Alwqys love when Republicans cry foul for being blamed with something they created. Who really likes to take blame? It is almost like Bush bought a house and for eight years didn't put two cents into it. After he sold it the guy who bought it should take the blame for the destruction that happen the last eight years. It is almost comical when Republicans say stop the blame game :mj07: I said when Obama got elected that this ditch is so deep i m not sure anyone could get out of it in 4 years let alone eight and sure enuf this is what is happening. You can't fix Haiti overnight just like this mess the Republicans have created. The mess that hurts their feelings when u call them on it. Republicans don't want to be blamed for anything but when u ask them for answers it is the same old tired song about lowering taxes without paying for them. When i use to own my shop i use to say i don't need a tax break i need customers with jobs and money in their pockets. Tax breaks with an empty store get u an empty bank account. Boy what a wise move i made selling my joint the day Bush started his second term. Just feel sorry for the guy that bought it. Got to love the Republicans who voted against the bill to keep the teachers and police working just because in the bill the loophole for closing tax breaks for outsourcing ur company has been closed. If that isn't anti American im not sure what is. Just pieces of trash. U got to luve those Republicans. Imagine being mad that those loopholes are now closed. Middle class people like Dogs who support this kind of insanity are just basically unreachable. Naive and unreachable. Yeehaaaaa
It was Boooosh/the grift
- Thread starter DOGS THAT BARK
- Start date
But I am in Iraq right now and this sort of insanity makes me both sad and a little nauseous. People throughout Iraq see who is making money and who is not... this "development" in Baghdad will go up only a few miles from a massive slum of 2 million persons, suffering from decades of trauma and poverty, and radicalized by both.
A project like this may be designed to graft a little bit of America on Iraq, but this is not Dubai. You can't create massive elite shopping centers and golf courses in a country where so many people suffer so profoundly. And even Dubai had better watch it's step - Gulf Arabs are not uniformly loved around here (and nearly everybody hates the Saudis). The massive inequalities of this region find expression in all sorts of ways, not all of them healthy.
This project could not be better designed to strengthen low-income Shia' resentment and add more fuel to the fire. The Iraqi civil war as well as the war between the Iraqis and the Americans is also an economic revolution, with the US increasingly on the wrong side. The only good thing to say about this development is that it will remain nothing more than another insult - an architectural "fuck-you" to the Iraqis on paper, and will never be built. The US can't even complete its obscene embassy, much less this, and when we have a new administration, we may finally figure out how to spend less money more wisely here.
"Die Stimme der Vernuft ist leise." (The voice of reason is soft)
by ivorybill on Mon May 05, 2008 at 09:02:11 PM PDT
...................................................................
Oh What a bad pun. But then this whole thing is beyond absurd.
We Destroyed this Village in order to save it from the Viet Cong er um Taliban
by JML9999 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:38:47 PM PDT
.................................................................
I mean, if China were to occupy DC and build a mall on the mall, I'd want to bomb the hell out of it. Who wouldn't?
---
Toyota: Proof US Union Labor Still Does it Better
..............................................................
As far-fetched and insulting this resort idea is, the Bush administration is still spending wasting money on it... Of course, we're not going to have permanent bases in Iraq either. If by permanent, you mean after the oil wells run dry.
by Magnifico on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:43:39 PM PDT
...............................................................
Booooussshhhh Grift
Bitch about welfare but dont say a word about Bush's vision for the Billions dollar Embassy and this Resort Village.
sounds about right from neocon war mongers
Last edited:
I'm suggesting the same spinless grifters wanting cut and run or now trying to claim credit for victory and withdrawal--
-and on time period --Sheez look at econmy when she was whining--look at since they got in power 2006. More presicely look at it since they been able to cash any ticket they wanted--with pres and vote proof majority.
Don't know how much clearer I can be.
You all deserve to be forced to but Omama sign in your yard and sticker on your car until 2012--
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Wrong again Budweiser Breath...
