Oboma .. another term

[Bert_Mathews]

15 pages.... The bottom line is Barack won. The rich white guys with all their PAC money lost. Those that trusted Mitt were outnumbered. I'm still not sure why they did. We didn't want him kicking sand in the face of other countries. His boys were not going to fight the battles he started.
We didn't want him to de-regulate everything to increase production and profit for the 1%.
Workplace safety standards are important if you work in one.
Minimum wage is important if you are trying to live on it.
Human rights are important if you are one.
Your income should not be taxed at a lower rate if you DON'T work for it.
You shouldn't be able to funnel your assets through your church to avoid capital gains taxes while having your money returned to you at a lower rate.
Maybe the real "small business" realized they are being pimped for the 1%. Probably not.
Farm subsidies are paid to investors to keep prices low to accomodate exports and a cheap food supply.
Nothing trickles down. It never has, and it never will.

WELL put................. <MAINLY> "His boys were not going to fight the battles he started" along with the DE-REGULATING

[poppi2]

15 pages.... The bottom line is Barack won. The rich white guys with all their PAC money lost. Those that trusted Mitt were outnumbered. I'm still not sure why they did. We didn't want him kicking sand in the face of other countries. His boys were not going to fight the battles he started.
We didn't want him to de-regulate everything to increase production and profit for the 1%.
Workplace safety standards are important if you work in one.
Minimum wage is important if you are trying to live on it.
Human rights are important if you are one.
Your income should not be taxed at a lower rate if you DON'T work for it.
You shouldn't be able to funnel your assets through your church to avoid capital gains taxes while having your money returned to you at a lower rate.
Maybe the real "small business" realized they are being pimped for the 1%. Probably not.
Farm subsidies are paid to investors to keep prices low to accomodate exports and a cheap food supply.
Nothing trickles down. It never has, and it never will.

Clap. Clap. Clap.

[DeadlySleep]

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

[DeadlySleep]

Interesting forum. I was not surprised to see some interest in the politics of medical care. It has to be everywhere the same because governments have dug themselves so deep into the business of medical care.

The conflict will remain until governments are completely withdrawn from this business.

And no I have no idea when that will happen. But with every trillion added to the federal debt and many states floundering, the day is getting nearer.

Stay duckie!

[NateS]

But with every trillion added to the federal debt and many states floundering, the day is getting nearer.

Stay duckie!

The Republicans have done a great job of camouflaging their reluctance to pay their fair share of taxes as a great debate over the Federal debt, just like a spouse who refuses to kick in his/her fair share of income into the family checking account and then complains that "We're spending too much!"

Where was the deficit during the Clinton years? We then had higher/fairer taxes on the wealthy and a surplus and a booming economy and jobs galore.

And yes, the states are floundering because of the GOP ongoing campaign, whenever they are in office, to push federal responsibilities down to the states, as if that somehow magically eliminates the expense.

Nate

[ems]

Where was the deficit during the Clinton years? We then had higher/fairer taxes on the wealthy and a surplus and a booming economy and jobs galore.

It astounds me how the Clinton years are so easily forgotten. People seem to forget that our country was never in such good shape as when Clinton was in office, only to be completely turned around by what followed the next eight years!

Did you notice how Bush and Cheney were nowhere to be found this past year. The Romney people didn't want any association with them.

[Guest]

Where was the deficit during the Clinton years? We then had higher/fairer taxes on the wealthy and a surplus and a booming economy and jobs galore.

Nate

There was no "surplus" during the Clinton years. And, if it had not been for Congress being controlled by the Republicans, it would most likely have been worse. It's all been smoke and mirrors (read that "BS"). The taxes may have been higher, but the spending/budget was significantly less. You want to go back to the Clinton years? Then drastically cut the budget and government spending.

"Those that defend the validity of the government surplus/deficit figures need to explain how an alleged 8-year net surplus of $62.904 billion during the Clinton administration caused the government to increase its debt by $1.395974 trillion. If Clinton's administration took in $62.904 billion more than it spent (the definition of a surplus), then why did it have to borrow another $1.39574 trillion?"

