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.
The government has never been the problem here. People that hate government are a problem and people who fail to recognize that Corporations supply the most $$ to government are the problem. The PEOPLE running the government was what was intended. Welcome To America.
You know, I actually think you make a relevant point. Our entire problem, all party politics aside, is how We The People have come to view our Government and it's role. Every election, we go out there and vote for the guy/gal who promises to "bring home the bacon" and give us stuff. It's the nature of the beast we've created to continue growing and expanding, increasing power and taxation while gobbling up individual freedom and liberty in the process.
I love a story Walter E. Williams tells to illustrate this point. He is often asked why he doesn't run for office, and his standard response is, "because no one would vote for me!" He continues on entertaining his potential run... "I would tell you that I've read the Constitution, I know what it says the role of Federal government is, and I don't believe it should be doing about 90% of what it's doing! So, when you elect me, I promise I won't be bringing home the bacon and I won't be voting for things the government has no business funding." He goes on to ask, "how many votes do you imagine I would get with such a message?"
Williams point is, whether Republican or Democrat, we vote for the candidate who is going to do the most for us personally, and this has become the way things are done. We can't seem to break this nasty cycle because it has become the way we measure a "good" candidate... what are they going to do for ME? The more they do, the bigger the Federal Leviathan becomes and the worse the problem gets. Obviously, it's going to take society thinking of Government in a different dynamic, which it's currently unwilling to do.
No, the real problem is that we have people like Williams who think America would function better if we ran like Somalia with a government that doesn't do anything.
Again, you are proven wrong. Your statement was that Clinton balanced the budget. As the evidence clearly shows, he did not. Now you want to claim he "got it under control" but that is also a lie. Congress voted to count the Social Security trust fund as part of the general fund, so Clinton spent that money and still ran a $200 billion+ deficit every year. At the end of his 8 years, we were $1.2 trillion MORE in debt, plus we had spent most of the money in the Social Security trust fund.
Congress has always counted the Social Security Trust fund as part of the balance.
The point being that we were taking in more money than we were spending. And if Bush hadn't come along and given a huge tax cut to the rich while putting a war on a credit card, we'd probably be fiscally solvent by now.
Joe, you do realize that tax receipts GREW during the Bush presidency, right? Even Obama knows this - although he told you otherwise.
[
With your insurance comment, what you like is to be able to screw the insurance carrier and make other people pay for your problems. The reason that won't work will become increasingly more apparent as you watch health care become more and more rationed by central government and taken out of your hands entirely. But being that you are an economic illiterate and useful idiot, you didn't want to listen, so now the cake's in the oven.
Guy, most of the world has single payer and they have better health care than we do and they spend less.
the sooner we get there, the better.
In the mean time, limiting the mendacity in the glass offices is a good starting point.
YOu know what, all your conservative horseshit. We tried it your way. We got the Recession of 2008.
When I was growing up, my parents used to say Democrats gave us wars and Republicans gave us Recessions.
Now REpublicans give us both.
And no good reason to ever vote for them again.
We're done with you. Good riddance. Enjoy political oblivion and say hi the the Whigs for me.
Congress has always counted the Social Security Trust fund as part of the balance.
The point being that we were taking in more money than we were spending. And if Bush hadn't come along and given a huge tax cut to the rich while putting a war on a credit card, we'd probably be fiscally solvent by now.
Joe, you do realize that tax receipts GREW during the Bush presidency, right? Even Obama knows this - although he told you otherwise.
No they didn't, they went down for a few years before going up.
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary
ETA that I swear your original post said they grew every year. My apologies.
[
Sorry, joey boy. But you are in an ever shrinking minority. Most of america has learned what you refuse to learn. liberalism, socialism, marxism, collectivism, communism DO NOT WORK, NEVER HAVE, NEVER WILL.
you had your chance with obama and he failed. Barry has destroyed the dem party for the next 50 years----------------and the country thanks you.
[
Joe, educate me; how was Senate Democrat Byron Dorgan, in 1999, able to foresee a financial collapse caused by merging banks with investment houses and insurance companies, if it was Bush who was responsible for crashing the market and causing a recession?
