More For The Bottomless Pit

[TheScotsman]

For a week or so there have been more rumors about a debt ceiling increase.
It looks like it's more than a rumor. Now it's time to pony-up another $1,200,000,000.00 for that hope and change. This will push the spending of your current admin to 16,395,000,000.00 - Just who do you think you are going to tax to pay that bill off? I got it... "millionaires, and billionaires" - Ya, that's it.

Your "change" you hoped for has very nearly doubled the debt of every president before him.
Had enough yet?

Gotta pay that bill sometime, more likely sooner than later. It's gotta stop at some point, the 'bamessiah's Keynesian policies just do not work.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ask-debt-limit-hike-treasury-official-152416457.html
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/27/news/economy/obama_debt_ceiling/index.htm

[Rani]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1325031396' post='533955']
For a week or so there have been more rumors about a debt ceiling increase.
It looks like it's more than a rumor. Now it's time to pony-up another $1,200,000,000.00 for that hope and change. This will push the spending of your current admin to 16,395,000,000.00 - Just who do you think you are going to tax to pay that bill off? I got it... "millionaires, and billionaires" - Ya, that's it.

Your "change" you hoped for has very nearly doubled the debt of every president before him.
Had enough yet?

Gotta pay that bill sometime, more likely sooner than later. It's gotta stop at some point, the 'bamessiah's Keynesian policies just do not work.

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ask-debt-limit-hike-treasury-official-152416457.html"]http://news.yahoo.co...-152416457.html[/url]
[url="http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/27/news/economy/obama_debt_ceiling/index.htm"]http://money.cnn.com...iling/index.htm[/url]
[/quote]

And........Say it often enough and maybe somebody will believe you......Actually there's plenty of data out there that proves the debt was pretty much on the backs of the "conservative" presidents.... More so than the progressives. In fact, more than 2/3 of the existing national debt was created by the last 3 Republican presidents. [u]More than all other presidents combined.[/u] If Clinton's plan had remained in effect, the national debt would have been ZERO by 2013. The first time it would have happened since Andrew Jackson pulled it off. Wanna blame somebody for that turn around? That would be ol' Dum-dub-yah himself. All you gotta do is actually read the US Treasury data - it's free on the web. Congratulations on that there party of yours Scotsman. Keep saying it. Somebody under a rock will believe ya.

'Rani

[MichaelLCP]

[quote name='Rani' timestamp='1325090734' post='534001']
[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1325031396' post='533955']
For a week or so there have been more rumors about a debt ceiling increase.
It looks like it's more than a rumor. Now it's time to pony-up another $1,200,000,000.00 for that hope and change. This will push the spending of your current admin to 16,395,000,000.00 - Just who do you think you are going to tax to pay that bill off? I got it... "millionaires, and billionaires" - Ya, that's it.

Your "change" you hoped for has very nearly doubled the debt of every president before him.
Had enough yet?

Gotta pay that bill sometime, more likely sooner than later. It's gotta stop at some point, the 'bamessiah's Keynesian policies just do not work.

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ask-debt-limit-hike-treasury-official-152416457.html"]http://news.yahoo.co...-152416457.html[/url]
[url="http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/27/news/economy/obama_debt_ceiling/index.htm"]http://money.cnn.com...iling/index.htm[/url]
[/quote]

And........Say it often enough and maybe somebody will believe you......Actually there's plenty of data out there that proves the debt was pretty much on the backs of the "conservative" presidents.... More so than the progressives. In fact, more than 2/3 of the existing national debt was created by the last 3 Republican presidents. [u]More than all other presidents combined.[/u] If Clinton's plan had remained in effect, the national debt would have been ZERO by 2013. The first time it would have happened since Andrew Jackson pulled it off. Wanna blame somebody for that turn around? That would be ol' Dum-dub-yah himself. All you gotta do is actually read the US Treasury data - it's free on the web. Congratulations on that there party of yours Scotsman. Keep saying it. Somebody under a rock will believe ya.

'Rani
[/quote]

+Rep.

