you're getting your info from a Fox "News" opinion article?

So the 7 times we needed to raise the debt ceiling under Bush were just scare tactics too then right?

I'm not saying you can borrow your way out of debt at all. What I'm saying is we already bought a bunch of stuff, and we need to raise our national credit card limit in order to make the payments on those things we aready bought. The budget that just passed through both houses of congress (one of which controlled by Republicans) requires more money than the treasury takes in with our current tax code, so EVERYBODY KNEW the debt ceiling would need to be raised to pay for it.

On August 2nd, the US treasury will have aproximately 170 Billion Dollars, and need to make aproximately 300 Billion dollars in payments. If we don't allow the treasury to borrow more to cover these expenses, it will be the FIRST TIME IN THE UNITED STATES HISTORY that the full faith and credit of the American people will be stained.

What's more, it is President Obama's Treasury secretary, and him alone, who will decide which bills get paid, and which don't.

I'm sure the top priority in terms of bills being paid, will be any redeemed treasury bonds and interest on the debt. There should be enough money to cover that and at least maintain the appearance that the full faith and credit of the American people has some weight.

What might happen though, is all of the people who live in the congressional districts for whom their representitave didn't vote to raise the limit, may find they no longer receive Social Security checks, Medicare reimbursements, Veterans bennefits ect. I can just hear the idiots who voted for conservatives in those districts screaming already to raise the debt limit.

What is going to happen is this... The Democratic controlled Senate will pass an increase without a problem. The Republican controlled House will have a majority of the Republican members finally break and vote to increase the limit, though about 20% of the hard liners will vote against it even though they know it would fuck things up big time. But thats ok because just enough Democrats in the House will put it over the top and send it to the Presidents desk for his signature. At least that's whats happened since 1776 anyway.

they've been voting for change since 1776.

I'm saying America is a work in progress, and Obama won the election because he wasn't an agent of the un-sustainable status quo.

Congress has the power of the purse, so they need to raise the debt limit in order to be able to make payments on the things they already bought.

Obama wants a big deal to reduce our debt. Boehner walked away from the talks. Your Cut/cap/balance/destroy plan was killed in the senate. Obama's foriegn travels have been paid out of his annual White House budget, and it's nowhere near a trillion dollars.

It costs the same to send Obama overseas as it did to send Bush overseas.  Presidents are given an administrative budget every year to cover White House operations/payroll/travel ect, and neither president ever went over their admin budget.

Please try again.

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Saturday 23rd of July 2011 10:20:29 AM

The entire White House operating budget (including travel expenses) as appropriated by Congress, is 64 million dollars per year, of which 2-3 million is spent on travel.  The President can't spend more than that without a special appropriation from Congress, because Congress has the entire power of the purse, and only Congress can replenish the White House operating account.  Any money left over is returned to the US Treasury.  Section 21 of the executive budget shows travel expenses.  The President even has to pay for the operating cost of Air Force One out of his White House operating budget, and ONLY if the trip is for Presidential purposes...  If he uses Air Force One to fly to California for a political fund-raising trip, the entire cost is reimbursed by the Democratic Party - not the taxpayer. 

Rex, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts...  There isn't nearly as much corruption as your little pea brain likes to think there is.

________________________________

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

The White House

Federal Funds

Compensation of the President

For compensation of the President, including an expense allowance at the rate of $50,000 per annum as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 102, $450,000: Provided, That none of the funds made available for official expenses shall be expended for any other purpose and any unused amount shall revert to the Treasury pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1552.

Salaries and Expenses

For necessary expenses for the White House as authorized by law, including not to exceed $3,850,000 for services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 105; subsistence expenses as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 105, which shall be expended and accounted for as provided in that section; hire of passenger motor vehicles, newspapers, periodicals, teletype news service, and travel (not to exceed $100,000 to be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 103); and not to exceed $19,000 for official entertainment expenses, to be available for allocation within the Executive Office of the President; and for necessary expenses of the Office of Policy Development, including services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and 3 U.S.C. 107, [$59,859,000]$58,374,000. Note.A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

Program and Financing (in millions of dollars)

These funds provide for the compensation of the President and official expenses. These funds also provide the President with staff assistance and provide administrative services for the direct support of the President, to include support for the offices and councils in the White House as directed by the President.

