CrazyHorse wrote:
Quid Pro Quo, zonkedout1: $6 Trillion plus in additional national debt in some 4 1/2 years under Muslim Obama's unconstitutional acts and policies of "redistribution" trying to crater our country; and you assert that it is the Republicans spending money "irresponsibly" on ever expanding social programs. Which programs, by the way, were passed mostly in the first two years of his guidance, by democrats in the middle of the night without reading the bills.
Crazy... It's difficult to take you seriously when your language is so weighed down with derogatory BS. First of all Obama isn't Muslim, secondly even if he was, there is no law saying the President can't be a Muslim. So already you are sounding like a prejudiced retard. Thirdly, only one of his measures that I know about was ever interpreted by anyone of authority to be unconstitutional, and that argument is still being debated. Also, I don't know what "programs" you are referring to... At this point my perception of you allows me to believe you think ANYTHING Obama signs is a social program because you just see a dirty word, not an actual concept. I'm not sure which programs zonked is talking about either, but I do agree with him that the Republicans, under Bush have expanded the size of the government tremendously and more importantly (and this is where Republicans and Democrats differ most significantly) The Republicans use the most irresponsible methods possible to fund their programs.
Democrats try to levy taxes to pay for their programs. They don't have to worry about alienating themselves from their voters because their voters tend to understand how laws and taxes work. They understand the concept of "getting what you pay for" and that applies to government as much as anything else.
Republicans on the other hand, promise their voters that they will not levy taxes which makes their voters happy for reasons I honestly don't understand, unless it's just simple ignorance of the fact that Republicans STILL have massive programs to fund and will do it by borrowing money, which is so much worse.
so, in simple terms...
Democrats = (programs + taxes) = pay-as-you-go = responsible.
Republicans = (programs + loans) = national debt = irresponsible.
If the Republicans from Reagan to Bush were not allowed to borrow money, there would be no national debt crushing our economic system right now. (Nor would thousands of Americans have lost their lives in Iraq.)
CrazyHorse wrote:
Let's see for starters: How about $800 Billion for Muslim Obama's "shovel ready jobs" that he later admitted never existed.
1. I think it's a better idea than anything anyone else has come up with. Historically, state provided employment has HAS helped pull economies out of a recession. There has not been a single instance where tax cuts have done the same.
2. Obama has ALWAYS made it a point to source the funding and that $800 was no exception. He included the answer to "where will the money come from" as part of the act. When Bush asked for $700 billion (yeah, you forgot about that one didn't you), he didn't explain the funding at all. He just used the old Republican stand by... "Yes, Federal Reserve? Can you print out a few billion dollars so my Treasury Department can BORROW it from you? The American tax payers will pay you back, plus millions in interest, sometime after I'm gone."
Yeah, Republicans are sooo fiscally responsible :roll:
CrazyHorse wrote:
Then there was Muslim Obama's Obama care, now projected to $3 Trillion in obligation and climbing as they read the 2700 pages of the law.
That's a reflection of the cost for healthcare for a booming generation of Americans projected over the expected population spike. $3 trillion actually sounds cheap when you consider the fact that right now (and we haven't even reached the spike yet) we are already spending $2.6 trillion WITHOUT Obamacare.
This is the argument that angry little peeps like you can't consider because you're too pissed off about a MUSLIM, COMMUNIST, BLACK man in office to understand anything he is doing. As soon as he say's "My fellow Americans..." You're already throwing tomatoes.
Kind of a drag because the rest of us would like to explore avenues to reduce and manage the cost of healthcare. Meanwhile, the Republicans have done NOTHING.
N-O-T-H-I-N-G....
...to reduce healthcare costs and because of that, current healthcare expendatures in the private sector have reached 17.6% of our GDP... Roughly $8,233 per American, which is two and a half times more per head than what citizens of most developed nations pay, including the British, French and Swedes.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.htmlCrazyHorse wrote:
If you were a conservative, I would read your statement as tongue in cheek. But since your not, I have to wonder about your stability and sanity.
Of course. :roll: