I would expect increased security would cause a bump and I would expect an increase to parellel the increased population. Common sense...try it, you'll like it...lonewolf wrote:That's not finally.Hawk wrote: Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
President Barack Obama came into office with 2,756,000 non-military employees.
After two years in office, President Obama had 2,840,000 non-military employees, or an increase of 84,000 employees in 1/2 term.
How many are there now, I wonder?
THE POLITICAL ARENA!!! Political Gladiators Inside!!
-
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Did say I did I believe it. I said I found it funny.Hawk wrote:Do you believe that ? I catch Rush in lies all the time. Research and see.f.sciarrillo wrote:Rush Limbaugh called the SOTU a class warfare rally, I find that funny there. He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice?

Music Rocks!
- lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.Hawk wrote:Tell mke Joe, how much of the debt is debt owed by previous administrations and how much did Obama add to that which was already owed ?undercoverjoe wrote:Obama has cut the government sooooo much that the $15 TRILLION DEBT is actually a surplus.
As of this post, the debt is $15,274,642,000,000 (its millions higher already)
The difference is $4,647,764,951,087 over three years.
That is a 44% increase in just three years. By the end of his term, he will easily surpass half of all the previous debt accumulated since the country was founded.
Last edited by lonewolf on Wednesday Jan 25, 2012, edited 1 time in total.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Jeff, you must be wrong. Bill posted pages of how Nobama cut government. He never responds to the fact that the Kenyan is the greatest deficit spender in the history of this country.lonewolf wrote:When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.Hawk wrote:Tell mke Joe, how much of the debt is debt owed by previous administrations and how much did Obama add to that which was already owed ?undercoverjoe wrote:Obama has cut the government sooooo much that the $15 TRILLION DEBT is actually a surplus.
As of this post, the debt is $15,274,642,000,000 (its millions higher already)
The difference is $4,647,764,951,087 over three years.
That is a 44% increase in just three years. By the end of his term, he will easily surpass half of all the debt accumulated since the country was founded.
My question was confusing. let me try to make it clearer.lonewolf wrote:When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.Hawk wrote:Tell mke Joe, how much of the debt is debt owed by previous administrations and how much did Obama add to that which was already owed ?undercoverjoe wrote:Obama has cut the government sooooo much that the $15 TRILLION DEBT is actually a surplus.
As of this post, the debt is $15,274,642,000,000 (its millions higher already)
The difference is $4,647,764,951,087 over three years.
That is a 44% increase in just three years. By the end of his term, he will easily surpass half of all the debt accumulated since the country was founded.
Much of the difference (4.6 Trillion) is do to debt incurred by previous administrations. They can't (by law) stop payments of previous agreements that others (i.e. Bush / and the house) agreed to. If Obama added nothing, the debt would still increase. If you subtract that from the 4.6, how much did Obama increase it ?
Same question for you Joe.undercoverjoe wrote:Jeff, you must be wrong. Bill posted pages of how Nobama cut government. He never responds to the fact that the Kenyan is the greatest deficit spender in the history of this country.lonewolf wrote:When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.Hawk wrote: Tell mke Joe, how much of the debt is debt owed by previous administrations and how much did Obama add to that which was already owed ?
As of this post, the debt is $15,274,642,000,000 (its millions higher already)
The difference is $4,647,764,951,087 over three years.
That is a 44% increase in just three years. By the end of his term, he will easily surpass half of all the debt accumulated since the country was founded.
Much of the difference (4.6 Trillion) is do to debt incurred by previous administrations. They can't (by law) stop payments of previous agreements that others (i.e. Bush / and the house) agreed to. If Obama added nothing, the debt would still increase. If you subtract that from the 4.6, how much did Obama increase it ?
- lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Why should Obama's debt be treated any differently than all the others?Hawk wrote:My question was confusing. let me try to make it clearer.lonewolf wrote:When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.Hawk wrote: Tell mke Joe, how much of the debt is debt owed by previous administrations and how much did Obama add to that which was already owed ?
