Did you vote today?

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Didn't your lying hero obama say he was going to cut the defecit in half during his first term?

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Spending on food stamps doubled between 2001 and 2006, even though unemployment was low in those years.
Bush began a recruitment campaign.At the local level, county governments spread the word and work to overcome residual cultural resistance to taking government benefits. The federal government pays $50 million in bonuses to states for signing people up.
But with the 2002 farm bill, President Bush dramatically expanded eligibility, restoring benefits to nearly a million individuals at the beginning of 2003, and paving the way for the program to expand as it did during the rest of presidency. As a result, Bush managed to oversee unprecedented growth in the program even as the economy grew. Obama then followed up on this with an eligibility expansion of his own in the 2009 stimulus package.

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
Both parties redistribute wealth. Both parties realize that the way into power is to promise something to the people. That's why this country's in such a sad state. It's no longer about upholding an oath. That's why both parties must go.

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>I have never been ininsured. I have not lost one FREEDOM. I have always had insurance. Maybe you should buy some!

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Ron Paul never promised anything to his constituents?

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
For your sake you should stick to the subject at hand .
But I will play along,
what everyone seems to be forgetting is that in 2004 President George W. Bush promised - and failed - to halve the federal budget deficit by 2009. As it turns out, Bush broke his pledge even before the economic cataclysm of 2008 that triggered the TARP bank bailout, sent government revenues plummeting, and required President Obama's rescue programs that saved the U.S. from "Greet Depression 2.0."
As he faced reelection in 2004, George W. Bush famously committed to cut the deficit in half by 2009. As it turned out, the budget Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama didn't even get close to that target. The FY 2009 budget Bush proposed in February 2008 called for a deficit of roughly $400 billion, almost identical to the result in 2004.

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
I meant UN-insured. You do NOT have the right (FREEDOM) to be UN-insured if you want to be.
I've never been uninsured either, but I would like the right to be if I so choose. I have TRIED to be uninsured, but my employer insists I have it- like it or not. BTW, I have one of the best policies money can buy, at least I did before they decided to cut some of our benefits recently). The coverage is still the same, but unfortunately, I had to change doctors. So now I would rather NOT have the insurance. If I have a problem, I'll pay cash. It's cheaper and simpler, less fraud, waste, and abuse. That is the whole problem with insurance and why health care costs so much.
Where is my freedom to not have insurance?

Judged:

1

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>LMAO! Now you talk about FREEDOMS your employer has taken away from you. WOW! I guarantee you you can drop your insurance. You do not have to buy insurance. God gave you free will you don't have to buy insurance. I know many people without insurance of any kind.

Judged:

1

1

1

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
For your sake you should stick to the subject at hand .
But I will play along,
what everyone seems to be forgetting is that in 2004 President George W. Bush promised - and failed - to halve the federal budget deficit by 2009. As it turns out, Bush broke his pledge even before the economic cataclysm of 2008 that triggered the TARP bank bailout, sent government revenues plummeting, and required President Obama's rescue programs that saved the U.S. from "Greet Depression 2.0."
As he faced reelection in 2004, George W. Bush famously committed to cut the deficit in half by 2009. As it turned out, the budget Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama didn't even get close to that target. The FY 2009 budget Bush proposed in February 2008 called for a deficit of roughly $400 billion, almost identical to the result in 2004.

Judged:

1

1

1

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
I forgot, since you are the world traveler, you know more about my benefit package than I do. Maybe YOU will talk to my employer and tell them I want to drop my insurance? That will go over like a lead balloon. In case you didn't know this, MI is not a right to work state. I'm in a union, Dear (another thing I am not free to decide on). I must take/forfeit whatever someone else negotiates for me. Some FREEDOM huh?

Judged:

1

1

1

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
For your sake you should stick to the subject at hand .
But I will play along,
what everyone seems to be forgetting is that in 2004 President George W. Bush promised - and failed - to halve the federal budget deficit by 2009. As it turns out, Bush broke his pledge even before the economic cataclysm of 2008 that triggered the TARP bank bailout, sent government revenues plummeting, and required President Obama's rescue programs that saved the U.S. from "Greet Depression 2.0."
As he faced reelection in 2004, George W. Bush famously committed to cut the deficit in half by 2009. As it turned out, the budget Bush bequeathed to Barack Obama didn't even get close to that target. The FY 2009 budget Bush proposed in February 2008 called for a deficit of roughly $400 billion, almost identical to the result in 2004.

Judged:

1

1

1

guest wrote:

<quoted text>Just when you thought there were some limitations to BARNEYII's hypocrisy and desperation, he posts this and continues to move the bar lower and lower. Pretty soon, he'll be so low that he'll be in Obama's Press Secretary levels...

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>YOU do not have to work there. YOU can quit and YOU can even move if you want to. YOU choose to work there and abide by those policies and regulations. YOU choose to live that way! YOUR CHOICE!

Judged:

1

1

1

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it is NOT a choice! Why should I have to quit my job? Why does someone else have more rights to it than me?
God, you not only talk like a lib, but a far left one at that.

Judged:

1

1

1

WARRIOR wrote:

<quoted text>Is somebody making you work at that place? Are you being held hostage? Have you tried calling 911? If you honestly feel like your freedoms are being taken away from you then you have nobody to blame but YOURSELF! Sounds like you want to be a slave to your own misery!
You are truly confused in that liberal mind of yours!

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
Where do you suggest I go for employment, McDonald's? Wasn't it you that criticized someone for flipping burgers recently?
You didn't answer my question;
WHY should I HAVE TO quit my job?
Another question;
WHY MUST I be in a union if I don't want to be?
Isn't that one big issue republicans stand on; "right to work?"
You seem to disagree with them on that, among other things.

warrior wrote:

<quoted text>I once had a job and I didn't care for the way things were being done so I left! You should not have to quit your job if you do not want to. Nobody is making you quit or stay there. It's YOUR choice to be treated like a sheep! I bet you took that job knowing those things were in place didn't you!

Raptor in Michigan wrote:

<quoted text>
I took the job because it paid the bills, put food on the table, had a good benefit and retirement package and because I liked the hours and wanted weekends and holidays off. I had no choice but to join the union if I wanted the job. I had bills to pay. I NEEDED the job, so I accepted it. Unfortunately, joining the union meant no advancing, no raises, no extra perks, no negotiating for any changes in anything unless the union leaders wanted to negotiate for it.

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL, what would I have to be, "mad about", not a thing.
REMEMBRER THIS ROMNEY QUOTE?
"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."
Hell, I agree with him.