US Auto makers may become extinct, caused by Unions

Page 2 of 8  


Did you actually look at those numbers Miles. They kinda go along with the chart. Hell, Bush as caused greater increases in a month than Clinton did in a whole year.

LOL, it is hard to say where the surplus went but we are now at all time highs and at a severly increased rate. How is that possible if Bushy baby is so conservative. Sounds like fuzzy math to me.

Really??? Where did I say that? The problem Miles is that greedy people like you cause many of the problems that the gubberment has to try and deal with.

Oh yea Miles, I forgot, some of your 10,000,000 relatives must live in the area, LOL.

What is the need for these planned communities. Where are these people going to work? Why would you want to build up an area that has about 1 month of warm weather a year? You whine and complain about our dependency on foreign oil and then you want communities build where energy requirements would be at an all time high??? You are too funny Miles.

LOL, feel free to stick your head in the sand Miles. Like I said, he doesn't have to, his right wing majority in congress is doing it for him. All he has to do is sign his name and ignore the right wing pork that goes along with it.

But the Reps claim to be responsible and only spend what they have and yet, the most rapid increases in the national dept are ALL under republican presidents and the projected highest under this one.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Debt went up EVERY SINGLE YEAR Clinton was in office. Got it yet TBone or are you still living in the liberal dream world of surpluses?

How can there have been a surplus during Clintons years when every single year of his term spending exceeded revenue? Dang liberal spin and you bought it and won't give up on it even when proven wrong by your own numbers (graph).

Greedy? I work for a living and am paid for it. Just cause your ilk wants some of my money doesn't make me greedy. Makes you jealous and lame.

More than just a ferry boat.

In Anchorage most likely as well as newly developed businesses.

If thats true then so is Anchorage. We're talking about a region just opposite across the knik arm. Maybe 10 miles from Anchorage. The current problem is the only way to that region is by a ferry or drive the 70 miles or so around.
Now possibly you're talking about the other planned bridge out of Ketchikan. That city is a very rapidly growing city. I don't know what you mean by only a month of warm weather there. It doesn't get alot of snow. Mostly rain. Ketchikan is backed by mountains. Little room to grow except across the channel. Whats more, the airport is on the opposite side and the only way is by ferry. That airport is rapidly becoming a busy place.

So Anchorage or Ketchikan should be kept from growing? All time high? We're talking about far southern Alaska TBone. Not the Artic Circle.

Ah, so you excuse the pork barrel Democrats because they don't claim to be responsible anyways. Now thats some funny stuff right there!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL, perhaps you need to poke your head out of your world of denial and see the bottom line. Any way you try and spin it, the dept is at all time highs in both amount and rate of increase and the only ones close to this rate of increase was Reagan and Bush Sr. You keep claiming that Bush Jr only increased spending by 3.5 while Clinton was closer to 10 but the rate of increase curve in the national dept does not support either one of your claims, unless of course, the tax cuts have a much stronger negative affect on the dept level than you would ever admit to.

Creative accounting can make things appear to be different that they were. Who knows where the money went, do you? The graph does indicate that the rate of increase was substancially reduced during the Clinton years which you also refuse to look at, LOL.

LOL, yea Miles, you work but you decide how much you are paid and it is the amount you pay yourself compared to your workers and the complete lack of concern for your workers that makes you greedy.

Justification is a wonderful thing, even when it is complete BS.

That is not what I asked. What is the need for these planned communities EXISTANCE? And BTW, more than one boat can be used.

Again, why build there and if people want to live there, then they should deal with the situation the way it is or raise the money through state and local taxes. Why should my money be used for crap like that.

I am not talking about Anchorage but even there, how many outdoor swimming pools do you see in peoples back yards.

What is your definition of rapidly? And if the area is rapidly growing, then the cost of the infrastructure needed to support it should be paid by the people benefiting from it in the form of local taxes and builder impact fees.

Why should I support this growth? How does it benefit me? In actuality, it hurts me in the higher cost of fuel. If people want to live their, they should pay for the infrastructure themselves or deal with what is currently there.

