.
I just had an interesting conversation with a cousin of mine. Poor thing, she grew up in NYC, in the PJ's, her dad was absent, her mother worked her ass off to keep them fed and indoors, neither my cousin or her sister attended college, they had to go to work.
.
Her dead beat husband split, leaving her with bruises and a year old son. She's worked for everything she has. Poor thing, she's still a typical NYC liberal. Go figure.
.
But she's not sure of President BOHICA'S stimulus plan. Not since I had her do the math. I may not get her to change her thinking, but I gave her something to think about. Try it on your favorite lib.
.
.
If someone gave you the following amounts, and required you to spend $1000 per day, how long would your money last?
............................The Scary Answer
.
$1 Million...................Almost 3 years
.
$1 Billion.................Almost 28,000 years
.
$1 Trillion..............Almost 2,800,000 years
.
.
Now, does that put this amount of $$$ more in focus, or what?
.
.
If that doesn't work, ask them if they'd rather have the $3400.00 per EVERY man, woman and child in America, spent by their elected government officials, or take the check, themselves and use it as they see fit?
.
The U.S. Census Bureau says the Average American Household is 2.59 persons, which nets them around $8800.00. The Average American Family is 3.14 people, netting them around $10,600.
.
I think most of us would take the cash. Screw the titmouse!!
.
.
Calculating Schteveo
OT
GO EARNHARDT!!! 88!!
.
42 comments:
Go Booobbbbbbbbbbbyyyyyy!!!!!!!!
Didja tell her about the $10 trillion in debt racked up by the republicans over 30 years? $5 trillion of it from 2000-2007?
Yeah, she already knew about that, but she forgot, as do you that CONGRESS including Democrats contributed to that deficit. A deficit, BTW, that I thought was excessive then.
Once again you fail to make your point, because like most folks here, I didn't want GWB to spend the money either.
I don't care who's side they're from, they need to quit spending so much money. So, any more snark? Dickhead.
and approx. 1 trillion in less than 3 weeks of the Obama administration, with more to come.
Obama thinks he is doing such a good job he took his first vacation after only 23 days in office
I guess he is spending his part of the stimulus plan.....
& with Pelosi off for 8 days in Europe, not a vacation, she has a meeting with the pope, I guess that leaves Hillary in charge....
Go Team!!!
lest see 10 trillion in 30 years or 1 trillion in 23 days???
The Democrats win !!!!!!!!!!
Oh, I have PLENTY of snark!
Let's see. Who controlled all three branches of government from 2000-2007?
REPUBLICANS!
What did the debt do in that time?
DOUBLED!
What do we have to show for it?
NOTHING!
You people are so easy to defeat.
What did the debt do in that time?
DOUBLED!
That's just a stupid fucking liberal lie and you know it. It goes hand in hand with Republicans having control for 30 years. You're so ingrained to believe what you're told, you won't even do the math.
Here's the opening hint, 30 years ago Jimmy Carter and a Democrat Congress had control and the economy was in the tank. Do your homework dude, the math portion anyway.
Dickhead.
ok - 5 trillion from 2000 - 2007
and 1 trillion in 23 days
The Democrats still win !!!!!!!!
what do we have to show for it???
well, you Mr HLF for one
the f'cking Muslims haven't cut off your head (yet)
History lesson for the brainstems:
Carter took office after 8 years of Nixon Ford which saw 2 very deep recessions, gas lines, high inflation and the resignation of the republican President.
Unemploymentr figures, an indicator of economimc health:
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
Carter in bold.
And the debt DOUBLED with a republican President (BUSH) and Congress from 2000-2007.
Facts will always get you, stems.
the fact is the new democrat congress just passed almost 1 trillion in just 23 days. 23 days!!!!
even the democrats admit that no one had the time to read the final bill before they voted on it.
"To give the proposed economic stimulus plan some perspective, "if you started the day Jesus Christ was born and spent $1 million every day since then, you still wouldn’t have spent $1 trillion."
click my this was on TV so it has to be true
1 trillion in 23 days???
that roughly 65 trillion in 4 years
now, that's a fact!!!!
