Obama Promises Billions for Anti-Poverty Program

We should just drop poverty programs. After all no one will ever put a stop to it.

 

Another democrat tax increase coming down the pike.

$845 Billion is a lot of money. The tax increases will have to be confiscatory and huge.​

 

845 BILLION is 10 X the amount that was promised to bail out AGI.

And Wall Street just about had a heart attack of the AGI bailout.

And there won't be any repaying of that money to the taxpayers by the U.N.

You remember the U.N. - those were the guys who got rich off the "food for oil" program.

 

Nice, so it's ok to pay billions to save the fortunes of the wealthy in the stock market but let's turn off the facet when it comes to the poor.

Nice... :thumbs:

 

First, where did you ever see me agree with these bail outs? Second there was no comments when a similar statement was made about abortion on this site. I can assure you one statement is just as absurd as the other.

 

Another red herring.

They are not our poor. And we have knowledge of how corrupt the UN is. We would be foolish to let them touch any of our money for any reason.

Cry on someone elses shoulder.

 

Add that $845 billion to the $400 Billion or so that Obama has already proposed inj new spending and you get...

My God!!!!!

That moron has proposed over $ 1 Trillion, that's right TRILLION, in new spending.

And he's going to cut the taxes of the middle class? :laugh:

Anyone that falls for that has rocks in their head and needs to be committed to a mental institution.

 

845 billion dollars. Hmmm. I wonder if Obama wonders where that three trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon went to? I do.

I say if we're willing to spend a couple hundred billion dollars to get rid of a former associate we ought to be willing to give 845 billion dollars to a corrupt organization that'll turn around and hand it out to a passle of smaller corrupt organizations around the world.

What is it about "we're broke" don't these politicians get?

 

The next president will face the following, no matter who it is.

1. The Terror war--lose it, lose your way of life

2. Medicare Reform--it is broke now.

3. Social Security reform--the disaster is just around the corner now.

4. The credit crunch, caused by bankers and home buyers not being able to do math. When we bought our latest and hopefully last, house five years ago, the Mortgage guy qualified us at $285,000--HA! We bought a house for $112,000

5. An aging fleet of aircraft in the Air Force. I know this is off the radar screen of your average person, but there are some large cargo aircraft and bombers that are now being flown by the grandsons of their original pilots!

More money for welfare? HA! There won't be any for universal healthcare either.

Get ready to dig deep, whoever is elected. The party is over.

 

To paraphrase Everett Dirksen and that gravelly voice: "A trillion here, ,and a trillion there, and pretty soon your are talking real money!

We haven't paid off Viet Nam yet!

 

removed...

 

I like that... :thumbs:

 

Once our congress figured out that they could legally buy votes by voting all sorts of money to all sorts of folks for no good reason, then there was no going back.

 

For all those that are anti-Obama. Obama may have to rethink tax cuts and spending programs if he is elected. The reason for this is "Bush". The administration has just asked for another 700 billion to bail out. Americans have seen the National Debt go from a little over $5 trillion to probably over $11 trillion by the time "Bush" is done under his administration.

 

If he wins, he will come for the money. He has made too many promises.

 

No matter who gets elected they will come for the money. We just inherited new $700 Billion debt, a $10 billion a month war and a deficit that is unspeakable.

 

We need a fiscally conservative Democrat back in office.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the 59-year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.7% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 59 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.99[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 25 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.


Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 25 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.53[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush doubled the national debt (from $5T to $10T) even before you consider the mortgage bailout.

 

Well then, you should have nominated one. Of course, that would mean you would have to dig up Scoop Jackson and bring him back to life, etc., or nominate Sam Nunn, oops, can't, he is pro-life, or one of the blue dog democrats, oops, they are usually pro life.