PDA

View Full Version : Obama's Failed Policies!


revefsreleets
03-12-2009, 03:32 PM
Here it is (and I knew it wouldn't take long).

Obama is now signing legislation that he ADMITS is bad law, and that BUSH HIMSELF WOULD NOT ENDORSE!

This is the smoking gun. This is the tipping point. Obama is now forging his own failed policies, and, too make it worse, he's signing BAD bills that even "the worst president in history" thought sucked and wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

We are in trouble. Big, bad trouble...

http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/41133297.html

(Oh, and as a bonus, all Obama's flunkies pork is listed as well...also note that this is an AP article, not Fox News or Rupurt Murdoch or the devil or whatever the uber leftie libs always claim are being sourced).

WASHINGTON: As a candidate, Barack Obama once said that a president has to be able to do more than one thing at a time. Wednesday he proved it, though not in the way he had in mind.
He criticized pork-barrel spending in the form of ''earmarks,'' urging changes in the way that Congress adopts spending proposals. Then he signed a spending bill that contains nearly 9,000 of them, some that members of his own staff shoved in last year when they were still part of Congress.
''Let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation must mark an end to the old way of doing business, and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability,'' Obama said.
He said, however, that it was crucial for him to sign the $410 billion bill as soon as it arrived at the White House from Congress because it's needed to finance much of the government for the rest of this fiscal year. It was largely written last year but was held back while Republican George W. Bush was president because he opposed it.


''I am signing an imperfect . . . bill,'' Obama said, ''because it's necessary for the ongoing functions of government, and we have a lot more work to do. We can't have Congress bogged down at this critical juncture in our economic recovery.''
Obama proposed changing the way special projects are financed, including competitive bidding for spending that goes to for-profit businesses. Aides also said the White House Office of Management and Budget would review the spending bill for examples of wasteful spending. The president then could send those back to Congress as proposed cuts, called rescissions, for an up-or-down vote.
Although Obama insisted that the recently enacted $787 billion plan to stimulate the economy be free of any earmarks — spending on special projects usually in senators' home states or representatives' districts — he made no such demand of this spending bill.
''The president could have done better. He couldn't have eliminated the earmarks in this bill, but he could have at least cut them back significantly,'' said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a budget watchdog group. ''We appreciate how he kept them out of the stimulus, but we think he's only batting .500.''
''The American people know actions speak louder than words,'' said House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-West Chester. ''The president's new promises on earmark reform would carry greater weight if they had been accompanied by a veto keeping his earlier promises on earmark reform.''
Obama signed the bill in private, unlike a number of recent signings that took place with fanfare.
Obama also issued a ''signing statement'' with the bill, saying several of its provisions raised constitutional concerns and would be taken merely as suggestions. He has criticized former President George W. Bush for often using such statements to claim the right to ignore portions of new laws, and on Monday he said his administration wouldn't follow those issued by Bush unless authorized by the new attorney general.
White House officials have accused Bush of using the statements to get around Congress in pursuing anti-terror tactics.

$7.6 billion in earmarks
The bill contains 8,816 earmarks worth $7.6 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Notable among them are $155.9 million in projects that six members of the Obama administration who were members of Congress last year, when the bill was written, inserted into the bill.
Top among them was Vice President Joe Biden. As a senator from Delaware, Biden added 56 earmarks that cost of $52.1 million, including $13.7 million for the Intracoastal Waterway from the Delaware River to the Chesapeake Bay and $190,000 to help build a children's museum in Wilmington.
Others were:
• White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who as a House member from Illinois added 16 earmarks worth about $8.3 million, including money for a Chicago planetarium and suburban children's museum.
• Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, formerly a Democratic senator from Colorado, $44.6 million.
• Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, formerly a Republican congressman from Illinois, $26.5 million.
• Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, formerly a Democratic House member from California, $15.5 million.
• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, formerly a Democratic senator from New York, $6.7 million.
The White House has pledged to send legislation to Congress seeking the rescission of all earmarks sponsored by current members of the Obama administration.
Geographically, Alaska topped the list, with 100 earmarks valued at $143 million, or $209.71 per capita. Next was North Dakota, with $110 million or $172 per capita.
The data show that it pays to be a top Appropriations Committee official. Hawaii, the home state of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, came in third, at $165 million, or $128.12 per capita. Fourth was Mississippi, represented by top Republican Appropriations member Thad Cochran, with $324 million in earmarks, or $110.59 per capita.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Dino 6 Rings
03-12-2009, 04:57 PM
But its cool

Congress has declared that Saturday is National PI day.

