How Ted Kennedy Destroyed America

[FaninAma]

http://www.rense.com/general87/legacy.htm

Between Kennedy's immigration bill and LBJ's Great Society the Democrats really did a number on this country in the 60's.

[REDREX]

But he has been sober for almost 5 years now

[Sooner8th]

Where do you get this stuff at?

[SoonerProphet]

Where do you get this stuff at?

http://www.rense.com

Seems legit.

[okie52]

But he has been sober for almost 5 years now

Bwaaaahhhhaaaaahhhhaaaa!!!!

[Sooner8th]

http://www.rense.com

Seems legit.

I really hope you're joking.

Since I never heard of him, I looked him up and found his topics include the New World Order, 9/11 conspiracy theories, UFOs, Holocaust denial, Jewish conspiracy theories, Big Pharma conspiracies, AIDS denial.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

8th, did you really need to look up about this murderer? TKK1W.

don't forget the gas guzzler tax and the inability to capitalize certain vehicle over a certain dollar amount are all TK's doing...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

http://www.rense.com

Seems legit.
Cause it is...

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Sober for over 5 years... awesome! No deaths attributed to him either...

[okie52]

8th, did you really need to look up about this murderer? TKK1W.

don't forget the gas guzzler tax and the inability to capitalize certain vehicle over a certain dollar amount are all TK's doing...

TK also killed universal healthcare in the 70's...

[Sooner8th]

TK also killed universal healthcare in the 70's...


That's not true. there was no universal healthcare in the proposal, only thing ever defined was the first stage a hospital cost-containment bill designed to deflate medical bills. He thought we could get NHI when there was a more liberal president.

[olevetonahill]

Oh Goody another Lib Troll to mess with. Been a member 2 years and decides to Make his 1st 2 posts today.

[Sooner8th]

8th, did you really need to look up about this murderer? TKK1W.

don't forget the gas guzzler tax and the inability to capitalize certain vehicle over a certain dollar amount are all TK's doing...

I looked up Rense.

[olevetonahill]

My bad 3 posts Now. :mushroom:

[Sooner8th]

Oh Goody another Lib Troll to mess with. Been a member 2 years and decides to Make his 1st 2 posts today.

Troll, keep telling yourself that - let me know when i post something that is not true.

[okie52]

That's not true. there was no universal healthcare in the proposal, only thing ever defined was the first stage a hospital cost-containment bill designed to deflate medical bills. He thought we could get NHI when there was a more liberal president.


In February 1974, President Nixon proposed more comprehensive health insurance reform—an employer mandate to offer private health insurance and replacement of Medicaid by state-run health insurance plans available to all with income-based premiums and cost sharing.[84][85] In April 1974, Kennedy and Mills introduced a bill for near-universal national health insurance with benefits identical to the expanded Nixon plan, both of which were criticized by labor and senior citizen organizations because of their substantial cost sharing.[84][86] In August 1974, after Nixon's resignation and President Ford's call for health insurance reform, Mills tried to advance a compromise based on Nixon's plan, but gave up when the conservative half of his committee instead backed the American Medical Association's limited voluntary tax credit plan.[84][87]


Carter: Ted Kennedy killed healthcare
5:49 AM 09/17/2010

WASHINGTON – Edward M. Kennedy may have died of brain cancer last year, but that has not softened Jimmy Carter’s assessment of his rival for the 1980 Democratic presidential nomination.

In a “60 Minutes’’ interview to be aired Sunday, Carter blames Kennedy for delaying comprehensive health care coverage for Americans by not joining forces with him on a bill during his presidency.

If Kennedy had dropped his insistence on full national health insurance and endorsed Carter’s compromise plan, the former president says, repeating views he and aides have held for decades, Americans could have had universal coverage long ago.


“The fact is that we would have had comprehensive health care now, had it not been for Ted Kennedy’s deliberately blocking the legislation that I proposed,’’ Carter tells Lesley Stahl, according to a “60 Minutes’’ press release.

“It was his fault. Ted Kennedy killed the bill.’

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/17/carter-ted-kennedy-killed-healthcare/#ixzz2x6DRMS00


Now you can argue that Ted wanted to have a total comprehensive health care plan but really all Ted wanted was it to be his bill with his name on it. His plan in 74 had little difference with Nixon's and his unwillingness to compromise with Carter was all about the dem nomination.

[olevetonahill]

Troll, keep telling yourself that - let me know when i post something that is not true.

Never accused you of being a Lying assed troll. Just a Lib troll :triumphant:

[Sooner8th]

Now you can argue that Ted wanted to have a total comprehensive health care plan but really all Ted wanted was it to be his bill with his name on it. His plan in 74 had little difference with Nixon's and his unwillingness to compromise with Carter was all about the dem nomination.

You got one thing right, TK wanted total comprehensive health care plan and Carters plan was never going to get there, since Carter didn't believe it in. He had three phases planned with only one fleshed out. It looks to me like JC was slow walking it by doing it piecemeal and TK wanted to do it all at once.

http://hnn.us/article/131473

Anyway - I don't see America is destroyed.

[Sooner8th]

Never accused you of being a Lying assed troll. Just a Lib troll :triumphant:


Originally Posted by Sooner8th
Troll, keep telling yourself that - let me know when i post something that is not true.

I never said you accused me of being a lying assed troll. I just said if I say something is a lie, let me know. I'm willing to cede when I'm wrong, I hope everyone on here is too.

[okie52]

You got one thing right, TK wanted total comprehensive health care plan and Carters plan was never going to get there, since Carter didn't believe it in. He had three phases planned with only one fleshed out. It looks to me like JC was slow walking it by doing it piecemeal and TK wanted to do it all at once.

http://hnn.us/article/131473

Anyway - I don't see America is destroyed.

Nixon, Ford and Carter all tried to promote healthcare bills and TK basically killed them holding out for some utopia that wasn't going to happen then...but he was going to support Obamacare 30years later that certainly wasn't single payer healthcare.


"Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.

You don't have to see America destroyed to realize TK was a POS

[Sooner8th]

Nixon, Ford and Carter all tried to promote healthcare bills and TK basically killed them holding out for some utopia that wasn't going to happen then...but he was going to support Obamacare 30years later that certainly wasn't single payer healthcare.



You don't have to see America destroyed to realize TK was a POS

The title of the thread is How Ted Kennedy Destroyed America, so you're saying that isn't accurate? It's your opinion he was a POS.

It wasn't just TK who apposed Nixon's efforts.

[SoonerProphet]

I really hope you're joking.

Since I never heard of him, I looked him up and found his topics include the New World Order, 9/11 conspiracy theories, UFOs, Holocaust denial, Jewish conspiracy theories, Big Pharma conspiracies, AIDS denial.

When David Duke is a featured writer, you know you have a top rate tin foil hatter outfit.

[olevetonahill]

Dont know so much about Destroyin Merica But he sure Screwed Up Mary Jo Kopechne and Her family along with a decent Olds.

[okie52]

The title of the thread is How Ted Kennedy Destroyed America, so you're saying that isn't accurate? It's your opinion he was a POS.

It wasn't just TK who apposed Nixon's efforts.

It looks like TK opposed every presidents efforts but his own. He himself said he regretted not doing a deal with Nixon....and then 30 years later supporting a bill like obamacare.

Of course its my opinion he's a POS.

We still exist as a country so obviously he didn't destroy us...but he certainly damaged the country as well as a bridge.

[SCOUT]

It looks like TK opposed every presidents efforts but his own. He himself said he regretted not doing a deal with Nixon....and then 30 years later supporting a bill like obamacare.

Of course its my opinion he's a POS.

We still exist as a country so obviously he didn't destroy us...but he certainly damaged the country as well as a bridge.
This simply isn't true. That bridge received almost no damage. The bridge didn't have rails at the time. ;)

[FaninAma]

Sooner8, a typical weak argument tactic is to not discuss
the assertion at hand but instead deflect by trying to discredit
the source.

Here is another opinion piece but I am sure you will avoid discussing the assertions in
this article also.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20777

please explain how radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa is beneficial to the success of its
citizens.

