Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by Rufus_1611, May 30, 2007.
Wow, when you break that $59.1 T down per household, that really puts the unfathomable number in perspective! :BangHead:
***sarcasm alert*** ***sarcasm alert***
***If you can not handle sarcasm, do not proceed! You have been warned.***
Rufus_1611, you just bring this out because you hate Bush.
Isn't that what everything is about?
Anytime a Bush-hater finds a little "evidence" to prove this country is headed for "somewhere" fast in a handbasket, they bring out evidence to prove it and try to show it to the rest of us.
We love the President, and your facts won't change that. Jesus told Bush that he was doing a great job, so there.
When are you anti-troop, terrorist-supporting, commies going to learn that we're supposed to be bankrupted by the government so that we can build landfills and post offices in Baghdad 18 times after each attempt is blown up by the people who really want us in Iraq but are just afraid to admit it so they bomb us in order to blend in with the rest of the America-loving folks there?
George W. Bush, Best President since Bill Clinton left office!:thumbs:
"Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest."
Imagine how bad it will be if democrats can force through "universal healthcare.:BangHead:
I think we had a glimpse of what that will look like when we saw Bush ram through that 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit program that will cost an estimated $1.2 Trillion (with a "T").
Just barely a glimpse.
Universal health care will dwarf the medicare drug benefit.
This Republican administration has outspent every administration prior to it, so worrying about some potential Democratic universal health care program, when we have a record breaker in office now, seems a bit empty. ...sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
Ah, so instead of agreeing that Bush has made a mess of it, you throw in the "but think what the Democrats would do" line...
Bush is a bad President, this is just more proof. Thank goodness his term is close to an end!
No worries here. Just a flat out prediction. Democrats will spend more and increase taxes. Even without universal healthcare. With it...:tonofbricks:
Bush is a spending infant compared to democrats on an entitlement binge.
Well, I do not believe you are being objective about your prediction and are just throwing out more talk-radio rhetoric. Perhaps some of these will help your predictions.
[*]'Conservative' Bush Spends More than 'Liberal' Presidents Clinton, Carter
On Spending, Bush Is No Reagan
Under Bush, Federal Spending Increases at Fastest Rate in 30 Years
[*]US spending surges to historic level
The Republican Spending Explosion
If Democrats are the spend more party then perhaps Bush needs to change parties. Perhaps, he's not a conservative after all?
My prediction stands.
If it's talk show rhetoric, you're listening to someone who knows the history of democrats.
Why don't we just "nationalize" the debt?
There is no question that Bush is no fiscal conservative (whether he's socially conservative is debatable).
I would hate, however, to think of how grossly overspent we would be with the House, the Senate, and the Presidency all in the hands of Democrats right now.
The only thing that has kept us from having Universal Healthcare, paid for by us, is a few dozen conservative Republicans, with probably a couple conservative Democrats thrown in for good measure.
Of course, when you look at the big picture, is it better to be in debt by $60 Trillion or $65 Trillion??? Does $5 Trillion on this scale really amount to enough to say the $60 Trillion Republicans are more fiscally sound than the $65 Trillion Democrats?
Tax and Spend, that's what the vast majority on both sides of the aisle want.
I wish most people were smart enough to know that, and look to Ron Paul for help.
"For many Democrats in politics, the market--the daily machinery of the private economy--is a semi-abstraction. It's a barely understood thing that mainly sends revenue to the government, without which the nation is incapable of achieving social good. Liberals happily concede the idea of salutary "market forces" to their opposition. For them, markets are for taming."
Been hearing this stuff since my old John Birch days 40 years ago. The books always balance but most of what we hear about are paper profits and paper losses.
The important change is the intentional destruction of the American middle class. We are reverting to normal world conditions with 80% working poor, 5% stinking rich, and the rest a middle class of doctors, lawyers, and small business owners.
Prior to WW2 many if not most of the middle class had live in servants. Half the people who came through Ellis Island became live in servants and the rest worked in sweat shops in lower Manhattan.