Don't forget, we also had the "tech bubble" that burst about the time G. W. Bush took office.

.

[NateS]

"Those that defend the validity of the government surplus/deficit figures need to explain how an alleged 8-year net surplus of $62.904 billion during the Clinton administration caused the government to increase its debt by $1.395974 trillion. If Clinton's administration took in $62.904 billion more than it spent (the definition of a surplus), then why did it have to borrow another $1.39574 trillion?"

.

I see quotation marks, Mr/Ms "Guest" but no citation. Who are you quoting? What is your source? And how impartial and unbiased is it?

Just putting quote marks around words doesn't in and of itself lend authority to them.

Nate

[Guest]

"Those that defend the validity of the government surplus/deficit figures need to explain how an alleged 8-year net surplus of $62.904 billion during the Clinton administration caused the government to increase its debt by $1.395974 trillion. If Clinton's administration took in $62.904 billion more than it spent (the definition of a surplus), then why did it have to borrow another $1.39574 trillion?"

.

I see quotation marks, Mr/Ms "Guest" but no citation. Who are you quoting? What is your source? And how impartial and unbiased is it?

Just putting quote marks around words doesn't in and of itself lend authority to them.

Nate

Do a Google search of "The True Federal Deficit", "Craig Steiner" and "The Myth of the Clinton Surplus".

He's written a series of articles and essays which seem to be very objective and non-partisan. (he covers all the administrations for several decades)

.

[LSAT]

Where was the deficit during the Clinton years? We then had higher/fairer taxes on the wealthy and a surplus and a booming economy and jobs galore.

It astounds me how the Clinton years are so easily forgotten. People seem to forget that our country was never in such good shape as when Clinton was in office, only to be completely turned around by what followed the next eight years!

Did you notice how Bush and Cheney were nowhere to be found this past year. The Romney people didn't want any association

with them.

Clinton didn't have a 9/11 crisis in his presidency...the only thing Clinton had to worry about was Monica.

[Lizistired]

Where was the deficit during the Clinton years? We then had higher/fairer taxes on the wealthy and a surplus and a booming economy and jobs galore.

It astounds me how the Clinton years are so easily forgotten. People seem to forget that our country was never in such good shape as when Clinton was in office, only to be completely turned around by what followed the next eight years!

Did you notice how Bush and Cheney were nowhere to be found this past year. The Romney people didn't want any association

with them.

Clinton didn't have a 9/11 crisis in his presidency...the only thing Clinton had to worry about was Monica.

That "9/11 crisis" was a blank check that got us into this mess.

[NateS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1B_1VD ... e=youtu.be

Great video! Thanks.

The problem with our debate sometimes seems to be that some commenters confuse Free Enterprise with Laissez-faire, and don't understand the difference. Some claim to be defending Free Enterprise when actually they are arguing for Laissez-faire, an immoral and failed concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

and:

Outline of the U.S. Economy - (2)How the U.S. Economy Works
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/economy-2.htm

U.S. Economy and Business - Conditions and Resources U.S. Department of State.

Regards,

Nate

[JeffL]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1B_1VD ... e=youtu.be

Excellent video.
Now for a test of your cultural knowledge... How many of you can name the title and composer of the music played during that video

[sylvie]

Pachelbel's Canon is the most famous piece of music by German Baroque composer Johann Pachelbel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1B_1VD ... e=youtu.be

Excellent video.
Now for a test of your cultural knowledge... How many of you can name the title and composer of the music played during that video

[JeffL]

Pachelbel's Canon is the most famous piece of music by German Baroque composer Johann Pachelbel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1B_1VD ... e=youtu.be

Excellent video.
Now for a test of your cultural knowledge... How many of you can name the title and composer of the music played during that video

Wow! That was quick!

I like this raging rock version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdDDxMhUqXQ