No, deficits are the difference between the revenue taken in and that spent. What we can't cover we sell bonds for, increasing our debt. We know every year what our shortfall is and how much the debt has increased. And he really is spending all that, but it has slowed downed immensely since the House controls the purse strings. And Bush could only go to Congress to get money for those wars. The Democrats controlled Congress his last two years. And again, the CBO is nonpartisan and they publish all expenditures. We have a transparent gov't, at least compared to most, and you don't get to keep trillions off the books. That money is accounted for in our debt, which has skyrocketed under Obama.
not looking good for express..
- Thread starter Kevinmevin
- Start date
No, deficits are the difference between the revenue taken in and that spent. What we can't cover we sell bonds for, increasing our debt. We know every year what our shortfall is and how much the debt has increased. And he really is spending all that, but it has slowed downed immensely since the House controls the purse strings. And Bush could only go to Congress to get money for those wars. The Democrats controlled Congress his last two years. And again, the CBO is nonpartisan and they publish all expenditures. We have a transparent gov't, at least compared to most, and you don't get to keep trillions off the books. That money is accounted for in our debt, which has skyrocketed under Obama.
Just a few months after Bush left, the dude wasn't even fully moved in yet. Please don't revise something that everyone knows the score on. Please call a spade a spade, kidding with ourselves does no good.
Rhoderunner
Well-Known Member
You folks get most of the returns already don't you ?? Man if they shift deliveries over I might as well fill out unemployment papers LOL
thedownhillEXPRESS
Well-Known Member
Only because Obama started including the defense spending.
Bush NEVER did, he tried to hide the cost of the wars.
The Stimulous? That was 40% tax cuts, far less than the trillions the Bush tax cuts added to the debt, or spending, call it like it is, Bush is a tax cut but Obamas is spending? Huh?!!
My advice is to shut off the AM radio nuts and google the Congressional budget office.
You will find the reality is that federal spending is flat under Obama.
Conservative media types lie more to you than Fedex management.
FedUpRTD
Well-Known Member
.
We have a Verizon service center in my area. We (Express) were averaging 50,000 phone returns a day last year. Earlier this year, Express shifted almost all of that volume to FedEx Smart Post ( a division of Ground). Express now handles 2,000 to 4,000 inbound now. There is still a significant amount of Express outbound, but I don't know the exact numbers or service type. If it is Express Saver, then it will probably go to Ground in October.
Bush funded the wars through emergency supplementals. What you don't seem aware of is Congress alone has the power to supply money to the administration. Everything Bush got for the wars was approved first by Congress. There was no hiding and no President has ever had the power to hide. All expenditures are accounted for, and always have been. By the way, a Democrat Congress approved all war funding the last two Bush years just as they have for Obama. If Bush had done what you are saying he'd have been in violation of the Constitution and most certainly impeached by a Democrat Congress. You talk about conservative radio yet thrown around liberal lies like they're gospel fact. And if Bush spent the kind of money Obama is spending I'd have been just as critical of him. And just so you know, other than getting Hussein I never thought going into Iraq was a good thing. And certainly the spending on the two wars was a huge contributing factor to the problems we have now. But you need to get your facts straight and stop blaming everything on FOX News or Limbaugh. Right now cities are declaring bankruptcy, states like Wisconsin are/were close to bankruptcy, and none of this has to do with Republicans at the Federal level. Liberal administrations made huge entitlement promises to state and city workers and are now finding it's near impossible to fund those promises. Why? States and cities can't print money like the Federal gov't can, all they can do is tax. The states that are having serious problems are the ones who taxed the most to fund their liberal programs for gov't workers. The result? Businesses and individuals moved out of those jurisdictions due to the high taxes and now the money isn't there. It's time people wake up to the fact that a lot of people don't like to work hard only to have money taken away to fund the nice lifestyles of others. By the way, 17 Republican governors were elected in the 2010 election and in all 17 of those states the unemployment rate has gone down due to their policies. Do you want to work or do you want some fantasy that some politician sold you on to get your vote? Fantasies rarely come true.
Riiight.
Bush funded the war through emergency supplementals. Ever ask yourself why? Why not just put it in the budget? Was it just to be able to blame the democrats for the spending? So they could have limitless war spending and blame the democrats for "not supporting the troups"? No matter what you answer, we have now been fighting two expensive wars while insisting on low taxes. We're gonna have to start paying the bill sooner or later. Where do we get the money? From the people who have it, of course.
Huh? He went to Congress and asked them to give supplementary funds beyond the official budget that was already approved. And the Republicans controlled Congress his first 6 years. Why didn't Obama immediately remove us from both wars? He has the power to do that. Could it be when he came into power he learned some things he didn't know when he was slamming Bush all the time? Why hasn't he closed Guantanamo Bay? And no matter what I answer you aren't going to believe me, but fact is that Obama has greatly increased the size of the Federal Gov't, given billions to supporters like unions and now out of business companies, and almost doubled our national debt. We are on the brink of financial disaster and you want to play partisan politics. And it's a proved fact that if you confiscate the wealth of the wealthiest 1% you'd only pay off a fraction of the debt Obama has already incurred. The top 10% of income earners already pay 70% of income taxes, and taxing them more will just insure that they won't have the money to invest to create jobs, and further restrict the amount of taxes we could collect in a good economy and help pay off the debt and pay for social services. Enmity of the rich clouds your judgement. They need us, and we need them too.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
OK, we got you off the Kool-Aid van. Are we going to have to get you off the Lipton now?
No enmit of the rich whatsoever. I just trust Warren Buffet when he says that there has been a class war going on for years and his class is winning. I think it's your hatred of Obama that contorts what is usually fairly sound thinking on your part. Really. The notion that republicans have ever been fiscally better than democrats when they were in power is ridiculous.
Ronald Reagan, he said as he sipped his Lipton tea.
And curiously Warren Buffet has structured his wealth so that very little can be touched by the gov't. He's right up there with T.Boone Pickens who was going to build the world's biggest windmill farm(and saying it wasn't about the money) but backed out of that when he didn't get lucrative contracts. The fact is there has alway been class warfare(a lot worse a century ago with the Rockefellers, the Vanderbilts, etc). There will always be envy but demonizing the rich to justify growing an all powerful centralized gov't isn't sound thinking. I read a lot about life in the third world, and I don't admire people who live ostentatious lives while people suffer. But as a part of the capitalist system that makes it possible for us to live better than those in the third world the rich are essential. If our gov't can devise a system that rewards the rich for taking better care of their employees(tax breaks) I'd be all for it. Until then soaking the rich is just an easy, populist method to pander to the masses who resent not having as much to get their vote. Does not solve our fiscal problems and will make them worse.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Lets get our facts straight! WI was never close to bankruptcy, we did have budget deficits but they were manageable. We are still running deficits under Gov. Walker. Our unemployment rate has gone up since he has taken office if you care to look at the TRUE numbers.
Google Fox News, Madison, palm trees and then tell me Fox News doesn't twist the truth to lie to their viewers.
A WI UPSer.
The voters of Wisconsin sure think differently.
Don't foget that as Walker was cutting out the public unions he was busy handing out tax cuts to campaign donating corporations.
To attract business and create jobs. He campaigned on promises to reign in gov't spending and create a better economy. If the state employee unions want better perks there has to be a broad base of business to support that with taxes. You can't run off business with high taxes and then pay those entitlements with less tax revenue.
That is absolutely no excuse for taking away the bargaining rights of unions.
Goldilocks
Well-Known Member
Saw this and had to share with all you Demo's....
Romney not great, not another 4 years for Obama, I liked Herman Cain 999
Romney not great, not another 4 years for Obama, I liked Herman Cain 999
Similar threads
