Secular whore. "Most of the debt" has been driven up by obama. Bush wasnt perfect fiscally, but he cant be held accountable for obama quadrupling the national debt amount driven by bush.
Dude this guy soooo want s to be black. He says he supports the black panther movement. He says Obama's not doing a great job because his white half is holding him back, he hates Republicans but calls Michael Steele "My Man, Michael Steele".
Wall street paid back their loans plus interest, and i feel like when a liberal votes for a democrat it's like a person who buys a smart car, 0 common sense
WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH WAR, AND WANTED TO ELECT SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE JUST THE OPPOSITE OF BUSH, HENCE MR. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER PEACE LOVING OBAMA ..
WHEN OBAMA STARTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS TO FULFILL UN MANDATES AND COMPLETELY BIPASSES CONGRESS, IT'S NOW CALLED "HUMANITARIAN"
GIVE ME A BREAK!! LOOK UP THE NDAA BILL HE JUST SIGNED INTO LAW, ANY AMERICAN LOCKED UP INDEFINITELY!!
Obama is not only a steely nerved multi-efficient black ninja president, but also a master mind genius. And it will take this country 4 more yrs to realize how they owe their's and their children's lives to this president of the united states of america! Obama 2012!
Good joke, mate. Do you know what the NDAA is? Probably not cause you sound like another stupid American. I don't give a fuck if you're republican or democrat, in the end you're all the fucking same be it supporting Obama or Romney... God bless America.
Further note to Bill Maher: 1000s of terrorists were killed and 100s of attacks were thwarted during the Bush admin after 9/11. We had 3 successful attacks since Obama took over. But don't let facts get in the way. Obama used Bush era techniques to get OBL, but don't let facts get in the way. It's easy to distort things, but OBL mainly has followed Bush era policies on AL Queda, so the real credit should go to Bush, but don't let facts get in the way.
Um... Note to Bill Maher: 1)The only time we had surpluses was when we had dominant Repubs during the Clinton admin. Congress decides the budget, not the President. and 2)The only time Al Queda has been taken seriously was during the Bush admin and we invaded AFghanistan before Iraq. But don't let facts get in the way.
Yeah, I'm sure you loved the pointless Iraq war and the accompanying unpaid-for tax cut to the rich during a wartime which depleted Clitons surplus, which you conveniently ascribe to some imaginary "dominant repubs". Oh really? What were their names?
@Aegius "You invaded Afghanistan before iraq" ??? WHy the hEck did you invade Iraq ??? n If you credit congress for the surplus in the clinton era,.. i guess it should make sense to credit the Tea Party with the economic downturn,...Yea don't let facts get in the way
@uche6472 Why was Iraq invaded? B/c Saddam Hussein failed to divulge that he didn't 'have WMDs and the UN proved to be an utter joke yet again. I credited Congress w/ the surplus, b/c they manage the budget. The TP wasn't around in Dec 2007 when the economic downturn occurred and it was caused by providing bad loans to ppl who couldn't afford to repay them. The legislation for such loans was spear-headed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
@Aegius Your facts are off. The surplus was due mostly to the fact that the Clinton administration managed to enact one of the biggest tax increases on everyone, but mostly the wealthy, in this country's history with the deficit reduction act of 1993, which passed without ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE. You say congress manages the budget, but the President submits a budget proposal. Congress only agrees with it after negotiations. Those budgets were Clinton's budgets, not Congress' budgets.
@scooby1971 Tax increases didn't cause the increase in revenue. Spending cuts caused the lack of spending and that led to the surplus. In fact Bush '41 passed a similar tax increase and that didn't cause tax revenue to increase. The budgets are passed by Congress, so they are Congress' budgets, not the president's.
@Aegius BS. Spending cuts by the government takes money out of the economy. Couple that with a tax increase as large as the one Clinton passed and you have a recipe for a recession. The Clinton tax increases were rather large, raising the top tax rate from around 31 percent up to 39 percent. There were some spending cuts but there were also efforts to use the additional tax revenue to help small businesses and reinvest it in local communities.
@Aegius And FYI, the President submits a budget proposal and congress reconciles it. The budget blueprint is largely the vision of the President. EVERYBODY participates in the process, but the President sets the process in motion.
He criticised Republican wars while Obama committed to one in Libya. Why is it only the Democrats that are free from this?
Bush left office with $400billion in deficits. Obama has increased that to $1.5trillion. When does the responsibility start resting on him? Why haven't they repealed the so called rich tax cuts if they are so bad?
@Reaper111089 Don't be cute. Look up the NATO strike action. If bombing the shit out of a country isn't an act of war to you, you need your head examined. As if troops need to be on the ground for it to be a war.
The only one trying to play stupid here is you. You lie about basic facts and figures, you pretend reality doesn't exist, and when that doesn't work you just plain make shit up.
@tattat44 So now we have gone from saying Obama never commits to wars, to Obama commits to wars but they are over quick so it is ok. Was there a declaration of war on Libya? Nah, just ignore international law and the useless UN and go in anyway.
What about his promise to bring troops home immediately? No surprise coming up to the election he decides to pretend to remove all US personnel from Iraq to appease public opinion. Who did you say was living under a rock again?
Pfff, get out of here. We haven't declared a war since '45. I guess you forgot Vietnam, Grenada, Iran, shit, we've fought more undeclared wars than declared.
>pretend to remove all US personnel from Iraq
Oh, I see, he "pretended", did he? All those divisions crossing the border were cardboard cutouts, hmm? I guess the real army just put on their invisibility cloaks.
@tattat44 Deficit is not the same as debt. I suggest you look up that word in a dictionary. You know, so you don't look like a child or anything funny like that.
What about the >2 years before the Republicans took control of the house? Was he asleep? Yeah, you're asleep if you think that wasn't intentional. My god no wonder America is in the shit when you have people like you voting for morons like Obama.
No, it isn't, so why don't we talk about the fact that Bush took a projected 2 trillion surplus and turned it into a 10.3 trillion dollar deficit. That's more than twice what Obama's spent, not that that makes throwing that kind of money around any less horrific.
>What about the >2 years before the Republicans took control of the house?
So bush can't solve these problem in 8 years, and now you want Obama to solve them in two? Okay.
@tattat44 Why don't we talk about it? Because I think Obama and Bush are both rubbish. Not to mention the claim never was that Bush is good. The claim was Obama is any better, which he definitely isn't.
Yeah, no. He's had his failures, there are plenty of examples of him bowing to outside pressure, but he will never equal the 8 years of unparalleled, unmitigated carnage that the W bomb wrought.
He's just a convenient target to hate because he's the pin in the hinge of America's adaption to the 21st century, which would have to have happened anyway, Bush, Obama, or no.
@tattat44 Run out of fake numbers? For fucks sake you don't even know what a deficit is. How can you know something is made up when you don't even know what it is?
Here's a good experiment. Count how many ex-bankers are in Obamas cabinet. Now tell me who agreed to the banker bailout.
Did I say he was Jesus? Of course not. In fact, I think I specifically addressed that before you even brought it up:
>there are plenty of examples of him bowing to outside pressure
Bush was not an idiot, or evil, and neither is Obama. One has an agenda I loathe, the other doesn't. Its that simple.
It's the people like you who fall for the "good" and "evil" narrative and whichever sorry fuck happens to be spinning at the time that have landed us where we are today.
@tattat44 It wasn't even me who said he bowed to outside pressure. Can you at least quote me properly before you babble about something irrelevant an inaccurate? Thanks.
Typical. I rebut you point for point, line for line, and all you can do is complain (incorrectly) that I misquoted you, rather than having, oh, say, other arguments besides "He's evil" and "he's kidney failure". Appeal to emotion is an entirely hollow and transparent tack.
@Godzilla9608 Obama is working hard to embrace the diversity of the Democrat party & bring it together under a banner that clearly represents it all. To unify the party Obama wants to change its identification in a way that defines all who belong. No longer will there be confusion as to what progressives or liberals stand for as Obama would like all who typically vote Democrat to unify under the banner of his new Ineptocratic party. This is a grass roots movement help Obama make it viral!
