House Passes 1.1 Trillion With 5,000 Earmarks? Say it Ain't So

[sealybobo]

Start calling your Senators and tell them to go along with the majority parties program. We elected them to get healthcare reform. We elected them to increase labor wages and bring jobs home. We elected them to cut wasteful defense spending. We elected them to stop funding the war for profit. We elected them to get the bankers under control. We elected them to make trade agreements fair for American workers. We elected them to end the unfair tax breaks to the rich.

The GOP run government cut a lot of good social programs and still increased spending. Amazing. Now after 8 years of ignoring the citizens and countries infrastructure, you want the government to get frugal? During a recession too? And the bankers are the ones getting most of the handouts? Don't you smell a bank robbery? But still you defend the mega corporations that own us and run our government as a shadow government? Oh yea, I'm a conspicacy theorist. NOT! Its all fact. Yet you defend the bankers. Why?

And you don't want the government to reign in the mega corporations, oil companies and healthcare giants who don't manufacture jack shit. They are just money skimming middle men. And remember Bush let the oil companies fake an increase in oils value and got $4 a gallon from you. Kiss your tax break goodbye.

With 10% unemployment and rising a debt of approximately 13 trillion dollars who the hell do you think is going to pay for your social programs, seally bobo??? The cookie monster??? Get freggin real.

Time to fix NAFTA and our bad trade agreements I guess. And we closed those offshore tax shelters that some 50,000 Americans were using in places like UBS and Caymens.

Hey, if you want to fix the real problem, stop paying attention to the billions the democrats are spending and check out the trillions that the Federal Reserve is looting from us.

And we continue to fund Iraq. Why? And we doubled the contractors in Iraq to protect the oil companies. Do you think they share the spoils with you? Maybe 10c a gallon they do. But did you cry about the cost of Iraq? Because I think that money was just stolen from us. The government gets back the money it spends inside America.

And you and I will pay some too. Its worth a stong economy. We can afford a little more, right? And maybe it'll mean higher wages for you, or that you don't get screwed by an insurance company.

I guarantee your quality of life is better because of liberal policies, not conservative policies. Unless you are rich. Are you?

 

[sealybobo]

These people are assholes. Fire them all!!!!!!

Senate to vote on $1.1 trillion spending bill - Yahoo! Singapore News

The Senate Budget Committee's senior Republican, Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, pushed the creation of a bipartisan deficit reduction task force as a condition for raising the debt ceiling to near $14 trillion. "If we don't do this, we'll be passing on to our kids an insolvent country, which basically means they're going to confront massive inflation or massive tax increases," he said on "Fox News Sunday

See, we can get Lieberman's vote when we need it. And next we will pay off a few Republicans to go along with our liberal agenda. We have an even bigger majority than GW had for 6 years. This is only year one. We will get this country running again folks.

If the people that want the Dems to fail would just shut the fuck up and get back to work, we'd be even better off. Remember we rallied around Bush after 9-11? And the economy got better. Of course labor didn't get to share any of the record profits they made 04-07, but whatever. And have any of you gotten any bailout? Who's getting it? The rich. The bankers. Time for the rich and the corporations to start paying their fair share. What they paid back in the 90's. They say they can't afford it? Of course. What else would you expect them to say? Wake up! And unions need to go back up to 25% of American labor. Its around 9% now? is that right? Labor got left behind. Only Democrats create a middle class. Hoover and Bush don't.

Reagan was a fake. He ran us into debt. It was HW Bush's raising taxes that created the 90's economy. It cost him a second term, but he was right to do it.

Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition.

That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.


" The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people's money. " Margaret Thatcher.

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson

You're telling us liberals now that the middle class is shrinking? We just spent 8 years arguing with you the opposite. Oh yea, you guys are big time flip floppers. I forgot, Obama's president now. Now you take the exact opposite position on everything because now Dems are in charge. LOL>

How did Fred do running for President? Who else you gonna quote, Palin? Huckabee? Newt? Rudy?

You a big Margaret Thatcher fan? Was she middle class?

 

[Maple]

I guess that Congress is going to shit that 1.1 trillion dollars. Where else they going to get it?

The rich. The corporations. They got 8 years of tax breaks. Didn't they?

