GWB for all of the debt up to 9-30-09, doesn't that also mean that you also give GWB the credit for the good effect of all of the spending up to that point, including the the Obama's increases in spending thru the various stimulus programs and bailouts? You know - the things that people like you claim saved the economy?

Nah - I didnt think so. Typical partisan bigot.

It is what it is.

Yes - you blaming Bush for Obama's spending, but not giving him the credit for the "positive results" is certainly partisan bigotry.

I need to let you know that Bush financed his wars with emergency spending bills

So what? All of the on- and off- budget spending is included in the CBO spending figures. The fact that the wartime spending bills were not included in the actual budget means nothing in terms of total outlays and total deficits.

The first time Obama asked congress for military funding he put it back ON BUDGET

See above as to why this is equally meaningless.

You're talking about the very reason I left the Republican party.

Your partisan bigotry says all that needs to be said, thank you.

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Ok then....

If you're going to blame GWB for all of the debt up to 9-30-09, doesn't that also mean that you also give GWB the credit for the good effect of all of the spending up to that point, including the the Obama's increases in spending thru the various stimulus programs and bailouts? You know - the things that people like you claim saved the economy?

Nah - I didnt think so. Typical partisan bigot.

It is what it is.

Yes - you blaming Bush for Obama's spending, but not giving him the credit for the "positive results" is certainly partisan bigotry.

What it means is that Bush took over a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears, cut taxes for the wealthy twice using reconciliation to block the Democrat protests, started two wars and doubled the national debt. What a Goddam Loser!!!


So what? All of the on- and off- budget spending is included in the CBO spending figures. The fact that the wartime spending bills were not included in the actual budget means nothing in terms of total outlays and total deficits.

The first time Obama asked congress for military funding he put it back ON BUDGET

See above as to why this is equally meaningless.

You're talking about the very reason I left the Republican party.

Your partisan bigotry says all that needs to be said, thank you.

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

What ever you pull about the debt you will come up on the short end of the stick. The interest on the Bush-Reagan debt was $450,000,000,000 per year beginning Sept. 30, 2009. Kindly take $1,350,000,000,000 from Obama's total and add it to the Reagan Bush debt.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Ok then....

If you're going to blame GWB for all of the debt up to 9-30-09, doesn't that also mean that you also give GWB the credit for the good effect of all of the spending up to that point, including the the Obama's increases in spending thru the various stimulus programs and bailouts? You know - the things that people like you claim saved the economy?

Nah - I didnt think so. Typical partisan bigot.

It is what it is.

Yes - you blaming Bush for Obama's spending, but not giving him the credit for the "positive results" is certainly partisan bigotry.


So what? All of the on- and off- budget spending is included in the CBO spending figures. The fact that the wartime spending bills were not included in the actual budget means nothing in terms of total outlays and total deficits.

The first time Obama asked congress for military funding he put it back ON BUDGET

See above as to why this is equally meaningless.

You're talking about the very reason I left the Republican party.

Your partisan bigotry says all that needs to be said, thank you.

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

Partisan bigotry.........you need to study the facts and you might quit watching Fox News.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is what it is.

Yes - you blaming Bush for Obama's spending, but not giving him the credit for the "positive results" is certainly partisan bigotry.


So what? All of the on- and off- budget spending is included in the CBO spending figures. The fact that the wartime spending bills were not included in the actual budget means nothing in terms of total outlays and total deficits.


See above as to why this is equally meaningless.

You're talking about the very reason I left the Republican party.

Your partisan bigotry says all that needs to be said, thank you.

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

Partisan bigotry.........you need to study the facts and you might quit watching Fox News.

No, no - you've provided us all we need to see in that regard, with your fine, fine example.


BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Yes - you blaming Bush for Obama's spending, but not giving him the credit for the "positive results" is certainly partisan bigotry.


So what? All of the on- and off- budget spending is included in the CBO spending figures. The fact that the wartime spending bills were not included in the actual budget means nothing in terms of total outlays and total deficits.


See above as to why this is equally meaningless.


Your partisan bigotry says all that needs to be said, thank you.

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

Partisan bigotry.........you need to study the facts and you might quit watching Fox News.

No, no - you've provided us all we need to see in that regard, with your fine, fine example.


BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

Unless you are going to subtract a trillion and a half dollars which has been paid on the existing debt you need to get your head out of your ass. Obama had no choice but to spend that. See, Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That."

The debt might not but we have to pay the interest every time it's due or we go into default. Anybody with a decent comprehension of the budget knows that. Pretty goddam obvious you either don't know or refuse to consider it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Partisan bigotry.........you need to study the facts and you might quit watching Fox News.

No, no - you've provided us all we need to see in that regard, with your fine, fine example.


BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

<< bigpted, partisan tirade snipped >>

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

 

[Cammmpbell]

No, no - you've provided us all we need to see in that regard, with your fine, fine example.


BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

<< bigpted, partisan tirade snipped >>

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

Unless you are going to subtract a trillion and a half dollars which has been paid on the existing debt you need to get your head out of your ass. Obama had no choice but to spend that. See, Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That."

The debt might not but we have to pay the interest every time it's due or we go into default. Anybody with a decent comprehension of the budget knows that. Pretty goddam obvious you either don't know or refuse to consider it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

<< bigpted, partisan tirade snipped >>

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

Unless you are going to subtract a trillion and a half dollars which has been paid on the existing debt you need to get your head out of your ass. Obama had no choice but to spend that. See, Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That."

The debt might not but we have to pay the interest every time it's due or we go into default. Anybody with a decent comprehension of the budget knows that. Pretty goddam obvious you either don't know or refuse to consider it.

Ah - not just a partisan bigot but a coward as well.

Since I knew you'd have no interest (ha!) in the truth, I have the numbers for you:

1-20-2009: $10626B
3-19-2012: $15574B = 46.6% increase, >$4.28B/day
Based on that rate, projected:
1-20-2013: $16890B = 59.0% increase
1-20-2017: $23154B = 117.9% increase

Translation: At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Predsents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.

I now await your bigoted, partsan excuses. Please don't disappoint me.

 

[Cammmpbell]

BTW, I didnt see your answer:
What was the total debt as of 20 JAN 2009, and what is it now?

Unless you are going to subtract a trillion and a half dollars which has been paid on the existing debt you need to get your head out of your ass. Obama had no choice but to spend that. See, Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That."

The debt might not but we have to pay the interest every time it's due or we go into default. Anybody with a decent comprehension of the budget knows that. Pretty goddam obvious you either don't know or refuse to consider it.

Ah - not just a partisan bigot but a coward as well.

Since I knew you'd have no interest (ha!) in the truth, I have the numbers for you:

1-20-2009: $10626B
3-19-2012: $15574B = 46.6% increase, >$4.28B/day
Based on that rate, projected:
1-20-2013: $16890B = 59.0% increase
1-20-2017: $23154B = 117.9% increase

Translation: At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Predsents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.

I now await your bigoted, partsan excuses. Please don't disappoint me.

LMAO!!! Where the fuck did you come up with that horse shit

More important since the Republicans have never done a damn thing about reducing spending and all of them support a $700 billion a year military budget just exactly what will they do if they get in.............I KNOW, CUT TAXES. It's the only thing they've done since Reagan's first term.

This place is an embeded Right Wing Rag. The stuff from the left is bumped up and disappears while the horse shit from the right prevails. Just how foolish do you Fox News advocates think other people are

Wait till November....the Blacks, the Hispanics, the Woman's Rights advocates, the Gays, the Atheists and Agnostics, those on Welfare or State medical plans, most of old people, etc. are going to show your arses a trick we know.

 

[freedombecki]

Labor Unions - A History of Violence, Murder, and Sabotage

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unless you are going to subtract a trillion and a half dollars which has been paid on the existing debt you need to get your head out of your ass. Obama had no choice but to spend that. See, Cheney said, "The Debt Doesn't Matter, Reagan Proved That."

The debt might not but we have to pay the interest every time it's due or we go into default. Anybody with a decent comprehension of the budget knows that. Pretty goddam obvious you either don't know or refuse to consider it.

Ah - not just a partisan bigot but a coward as well.

Since I knew you'd have no interest (ha!) in the truth, I have the numbers for you:

1-20-2009: $10626B
3-19-2012: $15574B = 46.6% increase, >$4.28B/day
Based on that rate, projected:
1-20-2013: $16890B = 59.0% increase
1-20-2017: $23154B = 117.9% increase

Translation: At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Predsents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.

