100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Which Party’s Presidents Created The Debt? Anyalysis From | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Seems to have been proven BY NOW that that hat trick doesn't work, for some reason IT NEVER TRICKLES DOWN....
But this adminisrations trickle up poverty is working very well. God yes I do agree! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seems to have been proven BY NOW that that hat trick doesn't work, for some reason IT NEVER TRICKLES DOWN....
But this adminisrations trickle up poverty is working very well. To bad that also started before this administration. It just hasn't stopped yet. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 07/23/11 11:39 AM
|
|
Trickle up poverty is the result of globalization and Big Corporate Capitalism that creates it so they can have cheap slave labor, and pay workers half the living wage to make name brand products like Niki in Indonesia.
The workers get paid about one dollar a day. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point about dragoness's chart is that once the deficit started climbing greatly there was only 1 dem president and it climbed with him too.
there is one thing that is bogus about all these charts. (but the fault lies not with the charts.) Imagine what it would have looked like had Bush put the cost of his two wars on-budget. One of the first things Obama did when he became President was to put the cost of Bush's wars on-budget. It seem ridiculous not to expect a spike in the budget deficit when that happened. It would, of course, be more comforting to leave it off budget so that we could continue to pretend that we were getting those wars for free, and the curve would only show a modest blip with the stimulus spending. As I recall, the the Bush/Paulson Tarp funds were $700 billion. Even if you could blame it on Obama, When you add it to putting the wars on-budget in addition to what the Bush tax cuts are doing to the budget, I don't see how anybody would not expect a pretty healthy budget deficit under Obama. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point about dragoness's chart is that once the deficit started climbing greatly there was only 1 dem president and it climbed with him too.
there is one thing that is bogus about all these charts. (but the fault lies not with the charts.) Imagine what it would have looked like had Bush put the cost of his two wars on-budget. One of the first things Obama did when he became President was to put the cost of Bush's wars on-budget. It seem ridiculous not to expect a spike in the budget deficit when that happened. It would, of course, be more comforting to leave it off budget so that we could continue to pretend that we were getting those wars for free, and the curve would only show a modest blip with the stimulus spending. As I recall, the the Bush/Paulson Tarp funds were $700 billion. Even if you could blame it on Obama, When you add it to putting the wars on-budget in addition to what the Bush tax cuts are doing to the budget, I don't see how anybody would not expect a pretty healthy budget deficit under Obama. i seem to remember bush fighting with congress about a 500 billion war budget, cause i kept thinking why it was costing 500 billion dollars a year... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point about dragoness's chart is that once the deficit started climbing greatly there was only 1 dem president and it climbed with him too.
there is one thing that is bogus about all these charts. (but the fault lies not with the charts.) Imagine what it would have looked like had Bush put the cost of his two wars on-budget. One of the first things Obama did when he became President was to put the cost of Bush's wars on-budget. It seem ridiculous not to expect a spike in the budget deficit when that happened. It would, of course, be more comforting to leave it off budget so that we could continue to pretend that we were getting those wars for free, and the curve would only show a modest blip with the stimulus spending. As I recall, the the Bush/Paulson Tarp funds were $700 billion. Even if you could blame it on Obama, When you add it to putting the wars on-budget in addition to what the Bush tax cuts are doing to the budget, I don't see how anybody would not expect a pretty healthy budget deficit under Obama. i seem to remember bush fighting with congress about a 500 billion war budget, cause i kept thinking why it was costing 500 billion dollars a year... I wonder why China is gobbling up all the oil in Iraq and we paid to pave the way for them? Why aren't we billing them for doing the dirty work they are taking advantage of? that is why they were so hot to lend us money. It got them oil. Double profit! Also Libya. Why are we not billing the UN for this? Each Cruise missile is $12 Million a POP. Now Afghanistan, Guess who is laying claim to all the mineral rights there while we spill our blood there. Doesn't anybody smell a sell out here and doesn't anyone smell the crap festering from congress hall and likewise the UN building? China is snaking us. Hell, they are threatening Vietnam over oil drilling in the Yellow islands. And Taiwan is also pissing blood! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya and I vote we do something functional like go back to the gold standard 
There's a good reason we're no longer on the gold standard. Bills were basically promisory notes, meaning anyone (most notably, foreign governments) could collect a bunch of our money and then demand the gold. Over time, the U.S. Treasury can get cleaned out and the dollar gets weaker all the while. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya and I vote we do something functional like go back to the gold standard
There's a good reason we're no longer on the gold standard. Bills were basically promisory notes, meaning anyone (most notably, foreign governments) could collect a bunch of our money and then demand the gold. Over time, the U.S. Treasury can get cleaned out and the dollar gets weaker all the while. not only that, but gold was illegal to own till the law was changed in the 70's... i think the most you could own was about 2 ounces http://www.submityourarticle.com/articles/Gary-Giardina-3185/gold-26305.php |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
not only that, but gold was illegal to own till the law was changed in the 70's... i think the most you could own was about 2 ounces http://www.submityourarticle.com/articles/Gary-Giardina-3185/gold-26305.php Well, that was because of the gold standard. There is still a legal limit on gold hoarding beyond jewelry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya and I vote we do something functional like go back to the gold standard
There's a good reason we're no longer on the gold standard. Bills were basically promisory notes, meaning anyone (most notably, foreign governments) could collect a bunch of our money and then demand the gold. Over time, the U.S. Treasury can get cleaned out and the dollar gets weaker all the while. Too late. The U.S. treasury is already cleaned out. shhhhhhhhhh..... don't tell anyone. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point about dragoness's chart is that once the deficit started climbing greatly there was only 1 dem president and it climbed with him too.
there is one thing that is bogus about all these charts. (but the fault lies not with the charts.) Imagine what it would have looked like had Bush put the cost of his two wars on-budget. One of the first things Obama did when he became President was to put the cost of Bush's wars on-budget. It seem ridiculous not to expect a spike in the budget deficit when that happened. It would, of course, be more comforting to leave it off budget so that we could continue to pretend that we were getting those wars for free, and the curve would only show a modest blip with the stimulus spending. As I recall, the the Bush/Paulson Tarp funds were $700 billion. Even if you could blame it on Obama, When you add it to putting the wars on-budget in addition to what the Bush tax cuts are doing to the budget, I don't see how anybody would not expect a pretty healthy budget deficit under Obama. i seem to remember bush fighting with congress about a 500 billion war budget, cause i kept thinking why it was costing 500 billion dollars a year... I wonder why China is gobbling up all the oil in Iraq and we paid to pave the way for them? Why aren't we billing them for doing the dirty work they are taking advantage of? that is why they were so hot to lend us money. It got them oil. Double profit! Also Libya. Why are we not billing the UN for this? Each Cruise missile is $12 Million a POP. Now Afghanistan, Guess who is laying claim to all the mineral rights there while we spill our blood there. Doesn't anybody smell a sell out here and doesn't anyone smell the crap festering from congress hall and likewise the UN building? China is snaking us. Hell, they are threatening Vietnam over oil drilling in the Yellow islands. And Taiwan is also pissing blood! China is spending U.S currency as fast as they can to get rid of it. Rather than just dumping the dollar, they are spending it on things. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sun 07/24/11 10:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point about dragoness's chart is that once the deficit started climbing greatly there was only 1 dem president and it climbed with him too.
there is one thing that is bogus about all these charts. (but the fault lies not with the charts.) Imagine what it would have looked like had Bush put the cost of his two wars on-budget. One of the first things Obama did when he became President was to put the cost of Bush's wars on-budget. It seem ridiculous not to expect a spike in the budget deficit when that happened. It would, of course, be more comforting to leave it off budget so that we could continue to pretend that we were getting those wars for free, and the curve would only show a modest blip with the stimulus spending. As I recall, the the Bush/Paulson Tarp funds were $700 billion. Even if you could blame it on Obama, When you add it to putting the wars on-budget in addition to what the Bush tax cuts are doing to the budget, I don't see how anybody would not expect a pretty healthy budget deficit under Obama. Why quote me for this when it is irrelevant to anything I wrote? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pointless to discuss
|
|
|
|
|