 

Object Classification (in millions of dollars)

Employment Summary

Executive Residence at the White House

Federal Funds

Operating Expenses

For the care, maintenance, repair and alteration, refurnishing, improvement, heating, and lighting, including electric power and fixtures, of the Executive Residence at the White House and official entertainment expenses of the President, [$14,006,000]$13,658,000, to be expended and accounted for as provided by 3 U.S.C. 105, 109, 110, and 112114.

Reimbursable Expenses

For the reimbursable expenses of the Executive Residence at the White House, such sums as may be necessary: Provided, That all reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive Residence shall be made in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph: Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, such amount for reimbursable operating expenses shall be the exclusive authority of the Executive Residence to incur obligations and to receive offsetting collections, for such expenses: Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall require each person sponsoring a reimbursable political event to pay in advance an amount equal to the estimated cost of the event, and all such advance payments shall be credited to this account and remain available until expended: Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall require the national committee of the political party of the President to maintain on deposit $25,000, to be separately accounted for and available for expenses relating to reimbursable political events sponsored by such committee during such fiscal year: Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall ensure that a written notice of any amount owed for a reimbursable operating expense under this paragraph is submitted to the person owing such amount within 60 days after such expense is incurred, and that such amount is collected within 30 days after the submission of such notice: Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall charge interest and assess penalties and other charges on any such amount that is not reimbursed within such 30 days, in accordance with the interest and penalty provisions applicable to an outstanding debt on a United States Government claim under 31 U.S.C. 3717: Provided further, That each such amount that is reimbursed, and any accompanying interest and charges, shall be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts: Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall prepare and submit to the Committees on Appropriations, by not later than 90 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this Act, a report setting forth the reimbursable operating expenses of the Executive Residence during the preceding fiscal year, including the total amount of such expenses, the amount of such total that consists of reimbursable official and ceremonial events, the amount of such total that consists of reimbursable political events, and the portion of each such amount that has been reimbursed as of the date of the report: Provided further, That the Executive Residence shall maintain a system for the tracking of expenses related to reimbursable events within the Executive Residence that includes a standard for the classification of any such expense as political or nonpolitical: Provided further, That no provision of this paragraph may be construed to exempt the Executive Residence from any other applicable requirement of subchapter I or II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code. Note.A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

 

 

-- Edited by PowerStroker on Sunday 24th of July 2011 11:27:25 AM

The article you posted proves MY point.

You're not helping your already tainted image Rex.

_______________________________________________________________________

White House: Asia trip nowhere near $200 million a day

Obama aides try to counter claims from conservative critics       

If you think the 10 day vacation, er... I mean business trip only cost $2 million dollars then there is no point arguing with you. Everyone knows Obama punched America in the belly to go on vacation. The only person that looks ignorant here is you.

That article you posted up has VERY LITTLE bold blue text compared to the rest of the article that is in plain normal sized text. Perhaps you already know your democratic supporters are lazy and lack the ability to read the entire article, and will just read the bold blue print and pay no attention to the rest. Hell PowerStroker, I don't even think YOU read it all.

I would imagine the Republicans deal with that sort of stuff in congress every day. For example a bill called the Medicare Physicians act would really be a Patriot act.

Anymore I am ditching MSNBC, they are too liberal. I am going to stick with Fox News from now on where it's fair and balanced. MSN is getting into a new era of news reporting called "Creative Journalism".

Yeah, because ComCast recently bought out MSNBC and the Democrats are trying to eliminate any opposition news network for the upcoming 2012 election. What does one of Mr. Murdochs fringe low budget UK tabloid business have to do with his US News Corp? Absolutely nothing! 

Democrats flock to ComCast, who now own an arm of the media they broadcast. Not only does ComCast make money on advertisements, but they collect money from cable subscribers too! The ComCast/MSNBC deal smells of Anti-Trust issues, but the left leaning Democrats approved the merger! This is because they know ComCast is weak, hell it wasn't but a few years ago ComCast tried to buy Walt Disney and come up short on cash.... Now they got the cash to buy out MSNBC? Yep... ComCast has been taken over by the left wing and MSNBC along with it. Now if only they could figure out a way to silence their opposition, FOX NEWS! I can see where all this is going. Smells of dirty Chicago style politics that got us 67 Trillion dollars in future unfunded entitlements. 

