Bet you're sorry you voted for Obama now

[tdslf1 0]

I just wanna know.

Is Paul and Blumenthal done?

One for being a straight liar and the other for being a crackpot. But then again politics are local. More than likely, they accept liars in CT seeing as how they got the fake Dem LIE berman and KY has "I can flip flop and run away from my crackpot views" Paul. They both need to be handed their walking papers.

I want my country forward, not back. One is definitely on the side of BIG business and makes no bones about it. The other tried to identify with the little guy by making crap up.

People have been saying "isn't it refreshing to have someone tell the truth about how they feel." Yep, Paul definitly did that and he effectively got shut down, cause that ain't normal talk. In this day and age, who comes out against a civil rights chapter? Only the tea party in KY would think it great that their candidate loves big business AND hates desegregation. Not to mention, Paul is against the disability act, medicaidvand a whole host of stuff that helps the disadvantage. Loves the BIG business and STFU to the little guy who gets medicaid, half of which KY is on. Retard.

The other yahoo might have a better chance since he seems to have gotten the forgiveness of his state and still has the 15 point lead. Not surprised since they have LIE berman. As far as we can see he has a decent record, but happens to be twins with LIE berman with low moral standards. Idiot.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Don't you worry. Me and plenty others will be going to the polls in November to get those out who are messing with the country and put in those who wont be overspending us into outer space!

As I have posted before, much of the spending going on now is to support the programs BUSH enacted: his two wars (unfunded), his big (unfunded) medicare part D, and the lost revenue from the two big tax cuts to the rich (unfunded). Do you think the spending on these bush programs ends just because Pres. Obama got elected? Please answer. So what are the republicans you are going to vote for going to do to eliminate these? Please be specific because these things need to be eliminated to help reduce the spending.

However, this is a separate issue as to how and where federal dollars go. Mine go to your state, yours goes to my state, etc... How do your republicans plan on changing this formula. Again, be specific.

This is what I talk about when I deride the teabagger for not knowing anything about how our government works. Don't you know this? You really need to educate yourself about how our government works -not how you would like it to work.

Liberals feel they are above everyone who is not in agreemnet with them. They often comment on the "stupidity" of their opposers. How immature!

Not above. Just not about to make stupid, naive, uneducated or unrealistic comments about the government or how it runs or the realities of it. And much of what the teabaggers say is just plain uninformed and wrong and when they say those things and I correct it - it doesn't make me immature it makes me right.

Right... in your own eyes.:tongue2:

NO, right in that I post the facts. When you make uninformed comments like the teabagger violence is all in my head or that health insurance companies don't drop people when they get sick - the facts are easy to post and prove you wrong. That makes me right and you wrong. Period.

[pattygreen 5]

Grow up already and stop being so superstitious. When its over your either going "up the chimney" or becoming "compost" at your local cemetery.

how sad for you.

[pattygreen 5]

I just wanna know.

Is Paul and Blumenthal done?

One for being a straight liar and the other for being a crackpot. But then again politics are local. More than likely, they accept liars in CT seeing as how they got the fake Dem LIE berman and KY has "I can flip flop and run away from my crackpot views" Paul. They both need to be handed their walking papers.

I want my country forward, not back. One is definitely on the side of BIG business and makes no bones about it. The other tried to identify with the little guy by making crap up.

People have been saying "isn't it refreshing to have someone tell the truth about how they feel." Yep, Paul definitly did that and he effectively got shut down, cause that ain't normal talk. In this day and age, who comes out against a civil rights chapter? Only the tea party in KY would think it great that their candidate loves big business AND hates desegregation. Not to mention, Paul is against the disability act, medicaidvand a whole host of stuff that helps the disadvantage. Loves the BIG business and STFU to the little guy who gets medicaid, half of which KY is on. Retard.

The other yahoo might have a better chance since he seems to have gotten the forgiveness of his state and still has the 15 point lead. Not surprised since they have LIE berman. As far as we can see he has a decent record, but happens to be twins with LIE berman with low moral standards. Idiot.

How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce. Do you like salt on your chips, the government may say that it's bad for you and force you to keep away from salt. Oh yeah, they are trying to enforce something like that.:tongue2: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us. Before you know it, it will be like other horrible countries here who don't allow you free speech.

[pattygreen 5]

Wrong Again! The federal government is in financial ruin due to the 8 years of the previous Bush administration which spent hundreds of billions of dollars in an unnecessary War on Terror looking for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as an excuse for the attempt to get cheap oil for his and Chaney`s Texas oil interests and to help increase profits for Hallibuton Corp. while sacrificing thousands of America`a young men and women in our War to democratize a Arab State. American empire building due to our endless thirst for cheap oil. Want to make some real savings and reduce the federal deficit? Cut the Pentagon budget by 50%. Lets have a Tea Party!