3/14. So I mean, we are getting our money's worth out of that lot of crooks.

fansince'76
03-12-2009, 05:19 PM
Aides also said the White House Office of Management and Budget would review the spending bill for examples of wasteful spending. The president then could send those back to Congress as proposed cuts, called rescissions, for an up-or-down vote.

"Rescissions" = another way to say "line-item veto?" Didn't the Supreme Court rule presidential line-item veto power to be unconstitutional back in 1998? Although I disagreed with the ruling at the time (and still do) and I think the president should have line-item veto authority as almost every state governor has it, but, as of now at least, it's still unconstitutional per the highest court in the country. :noidea:

HometownGal
03-12-2009, 05:51 PM
Gee - who didn't see this coming? :rolleyes:

Word of the day: Hypocrite.

http://andrewroman.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/obama-liar1.jpg

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 06:17 PM
^^^^^likes to post silly pictures^^^^^^^

http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q23/shortyshane_2006/2861803145_b70f2b5e54.jpg

Preacher
03-12-2009, 06:26 PM
Only a month and a half. . .

I guess the "hate Rush" agenda is out the window. . . since it too doesn't do anything but prove that obama is a empty headed politician.


Funny, everyone was worried about Palin's inexperience. Yet no one wanted to talk about Obama's inexperience.

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 06:28 PM
Yet no one wanted to talk about Obama's inexperience.:rofl:


:blah::blah::blah: is all we heard.

you guys would be throwing a fit no matter WHAT democrat were elected. so much hate and venom...

its a shame. all that razzing bush earned mustve really stung.

imagine if hilary woulda won. :jawdrop:

devilsdancefloor
03-12-2009, 06:36 PM
:rofl:


:blah::blah::blah: is all we heard.

you guys would be throwing a fit no matter WHAT democrat were elected. so much hate and venom...

its a shame. all that razzing bush earned mustve really stung.

imagine if hilary woulda won. :jawdrop:

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

silver & black
03-12-2009, 07:27 PM
:rofl:


:blah::blah::blah: is all we heard.

you guys would be throwing a fit no matter WHAT democrat were elected. so much hate and venom...

its a shame. all that razzing bush earned mustve really stung.

imagine if hilary woulda won. :jawdrop:

As much as loathe her, she would have been better than what we got.

xfl2001fan
03-12-2009, 07:34 PM
:rofl:


:blah::blah::blah: is all we heard.

you guys would be baa baa baa baa baa baa baa baa baa

baa baa baa baa baa ...

its a shame. baa baa baa baa baa baa baa baa

imagine if baa baa baa :jawdrop:

As usual, Tony Hyp(ocrite)chest can't actually talk about the issue at hand. Deflect away my liberal friend. It's apparent your head is stuck so far up your sheperd's arse...that you'll never truly see daylight unless he tilts his head skyward and belches.

Dino 6 Rings
03-12-2009, 07:38 PM
Imagine if McCain and Palin had won.

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 07:50 PM
Imagine if McCain and Palin had won.:scratchchin: i would imagine the 2-3 people on this board who didnt vote for them would spend all day posting about them....

then again, i wouldnt have no sour grapes to whine about. (you all forget... i voted for bush.)

and as long as the president in waiting (we all know she would poison john to get the seat :wink02:) kept her mouth shut i would sit back and watch the president and let him succeed or fail on his own merits.

if you dont believe this (which i know none of you do cause it would show hypocricy on your parts) go look how much bush bashing i did in the past.

my record stands for itself.

xfl2001fan
03-12-2009, 07:52 PM
Imagine if McCain and Palin had won.

McCain was the most likely to stick to his guns. Palin wasn't much in regards to experience...but she wouldn't be the CIC right now...McCain would be. So instead of us (down the road) possibly having an inexperienced politician in the most powerful seat in the nation...we currently have one.

There's a distinct difference between the two.

Obama has adopted many of Bush's policies despite his campaigning against the guy (And using that mantra of McCain=Bush).

We'd be almost exactly where we are...but with someone with experience leading us...and more than likely kicking the bill's back until the Pork is removed.

The Checks and Balances system would be working in America's favor...because there wouldn't be a Liberal Congress AND a Liberal President.

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 08:08 PM
We'd be almost exactly where we are...but with someone with experience leading us...and more than likely kicking the bill's back until the Pork is removed.

.kicking it back to the point where absolutely nothing was accomplished 9he proposed a spending freeze for EVERYTHING.

lets face it.... he woulda adopted the same bush policies and absolutely applauded here for it.

infact he could let 9000 pork barrel projects slip by and the exact same people here critical of obama would be the ones defending it the loudest.

the bridge to nowhere would finaly be built in the name of infrastructure and creating jobs.

xfl2001fan
03-12-2009, 08:16 PM
No, you're mis-reading what I'm writing HipSheep. What's the difference between Bush and Obama? In regards to policies, not much at this point. In regards to pork spending...HUGE difference. McCain was supposed to be Bush-incarnate according to many people on the left. McCain absolutely opposed all the additional pork spending.

The only difference that I can see between Obama being elected and (if McCain had won) is that there would be less pork spending.

That's huge when you consider how large our deficit already is.

HometownGal
03-12-2009, 08:23 PM
As much as loathe her, she would have been better than what we got.

As much as it pains me to agree, I have to do so. :horror:

No, Tony - I wouldn't have been upset at all if another Democrat had won the White House - someone with real governmental experience who wasn't a bullshit salesman, a person with honor and integrity. Hell - even your guy Richardson would have been a much better choice and I would possibly have voted for him.

You heard it here first - when all is said and done, Obama will go down in history as the worst President this country has ever had and his low approval ratings when he is run out of Washington in 4 years will trump Bush's. He's a one and done.

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 08:24 PM
No, you're mis-reading what I'm writing HipSheep. What's the difference between Bush and Obama? In regards to policies, not much at this point. In regards to pork spending...HUGE difference. McCain was supposed to be Bush-incarnate according to many people on the left. McCain absolutely opposed all the additional pork spending.

The only difference that I can see between Obama being elected and (if McCain had won) is that there would be less pork spending.

That's huge when you consider how large our deficit already is.you sure like pork spending in iraq though, dont you xflDUDfan? and yes... the war in iraq is pork on one of the grandest scales ever.

Dino 6 Rings
03-12-2009, 08:30 PM
you sure like pork spending in iraq though, dont you xflDUDfan? and yes... the war in iraq is pork on one of the grandest scales ever.

Pretty sure the TARP Bill out spent the entire Iraq War cost.

Tarp = 750 Billion

Total Spent on Iraq so far 640 Billion.

And that's without the new 800 Billion dollar Stimulus Bill or the 400 Billion dollar Budget.

Yep, Pretty sure that TARP was why I voted against McCain and against Incumbent Congressmen, and I'm pretty sure that the Stimulus and the New Budget Spending will be the reasons I vote against all Current Incumbents that voted yes for either.

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 08:46 PM
Pretty sure the TARP Bill out spent the entire Iraq War cost.

Tarp = 750 Billion

Total Spent on Iraq so far 640 Billion.

.

well, i know you cant put a price on 4000+ lost lives, but how about the 20,000+ (and counting) who will need medical treatment and disability for the rest of their lives as their potential future earning power is completely wiped out? if a 20 year old GI with no legs lives to be 80, it is conceivable that we will be paying for the iraqui war for the next 60 years, right?

Dino 6 Rings
03-12-2009, 09:00 PM
well, i know you cant put a price on 4000+ lost lives, but how about the 20,000+ (and counting) who will need medical treatment and disability for the rest of their lives as their potential future earning power is completely wiped out? if a 20 year old GI with no legs lives to be 80, it is conceivable that we will be paying for the iraqui war for the next 60 years, right?

I'm pretty sure I've already explained my stance on the Iraq War and how I feel about those who served. I could get you the link to it if you want, its in the Hey Republicans Thread I think.

I'm all about paying for all Soldiers to get the medical treatment and help they need after the sacrifice they have given to this nation. I honor the dead. I know that part of my tax dollars go to their care, that part of my tax dollars go to bullets and helmets and boots and food and medical care for their families. I happily pay those tax dollars. In fact, one could almost say the only reason I don't cheat on my taxes, is because I'd feel guilty about stealing from our Soldiers.

My tax Dollars pay for WWII Vets, Korean Vets, Vietnam Vets and Iraq War I Vets, I will continue to happily pay for these Vets as well.

Preacher
03-12-2009, 09:25 PM
you sure like pork spending in iraq though, dont you xflDUDfan? and yes... the war in iraq is pork on one of the grandest scales ever.

Um, no. The war in Iraq is funded by special bills which are debated and voted on specifically in congress, after the initial decision was debated and voted on.

Pork bills are slipped into omnibus bills and other, unrelated bills and are seldom if EVER debated or discussed.

Good try, but far off the mark.


And to your other post. I have NO PROBLEM with my tax dollars going to support troops, or help those who already fought for my nation. I beleive that anyone who retires military or serves in-country in war time should be tax-exempt the rest of their lives, INCLUDING state taxes. We should pick up the bill for them as a simple thank you.

It is the trillions that are paid out in waste that I am mad about spending taxes on. Why in the world does the government need to be involved in stuff like this:


•$211,509 for olive fruit fly research in Paris.

•$196,000 for the renovation and transformation of the historic post office in Las Vegas.

•$188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine.

•$148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute.

fansince'76
03-12-2009, 09:38 PM
It is the trillions that are paid out in waste that I am mad about spending taxes on. Why in the world does the government need to be involved in stuff like this:


•$211,509 for olive fruit fly research in Paris.

•$196,000 for the renovation and transformation of the historic post office in Las Vegas.

•$188,000 for the Lobster Institute in Maine.

•$148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute.

Not to mention $50 million toward the NEA so folks can continue to be commissioned to piss in mason jars with crucifixes in them in the name of "art."

Stlrs4Life
03-12-2009, 09:57 PM
Failed! They haven't even went into effect yet. If you want to see failed policies, just look back on the past 8 years. Talk about hypocrites! And to all those Republican senators that bitch about pork. not one of them cried about the pork that was headed to there jurisdictions. Imagine that.

Stlrs4Life
03-12-2009, 09:58 PM
kicking it back to the point where absolutely nothing was accomplished 9he proposed a spending freeze for EVERYTHING.

lets face it.... he woulda adopted the same bush policies and absolutely applauded here for it.

infact he could let 9000 pork barrel projects slip by and the exact same people here critical of obama would be the ones defending it the loudest.

the bridge to nowhere would finaly be built in the name of infrastructure and creating jobs.



We have a Bingo!

Stlrs4Life
03-12-2009, 10:00 PM
The Checks and Balances system would be working in America's favor...because there wouldn't be a Liberal Congress AND a Liberal President.



Gee, none of yas cried when it was a Republican congress from ? till 2006. and a Rep. President. Yas had power then, and still Failed to get anything done.

Stlrs4Life
03-12-2009, 10:02 PM
No repub. was excited about obama getting in office, but we're all hoping he proves us wrong and is a great president, but it's not looking that way right now.



You are the only Rushie on this board to admit that.

Stlrs4Life
03-12-2009, 10:06 PM
Geographically, Alaska topped the list, with 100 earmarks valued at $143 million, or $209.71 per capita. Next was North Dakota, with $110 million or $172 per capita.
The data show that it pays to be a top Appropriations Committee official. Hawaii, the home state of Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye, came in third, at $165 million, or $128.12 per capita. Fourth was Mississippi, represented by top Republican Appropriations member Thad Cochran, with $324 million in earmarks, or $110.59 per capita.



Meanwhile it looks like the Republicans are getting there Lions Share of it. Word of the Day, Hypocrite. :rofl::rofl::rofl:

HometownGal
03-12-2009, 10:11 PM
Failed! They haven't even went into effect yet. If you want to see failed policies, just look back on the past 8 years. Talk about hypocrites! .

C'mon Dom - stop acting like a blind sheeple. You're smarter and classier than that. Thus far, Obama has shown himself to be a failure and his inexperience and lack of fundamental knowledge (and cahoonas) to hold the highest office in the land clearly shows. Quite possibly, this trend will cease and he'll live up to the promises he made when he sucked you and everyone else who voted for him in. I'm going to give him a little while longer to prove me wrong about him but thus far, he hasn't impressed me one iota.

I know........ but Bush, but Bush, but Bush. It matters not what Bush did (and I did NOT agree with everything he did honestly) - it matters what Obama is doing and will do in the future and quite frankly, his "feeling around in the dark" is starting to concern me.

HometownGal
03-12-2009, 10:16 PM
Gee, none of yas cried when it was a Republican congress from ? till 2006. and a Rep. President. Yas had power then, and still Failed to get anything done.

Bet yas cashed that Bush stimulus check, huh? Bet yas liked those tax cuts too. :wink02:

I guess keeping terrorists out of American skies and off of American soil for 7-1/2 years is a "failure".

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 10:51 PM
•$148,950 for the Montana Sheep Institute.anything that keeps augustashark from breeding with actual people is a sound investment. :noidea:

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 11:06 PM
C'mon Dom - stop acting like a blind sheeple. You're smarter and classier than that. Thus far, Obama has shown himself to be a failure and his inexperience and lack of fundamental knowledge (and cahoonas) to hold the highest office in the land clearly shows. Quite possibly, this trend will cease and he'll live up to the promises he made when he sucked you and everyone else who voted for him in. I'm going to give him a little while longer to prove me wrong about him but thus far, he hasn't impressed me one iota.

I know........ but Bush, but Bush, but Bush. It matters not what Bush did (and I did NOT agree with everything he did honestly) - it matters what Obama is doing and will do in the future and quite frankly, his "feeling around in the dark" is starting to concern me.

"thus far"???

in his first 50 days, bush had the opportunity to use the first ever armored predator drone to wipe out osama bin laden. but it was deemed an 'unproven and risky" technology despite successful attempts carried out in the deserts of nevada, right before clinton handed over the reigns. (the plans of action were laid out on his desk but ignored out of fear of "adopting clinton policies")

osama still lives. ironically the drones were effectively used by the bush admin immediately after the 9/11 attacks when it was appearant that some sort of action needed to be taken.

yet its bush who gets all the credit for "keeping us safe" :yawn:

tony hipchest
03-12-2009, 11:27 PM
I'm pretty sure I've already explained my stance on the Iraq War and how I feel about those who served. I could get you the link to it if you want, its in the Hey Republicans Thread I think.

I'm all about paying for all Soldiers to get the medical treatment and help they need after the sacrifice they have given to this nation. I honor the dead. I know that part of my tax dollars go to their care, that part of my tax dollars go to bullets and helmets and boots and food and medical care for their families. I happily pay those tax dollars. In fact, one could almost say the only reason I don't cheat on my taxes, is because I'd feel guilty about stealing from our Soldiers.

My tax Dollars pay for WWII Vets, Korean Vets, Vietnam Vets and Iraq War I Vets, I will continue to happily pay for these Vets as well.

i remember the post well. it is a post that i openly i agreed with. you stated how the armed forces were a voluntary force (and i agree that they and their families should be rewarded).

but what about the others? this is what gets me-

what about the 20,000+ 2nd generation catholic mexican american women who are raped and beatten who turn to drugs as a means of escape of their horrible past and upbringing (its not like they have the army insurance to fall back on for treatment).

they naturally get pregnant and are drop outs. they dont abort. they have sex (sometimes unwillingly) and eventually have children. they live on welfare.

are they treated as heroes by the republicans? hell no. they are regarded as the scum of the earth who mooch off the "system".

they did not "volunteer" either. they basically chose the path of least resistance. and you will find that many of our enlisted did the same.

either way... a mental disability can be just as incapacitating as a physical disability. what is it about republicans that make them only see the physical (or the mental ONLY if its from somebody who fought a republican war) side of it?

and i know youre not a republican, so maybe, perhaps, you can see the hypocricy here.

I_Bleed_Black_And_Gold
03-13-2009, 03:22 AM
I don't think having kids and being addicted to drugs is the same as being injured or worse to keep your country free.

MasterOfPuppets
03-13-2009, 03:58 AM
well, i know you cant put a price on 4000+ lost lives, but how about the 20,000+ (and counting) who will need medical treatment and disability for the rest of their lives as their potential future earning power is completely wiped out? if a 20 year old GI with no legs lives to be 80, it is conceivable that we will be paying for the iraqui war for the next 60 years, right?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The total economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is estimated at $1.6 trillion by 2009, a congressional committee said in a report released Tuesday.
That is nearly double the $804 billion in direct war costs the White House requested so far from Congress, the Democratic-led Joint Economic Committee said.

The committee estimated $1.3 trillion in war costs by the end of 2008 for Iraq, and the remainder for Afghanistan.

The total war costs could grow to $3.5 trillion by 2017, the committee estimated.

The higher total economic impact comes from, among other things, the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices and the cost of health care for veterans, the committee said.

The committee calculated the average cost of both wars for a family of four would be $20,900 from 2002 to 2008. The cost for a family of four would go up to $46,400 from 2002 to 2017, the committee said.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html

xfl2001fan
03-13-2009, 04:34 AM
you sure like pork spending in iraq though, dont you xflDUDfan? and yes... the war in iraq is pork on one of the grandest scales ever.

What's the price for freedom? Generally speaking, the Japanese, Germans, and Italians don't hate Americans. We occupy all of their countries and have done so since WWII. Their citizens are all "free" living in a society that is far different than what it was during WWII. Not to sound cold hearted, but if the price for the change on one of the largest Muslim nations way of thinking/living is 4000 American Deaths, 20,000 injured and 640+ Billion...in the grand scheme of things (and over the many many years) will it really be viewed as such a high price? To the families (today) yes...the price is far too high. But 50 years from now, how do we view the price we paid for WWII? Because it will (ultimately) have to be viewed in a very similar manner.

The changes in each of those societies has taken a long time to really be seen. Remember there used to be an East/West Germany....now that is no more. Change is (often) a slow, painful and costly effort when it applies to societies.

****************
Now, giving nearly 1 Trillion Dollars to companies that have failed (constantly and consistently) to maintain their own budgets, give their "CEO's" 10's of (if not hundreds) Million Dollars a year, private jets, etc...to do their jobs (that they fail at on a massive scale of incompetency)...that's Pork I can't live with. 10, 20, 50 years from now, the CEO's of companies like Fannie Mae and Funky Mark will still go down as an epic failure...no matter how you try to deflect, side step and redirect our attention elsewhere.

HometownGal
03-13-2009, 07:44 AM
"thus far"???

in his first 50 days, bush had the opportunity to use the first ever armored predator drone to wipe out osama bin laden. but it was deemed an 'unproven and risky" technology despite successful attempts carried out in the deserts of nevada, right before clinton handed over the reigns. (the plans of action were laid out on his desk but ignored out of fear of "adopting clinton policies")

osama still lives. ironically the drones were effectively used by the bush admin immediately after the 9/11 attacks when it was appearant that some sort of action needed to be taken.

yet its bush who gets all the credit for "keeping us safe" :yawn:

this thread isnt even about Bush, so i see no sense in even bringing it up unless your (unsuccessfully) trying to "get under HTG's skin".



not gonna happen.... BRAH!


There ya go, Tony - fixed that for ya. :wink02:

Deflect, deflect, deflect. And did I mention.....deflect? :yawn:

xfl2001fan
03-13-2009, 08:11 AM
Gee, none of yas cried when it was a Republican congress from ? till 2006. and a Rep. President. Yas had power then, and still Failed to get anything done.

Well, I wasn't on this board in 2006...and I haven't read back that far on these forums to see how anybody reacted to that. Maybe you haven't noticed, but I've only been here since 2008. It's easy to find that information as it's pretty much always displayed. Try and direct 2006 comments back at someone who was here during that timeframe. It doesn't apply to me.

With that being said, I don't like the idea of one party being in control of the House, Senate and being President at all. It allows extremists on that particular side to rampantly run amock. Naturally, when one side goes to an extreme, the other side feels to follow suit (and I don't mean Revs) on the flip side of the coin...which does nothing but tear this country apart even further.

I'm a moderate conservative and rarely lean left on any issue. I have no problem with the "less is more" policy...because too many hands in the cookie jar has NEVER been effective.

At the end of the day, we are a country of continual successive failures when it comes to our politicians. While I don't doubt there have been a few good ones sprinkled in here and there...the end result is that the beaurocrats we have running nearly every imporant position of every major job (and many minor ones at that) are so wrapped around the "importance" of their job and the money they "deserve"...that they're ruining it for the people who actually make things happen in this world (the working class.)

Dino 6 Rings
03-13-2009, 08:28 AM
i remember the post well. it is a post that i openly i agreed with. you stated how the armed forces were a voluntary force (and i agree that they and their families should be rewarded).

but what about the others? this is what gets me-

what about the 20,000+ 2nd generation catholic mexican american women who are raped and beatten who turn to drugs as a means of escape of their horrible past and upbringing (its not like they have the army insurance to fall back on for treatment).

they naturally get pregnant and are drop outs. they dont abort. they have sex (sometimes unwillingly) and eventually have children. they live on welfare.

are they treated as heroes by the republicans? hell no. they are regarded as the scum of the earth who mooch off the "system".

they did not "volunteer" either. they basically chose the path of least resistance. and you will find that many of our enlisted did the same.

either way... a mental disability can be just as incapacitating as a physical disability. what is it about republicans that make them only see the physical (or the mental ONLY if its from somebody who fought a republican war) side of it?

and i know youre not a republican, so maybe, perhaps, you can see the hypocricy here.

Let me say this, about that, I'm gonna say this...

In regards to the 20,000 raped and beaten Catholic Mexican American Women who turn to drugs and have children they can't afford to take care of, I'm sure if there was a bill, in congress, that stood alone as a "Help the Catholic Mexican American Women who are beaten and raped" Bill, The Republicans would pass it. Maybe not Ron Paul cause he's a nut case, but the others, would most likely see that as a worthy and just cause. Also, the Republicans would put in a clause for death penalties for the rapers of those women and 40 years in prison for the beaters.

I am pretty sure McCain made a big push for the La Rasa vote out of Arizona and Southern California as well, plus his Amnesty Push got him a lot of those Catholic Mexican American votes in the South West.

As for the mentally handicap, I'm pretty sure Sarah Palin would have done more for the mentally handicap children and adults in this nation, with awareness and policy shifts for more funding than any other politician in the history of the US has up to this point. I'm pretty sure that would have been her cause as the VP, while McCain was busy getting advise from Romney on the Economy and barking back at the Chinese and North Koreans keeping them in line. Pretty sure China would have been laid back if McCain was the Prez and not tested him.

xfl2001fan
03-13-2009, 08:37 AM
Damn Dino, you beat me to the some of this...I hadn't thought about what Palin would have made "her Cause"...though that seems a very logical choice (unless you are a Deflecting Sheep...err...Dem)

revefsreleets
03-13-2009, 02:55 PM
Ummmm....getting back on track.

This spending bill is SO bad, Bush wouldn't sign it.

Obama himself said the bill sucked.

Bush = Bill bad
Obama = Bill bad

Bush did not sign the bill. Obama did.

So policies that were SO bad that even the satanic warmongering kitten eating evil poophead GWB wouldn't sign Obama is signing off on with the retarded caveat that it's a bad bill but they'll all be better after this one.

Stlrs4Life
03-14-2009, 12:52 PM
Debtor Nation

By Justin Bank ~ March 6th, 2009. Filed under: Economy, FactCheck.org.

On “FOX News Sunday” on March 1, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona castigated Obama’s budget for expanding the country’s public debt. Obama’s budget certainly projects rapid growth in red ink. But Kyl’s attacks could use some context and correction.

Kyl: This budget adds more debt to our country’s future than all of the debt from 1789 when George Washington was president right up through Franklin Roosevelt and - and Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush. In other words, in just the 10 years of this budget, we will have more than doubled the debt of the United States of America from its 220-year history.

First, a little historical background. The United States has been operating with a debt nearly since its inception. On Jan. 1, 1791, the still formative U.S. Treasury owed about $75 million due to costs associated with the Revolutionary War. The debt did diminish and reach zero at one point under President Andrew Jackson. But it’s been growing since.

Obama’s FY2010 budget forecasts that the national public debt will grow from $12.7 trillion in 2009 to $23.1 trillion in 2019, slightly less than doubling in that time period (not more than double, like Kyl said). Kyl’s statement implies that racking up the public debt like this is a rare feat. But it’s not. Even if Obama’s submitted budget passes through Congress and is implemented over a two-term presidency, he would still not set the record for proportional growth. Over eight years under President George W. Bush, the debt also nearly doubled from $5.8 trillion in FY2001 to $10 trillion in FY2008. Under President Ronald Reagan, it nearly tripled from $998 billion to $2.6 trillion.

MACH1
03-14-2009, 02:05 PM
Debtor Nation

By Justin Bank ~ March 6th, 2009. Filed under: Economy, FactCheck.org.

On “FOX News Sunday” on March 1, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona castigated Obama’s budget for expanding the country’s public debt. Obama’s budget certainly projects rapid growth in red ink. But Kyl’s attacks could use some context and correction.

Kyl: This budget adds more debt to our country’s future than all of the debt from 1789 when George Washington was president right up through Franklin Roosevelt and - and Lyndon Johnson and George W. Bush. In other words, in just the 10 years of this budget, we will have more than doubled the debt of the United States of America from its 220-year history.

First, a little historical background. The United States has been operating with a debt nearly since its inception. On Jan. 1, 1791, the still formative U.S. Treasury owed about $75 million due to costs associated with the Revolutionary War. The debt did diminish and reach zero at one point under President Andrew Jackson. But it’s been growing since.

Obama’s FY2010 budget forecasts that the national public debt will grow from $12.7 trillion in 2009 to $23.1 trillion in 2019, slightly less than doubling in that time period (not more than double, like Kyl said). Kyl’s statement implies that racking up the public debt like this is a rare feat. But it’s not. Even if Obama’s submitted budget passes through Congress and is implemented over a two-term presidency, he would still not set the record for proportional growth. Over eight years under President George W. Bush, the debt also nearly doubled from $5.8 trillion in FY2001 to $10 trillion in FY2008. Under President Ronald Reagan, it nearly tripled from $998 billion to $2.6 trillion.

http://www.rr-bb.com/images/smilies/sheepaid.gif

revefsreleets
03-15-2009, 08:57 AM
The major flaw of Obama's plan is that he's banking on the speedy recovery of the economy for this deficit to start shrinking.

Just about every account shows that to be a pipe dream. This will be a long and deep recession, and these trillions will take a LONG time to be paid back, if they ever actually are.

Toss in the fact that many of these "roll-backs" (like welfare) have no sunset clause, and we will be stuck with temporary solutions permanently, long after they are no longer needed. In other words, the Democrats will keep the soup kitchen open (and funded by taxpayer dollars) long after the need passes.

St33lersguy
03-15-2009, 08:59 AM
Obama has too many failed policies

silver & black
03-15-2009, 05:36 PM
"thus far"???

in his first 50 days, bush had the opportunity to use the first ever armored predator drone to wipe out osama bin laden. but it was deemed an 'unproven and risky" technology despite successful attempts carried out in the deserts of nevada, right before clinton handed over the reigns. (the plans of action were laid out on his desk but ignored out of fear of "adopting clinton policies")

osama still lives. ironically the drones were effectively used by the bush admin immediately after the 9/11 attacks when it was appearant that some sort of action needed to be taken.

yet its bush who gets all the credit for "keeping us safe" :yawn:

LOL... thats funny! If Clinton had taken him out when he had the opportunity, You wouldn't be able to bitch about Bush not using an "unproven and risky" technology to do what Clinton should have done.