I love this guy.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Well. You can always elect Donald Trump! LMAO!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why replace one loser with another loser? Obama was never up to the task of President. I don't think Trump would be either. Sanders could possibly be worse than Obama.

We as a nation need to do better from and with both parties

[Nebe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

REALLY......explain the 19 TRILLION of debt with in the last 8 years with democrats in charge.....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK. Your wrong. First, you mix debt and deficit. The National Debt and the Federal deficit are two different things. In terms of the debt, under Obama the amount has risen vastly more than under Bush or any other President.

As for deficit:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgla...ts-truly-rank/

Corporate welfare and people welfare have the same effect. They give a boost to particular corporations or people at the expense of other businesses or people. On the other hand, they create a weakness in all of them. Their "successes" depend on government rather than on themselves. And as a system of governance, it generally weakens the "fiber" of a society and strengthens the power of government over the people. A basic safety net might be compassionate and even helpful, but creeping beyond that and growing into a way of life, it destroys the core of a free society.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are wildly incorrect on the debt/deficit.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebt...-President.htm

Over Bill's 8 years, he & congress reduced spending down to near neutral with a small surplus at the end - but not for his term.

If you want to drill down further you will see that the R congress and D white house of Clinton worked TOGETHER to balance the budget. WJC would not have done it on his own. They still added to the national debt

Bush spent more than he took in - with the help of his Dem Congress and still added to the national debt

Obama has spent more than he brought in and still added to the debt. He has also spent more in 6 years than GW did in 8, with higher war costs.

REGARDLESS of who spent more (Obama) we need to demand our politicians in both parties do better.

The dem politicans like you to believe they are not influenced by corporations but look who their biggest donors are too.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Corporations need to pull their weight. Heads of corporations need to step back a little. Regardless welfare and entitlement programs for individuals are a direct cost with zero return. People whom are able bodied and mentally capable should be required to provide some level of service for their income. Welfare has become generational, it was never intended to provide a lifestyle it was intended to provide supplemental support in a time of crisis. It is "transitional assistance"

Retirees receiving SS and medical benefits after working for their entire lives should not be threatened with "I can't guaranty we can fund SS if we don't pass an emergency spending bill" (paraphrased)

Corporate welfare maintains employment for individuals and provides tax revenue via said employment. That being said any corporation taking a hand out or tax break should have to qualify with regards to Executive earnings relative to employee earnings.

Of course that will never happen because all politicians are on the take and corporations write the legislation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK. Your wrong. First, you mix debt and deficit. The National Debt and the Federal deficit are two different things. In terms of the debt, under Obama the amount has risen vastly more than under Bush or any other President.

As for deficit:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgla...ts-truly-rank/

Corporate welfare and people welfare have the same effect. They give a boost to particular corporations or people at the expense of other businesses or people. On the other hand, they create a weakness in all of them. Their "successes" depend on government rather than on themselves. And as a system of governance, it generally weakens the "fiber" of a society and strengthens the power of government over the people. A basic safety net might be compassionate and even helpful, but creeping beyond that and growing into a way of life, it destroys the core of a free society.

John R is correct. It cracks me up when liberals cite Bill Clinton's great economic record, as evidence that liberal economics works. Because what did Bill Clinton do? He cut taxes, slashed spending, balanced the budget, and kicked millions of deadbeats off of welfare (guess what, they all went out and got jobs). Clinton's economic policies were right out of the Tea Party manifesto, Nebe. And sure as hell, they worked.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You really need to get some facts before you form these opinions.

Deficit/surplus is just for one year, debt is the running total.

True that Obama's deficits are getting smaller, but he still runs deficits, and thus he is adding to our debt. He has added more to the debt, than any president in our history (maybe he has added more than all previous presidents combined? some say that is true, not sure).

Nebe, Bush added to the debt, but he had a good reason, he had to build a massive anti-terror infastructure from scratch. Maybe you remember 9/11. We can, and should debate the wars. Even without the war in Iraq, we were going to add to our debt to fight back against terror. Obama has spent all this money, and all we have to show is the slowest recovery, ever, from a recession.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

REGARDLESS of who spent more (Obama) we need to demand our politicians in both parties do better.

How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

[Nebe]

Term limits for congress and senate. Any congressman or senator who has direct family between 18 and 35 must go to war if he voted for it. Pension rate determined by approval rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

Disconnect from the party. No longer be a Democrat or a Republican.

Maybe find and back some common sense people in local politics.

