I have been watching the Yahoo boards and people are furious at the Republicans, especially the Tea Party. They are getting the lion's share of the blame for the debt downgrade. Here's why:
1. Obama wanted a grand plan. The Republicans rejected it.
2. Obama wanted shared sacrifice including taxes for the rich. The Republicans did not want their cronies to suffer those taxes, even though they have been the beneficiaries of the housing bubble and high medical costs in the past 10 years. S & P says they should have been taxed. The Bush tax cuts especially for the wealthy should be terminated.
3. Obama wanted a deal more quickly. The Republicans engaged in brinkmanship, causing the deal to happen at the last minute. S & P stated that that brinkmanship contributed to the downgrade.
It is time for the Tea Party to retreat back into the hole from which they oozed out back in February of 2009 base upon the Santelli rant.
I should have told you earlier, but I tore apart a few of your arguments over at Business Insider in my latest hub.
I just finished a hub ("Stop the Nonsense, Again") tearing apart the newest arguments blaming the Tea Party (and, apparently, Ron Paul) for the Credit rating decrease.
Your buddy, David Seaman, over at Business Insider got the same treatment I gave you ("Stop the Nonsense").
Polls don't lie. The Tea Party is toast. You can tear away all you want, Evan.
Polls are polls based on brainwashing. Time for the facts. Obama was never for a big deal. He was using Boehners plan and claiming it was his. Boehner kept telling the media it was a republican offer but the media kept reporting it was Obama. Brainwashing!! The only thing Obama wanted was to raise the taxes. And if you think he is only looking to raise the taxes on the rich, think again. So far every tax increase Obama has put in place and all the Obamacare taxes that are coming ALL fall on the middle class. And by the way, just to show you how smart and informed Obama is, the jet tax he complains about and blamed republicans for. Is actually his tax break created as part of the stimulus package to get the plane builders back to work. So much for new jobs. But here is the best part. In order to get the tax credit, you had to buy the plane in 2009 and have delivery no later than the end of 2010. Obama is crying to cut a tax credit that no longer exists. Wonder why the media says nothing about that
No one was better at brainwashing the public than the Tea Party!
They are still up to it, trying to blame Obama for the problem when the biggest blame goes to the Tea Party.
Let's blame people for demanding that we pay off our debts!
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ … downgrade/
I knew Obama was a weakling and a miserable leader but to be undone by a bunch of freshmen in the House of Representatives goes way beyond weak and into thoroughly incompetent. But that isn't a surprise to those who have been paying attention to the spastic flailing on ever problem of note from the wasteful and unless "cash for clunkers" to the obvious lie of "laser focus on job creation" to the dangerous mishandling of Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iran, China, Tibet and Israel.
You don't quite get it. The hedge funds and the big money are now supporting the Tea Party because they want Dodd Frank repealed and easy money loans to flow again. Get it right.
Argument by contradiction, quaint. It is already too late. The damage done by the last 80 years of creeping socialism and its ruinous effects on the Bourgeois have crippled American culture and economy to the point that we are finished as a free people. Der Staat ist alles.
When the Greeks must cut their budget they cut this years budget and perhaps next years budget. When Spain wants more money in it central bank it must clear it with the rest of the Eurozone.
When the Imperial Federal Government of the United States "cuts" spending it merely reduces the rate of growth in spending over a ten year period, never cutting real spending in the present. And when the central bank of the United States wants to increase the money supply it merely creates more money, thus devaluing that already in the hands of producers.
We, long ago, became a society of makers and takers with the Federal government taking more and more, But that will soon end. It will have all and we will be waiting for our potato ration while Joe Biden, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, et al retreat to their Dachas.
Oh by the way, Dodd and Frank should be rotting in cells right next to Bernie Madoff, not holding anyone to any kind of standard of fiduciary jurisprudence given their proclivities to "sweet deal" acceptance from Countrywide and Fanny/Freddie.
it's interesting that you're talking about the tax increases under obama. they haven't happened. in fact, taxes have been lowered to their lowest since the 1950's. 50% of the stimulus was middle class tax reductions.
i've just read standard & poor's rating drop text. you can't read it and not see that the termoil caused by the tea party was a big consideration in their decision. it shouldn't have been considered, i believe, but it was.
the tea party is a valid movement which will force changes, but is apparent that they do not care or do not have the knowledge about the consequences of their policies.
to push an agenda detrimental to the elderly, sick, poor and disabled while protecting the wealthy and corporations from paying any share of the resolution to the problem, is unbelievable, illogical and immoral.
There have been a number of them but I will give you just a few. He rose the tax on gas in his first 30 days in office.He called it a sin tax trying to get people to buy electric cars. He also raised taxes on cigaretes and liquor. There are 18 tax increases in Obamacare. So far only 3 have started. The 4th starts on January 1 2012. It is a tax on home sales and real estate deals of 3.8% on contracts over $250,000.
The tax cut you think you got was actually was a 2% cut in the SS witholdings. He did not cut federal witholdings. Just what a program that is going broke needs, a 2 % cut in revenues. And now he is pushing to make it permanent.
As for blaming the tea party, matbe they carry some. But Obama carries the largest. He was the one that killed the deal wanting to raise taxes across the board. The cutting taxes on the rich is fine with me, as long as he leaves the bush tax cuts alone. I did have a hub here showing how bad it will hurt the middle class , but I was removed. You need to go read the bill and you will see how bad it will hurt if it is allowed to expire.Just one more thing. He wants to cut the jet tax credit. The credit he talks about was a part of his stimulas plan and he signed it, not a republican. here is the best part, that tax break expired in 2010. Obama is trying to cut a tax break that does not exist.
I'm not a fan of the Tea Party. I'm a fan of Ron Paul.
I saw somewhere online where it was termed "the Republican downgrade." I think the term is appropriate. After all, John Boehner gloated: "I got 98% of what I wanted."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/ … 6598.shtml
They OWN the downgrade.
Yes they do. And they look like the gang that could not shoot straight.
If you call the mortgage company and ask for a reorganization of the loan, but keep crying to them you had no money in the coffers and would have to decide what gets paid and what does not. What do you think will happen? They will not give you a loan and report a downgrade to the credit agencies reducing your credit score. Well, thats what happened here. Obama cried we do not have enough revenues coming in and we have no money in the coffers. That kind of rhetoric has resulted in the credit agencies coming to the conclusion the US cannot pay its bills. Plus the deal is a joke. 2 trillion in cuts that 80% of them does not start till 2016.At the current pace we will accrue another 12 trillion dollars in national debt. So 2 trillion in cuts over 10 years meant nothing. I wrote a hub that showed how easy it was to find 5.07 trillion in cuts over 10 years and other ideas that can raise more money without touching SS or Medicare, I do not have a Harvard degree, but If I could do it anyone can do it
Oh, come one. The only reason this fake crisis became a real one was because the Tea Party Republicans were holding a routine raising of the debt ceiling hostage for their own personal agenda, an agenda that most Americans opposed.
Obama wanted to raise revenues by closing loopholes and asking the extreme rich to pay more and in exchange he put cuts to entitlements on the table. That wasn't good enough for the Tea Baggers (yeah, I'm calling them that; they deserve it now).
So, don't try to say it was Obama talking about needing revenues that cause the downgrade. It is criminal and immoral to ask senior citizens and the poor to bear the burden of paying the debts that were ALREADY INCURRED while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans.
As I said before, if I could find 5.07 trillion in cuts without touching the SS or Medicare, Congress can to. If you listend to all the S&P management that was interviewed today stating why they rasied it. China told in interviews why they raised it. Numerous economists have said why they rasied it. They all said the same, their was not enough serious cuts, and Obama said the US was broke admitting the US could not pay the bills.
Obama wants to close loopholes, you mean like the jet tax credit he put in and does not exist anymore? stop listening to the rhetoric from both sides and research it yourself. I voted for Obama, but was not happy with what was going on. When I started to research every issue, I could see what was true and what was not. I actually read Obamacare. I told my friends what I found and they told me I was nuts. Now as each little thing starts to come to light, they all now say man you were right. I do not listen to either side, so I can be factual when I respond. Do you think the new jobs repory was good? think again. Read through the eport and you will see there was alot of phoney numbers to make it look good. Like counting 12,000 auto workers that were not layed off as new hires. Hello they are not new, they were already working
If you aren't in the top 1 percent why are you moaning about taxing the rich? Pretty weird if you ask me.
Really, you know me do you. I am a former FDNY firefighter for 15 years. I will not talk about my carreer, but I was at 911, in the ground for 3 weeks. I almost died last December. I live in a rehab/nursing home. I am on Medicaid, I get a whole $60 per month from SS. NT state workers comp refuses to pay for anyone who was at WTC. Obama signed a bill meant to help us. But the bill has an amendment that all workers have to supply all personal information on themselves and all there family to be checked by the terrorist watch list. If we don't we will not get any medical help at all. I have paid for as much as I could. I still own over $350,000 that Medicaid will not pay. I have not worked in over a year from getting sick. I lost my car, my home, my belongings were put in storage, I could not pay and lost my all my personal belongings as well. Do not tell me about being middle class and what I paid. You could never pay what I paid.
My daughter was going to sell her home at the end of this year. Thanks to a tax put on selling a home over $250,000, she could not payoff the mortgage and pay the tax from the amount she could sell her house for. She would lose money.
Nothing weird about it. Since I am confined to bed I read alot of news and congressional reports. I see where the truth lies. Research things as I do, you will change your view as I have. I trust no one in Washington, they are all full of it
You note that Obama signed a bill to help first responder, but you don't mention how republicans opposed it.
You mention the offensive rider that requires a check on security check on you and your family to be entitled to first-responder assistance, but you neglect to mention, that was a requirement from conservatives.
You haven't figured out who your friends are.
I did not address it here for we had this argument in 2 different thread and 1 hub. Well I guess you forgot. Its true, the amendment was from a florida Republican. It was objected to by almost every other Republican.
The Republicans voted against it for 2 reasnos, first was the amendment
Second and this was more important to them, they were against all the attachments the democrats put an the bill. They figured no one would vote against a bill for first responders at 911. They were wrong
Now I will not say if I agree or disagree with republicans for their actions, but waht did a spending bill for highways have to do with WTC. That was one of 36 attachments. That is why the Republicans kept saying it was too expensive. And the media jumped on it saying the Repubs were not for spending on the First responders.
american, while your research is ok, you leave out pieces which don't support your thesis. the s and p report did talk about budgetary cuts, but they also talked about the lack of revenue. what is the big deal with asking millionaires to pay an extra $30 per $1000 of income. this country makes it possible to make that income.
there is nothing wrong with asking for more revenue from the rich. But I think there is much that can be done before we get there. I wrote a hub showing how to save 5.06 trillion dollars over 10 years.
First there is a 5%cut across the board on every budget item including all federal salaries, except Congress ot the President. Congress takes a 15% cut, President takes a 25% cut. Obama said he does not pay enough.
Next cut the actual waste. leave Medicare, Medicaid and SS alone for now. Take the NSF budget. We can cut $600 billion from there by stop funding for shrimp on a treadmill, mating habits of bees, study of jello wrestling and more.
There is a study from the CBO and the GAO showing we can save $200 billion by eliminating duplicate jobs.
Now lets raise revenues. Instead of tax increase how about an overhaul of the tax codes. Eliminate ALL tax deductions. Go to a flat tiered tax system.. The lower income starts at 5%, have increases based on the more you make up to the upperincome who will pay 39%. Now you just got the 50% who do not pay will now be paying taxes. A revenue increase. Now do the same for all businesses. Next, no matter wher the company is based, if they do work in the US they pay corperate tax on the money the make here. An increase in revenue. And how about punishing those companies sending jobs overseas. Those employees have to pay federal witholding, no matter what country they live in. More added revenue, and all without raising taxes.
It can be done Sam if the President would lead and Congress man up
Wow! The president has yet to show his plan. The Senate rejected much more on deficit cutting and the president threatened veto after veto of plans that included much more cost cutting initiatives. I am not a tea party follower at all, but this president is running this country into bankruptcy. If you don't believe he played big time politics with this you are a blind and are drinking the kool aid. If the president had his way, we would be looking at a 25 trillion deficit. Voting for him was a huge mistake that I won't make again. He can campaign, but can't lead and knows nothing about business or foreign policy. That is the way this independent sees it.
I'm sure we will all love your hub when you write one.
The fact is the republicans walked away. There was ONE bill, the House bill, which included blackmailing the Senate into passing the misnamed Balanced Budget Amendment. The BBA is a ploy to lock in low tax rates for the rich, while throwing seniors and the poor under the bus.
That's what the President threatened to veto.
I believe they are anarchists and their true purpose is to being this country down!
It is sad that a few can hold the rest of us hostage. And sadder still that would.
"The people who rated subprime-backed securities are now declaring that they are the judges of fiscal policy? Really?"
... "Just to make it perfect, it turns out that S&P got the math wrong by $2 trillion,". My opinion some kind of con game going on here. Haven't been able to figure out what it is. Keep looking.
I don't think it was a con game because S & P warned that if 4 trillion was not cut with a combination of cuts and taxes that they would do this. And Obama tried for the grand plan.
Now, S & P may be in the pockets of other nations. But likely they are investors like China, and Russia who are really worried about their investments. I can't say that is what is happening, but it is possible.
China downgraded our credit rating over a week ago from A+ to A. Egan-Jones downgraded the rating from AAA to AA on 8-1-2011. S&P, Moody's on Monday downgraded the credit rating from AAA+ to AAA- So this was not first as you are hearing or being made to believe.