Other than passing the first universal healthcare bill in the countries history, repealing DADT, defending workers bargaining rights, refusing to pass SOPA and PIPA, you mean?
yes, but look at the other 99% of what hes done... Bush tax cuts, bank bail outs, followed up on the Bush Iraq timeline (as opposed to getting us out immediately), failed to overturn torture for suspected terrorists, passed indefinite detention for Americans, didn't overturn patriot act, didn't live up on promise to raise the federal min wage to 9%... yeah, he is probably a hell of a lot better than McCain/Palin... but i want to see him act more progessive and defend civil liberties.
You can't have everything. When it comes to getting a good president, you can't even get most of it, and that's just the way reality is. Obama was never going to be able to enact all of his campaign points. You have to have goals to work towards, even if you're not able to meet them immediately, you still have to begin the work of getting there. He's doing the absolute best job he can with the minute amount of political capitol that he has to work with. Count your blessings.
Of course I'd like to see him do all those things, but I'd also like to hit zero under par and bowl a perfect game. Just like the reality of physics prevents me from achieving those goals, so the pragmatic reality of our political system prevents him from achieving all that he set out to, just like ever other president, ever.
We should be thanking our lucky stars we got someone who has half a damn head on his shoulders, rather than bemoaning that he can't be perfect.
reality of physics didn't prevent him from following through on his promises... he is the president of the United States.. and saying it was the fault of congress is ridiculous. why did he keep so many neo-conservative republicans on his staff if he wanted real change? oh yes he has a head on his shoulders- but why should we trust him? i'm not thankful... for freedom, bush was cancer and obama is like kidney failure. both are bad. People are defined by ACTIONS not personality.
@UncleMikeNJ Obama is working hard to embrace the diversity of the Democrat party & bring it together under a banner that clearly represents it all. To unify the party Obama wants to change its identification in a way that defines all who belong. No longer will there be confusion as to what progressives or liberals stand for as Obama would like all who typically vote Democrat to unify under the banner of his new ineptocratic party. This is a grass roots movement help Obama make it viral!
@NY1love Tax cuts on the highest income brackets consistently brought in more revenue in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's and 2000's. The question is whether or not they work and the answer is that yes, they do.
@Aegius: Aside from the fact that it's an outright lie, exactly how do you figure tax cuts could bring in more revenue? And as far as "working"...define working. It certainly isn't creating jobs as promised. It certainly isn't reducing the deficit or debt. It by "working" you mean, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, well then I'd have to agree with you. It is doing that.
@dLimboStick Wrong. It wasn't an outright lie. Revenue increased in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's and 2000's per tax cuts. Cut taxes and the "rich" invest more money into the economy. That means more economic activity and more revenue is generated. Now, when there is more economic activity, that means MORE JOBS. Businesses create jobs, not government. The rich do get richer. So do the "poor".
@mjd1982 Here is a lesson for you: Profits are GOOD. Why? When a business makes profits 1)its expenses are paid. What are those expenses? JOBS. Jobs are created via profits. 2)The operation is self-sustained per profits, b/c expenses are covered. 3)Who provides those profits? Answer: The public. So per profits the public holds a business directly and personally accountable. That's why they will take service and quality seriously, while gov employees yawn unless yelled at or Hell is raised.
e.g. The man making £1million dollars isn't going to work less hard if the maximum he can make is reduced to 800 thousand, resulting from a tax rise.Tax cuts for already incentivised individuals are called 'pushing on a string' by economists.
There isn't an either/or choice between state and market. Advanced American industry relies entirely on state subsidy, for instance. This is about finding a good balance.
@Alohomora42 Not just the business owners. The employees as well. When profits are made, expenses are covered. What are those expenses? JOBS, meaning the employees' jobs, so the employees' keep their jobs and provide for their families. So profits are good for their families as well. Profits also ensure that customers are provided with their wants or needs in transactions, so profits are good for the general public. BTW, any industry that relies on state subsidies is doomed to bankruptcy.
@Alohomora42 Any private enterprise that relies on state subsidies is doomed to fail to bankruptcy as occurred w/Solyandra, and other green energy cos and in the past gov-sponsored railroads. The reason for that is that profits aren't the primary concern, but gov subsidies. As profits aren't the concern, costs are only to be covered by gov subsidies rather than independently by transactions to cover expenses and make profits. There are numerous historical examples including Solyandra.
@Aegius I hate to break it to you but the American motor industry relies on state subsidy. For example, GM pays no tax and recieves billions of dollars to stay afloat. Historical examples abound for government funded industry, e.g. fibre optics, the internet, high speed aircraft.
The pentagon and space budgets have been funneling tax dollars into advanced industry for many decades. This is a system of public cost and private profit. You can call this theft but you can't call it ineffective.
@Alohomora42 You can call it ineffective as such companies keep going bankrupt, b/c costs aren't properly managed. Gm doesn't pay taxes, b/c it has operated on net losses, so thanks for providing that example. If it operated on profits rather than subsidies, it would be able to be self-sustaining rather than a gov welfare recipient. Gov funded railroads, ship cos, airline industries all ended up in bankruptcy as they depended on gov money and not the profit motive.
@Aegius Yeah, sometimes ineffective, but that has nothing to do with a lack of profit motive. Companies which take advantage of the taxpayer e.g. wallstreet banks, do so precisely to generate profits. This isn't always inefficient for the companies but it is often inefficient for the taxpayer.
Basically when the profit motive is mingled with tax dollars things go wrong. But government programmes which avoid that motive tend to work well e.g. social security.
@Alohomora42 "Basically when the profit motive is mingled with tax dollars things go wrong." They go wrong, b/c they lead to bankruptcy. The pursuit of profit ensures that expenses will be covered. Gov doesn't seek to have expenses coverred except through tax dollars and that leads to costs spiraling out of control. "But government programmes which avoid that motive tend to work well e.g. social security." That is now bankrupt and $trillions in debt. Thanks for that example. cont...
>The pursuit of profit ensures that expenses will be covered.
I see this so often. Someone who describes themselves as "fiscally conservative" hasn't the first clue how budgets or ledgers are run in real life.
Governments do not, and should not run like corporations. Governments run at a loss on purpose, because they don't get any benefits except that which they provide the people, and that which is taken in in tax revenue.
@tattat44 UM. I was referring to business, not gov. Govs are managed via laws and regulations. Businesses are managed via the pursuit of profit. Read more carefully next time. & Thanks for pointing out that govs run at a loss on purpose. But govs do get benefits, provided to their employees, not just ppl who they give money to at taxpayer expense.
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that the profit motive doesn't work well with an organization whose sole purpose is to run at a net loss for the benefit of the citizen.
@tattat44 Gov orgs don't necessarily benefit the citizens even if that is what their purpose is. Of course neither do businesses. However if businesses don't serve such purposes, they go out of business and the public pays no price. If gov orgs don't serve such purposes, it requires massive political action to remove them and that rarely happens. What good has the Dept of Education, Dept of Techology, Dept of Energy done? Nothing, but it will be difficult to get rid of them.
>don't serve such purposes, they go out of business and the public pays no price.
Does the word "bailout" ring any bells? How about "too big to fail"? How about the many other abusive and irresponsible businesses that are often the leaders in their industry? AIG, Bank of America, Monsanto, GM, BP, Chysler, Goldman Sachs, and countless others? Capitalism is not specially immune or even resistant to monopoly and concentration of power, neither are businesses.
@tattat44 Yes. If we bail out losers, we will bail them out over and over again and then they become our problem. If we don't bail them out, other cos can take their place. Let their competitors take their place instead. Let investors determine who is profitable and not profitable. That will be their problem and not ours. & If you don't want monopolies, then minimize regulations to allow for small businesses to enter and flourish. That's what happened with Standard Oil in 1904.
How is the bailout a regulation? The bank bailout was a blatant handout to the corporate elite, just like the massive tax cuts for the rich conservatives are doggedly determined to protect. These mergers of massive financial entities is a direct result of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act being shredded by post-Reagen republicans.
"Department of Technology", you're hysterical. Link me to their webpage if they're real then.
@tattat44 You're the hysterical one as you gave full credit for the internet to DARPA, when in fact it was mainly due to private industry. Same w/ telecommunications as the vast bulk of innovations came from private industry.
