POLITICAL

[peter north77]

Hillary said our nuclear response time is four minutes. .Even if the Russians and Chinese know exactly how long the process takes to engage. I have never heard a presidential candidate verbalize it.Never heard of a general admiral anyone at Norad and cetianly not a president. .if it is common knowledge, please send me the link so I can read about it.

[Rockydoc]

She is
A national security disaster from this to her server

[splitlog]

Well. Hell yeah. I'm going to be paying less taxes. So I can play more than I do already!!!

[ozarkeasy]

do you make 310,000 a year

[splitlog]

Originally Posted by ozarkeasy

do you make 310,000 a year

Won't get into my income but
According to his tax plan ""proposal"" I will be bringing home around $750.00 more per month.

I would have paid that much extra with Hillary's plan.

[Awnaw]

I am fairly excited over the president elect. I know we are expecting more money and less Govt control and surely that a good thing. My only real concern is the thought of a southern wall. History has proven walls designed to keep out rarely work and tend to be more costly than the protection given. Any savings we do get has a great likelihood to be needed to maintain said wall. Yes we need border control. But Trump if you are reading please look at th history of walls to protect borders. It has not proven to be effective only expensive. Other than that let the good times roll again as they pull federal funding from stopping adults from being adults. Now we should also get ready real tv "your fired cabinet members" should really be much more interesting then them just resigning all the time

[BK]

It's really humerous the short term memory people have of the last time the Republican Party held all branches...we got a War based on falsehoods that we are still involved in. They gave us the housing market crash, They gave us the banking crisis through that less regulation. We were virtually on the brink of the next depression, markets were shit, but yes THIS group of Republicans will be different.... Trump appointees will say a lot, and making that fat bastard criminal Chris Christy your right hand man is telling. But now everyone expects cooperation from the Democratic Party when Obama was elected 2 times very easy I might add they opposed Everything. Not that I liked Obama, just stating facts. Trump can't "fire" these Senators and Representatives and the same ones were all re-elected. I can only sit back and hope that Trump is smarter than he has shown so far.

[ozarkeasy]

Can we all grab pussy now?

[splitlog]

Housing market was 100% bill Clinton. He signed the bill to let no credit worthy people get home loans through Freddy Mack. They started defaulting after bush was in.


FACT

[ozarkeasy]

Bill Clinton didn't write one of those bad mortgages,nor did he bundle bad mortgages and sale them as good investments . The republicans wanted the deregulation Bill Clinton signed it . He was out of office 7 years when the crash happened.That means the republicans had 7 years to fix the housing market ,if the had wanted to.But they love deregulation.

[biomed1]

Allowed this thread to run in the Arkansas Forums just prior to the election as it allowed discussions on the upcoming election.

This thread has moved on towards a general discussion of the various merits/faults of the Democrats/Republicans and various former Presidents.

Thread belongs in the Political Forum.

Biomed1

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by BK

It's really humerous the short term memory people have of the last time the Republican Party held all branches...we got a War based on falsehoods that we are still involved in. They gave us the housing market crash, They gave us the banking crisis through that less regulation. We were virtually on the brink of the next depression, markets were shit, but yes THIS group of Republicans will be different.... Trump appointees will say a lot, and making that fat bastard criminal Chris Christy your right hand man is telling. But now everyone expects cooperation from the Democratic Party when Obama was elected 2 times very easy I might add they opposed Everything. Not that I liked Obama, just stating facts. Trump can't "fire" these Senators and Representatives and the same ones were all re-elected. I can only sit back and hope that Trump is smarter than he has shown so far.

Speaking of memory, in 2001 Senator Jim Jeffords changed parites and became a democrat. The democrats held the Senate until January of 2003 (following the elections of 2002). The joint resolution was passed in October of 2002 when the democrats controlled the Senate. Over half the democrats, including Hillary Clinton, passed the resolution into law. Of course the is all started in 1998 when Bill Clinton made it the official policy of the United States to remove Saddam Hussein from power by any means necessary. So give up on your myth. The democrats were heavily involved into getting us into to war but forgot about what they did afterwards.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by ozarkeasy

Bill Clinton didn't write one of those bad mortgages,nor did he bundle bad mortgages and sale them as good investments . The republicans wanted the deregulation Bill Clinton signed it . He was out of office 7 years when the crash happened.That means the republicans had 7 years to fix the housing market ,if the had wanted to.But they love deregulation.

