• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There's Something One Needs To Understand About Mr. Romney's 47%

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Most of them didn't have health insurance and many of the ones who did actually couldn't afford it. The fact is that 500 companies in America make money off of sick people and we still stack up 37th in the world when evaluated for longevity and general health. Many of them own no computer and wouldn't know how to use it if they did. Just because the 70%-80% view on one of these forums leans right doesn't mean that the Republicans will ever win another national election. They live in an isolated bubble with the Fox News echo chamber.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Most of them didn't have health insurance and many of the ones who did actually couldn't afford it. The fact is that 500 companies in America make money off of sick people and we still stack up 37th in the world when evaluated for longevity and general health. Many of them own no computer and wouldn't know how to use it if they did. Just because the 70%-80% view on one of these forums leans right doesn't mean that the Republicans will ever win another national election. They live in an isolated bubble with the Fox News echo chamber.
Check your math there, Skippy.

Fewer Americans uninsured - Census Bureau - Sep. 12, 2012
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They'll be insured next year when ObamaCare is fully implemented. By the way...why is it you guys never mention Reagan proposing a national health care program and the fact that Romney set one up for an entire state. Just party stuff I suppose.
RomneyCare did not keep medical care costs down but it did get/keep more folks covered by using lots of tax money to do so. Now MA wants to "mandate" the future cost increase rate for medical care providers.

Danger ahead? Massachusetts health costs are rising

Has Massachusetts Finally 'Cracked the Code' On Health Care Costs? - Forbes
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
RomneyCare did not keep medical care costs down but it did get/keep more folks covered by using lots of tax money to do so. Now MA wants to "mandate" the future cost increase rate for medical care providers.

Danger ahead? Massachusetts health costs are rising

Has Massachusetts Finally 'Cracked the Code' On Health Care Costs? - Forbes
Under ObamaCare all of the more than 500 companies involved will have to use 80% of the cost of premiums for actual health care expenses. That's the first step in leveling out the cost of coverage. During my life time the biggest crooks I've known about were involved in insurance and financial institutions. Good proof of that was when Bush handed the biggest financial institutions in the world nearly a trillion dollars with no strings attached as he left office.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Under ObamaCare all of the more than 500 companies involved will have to use 80% of the cost of premiums for actual health care expenses. That's the first step in leveling out the cost of coverage. During my life time the biggest crooks I've known about were involved in insurance and financial institutions. Good proof of that was when Bush handed the biggest financial institutions in the world nearly a trillion dollars with no strings attached as he left office.
If overhead costs are your true concern then why not rant about why the gov't pays more for the same type of worker than the private sector?

Chart of the Day: Federal Government Pay vs. Private Sector Pay | Mother Jones

Federal Workforce Continues to Grow Under Obama Budget | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The government pays more for any service it provides the electorate. That's the only reason private industry and the wealthy don't already control everything. If the corporations and wealthy had their way we would already be a Lord/Serf society. We get closer every day.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The government pays more for any service it provides the electorate. That's the only reason private industry and the wealthy don't already control everything. If the corporations and wealthy had their way we would already be a Lord/Serf society. We get closer every day.
Yet many morons still want ever more gov't services; knowing, full well, that they will cost more than the private equivalent.
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Yet many morons still want ever more gov't services; knowing, full well, that they will cost more than the private equivalent.
Republicans stopped believing in the average American when Ronald Reagan was elected the second time. At that time it should have been very obvious that he was cutting tax rates for the wealthy, never cutting spending a dime and borrowing from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. That my friend is effectively funneling borrowed money into the hands of the wealthiest citizens in America. Clinton had it almost straightened out then George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy again...twice, using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition and doubled the national debt after Reagan and his daddy had quadrupled it.


Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
 
Last edited:

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,743
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Don't confuse him with facts.

the fact that Romney set one up for an entire state. Just party stuff I suppose.
Do you really not know the difference between the federal government doing something and a state doing something, based on that whole 'Constitution' thing and how it says the powers not explicity given to the feds (ie health care) are left to the states? Poor.
 

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,743
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Republicans stopped believing in the average American when Ronald Reagan was elected the second time. At that time it should have been very obvious that he was cutting tax rates for the wealthy, never cutting spending a dime and borrowing from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. That my friend is effectively funneling borrowed money into the hands of the wealthiest citizens in America. Clinton had it almost straightened out then George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy again...twice, using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition and doubled the national debt after Reagan and his daddy had quadrupled it.
So much ignorance and misinformation in the above post, somebody's mother would be ashamed.
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Don't confuse him with facts.