[TheScotsman]

Clinton's economy, in it's simplest form, was a result of 2 things:

1. adopting reganesque policies (In term 1, year 2 Bubba became more conservative than Regan ever was.)
2. the benefits of winning the cold war - Biggest boost to the nation came here

That's it, nothing magic about anything he did.

Moreover, name any conservative presidents we have had since 1900. Come on, I know you can do it. Aw, hell, I'll do it for you-
1-Hoover
2-Hadring
3-Coolidge
4-Taft

That is it, there are no others. Just because they have an "R" they are not automatically conservative. Bush 1 and 2 were progressive liberals with an "r" to fool the fools. Bush mkII was, IMNHO one of the most repressive presidents ever, as far as rights, and liberties goes. But you go right on with your "bush derangement syndrome", it seems to be the mantra of the current crop of libs. It is a bit like a kid claiming he needed to do something because all his friends did it-typically answered with "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you? Same thing applies here. Bush aimed the airplane at the ground, obama took the pilot's seat and opened the throttle. Once the nation is hits a certain point, there is no pulling out of the dive, it's going to crater.

We are broke, and the economy is nearly toasted, let's spend even more, even faster. Only a complete retard would think that was a sound idea.

[littlec]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1325100606' post='534010'] Clinton's economy, in it's simplest form, was a result of 2 things: 1. adopting reganesque policies (In term 1, year 2 Bubba became more conservative than Regan ever was.) 2. the benefits of winning the cold war - Biggest boost to the nation came here That's it, nothing magic about anything he did. Moreover, name any conservative presidents we have had since 1900. Come on, I know you can do it. Aw, hell, I'll do it for you- 1-Hoover 2-Hadring 3-Coolidge 4-Taft That is it, there are no others. Just because they have an "R" they are not automatically conservative. Bush 1 and 2 were progressive liberals with an "r" to fool the fools. Bush mkII was, IMNHO one of the most repressive presidents ever, as far as rights, and liberties goes. But you go right on with your "bush derangement syndrome", it seems to be the mantra of the current crop of libs. It is a bit like a kid claiming he needed to do something because all his friends did it-typically answered with "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you? Same thing applies here. Bush aimed the airplane at the ground, obama took the pilot's seat and opened the throttle. Once the nation is hits a certain point, there is no pulling out of the dive, it's going to crater. We are broke, and the economy is nearly toasted, let's spend even more, even faster. Only a complete retard would think that was a sound idea. [/quote]

[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4016611/RHF/carey5.gif[/img]

[Venger]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1325100606' post='534010']
Clinton's economy, in it's simplest form, was a result of 2 things:

1. adopting reganesque policies (In term 1, year 2 Bubba became more conservative than Regan ever was.)
2. the benefits of winning the cold war - Biggest boost to the nation came here

That's it, nothing magic about anything he did.

Moreover, name any conservative presidents we have had since 1900. Come on, I know you can do it. Aw, hell, I'll do it for you-
1-Hoover
2-Hadring
3-Coolidge
4-Taft

That is it, there are no others. Just because they have an "R" they are not automatically conservative. Bush 1 and 2 were progressive liberals with an "r" to fool the fools. Bush mkII was, IMNHO one of the most repressive presidents ever, as far as rights, and liberties goes. But you go right on with your "bush derangement syndrome", it seems to be the mantra of the current crop of libs. It is a bit like a kid claiming he needed to do something because all his friends did it-typically answered with "if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you? Same thing applies here. Bush aimed the airplane at the ground, obama took the pilot's seat and opened the throttle. Once the nation is hits a certain point, there is no pulling out of the dive, it's going to crater.

We are broke, and the economy is nearly toasted, let's spend even more, even faster. Only a complete retard would think that was a sound idea.
[/quote]
This is what I have been saying all along. Don't throw Bush in my face as in "see he did it too" that is flawed logic. Bush spent money like a drunken sailor on shore leave. That just makes them both wrong. Bottom line we are broke and taxing more will never solve the issue.STOP SPENDING.