I don't know how many times I need to tell you this, but our corporate tax rate is the 2nd highest in the world, 35-38%, they go overseas to get away from that. You want to raise taxes on business, then business will just lay off more people, and more business will go over-sea's where they are appreciated. Pretty soon there will be NO jobs for anyone, so whose going to support your big social agenda Seally, when no one is working therefore no one can pay taxes, therefore the government is not taking in any money to give to you. Does that make it easier for you to put together or do I need to draw you a map. Maybe one with a crayon would work better, and you would be able to piece what economics is all about.

The rich already pay over 90% of the taxes in this country and they are rich enough to leave too. BTW- Reagan passed one of the largest across the board tax cuts in history, it's called "trickle down," it worked creating 20 million new jobs, which INCREASED revenue to the government. When everyone is working everyone is paying taxes. When there are less people working, there are less people paying taxes.

Obama has a "flood the basement" keynesian theory and those people do not create jobs in the private sector. They pay off debt. The 787 billion dollar stimulus bill did nothing but stimulate government growth, nothing for the private sector which is the economic engine of our economy.

 

[Maple]

See, we can get Lieberman's vote when we need it. And next we will pay off a few Republicans to go along with our liberal agenda. We have an even bigger majority than GW had for 6 years. This is only year one. We will get this country running again folks.

If the people that want the Dems to fail would just shut the fuck up and get back to work, we'd be even better off. Remember we rallied around Bush after 9-11? And the economy got better. Of course labor didn't get to share any of the record profits they made 04-07, but whatever. And have any of you gotten any bailout? Who's getting it? The rich. The bankers. Time for the rich and the corporations to start paying their fair share. What they paid back in the 90's. They say they can't afford it? Of course. What else would you expect them to say? Wake up! And unions need to go back up to 25% of American labor. Its around 9% now? is that right? Labor got left behind. Only Democrats create a middle class. Hoover and Bush don't.

Reagan was a fake. He ran us into debt. It was HW Bush's raising taxes that created the 90's economy. It cost him a second term, but he was right to do it.

Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition.

That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.


" The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people's money. " Margaret Thatcher.

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson

You're telling us liberals now that the middle class is shrinking? We just spent 8 years arguing with you the opposite. Oh yea, you guys are big time flip floppers. I forgot, Obama's president now. Now you take the exact opposite position on everything because now Dems are in charge. LOL>

How did Fred do running for President? Who else you gonna quote, Palin? Huckabee? Newt? Rudy?

You a big Margaret Thatcher fan? Was she middle class?

Margaret Thatcher, do you even know who she was, was a brilliant woman and prime minister of England.

Did you happen to notice that I want the names of the Republican senators that voted for this 1.1 trillion dollar monstrosity with 5,000 earmarks, because you can bet your buckwheat they will be hearing from me.

How's this for a quote, especially for you, who is intent on the spreading of misery.

" A government big enough to GIVE you everything you need, is big enough to TAKE everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

 

[Maple]

See, we can get Lieberman's vote when we need it. And next we will pay off a few Republicans to go along with our liberal agenda. We have an even bigger majority than GW had for 6 years. This is only year one. We will get this country running again folks.

If the people that want the Dems to fail would just shut the fuck up and get back to work, we'd be even better off. Remember we rallied around Bush after 9-11? And the economy got better. Of course labor didn't get to share any of the record profits they made 04-07, but whatever. And have any of you gotten any bailout? Who's getting it? The rich. The bankers. Time for the rich and the corporations to start paying their fair share. What they paid back in the 90's. They say they can't afford it? Of course. What else would you expect them to say? Wake up! And unions need to go back up to 25% of American labor. Its around 9% now? is that right? Labor got left behind. Only Democrats create a middle class. Hoover and Bush don't.

Reagan was a fake. He ran us into debt. It was HW Bush's raising taxes that created the 90's economy. It cost him a second term, but he was right to do it.

Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition.

That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.


" The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people's money. " Margaret Thatcher.

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson

You're telling us liberals now that the middle class is shrinking? We just spent 8 years arguing with you the opposite. Oh yea, you guys are big time flip floppers. I forgot, Obama's president now. Now you take the exact opposite position on everything because now Dems are in charge. LOL>

How did Fred do running for President? Who else you gonna quote, Palin? Huckabee? Newt? Rudy?

