Republicans to vote to repeal Obama's Health Care Reform in Jan 11 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Glaber;27203200]If that got through, Bill wouldn't have gotten his second term.[/QUOTE] Hey another meaningless, pointless post filled with nothing but conjecture.

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;27196679]Once again the republicans prove that they are whiny dicks who simply [b]cannot[/b] let someone else have it their way.[/QUOTE] :irony:

Obama is a spineless coward. He still has people from Clinton's Administration running the treasury. WTF.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27203200]If that got through, Bill wouldn't have gotten his second term.[/QUOTE] I was actually talking about Hillary mentioning a single-payer system at the beginning of the Obama administration but thanks for shitting up another thread [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27203713]Obama is a spineless coward. He still has people from Clinton's Administration running the treasury. WTF.[/QUOTE] Well Clinton managed a budget surplus so it makes sense to keep those people in charge of money I don't exactly know what all the Treasury does but it seems right to me

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27203758]I was actually talking about Hillary mentioning a single-payer system at the beginning of the Obama administration but thanks for shitting up another thread.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I though You were talking about Hillarycare.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27203758] Well Clinton managed a budget surplus so it makes sense to keep those people in charge of money I don't exactly know what all the Treasury does but it seems right to me[/QUOTE] Yeah, he boosted up a budget in his term, the problem was that his policies and works burst and flooded the end of Bush's presidency and now onto Obama's. It's rather safe to say that the responsibility of the financial debacle can be placed at the feet of Clinton's men, forgot their names though.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27203713]Obama is a spineless coward. He still has people from Clinton's Administration running the treasury. WTF.[/QUOTE] The Clinton administration was the only time since World War II that there has been a budget surplus, and the first time since the Carter administration that debt as a percentage of GDP fell (it leveled off and would have fallen nominally as well). I don't know exactly who you're talking about, but if they were appointed by [i]that[/i] administration, and your post implies that Bush kept them too, so he clearly didn't think they were shit, why is it a problem that they continue to run the Treasury? [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27203831]Yeah, he boosted up a budget in his term, the problem was that his policies and works burst and flooded the end of Bush's presidency and now onto Obama's. It's rather safe to say that the responsibility of the financial debacle can be placed at the feet of Clinton's men, forgot their names though.[/QUOTE] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/wifo.png[/img]

I have a fun fact for everyone. [quote]In 2003, the Government in Canada spent $2,998 USD per capita on healthcare as compared to $5,711 USD per capita in the United States, while almost every Canadian citizen is fully covered. In the United States a high percentage of the population is uncovered or only marginally covered, despite higher proportional spending along with large private investment.[/quote] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Canada%29]Source[/url] Make your system more efficient America, and you can have a single-payer system too.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27203813]Sorry, I though You were talking about Hillerycare.[/QUOTE] who the hell is hillery? is he related to obum?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;27204201]I have a fun fact for everyone. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28Canada%29]Source[/url] Make your system more efficient America, and you can have a single-payer system too.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but.. they're not as FREE. :colbert:

[QUOTE=Cluckyx;27204314]Yeah, but.. they're not as FREE. :colbert:[/QUOTE] It's true, we are not as free. I have to go claim my food ration and report in to the leader worship station, remind me to polish my statue of Harper later tonight or they may shoot me.

[QUOTE=Habsburg;27204212]who the hell is hillery? is he related to obum?[/QUOTE] How come you don't jump on democrats when they goof up like this? I misspelled her name that time ok?

[QUOTE=Glaber;27203813]Sorry, I though You were talking about Hillerycare.[/QUOTE] [img]http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4528/a08evr.gif[/img]

[QUOTE=Glaber;27204540]Ho come you don't jump on democrats when they goof up like this? I misspelled her name that time ok?[/QUOTE] Mostly because I like making fun of you. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] I can't exactly remember the last time zeke or humanabyss misspelled something.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27203831][b]Yeah, Clinton balanced the budget[/b]b̶o̶o̶s̶t̶e̶d̶ ̶u̶p̶ ̶a̶ [b]in his term, being the great president he is.[/b] [b]The problem was that Bush's policies and works placed us into the national deficit causing one of the worst recessions in history.[/b]h̶i̶s̶ ̶p̶o̶l̶i̶c̶i̶e̶s̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶w̶o̶r̶k̶s̶ ̶b̶u̶r̶s̶t̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶f̶l̶o̶o̶d̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶e̶n̶d̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶B̶u̶s̶h̶'̶s̶ ̶p̶r̶e̶s̶i̶d̶e̶n̶c̶y̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶n̶o̶w̶ ̶o̶n̶t̶o̶ ̶O̶b̶a̶m̶a̶'̶s̶.̶ [b]It's rather safe to say that the responsibility of the financial debacle can be placed at the feet of Bush's[/b]̶C̶l̶i̶n̶t̶o̶n̶'̶s̶ [b]men, forgot their names though.[/b][/QUOTE] :eng101: [b]Fixed that for you.[/b]

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;27203831]Yeah, he boosted up a budget in his term, the problem was that his policies and works burst and flooded the end of Bush's presidency and now onto Obama's. It's rather safe to say that the responsibility of the financial debacle can be placed at the feet of Clinton's men, forgot their names though.[/QUOTE] If you want to trace the economy's problems back you can trace them back to Reagan.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27196743]It's not how politics should work though, you're supposed to compromise, not fight a losing battle and make slanderous remarks about your opponents.[/QUOTE] Political compromise ended in 1850. [editline]4th January 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;27204811]If you want to trace the economy's problems back you can trace them back to Reagan.[/QUOTE] Trace them to Carter. Every single person I've met who lived through the Carter administration (democrats and conservatives) state that after the Vietnam war, there was a natural recession during the Carter administration that Carter did not handle correctly, which led to Reagan creating extreme economic growth. However, this growth was only temporary as Reagan's policies to fix Carter's mistakes were only temporary fixes which nobody else tried to fix, which I guess created a chain of presidents not fixing eachother's problems which led to this.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;27196743]It's not how politics should work though, you're supposed to compromise, not fight a losing battle and make slanderous remarks about your opponents.[/QUOTE] That's called political parties, and it's what really ruined this country. Today politicians must (and usually forced to by the parties establishment) support their own parties for it's own gain and only look at the people who elected them as nothing, as if the people work for them. Both republicans and democrats. It doesn't work that way. I myself think a politician has a spine if he votes against his own party. It would make no sense for republicans to have a compromise on a democrat bill. It wouldn't be helping the party at all. Vice versa.

[QUOTE=Uberman77883;27204823]Reagan creating extreme economic growth.[/QUOTE] reagan also created the savings and loans crisis, cut social benefits while raising military costs, and created the skyrocketing debt

What the Hell? Are we just going to keep on tracing back to the Native Americans and the Iroquois Confederacy?

I'm slightly uniformed on the whole healthcare thing, but to me, from the outside, it seemed like a good start. America's health system sounds barbaric and I've thought of this as the first step to fixing it.

[QUOTE=thisispain;27205127]reagan also created the savings and loans crisis, cut social benefits while raising military costs, and created the skyrocketing debt[/QUOTE] Reagan did not create the skyrocketing debt. If you want to start pointing fingers, fine. The first largest debt increase came from Woodrow Wilson. From 1916 to 1919 the total federal expenditures rose 2,494 percent and the national debt went from $3.6 billion to $27.3 billion. Source: [url]www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/[/url] Table 1.1

he raised the debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion

[QUOTE=Wing_nut;27205473]Reagan did not create the skyrocketing debt. If you want to start pointing fingers, fine. The first largest debt increase came from Woodrow Wilson. From 1916 to 1919 the total federal expenditures rose 2,494 percent and the national debt went from $3.6 billion to $27.3 billion.[/QUOTE] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/rp_m.jpg[/img] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/_fik.gif[/img] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/z02i.gif[/img] Yeah, he did

[QUOTE=smurfy;27205635][Charts that don't cover 2010] Yeah, he did[/QUOTE] Can you get your charts updated?

OH it's ashame those graphs don't show FDR or Hoover. FDR came into office and inherited 22.5 billion (much of it from Hoover's "fixing" of the economy) in 1933. In nearly seven years he doubled that. Might I add that 22.5 billion is 374 billion in today's dollars (that's your graphs 2000s dollars). Also since FDR nearly doubled it, it would come out to $659 billion. That's not including the the debt added from 1940-1946. To put it into terms of 2000s dollars as your graph states the debt went from $659 billion to $3 trillion. No, Reagan didn't.

[QUOTE=Glaber;27206102]Can you get your charts updated?[/QUOTE] Why, I wasn't saying anything about the current administration with them, everyone knows they've spent a shit load I'll admit using the 'Bush record deficit' one looked dodgy though, I'll try to get more up to date and unmarked charts in future

[QUOTE=smurfy;27206319]Why, I wasn't saying anything about the current administration with them, everyone knows they've spent a shit load I'll admit using the 'Bush record deficit' one looked dodgy though, I'll try to get more up to date and unmarked charts in future[/QUOTE] When you say 'unmarked' your saying these current graphs on the above post, I'm assuming, are not accurate, have been altered, and are false?

[QUOTE=Wing_nut;27206317]OH it's ashame those graphs don't show FDR or Hoover. FDR came into office and inherited 22.5 billion (much of it from Hoover's "fixing" of the economy) in 1933. In nearly seven years he doubled that. Might I add that 22.5 billion is 374 billion in today's dollars (that's your graphs 2000s dollars). Also since FDR nearly doubled it, it would come out to $659 billion. That's not including the the debt added from 1940-1946. To put it into terms of 2000s dollars as your graph states the debt went from $659 billion to $3 trillion. No, Reagan didn't.[/QUOTE] what are you denying that ronald reagan increased the debt?

[QUOTE=thisispain;27206536]what are you denying that ronald reagan increased the debt?[/QUOTE] You took that the wrong way taking my point completely out of context. I'm trying to say that Reagan did not put much as much of a big dent in the deficit as FDR did.