[Rani]

I suggest you look at the US Treasury Departments information before issuing blanket statements like "stop spending". I wasn't using Bush as a scapegoat, but it was under his watch that a policy heading in the right direction, by coincidence or even if only by fucking magic, was interrupted. He did it, it's that simple. He shifted direction with unpaid for wars, tax breaks and expanding government into all those new departments like, oh yeah, Homeland Security so he'd have somebody to back up the Patriot Act which is the biggest affront to civil liberties since before the Revolutionary War. Just saying "stop spending" doesn't deal with the entire economic situation. I, like most people thought, let's start by cutting foreign aid. Right up until I came across the number that prove it's less than 1% of our expenditure. Drop in the freakin' bucket.

Let's take one big obvious example. People keep talking about Social Security being broke. Social Security is going broke because not enough people are working. In it's design, about 6.6 people were inputting into the system for each person drawing. Now because of the economy, it's 3.2 people inputting for each one drawing. Plus it maxes out at $106k a year, so if you say make millions, you don't pay anywhere near the same percentage into the system. AND government employees don't pay into it at all, because they have their own separate system. Not good, and as the slump continues, it gets progressively worse. We could clean up illegal immigration but then hey, it collapse altogether, because all those illegal immigrants are paying into a system they will never, ever collect from. And you wonder why the federal government drags it's feet cleaning it up. Want Social Security to regain it's footing as it should in a nation as advanced as this one? You've got to get people back to work so there's more money coming in and that's going to require stimulus from somewhere. Don't suppose it's in your back pocket? Certainly isn't going to be all those big corporations sitting on cash right now as they've proved. Nope, then it's going to have to come from the GOVERNMENT.

Actually the biggest problem was the whole "trickle down" philosophy which has been proven time and time again to simply not work. They've cut taxes over and over and cut their own revenue and now there isn't enough money to support all the things that need to be done if we're not going to go completely bankrupt. Did Bush do it all? Of course not. I've said over and over the poor idiot couldn't buy a clue. He was under the Congressional boot heel before he ever got anywhere near Pennsylvania Avenue. But he was responsible for changing the direction in which we were headed.

I had a long conversation with the owner of the company I work for. His accountant says "don't bid any work". "You're not losing money if you're not doing any work." Well, actually we are. Overhead still comes out of his pocket whether we're out working on a job, or sitting around playing poker. The more we work, the more of the overhead we cover from the jobs, and the less drips out of his personal pocket. Hell, we had diagrams and everything as I walked him through how I believed his accountant was wrong in thinking we should be sitting around instead of going after work. But to go after that work, we have to spend some money. We have to buy materials, and we have to pay employees, but every dollar we spend to get a project done, brings that money around again in the form of profit if you're lucky and covering some of your overhead if you're not so lucky. All of which slow the drip from the bank account. Bring it around enough, and the money starts to flow back into the bank account, because there's some left over after overhead is all paid. So to get back where we need to be, we're going to have to spend money. On those materials and salaries. The problem is Congress and Wall Street and the global corporations want to spend it on themselves. Not the business of the United States itself. It's not spending that's the biggest part of the problem - it's where it's going that's doing the most damage. When Obama says we need to build infrastructure, he's right. Infrastructure is a loose term for materials, and personnel and technology. And if we don't start investing in it, we're never going to cover our overhead and eventually the bank is going to run completely dry.

'Rani

[Chreees]

Can we just have Clinton back in office, please?

Repped both your posts, Rani.

I won't be voting for Obama again because he has simply taken the wheel from Bush. That I agree with you on, Scotsman. He stuck to Bush's timeframe for getting out of Iraq, and continued the spending habits/tax cuts from Bush. Increased "foreign policy" even more by entering even more wars, cause ya know, Afghanistan and Iraq just weren't enough already.

All of the Republican candidates I don't like either. They all seem like Bush or even worse (Bachmann anyone?).

Ron Paul is the guy I like the most, but if he were elected he wouldn't be able to achieve half of what he promises due to the parties bickering. See how they blocked so much the past 4 years with Obama? And I mean the half of what he says that I like, the really good stuff. The other half is stuff that just seems crazy to me.

Looks like I'll be writing it in this election.

