I love this guy.

[Nebe]

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

REALLY......explain the 19 TRILLION of debt with in the last 8 years with democrats in charge.....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OK. Your wrong. First, you mix debt and deficit. The National Debt and the Federal deficit are two different things. In terms of the debt, under Obama the amount has risen vastly more than under Bush or any other President.

As for deficit:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgla...ts-truly-rank/

Corporate welfare and people welfare have the same effect. They give a boost to particular corporations or people at the expense of other businesses or people. On the other hand, they create a weakness in all of them. Their "successes" depend on government rather than on themselves. And as a system of governance, it generally weakens the "fiber" of a society and strengthens the power of government over the people. A basic safety net might be compassionate and even helpful, but creeping beyond that and growing into a way of life, it destroys the core of a free society.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are wildly incorrect on the debt/deficit.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebt...-President.htm

Over Bill's 8 years, he & congress reduced spending down to near neutral with a small surplus at the end - but not for his term.

If you want to drill down further you will see that the R congress and D white house of Clinton worked TOGETHER to balance the budget. WJC would not have done it on his own. They still added to the national debt

Bush spent more than he took in - with the help of his Dem Congress and still added to the national debt

Obama has spent more than he brought in and still added to the debt. He has also spent more in 6 years than GW did in 8, with higher war costs.

REGARDLESS of who spent more (Obama) we need to demand our politicians in both parties do better.

The dem politicans like you to believe they are not influenced by corporations but look who their biggest donors are too.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnR

REGARDLESS of who spent more (Obama) we need to demand our politicians in both parties do better.

How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

Vote them out? Just another nitwit waiting in the wings.

Correspond/Contact your representative? They just yes you to death and ignore it....business as usual.

Switch Parties? Each one is chock full of idiots that are effing useless.

so how do we demand it of them.....I really want to know.

Disconnect from the party. No longer be a Democrat or a Republican.

Maybe find and back some common sense people in local politics.

Look where the Ted Kennedys and John Boehnors have gotten us.

Term limits is a start. Having a media that does not schill for mostly one side but begins to actively investigates stuff with journalistic integrity.

You work in a bureaucracy - you see how bad it is. We are going to let the professional leeches continue to do what they do and grow more bureaucracy? What we are doing as a country is unsustainable.

CAREER POLITICIANS. PROFESSIONAL CAREER POLITICIANS. Suckling at the public teat. So we are going to elect Bernie Sanders, a career politician, and champion public teat sucker? We are so doomed. Linday Graham? We are farked.

ELIMINATE all Corporate, Union, PAC, and political funding in excess of $100. Add a tiny tax percentage and raise some moneys to finance campaigns at a local/state/federal level. EVERY penny of every donor includes full name and a purple thumbprint (or middle finger).

Require College Professors to have real jobs for 3 out of every ten years ('cept real scientists - RIROCK - not Poli-scientists). Have them need to make a PAYROLL.

I do not think this is the Republic our forefathers (is that phrase a microagression safe room trigger?) had in mind.

Divided we have failed. We are so doomed.

Welcome to interesting times.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnR

CAREER POLITICIANS. PROFESSIONAL CAREER POLITICIANS. Suckling at the public teat. So we are going to elect Bernie Sanders, a career politician, and champion public teat sucker? We are so doomed. Linday Graham? We are farked.

ELIMINATE all Corporate, Union, PAC, and political funding in excess of $100. Add a tiny tax percentage and raise some moneys to finance campaigns at a local/state/federal level. EVERY penny of every donor includes full name and a purple thumbprint (or middle finger).

Require College Professors to have real jobs for 3 out of every ten years Have them need to make a PAYROLL.

I do not think this is the Republic our forefathers (is that phrase a microagression safe room trigger?) had in mind.

Divided we have failed. We are so doomed.

That would make a great start. Should be no problem getting that
passed by Congress and elite higher education. "pfft"

[Raven]

the role of president ages you fast
not sure if mr sanders could manage it

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK. Your wrong. First, you mix debt and deficit. The National Debt and the Federal deficit are two different things. In terms of the debt, under Obama the amount has risen vastly more than under Bush or any other President.

As for deficit:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesgla...ts-truly-rank/

Corporate welfare and people welfare have the same effect. They give a boost to particular corporations or people at the expense of other businesses or people. On the other hand, they create a weakness in all of them. Their "successes" depend on government rather than on themselves. And as a system of governance, it generally weakens the "fiber" of a society and strengthens the power of government over the people. A basic safety net might be compassionate and even helpful, but creeping beyond that and growing into a way of life, it destroys the core of a free society.

John R is correct. It cracks me up when liberals cite Bill Clinton's great economic record, as evidence that liberal economics works. Because what did Bill Clinton do? He cut taxes, slashed spending, balanced the budget, and kicked millions of deadbeats off of welfare (guess what, they all went out and got jobs). Clinton's economic policies were right out of the Tea Party manifesto, Nebe. And sure as hell, they worked.

[Jackbass]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Corporations need to pull their weight. Heads of corporations need to step back a little. Regardless welfare and entitlement programs for individuals are a direct cost with zero return. People whom are able bodied and mentally capable should be required to provide some level of service for their income. Welfare has become generational, it was never intended to provide a lifestyle it was intended to provide supplemental support in a time of crisis. It is "transitional assistance"

Retirees receiving SS and medical benefits after working for their entire lives should not be threatened with "I can't guaranty we can fund SS if we don't pass an emergency spending bill" (paraphrased)

Corporate welfare maintains employment for individuals and provides tax revenue via said employment. That being said any corporation taking a hand out or tax break should have to qualify with regards to Executive earnings relative to employee earnings.

Of course that will never happen because all politicians are on the take and corporations write the legislation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Correct me if I'm wrong but republicans have been the biggest contributors to the national debt. Clinton took a massive deficit and turned it around to a surplus, then W racked on a 1.5 trillion deficit, which Obama has reduced by a whole lot, yet republicans seem to think that they stand for small government.
It's ok to have corporate welfare but we're all doomed if people are looked after. Got it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You really need to get some facts before you form these opinions.

Deficit/surplus is just for one year, debt is the running total.

True that Obama's deficits are getting smaller, but he still runs deficits, and thus he is adding to our debt. He has added more to the debt, than any president in our history (maybe he has added more than all previous presidents combined? some say that is true, not sure).

Nebe, Bush added to the debt, but he had a good reason, he had to build a massive anti-terror infastructure from scratch. Maybe you remember 9/11. We can, and should debate the wars. Even without the war in Iraq, we were going to add to our debt to fight back against terror. Obama has spent all this money, and all we have to show is the slowest recovery, ever, from a recession.