May 15, 2010 — budsimmons

A REAL EYE OPENER !

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.

Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party

. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills

, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is:

"I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

"WAKE UP, AMERICA, BEFORE ITS TO LATE.

[leroyspuds 0]

quote PG:How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST: No one here is saying the government should tell people how to "feel." The law only says that all businesses providing services to the public must serve everyone regardless of race. It's that law, not telling people how to feel, that Paul is against. If you want to feel like a racist, by all means go ahead because that doesn't hurt anybody. "Acting" like a racist does hurt people and that's illegal (with regard to the Civil Rights Act.)

quote PG: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah like sodomy laws and trying to pass laws that will control women's bodies.

Edited May 25, 2010 by leroyspuds

[pattygreen 5]

The latest posting from the Treasury Department shows the National Debt has increased over $2 trillion since President Obama took office.

The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion.

President George W. Bush still holds the record for the most debt run up on his watch: $4.9 trillion. But it took him over four years to rack up the first two trillion dollars in debt. It has taken Mr. Obama 421 days.

In the 2011 federal budget released last month, the administration projects the National Debt will soar ever upward to over $25 trillion in the year 2020. The total debt will amount to more than 100 percent of the national economy as early as 2012. WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pattygreen 5]

By William Golden

Someone has a plan to pay for all of this, right?

President Obama inherited a national debt of about $11.4 trillion dollars. That debt had accumulated since President Reagan grew the national debt from a mere $930 million to $2.6 trillion (he had promised in 1980 to 100% pay it off by 1983), Clinton accumulated another $1.6 trillion in debt over 8 years, and Bush 43 gave us $6.4 trillion of our national debt.

We were staggering under the national debt before President Obama. There should be no doubt however that the most prolific accumulators of national debt have had an ‘R’ after their name … until now.

The outlook now is that President Obama will break all records and double the national debt within just five years, hard to believe but PolitFact has looked at the numbers and found them credible.

Our annual GDP is $14.4 trillion dollars (2009). We will soon owe more than our country is even capable of producing.

From the Washington Post

, on Sunday April 4, 2010:

“A study we conducted at the Tax Policy Center found that Washington would have to raise taxes by almost 40 percent to reduce — not eliminate, just reduce — the deficit to 3 percent of our GDP, the 2015 goal the Obama administration set in its 2011 budget. That tax boost would mean the lowest income tax rate would jump from 10 to nearly 14 percent, and the top rate from 35 to 48 percent.”

“What if we raised taxes only on families with couples making more than $250,000 a year and on individuals making more than $200,000? The top two income tax rates would have to more than double, with the top rate hitting almost 77 percent, to get the deficit down to 3 percent of GDP. Such dramatic tax increases are politically untenable and still wouldn’t come close to eliminating the deficit.”

[leroyspuds 0]

Bush's war against Iraq broke us. A lot of our cash went in the pockets of his rich cronies who got fat government contracts. He was sending our men and woman to die in a fake war against a non-existent enemy while the real enemy was digging in deeper in Afganistan. Now that's the kind of spending of blood and money we don't need.

Like Cleo's said: As I have posted before, much of the spending going on now is to support the programs BUSH enacted: his two wars (unfunded), his big (unfunded) medicare part D, and the lost revenue from the two big tax cuts to the rich (unfunded).

Edited May 25, 2010 by leroyspuds

[pattygreen 5]

Obama only inherited a deficit that HE voted for and then HE voted to expand that deficit four-fold!

[tdslf1 0]

PG says,

How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce. Do you like salt on your chips, the government may say that it's bad for you and force you to keep away from salt. Oh yeah, they are trying to enforce something like that.:tongue2: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us. Before you know it, it will be like other horrible countries here who don't allow you free speech.

WHo knows what he is for or against. The guy is scared to come out and talk about it. He knows full well, most people don't accept those ideas about the disability act, abolishing the dept of ed, the FBI and the civil rights-title 2 just to name a few that I have read he has an issue to.

This should be self explanitory but for the challenged I will give an example. I would love to go around and not wear clothes in public. Level the playing field for all, but I can't. WHy? because not all people feel the need to be nude and thus I would place undue hardship on others and the government recognized that and passed laws about indecent exposure. Same thing here. The government passes laws to protect citizens most times and some citizens don't like it. That is what the government must do. Look at the greater good for ALL citizens.