You a big Margaret Thatcher fan? Was she middle class?

Another quote just for you Bobo.

" Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King Jr.

And::::

" I am in favor of taking dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." Frank Lloyd Wright.

 

[sealybobo]

Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition.

That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.


" The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people's money. " Margaret Thatcher.

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson

You're telling us liberals now that the middle class is shrinking? We just spent 8 years arguing with you the opposite. Oh yea, you guys are big time flip floppers. I forgot, Obama's president now. Now you take the exact opposite position on everything because now Dems are in charge. LOL>

How did Fred do running for President? Who else you gonna quote, Palin? Huckabee? Newt? Rudy?

You a big Margaret Thatcher fan? Was she middle class?

Margaret Thatcher, do you even know who she was, was a brilliant woman and prime minister of England.

Did you happen to notice that I want the names of the Republican senators that voted for this 1.1 trillion dollar monstrosity with 5,000 earmarks, because you can bet your buckwheat they will be hearing from me.

How's this for a quote, especially for you, who is intent on the spreading of misery.

" A government big enough to GIVE you everything you need, is big enough to TAKE everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson also said a lot of things that would go against your way of thinking. What would those things prove? If that your reply and you have nothing else to say, I would say you kind of lose the debate. Because you are suggesting that the government is trying to give me and you everything you need. Give me a fucking break.

That's why rich republicans vote for the GOP. Because they give them more of their money back.

Poor Republicans only think the GOP gives them more of their hard earned money back. You are sadly mistaken. You are more likely to benefit from the Democratic spending. The construction worker might spend money in your store.

To benefit from GOP spending, you have to be a Cayman banker, Iraqi warlord like Mook Tada El Sadr, or banker at the UBS. Or yacht salesman. Or mortgage banker, who all got rich fucking over all of us on our homes, or wallstreet ceo, who got rich fucking us on our 401k's. Do you know the facts? I bet you have very selective memory.

And I bet you don't benefit from GOPanomics. You're probably a hard on over god gays and guns. Wedge issues. That's how they con broke ass conservatives to vote GOP. YOu're all voting out of your pay grades.

 

[sealybobo]

Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition.

That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.


" The problem with socialism, is that you eventually run out of other people's money. " Margaret Thatcher.

" When the democrats start talking about taxing the rich, the middle class needs to run for cover." Fred Thompson

You're telling us liberals now that the middle class is shrinking? We just spent 8 years arguing with you the opposite. Oh yea, you guys are big time flip floppers. I forgot, Obama's president now. Now you take the exact opposite position on everything because now Dems are in charge. LOL>

How did Fred do running for President? Who else you gonna quote, Palin? Huckabee? Newt? Rudy?

You a big Margaret Thatcher fan? Was she middle class?

Another quote just for you Bobo.

" Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." Martin Luther King Jr.

And::::

" I am in favor of taking dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." Frank Lloyd Wright.

"The only intelligent conservatives are the ones with lots of money. The rest are either greedy, ignorant, brainwashed and/or racist. sealybobo

Or you could be underinformed, or misinformed. You're definately not uninformed. You're just a field slave who thinks massa treats you good.

They got you thinking your government is the enemy and corporations are the almighty.

 

[Maple]

You're telling us liberals now that the middle class is shrinking? We just spent 8 years arguing with you the opposite. Oh yea, you guys are big time flip floppers. I forgot, Obama's president now. Now you take the exact opposite position on everything because now Dems are in charge. LOL>

How did Fred do running for President? Who else you gonna quote, Palin? Huckabee? Newt? Rudy?

You a big Margaret Thatcher fan? Was she middle class?

Margaret Thatcher, do you even know who she was, was a brilliant woman and prime minister of England.

Did you happen to notice that I want the names of the Republican senators that voted for this 1.1 trillion dollar monstrosity with 5,000 earmarks, because you can bet your buckwheat they will be hearing from me.

How's this for a quote, especially for you, who is intent on the spreading of misery.

" A government big enough to GIVE you everything you need, is big enough to TAKE everything you have. Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson also said a lot of things that would go against your way of thinking. What would those things prove? If that your reply and you have nothing else to say, I would say you kind of lose the debate. Because you are suggesting that the government is trying to give me and you everything you need. Give me a fucking break.

