Does he? You ladies have been sheep for a 100+ years and have brought completely into their fairness arguments that are merely ways to make you sheep.
This lady always votes republican,
You don't think it is ignorant or arrogant to assume for yourself a superior position in live,and that others are parasites or sheep....? What could you possibly base this on?
History. Tell me, do you believe in minimum wage?
This lady always votes republican,
You don't think it is ignorant or arrogant to assume for yourself a superior position in live,and that others are parasites or sheep....? What could you possibly base this on?
history? that is not an answer to my question....I asked first, you answer first...
I do things my way ladies, and if you knew the answer to my question you would know I answered you. What was the actual purpose of minimum wage? Was it actually to assist the poor like its claimed to be? The fact of the matter it was not. It was meant to get blacks out of the workforce because whites were getting pushed out and it did this very well looking at black unemployment before and after the policy. Anyone that believes it for the poor is a sheep.
Irrelevant to my point.
Not to those that understand that the national debt is a function of deficits.
Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama
"Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis,
For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
The financial crisis did not CAUSE any increase in debt. It was absolutely a decision to incur more debt as a response to the crisis of '08-'09. You might call that decision a good one, I might call it a bad one. The excuse a given government uses for their expenditures is not actually what is responsible for that expenditure. It's still the government that decided to spend it that is responsible.
The CBPP is notorious for its graphics which paint subjective events, would-be assumptions/analyses, and non-expenditures AS actual literal numerical expenditures. It has about as much credibility budget-wise as Fox News Corp. has news-wise.
then proceed to do your mental masturbation, alone, by yourself....
you have no answer, so you deflect....
the answer you gave to your queston has been graded, D-minus is all you get...
I did not deflect at all. The example of minimum wage is an excellent example on why some people are sheep.
Link? cause or effect? explanation? I have seen blacks excluded in my day, hispanics as well. The USA may have taken down its "WHITES ONLY" signs from plain view, but the mind set is still there.I do things my way ladies, and if you knew the answer to my question you would know I answered you. What was the actual purpose of minimum wage? Was it actually to assist the poor like its claimed to be? The fact of the matter it was not. It was meant to get blacks out of the workforce because whites were getting pushed out and it did this very well looking at black unemployment before and after the policy. Anyone that believes it for the poor is a sheep.
Not to those that understand that the national debt is a function of deficits.
Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama
"Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bush’s major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion
Costs of Bush policies 2001 - 2009 = $5.1 trillion
Cost of Obama's policies 2009 - 2017 = $983 billion"
Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post
Not to those that understand that the national debt is a function of deficits.
Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama
"Since President Obama became chief executive, the national debt has risen almost $5 trillion. But how much of that was because of policies passed by Obama, and how much was caused by the financial crisis, the continuation of past policies and other effects? For this analysis, we worked with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to attach a price tag to the legislation passed by Obama and his predecessor. George W. Bush’s major policies increased the debt by more than $5 trillion during his presidency. Obama has increased the debt by less than $1 trillion
Costs of Bush policies 2001 - 2009 = $5.1 trillion
Cost of Obama's policies 2009 - 2017 = $983 billion"
Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama - The Washington Post
That is the LAMEST possible argument. There is NO need for Obama to keep the very "Bush" policies that you ascribe all of the debt to. We are now using the OBAMA FIT rates, since he has signed them into law. EVERY item in the ficticious "Obama budget" is, in fact, an Obama policy. Obama and the demorats had COMPLETE control of congress yet did not "reverse" any of these "Bush" policies.
Governing is not simply allowing things to remain "as is" and complaining about them, it is making those HOPE AND CHANGE things come to pass by LEADING. Name ONE "Obama" policy that was not able to EASILY pass congress in 2009 or 2010? Simply because Obama did not lead does not mean that congress would not have gone along. Obama let Pelosi and Reid run the show, then complains about "Bush" policies, while he offered NONE of his own.
Obama NOW wants to tax "the rich" to add $85 billion to the federal revenue, enough to pay for 8.5 days of his spending, yet NEVER explains how that will create (or save) even ONE job. Remember that the "bipartisan" deal to subsidize student loan interest for ONE YEAR cost that much. Get real!
Are you serious?
Obama could repeal/reduce ALL of those additions in his budgets if he chose to...it is his decision.
So since he has not, then he now must take responsibility for them during each year that he is in office.
PLUS - he promised to half the budget deficit during his first term. So he is either a liar or totally untrustworthy on carrying through his promises
And, you FINALLY admit that Obama HAS increased the debt.
So that is yet another thing that has gotten worse under Obama...PLUS unemployment, worker participation rate, housing value and food stamps....oh, and the trade deficit as well (I forgot that before).
That is the LAMEST possible argument. There is NO need for Obama to keep the very "Bush" policies that you ascribe all of the debt to. We are now using the OBAMA FIT rates, since he has signed them into law. EVERY item in the ficticious "Obama budget" is, in fact, an Obama policy. Obama and the demorats had COMPLETE control of congress yet did not "reverse" any of these "Bush" policies.
Governing is not simply allowing things to remain "as is" and complaining about them, it is making those HOPE AND CHANGE things come to pass by LEADING. Name ONE "Obama" policy that was not able to EASILY pass congress in 2009 or 2010? Simply because Obama did not lead does not mean that congress would not have gone along. Obama let Pelosi and Reid run the show, then complains about "Bush" policies, while he offered NONE of his own.
Obama NOW wants to tax "the rich" to add $85 billion to the federal revenue, enough to pay for 8.5 days of his spending, yet NEVER explains how that will create (or save) even ONE job. Remember that the "bipartisan" deal to subsidize student loan interest for ONE YEAR cost that much. Get real!
I refuse to regard anyone as impoverished who has never truly known starvation.
I refuse to regard anyone with a computer, smart phone, ipod, or car as impoverished. Did you just buy your son $160 Michael Jordans? Then I don't care about you.
So ... a person works hard and gets a great job and earns some of these things. Then a super rich guy at Bain outsources his job overseas, and he's forced to take a crappy job below the poverty line, but still owns the car and the computer that he earned, and uses them to try to find a better job, but is unable to.
Yet he doesn't deserve your compassion. Got it.
Not enough, I'm afraid, you must also support additional tax cuts for people like the 6 Walton heirs that own as much wealth as 30% of the population.
Let's see your tally of the Presidents new spending programs and how much they add up to?
EVERY SINGLE PROGRAM that G.W. Bush added during his term is Obama's responsibility during every fiscal year that he does not cut it from the budget.
when you use terms like parasite party, you identify yourself as something less than human...
Let's see your tally of the Presidents new spending programs and how much they add up to?
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?