Obama spends less than any other president!

1. 0

   Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years ago

   From Forbes Magazine.
   
   http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 … ack-obama/
   
   Quote:
   
   "So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative? It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.
   
   Yup. Read the article. Reliable source. Bush and Reagan had the biggest budgets and Obama has had the smallest...

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Palomidesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Calling him the "smallest spender" is absurd.  Even assuming you buy the article's representation of the data, he is the "smallest increaser."  He's still spending more than any other president, ever; those numbers just show that he didn't increase spending as much as other presidents have.
      
      This article, also from Forbes, explains why the article you linked to is a ridiculous misrepresentation of the facts: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar … d-history/

      replyreport
   2. 60

      tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You don't think 4 million for a 21 day family vacation is extreme?   Now do I remember correctly wasn't there a majority of democrats in both the house and senate in 08?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know who was in the house and the senate in 2008 while Bush was there becasue I wasn't interested n American politics at the time.
         
         I truly doubt that the $4 million was spent on buying beautiful things or going to the movies. I think it was more likely spent on security.
         
         http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/29/repor … taxpayers/
         
         Quote:
         
         "The Hawaii Reporter calculated the $4 million cost to taxpayers based in part on the price of a round trip flight to the island on Air Force One, the transport of the president’s support equipment, housing of security and staff and the cost of police to local taxpayers."
         
         This was never a figure released by the White House as far as I know. It says the newspaper worked it out. It costs Airforce One that amount for any president flying that far - not just Obama.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Mr. President has been documented by the media as traveling lots.  He was in California campaigning  last spring on four separate occasions.  He just came back from Cambodia and Laos. He was went to Las Vagas just after September 11. This is just a short list of where he has been. He was in PA at the Tinker Toy factory last week. I suppose his greens fees are gratis since he is president.  The man likes to party.  He had a part last Sunday night and honored Dustin Hoffman and I forget who else. These activities have been on the news. I try not to keep track, but its unavoidable.  He is a frequent flyer, and likes good food.  Kobe beef  at $150.00/ pound for was it 200 dinner guests.  $7,500. for meat alone if you figure 1/4 pound per person for a dinner party.
              We don't even have to go into any government work to figure this is an expensive presidency.

            replyreport
   3. 60

      tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The senate hasn't passed a budget since he has been in office.  So it is possible to say this.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      GNelsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obama hasn't been a great president but he did save us from the conservative ideas that got us into this debt hole.  Of course now the conservatives that got us into this mess want to jump to the other side and reduce spending by taking from the people who have very little and giving to the people who have the most.  If more people voted, we wouldn't have to worry about ideas like that.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I am always confused by the extreme contraction between this love of being dominant in power and money and claiming it as right because it is self sufficient, and self sufficiency is the be all and end all of everything. What is even more bizarre is that this is the anthesis of Christian teaching, and these are the same people who are fundamentalists.

         replyreport
   5. 61

      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, you are so right, Obama has had the smallest budget not just lower than Bush and Reagan, but in US history. It is hard to have a lower budget than ZERO, after all that is what no budget means, ZERO. Obama, only President to not have a budget in any of his years in office. Yea, that is something Obama can be real proud of.
      
      Do you understand the difference between budget and actual spending? Many do not and that is what liberals count on when they spew these phony stats at people.
      
      Ask yourself this, who has the purse strings and who OKs the spending. Congress sets the budget and it is sent to the President to sign. The 2009 budget was indeed signed by Bush for Obama’s first year in office, it is the same for all incoming Presidents. The question is, did they follow it, the answer is no. Also remember who was in charge of the House and Senate then when that budget was created. The Democrats were in the majority, they created the budget for the both Bush and Obama to follow.
      
      Let’s look at the numbers, the Forbes numbers are actual spending numbers and not budget numbers.  For the last year of Bush’s term and first years of Obama’s term, the budget was essentially the same, 2.9 trillion dollars. So who did a better job following the budget, Bush did. His spending for his last year in office he went over budget 85 million dollars. Obama on the other hand went 600 billion dollars over budget. The current spending is at an all time high possibly going over 4 trillion for fiscal 2011, and the gap between that spending and revenues is growing at a rapid pace, well over one trillion dollars a year.
      
      So whose fault is that, Bush’s? No. in 2009 Bush was no longer in office and had no say on where money was spent. All appropriations came from the House(Pelosi) the Senate(Reid) and of course Obama.  No dollars can be spent without the approval of all three. Hmm, and all three are Democrats.
      
      Bush may have set the budget, but Obama and the Democrats in charge are the ones that spent way more that budget allotted. The spending during Obama’s term is on the shoulder of Obama.

      replyreport
2. 58

   logic,commonsenseposted 11 years ago

   obama has spent more than all previous presidents combined.  Bush did not force him to do it, he did it of his own free will.  When will people get over Bush and finally hold obama accountable for his own actions.  Time for a reality check.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You can't read, can you?
      
      The budget that supposedly spent was an act of law that was made by Bush. Obama could not change the budget that Bush put in, could he?
      
      Of course, it appears you are blinded by facts. So be it.

      replyreport
3. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   1 - Over $400 billion of 2009's spending came directly from Obama, in the form of new law passed during his term(all that stimulus, remember?).
   
   2 - Obama said that Bush's $400 billion deficit was immoral, and promised to cut it in half. He hasn't had a year under $1 trillion in deficit.
   
   3 - Every single one of Obama's proposed budgets have asked for MORE spending than what actually was passed.
   
   4 - The spending in 2008-2009 was supposed to be a one-time outlier of extra spending. By continuing from that outlier, as if it is the new baseline, you are accepting responsibility for that much increase every year.
   
   You can't get away from it, more debt has been added under Obama than under any other president.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This as a stand alone figure is staggering to say the least. The fiscal cliff happened three years ago when the recession started its stranglehold on all of us. There are many that want to put us in a frame of mind that Obama owns this catastrophic economy and wish to forget the deregulation, wars and out of control spending of the Bush years. But there was little Obama could do but try to and keep the economy going with the stimulus monies and supporting some of the industry leaders while the rest of the economy caught up. Record debt is better than record depression as that is where we were historically going to wind up. Had McCain won we would have repeated the Hoover reasoning through the crisis and we all know where that landed us.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Essentially, when I was studying history 45 years ago, I was taught that the sins of the former leader come back to haunt the current leader because it takes that long for the effects to be felt.

         replyreport
4. 84

   peoplepower73posted 11 years ago

   There is a difference between the national debt and the budget.  People seemed to get them confused.  The national debt is the accumulation of debt from the founding of this country.  Each president inherits the national debt of the previous president.  It includes the interest on what our government has borrowed in order to keep the country operating. 
   
   The budget on the other hand is a yearly metric that is based on the governments income (revenue) versus outgo (expenses). If there is more income than outgo, there is a surplus. If there is less income than revenue, there is a deficit. Clinton had a surplus in the budget, but he still had a national debt. His surplus in part was based on the dot com bubble. 
   
   The budget is calculated based on what has already been spent.  Obama's budget in his first year in office was based on what Bush had already spent, but needed to be paid for.  The way it is paid for is to borrow more money.  That money is added to the national debt including interest.  Bushes national debt was 10 trillion.  Obama's first term national debt was 16 trillion.  The so called fiscal cliff is political theater, it is the process of paying for what already has been spent. It's like raising the limit on a credit card so that you can borrow more money to pay for what you already spent.
   
   Bush did not account for Medicare part D, two wars, his tax cuts and 700 million for tarp.  Obama accounted for all of these in his first year in office.  So therefore, that would increase his national debt.  If Romney would have won, he would have inherited 16 trillion in national debt and Obama's budget deficit of 1.27 trillion.
   
   If people didn't like Obama's stimulus plan, they should give the money back to the government.  This includes the governors that gladly accepted his checks and then railed against him for his stimulus program.
   
   Here is a link to the national debt clock in real time. http://www.usdebtclock.org/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for explaining that very clearly. Much appreciated.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You are welcome. There is no way any administration is going to balance the budget and make revenue equal to spending without raising taxes. The republicans are holding the country hostage by wanting to not raise taxes on those making over 250K.  That is an increase from 36% to 39% on the first dollar over 250K.  That's a 3% increase.  They want to do it by cutting entitlements on the backs of the middle class and seniors and tax reform. The math just doesn't add up.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, of course. I think it would be helpful to change that tag from Republicans to uninformed people who also have a weakness in deductive logic.

            replyreport
         2. 61

            American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            People,
            
            I disagree. I believe we can balance the budget by making cuts. There are more than one way to raise revenue than raise taxes.
            
            Does it not make sense to make all the cuts you can, and then if it looks like you cannot balance the budget, then look for tax increases?
            
            Why do you say Bush did not account for the war and Medicare part B. They were paid for but were part of why the budget went into a deficit. Despite all that, Bush only went over budget in his last year by 88 million dollars. Also, when Bush left office, only one quarter of the fiscal year had elapsed, the other 3/4 were all Obama. Go look at the spending by quarter for fiscal 2009 and see where all the spending occurred.
            
            I am not saying Bush is an angel in this mess, he is just as deep as everyone else. But I am sick and tired of hearing it's all his fault when he was not even in charge of the purse strings, Democrats were.

            replyreport
            1. 84

               peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               If Medicare part D went into the deficit, how could it be paid for?  When  programs are unfunded, they are not paid for. Medicare Part D which is the prescription drug program, two wars, and the Bush tax cuts were all unfunded and did not go on the accounting books..  We borrow money to pay for everything.  If you borrow money to pay for your car, it's not paid for until its paid off. If you don't account for it, then it doesn't show up as an expense in your budget.  The national debt is 16 trillion and raising.  The budget deficit is 1.7 trillion. When they say balance the budget, it is just a bumper sticker slogan.  Each president just kicks the can further down the road. Like I said before, the Fiscal Cliff is just political theater. The purpose of the debt ceiling is to determine how high to raise the credit limit for money that was already borrowed from the previous year.

               replyreport
               1. 61

                  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I am sure you are an accountant so I am not going to waste time debating that part. You can download and read the outlays for everything in fiscal year 2007(not sure why I chose that year) as I have. In fact I have read them for the last 8 years. We can get close if not actually balance the budget through cuts. It is a shame people have been so snowed into believing rising taxes are a must or disaster looms ahead. Please, enough or the scare tactics, Halloween has past already this year.
                  Raising the debt ceiling has nothing to do with what was borrowed already, it is to give the President access to more money to spend. If they balance the budget, there is not reason to raise the ceiling, there would be no reason to borrow money.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     To QUOTE David Suzuki...
                     
                     
                     "There are some things in the world we can't change... gravity, entropy, the speed of light, and our biological nature which requires clean air, clean water, clean soil, clean clean energy, and biodiversity for our health and well being. Other things, like capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, currency, the market, are not forces of nature, we invented them. They are not immutable and we can change them. It makes no sense to no sense to elevate economics above the biosphere."
                     
                     COMMENT
                     For the most part, Republicans are focused on human constructs. They are completely and utterly unable to see the bigger pictures - that human constructs are destroying the things that are essential to our survival as a species. They insist on fighting for the survival of human constructs which are destroying us. They are absolutely correct that in order to maintain those human constructs we have to cut taxes, etc. and more. What they don't get is that by maintaining those human constructs, we will destroy ourselves as a species. In other words, they will win the battle but lose the war.
                     
                     Democrats, for the most part, understand that the constructs don't work and we have to find another way.
                     
                     
                     

                     replyreport
                  2. 84

                     peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     This is from the LA Times Jan 17, 2012:  "Simply put, the federal government has to borrow more money because of what Congress has done lately. A wide majority of Republicans and Democrats in the House voted in November and December for spending bills that relied on a significant amount of borrowed money. That borrowing isn't affected by President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill or by "bailouts"; those dollars have already been spent. In other words, they're part of the accumulated debt, not new debt. And a congressman blaming Obama for ever-larger government is like a father blaming his son for having too large an allowance. Obama may be all for big government, but Congress has ultimate control over the federal purse strings."  Here is the link to the entire article: http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/20 … means.html
                     
                     And no, I'm not an account, I just do a lot of research and analysis.

                     replyreport
            2. 0

               Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I'd really like to understand something.
               
               What is so terrible about people who have billions paying a little bit more tax? Surely they have some generosity of spirit that would like to help others and contribute to their country in a very real sense.
               
               I keep hearing that comment that they don't want their taxes raised because they don't want to pay for all the people who are not working because they're lazy.
               
               Well, even if they were lazy,so what?  What does it matter. Did Jesus judge and say, "Don't give money to people who are lazy?" I don't see that in the bible. In fact, when he fed the hungry with all the loaves and fishes, he absolutely did not differentiate between who deserved to be fed and who did not. He fed everybody.
               
               The other thing is that most people need government services because they aren't being paid enough. Many of them are holding down three or four jobs.
               
               So, again, if people are working that hard, why not pay extra tax when one already has millions/billions in the bank?
               
               I don't understand that kind of greed that is so devoid of helping their fellow man. And if they were really helping their fellow man then these people wouldn't be struggling so much.
               
               Also, incidentally, in the bible, Paul says that if one person has two fields and another has none, then the man with two fields must give the other to the one without the field. Paul doesn't say he must prove that he's a hard worker. It's unconditional. Those that have wealth must share it with others. Tax is jjust another opportunity for rich men to share. I find their selfishness vulgar.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Nothing, but how much is a little more.
                  If the government took all the money the top 1%  in a year. It would keep the government going for about 8 days
                  When is it become time to tighten up,eliminate government duplicity, check up on the recipients of government aid to see if they really need it.
                  New York just increased the poverty level for a family of 4 to $40,000/year. (With medical)
                  
                  When is it time to say to the Federal Department of Education, "The money you use to add regulations to teachers and run fancy buildings in Washington DC should go to the students in the states the money comes from"? When is it time for parents to look at text books and say to the government, "My child should not be carrying books around that are what teachers editions from the past were", The books are too heavy for children.  College text books aren't as big as some of the elementary books that include hundreds of state standards. 
                  When is a little more all you have, but the government will take care of you sort of?

                  replyreport
               2. 61

                  American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Vulgar? Really? Is that what Jesus taught you, be vulgar, was he when he was betrayed? Religion has no place in politics and it should remain separate.
                  If one man has two fields and one has none, instead of giving one away, how about that man with two set the other up and let him work the land into prosperity instead of just giving the farm away, no pun intended. It appears you are a strong liberal, not knocking you, just making a point. An extreme liberal family, the Rockefellers, did just that. They were petroleum tycoons and wanted to grow their product, but how? They needed more gas stations and fuel oil companies to buy from them. So they went out across the nation, set up people in their own businesses so they would purchase their product from the Rockefellers. In the book about their life story, they were asked how did they become billionaires. They replied “because we found many hard working individuals with drive and desire, and made them millionaires.” No truer words we ever spoken, no better example of why trickledown economics works. 
                  Now you say: “I don't understand that kind of greed that is so devoid of helping their fellow man.” If you mean like Obama, Biden, Kerry, I agree. They do not believe in giving anything back to their fellow man. But people like the Rockefeller’s, the Vanderbilt’s,  and many more give generously not only to charites but create foundations that do good, build then donate hospital wings, libraries, churches. Most of the time it is done with little or no fanfare, so it goes unnoticed. Check out the list of the top 50 donate from last year, click their names, see how much they give away and where it goes. Also note for all the talk about redistribution from they wealthy liberals want you to hear, they talk the talk but do not walk the walk. There are only 4 liberals on that top 50 list, not even warren buffet is on it, the guy who says the rich need to give a little more. I guess he meant everyone else but himself.
                  http://philanthropy.com/article/A-Look- … us/130498/
                  
                  You said: “I keep hearing that comment that they don't want their taxes raised because they don't want to pay for all the people who are not working because they're lazy.” It’s true you do keep hearing it, from the left trying to make you believe that is what the right is saying. The right does not want to eliminate entitlements, the want to reform them, eliminate waste fraud and abuse. They are not looking to cut benefits one penny. What’s wrong with that?
                  The welfare reform the right made under Clinton is what they want to do now, help people to improve their situation. Back then the program got people off welfare or less dependent. It moved people from poverty to middleclass, it moved middleclass to upper middleclass, and upper middleclass to wealthy. What is wrong with that? People reaping the rewards of hard work, living the American dream. But what happened, society changed, it ridiculed those who succeeded, suddenly success was a bad word. People backed off, others did not look for advancement. Now we have people just looking for handouts, taking away from those who truly need our help. The more that strain the system means less that can be helped. If those who can take care of themselves is given the chance to, the succeed and stand on their own, is one less person the government has to pay for and frees up  ore funds to help those who need it. Would you not agree that is a better system, one thathelps everyone at a higher level?
                  Consider this, you made the comment about Jesus feeding everyone, if people got lazy, did not work, and the government has to feed them all, where is the money going to come from to pay for it? If people get lazy and do not work, who will plants as well as harvest the crops to feed everyone?

