marks2065

It is bad no matter who overspent, If it is always bad, and the US has been doing it every year for the last 179 years, (and for decades prior to 1835) how come the US became the world's richest country and the only superpower? Over spending is not always bad, not paying off the debt or paying more than 10% of you income to interest is bad. most of the programs that the Dem's want to run could be paid for just with what we are paying in interest. This government is overspending by 30-50% of what they take in. A lot of the money has ended up in the hands of people that helped get Obama elected and has been wasted on companies that have gone bankrupt. The left blasted Bush for the same things, why not blast this president even more since the overspending and corruption is worse? I Blasted Bush for signing the bills the last 2 years of overspending and for Obama overspending, I am not a hypocrite, are you? I would have given Obama a couple trillion just like I did for Bush, but both have gone overboard by a combined total of over 10 trillion $s. Can you point to that post??? I reviewed your Bush posts for the last couple years he was in office and you and other vociferous supporters of the GOP did seem to be defending everything he was doing, or did we all miss a secret GOP SC forum with hidden posts??? As far as your 10 TRILLION for both of them, the reality is of the 17 Trillion you can place about 14 TRILLION directly on the Reagan-Bush Cabal... you really do need to start at the beginning of what GHW Bush lovingly referred to as VOODOO economics. Smart man he was and the debt that grew under him was actually St Ronny RayGuns and GHWB’s son more than doubled down on that number when he came to power and when he left, his policies in place saddled this president( no matter how you might wish to hang that budget debacle on him) with budgetary mayhem. The VOODOO bill is now coming due on We The People... most people realize it was GFS since the spending went out of control in the early 1980's and at least this president has grown it less than any of his last 4 predecessors. Grown it less? what a bunch of shit! he spent over 2 trillion more than came in. this crap about growing less or reducing it more is all words to make the stupid people believe they are helping. the fact is they are overspending, the house under dem control wrote and passed over 75% of the total debt and the pres in charge at the time signed the bill. remember the dems control congress during Reagans term, the first 2 years of Clinton's term, the last 2 years of Bush's, and the first couple years of Obama's. you can find that most of our debt happened during those times and the Dem's in control of the house passed the spending. If the dem's wanted to be responsible they would have passed balanced budgets during those years. Time to do some research and learn who has control of the check book. When representatives try to cut spending recently the left berates them and calls them baby killers or grandma haters.

It is bad no matter who overspent, If it is always bad, and the US has been doing it every year for the last 179 years, (and for decades prior to 1835) how come the US became the world's richest country and the only superpower? Over spending is not always bad, not paying off the debt or paying more than 10% of you income to interest is bad. most of the programs that the Dem's want to run could be paid for just with what we are paying in interest. This government is overspending by 30-50% of what they take in. A lot of the money has ended up in the hands of people that helped get Obama elected and has been wasted on companies that have gone bankrupt. The left blasted Bush for the same things, why not blast this president even more since the overspending and corruption is worse? I Blasted Bush for signing the bills the last 2 years of overspending and for Obama overspending, I am not a hypocrite, are you? I would have given Obama a couple trillion just like I did for Bush, but both have gone overboard by a combined total of over 10 trillion $s.

Okay, so let's say you're correct, that conservatives are guilty of hypocrisy for not complaining about Bush's spending, while complaining about Obama's spending. Now, by the same token, aren't liberals equally as guilty, for complaining about Bush's spending, but not complaining about Obama's spending? I await your thoughtful reply. The US has run a debt every year since Andrew Jackson was president. In that time the US went from being a backwater to being a superpower and the world's richest nation. So tell us why debt, per se, has suddenly become bad. So then you APPROVED of Bush's deficit spending! No. When the economy is in good shape government should save. Only when the economy is in bad shape should government deficit spend. Bush spent and spent when he should have been saving. The debt more than doubled under GWB who not only increased spending, he also very unwisely reduced revenues when measure in real terms. Now how about you answer my question? The US has run a debt every year since Andrew Jackson was president. In that time the US went from being a backwater to being a superpower and the world's richest nation. So tell us why debt, per se, suddenly becomes bad when a Dem is in the White House. It is bad no matter who overspent, but I was asking, because I already know, who wrote and passed the bills that caused the overspending. I know that Polosi was the speaker when over 6 trillion of deficit spending was passed. You and Amazon keep blaming Bush and he did sign some of the overspending bills leaving him to blame, but doesn't the speaker and their party hold some blame? they could have easily stopped the overspending before Bush even got the chance to sign the bill. Gingrich did this under Clinton.

Well then.. since the "debt" interest breaks down to mostly being held by our own government and US public holdings ( Foreign is NOT the major player to get payments) that is still part of our economy. But for the fact reading challenged... lets use pretty pictures just like comic books. How did the US Get to 14.3 ( latest pretty picture) Mandatory spending Debt chart (This is why we can't have nice things) What party wrote and passed the spending bills in congress?

Ok I get it, it is all good when it is your guy spending the money. so it is not the bankrupting of America that is bad, it is what path we go down while doing it.

If 800 billion pissed you off, how does almost 9 trillion? come on, you can do it, tell us how you really feel now.

Just look at what's going on here, folks. Liberals agree it's bad when the national debt soars. Conservatives agree it's bad when the national debt soars. But instead of uniting in opposition against out-of-control federal spending, we just sit around and call each other names. Liberals point out how conservatives did it in the past, as if to excuse their own president who is doing it now. Conservatives did the same thing with their past presidents. Everyone makes excuses to protect "their man". So instead of actually DOING SOMETHING about the issue, we just sit around and fight amongst each other as to who is worse, and call each other names like "hypocrite". Meanwhile, no one seems to actually express outrage at the spending that is happening - they're too concerned about blaming the other guy for doing it first. So NOTHING gets done. And our country continues on its downward spiral towards bankruptcy, which will destroy our children's future... So let's get past this: Just because a former president for our side did it in the past, doesn't mean we have no right to protest against another current president who is still doing it. It's bad no matter who is doing it. Put the partisanship aside, and get on with solving the problem! I challenge someone to have the courage to say: "Yes, I support President Obama, but I think his government spending is out of control." Go ahead, I double-dog dare you. I now return this channel to its regularly scheduled bickering. where is the like button when you need it?

If it is not required why are there lawsuits by religious organizations to eliminate it from the health care law?

I think the difference is what helps all instead of what helps the individual. birth control is required by the government and is given to the individual meaning it is welfare. Roads are built for the use by all meaning not welfare. Social security that is paid for by all and collected by all that paid into the system is not welfare. Maybe if the government made a big bowl of birth control and everyone got to use it when they wanted, like a road, then it would not be considered welfare. No girls I know shares their birth control with everyone else.

it seems that conceal carry is a better program then Obamacare http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/06/Illinoisans-Flood-Online-Conceal-Carry-Application-Site and they did not have to spend 650 million to build a flawed website!!!

To bad you did not say this 6 years ago when Obama was running for president.

I posted this before - because of Obamacare my coverage premium doubles, deductible goes way up and my total out of pocket triples. They were nice enough to delay the increase until 15, but I'm screwed after that. Because of previously signed contracts and obligations and retirement savings, I'll have to choose bankruptcy or stop eating. OR - someone else can pay my way. The increase is unfair at best and criminal at the middle. Why do I have to extend my retirement date because of someone else? I don't understand the OR in your story. Who is going to pay your way and in what sense? Maybe you mentioned it before, but why is it that your policy is being changed? Simply put . . . Because of the no pre-existing conditions clause of obamacare. Anyone one with insurance from an big employer or union does not understand the effects yet because they are either exempt or pushed back to next year. But the parts that have gone into effect already have greatly increased the cost to the small business and individual. my insurance rates are 3 times what they were in 2008 with less coverage. they are much cheaper than what has been reported on the news coming from the ACA websites. I fear I will not have insurance in 2-3 years if prices increase more. Since when did covering a few million people become more important than the financial well being of tens of million of people? no system is perfect and many people in all systems fall through the cracks, but why do we need to hurt the hard working self sufficient people of this country to still have a broken system?

I don't know about Ian, but I have done the solution architecture for a number of large government IT projects, although none anywhere near as big as this. Your tech guy is full of shit. How much should it have cost? With: writing the code itself, procuring hardware, building and running the infrastructure, (don't forget you can't just do this once, you need redundancy and backup) managing all the integration points, writing middleware, changing the connecting systems that need to be changed, performing the BA work to define it, defining the system architecture, running unit, system, integration and user testing (where it sounds like they skimped btw!), pen testing, documenting and QA of code and architecture...... .....No idea. But 9 figures is certainly in the ballpark. The way this usually works is a procurement weenie will go out to the market for a price, the market will come back with a price, and the procurement guy will go "too expensive, the public will never accept that, cut it in half" Then everyone is surprised/ shocked/ outraged when it goes over budget and the procurement guy blames the contractor. Fun and games. If they followed those guidelines it means they are still 400 million over budget. A smart person would not hire a company that failed on a 50 million dollar project to do a 500 million dollar project. A smart person would find a company that has already designed a large and complicated web site and get there opinion. Kathleen S. is not a smart person. The person that put her there is equally dumb.

you do realize that we treat more people for free in this country than the entire population of Sweden. we have more illegals than the population of Sweden making just our illegals causing a larger costs and that does not include the entire population of the US. Something that many of you from foreign countries don't seem to understand is that even if the ACA was a good thing it is not part of why and how this country was founded. go back and study the history of this country and what the founders of this country wanted. If the country you came from was so great why did you come here? If this country was a better place to be than where you came from why would you want to change it into what you left?

It is always the hard working Americans that get screwed and are forced to pay for the lazy. most of us would agree that some people need help and most ae willing to help, but way to many take advantage of the good nature of the good Americans and now we are forced to let this happen. We are given the choice of paying for the lazy or go to jail. makes me want to become one of the lazy people. Unfortunately my principles and pride won't allow me to do that.

There are doctors who are going to a subscription-based plan. just google subscription based medical care lots of articles about many places switching billing models. the ACA paperwork is a huge expense for the doctors. wasn't the ACA supposed to make things easier and cheaper?

the premiums for my shop are 4 times what they were in 2007 and an other huge increase is on the way in 7 months. I have put a limit on what I will pay for my employees health care and all the increases will be their responsibility. they did not like that but maybe if every employer does the same the people will run the Dem's out of town an actually start to fix the issue of health care.

The left keeps lieing about Obamacare, when will people on the left start pushing back on this subject? http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/30/rate-shock-in-california-obamacare-to-increase-individual-insurance-premiums-by-64-146/

current copy at that url: Authorities have a identified a suspect, a Saudi national, who is currently being guarded in a Boston hospital with shrapnel wounds. so at the moment, you're losing that bet, though it would have been my first guess as well with the date of April 15. During the press conference they stated the fire at the JFK library is linked. This does not need like AQ MO....brown guy nutter. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/authorities_under_suspect_guard_y2m8cJO29uC2PDGIjYBalO

Last year IDK but I do have 2009 stats Summary: Murders total – 13636 Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%) Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%) Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%) Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%) Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%) Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%) Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%) Summary of the 2009 crime statistics – HERE It is about 50/50 on guns and other. so since half are by other we need to Ban other also.

Not all the people hit by bullits died. but 20 something died from a knife the last year.

However, in the down years, I don't think you take out a loan to cover it (analogous to paying off the principle in good years, then this would imply to could take more debt in bad years), you still have to reduce spending. This would drive us to the most efficient government over time. If you start playing balancing act between good and bad years, we just return to today's state where politicians just claim that EVERY year is a bad year and thus increasing debt becomes the norm for us frogs being boiled. How about the fed can not spend more tthen it took in the previous year and that spending has to include some principle on the debt.

bring her along, maybe we could luck out and one would shoot the other Enjoy that conversation with the Secret Service. Hey I Cheney shot some one maybe we could get lucky if t happened again. The SS can question me any tme thy want.

bring her along, maybe we could luck out and one would shoot the other

the states might get this one because owning a firearm is a constitutional right but the school issue was not.