Carter was presidnet for 5 years?
Who knew?
Good thing the unemployment did completely tank under him. We had double-digit inflation.
HLF,
How big of a boy/girl are you anyway? I've got a big can of whoop-ass I'm gonna open up on you or I'll have my wife, Sharon Jean, open it up on ya 'cause I won't whip a woman's ass!
how pranks there, Roy D Mercer????
Eat me, my boy, Raymond, tells me he was downtown last night and some queer with a name of Happy Liberal Freak done stole his wallet out of his pocket. Said the gubment wants all his money and I'm gonna unload some whoop-ass on 'em, and Sharon Jean'll whip Nancy Pelosi's ass 'cause I don't lay a hand on no woman.
Didn't the Democrats take back the house and senate in 2004? Oh the President cannot spend 1 red cent. Congress is the only branch of Gubment that can allocate funds, so if C\Democrats have been in charge of the check book who really doubled the debt?
Cowpill - you are trying to be logical and present facts to a fool.
It's all BUSH'S Fault! Facts are meaningless to it.
(Sorry Schteveo - "dickhead" would assume it has cajones - "racist clithead" is much more descriptive of the animal that infests us.)
Hey Steve, if your cousin is a typical NYC liberal, save your breath because she's just another hlf. This city's filled with them.
QUOTABLE QUOTES
“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
– Frederic Bastiat
Facts will always get you, stems.
Yet more stupidity! Try these facts on for size. The GDP growth under various presidential administrations:
Carter: 1977-1980 29%
Reagan & Bush I: 1981-1992 51%
Clinton: 1993-2000 32%
Bush II: 2001-2008 29%
Being no fan of George Bush it's difficult for me to come to his defense, but with the worst economy since 1930, he still fares as well as Jimmy Carter in economic growth.
While you're at it, you might like to chew on these facts about inflation, as well. The inflation rate under Jimmy Carter ranged from a low of 6.5% in 1977 to a high of 13.6 in 1980 and averaged 9.75%. During the Reagan-Bush I years, the inflation ranged from a high of 10.4% in 1980 to a low of 1.9% in 1986, and averaged 4.6%.
I seriously doubt that you know or can explain how nominal and real GDP, along with the annual inflation rate are calculated. To throw out unemployment rates independent of any correlating economic data such as inflation and GDP growth in support of an argument is not only meaningless; it is yet another indication of your severely limited critical thinking skills.
Didn't the Democrats take back the house and senate in 2004?
Um, no.
Facts:
All federal budgets originate with the executive branch.
Presidents have veto power.
During the years of his presidency when the GOP held control of Congress, Bush never saw fit to issue a veto threat against an appropriations bill on fiscal grounds.
There's been only one democrat-Congress-approved budget since before Bush was President.
THe GOP and republican Congress doubled the debt between 2000-2007.
Unemployment went down under Carter.
Unemployment rose dramatically under Reagan.
-------
Now go ahead. Blame Carter for the bad times and deep recession of 1982 and I'll be able to blame everything from here to 2010 on Bush.
See how that works? (I know how you conservatives like to shift timeframes to deflect blame and grab credit.)
How about the GDP growth rate and inflation rate numbers? Do they also originate with the executive branch? How about telling me where socialism and communism have triumphed over capitalism?
If you cannot do that, how about coining some new insults? The trite, hackneyed ones you've been flogging to death are becomming a soupcon shopworn. Surely, a bright, intelligent fellow such as you can exercise an iota of creativity and develop some new and interesting invectives.
even the WSJ sez Obama is full of it
click my WSJ
the WALL STREET JOURNAL!!!!!!!!!!
but the rabble rousers here will say that the WSJ is just another republican party rag written by Rush Limbaugh
Were the pages here not loading a bit earlier, or is it my computer? In fact, it's been pretty slow loading lately.
I've noticed some problems over the last week or so.......
I blame Obama
"Didn't the Democrats take back the house and senate in 2004?
Um, no."
Where the hell are you actually living, Not the US
"Presidents have veto power."
And the democrat congress has override power.
What about the earmarks both sides put on, mostly democrats (Murtha, Pelosi, Reid etc.)
And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their ass when they hopped
Spider,
we've tried to get her edumacated. Her husband, now, is a dyed in the wool, thinking man's, cast iron southern gentleman. He's a smart guy though, he votes toward being conservative out to libertarian.
I'd like to have a dime for every time he's pointed out to her how NO ONE ever gave her anything. She's typical, she "feels" about everything before thinking.
"Didn't the Democrats take back the house and senate in 2004?"
It was '06.
Harry,
and you did NOTHING for two years, NOTHING, N-O-T-H-I-N-G, zero, zip, nada, for two..... long.....years. I can't wait for the next two.
Actually brainstems, the democrats weren't actually seated until January 2007.
Bush was still President. He had veto power. He originated the budgets.
When democrats were in the minority for all over Bush's first 6 years they didn't get to attach earmarks like republicans did.
And:
All federal budgets originate with the executive branch.
Presidents have veto power.
During the years of his presidency when the GOP held control of Congress, Bush never saw fit to issue a veto threat against an appropriations bill on fiscal grounds.
There's been only one democrat-Congress-approved budget since before Bush was President.
THe GOP and republican Congress doubled the debt between 2000-2007.
Tsk, Tsk, Tsk,
Again, you have reverted to your old insults just when I was praising you for using what little intellect you have left to develop new and more interesting invective.
The federal debt doubled under George W. Bush. That is an incontrovertible fact. So what? I have previously stipulated to that fact. Were you another attorney opposing me in court, the judge would instruct you to move on, or hold you in contempt if you continued your flogging of this issue. He might declare a mistrial citing incompetent counsel for your conduct. Your assumption that everyone here supported and voted for that dummy would be laughable were it not so colossally idiotic.I have repeatedly asked you for examples of countries in which communism or socialism has succeeded; and you have cited Social Security and Medicare right here in the good old U. S. of A. You simply cannot be serious, can you? I had expected so much more of you. To cite examples of programs that are bankrupt as shining examples of the success of collectivism is yet another instance of your lack of critical thinking skills.
Facts about Medicare I posted on another thread and, for which you had no answer other than your usual whining and mewling:
The value in today’s dollars of the HI deficit over the next 75 years is $13 trillion. Eliminating this deficit would require an immediate 122 percent increase in payroll taxes or an immediate 51 percent reduction in benefits, or some combination of the two.
On Social Security:
The U.S. Social Security system has helped keep many retirees out of poverty. However, according to the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, Social Security faces a future financial shortfall of $10.4 trillion in present value. This enormous imbalance has received little attention in public debates about Social Security. Instead, the media and policymakers continue to focus on the program's trust fund and several other ad-hoc measures that create a misleading impression of the size of Social Security's financial problem. Although the Social Security Trust Fund is not projected to be exhausted until 2042, Social Security's $10.4 trillion present value imbalance is accruing interest and will grow by $600 billion during 2004 alone. The current cash-flow federal budget, however, is biased against reforms that would improve Social Security's finances. As shown herein, a new federal accounting system would remove this bias.
Source: National Bureau of Economic Research
That's $10.4 trillion! And President Obama's stimulus legislation that's garnering so much attention is is less than $.9 trillion. Even you can understand the difference.
And, still no comment on the inflation rate numbers and GDP growth rates?
In psychiatry, your non-response is called selective inattention.
No, it's called having better things to do than study economics when you can simply observe the empirical evidence.
We won't get anywhere. You'ver already shown that you can't be reasoned with and I don't care to debate you. You win.
Except that everything you say is somehow wrong.
Neither SS or Medicare is bankrupt.
You keep forgetting the main premise. Republicans ran the country. The shortfalls, the deficits, the mess, it's all on their shoulders.
That's all I care about, not speculating on what might happen in the future.
You have capitulated.
You are deluded.
Jesus H. Christ on a bicycle, HLF! Lighten up. I don't so much disagree with you. I just like to argue with you.
...not speculating on what might happen in the future.
No, what most certainly will happen in the future if something does not change
Post a Comment