I do favor tax cuts for the "rich". IF you have massive taxes on the "rich", they just find loopholes and don't invest in the economy.
& BTW, I didn't say that bailouts were regulations, but they are gov interference. You're the hysterical one here.
DARPA IS a military organization. Cite sources on your claims or put a sock in it.
Government is supposed to run a country. Corporations are tools of government that have gotten wildly out of control, you can look it up, that's how joint stock companies originated. Corporations are not people, if they were, then I want to be able to execute them when they kill people and ruin economies.
Created the power and telecommunications infrastructure that you are using right now. Created and managed our nuclear power and weapons. Funds
>Dept of Technology
Uh, what? There's no such thing as the department of technology.
If you're talking about DARPA, they created the internet and hundreds of other sophisticated telecommunications technologies, everything from encryption to statistics algorithms. Useless, right?
@tattat44 Yes, there is a Dept of Technology. DARPA was partly responsible for the creation of the internet, but there was private research done as well. Telecommunications mainly came from the private sector and most innovations came from R & D in the private sector by far and not from DARPA.
The Dept of Education has NOTHING to do w/ K-12 and frankly is a complete waste of funds.
>The Dept of Energy is just a waste of funds as well.
No wait, I take that back. THIS is hysterical. I don't know why you bothered to write that all out though, you could have just typed: "Lol, opposite of everything you said is true"
>You drink too much Kool-Aid
Oh look. Racism so predictable, I could set my clock by it. XD
@tattat44 Okay. All you have is the race card. That's nice. The Dept of Education has accomplished NOTHING except facilitate the ruin of education and caused higher education costs to skyrocket out of control.
I don't approve of the bank bailout. I stated that we should NOT bail out the banks but let private investors decide if they are to be saved or let competition fill in the void.
@tattat44 DARPA didn't create the internet. IT was a combination of military and private industry with universities. Most telecommunication technologies by far came from the private sector including most sophisticated ones. You don't know what you are talking about on anything and then you gave the race card as icing on the cake.
>combination of military and private industry with universities
And two out of those three are sustained by the government. Actually, all of them are, as without a government to enforce their contracts, business would not exist.
>don't know what you are talking about on anything
What a coincidence, that statement perfectly describes you. You dodge the questions you don't like, you make excuses, and pull things out of your ass like the mythical "US Department of Technology".
The only reason you know how to spell that sentence out is because your parents were able to send you, for free, to K-12 education. But hey, what do I know, maybe you're rich and can afford to go to a private school, but the rest of us aren't.
-funds almost all of our major research colleges and scientific study funds, which are dispensed to private individuals and corporations alike. The Department of Energy and its predecessors have been the major driver of scientific development in this country to date.
I will be frank with you. You do not sound like you are basing your opinions on a very solid understanding of how politics and economics work in the real world.
@tattat44 During the 1970's the Dept of Energy proved utterly incompetent in seeking new sources of energy and it accomplishes NOTHING. Private corps engage in a lot of R&D and private corps sponsor R&D at universities. The Dept of Energy is just a waste of funds as well.
I'll be frank with you. You drink too much Kool-Aid.
@Alohomora42 In other words when companies are not pursuing profits(when gov covers the costs instead of the public via customers), they aren't working to ensure that expenses are covered. Expenses are not held in check much less covered, so they rise w/o anything stopping them. That leads to bankruptcy and enormous debt.(Solyandra, Evergreen, Union & Pacific Railroad cos. Airline cos.).
I actually will favor gov programs at the state or local level, but the fed gov will just screw them up.
Social security is not bankrupt, nor is it trillions in debt. It holds trillions in surplus through treasury bond holdings. People are worried that in several decades the surplus might be exhausted. This issue has little to do with the budget deficit, at least for the next few decades.
Spending doesn't always produce debt, if you actually have the money to spend. Tax cuts don't always produce jobs, tax cuts in a time of debt can crash the whole economy ie- the Bush tax cuts.
Bill maher is an idiot asshole cocksuck JEW ugly hooknose low-life blasphemer man-cunt loser prick hebe hassidic devil worshipping take it in the ass faggot no-talent low-life blithering douchebag. true.
@Pat9201 Actually Bill Maher stated several times that Democrats are incompetent, but on the other hand Republicans now-a-days are just beyond stupid.
maybe brown people are just more fun to kill, also i second that motion of NO hope for future . and also ... abortion & gay rights are the "serious issues " ?
having arsenals is " the right to protect your family " ? obama is the "cut" ?
The country was ran in the ground before Obama took the office!!! Everything Maher says is the truth. We invaded the wrong country under Bush, DE-REGULATION is why the banks, car industry and wall street failed. DE-REGULATION is also why Big OIL is reaping record profits on the backs of the middle class . . . now you say you have the answer to fix the economy that you racists idiots caused? Bullshit!!!
@StigJensen123 This is so untrue, we love to kill black bastards too. Oh wait, and Yellow bastards, and Oh wait, green bastards, but red white and blue bastards are OK. And Tiger Woods kids are O.K. And Tiger was O.K., but that was back in the day.
God damn republicans are so dumb I can't believe this god damn stupid fucking country. Republicans in Europe are way more progressive than democrats here. I have no hope for the future
@layoflakersnation Obama is working hard to embrace the diversity of the Democrat party & bring it together under a banner that clearly represents it all. To unify the party Obama wants to change its identification in a way that defines all who belong. No longer will there be confusion as to what progressives or liberals stand for as Obama would like all who typically vote Democrat to unify under the banner of his new Ineptocratic party. This is a grass roots movement help Obama make it viral!
Maher's biased, no doubt he is, but the real reason why a lot of Americans who vote Republican vote Republican is because of serious issues, like Abortion, and encroaching gay rights, and the right to protect your family, and the right to believe in God without having to verify his existence every three seconds. Sure a lot of Republican voters don't like the wickedness their leaders ard doing, but it's like choosing between the axe or it's blade; which frightens you more, the dull thud, or cut?
@mattvlad3 thats the def of a bigot, "someone who is intolerant of anothers ideals or beliefs".... the ironic part of it all is Bill disagrees with most peoples ideals, and you calling him a bigot, makes you intolerant of his ideals, so your both bigots, but hey everyone is a bigot every now and again,
@jericho717 bigot is someone who is intolerant or cant accept someone, withOUT listening his ideas, if was like you say, anyone is bigot, and the tern have no more reason to exist......mmh......you havent open the dict, dont you?
@mattvlad3 so let me ask you a question, do you like have sexual relationships with children, or do you believe a man should die because of the color of his skin, or do you approve of animal cruelty, if not, then your a bigot. You dont believe in those ideals because you know their wrong. Im a bigot when it comes to racisim or cildren fucking, or animal cruelity..and not to exacerbate things but I use to read the dictionary alot as a kid,
@jericho717 mmmmhhh i read bla bla bla, i got busted, bla bla bla...............hwr animal cruelty doent exist, animals are animals, and in a not far past our ancester did sex with children, so is not ok for me but not necessary for all. now bye, im gettin tired
@mattvlad3 lol not even gona put up a fight huh, well as for your last response, it is a fact animals feel pain, so animal cruelty does exist, at least Americans believe so, I say this because your txt make you sound forgien, as for our anncestors being child molestors, yea it happend back in the past but my belief is it shouldnt happen today.So your not a bigot huh, your mr. tolerant well if more people were like you in the world, nothing would ever gett done, bla bla bla, your pathetic bla bla
So 911 happened months after Bush was in office so it was his fault. Where was Clinton? Bin Laden just planned the whole tihng in 8 months. Bullshit. And Obama ran the debt up 4 times as much as Bush. Just blame it on Bush.
Actually I calculate 500 more DAYS is more likely; but if people were stupid enough to elect this shit-head ONCE, then they're dumb enough to do it again.
And 5 more years is plenty of time to destroy the country. Fortunately the lenders have realized he's a deadbeat, and they've pretty much cut up his credit-cards.
the lenders are mostly chinese, and they knew bush was a deadbeat as well. so nothing new there. if numbnuts got a second term, i suppose anything can happen.