It doesn't excuse anything, just puts things into perspective. The right keeps making the claim that they are the responsible party which is being proven to be complete BS. While cutting medicade and welfare, they still manage to raise the dept to record levels at record rates of increase. And where is the money going, to the wealthy, of course.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

So you are still in denial about the debt going up every year Clinton was in office? You are still in denial that since spending exceeded revenue each and every year Clinton was in office there was no surplus? Your only defense is to attempt to change the subject to Bush.

You have no clue as to how the Gov. gets its money. You seem to think its all a matter of tax rates. Raise the rates, they get more $'s, lower them and they get less right TBone? You need to take another look beyond your simple comprehension based soley on tax rates. Current revenues are at their highest levels ever. The deficit is not from too low of tax rates as you seem to believe.

How could there ever have been a surplus when by your own figures spending exceeded revenue every year Clinton was in office. You are still in complete denial and will never ever admit the truth even when faced with it from YOUR own figures. Are you big enough to admit there was no surplus?

Bush is no conservative. Never has been.

Your fuzzy math which has led you to believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending all of Clintons years.

Oh thats true. Creative accounting is why you still believe there was a surplus despite deficit spending.

Instead of admitting you are wrong about the existance of any surplus you try to water it down, spin it a bit as above. I told you months ago that the rate of increase was reduced, not the deficit. Your response was more ranting about a surplus and how I was wrong. Well TBone, you ready to admit that there was no surplus so we can move on to other subjects?

I see. In the perfect liberal world there will be no growth in any region because its not needed. Communities are built because of the demand for them. More people = the need for more housing.

So you admit to being greedy with your money. Do you drive on the highways around your area that were paid for by federal $'s? Oh ya, they were all state funded huh? You're a dang liberal hypocite TBone.

What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying people shouldn't live in Alaska? Tell us TBone, what is it you are trying to say about growth in Alaska?

What complete BS. Every state in the country gets federal highway funds yearly. The vast majority of this countries highways and bridges are built with the help of federal $'s. I ask again what is your beef with growth in Alaska vs. anywhere else?

There you go again with your own greed. Spend only if it benifits TBone. You benifit from federal $'s spent in your area although you might try to deny that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is not a defense, just a response to your constant whining about how the dept didn't do down with Clinton when the real problem is how fast it is going up with Bush.

LOL, it is a matter of taxes.

For the most part in todays world, that's correct.

More spin and fuzzy definitions. If current revenues are at their highest levels ever AND Bush is only raising spending at about 1/3 of what you said Clinton did, then why in the hell is the dept level also at all time highs in both amount and rate of increase? Now lets see an actual answer instead of more of your typical spin.

Then why did the Republican party nominate him for his current postition? Are they just a bunch of idiots or did they need a fall guy while they rape the middle class to feed the rich?

How do you think the drop in the rate of increase happened without a surplus?

Back to the liberals fault cry again, huh Miles? How lame. Now you are saying that all planned communities are formed out of need? Do you really think that we are all this stupid or is it just you? While true need is one reason, it is more like some developer(s) building inexpensive housing up there because of the low cost of land, no impact fees, and little to no cost for inspections and the low price drawing people up there? There is a big difference between supplying needed housing because of a shortage and building to draw people to another area because of cheap housing.

LOL, get real Miles. Every state is allotted money for highway and bridge programs based on the population and size of the state. This is just a political pork barrel spending to make the representitive look good and is a complete waste of my money. Of course, you don't see it that way because it is money being used to make the rich richer at the cost of the poor and to you, that is fine and dandy.

No, what I'm saying is that despite your bullshit, the weather there is not Shangri-La as you would have us believe and the added need for heat over other areas in the country will further increase our dependence on foreign oil.

Sorry Miles but this isn't the same thing and you know it. I have no beef with the growth but the cost of that growth should be supported by those benefiting from it such as the builders and the owners. BTW, there is a big difference between federal aid and the free ride that this bridge is.