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     You really do miss the point, don't you? Not even worth responding. Sorry.

                     replyreport
                  2. 59

                     Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Not sure why you want to waste your time being logical/factual, these people have a deep seated hatred and jealousy that they will never get over. Its always going to be someone elses fault that they can't succeed.

                     replyreport
                     1. 61

                        American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Repairguy,
                        
                        I know. Funny part is made a bet that Sophia was going to respond by blowing it off and say something along the lines of not responding. I won the bet.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Yes, of course, I'm going to blow it off. I've been hearing this argument for ten years. I've pointed out the fallacies over and over again. Do you honestly think that I haven't heard what you're saying.
                           
                           You just don't get it.
                           
                           You want to save a system that doesn't work.
                           You want to save a system that destroys  people
                           You're trying to make a system work that is destroying human civilzation.
                           
                           Absolutely, the system will work if one does the things you say. Yes, the system will work, but nothing else will. Most human beings will die.
                           
                           That is what you don't get.
                           
                           So, yes, of course, I'm going to blow it off. I replied for years. Now I'm sick of it. Too much energy. You keep getting the wrong end of the stick.

                           replyreport
                           1. 61

                              American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              Ok I will give you a chance. So you have been arguing for 10 years about this even though Bush is out of office less than 4 years. Despite that, go ahead, show me where I am wrong. Let’s address this one issue at a time and stay on topic. You claim it’s Bush budget that spent 3.6 trillion dollars in fiscal 2009. Show me where. Do you not agree the budget is set up by Congress? Do you not agree it was Democrats in control of the House and Senate during this time? Therefore is it not the Democrats budget? Once Bush eft in January of 2009, is it not Congrees that has to approve of appropraiton for over spending the budget” And the President then has to sign his approval on that Spending?  So if Bush was not there, how did he spend the 640 billion dollars that went over the budget?

                              replyreport
                           2. 61

                              American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              As for your comment of not getting it, you made that to the wrong person. I get it more than you or anyone else here ever will, that is why I am the activist with the following I have today.
                              
                              I come from the streets of NY and I do mean the streets. I was in a gang by the age of 8, in and out of juvy hall. I come from the poorest of the poor. I hustled the streets to make cash, not legally of course. But at y young age, I shared my hauls with those in true need, but never would with those who just sat back and looked for the handout.
                              
                              My juvy officer conned me into taking the fire department written test, I passed. Then he challenged to to take the physical test, so I did. When I got called to probie school, I was not going, I just did the test to show up my JO. He told me I was not man enough to do it anyway. So naturally I went to prove him wrong. I fell in love with the job instantly. It changed my life.
                              
                              During my days off I started a Heating and Air Conditioning company. It grew quick. Over the years it expanded to include electrical and plumbing. Then I expanded and became a general contractor and home builder. My ex wanted me to give up the fire department, but I never would. Then I received a job offer from a company in Texas to become their Vice President. I did not want the job until they told me the salary. With a wife, 2 kids and a future ahead, I could not say no. So after 15 years as a fire fighter I sold the company and went to Texas
                              The job was great. I was now a 1%er. During all these years I never stoppd being charitable and help people who were truly in need. My new job allowed me to do more. I would bonuses every Christmas. The smallest bonus I would get would be 1 years salary. The largest I ever received was 3 years salary. The year I got the 3 year salary bonus, I went to the local mall, I took every name off the angels tree and bought everything those people wanted and more. I have donated time and money to many charities over the years, given cars to several people.
                              
                              On 9/11 I was in Texas. When I saw what was unfolding, I went to NY immediately. I spent 3 weeks at ground zero without leaving. I was on a rescue detail for the first few days, then it became a recovery detail. Six years ago I began to get health issues. Doctors still do not know exactly whats wrong with me and do the best they can under the circumstances.
                              
                              See it was not long after things started that I could not work, I could not breath, my metabolism went nuts and I was holding water at alarming rates. It was not uncommon for me to gain 75 pounds in a week or lose 75 pounds in a week. Over the last 5 years, I spent over 4 of them in hospitals or long term care facilities. I almost died in December 2010. We will get back to that. I had no insurance, so I was paying for all this. Needless to say with no money coming in and only going out, I was in trouble I no time. I could no longer pay for my daughter college, she was going to SMU for law. She had to get loans to keep going. I spent over 200, 000 dollars on y own treatment. I lost my house and my truck. I had all my possessions put in storage. Eventually I could not pay for that and lost all my stuff too. I went fro poor to 1%er to back to nothing.
                              
                              So with no insurance I ended up on Medicaid, Obamacare Medicaid. I am in the Obamacare program that has already kicked in for elderly and disabled. I know, it’s a well kept secret. I will not tell you how much Obama lied to everyone about choice and coverage. Remember when I said I almost died in 2010, The only way to save me was to put a trach in my throat and put me on life support. Even with that, the doctors were not sure I would survive. When they checked with Medicaid, they said no to the life saving measures. The doctor ignored the and performed the surgery. I was on life support for 1 month before I came out of it, and was in the hospital till earlier this year.
                              
                              For months I had to fight with Medicaid to get the hospital paid for the surgery. The reason they gave me when I asked why they said no was it was not fiscally responsible to spend that much money on someone I the condition I was. Do not tell me there are no death panels.
                              
                              So I am in the hospital, I apply for Social security disability. I was denied, why? Because of the SS law passed under Clinton sponsored by Democrats changed how people qualify. You must now have accumulated enough points based on work time over a 10 year period. Now because I took some time off to live I Florida and help my sick parents, I did not have enough points and did not qualify.So they bumped me to SSDI. While in the hospital, SSDI pays 30 dollars a month. Yes I did not miss and zeros, it pays thirty dollars a month. Now I told you earlier how much money I earned. I paid more money into Social security than most people will make in their lifetimes and I am given $30. Now that I am out of the hospital, I now get $600 a month.
                              
                              Now what ticks me off about that is my daughter has 2 friends on 100% SS for life and never paid a dime into the system. Coming out of high school they cried they had ADD, SS gives them $1,800 a month, they get Section 8 for their apartment, they get food stamps, assistance for their utilities and more. I know ADD can e really disabling for some, but I know these girls. They are smart witty and bright. With their gift to gab and happy attitudes, there are many jobs they could do. Answer phones for a law firm or doctors office, any customer service job, sales positions and more. Maybe they will not make a fortune but at east they will bring something in. At that point the government can supplement the rest. Rather than the government paying out $4,000 per month, maybe they only have to ay our $1,500. That would leave $2,500 to help those in need. Does that not make more sense?
                              
                              I could go on but as you can see, i am not just spouting of, my views come from facts and actual life experience.

                              replyreport
                              1. 0

                                 Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 No, you don't get it. One could do that 30 or 40 years ago, because the system supported you and because there were fewer people and less competition. It cannot be done by people today - not unless one has awesome talent, strength of character, and are very, very lucky. If you had to be in that position today, it is highly unlikely that you would have been able to achieve it. Today's world is very different to the one you grew up in.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 61

                                    American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    You must not be from America so you cannot grasp the American dream and what it means. You sound like someone who does not fight, a quiter.Do not take that personal, I am just making a point. I told you where I am. I came back from almost dead, told I would have a trach in my throat for the rest of my life, be in a bed for the rest of my life, be hospitalized for the rest of my life. Here today, I have no trach, I a not bed bound though it is difficult to get around, and I am ot in a hospital but my own apartment. Remember I had nothing, I lost it all when I lost my storage. Yet I am battling back I DO NOT QUIT. I will have a job again soon, and I will be a 1%er again.
                                    There are many success stories of those who work hard today, made their money today. Is it harder today, yes it is and it is even harder now with this President. My cousins son started a central vacuum company 2 years ago. His company sales are over 1 million dollars this year, hard work is paying off for him. BTW, he started out of his fathers garage with 1 thousand dollars. How about the guy who started Facebook, worth over 27 billion dollars today.  Or the kid who started groupon just a few years ago is worth 1.3 billion. I could give you a list a mile long of people today who are successes.
                                    If you want to continue to believe there is no chance for you today, than there will be no chance for you today. I am sorry, but it is truly you that does not get it.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 83

                                       gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       American View, you exemplify the American Spirit with your can do attitude.    I totally applaud you a multillion percent.  You and others like you have proven that one can rise from the ashes and make a success for himself/herself.    What you think about and believe about yourself, you eventually become, no more, no less!   That is just pure commonsense!

                                       report
                                       1. 77

                                          psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          Also the American spirit of denigrating and excluding anyone a little bit different from oneself?

                                          report
                                          1. 83

                                             gmwilliamsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             Where did I say that?    That is NOT the American Spirit!

                                             report
                                          2. 59

                                             Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             That is a uniquely liberal attribute.

                                             report
                                    2. 0

                                       Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                       No, I'm not from America. And what you are talking about is what other countries have other names for. It is absolutely not unique to America. It's called guts, courage, not giving up, getttng going when the going gets tough. You're absolutely deluded if you think this is unique to America. It's the norm for most people in most countries.
                                       
                                       One more thing, you say, "If you want to continue to believe there is no chance for you today, than there will be no chance for you today. I am sorry, but it is truly you that does not get it."
                                       
                                       I totally and utterly believe that I will become a bestselling author. I have the talent, the personality, the courage, the brains, the persistence, and am slowly learning the marketing.
                                       
                                       Not a single one of those things have anything to do with America. The Internet was invented by a Brit working at CERN in Switzerland and that will be my vessel.
                                       
                                       For the rest, I was born with the talent, educated at the best private school in the country and born with awesome genes.
                                       
                                       None of this has anything to do with America. It will happen regardless of where I live.

                                       report
                                       1. 61

                                          American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                          As I said, you do not understand the American way because you are not from here. There is a lot more than guts and glory to the American way. It has nothing to do with business and class warfare. That is why you do not and may never get it.

                                          report
                                          1. 0

                                             PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                             Your "American way" doesn't work for everyone.  Just sayin'.

                                             report
                     2. 0

                        Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        There is no hatred or jealousy. It has to do with what I posted earlier... that you're putting human constructs ahead of human survival and well being. Sure you can save the economy, but by saving the economy you destroy the species. And you just don't get that.
                        
                        If you honestly believe you have something to be jealous of, youre deluding yourself. We don't hate you. Yes, we're frustrated that you are so involved with human constructs that you  can't see the wood for the trees, but that's about it.
                        
                        
                        
                        Read what David Suzuki says... And that is the REAL issue, and THAT is the one you don't get.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           There is nothing BUT hatred and jealousy! The democrats preach it and expect their followers to practice it. One thing that may help you succeed is that you should look out for you and your family and quit worrying about things you cannot change! If everyone followed that rule then we would all succeed, which is what you are after isn't it? Of course I know the answer is NO, you want to succeed and if you don't its someone elses fault.

                           replyreport
                        2. 60

                           GNelsonposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Maybe, when they have to buy clean air to breath in a bottle, they will get it.

                           replyreport
         3. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You think 3% adds up?
            
            3% more on the 1% equals $9 billion in revenue.
            
            You're saying that it's impossible to balanced a $1.1 trillion deficit without taking an extra 0.009 trillion from the top 1%?
            
            Not to mention, the increased revenue would actually be less than that due to the graduated system, and due to the fact that so many wealthy make their money from capital gains.
            
            EDIT: Actually more like $20-$25 billion in revenue. 0.020 trillion in revenue is the 'make or break'? Really?

            replyreport
5. 71

   getitriteposted 11 years ago

   

   replyreport
6. 59

   Repairguy47posted 11 years ago

   http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin … presidents
   
   Truth!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Obviously, you didn't read the entire article.  First it was published in June, second, it received several Pinocchios ,which are long noses for lying, from fact checker, because it was a ratio against GDP.  The graph shows it was not what he spent, but a ratio of Gross Domestic Product versus spending.  That article states this is not a good way to present spending because it distorts the numbers.  The problem with the internet is that you can find whatever you want to support your argument, especially if you don't read or understand what is being presented. ..Conclusion...False!

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         "PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-finding project of the Tampa Bay Times, took a hard look at the chart and found that Obama's number was based on him taking office on Jan. 20, 2010, a year later than his actual inauguration date."
         
         http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012 … presidents
         
         Fact check, you're funny!

         replyreport
         1. 84

            peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I'm sorry, but I can't get to the link. It won't open.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Opens for me.

               replyreport
         2. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That's because the budget of the previous year was made by Bush.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I got it to open, I'm getting tired of repeating this.  There is a difference between the national debt and the deficit. Your article is about the national debt.  The national debt is all the debt that has been accumulated by each president since George Washington.  The deficit is part of the yearly budget that indicates that more money was borrowed than revenue taken in. Clinton had a surplus in the budget because of the dot com bubble, but he still had a national debt.  By the way, I could open the link until I paid off my debt.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Not sure why you repeat yourself, article is factual and will always be. Obama has added to the debt more than the last 5 presidents in half the time. He is a failure, sorry you can't accept that.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        logic,commonsenseposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        He has added more debt than all the previous presidents combined, thru part way the first term of the hated G.W. Bush.
                        He has no intention of reducing his spending, he just wants more revenue to cover his tracks.
                        If people would look deeper into what he is demanding, they would see it is far more than just raising the tax rates on the successful.  He wants to raise estate taxes after the current rate expires.  He wants control of the debt limit.  He wants rates raised regardless of how much revenue they bring in.
                        He wants to be like Morsi in Egypt.  Total control.  If we let him, he will become a dictator not unlike many 3rd world dictators.  I know Jamie Foxx and others think he is the lord and saviour, but he is really just an insecure, vindictive, tiny little twerp with a messiah complex.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           No, he has not added more debt than all previous presidents! Only the last 5! The rest I agree with.