[l]
Liberals don't have brains. It's really as simple as that.
Relax, have a drink, and chill the fuck out.
I don't like the term "single payer" because it's dishonest. What it actually means is we all pay. It should be called "all payer" instead. We're all going to be paying for every hypochondriac and freeloader who thinks the doctor's office is their personal drug dealer. Now that pot is being legalized, we'll also be paying for every pot head's stash. People with legitimate health problems will be neglected and forced onto waiting lists for surgeries and treatments because of a massive shortage of medical professionals who no longer have a monetary motivation for working in their field. Meanwhile, since we're all paying through the government, the medical providers will continue to raise prices because there is no free market consumer anymore to control prices through competition.
I love how the proponents all run to the examples of "other countries" because that's the meme they've been trained to repeat like mindless zombies. The thing is, those "other countries" don't have a consumer-driven society with constitutional rights and freedom of choice. The people are accustomed to being content with whatever morsels are doled out by government and being thankful for it.
If the government says you have to wait 2 years to have cancer surgery, that's just life. If they say you're too old for a pacemaker, oh well. They are also not accustomed to not being able to pick up the phone and call 1-800-LAWSUIT and be entitled to compensation for injuries or misdiagnosis. We're kind of spoiled to those things because we live in America, but we'll have to get used to the new way things are done.
Meanwhile, in addition to all the new taxes we'll be having to pay in order to pay off our debts, we'll also be footing the bill for this massive government health program that will be far more inefficient and bureaucratically bloated than anything we've ever known before. But this is what happens when you let the insane run the asylum.
I will ask yet again, which current Obama administration member AND former US Senator said these words;
Any guesses? Anyone?
While having a doctor who wants to help people is great, I think the point is that if someone is choosing a career, the potential income from that career is almost surely going to be a factor.
So, while in any system many doctors will hopefully choose their profession based on a desire to heal people, you are likely to get more of them to make that choice if they can get paid well for doing it.
[
Joe, educate me; how was Senate Democrat Byron Dorgan, in 1999, able to foresee a financial collapse caused by merging banks with investment houses and insurance companies, if it was Bush who was responsible for crashing the market and causing a recession?
[l]
So Bush had an eight year warning that this was a possibility, and he was pretty much reading My Pet Goat again.
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversights report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Maes former chief executive officer, OFHEOs report shows that over half of Mr. Raines compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulators examination of the companys accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Macknown as Government-sponsored entities or GSEsand the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEOs report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEOs report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
In the year since it was passed by the Senate Banking Committee, legislation to reform the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has languished in the Senate.
The problem, were told, is that Senate Democrats do not like the provision of the bill that would severely restrict Fannie and Freddie's accumulation of portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.
These portfolios now amount to almost $1.5 trillion and are carried with debt almost equal to that amount, requiring Fannie and Freddie to assume enormous interest rate risk. Those who favor restrictions on the size of the portfolios argue that this risk, if not well managed, could adversely affect the financial condition of one or both of these organizations, with a resulting big hit to the economy and an enormous taxpayer bailout.
Instead, proponents of portfolio limitations note that Fannie and Freddie can carry out all their secondary-market activities simply by creating and issuing mortgage-backed securities, a process that does not require them to take interest rate risk.
What strikes me as really funny about this is, Obama is out there today crowing about.....
What's ironic to me, is the way hardcore cult-tard fiscal conservatives suddenly just vanish, the moment a POTUS with an (R) at the end of their name takes office.
Kinda like hardcore cult-tard useful idiots
While having a doctor who wants to help people is great, I think the point is that if someone is choosing a career, the potential income from that career is almost surely going to be a factor.
So, while in any system many doctors will hopefully choose their profession based on a desire to heal people, you are likely to get more of them to make that choice if they can get paid well for doing it.
I don't mind doctors being well compensated for their skill.
But a lot of the money spent on medicine are on people who really provide no value, they are simply sucking off the system. I mean execs who make 8 figures to deny care, I mean the three employees every doctor's office has to process claims, I mean the labs that perform unnecessary tests so the doctor can either cover himself from lawsuits or get a kickback for referrels
We waste a lot of money to get the worst health care in the industrialized world.
[
Joe, educate me; how was Senate Democrat Byron Dorgan, in 1999, able to foresee a financial collapse caused by merging banks with investment houses and insurance companies, if it was Bush who was responsible for crashing the market and causing a recession?
[l]
So Bush had an eight year warning that this was a possibility, and he was pretty much reading My Pet Goat again.
Wrong again my friend, quite wrong as a matter of fact.
l]
[
Joe, educate me; how was Senate Democrat Byron Dorgan, in 1999, able to foresee a financial collapse caused by merging banks with investment houses and insurance companies, if it was Bush who was responsible for crashing the market and causing a recession?
[l]
So Bush had an eight year warning that this was a possibility, and he was pretty much reading My Pet Goat again.
Wrong again my friend, quite wrong as a matter of fact.
First, from the NY Times (09.11.2003)
New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com
The democrat response, from the same article;
So, the Republicans want a fix, the Democrats don't. Let's continue...
On May 25, 2005, Senator John McCain stood on the Senate floor and announced his intentions to pass the 'Federal Housing Enterprise Regulartory Reform Act of 2005.' His is the transcript of that statement;
FLOOR STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN McCAIN ON THE FEDERAL HOUSING ENTERPRISE REGULATORY REFORM ACT OF 2005 - Floor Statements - United States Senator John McCain
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversights report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Maes former chief executive officer, OFHEOs report shows that over half of Mr. Raines compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulators examination of the companys accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.
For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Macknown as Government-sponsored entities or GSEsand the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEOs report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEOs report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.
I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
So, what happened to the 'Federal Housing Enterprise Regulartory Reform Act of 2005?'
From Peter Wallison, 09.15.2006;
Facing Facts on Fannie and Freddie - Economics - AEI
In the year since it was passed by the Senate Banking Committee, legislation to reform the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has languished in the Senate.
The problem, were told, is that Senate Democrats do not like the provision of the bill that would severely restrict Fannie and Freddie's accumulation of portfolios of mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.
These portfolios now amount to almost $1.5 trillion and are carried with debt almost equal to that amount, requiring Fannie and Freddie to assume enormous interest rate risk. Those who favor restrictions on the size of the portfolios argue that this risk, if not well managed, could adversely affect the financial condition of one or both of these organizations, with a resulting big hit to the economy and an enormous taxpayer bailout.
Instead, proponents of portfolio limitations note that Fannie and Freddie can carry out all their secondary-market activities simply by creating and issuing mortgage-backed securities, a process that does not require them to take interest rate risk.
But listen, you don't have to take my word on any of this. You have the ability to SEE and HEAR the actual democrat comments back from when all this was occurring;
What strikes me as really funny about this is, Obama is out there today crowing about.....
What's ironic to me, is the way hardcore cult-tard fiscal conservatives suddenly just vanish, the moment a POTUS with an (R) at the end of their name takes office.
Kinda like hardcore cult-tard useful idiots
The hardcore fiscal conservatives didn't just 'vanish,' they evolved. Into what? Think about it, I'll wait...
What strikes me as really funny about this is, Obama is out there today crowing about.....
What's ironic to me, is the way hardcore cult-tard fiscal conservatives suddenly just vanish, the moment a POTUS with an (R) at the end of their name takes office.
Kinda like hardcore cult-tard useful idiots
The hardcore fiscal conservatives didn't just 'vanish,' they evolved. Into what? Think about it, I'll wait...
Uh, no. Not really. I mean in your addled brain, you probably think that's "clever".
But the fact is, whenever we get Republicans in the White House, we get HUGE deficits. Between giving tax breaks to their rich buddies and buying expensive toys for the military that don't work, they spend like a sailor on leave at a whorehouse.
[
Joey's response: Butbutbut...IT'S BUSH'S FAULT!