LOL, what a case of PKB.

Yea, right. At is more to your tune, just like this bridge, federal tax dollars to make the rich richer and a right wing politician look good.

I deny no such thing but my area is already established and had already been before the big federal dollars arrived.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Bush wasn't the discussion until you changed the subject to avoid answering a question. Ok so it's not a defense of yours. Then are your ready to admit there could never have been any surplus? If you still hold onto your claim of such then please explain how.

Whats that mean TBone? Tax rates or what?

Then you are VERY wrong and is why you are so confused on this. Tax rates were cut right? Take a look TBone. Tax revenues are now at their highest rates ever. You still think its simply a matter of tax rates? You're too simplistic in your thinking and is why you have the views you do. Tax revenues are UP now!!!! They are at their highest levels ever TBone. Now can you understand how it all works?

Look at the total tax revenues in years 1999 through 2003 here. They increased every year despite the tax cuts. You keep trying to argue based on your own personal bias rather than anything factual. Do some more research on your own and look back further if you desire. Revenues have been increasing TBone. Not decreasing as you seem to think tax cuts would do. No clue TBone!!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/tfdb/TFTemplate.cfm?topic2id
I'll give you a hint TBone. Private sector spending has far more to do with total tax revenues than tax rates themselves. As private sector spending goes up then revenues go up.

Ask them. Fact remains that Bush is not and has never ever been a conservative.

Now that takes the cake TBone!! You are now attempting to equate a drop in the rate of increase to mean there was a surplus. LOL. Surplus means more revenue than spending. Lower rate of increase means just that. The two were closer but still spending exceeded revenue. Sheesh, you're confused on this one!! Lower rate of increase means surplus??? Care to explain your math to show a surplus while still having deficit spending?

So people should only live where you deem it to be Shangri-la? Where exactly is this magical paradise of yours that everyone must live so as to appease you? For many it most certainly is Shangri-la. That is exactly why they live there.
As for your notion that people should only live in moderate climates you are speaking complete BS. Anchorage and Ketchikan have warmer climates than most of the northeastern US. Whats more is your notion about oil consumption. Most up there heat with coal, wood being 2nd. Oil is down on the list below even electricity. Do some research before you try to make politically biased arguments.

Oh so now you think bridges should only be built with state $'s? You must be aware there are numerous bridges federally funded all over the country. Maine, Kentucky and Minnisota are all currently building federally funded bridges and they're not the only ones. But, Alaska is different because TBone's gotta jump on the liberal band wagon.

You're the one asking how it benifits you as if thats the requirement. Pure greed on your part there TBone.
Your area all built up before federal funds arrived huh? Then no need for federal funds now right? Then why has there been considerable discussion on a bridge over the Currituck Sound to be paid for with federal funds?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This once again did not answer the question so I'll ask again. If tax revenues are at their highest rates ever (and by your provided link, the are not) and Bush has only increased spending by about 1/3 of what you claim Clinton did, how is the dept at record levels and increasing at record rates? The rest of your crap is just that and nothing more now either answer the question or shut the hell up.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Tell me which of Clintons years were tax revenues ever higher than they are now?
You refuse to answer how there could be a surplus if every year under Clinton there was deficit spending (your figures but at least we agree on them).
Instead you keep trying to turn the discussion to Bush. Lets finish the current discussion which was with regards to deficit spending under Clinton to which you refuted and still insist there was a surplus.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like I said Miles, you cannot answer the question because the bottom line simply say's that these tax cuts along with the war are bankrupting the country.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

IOW's you're too small of a person to admit you were flat out wrong about any surplus and refuse to discuss it. Instead you change the subject to Bush.
Care to explain how these tax cuts are the reason for the deficit considering that revenues have gone up, not down. Instead of answering, you reply with your question above. TBone, if you do not understand what causes revenues to go up and down then any discussion on the matter won't be understood by yourself.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I must say that it is funny to watch you twist and spin on the rope that you hung yourself on. You cannot answer a simple question based on the facts that YOU claimed to be true and are now trying to spin it into something else. Please show exactly where I made all these claims about Clintons surplus. But since you brought it up: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus / Now if you want to argue, do it with CNN and as I said, creative accounting can make gains look like losses and losses look like gains (just look at Enron). Then you can add the fact that Bush and the Republican party based their tax cuts on that Clinton surplus....

