It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Obama set the US on fire and now we will watch him party while it burns. We will not examine the 30+ years of financial idiocy, corruption on BOTH sides and plain foolishness that got us here.
Anyhow - the things cons focus on when out of power is interesting...
Originally posted by LiquidMirage
Can you just imagine the crap storm that would ensue if a Republican was doing this (not implying that they don't).
Stopovers Let Bush Charge Taxpayers for Political Trips
by Mike Allen
And because Bush is always the president -- whether acting as commander in chief or head of the Republican Party -- taxpayers pay the full $57,000-an-hour cost of flying Air Force One regardless of the trip's purpose. The government also pays for most of his entourage and for the military and communications gear and evacuation helicopters that travel ahead of him. commondreams.org
DNC: Taxpayers Picked Up Tab For McCain's London Fundraiser
"The 2007 ethics reform law and the regulations implementing it require that when a candidate mixes campaign and official travel when using a government plane, the campaign travelers must reimburse the government for the full cost of an equivalent round trip charter flight. Reasonable estimates place the cost of a one-way charter flight from Washington to London at between $20,000 and $56,000. As a result, McCain's stated intention to reimburse the federal government $3,000 almost certainly falls far short of what the law requires." huffington post
BLITZER: Ed, who pays when the President goes to a fundraiser like this for John McCain? The McCain campaign or the American taxpayer?
HENRY: They both pay, Wolf. The bottom line is the President is trying to mix in a little official business today. He’s going to speak at cable company…short remarks. That justifies for the White House charging the taxpayers for some of this trip, and the McCain camp picks up the rest, Wolf
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by mental modulator
Anyhow - the things cons focus on when out of power is interesting...
Cons? Most of us are sick of both sides. Partisanship is the downfall of this country. It keeps people from focusing on the problems, and solutions. The FACT is that "Rome" is burning, and Nero may not have caused it, but he sure isn't trying to put out the fire.
But you go ahead, and call people partisan names, if it makes you feel better. Some of us are trying to save the republic. I don't think Stevie Wonder or Earth, Wind and Fire, are part of the solution.
People are near starvation in this country, they are loosing their homes, their jobs, and their life savings, and OBAMA PARTIES!!!!!
Originally posted by mental modulator
You guys are like spoilt children
Originally posted by mental modulator
People are near starvation in this country, they are loosing their homes, their jobs, and their life savings, and people flock to a thread about OBAMA PARTIES. Thats my angle...
www.cedarcomm.com...
Since 1938 the Democrats have held the White house for 35 years, the Republicans for 36. Over that time the national debt has increased at an average annual rate of 8.5%. In years Democrats were in the White House there was an average increase of 8.3%. In years the Republicans ran the White House the debt increased an average 9.2% per year. Those averages aren’t that far apart, but they do show a bias toward more borrowing by Republicans than Democrats even including World War II.
If you look at the 60+ year record of debt since the end of WWII, starting with Truman’s term, the difference between the two parties’ contributions to our national debt level change considerably. Since 1946, Democratic presidents increased the national debt an average of only 3.2% per year. The Republican presidents stay at an average increase of 9.2% per year. Republican Presidents out borrowed and spent Democratic presidents by a three to one ratio. Putting that in very real terms; for every dollar a Democratic president has raised the national debt in the past 63 years Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.84
Prior to the Neo-Conservative takeover of the Republican Party there was not much difference between the two parties’ debt philosophy. They both worked together to minimize it. However the debt has been on a steady incline ever since the Reagan presidency. The only exception to the steep increase over the last 30 years was during the Clinton presidency, when he brought spending under control and the debt growth down to almost zero.
Comparing the borrowing habits of the two parties since 1981, when the Neo-Conservative movement really took hold and government spending raced out of control, it is extremely obvious that the big spenders in Washington are Republicans and their party’s presidents. The only Democratic president since then, Mr. Clinton raised the national debt an average of 4.3% per year. The Republican presidents (Reagan, Bush, and Bush II) raised the debt an average of 10.8% per year. That is, for every dollar a Democratic President has raised the national debt in the past 30 years, Republican presidents have raised the debt by $2.52[6]. Any way you look at it Neo-Conservative Republican presidents cannot or will not control government spending.
It is interesting to note who controlled Congress versus what party was in the presidency during the seven years that the debt was reduced throughout the terms of Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy. Three times the Democratic Party controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency (1948, 1951 & 1961). The other four years all had a mix of control, with Republicans in the White House (1956 & 1957), in charge of Congress (1946 & 1947), but never both. At no time since 1945 when Republicans have been in total charge of both elected branches of government have they ever reduced spending. They talk about it a lot, but they never deliver.
While the debt did go up every year during Johnson’s time in office (1963-69), he was the last president before Clinton to submit a balanced budget, and Johnson did this during a time of a very hot Cold War. Johnson’s average was a debt increase of 3% for the six years he served. He had a Democratic Congress to work with all his years in office.
In 1993 President Clinton inherited the deficit spending problem and did more than just talk about it; he fixed it. In his first two years, with a cooperative Democratic Congress, he set the course for the best economy this country has ever experienced. Then he worked with what could be characterized as the most hostile Congress in history, led by Republicans for the last six years of his administration. Yet, under constant personal attacks from the right, he still managed to get the growth of the debt down to 0.32% (one third of one percent) his last year in office. Had his policies been followed for one more year the debt would have been reduced for the first time since the Kennedy administration. Contrary to the myth fostered by our right-wing friends, under a Democrat, revenue increased and spending decreased.
The only time we have seen national debt reduction in the past 60 years was when Democrats were totally in charge of our government or when one party was in the White House and another ran Congress
In the past 60 years when Republicans were in control of the presidency and both Houses of Congress, neither debt, nor government spending was ever reduced.
Relatively recent history tells us that there is a simple solution to the growing debt problem: Congress must adhere to a ‘pay as you go’ rule regardless of the party in control. Unfortunately it requires a President like Bill Clinton, who was truly committed to balancing the budget, to lead the Congress, regardless of the party in charge, to do the right thing for the future of the nation.
Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Now I can 'member when dubya was holding his parties drinking and
even cracking jokes about it while the troups he send over the fight his
fake "war on terror" were dying.
But either people have forgotten already or just don't care.
And I suspect the latest outburst is more of black thing than
any thing else.
Originally posted by jam321
Taxpayer's money nonetheless.
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
Who created the financial mess we are in? Mostly the Republican Presidents ...
GWB took over 543 days of vacation during his 8 years of Presidency.
You want to talk about the ultimate party boy. Lets talk GWB. Coke, alcohol, pot.
you would have preferred to continue America spiraling into the shi& hole we find ourselves currently in.
Possible election tampering, (stealing),
American's gave away their freedom and their money each time they voted party prejudice (the way mom and dad voted) or watched and bought into Fox News (which is owned and propagandized by the handful of the elite rich).
He's going to be too busy cleaning up the mess most of the Republican Presidents have left with their overspending that affects the average middle class tax paying American.