Another person with a faulty memory or poor education. In 1977 Jimmy Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 with the full help of the democratically controlled House and Senate. It advised the banking industry that the US government wanted to ease up on loan restrictions for marginal borrowers. The more home owners, the better. More taxes and all. Anyway, most lending institutions did not want to get into bed with the US government because they would take any losses from bad loans. So along comes Bill Clinton and through regulations he twisted the arms of the banks streamline their loan process. You see, the federal government has to sign off on bank mergers, transfers, and buy outs. Without approval the banks could not grow. Then the Clinton administration told the banks that ANY losses they had would be made up by the federal government. So the banks got the stick and the carrot. Play the game or get beat on, losing money was impossible so they jumped in with both feet. They created something called the sub-prime mortgage when Clinton was the president. Derivatives (betting on the industry) were also invented in the Clinton years.
So along comes Bush in 2001. His domestic policy was shot to hell on 9/11. However, he and John McCain smelled some trouble in 2005 and tried to audit Freddie and Fannie. They were stopped by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. So no audit happened, no one found out how rotten things were, and the democratic party blocked any investigation into both of them. All the way until July of 2008 Barney Frank was touting the strength of Fannie and Freddie. Saying that if he could invest in them, he would. They collapsed two months later causing a trillion dollars to disappear. A lot of Clinton cronies were involved, Dodd got a sweetheart loan from Town and Country (very low interest rate and no payback) and Frank retired in comfort.
Bush got left holding the bag and check. Except Obama picked up the check. Bush called in both McCain and Obama and laid out his plan for the recovery. He wanted both of them to sign off, they did. Later when legislation was being passed Bush called in President Elect Obama to get his blessing. Obama gave it as he would be the one to implement the plan.
So Bush was the intermediary. Not the mastermind, not the hatchet man, and not the guy to blow a trillion dollars of taxpayer money on crony loans.

[IIFFOFRDB]

FUCK lets talk about 2012... or today... we don't need no IMPORTED "POLTICALS"... We got our hands full with 0zombie/sorosfag cakes. Ship them to Autisim,Tx... thanks

June 13, 2012
Obama's Spending and the Dog That Didn't Bark
By Greg Richards
Sometimes the most important thing to notice is a void.
Inspector:

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"
Sherlock Holmes:

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."
Inspector:

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Sherlock Holmes:

"That was the curious incident..."


In the case of spending by the Obama administration, the "dog that didn't bark" is the U.S. Senate, which has refused to pass a budget since 2009. Why would the Senate, with their guy in the White House, do this, or, as with the dog in the night, not do it? Therein lies a tale.

First, let's look at the spending of the Obama administration:

go to the article to see :the table

This table looks pretty bland. Let's see what federal spending as a percent of GDP looks like in perspective -- on a chart which shows spending since the Eisenhower administration (the first post-Korean War administration):



Oops! See the problem?

Under Obama, federal spending has surged to unprecedented levels as a proportion of GDP! And since 100% is all there is of the pie, if the federal government takes proportionately more, the private sector accounts for proportionately less, and it is the private sector which is the wealth-generating part of the economy -- the part which carries the load of government and generates our standard of living. Spending got almost this high during the Reagan administration, but then there was a policy to bring it back down which was ultimately successful. There is no such policy now. The Obama administration is not even recognizing, at least publicly, that spending has increased as it has!

How did this surge in spending happen?

While the spending shown in the chart is not entirely due to Obama because part of it represents increased claims on the federal entitlements programs, a lot of it is.

In 2009, after Obama came into office, two spending bills were passed by the Democrat-controlled Congress:

the stimulus bill in February 2009: $831 billion
the omnibus spending bill in March 2009: $410 billion
In addition to this, TARP from the Bush administration had authorized $700 billion to rescue the financial system. While the $410-billion bill was for "normal" government spending, it layered on more spending than the original Bush proposals for the same government functions. The other two -- the stimulus and TARP -- were "temporary" spending.

