Well, You Elected A Liar, And This Is What You Will Get

[Old_Trapper70]

Worse is a matter of opinion. I'm betting you would be fine with any of his spending or find a way to blame someone else

Not at all if it is truly waste.

Solyndra 535m start up that failed and no one really could account for the money. But the people he gave the money to were ardent supporters

A program that began with Bush, as well as the Solyndra application. One of the reasons why Solyndra failed was the dumping of cheap materials in the market by China, and cheap wages in China.

http://www.edn.com/design/power-management/4368710/Solyndra-Its-technology-and-why-it-failed

Millions to other countries to support their countries green energy

Not sure why you consider this to be a waste since it has provided clean energy to millions of people who had no source of energy. And I am sure that you consider the trillions of dollars spent over the past 100 years of big oil, coal, and the automotive industry, as a waste.

319 mil for a botched health care website

Is that like the failed Medicare Part D program under Bush? If there had been more cooperation by the Republicans more then likely it would have succeeded.

400 mil to pay furlough workers that didn't work during the shut down. When I got furlough days I didn't work either but none of us got paid later for work never done

But you don't work for the government, and this too was nothing new. It also was approved by the Republicans

There is allot but again what I call waste you might call important

Most of it I call "business as usual" the only difference being it was Obama.

 

[Pandora]

Not at all if it is truly waste.



A program that began with Bush, as well as the Solyndra application. One of the reasons why Solyndra failed was the dumping of cheap materials in the market by China, and cheap wages in China.

http://www.edn.com/design/power-management/4368710/Solyndra-Its-technology-and-why-it-failed



Not sure why you consider this to be a waste since it has provided clean energy to millions of people who had no source of energy. And I am sure that you consider the trillions of dollars spent over the past 100 years of big oil, coal, and the automotive industry, as a waste.



Is that like the failed Medicare Part D program under Bush? If there had been more cooperation by the Republicans more then likely it would have succeeded.



But you don't work for the government, and this too was nothing new. It also was approved by the Republicans



Most of it I call "business as usual" the only difference being it was Obama.

Bush spent too much money!! I said it when he was president and I'll say it again now. I think the "your guy did it too" is a large part of why we are in such trouble. Bush wasn't my guy til the second term but I had no problem being critical about things he did the first term when I didn't vote for him or the second when I did. I have yet to see an obama supporter even consider the idea of holding him accountable. But they had no problem holding bush accountable and now trump. They should all be held accountable.

And yes I do think sending millions and millions to other countries for their green energy while we are trillions in debt to be poor spendin on both presidents and all of congress

And yes I do work for the government just not the federal government. Either way. You don't work you don't get paid. That was pathetic that they got paid for not working at tax payer expense.

 

[grumpy]

The Roar Of The Forgotten Man And Woman
Posted on February 19, 2017 by TMH

This is WHY TRUMP

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2017/02/19/the-roar-of-the-forgotten-man-and-woman/

 

[Walter]

http://noisyroom.net/blog/2017/02/19/the-roar-of-the-forgotten-man-and-woman/

Thank you for an interesting read.

But his conclusions sometimes are questionable , e.g. "Under Obama, our corporate tax rate was—and still is–the highest in the developed world, which has made the U.S. an increasingly uncompetitive location to do business—and it showed as company after company left during his and previous administrations".
I know why my business left the US - it wasnt taxes it was concerns for the privacy of my own data and the data of my customers.

And for some of his claims I have no validation, e.g. " the number of Americans holding jobs actually decreased 17 million between 2000 and 2014". Do you have any valid data for this?

 

[grumpy]

Thank you for an interesting read.

But his conclusions sometimes are questionable , e.g. "Under Obama, our corporate tax rate was—and still is–the highest in the developed world, which has made the U.S. an increasingly uncompetitive location to do business—and it showed as company after company left during his and previous administrations".
I know why my business left the US - it wasnt taxes it was concerns for the privacy of my own data and the data of my customers.

And for some of his claims I have no validation, e.g. " the number of Americans holding jobs actually decreased 17 million between 2000 and 2014". Do you have any valid data for this?

Walter you ask, Do you have any valid data for this? I have been researching that very question, and most of what I've come up with are you have to read the whole statement in my post.. But if you back out jobs taken by legal and illegal immigrants, the number of Americans holding jobs actually decreased 17 million between 2000 and 2014. SO 17 million immigrants arrived in the country in the last 14 years. The long-term decline in the share of working-age natives holding a job began .... between 2000 and 2014, dropped.so direct comparisons by occupation are difficult.

• First, the long-term decline in the employment for natives across age and education levels is a clear indication that there is no general labor shortage, which is a primary justification for the large increases in immigration (skilled and unskilled) in the Schumer-Rubio bill and similar House proposals.
• Second, the decline in work among the native-born over the last 14 years of high immigration is consistent with research showing that immigration reduces employment for natives.
• Third, the trends since 2000 challenge the argument that immigration on balance increases job opportunities for natives. Over 17 million immigrants arrived in the country in the last 14 years, yet native employment has deteriorated significantly.

Bottom line i just thought it was a very good article, and worthy to be posted here..lol..

 

[Openmind]

Walter you ask, Do you have any valid data for this? I have been researching that very question, and most of what I've come up with are you have to read the whole statement in my post.. But if you back out jobs taken by legal and illegal immigrants, the number of Americans holding jobs actually decreased 17 million between 2000 and 2014. SO 17 million immigrants arrived in the country in the last 14 years. The long-term decline in the share of working-age natives holding a job began .... between 2000 and 2014, dropped.so direct comparisons by occupation are difficult.

