Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Anyone following that link and actually reading that report can see that Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate that will LOWER our debt and deficits.
Now where is their comparable report on Barry's budget?
Oh gosh..Paul lards bills with earmarks as well.
He talks a good game sometimes..but then he veers off into fantasy land.
You guys who love him so much don't listen to everything he says.
Just recently in debates..he said that birth control pills were the result of immorality.
Really?
Seriously?
And this cat is a "liberatarian"?
obama plans to cut the deficit?
His plan (which he'll probably back away from like he does most everything else) plans to cut the deficit by increasing taxes enough to cover his even further increase of spending.
More taxes and more spending, a great way to remedy a garbage economy.....................
His plan is to let the Bush tax cuts expire...as they should. As well as cutting loopholes and changes some of the tax code to be more friendly to domestic enterprises.
There's actually a tax cut..for some businesses.
Maybe Obama should go with Ron Paul this time...
Study: Candidates' plans lead to huge deficits
February 24, 2012 RSS Feed Print
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Huge tax cuts in the budget plans of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would produce the kinds of trillion-dollar-plus deficits that the GOP candidates are blaming on President Barack Obama.
That's the finding by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group.
The study also says the more modest tax and spending plans of Mitt Romney wouldn't make a dent in deficits that are on track to average $800 billion or so a year over the coming decade under current trends and policies and could add to them considerably.
Only Ron Paul, who calls for wrenching budget cuts that dwarf anything proposed by his three rivals, would reduce the flow of red ink. But even Paul's plan would leave in place a deficit in the $500 billion range by the end of his first term.
The candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with those of President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week. Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.
Study: Candidates' plans lead to huge deficits - US News and World Report
No it's not.
And none of the GOP candidates (That I know of anyway) are calling for a "ban". They are calling for allowing religious business to not cover contraception. By the way, there are certain ailments that are treated with birth control pills..this issue is not trivial.
And Dr. Paul also "feels" that businesses should be allowed to serve who they want. That, by the way, was the reason the civil rights movement began in the first place.
Correct, he's a capitalist.
Oh nonsense.
Tax payer funding fosters businesses. Without infrastructure, security and judicial elements, these "capitalistic" ventures would not exist. Telling a tax payer he cannot patronize something he pays for..is bullshit.
His plan (which he'll probably back away from like he does most everything else) plans to cut the deficit by increasing taxes enough to cover his even further increase of spending.
More taxes and more spending, a great way to remedy a garbage economy.....................
His plan is to let the Bush tax cuts expire...as they should. As well as cutting loopholes and changes some of the tax code to be more friendly to domestic enterprises.
There's actually a tax cut..for some businesses.
Didn't he say all that in 2008 and none of it has happened?
Maybe Obama should go with Ron Paul this time...
Study: Candidates' plans lead to huge deficits
February 24, 2012 RSS Feed Print
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Huge tax cuts in the budget plans of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would produce the kinds of trillion-dollar-plus deficits that the GOP candidates are blaming on President Barack Obama.
That's the finding by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group.
The study also says the more modest tax and spending plans of Mitt Romney wouldn't make a dent in deficits that are on track to average $800 billion or so a year over the coming decade under current trends and policies and could add to them considerably.
Only Ron Paul, who calls for wrenching budget cuts that dwarf anything proposed by his three rivals, would reduce the flow of red ink. But even Paul's plan would leave in place a deficit in the $500 billion range by the end of his first term.
The candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with those of President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week. Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.
Study: Candidates' plans lead to huge deficits - US News and World Report
When is the deficit cutting going to start with Obama? He promised to cut it in half by the 3rd year in office. Didn't happen.
His plan is to let the Bush tax cuts expire...as they should. As well as cutting loopholes and changes some of the tax code to be more friendly to domestic enterprises.
There's actually a tax cut..for some businesses.
Didn't he say all that in 2008 and none of it has happened?
Guess that puts to rest the notion we are a dictatorship..now don't it?
Correct, he's a capitalist.
Oh nonsense.
Tax payer funding fosters businesses. Without infrastructure, security and judicial elements, these "capitalistic" ventures would not exist. Telling a tax payer he cannot patronize something he pays for..is bullshit.
And under the current system I'm sure all sorts of racists are getting money from the exact ppl they hate. If someone were bigoted against me so much so that they wouldn't want to sell to me, i'd like to know that so i can take my business elsewhere.
The civil rights movement certainly didn't hurt the pockets of racists.
Anyone following that link and actually reading that report can see that Dr. Paul is the only Republican candidate that will LOWER our debt and deficits.
Now where is their comparable report on Barry's budget?