[Rani]

I'm actually hoping Obama wins again because the first term is usually wasted anyway. Not that much generally gets done. It's only in the second term, where they don't have to try and please everybody to win reelection that the gloves can come off and something get done. Normally, I'd say giving him another chance would be the worst thing we could do, but honestly we can't afford another freshman administration at this point in time. I think he has the right ideas looking closer at his past writings and beliefs, but I think he's: 1) been waffling because the reelection issue; and 2) ineffective because of the problems with Congress who obviously don't have our best interests at heart. Maybe, just maybe knowing it's his last term in office and he doesn't have to please anybody but the history books, he'll stop being a gentleman and get some ghetto going.

The GOP candidates are scary overall with their desire to take us back to the dark ages, and while I like some things about Ron Paul, it's honestly a wasted vote. He doesn't have a snowballs chance to win. Too controversial even within his own party. The public generally puts him in a par with Governor "Moonbeam" Jerry Brown. Might make a good philosopher, but President? Nah, we need a warrior and I don't think anyone but Obama has a chance to do that since there would be no reelection involved. Is he the best we could field? Nope..... If Hillary tried to run against him I'd vote for her because that woman kicks ass and takes names, but not even a kick-ass Democrat will try to run against a sitting President. So while I hate the whole lesser of two evils thing, but I'm hanging onto with the pressure of reelection removed maybe the man can finally grow a pair and do what he claimed he wanted to do.

I also think there's going to be another shift in Congress because people have figured out the Tea Party hasn't been either completely honest, nor have they been effective. They've proven to be more a point of contention than unifying to make the situation better. And most people are tired of it. Just another "party" who lied to get their fingers into the pie.

My greatest wish is if I could do anything, it would be to educate the voters. Nobody realizes how much information is really out there if you go looking for it. The US Treasury will give you factual data on government economics and budgets, and so forth. Maybe if the voting populace were more educated on facts instead of being twisted by the media crap, we'd make some progress. Though there's a part of me that's certain they know it's in their best interest to keep us ignorant and fighting each other. That way they can keep control and passing crap laws taking away more of our freedoms while we're looking the other way.

'Rani

[TheScotsman]

Obama had 2 years with the dems in control of both houses... but you say the "blocked" him? Maybe they knew if they supported the sillyness they were going to get tossed out of office. Oh, wait, I forgot, they DID get tossed out en mass. I bet Senate goes to GOP, house stays as it is. With the collection of numb-nuts on the GOP side, no way I am voting for them, I think that is going to be the norm for the typical libertarian. With the like of gingrich, and romney, may has well stick to the outhouse we are in. The sooner these fools drive it all into the dirt, the sooner we can try to start over.

Paul is a lunatic - no hope of that guy landing a nomination. Moonbeam would be a better pres - at least he would be funny, Paul is just frightening.

Getting closer to the election I think we will see more of the fast & furious scandal, the solyndra theft of taxpayer funds, The troubles with LightSquared systems, and the admin pressuring Generals to lie to congress... And don't forget the SigaTech nobid vaccine bribery - if the GOP gets both houses, I would put even money on an impeachment action over at least one of the above. More of the immigration policy, or lack of any, and yet another debt increase with a nearly guaranteed rating downgrade to follow will be hard for any president to overcome. Biggest wildcards are the pipeline the pres won't approve - vg chance of that causing a problem with the unions, especially if Canada makes a deal with China... and the biggest wildcard is Iran - That is rapidly turning to a damned if you do situation with zero chance of escaping a problem. $4.00+/gal gas this summer or unemployment in the 9% range, and he is gone. The GOP could run a cart pusher guy from walmart, and still win. Going to be interesting. With any luck he gets re-elected, but a GOP congress ties him up with a few big ethics battles, and he spends his whole time trying to stay out of their way.

The nation does best when these people are busy fighting with eachother, and not making laws to steal our $/property/rights.

[joytron]

I am curious to know who, regardless of whether they are running, would you wish to see in office.

