10 cheapest BEST cities to live.... and to run a mfr'g bidniss??

No lies. Pure fact. You don't recognize the truth Winger.

Reply to
Allen Drake
Loading thread data ...

Glad to see you admit the right has been working against American job creation.

Reply to
Allen Drake

You are totally clueless Gumby. The right has been providing WMD to terrorists for decades. It is fun to watch you melt down with every post.

Reply to
Allen Drake

[...]

2011 US cumulative debt = 14.8 trillion

Reply to
HeyBub

But the discussion was about how the total debt had been declining under Clinton, not about whether Bush caused it to begin rising again.

( the RED line )

formatting link

Reply to
PrecisionmachinisT

Allen Drake on Mon, 24 Oct 2011 04:11:27 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

I hate to break this to you, but Harry Reid is a Mormon, not a Republican. If you had checked the newspaper in the graduate lounge, you might have (I say might, because the MSM is working hard to protect the Democrats from Obama and vice versa) learned that it was the Democrats in the Senate who sank Obama's bill. OTOH, there is an "American Jobs Creation Act" in the House, HR 2911. Interesting read, but it certainly won't clear the Democrat controlled Senate, or the Democrat controlled White House.

Reply to
pyotr filipivich

The campaign promise was within 16 months of election. That would make it around April of 2009. He is going to be more than 2 years behind. Under your theory this makes it a lie.

Reply to
Kurt Ullman

It does not make it a lie. He tried to do it as soon as he could and was simply behind schedule. Lies are reserved for the right that lie about lying. Bush lied and thousands died. Still looking for those WMD?

Reply to
Allen Drake

SO if they are for creating jobs show me. You can't foo............

Have you always been this stupid?.

Reply to
Allen Drake

The US has been supplying WMD to Iraq and other terrorists for decades. I already proved that and you agreed and approved.There was no Al Quida in Iraq before Bush opened the door and invited them in Man you are a stupid tard

e
Reply to
Allen Drake

formatting link
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National)

Series Id: CES0000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: Total nonfarmIndustry: Total nonfarmNAICS Code: -Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Jan 2000 = 130781

Jan 2001 = 132469

Jan 2002 = 130591

Jan 2003 = 130266

Jan 2004 = 130420

Jan 2005 = 132453

Jan 2006 = 135094

Jan 2007 = 137094

Jan 2008 = 137996

Jan 2009 = 133563

Jan 2010 = 129281

Jan 2011 = 130328

In other words, either the US population has literally exploded over the past decade or the employment situation isn't nearly as bad as the "unemployment" numbers would make it appear.

Noteworthy is that the Jan 2011 totals are nearly identical to the numbers seen in Jan 2000, 2002 and 2003, and that the Sep 2011 figures are actually favorable as compared to the numbers in most of FY 2000, all of 2002 and

2003, as well as a good portion of FY 2004.
Reply to
PrecisionmachinisT

Hate to break it to you Sparky, but the Republicans tried to vote on the president's jobs bill but the Senate Majority Leader had his caucus vote to NOT bring the bill up for a vote. The president's bill has languished in the Senate since the president sent it over. Since the Democrats have a majority in the Senate, it's a confusing wonder why they continue to deny a vote or even allow a markup.

Meanwhile, in the House, the president's bill has ONE sponsor and NO co-sponsors.

Reply to
HeyBub

The republicans won't vote on anything that raises revenue. You know little about law making. The right will bring down the country before they give Obama anything.

Now tell me sparky, who do you support to run against him?

crickets.

Wahahahahaha........

Reply to
Allen Drake

Damned right! The Democrats will just spend it, and 40% more.

It's Obama bringing down the country, with debt, moron.

They would win.

They're coming to take you away...

Reply to
krw

#1 I know "little about lawmaking"? Hmm. In my youth, I was an Administrative Aide to a U.S. Senator. I KNOW how laws are made.

#2 The Republicans have NEVER said they were opposed to increasing revenue. Their view is that the best way to raise revenue is by cutting taxes. This technique has worked every time it's been tried.

I have a candidate in mind. Here are some of his qualifications. He came to Texas with only a few million in his pocket and made good. Elected as the first Republican congressman in Texas since Reconstruction, then re-elected with no opposition. Director of Central Intelligence, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of China. That should be enough, but he also served eight years as Vice-President of the United States and four as President.

So, my support for a candidate to run against Obama runs the gamut, from the aforementioned individual to a dead cat.

Reply to
HeyBub

"HeyBub" wrote

You mean George the Father? Definitely the more competent and likable among the bunch. "Only a few million" back then meant real money, which I can't help but feel could have had something to do with his being the son of Senator Prescott Bush of Connected Cut.

formatting link
Prescott Bush was born in Columbus, Ohio, to Samuel Prescott Bush and Flora Sheldon Bush. Samuel Bush was a railroad executive, then a steel company president, and, during World War I, also a federal government official in charge of coordination and assistance to major weapons contractors.

As a former AA, you must know that the children of senators, now and in Ancient Rome, got slightly different treatment from the rest of the citizenry.

And the beat goes on . . .

-- Bobby G.

Reply to
Robert Green

So when you go into work you will tell your employer that you need a wage cut bcause it's the only way you can afford to buy that new Aston Martin you've been eyeing. that logic says that the unemployed now have more disposable income than when they were working.

Reply to
Just Me

No, logic says that logic isn't your strong suit.

Reply to
krw

Except, since the 2009 and 2010 budgets were drafted and approved by his predesessor, Obama's hands have been basically tied.

formatting link
[

No Surprises for Bush's Lame Duck Fiscal 2010 Budget June 20, 2008

Conceding to the political reality that the incoming president will want to tweak the fiscal 2010 budget set to be unveiled next January or February, President Bush's team has ordered that nothing out of the ordinary be included in the funding blueprints being drawn up now.

Instead, the budget that will be handed off to Bush's successor to complete will be a flat-line product to include only already planned increases-or decreases-in ongoing federal programs. Normally at this stage of the year, departments would be readying initial budgets filled with new programs for the West Wing to consider. Instead, the budget writers are on cruise control, especially since about 80 percent of the federal budget is taken up by ongoing programs, salaries, and previously approved plans.

]

SEE: the pink and the green lines:

formatting link

Reply to
PrecisionmachinisT

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.