Belanger Park River Rouge
NFL DRAFT THONGS DOWNTOWN DETROIT »



Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5
Results 101 to 120 of 120
  1. #101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    1.42 Trillion as of today. If you want a running check, go to;

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/
    ah. you know not the difference between deficit and debt

    deficit is up because
    1) interest on dubya's debt has skyrocketed
    2) still paying 100s of billions for Iraq/Afghanistan
    3) loss of revenue due to the dubya economic meltdown
    4) actions made necessary by the dubya economic meltdown which kept us from entering another great depression

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    154

    Default

    Yeah deregulating the stock market was such a great idea. It didn't take them long to ruin it without the rules in place. That's the free market for you.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rb336 View Post
    ah. you know not the difference between deficit and debt

    deficit is up because
    1) interest on dubya's debt has skyrocketed
    2) still paying 100s of billions for Iraq/Afghanistan
    3) loss of revenue due to the dubya economic meltdown
    4) actions made necessary by the dubya economic meltdown which kept us from entering another great depression
    Well, let's be fair. A significant amount of that deficit spending was necessary in order to stem the recession. Thankfully, though, we're spending $900 billion on items that will give us value for the dollar--education, public safety, infrastructure projects, and high speed rail, among others. It beats the pants off handing out $1.2 trillion to the wealthy just for kicks.

    Even the the deficit seems high, we are nowhere close to historical records for debt as a percentage of GDP. I just hope that once the budget gets into surplus, we actually pay down the damned debt instead of cutting checks to billionaires.

  4. #104
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    Both the deficit and the debt spiked up as a direct result of liberal spending [[less so from quasi liberal spending under GWB).

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    Both the deficit and the debt spiked up as a direct result of liberal spending [[less so from quasi liberal spending under GWB).
    Numbers, please.

  6. #106
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    Check the debt clock at debtclock.org

  7. #107
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    Oh...quadrupled in number form is to multiply a number by 4. Take the original figure, multiply it by 4, check the current number and...voila.

  8. #108

    Default

    ah yes, numbers without a cause, which was fully explained and which you failed to counter. you lose again, Bats

  9. #109
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    No cause? Spending Rb...liberal spending of money/wealth that does not exist to create debt.

  10. #110
    Lorax Guest

    Default

    Spending by liberals like George Tush, Dick Cheeseney, Goldman Sachs & cohorts.

  11. #111
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    Yes...to a far lesser degree than Obama, that is true.

  12. #112
    Lorax Guest

    Default

    Actually I attach Obama's spending to Tush & Cheeseney.

    If they hadn't brought us to the precipice, Obama wouldn't have to have spent more to dig us up to ground level.

    Now if he had allowed the banks to fail, and nationalized the healthiest of them, then we'd have a better outcome- still not socialist enough for me.

  13. #113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorax View Post
    Spending by liberals like George Tush, Dick Cheeseney, Goldman Sachs & cohorts.
    Lorax, Goldman Sachs owns the Obama administration just like it owned the Bush administration. How many times must you be reminded? It has been Goldman Sach's policy, for many years, to have its executives do tours of duty within the highest level of our federal government.For instance, the Obama administration just appointed a GS executive to regulate the banking industry.

    Since this is a thread about GOP Health Care though, how about your opinion on something like Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act . "Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this "...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s... because we promise way more than we can afford to keep." Whose side are you on on this one? Should Democrats get rid of this benefit because everything Bush ever did is 'bad' as you insist. Or should Democrats lay out how to properly fund Medicare before expanding government health care since we can't even afford that? My guess is that Obamacare will overshoot its cost estimates by something similar to the overshoot of Bush's Medicare effort. I can't think of many government programs that come in under budget.

  14. #114
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    We need to phase out all entitlements..INCLUDING what was perhaps GWB's worst policy of his administration...Medicare drug coverage.

  15. #115

    Default

    Death panels for old and sick people.

    It's looking more and more like thats going to be the only "affordable" option.

    Who'd have thought the eugenisists were right, not on rational grounds, but on economic grounds?

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elganned View Post
    Death panels for old and sick people.

    It's looking more and more like thats going to be the only "affordable" option.

    Who'd have thought the eugenisists were right, not on rational grounds, but on economic grounds?
    What's the difference between so called 'death panels' and the way the Obama administration is managing the distribution of H1N1 vaccine? The federal government bought up a supply of 40M vaccines. The Obama administration than had to decide which of 307M Americans get the vaccine. It decided to distribute the vaccine to children and health care workers first because children are more likely to die and the health care workers are necessary. Before lower triage groups of Americans will be offered the option of having a vaccine, the Obama administration decided to give away 10% of our limited vaccine supply to foreign countries.

    So if there is a national emergency why is the Obama administration giving away 10% of our taxpayer paid for supply of vaccinations? Shouldn't our government protect any American, even those in less favored demographic groups, before providing for foreigners? Maybe this is a foreshadow of Obamacare or how Amecicans will fare under other treaties that President Obama plans to enter into.

    "Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told CNSNews.com Wednesday that one in 10 doses of the swine-flu vaccine purchased by the U.S. will be donated to other nations before the U.S. demand for the vaccine is filled."
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55907

  17. #117
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    I can't believe I am saying this, but I don't think the administration intended to be slow with H1N1 vaccine distribution...it is yet another example of government ineffectiveness...and a large lesson therein lies.

  18. #118

    Default

    actually, BATS, the problem with the lack of supply comes from the Private Sector manufacturers who claimed they could provide x-amount of vaccine when they could only provide y

  19. #119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ccbatson View Post
    We need to phase out all entitlements..INCLUDING what was perhaps GWB's worst policy of his administration...Medicare drug coverage.
    medicare drug coverage was nothing but a sop to Big Pharma. dump it, replace it with negotiated prices

  20. #120
    ccbatson Guest

    Default

    Gulp...we agree? Well sort of. Trash it and replace it with free market forces.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.