HowboutthemCowboys Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I probably shouldn't, I should probably not lower myself to your level. Oh hell I can't resist. I'd rather be a right wing nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job. ..said the guy that posts all day long at the Huddle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Great--One in six Texans hates America. Seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wirehairman Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Great-- One in Six Texans is Mexican Seriously. fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 ..said the guy that posts all day long at the Huddle... and employs 30 to 40 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 Great--One in six Texans hates America. Seriously. fixed Pretty much true. Of that 1 in 6, I'd be willing to bet 95% of them are Mexican. While I'm about as displeased as anyone I know, the idea of leaving the union is just stupid. Now I wouldn't mind splitting Texas into 5 state, so we could have those extra conservative senators. (plus the area of the state that I live in would probably end up having the largest GDP and lowest unemployment.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 I don't care about military service by my president. you sure as hell coulda fooled me the last 8 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 you sure as hell coulda fooled me the last 8 years. The only reason I brought it up was the AWOL coward comment he made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 and employs 30 to 40 illegal Mexicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polksalet Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 you sure as hell coulda fooled me the last 8 years. yeah, no joke. Anyone care to post a gazillion links to old threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 To my knowledge we haven't employed an illegal in over 20 years, and the one that I know that we did employ was fired and reported as soon as we found out he was illegal. If you will go look at past threads, I'm a hugh supporter of a tougher illegal immigration stance. Notice I said stance, not laws. The laws we currently have will work fine if they are just enforced. I'm also supported of beefing up border patrol, which I view as a constitutional responsibility of the federal government, unlike the majority of the crap currently being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 To my knowledge ... Are you SURE you aren't a politician? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 Are you SURE you aren't a politician? Have you any idea of how good forgeries are now? We do everything we can to ensure that we are not hiring illegals. We fill out all of the paper work required by the government. We run background checks on all our employees at the time that we hire them. So to the best of my knowledge everyone we employ is legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 If Mexico killed us all for the land it will be like history repeating itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 If Mexico killed us all for the land it will be like history repeating itself. Come and Take It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Here you go. You will notice that from 2004 to 2007 the deficit was shrinking, then in 2008, the first budget that the Dems elected in 2006 were involved in, the deficit appears to have almost tripled. Hey big guy . . . you have ANY links that are not connected to the most conservative think-tanks in Washington? Is your next set of "proof" from a Rush Limbaugh show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Hey big guy . . . you have ANY links that are not connected to the most conservative think-tanks in Washington? Is your next set of "proof" from a Rush Limbaugh show? Here are experts from fact-check.org from the 2006 State of the Union Speech: He spoke of being "on track" to cut the federal deficit in half by 2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse. The President proposed cutting $14 billion worth of programs and said this would keep the US "on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." Not mentioned is that the deficit is going up this year. It was $317 billion in the fiscal year that ended last Oct. 30, and CBO projects that this year's deficit will be at least $337 billion, and probably $360 billion by the time added money is approved for flood insurance and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. http://www.factcheck.org/misstatement_of_the_union.html The other question is how many presidential vetos did the Democratic Congress over-ride from 2006-2008? Nada. There wasn't one spending bill that didn't have Bush's consent. Perch is the huddle's resident misinformation officer. Edited April 17, 2009 by bushwacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 So after about 80 days of a new lawfully elected president the Texas governor wants to break up the country? Can we get this in writing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 nope--Jimmy Carter (Navy) Not to mention that JFK was of more of a conservative/libertarian bent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 Hey big guy . . . you have ANY links that are not connected to the most conservative think-tanks in Washington? Is your next set of "proof" from a Rush Limbaugh show? here is a link to the same graph, from the organization that originally created it, the washington post. here is a link to the actual historical budget data, recording actual receipts and expenditures. you will see that, as perch said, the actual budget deficit for fiscal 2007, the last budget passed by a republican controlled congress, was down to $161 billion. the actual deficit for fiscal 2008 went up to $459 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 Hey big guy . . . you have ANY links that are not connected to the most conservative think-tanks in Washington? Is your next set of "proof" from a Rush Limbaugh show? The graph in the link is from the Washington Post. I've noticed that one of liberals favorite excuses not to look at something is because it isn't from an untra-liberal news source like the NY Slimes on CNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Here are experts from fact-check.org from the 2006 State of the Union Speech: He spoke of being "on track" to cut the federal deficit in half by 2009. But the deficit is increasing this year, and according to the Congressional Budget Office it will decline by considerably less than half even if Bush's tax cuts are allowed to lapse. The President proposed cutting $14 billion worth of programs and said this would keep the US "on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009." Not mentioned is that the deficit is going up this year. It was $318 billion in the fiscal year that ended last Oct. 30 (that would be FY2005), and CBO projects that this year's deficit will be at least $337 billion, and probably $360 billion by the time added money is approved for flood insurance and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (that would be FY2006, and the actual deficit for that year ended up at $248 billion. for FY2007, the deficit went down to $161 billion. interestingly enough, the $161 billion 2007 deficit is roughly half the $318 billion 2005 deficit. so I guess bush's comment in the 2006 state of the union was right source Edited April 17, 2009 by Azazello1313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Another Graph Maybe Az and Perch could now link us to the Democratic spending bills that passed in 07-08, that didn't have Bush's sig on them. Edited April 17, 2009 by bushwacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted April 17, 2009 Author Share Posted April 17, 2009 Another Graph Maybe Az and Perch could now link us to the Democratic spending bills that passed in 07-08, that didn't have Bush's sig on them. Nope, and as both Az and I have both said on numerous occasions that is one of the most disappointing aspects of his Presidency. I can't speak for Az but I was critical of all non-military spending Bush increased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) Nope, and as both Az and I have both said on numerous occasions that is one of the most disappointing aspects of his Presidency. I can't speak for Az but I was critical of all non-military spending Bush increased. Well it's good to know you wouldn't dishonestly insinuate that deficit spending in 07-08 was solely or primarily due to Congress; except that's precisely what you did. Edited April 17, 2009 by bushwacked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted April 17, 2009 Share Posted April 17, 2009 (edited) here is a link to the same graph, from the organization that originally created it, the washington post. here is a link to the actual historical budget data, recording actual receipts and expenditures. you will see that, as perch said, the actual budget deficit for fiscal 2007, the last budget passed by a republican controlled congress, was down to $161 billion. the actual deficit for fiscal 2008 went up to $459 billion. You may want to see this article where on January 7, 2009, the CBO already projected a budget deficit of $1.2 Trillion prior to Obama even taking the white house. Takes a little luster off that gilded lily you are presenting as Bush's deficit. And, just in case you are curious: The projected deficit of $1.2 trillion, or 8.3 percent of GDP, is considerably more than the $438 billion fiscal 2009 deficit CBO projected in September or the $454.8 billion in fiscal 2008. The projection, moreover, does not include the economic stimulus package, estimated at $775 billion or more, which congressional leaders hope to have ready for President-elect Obama by mid-February, CBO said. So it looks a great deal like the chart you are referrring to is not necessarily Bush v. Obama, but rather 2008 accounting hitting in 2009. Though anyone here who is a corporate accountant may have more insight. Edited April 17, 2009 by cre8tiff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts