What Obama and 2012 brings......

* Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.

* The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.

* Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.

* College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.

* Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.

* The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.

* Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.

[url]http://biggovernment.com/whall/2011/12/27/its-the-math-stupid-seven-devastating-facts-about-2012/[/url]

FUN.

Later,

Geo

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;476498]* Every day, the U.S. government takes in $6 billion and spends $10 billion. This means that every day the federal government spends $4 billion more dollars than it has.

* The real unemployment rate is a jaw-dropping 11 percent.

* Every fifth man you pass on your way to work is now out of work.

* College graduates are now 34% less likely to find a job under Obama than they were under President George W. Bush.

* Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk now relies on food stamps.

* The ravages of the Obama economy now mean that more Americans live under the federal poverty line than at any time in U.S. history since records have been kept.

* Under President Barack Obama, every fifth child in America now lives in poverty.



FUN.

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE] I ran across this article, THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL DEBT an analysis of the presidents that are really responsible for the borrowing that has put the USA in dept to deep to climb out. Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.

[QUOTE=waterdog101;476510]I ran across this article, THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL DEBT an analysis of the presidents that are really responsible for the borrowing that has put the USA in dept to deep to climb out. Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.[/QUOTE]
--
Kinda brings into question who the conservatives actually are doesn't it... Maybe welfare for the rich is doing more damage than welfare for the poor.

[QUOTE=waterdog101;476510]I ran across this article, THE UNITED STATES NATIONAL DEBT an analysis of the presidents that are really responsible for the borrowing that has put the USA in dept to deep to climb out. Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.

If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84[5].

Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.

Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.[/QUOTE]

Link the article please...........

doesn't matter though. Obama has outspent ALL combined so statistics don't mean CRAP.....

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;476521]Link the article please...........

doesn't matter though. Obama has outspent ALL combined so statistics don't mean CRAP.....[/QUOTE]

i wonder were obama spending would rank if you eliminated the money he had to spend (stimulus) to keep this country from collapsing into full great depression after 8 years of terrible bush policy--probably rank just behind clinton in spending

[QUOTE=vetbass;476529]i wonder were obama spending would rank if you eliminated the money he had to spend (stimulus) to keep this country from collapsing into full great depression after 8 years of terrible bush policy--probably rank just behind clinton in spending[/QUOTE] .... I like your post, thats the way I have been looking at it. the rich take care of their own, for example, not always but 99% of the time this is true. look at some rich person you know that has got married, did they not marry into a family as rich as theirs or more so. they keep the money together. when the country almost went belly up under bush, all the rich guys were taking a hard hit in the stock market. jobs, banks, homes, everything was turned upside down. and the only way the rich guys could keep from taking a bigger loss. was what they called a bailout. and they were going to have the bailout no matter who got elected for president. if John Mccain would have been elected instead of Obama. the rich guys would still have gotten their stimulus " bailout " money. and I don't think Obama had a choice but to give them the money. they had the stimulus passed faster than they could pass the unemployment extension for the working class.

[QUOTE=vetbass;476529]i wonder were obama spending would rank if you eliminated the money he had to spend (stimulus) to keep this country from collapsing into full great depression after 8 years of terrible bush policy--probably rank just behind clinton in spending[/QUOTE]

Spoken like a true koolaid drinking Liberal.

[QUOTE=waterdog101;476536].... I like your post, thats the way I have been looking at it. the rich take care of their own, for example, not always but 99% of the time this is true. look at some rich person you know that has got married, did they not marry into a family as rich as theirs or more so. they keep the money together. when the country almost went belly up under bush, all the rich guys were taking a hard hit in the stock market. jobs, banks, homes, everything was turned upside down. and the only way the rich guys could keep from taking a bigger loss. was what they called a bailout. and they were going to have the bailout no matter who got elected for president. if John Mccain would have been elected instead of Obama. the rich guys would still have gotten their stimulus " bailout " money. and I don't think Obama had a choice but to give them the money. they had the stimulus passed faster than they could pass the unemployment extension for the working class.[/QUOTE]

Why do you worry about rich folks so much? Who they marry or hang out with? Geez man they didn't just wake up rich...they either worked for it, willed to them or yes married into it. Don't forget some of these political folks spewing this garbage are rich.