The Democrats would need 100% media control come next year, because even a kid can see Obama is a spend happy self serving individual, like most all Democrats that support him blindly. Bill Clinton spent senior citizens $2 trillion dollars in Social Security funds to erase the debt back in the day, and now Obama is trying to leverage every American for more money.

Malaysia children who are forced to work at the age of 5 have NOTHING on American Children! Here in America your born with a $30,000 and growing price tag on your head. Yep, that first breath of air from a new born cost him/her the national debt divided by the amount of US citizens. Think about that!

PowerStroker wrote:

---

Actually the Comcast board of directors is VERY Republican. This is why I was very scared when they bought controling interest in NBC from a slightly less Republican company (GE).

Can we have some "Names" of these Republican Comcast board members? I am pretty damn sure you are wrong. Ill check out the CEO later. I guess you consider GE slightly less Republican because of all the kickbacks they have gotten from the Obama Administration.

Keith Olberman is already gone, but I think they will probably leave Lawrence, Rachel, Cenk, and Ed alone as they have good ratings, and Comcast would probably rather have a monopoly in left leaning journalism - even if they disagree with the views, than be competing with Rupert for half of the Conservative market.

Yeah sure... Did you come up with that one all on your own? LOL

I will say that there sure is a difference between us in our debate though. You seem happy to believe Obama went on a 2 Billion dollar vacation simply because you don't like him or his policies. You seem more than satisfied by your "proof" of your claim, even though it's based on a quote from a foreign government official who doesn't even have access to such information. I on the other hand provide you with the Presidents Executive Budget as written BY CONGRESS, and you just don't seem to think such a thing is credible... Go figure.

I don't think anything is credible from the Democrats... Clinton cooked the books, and you yourself even said the travel budget was $2 million in your post above. I know damn well the India/Jakarta/Japan trip cost over $2 million and thats not including all the other places the Obama administration has traveled. When the government was asked how much was spent on the trip they declined to answer as a matter of national security.... GO FIGURE!

If you are going to make a claim about the government's finances, I expect proof in the form of a verifiable act of congress which was signed in to law... All of that is public information, if you can't find it, then you should just shut up.

Come August 3rd when Grandma and Grandpa don't get their Social Security checks it will be quite obvious the governments finances are far from verifiable. Obamanomics is the art of smoke and mirrors on paper, just like how they try and bend/modify statistics to their own liking. At the bottom of the report that you did post it clearly stated "THIS IS AN ESTIMATE", (2011 and 2012) so maybe you shoud STFU?  

"Note.A full-year 2011 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111242, as amended). The amounts included for 2011 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution."

---

 

-- Edited by SELLC on Monday 25th of July 2011 07:50:05 PM

You mean it happens freequently when Democrats are in control.

Hey PowerStroker... I looked up the CEO of ComCast... Looks like a Democrat to me!

Brian L. Roberts - CEO of ComCast

"Roberts was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A graduate of Germantown Academy, he earned his B.S. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, where he was admitted to the Zeta Psi fraternity.

Comcast has grown into a Fortune 100 company with 21.7 million customers and 80,000 employees. Comcast's content networks and investments include E!, Style Network, the Golf Channel, Versus, G4, PBS Kids Sprout, TV One and four regional Comcast SportsNets. The Company also has a majority ownership in Comcast-Spectator, whose major holdings include the Philadelphia Flyers NHL hockey team, the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team and two large multipurpose arenas in Philadelphia. Roberts received $24,683,315 in 2009.^[1]

On December 3, 2009, General Electric (GE) and Comcast announced a buyout agreement for NBC Universal. When the sale is completed, Comcast will own 51% of NBC Universal and GE will own 49%. Regulators approved the proposed sale on January 18, 2011. The sale is expected to be completed by January 28, 2011.^[2]"

So it appears GE AND COMCAST own MSNBC... Given the amount of Government kick backs I have read about GE getting it's no wonder it's left leaning as hell. Anyway I got banned from the MSNBC newsvine so you KNOW I'll be making a nice thread about MSNBC, COMCAST and GE.

