auctioneer69 Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 so you guys think things are worse than they were in Nov 08?? the TV was saying the fockign world was coming to an end then. everything was collpasing. i think things are alot better and im unemployed Sorry that you don't have a job. I think things are a lot better but still very tough. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 so you guys think things are worse than they were in Nov 08?? the TV was saying the fockign world was coming to an end then. everything was collpasing. i think things are alot better and im unemployed You know...you don't really help you point there. Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 the numbers show things are getting better. the month when the president took office we were hemmorhaging jobs to the tune of 700K or more a month. now were adding 250K or more. its not gonna happen overnight but i damn sure dont want to return to the policies from the 00s Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It's pretty much a moot point.This is 1996 all over again. Obama is a wounded candidate that a competent opponant could take down. But we are going to get Bob Dole redux (except Mitt Romney isn't a war hero). Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 This is 1996 all over again. Obama is a wounded candidate that a competent opponant could take down. But we are going to get Bob Dole redux (except Mitt Romney isn't a war hero).100% true statement right there.I wonder if the Republicans tried to force Mike Huckabee to run again. Probably would done well this time, just on likability alone. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 In case anyone cares... Silent State: The Campaign Against Whistleblowers n January 23rd, the Obama administration charged former CIA officer John Kiriakou under the Espionage Act for disclosing classified information to journalists about the waterboarding of al-Qaeda suspects. His is just the latest prosecution in an unprecedented assault on government whistleblowers and leakers of every sort. Kiriakou's plight will clearly be but one more battle in a broader war to ensure that government actions and sunshine policies don't go together. By now, there can be little doubt that government retaliation against whistleblowers is not an isolated event, nor even an agency-by-agency practice. The number of cases in play suggests an organized strategy to deprive Americans of knowledge of the more disreputable things that their government does. How it plays out in court and elsewhere will significantly affect our democracy. Punish the WhistleblowersThe Obama administration has already charged more people - six - under the Espionage Act for alleged mishandling of classified information than all past presidencies combined. (Prior to Obama, there were only three such cases in American history.) Kiriakou, in particular, is accused of giving information about the CIA's torture programs to reporters two years ago. Like the other five whistleblowers, he has been charged under the draconian World War I-era Espionage Act. That Act has a sordid history, having once been used against the government's political opponents. Targets included labor leaders and radicals like Eugene V. Debs, Bill Haywood, Philip Randolph, Victor Berger, John Reed, Max Eastman, and Emma Goldman. Debs, a union leader and socialist candidate for the presidency, was, in fact, sentenced to 10 years in jail for a speech attacking the Espionage Act itself. The Nixon administration infamously (and unsuccessfully) invoked the Act to bar the New York Times from continuing to publish the classified Pentagon Papers. Yet, extreme as use of the Espionage Act against government insiders and whistleblowers may be, it's only one part of the Obama administration's attempt to sideline, if not always put away, those it wants to silence. Increasingly, federal agencies or departments intent on punishing a whistleblower are also resorting to extra-legal means. They are, for instance, manipulating personnel rules that cannot be easily challenged and do not require the production of evidence. And sometimes, they are moving beyond traditional notions of "punishment" and simply seeking to destroy the lives of those who dissent. Read more:http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/287-124/9905-silent-state-the-campaign-against-whistleblowers Link to post Share on other sites
ih8music Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 It's pretty much a moot point.This is 1996 all over again. Obama is a wounded candidate that a competent opponant could take down. But we are going to get Bob Dole redux (except Mitt Romney isn't a war hero).If it makes you feel any better, I could also draw parallels to 2004 and Kerry, who had all the charisma of wet cardboard. At least Mitt looks presidential, even if what comes out of his mouth might be disappointing. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Obama has already signed this agreement. At least some people have balls to stand up for their rights... Anti-ACTA Day: Thousands protest across Europe Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 you believe in abolishing 6 or 7 departments of government sparky? Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I guess you have no comment on the previous three posts. I take that as an agreement with the message? Over time, sure. Paul talks about a gradual draw down of several. These agencies make laws that affect us all without congressional approval most of the time. How's NCLB or Race To The Top working out for you teachers in the crowd? Do you think we really need the federal government to tell us how to teach our kids and run our schools when they can't run the post office? They can start with the Department of Education.... Ron Paul works towards the elimination of the inefficient Department of Education, leaving education decisions to be made at the state, local or personal level. Parents should have the right to spend their money on the school or method of schooling they deem appropriate for their children.On November 14, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times interview:“First, the Constitution does not authorize the Department of Education, and the founders never envisioned the federal government dictating those education policies.Second, it is a huge bureaucracy that squanders our money. We send billions of dollars to Washington and get back less than we sent. The money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington. Finally, I think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught, not Washington bureaucrats. The Department of Education has given us No Child Left Behind, massive unfunded mandates, indoctrination, and in some cases, forced medication of our children with psychotropic drugs. We should get rid of all of that and get those choices back in the hands of the people.” Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 i think we need to expand the department of education his "the constitution does not call for this dept" argument is nonsensical Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Crow, did you happen to see this? Having just finished putting three kids through college at pretty much the same time and spending over $300,000 of my hard earned money along with loans I will be paying for years to come, I can feel where you are coming from... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A75KERKwEQM Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 i think we need to expand the department of education his "the constitution does not call for this dept" argument is nonsensical So you believe you need the government to tell you what is best for your child's education? You can't make those decisions yourself? There is a place for public education. But an expansion of the Department of Education will not improve education in this country. Look at the state of education since it was created. What do you think needs expansion? Who will pay for it? Why not leave education to the states and local governments where the Constitution put it? Do you want the government telling doctors how to operate on you or how to treat you if you are ill? Oh, I'm sorry. They do that now too... Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 it was established in 1867 I want to argue but theres so much to type on this one i dont even feel like typing to you anymore. i'll get back later Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 so i looked it up and the evil dept of education has like a 50 billion a year budget with maybe 20k employees. The dept of defense has a 1.2 TRILLION a year budget. Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 it was established in 1867 I want to argue but theres so much to type on this one i dont even feel like typing to you anymore. i'll get back later The United States Department of Education, also referred to as ED or the ED for (the) Education Department, is a Cabinet-level department of the United States government. Recreated by the Department of Education Organization Act (Public Law 96-88) and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 17, 1979, it began operating on May 16, 1980.[2] Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 so i looked it up and the evil dept of education has like a 50 billion a year budget with maybe 20k employees. The dept of defense has a 1.2 TRILLION a year budget. Cut there too. What's your point? Link to post Share on other sites
IRememberDBoon Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 theres only one president i know of thats written a balanced budget Sparky. see what you dont realize is that the democrats are the fiscally responsible ones. not libertarians or republicans. Link to post Share on other sites
theashtraysays Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I have to admit that I was surprised to see a budget proposal of $3800 billion with a $1300 billion deficit today. A full third of our spending is borrowed? No, I don't have the answers but that's just not a good thing. (null) Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Total debt by 2013 approaching 20 TRILLION and rising. This does not include the unfunded mandates of Social Security and Medi-Care that we will have to pay as well. That adds another 61.6 trillion to the 20 trillion. Some claim that number is actually 114 trillion when other mandates are added in as well. If you had been given a million dollars a day since the time of Christ, until today, you would not have received 1 Trillion dollars yet. To see what 1 trillion dollars looks like using $100 bills stacked on pallets click the link below. That's a person on the left. We owe $81.6 trillion. So let's spend some more... Link to above:http://www.pagetutor...lion/index.html Click here to see an even more astounding graphics which are too big to post here: http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/ 114.5 Trillion Dollars $114,500,000,000,000. - US unfunded