I wonder if the rich folks blame you for the state of this country as much as you seem to blame them? Please define rich for me as well. I would like to know how much you earn before you get lumped into this catagory of being the cause for our nations problems.

Just spent several weeks with some folks who grew their own garden as a young married couple to help feed their kids, shopped at second hand clothes stores and worked long hours just to make ends meet. They are now so wealthy its amazing but to listen to the sacrifices they made for their three kids while building for the future blows me away. Folks like this who earned their way and play the stock market and never purchased new cars and homes or latest gadgets and educated themselves are what makes this country great.

FYI... my house and life didn't turn upside down through all this either. It's because of a few things like not living beyond my means. Choosing a job (some luck was involved at first) that is service oriented and understanding from an early age that my decisions have consequences.

I just don't get it? Everything wrong with this country is because some rich people and GW caused it? Obamy gets a pass on everything he has done?

[QUOTE=DJD;476551]Please define rich for me as well.[/QUOTE]

ot sure whateveryone else's definition of rich is, but for me it's the fact that I have clean clothes on my back...winter clothes, summer clothes, a warm house, zero credit card debt, no auto payments, there's plenty in the refrigerator...and...as of "right now" I'm still employed and above everything else I'm fairly healthy in that I can see, walk, hear, speak, etc...(as of right now, lol).

Hmmmm let's see Obama raised over 650 million for his 2008 campain threw private donations....wonder if he knows anyone thats rich??? just askin.

[QUOTE=waterdog101;476536].... I like your post, thats the way I have been looking at it. the rich take care of their own, for example, not always but 99% of the time this is true. look at some rich person you know that has got married, did they not marry into a family as rich as theirs or more so. they keep the money together. when the country almost went belly up under bush, all the rich guys were taking a hard hit in the stock market. jobs, banks, homes, everything was turned upside down. and the only way the rich guys could keep from taking a bigger loss. was what they called a bailout. and they were going to have the bailout no matter who got elected for president. if John Mccain would have been elected instead of Obama. the rich guys would still have gotten their stimulus " bailout " money. and I don't think Obama had a choice but to give them the money. they had the stimulus passed faster than they could pass the unemployment extension for the working class.[/QUOTE]

Why do so many people hiss and spit about others they perceive to be rich? It's neither a crime nor a sin. If you don't see their bank account or know what their everyday life is like, it's unfair to judge them. How many people do you know who roll out of a nice warm bed at 3 am, shower and dress and grab a cup of coffee on their way out the door going to work just to make sure employees work in a safe environment? Never mind that he has a staff meeting at 5:15 am and begins his "work day" at 6 am. His day doesn't end at 3 pm or at 5 pm...he is ALWAYS on call which means he sleeps with a house phone and a cell phone beside his bed. That's what my husband's day is like and he doesn't even get to live at home because of his job and the phones are still with him when he does get to come home. Tell me how much all that is worth. Yes, he does draw a nice six-figure salary, our new house is debt free, his new truck didn't come with a payment book, my vehicle is debt free, we don't have credit card debt and our utilities are paid on time. I manage and invest the money and do a doggone good job.

We both know what it's like to have lived without enough but we kept on working, going to college, and pushing toward the goals that we set for ourselves. Anything worth having is worth working for and most of the time it is not easy.

Call us what you will, rich, middle class, or poor, but be sure you call us BLESSED.

[QUOTE=riverrat12;476565]Hmmmm let's see Obama raised over 650 million for his 2008 campain threw private donations....wonder if he knows anyone thats rich??? just askin.[/QUOTE]

Yes, his name is George Sorol.