-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
T
It's in the post above where it says ">>>>>LINK<<<<<<" but I will post it again. Bigger this time
>>>LINK<<<
Actually, I didn't say anything about Bush. The article I quoted, however, is comparing four-year periods to four-year periods, just to be fair.
No doubt.
If he were such a devout Christian, he wouldn't have been so happy to kill OBL. I believe it was necessary to kill him. Had it been me in the Oval Office, I probably would have done the same thing, but I wouldn't brag about it and cheer.
Could you outline a few of the promises you think he made and broke?
I don't recall any promises he made that he hasn't kept. He never promise to fix everything. He said he would stop the downward spiral of the economy -- and that he has done -- but he made it pretty clear that he would not be able to turn things around that much in 4 years. He said that even before he was nominated.
He said he would ask congress to pass various bills, and he has done exactly that. Congress has not passed a lot of them, but that doesn't mean he didn't fulfill his promise. His promise was to bring the bills forward to the voting floor. He did his part. He did not promise to get the bills passed. He is a slick enough politician to know better than to promise that. He brought them to the floor, the floor did not pass them. His promise was kept.
LOL.
I don't know if he was lying or not. His ideas were basically carbon copies of the democratic platform. I kinda hope he WASN'T lying, but I fear like you said with Obama, he said what he thought he needed to say to get elected.
I'm surprised Romney isn't doing better in the polls. I mean, at some point in time, he's been on the same side of EVERYONE in every issue, right?
Anyway, I want to thank you for addressing the topic openly and honestly. It's nice to have a grown-up discussion in here
>>>LINK<<<
Actually, I didn't say anything about Bush. The article I quoted, however, is comparing four-year periods to four-year periods, just to be fair.
No doubt.
If he were such a devout Christian, he wouldn't have been so happy to kill OBL. I believe it was necessary to kill him. Had it been me in the Oval Office, I probably would have done the same thing, but I wouldn't brag about it and cheer.
Could you outline a few of the promises you think he made and broke?
I don't recall any promises he made that he hasn't kept. He never promise to fix everything. He said he would stop the downward spiral of the economy -- and that he has done -- but he made it pretty clear that he would not be able to turn things around that much in 4 years. He said that even before he was nominated.
He said he would ask congress to pass various bills, and he has done exactly that. Congress has not passed a lot of them, but that doesn't mean he didn't fulfill his promise. His promise was to bring the bills forward to the voting floor. He did his part. He did not promise to get the bills passed. He is a slick enough politician to know better than to promise that. He brought them to the floor, the floor did not pass them. His promise was kept.
LOL.
I don't know if he was lying or not. His ideas were basically carbon copies of the democratic platform. I kinda hope he WASN'T lying, but I fear like you said with Obama, he said what he thought he needed to say to get elected.
I'm surprised Romney isn't doing better in the polls. I mean, at some point in time, he's been on the same side of EVERYONE in every issue, right?
Anyway, I want to thank you for addressing the topic openly and honestly. It's nice to have a grown-up discussion in here
T
I think a lot of people agree with you there. I know I do.
Ummm, that is not a fact. That is a prediction. It may even be likely. But it is not a fact. Unless you know something extremely nefarious, like you have absolute proof that Romney has made some sort of deal with someone to start a war.
I'm not sure where you got those numbers. 40% in insurance, 50% in payroll ... I actually do own my own business, and the numbers look nothing like that. So whoever told you that is either lying or really stupid, so don't believe anything they say.
Historically, unemployment goes DOWN when taxes on the wealthy increase. I understand the republican fairy tale that if we raise taxes on the upper classes, those are the "business owners and job-creators" and they'll just take their business elsewhere. Problem is, there's no economic data to support that. Historically, when taxes on these so-called "job-creators" goes down, unemployment goes UP, and the economy suffers. This has been proven both mathematically (economics is a branch of mathematics) and through historical data.
You may ask yourself, how can this be? Well, if you really are interested in learning, I invite you to read just about anything written by Paul Krugman. He's one of the greatest economists of our time, and he can explain what is called "Keynesian Economics," and why it works, in such a way that even a child can understand. I was blown away the first time I read his stuff. It took me years to get my head wrapped around that stuff, and he just summarizes it, makes it downright simple.
Of course, I can't force you to learn. If you prefer to stick your head in the sand and believe the lies of the Republican party, you're welcome to do that. Of course, the democratic party lies to. It's just that the economic plan they endorse just happens to work. I wouldn't trust a democrat any further than I could throw him (or her), and few have my best interest in mind, but it just so happens that their policies happen to benefit the common good, unlike the republicans, who may very well have my best interest in mind, and are simply clueless in what to do about it.
Hey, I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you.
I was too young back then to understand the full implications of what was going on. If I had been a little older, I'm sure I would have been one of the protesters, but I also know the way you guys were treated when you came home was rotten, and on behalf of all us hippies, I am really sorry. We owe you a huge debt, and I know my gratefulness to you can't come close to repaying that. But thanks, man. Thanks.
I'd like to believe that isn't true. The cynic in me thinks the easy way to make money is through war, but I think stronger minds can come up with better ideas. Minds and hearts far better than either Obama or Romney, that's for sure.
Ummm, that is not a fact. That is a prediction. It may even be likely. But it is not a fact. Unless you know something extremely nefarious, like you have absolute proof that Romney has made some sort of deal with someone to start a war.
I'm not sure where you got those numbers. 40% in insurance, 50% in payroll ... I actually do own my own business, and the numbers look nothing like that. So whoever told you that is either lying or really stupid, so don't believe anything they say.
Historically, unemployment goes DOWN when taxes on the wealthy increase. I understand the republican fairy tale that if we raise taxes on the upper classes, those are the "business owners and job-creators" and they'll just take their business elsewhere. Problem is, there's no economic data to support that. Historically, when taxes on these so-called "job-creators" goes down, unemployment goes UP, and the economy suffers. This has been proven both mathematically (economics is a branch of mathematics) and through historical data.
You may ask yourself, how can this be? Well, if you really are interested in learning, I invite you to read just about anything written by Paul Krugman. He's one of the greatest economists of our time, and he can explain what is called "Keynesian Economics," and why it works, in such a way that even a child can understand. I was blown away the first time I read his stuff. It took me years to get my head wrapped around that stuff, and he just summarizes it, makes it downright simple.
Of course, I can't force you to learn. If you prefer to stick your head in the sand and believe the lies of the Republican party, you're welcome to do that. Of course, the democratic party lies to. It's just that the economic plan they endorse just happens to work. I wouldn't trust a democrat any further than I could throw him (or her), and few have my best interest in mind, but it just so happens that their policies happen to benefit the common good, unlike the republicans, who may very well have my best interest in mind, and are simply clueless in what to do about it.
Hey, I just want to take this opportunity to say thank you.
I was too young back then to understand the full implications of what was going on. If I had been a little older, I'm sure I would have been one of the protesters, but I also know the way you guys were treated when you came home was rotten, and on behalf of all us hippies, I am really sorry. We owe you a huge debt, and I know my gratefulness to you can't come close to repaying that. But thanks, man. Thanks.
I'd like to believe that isn't true. The cynic in me thinks the easy way to make money is through war, but I think stronger minds can come up with better ideas. Minds and hearts far better than either Obama or Romney, that's for sure.
A
You bit and tear and devour one another spewing not agape upon each other and with out conviction or remorse you have done it to Christ who has bought you both over someone you do not know or have or had fellowship with i.e. Obama or Romney you are willing to darken your souls over those you do not even know
and allowed them to insite bitterness, accusations, argument, judgement, belittling and negative emotions... unfruitfullnes. That is yeilding to satan's schemes and tactic through your flesh. Change your minds about your behavior bring forth fruits of the spirit if you can't refrain produce self control by not saying anything. Why do you or any one else defend anyone? God will either judge or your will be defended by the Lord Jesus if you abide in Him.
and allowed them to insite bitterness, accusations, argument, judgement, belittling and negative emotions... unfruitfullnes. That is yeilding to satan's schemes and tactic through your flesh. Change your minds about your behavior bring forth fruits of the spirit if you can't refrain produce self control by not saying anything. Why do you or any one else defend anyone? God will either judge or your will be defended by the Lord Jesus if you abide in Him.
