- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 66,438
- Reaction score
- 47,477
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
counter her answers.
What do you think expert prosecutors do?
Greetings, US Conservative. :2wave:
Thank you, but the differences are too stark to ignore, and it bothers me that our government seems to be trying to make life as difficult as possible for the business world - you know, the entities that provide jobs for people so they can have their income taxed to pay for everything the government wants to spend money on, whether it makes sense or not! :2mad:
and you have gowdy in that role
he's vastly mismatched by hillary
Gowdy is no slouch. He's done good so far. Hillary is the one giving up sound bytes. You should be worried.
share wih us the 'good' that lout gowdy has accomplished thus far
Does the Pope wear a funny hat? The lack of male genitalia in this case will be in her favor so her lies will not be easily outed nor proven. It's smart for her to do this as she can go toe to toe with the Republicans making whatever claims she wants knowing full well if there were any evidence to the contrary, it's been destroyed and those who know about it well on her side and protected. The only way Clinton gets outed as a liar and proven so is to have one of her or Bill's inner circle defect, with evidence in hand. If they defect without evidence in hand they'll be mocked, ridiculed and discarded.
In other words: "its not an investigation until the come to the conclusion i want"
The reason "this bitch is under so much heat is" the fact the GOP and its candidates are scared ***less by her candidacy and they are now, and will for the entire period of the campaign throw every bit of crap they can possibly grab in an attempt to bring her down.
I think Republicans seriously overestimate how much Americans care about Benghazi and Clinton's emails. They want to get her in trouble but aren't they basically using tax payers money to try and help out their parties candidate for next year? So who should really be getting in trouble?
I just want the truth. For instance, I want to know why her and the administration outright lied for two weeks and pushed that phony "It was the video" story. I also want to know why a rescue operation was not attempted.
Yes, I do remember that - but it was billions, not trillions, and was probably caused in part by people who bought a house they couldn't afford, and when the "teaser" interest rate became a real interest rate, they defaulted and walked away, leaving the banks with houses they didn't want on their books.
Whatever happened to the "old-fashioned" bankers who wouldn't give you a loan until they verified that you had a job, weren't currently in debt over your head, had never filed for bankruptcy, made sure you could repay the loan they might make to you, and wanted you to produce the past two years of IRS filings to verify your job earnings? That used to be the rules, and banks were sound back then. Hence the saying "you can take that to the bank," which meant it was a sure thing. Not any more, I guess!
The point in my post was to show that American taxpayers are on the hook for nearly $160 trillion dollars for European derivatives - derivatives that are only pieces of paper with nothing backing them! And that's only what I know about, but it's probably more! I know that banks all over the world are tied together, but neither the American taxpayers, nor the Federal Reserve nor the FDIC have the money to cover this outrageous amount, so why does it fall on us to be responsible for it? "Too big to fail" is not our doing! They gambled with the money they received, and it's our fault? Nuts to that! :shock: :thumbdown:
I think businesses in general will become weaker and weaker over time while the government expands and continues to take on the responsibilities that the businesses used to. Look at this past recession and how long it's taken to come out of...I think it's because the government is trying their best to keep people and businesses from failing when I think that's exactly what we need, to fail and to learn those harsh lessons so we can mature and come back stronger. Our economy should have come roaring back, leaner and tougher than before... that didn't happen.
Greetings, JC Callender. :2wave:!
Glad to see you back! We missed you! I think government is doing their best to make life rough for businesses, with more and more rules and regulations all the time. Why do you think California is losing businesses, who flee to more business-friendly States? When businesses close, people lose their jobs, then who is left to pay the taxes so the State can spend it?
Thanks Pg
:agree Here in Michigan, Gov. Snyder cut biz taxes and he also cut the state EIC and our economy has been slowly coming back. There's talk of him maybe running for prez, but we here in Mi. are in talks now of raising the sales tax because global warming has caused our last two winters to be two of the coldest on record which has in turn ruined most of our roads, and of course it's nearly impossible to cut entitlements, so they're looking at the sales tax, which won't bode well if he does decide to run.
Hatuey had a great idea last week - he suggested that people receiving entitlements be required to work to earn part of them, even if it's only a few hours a week. Lord knows there's plenty to be done to repair our infrastructure, etc, so I think it's a great idea and I told him so. Why should those that go to work every day have to pay more taxes, while others don't have to work at all, but get government help with food stamps and rent subsidies when they are able to work, but don't? That isn't fair!
Hatuey had a great idea last week - he suggested that people receiving entitlements be required to work to earn part of them, even if it's only a few hours a week. Lord knows there's plenty to be done to repair our infrastructure, etc, so I think it's a great idea and I told him so. Why should those that go to work every day have to pay more taxes, while others don't have to work at all, but get government help with food stamps and rent subsidies when they are able to work, but don't? That isn't fair!
Yeah because why use union workers at middle class wages when welfare recipients will work 8 hours a week for less....
I'm not comfy with the idea of welfare recipients repairing bridges and highways, if a Welfare client is qualified to do that work they're probably either already working or disabled and can't work
Hatuey had a great idea last week - he suggested that people receiving entitlements be required to work to earn part of them, even if it's only a few hours a week. Lord knows there's plenty to be done to repair our infrastructure, etc, so I think it's a great idea and I told him so. Why should those that go to work every day have to pay more taxes, while others don't have to work at all, but get government help with food stamps and rent subsidies when they are able to work, but don't? That isn't fair!
If you have something to say, use words.
I believe the word missing in government employment is, 'accountability'.I worked at headquarters for a multi-national corporation, and experienced first-hand how business differs from government. Business has to make a profit, where the government doesn't have that Damocles sword hanging over its head. Business could never have an $18 trillion debt, as an example, or they would have long since had to file for bankruptcy - so their eye is always on the bottom line. In truth, most of us have the same limitations on our family budgets, so I understand that thinking. What I don't understand is why those in DC seem to think otherwise, and I'm talking both sides of the aisle. Business also seems to be more nimble in making decisions, too; plus a CEO and his advisors can get fired almost immediately if the shareholders get irate enough, so I wonder, if government had to live under the same conditions, if we'd be in better shape financially than we are?. I think we probably would be, because of the accountability factor, and they wouldn't be allowed to keep their job until the next election, either. The only "shareholders" in government are the taxpayers, and few politicians seem to care what we think - until election time comes. Then we're suddenly important again, and the cycle continues, ad nauseum, as lots of promises are made to correct things that aren't working. Weird way to live, but I guess we're used to it. :shock:
or she can stand on the truth
and trey will be unable to budge her
Yeah because why use union workers at middle class wages when welfare recipients will work 8 hours a week for less....
I'm not comfy with the idea of welfare recipients repairing bridges and highways, if a Welfare client is qualified to do that work they're probably either already working or disabled and can't work
Really? The truth? Really? ROFLMAO, you sure are a kidder.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?