|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
For those supporting this unemployment benefits(though of course it's mainly mac), why does this bill cost $34 BILLION for 73 weeks? Keep in mind the last extension cost around $1.4 BILLION which was funded by taxing employers another $14 per employee per year... And those numbers are only the amount that the federal government is paying.. Keep in mind the states still need to make up the difference by even more borrowing from the federal govt which is borrowing the money for that. Another thing to watch out for is an increase in unemployment after this extension.. We saw it drop in May '10 from people dropping out(not getting jobs).. April '09 extension: from April '09 to June'09 Unemployment rose from 8.6% to 9.6% Once again in November '09.. Another extension.. and unemployment went up from 9.4% in November to 10.6% in Jan '10 October 2008 Extension: 6.1% in Oct '08 to 7.1% in Dec '09 to peak in march '09 at 9% which was just about the time that extension expired. It dropped to 8.6% in Apr '09 only to rise back up to 9.1% in may'09 All I did was look at the unemplyment chart at google and looked when the unemployment rate spiked upwards and then googled the Month and Year + Unemployment Extension and surprising I found when Congress passed an unemployment extension... So that drop in May'10 we had will only be offset by a spiked increase... But in the end, we will be having this same debate in November when these new costly extensions expire..
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
I would just like to point out that all of us do not always point fingers at the other side. I am more then happy to post my displeasure with anyone i have an issue with no matter what party they are from or if I voted for them or not.
Mac is just our whipping boy because all he does is take shots at Republicans, even if democrats vote with them. What is worse is how he feels any ill in this country (like racism) is due to right wingers. By right wingers he means anyone who is the slightest bit conservative. Since he doesn't understand the difference between conservatives and Republicans he lumps Libertarians in as Republicans
pdie...first, I'm no one's whipping boy, but I do take everything you RW folks send my way and I'm still here.
Next, I see that you are attempting to separate Republicans from conservatives, maybe due to the fact that Republicans have not been "conservatives" for a long, long time..
I'm not sure that "conservatives" even exist..
It appears to me that "conservatives" simply have "different" spending priorities, but they still spend..spend..spend.
When we look at the history of "conservatives" within government, in relationship to (Gov.) spending, the last good example would be the Clinton administration, which left BushJr a surplus, which he and the GOP congress quickly spent.
The very same Republicans who crowed about the surplus they helped to create, "flipped" overnight, once BushJr took office and began spending the surplus.
Again, I do not believe Republicans are conservatives and even those attempting to distance themselves from the big spending Republicans, claiming they are "conservatives"..they are not "conservatives" either..they just have different spending priorities too...same as Republicans.
As for my not blaming Dems...did I not say that "organized labor" was right to oppose NAFTA, which Clinton was pushing?
Did I not say that it was good to see Republicans like yourself, agree with "organized labor" that NAFTA was a " horrible idea"?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,289
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,289 |
mac,
Who signed NAFTA into law?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
We sure could use those millions of manufacturing jobs lost, outsourced, off-shored...to China and other slave labor wage countries... during the GWBush years...couldn't we?
The country is paying the price for 8 years of GOP/GWBush trickle down (on) economics. High unemployment and the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs has hit the backbone of the American economy...the working/middle class.
As for paying for future unemployment benefits...those Bush tax cuts will be expiring at the end of this year.
You must have been busy last night mac so you went ahead and just cut and pasted from your clipboard. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
arch...you do know the "history" of NAFTA?
Which administration came up with and pushed NAFTA?
OR...do you just remember when it was ratified?
Yes mac, we all know the history, the difference is we just accept that its a bad policy that both parties had their fingers in yet the results of it, which is manufacturing job losses, you want to blame 100% on Bush.. because you lack any semblence of objectivity.
How much of the current job loss is Obama's fault mac? Or are all of these job losses still on Bush because "he started it"?
You do know that we lost 3 million manufacturing jobs between 1998 and 2003 right? Who was President in 1998 and why don't the continued job losses fall on him?... but your total and utter lack of objectivity will not allow you to look at it that way. Bush inherited a tumbling economy from Clinton which was losing jobs, yet every job lost after day 1 of the Bush administration is on Bush.. Obama has been in office for 18 months now and STILL nothing is on Obama..