That's why rich republicans vote for the GOP. Because they give them more of their money back.

Poor Republicans only think the GOP gives them more of their hard earned money back. You are sadly mistaken. You are more likely to benefit from the Democratic spending. The construction worker might spend money in your store.

To benefit from GOP spending, you have to be a Cayman banker, Iraqi warlord like Mook Tada El Sadr, or banker at the UBS. Or yacht salesman. Or mortgage banker, who all got rich fucking over all of us on our homes, or wallstreet ceo, who got rich fucking us on our 401k's. Do you know the facts? I bet you have very selective memory.

And I bet you don't benefit from GOPanomics. You're probably a hard on over god gays and guns. Wedge issues. That's how they con broke ass conservatives to vote GOP. YOu're all voting out of your pay grades.

First of all you need to provide those Jefferson quotes, that you say exist. I need some links, he was for limited, smaller more efficient government.

The government is going to benefit me? yeah sure they are, they are going to tax the crap out of me, my children, my grandchildren, my great grandchildren so they can give the seally bobos' of the world single payer health care and fullfill your every desire at their expense. Of course, with the debt, their STANDARD OF LIVING will be reduced by approximately 35%, but who cares about what kind of shack they can afford as long as Seally Bobo gets what she wants out of it. There are lots and lots of Seally Bobo's with their hands out for someone else to fill up, but you and your kind are an absolute drain on productive, responsible working people of this country. NO ONE OWES YOU ANYTHING, NO ONE. Not the rich, not the evil corporations, not business, not Bush, not the government, NO ONE OWES SEALLY BOBO ANYTHING.

 

[antagon]

maple, trickle down economics never increased government revenue; it was supposed to, but instead began an all-but-clinton debt-building extraveganza. reagan can be credited with many things, and i would call him a great president, but by 1984, he was hacking up massive deficit spending behind the tax breaks you laud him for. by 87 the markets had enough. it also precipitated the S&L crisis. familliar? the reagan recovery was the first of the contemporary 'jobless recoveries', what you hack at obama for.

trickle-down economics never worked, not in england, not in the US. i think there was just too much tax pre '79, and there was room to improve. reagan, certainly dubya, went overboard and borrowed japanese or chinese money to do this retarded trickling with. statistically, it never did the 'down' part to where the middle class could appreciate it. it is the middle class you want to target directly with all the preference the government can offer, how i see it.

sealybobo makes some good points, but he can go to hell with that union bullshit. that has nothing to do with american prosperity, quality of life, or worker's rights at this point. that 25% would constitute a labor elite with their own corrupt corporate hierarchy.

furthermore, wealthy people arent out to getchya or any of that 'corporate greed' nonesense. there's a case for progressive taxation and all of that, but nobody's out to punish the wealthy. we're not the second highest corporate tax environment on the planet like the maples out there think. they may have never left the country, perhaps. we are one of the best, perhaps the best, environment for business - something we've got to protect for the benefit of all americans.

 

[antagon]

tj on taxes...

"Many of the opposition [to the new Federal Constitution [maple!?]] wish to take from Congress the power of internal taxation. Calculation has convinced me that this would be very mischievous." --Thomas Jefferson

tj on progressive tax...

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson

 

[Vast LWC]

You are talking about the 2008, and 2009 budgets where the democrats controlled the Congress, and the Senate....right. I see....

And that was the Obama administrations responsibility... how? And what new spending plans did the Democrats add during their two years of being continuously vetoed exactly?

The 93' WTC bombing was a Bin Laden pet project....did you have selective memory on that. What did Clinton do? Isn't that where he bombed an asprin factory?

OK, seriously, you need to lay off the right-wing talk-radio.

First of all, Osama Bin Laden was in Somalia at the time of the 1993 attacks. Al Qaeda was based in the Sudan at the time, and was a relatively small operation.

More importantly, neither Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the 1993 WTC Bombing.

From WikiPedia:

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

The bomber Ramzi Yousef, had no ties to Bin Laden at all.

Bush I may have down sized the military to some extent, but Clinton really dumbed it down in his years in the office. Also, let the CIA, and FBI fragment to where the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. Worked out real well when the terrorists attacked on 9-11....all there was, was the finger pointing.

Having actually been in the military at the time, the Army to be specific, I can assure you that the drawdowns all started happening during the Bush administration, as the Cold War had ended. Clinton actually had little to do with proposing the force reductions, he pretty much just sat back and allowed them to continue under his watch.

The problems with the CIA and FBI had little or nothing to do with the military drawdown, but had more to do with inter-agency turf wars.

When I said Bush had balls I wasn't referring to iraq, I agree with you on that, I'm talking about going after the terrorists, something that the democrats lacked the prior 8 years. Sorry you can't admit to it, and I know you can't.

So he caught Osama Bin Laden then? Great!

And he destroyed Al Qaeda? Excellent!

Oh no, wait, he didn't do any of that. Instead he invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If by "having balls" you mean Bush apparently kept his head in the area of his balls (more specifically up his ass), then you would be 100% correct. Hell I'm surprised he didn't invade Mexico.

Yes, I voted for Bush because I couldn't bring myself to vote for a rodent with the name of John Kerry, and I do laugh at you for voting for him.
I didn't agree with Bush on spending, and the Iraq war, he was better than those other 2 goofballs your party had put up....you were begging to get beat in 2000, and 2004.

So you cast your vote for the President of the United States based on likeability rather than ability, and then you were surprised when the man that you "would rather have a beer with" fucked everything up?

Wow. And you still don't see where you went wrong, eh?

 

[Vast LWC]

Good greif, if there is anyone in need of a basic econ class it's gotta be you. Maybe we can all pass the hat to pay for your tuition.

That middle class is shrinking bobo, with the socialist agenda of your party the middle class is being reduced not expanded, socialism = shared misery. It's anything but a leg up.

Strange then that the gap between rich and poor has expanded so rapidly.

Since 1980 the share of this country's total income that went to the the top 10% increased from 34% to 50%.

Now who was it that you claim is making the middle class shrink?

 

[Vast LWC]

Hey and look at the last time the country had such a large income gap!

How interesting!

It's also interesting to note that the lowest capital gains tax rates ever coincided with those exact periods.

And of course it's very interesting to note that each of those periods was followed by a market crash and deep economic crisis...

 

[Vast LWC]

And look! During WW2, the wage gap shrunk, and socialism abounded...

And the US had the most productive 5 years ever in the history of the country.

And for the 25 years that followed, the country enjoyed an extremely profitable, productive period.

And guess what? the wage gap remained small!

What an interesting phenomenon. I wonder why that was?

 

[obama2ndterm]

In 2001, President Bush waged a largely successful campaign to curb the estate tax. But eight years after denouncing that scourge of the ultra-rich, Republicans have resurrected their "death tax" talking point, complete with its repeatedly debunked claims about the impact of estate levies on small businesses and family farms. Even as they decry the deficit spending the Bush recession has required, Congressional Republicans aided and abetted by some Democrats are pushing an estate tax windfall for the wealthiest Americans that within a decade could drain up to $1 trillion from the U.S. Treasury.

The battle lines have been joined over the expiration of the 2001 Bush tax cuts, which are due to expire next year. Included in that bonanza for the rich was the gradual reduction and temporary elimination of the estate tax. As the Washington Post noted, under President Obama budget, 99.76% of estates would pay no taxes whatsoever. We must stop giving money to `the rich!Of course, the complete falsehood of a statement is no barrier to Republicans uttering it. Now as in 2001, Republicans wrongly claimed that the estate tax led to the loss of family farms. When President Bush blasted opponents who say "the death tax doesn't cause people to sell their farms" with a mocking "don't know who they're talking to in Iowa," neither Hawkeye State farmers nor researchers could name one. As David Cay Johnston, among the nation's leading journalists when it comes to tax issues, conclude in the New York Times eight years ago:

Almost no working farmers do, according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. "It's a myth," he said. Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.

As it turns out, the rotting corpse of the "death tax" isn't the only fraud recently exhumed by the Republican Party. During the stimulus debate, Mitch McConnell and other GOP leaders falsely claimed the Obama would raise taxes on small business owners, less than 2% of which are impacted by the move to roll back the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000 annually. And as the budget battle heats up, Republican leaders parrot the epic lie that the President's proposed cap and trade system would cost American families $3,100 a year.