[Sooner8th]

Sooner8, a typical weak argument tactic is to not discuss
the assertion at hand but instead deflect by trying to discredit
the source.

Here is another opinion piece but I am sure you will avoid discussing the assertions in
this article also.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20777

please explain how radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa is beneficial to the success of its
citizens.

The assertion at hand is How Ted Kennedy Destroyed America - the title of the tread. America is not destroyed, period.

On to trying to discredit the source, if that ain't the pot callin' the kettle black. Do the phrases - liberal press, mainstream media, lamestream media ring any bells? Your source, the original is a crazy right wing kook who believes in ufo's and 9-11 conspiracy theories among other things. Funny how it takes a lot less than that for you to ignore and discredit other media outlets as liberally biased when it does not reinforce your viewpoint.

This whole post is typical of the right, you make a statement full of hyperbole, How Ted Kennedy Destroyed America, which is simply not true. America is not destroyed. Then when your original source is exposed as being a right wing kook who supports ufo's and 9-11 conspiracy theories among other things, you trot out another rightwing internet rag as backup. No don't look to find any counter opinions or any facts that might contradict your beliefs. You also totally ignore and/or forgive Reagan for what is now the rights cardinal sin - amnesty for illegal immigrants. You are too busy trying to blame democrats for what you think are problems.

[FaninAma]

So you are still refusing to address the question. Typical.

The second article has some very salient points especially concerning the lies Kennedy used to get the law passed.

Sort of like "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor".

As far as whether he, along with LBJ, destroyed the country I think we are well on are way especially considering that their legacy legislation of each is less than 50 years old.

Massive deficits most of which are due to LBJ's Great. Society entitlements.

Massive chain immigration from 3rd world hell holes.

Yeah, we're in great shape.

This type of immigration policy has also worked so well in Western Europe. LOL.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

8, if we continue down the Third World path the dims and TK wanted us to go, we MOST CERTAINLY will be destroyed as a great nation. I for one, do not want to live 3rd world style with compounds around every house, barbed wire or broken glass on top of the compound wall and corruption rampant in most services, private and public...

[Sooner8th]

So you are still refusing to address the question. Typical.

The second article has some very salient points especially concerning the lies Kennedy used to get the law passed.

Sort of like "if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor".

As far as whether he, along with LBJ, destroyed the country I think we are well on are way especially considering that their legacy legislation of each is less than 50 years old.

Massive deficits most of which are due to LBJ's Great. Society entitlements.

Massive chain immigration from 3rd world hell holes.

Yeah, we're in great shape.

This type of immigration policy has also worked so well in Western Europe. LOL.


OK - let's address the question -

please explain how radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa is beneficial to the success of its
citizens.

You assert that radically altering the ethnic makeup of our country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa is destroying our country.

You, with your own words, have shown me and this entire board what you are - a racist and a bigot. You have no problem with anyone from outside of Latin America, Asia and Africa which leaves caucasians.

You again state our country is destroyed - no one but you sees it, but you. Why do you hate America?

As for adding deficits look at your own party - every repbulican president from reagan on RAISED the debt from when they took office to when the left and every democrat has cut the debt from when they took office to when they left or are in now. Johnson's debts had nothing to do with the Vietnam war?

The legacy of Medicare? Most popular program in the country - your party ran a campaign claiming the democrats were cutting it.

Want to talk about lies told by presidents? We can raise spending on defense and cut taxes and balance the budget. Tax cuts to the wealth pay for themselves. READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES. Cutting taxes will not cause deficits. 10/7/2002, George W. Bush, President "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." SOME people not being able to keep their doctor is amateur hour compared to republican lies.

I can guarantee you Indians thought same thing when Europeans showed up on their shores.

[OU68]

I can guarantee you Indians thought same thing when Europeans showed up on their shores.

And it's turned out so well form them, huh?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Want to talk about lies told by presidents? We can raise spending on defense and cut taxes and balance the budget. Tax cuts to the wealth pay for themselves. READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES. Cutting taxes will not cause deficits. 10/7/2002, George W. Bush, President "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." SOME people not being able to keep their doctor is amateur hour compared to republican lies.

"I did not have sex with that woman." - Bill Clinton doing his best impersonation of Richard Simmons' penis

"Whoopty-freakin'-doo." - America, not giving a rip roaring crap about the political pissing matches between parties, instead wanting results.

[Sooner8th]

"I did not have sex with that woman." - Bill Clinton doing his best impersonation of Richard Simmons' penis

"Whoopty-freakin'-doo." - America, not giving a rip roaring crap about the political pissing matches between parties, instead wanting results.

Funny..................I see all over this board republicans talking about obama and reid's lies all the time. Seems to be a big topic of conversation for rightwingers.

[FaninAma]

Sooner8, pulling out the race card so early? LOL.

So I am a racist and bigot for suggesting we follow the same immigration
guidelines as a lot of Western European countries have done? Just another deflection
from your emotionally based "logic". You're really not even worth the time
to even attempt to engage in a discussion.

[Sooner8th]

Sooner8, pulling out the race card so early? LOL.

So I am a racist and bigot for suggesting we follow the same immigration
guidelines as a lot of Western European countries have done? Just another deflection
from your emotionally based "logic". You're really not even worth the time
to even attempt to engage in a discussion.

LOL - early? They are your words not mine. You SAID you don't want to radically alter the ethnic makeup of our country by letting in Latin Americans, Asians and Africans. Another point is who says they will alter it?

You have completely changed discussions, the title of your tread is How Ted Kennedy Destroyed America. You are the only one on here that thinks America is destroyed. Then you try to use some pseudo intellectualism that I'm sure you got off some rightwing website that runs down liberals to talk about my "emotionally based logic". Nothing emotional about it, again you said -


please explain how radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa is beneficial to the success of its
citizens.

First, you knocked TK for changing immigration and letting more of these immigrants in and "destroying America" now you state you do not want these immigrants in our country because they will turn it into more of a third world country. The ONLY immigrates you are blaming for "destroying America" and wanting to keep out are from Latin America, Asia and Africa. You are trying your hardest to not admit you are a racist, but your words are clear and they prove it.

Like i tell my kids - the first rule of being in a hole is to STOP DIGGING.

[Sooner8th]

8, if we continue down the Third World path the dims and TK wanted us to go, we MOST CERTAINLY will be destroyed as a great nation. I for one, do not want to live 3rd world style with compounds around every house, barbed wire or broken glass on top of the compound wall and corruption rampant in most services, private and public...

First - DEMOCRATS and TK don't want us to go down the "Third World path", again I'm sure you read that on some rightwing website and grunted in agreement. As for living in "3rd world style with compounds around every house, barbed wire or broken glass on top of the compound wall and corruption rampant in most services, private and public." you need to look at Colorado Springs who has been taken over by radical rightwingers who cut taxes to the point that if you have a burglary there is an online form you can fill out to report it because police services have been cut so deep they don't have the manpower to send out a squad car to your home. Also look at kansas, where the koch's have bought the legislature and governors office so now they don't pay ANY state income taxes, but everyone else's went up. Don't forget former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife. As for private corruption, lets talk about dubya's best friend Ken Lay. Sounds like a third world country to me.

[rock on sooner]

Heh, this thread is a fun read!!!:friendly_wink:

[Sooner8th]

8, if we continue down the Third World path the dims and TK wanted us to go, we MOST CERTAINLY will be destroyed as a great nation. I for one, do not want to live 3rd world style with compounds around every house, barbed wire or broken glass on top of the compound wall and corruption rampant in most services, private and public...

How did I forget Chris "i know nothing, i see nothing?" Christie?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q

[FaninAma]

Heh, this thread is a fun read!!!:friendly_wink:

Isn't it though. It only took til page 2 for one of your fellow progressives to call me a racist. Additionally he pulled out the other barrel and threw in the charge of bigot for good measure. It sure didn't take him long to go through his leftist quiver of responses.

[rock on sooner]

Isn't it though. It only took til page 2 for one of your fellow progressives to call me a racist. Additionally he pulled out the other barrel and threw in the charge of bigot for good measure. It sure didn't take him long to go through his leftist quiver of responses.

It's fun 'cause I'm not the one arguing....and racist and bigot are pretty much the same
when you think about it, so it was really only one barrel...:devilish:

[Sooner8th]

It's fun 'cause I'm not the one arguing....and racist and bigot are pretty much the same
when you think about it, so it was really only one barrel...:devilish:

The difference between racism and bigotry is that racism is where a person believes that a certain race is more superior compared to others and treats the other race harshly. Bigotry is where someone highly values his opinions and disregards the people's point of view.

Two barrels..............

[Sooner8th]

Isn't it though. It only took til page 2 for one of your fellow progressives to call me a racist. Additionally he pulled out the other barrel and threw in the charge of bigot for good measure. It sure didn't take him long to go through his leftist quiver of responses.

Just repeating your words................

[FaninAma]

Damn those racist Danish! How dare they save 1.8 billion Euro a year through tougher immigration laws.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/8492822/Denmarks-immigration-laws-save-country-6-billion.html

[OU68]

Is Matlock back under a new name?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Is Matlock back under a new name?

Zackly what I was think'n...

[rock on sooner]

The difference between racism and bigotry is that racism is where a person believes that a certain race is more superior compared to others and treats the other race harshly. Bigotry is where someone highly values his opinions and disregards the people's point of view.

Two barrels..............

Never met a racist that wasn't bigoted and never met a bigot that
didn't exhibit racism....jus sayin...

[FaninAma]

Never met a racist that wasn't bigoted and never met a bigot that
didn't exhibit racism....jus sayin...
The biggest bigots and racists I haver ever met all came from the progressive side of the political spectrum.

[olevetonahill]

Is Matlock back under a new name?


Zackly what I was think'n...

A troll fer sure, I Just aint sure if its Matlock or that Marfa weirdo!

[Sooner8th]

The biggest bigots and racists I haver ever met all came from the progressive side of the political spectrum.

Keep telling yourself that..................

[FaninAma]

Keep telling yourself that..................
All progressives are racist because they feel certain races in our society are helpless and unable to succeed without the help of government handouts. They view these races as weak and as perpetual victims.

Then there are the race baiters like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and most of the Democratic elected officials who seek to divide the country along racial lines in order to empower and enrich themselves.

The Godfather of the Progressive, entitlement agenda, LBJ, was the biggest racist you could ever hope to meet.

[OU68]

"Specifically, host Bill O’Reilly asked Will why it is that people like Barbara Lee and Al Sharpton classify people like Paul Ryan as “racist” for simply stating the facts accurately.

“Well there are three reasons in ascending order of importance,” Will replied. “The first is it’s a verbal tic. It’s a reflex on their part to call people racist, just as it was for Joe McCarthy to call people communists in 1954. People stopped listening to him. People will stop listening to these people.”

“Second, they’re frightened of Paul Ryan, who’s a political talent and might be a very strong presidential candidate,” he said.

“But most important, they’re terrified of his fundamental message, which the President himself has said, and which social scientists have documented, that the fundamental problem is cultural,” Will said. He went on to explain that the number of children born out of wedlock to African American families in the 1960′s was under 24%. Now, it’s over 70%."

[TAFBSooner]

Just repeating your words................

If you're going to be on this site as a liberal, you have to savor the small victories. There are some posters here who at least realize that a racist is not something you want to be perceived as being.

[olevetonahill]

If you're going to be on this site as a liberal, you have to savor the small victories. There are some posters here who at least realize that a racist is not something you want to be perceived as being.

Why do you say that? It does not bother me One bit to be perceived as a racist. You Libs call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. anyone who mentions race that isn't a Member of a Minority a racist. Call me what ya will. Why are you afraid of the Minorities so much that you tremble in fear of being Called a Racist?

[TAFBSooner]

Why do you say that? It does not bother me One bit to be perceived as a racist. You Libs call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. anyone who mentions race that isn't a Member of a Minority a racist. Call me what ya will. Why are you afraid of the Minorities so much that you tremble in fear of being Called a Racist?

Relax, Vet. I wasn't talking about you . . .

:peaceful:

[olevetonahill]

Relax, Vet. I wasn't talking about you . . .

:peaceful:

Heh http://www.olevetpossehideout.com/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif

[TAFBSooner]

Why do you say that? It does not bother me One bit to be perceived as a racist. You Libs call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. anyone who mentions race that isn't a Member of a Minority a racist. Call me what ya will. Why are you afraid of the Minorities so much that you tremble in fear of being Called a Racist?

BTW, I disagree with Obama maybe 60% of the time, or more. I just disagree with Bush, McCain, and Romney a lot more.

[olevetonahill]

BTW, I disagree with Obama maybe 60% of the time, or more. I just disagree with Bush, McCain, and Romney a lot more.

You must admit tho that when ever any Con called him out on anything they were immediately labeled a Racist

[TAFBSooner]

You must admit tho that when ever any Con called him out on anything they were immediately labeled a Racist

When Rumsfeld compared Obama to a trained ape the other day, many liberals called him out for being a racist, because there really is a long history of disparaging blacks by calling them apes. But calling Rumsfeld out for that was nonsense.

Rumsfeld and his partner in crime from the Nixon administration, Cheney, were used to thinking of the presidency as best occupied by a trained ape, since they apparently thought of (and treated) Bush as one.

You go to the interview with the brain that you have, not with the brain you wish you had.

[TAFBSooner]

You must admit tho that when ever any Con called him out on anything they were immediately labeled a Racist

I just looked at the "1936" thread. There was plenty of firepower going both ways, but the conservatives didn't seem to be using racial triggers, and the liberals didn't call the cons racist.

Mileage may vary on, say, a thread on immigration.

[FaninAma]

Why do you say that? It does not bother me One bit to be perceived as a racist. You Libs call anyone who disagrees with Obama a racist. anyone who mentions race that isn't a Member of a Minority a racist. Call me what ya will. Why are you afraid of the Minorities so much that you tremble in fear of being Called a Racist?

Could not agree more. If a liberal doesn't call you a racist then you may not be as
conservative as you think you are.

[Sooner8th]

If you're going to be on this site as a liberal, you have to savor the small victories. There are some posters here who at least realize that a racist is not something you want to be perceived as being.

Ain't that the truth, but then again Bill O'reilly says he's not, so he must not be.

[Soonerjeepman]

OK - let's address the question -

please explain how radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa is beneficial to the success of its
citizens.

You assert that radically altering the ethnic makeup of our country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa is destroying our country.

You, with your own words, have shown me and this entire board what you are - a racist and a bigot. You have no problem with anyone from outside of Latin America, Asia and Africa which leaves caucasians.

You again state our country is destroyed - no one but you sees it, but you. Why do you hate America?

As for adding deficits look at your own party - every repbulican president from reagan on RAISED the debt from when they took office to when the left and every democrat has cut the debt from when they took office to when they left or are in now. Johnson's debts had nothing to do with the Vietnam war?

The legacy of Medicare? Most popular program in the country - your party ran a campaign claiming the democrats were cutting it.

Want to talk about lies told by presidents? We can raise spending on defense and cut taxes and balance the budget. Tax cuts to the wealth pay for themselves. READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES. Cutting taxes will not cause deficits. 10/7/2002, George W. Bush, President "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas." SOME people not being able to keep their doctor is amateur hour compared to republican lies.

I can guarantee you Indians thought same thing when Europeans showed up on their shores.

What? dude...are you serious? wow. I'm conservative and I do have a prob with the GOP not standing up for what's right but THAT has to be a joke you stated...

[rock on sooner]

You must admit tho that when ever any Con called him out on anything they were immediately labeled a Racist

Ummm, might be 'cause of the way they phrased the "call out"...jus sayin..

[Sooner8th]

What? dude...are you serious? wow. I'm conservative and I do have a prob with the GOP not standing up for what's right but THAT has to be a joke you stated...


It is not. It is the truth. Look it up. You are entitled to you own opinions but not your own facts. Prove me wrong.

[olevetonahill]

Sure sounds like Matlock.

[FaninAma]

It is not. It is the truth. Look it up. You are entitled to you own opinions but not your own facts. Prove me wrong.
So the secret is to run up a gargantuan deficit, say like $1.2 trillion, then when it falls just a bit you can claim credit for cutting the deficit. Gotcha. Liberal logic at its finest.

BTW, any reductions in deficits under Obama have been due to record tax receipts, cuts in the military and income from the bonds the Federal Reserve has purchased over the past 4 years(about $4 trillion dollars worth) which by law comes back to the US Treasury. entitlement expenditures have exploded under Obama.

[FaninAma]

If you're going to be on this site as a liberal, you have to savor the small victories. There are some posters here who at least realize that a racist is not something you want to be perceived as being.
Like olevet said, none of the true conservatives on the board GAS whether you progressives consider us racists or not. The race card has been slapped down so often by your ilk that it really carries very little significance.

[Sooner8th]

So the secret is to run up a gargantuan deficit, say like $1.2 trillion, then when it falls just a bit you can claim credit for cutting the deficit. Gotcha. Liberal logic at its finest.

BTW, any reductions in deficits under Obama have been due to record tax receipts, cuts in the military and income from the bonds the Federal Reserve has purchased over the past 4 years(about $4 trillion dollars worth) which by law comes back to the US Treasury. entitlement expenditures have exploded under Obama.

Who signed the 2009 budget? GEORGE W. BUSH. $1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT, it is now at $514 BILLION. Cuts in the military? 2009 defense spending $821.7 billion. 2014 defense spending $842.0 billion. I don't see the spending cut, or is republican math where not getting the increase you want is a cut?

It is obvious you do not know how the fed works nor quantitative easing works. The fed buys bonds from member banks, where do you think the income went before the FED bought them? Back to the US Treasury! The are only taking them off the balance sheet of the member bank to free up money so they can lend it. The only thing QE does for the deficit is to lower interest rates so our debt is cheaper and to stimulate the economy.

Where do you get this at? Do you even look stuff up to see if its accurate?

Entitlement expenditures started to explode under Bush and are a result of your party's most recent recession.

[Sooner8th]

Like olevet said, none of the true conservatives on the board GAS whether you progressives consider us racists or not. The race card has been slapped down so often by your ilk that it really carries very little significance.

A "true conservative" wears it like a badge of honor.

[olevetonahill]

Oh Boy we got a new toy to play with. Yall dont break him like Ya did the others:friendly_wink:

[Sooner8th]

Oh Boy we got a new toy to play with. Yall dont break him like Ya did the others:friendly_wink:

A new one to play with? So that's going to be the defense? He is being factually incorrect on purpose.

[olevetonahill]

A new one to play with? So that's going to be the defense? He is being factually incorrect on purpose.

Heh
http://www.troll.me/images2/facepalm-guys/double-facepalm-when-one-facepalm-is-just-not-enough.jpg

[diverdog]

Sooner8, a typical weak argument tactic is to not discuss
the assertion at hand but instead deflect by trying to discredit
the source.

Here is another opinion piece but I am sure you will avoid discussing the assertions in
this article also.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=20777

please explain how radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa is beneficial to the success of its
citizens.

fanin:

You cannot lay the entire immigration debacle at the feet of Ted Kennedy. A lot of politicians have turned a blind eye to this problem.

[FaninAma]

Who signed the 2009 budget? GEORGE W. BUSH. $1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT, it is now at $514 BILLION. Cuts in the military? 2009 defense spending $821.7 billion. 2014 defense spending $842.0 billion. I don't see the spending cut, or is republican math where not getting the increase you want is a cut?

It is obvious you do not know how the fed works nor quantitative easing works. The fed buys bonds from member banks, where do you think the income went before the FED bought them? Back to the US Treasury! The are only taking them off the balance sheet of the member bank to free up money so they can lend it. The only thing QE does for the deficit is to lower interest rates so our debt is cheaper and to stimulate the economy.

Where do you get this at? Do you even look stuff up to see if its accurate?

Entitlement expenditures started to explode under Bush and are a result of your party's most recent recession.


You are so f'ing wrong about all the interest on US Treasury bonds going back to the US Treasury. If you own a 10 year Treasury note do you send the interest back to the Treasury? Do you think Russia, China or Japan do? Only the interest from notes purchased by the Federal Reserve get returned to the US Treasury. Banks aren't buying and holding these bonds. They are the middle man since by statute the Fed cannot buy US Treasury bonds directly. The banks get paid a fee for selling the bonds to the Federal Reserve.

The only thing QE does is to artifically lower theinterest rate on US Treasuries so the government can keep spending like drunken sailors(with apologies to derunken sailors) while people like retired seniors on fixed incomes get hammered.

If you are going to act likle a pompous *** and lecture people about how little they know you need to have clue about what you are talking about. Geesh.

Entitlements increased under Bush but they have exploded under Obama.

So the military budget has gone up 2% over thepast 5 years or an average of 0.4% per year. Are you really going to tout that as an increase? Adjusted for inflation that is about an 8% decrease in actual dollars.

[diverdog]

You are so f'ing wrong about all the interest on US Treasury bonds going back to the US Treasury. If you own a 10 year Treasury note do you send the interest back to the Treasury? Do you think Russia, China or Japan do? Only the interest from notes purchased by the Federal Reserve get returned to the US Treasury. Banks aren't buying and holding these bonds. They are the middle man since by statute the Fed cannot buy US Treasury bonds directly. The banks get paid a fee for selling the bonds to the Federal Reserve.

The only thing QE does is to artifically lower theinterest rate on US Treasuries so the government can keep spending like drunken sailors(with apologies to derunken sailors) while people like retired seniors on fixed incomes get hammered.

If you are going to act likle a pompous *** and lecture people about how little they know you need to have clue about what you are talking about. Geesh.

Entitlements increased under Bush but they have exploded under Obama.

So the military budget has gone up 2% over thepast 5 years or an average of 0.4% per year. Are you really going to tout that as an increase? Adjusted for inflation that is about an 8% decrease in actual dollars.

Somebody didn't get laid this morning. :)

[olevetonahill]

Somebody didn't get laid this morning. :)

I dint either, Bend Over DD

[FaninAma]

Who signed the 2009 budget? GEORGE W. BUSH. $1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT, it is now at $514 BILLION. Cuts in the military? 2009 defense spending $821.7 billion. 2014 defense spending $842.0 billion. I don't see the spending cut, or is republican math where not getting the increase you want is a cut?

It is obvious you do not know how the fed works nor quantitative easing works. The fed buys bonds from member banks, where do you think the income went before the FED bought them? Back to the US Treasury! The are only taking them off the balance sheet of the member bank to free up money so they can lend it. The only thing QE does for the deficit is to lower interest rates so our debt is cheaper and to stimulate the economy.

Where do you get this at? Do you even look stuff up to see if its accurate?

Entitlement expenditures started to explode under Bush and are a result of your party's most recent recession.

You are just flat out wrong. Banks do not buy bonds and then turn around and give the interest back to the the Treasury. That is the stupidest assertion I have ever heard. The Federal Reserve uses the banks as middle men because they cannot buy directly from the government. They aren't "taking the bonds off the hands of the banks."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12851.htm

If the Budget deficit for 2014 is going to only be 514 billion then they better start cutting some other **** because it is already 380 billion for the first 5 months of the fiscal year.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45174

[diverdog]

I dint either, Bend Over DD

You would not want any part of me. I spent the better part of the night puking and chitting my guts out.

I will take a rain check. :)

[FaninAma]

Somebody didn't get laid this morning. :)

I tend to get cranky when somebody who has no freaking clue about what they are talking about tries to lecture me on a subject I know much more about.

[diverdog]

You are just flat out wrong. Banks do not buy bonds and then turn around and give the interest back to the the Treasury. That is the stupidest assertion I have ever heard. The Federal Reserve uses the banks as middle men because they cannot buy directly from the government. They aren't "taking the bonds off the hands of the banks."
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/money_12851.htm

If the Budget deficit for 2014 is going to only be 514 billion then they better start cutting some other **** because it is already 380 billion for the first 5 months of the fiscal year.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45174

Fanin I believe they are also buying mortgage backed securities and asset backed securities from the banks.