You want it both ways mac and when you have no argument you go back to your talking points.. In a lot of respects Bush was awful, Obama might be on pace to be worse, just accept it... and accept that some of what Bush is blamed for started before him, just like with Obama...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
JULY 16, 2010 To Protest Hiring of Nonunion Help, Union Hires Nonunion Pickets WASHINGTON—Billy Raye, a 51-year-old unemployed bike courier, is looking for work. Fortunately for him, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters is seeking paid demonstrators to march and chant in its current picket line outside the McPherson Building, an office complex here where the council says work is being done with nonunion labor. "For a lot of our members, it's really difficult to have them come out, either because of parking or something else," explains Vincente Garcia, a union representative who is supervising the picketing. So instead, the union hires unemployed people at the minimum wage—$8.25 an hour—to walk picket lines. Mr. Raye says he's grateful for the work, even though he's not sure why he's doing it. "I could care less," he says. "I am being paid to march around and sound off." Protest organizers and advocacy groups are reaping an unexpected benefit from continued high joblessness. With the national unemployment rate currently at 9.5%, an "endless supply" of the out-of-work, as well as retirees seeking extra income, are lining up to be paid demonstrators, says George Eisner, the union's director of organization. Extra feet help the union staff about 150 picket lines in the District of Columbia and Baltimore each day. Online postings recruit paid activists for everything from stopping offshore drilling to defending the Constitution. In California, one group is offering to pay $10 and up per hour to activists to hold signs in demonstrations against foam cups and plastic bags. web page The article is longer and talks about other groups that are hiring people to demonstrate.. but this is the part that cracked me up... Union workers are now too lazy and too expensive to picket for themselves... I'm sorry, that's funny...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
Union workers are now too lazy and too expensive to picket for themselves... I'm sorry, that's funny...
that's not fair DC. the parking is terrible 
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
Union workers are now too lazy and too expensive to picket for themselves... I'm sorry, that's funny...
that's not fair DC. the parking is terrible
Their too good for the minimum wage picketing job. 
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
pdie...first, I'm no one's whipping boy, but I do take everything you RW folks send my way and I'm still here.
Next, I see that you are attempting to separate Republicans from conservatives, maybe due to the fact that Republicans have not been "conservatives" for a long, long time..
I'm not sure that "conservatives" even exist..
It appears to me that "conservatives" simply have "different" spending priorities, but they still spend..spend..spend.
When we look at the history of "conservatives" within government, in relationship to (Gov.) spending, the last good example would be the Clinton administration, which left BushJr a surplus, which he and the GOP congress quickly spent.
The very same Republicans who crowed about the surplus they helped to create, "flipped" overnight, once BushJr took office and began spending the surplus.
Again, I do not believe Republicans are conservatives and even those attempting to distance themselves from the big spending Republicans, claiming they are "conservatives"..they are not "conservatives" either..they just have different spending priorities too...same as Republicans.
As for my not blaming Dems...did I not say that "organized labor" was right to oppose NAFTA, which Clinton was pushing?
Did I not say that it was good to see Republicans like yourself, agree with "organized labor" that NAFTA was a " horrible idea"?
You want to crow about Clinton's surplus and Bush's deficit spending? How about when Bush was in office.. the Democrats were complaining about the republican's deficit spending and then when they get in office, they are spending even larger amounts of money with deficit spending? The shoe sure fits nicely when it's on the other foot.. Compare Bush's deficits to Obamas... It's not a pretty sight..
Deficits by year..
2000: -236.24 Billion
2001: -128.24 Billion
2002: 157.75 Billion
2003: 377.59 Billion
2004: 412.73 Billion
2005: 318.34 Billion
2006: 248.19 Billion
2007: 160.94 Billion
2008: 458.55 Billion
2009: 1412.68 Billion (1.41 TRILLION)
2010: 1555.58 Billion (1.55 TRILLION)
(source)
So with Obama we have see the deficit grow by $1 Trillion higher than any year that Bush was in office..
and of course 2010 is going to continue to grow considering that we just spent $34 BILLION on an expensive unemployment extension... and if it's going to be like other extensions.. it will give us a higher unemployment rate as I mentioned in a previous post..