After 2 terms of Blowjob-Bill, I knew that anything was possible. I didn't think much of New York electign Hillary to the senate, since those people are at the shallow end of the gene-pool anyway.
However Obama spent 50% more/year than Bush, and he has even worse things to show for it; and the CBO: says "Obama To Push Public Debt Above $20 Trillion By 2021."
So I figure that secession and default is about the best way to go-- if they see my video, they can do it.
if noting that he had his dick blown is the best you can do against the last president who had us in a surplus; maybe you need your dick blown as well.
No thanks, I prefer women; but it's cool that you're gay.
Clinton gave us 9/11 too... pretty expensive BJ if you ask me, but that's a chance Blowjob was just willing to take... and the surplus only came AFTER he drove his own party out of congress via mass tax-increases.
Oh I'm sure you prefer women; just that a non-inflatable one would be nicer. and getting out of a massive debt (from your boyfriend's dad who also held a bullshit war) with tax-cuts instead of tax-hikes would have to be called a miracle. an impossible miracle for that matter. and frankly miracles are hard to come by these days. but keep praying and maybe you'll get it.
@nakayle you could post a link but remember I'm not defending repubs or dems I'm just saying both are guilty, and Clinton was pretty lucky that the internet gave a huge boom to the economy and as a result took in a lot more revanue from capitol gains taxes and low unemployment. He wasn't a bad pres either but was fortunate.
@punktillidie27 I'm tired of you idiots seeing that theres no way of defending the republicans after what they did, so then attempting to say IT'S EVERYONES FAULT, no it's just the got damn republicans fault, WHAT FAULT IS IT OF THE DEMOCRATS?NONE!
@nakayle I'm not a conservative if anything I lean a little towards being a libertarian but I can't even categorize myself as that because I don't believe in everything they believe even but just because the congressional budget office predicted we would have a 2 trillion surplus in 10 years doesn't mean anything because they tend to make over optimistic assumptions and not take bubbles into account. and saying something is mostly because of republicans when dems did the same? come on.
@punktillidie27 Too bad I can't post a chart here showing the National Debt of recent presidents. It would show there was a steady rise under Reagan, which continued with Bush-1. Then Clinton got in- raised taxes and the debt began a steady decline throughout his administration ending in a budget surplus. Then Bush-2 got in- made big tax cuts and started two unfunded wars and the debt soared higher than ever. These are documented facts.
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
figure4etc1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
It sounds like something I have heard before....Oh yes, I am older, from the generation where people spoke.."TRUTH".
TRICH015 2 hours ago
You know what happens when you divide a country and watch them fight against each other?
usafadb 4 days ago
Obama the first Dictator of the U.S.!! He must GO!!
NBrown654500 1 week ago
Secular whore. "Most of the debt" has been driven up by obama. Bush wasnt perfect fiscally, but he cant be held accountable for obama quadrupling the national debt amount driven by bush.
aeorta1 1 week ago
@aeorta1 Are you seriously that stupid? Bush did not count the war into the national debt Obama did. Wars cost a fuckload of money.
yankees2249 5 days ago
I feel like it's the W years all over again. Blind patriots who decide to not pay attention anymore now that their guy is in office.
wonderming1 2 weeks ago
-BILDERBERG Owns all your votes!
Who you elect.
SkyRifter 2 weeks ago
I can't wait for the Romeny vs. Obama debates or Gingrich vs. Obama debates, the Republitards are going to get OWNED :)
fox9ninja 2 weeks ago 3
Dude this guy soooo want s to be black. He says he supports the black panther movement. He says Obama's not doing a great job because his white half is holding him back, he hates Republicans but calls Michael Steele "My Man, Michael Steele".
infoguy1978 2 weeks ago
Wall street paid back their loans plus interest, and i feel like when a liberal votes for a democrat it's like a person who buys a smart car, 0 common sense
TheBmyers02 2 weeks ago
why do ppl call obama black? hes an oreo
poppashungo2009 3 weeks ago
lol
Charminultra4u 3 weeks ago
OMFG!!!!! Love this!!!!!!!!!!!
Jehreakee 3 weeks ago
@TheNeosinneR hell yea
Tyreneno 3 weeks ago
#realfuckingtalk!! -_-.o0O
kstmiles 3 weeks ago
wow ! and true !!
peace4925 3 weeks ago
Republicans got OWNED
MrMusicFlood 3 weeks ago 11
Let's call him "Gangsta Bill."
bleuaja 3 weeks ago
@Ldog73, Ha! right?
supertoshaful 3 weeks ago
@Belkys1268, yup!
supertoshaful 3 weeks ago
29 people are republicans..
Belkys1268 4 weeks ago
Why he shit on Mercury. They should sue him...lol. Anybody wanna buy a Mercury Sable?
Ldog73 4 weeks ago
@Ldog73 sue a comedian, LOL that will be the day, if there is anything you can't sensor, that is a comedian, and if you can he's not a comedian.
Gambeino 3 weeks ago
Loved it! Nothing more to be said...
Reavadiva1 4 weeks ago
I really wish he didnt sign NDAA though man that sucked.
josesbox 4 weeks ago
he called obama the N word
jondirt 1 month ago
@jondirt He said Ninja.
Reavadiva1 4 weeks ago
@Reavadiva1 yeah, and it starts with the letter "N".don't make assumptions
jondirt 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH WAR, AND WANTED TO ELECT SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE JUST THE OPPOSITE OF BUSH, HENCE MR. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER PEACE LOVING OBAMA ..
WHEN OBAMA STARTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS TO FULFILL UN MANDATES AND COMPLETELY BIPASSES CONGRESS, IT'S NOW CALLED "HUMANITARIAN"
GIVE ME A BREAK!! LOOK UP THE NDAA BILL HE JUST SIGNED INTO LAW, ANY AMERICAN LOCKED UP INDEFINITELY!!
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CHOICE
LIBERTYALONE 1 month ago
Obama is not only a steely nerved multi-efficient black ninja president, but also a master mind genius. And it will take this country 4 more yrs to realize how they owe their's and their children's lives to this president of the united states of america! Obama 2012!
TheNeosinneR 1 month ago 41
@TheNeosinneR
Good joke, mate. Do you know what the NDAA is? Probably not cause you sound like another stupid American. I don't give a fuck if you're republican or democrat, in the end you're all the fucking same be it supporting Obama or Romney... God bless America.
NickNorie15 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Further note to Bill Maher: 1000s of terrorists were killed and 100s of attacks were thwarted during the Bush admin after 9/11. We had 3 successful attacks since Obama took over. But don't let facts get in the way. Obama used Bush era techniques to get OBL, but don't let facts get in the way. It's easy to distort things, but OBL mainly has followed Bush era policies on AL Queda, so the real credit should go to Bush, but don't let facts get in the way.
Aegius 1 month ago
Comment removed
Aegius 1 month ago
Um... Note to Bill Maher: 1)The only time we had surpluses was when we had dominant Repubs during the Clinton admin. Congress decides the budget, not the President. and 2)The only time Al Queda has been taken seriously was during the Bush admin and we invaded AFghanistan before Iraq. But don't let facts get in the way.
Aegius 1 month ago
@Aegius
Yeah, I'm sure you loved the pointless Iraq war and the accompanying unpaid-for tax cut to the rich during a wartime which depleted Clitons surplus, which you conveniently ascribe to some imaginary "dominant repubs". Oh really? What were their names?
tattat44 1 month ago
@Aegius "You invaded Afghanistan before iraq" ??? WHy the hEck did you invade Iraq ??? n If you credit congress for the surplus in the clinton era,.. i guess it should make sense to credit the Tea Party with the economic downturn,...Yea don't let facts get in the way
uche6472 4 weeks ago
@uche6472 Why was Iraq invaded? B/c Saddam Hussein failed to divulge that he didn't 'have WMDs and the UN proved to be an utter joke yet again. I credited Congress w/ the surplus, b/c they manage the budget. The TP wasn't around in Dec 2007 when the economic downturn occurred and it was caused by providing bad loans to ppl who couldn't afford to repay them. The legislation for such loans was spear-headed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
Aegius 4 weeks ago
@Aegius Your facts are off. The surplus was due mostly to the fact that the Clinton administration managed to enact one of the biggest tax increases on everyone, but mostly the wealthy, in this country's history with the deficit reduction act of 1993, which passed without ONE SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTE. You say congress manages the budget, but the President submits a budget proposal. Congress only agrees with it after negotiations. Those budgets were Clinton's budgets, not Congress' budgets.
scooby1971 3 weeks ago
@scooby1971 Tax increases didn't cause the increase in revenue. Spending cuts caused the lack of spending and that led to the surplus. In fact Bush '41 passed a similar tax increase and that didn't cause tax revenue to increase. The budgets are passed by Congress, so they are Congress' budgets, not the president's.
Aegius 3 weeks ago
@Aegius BS. Spending cuts by the government takes money out of the economy. Couple that with a tax increase as large as the one Clinton passed and you have a recipe for a recession. The Clinton tax increases were rather large, raising the top tax rate from around 31 percent up to 39 percent. There were some spending cuts but there were also efforts to use the additional tax revenue to help small businesses and reinvest it in local communities.
scooby1971 3 weeks ago
@Aegius And FYI, the President submits a budget proposal and congress reconciles it. The budget blueprint is largely the vision of the President. EVERYBODY participates in the process, but the President sets the process in motion.
scooby1971 3 weeks ago
TINSTAAFL
xxa455xx 1 month ago
All presidents are puppets. End of story. Or beginning depending on who you ask.
FaceMaster420 1 month ago
Bill Maher is a Badass!
GenVirtu 1 month ago
Haters hate that's what they do. Obama gets no credit for nothing good!
nativemrv19722 1 month ago
@mayne242 The president can't repeal an act by himself. He also can't set taxes. He needs Congress to start it.
glax1295 1 month ago
I so enjoyed his dialogue...It spoke to me with alot of truths....bush wrote alot of checks in ofc and President Obama is the one paying the tab.
archangel2467 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mayne242 Money is created by the central bank. I don't know what this has to do with my post, so please enlighten me.
Alohomora42 2 months ago
Bill Maher used to be critical of the left.
He criticised Republican wars while Obama committed to one in Libya. Why is it only the Democrats that are free from this?
Bush left office with $400billion in deficits. Obama has increased that to $1.5trillion. When does the responsibility start resting on him? Why haven't they repealed the so called rich tax cuts if they are so bad?
mayne242 2 months ago
@mayne242
what war in libya exactly? not one troop in the country
Reaper111089 2 months ago
@Reaper111089 Don't be cute. Look up the NATO strike action. If bombing the shit out of a country isn't an act of war to you, you need your head examined. As if troops need to be on the ground for it to be a war.
mayne242 2 months ago
@mayne242
>Don't be cute
The only one trying to play stupid here is you. You lie about basic facts and figures, you pretend reality doesn't exist, and when that doesn't work you just plain make shit up.
This is why we don't let children vote.
tattat44 1 month ago
@mayne242
>Obama committed to one in Libya. Why is it only the Democrats that are free from this?
Because he actually completed his objectives in months, not decades, and with millions instead of trillions. Duh.
>Bush left office with $400billion in deficits
Uh, more like 10.3 Trillion. Nice try, though.
>Why haven't they repealed the so called rich tax cuts if they are so bad?
BECAUSE THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE WON'T LET ANYONE NEAR THEM. HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING UNDER A ROCK?
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 So now we have gone from saying Obama never commits to wars, to Obama commits to wars but they are over quick so it is ok. Was there a declaration of war on Libya? Nah, just ignore international law and the useless UN and go in anyway.
What about his promise to bring troops home immediately? No surprise coming up to the election he decides to pretend to remove all US personnel from Iraq to appease public opinion. Who did you say was living under a rock again?
mayne242 1 month ago
@mayne242
>Was there a declaration of war on Libya?
Pfff, get out of here. We haven't declared a war since '45. I guess you forgot Vietnam, Grenada, Iran, shit, we've fought more undeclared wars than declared.
>pretend to remove all US personnel from Iraq
Oh, I see, he "pretended", did he? All those divisions crossing the border were cardboard cutouts, hmm? I guess the real army just put on their invisibility cloaks.
Not the brightest candle in the Menorah, are you?
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 Deficit is not the same as debt. I suggest you look up that word in a dictionary. You know, so you don't look like a child or anything funny like that.
What about the >2 years before the Republicans took control of the house? Was he asleep? Yeah, you're asleep if you think that wasn't intentional. My god no wonder America is in the shit when you have people like you voting for morons like Obama.
mayne242 1 month ago
@mayne242
>Deficit is not the same as debt
No, it isn't, so why don't we talk about the fact that Bush took a projected 2 trillion surplus and turned it into a 10.3 trillion dollar deficit. That's more than twice what Obama's spent, not that that makes throwing that kind of money around any less horrific.
>What about the >2 years before the Republicans took control of the house?
So bush can't solve these problem in 8 years, and now you want Obama to solve them in two? Okay.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 Why don't we talk about it? Because I think Obama and Bush are both rubbish. Not to mention the claim never was that Bush is good. The claim was Obama is any better, which he definitely isn't.
mayne242 1 month ago
@mayne242
>Run out of fake numbers
>Well, Obama is still trash!
Yeah, no. He's had his failures, there are plenty of examples of him bowing to outside pressure, but he will never equal the 8 years of unparalleled, unmitigated carnage that the W bomb wrought.
He's just a convenient target to hate because he's the pin in the hinge of America's adaption to the 21st century, which would have to have happened anyway, Bush, Obama, or no.
The world isn't black and white. Grow up.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 Run out of fake numbers? For fucks sake you don't even know what a deficit is. How can you know something is made up when you don't even know what it is?
Here's a good experiment. Count how many ex-bankers are in Obamas cabinet. Now tell me who agreed to the banker bailout.
mayne242 1 month ago
@mayne242
Did I say he was Jesus? Of course not. In fact, I think I specifically addressed that before you even brought it up:
>there are plenty of examples of him bowing to outside pressure
Bush was not an idiot, or evil, and neither is Obama. One has an agenda I loathe, the other doesn't. Its that simple.
It's the people like you who fall for the "good" and "evil" narrative and whichever sorry fuck happens to be spinning at the time that have landed us where we are today.
tattat44 1 month ago
Comment removed
df61660a 1 month ago
@tattat44 It wasn't even me who said he bowed to outside pressure. Can you at least quote me properly before you babble about something irrelevant an inaccurate? Thanks.
mayne242 1 month ago
@mayne242
*facepalm*
That's because I was quoting myself, Einstein.
Typical. I rebut you point for point, line for line, and all you can do is complain (incorrectly) that I misquoted you, rather than having, oh, say, other arguments besides "He's evil" and "he's kidney failure". Appeal to emotion is an entirely hollow and transparent tack.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 I didn't say he was evil either.
Look up the definition of deficit before you say you "rebut my point, line for line". What a load of bullshit.
mayne242 1 month ago
OBAMA IS A BADASS MOTHERFUCKER
Godzilla9608 3 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@Godzilla9608 Obama is working hard to embrace the diversity of the Democrat party & bring it together under a banner that clearly represents it all. To unify the party Obama wants to change its identification in a way that defines all who belong. No longer will there be confusion as to what progressives or liberals stand for as Obama would like all who typically vote Democrat to unify under the banner of his new Ineptocratic party. This is a grass roots movement help Obama make it viral!
joe035 3 months ago
@Godzilla9608 Not really
CHTWillCome723 2 months ago
@Godzilla9608
yeah, except hes no better than the disaster George... hes done everything Bush would have done... i've yet to see him act like a democrat.
df61660a 1 month ago
@df61660a
Other than passing the first universal healthcare bill in the countries history, repealing DADT, defending workers bargaining rights, refusing to pass SOPA and PIPA, you mean?
Yeah, gosh, he's done nothing progressive.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44
yes, but look at the other 99% of what hes done... Bush tax cuts, bank bail outs, followed up on the Bush Iraq timeline (as opposed to getting us out immediately), failed to overturn torture for suspected terrorists, passed indefinite detention for Americans, didn't overturn patriot act, didn't live up on promise to raise the federal min wage to 9%... yeah, he is probably a hell of a lot better than McCain/Palin... but i want to see him act more progessive and defend civil liberties.
df61660a 1 month ago
@df61660a
You can't have everything. When it comes to getting a good president, you can't even get most of it, and that's just the way reality is. Obama was never going to be able to enact all of his campaign points. You have to have goals to work towards, even if you're not able to meet them immediately, you still have to begin the work of getting there. He's doing the absolute best job he can with the minute amount of political capitol that he has to work with. Count your blessings.
tattat44 1 month ago
@df61660a
Of course I'd like to see him do all those things, but I'd also like to hit zero under par and bowl a perfect game. Just like the reality of physics prevents me from achieving those goals, so the pragmatic reality of our political system prevents him from achieving all that he set out to, just like ever other president, ever.
We should be thanking our lucky stars we got someone who has half a damn head on his shoulders, rather than bemoaning that he can't be perfect.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44
reality of physics didn't prevent him from following through on his promises... he is the president of the United States.. and saying it was the fault of congress is ridiculous. why did he keep so many neo-conservative republicans on his staff if he wanted real change? oh yes he has a head on his shoulders- but why should we trust him? i'm not thankful... for freedom, bush was cancer and obama is like kidney failure. both are bad. People are defined by ACTIONS not personality.
df61660a 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@df61660a
>reality of physics didn't prevent him from following through on his promises...
I didn't say the reality of physics would prevent him, I said the reality of our political system would.
>why did he keep so many neo-conservative republicans on his staff if he wanted real change?
Names and dates.
>People are defined by ACTIONS not personality.
So you're telling me you could have prevented a depression, reformed healthcare, withdrew from iraq, and killed Bin Laden?
tattat44 1 month ago
@Godzilla9608 If by "badass" you mean "as useful as a wet paper bag" then yes, he is badass.
mayne242 1 month ago
Obama didn't just eat their lunch, he... drank... their... milkshake! Sluuuuuuurp! He drank it up! Drainage!
UncleMikeNJ 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@UncleMikeNJ Obama is working hard to embrace the diversity of the Democrat party & bring it together under a banner that clearly represents it all. To unify the party Obama wants to change its identification in a way that defines all who belong. No longer will there be confusion as to what progressives or liberals stand for as Obama would like all who typically vote Democrat to unify under the banner of his new ineptocratic party. This is a grass roots movement help Obama make it viral!
joe035 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I saw it on MSNBC too!!!!
BonoForAmerica 3 months ago
@isdfgbsdf U Mad Bro?
technical1234567 3 months ago
Tax cuts for the rich is the stupidest shit since Sarah Palin.
NY1love 4 months ago
@NY1love Tax cuts on the highest income brackets consistently brought in more revenue in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's and 2000's. The question is whether or not they work and the answer is that yes, they do.
Aegius 4 months ago
@Aegius: Aside from the fact that it's an outright lie, exactly how do you figure tax cuts could bring in more revenue? And as far as "working"...define working. It certainly isn't creating jobs as promised. It certainly isn't reducing the deficit or debt. It by "working" you mean, making the rich richer and the poor poorer, well then I'd have to agree with you. It is doing that.
dLimboStick 4 months ago
@dLimboStick Wrong. It wasn't an outright lie. Revenue increased in the 1920's, 1960's, 1980's and 2000's per tax cuts. Cut taxes and the "rich" invest more money into the economy. That means more economic activity and more revenue is generated. Now, when there is more economic activity, that means MORE JOBS. Businesses create jobs, not government. The rich do get richer. So do the "poor".
Aegius 4 months ago
@Aegius errr.... oh dear
mjd1982 3 months ago
@mjd1982 Here is a lesson for you: Profits are GOOD. Why? When a business makes profits 1)its expenses are paid. What are those expenses? JOBS. Jobs are created via profits. 2)The operation is self-sustained per profits, b/c expenses are covered. 3)Who provides those profits? Answer: The public. So per profits the public holds a business directly and personally accountable. That's why they will take service and quality seriously, while gov employees yawn unless yelled at or Hell is raised.
Aegius 3 months ago
@Aegius
Profits are good for whom?
The business owners who recieve those profits.
e.g. The man making £1million dollars isn't going to work less hard if the maximum he can make is reduced to 800 thousand, resulting from a tax rise.Tax cuts for already incentivised individuals are called 'pushing on a string' by economists.
There isn't an either/or choice between state and market. Advanced American industry relies entirely on state subsidy, for instance. This is about finding a good balance.
Alohomora42 3 months ago
@Alohomora42 Not just the business owners. The employees as well. When profits are made, expenses are covered. What are those expenses? JOBS, meaning the employees' jobs, so the employees' keep their jobs and provide for their families. So profits are good for their families as well. Profits also ensure that customers are provided with their wants or needs in transactions, so profits are good for the general public. BTW, any industry that relies on state subsidies is doomed to bankruptcy.
Aegius 3 months ago
@Alohomora42 Any private enterprise that relies on state subsidies is doomed to fail to bankruptcy as occurred w/Solyandra, and other green energy cos and in the past gov-sponsored railroads. The reason for that is that profits aren't the primary concern, but gov subsidies. As profits aren't the concern, costs are only to be covered by gov subsidies rather than independently by transactions to cover expenses and make profits. There are numerous historical examples including Solyandra.
Aegius 3 months ago
@Aegius I hate to break it to you but the American motor industry relies on state subsidy. For example, GM pays no tax and recieves billions of dollars to stay afloat. Historical examples abound for government funded industry, e.g. fibre optics, the internet, high speed aircraft.
The pentagon and space budgets have been funneling tax dollars into advanced industry for many decades. This is a system of public cost and private profit. You can call this theft but you can't call it ineffective.
Alohomora42 3 months ago
@Alohomora42 You can call it ineffective as such companies keep going bankrupt, b/c costs aren't properly managed. Gm doesn't pay taxes, b/c it has operated on net losses, so thanks for providing that example. If it operated on profits rather than subsidies, it would be able to be self-sustaining rather than a gov welfare recipient. Gov funded railroads, ship cos, airline industries all ended up in bankruptcy as they depended on gov money and not the profit motive.
Aegius 3 months ago
@Aegius Yeah, sometimes ineffective, but that has nothing to do with a lack of profit motive. Companies which take advantage of the taxpayer e.g. wallstreet banks, do so precisely to generate profits. This isn't always inefficient for the companies but it is often inefficient for the taxpayer.
Basically when the profit motive is mingled with tax dollars things go wrong. But government programmes which avoid that motive tend to work well e.g. social security.
I think context is everything here.
Alohomora42 3 months ago
@Alohomora42 "Basically when the profit motive is mingled with tax dollars things go wrong." They go wrong, b/c they lead to bankruptcy. The pursuit of profit ensures that expenses will be covered. Gov doesn't seek to have expenses coverred except through tax dollars and that leads to costs spiraling out of control. "But government programmes which avoid that motive tend to work well e.g. social security." That is now bankrupt and $trillions in debt. Thanks for that example. cont...
Aegius 3 months ago
@Aegius
>The pursuit of profit ensures that expenses will be covered.
I see this so often. Someone who describes themselves as "fiscally conservative" hasn't the first clue how budgets or ledgers are run in real life.
Governments do not, and should not run like corporations. Governments run at a loss on purpose, because they don't get any benefits except that which they provide the people, and that which is taken in in tax revenue.
Somebody needs to stay in school.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 UM. I was referring to business, not gov. Govs are managed via laws and regulations. Businesses are managed via the pursuit of profit. Read more carefully next time. & Thanks for pointing out that govs run at a loss on purpose. But govs do get benefits, provided to their employees, not just ppl who they give money to at taxpayer expense.
Aegius 1 month ago
@Aegius
Yes, but the point I was trying to make is that the profit motive doesn't work well with an organization whose sole purpose is to run at a net loss for the benefit of the citizen.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 Gov orgs don't necessarily benefit the citizens even if that is what their purpose is. Of course neither do businesses. However if businesses don't serve such purposes, they go out of business and the public pays no price. If gov orgs don't serve such purposes, it requires massive political action to remove them and that rarely happens. What good has the Dept of Education, Dept of Techology, Dept of Energy done? Nothing, but it will be difficult to get rid of them.