I now await your bigoted, partsan excuses. Please don't disappoint me.

LMAO!!! Where the fuck did you come up with that horse shit

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Apparently you are either ignorant or unaccepting of the truth - either way, you've done nothing to counter what I said, and so, the fact remains:

At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.

More important since the Republicans have never done a damn thing...

More partisan bigotry. :roll:
Your masters have taught you well:
1: Blame the GOP
2: Absolve the Dems
3: Defend The Obama, at all costs

So, have been promoted to Useful Idiot Level I, or are you still a Level II?

 

[The T]

Labor Unions - A History of Violence, Murder, and Sabotage

Unions are Terrorists...whod'a thunk it?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Ah - not just a partisan bigot but a coward as well.

Since I knew you'd have no interest (ha!) in the truth, I have the numbers for you:

1-20-2009: $10626B
3-19-2012: $15574B = 46.6% increase, >$4.28B/day
Based on that rate, projected:
1-20-2013: $16890B = 59.0% increase
1-20-2017: $23154B = 117.9% increase

Translation: At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Predsents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.

I now await your bigoted, partsan excuses. Please don't disappoint me.

LMAO!!! Where the fuck did you come up with that horse shit

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Apparently you are either ignorant or unaccepting of the truth - either way, you've done nothing to counter what I said, and so, the fact remains:

At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.

More important since the Republicans have never done a damn thing...

More partisan bigotry. :roll:
Your masters have taught you well:
1: Blame the GOP
2: Absolve the Dems
3: Defend The Obama, at all costs

So, have been promoted to Useful Idiot Level I, or are you still a Level II?

Remember the annual interest


Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

 

[M14 Shooter]

LMAO!!! Where the fuck did you come up with that horse shit

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Apparently you are either ignorant or unaccepting of the truth - either way, you've done nothing to counter what I said, and so, the fact remains:

At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.

More important since the Republicans have never done a damn thing...

More partisan bigotry. :roll:
Your masters have taught you well:
1: Blame the GOP
2: Absolve the Dems
3: Defend The Obama, at all costs

So, have been promoted to Useful Idiot Level I, or are you still a Level II?

Remember the annual interest

Your impossibly lame attempt to respond indicates you not only haven't the sligtest idea of what's going on in this discussion, but also that you are SO focused on attacking the GOP, absolving the Dems and defending The Obama, you're gleefully willing to embarass yourself with intelectual half-assery like your response, above.

Nothing that you have posted changes the fact that at the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB and, since He is your Messiah, you don't care.

You're a shoe-in for that propmotion - useful idiots as blatantly idiotic as you are hard to find.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Apparently you are either ignorant or unaccepting of the truth - either way, you've done nothing to counter what I said, and so, the fact remains:

At the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB.


More partisan bigotry. :roll:
Your masters have taught you well:
1: Blame the GOP
2: Absolve the Dems
3: Defend The Obama, at all costs

So, have been promoted to Useful Idiot Level I, or are you still a Level II?

Remember the annual interest

Your impossibly lame attempt to respond indicates you not only haven't the sligtest idea of what's going on in this discussion, but also that you are SO focused on attacking the GOP, absolving the Dems and defending The Obama, you're gleefully willing to embarass yourself with intelectual half-assery like your response, above.

Nothing that you have posted changes the fact that at the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB and, since He is your Messiah, you don't care.

You're a shoe-in for that propmotion - useful idiots as blatantly idiotic as you are hard to find.

I'm not the least bit embarrassed to point out to your ignorant ass that budgets and taxes used to pretty well take care of business. Then Ronald Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy then he and G.H.W. Bush quadrupled the national debt from less than $1 trillion to more than $4 trillion. Then Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and 1994 while he still had a Democratic congress and proceeded to not only take care of expenditures but actually bought back about $450 billion of debt in fy's 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Then along came slow walkin', slow talkin' George, cut taxes twice, for the first time in our history began to borrow from Communist Chinese banks and doubled the national debt from $5.7 to nearly $12 trillion. When his final budget was completed on Sept. 30th 2009 he left an annual interest payment of $450,000,000,000 which has to be paid each year or America goes into default. When you do nothing but present the budget figures since Obama became president you gape at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Keep on watching Fox and patting yourself on the back. This November the women's advocates, the Blacks, the Hispanics, the seniors on social security and medicare, the Gays, the welfare recipients etc. are going to show you a trick we know. It's called reelecting a president.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Remember the annual interest

Your impossibly lame attempt to respond indicates you not only haven't the sligtest idea of what's going on in this discussion, but also that you are SO focused on attacking the GOP, absolving the Dems and defending The Obama, you're gleefully willing to embarass yourself with intelectual half-assery like your response, above.