You don't cite a source, as usual, but even if it is true, it proves how the world is reacting to the hostage taking of the economy by the Teabaggers.
As long as those clowns have the authority to conduct unrestricted warfare on the economy, the credit rating of the US is a bad risk.
I don't think the tea party will change, so voters need to retire the tea party.
Well I see you are still a baby, so just to make you look bad again I will show you
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/08 … index.html
http://equityjungle.com/2011/08/02/mood … keeps-aaa/
You really need to do the research before commenting on something you know nothing about. Or was that an attack on your integraty again. Guess I will get reported again
If you continue to make personal attacks, why should you NOT be reported?
And how soon you forget. I was the one who stuck up for you when you were being attacked in 2 other threads
Lost what, was there a game going on that I was not aware of? I thought you wanted to have a conversation based on facts. You still have not answer 1 question put to you, you have not disputed one fact I presented. Yey you continue to say the same thing.
"S & P's downgrade was "a political move." Congress "only moves when hit with a whip....Over the next few months we will see if" S & P's announcement did the trick." ..."He's right as Dave Lindorff wrote asking if "S & P (is) Running Interference for the Right to Help Crush Social Security and Medicare," pressuring politicians to do it by creating debt and default hysteria."
Or perhaps, a major tax increase. These will be interesting times.
No, they are not running interference for the right at all. The right got crushed in the polls for this.
It has nothing to do with a tremendous debt that will never and can never be repaid.
The United States is bankrupt. The Federal government is an anchor dragging down the whole country.
You can blame anyone or anything you want, it will not change reality. The faith and credit of the U.S. is practically worthless!
I think the point of this post is that Americans need heroes, villians and scapegoats (kinda like in the movies, eh?).
The average Joe the Plumber American doesn't know and probably doesn't care that the economy and debt are not a simple right/wrong, good guys/bad guys issue.
Just as the Tea Party whipped Americans into a frenzy of anger and got voted into Congress in 2010, the very same party is now the scapegoat of Americans' anger.
We are nothing if not superficial... and fickle.
[Which is in NO WAY to say I support the TP or hold them the least bit harmless/blameless in this. Quite the opposite]
True, but you have to admit, the Tea Party earned it.
Did they? Let me ask you this, why are you so against a balanced budget? Now a balanced budget will not pay down the debt, but it will not add to it. Now I have asked this question to several people and they never answer it, instead spew Democratic talking points. I am not looking for any sides talking points, forget politics, I want an answer of what you personally believe. Why Are you against a balanced budget?
Most liberals want a balanced budget. We just don't think it's crazy to ask the corporations and the wealthy to contribute to balancing it.
We had a balanced budget. (Actually, a surplus) At the same time, we had a booming economy. President Clintons admnistration over 8 years saw 4%+ economic growth.
Bush gave it away. He cut taxes and economic growth over 8 years was less than HALF of what it was under Clinton. On top of that the Bush economic policies ruined our economy.
And the republicans want to return to those policies and make them permanent and irrevocable.
I think not.
We did not have a surplus, even the CBO said so. Clinton did not report SS and Medicare expenses in order to show a surplus. Just like the current phoney jobs report. The count numbers that are not accurate to make it look like the new jobs were higher than it was. Watch as it gets revised down to around 50,000 over the next couple of months.
You have a source that says there was no budget surplus?
The CBO shows a surplus on Table F from 1970 to now. There are two years that don't have a minus sign in front of the column 'On Budget'. Guess who was POTUS.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc108 … dixF.shtml
Its been a half hour. All I asked for was a CBO source that shows there was no budget surplus.
Or was it a misquote?
No, it was not a misqoute at the time. But the yearly audit revealed actual numbers, actual spending
First, before I get into this I wonder how do you explain the National debt going up when there was a surplus? Normally when there is a surplus that means your debt does not grow.
This one shows how Clinton counted the surpluses in budgets like Civil Service pensions and applied them to the budget revenue numbers . You will see that’s one way Clinton came up with a surplus when there was not one. There are a lot of links to follow to read all the reports. And you need to read all the reports.
This one talks about the company that audits the books and shows in real numbers how large Clintons deficit was
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington … usat_x.htm
Your statement was that the CBO shows said there was no surplus under Clinton.
I asked for a CBO source. There are an infinite number of GOP liars who aren't worth spit. I just asked you to confirm your statement with a real (CBO) source.
Get a grip. After the audit the CBO agreed with it . I said earlier that the "CBO SAID SO" I never said there was a CBO chart, that was you to try to deflect away from the fact you were in accurate. If you would have read both articles and followed all the links to the audits and more you would have reached the promise land. I even told you that in the last post. I did so for I knew you would not read or follow the links. So you once more show how much of a hypocrate you are. You cry when there is not a source(do not see you apologize for the earlier one) you cry when one is given. I guess as last time, you aqre tired of being shown as being incorrect. Get over yourself. You clearly do not know how government operates I am tired of dealing with a loser like you, we all see that
There was a budget surplus, but our reps. voted to add more spending rather than pay the debt. And THAT was both Republicans and Democrates.
Get over yourself. Unlike you I have a life and I do not sit in front of the computer 24/7. But if you want a report, I was getting trach care from the nurse and respitory.
I think you need a hobby if all you do is sit around waiting on me
I work 6 days per week in the Florida heat delivering mail.
Get over yourself.
I am sorry for your illness. But that doesn't give you license to make up stuff. I'm holding you to your original statement which is (so far) FALSE. You have not substantiated a CBO source.
Please, I was a firefighter FDNY for 15 years, do not tell me about how hot it gets. When I was out, I owned a cabinet and custom furniture business in Ocala Florida. One of my customers was a builder in the Villages. I would do 2 houses a day by myself during the same Florida heat you drive in.
Hope you keep your job with the Post Office cuts coming( I am serious about that, there are enough people unemployed who lost to much)
You know, there is an irony to our argument. Your retirment fund is part of what Clinton used as income to show a surplus.
Pretty, Niether do I , but raising taxes is not the answer. Lets go along with raising the taxes, you raise the taxes on 1% of the nation while 50% continue to not pay. I have written on this and have been pushing it with my local Congressman. We need to redo the tax code. Eliminate ALL tax deductions. Put in place a teired flat tax. It works this way. THe lowest taxpayers pay 5%, itm goes up in increments and the higest paid by the higher incom people is 39%. Now the 50% are now paying taxes and we just doubled our revenues. Next, do the same with businesses, pay more based on profits. Next Businesses that hide from paying US taxes because they have their business based in another country. Well ir you conduct business in the US you pay taxes on the money you make here. And finally, we need to punish the companies that send the jobs overseas. What we do iis the person working overseas for the US company pays federal income tax on thier salary. Now those are serious ways to increase the revenue and guess what, no tax increases
Don't ask the rich to pay more.
Ask the poor to pay more.
I see you still cannot read yet. I eliminate the tax breaks for the rich and businesses, I raised their tax rate by 4% and lowered the tax on low income earners from 15% to 5 %. I get the 50% not paying taxes to pay, eliminate those sheltered by hiding in other countries also raising income.
You need to get over yourself and stop the talking points. You are a perfect example why Washington does not work. You spew negative with out reading. Actually, that quaifies you for Congress. They do not read the bills they vote on either.
Did you happen to see the balanced budget being imposed on Italy? This is IMF all the way. A balanced budget without the means to bring a country out of a recession actually has the effect of causing a depression. Now, if you are in a depression, you often come out of it with a housing bubble.
Turns out, a housing bubble is exactly what the IMF wants for the US. The same organization that wants a balanced budget for Italy wants a housing bubble here. I can't post it here, but I have written about the IMF in a couple of articles as Gary Anderson at Business Insider.
This is the deal. Things are not always as they seem. The biggest contributor to Eric Cantor are hedge funds that blew the last housing bubble. So here we have a Tea Party guy, representing a body that thinks it is immoral to walk away from your mortgage, receiving massive donations from hedge funds that blew the housing bubble in the first place!
Things are not what they seem.
Ok, you really are not living in the present. The IMF wants a housing bubble? What the hell do you think is been going on for over 2 years now? did you know home ownership is now at a low that has not been seen since 1955? Blame everything than what it is. That is democratic talking points and I aked you not to respond that way. But like the others, you could not. only one word for it, brainwashed.
If you read my articles on BI about the IMF, Wells Fargo and the Bernanke backstop you will see that the financial sector will blow housing bubbles with government guarantees until further notice. The proof is there, as I am not going to repeat it here.
Oh you mean the Wells Fargo being sued by the DOJ for the loans made, the false documantation? They are right in the middle of why we have a housing bubble for over 2 years. Oh yea, they are a credible source. An Mr. the economy is on the right track Bernake, who every economist is against everything he says. Another good source. Maybe you want to quote Geithenr next, you know the man who guarenteed the credit rating would never go down
Wells Fargo has threatened to take away the 30 year mortgage if all loans are not guaranteed by the government. And Dimon and the IMF concur.
Read my stuff at BI, and you can see for yourself. The documentation is there. I write under my name, Gary Anderson
"The Justice Department alleges that over 10,000 borrowers were affected by the deceptive lending schemes of Wells Fargo and that their documents were falsified by bank personnel. Wells Fargo has thus far paid $85 million to settle the charges, without admitting wrong-doing".
"The DOJ is currently in pre-lawsuit negotiations with the bank, which may seek to settle the accusations and avoid a public lawsuit, says HuffPo. The probe, which is being led by a Civil Rights division, the Fair Lending Unit, and overseen by Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez, reportedly brings credence to Baltimore’s suit.
The Huffington Post article lists a number of incidents it says are marring the bank’s “once-pristine” reputation, including alleged illegal foreclosure proceedings and Department of Housing and Urban Development audits regarding questionable foreclosure practices".
Funny you do not metion that. Perhaps the threat was to stop the DOJ from investigating as others have suggested? Seems it did not work and the government is not going to bow to them.
How about this. Obama keep saying we had not money, come to an agreement or he had to make hard choice and not pay some bills. H was also concerned that not paying the bills would get our credit rating lowered. Would you agree he said that? I am sure you would
Now what if I told you Obama said he had the money to pay the bills. I know, you would spew the same rhetoric. Here is what he said
"If we don’t, for the first time ever, we could lose our country’s Triple A credit rating. Not because we didn’t have the capacity to pay our bills – we do – but because we didn’t have a Triple A political system to match it."
Do not believe me. Here is the transcript of the speech. Notice I got this from the Government records
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off … can-people
SO keep believing what you want
What he means is that the system was held hostage by the Tea Party.
Do you think for yourself or do you get these talking points from someone else? Some times a little common sense and logic is all you need.
Do not try to change the subject, we know who he blames. Read his admission to having the funds to pay the bills
"Not because we didn’t have the capacity to pay our bills – we do"
We do said the President. Meaning we do have the money to pay, unlikie what he had been saying.
Now, unlike you, I do think for myself. THat's why I see and hear FACTS. Why don't you follow your advice. Stop following talking points, use common sense and logic. Stop following blindly, open your eyes and see what is actually going on. When you do, you will see how both sides lie to you and you will be able to see through it. You will be able to see the factsas they are, not as the Democrats or Reublicans tell you they are. You need to break free
OF course a balanced budget can cause a recession: Government taxes 100% of the money of the population and then spends 100% of it!
BOOM - recession, starvation, and death.
Am View, you sound like you watch a lot of Fox News. The one fact you don't mention is that the last time we had a budget surplus was when a Democrat was in the White House. As soon as a Republican got in taxes were lowered until we had a deficit again. Then taxes were lowered a second time, making the deficit even worse. The GOP does not want a balanced budget amendment. They want a talking point to use as a political tool. If they got what they wanted, a balanced budget amendment, they would no longer be able to cut taxes the way they want. And by the way, you are not the American view.
Wow you know so much about me. So I guess you can see my TV, which by the way, I hardly watch. The rehab/nursing home I am in only gives basic local cable and CNN. No Fox None of the time. You need to stop using Dems talking points. Blame Fox when you do not agree. How about getting some originality.
As for the Clinton surplus, audits show there was not one. You need to report all payables(they left out SS and Medicare expenses) Some will say when you put those in you still have a surpluss, not much of one but still a surpluss. But the auditors caught phoney revenues. They used items like the retirement fund as revenue. Now as a tax accountant, even you know that is not revenue. After the phoney revenues are removed, there was a 640 billion dollar deficit. THere are links in earlier posts where you can read abut it. In one, follow the link to the audit reports. As an accountant you will be able to read all the tables and see that what I have said is true.
Now did Bush put us in a bigger deficit, yes, but he did not do it alone. Congress had a large hand in it, but Bush never vetoed the spending so he shares the same amount of blame. Of if you look at the deficit charts from the treasury, you will see the deficit spending took a jump up under the Democratic controlled Congress. But again, Bush never Vetoed.
As for not cutting taxes anymore, Under me suggestions, there is no reason to raise or lower taxes. Read some of my hubs and threads. You will see my suggestions show eliminating all tax deductions, a new tax system that is fair for all. It lowers withholding tax for the lower income bracket to 5% tiers up as you make more income, capping for the upper income at 39%. The same would apply to business. Now this plan now will get the 50% not paying to pay. Result, an increase in revenue. Now for businesses based overseas to avoid taxes, well no more. If you do business in the US, you pat corperate taxes on money earned here. And to punish companies that send jobs overseas. Those employees need to pay Federal withholdings on their income. Thinkm of the increaser revenue, resulting in no tax increases. Of course your job will be easy since there will not be all the deductions to wrangle with. It is a simple math equation. Pay the percenteage based on what you make.
Read some of my hubs, you will see I do have the American View. Way more than all those loyal to one party or another. I could care less about party, just the facts of the issue.
Personally I can't understand the Tea Party.
The country is bankrupt yet they're not willing to increase taxes.
Where do people think the Government gets its money from?
If you're broke, you need to do two things - cut your budget AND go out and earn more money. The US is broke. The only way a Government can earn more money is by collecting taxes. Simple.
The selfish hostage taking Teapartiers will be paid back in all due time for fighting over raising the debt ceiling the way they did. They sucked all of the oxygen out of the room and took every American with them.
If you make 100 per week but spend 200, you need to cut 100 in spending. You do not need to go out and earn more money, just get your spending in order. That's what the government need to do
If your rent, utilities, gas and groceries are $200, you need to bring in more.
The Ryan plan throws seniors under the bus by privatizing Medicare. The reason for the Balanced Budget Amendment is they want to make sure Granny can't get out from UNDER the bus. After the BBA, it doesn't matter how she votes. The fat cats have their low tax rate locked in constitutionally.
And Ryan wanted to give massive tax cuts to the rich and like Cantor, is for a housing bubble which he budgeted in his 6 trillion budget!
These two guys, Ryan and Cantor are dirty hypocrites.
THats your assumption, if. But thats not the case. They can pay there bills on 100, buit they spend money on non essential things. My point is the government brings in A but spells out B. Why, because of stupid programs like the NSF wasting 300 billion per year per a CBO and GAO report. Now thats 3Trillion in 10 years if those were cut. WOW I just did better than the Debt deal. And I did not touch SS or Medicare.
Now I think the Ryan plan is a waste of time. It does not address the problem. Just curious, you do notthink we are in a housing bubble for the last 2 plus years? THere has not been a record numbers of forclosures?
The bubble is when prices go up. We are now in the opposite, the crash. But they want another bubble before 2020.
He knows the difference between a bubble and a crash.
He was just testing to see if YOU knew. And you passed.
He should read my articles here and at BI. I have followed the housing bubble since 2005.
I hawe read your articles there. I do not agree with most of your opinions. And call it as it is, they are your opinions. BI is nothing more than a blog, anyone can join, excuse me, be a contributer. All you have to do is email them and poof, you can post your opinion.
For the love of god: don't read those articles.
I'm still confused how you've written so many articles about Ron Paul - and a book, apparently - but you don't seem to understand his arguments at all.
I know I should not, but I have to be fair and take in all information. Unllike others, I am not closed minded. While you know I am not a Ron Paul fan, you are correct. He does not understand Paul or what his views are
He knows the difference between a bubble and a crash.
No he does not. You need to reead his articles. And if we are not in a bubble, I guess all the economists that use that term must be wrong to
We are still in a bubble. There is plenty more down before we hit bottom. The problem is how much longer can the government(s) keep the bubble inflated. Its inflation serves the social welfare state(s). The debt "crisis" was little more than an argument of how quickly to deflate the bubble. A real deflation over years or a perpetual inflation until it pops and comes crashing down all the harder.
When a bubble bursts the results are disastrous directly in proportion with the amount and duration of the inflation. This bubble has been going on since the 1960s - the age of the national debt - at the oldest or the 1990s - when a REPUBLICAN Congress made the last real payment on the national debt.
Either way, when this bubble bursts no one will have time to blame anyone. We will all be too busy making sure there is food in the house.
If you don't think we're in a bubble, just look at the data:
As an addition, they can also sell off assets like our govt in Australia did Marisa ( sell off of Telecom, which became Telstra )
This simply shows us that the old school Democrats & Republicans are afraid to lose their jobs. Blaming the "new" group on the block is like your mailman blaming you for not living in the house that he's been delivering your mail to. Stay strong, hit hard, and we will Restore America to a fiscally responsible country.
Sorry, the brinkmanship was a major cause of the downgrade. You can spin it all you want but it doesn't change the facts.
Welcome to hub pages, if you are indeed new. If you arent new, save us from guessing and admit which banned hubber you are.
Probably the hardest thing for me personally to come to terms with, is the fact that approximately 80% of Americans are fed up with our government and the shoddy way in which it functions. Yet everyone seems to be shackled to the talking points of various political parties. We all know they're full of s&$t. When are we as AMERICANS, not democrats, nor republicans, Americans, going to DEMAND a real governing body? Professional politics = lack of governing! Our constant debate, bickering, whatever you want to call it, is what gets in the way of us making a real change.
There will be no real change until easy money loans are banned in the US. All this maneuvering has to do with what the banks and hedge funds want.
Banning the diversification of savings is a horrible mistake.
Let the banks invest however they see fit: we'll end up with more stable banking if they're able to diversify more.
The reason they invested in such risky endeavors is because they knew they'd be bailed out AND that the government was pumping so much money into them.
They obviously think they will be bailed out again. And they will be. So why not ban the speculation, Evan?
Any politician that refuses to bail out the banks, and it results in a worldwide depression, is history for 50 years. No one likes bailing them out so why not stop them in the beginning?
What? Why are we going to bail them out again?
Make THAT illegal - not speculation and diversifying portfolios!!! Ban "Stealing money from the tax payers to give to the banks".
Don't fear the bust, FEAR THE BOOM. That's when the damage is done. The Bust is just the economic players reallocating resources to their best uses.
This is what will happen. Just like Wall Street got what they wanted from Obama and the Dems and discarded them, they will get what they want from Bachmann, etc. That will be a repeal of Dodd Frank. If that happens they will discard those people in order to get all loans guaranteed. That is the plan Evan. That is why you should be fighting like hell for Dodd-Frank.
You have seen the light. Now get past those talking points. Do not get boged down in them as many others here have. The thing is most Americans are like me. We use to be a party faithful, but we begin to realoize that not only what the other side says is false and self serving, so is the party you belong to. So you get fed up and start doing the research on the subjects yourself. You find out neither are correct and you break rakns and become an independent. We ar growing everyday as people open their eyes and see things for as they are. Watch the next election, it will be the independents that will speak the loudest, not the tea party.
I disagree with you Danny, in all do respect most Americans are not like you. Most Americans are lazy and are not tuned in until the last minute. Then, they don't even have all of the facts. I agree that the number of independent voters has gone up, but there are still more registered democrates than there are republicans or independents. I agree however, the independent voters has the power to swing the election in their favor only if they are united.
So true. I had a friend say he could not believe we are so gullible as to always believe Washington. I told him if we were not, the infomercials that offer get rich quick schemes would not work. There is a movie I saw that makes me wonder if people really cannot see what is going on. It is call "They Live" It's about how the world cannot see what is going on around them.