The revenues are not much more than what Clinton had and with creative accounting, are they really valid. If you go back to YOUR link and look at 2001, 2002, and 2003 you will see that 2001 was pretty good but 2002 had a significant drop and 2003 still has not caught up to 2001, and this is with the creative accounting. So much for those "record " gains. I guess that the expenses have gone up MUCH more than the increases in revenues. So much for your bogus reduced spending increases by Bush and come to think of it, that is specifically what I laughed at you about.

Could you get any more lame. I fully understand what causes revenues to go up and down but many of the right wing assumptions simply are not happening. Pay scales are lower, many high tech jobs are outsourced, the gubberment turns a blind eye to the high level of illegal immigrants coming in (even with the risk of terrorism) which further reduces the average pay rate for hard working Americans, and investors tend to invest in the very companies that outsource their high paying jobs which does the exact opposite of what the right claimed it would do. Now are YOU going to answer the question or run and hide again? If the revenues are at record highs AND Bush is holding increases to about 1/3 of what Clinton was, how is it possible that the deficit is also at record highs and at a record rate of increase? Now be a man for a change and answer the question or just STFU for a change.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

You have stated over and over there was a surplus. Yet each and every year Clinton was in office there was deficit spending.

Talk about creative accounting. None the less the Gov.'s own records show spending exceeded revenue every year. There was no surplus and you continue to try to argue there was. It was only a projection.

You think raising taxes at this time would help the economy, help create jobs, help raise salaries and do all sorts of other wonderfull things for our society? If so, care to explain your resoning?
As for illegals I agree with you there but its not just the Reps. Dems especially in the border states have continued to open the flood gates to them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like I said, show me where. Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

It was not a projection, it was a budget surplus. Unfortunately, there is no law that forces congress to stay within its budget and the continued deficit shows that they didn't. BTW, who was and still is in control in congress?

You keep forgetting that the taxes were not raised, they were lowered and your own information (that you happened to delete, imagine that) shows a significant drop in revenue right after it. The point is that they should have been left alone until the congress actually fell within its budget restraints and defenintly not be lowered during a time of war. The record increase in both the actual and projected deficit as well as the massive cutbacks in programs shows these cuts to be the wrong answer. Putting the taxe rates back where they were would have no effect on the current state of the economy other than increase funds to the programs that were cut such as education.

Care to back that up. BTW, I'm still waiting for that answer. Now who is the one trying to change the subject, why the same person it always was, YOU! But I'll ask again (so that you can delete it again). If these tax cuts are resulting in record revenues (which is false) and Bush has managed to keep spending increases to around 1/3 of what you claim Clinton did, then why is the deficit at record levels and at a record rate of increase?
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

I did show you the numbers. I've shown you the numbers many times over the months. Some from the Gov.'s own website. In fact, there isn't a single credible source that shows a single year where revenues exceeded spending during Clintons years. Care to show me a credible source which shows yearly totals for ACTUAL revenues and spending through those years that show a surplus? Don't show me projections, just actual figures.

Ahhh....at least you now admit it was a budget surplus and not actual $'s spent or received. So now you also admit that Congress did not stay within the budget....guess what TBone, that means NO SURPLUS ever existed. There was never a time that the deficit went down except on someones piece of paper that nothing more than just that...a piece of paper.
So all a president has to do is set a small budget that is lower than revenues and theres a surplus regardless of how much was actually spent? Too funny!

The drop was short lived and was far more because of the economy drop than the tax rate drop. Revenues go up and down as the economy does far more than from rate changes. You really think keeping high taxes when the economy is sagging is a good idea? Federal revenues would have been lower, not higher as you keep assuming. You fail to realize that tax revenues are now higher even though the taxes were cut. Opposite of your absurd logic.

It means nothing of the sort. What it does mean is that spending is too high. You keep trying to work it from the wrong end. Revenues are now UP with the LOWER tax rates.

Bull. Having high tax rates while the economy isn't strong will cause reduced revenues, not higher as you keep trying to assume. A stronger economy is what drives revenues higher far more than any rate hike could do.
> BTW, I'm still waiting for that answer.
I was waiting till you finally admitted there was no surplus except on paper in the form of a budget and not ever what actually occurred. Congrats, you finally admitted that even in your own watered down version in an attempt to save face.

Change subject? You mean back to what it was all along before you kept trying to switch it over to Bush? lol

It's the difference between the two TBone. Revenues rose faster during Clintons term because of a growing economy. Spending under Clinton averaged 8% increases every year. Under Bush Jr. it has been 4% on average (1/3?? must be the new math). It's public record TBone. Instead of whine about it, look it up. Oh ya, you have no interest in actually learning. Your bias just tells you to argue. At least you admitted there never was a surplus. Congrats on that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
"miles" < snipped-for-privacy@nopers.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
>Once again, you simply spin the question because you cannot answer it. >I asked you to show me where I made these multiple claims about >Clintons surplus.
WTF? TBone, are you saying you have never stated that under Clinton there was a surplus???? Further more, are you telling us that you also have never said that Bush JR. spent that surplus? Oh man. Now thats hysterical!!
>Which is still far more than our current administration has done so far
lol, you give credit to a president that just says there is a surplus when no such thing ever existed? Hmm...just BS, say there is a surplus and you're all happy. Good grief.
>LOL, no, the budget has t actually make sense and your man has yet to >do that either.
So you are now retracting from there being a surplus to comparing who is worse. Well, at least you're moving in the right direction.
>Yep, it would have had no effect on the economy at all with the current >way of thinking.
Well now, theres where your flaw is. High taxes in a down economy would sink it further, causing lower revenues, not higher as you seem to blindly assume. Economy has a larger effect that the rate itself.
>You don't know that and cannot prove it. I think that they would have >gone higher.
Pretty easy to see it. Note the trends in revenues when taxes were raised vs. lowered during economic downturns. You'll figure it out eventually TBone.
LOL, complete bullshit. The revenues are higher because the economy is recovering and there are more people in the country of working age and working.
Hmm...so now you're backing away from all this unemployment you whined about not long ago? The economy would not have grown with high tax rates. Don't forget, Bush did not cut taxes. He removed the massive tax hikes that Clinton gave us (after he campaigned saying he would lower them).
>Now it's 8%, before you claimed it was closer to 10%
Nope. I've said many times Clintons budget increases averaged 8% per year.
> > Under Bush Jr. it has been 4% on
> LOL, now it's 4%, before it was 3.5%
Nope. lol. You're arguing with yourself!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, what is hysterical is you level of spin. You claimed that I said the first part many times and have yet to show me where I said either, never mind many times. I admit that I said Clinton formed a budget surplus which he did. I don't recall claiming that Bush spent it but again, I await your proof.

Gee, could it possibly be that the right wing congress spent it when Clinton wouldn't give out the tax cuts that they demanded or have a Democrat do what the <LOL> financially responsible Republicans couldn't do. Gee, politicians couldn't possibly do something that would harm the country for partisan reasons, would they...

Where are you deriving this BS from but at least you are correct as to who is worse.

LOL, complete bullshit. How do high tax rates on the personal income of the rich reduce revenues. Perhaps a better idea would be to remove the loopholes that allow those scumbags to hide money and then the tax rates for everyone can be validly reduced.

LOL, back to the fuzzy math thing again. I did look and saw a significant drop right after those tax cuts went into effect.

That was over 2 years ago and then it was a problem. Now the problem is low salaries for the same work.

Once again, you make claims that you can never back up.