Do you really not know the difference between the federal government doing something and a state doing something, based on that whole 'Constitution' thing and how it says the powers not explicity given to the feds (ie health care) are left to the states? Poor.
Yeah....like segregation, gay rights., women's health issues, immigration etc. The Republicans should get used to losing because that's what they will be doing the most of..........
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Republicans stopped believing in the average American when Ronald Reagan was elected the second time. At that time it should have been very obvious that he was cutting tax rates for the wealthy, never cutting spending a dime and borrowing from foreign banks to cover the shortfall. That my friend is effectively funneling borrowed money into the hands of the wealthiest citizens in America. Clinton had it almost straightened out then George W. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy again...twice, using reconciliation to block Democrat opposition and doubled the national debt after Reagan and his daddy had quadrupled it.


Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
On the other hand, the left (demorats?) wants to allow private industry to pay "substandard" wages and then willingly make up the difference through social "safety net" programs. That is every bit as much "corporate welfare" as tax breaks are - simply in a different form.

BTW why leave off the massive Obama administration's "contributions" to the national debt (it went up about 40% since 2009)? I agree that our congress critters, of both parties, are quite willing to spend massive amounts of borrowed money - they just want to use it for slightly different things.
 

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,743
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is the improper answer, as you clearly do NOT know the difference, if you equate what mass did vs the ACA. The dodges are meaningless, but it is the norm from partisans hacks.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Don't confuse him with facts.



Do you really not know the difference between the federal government doing something and a state doing something, based on that whole 'Constitution' thing and how it says the powers not explicity given to the feds (ie health care) are left to the states? Poor.
The SCOTUS, thanks to CJ Roberts' moronic opinion, has now tossed out that restriction; he said, basically, that if it is related to federal taxation (what federal gov't spending is not?) then it is a federal power. SS/Medicare and all sorts of income rediustribution programs have passed constitutional muster, so we can rest assured that everything "important" is now an "implied" constitutional federal power. All that is required now is to relate X to federal taxation - if you do not spend your money on X directly then you must pay a federal tax for not doing so. ;)
 

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,743
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The SCOTUS, thanks to CJ Roberts' moronic opinion, has now tossed out that restriction; he said, basically, that if it is related to federal taxation (what federal gov't spending is not?) then it is a federal power. SS/Medicare and all sorts of income rediustribution programs have passed constitutional muster, so we can rest assured that everything "important" is now an "implied" constitutional federal power. All that is required now is to relate X to federal taxation - if you do not spend your money on X directly then you must pay a federal tax for not doing so. ;)
I don't give a crap what the SCOTUS said on that (and many other issues). The Constitution is clear, and they and most of government has been running around it for a long time. Does not mean what they are doing is Constitutional in the least. Of course, it's probably too late to get them back in line, as we have far too many people like the OP in this country that don't care about the Constitution, and barely know anything about government, they just know they want to 'feel good'.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't give a crap what the SCOTUS said on that (and many other issues). The Constitution is clear, and they and most of government has been running around it for a long time. Does not mean what they are doing is Constitutional in the least. Of course, it's probably too late to get them back in line, as we have far too many people like the OP in this country that don't care about the Constitution, and barely know anything about government, they just know they want to 'feel good'.
Yep. Once that toothpaste tube has been squeazed you cannot hope to get the excess back into the tube. ;)
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
On the other hand, the left (demorats?) wants to allow private industry to pay "substandard" wages and then willingly make up the difference through social "safety net" programs. That is every bit as much "corporate welfare" as tax breaks are - simply in a different form.