You are also right about the number of registered Dems outnumbering all. But I read an article about 6 or 7 months ago about how there are defects from both parties heading to an independent status. Not to say that the parties will ever go away or shrink to small. Over time, things will hopefully change, and when they do people will begin to navigate back to the 2 large parties.
USA is in turmoil by the looks of it, who is governing that country?Also I always thought that debt was repaid in the boom not the bust?, the level of debts around can never be repaid, the interest alone is crippling, we hear China and India are the new powerhouses, will they be giving the likes of the UK and USA any handouts!
"We must depend on the government for everything and allow them to control and spend invisible money. Let's ride the coat tails of Big Daddy so we won't have to be responsible for anything. I'll love sitting by my van down by the river, where I live, and fishing for my food. Let's blame all the crazy right wingers too! That'll keep things stirred up. I don't have anything to worry about either because I withdrew all my money from my savings and 401K and have buried it on the bank of the river where I live. We must listen to our government because they will take care of us."
Guess who dumps millions of dollars into the GOP? You got it! The S&P. They will do anything to get Obama out and that includes financially damaging the US! It is all a dangerous political game.
More Leant Left talking points, it really exemplifies the Leant Leftist mentallity and intellectual prowress they all seem to possess.
It is amazing... I have a Brazilian Yellow Nape parrot, Chico, and he can barely parrot the BS back as fast and convincingly as the average Leant Left Socialist Liberal Democrat Prgressive mind.
How about the mind of the Republicans that wants easy money. I just wrote an article on Business Insider about Michelle Bachmann's connection to Wall Street through the Club for Growth.
Club for Grow: evil desires for supply side ponzi loans. Supply side now means ponzi lending.
its time for ruling party to take some serious decision over military expense
How Pelosi Saved Boehner's You-Know-What
When the voting began on the controversial—and ugly—debt ceiling bill in the House of Representatives on Monday, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic leader, did not know how many votes House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had for the measure that had been crafted by President Barack Obama and the Republicans. Boehner had not reached out to her to make certain that the crucial legislation designed to prevent a potentially disastrous US default would be approved. When Boehner "went to the table"—brought the bill to a vote—he "had no idea" how many votes he had, Pelosi says.
The speaker, as it turned out, did not have enough Republican votes to pass the bill—only 174—and he had made no arrangement to guarantee its success. When there were minutes left for the vote, and it became apparent that Boehner would fall far short of the 216 votes necessary for passage, Pelosi's Democrats began voting in favor of the measure. "We were not going to let it go down," she told me and a small group of other journalists on Wednesday morning. [READ MORE]
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08 … iling-deal
There are two reasons why the Tea Party and the Republicans are against everything Obama does. One he is Black. Two he is a Democrat.
Her we go its a black thing again why do people always bring race into the issues. We are Americans black,white,red, green, purple color does not matter. It is the ability to Run the country. to get us in the direction we need to go. JOBS is the issue. More jobs more tax revenue. They say there is a 9 point unemployment. It is at least double that.
to all who deny that race is an issue, what are the rest of us to think when you support policies which are clearly against your own interests? you champion the rights of large corporations to pay no taxes and get millions in tax credits. who do you think makes up the difference that their non-taxes makes for the rest of us?
you side with the tea party against your neighbors who are in unions. unions which helped support the minimum wage, forced companies to provide reasonable working conditions like 40-hr. workweeks, safety regulations, limited forced overtime.
you support a party which makes voting more difficult in order to affect elections in their favor. does that represent your morality and ethics?
the gop frequently initiated bills then reversed themselves only when obama indicated he would support them.
some of us believe that racism is behind much of the animus is our politics because nothing else makes any sense.
Jobs is the issue. So why is the Tea Party against jobs? Because they don't think it is the function of government to ever create a job. That was proven wrong in the Great Depression and in every war. But we don't want war.
If jobs is the issue than why hasn't Barry's "laser like focus on jobs" yielded a boom in job creation. It has done the opposite, it has created an atmosphere where in employers are reluctant to hire. Government doesn't create jobs or wealth it merely moves them from private creation to public creation. Public sector jobs are, invariably, non-productive and terribly inefficient.
The "job creation" of FDR's wildly experimental take over of the American economy produced nearly 20 years of turmoil in the economy and held down recovery until the 1950s. The recover that was supposed to have begun in 2009 is anemic precisely because of Obama's spastic gesticulations and visceral, vitriolic and obvious dislike for business and job creators.
Why do liberals hate working people so much that they constantly seek the destruction of thousands of working peoples jobs in jet aircraft industry, the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industry and so on. Every time Obama and the liberals talk about "fair share," "the rich," "economic justice," they take a shot at every working person who punches a clock.
Obama shut down drilling in the gulf destroying thousands of people's livelihoods. Why does he hate the men and women who drive trucks, sweep floors, file papers, maintain and operate equipment for the oil industry that he would seek the destruction of their jobs? Why does he seek to destroy the jobs of airplane mechanics, hanger operators, security guards, truck drivers, aircraft refuelers, flight attendants who service corporate jets? Why does he seek to destroy the jobs of machinists, engineers, assembly workers, welders, fabricators, tire makers by attacking the private jet industry?
More meaningful jobs are destroyed by the intervention of liberals in an economy than can ever be created by silly make work programs or even real work programs by the government.
How sad your economics education must have been to consider the Great Depression successful at anything but shackling the entire economy to the whims of one stupid liberal proto-fascist experimenter. War does not create jobs at all ever. War transfers enormous resources to non-productive work draining an economy of vital resources. Count the dead men, the destroyed equipment and the expended food and fuel and tell me that WWII was a productive activity. Jobs are not created by war. How many "jobs" lasted beyond their funding during FDR's Depression? Make work programs keep people busy and give them money that isn't work - it is bread and circuses.
Wrong again. For someone who claims to be so business smart you have no clue about history. Obama is doing everything that FDR did. It FAILED then It FAILED now
Race has no relavancy to his imcompent, ineffective, bumbling, clueless attempt at leadership.
He couldn't lead a turd out a toilet.
Jimmy Carter was a genius compared to this guy. Didn't matter that Carter was white, he was incompetent, ineffective and bumbling. Just not quite to this level.
Obama should take some of his 'birthday' money and buy a clue.
The only ones that want to make race an issue anymore are the ones who want to keep people of color under their control or want to claim victim status. Most Americans have moved past racial bigotry. A minority want to keep the sore open.
That's EXACTLY why the "jews" put Obalmy in the Shitehouse: What s/he's doing has been on the drawing board for a long time. But whenever anybody protests - as REAL CHRISTIANS AND REAL AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES should - useful idiots (Who coined this term? Anybody?) like you will say, "Well, it's because he's black."
I did a hub on this. What is getting lost, most deliberately is the fact that both houses of Congress were informed that the debt ceiling legislation being put forth by both would not stop a downgrade, They were told this at least two weeks before the downgrade. They were also told that the cut, cap, and balance bill looked as though it would satisfy the credit agencies. Harry Reid utterly ignored this in favor of working toward what we have now which is a debacle and the ability to try and stick it on the Tea Party. The desire for the status quo is why we are where we are.
Hey you guys saw where Richard Clarke accused the CIA of knowing the hijackers before they committed the crime. US involvement in the 911 hijacking is pretty obvious.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … harge.html
I started a thread here on that:
You do understand that during the Clinton administration there were established strict rules forbidding cooperation between the CIA and the FBI? The ordinary inter-departmental rivalries are destructive enough but those were given the force of law through executive directives that built a wall between intelligence and law enforcement. Too whom could the CIA have given information if it was actually available for sharing?
You are missing the point. The CIA contacted, and likely monitored the hijackers. That means they facilitated 911 as the truthers said. This is a smoking gun from an inside source, that the CIA contacted the hijackers before 911 and then covered it up.
Some uncorrected visions are in serious need of correction.
So the CIA was operating inside the United States? Again a violation of the law. If Richard Clarke was aware of all these things he himself is an accessory. He must be pedaling a book.
One may have cursory knowledge without operational understanding.
Do you think that Cheney cares about the law? He had motive to facilitate 911 because the Taliban refused the pipeline to his Halliburton investments in the Caspian Sea. Did you know that the Taliban went to Texas in 1997?
What are you taking? Time for new Meds
Did you read the article? I realize it takes the BBC to report the Taliban in Texas in 1997 and not our bought out and paid for media. But read the article. Right after this article the Taliban rejected the pipeline.
Also, we are talking to the Taliban right now. Trust me, Unocal armed the Taliban after the Russians left. You need the meds.
That report by the way has been decredited numeroud times, so go read it all you want
Yes I read the article did you. You claimed it was Haliburten when it was Unical. You cannot even quote your phony article correctly
Oh stop. Unocal armed the Taliban and invited them to Texas. Halliburton had the investments in the Caspian Sea that needed the pipeline. Quit showing your confusion for all the world to see. By the way, that article was by the BBC, not exactly a fly by night news source. There was one other local report but no national in the US.
Here is a secondary report: http://www.historycommons.org/context.j … enronbribe This report also says the Taliban went to Nebraska.
Here is a detailed link showing the Taliban went to a 5 star hotel and to the space center. http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/i … ations.htm
WOW you continue to show such quality sources, NOT
Do not tell me to stop exposing you. You said Halliburton, I showed you were worng so now you come back and try to change your story again. Yea, the BBC is just so kind and accurate about the United States. Keep spewing your falsehoods
All of the Taliban? weren't some of them busy blowing up Buddhas? Wow, Bill Clinton's State Department just loves those Taliban giving them all those business visas.
We are talking to them now. Why dont you say why? I will tell you. It is on the orders of President Obama. President of Afghanistan and Packistan both have come out and said so.
Continued half truths
Carefully read the Canadian website account. Very detailed. This current negotiation is Obama in name only. This is required to appease big oil.
More false rhetoric. It is not in Obama name only. He campaigned on it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/ju … -negotiate
"Barack Obama, apparently frustrated at the way the war is going, has reminded his national security advisers that while he was on the election campaign trail in 2008, he had advocated talking to America's enemies."
THere are tons of articles showing he pushed it. You carefully read it, maybe you will learn something
No based on the words by Clarke, that Tenet contacted the hijackers you guys now have the tin foil. You have absolutely no certainty but we do. You have seen the side by side demolitions of WTC7 and regular buildings that were demolished right? You have seen buildings burn with fire and no skyscrapers have come down by fire except 3 on 911. No, you guys are tin foil and you stand corrected, Vision.
Once more you speak with no idea what you are talking about. Keep believing the rhetoric Or get educated. I have seen many collapses in my 15 years, I was even in one. Yes, steel building have collapsed in the past. Even the one you tried to pass off in you link had a partial collapse..
Sorry, many experts know you are full of it. And I live in Nevada. I instantly knew what happened to WTC7. It was from watching many demolitions over the years. You show me a video of one building in history that collapsed by fire at nearly the rate of gravity and you could have a case. But there are none. Go look on Youtube. You won't find one because there aren't any.
you are consistant , consistantly wrong, but you are consistant. Nevada. They have never had a reall high rise fire yet. I am glad you are such an expert. I am sure the Marshalls office in NY would love for you to come to them and show them your expertise. In case you do not get it In NY they are Fire Marshalls that do the investigating. And the "experts" you cite have no idea what they were looking at. Many otheres have long disputed them.
Do you think every fire and collapse is on you tube? are you from this planet? So by your thought process, no airplane aver hit the empire state bulding because it is not on you tube. Get a grip. Stop spewing your nonsence. Go to NY, gear up and see for yourself.
Fire did not collapse the WTC. A catastrophic failure of the structural integrity of the central and exterior supporting columns caused the collapse. Some of the damage was from the super heated steel and some from the impact of the jets.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/framed.htm … world.com/
Here is your hat.
How much explosives are needed to bring down even a moderate sized steel framed building? How much time is needed to place those explosives in the correct locations for controlled demolition? How many men are needed to conduct a controlled demolition? No the aluminum hats are all yours.
It takes hundreds of man hours to prepare a building, even a wreck of a building, of modest size for a controlled explosion, It takes hundreds of pounds of precisely placed explosives of specific types and configurations to bring down a building.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Well, when you consider that the security cameras were controlled by Marvin Bush, youngest brother of George Bush, you could do this easily on the weekends.
Amazing. Who could have done it Prescott and the girls? I find it incredible that you can write this and it still doesn't sound crazy to you.
Look at this and see if I am crazy:
You are the one who speaks as crazy. Look very carefully at that video and weep for your nation.
Your own video does not agree you. Did you watch it? prior to the collapse the Demo building showed the explosions as they blew out the windows. Notice the WTC 7 did not do that. You just do not understand or are willing to accept how a building on fire collapses. You see TV vidoes of demolition and claim to be an expert. I have witnessed several tall highrises and many shorter steel building collapse in front of me. I was even in one that collapsed as we were on a rescue mission to find a baby. it was a 6 story apartment building. the only reason I believe I survived was because I was on the top floor, so I was not buried in any deep debris. And yes, I save the baby prior to collapse.
Now is a house, not a commercial building, but it will show some of the point you do not get. Notice there is not much fire showing, then you here a small explosion and part of the house comes off. THe chief in the middle is pointing. It is hard to hear the first part, but he says "pull it give me the horn" then you heaqr the airhorn sound meaning to evacuate the building. Now do you think there was a bomb in there?
It sounded like and explosion. Thats because it does. Notice this was a comercial building.