LOL, more spin.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Just what did those Dems do? Under Clinton spending exceeded revenues every single year in office. How could the reps spend a surplus that never even existed? Is it possible the so called piece of paper that said their was a surplus 'projection' was a result of very poor figuring? Was it possible that surplus projection was the result of massive campaign spin for Gores campaign? To answer one must consider the fact that economists were saying there would be a large economic downturn despite Gore and Clinton saying how great things were.

TBone, you seem to have forgotten how much you argued in months prior about the Clinton surplus. I told you it was only a projection and you whined and cried saying I was wrong. Well, at least you admit I was right in your own spun way. Theres hope for you yet as you're learning.

How many jobs do the poor provide to the masses of people in this country? Ya, lets sock it to those rich bastards and make them move out of the country and take those jobs with them. That'll teach em.

Significant drop? lol.

Care to back up that claim? According to the labor boards own figures the new jobs created are at salaries above the median. Hardly low paying but keep believing what you may based on your biased doom and gloom standard liberal way of thinking.

Spin? Clinton most certainly did campaign saying he would lower taxes. Instead one of his first things in office was to give us one the highest tax hikes in history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Funny how you forgot to mention who was in control of congress at the time. Actually, it was fully expected.

By purposely going over budget and attaching the cost to bills that cannot be easily vetoed.

Yea, the right wing ones were and while all of the above are possible, so is the possibility that it was purpously wasted by the right to weaken the Gore campaign, just like the Monica crap.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it so. I have asked you many times to back this up and you have yet to do so. I think that you are confusing me with someone else in another group but with your extreme right wing view point, I suspect you have these arguments often and with many people.

More COMPLETE BULLSHIT!!!!! The wealthy are going nowhere for no other reason as there is nowhere better to go. This is nothing more than a right wing fear tactic that is proving to be complete crap. You are forgetting the fact that they are rich and rich here and rich because of what this society provides. Sure, greed may make them whine and want more but they know that they will have it better nowhere else and are not willing to give up all this country has to offer due to personal income tax that even at Clintons level, still allowed them to be very wealthy.

And what did you say the median income is, IIRC you said under $25,000. Could you support your family where you live on this? You can hide behind the fuzzy math of the government all you want, I see the real world for what it is and so do you. You just like to hide from it in the hopes of increasing your own wealth at the cost of others.

Pretty much like Bush Sr with the difference being of a significant economic growth during Clintons time in office, unlike Bush.
Face it Miles, you keep whining about Clinton because you have nothing positive to say about the idiot you helped to elect the last two terms and want to keep the failure of our current president in the background but his dismal approval rating speaks for itself. Even during the Monica episode, Clinton didn't do this bad.
--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
TBone wrote:

Funny how you forgot that Clinton had veto powers. Actually, it was expected of you.

LOL. Anything can be vetoed. If that happens then congress has got to submit a bill without the crud attached.

If thats true then Clinton should have revised his 'surplus' projection somewhere along those 8 years. Did he? Hell no. Kept right on saying there was a surplus right through his 8th year. So if you defend him on that then I guess the spending was all late in the 8th year huh?

Kewl. Then you'll shuddup about the the companies that have moved away cuz according to you they couldn't have.

You best check again. Median income is way above 25K. The newly created jobs are not lower paying as you claim. Please back this up TBone rather than just tout your own biased wishes.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/4person.html

No TBone. You see the world as YOU want to see it, not how it really is. You believe newly created jobs are mostly low paying. I've asked you to back that claim up. All you gotta do is look at the labor boards figures then post the URL here. I'll wait. Course it will be a long time since they won't substantiate your own claim.

Bush Sr. entered office with a negative economy and left with it positive. Clinton entered with it positive and left with it negative. None the less I don't credit nor blame either one for the economy. What drives it is far more than anything a president or even congress can do.

The hell he didn't. He sold us out to countries such as China and N.Korea to name just a few. The so called love that other countries had for us was at a high price we're paying now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.