On January 20, 2009, when Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 8.1% and the Dow Jones was at 7949. And this was just six short months after the meltdown and near total collapse of the entire financial sector and housing market in this country. Gas and Diesel Fuel were at all-time highs and the U.S. Auto industry was teetering on the brink of a complete collapse that would have killed another 1.5 million jobs and caused a ripple effect of additional job losses throughout the entire economy.
Given the state of the economy when Obama took office, it's a miracle the unemployment rate hasn't doubled (or tripled) and the Dow Jones wasn't halved again. Instead, Obama's managed to keep the unemployment rate under 10% and the Dow Jones Average is 2500 points higher than the Dow he inherited from Bush.
I've gotta say DTB, when it comes to doin' the ol'... "Neocon :0064 Shuffle" ... you're a regular Fred Astaire... :142smilie
Last edited:
Maybe a few facts/#'s for the cyber trolls to ponder.
2 catagories coincidently went above 89% for O and co per exit polls-liberals and african americans.
12 % of population are african americans--18% liberals.
----------------------------------------
currently American consensus shows
--20% of population approve of congress
--1/3 think country is headed in right direction.
Tramp --per your handicapping /# crunching skills--do you come up with any conclusion?--enlighted Trench and Muffy please.
2 catagories coincidently went above 89% for O and co per exit polls-liberals and african americans.
12 % of population are african americans--18% liberals.
----------------------------------------
currently American consensus shows
--20% of population approve of congress
--1/3 think country is headed in right direction.
Tramp --per your handicapping /# crunching skills--do you come up with any conclusion?--enlighted Trench and Muffy please.
...................................................................
:00hour
DTBlackgumby hates when facts are presented.
crikits :142smilie
Here's your facts--
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
You'll have to head up to Carter years for any comparisons
but of course we've had that discussion before when facts proved he bested Clintons 8 years on employment figures
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343671&page=2&highlight=calculator
Now give us the same ole liberal 2 step AGAIN
:00x7 + kurby
These archives sure come in handy and save time.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
You'll have to head up to Carter years for any comparisons
but of course we've had that discussion before when facts proved he bested Clintons 8 years on employment figures
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?t=343671&page=2&highlight=calculator
Now give us the same ole liberal 2 step AGAIN
:00x7 + kurby
These archives sure come in handy and save time.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
These archives sure come in handy and save time.
They sure are. I see you've been a hypocrite for years.
Illegal immigrant costs county $400K
ShareThisPrint E-mail By Alexis Stevens
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
He came to the United States from Cuba, and since he's been here, he's racked up an extensive criminal record, police say.
When he suffered a stroke following a recent arrest, his medical bills hit $400,000. Now, he's paralyzed and in a wheelchair. He needs to be in a nursing home.
So what's next for the suspected criminal that's in the country illegally? It's tough to say.
But one thing's for sure. Douglas County cannot afford to spend any more money on the man, whose last arrest was for cocaine trafficking. The sheriff's office had to ask the county commission recently for more money to cover the man's medical bill.
While much of the debate over illegal immigration has focused on younger populations and students, the Douglas County case focuses specifically on an older man, in his late 60s.
"While he was in custody, he had a massive stroke which required immediate hospitalization," Chief Deputy Stan Copeland with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office told the AJC.
For several weeks, the man was in a coma, Copeland said. Now he requires constant care because he is paralyzed, but without any type of insurance, Copeland says no facility will take him.
Douglas County officials contacted immigration officials, but were told the man could not be deported.
"He's Cuban, and you can't deport Cubans," Copeland said.
The Douglas County District Attorney eventually dropped charges because of the inmate's deteriorated condition, Copeland said. The county is off the hook, but that comes after thousands of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on one man's care.
"He was a tax burden for us being in custody," Chief Deputy Stan Copeland with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office told the AJC. "But even after the fact, now what happens??
..................................................................
wtf is wrong with our country when you have to say
he is a illigal cuban , you cant deport him.
wtf do you do to this guy ?
Is the the goverment tit your talking about
DTBlackgumby ?
