2012 Elections in the USA

As Romney has been doing all the time, changing words to fit his needs.

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia[/url]

[QUOTE=El Alamo; 425472]The other phrase you might be looking for is "God Bless You ". Heard about as much as " good morning "

Both Republicans and Democrats have changed. In the 1960's we had JFK, who today would be more comfortable as a Republican. Barry Goldwater was considered to be a fringe Republican candidate. Today, Barry Goldwater would be mainstream Republican.

Our parties may have changed but I am convinced of one thing. Obama occasionally shows his true colors with 'redistribute the wealth' comments to Joe the plumber and his ridicule of entrepreneurs with 'you didn't build that'. I believe Obama is so far out of the mainstream that in another time Obama would be comfortable joining forces with Karl Marx or the Bolsheviks in Russia. Obama should write a book entitled 'My life as an anti-free-market Marxist'. However, as with everyone that has tried Marxist policies, Obama's policies have failed miserably and hopefully we will get back on track by throwing Obama under the bus in November.[/QUOTE]

WorldTravel69, Alamo has a point. In the debates in 2008 Charles Gibson asked Barack Obama if he would increase a tax, if that increase would result in LESS revenue to the federal government. Specifically they were discussing the capital gains tax. If you make it too high, people just don't sell things, so they won't have to pay the tax. Obama's response was that whether increasing the rate would increase or decrease federal revenues wasn't important. What was important was that the system would be fairer if rates were increased. So, in other words, it's okay if we're all a little bit worse off, as long as we're more equal economically. This is like socialism on steroids. Esten might approve. The gini coefficient is the be all and end all.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425471]Too bad that some of you can not see what is going on in the USA IN the news of each day.

Maddow and Letterman.[/QUOTE]What's sad is your belief that Maddow and Letterman are actual news sources.

Anyway, to you it doesn't make any difference so long as we're not talking about...

[size=3][b]8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 dollar budget decificts![/b][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425481]As Romney has been doing all the time, changing words to fit his needs.

[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/07/13/remarks-president-campaign-event-roanoke-virginia[/url][/QUOTE]This is appropriate for a Barack Hussein Obama campaign web site. But why is it on a government web site? Why are tax dollars being spent for partisan purposes, to support a candidate that 50% of Americans do not support? This should be illegal. I know it's illegal for government employees to work on campaigns while they're on the clock. And that would have been required to transcribe, format and post this, along with the bandwidth, servers, etc. provided by the U.S. government.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425441]The Fed corollary is determinate sentencing which has lengthened prison terms.[/quote]Why didn't you just say it's Bush's fault? The people of California are responsible for state sentencing, it sounds to me like you're the one who's out of step.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425441]I think sentences are too long. I sat on a jury and convicted a guy for a $50 stickup. I thought five years was good. He got 15 because it was his second offense and used a gun.[/quote]Wow really what would you have given the guy if it was a first offense, probation? Anybody that has the balls to rob people at gun point has the balls to pull the trigger, they need to be off the streets. What you did not mention is how long before the guy is eligible for parole, how much time would he really serve?

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425441]Never heard of person in California who could not buy a gun they wanted. Gun laws here do not violate the Second Amendment.[/quote]There are many guns that are banned in California, these same guns are legal to own in other states, most of these are guns that some liberal classified as 'assault weapons' in order to get them banned. So there are gun that people want and can't own in California. Most of California's gun laws are designed to discourage and encumber gun ownership.

California has gun registration requirements, gun bans, open carry ban, and a discriminatory concealed carry law, just to name a few. I suspect you are incorrect about violating the Second Amendment. To me laws that circumvent the Second Amendment also violate the Second Amendment.

Here's an example of one of California's great gun law debates.

[url]http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/aug/20/california-senate-debates-bb-gun-bill/[/url]

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425441]I think that a healthy economy defeats all forms of terrorism.[/quote]Really, how?

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425441]My biggest surprise is that Patriot Act has not been repealed and the TSA disbanded.[/QUOTE]Why did you think it would be repealed, are you really that naive? Rights are seldom given back once they've been taken.

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 425489]Why didn't you just say it's Bush's fault? The people of California are responsible for state sentencing, it sounds to me like you're the one who's out of step.

Wow really what would you have given the guy if it was a first offense, probation? Anybody that has the balls to rob people at gun point has the balls to pull the trigger, they need to be off the streets. What you did not mention is how long before the guy is eligible for parole, how much time would he really serve?

There are many guns that are banned in California, these same guns are legal to own in other states, most of these are guns that some liberal classified as 'assault weapons' in order to get them banned. So there are gun that people want and can't own in California. Most of California's gun laws are designed to discourage and encumber gun ownership.

California has gun registration requirements, gun bans, open carry ban, and a discriminatory concealed carry law, just to name a few. I suspect you are incorrect about violating the Second Amendment. To me laws that circumvent the Second Amendment also violate the Second Amendment.

Here's an example of one of California's great gun law debates.

[url]http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/aug/20/california-senate-debates-bb-gun-bill/[/url]

Really, how?

Why did you think it would be repealed, are you really that naive? Rights are seldom given back once they've been taken.[/QUOTE]You give me reduced sentencing and a smaller prison system with lower taxes and I will let you own any gun you want. What gun do I need to own (a must have) that I can't buy in California? I remember my Dad buying a gun that was going to be banned so it could be a legacy.

I thought the Patriot Act would be repealed because most Americans are against it. To live in a free society, you have to accept the consequences of that freedom and be prepared to die. It is another reason to vote out Obama. He could have vetoed it.

[QUOTE=El Alamo;425472]The other phrase you might be looking for is "God Bless You ". Heard about as much as " good morning "[/QUOTE]My best friend growing up always ends his Facebook posts with "God is so good to me." The guy was a superstar. All-city linebacker who went to Ivy league school. Big ladies man. He probably did 33%of the songleaders in high school and those are the ones I know about. Took all the right drugs. Now he takes his cues from some guy from Biola Bible College.

Another guy I went to school with went all the Christianity. We went to Vegas every year. One year he can't go because he does not drink and gamble anymore. I lost touch with him. Some good friends have succumbed to this Christianity thing.

With Bush!

Read it and Weep.

Why do I have to do all the research?

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1


[QUOTE=Jackson; 425486]What's sad is your belief that Maddow and Letterman are actual news sources.

Anyway, to you it doesn't make any difference so long as we're not talking about.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425507]You give me reduced sentencing and a smaller prison system with lower taxes and I will let you own any gun you want.[/quote]I believe in states rights and state sentencing is a state issue, I don't live in California so I don't get a say in the matter, but if I were you I would look to reducing sentencing in nonviolent crimes rather than crimes committed with deadly weapons.

I think we have drifted off topic, I would much prefer to talk about the U6 unemployment rate, or if you think people got the kind of change they were hoping for four years ago.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 425507]What gun do I need to own (a must have) that I can't buy in California?[/quote]It's not about what gun you 'need to own' or want to own and it's not about 'must have' individual guns that have been banned in California. It's about the right to 'keep and bear' it's about freedom.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man;425507]I thought the Patriot Act would be repealed because most Americans are against it. To live in a free society, you have to accept the consequences of that freedom and be prepared to die. It is another reason to vote out Obama. He could have vetoed it.[/QUOTE]I agree with your opinion of the Patriot Act but I not convinced most Americans want it repealed, where's the out cry? Sadly I think that many Americans have become so dependent on government that they're willing to give up personal liberty in the name of safety.

Search Katty Kay, BBC News Anchor, about our what she says about our Health Care System.

Right If You have Medical Problem, You Come To the USA for treatment.
But if you are not one of the the lucky (money) ones that do, and come here for better care, they will help you, but if, because it is not cheap, for US, but only if you can afford it and if not, you are F__Ked..

Funny, Paul Ryan, bought his Mother to Florida, to say that she would not have any problems under his plan for Medicare Valtures (sorry that is what it sounded like to me, he said (Vouchers). She would be taken care, Year after year.
He would take care of her With Your Taxes We Paid Too Him, not His money out of his pocket, if elected You and I Pay for His Mother, Not Your Mother or Father, if care is Needed.

Jackson:
How is the Jackson Brisco doing in Florida? As one of Republican Spots to go to.
I saw it on MSNSC.

Here you go WT69 a new movie you need to watch and review for us.

[url]http://www.thehopeandthechange.com/[/url]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425526]With Bush!

Read it and Weep.

Why do I have to do all the research?

[url]http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1[/url][/QUOTE]Hey WT,

One day you're going to dazzle us with an original thought of your own.

In the mean time, let's not forget about...

[size=3][b]8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 dollar budget decificts![/b][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Punter 127;425554]I think we have drifted off topic, I would much prefer to talk about the U6 unemployment rate, or if you think people got the kind of change they were hoping for four years ago.[/QUOTE]The topic header is the 2012 elections in the USA not why we should throw the bum out. Does the bad of the Democrat policies outweigh the good? Does the good of the Republican polices outweigh their bad? Oddly, maybe because I live in California, my net worth has expanded at a faster rate under Obama's 4 year regime than Bush's 8 year regime. So I can survive bad economic policy but can I survive bad social policy? DCCPA probably can teach you how to hedge any economic risk but once abortions become illegal it is gone for a long long time.

Republicans sometimes reference the recession, but rarely talk about the timing and the depth. Some of their lines are "How's that hope and change working?" and "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?". Well, 4 years ago was 2008, and the pre-election hope and change slogan was prior to the deepest job losses that came in 2009.

- 76,000 jobs lost January 2008
- 76,000 jobs lost February 2008
- 80,000 jobs lost March 2008
- 20,000 jobs lost April 2008
- 62,000 jobs lost May 2008
- 62,000 jobs lost June 2008
- 51,000 jobs lost July 2008
- 84,000 jobs lost August 2008
–280,000 jobs lost September 2008
–240,000 jobs lost October 2008
–333,000 jobs lost November 2008
–632,000 jobs lost December 2008
–741,000 jobs lost January 2009
–681,000 jobs lost February 2009
–652,000 jobs lost March 2009
–519,000 jobs lost April 2009
-303,000 jobs lost May 2009
-463,000 jobs lost June 2009
–276,000 jobs lost July 2009
-201,000 jobs lost August 2009
–263,000 jobs lost September 2009
-111,000 jobs lost October 2009
+ 64,000 jobs created November 2009

The economy was losing 700K jobs a month when Obama took office. That's a huge number. After enacting the Stimulus, which most economists and even the US Chamber of Commerce were all calling for, we resumed positive job growth by the end of 2009 and it's been positive ever since. About 8 million jobs lost in the recession, about 4.5 million gained back.

I guess somehow Repubs think we should have regained all those 8 million jobs by now, in just 2.5 years since the job losses ended. That's absurd, especially given the tightening of lending standards, the millions of homes that went into foreclosure, and that we were exiting a housing construction bubble.

If you remember where we came from since 2009, it's been a good recovery. That's why Repubs want to move the reference point back to 2008, before the deepest part of the recession. It's all deception with these guys.

[QUOTE=Esten;425580]If you remember where we came from since 2009, it's been a good recovery. That's why Repubs want to move the reference point back to 2008, before the deepest part of the recession. It's all deception with these guys.[/QUOTE]Right, look where we came from since 2009:

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468750027784434.html?mod=googlenews_wsj[/url]

A good recovery??? There hasn't been a recovery this slow with the unemployment rate still this high since the Great Depression.

Tiny, we haven't had a [i]recession this deep[/i] since the Great Depression. How quickly you guys want to overlook that fact. The graph below, which WT69 posted earlier, shows the recovery on the jobs front:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28456[/ATTACH]

As far as median income, why don't you make your case how Obama's policies, and not Corporatism, are responsible? Remember to factor in the huge losses in government jobs, which are typically good paying jobs. That's what Republicans wanted, and will continue to do if R / R are elected.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425526]With Bush!

Read it and Weep.

Why do I have to do all the research?

[url]http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1[/url][/QUOTE]Virtually every political post you write is complete nonsense from goofy liberal spam sources. Do you have any common sense dude? Your obsession with the last president is virtually clinical. Your after the fact college degree was a waste of time dude. Guessing it must have been in women's studies. Lmao. It's just about time for that intervention el Alamo spoke of. Stupid foolish and uninformed is no way to to through life union boy! Keep howling at the moon dude. Toymann

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 425581]Right, look where we came from since 2009:

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303822204577468750027784434.html?mod=googlenews_wsj[/url]

A good recovery? There hasn't been a recovery this slow with the unemployment rate still this high since the Great Depression.[/QUOTE]Looking forward to winning our bet esten! You better be good for it after you get through your post election theraphy! Lmao. Happy mongering all. Toymann

[QUOTE=Esten; 425583]Tiny, we haven't had a [i]recession this deep[/i] Since the Great Depression. How quickly you guys want to overlook that fact. The graph below, which WT69 posted earlier, shows the recovery on the jobs front:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28456[/ATTACH]

As far as median income, why don't you make your case how Obama's policies, and not Corporatism, are responsible? Remember to factor in the huge losses in government jobs, which are typically good paying jobs. That's what Republicans wanted, and will continue to do if R / R are elected.[/QUOTE]Esten, In terms of decrease in GDP, the recession of 1945 was worse. In terms of peak unemployment, the recessions of 1973 and 1982 were comparable. In any event, looking not just at the USA but the world, deeper recessions are usually followed by stronger recoveries.

What's holding the USA back? Why are corporations holding onto cash? Why are small businesses not hiring? Why is the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicting a recession next year assuming we go over the fiscal cliff? Why is it looking more likely that this "recovery" will lead to stagnation, with perpetually high unemployment, low GDP growth, and federal government budget deficits as far as the eye can see? Answer: Because people think your candidate is going to win. Specifically compared to the Republican and especially Libertarian candidates, Obama / Biden's policies call for more regulation, higher taxes, more welfare (for corporations and individuals) , no entitlement reform, unsustainable spending, and crowding out the private sector with the public sector.

Would I like to see unproductive spending in the public sector reduced? You're damn right I would. We need more efficiency in government. We need to issue school vouchers in areas where teacher performance is poor. We need to quit running the post office like a charity. We need to stop providing the manpower and dollars to protect Germany from the coming Soviet invastion. And we need to have a business environment so that people who move from government positions to the private sector will have good jobs.

Here's a thought.

Congress is not doing a fucking thing to help.

They have knocked down every proposal to Create Jobs.

The Millionaire Job Creators, with their tax cuts why are they Not Creating Jobs?
Explain That?

The Pipeline the Republicans want to build to Texas is not going to help the price of Our Gas.

It is wanted by the rich so they can make more money by Exporting it.
If the Oil is in the North, refine it there. Why go to Texas?

Even Mother Nature does not like the Republicans.
I guess they will be hanging out Jackson's Bistro in Florida.
Or at the Doll House..

[QUOTE=Jackson; 425560]Hey WT,

One day you're going to dazzle us with an original thought of your own.

In the mean time, let's not forget about..

[size=3][b]8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 dollar budget decificts![/b][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-gingrich-obama-condones-killing-of-unborn-children-201208260,3983266.story[/url]

Gingrich is another former monger who has gone over the deep end with his conversion to Catholicism.

Although I agree with the economic policy of Republicans the social agenda is out of bounds. Maybe the theme of this election is "It's not the economy Stupid." Republicans seem to want to use the cover of the economy to push their social agenda. I watching Peggy Noonan today on the Sunday news programs and she was trying to assure me that they can control these guys using Akin as the example. I don't know.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;425619]The Millionaire Job Creators, with their tax cuts why are they Not Creating Jobs? Explain That?[/QUOTE]They are busy buying $250 Million pieces of art, yachts, mansions, horses, or investing their money in financial products. Yeah it creates a few jobs, but it's a very poor return from an economic standpoint.

It is a far better investment to help the poor and middle class, because their spending almost entirely gets recycled back into the local economy.

An economic policy that strengthens the wealthy (tax cuts) and weakens the poor and middle class (spending cuts) , is simply bad economic policy.

Wow, 'Food stamp usage is up 64% in the last four years".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28462[/ATTACH]


"And the cost is up 114% in the same period.'

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28463[/ATTACH]

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 425683]Wow, 'Food stamp usage is up 64% in the last four years".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28462[/ATTACH]

"And the cost is up 114% in the same period. '

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28463[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]I am not clear what the 50k number is. It seems low to me. Here is a link that says there are 22m households on foodstamps with 44m eligible.

[url]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-number-us-households-foodstamps[/url]

Romney pulled ahead in the polls this week as typically the challenger does during the week of the convention. I doubt that Obama comes back. It would be unprecedented for an incumbent to win under these economic conditions. There is some neat econometric work at RealClearPolitics. Com. I hope Romney can control the crazies.

[QUOTE=Big Boss Man; 425687]I am not clear what the 50k number is. It seems low to me. Here is a link that says there are 22m households on foodstamps with 44m eligible.

[url]http://www.zerohedge.com/news/record-number-us-households-foodstamps[/url]

Romney pulled ahead in the polls this week as typically the challenger does during the week of the convention. I doubt that Obama comes back. It would be unprecedented for an incumbent to win under these economic conditions. There is some neat econometric work at RealClearPolitics. Com. I hope Romney can control the crazies.[/QUOTE]Here's where the charts came from.

[url]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/food-stamp-usage-up-64-in-last-four.html[/url]

Here's another link you might like about spending as percent of GDP.

[url]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/government-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 425692]Here's where the charts came from.

[url]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/food-stamp-usage-up-64-in-last-four.html[/url]

Here's another link you might like about spending as percent of GDP.

[url]http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/08/government-spending-as-percentage-of-gdp.html[/url][/QUOTE]In addition, that level is the same as under Reagan. The numerous middle class and small business tax cuts enacted by Obama have taken the level of taxes paid as a share of GDP to the lowest level since 1959. That should make Jackson happy!

[QUOTE=Esten;425682]They are busy buying $250 Million pieces of art, yachts, mansions, horses, or investing their money in financial products. Yeah it creates a few jobs, but it's a very poor return from an economic standpoint.[/QUOTE]Once again completely ignoring the fact that it's their fucking money and they have the right to spend it as they wish.

[QUOTE=Esten; 425682]They are busy buying $250 Million pieces of art, yachts, mansions, horses, or investing their money in financial products. Yeah it creates a few jobs, but it's a very poor return from an economic standpoint.

It is a far better investment to help the poor and middle class, because their spending almost entirely gets recycled back into the local economy.

An economic policy that strengthens the wealthy (tax cuts) and weakens the poor and middle class (spending cuts) , is simply bad economic policy.[/QUOTE]Too bad none of those rich people own businesses and employ Americans. Oh wait, a lot of them do. Some would even expand their businesses if the government would stop this insane level of regulation.

Sure the poor will spend the money you give them. And that will foster even more dependence upon the government. Food rots in the fields because those poor people would rather get a handout from the government rather than work. Time to let them learn that if you don't work, you don't eat. They will adjust quickly.

[QUOTE=Jackson;425701]Once again completely ignoring the fact that it's their fucking money and they have the right to spend it as they wish.[/QUOTE]Thanks for reminding us your positions are based on ideology, and not on actual economic analysis.

[QUOTE=Dccpa;425709]Too bad none of those rich people own businesses and employ Americans. Oh wait, a lot of them do.[/QUOTE]And a lot of them don't.

Here's an idea. Get rid of tax cuts that help job creators but that are also wasted on wealthy non-job creators. Instead, target policy directly at businesses that actually create jobs.

There are many cartoon's About the dumb Republicans Politicians.

Here is a start..

[QUOTE=Esten;425720]economic analysis.[/QUOTE]Is that liberal code for "[i]We have the right to take your money because we think we can spend it better than you[/i]"?

And you postulate that I'm the one whose "[i]positions are based on ideology[/i]"?

In the mean time, let's not forget about..

[size=3][b]8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits![/b][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425619]Here's a thought.

Congress is not doing a fucking thing to help.

They have knocked down every proposal to Create Jobs.[/QUOTE]Actually, it all depends on your definition of a "Jobs Bill".

If your definition of a "Jobs Bill" is legislation that borrows money from China to create make work jobs (pay one guy to dig a ditch and another guy to fill it in), then your statement is correct.

If your definition of a "Jobs Bill" is legislation that encourages (or stops discouraging) private business to hire more employees, then I will respond by telling you that the Republican Congress has passed dozens of "Jobs Bills" that Harry Reid refuses to allow to be voted on in the Senate, and you can put that blame directly at the feet of the asshole Harry Reid.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;425619]The Millionaire Job Creators, with their tax cuts why are they Not Creating Jobs? Explain That?[/QUOTE]What "tax cut" are you referring to? There's been no income tax cut for years. In fact, we've had the same income tax rates for more than 10 years.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;425619]The Pipeline the Republicans want to build to Texas is not going to help the price of Our Gas. It is wanted by the rich so they can make more money by Exporting it. If the Oil is in the North, refine it there. Why go to Texas?[/QUOTE]WT, your lack of business acumen is appalling.