I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but there was recently an article about GE moving ALL of it's top X-Ray minds to China! This even after they got a shit load of money from Americans!

So now what have you got to say PowerStroker? GE got these monies while OBAMA was in office. I should also mention the Anti-Trust issues with ComCast buying up a media outlet, while also being a paid provider of cable services was also approved under the Obama administrations watch. 

Oh and by the way,

"In 2004 and 2007, the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey found that Comcast had the worst customer satisfaction rating of any company or government agency in the country, including the Internal Revenue Service."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comcast_Communications#Lobbying_efforts

-- Edited by SELLC on Wednesday 27th of July 2011 04:21:50 PM

Yes I remember the net neutrality thread. If you look you will find it was a Democratic majority at the FCC that allowed the communications companies to allow a "Two track" internet. It used to be that all data streamed across the internet at the same speed, now there are two lanes if you will. There is no longer any net neutrality.

Just like you said, MSNBC's video streaming is far superior to any others out there. For example when I watched the Obama vs. Boehner public address regarding the so called national debt crisses the video feed was clean and flawless. Shortly after I went to watch it again on YouTube and wouldn't you know it, the video was lagging and choppy.

What you pointed out back then was the inevitable result of net neutrality being circumvented. If you check PowerStroker you will find that Democrats had a majority within the FCC.

What I am talking about NOW PowerStroker are possible Anti-Trust issues that were all but overlooked when the merger happened. With comcast owning 51% of MSNBC they not only are a service provider, they are a content provider. Learning that GE also purchased the remaining 49% was somewhat interesting given all the controversy surrounding GE and their HUGE taxs breaks and subsidies. 

I can tell you this PowerStroker... I am not sold on higher taxes, I am not sold on bigger government, I am not sold on the idea of forcing any product or service on the people, and I am sure as hell not sold on running up more debt! 

I don't know much about the Sherman Anti-Trust act, or if Reagan was the one that stopped it...

However I DO KNOW that there are still Anti-Trust mechanisms in place. For example awhile back AT&T got busted up for having a monopoly and Reagan didn't have anything to do with that did he? Another example would be Microsoft, they got the snot kicked out of them regarding Anti-Trust issues.

If AT&T was to buy out Fox News or any media outlet you would see a serious Anti-Trust claims sprouting up all over the place.

It appears PowerStroker that the Anti-Trust issues have more to do with lining politicians pockets than protecting consumers. If we both happen to agree then maybe there is hope for America, now how the heck do WE do something about it?

So who is going to save us from the BIG Government PowerStroker? You know... The one that squandered 2 Trillion in social security funds to erase the debt, and then doesn't want to pay it back? You know... The one that got up on national TV and said we wont have the money to pay out Social Security unless we borrow MORE MONEY.

?????

Tell me.. I am all ears. Becuase I am pretty sure these big government people have TOP NOTCH insurance (paid for by us) and are at NO RISK of their pay checks being held back.

-- Edited by SELLC on Wednesday 27th of July 2011 09:25:00 PM

PowerStroker wrote:

---

SELLC wrote:

---

So who is going to save us from the BIG Government PowerStroker?

We are our government, so long as we freely elect our representitaves, we have nothing to fear from it's size.

You keep telling yourself that. We got a boat load of Government we cant seem to pay for now.

 You know... The one that squandered 2 Trillion in social security funds to erase the debt,

That's what Reagan started because Greenspan told him it's a way to make the books look better - the government borrowing from itself hides a lot of red ink.

Sorry buddy, it was under the Johnson administation that they introduced the "Unified Budget". In case you didn't know JOHNSON WAS A DEMOCRAT. So you Democrats are responsible for the initial act of destroying your own system. I guess you need another lesson PowerStroker-

"The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (In political jargon, it was proposed to be taken off-budget.^{[citation needed]} Yet today Social Security is treated like all the other trust funds of the Unified Budget.^{[citation needed]} It is a political way of using a cash budget instead of the more appropriate accrual budget (for all the budgets in the U.S. government), and a way of disguising total debt.^[59] This provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts beginning in 1993.^[47] This change was one way of trying to protect Social Security funds for the future.

As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. In other words, Congress borrowed the surpluses from the Social Security system; the Treasury securities held by the S.S. Trust fund are U.S. government "I.O.U.s". Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Because the government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it look much smaller. There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

So now what do you have to say PowerStroker?

and then doesn't want to pay it back?

Sure we want to pay it back, and it will be paid back in full.  It's not "I owe you's" sitting in the Social Security Administration office, they're US Treasury bonds - the most secure bonds in the history of the planet.  While it's true that at the moment the US treasury wouldn't really like it if the SSA decided to cash them all in right now, it's only because we haven't resolved the debt ceiling issue yet.  So long as the US government has the power to levy taxes, there is absolutely no risk of short changing the SSA...  Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised and the US treasury has to stop payment to contractors and military pay ect, their VERY TOP priority is to pay their bond holders - of which the SSA is the largest.

WRONG PowerStroker. The US Government CAN short change the SSA by one of TWO ways,

(1) "To escape paying either principal or interest on the "special" bonds held by the trust funds, the government would have to default on these obligations. This cannot be done by executive order. The Congress would have to pass legislation to repudiate these particular government bonds. This action by Congress could involve some political risk and, because it involves the financial security of older Americans, seems unlikely."

(2) "An alternative to repudiating these bonds would be for Congress to simply cap Social Security spending at a level below that which would require the bonds to be redeemed. Again, this would be politically risky, but would not require a "default" on the bonds."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

So maybe you better wake up.

You know... The one that got up on national TV and said we wont have the money to pay out Social Security unless we borrow MORE MONEY.

Well Obama was saying what would happen if we default to our bond holders like the SSA which is very unlikely even if the debt ceiling isn't raised.  The Social Security Administration actually operates somewhat independantly from the main part of the government because it has it's very own income stream (social security payroll taxes).  It's a lot like the post office that way in that Social Security doesn't have anything to do with causing our National debt or annual deficits.  Social Security has aproximately a 2 trillion dollar surplus - much of which is currently in the form of US treasury bonds because the treasury needed to borrow some cash to pay for things that weren't paid for like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Bush tax cuts and the Medicare part D prescription drug plan.  Now we are at a point when we realize we actually need to generate more income to the US treasury to pay off these debts... Much of that debt is held by the Social Security Administration, and China holds a lot also.  I know it's confusing that some of our national debt is held by an independant agency of our government, but it's just how it goes sometimes.  The government isn't exactly a singular all powerful entity, there are actually portions of it that operate as seperate entities, like the Post office and the Social Security Administration...  Any government agency that has it's own funding stream.

You are comparing Social Security to the Post office? LOL! You are aware they are about broke also arent you? And they are considering CLOSING 3200 branches! If SS was like the P.O. then them 3200 closings would be PEOPLE not getting paid.

This whole idea of "It's just how it goes" is whats destroying this country. Face it PowerStroker, you are putting your faith in something that has already been spent, and the idea of the Democrats not spending more than they take in is an impossibility. The "Trust" you speak of is FICTION! Aka gone! Spent!

Scenario 1 (Trust Fund is an accounting fiction):

• 1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
• 1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
• 1984: Federal government increases spending on government programs by $1
• 2020: Federal government raises taxes by $1 plus interest to repay the loan to Social Security
• 2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.

Scenario 2 (Trust Fund represents real economic savings):

• 1984: $1 payroll tax collected in 1984
• 1984: $1 lent by Social Security to the federal government
• 1984: Federal government borrows $1 less from other sources and increases spending on government programs by $0
• 2020: Federal government raises taxes by $0, but may borrow from other sources, to repay the loan to Social Security. Any tax increases that occur in 2020 would have happened anyway without Social Security.
• 2020: $1 plus interest transferred from Federal Government to Social Security.

?????

Tell me.. I am all ears. Becuase I am pretty sure these big government people have TOP NOTCH insurance (paid for by us) and are at NO RISK of their pay checks being held back.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the paychecks for members of congress who vote against a debt ceiling increase will be among the first things not paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling.  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner alone has the power to decide what does and doesn't get paid if we don't raise the debt ceiling.

You wish PowerStroker.

---

 

---

 

-- Edited by SELLC on Thursday 28th of July 2011 03:08:42 AM

That's the point PowerStroker! The moment the unified budget legislation was in effect we were essentially borrowing from SS, or at least the government checks were coming out of the same ledger.

You can not deny that it was the Democrats that handed SS to the government on a silver platter.

-- Edited by SELLC on Thursday 28th of July 2011 04:10:00 PM

Really? Well how did they intend to pay for the trillions they have already racked up? I am sure all the dems were WELL AWARE of the debt ceiling prior to the past few months.

My only hope is they (R&D) don't screw it all up trying to rush something thru, or even worse yet fail to fix the true problem - "overspending". 

PowerStroker wrote:

---

I agree that we are over spending, the off budget wars, Medicare part D which was a sloppy wet kiss to big Pharma are examples...

Yes the TWO wars Obama has going on right now are a waste of money with no hopes of any return under the Democrats. I also feel that the Democrats are incapable of policing Medicare part D, much like everything else! Thus the Dems would rather do nothing and scrap it so that our seniors go without their needed prescriptions, or get stuck with generics.

Excellent points PowerStroker! I am glad we agree!

Also spending in our tax code with taxpayer subsidies for big oil and corporate jet owners. It seems Republicans spend most of their time writing corporate loopholes in to the tax code.

Meanwhile Democrats spend most of their time writing tax code that is unfair to business and punishes success. At the same time everyone is screaming for more taxes on the rich, 50% of Americans pay none at all, and get free handouts/entitlements to boot. While the rich fly around in their Jets that they earned, the poor fly around high as a kite on drugs paid for by a system that rewards them for being lazy.

I also think we're under taxing the wealthy, and I'm hopeful Obama won't renew the Bush tax cuts again.

Yeah! I too feel the wealthy in this country are getting treated unfairly! While they work to earn, some poor sap too lazy to work knocks up some ghetto chick who has children neither one can support, thus they get all kinds of entitlements for being worthless. Not only that they collect massive returns from the IRS at the end of the year having not even paid in a dime. When they start running out of money they just breed some more. I hope the Bush tax cuts expire too, if only to prove to you idiots that the Bush tax cuts do NOT just apply to the rich.

---

 

I am suggesting that millions of Americans would have never got the chance to get lazy if it weren't for Obama and his "Sky is falling" campaign to win the election. Obama's efforts to punish big business has caused many to sit on money rather than invest it. Not many business people will invest when the guy in the white house threatens to "Step on their throat" or "Kick their ass". So yeah, a few more years of Obama-Love and millions of Americans will become lazy once they get used to the hand-out train.

Would they rather be working and earning? I am sure they would, but the kind of money the government is dolling out it's hard for small businesses to match, so why wouldnt they stay unemployed and colloect money?

There is a big difference between Americans being lazy, and Americans becoming lazy. I myself have never collected a single dime in Social Security, Disability, or unemployment in my whole entire life. The past 6 years with my wife and two kids as dependants I could have gotten back money from the government in child tax credits, and earned income credits, but I NEVER took it... I didn't even take a single dime of Bush's "Stimulus" money, you know the $1000 he gave to everyone for just being alive. So yeah... I have a right to be pissed as I sweat my ass off every day trying to make a buck or go without. Meanwhile some other guy is collecting free cash, taking more in returns than they paid in on taxes, and soon that fucking bum will have better insurance than my federally mandated minimum coverage Ill be required to PAY FOR.

So fuck you and anyone else that thinks hard work should be punished so ghetto trash can reproduce and live without having to bust their ass.

I'd describe myself as "realistic", most of the times anyway. That's not to say I don't indulge in a little cynicism or bitterness every once in awhile.

Yeah, I'll admit I was surprised to see their CEO has given more money to Dems than he has to Republicans. The board as a whole looks to be leaning Republican though.