Republican math: 22 million + 96 million = less than 10 million

[elvis]

What it does prove is that Republicans really know how to raise money. 96 million? That's a lot of teabags.

It also shows they are bigger spenders than than the Democrats ever were. No wonder the deficit exploded during the Bush administration. And what did Bush do? He left the cost of war off his budgets. They weren't real budgets, they were lies. Bush hid the cost. Steele has tried to hide the cost. Notice a "pattern" here?

there was a log of teabagging going on when you visited Zona's house, too.

 

[elvis]

of course rdung had no problem with clinton and his cigars.

 

[rdean]

of course rdung had no problem with clinton and his cigars.

And how much did he spend on those cigars?

 

[elvis]

of course rdung had no problem with clinton and his cigars.

And how much did he spend on those cigars?

what difference does it make how they spent the money? they wasted it. doesn't matter what on. but earlier you said they were freaks because of their sexual appetites. but we know about your double standards, now don't we Monica?

 

[manu1959]

pretty cool...i gooled rnc expense report.....tons of stuf came up about this.....so i gooled dnc expense report...guess what came up.....you got it ...rnc expense report....

what is the dnc hiding.....

 

[manu1959]

of course rdung had no problem with clinton and his cigars.

And how much did he spend on those cigars?

what difference does it make how they spent the money? they wasted it. doesn't matter what on. but earlier you said they were freaks because of their sexual appetites. but we know about your double standards, now don't we Monica?

monica...holy crap....kennedy was a sex freak...gary hart....john edwards.....clinton....

they probably just think it is "redistribution of sperm" to the less fortunate....

 

[manu1959]

of course rdung had no problem with clinton and his cigars.

And how much did he spend on those cigars?

nothing the american people bought those ....

 

[elvis]

And how much did he spend on those cigars?

what difference does it make how they spent the money? they wasted it. doesn't matter what on. but earlier you said they were freaks because of their sexual appetites. but we know about your double standards, now don't we Monica?

monica...holy crap....kennedy was a sex freak...gary hart....john edwards.....clinton....

they probably just think it is "redistribution of sperm" to the less fortunate....

I think most presidents have screwed around. I don't like it but nature of the beast. but dean the partisan hack likes picking on republicans when they do it and looks the other way when the dems do it.

 

[rdean]

of course rdung had no problem with clinton and his cigars.

And how much did he spend on those cigars?

what difference does it make how they spent the money? they wasted it. doesn't matter what on. but earlier you said they were freaks because of their sexual appetites. but we know about your double standards, now don't we Monica?

It makes a huge difference. Clinton didn't spend money from Democrats to play BJ. Monica was an adult and NOT a stripper costing thousands of dollars.

Republicans used money given to them in 5s and 10s by people being taken advantage of for political reasons. Not to watch lesbian sex and bondage. At least, I don't think so. Isn't the Republican party all Christian and right wing conservative? Democrats don't pretend to be all holier than thou, but act like dogs in heat.

Ah, lipstick on a pig. Yea, my dogs name is "Lipstick".

 

[beowolfe]

44 - FEC report details lavish Republican spending, including nearly $2,000 at Voyeur West Hollywood

The RNC had more than $22 million on hand when Steele arrived last year, but is down to under $10 million now despite raising $96 million during that time, records show.

------------------------------------

Micheal Steele, one of the most vocal critics of President Obama's handling of money is one of the best fundraisers the GOP has ever had. Except, he also knows how to spend. Are Republicans really the best choice to be running the countries finances? Have we seen this type of Republican Money Management before?

Obama and Pelosi just sank the country $2 TRILLION more in debt and you are worried what the RNC (not government) is spending?

Nice attempt at diversion.

Hmmm, let's see.
5 to 7 trillion for a Republican "gift" to the drug companies.
2.5 trillion dollar tax cut (more than half to the top 5%)
Tax cut while waging two wars totaling 3 trillion (that's insane)

And what does Obama do? He spends more money to keep our shattered economy out of a Republican manufactured "Great Depression", which seems to have worked. But according to Republicans, Obama is the bad guy? Is this happening, or is it the hash?

Kinda surreal, isn't it?

 

[jeffrockit]

I don't need links. I have a memory.

Obama's first budget was nearly $500B more than Bush's last one. He also added $800B in Stimulus.

In addition, he is not using the TARP repayments to reduce the deficit; but is recycling them into pork.

Do the math.

Bush didn't include the cost of either war. That right there was 3 trillion unaccounted for. Bush also left off the cost his his drug bill that will cost anywhere from 5 to 15 trillion.

What did Obama even spend anything on other than trying to save a ruined economy and for the first time including the cost of two wars in his budget.

And the HC bill was scored by the CBO based on "gimmicks" the Obama and the Dems used to make the accounting work.
Op-Ed Contributor - The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform - NYTimes.com

Bottom line is, both sides are guilty for using creative accounting to make the numbers appear better than they are. The question is; why are we fighting each other when we should be joining forces to fight the politicians. This partisan divide only helps the politicians. Are we just too dumb to see that they only care about increasing their power and passing legislation that really only helps that cause?

 

[American Horse]

Hmmm, let's see.
5 to 7 trillion for a Republican "gift" to the drug companies.
2.5 trillion dollar tax cut (more than half to the top 5%)
Tax cut while waging two wars totaling 3 trillion (that's insane)

And what does Obama do? He spends more money to keep our shattered economy out of a Republican manufactured "Great Depression", which seems to have worked. But according to Republicans, Obama is the bad guy? Is this happening, or is it the hash?

Everyday I get to see who the partisan people are on this forum.
Look at what you wrote. It is humorous. Maybe true. But humorous.

You refer to a republican initiative as a gift without proof and you call a democratic initiative a success without proof.

What you believe is fact, what others beleive is fiction.
Maybe being that way works for you, but it does not work for America.

Actually, if you bother to do any research on the Republican drug money give away, it becomes pretty clear.

Funnier still coming from Reaganomics expert Bruce Bartlett:

Moreover, there is a critical distinction--the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. ...
<Snip>

Bruce Bartlett's new book is: The New American Economy: The Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward. He writes a weekly column for Forbes.

So what's with Bruce Bartlett? Looks like he wants to sell a book and perhaps join the "powers-that-be."

The Ds hate the Part D drug benefit most of all because it was passed by Rs, never mind what it accomplishes: it provides a drug benefit to seniors, those least able to afford them - we can safely presume the demographic of people most dependent on drugs to sustain a high quality of life and remain well and out of the hospital and emergency rooms (a cost savings) - and it does it with some competitive forces being involved - the senior pays a small co-pay and saves most when they use generics rather than the more costly name brands. But not least of which the Ds hate the Part D plan because it was drafted and passed by Rs and because the drug companies actually get paid for providing drugs to those who need them.

And Part D has succeeded in coming in lower than projections; notice in the chart below (A 75 year projection) that the 2009 projection (based on actual experience) is 17.5% lower than the initial un-audited 2005 projection; 9% lower than the first audited year and the first year with an influx of participants which was 2006; 14% lower than the second experiential year's projection which was 2007; and 9% less than the third experiential year of 2008. The trend is a positive one, and that is because it encourages competition, and encourages healthy elderly to join the plan with certain inducements and punishments for staying outside the plan: by doing this the plan gets close to 100 percent participation, exactly what is needed in the whole healthcare insurance situation.

Note that these are long range projections SEVENTY FIVE YEARS to get these high figures in the trillions of dollars ranges.

So why do the Ds hate part D so much? What it comes down to is it was done by Rs and not by them. But what do the Ds do with Part D, now that they have the chance? They close the infamous "donut-hole", something that needs to be done, but it's adding to the cost of the program, not cutting it.

 

[Political Junky]

44 - FEC report details lavish Republican spending, including nearly $2,000 at Voyeur West Hollywood

The RNC had more than $22 million on hand when Steele arrived last year, but is down to under $10 million now despite raising $96 million during that time, records show.

------------------------------------

Micheal Steele, one of the most vocal critics of President Obama's handling of money is one of the best fundraisers the GOP has ever had. Except, he also knows how to spend. Are Republicans really the best choice to be running the countries finances? Have we seen this type of Republican Money Management before?

Steele won't be chairman much longer.