As of this post, the debt is $15,274,642,000,000 (its millions higher already)
The difference is $4,647,764,951,087 over three years.
That is a 44% increase in just three years. By the end of his term, he will easily surpass half of all the debt accumulated since the country was founded.
Much of the difference (4.6 Trillion) is do to debt incurred by previous administrations. They can't (by law) stop payments of previous agreements that others (i.e. Bush / and the house) agreed to. If Obama added nothing, the debt would still increase. If you subtract that from the 4.6, how much did Obama increase it ?
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
Sentence number two. " He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice? "f.sciarrillo wrote:Did say I did I believe it. I said I found it funny.Hawk wrote:Do you believe that ? I catch Rush in lies all the time. Research and see.f.sciarrillo wrote:Rush Limbaugh called the SOTU a class warfare rally, I find that funny there. He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice?
That's what I was talking about.
From a right wing web:
While reps for the brand won’t reveal the item’s retail price, a similar style from the collection is currently available at Barney’s New York for $2,400.
And it says nothing about tax payers paying for it.
TARP funds paid out were credited to Bush's deficit. TARP funds repaid by the banks are actually credited to Obama, so actually the DEBT would even be more except for those repayments.
Bill fails (on sooooo many posts it hard to keep track
) to mention that Nobama as a Senator voted for all that debt and spending under Bush.
Duh!
Bill fails (on sooooo many posts it hard to keep track

Duh!

Maybe its George Soros, buying new costumes for his puppets.Hawk wrote:Sentence number two. " He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice? "f.sciarrillo wrote:Did say I did I believe it. I said I found it funny.Hawk wrote: Do you believe that ? I catch Rush in lies all the time. Research and see.
That's what I was talking about.
From a right wing web:
While reps for the brand won’t reveal the item’s retail price, a similar style from the collection is currently available at Barney’s New York for $2,400.
And it says nothing about tax payers paying for it.
If Obama's 4.6 T is because he's paying 4 T of Bush's debt, can he really be held accountable for someone elses debt ? Don't forget, Clinton left Bush with a surplus.lonewolf wrote:Why should Obama's debt be treated any differently than all the others?Hawk wrote:My question was confusing. let me try to make it clearer.lonewolf wrote: When Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009, according to the Treasury Department, the total national debt stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08.
As of this post, the debt is $15,274,642,000,000 (its millions higher already)
The difference is $4,647,764,951,087 over three years.
That is a 44% increase in just three years. By the end of his term, he will easily surpass half of all the debt accumulated since the country was founded.
Much of the difference (4.6 Trillion) is do to debt incurred by previous administrations. They can't (by law) stop payments of previous agreements that others (i.e. Bush / and the house) agreed to. If Obama added nothing, the debt would still increase. If you subtract that from the 4.6, how much did Obama increase it ?
Showing off your willful ignorance again ?undercoverjoe wrote:Maybe its George Soros, buying new costumes for his puppets.Hawk wrote:Sentence number two. " He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice? "f.sciarrillo wrote: Did say I did I believe it. I said I found it funny.
That's what I was talking about.
From a right wing web:
While reps for the brand won’t reveal the item’s retail price, a similar style from the collection is currently available at Barney’s New York for $2,400.
And it says nothing about tax payers paying for it.
This is so funny. Cut and paste administration.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIU ... ture=share
Class warfare and government is the answer. Cut and paste.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIU ... ture=share
Class warfare and government is the answer. Cut and paste.
No silly, yours.Hawk wrote:Showing off your willful ignorance again ?undercoverjoe wrote:Maybe its George Soros, buying new costumes for his puppets.Hawk wrote: Sentence number two. " He also let us know that the First Lady, I mean the tax payers, paid $2400.00 for her dress. Wasn't that nice? "
That's what I was talking about.
From a right wing web:
While reps for the brand won’t reveal the item’s retail price, a similar style from the collection is currently available at Barney’s New York for $2,400.
And it says nothing about tax payers paying for it.
You mean like the Iraq war Obama's still paying for ? More willful ignorance on your part ?undercoverjoe wrote:TARP funds paid out were credited to Bush's deficit. TARP funds repaid by the banks are actually credited to Obama, so actually the DEBT would even be more except for those repayments.
Bill fails (on sooooo many posts it hard to keep track) to mention that Nobama as a Senator voted for all that debt and spending under Bush.
Duh!
-
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6990
- Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
- Location: Not here ..
Indeed it is imcumbant upon our society to educate. and we band together to get it done...via the government.lonewolf wrote:Yes, anytime easy money goes somewhere, it results in higher prices.Hawk wrote:I don't understand your point. Are you saying tuition goes up because the government subsidises college education ?lonewolf wrote: Typical state bullying by the federal government.
I would like to see ALL misplaced federal funding stop. All it does is cause the tuition problem in the first place.
What happen to the conservative mantra, "...Teach a man to fish..."?
Its not the federal government's job to teach a man to fish. The word education (or anything vaguely close) does not appear in the constitution.
And you know they did because Rush says so.f.sciarrillo wrote:Willful ignorance? Isn't that what got Obama elected?![]()
How do you know the tax payers didn't pay for her dress, Bill? The tax payers pay for everything of theirs. And will be for the rest of their lives.
BTW I never said we didn't pay for it. I pointed out that the cost of the dress was not disclosed. Proving Rush lied again.
What about home schooled kids, idiot? Schools should be at a state and local level of government. SAT scores have done nothing but go down since the inception of the Federal Dept. of Education.Hawk wrote:Indeed it is imcumbant upon our society to educate. and we band together to get it done...via the government.lonewolf wrote:Yes, anytime easy money goes somewhere, it results in higher prices.Hawk wrote: I don't understand your point. Are you saying tuition goes up because the government subsidises college education ?
What happen to the conservative mantra, "...Teach a man to fish..."?
Its not the federal government's job to teach a man to fish. The word education (or anything vaguely close) does not appear in the constitution.
- lonewolf
- Diamond Member
- Posts: 6249
- Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
- Location: Anywhere, Earth
- Contact:
Yes, the state and local type...where it has education listed in their constitutions.Hawk wrote:Indeed it is imcumbant upon our society to educate. and we band together to get it done...via the government.lonewolf wrote:Yes, anytime easy money goes somewhere, it results in higher prices.Hawk wrote: I don't understand your point. Are you saying tuition goes up because the government subsidises college education ?
What happen to the conservative mantra, "...Teach a man to fish..."?
Its not the federal government's job to teach a man to fish. The word education (or anything vaguely close) does not appear in the constitution.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
undercoverjoe wrote:NOBAMA did not spend any money in Iraq in the last 3 years????????
We still have 17,000 troops there. Who is paying them? And who is paying for their equipment?
My point is that Obama is STILL spending money because of what GW started. DEBT incurred by the previous administration.
Is that so hard to understand ?
That's right. And if the locals can't afford to support a local school ? Should they just close it ?lonewolf wrote:Yes, the state and local type...where it has education listed in their constitutions.Hawk wrote:Indeed it is imcumbant upon our society to educate. and we band together to get it done...via the government.lonewolf wrote: Yes, anytime easy money goes somewhere, it results in higher prices.
Its not the federal government's job to teach a man to fish. The word education (or anything vaguely close) does not appear in the constitution.
Well, don't that put the dink in co-inky-dink! I'd rather waterboard you than listen to you dancing on the edge of sanity! How 'bout that!undercoverjoe wrote:I would rather be water boarded than listen to the Kenyan lie.f.sciarrillo wrote:Warren Buffett's secretary will be sitting with the First Lady at tonights State Of The Union Address. Who all is watching it?