Sadly, the American media refuses to decapitate the "death tax" and other zombie Republican talking points that just won't die.
[Copyrights
© 2004 - 2009, Perrspectives.com. You may not reuse or redistribute Perrspectives images or other materials without permission.

 

[SFC Ollie]

And look! During WW2, the wage gap shrunk, and socialism abounded...

And the US had the most productive 5 years ever in the history of the country.

And for the 25 years that followed, the country enjoyed an extremely profitable, productive period.

And guess what? the wage gap remained small!

What an interesting phenomenon. I wonder why that was?

Part of that is because so many women who joined the work force (Ruby the riveter) refused to leave the work force after the war was over. Somehow there were jobs for all and spending was high because of all the two job incomes. Until inflation reared it's ugly head and those two incomes were almost a necessity instead of a bonus. My wife and I are proud that she never had to work outside the home. She has always been a proud home maker.

 

[Meister]

You are talking about the 2008, and 2009 budgets where the democrats controlled the Congress, and the Senate....right. I see....

And that was the Obama administrations responsibility... how? And what new spending plans did the Democrats add during their two years of being continuously vetoed exactly?

The 93' WTC bombing was a Bin Laden pet project....did you have selective memory on that. What did Clinton do? Isn't that where he bombed an asprin factory?

OK, seriously, you need to lay off the right-wing talk-radio.

First of all, Osama Bin Laden was in Somalia at the time of the 1993 attacks. Al Qaeda was based in the Sudan at the time, and was a relatively small operation.

More importantly, neither Al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden had anything to do with the 1993 WTC Bombing.

From WikiPedia:

The attack was planned by a group of conspirators including Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef's uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

The bomber Ramzi Yousef, had no ties to Bin Laden at all.



Having actually been in the military at the time, the Army to be specific, I can assure you that the drawdowns all started happening during the Bush administration, as the Cold War had ended. Clinton actually had little to do with proposing the force reductions, he pretty much just sat back and allowed them to continue under his watch.

The problems with the CIA and FBI had little or nothing to do with the military drawdown, but had more to do with inter-agency turf wars.

When I said Bush had balls I wasn't referring to iraq, I agree with you on that, I'm talking about going after the terrorists, something that the democrats lacked the prior 8 years. Sorry you can't admit to it, and I know you can't.

So he caught Osama Bin Laden then? Great!

And he destroyed Al Qaeda? Excellent!

Oh no, wait, he didn't do any of that. Instead he invaded a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

If by "having balls" you mean Bush apparently kept his head in the area of his balls (more specifically up his ass), then you would be 100% correct. Hell I'm surprised he didn't invade Mexico.

Yes, I voted for Bush because I couldn't bring myself to vote for a rodent with the name of John Kerry, and I do laugh at you for voting for him.
I didn't agree with Bush on spending, and the Iraq war, he was better than those other 2 goofballs your party had put up....you were begging to get beat in 2000, and 2004.

So you cast your vote for the President of the United States based on likeability rather than ability, and then you were surprised when the man that you "would rather have a beer with" fucked everything up?

Wow. And you still don't see where you went wrong, eh?

A left wing spin....I see, Vast. No problem, I really didn't expect to change your mind and your left wing talking points really wasn't going to change mine.

 

[Maple]

maple, trickle down economics never increased government revenue; it was supposed to, but instead began an all-but-clinton debt-building extraveganza. reagan can be credited with many things, and i would call him a great president, but by 1984, he was hacking up massive deficit spending behind the tax breaks you laud him for. by 87 the markets had enough. it also precipitated the S&L crisis. familliar? the reagan recovery was the first of the contemporary 'jobless recoveries', what you hack at obama for.

trickle-down economics never worked, not in england, not in the US. i think there was just too much tax pre '79, and there was room to improve. reagan, certainly dubya, went overboard and borrowed japanese or chinese money to do this retarded trickling with. statistically, it never did the 'down' part to where the middle class could appreciate it. it is the middle class you want to target directly with all the preference the government can offer, how i see it.

sealybobo makes some good points, but he can go to hell with that union bullshit. that has nothing to do with american prosperity, quality of life, or worker's rights at this point. that 25% would constitute a labor elite with their own corrupt corporate hierarchy.

furthermore, wealthy people arent out to getchya or any of that 'corporate greed' nonesense. there's a case for progressive taxation and all of that, but nobody's out to punish the wealthy. we're not the second highest corporate tax environment on the planet like the maples out there think. they may have never left the country, perhaps. we are one of the best, perhaps the best, environment for business - something we've got to protect for the benefit of all americans.