Last edited by ~TuX~; 07/21/10 02:41 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
It's ok to blame Bush for his first two years in office even though the downturn clearly started while Clinton was in office but its not ok to blame Obama for his first two years in office when the downturn is a carryover from Bush... see how that works?
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
It's ok to blame Bush for his first two years in office even though the downturn clearly started while Clinton was in office but its not ok to blame Obama for his first two years in office when the downturn is a carryover from Bush... see how that works?
That's the mac way of thinking...
But you cannot blame the first 2 Obama years on the Bush downturn... You cannot simply point and say that it caused $1 TRILLION more in spending from 2008 to 2009... and by the rate we are going we may see 0.5 Trillion more spending in 2010 than 2009..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
I agree, what Bush gave Obama wasn't pretty but that doesn't mean we can't judge Obama on his response to it.. which hasn't been good.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
What's really sad is that Obama has spent 1 Trillion more than Bush to spurn the economy, and he's still got double digit unemployment rates ... and he hasn't even had something like a major terrorist attack to pin the lack of consumer confidence on.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Tux...do your Bush numbers include the cost of the two wars?
Last edited by mac; 07/21/10 03:07 PM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Tux...do your Bush numbers include the cost of the two wars?
Of course not!
Republicans don't include wars. You should know that when a Republican is in charge the price of wars doesn't matter and is NEVER included.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Tux...do your Bush numbers include the cost of the two wars?
How would it not? It's the federal deficit ... so unless they were financing the war through a swiss bank account, those numbers should be included.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Tux...do your Bush numbers include the cost of the two wars?
I found the cost of both wars to date and if you add the total cost of 9 years of war to Bush's last year of deficit (which isn't realistic because it should be spread out) it's about equal to Obama's first year of deficit... the cost of war I found was a hair over a trillion dollars...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
You should know that when a Republican is in charge the price of wars doesn't matter and is NEVER included.
And when a liberal is talking .. facts never matter. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
For those attempting to compare the recession that occurred when W. took office,..read..
...from list of U.S. recessions...
EARLY 2000s RECESSION..Mar to Nov 2001...
The 1990s were the longest period of growth in American history. The collapse of the speculative dot-com bubble, a fall in business outlays and investments, and the September 11th attacks, brought the decade of growth to an end. Despite these major shocks, the recession was brief and shallow. Without the September 11th attacks, the economy may have avoided recession altogether.
web page
THE GREAT RECESSION...Dec 2007 to Present...
The subprime mortgage crisis led to the collapse of the United States housing bubble. Falling housing-related assets contributed to a global financial crisis, even as oil and food prices soared. The crisis led to the failure or collapse of many of the United States' largest financial institutions: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and AIG, as well as a crisis in the automobile industry. The government responded with an unprecedented $700 billion bank bailout and $787 billion fiscal stimulus package. By July 2009, some economists believed that the recession may have ended. This view was bolstered with the initial estimate of a 3.5% rise in the GDP (Q3 09). As is often the case at the end of a recession, unemployment is still rising. The National Bureau of Economic Research will not make this official determination for some time.
(same link)
Hopefully RWers can admit, there is no comparison.
Last edited by mac; 07/21/10 03:24 PM.
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
You are quoting a wikipedia page as your source???  Did you write that?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Tux...do your Bush numbers include the cost of the two wars?
The War in Afghanistan and the illegitimate War in Iraq do not account for $1 TRILLION more in spending per year.. In the 2 years of Obama he has a deficit of $2.96 Trillion... Bush's 8 years account for $2 Trillion of deficit spending...
Obama has almost $1 Trillion more in deficits in 2 years than Bush had in 8....
Last edited by ~TuX~; 07/21/10 03:28 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Hopefully RWers can admit, there is no comparison.
There is no comparison in how they turned out..... could be because the the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 which decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty all worked...
Who knows how long the dot-com recession might have been if Bush's response had been to come in and spend a trillion dollars propping up dot-com companies..
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,842 |
Quote:
Tux...do your Bush numbers include the cost of the two wars?
tux...do your numbers... 2008: 458.55 Billion
...include the cost of Bush's 700 Billion TARP?
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
web page
Damn!
And we thought Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Compared to O, he was so tight he squeaked when he walked.
Wonder how mac will justify that graph.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
... yes
even for the sake of it we add an extra $700 billion of TARP Money... Bush's deficit over 8 YEARS is still only $2.7 TRILLION compared to $2.96 TRILLION over 2 YEARS with Obama...