Aegius 1 month ago
@Aegius
>don't serve such purposes, they go out of business and the public pays no price.
Does the word "bailout" ring any bells? How about "too big to fail"? How about the many other abusive and irresponsible businesses that are often the leaders in their industry? AIG, Bank of America, Monsanto, GM, BP, Chysler, Goldman Sachs, and countless others? Capitalism is not specially immune or even resistant to monopoly and concentration of power, neither are businesses.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 Yes. If we bail out losers, we will bail them out over and over again and then they become our problem. If we don't bail them out, other cos can take their place. Let their competitors take their place instead. Let investors determine who is profitable and not profitable. That will be their problem and not ours. & If you don't want monopolies, then minimize regulations to allow for small businesses to enter and flourish. That's what happened with Standard Oil in 1904.
Aegius 1 month ago
@Aegius
How is the bailout a regulation? The bank bailout was a blatant handout to the corporate elite, just like the massive tax cuts for the rich conservatives are doggedly determined to protect. These mergers of massive financial entities is a direct result of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act being shredded by post-Reagen republicans.
"Department of Technology", you're hysterical. Link me to their webpage if they're real then.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 You're the hysterical one as you gave full credit for the internet to DARPA, when in fact it was mainly due to private industry. Same w/ telecommunications as the vast bulk of innovations came from private industry.
I do favor tax cuts for the "rich". IF you have massive taxes on the "rich", they just find loopholes and don't invest in the economy.
& BTW, I didn't say that bailouts were regulations, but they are gov interference. You're the hysterical one here.
Aegius 1 month ago
@Aegius
DARPA IS a military organization. Cite sources on your claims or put a sock in it.
Government is supposed to run a country. Corporations are tools of government that have gotten wildly out of control, you can look it up, that's how joint stock companies originated. Corporations are not people, if they were, then I want to be able to execute them when they kill people and ruin economies.
tattat44 1 month ago
@Aegius
>Dept of energy
Created the power and telecommunications infrastructure that you are using right now. Created and managed our nuclear power and weapons. Funds
>Dept of Technology
Uh, what? There's no such thing as the department of technology.
If you're talking about DARPA, they created the internet and hundreds of other sophisticated telecommunications technologies, everything from encryption to statistics algorithms. Useless, right?
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 Yes, there is a Dept of Technology. DARPA was partly responsible for the creation of the internet, but there was private research done as well. Telecommunications mainly came from the private sector and most innovations came from R & D in the private sector by far and not from DARPA.
The Dept of Education has NOTHING to do w/ K-12 and frankly is a complete waste of funds.
Aegius 1 month ago
@Aegius
>The Dept of Education has NOTHING to do w/ K-12
>The Dept of Energy is just a waste of funds as well.
No wait, I take that back. THIS is hysterical. I don't know why you bothered to write that all out though, you could have just typed: "Lol, opposite of everything you said is true"
>You drink too much Kool-Aid
Oh look. Racism so predictable, I could set my clock by it. XD
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 Okay. All you have is the race card. That's nice. The Dept of Education has accomplished NOTHING except facilitate the ruin of education and caused higher education costs to skyrocket out of control.
I don't approve of the bank bailout. I stated that we should NOT bail out the banks but let private investors decide if they are to be saved or let competition fill in the void.
Aegius 1 month ago
@tattat44 DARPA didn't create the internet. IT was a combination of military and private industry with universities. Most telecommunication technologies by far came from the private sector including most sophisticated ones. You don't know what you are talking about on anything and then you gave the race card as icing on the cake.
Keep enjoying that Kool-Aid.
Aegius 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Aegius
>combination of military and private industry with universities
And two out of those three are sustained by the government. Actually, all of them are, as without a government to enforce their contracts, business would not exist.
>don't know what you are talking about on anything
What a coincidence, that statement perfectly describes you. You dodge the questions you don't like, you make excuses, and pull things out of your ass like the mythical "US Department of Technology".
tattat44 1 month ago
@Aegius
>Dept of Education
The only reason you know how to spell that sentence out is because your parents were able to send you, for free, to K-12 education. But hey, what do I know, maybe you're rich and can afford to go to a private school, but the rest of us aren't.
tattat44 1 month ago
@Aegius
>dept of energy continued
-funds almost all of our major research colleges and scientific study funds, which are dispensed to private individuals and corporations alike. The Department of Energy and its predecessors have been the major driver of scientific development in this country to date.
I will be frank with you. You do not sound like you are basing your opinions on a very solid understanding of how politics and economics work in the real world.
tattat44 1 month ago
@tattat44 During the 1970's the Dept of Energy proved utterly incompetent in seeking new sources of energy and it accomplishes NOTHING. Private corps engage in a lot of R&D and private corps sponsor R&D at universities. The Dept of Energy is just a waste of funds as well.
I'll be frank with you. You drink too much Kool-Aid.
Aegius 1 month ago
@Alohomora42 In other words when companies are not pursuing profits(when gov covers the costs instead of the public via customers), they aren't working to ensure that expenses are covered. Expenses are not held in check much less covered, so they rise w/o anything stopping them. That leads to bankruptcy and enormous debt.(Solyandra, Evergreen, Union & Pacific Railroad cos. Airline cos.).
I actually will favor gov programs at the state or local level, but the fed gov will just screw them up.
Aegius 3 months ago
@Aegius
Social security is not bankrupt, nor is it trillions in debt. It holds trillions in surplus through treasury bond holdings. People are worried that in several decades the surplus might be exhausted. This issue has little to do with the budget deficit, at least for the next few decades.
Spending doesn't always produce debt, if you actually have the money to spend. Tax cuts don't always produce jobs, tax cuts in a time of debt can crash the whole economy ie- the Bush tax cuts.
Alohomora42 3 months ago
@Alohomora42 How is money created? Figure that out to know why the entire second paragraph of your post is wrong.
mayne242 2 months ago
Comment removed
Alohomora42 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bill maher is an idiot asshole cocksuck JEW ugly hooknose low-life blasphemer man-cunt loser prick hebe hassidic devil worshipping take it in the ass faggot no-talent low-life blithering douchebag. true.
isdfgbsdf 4 months ago
im still not seeing what either party is good at?anybody who believes one party is all good and the other is the evil is a fool.
Pat9201 4 months ago
@Pat9201 Actually Bill Maher stated several times that Democrats are incompetent, but on the other hand Republicans now-a-days are just beyond stupid.
Neosaigo 4 months ago
@Neosaigo i would say nancy polosi,barney frank and harry reid qualify as being "just beyond stupid".
Pat9201 4 months ago
maybe brown people are just more fun to kill, also i second that motion of NO hope for future . and also ... abortion & gay rights are the "serious issues " ?
having arsenals is " the right to protect your family " ? obama is the "cut" ?
nmt1370 5 months ago
The country was ran in the ground before Obama took the office!!! Everything Maher says is the truth. We invaded the wrong country under Bush, DE-REGULATION is why the banks, car industry and wall street failed. DE-REGULATION is also why Big OIL is reaping record profits on the backs of the middle class . . . now you say you have the answer to fix the economy that you racists idiots caused? Bullshit!!!
chill67 5 months ago 12
@chill67 Yet the price of gas stayed the same when the price of the barrel of oil dropped big time less than a year ago. Explain that to me, please.
CHTWillCome723 2 months ago
Even other brown people love to kill brown people, just ask the President.
darrenholcomb42 5 months ago
USA loves to kill brown people. Murdering fascist bastards!!!