[Tyler]

As a pretty liberal reublican I can't say I'm too happy with any of the R's or D's....the only person i've liked in the last or this election was Huckabee. If I had to chose right now I'd probably vote for Newt, but right now no one has my vote...I know for sure I'm not voting for any of the D's and definately not voting for Bachmann.

[Chreees]

Bachmann's got that crazy in her eyes!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3x4Vc8_xDw&feature=related

Okay, back on topic...

[MichaelLCP]

Arguing politics is stupid. Regardless someone is going to be unhappy. This country will never be ran the way you want it, so get over it and stop bitching.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='joytron' timestamp='1325235641' post='534179']
I am curious to know who, regardless of whether they are running, would you wish to see in office.
[/quote]

Of the running,

1) Huntsman 2) Santorum

Not running. Christie, Jindal, Rubio, McDonnell, Rice

I would hold my nose and take them if I saw Newt with Palin or Bachman. It would be worth it just to see the libs go nuts over it.

I would settle for Hillary, Think that would have been a much better choice than what we have now.

[Tyler]

Shit I'll vote for anyone over Hilary, that includes Bachman. that cunt is the epitome of satan's post taco bell shit.

[MichaelLCP]

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1325291503' post='534218']
Bachmann's got that crazy in her eyes!

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3x4Vc8_xDw&feature=related[/media]

Okay, back on topic...
[/quote]

HAHA CRAZY EYEEEEES.

Also... Crazy smile.

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Tyler' timestamp='1325316783' post='534237']
Shit I'll vote for anyone over Hilary, that includes Bachman. that cunt is the epitome of satan's post taco bell shit.
[/quote]

Be nice, I was just throwing Rani a bone to keep her happy.

Can you imagine foreign policy under Hillary? Ooops, forgot we are living it. Not working out so well is it?

[Pavo21]

[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1325112721' post='534043']
Can we just have Clinton back in office, please?

Repped both your posts, Rani.

I won't be voting for Obama again because he has simply taken the wheel from Bush. That I agree with you on, Scotsman. He stuck to Bush's timeframe for getting out of Iraq, and continued the spending habits/tax cuts from Bush. Increased "foreign policy" even more by entering even more wars, cause ya know, Afghanistan and Iraq just weren't enough already.

All of the Republican candidates I don't like either. They all seem like Bush or even worse (Bachmann anyone?).

Ron Paul is the guy I like the most, but if he were elected he wouldn't be able to achieve half of what he promises due to the parties bickering. See how they blocked so much the past 4 years with Obama? And I mean the half of what he says that I like, the really good stuff. The other half is stuff that just seems crazy to me.

Looks like I'll be writing it in this election.
[/quote]
i agree with chris we need clinton back in office, after he was president all his his plans came into affect and change our nation for the better, also i belve taxing weed would make us so much money !!

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='Pavo21' timestamp='1325356858' post='534271']
[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1325112721' post='534043']
Can we just have Clinton back in office, please?

Repped both your posts, Rani.

I won't be voting for Obama again because he has simply taken the wheel from Bush. That I agree with you on, Scotsman. He stuck to Bush's timeframe for getting out of Iraq, and continued the spending habits/tax cuts from Bush. Increased "foreign policy" even more by entering even more wars, cause ya know, Afghanistan and Iraq just weren't enough already.

All of the Republican candidates I don't like either. They all seem like Bush or even worse (Bachmann anyone?).

Ron Paul is the guy I like the most, but if he were elected he wouldn't be able to achieve half of what he promises due to the parties bickering. See how they blocked so much the past 4 years with Obama? And I mean the half of what he says that I like, the really good stuff. The other half is stuff that just seems crazy to me.

Looks like I'll be writing it in this election.
[/quote]
i agree with chris we need clinton back in office, after he was president all his his plans came into affect and change our nation for the better, also i belve taxing weed would make us so much money !!
[/quote]

You mean NHT

[mustang67n]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1325385824' post='534308']
[quote name='Pavo21' timestamp='1325356858' post='534271']
[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1325112721' post='534043']
Can we just have Clinton back in office, please?

Repped both your posts, Rani.