Look where the Ted Kennedys and John Boehnors have gotten us.

Term limits is a start. Having a media that does not schill for mostly one side but begins to actively investigates stuff with journalistic integrity.

You work in a bureaucracy - you see how bad it is. We are going to let the professional leeches continue to do what they do and grow more bureaucracy? What we are doing as a country is unsustainable.

CAREER POLITICIANS. PROFESSIONAL CAREER POLITICIANS. Suckling at the public teat. So we are going to elect Bernie Sanders, a career politician, and champion public teat sucker? We are so doomed. Linday Graham? We are farked.

ELIMINATE all Corporate, Union, PAC, and political funding in excess of $100. Add a tiny tax percentage and raise some moneys to finance campaigns at a local/state/federal level. EVERY penny of every donor includes full name and a purple thumbprint (or middle finger).

Require College Professors to have real jobs for 3 out of every ten years ('cept real scientists - RIROCK - not Poli-scientists). Have them need to make a PAYROLL.

I do not think this is the Republic our forefathers (is that phrase a microagression safe room trigger?) had in mind.

Divided we have failed. We are so doomed.

Welcome to interesting times.

[Nebe]

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/polit...tionaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Here is the countries savoir:

[Nebe]

No. No. No.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/polit...tionaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You should not only check the date when information you cite was generated, but you should read it more carefully. This chart was 2011. Which would not make it a true comparison to the Presidents who preceded Obama as Snopes says: "The chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who had served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama will be considerably higher by the time he leaves office (whether that be in 2013 or 2017)."

As Snopes predicted, the increase in actual dollars reported for Barack Obama is already CONSIDERABLEY higher than all the other Presidents.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/polit...tionaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Charlie - here is the US Treasury DOT GOV site, not Snopes.

By Dollahs. Remember than an incoming president has an extended period of time of their first year working with the budget from the previous administration. So in Obama's first 6 years he has accumulated more debt than Bush did in 8 AND Bush has 750 million in TARP against his timeslot that does not even go against Obama.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/...ebt_histo5.htm

By Percent of GDP

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ho...rticle/2560220

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

What do you do with a house whose foundation has been destroyed?

Probably tear it down completely and draw up plans for a new house.

What if the foundation is still intact, but has some cracks and reparable faults?

Restore it.

Is our house now so irreparably divided by irreconcilable cracks and corroded by faults beyond repair?

Quite possibly so.

We are certainly no longer living in it. We live next to it in a tent which bends and blows with the wind of whim, is populated by would be family who are more strangers than siblings, and governed by ideological vagabonds who speak different truths to waiting pliable ears . . . all waiting for the house to be fixed . . . but each desiring different floor plans.

The disappointing irony is that the original floor plan was designed to accommodate a family of unique individuals who could in mutual harmony exercise their different desires.

Of course, we are all too human, too illustrative of the Cain and Abel story, fall too short of the glory of the founding creation. We squabble, cheat, coerce our way at the expense of those we should cherish as family in our house of freedom built like no other.

Overgrown egos have decided, for all of us, to knock down walls and stairways, and more, over time so that the house of many mansions will be hollowed out into one big hall in which their is no room to walk in your own private way, but whose purpose is for all to march in common in whatever direction we are told to satisfy our daily needs.

There is the illusion that we have become more diverse. Even gender is atomized from two into growing numbers dependent not on some natural design, but according to self identification. What, however, on the surface appear to be differences, are merely self-inflicted variations on the same theme of "equality." We must fit into the big wall-less room without complaint of claustrophobia.

You ask "so how do we demand it of them?" The "wall of separation" between you and the State has been knocked down. The overgrown egos who preached a "wall of separation between church and state" were lying. The wall, as it was, already existed in the original foundation: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ." That "wall" (a word not mentioned in the Constitution) assured that the state could neither force upon the people the religion of its choice, nor could it deny, therefor, their freedom to exercise the religion of their choice. But the "wall" the overgrown egos erroneously "interpreted" (on purpose) into the design of their choice was to abridge the exercise of religion from interfering with the will and dictate of government. The lie, of course, is rather than being a wall, there is, in their design, none. The original "wall" denied the state unwanted entrance into the individual exercise of religion. But the State is now attempting to enter at its own will. And, as well, the walls of separation between the people and the state (comprised of all the walls in the originally designed house which accommodated all of its diverse inhabitants with unalienable rights) are to be eliminated.

The floor plan with which the overgrown egos are replacing the original design, has only one room. The room they created, which they regulate, and the rules which you will follow. You no longer will have the unalienable authority to demand anything of them. They will give you whatever freedoms that they deem will fit into their grand hall of equality.

If you don't like the new house being constructed for you to live in, you will have to join with enough people who oppose it and wish to restore the house in which they have walls against government coercion. That number has dwindled, and at an even faster rate under the current regime. That has to be accomplished from the ground up. The entrenched political top will not give up its power as long as it can convince 50+% of voters (and are not allowed to garner fake votes) that those who oppose them are "extremists" or fringe freaks or just plain stupid. The ruling class must legislate or approve notions such as term limits, or restricting their prerogative to be bribed, or trade campaign promises for donations, or to "act responsibly." All such notions which must filter through them are obviously non-starters for them, or are to be paid lip service, passed, and given loopholes by which they can be disregarded.

If the politicians are not legally bound, procedurally restricted, they will do as they wish. That they have transformed, by devious "interpretations," the law that bound them, and convinced us that it's too late to restore that law, and even that it was an impediment to their doing wonderful things for us, and have, as well, transformed our public and higher institutions of learning into disseminators of their ideology, makes it a long tough haul.

Either your in for the effort . . . or you will continually wonder "how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know."

[Fly Rod]

NEBE:

I thought U would get a chuckle.....if by some fluke that he did get in office he forgets it all has to go thru congress.....then again President Trump could use excutive order such as the president UUU love today.....lol....

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/polit...tionaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not helping your argument by stating Obama increased the national 34% in three years

As far as Trump goes? The guy knows how to turn a dollar. Not sure how that would translate in U.S. Economy ways. I always take issue with candidates and politicians who have little to no experience outside of higher education and public sector. You can not know what it takes to succeed in private business working in these two genres your customers are forced into dealing with you. If you need money you find a way to have it appropriated. Just does not translate to earning or failing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[BigBo]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Sorry Charlie.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/polit...tionaldebt.asp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn't think anyone placed any stock in snopes any longer since they've been proven wrong on so many issues so many times.

[spence]

Originally Posted by BigBo

I didn't think anyone placed any stock in snopes any longer since they've been proven wrong on so many issues so many times.

Wow, you should have no problem listing a great number of them then.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by spence

Wow, you should have no problem listing a great number of them then.

Gotta agree with Spence on this one. Snopes is still a fairly valid BS ometer to me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnR

CAREER POLITICIANS. PROFESSIONAL CAREER POLITICIANS. Suckling at the public teat. So we are going to elect Bernie Sanders, a career politician, and champion public teat sucker? We are so doomed. Linday Graham? We are farked.

ELIMINATE all Corporate, Union, PAC, and political funding in excess of $100. Add a tiny tax percentage and raise some moneys to finance campaigns at a local/state/federal level. EVERY penny of every donor includes full name and a purple thumbprint (or middle finger).

Require College Professors to have real jobs for 3 out of every ten years Have them need to make a PAYROLL.

I do not think this is the Republic our forefathers (is that phrase a microagression safe room trigger?) had in mind.

Divided we have failed. We are so doomed.

That would make a great start. Should be no problem getting that
passed by Congress and elite higher education. "pfft"

[Raven]

the role of president ages you fast
not sure if mr sanders could manage it

[Nebe]

http://youtu.be/rtBVuye4fZQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jackbass]

Sanders can speak all he wants. Regardless of how you may agree or disagree with people in this forum. Generally those that have valid input are informed enough to have an opinion.

Sanders Trump Hillary whoever, has to win the media. I am a firm believer that scare tactics fear mothering and shiny flashy things win in this country. Honestly look at how Our current Potus got elected. The guy had a record that qualified him for little. He came off well spoken, Oprah put him on. Etc. etc. Sanders may be a great candidate unless he wins the "Hollywood" contest he will never get a nomination
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raven]

RE : the Hollywood contest .....yeah SAME thing applied to Ronnie Reagan

slam dunk

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Nebe

http://youtu.be/rtBVuye4fZQ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

180 seconds? It only took me 18 seconds to hear the same 50 yr old Lib
BS, "A pot in every kitchen and a chicken in every pot ", funded by a cut in
military spending. Get real.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Raven

RE : the Hollywood contest .....yeah SAME thing applied to Ronnie Reagan

slam dunk

No doubt,
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[rphud]

"Apparently they really want to see a pot smoking socialist in the White House. We could get a third Obama term after all."