liabilitiesTo the right you can see the pillar of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs theWTC & Empire State Building - both at one point world's tallest buildings.If you look carefully you can see the Statue of Liberty. The 114.5 Trillion dollar super-skyscraper is the amount of money the U.S. Governmentknows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription Drug Program,Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is the money USA knows it will nothave to pay all its bills.If you live in USA this is also your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along witheveryone else to pay this back. The citizens of USA created the U.S. Government to servethem, this is what the U.S. Government has done while serving The People. The unfunded liability is calculated on current tax and funding inputs, and future demographicshifts in US Population. Note: On the above 114.5T image the size of the base of the money pile is half a trillion, not 1T as on 15T image.The height is double. This was done to reflect the base of Empire State and WTC more closely. Everyone needs to see this. Source: Federal Reserve & www.USdebtclock.org - visit it to see the debt in real time and get a better grasp of this amazing number. Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 My take is, the world is evening out. The U.S. had it pretty good for a long while - prospering in relative isolation while the old world squabbled, coming out of WWII pretty much untouched while the rest of the world was on the balls of its ass. But now it's a global economy and it was inevitable and nothing's gonna turn it back, and the middle classes in China and India are rising toward the level of the middle class of the U.S., which is descending. Or we're just descending. Point is, the standard-of-living gap between the U.S. middle class and much of the rest of the world's middle class is shrinking, and it doesn't matter who is president (especially since multinational companies can now spend as much as they want on elections, and they're gonna take jobs wherever the labor is cheapest. Wouldn't you?) as long as he's not a total screwup. As far of the debt goes, totally appalling, sickening. Everyone just pushing it down the line and taking cover in party rhetoric. But that's just me. Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 theres only one president i know of thats written a balanced budget Sparky. see what you dont realize is that the democrats are the fiscally responsible ones. not libertarians or republicans.Yup, it was a Republican president that ran the country out of money by starting a couple wars that weren't paid for. But I am sure President Santorum can fix all this. Santorum is surging now. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The thing that's ridiculous about the new budget proposal is the uproar from the GOP. Where was the GOP uproar when they were sinking us into record debt during W's term(s)? Link to post Share on other sites
Sparky speaks Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The Cost of Obama By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON According to the White House’s own figures (see table S-1 here for 2011 to 2013, and table S-1 here for 2010), the actual or projected deficit tallies for the four years in which Obama has submitted budgets are as follows: $1.293 trillion in 2010, $1.300 trillion in 2011, $1.327 trillion in 2012, and $901 billion in 2013. In addition, Obama is responsible for the estimated $200 billion (the Congressional Budget Office’s figure) that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009. Moreover, he shouldn’t get credit for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year — loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally. Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00. To help put that colossal sum of money into perspective, if you take our deficit spending under Obama and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four. The previous record for most deficit spending during a presidency was set by President George W. Bush (see table 1.3 in the White House’s Historic Tables). During Bush’s 8-year administration, total deficit spending was $3.402 trillion. That’s a truly extraordinary and reckless sum. It’s also $1.768 trillion less than deficit spending in just four years under Obama. Per year, deficits under Bush averaged $425 billion. Per year, deficits under Obama (according to his own numbers) will average $1.293 trillion — or more than three times as much. Because the gross domestic product (GDP) nearly always grows from year to year, the most favorable way to view Obama’s deficit spending is as a percentage of GDP. Surely he can’t look as bad in that light, right? Well, prior to Obama, our annual deficit spending had only exceeded 6.0 percent of GDP during the Civil War, World War I, and World War II. Except during those huge conflicts, our deficits had never exceeded 6.0 percent of GDP in any year — not during the Great Depression, not at the height of the Cold War defense buildup, not ever. But that’s no longer the case. During Obama’s four years in the White House (and, again, using his own numbers), annual deficit spending will average 8.4 percent of GDP. That’s nearly double the average annual level of deficit spending under any other post-War president. Link:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/painful-cost-obama_629745.html Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts