iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
12 Aug 2011, 9:58 pm
13 Aug 2011, 12:22 pm
13 Aug 2011, 6:48 pm
13 Aug 2011, 7:08 pm
13 Aug 2011, 7:29 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Aug 2011, 7:37 pm
13 Aug 2011, 8:26 pm
13 Aug 2011, 9:58 pm
13 Aug 2011, 11:31 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
13 Aug 2011, 11:43 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Aug 2011, 11:47 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
As I recall, Bush blamed the economic woes on the Clinton administration, and 9/11.
And as a matter of fact, I do put part of the blame on Obama. Because he still believes he can be a conciliator, negotiating and bargaining with Republicans who would rather crash the economy to make Obama look bad, rather than actually be willing to deal.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Aug 2011, 11:49 pm
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Hate to break it to you, but the economy was starting to head south before Bush took office, and he managed to turn it around, then it started going south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Kraichgauer wrote:
As I recall, Bush blamed the economic woes on the Clinton administration, and 9/11.
No, that was political commentators, President George W. Bush never went out and blamed Clinton for things. (Not referring to before Bush took office, because he was a candidate not the President).
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
13 Aug 2011, 11:53 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Hate to break it to you, but the economy was starting to head south before Bush took office, and he managed to turn it around, then it started going south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Or did Bush just make use of that surplus Clinton left him? As I recall, Bush squandered it all on his unpaid for wars, and his tax cuts for the rich.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
13 Aug 2011, 11:58 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Hate to break it to you, but the economy was starting to head south before Bush took office, and he managed to turn it around, then it started going south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Or did Bush just make use of that surplus Clinton left him? As I recall, Bush squandered it all on his unpaid for wars, and his tax cuts for the rich.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So you're saying we should have just sat down and started bawling that someone used passenger planes as bombs and killed a couple thousand Americans.
Furthermore, Bush's unemployment numbers while in office actually made it so we had a revenue increase from the tax cuts, not a decrease. Additionally, it isn't the Government's money, it is the taxpayer's money. If Bush decided to let taxpayers keep more of their money, that isn't Washington spending more, that is letting the people keep more of their hard-earned money.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,245
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Aug 2011, 12:08 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Hate to break it to you, but the economy was starting to head south before Bush took office, and he managed to turn it around, then it started going south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Or did Bush just make use of that surplus Clinton left him? As I recall, Bush squandered it all on his unpaid for wars, and his tax cuts for the rich.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So you're saying we should have just sat down and started bawling that someone used passenger planes as bombs and killed a couple thousand Americans.
Furthermore, Bush's unemployment numbers while in office actually made it so we had a revenue increase from the tax cuts, not a decrease. Additionally, it isn't the Government's money, it is the taxpayer's money. If Bush decided to let taxpayers keep more of their money, that isn't Washington spending more, that is letting the people keep more of their hard-earned money.
No, we had every right to respond - in Afghanistan. Iraq was just an ego trip on Bush's part, which turned out to have been one great big money pit for America. And one that Bush never paid for, either. And that is a big part of our economic woes.
As for the tax cuts increasing revenue - that's something that only Republicans have been able to figure.
And as far as it being the people's money - Yes, yes it is. But the fact remains, the government has the right to raise taxes in order to keep the country functioning. The founding fathers collected taxes, as a matter of fact, and put down a tax rebellion - the Whiskey Rebellion - in Pennsylvania by force of arms. And no, taxing people who can afford it isn't punishing them, but cutting social programs for people who can't get by without them is.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
14 Aug 2011, 5:55 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Hate to break it to you, but the economy was starting to head south before Bush took office, and he managed to turn it around, then it started going south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Or did Bush just make use of that surplus Clinton left him? As I recall, Bush squandered it all on his unpaid for wars, and his tax cuts for the rich.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So you're saying we should have just sat down and started bawling that someone used passenger planes as bombs and killed a couple thousand Americans.
Furthermore, Bush's unemployment numbers while in office actually made it so we had a revenue increase from the tax cuts, not a decrease. Additionally, it isn't the Government's money, it is the taxpayer's money. If Bush decided to let taxpayers keep more of their money, that isn't Washington spending more, that is letting the people keep more of their hard-earned money.
No, we had every right to respond - in Afghanistan. Iraq was just an ego trip on Bush's part, which turned out to have been one great big money pit for America. And one that Bush never paid for, either. And that is a big part of our economic woes.
As for the tax cuts increasing revenue - that's something that only Republicans have been able to figure.
And as far as it being the people's money - Yes, yes it is. But the fact remains, the government has the right to raise taxes in order to keep the country functioning. The founding fathers collected taxes, as a matter of fact, and put down a tax rebellion - the Whiskey Rebellion - in Pennsylvania by force of arms. And no, taxing people who can afford it isn't punishing them, but cutting social programs for people who can't get by without them is.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about you look at the unemployment numbers when Bush was President, we got an increase in revenue from the tax cuts because we saw a massive increase in people having jobs. With more people paying taxes, government saw a revenue increase.
There were millions of Americans that paid taxes and had jobs while Bush was President that don't have jobs now due to the anti-business policies of Obama and the housing bubble (which government caused) bursting.
Dude one just needs to use basic math and actually did some research would know that your argument is complete and total bull****.
