Join the Debate!
All comments and users are subject to Townhall's new comments policy.
Login in to Post Your Comments
Andrsjake Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 9:03 PM
I say ya...go prez.. This mess that the republicans made after the budget was balance in 2000. Then along comes bush and the spending started and never stopped. even after bush gave wall street a easy $1 trillion before he left office along with two unwinable wars. a a crazy Medicare D .law that raised everyones health insurance....so ya fundmentally changing America back to the USA I'm with ya on that .2014 the republicans will be needing that unemployment insurance...lol
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Rondoman Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 10:14 PM
You really need to lay off the meds.
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
There are More Comments on this Thread. Click Here To See them All
Ted166 Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 11:20 PM
I’m not going to address you ridiculous comment about Bush, even though I agree that he spent more he should. But remember president can’t spend a penny without Congress approval which was in Democrat’s hand for most of the time. But what really blows my mind when listening to a lib like you is just lack of common sense or just obvious denial. Did you read this article? When statistical data tells you that raising taxes has no effect on economy how can you not agree that Obama push for it purely political - old fashion divides and concur. On top of it anybody knowing basics of economics knows that the additional revenue is calculated on phony assumption – it’s assumed that the rich won’t change their way of investing. Look at Great...
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Ted166 Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 11:31 PM
When statistical data tells you that raising taxes has no effect on economy how can you not agree that Obama’s push for it is purely political - old fashion divide and concur. On top of it anybody knowing basics of economics knows that additional revenue is calculated by Obama’s administration on phony assumption – it’s assumed that the rich won’t change their way of investing. Look at Great Britain “experiment”. In 2010 – 2011 16000 Brits paid taxes on one or more million pound income. After taxes on the rich went into effect only 6000 million did – many left the country others stopped investing shelving the money. So in addition to less new jobs created (for you libs, private investments not government create jobs) revenue collected...
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
Don L Wrote: Dec 03, 2012 6:13 PM
ot get back on
Login to Reply
Flag as Offensive
Post Comment
I read that Senator Mitch McConnell burst into laughter upon hearing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner lay out President Obama's "Fiscal Cliff" plan. Here's the rub:
> $1.6 trillion in revenue
> $50.0 billion stimulus
> $400.0 billion in Medicare cuts
Unlike Susan Rice, who was sent in to fall on the administration's sword during the Benghazi cover up, Geithner isn't looking for his next government job. It makes him the perfect foil. He can actually go in with a straight face with a proposal so absurd that an old reserved guy like McConnell doubles over in hysterical disbelief. Some say this is how you begin...
> $1.6 trillion in revenue
> $50.0 billion stimulus
> $400.0 billion in Medicare cuts
Unlike Susan Rice, who was sent in to fall on the administration's sword during the Benghazi cover up, Geithner isn't looking for his next government job. It makes him the perfect foil. He can actually go in with a straight face with a proposal so absurd that an old reserved guy like McConnell doubles over in hysterical disbelief. Some say this is how you begin...











Laughing Out Loud at Obama