Oh gosh..Paul lards bills with earmarks as well.
He talks a good game sometimes..but then he veers off into fantasy land.
You guys who love him so much don't listen to everything he says.
Just recently in debates..he said that birth control pills were the result of immorality.
Really?
Seriously?
And this cat is a "liberatarian"?
IOW, you won't provide any PROOF of whether Barry will lower the deficit or if so, HOW he'll do it, so you want to change the subject to bash the ONLY fiscal conservative in the race.
Deflection and deception, figures...
read here-For this reason, I am sending to the Congress this detailed plan to pay for this jobs bill and realize
more than $3 trillion in net deficit reduction over the next 10 years. Combined with the approximately
$1 trillion in savings from the first part of the Budget Control Act, this would generate more than
$4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade. This would bring the Nation to the point where
current spending is no longer adding to our debt and where our debt is no longer increasing as a
share of our economyan important milestone on the way to restoring fiscal discipline and moving
us toward balance.
Didn't he say all that in 2008 and none of it has happened?
Guess that puts to rest the notion we are a dictatorship..now don't it?
But you agree, he said all that in 2008, then had a democrat majority, and it still didn't happen, right?
So why should I think it'll happen in 2013?
Oh nonsense.
Tax payer funding fosters businesses. Without infrastructure, security and judicial elements, these "capitalistic" ventures would not exist. Telling a tax payer he cannot patronize something he pays for..is bullshit.
And under the current system I'm sure all sorts of racists are getting money from the exact ppl they hate. If someone were bigoted against me so much so that they wouldn't want to sell to me, i'd like to know that so i can take my business elsewhere.
The civil rights movement certainly didn't hurt the pockets of racists.
I could care less if a person is racist or not. So long as it's not the law of the land, how a person feels about another person makes very little difference.
Restricting access to goods and services..does.
his plan does cut the deficit, although the debt increases as it would until the debt begins to be paid down.Maybe Obama should go with Ron Paul this time...
Study: Candidates' plans lead to huge deficits
February 24, 2012 RSS Feed Print
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) Huge tax cuts in the budget plans of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum would produce the kinds of trillion-dollar-plus deficits that the GOP candidates are blaming on President Barack Obama.
That's the finding by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington-based budget watchdog group.
The study also says the more modest tax and spending plans of Mitt Romney wouldn't make a dent in deficits that are on track to average $800 billion or so a year over the coming decade under current trends and policies and could add to them considerably.
Only Ron Paul, who calls for wrenching budget cuts that dwarf anything proposed by his three rivals, would reduce the flow of red ink. But even Paul's plan would leave in place a deficit in the $500 billion range by the end of his first term.
The candidates' budget plans provide a sharp contrast with those of President Barack Obama, who released his latest fiscal blueprint just last week. Like Obama, the GOP candidates have the luxury of suspending political reality and assuming lawmakers would quickly enact their ideas into law.
Study: Candidates' plans lead to huge deficits - US News and World Report
Please, please, PLEASE show me where Obama plans to cut the deficit. His own bullshit budget shows ANOTHER trillion added to it.
Guess that puts to rest the notion we are a dictatorship..now don't it?
But you agree, he said all that in 2008, then had a democrat majority, and it still didn't happen, right?
So why should I think it'll happen in 2013?
It's probably going to take a bit longer then one year to get anything done. But depending on how the election goes..the current configuration of congress could be very different.
And it seems the more the general electorate is learning about the Republican agenda..the less they like. Even Republicans are staying home.
And under the current system I'm sure all sorts of racists are getting money from the exact ppl they hate. If someone were bigoted against me so much so that they wouldn't want to sell to me, i'd like to know that so i can take my business elsewhere.
The civil rights movement certainly didn't hurt the pockets of racists.
I could care less if a person is racist or not. So long as it's not the law of the land, how a person feels about another person makes very little difference.
Restricting access to goods and services..does.
Exactly, so that policy of not putting the highlighter on racists helps the racists.
I would think with all the choices in america, for example, i would think black person wouldn't want to give his/her business to a racist.
If I learned one of the regular places I take my business to was run by somebody who hates non-believers or hates white ppl, i'd go elsewhere.
Society is always better at fixing problems in society than government is.
But you agree, he said all that in 2008, then had a democrat majority, and it still didn't happen, right?
So why should I think it'll happen in 2013?
It's probably going to take a bit longer then one year to get anything done. But depending on how the election goes..the current configuration of congress could be very different.
And it seems the more the general electorate is learning about the Republican agenda..the less they like. Even Republicans are staying home.
So it's not going to happen in 2013 in your opinion, in my opinion it'll never happen. At least we can agree in part.