I went to an economics talk the other day and the consensus was that QE will be around for a while.

[FaninAma]

Fanin I believe they are also buying mortgage backed securities and asset backed securities from the banks.

I went to an economics talk the other day and the consensus was that QE will be around for a while.

I agree on both accounts.

The interest on mortgage backed securities(MBS) is higher than the interest on US Treasuries . A lot of the MBS the Fed is buying are non-performing and we will see what happens when they default. I am sure the Fed will just print more money to cover their losses. On the performing MBS the Fed sends that money back to the US Treasury, also.

My point to Sooner8 was that the reduction in the deficit is largely an accounting gimmick. There has been a reduction in the rate of spending year over year of about $ 44 billion or about 1.4%. And again the earnings on the Fed's investments is substantial so the more bonds they buy the more money the Fed sends to the US Treasury. I estimate that with the current bloated Fed asset sheet the US Treasury is getting about $150 billion+ back which of course makes the deficit look smaller. Add to that fact that QE artifically supresses interest rates which translates to less money the US government has to pay to debt holders which shrinks the deficit even more. Both of these factors are temporary and when QE stops the deficit will explode even more than it has.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/economy/feds-2012-profit-was-88-9-billion.html?_r=0

Additionally the US budget deficit is projected to reach $27 trillion by 2024. I am betting it will be much higher especially if/when interest rates on bonds goes up.

BTW, I'd probably be more civil to Sooner8 if he hadn't called me a racist and a bigot after just my 3rd response to him.

[olevetonahill]

You would not want any part of me. I spent the better part of the night puking and chitting my guts out.

I will take a rain check. :)

Ya sound Just like my Ex, Always an excuse, The Bitch!

[diverdog]

I agree on both accounts.

The interest on mortgage backed securities(MBS) is higher than the interest on US Treasuries . A lot of the MBS the Fed is buying are non-performing and we will see what happens when they default. I am sure the Fed will just print more money to cover their losses. On the performing MBS the Fed sends that money back to the US Treasury, also.

My point to Sooner8 was that the reduction in the deficit is largely an accounting gimmick. There has been a reduction in the rate of spending year over year of about $ 44 billion or about 1.4%. And again the earnings on the Fed's investments is substantial so the more bonds they buy themore money the Fed sends to the US Treasury. I estimate that with the current bloated Fed asset sheet the US Treasury is getting about $150 billion+ back which of course makes the deficit look smaller.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/economy/feds-2012-profit-was-88-9-billion.html?_r=0

Additionally the US budget deficit is projected to reach $27 trillion by 2024. I am betting it will be higher especially if interest rates on bonds goes up.

BTW, I'd probably be more civil to Sooner8 if he hadn't called me a racist and a bigot after just my 3rd response to him.

I hope and pray that the MBS that they bought after 2010 are good quality. The wild wild west of getting a mortgage with no documentation is over. Now there is a concern in the large rental market of apartment complexes and condo's being susceptible to a bubble.

[FaninAma]

I hope and pray that the MBS that they bought after 2010 are good quality. The wild wild west of getting a mortgage with no documentation is over. Now there is a concern in the large rental market of apartment complexes and condo's being susceptible to a bubble.

I am pretty sure the Fed took most of the crap that was on the banks' balance sheets. The question is can the Federal Reserve Bank go broke and default? We may soon have an answer.

[diverdog]

Ya sound Just like my Ex, Always an excuse, The Bitch!

I promise we can spoon later....big boy.

[olevetonahill]

I promise we can spoon later....big boy.

Yea She always Promised wild sex In the "Future" Also. Bitch never told me it was with the Ice Cream peddler. :blue:

[diverdog]

I am pretty sure the Fed took most of the crap that was on the banks' balance sheets. The question is can the Federal Reserve Bank go broke and default? We may soon have an answer.

I am in the middle of reading the book The Frackers and I am absolutely convinced that the only way out of this mess is to go full bore on drilling. Not only do we make money but the jobs created from lower energy prices would explode. By the way, this is a complete 180 for me on energy policy.

The Frackers is a great read and I think you would enjoy it.

[diverdog]

Yea She always Promised wild sex In the "Future" Also. Bitch never told me it was with the Ice Cream peddler. :blue:

Dayum, that had to hurt. Ice cream peddler?

How many times have you been married?

[olevetonahill]

Dayum, that had to hurt. Ice cream peddler?

How many times have you been married?

3
1st one found her a guitar picker after 16 years an 3 kids, 2nd one was just out right ****in Nuts. 3rd one ran off with the Schwans dude. Guess he had a Longer harder Popsicle LOL

So I raised my Kids and Have lived Happily ever after:applause:

[Sooner8th]

You are so f'ing wrong about all the interest on US Treasury bonds going back to the US Treasury. If you own a 10 year Treasury note do you send the interest back to the Treasury? Do you think Russia, China or Japan do? Only the interest from notes purchased by the Federal Reserve get returned to the US Treasury. Banks aren't buying and holding these bonds. They are the middle man since by statute the Fed cannot buy US Treasury bonds directly. The banks get paid a fee for selling the bonds to the Federal Reserve.

The only thing QE does is to artifically lower theinterest rate on US Treasuries so the government can keep spending like drunken sailors(with apologies to derunken sailors) while people like retired seniors on fixed incomes get hammered.

If you are going to act likle a pompous *** and lecture people about how little they know you need to have clue about what you are talking about. Geesh.

Entitlements increased under Bush but they have exploded under Obama.

So the military budget has gone up 2% over thepast 5 years or an average of 0.4% per year. Are you really going to tout that as an increase? Adjusted for inflation that is about an 8% decrease in actual dollars.

You insulted me first. You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Answer me one question, where does the "income" from US Treasury bonds come from in the first place? THE US TREASURY, so if it goes back its a wash.

From the article you posted -

Because the Fed mostly holds debt issued by the federal government, its profits — which totaled $91 billion in 2012 — are largely payments from the government. By returning that money to the government, the central bank in effect is letting the government borrow at no cost.


You said there was a spending cut in military - you are wrong and I proved it.

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=FaninAma;4457871]I agree on both accounts.

The interest on mortgage backed securities(MBS) is higher than the interest on US Treasuries . A lot of the MBS the Fed is buying are non-performing and we will see what happens when they default. I am sure the Fed will just print more money to cover their losses. On the performing MBS the Fed sends that money back to the US Treasury, also.

My point to Sooner8 was that the reduction in the deficit is largely an accounting gimmick. There has been a reduction in the rate of spending year over year of about $ 44 billion or about 1.4%. And again the earnings on the Fed's investments is substantial so the more bonds they buy the more money the Fed sends to the US Treasury. I estimate that with the current bloated Fed asset sheet the US Treasury is getting about $150 billion+ back which of course makes the deficit look smaller. Add to that fact that QE artifically supresses interest rates which translates to less money the US government has to pay to debt holders which shrinks the deficit even more. Both of these factors are temporary and when QE stops the deficit will explode even more than it has.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/economy/feds-2012-profit-was-88-9-billion.html?_r=0

Additionally the US budget deficit is projected to reach $27 trillion by 2024. I am betting it will be much higher especially if/when interest rates on bonds goes up.

BTW, I'd probably be more civil to Sooner8 if he hadn't called me a racist and a bigot after just my 3rd response to him.[/QUOTE

You keep making claims you can't back up. "reduction in the deficit is largely an accounting gimmick"?

The article YOU referneced states IN THE TITLE $88.9 BILLION being returned to the treasury. So even if you don't count that money came from the treasury in the first place, it only counts as, thats right, $88.9 BILLION. The deficit is being lowered from $1.4 TRILLION to $514 BILLION a $900 BILLION reduction. So is it republican math that now $89.9 BILLION is "largely" a part of $900 BILLION.

The very sources YOU reference don't even back your own assertions up.

GGGEEEEZZZZZ

[diverdog]

[QUOTE=FaninAma;4457871]I agree on both accounts.