T
Close Gitmo is the only one you may be able to hang on him, and I think if you'll look you'll find he didn't "promise" to close it. He said he'd look to move the prisoners out of Gitmo, and then when he got into office his answer was to move them to a facility in NYC, which didn't go over real well, as you may remember. But yes, that was not one of his brightest moments.
He never promised to stop the wars. He said that if he had been in the senate when the original votes came, he would have voted against them. But he also admitted that "sending all the boys home" at this juncture would be problematic, and an exit strategy would need to be thought out very carefully. He set a goal of 2010 for closure in Iraq, and almost made that goal. He never promised an end to all US involvement in the middle east. Again, he's too slick for that.
Open debates to the public? He did that. Did you miss it?
He never promised to stop the wars. He said that if he had been in the senate when the original votes came, he would have voted against them. But he also admitted that "sending all the boys home" at this juncture would be problematic, and an exit strategy would need to be thought out very carefully. He set a goal of 2010 for closure in Iraq, and almost made that goal. He never promised an end to all US involvement in the middle east. Again, he's too slick for that.
Open debates to the public? He did that. Did you miss it?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
09/30/201013,561,623,030,891.7909/30/200911,909,829,003,511.7509/30/200810,024,724,896,912.4909/30/20079,007,653,372,262.4809/30/20068,506,973,899,215.2309/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.5009/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.3209/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.6209/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.1609/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.0609/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
This is Bush through 2010 Obama took over in 2008 it was 10 Trillion -- from when Bush took office it was 5.6 Trillon
09/30/201013,561,623,030,891.7909/30/200911,909,829,003,511.7509/30/200810,024,724,896,912.4909/30/20079,007,653,372,262.4809/30/20068,506,973,899,215.2309/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.5009/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.3209/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.6209/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.1609/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.0609/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
This is Bush through 2010 Obama took over in 2008 it was 10 Trillion -- from when Bush took office it was 5.6 Trillon
T
FINALLY some numbers.
This shows the debt, the difference between income and expenditures. It does NOT prove that Obama spent more. It shows that the difference between spending and income was greater in the years that Obama was present.
Also, it covers the entire budget, about 60-70% of which is mandatory spending, and the president has no say over it. Obama can't just decide to stop paying social security checks to people who are on social security.
When people talk about spending rates of presidents, they're talking about NEW spending. They're looking at what programs the president has initiated that have cost money.
As far as NEW SPENDING, Obama has spent the LEAST of any president since the 50s. This is a fact. I have provided the evidence for it, and the explanation.
Tradition says there are two ways to eliminate debt: cut spending or raise revenue. The result of cutting spending is called "recession." When spending is cut, the entire economy suffers. Productivity slows, unemployment rises, and business basically falters. This is what happened under Bush.
When you hear people say "you can't spend your way out of debt" they are not really understanding how macro-economics works. It is true that you shouldn't increase spending willy-nilly, but that isn't nearly as dangerous as cutting spending.
That's why there's really only one way to reduce the debt, and that is to raise revenue. And the only way to raise revenue is to stimulate the economy. That is what Obama is doing.
This shows the debt, the difference between income and expenditures. It does NOT prove that Obama spent more. It shows that the difference between spending and income was greater in the years that Obama was present.
Also, it covers the entire budget, about 60-70% of which is mandatory spending, and the president has no say over it. Obama can't just decide to stop paying social security checks to people who are on social security.
When people talk about spending rates of presidents, they're talking about NEW spending. They're looking at what programs the president has initiated that have cost money.
As far as NEW SPENDING, Obama has spent the LEAST of any president since the 50s. This is a fact. I have provided the evidence for it, and the explanation.
Tradition says there are two ways to eliminate debt: cut spending or raise revenue. The result of cutting spending is called "recession." When spending is cut, the entire economy suffers. Productivity slows, unemployment rises, and business basically falters. This is what happened under Bush.