Your second sentence only tells half the story, there's a reason both Congress and Obama's approval ratings have been plummeting.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™
Just scroll down and look at the charts, I don't think americans trust either of our garbage parties.
It's probably going to take a bit longer then one year to get anything done. But depending on how the election goes..the current configuration of congress could be very different.
And it seems the more the general electorate is learning about the Republican agenda..the less they like. Even Republicans are staying home.
So it's not going to happen in 2013 in your opinion, in my opinion it'll never happen. At least we can agree in part.
Your second sentence only tells half the story, there's a reason both Congress and Obama's approval ratings have been plummeting.
Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports
Just scroll down and look at the charts, I don't think americans trust either of our garbage parties.
Well you are partly right. Radical conservativism has been highly successful in denigrating the United States government..and to some extent..the behavior of some politicians..on both sides of the aisle..isn't helping.
It's going to be a tough slog. But as Clinton showed, it can be done. And hopefully at the end of the day..another George W. Bush doesn't get in to whack everything down.
I could care less if a person is racist or not. So long as it's not the law of the land, how a person feels about another person makes very little difference.
Restricting access to goods and services..does.
Exactly, so that policy of not putting the highlighter on racists helps the racists.
I would think with all the choices in america, for example, i would think black person wouldn't want to give his/her business to a racist.
If I learned one of the regular places I take my business to was run by somebody who hates non-believers or hates white ppl, i'd go elsewhere.
Society is always better at fixing problems in society than government is.
How old are you..and where do you live?
Do you think every town in America has multiple places to buy stuff? Do you think it was always that way?
I've been to small towns. Real small towns. Towns with ONE GENERAL STORE. Hard to believe..isn't it?
But places like that exist.
And if it's that one place you depend on..then you don't have much of a choice.
No amount of "capitalism" is going to change that.
And ain't it you guys that are against "Mob Rule"?
Oh gosh.
Exactly, so that policy of not putting the highlighter on racists helps the racists.
I would think with all the choices in america, for example, i would think black person wouldn't want to give his/her business to a racist.
If I learned one of the regular places I take my business to was run by somebody who hates non-believers or hates white ppl, i'd go elsewhere.
Society is always better at fixing problems in society than government is.
How old are you..and where do you live?
Do you think every town in America has multiple places to buy stuff? Do you think it was always that way?
I've been to small towns. Real small towns. Towns with ONE GENERAL STORE. Hard to believe..isn't it?
But places like that exist.
And if it's that one place you depend on..then you don't have much of a choice.
No amount of "capitalism" is going to change that.
And ain't it you guys that are against "Mob Rule"?
Oh gosh.
Which would open a market for store to open nearby that isn't bigoted, or pretty much anything can be bought online.
Has nothing to do with mob rule, has to do with capitalism. If a consumer doesn't like the morals of an owner or company, they can take their business elsewhere. Instead in the current system, racist assholes get rich off of the ppl they hate.
How old are you..and where do you live?
Do you think every town in America has multiple places to buy stuff? Do you think it was always that way?
I've been to small towns. Real small towns. Towns with ONE GENERAL STORE. Hard to believe..isn't it?
But places like that exist.
And if it's that one place you depend on..then you don't have much of a choice.
No amount of "capitalism" is going to change that.
And ain't it you guys that are against "Mob Rule"?
Oh gosh.
Which would open a market for store to open nearby that isn't bigoted, or pretty much anything can be bought online.
Has nothing to do with mob rule, has to do with capitalism. If a consumer doesn't like the morals of an owner or company, they can take their business elsewhere. Instead in the current system, racist assholes get rich off of the ppl they hate.
Basically I asked how old you were..because you probably don't remember Jim Crow laws. That was the result of "State Rule".
Blacks were not allowed to patronize many places. It's only when they protested this..that the Federal government took notice..and changed the State laws.
That was both "Mob Rule" and letting markets function as they wanted to.
Which would open a market for store to open nearby that isn't bigoted, or pretty much anything can be bought online.
Has nothing to do with mob rule, has to do with capitalism. If a consumer doesn't like the morals of an owner or company, they can take their business elsewhere. Instead in the current system, racist assholes get rich off of the ppl they hate.
Basically I asked how old you were..because you probably don't remember Jim Crow laws. That was the result of "State Rule".
Blacks were not allowed to patronize many places. It's only when they protested this..that the Federal government took notice..and changed the State laws.
That was both "Mob Rule" and letting markets function as they wanted to.
And racism has plummeted since then, just like the demand for racist companies/goods has and i can't give thanks to gov't for people moving away from racism. That was the people who made that change.