StigJensen123 5 months ago
@StigJensen123 This is so untrue, we love to kill black bastards too. Oh wait, and Yellow bastards, and Oh wait, green bastards, but red white and blue bastards are OK. And Tiger Woods kids are O.K. And Tiger was O.K., but that was back in the day.
onebaud 5 months ago
The way Maher speaks of Obama, he seems to be inlove with the guy. Oh how sweet he pronounces his name..Oobaaema.
zarkov66 5 months ago
God damn republicans are so dumb I can't believe this god damn stupid fucking country. Republicans in Europe are way more progressive than democrats here. I have no hope for the future
layoflakersnation 5 months ago 2
@layoflakersnation Obama is working hard to embrace the diversity of the Democrat party & bring it together under a banner that clearly represents it all. To unify the party Obama wants to change its identification in a way that defines all who belong. No longer will there be confusion as to what progressives or liberals stand for as Obama would like all who typically vote Democrat to unify under the banner of his new Ineptocratic party. This is a grass roots movement help Obama make it viral!
joe035 3 months ago
Maher's biased, no doubt he is, but the real reason why a lot of Americans who vote Republican vote Republican is because of serious issues, like Abortion, and encroaching gay rights, and the right to protect your family, and the right to believe in God without having to verify his existence every three seconds. Sure a lot of Republican voters don't like the wickedness their leaders ard doing, but it's like choosing between the axe or it's blade; which frightens you more, the dull thud, or cut?
avernikas 5 months ago 2
the most biased show in america
cquackaz 5 months ago
@YouB6EyeB9 lol, actually rationalism spews out, and Bill is anything but an idiot
jericho717 6 months ago
Maher speaking the truth.. He's the best.
madeutap4 6 months ago
he's a sell out, and maher is a bigot asshole
mattvlad3 6 months ago
@mattvlad3 bigot is such an ironic word, cause calling someone a bigot makes you a bigot also lol
jericho717 6 months ago
@jericho717 sure? were you read this? i dont find it on dictionary. i dont find it anywhere
mattvlad3 6 months ago
@mattvlad3 thats the def of a bigot, "someone who is intolerant of anothers ideals or beliefs".... the ironic part of it all is Bill disagrees with most peoples ideals, and you calling him a bigot, makes you intolerant of his ideals, so your both bigots, but hey everyone is a bigot every now and again,
jericho717 6 months ago
@jericho717 bigot is someone who is intolerant or cant accept someone, withOUT listening his ideas, if was like you say, anyone is bigot, and the tern have no more reason to exist......mmh......you havent open the dict, dont you?
mattvlad3 6 months ago
@mattvlad3 so let me ask you a question, do you like have sexual relationships with children, or do you believe a man should die because of the color of his skin, or do you approve of animal cruelty, if not, then your a bigot. You dont believe in those ideals because you know their wrong. Im a bigot when it comes to racisim or cildren fucking, or animal cruelity..and not to exacerbate things but I use to read the dictionary alot as a kid,
jericho717 6 months ago
@jericho717 mmmmhhh i read bla bla bla, i got busted, bla bla bla...............hwr animal cruelty doent exist, animals are animals, and in a not far past our ancester did sex with children, so is not ok for me but not necessary for all. now bye, im gettin tired
mattvlad3 6 months ago
@mattvlad3 lol not even gona put up a fight huh, well as for your last response, it is a fact animals feel pain, so animal cruelty does exist, at least Americans believe so, I say this because your txt make you sound forgien, as for our anncestors being child molestors, yea it happend back in the past but my belief is it shouldnt happen today.So your not a bigot huh, your mr. tolerant well if more people were like you in the world, nothing would ever gett done, bla bla bla, your pathetic bla bla
jericho717 6 months ago
So 911 happened months after Bush was in office so it was his fault. Where was Clinton? Bin Laden just planned the whole tihng in 8 months. Bullshit. And Obama ran the debt up 4 times as much as Bush. Just blame it on Bush.
colbymercury 6 months ago
This is great. I was either laughing or saying "fuckin' right!" the whole time.
JazzyJonas 6 months ago
Ёбанный интернет тоже фильтруют? Или на русском языке можно найти только Религиотизм Билла Мехера
yasha185 6 months ago
Wow, amazing how Maher can get his WHOLE FOOT-LONG NOSE AND TONGUE up Obama's ass like that!
Must be a world record for ass-kissing.
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
don't worry, he's only going to be president 5 more years.
BeefPapa 6 months ago
@BeefPapa
Actually I calculate 500 more DAYS is more likely; but if people were stupid enough to elect this shit-head ONCE, then they're dumb enough to do it again.
And 5 more years is plenty of time to destroy the country. Fortunately the lenders have realized he's a deadbeat, and they've pretty much cut up his credit-cards.
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
the lenders are mostly chinese, and they knew bush was a deadbeat as well. so nothing new there. if numbnuts got a second term, i suppose anything can happen.
BeefPapa 6 months ago
@BeefPapa
After 2 terms of Blowjob-Bill, I knew that anything was possible. I didn't think much of New York electign Hillary to the senate, since those people are at the shallow end of the gene-pool anyway.
However Obama spent 50% more/year than Bush, and he has even worse things to show for it; and the CBO: says "Obama To Push Public Debt Above $20 Trillion By 2021."
So I figure that secession and default is about the best way to go-- if they see my video, they can do it.
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
if noting that he had his dick blown is the best you can do against the last president who had us in a surplus; maybe you need your dick blown as well.
BeefPapa 6 months ago
@BeefPapa
No thanks, I prefer women; but it's cool that you're gay.
Clinton gave us 9/11 too... pretty expensive BJ if you ask me, but that's a chance Blowjob was just willing to take... and the surplus only came AFTER he drove his own party out of congress via mass tax-increases.
Only a sheep would believe a word Clinton said.
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
@SovereignStatesman
Oh I'm sure you prefer women; just that a non-inflatable one would be nicer. and getting out of a massive debt (from your boyfriend's dad who also held a bullshit war) with tax-cuts instead of tax-hikes would have to be called a miracle. an impossible miracle for that matter. and frankly miracles are hard to come by these days. but keep praying and maybe you'll get it.
BeefPapa 6 months ago
@BeefPapa
I'll have to take your word about inflatable women, however curious it is that a gay man like yourself would know-- too much information.
As for the economy, pardon me while I Laffer.
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
OMG, Maher REALLY give Obama sole credit for killing Bin Laden?
Sometimes you think he's a moron, then he says shit like this and PROVES it.
And now he says that the answer is TAX-HIKES? Ok, it's official.... he's offically sperm-for-brains.
SovereignStatesman 6 months ago
@nakayle you could post a link but remember I'm not defending repubs or dems I'm just saying both are guilty, and Clinton was pretty lucky that the internet gave a huge boom to the economy and as a result took in a lot more revanue from capitol gains taxes and low unemployment. He wasn't a bad pres either but was fortunate.
punktillidie27 6 months ago
@punktillidie27 I'm tired of you idiots seeing that theres no way of defending the republicans after what they did, so then attempting to say IT'S EVERYONES FAULT, no it's just the got damn republicans fault, WHAT FAULT IS IT OF THE DEMOCRATS?NONE!
thegreatest4114 6 months ago
They're good at "saying NO" and "consistency" - the Dems need to master these things
2001Horatio 6 months ago
@nakayle I'm not a conservative if anything I lean a little towards being a libertarian but I can't even categorize myself as that because I don't believe in everything they believe even but just because the congressional budget office predicted we would have a 2 trillion surplus in 10 years doesn't mean anything because they tend to make over optimistic assumptions and not take bubbles into account. and saying something is mostly because of republicans when dems did the same? come on.
punktillidie27 6 months ago
@punktillidie27 Too bad I can't post a chart here showing the National Debt of recent presidents. It would show there was a steady rise under Reagan, which continued with Bush-1. Then Clinton got in- raised taxes and the debt began a steady decline throughout his administration ending in a budget surplus. Then Bush-2 got in- made big tax cuts and started two unfunded wars and the debt soared higher than ever. These are documented facts.
nakayle 6 months ago
Those were some pretty arbitrary facts.
punktillidie27 6 months ago
@punktillidie27 "arbitrary" facts? Is that what conservatives call facts they don't want to hear?
nakayle 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balancedway.yolasite.com
etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc2.yolasite.com
figure4etc1.yolasite.com
etc.
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
How does this guy still get work? Half the things that come out of his mouth are bullshit, and the other half are failed attempts at comedy.
RoosterCogburn1008 6 months ago
Comment removed
kaxitaksi 6 months ago
911 was an inside job. maher will never get it. he just thinks he's not bought and sold.
cshargeit 7 months ago