When you hear people say "you can't spend your way out of debt" they are not really understanding how macro-economics works. It is true that you shouldn't increase spending willy-nilly, but that isn't nearly as dangerous as cutting spending.
That's why there's really only one way to reduce the debt, and that is to raise revenue. And the only way to raise revenue is to stimulate the economy. That is what Obama is doing.
It's in the post above where it says ">>>>>LINK<<<<<<" but I will post it again. Bigger this time
>>>LINK<<<
LOL, I saw the link before, but it doesn't say he spent less than any president ever, it says since Eisenhower. I can't find any info that says he spent less than any president.
Actually, I didn't say anything about Bush. The article I quoted, however, is comparing four-year periods to four-year periods, just to be fair.
that's the Bush reference I was referring to.
Could you outline a few of the promises you think he made and broke?
I don't recall any promises he made that he hasn't kept. He never promise to fix everything. He said he would stop the downward spiral of the economy -- and that he has done -- but he made it pretty clear that he would not be able to turn things around that much in 4 years. He said that even before he was nominated.
He said he would ask congress to pass various bills, and he has done exactly that. Congress has not passed a lot of them, but that doesn't mean he didn't fulfill his promise. His promise was to bring the bills forward to the voting floor. He did his part. He did not promise to get the bills passed. He is a slick enough politician to know better than to promise that. He brought them to the floor, the floor did not pass them. His promise was kept.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year PolitiFact | The Obameter: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials PolitiFact | The Obameter: Support human mission to moon by 2020PolitiFact | The Obameter: Give annual "State of the World" address PolitiFact | The Obameter: Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of these things were totally in his power to do, but he didn't do them. A lot of them aren't even important, like the mission to the moon, but he lied needlessly.
I'm surprised Romney isn't doing better in the polls. I mean, at some point in time, he's been on the same side of EVERYONE in every issue, right? lol, true.
Anyway, I want to thank you for addressing the topic openly and honestly. It's nice to have a grown-up discussion in here
>>>LINK<<<
LOL, I saw the link before, but it doesn't say he spent less than any president ever, it says since Eisenhower. I can't find any info that says he spent less than any president.
Actually, I didn't say anything about Bush. The article I quoted, however, is comparing four-year periods to four-year periods, just to be fair.
that's the Bush reference I was referring to.
Could you outline a few of the promises you think he made and broke?
I don't recall any promises he made that he hasn't kept. He never promise to fix everything. He said he would stop the downward spiral of the economy -- and that he has done -- but he made it pretty clear that he would not be able to turn things around that much in 4 years. He said that even before he was nominated.
He said he would ask congress to pass various bills, and he has done exactly that. Congress has not passed a lot of them, but that doesn't mean he didn't fulfill his promise. His promise was to bring the bills forward to the voting floor. He did his part. He did not promise to get the bills passed. He is a slick enough politician to know better than to promise that. He brought them to the floor, the floor did not pass them. His promise was kept.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PolitiFact | The Obameter: Introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year PolitiFact | The Obameter: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills PolitiFact | The Obameter: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials PolitiFact | The Obameter: Support human mission to moon by 2020PolitiFact | The Obameter: Give annual "State of the World" address PolitiFact | The Obameter: Seek independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lot of these things were totally in his power to do, but he didn't do them. A lot of them aren't even important, like the mission to the moon, but he lied needlessly.
I'm surprised Romney isn't doing better in the polls. I mean, at some point in time, he's been on the same side of EVERYONE in every issue, right? lol, true.
Anyway, I want to thank you for addressing the topic openly and honestly. It's nice to have a grown-up discussion in here
B
Good point!! GrungeDiva!!I should never have said fact about a war coming in 3 months!! That was my ages fault!! LOL However about small business, I would just agree to disagree with you on that one,I know many as well who own a small business, and yes it sure would depend much on what kind of business that would be as well! I am just very tired of the lies from both sides! I sure do not know why Hilary did not run,I would actually have voted for her if she had! That is how bad either one of these two are!! LOL Oh well, like everything else we will just see what happens. You made some good points sis! Thanks.