Close

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 82 of 82
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,697
    Rep Points
    31,533.2
    Mentioned
    2063 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by chadd Click here to enlarge
    We do need a fix but any current or former politician are what they are, politicians...Their job is to divide us and have us argue over talking points. They will just implement the plan of the rich and powerful and we will follow, nothing will fundamentally change. To think that any one man, obama or bush, has the ability to change what is wrong with our government is foolish. What we need is political reform which can only be done by a revolution.

    I do think we are heading towards a restructure, people do want change. Just look at the last election, we ended up with a african american president, first ever! We could of possibly had a female vice president. That screams our country wants change.

    End of my marxist rant.....
    I don't understand why the system isn't being updated for the times we are in now.

    We needed the electoral college and representatives when distances and conveying information were an issue. I don't need anyone voting for me in congress. I am more than capable of making my own decision on policies. Frankly, by some of the attendance records as well as the private interests controlling certain politicians it would be better if I just voted myself.

    Am I the only one that thinks it's time for an update? And not the kind that weakens the Constitution?

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    your correct. since everyone needs an ID now, its too easy to set up a system in which everyone gets to vote on everything, and records can be checked online.

    this is a good read, just got done
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...eds-to-go.html

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pretty sure I am in Mexico
    Posts
    918
    Rep Points
    930.0
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ssharma Click here to enlarge
    Because I figured thats what you were looking at for whatever reason.. Bush's stimulus plan in early 08 is also completely different. It puts taxpayer dollars back in taxpayer pockets to provide additional disposible income vs taxpayer dollars into infrastructure. Bush's stimulus plan was 1/8th of the Obama plan mind you and 3x of what Bush put in taxpayer pockets was put into infrastructure. The construction of these stimulus plans were also completely different. Also why would there be a second stimulus plan? If there was a need for it it should do something to stimulate the economy.. It didn't it just burned money.

    The President has the ability to sign or not sign these things into effect so I'd say he does have a pretty damn significant amount of power. Also when I talk about Obama its implied that I'm talking about his administration as well.

    Change? Obama's WHOLE campaign was about change.. He changed absolutely nothing for the better as far as I've seen. I'm not even looking for change just fulfilling your role. $#@! hit the fan on the way out in Bush's term.. The following President will be held responsible for cleaning up that mess up and there is no way around it. I'm saying he didn't do it. If capitol hill is feeding you nonsense don't sign it. Pretty simple.

    I'm not trying to talk about this.. I stated in my first post that I hate discussing politics.. why? because everyone has their own background and own opinions which they are entitled to and everyone is too pigheaded to open up to anything else or search for an actual truth.. truth is politics is a sham.

    We are off topic, but I can't sit quiet when someone has responded directly to something I've said.
    Not sure you read the whole thread or you wouldn't have mentioned TARP as a response. But anyway...off topic now as you said.

    I will say the "don't sign it" game only works so far. And doesn't stop everything. In addition that explanation only explains stopping other parties legislation, it does nothing to address things you (the President) are trying to accomplish.
    Never thought I would see the day...
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Life is so much more fun with a nemesis. I miss Shiv. Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pretty sure I am in Mexico
    Posts
    918
    Rep Points
    930.0
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    "
    The U.S. government’s indebtedness to foreign interests has grown by 72.3 percent during President Barack Obama’s term in office. In January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the U.S. government owed $3.0717 trillion to foreign entities, according to the Treasury Department. That has increased by $2.2206 trillion—or 72.3 percent—to the record $5.2923 trillion reported for yesterday.

    "

    there is a problem, we need a fix.. the current person, is not helping the situation
    That ignores several points made in the original article...mainly the 2009 budget (which Obama had no control over)
    Never thought I would see the day...
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Life is so much more fun with a nemesis. I miss Shiv. Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
    That ignores several points made in the original article...mainly the 2009 budget (which Obama had no control over)
    what do you mean? did it increase 72% or not while he is in office?

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    120
    Rep Points
    228.9
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Forced Air Click here to enlarge
    Not sure you read the whole thread or you wouldn't have mentioned TARP as a response. But anyway...off topic now as you said.

    I will say the "don't sign it" game only works so far. And doesn't stop everything. In addition that explanation only explains stopping other parties legislation, it does nothing to address things you (the President) are trying to accomplish.
    TARP had to do with my earlier responses, which is why I thought it was what you are referencing...

    I understand it doesn't stop everything, but never once did I hear him mention a reasonable stimulus plan is all I'm saying.. At least show that you want to put the right cards on the table!

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Pretty sure I am in Mexico
    Posts
    918
    Rep Points
    930.0
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    what do you mean? did it increase 72% or not while he is in office?
    Did it while he was in office?...I doubt that is right (source?) but if that is the stat you found then sure (don't care to cross check but that does sound a little to high to be accurate), but if you look at the article in the first post it makes the point I am referring. The 2009 budget, which is a major part of that 72%, was passed under Bush. Obama had nothing to do with it and couldn't have done anything to change it.

    So to state that it increased 72% under Obama is misleading.


    Edit: So as the article points out in 2009 the budget increased 17.9 percent (Bush's last budget). As the article says annualized growth of spending increased 1.4% under Obama. It fell the first year and is scheduled to fall with this final budget.


    • In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
    • In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
    • In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
    • Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.
    So you can see spending rose in the 2011 and 2012 budgets...total of 5%. But fell in 2010 by 1.8%. Doesn't sound like 72% to me...maybe I am reading something wrong.
    Last edited by Forced Air; 08-22-2012 at 04:21 PM.
    Never thought I would see the day...
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Terry@BMS Click here to enlarge
    Life is so much more fun with a nemesis. I miss Shiv. Click here to enlarge
    Click here to enlarge

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •