Science a GoGo's Home Page
Posted By: paul bush spent 20 trillion - 02/26/10 05:00 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

the table shows clinton in office in 2001 which didnt happen, so the 1.863 trillion showing for 2001 is bushs spending not clintons.

bush spent 3.4 trillion in his last term year 2008, which is not covered in the above table.

add em up.
they equal 20 trillion spent by bush.

Obamas budget for 2009 is 3.4 trillion.

Republicans have always spent more than Democrats ,however the Republicans keep acting as if President Obama is doing
something that they wouldnt do.

but what he is doing is spending money on the people of the U.S. and that is something that Republicans do not do.

Republicans normaly favor special interest , such as big oil , pharmaceutical industries and baicaly who ever represents more money beng put in their pockets.

not the average americans pockets...

Democrats started social security.
Democrats started minimum wage.
Democrats started medicare.

Republicans always put down the good things that are in place for the american people.

and now there putting down President Obamas health care plan.

the Republicans are the reason the health care bill is not in place aleady.

everytime I listen to a republican talking about how bad President Obama is for america , I cant help but wonder what america would be like if we had always had Republican Presidents.
I doubt that there would be an america as we know it.
we would not have advanced as far as we have , science would have been so stagnated that there would never have been a space race , we would not have been involved in ww1
or ww2 because those things were not for money , they were for the people and Republicans dont care about the people.

they only care about their money.

and they only spend your money , they do this by creating less taxes for themselves and more taxes for the average person.

dont fall for the new tea party because it is nothing but a modified Republican party.

if the Republicans had there way , everybody that could not work would need the assistance of there family members in order to survive.

that would not bother them because they mostly already have enought money to cover those expences.

but could you afford to keep your parents safe and healthy
and for that matter could your children afford it?

because that is what will happen in the future if the Republicans have their way with us.

they use the "we the people" slogan which is the first three words in the constitution but ignore everything that follows.

there not the people , we are.

so why do they always concern themselves more with the peoples money.
they should change their slogan to "we the peoples money" because that is all they care about.

Posted By: Amaranth Rose II Re: bush spent 20 trillion - 02/26/10 07:38 PM
Clinton was in office through the better part of January 2001, until Bush lite's inauguration. That's why it lists him as being to 2001. Note that Bush's dates list him as being from 2001 onward.
Posted By: paul Re: bush spent 20 trillion - 02/27/10 12:12 AM
AhHa..

so the 1.863 was President Clinton

that means that there is a missing Bush year in my calculation.

I found the numbers for the missing years at

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/bush_budget_09.html#usgs302

it appears that

in 2008 bush spent 2.931 trillion

and

in 2009 bush spent 3.107 trillion

so I said he spent 20 trillion when he actualy spent

20.359 trillion durring his presidency.

in contrast to Bush spending the Clinton admin spent

a mere 16.21 trilion durring his 8 years.

so Bush a Republican actually spent more than the Republicans are willing to admit or want to admit

because they are always harping about Obamas spending.
when the facts are that Republicans always have spent more.

thus THEY ARE WHY WE ARE IN SUCH FINANCIAL TROUBLE

in the past it has always been that the Republicans would get us in debt and then when a Democrat became President he would work to get us out of debt.
Posted By: paul Re: bush spent 20.3 trillion - 02/27/10 12:26 AM
watch the video below , all the way through to get an idea
of the republican mentality which is occurring today.

I must admit that this radio host is a true Republican.

Is this the type of person you want for a President?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJJpDywI68o

Posted By: paul Jim Bunning holds up extension of unemployment - 02/27/10 06:35 PM
Jim Bunning holds up extension of unemployment benefits

the extention would cost 10 billion , of course this 10 billion would be for the american workers and not as he votes for the american workees.

Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (Aug 2006)
Voted YES on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (Feb 2006)
Voted YES on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (May 2003)
Voted YES on phasing out the estate tax ("death tax"). (Jul 2000)

hes a Republican of course , he is retiring this year and
we should go ahead and fire him or whatever , he is doing this out of spite knowing full well the consenquences of this action.

Quote:
Employment benefits run out this Sunday and he has refused to extend them without a plan to pay for them. He alone, refuses to budge, making him an easy target.


http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist...oyment-benefits

If it were up to me , I would fire every Republican in congress or wherever one exist and fund the bill this way.

they do nothing but stop progress.

these millions of americans will no longer even have hope for the next day.

so now we get a good glimpse of the republican mentality from another GOOD republican.

lets just remember their mentality when november rolls around.

10 billion dollars is all it cost.

but that 10 billion goes ino the U.S. economy almost as soon as it is recieved by the unemployment reciepients.

that is like taking 10 billion away from the U.S. economy.

causing even more job losses and buisness failuses.

you know if the rich didnt always search for the cheapest labor markets as found in china , taiwan , mexico etc.

we wouldnt be troubled with finding 10 billion , we would have billions in surplus just like we did when boosh TOOK office.

so vote for the rich republicans , but remember that vote
will cost you much more in the long run.

lets look at how he has voted.
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Jim_Bunning.htm#Energy_+_Oil


I wonder if we could find where his heart lies in the above votes he has made , for that matter we could probably find his votes match most republicans votes.

anti american people - pro foreign people

there just worried that the american people might
get money that they normaly get.

I think I now understand why Senator Bunning was refussing to allow the bill to pass.

a week or two ago there was a bill passed that is called the paygo bill , that calls for the ability of a bill to be paid for before it is passed.

So in all fairness to him , he was standing on proper ground.

the paygo bill needs an amendment that would remove its enforceability in order to quickly give relief to the American Peoples general wellfare and or in times of national / state emergiencies.
© Science a GoGo's Discussion Forums