United States Heading towards a Depression?

Thats an easy one. He works several jobs and lives in a slum with 20 other people, all without papers. Its a no brainer compared to the job opportunities where he comes from.

Its all part of the fact fat and lazy Americans either don't want, or lack the education to do these jobs. Lets face it, if Americans are not willing to stack 20 at a time into a two bedroom apartment in a slum, they don't deserve the jobs.

 

Sorry kid, it was a democratic controlled congress that ushered in the spending.

Some of us were actually alive, alert and coherent during that period and remember quite vividly. Not all of us rely on what we read after history has been revised.

 

Clinton benefited from the peace dividend from the fall of the Soviet Union.

The Obama spending is off the charts with no end in sight.

Hunger is a good motivator. Obviously the illegal aliens want the jobs and are willing to work. The issue is, what do you do will all the people on welfare or collecting unemployment?

The bottom line is that the welfare state and communism doesn't work.

 

He further benefited from a Republican controlled Congress that ushered in and passed all but two items in the Contract with America.

 

I see it's actually on the chart there... best not to exaggerate the problem or we might look for holes in the story.

Wikipedia says about the defense budget:

The federally budgeted (see below) military expenditure of the United States Department of Defense for fiscal year 2010, including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is
$685.1 billion

Seems it almost doubles next year.

Budget Breakdown for 2011
Total Spending $1.060-$1.449 trillion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

That could feed a lot of the immigrants or buy an awful lot of oil instead...

 

Freedom ain't free... The last place we need to cut is on our national defense. I seem to recall a peanut farmer that made a career out of that, and look what it got us.

 

Per the above chart Democrats have managed their budgets in every instance in a more fiscally responsible manner than the Republicans - Obama's is not yet a complete term but when included the total is still less for the Democrats 11.7 to 16.9.
.........

No, such a revisionist statement can only be expected from a reactionary defeatist.
.........

The stated goal of fiscal responsibility - unlike A Republican who lowers their own financial responsibility by a self serving reduction in their own burden (tax) while instigating an unnecessary Iraqi war to be paid for by others and propelling the countries economy into a tail-spin and deceitfully blaming others for their own maleficence.
...........


bogart, your fear of communism is a rue only the likes of the tea party could possibly assimilate.

 

I don't seem to recall the democrats having a budget.

Where does he get those wonderfully butchered quotes.

During Bush's presidency post tax cuts, the revenue the federal government brought in increased EVERY YEAR! That's a fact.
During that same period expenses at the executive level in Washington DECREASED EVERY YEAR! That's a fact too.

All these and more facts are available by viewing the Dept Of the Treasury's web site.

Fiscal responsibility takes more than cutting taxes. You've got to cut spending too. Where things went south was in Congress's refusal to follow the executive branches lead.

No Iraq war, and we'd arguably be worse off. Ironic as it seems.

 

The budget has more to do with which party controls both houses of Congress. The Democrats under Pelosi and Reid are doing what they did back in the 70s when they controlled both houses.

During the Ford Presidency, the Democrats controlled 2/3 of the House and 31 Seats in the Senate.

During the Reagan and Bush I Presidencies the Democrats controlled the House.

During Clinton, the Republicans took both houses in 1994.

Bush II - Democrats controlled the Senate in 2001 and Democrats both House and Senate in 2006.

 

...back in the 70s


Going back to WWII I believe the Democrats controlled both chambers or at least the house for ~ 40 years etc. and there were no budget (deficit) issues than rhetorical rhetoric, it was Ronald Reagan that issued in the era of fiscal irresponsibility and has been primarily the Republican Executive Administrations that have continued the imbalance of payments - Clinton actually produced a balanced budget and was paying down the deficit just prior to the Bush Administration.

If Bush believed so much in balanced payments as lowering his own taxes during an unnecessary Iraqi war he started where was his vehement Veto when it was necessary?

The Republicans since Reagan have been playing Russian Roulette (voodoo economics) with the nations economic fabric and have driven the country into near Depression only out of spite for their principals and policies as views held mainly by uneducated minions, religious zealots and egomanical enterpriser's that hopefully a maturing nation will someday inoculate from its existence.
........

Mia, without Iraqi do you think maybe you could have saved that 10%, oh you need it for the tune up on your Hog....

 

You were already told how they balanced the budget... by stealing the money from Social Security. You went back
as far as WW II in history -- but fail to remember what happened 20 years ago ? Is it a selective memory
problem, or perhaps you have an agenda here in this thread ?

 

Breeze, any self respecting Harley owner knows how to turn his own wrench.
And VROD owners would never call a Porsche' a Hog.

I think if we made the benefits of social programs dependent on the recipients drug test results, we could save even more.

I don't give a rats ass what one does in the privacy of their own home. But I find it pretty ironic that hard working Americans are required to take drug test in order to hold a job, whilst people that receive state aid do not have to abide by the same requirement.

 

You think they drug tested this elected gubment employee?
[video=youtube;zNZczIgVXjg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg[/video]

 

An attorney at that too. And he's worked as a Judge too.

I wonder what gave him the idea that bodies of land attached to the earth "tip over". Seriously...

He was either baked, or is just plain dumb.

This so reminds me of the "Distinguished Gentlemen" its not even funny...

 

What a terrific pair of graphics!

 

I think the more interesting thing in graph number two is the downward trend of deficit spending post 9/11 under Bush, vs., the massive jump during Obama...

 

The 2012 political campaign has an early entry.

Are there any honest members within the Republican party....?

 

Here's a rather interesting perspective: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-30/which-party-has-more-sex-scandals/

Seems Bill Clinton kinda set the bar for the "Sex Scandal" in today's society.

I found it equally interesting that Republicans tended to pay for their sex more than democrats, and that democrats preferred abusing their power by coercing staffers into sexual relations.

Here's a nice ranking of sex scandals in politics over the last 20 years: http://www.thedailybeast.com/galler...2010-03-30/which-party-has-more-sex-scandals/

Seems in every case democrat scandals seem to cost more in terms of the damage they do and the tax payer dollars they consume.

When it comes to sexual harassment, abuse, and sexual assault, seems democrats hold the record.

Overall the misconduct is pretty equally balanced. Breeze, as usual, find it really difficult to squeeze a point out of your post. It would seem that sexual shenanigans and other behavior like this is about the only bi-partisan thing in Washington.

Personally, I could care less what someone does on their own time and in their private lives. No one is infallible or immune to the failings of mankind. I've got more of an issue with politicians that are screwing the taxpayers. If they want to screw someone else on their own time, fine.

 

I'll second that. If the guy is using his position in the office to pressure coworkers or subordinates, that is something that should require removal from office, the same as it would in the private sector. If the guy likes to get his junk fondled by a midget, and advertises for that service in craigslist, I couldn't really care less. Granted, once exposed, the guy would never get re-elected, but I'm hard pressed to see it as a violation of his work contract with the American people.

 

This has nothing to do with any violation or an inability to do his job. This has to do with the Republican party wanting to continue to portray their holier than though image. They no doubt pressured him to resign amid the allegations in order to create a sense that the party will stop at nothing to keep things perfect and fitting with their moral fortitude and agenda.

In other words they are eating their own in their eternal quest to avoid hypocrisy.