BTW why leave off the massive Obama administration's "contributions" to the national debt (it went up about 40% since 2009)? I agree that our congress critters, of both parties, are quite willing to spend massive amounts of borrowed money - they just want to use it for slightly different things.
The difference is that in 1981 the Republicans began to borrow money from foreign banks and funnel it directly into the pockets of the wealthy through tax cuts, they never cut spending a dime....look closely:

 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The difference is that in 1981 the Republicans began to borrow money from foreign banks and funnel it directly into the pockets of the wealthy through tax cuts, they never cut spending a dime....look closely:

All that shows is that the federal gov't (i.e. congress critters) are willing to spend more than they are willing to demand via direct federal taxation. Using the top marginal tax rate is meaningless when we all know that the tax code is now more progressive than before. The "Bush" tax cuts lowered the bottom marginal tax rate by 50% while they lowered the top marginal tax rate by only 6%. The largest impact was caused by allowing for more deductions of state/local taxes from federal taxation.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page states that taxes paid by millionaire households more than doubled from $136 billion in 2003 to $274 billion in 2006 because of the JGTRRA.[2]

The Heritage Foundation concludes that the Bush tax cuts led to the rich shouldering more of the income tax burden and the poor shouldering less
Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
All that shows is that the federal gov't (i.e. congress critters) are willing to spend more than they are willing to demand via direct federal taxation. Using the top marginal tax rate is meaningless when we all know that the tax code is now more progressive than before. The "Bush" tax cuts lowered the bottom marginal tax rate by 50% while they lowered the top marginal tax rate by only 6%. The largest impact was caused by allowing for more deductions of state/local taxes from federal taxation.



Bush tax cuts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bull ****.....Clinton had the budget balanced with surpluses projected and the entire debt on schedule to be paid down by 2012. The first thing George W. Bush did was to cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003 and they used reconciliation to block Democrat opposition. Look closely at the upper 1% and notice that Clinton had them headed in the right direction and immediately after Bush's two tax cuts they were off to the races again:



Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
 
Last edited:

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Bull ****.....Clinton had the budget balanced with surpluses projected and the entire debt on schedule to be paid down by 2012. The first thing George W. Bush did was to cut taxes twice, 2001 and 2003 and they used reconciliation to block Democrat opposition. Look closely at the upper 1% and notice that Clinton had them headed in the right direction and immediately after Bush's two tax cuts they were off to the races again:



Total U S Debt


09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accomodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)


09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32

09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38(Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)

09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00
In which "Clinton" year did the national debt not increase?
 

Arbo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Messages
10,395
Reaction score
2,743
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Bull ****.....Clinton had the budget balanced with surpluses projected and the entire debt on schedule to be paid down by 2012.
Shifting money is not paying down our total debt. It's a ruse, and the mentally slow fell for it.
 

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Most of them didn't have health insurance and many of the ones who did actually couldn't afford it. The fact is that 500 companies in America make money off of sick people and we still stack up 37th in the world when evaluated for longevity and general health. Many of them own no computer and wouldn't know how to use it if they did. Just because the 70%-80% view on one of these forums leans right doesn't mean that the Republicans will ever win another national election. They live in an isolated bubble with the Fox News echo chamber.
Then no need for you to keep mumbling and whining I guess. Had Romney won,you may have offed yourself I am guessing.
 

Campbell

Banned
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
2,138
Reaction score
473
Location
East Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In which "Clinton" year did the national debt not increase?
Fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 the accumulated debt which was bought back amounted to $400 billion. The 106th congress elected to use that surplus to buy back debt. The best year on budget that Clinton had added $18 billion. Compare that to the $3 trillion Reagan and Bush41 went in debt and the nearly $6 trillion George W. Bush added. Listen dumbass.....the common denominator in all this is taxes on the wealthy. Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy to great depression levels and stopped paying our bills. George W. Bush cut taxes twice, started two wars, one totally unnecessary and doubled the debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion.

You damn Republicans gape at a gnat and swallow a camel.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,773
Reaction score
37,913
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 the accumulated debt which was bought back amounted to $400 billion. The 106th congress elected to use that surplus to buy back debt. The best year on budget that Clinton had added $18 billion. Compare that to the $3 trillion Reagan and Bush41 went in debt and the nearly $6 trillion George W. Bush added. Listen dumbass.....the common denominator in all this is taxes on the wealthy. Reagan slashed tax rates for the wealthy to great depression levels and stopped paying our bills. George W. Bush cut taxes twice, started two wars, one totally unnecessary and doubled the debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion.

You damn Republicans gape at a gnat and swallow a camel.
No. The "common denominator" is federal spending that exceeds federal revenue. The Iraq war (2003-2011 with 4,488 deaths) was no more unnecessary than the Vietnam war (1955-1975 with 58,209 deaths).
 
Top Bottom