Mac you can continue adding Bush's spending twice and it still will not match what Obama has been spending...
Lets double what Bush's deficit over 8 years was... we have $4 TRILLION then..
Lets look at Obama's $2.96 Trillion over only 2 years and 2010 is still not over yet...
Obama is at almost $3 TRILLION in 2 years over the imaginary $4 TRILLION during 8 years..
Do you NOT see the issue with spending? In 2 years.. Obama has deficit spent almost $1 TRILLION less than Bush's "imaginary doubled" deficit spending did in 8 years...
You do not see any problems with that?
Last edited by ~TuX~; 07/21/10 03:49 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
web page
That really paints a good picture of the problem.. of course, mac will find some other Bush spending to double up with imagination that still won't match what Obama has been spending...
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Wonder how mac will justify that graph.
Do you really have to wonder? Let me help you..
Heritage Foundation, conservative lackeys, no better than Fix News, they lie.. it's all lies..
That about sums it up.. when you can't answer the substance, question the source.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
Wonder how mac will justify that graph.
Do you really have to wonder? Let me help you..
Heritage Foundation, conservative lackeys, no better than Fix News, they lie.. it's all lies..
That about sums it up.. when you can't answer the substance, question the source.
and of course, mac gets his figures from wikipedia...
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Exactly ... and now here's an article from the Huffington Post to change the subject. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
and of course, mac gets his figures from wikipedia...
FIGURES? What figures?? All he gets is cold, hard opinions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Exactly ... and now here's an article from the Huffington Post to change the subject.
No No No... It's an article from the Huffington Post that has been rewritten that says the same thing as a previous one that got cut and pasted into this thread to change the subject.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
web page
The 2009 fiscal budget was proposed by then President Bush and approved by Congress. 2010 was the first budget that Obama got to propose. The federal budget runs from October to September. So for the 2009 budget, President Bush proposed it on October 2008 and it expired September 2009. At that point Obama proposed the next budget, which is the one we are currently working under.
Here is a summary of the budget:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
So that huge jump from 2008 to 2009 can't be blamed on Obama, it's purely George Bush's doing. Everything after that year can be blamed on Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
web page
The 2009 fiscal budget was proposed by then President Bush and approved by Congress. 2010 was the first budget that Obama got to propose. The federal budget runs from October to September. So for the 2009 budget, President Bush proposed it on October 2008 and it expired September 2009. At that point Obama proposed the next budget, which is the one we are currently working under.
Here is a summary of the budget:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/pdf/budget/tables.pdf
So that huge jump from 2008 to 2009 can't be blamed on Obama, it's purely George Bush's doing. Everything after that year can be blamed on Obama.
Budget != actual spending
Just because there is a budget does not mean it stops other spending or you cannot stop some spending.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 07/21/10 04:21 PM.
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
So that huge jump from 2008 to 2009 can't be blamed on Obama, it's purely George Bush's doing.
... and uh, the Democratic majority in Congress, that you know ... helped draft and approve the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
web page
What is The Heritage Foundation? That is the group responsible for that graph.
Let's see:
heritage.org
About Heritage.org
Become a Member Today!
WOW, become a member of the group just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity!!
And as the site itself proclaims:
"Conservative Policy Research and Analysis"
That is one heck of an unbiased site. No way they agree with either Republicans or Democrats. It isn't a think-tank!! Oh wait, IT IS a think-tank for Republicans!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Wow, that was tough to predict...
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
Quote:
Quote:
web page
What is The Heritage Foundation? That is the group responsible for that graph.
Let's see:
heritage.org
About Heritage.org
Become a Member Today!
WOW, become a member of the group just like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity!!
And as the site itself proclaims:
"Conservative Policy Research and Analysis"
That is one heck of an unbiased site. No way they agree with either Republicans or Democrats. It isn't a think-tank!! Oh wait, IT IS a think-tank for Republicans!!!
Of course, you can look at actual figures from many sources and they all show the same thing.. Obama's deficits are dwarfing those of Bush..
"Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Would you like to supply any figures that dispute those deficit numbers?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Republicans Thwart Bill With
Unemployment Aid, "AGAIN" - contd.
|
|
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)