Stimulus + TARP = $1.5 trillion. Since not all TARP was spent, and perhaps not all the stimulus bill was spent in a single fiscal year, let's round this down to $1 trillion in "temporary" spending as it would appear in the budget.

But where, in the Table above, is the reduction in spending by the $1 trillion of "temporary" spending? I.e., the logic of "temporary" spending is that it occurs and then it stops, like a deer moving through a python. And herein very likely is the reason for the Senate's dereliction of its duty to pass a budget for each fiscal year. The conclusion an observer draws is the Senate wants this estimated $1 trillion of "temporary" spending to be added to the permanent budget baseline by stealth.

Which brings up a Washington concept called the current services budget. Stick with us here; this is important.

In the 1974 Budget Act, Congress slipped this concept into the budgeting process. What it means is this: spending in the next fiscal year that supports all the programs -- the current services -- in the current fiscal year is automatic: it is the baseline.

Think about that for a second. The "no change in spending" condition in Washingtonese means that if, for instance, there are more claimants to a service such as Social Security or Medicare, that is "no change." It also means that all the expenditures to maintain current services represent "no change." That is, the promotions, pay increases, adjustments for inflation to maintain current services represent "no change."

Why is this important? Because the method for financing the government without a budget is a "continuing resolution." And a continuing resolution is used to maintain current services.

Bottom line? If the Senate blocks the budget process, which it has for the last three fiscal years, then current levels of spending, even if initially "temporary," as was the intent with the stimulus bill and with TARP, get folded into government operations. And, presto, government spending has increased by 4%-5% of GDP without anybody ever (a) having proposed it (the president) or (b) having voted for it (Congress, but it is the Democrat Senate which has blocked the process).

What this has also meant is shown in Column 5 of the Table. The deficit has exploded to 9%-10% of GDP without solving any of our budget problems! Prior deficits in our history can be thought of as "rounding processes" -- increments added to the budget to make it balance. But these deficits at 9%-10% of GDP are different -- now whole programs, whole departments of the government, are being supported by borrowing. And the Obama administration has no plans to change this!

The Democrats want to duck responsibility for this condition of the budget. The president could be running as "the 25% man." He could be saying, "This is my spending; this is what I believe in; this is what you are getting if you vote for me -- a big increase in the take of the federal government from the economy." But is he running this way? No! He is hoping that nobody will notice what is happening, and he is being helped by articles on the web saying he is the most frugal president since Eisenhower!

The numbers tell a different story. The Democrat-controlled Senate is hoping that the country does not hear this story, and that is why it is not barking. Suppose that it had been proposed we double defense spending, which is equivalent to the increase in spending shown on the chart. Do you think the dog would be barking then? But what do we hear? Silence.

What is it that the Senate dog is familiar with and not barking at? Stealth socialism.

Sometimes the most important thing to notice is a void.

Inspector:

"Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Sherlock Holmes:

"To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Inspector:

"The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Sherlock Holmes:

"That was the curious incident..."



Silver Blaze



Arthur Conan Doyle

In the case of spending by the Obama administration, the "dog that didn't bark" is the U.S. Senate, which has refused to pass a budget since 2009. Why would the Senate, with their guy in the White House, do this, or, as with the dog in the night, not do it? Therein lies a tale.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz4PrBOiYhf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by BK

It's really humerous the short term memory people have of the last time the Republican Party held all branches...we got a War based on falsehoods that we are still involved in. They gave us the housing market crash, They gave us the banking crisis through that less regulation.

you do know that it was Slick Willie Blythe aka Bill Clinton that repealed Glass-Stegal yea??

We were virtually on the brink of the next depression, markets were shit, but yes THIS group of Republicans will be different.... Trump appointees will say a lot, and making that fat bastard criminal Chris Christy your right hand man is telling. But now everyone expects cooperation from the Democratic Party when Obama was elected 2 times very easy I might add they opposed Everything. Not that I liked Obama, just stating facts. Trump can't "fire" these Senators and Representatives and the same ones were all re-elected. I can only sit back and hope that Trump is smarter than he has shown so far.

your basic premise is false .. see above