Living "Large" In the White House...

[Ron Hill]

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gawker/2011/07/0706_whchart.jpg

[racewright]

Well do you really think someone will ing to work for $130,000,00 a rear even has a clue on how to run the economy:confused:
The only way most of these people on this list could make this amount of money is if a fool like Obama was to give it to them. Most liberals go to the goverment gravey train to make some bucks--I for one am tired of it and am doing all I can in my business to stick it to the libs and the Goverment....

[Mark75H]

Another example of the "educated" rich and powerful helping their friends with money
stolen from the poor and working class

[racnbns]

Hey Pat----Is this Wright 1 of your relatives? If so get me her phone no. cause I want to get on their boat so I can SINK the damn thing.

Bruce

[racewright]

Don't know the witch lolololo:):)

[Ron Hill]

Rich people have boats, and no one in the White House be rich!

[racewright]

Yo wha up--Thats why they got up 83 % raises to some day be rich;)

[Original Looper 1]

My, how quickly people forget.....

Many people are under the impression that President Bush believed in small government and that the recent Republican congressional leaders always opposed big federal spending. The facts show something entirely different.

Federal government spending greatly expanded under George W. Bush's administration at a rate that was, until President Obama came along, totally unprecedented in U.S. history.

There's an article from 2005 titled "The Grand Old Spending Party: How Republicans became Big Spenders." that quoted the following statistics at that time:

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. (According to statistics, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him (including LBJ.)

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term.(2000 - 2004)

The Republican Congress spent 27% more on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs that they vowed to eliminate (2000 - 2006), while Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the White House.

Under Bush,the Republican controlled Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president even requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term.


Here's some other statistics about W. Bush's 2 terms in office:

The Republican controlled Congress raised the debt ceiling five times over the 8 years of the Bush Administration, raising the debt limit by almost $4 trillion.

Bush's "anti-government" Republican administration increased the federal budget by an extraordinary 104 percent.

In his last term in office, Bush increased discretionary spending—that means non-Medicare, non-Social Security—by 48.6 percent.


It's interesting to note that the two top Congressional recipients of money from big banks receiving TARP bailout funds are 2 top House Republicans, John Boehner and Eric Cantor. They were followed by ranking members of 2 key Congressional committees, Bachus/ Financial Services and Camp/ tax writing committee. Over the past couple of years, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has received the maximum allowable donations by financial companies & banks such as American Express, Bank of America, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs

I am not citing these statistics in order to claim that the Obama administration has done any better. But then, the Democratic Party does not call itself the party of small government. The Republican Party does.

You cannot continue to pretend that the Republican Party has not supported big and wasteful spending programs for the last decade. Before the Republican Party can have any credibility on any spending issues, Republican leaders need to speak frankly and truthfully about their mistakes in the past, which they refuse to do as they all currently seem to have been overcome by selective amnesia.

However, it's not all their fault. Americans on both the left and the right have, for the last decade, consistently voted for high-spending members of Congress and consistently supported ever-higher levels of government intervention and regulation at all levels of public life. It's ok if a guy on my 'team" spends too much and brings home the pork to my state or district, but the guy on your "team" better not do the same for you.

Blue team, red team, it makes little difference when the elections are more of a special interest auction than anything else, with both the 2 parties looting government not to make it smaller, but to ultimately benefit their extremely wealthy campaign donors, including big corporations, at the expense of the working (lower and middle) class taxpaying citizens of the United States, primarily in the private sector..

As always, follow the money and take off your blinders. Both parties are controlled at the top by the same ruthless global banksters and corporations. The downward spiral continues as long as many people maintain their sports mentality of "it's my team vs your team" philosophy.

Our country's borders to the north and south are practically wide open and have been so for almost 50 years. We are in what appears to be endless wars for endless profits in the mid east. Our country is exporting our value added manufacturing jobs. We've lost over 50,000 manufacturing companies since 2000, while the Liberals AND Neo-cons import poverty that procreates on our social system, a system that is on a trajectory that is not mathematically/economically sustainable.

The alarm bells are ringing. :eek:

Regards,

Paul

[Mark75H]

Well said birthday boy

[stlfan]

Looper 1 that may have been one of the best I have read anywhere. I have to say that was well written. By the way I'm an independent that votes all over the place on the political spectrum. I vote for who I think is the best no matter what their party is or if they even have a chance to win.