The interest on mortgage backed securities(MBS) is higher than the interest on US Treasuries . A lot of the MBS the Fed is buying are non-performing and we will see what happens when they default. I am sure the Fed will just print more money to cover their losses. On the performing MBS the Fed sends that money back to the US Treasury, also.

My point to Sooner8 was that the reduction in the deficit is largely an accounting gimmick. There has been a reduction in the rate of spending year over year of about $ 44 billion or about 1.4%. And again the earnings on the Fed's investments is substantial so the more bonds they buy the more money the Fed sends to the US Treasury. I estimate that with the current bloated Fed asset sheet the US Treasury is getting about $150 billion+ back which of course makes the deficit look smaller. Add to that fact that QE artifically supresses interest rates which translates to less money the US government has to pay to debt holders which shrinks the deficit even more. Both of these factors are temporary and when QE stops the deficit will explode even more than it has.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/business/economy/feds-2012-profit-was-88-9-billion.html?_r=0

Additionally the US budget deficit is projected to reach $27 trillion by 2024. I am betting it will be much higher especially if/when interest rates on bonds goes up.

BTW, I'd probably be more civil to Sooner8 if he hadn't called me a racist and a bigot after just my 3rd response to him.[/QUOTE

You keep making claims you can't back up. "reduction in the deficit is largely an accounting gimmick"?

The article YOU referneced states IN THE TITLE $88.9 BILLION being returned to the treasury. So even if you don't count that money came from the treasury in the first place, it only counts as, thats right, $88.9 BILLION. The deficit is being lowered from $1.4 TRILLION to $514 BILLION a $900 BILLION reduction. So is it republican math that now $89.9 BILLION is "largely" a part of $900 BILLION.

The very sources YOU reference don't even back your own assertions up.

GGGEEEEZZZZZ

sooner8th:

I believe the lower deficits are a combination of higher taxes, an exploding stock market, somewhat lower energy prices and a slowly recovering economy. Where Obama has been a huge failure is that he has not created enough jobs and many of our unemployment benefits do not offer an incentive to work. However, that pales in contrast to the massive movement of baby boomers moving into retirement. That is the gorilla in the room...so to speak. Anyway, my point is that I do not think the POTUS has done enough in creating new jobs, reducing spending and leveraging higher taxes on the uber wealthy.

[diverdog]

3
1st one found her a guitar picker after 16 years an 3 kids, 2nd one was just out right ****in Nuts. 3rd one ran off with the Schwans dude. Guess he had a Longer harder Popsicle LOL

So I raised my Kids and Have lived Happily ever after:applause:

That Schwan's dude had some nice bennies.

Reminds me of the postman joke:

Postman comes to the door and he is greeted by the mistress of the house wearing see through lingerie. She invites him upstairs and ****s his lights out. Afterwards she gets up and gives him a dollar and invites him downstairs for breakfast. When it was all done the postman ask the mistress what caused her to give him such a memorable day. The mistress retorted: " the other night my husband and I were deciding on how much to tip everyone." When we were done I said "what about the postman" to which my husband said "**** him, give him a buck". "Breakfast was my idea".

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4457965]

sooner8th:

I believe the lower deficits are a combination of higher taxes, an exploding stock market, somewhat lower energy prices and a slowly recovering economy. Where Obama has been a huge failure is that he has not created enough jobs and many of our unemployment benefits do not offer an incentive to work. However, that pales in contrast to the massive movement of baby boomers moving into retirement. That is the gorilla in the room...so to speak. Anyway, my point is that I do not think the POTUS has done enough in creating new jobs, reducing spending and leveraging higher taxes on the uber wealthy.

Growing economy, taxes on earners above $450k and the temporary tax cut on SS expiring.


Revenue jumped 13.3 percent to $2.77 trillion. Government spending declined 2.4 percent to $3.45 trillion.

From the AP -A stronger economy created more jobs and income over the past year, which generated greater tax revenue. At the same time, the Obama administration and Congress agreed in January to end a temporary cut in Social Security taxes and also to raise income taxes on the wealthy.

And spending fell in part because of across-the-board cuts that took effect in March 2013.


I have to disagree with you that unemployment does not offer an incentive to work, it keeps people afloat until they find a job. A vast majority of people who are unemployed will take a job when offered to get back to work, however, as you stated, not enough jobs have been created and all this talk of people not wanting to work because they are getting unemployment casts them as being lazy and makes it harder to find a job. As for taking a lower paying job, most employers wont offer it to someone who they think will move in as soon as they find a better job.

I agree we are coming up on a problem with the baby boomers moving into retirement, but if anyone really is serious about the costs there, they should first demand we repeal this stupid law where Medicaid, Medicare and the VA cannot combine their drug purchases to lower the prices of them. Should be an easy step, saving the government billions and lowering costs to everyone else, but you know money talks and BS walks.

Obama has been hampered at every turn on job creation by republicans who fought everything he wanted to do to the point of fighting their own policies. It is not the time to cut spending and if we are going to cut spending we need to start with defense - $750 billion is just way too much, the next highest defense spending in the world is $100 billion.

You say Obama has been a huge failure, I respect your opinion there, you backed it up without hyperbole. I would counter as much as he has not acheived as much as I would have liked him to have, he is no where NEAR the disaster Bush II was.

[FaninAma]

You insulted me first. You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Answer me one question, where does the "income" from US Treasury bonds come from in the first place? THE US TREASURY, so if it goes back its a wash.

From the article you posted -

Because the Fed mostly holds debt issued by the federal government, its profits — which totaled $91 billion in 2012 — are largely payments from the government. By returning that money to the government, the central bank in effect is letting the government borrow at no cost.


You said there was a spending cut in military - you are wrong and I proved it.

And what nasty thing did I say that caused you to call me a racist and bigot?

What exactly is it that you do not understand about the interest payments the US Treasury pays to bond holders? I thought that was a pretty simple concept. I buy a US Treasury bond and the US Treasury pays me a designated yearly interest rate. I do not send the accrued interest back to the government. Neither do I send the principal amount of the bond back to the government. The Fed doesn't give the principal value of the bond back to the US Treasury, either.....only the interest payments.

QE artificially lowers interest rates that kill seniors and retirees. It also assists our government in its incredibly damaging practice of running up deficits to unsustainable levels. And QE is not a permanent solution and at a critical tipping point during the unwiding process it will crater the equity and bond markets.

[diverdog]

[QUOTE=diverdog;4458028]

Growing economy, taxes on earners above $450k and the temporary tax cut on SS expiring.


Revenue jumped 13.3 percent to $2.77 trillion. Government spending declined 2.4 percent to $3.45 trillion.

From the AP -A stronger economy created more jobs and income over the past year, which generated greater tax revenue. At the same time, the Obama administration and Congress agreed in January to end a temporary cut in Social Security taxes and also to raise income taxes on the wealthy.

And spending fell in part because of across-the-board cuts that took effect in March 2013.


I have to disagree with you that unemployment does not offer an incentive to work, it keeps people afloat until they find a job. A vast majority of people who are unemployed will take a job when offered to get back to work, however, as you stated, not enough jobs have been created and all this talk of people not wanting to work because they are getting unemployment casts them as being lazy and makes it harder to find a job. As for taking a lower paying job, most employers wont offer it to someone who they think will move in as soon as they find a better job.

I agree we are coming up on a problem with the baby boomers moving into retirement, but if anyone really is serious about the costs there, they should first demand we repeal this stupid law where Medicaid, Medicare and the VA cannot combine their drug purchases to lower the prices of them. Should be an easy step, saving the government billions and lowering costs to everyone else, but you know money talks and BS walks.

Obama has been hampered at every turn on job creation by republicans who fought everything he wanted to do to the point of fighting their own policies. It is not the time to cut spending and if we are going to cut spending we need to start with defense - $750 billion is just way too much, the next highest defense spending in the world is $100 billion.

You say Obama has been a huge failure, I respect your opinion there, you backed it up without hyperbole. I would counter as much as he has not acheived as much as I would have liked him to have, he is no where NEAR the disaster Bush II was.

I don't think I called him a huge failure. He gets a D on the economy.

I voted for the man twice just because the alternative would be worse. IMHO I think Romney would have us in a war with Iran by now. What I do not like about Obama is that he is always campaigning. I have never heard him described as a hard worker outside of the campaign trail. He does not lead and I do not think he knows how to get the economy moving.

[Sooner8th]

And what nasty thing did I say that caused you to call me a racist and bigot?

What exactly is it that you do not understand about the interest payments the US Treasury pays to bond holders? I thought that was a pretty simple concept. I buy a US Treasury bond and the US Treasury pays me a designated yearly interest rate. I do not send the accrued interest back to the government. Neither do I send the principal amount of the bond back to the government. The Fed doesn't give the principal value of the bond back to the US Treasury, either.....only the interest payments.

QE artificially lowers interest rates that kill seniors and retirees. It also assists our government in its incredibly damaging practice of running up deficits to unsustainable levels. And QE is not a permanent solution and at a critical tipping point during the unwiding process it will crater the equity and bond markets.

We have gone over this before -

Not wanting to radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa.

I have showed you that the "income" from QE bond sales do not lower the deficit. You keep running this out and you just don't get it. You talked yourself in a circle - The Fed doesn't give the principal value of the bond back to the US Treasury, either.....only the interest payments. That is exactly what i said. You simply are not catching on. You don't even know who benefits the most when interest rates go up.

[REDREX]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4458188]

I don't think I called him a huge failure. He gets a D on the economy.

I voted for the man twice just because the alternative would be worse. IMHO I think Romney would have us in a war with Iran by now. What I do not like about Obama is that he is always campaigning. I have never heard him described as a hard worker outside of the campaign trail. He does not lead and I do not think he knows how to get the economy moving.---Obama is a very unprepared and weak leader----If the media did not support him -----BLINDLY---he would look even worse

[Sooner8th]

Quote Originally Posted by Sooner8th View Post

I don't think I called him a huge failure. He gets a D on the economy.

I voted for the man twice just because the alternative would be worse. IMHO I think Romney would have us in a war with Iran by now. What I do not like about Obama is that he is always campaigning. I have never heard him described as a hard worker outside of the campaign trail. He does not lead and I do not think he knows how to get the economy moving.



[QUOTE=diverdog;4458302]---Obama is a very unprepared and weak leader----If the media did not support him -----BLINDLY---he would look even worse

I didn't post that top part.

[olevetonahill]

Quote Originally Posted by Sooner8th View Post

I don't think I called him a huge failure. He gets a D on the economy.

I voted for the man twice just because the alternative would be worse. IMHO I think Romney would have us in a war with Iran by now. What I do not like about Obama is that he is always campaigning. I have never heard him described as a hard worker outside of the campaign trail. He does not lead and I do not think he knows how to get the economy moving.


[QUOTE=REDREX;4458417]

I didn't post that top part.


So yer just a Lib Idiot?

[diverdog]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4458423]Quote Originally Posted by Sooner8th View Post

I don't think I called him a huge failure. He gets a D on the economy.

I voted for the man twice just because the alternative would be worse. IMHO I think Romney would have us in a war with Iran by now. What I do not like about Obama is that he is always campaigning. I have never heard him described as a hard worker outside of the campaign trail. He does not lead and I do not think he knows how to get the economy moving.





So yer just a Lib Idiot?

pretty much....if you are referring to me.

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;4458456]

pretty much....if you are referring to me.

Naw referrin to Matlock/Marfa wannabe. He said he Dint Post somepun in his Post so I axed him if he was just a Lib Idiot. Hell I know yer an Idiot .:soap:

[rock on sooner]

That Schwan's dude had some nice bennies.

Reminds me of the postman joke:

Postman comes to the door and he is greeted by the mistress of the house wearing see through lingerie. She invites him upstairs and ****s his lights out. Afterwards she gets up and gives him a dollar and invites him downstairs for breakfast. When it was all done the postman ask the mistress what caused her to give him such a memorable day. The mistress retorted: " the other night my husband and I were deciding on how much to tip everyone." When we were done I said "what about the postman" to which my husband said "**** him, give him a buck". "Breakfast was my idea".

Now I know why the letter carrier in CO was always smiling at my next
door (hawt) neighbor!

[FaninAma]

Who signed the 2009 budget? GEORGE W. BUSH. $1.2 TRILLION DEFICIT, it is now at $514 BILLION. Cuts in the military? 2009 defense spending $821.7 billion. 2014 defense spending $842.0 billion. I don't see the spending cut, or is republican math where not getting the increase you want is a cut?
n.

This is the only assertion I couldn't disprove. I remembered reading an article refuting the claim that Obama wasn't responsible for most of the FY 2009 budget but couldn't find it until now. Obama owns most of the 2009 deficit.

And BTW, I am not a fan or supporter of Bush. In fact he was an idiot and the worst President since Carter.....until Obama came along.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

[FaninAma]

We have gone over this before -

Not wanting to radically altering the ethnic makeup of our
country and creating a society more like 3rd world countries in
Latin America, Asia and Africa.

I have showed you that the "income" from QE bond sales do not lower the deficit. You keep running this out and you just don't get it. You talked yourself in a circle - The Fed doesn't give the principal value of the bond back to the US Treasury, either.....only the interest payments. That is exactly what i said. You simply are not catching on. You don't even know who benefits the most when interest rates go up.

So you perceived that statement as an insult? Ok.

So if the interest from the Fed bond purchases weren't going back to the Treasury then the deficit would increase by that amount? Interest on the debt is now the 3rd larget expenditure by the government and will soon overtake military spending

I honestly do not understand how you do not grasp the fact that this returned interest keeps the deficit from being even larger. The $89 billion dollar amount going back to the Treasury was when the Fed balance sheet was only $2.7 Trillion. It is now over $4.5 trillion so the return of interest is much higher.

[olevetonahill]

This is the only assertion I couldn't disprove. I remembered reading an article refuting the claim that Obama wasn't responsible for most of the FY 2009 budget but couldn't find it until now. Obama owns most of the 2009 deficit.

And BTW, I am not a fan or supporter of Bush. In fact he was an idiot and
the worst President since Carter.....until Obama came along.


http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/


I disagree, Slick Willy ruined Our Military~!

[Sooner8th]

So you perceived that statement as an insult? Ok.

So if the interest from the Fed bond purchases weren't going back to the Treasury then the deficit would increase by that amount? Interest on the debt is now the 3rd larget expenditure by the government and will soon overtake military spending

I honestly do not understand how you do not grasp the fact that this returned interest keeps the deficit from being even larger. The $89 billion dollar amount going back to the Treasury was when the Fed balance sheet was only $2.7 Trillion. It is now over $4.5 trillion so the return of interest is much higher.


OK - AGAIN....it says in the very article YOU referenced from the NYT Times, that it doesn't cut the deficit. I don't understand why you can't seem to catch on - IT WAS YOUR ARTICLE!!! Go read it, and stop getting your talking points from the heritage foundation, they don't have any logic to their arguments.

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=diverdog;4458461]

Naw referrin to Matlock/Marfa wannabe. He said he Dint Post somepun in his Post so I axed him if he was just a Lib Idiot. Hell I know yer an Idiot .:soap:

So..........................you're calling me a lib idiot based on something I didn't post. That shows your IQ level. Brilliant

[Sooner8th]

This is the only assertion I couldn't disprove. I remembered reading an article refuting the claim that Obama wasn't responsible for most of the FY 2009 budget but couldn't find it until now. Obama owns most of the 2009 deficit.

And BTW, I am not a fan or supporter of Bush. In fact he was an idiot and the worst President since Carter.....until Obama came along.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/05/24/the-truth-about-president-obamas-skyrocketing-spending/

Last Updated: January 7, 2009: 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The dramatic jump to the highest-ever deficit in dollar terms compares to a $455 billion deficit in fiscal year 2008 and $161 billion in 2007. The estimate does not account for the massive spending and tax cuts proposed in President-elect Barack Obama's economic rescue plan.


http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/

A VAST majority of it is on BUSH!

[Soonerjeepman]

Yea She always Promised wild sex In the "Future" Also. Bitch never told me it was with the Ice Cream peddler. :blue:

chit, my GF is riding my a$$ cause we HAVEN'T had wild sex in a week...:playful:

Yes DD, same woman!

[FaninAma]

Last Updated: January 7, 2009: 5:00 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The U.S. budget deficit in 2009 is projected to spike to a record $1.2 trillion, or 8.3% of gross domestic product, the Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.

The dramatic jump to the highest-ever deficit in dollar terms compares to a $455 billion deficit in fiscal year 2008 and $161 billion in 2007. The estimate does not account for the massive spending and tax cuts proposed in President-elect Barack Obama's economic rescue plan.


http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/07/news/economy/cbo_2009_budget_outlook/

A VAST majority of it is on BUSH!


So $455 billion is greater than 1.2 Trillion and $1 trillion under Obama's first 2 years? OK, whatever you say. You do understand the article you cited was from January 2009 so the incredible increase in spending that has occurred under Obama hadn't happened yet.

And again, Bush sucked. If your only defense for our current President is comparing him to Bush then you've really hit rock bottom for things to use in Obama's defense.

[FaninAma]

OK - AGAIN....it says in the very article YOU referenced from the NYT Times, that it doesn't cut the deficit. I don't understand why you can't seem to catch on - IT WAS YOUR ARTICLE!!! Go read it, and stop getting your talking points from the heritage foundation, they don't have any logic to their arguments.

Can you point out thepart of the article that states this? I don't see anything in the article that states the returned interst does not reduce the deficit.

[Sooner8th]

So $455 billion is greater than 1.2 Trillion and $1 trillion under Obama's first 2 years? OK, whatever you say. You do understand the article you cited was from January 2009 so the incredible increase in spending that has occurred under Obama hadn't happened yet.

And again, Bush sucked. If your only defense for our current President is comparing him to Bush then you've really hit rock bottom for things to use in Obama's defense.


OH MY GOD - AGAIN...........................................th e deficit was projected at $1.2 TRILLION before TAX CUTS and stimulus spending. It ended around $1.2 Trillion. You guys cheered bush for turning a surplus into a deficit with tax cuts - shouldn't Obama get the same?

AND YES that's what people do!!!!!

You compare performance with performance! You people still run Carter out over 30 years later, but we can't compare to the last president? You and your party are trying so hard to pretend you didn't vote bush into office TWICE.

You and every other "conservative" have a massive double standard for the guy you voted for and the guy you didn't vote for.

[Sooner8th]

Can you point out thepart of the article that states this? I don't see anything in the article that states the returned interst does not reduce the deficit.

I already posted the quote - you have to learn to read. I am not going to do your work for you. You just don't want to see it.

[Sooner8th]

Can you point out thepart of the article that states this? I don't see anything in the article that states the returned interst does not reduce the deficit.

Here i did it anyway.


Because the Fed mostly holds debt issued by the federal government, its profits — which totaled $91 billion in 2012 — are largely payments from the government. By returning that money to the government, the central bank in effect is letting the government borrow at no cost.

[FaninAma]

You insulted me first. You have no clue as to what you are talking about. Answer me one question, where does the "income" from US Treasury bonds come from in the first place? THE US TREASURY, so if it goes back its a wash.

From the article you posted -

Because the Fed mostly holds debt issued by the federal government, its profits — which totaled $91 billion in 2012 — are largely payments from the government. By returning that money to the government, the central bank in effect is letting the government borrow at no cost.

How do you infer from this statement that returned interest does not lower the debt? If the Treasury sold those same bonds to anybody else besides the Fed they would have to pay interest on that debt and that would increase the deficit. It is really puzzling to me that the phrase "Borrowing at no cost" doesn't clue you in on the fact that this is lowering the government's expenditures as opposed to "borrowing with a cost" which would raise them.

I know you're wrong. Everybody else who reads this thread knows you're wrong. At this point I am very curious as to just how long you will continue pretending you're not wrong. It is becoming very entertaining.

[FaninAma]

While Sooner8 keeps digging his hole lets continue on topic. I sincerely hope this doesn't cause his head to explode.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/nusablog/beckr/september-2-2009/ted-kennedys-immigration-legacy-and-why-did-he-do-it.html

[Sooner8th]

How do you infer from this statement that returned interest does not lower the debt? If the Fed sold those same bonds to anybody else they would have to p[ay interest on that debt and that would increase the deficit.

I know you're wrong. Everybody else who reads this thread knows you're worng. At this point I am very curious at how far you will go to keep pretending you're not wrong. It is becoming very entertaining.

alright - I was wrong..................it DOES cut it. But only by the amount of the interest. $89 Billion. See I'm willing to admit when i'm wrong. Up too early with a hangover...........my apologies.

However - your contention was and is that the deficit was cut by "accounting gimmicks from QE", which started under bush, so his was lowed by not paying interest too.

You stated that the amount of debt held by the Fed skyrocketed so the $89B figure is low, I found in 2013 they sent back $79.6B. So your assertion that cutting the deficit by around $900 BILLION was an accounting gimmick isn't true.

[FaninAma]

alright - I was wrong..................it DOES cut it. But only by the amount of the interest. $89 Billion. See I'm willing to admit when i'm wrong. Up too early with a hangover...........my apologies.

However - your contention was and is that the deficit was cut by "accounting gimmicks from QE", which started under bush, so his was lowed by not paying interest too.

You stated that the amount of debt held by the Fed skyrocketed so the $89B figure is low, I found in 2013 they sent back $79.6B. So your assertion that cutting the deficit by around $900 BILLION was an accounting gimmick isn't true.

I appreciate and respect that. I must say I didn't expect you to do that. I would reply that the "drop" in our budget deficit is temporary because the CBO projects it to increase by $10 trillion over the next 10 years.

Now, from the above article I did find this quote interesting:

The total defeat of liberal civil rights champion Barbara Jordan's blue-ribbon commission (http://www.soonerfans.com/content/learn/advisors-and-supporters/supporters/barbara-jordan-former-us-representative-.html) recommendations to reduce overall immigration and eliminate chain migration and the lottery in 1996.
I point this out becuase I reassert my premise that just because one wants to reduce immigration and truly reform the CF Ted Kennedy perpetrated on this country does not make one a racist or a bigot.

[olevetonahill]

[QUOTE=olevetonahill;4458521]

So..........................you're calling me a lib idiot based on something I didn't post. That shows your IQ level. Brilliant

You aint got NO readin Compression do ya?
No where did I CALL you a Lib Idiot! I simply axed if you WERE one. See the difference there Einstein?

[Sooner8th]

[QUOTE=Sooner8th;4459113]

You aint got NO readin Compression do ya?
No where did I CALL you a Lib Idiot! I simply axed if you WERE one. See the difference there Einstein?

It's a rhetorical question.

[diverdog]

I disagree, Slick Willy ruined Our Military~!

Vet:

His policies were a mixed bag. The base closures had bipartisan support and needed to done.

[olevetonahill]

Vet:

His policies were a mixed bag. The base closures had bipartisan support and needed to done.

Well he said He Loathed the Military then when he could he pretty much stripped it bare!

[diverdog]

Well he said He Loathed the Military then when he could he pretty much stripped it bare!

I served under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. The biggest difference under Clinton is that there was no slack in the system. We were given 50 rounds for our combat pistol course we had to take every year. I can tell you there were guys that couldn't shoot for **** and needed the extra training and they never got it.

We were tasked with Presidential support out of Dover and based on my experience the White House staff under Clinton and Bush were the most arrogant people I ever met. The Secret Service and Military guys were cool but the civilian staff was out of control. They did not think rules applied to them. God help you if you crossed them. One trip I went on with Clinton staff there several bona fide azz holes flying with us. We had to do an air refueling and the pilot was a little new to the game and over corrected a lot on the hook up. On a C5 for every inch the nose moves the tail moves a foot.....it is just a damn big plane. Anyway, it was like being in a washing machine in the rear passenger area and I took great delight watching them puke their guts out. Don't get me wrong there are some very good people on those staffs but it seemed like the young Ivy League educated lawyers who had no real life experience were the worst.