I respectfully disagree with your post. For one, I lived through the Jimmy Carter years and I also grew up during the cold war where we had air-raid sirens go off once a month on Fridays and we kids were told to crawl under our desks in case of a Russian nuclear attack. We were taught to do this. It was a constant fear in our community as I live very close to Norad, the defense command center for entire U.S and Canada. We were always told that our city was the number 1 hit for a nuclear bomb. You people are probably too young to remember, but it is something I will never forget. I lived it.

Reagan ended that cold war without firing one shot, yes he ran up the deficit and out spent the Russians on defense, they caved and fell as a nation, no longer able to keep up with our defense spending and no longer the threat they used to be.

Reagan inherited a deep recession from Jimmy Carter, the weakest President in history only to be surpassed by Obama in the near future. I remember, because I lived through it, 21% interest rates on mortgage loans, 14% inflation, very high unemployment. It was misery and it was shared misery by the entire nation.

Reagan spent 8 months after he was elected and passed an across the board tax cut, that stimulated the economy creating 20 million new jobs, with more people back to work and more people paying taxes he increased government revenue.

I never stated that he did not deficit spend to accomplish this, but what he did achieve was a great thing through deficit spending, which lead eventually to a balanced budget during Clinton's term.

What we see currently is a whole bunch of deficit spending that is doing little to nothing to create private sector jobs and instead is going to study why " pigs stink" in Iowa.

There'r your difference and it is night and day.

 

[Maple]

Reagan Administration Accomplishments 1981-1989 — The Forerunner This is just a small list of the great accomplishments of Reagan and the great President and Leader that he was.

Reagan Administration Accomplishments 1981-1989
By Editorial Staff
Published December 1988

1. President Reagan’s economic policies stimulated the economy, creating 17 million new jobs. One-fourth of the new jobs were created in 68 consecutive months. Black unemployment was cut in half.

2. We were given incentives to save our money, to work, and to invest because of Reagan’s tax reforms.

3. The inflation rate decreased to less than 4.4%. Family income rose 12%.

4. We are now experiencing the longest and strongest peacetime prosperity in the history of the nation.

5. We are experiencing the best peacetime relationship with the Soviet Union in our history. We have also seen the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

6. We are now keeping the peace. We drew the line in Grenada, Libya, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf, and no countries have fallen to communism during the Reagan era.

7. The U.S. military was refurbished and strengthened.

8. There is now a call for prayer in schools. The Republican adminstration has been lobbying to give this deserved religious freedom.

9. We have seen a return to traditional values. Under Reagan, we have seen a cut in federal funding of abortions; emphasis on a strong family unit; and the development of family-oriented public policy.

10. Educational leaders are now working to sustain moral values and reestablish a clear understanding of right and wrong. The need for values in the curriculum has been trumpeted by the Reagan administration.

11. People from other nations are flocking to America to follow our example. Our principles of civil and economic freedom are now being copied all over the world.

America Just Prior to the Reagan Administration

1. Seven million Americans were unemployed.

2. We were told to live on less, to buckle our belts and to prepare for scarcity.

3. Americans went through two of the worst years of inflation in 60 years. There was a 13% inflation rate. Family income dropped and we had the highest tax bill in our history.

4. We were on the verge of a major recession.

5. With our cold wars during the ’70s, we inspired our enemies not to be afraid of us. The Soviets refused to come to the bargaining table. Cultural exchanges between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. came to a halt.

 

[jeffrockit]

I'll tell you what, why don't you elect some people that don't just repeat talking points about "Lower Taxes and Fiscal Responsibility", and then when the Republicans that YOU VOTED FOR are actually in office, we can reduce the deficit and cut programs. And they can be "the bad guys" because they live up to their campaign promises.

K?[/QUOTE]

How about we stop with the partisan BS and the politicans decide at some point to do the right thing and not wait for the next cycle. Neither side truly cares for the people who put them in office. They (dems and reps) care about 1 thing...power. To believe otherwise is just foolish. Why can't any of them be "the good guys"?