I know this will not change your mind. I do not have all day to play on you tube like you do. But I am sure If I look I can find a high rise fire or other steel structure that has collapsed from fire
I never make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.
True, but I always hold out hope people will open their eyes, and see things as they are. Did you ever see the movie They Live? Some of the Hubbers here remind me of those who do not have the glasses to put on and see the world as it is.
"But I am sure If I look I can find a high rise fire or other steel structure that has collapsed from fire'
Mr.A View get to it and BTW what steel framed building collapsed in your houses area? Both of you are in denial and it's sad.
The WTC was a new, and for its time, revolutionary building. Its internal structure was entirely different than the typical steel skeleton building. But, don't worry, the UFOs will take care of all of this strife when they return.
Try that on someone that doesn't know anything about construction big guy. They were actually designed to withstand an impact from an errant aircraft.
Would you like to get into details? Pick any material you like.
How about a web site not predicated on bovine fecal matter?
4 in the Bronx come to mind quickly without much thought, but you knew that already from a previous thread. And I am not going to waste my time with you again. Go find the thread and you will remember and rewatch the ones I showed you.
4 in the Bronx, where?They need to be steel construction not old masonry with wooden floor joists.As far as going through this before,your not the other fireman I had it out with,did you change your name here for some reason? For some odd reason you would not mention what house you were out of ? As far as being a mason ,I have been running work since 1996,that includes laying out.With steel framed, the masonry is constructed on top of the iron work.Being that my specialty is the structural aspect I am very familiar structural steel. Moment welds,bar joists,fireproofing and every process in between. I have friends that are Iron workers.These buildings don't just fall down,they are actually "Over engineered" for safety.The best thing about these boards is not convincing the person on the other side of the argument or with an agenda but laying down the foundation of your argument and letting the rest of the readers judge for themselves
Actually, yess I did. I started an online radoi show and a PAC I named then American View, so I created American View here as well. . As I said I went through this before, pointing out house, union and everything you attacked me on and everyitme I showed you to be incorrect. I am not talking brick and wood either. Just curious, since you will not agree about steel collapses here in the US what do you think of the partial collapse of the Madrid Highrise fire? Do you think that was not steel either? I am not going to look it up for you, like I said I am not going to waste my time with you on this anymore, but there are several videos on you tube that you can look up for yourself.
You mean this one.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/world/ … ferno.htm.
American View is what,a Jedi mind trick for weak minded fool's that implies your point of view is how they should think?
LOL, you sent a link with nothing in it. I am sure you did not realize it, it has happened to me before
Now there are a lot of differences between the fires, but it did collapse. The madrid fire satred as an electical fire. So it would take much longer for the fire to get hot enough to twist the steel. The twin towers was intensely hotter as it was jet fuel that was burnig. It was much hotter much quicker,
The Madrid building only collapsed from the 26 floor and above.The twin toweres both started their collapses from the point where the planes hit the building. SO why did one stand and the others not? The Madrid building was a completely built stell construction, the WTC were steel supported on the inside core. When the upper floors collapsed in Madrid, the outer steel was strong enough to support the lower floors and the remainder of the building stood. When WTC fell, there was not enough outer steel to support the weight that was coming down, so it accordianed all the way to the ground. THe WTC collapsed from the top down, not from the bottom up
No Jedi mind tricks unless that is how you think Madrid collapsed
You'll like this better .
That was the most rediculous Video yet. Every statement was not even close to the facts. Molten Steel flowing? where? I was there, there was no molten steel flowing. Me and my crew had to go throught the rubble to find the stairway into the lower levels to search. It was right where he says the molton steel was flowing.If there was molton steel there, the 24 bodies we found would have been melted, not in the condition we found them in.
I know you do not agree with me, but you have shown better evidence than this before. I am sure if you really listen to him you will pick it apart to, just with what you say you know about construction. This guy is just one of those college proffesors that tried to make money giving speeches about 911. Those people were shamful
wow i cant believe it , this is the end of this world ....if they keep working that way we are all gonna wish we weren't here. this is nuts but then again what do you think is gonna keep happening ,do you think this is the only thing that has happened if they new them who isn't to say that they didn't send them themselves.but lets not jump ahead of the boat. is this going to be explained to us or is it gonna be another topic unsolved.
I do, I was there. I have a reminder in my throat. I was a LT in the FDNY for 15 years. Friends say, I never should have went, look at what it got me. You know what, I knowing what I know now, I would do it again and not think twice about it. Of course, in my heart I wish it never happened or that we saved them all.
People have forgot, and we have these truthers who have no clue but spent enough money to pay our national debt off trying to convince everyone Bush planned it. People need to get a life, maybe take up a hobby
This is my hobby,fighting for you guys that got screwed, wake up
Really, a hobbiest. Nice to know a hobbiest understand my proffessional job and what it entailed. Oh I forgot, you are a mason so you know it all. Get real or look for a new hobby, you are not good at this one
I am not a member of the tea party but why would the downgrade be their fault and not the fault of many years of fiscal irresponsibility of both party's?
Such comments as those you refer to and the examples you espouse here really wrap things into a nice little bundle and Obama & Co succeed in blaming the Right for the woes of the country. Obama had an agreement fleshed out with the Speaker a week before the deadline and then backpedaled by wanting to add another 400 billion to the spending equation after he had achieve what he wanted...that did get much news did it? Taxation is not the problem; spending is the problem, totally insane out of control spending that goes on and on and one and his piled up to the tune of five trillion additional dollars in just Obama's first term. How can we turn a blind eye to something that is so destructive? You want to increase taxes to offset what...more spending? When is enough enough? When will Washington have "enough money" to spend? The answer is never and no matter how much any group of people send up there they will spend every penny of it, borrow more and then cry that we are not taxing Americans enough to solve our problems. Let's discuss the problem not the effect. We need to gain control of spending, establish a baseline budget, and then work toward balancing the spending with the available revenue stream. Logic and common sense dictate that as a first step toward returning to sanity in this country. Anything less is just the continuation of the current stupidity. WB
by Doug Hughes24 months ago
A moderate hubber whom I respect challenged the term 'terrorist' when applied to Congresscritters of the Tea Party persuasion.There's an article on terrorism from which I quote....
by Dr Billy Kidd3 years ago
Tea Party activists in the House of Representatives want to shut down the U.S. government. They say it'll teach America who really is in charge. What's more, they say that not passing a federal budget by the Oct. 1...
by Doug Hughes5 years ago
"..._Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can't afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can't afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more...
by Brie Hoffman5 years ago
by Xenonlit4 years ago
The Republicans will not get away with this "Better off than four years ago" business. They already said that they will do anything to bring down the government and the first Black president. Apparently, they...
by Thomas Byers4 years ago
No we didn't fall off the cliff but the Debt Ceiling Crisis is still looming out there and will have to be dealt with sooner rather than later. I'll bet you this is waking up many politicians including the President in...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.