First, the reason to "go to Texas" is because that's where the American oil refineries are located.

Second, it's completely irrelevant if the Canadian oil is eventually shipped to other markets. The pipeline will provide jobs to build and maintain, and the oil will provide additional American jobs as it's refined in Houston refineries and loaded onto ships at Galveston port facilities. Duh!

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;425619]Even Mother Nature does not like the Republicans. I guess they will be hanging out Jackson's Bistro in Florida. Or at the Doll House.[/QUOTE]I bet that you really do believe that Hurricane Isaac is an Act of God who is punishing the Republicans, don't you?

I retract my earlier statement. Please do not post your own thoughts. Instead, please return to posting links to fantasy TV shows to bolster your positions.

In the mean time, let's not forget about..

[size=3][b]8.3% unemployment and $1,000,000,000,000 annual budget deficits![/b][/size]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Jackson;425743]Second, it's completely irrelevant if the Canadian oil is eventually shipped to other markets. The pipeline will provide jobs to build and maintain, the oil will provide additional American jobs as it's refined in American refineries in Texas. Duh![/QUOTE]Not only that, the Keystone pipeline would provide more energy security. The Canadians will build an oil pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia if Keystone is not built. Then the oil would be exported to Asia.

We could have a captive source of oil supply, from here in North America. That would make us less dependent on sources like the Middle East and Venezuela. That's a big deal. Look at history, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait for example. And look at the present, Iran's threat to shut off the Straits of Hormuz if their nuclear facilities are destroyed.

If Obama is re-elected he'll likely allow the pipeline to go ahead. He realizes there's no logical reason to stop it. However, just like his tax the rich thing, he's using the issue to appeal to his political base, in this case environmentalists that don't seem to realize whether gasoline is burned in China or the USA, it's going to produce CO2.

The U.S. is a net importer of crude oil, and will continue to be after Keystone is built. Yes, we do import oil, refine it, and export some gasoline. The exports provides jobs to American workers, income to American companies, and taxes to state, local and federal governments. I do not understand WT69's point, at all. We import a lot more oil/petroleum products than we export.

One final point -- Canadian oil is selling for for $10 to $15 per barrel less than West Texas Intermediate (WTI). And WTI in turn is selling for $15 less than the oil we're importing from Nigeria, Venezuela, etc. Gasoline prices would be lower if Keystone were in place.

[QUOTE=Esten; 425723]And a lot of them don't.

Here's an idea. Get rid of tax cuts that help job creators but that are also wasted on wealthy non-job creators. Instead, target policy directly at businesses that actually create jobs.[/QUOTE]

Esten - Other than the singular exception of silver spoon inheritance, so let's leave that aside for now, curious what your take is on how most wealthy non-job creators became wealthy in the first place? Whether they are currently creating new jobs or not at the moment, where do you think that capital came from?

Do you not imagine many created income for others whether having direct employees or not? And do you comsider sitting on wealth to be some sin or unfair somehow?

Last. Really curious whether you've personally created one or more incremental new jobs?

Yes, that would be a fact, when the Job Creators, with there Tax Breaks are not Creating Jobs.

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 425683]Wow, 'Food stamp usage is up 64% in the last four years".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28462[/ATTACH]

"And the cost is up 114% in the same period. '

[ATTACH=CONFIG]28463[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

[url]http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/01/Whos-the-Biggest-Spender-Obama-or-Bush.aspx#page1[/url]

Yes, you are right 8% unemployment and the Job Creators are not creating Jobs.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 425742]Is that liberal code for "[i]We have the right to take your money because we think we can spend it better than you[/i]"?

And you postulate that I'm the one whose "[i]positions are based on ideology[/i]"?

In the mean time, let's not forget about.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Here are a few more Cartoon's.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 425736]There are many cartoon's About the dumb Republicans Politicians.

Here is a start.[/QUOTE]

I can see it now. Just like the rest of the Republican Politicians.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;425758]Here are a few more Cartoon's.[/QUOTE]

Still stuck with their heads up you know where.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;425760]I can see it now. Just like the rest of the Republican Politicians.[/QUOTE]