I won't be voting for Obama again because he has simply taken the wheel from Bush. That I agree with you on, Scotsman. He stuck to Bush's timeframe for getting out of Iraq, and continued the spending habits/tax cuts from Bush. Increased "foreign policy" even more by entering even more wars, cause ya know, Afghanistan and Iraq just weren't enough already.

All of the Republican candidates I don't like either. They all seem like Bush or even worse (Bachmann anyone?).

Ron Paul is the guy I like the most, but if he were elected he wouldn't be able to achieve half of what he promises due to the parties bickering. See how they blocked so much the past 4 years with Obama? And I mean the half of what he says that I like, the really good stuff. The other half is stuff that just seems crazy to me.

Looks like I'll be writing it in this election.
[/quote]
i agree with chris we need clinton back in office, after he was president all his his plans came into affect and change our nation for the better, also i belve taxing weed would make us so much money !!
[/quote]

You mean NHT
[/quote]

tomato tomato.

wait.. that doesnt really work in text...

in all seriousness though. A lot of great opinions here.. I really couldn't tell you what I think of any of these yahoo's running. But I know that we need something to change for seriousness, whether it be Obama actually doing something postitive up there, or a new face that makes radical changes. Either way, based on our current choices, I really don't forsee any of this coming form any of the candidates...

[MichaelLCP]

[quote name='TheScotsman' timestamp='1325385824' post='534308']
[quote name='Pavo21' timestamp='1325356858' post='534271']
[quote name='Chreees' timestamp='1325112721' post='534043']
Can we just have Clinton back in office, please?

Repped both your posts, Rani.

I won't be voting for Obama again because he has simply taken the wheel from Bush. That I agree with you on, Scotsman. He stuck to Bush's timeframe for getting out of Iraq, and continued the spending habits/tax cuts from Bush. Increased "foreign policy" even more by entering even more wars, cause ya know, Afghanistan and Iraq just weren't enough already.

All of the Republican candidates I don't like either. They all seem like Bush or even worse (Bachmann anyone?).

Ron Paul is the guy I like the most, but if he were elected he wouldn't be able to achieve half of what he promises due to the parties bickering. See how they blocked so much the past 4 years with Obama? And I mean the half of what he says that I like, the really good stuff. The other half is stuff that just seems crazy to me.

Looks like I'll be writing it in this election.
[/quote]
i agree with chris we need clinton back in office, after he was president all his his plans came into affect and change our nation for the better, also i belve taxing weed would make us so much money !!
[/quote]

You mean NHT
[/quote]

No he means weed.

[gramps]

Whatever debt the country has, it can't be blamed on spending on military spending. It's one of the [u]few[/u] legitimate items the Feds [u]can[/u] spend money on. If the Federal government could just restrict itself to what the Constitution allows, we'd have surpluses every year.

It's a shame really, but anybody who actually wants to follow the Constitution nowadays is called a radical or worse.

Unless and until we get some people off the wagon and get them to help pull the wagon, we're washed up as a country.

[mustang67n]

[quote name='gramps' timestamp='1325389941' post='534315']
Whatever debt the country has, it can't be blamed on spending on military spending. It's one of the [u]few[/u] legitimate items the Feds [u]can[/u] spend money on. If the Federal government could just restrict itself to what the Constitution allows, we'd have surpluses every year.

It's a shame really, but anybody who actually wants to follow the Constitution nowadays is called a radical or worse.

Unless and until we get some people off the wagon and get them to help pull the wagon, we're washed up as a country.
[/quote]

agreed. +1 rep

[TheScotsman]

[quote name='gramps' timestamp='1325389941' post='534315']
Whatever debt the country has, it can't be blamed on spending on military spending. It's one of the [u]few[/u] legitimate items the Feds [u]can[/u] spend money on. If the Federal government could just restrict itself to what the Constitution allows, we'd have surpluses every year.

It's a shame really, but anybody who actually wants to follow the Constitution nowadays is called a radical or worse.

Unless and until we get some people off the wagon and get them to help pull the wagon, we're washed up as a country.
[/quote]

True on all counts, Must agree 100%.

Entitlements/insane pensions for public sector employees are going to be the end of us.