PS - still no answer on what you think of John Bohemen ?
crikits
ShareThisPrint E-mail By Alexis Stevens
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
He came to the United States from Cuba, and since he's been here, he's racked up an extensive criminal record, police say.
When he suffered a stroke following a recent arrest, his medical bills hit $400,000. Now, he's paralyzed and in a wheelchair. He needs to be in a nursing home.
So what's next for the suspected criminal that's in the country illegally? It's tough to say.
But one thing's for sure. Douglas County cannot afford to spend any more money on the man, whose last arrest was for cocaine trafficking. The sheriff's office had to ask the county commission recently for more money to cover the man's medical bill.
While much of the debate over illegal immigration has focused on younger populations and students, the Douglas County case focuses specifically on an older man, in his late 60s.
"While he was in custody, he had a massive stroke which required immediate hospitalization," Chief Deputy Stan Copeland with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office told the AJC.
For several weeks, the man was in a coma, Copeland said. Now he requires constant care because he is paralyzed, but without any type of insurance, Copeland says no facility will take him.
Douglas County officials contacted immigration officials, but were told the man could not be deported.
"He's Cuban, and you can't deport Cubans," Copeland said.
The Douglas County District Attorney eventually dropped charges because of the inmate's deteriorated condition, Copeland said. The county is off the hook, but that comes after thousands of taxpayer dollars have already been spent on one man's care.
"He was a tax burden for us being in custody," Chief Deputy Stan Copeland with the Douglas County Sheriff's Office told the AJC. "But even after the fact, now what happens??
..................................................................
wtf is wrong with our country when you have to say
he is a illigal cuban , you cant deport him.
wtf do you do to this guy ?
Is the the goverment tit your talking about
DTBlackgumby ?
PS - still no answer on what you think of John Bohemen ?
crikits
Dems may use food stamp money to pay for Michelle Obama's nutrition initiative
By Russell Berman - 08/14/10 06:00 AM ET
Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.
The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that?s at the center of the first lady?s ?Let?s Move? initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.
The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.
Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.
Party leaders raided the budget to find off-setting tax increases and spending cuts to pay for their top legislative priorities, including the roughly $900 billion healthcare law. Congressional pay-as-you-go rules require lawmakers to offset all non-emergency spending.
Democrats have turned to the food stamp program because funding increases enacted in the stimulus package last year were already scheduled to phase out over time. The changes proposed in the state aid and nutrition bills would simply cut off that increase early, in March 2014. Because the cuts would not take effect for more than three years, Democratic leaders have voiced the hope that they will be able to stop them in future legislation.
But House liberals are balking now, saying that while they swallowed the food stamp cuts to pay for urgent funding for Medicaid and teachers, they will not vote for more cuts in the child nutrition bill. In a letter sent this week to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 106 House Democrats urged the speaker to take the House version of the child nutrition bill, which does not slash food stamps, rather than the Senate version.
?This is one of the more egregious cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and is a vote we do not take lightly,? the lawmakers, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said of their vote on the state aid bill.
The House version of the child nutrition bill, authored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), passed the Education and Labor Committee earlier this year, but lawmakers must find a way to pay for it before it comes to the floor for a vote. ?Chairman Miller is working to find other ways to pay for this bill,? a spokeswoman said when asked if cuts to the food stamp program would be used.
A House leadership aide noted that the food stamp decrease approved in the state aid bill will not take effect right away and will leave the program at the same funding level it was at before the stimulus law was signed. ?That doesn?t mean many Democrats are not concerned about the issue, but this is a process which gives us time to deal with immediate issues (like jobs) and helping the economy grow, while giving you time to deal with the food stamp issue,? the aide said.
The nutrition bill is clearly a priority for Michelle Obama, who has made a push for healthy eating one of her signature policy issues at White House. When the House version of the nutrition bill won committee approval in July, it marked the first time she weighed in publicly on pending legislation.
The Obama administration has not directly addressed the debate over the food stamp cuts, but it is backing the Senate bill. ?We strongly supported the Senate action and look forward to working with the House to get a final bill onto the president?s desk,? an administration official told The Hill.
The $4.5 billion Senate bill would expand eligibility for school meal programs, establish nutrition standards for all food sold in schools and provide a 6-cent increase for each school lunch to help cafeterias serve healthier meals. The $8 billion House version includes more money for expanding access to school lunches for children in low-income households.
The deeper food stamp reductions in the Senate version would set an earlier date ? in November 2013 ? for eliminating the increased benefits passed last year. A family of four would see their benefit reduced by $59 a month, or about 9 percent. The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education programs aimed at low-income neighborhoods and households.
?It?s very sad. I think it?s just illustrating what dire straits our federal government budget is in,? said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute?s Income and Benefits Center. ?It?s unprecedented to raid one safety net program to feed another.?
This story was updated at 1:40 p.m.
..................................................................
DTBlackgumby will be so happy.
Any cutting of food stamps is a chance to do the
neocon hoola jump .
By Russell Berman - 08/14/10 06:00 AM ET
Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.
The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that?s at the center of the first lady?s ?Let?s Move? initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.
The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.
Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.
Party leaders raided the budget to find off-setting tax increases and spending cuts to pay for their top legislative priorities, including the roughly $900 billion healthcare law. Congressional pay-as-you-go rules require lawmakers to offset all non-emergency spending.
Democrats have turned to the food stamp program because funding increases enacted in the stimulus package last year were already scheduled to phase out over time. The changes proposed in the state aid and nutrition bills would simply cut off that increase early, in March 2014. Because the cuts would not take effect for more than three years, Democratic leaders have voiced the hope that they will be able to stop them in future legislation.
But House liberals are balking now, saying that while they swallowed the food stamp cuts to pay for urgent funding for Medicaid and teachers, they will not vote for more cuts in the child nutrition bill. In a letter sent this week to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), 106 House Democrats urged the speaker to take the House version of the child nutrition bill, which does not slash food stamps, rather than the Senate version.
?This is one of the more egregious cases of robbing Peter to pay Paul, and is a vote we do not take lightly,? the lawmakers, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) and Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) said of their vote on the state aid bill.
The House version of the child nutrition bill, authored by Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), passed the Education and Labor Committee earlier this year, but lawmakers must find a way to pay for it before it comes to the floor for a vote. ?Chairman Miller is working to find other ways to pay for this bill,? a spokeswoman said when asked if cuts to the food stamp program would be used.
A House leadership aide noted that the food stamp decrease approved in the state aid bill will not take effect right away and will leave the program at the same funding level it was at before the stimulus law was signed. ?That doesn?t mean many Democrats are not concerned about the issue, but this is a process which gives us time to deal with immediate issues (like jobs) and helping the economy grow, while giving you time to deal with the food stamp issue,? the aide said.
The nutrition bill is clearly a priority for Michelle Obama, who has made a push for healthy eating one of her signature policy issues at White House. When the House version of the nutrition bill won committee approval in July, it marked the first time she weighed in publicly on pending legislation.
The Obama administration has not directly addressed the debate over the food stamp cuts, but it is backing the Senate bill. ?We strongly supported the Senate action and look forward to working with the House to get a final bill onto the president?s desk,? an administration official told The Hill.
The $4.5 billion Senate bill would expand eligibility for school meal programs, establish nutrition standards for all food sold in schools and provide a 6-cent increase for each school lunch to help cafeterias serve healthier meals. The $8 billion House version includes more money for expanding access to school lunches for children in low-income households.
The deeper food stamp reductions in the Senate version would set an earlier date ? in November 2013 ? for eliminating the increased benefits passed last year. A family of four would see their benefit reduced by $59 a month, or about 9 percent. The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education programs aimed at low-income neighborhoods and households.
?It?s very sad. I think it?s just illustrating what dire straits our federal government budget is in,? said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute?s Income and Benefits Center. ?It?s unprecedented to raid one safety net program to feed another.?
This story was updated at 1:40 p.m.
..................................................................
DTBlackgumby will be so happy.
Any cutting of food stamps is a chance to do the
neocon hoola jump .
