On 12/06/2011 6:38 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:27:31 -0400, wrote:

1. the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003
2. the trillion dollar iraq war

obama had nothing to do with either

Obama continued both.

let's see...number of troops in iraq under bush

150,000

under obama: zero in december.

that's some continuance.

Actually it will be about 50,000. The quibble about whether they are
"combat" soldiers is ridiculous when most are killed by road side
bombs, not combat.

Oh, is that what she was dribbling about with the "zero"? Is that kind
of like the "not war" we are fighting in Libya?

and the tax cuts? oh. you forgot obama wanted to continue them for the
productive middle class and eliminate them for the leeches.

83% of the cost of the Bush tax cut was the people who made less than
$250k. The amount of money that would be recovered if they raised the
taxes of the $250k and up people was doubled by the 14% payroll tax
cut.
The total cost of the Obama tax cut is over a half trillion dollars a
year. That alone is close to half or our deficit.

In two years and she claims Obama isn't a big spender.. The woman is
just dishonest, period...

deplume, a woman, debatable. But Obama is now the world record holder
for debt and debt spend. No other name in history represents the amount
of debt as Obama.


--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 11/06/2011 11:14 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:27:31 -0400, wrote:

1. the bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003
2. the trillion dollar iraq war

obama had nothing to do with either

Obama continued both.

let's see...number of troops in iraq under bush

150,000

under obama: zero in december.

that's some continuance.

Actually it will be about 50,000. The quibble about whether they are
"combat" soldiers is ridiculous when most are killed by road side
bombs, not combat.

and the tax cuts? oh. you forgot obama wanted to continue them for the
productive middle class and eliminate them for the leeches.

83% of the cost of the Bush tax cut was the people who made less than
$250k. The amount of money that would be recovered if they raised the
taxes of the $250k and up people was doubled by the 14% payroll tax
cut.
The total cost of the Obama tax cut is over a half trillion dollars a
year. That alone is close to half or our deficit.

Your math is wrong, please cite.

Those numbers are all wrong. First, the cuts are not a hill of beans to
and elephant of debt. Second, the annual deficit is $1.6 trillion, so
do the math right. The problem is really much worse than you think when
you add in GMAC, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac delinquent and fraud debts.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 11/06/2011 6:29 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:29:11 -0600,
wrote:

On 09/06/2011 8:59 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2011 22:17:26 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:



and this is more right wing bull****

14.5 trillion where? how?

oh. you just heard it somewhere.

lemme know when you get some facts, OK?

Open a newspaper... the debt is 14.5 T... Duh...


gee. and almost none of this is due to obama

but he's black, you see....

Funny, the day Bush left it was $9.67T, now it is approaching $14.5T,
that means Obama was in office for over $4.5T of it.

bush's last budget deficit:

1.2 trillion

obama's are about 1.3

uh huh. seems that, since there's no difference the only reason you
hate obama is...

I don't like any politicians through their own need greed for power sell
debt spending to fleabaggers for votes. Just mortgges our childrends
future for greed today. Selfish evil *******s really.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:04 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:52:10 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


hmmm...tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003

the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency

t
while now that Obama is in
office, it's the House of Reps, with it's minor majority and no Senate
or Oval office behind them that's responsible.. You are a dip****, your
hypocrisy is only surpassed by the likes of John and Harry Krause...

you know zip about contemporary affairs

And you could care less about truth, just talking points...

and you dont even care about the truth

Tosk is right. Your argument is basted on bu11sh1t and fiction. Fact
is, the bubble has burst and fleabaggers fear what needs to be done to
fix it.'

gee. all you have to do is prove me wrong

go ahead. i'll wait


A massive downsize of government for starters. 50% reduction in size
minimum. The footprint of current government is far too big to support
by the society. Now it can either do it voluntarily and save a lot of
grief, or it can be forced.

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 12/06/2011 10:37 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 01:15:39 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:33:22 -0400, wrote:

HAHAHAHAH american taxes are teh lowest they've been in FOURTY YEARS!!


Yet you support a half trillion dollar Obama tax cut.

Is it just because he isn't white?

yep. because the middle class hasnt had a pay increase in 30 years

while the richest 1% have had their wages go up by 500%

want to know why we're in a depression?

read those numbers

When government gets bigger, people get smaller.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:20:49 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:30 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:37:31 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:04 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:09:00 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:01:12 -0400, wrote:


but he says the middle class is overpaid and undertaxed while the rich
are taking it on the chin

Might be more accurate to say th rich left in the last 3 years. And are
still doing so.

really?

proof? oh. none.


Some of the companies I own are relocating offshore. Greedy government
taxes. In todays world it is easy to move offshore.

greedy govt taxes?

you mean that the US has the lowest corporate taxes in the OECD and
companies are so greedy this isnt good enough for them?

good. let 'em go

Yep. In case the fleabaggers haven't noticed, the world competes on
taxation too, no business person has moved to Greece in decauses, but
plenty moved out. Reason? Simple, 60% income tax rate with 23%
VAT...hey, government greed killed the government as it collapsed. Now
the economy is for the most part underground.

You sure like to use fleabagger. You must have an infestation problem
in your pubes.

On 11/06/2011 6:35 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:52:55 -0600,
wrote:

On 10/06/2011 12:22 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:13:37 -0400, wrote:


ummm...if they're insignifican

why does ALL GOP policy focus on cutting their taxes?

if the amount is so small, why does the GOP refuse to cut taxes unless
they're rincluded??

They are idiots too.


We really needed Obama to veto the whole renewal bill

And the result would have been even more pain for people least able to
handle it.

Actually true. As Mr Rich might move the business elsewhere and the
people who need to work get unemployed.

great. THIS is the economy with the rich running it.

let 'em go and let the middle class reclaim america


I have never hidden why I left USA in 2004, it was economical to do so.
And I was right...

and you went to canada

socialized medicine

more bank regulations than the US

golly.

Hardly, I don't look forward to the day I have to use care up here.

As for banks, not my much. Mostly a monopoly. 5 key names, but all
agree on everything.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 11/06/2011 6:35 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:54:32 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:06 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 02:13:37 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 23:53:16 -

sure is. healthcare for the middle class...financial regulation...as
much as the GOP will let him get

obama proposed a tax cut ONLY for those making less than 250K


The $250k and above tax may be nice symbolism but it is insignificant.

gee. then why does the GOP say only THEY can drive the economy and
only THEY deserve a tax cut?

Roman empire fell when they targeted the rich. Smart ones left, the
others perished and good time were over for everyone.

HAHAHAHA

the rich owned egypt

how'd that work out?

Think, some Roman thought just like you.
--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On 11/06/2011 4:42 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 14:11:26 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 1:08 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In ,
says...

On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 12:03:12 -0600,
wrote:

On 09/06/2011 8:03 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Thu, 09 Jun 2011 12:00:35 -0600,
wrote:

On 07/06/2011 6:18 PM, wf3h wrote:
while the ku klux clowns are blaming obama for bush's turning the
economy over to the chinese, let's look at the effects of 10 years of
bush tax cuts


----------

and the right wing tells us how WONDERFUL this is...the rich are
getting richer...the middle class, worthless scum that they are, are
paying for it.

as god intended.

Do the math fleabagger. Oh wait, I forgot, fleabaggers are mentally
challenged so lets summarize it.

says the guy who thinks obama was pres in 2001


Now 0.1% is 1:1000. Only about 100M taxpayers. That means the claim is
100,000 people make over $3M/year. First, I seriously question that
number as being far too high, but lets go with it.

100,000 * .5M is only $50B so.... with a $1600B overspend, where do you
suggest the other $1550B comes from?

hey you tell me. you guys cut taxes on the 0.1% and let the normal
working people die on the vine

Hey, you vote for debt, statism and more debt, you have to take what
comes along with it. No road paved with debt comes wealth.

No nation or individual before has succeeded with more debt. Not a one.
What makes you fleabaggers think your exempt from reality?

I believe it is greed, so much greed and selfishness you ignore reality.
And when it really bits your arses, I will laugh good.

No, you're just an idiot.

Holy ****, do you ever say anything else? You are like a broken record
with no point, ever... Holy ****ing ****...

Even parrots are smarted the deplume.

Unfortunately, you're not as smart as even a parrot.

Tosk is a right wing stalker, and you're a moron.

We are just scraping greedy fleabagger bulls1t of.

--
Government isn't the solution to the bad economy, it is the problem.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 17:22:54 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 6:31 PM, wf3h wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 11:40:36 -0600,
wrote:

On 11/06/2011 10:04 AM, wf3h wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011 08:52:10 -0400, I_am_Tosk
wrote:

In ,
says...


hmmm...tax cuts for the rich in 2001 and 2003

the GOP controlled the congress and the presidency

t
while now that Obama is in
office, it's the House of Reps, with it's minor majority and no Senate
or Oval office behind them that's responsible.. You are a dip****, your
hypocrisy is only surpassed by the likes of John and Harry Krause...

you know zip about contemporary affairs

And you could care less about truth, just talking points...

and you dont even care about the truth

Tosk is right. Your argument is basted on bu11sh1t and fiction. Fact
is, the bubble has burst and fleabaggers fear what needs to be done to
fix it.'

gee. all you have to do is prove me wrong

go ahead. i'll wait


A massive downsize of government for starters. 50% reduction in size
minimum. The footprint of current government is far too big to support
by the society. Now it can either do it voluntarily and save a lot of
grief, or it can be forced.

meaningless.

and, of course, your method was tried

it was called the depression of 29

ever hear of it??

Actually, you dumbsh1t fleabaggers should read. In 1929 they tried to
spend out of it. In 1933 they realized after the 1932 crash that
fleabagger debt spend does not work. Took 6 years of restraint to cover
the debts and recovery was slow.

So, military spending doesn't count?? Freakin stupid little man.