Republican responsibility for debt
Republicans are whistling dixie if they think they don't bear a large share of responsibility for the debt:
- Unfunded Medicare Part D (vs. PPACA paid for)
- Unfunded wars
- Bush Tax Cuts
- Loss of revenues from recession mostly driven by conservative free-market policies
On the debt deal last summer, remember Obama was pushing for a combination of spending cuts and tax increases. A balanced approach that most Americans supported. A larger $4 Trillion deal could have been possible. But Repubs were constrained by a pledge they signed to an outside interest group, and opposed a balanced appoach, against the will of the American people. As a result we had a much smaller debt deal.
Republicans need to step up, demonstrate some accountability, and some willingness to compromise. Their ideology and actions are hurting the country, not helping.
Markets love the Scott Walker landslide.
[quote]You didn't see it in the mainstream financial media Wednesday morning. [b]But stocks loved Gov. Scott Walker's spanking of public-sector unions and Democrats in Wisconsin. [/b]
The Dow jumped about 165 points right at the opening on Wednesday, and closed ahead 234. There really was no other news. There was some speculation about central bank stimulus in Europe and the United States. Blah, blah, blah. But there was nothing specific or concrete.
So it's an easy point to make:[b] Markets love the Scott Walker landslide. [/b]
Tuesday night on "The Kudlow Report," two investment gurus predicted a bullish market if Walker won. Art Hogan of Lazard Capital and Mike Ozanian of Forbes both forecasted a Walker rally. And that's just what we got Wednesday.
The logic? Well, mainly, a big Walker win opens the door to a Wisconsin victory for Mitt Romney this fall. Think of Walker as the leading indicator for November.
[url]http://news.investors.com/article/613921/201206061815/markets-investors-like-governor-scott-walker-landslide.htm[/url][/quote]Leading indicator for November indeed, and the beginning of the end for public sector unions, and that's a win, win, win for America.
Obama Spending the Naked Truth
Obama's claims of lower Federal spending under his watch are not just lies, but damn lies! If you want to see Democrat propaganda at work check out this story which debunks the claim some dumbass report came up with by juggling the numbers and back loading spending passed by a lame duck congress and signed by Obama.
[url]http://m.spokesman.com/stories/2012/jun/05/obamas-claim-unfounded/[/url]
PolitiFact called Obama's spending claim 'mostly true', so they show their true colors as just another liberal flunky.
By the way Esten, are you still claiming as Obama did how much oil the US has verses the rest of the world. If so, check out the US Geological Services estimates of the Eagle Ford and Bakken reserves. If you can't read I'll make it easy for you, at an estimated 50% recovery rate with today's technology we now have more reserves than Saudi Arabia. Couple that with what we can get from the Canada oil sand deposits and there is no reason to import oil when it's developed here! Our oil and American jobs!
But that does not work for the environmental types who want the pipe dream of wind and solar.
Loosely drawn from Robinson Crusoe
[QUOTE=Jackson;423130]They also probably never envisioned a society where 40% of the citizens would be sitting on their ass waiting for the government to give them money.
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]
Scenario 1.
A castaway on a ship washes up on an island with 4 bushels of barley. He's hungry. He eats a bushel and plants the rest. Some months later he ends up with 60 bushels of barley, from what he planted. He starts trading with the natives, who benefit from an additional steady food source.
Scenario 2.
Someone washes up on an island with 4 bushels of barley. The local chief takes 3 bushels and distributes it to his subjects, who eat it. The shipwrecked castaway eats the remaining bushel. The natives don't have the motivation to fish or hunt, because they have the barley. A few months later everyone is hungry.
In order to pass legislation,
You need a support from the majority of the House members and "60" out of 100 senators. So, most bills passed by Congress, regardless of unified or divided government, are bipartisan bills. Two years ago, Democrats had a narrow super majority in the Senate (59 or 60 votes I guess) , some of whom were Southern Democrats, who often differ from other Democrats.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;423153]WT69, if liberals were so worried about women, why didn't they pass it when they had a super majority in both the House and the Senate the first two years of Obama's presidency? .[/QUOTE]