Nothing that you have posted changes the fact that at the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB and, since He is your Messiah, you don't care.

You're a shoe-in for that propmotion - useful idiots as blatantly idiotic as you are hard to find.

I'm not the least bit embarrassed...

I know. That's why you're sure to get that promotion. Useful idiots such as you are a rare find.

Nothing you have posted in any way changes the fact that at the current rates, your Secular Messiah will, by himself, borrow alomost 18% more than all of the Presidents before Him, and will borrow 255% more than GWB; nothing that you have posted in any way indicates that you care, since it is The Obama running up that debt.

 

[Artevelde]

[Trade associations and guilds are early, not modern form unions.

I see none from you other than appeals for authority.

You really should do something about your English. It's a beautiful language when used properly.

Anybody who sees unions in the 16th century is a bit nuts. Try to read some serious historical literature. I can recommend Mansel Blackford or K. Austin Kerr. Martin Sklar is a bit too leftist for my taste.

So now we teach English as well?

Never heard of conversational parlance and style I see. And still running away from even the basis of this discussion. I've laid down my premise, unions are NOT required for social change in labor. Changes can come without them and have given a few examples also of how labor unions harm the public and workers they claim to protect.

All I've seen is you corking out juices and claim to be an authority without any proof, or backing up for your viewpoint. Must suck when people don't knuckle under with your claims of position or authority, plus show an inability to back up your claims. Can I recommend you put up or shut up? Can you say anything in your own words or do you have to plead to other authorities to save you

I'll be impressed if you can do any of that.

Plus, since your nationality is clearly in doubt, I'll give a miss on your authority on the English language, the ability to write it OR style and grammar on the Internet.

Find some plebe to worship you, I will only deride you till I see reason to change that view. I see MikeK is volunteering.

Pretty pathetic.
I don't see why my nationality should be in doubt. I'm a Belgian citizen, as I've posted on here before.
I see you don't respond or argue, probably because you are simply too uninformed to do so.

 

[Big Fitz]

You really should do something about your English. It's a beautiful language when used properly.

Anybody who sees unions in the 16th century is a bit nuts. Try to read some serious historical literature. I can recommend Mansel Blackford or K. Austin Kerr. Martin Sklar is a bit too leftist for my taste.

So now we teach English as well?

Never heard of conversational parlance and style I see. And still running away from even the basis of this discussion. I've laid down my premise, unions are NOT required for social change in labor. Changes can come without them and have given a few examples also of how labor unions harm the public and workers they claim to protect.

All I've seen is you corking out juices and claim to be an authority without any proof, or backing up for your viewpoint. Must suck when people don't knuckle under with your claims of position or authority, plus show an inability to back up your claims. Can I recommend you put up or shut up? Can you say anything in your own words or do you have to plead to other authorities to save you

I'll be impressed if you can do any of that.

Plus, since your nationality is clearly in doubt, I'll give a miss on your authority on the English language, the ability to write it OR style and grammar on the Internet.

Find some plebe to worship you, I will only deride you till I see reason to change that view. I see MikeK is volunteering.

Pretty pathetic.
I don't see why my nationality should be in doubt. I'm a Belgian citizen, as I've posted on here before.
I see you don't respond or argue, probably because you are simply too uninformed to do so.

Waiting for you to prove anything you dribble You've not shown how my examples of guilds, the Steamboat Pilot's Union or any other specific example is incorrect and have gone unchallenged but for unintelligent scoffing. Strangely I suspect that's all you're good at.

If you actually were a professor of history, you should have been able to rattle off 4-6 good sources of information and or links pointing to how I was wrong.

But you haven't. As for your citizenship, let's just say you'd be right in questioning me on lecturing you on Belgian history or whatever native language you choose to speak (German, French or Dutch). And you claim to have posted here before? Is this before or after your massive catalog of 60 (current) posts? If so, what was you SN before you got kicked off?

So, you gonna nut up or shut up, to use a colorful idiom?