That salt example. Why exactly would the government place those laws on business? Did they do this because they wanted to place another burden on society? Did they do it for the greater good? I would appreciate a fact based answer from someone.

Sorry PG, I respectfully request that you don't answer since you are too emotionally driven and prejudice against government like Paul and I KNOW you're incapable of fact based answers. Reference the above emotional answer.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Obama only inherited a deficit that HE voted for and then HE voted to expand that deficit four-fold!

PATTYGREEN: THIS POST IS FOR YOU. PAY ATTENTION.

I have posted this before and you have ignored it. Study it closely. Take your time.

Now, answer these questions:

1) Do you see how much of the deficit is from bush and how much from Pres. Obama?

2) How do you think the programs bush enacted are currently being funded?

3) Do you think the funding of bush's programs (none of which were funded when he passed them) ends with the election of Pres. Obama?

4) To refresh your memory - those programs were the 2 wars, the medicare part D, and the loss of revenues from his two tax cuts to the rich. Those wars or programs didn't end when Pres. Obama got elected. So how do you think they are being paid for now? Do you think they just disappear?

Here are the costs of these wars and programs of bush:

1) 2 wars: $974 billion

2) Medicare part D (10 years) - $1 trillion

3) Lost revenue (2 tax cuts - over 10 years) - $3.9 trillion

These numbers are staggering and bush had no way to pay for any of them. They were unfunded. But they still have to be paid for - THUS THE DEFICIT WE HAVE NOW. WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? GEEZ!!!

BUT SINCE YOU CAN'T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, YOU WON'T AND YOU WILL JUST IGNORE THIS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ALWAYS DO WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE FACTS.

SO STOP BLAMING PRES. OBAMA FOR BUSH'S DEFICITS. IT IS BUSH'S FAULT, BUSH'S FAULT, BUSH'S FAULT, BUSH'S FAULT, BUSH'S FAULT, BUSH'S FAULT.

Edited May 25, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[Cleo's Mom 257]

May 15, 2010 — budsimmons

A REAL EYE OPENER !

The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.

Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense. So once more, a short civics lesson.

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party

. They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases. For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills

, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets. If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is:

"I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

"WAKE UP, AMERICA, BEFORE ITS TO LATE.

YEAH, IT'S A REAL FREAKIN' EYE-OPENER, BECAUSE THOSE PROJECTED DEFICITS ARE TO PAY FOR BUSH'S PROGRAMS. THE TWO WARS, MEDICARE PART D AND THE LOST REVENUE FROM HIS TAX CUTS TO THE RICH. (AT LEAST THIS LATER WILL END, THANKFULLY, AT THE END OF THIS YEAR).

The successful stimulus program was a one shot deal, the bank bailouts are being paid back, GM has paid back their bailout. And healthcare is paid for, but bush's programs just keep on taking and taking and taking......

[Cleo's Mom 257]

How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce. Do you like salt on your chips, the government may say that it's bad for you and force you to keep away from salt. Oh yeah, they are trying to enforce something like that.:tongue2: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us. Before you know it, it will be like other horrible countries here who don't allow you free speech.

Rand Paul does not believe that government should be involved in private business at all. Therefore he believes that a private business should be allowed to discriminate, if they so choose, on the basis of race, gender, religion, disability. So Rand Paul would be okay with a "No Blacks or Jews Served" sign in a public restaurant. I am not.

I want the government overseeing the safety of the food I eat, the Water I drink, the place I work, the medicines I take, because we cannot trust the evil, greedy corporate america to do it. That has been well documented. They will disregard any safety feature to take a short cut to the quick buck $$$.

[BJean 16]

How petty. He's not aganst the civil rights movement, he's against the government telling people how they can and can not feel about others. Even if the majority truly believe that racial discrimination is wrong, the government still should not tell people how to feel about others, for if they do that, there will be no end to what the government can enforce. Do you like salt on your chips, the government may say that it's bad for you and force you to keep away from salt. Oh yeah, they are trying to enforce something like that.:biggrin: See, there is no end to the regulations they try to put on us. Before you know it, it will be like other horrible countries here who don't allow you free speech.

Free speech?? You think that ending discrimination is akin to giving up free speech?

What you're advocating (no doubt without even realizing it) is having this country wind up in some kind of civil war again.

You need to dig a little deeper, my dear, just using terms like "free speech" cannot excuse racial discrimination.

And racial discrimination is ignorant and unacceptable. There is no way to justify it, no matter how much you'd like to do just that.