                           replyreport
                        2. 84

                           peoplepower73posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           Logic, commonsese:  Wow, you are really using logic and common sense, just like your name implies...and the sun may not come up tomorrow morning as well! So your premise is he added more debt than all the previous president combined, therefore, he will be a dictator, like Morsi of Egypt.  Your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong. It's obvious because you don't the difference between the national debt and the budget.

                           replyreport
                           1. 59

                              Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              So he was wrong about all presidents combined, spending more than 5 is really, really bad.

                              replyreport
            2. 61

               American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry Sophia, see that is just not true. Congress makes the budget, the President just signs or vetos the budget. The House and Senate were both under 100% control of Democrats, they made the budget. As I said earlier, the 2009 budget was almost identical to the 2008 budget, the difference, who was President over each of those budgets. Results, under Bush, he went 85 million dollars over budget, Obama went 640 billion dollars over budget.
               
               Bush had nothing other than the first fiscal quarter to do with the 2009 budget, he was not around to sign or OK any of the appropriations that Congress approved to go over budget.

               replyreport
7. 78

   Uninvited Writerposted 11 years ago

   Wow, Forbes should be listening to you guys rather than experts in the field

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I agree.

      replyreport
8. 60

   Xenonlitposted 11 years ago

   The truth is best in it's simplest form:
   
   Republicans lie. They lie every day. They lie in a continuous loop of lies. They lie to the public and they lie to each other.
   
   When they are confronted about their lies, they change the subject or they have a tantrum.
   
   Republicans lie about their lying. They make up lies to embellish their lies. They lie before breakfast and they lie in their dreams.
   
   Republicans lie to everyone, they lie now and will be lied about as they are being put to their final rest. The final lie being that "This person was a good and honest Republican."

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's no lie..."When they are confronted about their lies, they change the subject or they have a tantrum."
      
      The moment you expose the errors of what they say, they come at you from another angle.
      
      Really, I think their brains are miswired.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         
         
         "I did not have sex with that woman..Ms Lewinsky"

         replyreport
      2. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I think you both are wrong to categorize an entire group of people in such a negative way.  Shouldn't we try to rise above that?

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Pretty Panther, I have not seen one conservative member have values that rise above the stone age. As the GOP will never be in power again - not in its current incarnation, anyway - I'm just forgetting about it. These dinosaurs will die out. The demographics in the USA are changing. That will increase the liberal vote more than anything else.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I am married to a conservative Republican who is kind, ethical, and sane.  Yes, a certain element has risen to the forefront of the party in the United States, but you are not helping the discourse by tossing the good out with the bad.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Sophia Angeliqueposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  PP, I am the most patient of people, but I've been here nearly two years, and I never hear anything but this poppycock that all people are born with equal drive, DNA, and more. Therefore, because all men are born with exactly the same ability, they can all overcome the same difficulties that the current aging male population overcame 30 years ago, and if they can't, then they must be lazy, stupid, and they are draining the state of money.
                  
                  Ironically, some conservative people have told me that I have very conservative values, and in many ways, I do. I'm actually not a liberal. My stance is simply one of common sense, the common good, etc.
                  
                  Let me ask you something, if not all the members of the GOP have dinosaurian values, then why aren't the rest of you speaking up?

                  replyreport
   2. 59

      Repairguy47posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A little bunged up aintcha?

      replyreport
9. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

   First, I am a liberal Democrat, not a Republican.  Second, in case you haven't noticed, Barack Obama was elected President by quite a nice margin.  Part of that is because he received some votes from conservatives, including from my husband, for the second time.  That is how regular people speak up.  You should know that.
   
   For you to categorically classify all Republicans as dinosaurs who believe all those things you just said is ridiculous and I know you're smart enough to know it.  You're behaving no better than the worst of those who claim all liberals want to confiscate wealth and give it to the state.

   replyreport