• First, the long-term decline in the employment for natives across age and education levels is a clear indication that there is no general labor shortage, which is a primary justification for the large increases in immigration (skilled and unskilled) in the Schumer-Rubio bill and similar House proposals.
• Second, the decline in work among the native-born over the last 14 years of high immigration is consistent with research showing that immigration reduces employment for natives.
• Third, the trends since 2000 challenge the argument that immigration on balance increases job opportunities for natives. Over 17 million immigrants arrived in the country in the last 14 years, yet native employment has deteriorated significantly.

Bottom line i just thought it was a very good article, and worthy to be posted here..lol..

I am not sure how you know that there was exactly the same number of new immigration then the number of decrease in number of employed native from 2000 to 2014, but it is a fact that 5.2 millions natives went over the 65 years old stage (or retirement stage) during that time.

In addition, I do not believe that immigration INCREASED throughout those 14 years. In fact, I believe that immigration decreased since 2010. But I will look at factual data to confirm (or deny) that.

 

[grumpy]

I am not sure how you know that there was exactly the same number of new immigration then the number of decrease in number of employed native from 2000 to 2014, but it is a fact that 5.2 millions natives went over the 65 years old stage (or retirement stage) during that time.

In addition, I do not believe that immigration INCREASED throughout those 14 years. In fact, I believe that immigration decreased since 2010. But I will look at factual data to confirm (or deny) that.

I am not sure how you know that there was exactly the same number of new immigration Research read my post..It bis a little long.. but a good read..

 

[grumpy]

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning with host Chris Wallace. Early in the interview, Priebus made some news when he said top intelligence officials had told him a New York Times story which accused the Trump campaign of being in contact with Russian officials was “inaccurate” and “grossly overstated.”

“The New York Times, last week, put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies, basically treasonous type accusations,” Priebus said. “I can assure you, and I’ve been approved to say this, that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it’s wrong and there’s nothing to it,” he continued. “If I can say that to the American people then what does it say about the story,” he said.

Wallace then tried to pin Priebus down saying, “You say that the intelligence community says that there were no contacts between anyone in the Trump campaign, any associated of Mr. Trump and anybody involved as a Russian agent as to the campaign and collusion in the campaign with Russia…is that what you’re saying?”

“Yeah, they told me…absolutely,” Priebus replied. “They have made it very clear that that story in the New York Times is complete garbage. And quite frankly they used different words than that,” he said.

Asked who told him this, Priebus said he hadn’t asked for clearance to use the person’s name. “But I will tell you this,” Priebus said, “when I say top level people, I mean top level people.”

Wallace tried to clarify a second time. “So no collusion whatsoever between anybody involved with Trump and anybody involved in Russia in the the 2016 campaign,” Wallace said. Priebus replied, No.”

 

[Old_Trapper70]

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus appeared on Fox News Sunday this morning with host Chris Wallace. Early in the interview, Priebus made some news when he said top intelligence officials had told him a New York Times story which accused the Trump campaign of being in contact with Russian officials was “inaccurate” and “grossly overstated.”

“The New York Times, last week, put out an article with no direct sources that said that the Trump campaign had constant contacts with Russian spies, basically treasonous type accusations,” Priebus said. “I can assure you, and I’ve been approved to say this, that the top levels of the intelligence community have assured me that that story is not only inaccurate, but it’s grossly overstated and it’s wrong and there’s nothing to it,” he continued. “If I can say that to the American people then what does it say about the story,” he said.

Wallace then tried to pin Priebus down saying, “You say that the intelligence community says that there were no contacts between anyone in the Trump campaign, any associated of Mr. Trump and anybody involved as a Russian agent as to the campaign and collusion in the campaign with Russia…is that what you’re saying?”

“Yeah, they told me…absolutely,” Priebus replied. “They have made it very clear that that story in the New York Times is complete garbage. And quite frankly they used different words than that,” he said.

Asked who told him this, Priebus said he hadn’t asked for clearance to use the person’s name. “But I will tell you this,” Priebus said, “when I say top level people, I mean top level people.”

Wallace tried to clarify a second time. “So no collusion whatsoever between anybody involved with Trump and anybody involved in Russia in the the 2016 campaign,” Wallace said. Priebus replied, No.”

More right wing ********* for fools:

First Priebus says this: "I can assure you, and I’ve been approved to say this,"

The he says this: "Asked who told him this, Priebus said he hadn’t asked for clearance to use the person’s name"

Then who gave the approval for him to say what he said? Trump?

 

[grumpy]

Before I go to bed tonight, one more thing..

Trump Became President Tonight and The Democrates Should Be Worried

 

[Openmind]

Before I go to bed tonight, one more thing..

Trump Became President Tonight and The Democrates Should Be Worried

This is the funniest thing you have posted as yet!

Trump will NEVER be presidential. . .he did a "fair" job (considering his past "speeches!") pretending tonight because he followed a speech that was written for him on teleprompter, and made a big effort not to go into his typical rant. . .but that just means he is learning to be a better PUPPET!

 

[grumpy]

This is the funniest thing you have posted as yet!

Trump will NEVER be presidential. . .he did a "fair" job (considering his past "speeches!") pretending tonight because he followed a speech that was written for him on teleprompter, and made a big effort not to go into his typical rant. . .but that just means he is learning to be a better PUPPET!

A whole lot of your liberals thought differently..

 

[Openmind]

A whole lot of your liberals thought differently..

Not enough, apparently!