no , but i have privy to people that are involved

KnightRyder wrote: no , but i have privy to people that are involved

Translated to "youngstownese":


No, but I know an Italian or Irish in town. They may be a raging alcoholic, but that's just a second star toward their credibility beyond their heritage!

Writerbuckeye wrote: Nobody with half a brain is "whining" about the French opening a plant -- we just don't see why we had to waste taxpayer dollars as part of a "stimulus" when the project was going forward, anyway.

That taxpayer dollars were wasted on this -- and the fact that it was done in Youngstown, and touted as some great accomplishment by Obama, is almost like the perfect storm of clusterfucks.

This wasn't a done deal until sometime this past fall. Which was after the stimulus, no?

^^^^^^ Correct. Remember the disagreement between Youngstown & Girard for Tax purposes and the transfer of Girard land to Youngstown ? The stimulus was the sweetheart deal that the French DID jump at

...I just wonder if the reason they threw this money at this project (which would have gone forward anyway)........PLUS.......an Obama visit was because Nancy Pelosi's boy being up for re-election....mmmmph!

4cards -- an R can't even be elected dog catcher in the area. Why would you think that Ryan who wins elections with huge margins would need help? Its pitiful that the GOP is so hated in the Valley, that many races don't even HAVE a GOP running in them.

So the French lied when they said it would have gone forward even without the stimulus money.

Alrighty, then.

And all businessmen tell the truth ??

Who would have thought ?

The project would have happened without the extra $19 million.

Obama is a hypocrite to act like he is pro-business.

The unions will get hold of this plant and turn it into another dust bowl.

More change we can believe in.

Youngstown is still a generation away from turning it around ..... and it is only time that will turn it around.

Deal probably would have still happened but the $19 million may have helped move it along a bit faster.

This doesn't seem like the greatest of battlefields if you're looking for Obama fuck ups. There are much better options than getting a steel plant opened in the valley in a manor that you disagree with. Because when it's all said and done they got a plant opened and are going to be putting a decent amount of people to work.

I Wear Pants wrote: Deal probably would have still happened but the $19 million may have helped move it along a bit faster.

This doesn't seem like the greatest of battlefields if you're looking for Obama fuck ups. There are much better options than getting a steel plant opened in the valley in a manor that you disagree with. Because when it's all said and done they got a plant opened and are going to be putting a decent amount of people to work.

So the ends justify the means?

How many MILLIONS of dollars do we want to spend -- per job -- in our efforts to "stimulate" the economy? At what point does this become a negative all around because of the exploding deficit and the burden it puts squarely on the shoulders of our children...their children...and their children?

I think we've reached that point.

This venture would VERY LIKELY have happened without throwing more taxpayer money into the pit that Obama and this Congress have grown to historical proportions.

I wouldn't expect anyone with a liberal bent to understand the immorality of all this -- it's simply not in their playbook.

Writerbuckeye wrote:How many MILLIONS of dollars do we want to spend -- per job -- in our efforts to "stimulate" the economy? At what point does this become a negative all around because of the exploding deficit and the burden it puts squarely on the shoulders of our children...their children...and their children?

Apparently the left feels that exploding deficit spending is justified as long our children and our children's children pay for it via the relative few jobs allegedly stimulated by spending taxpayer dollars.

It's a difficult thing for logical minds to grasp I know, but it does seem to be the political flavor of the New Era. I guess we should just accept it and let our kids worry about it.

The growing trend the last 80 years or so is to spend now and feel good about it now, let somebody else worry about it later.

As we see, alot of people have bought or are buying into it. It's called "NUDGING".

Writerbuckeye wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Deal probably would have still happened but the $19 million may have helped move it along a bit faster.

This doesn't seem like the greatest of battlefields if you're looking for Obama fuck ups. There are much better options than getting a steel plant opened in the valley in a manor that you disagree with. Because when it's all said and done they got a plant opened and are going to be putting a decent amount of people to work.

So the ends justify the means?

How many MILLIONS of dollars do we want to spend -- per job -- in our efforts to "stimulate" the economy? At what point does this become a negative all around because of the exploding deficit and the burden it puts squarely on the shoulders of our children...their children...and their children?

I think we've reached that point.

This venture would VERY LIKELY have happened without throwing more taxpayer money into the pit that Obama and this Congress have grown to historical proportions.

I wouldn't expect anyone with a liberal bent to understand the immorality of all this -- it's simply not in their playbook.

as i recall the deficit exploded some time back under the watchful eye of GWB . but its never a good time to talk about that administration

KnightRyder wrote:
as i recall the deficit exploded some time back under the watchful eye of GWB . but its never a good time to talk about that administration

Might want to recheck your facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png

Look at the deficit under Bush (2001-2009) again, it went up (good or bad) after 9/11 and steadily went down until 2008.

I wonder what happened in 2008? Oh yeah, the democrats in Congress, that was their first fiscal budget after they took over in 2006.

You have to remember, congress controls the budget, not the President. The President can suggest spending measures, but the congress has the only vote, period.

KnightRyder wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Deal probably would have still happened but the $19 million may have helped move it along a bit faster.

This doesn't seem like the greatest of battlefields if you're looking for Obama fuck ups. There are much better options than getting a steel plant opened in the valley in a manor that you disagree with. Because when it's all said and done they got a plant opened and are going to be putting a decent amount of people to work.

So the ends justify the means?

How many MILLIONS of dollars do we want to spend -- per job -- in our efforts to "stimulate" the economy? At what point does this become a negative all around because of the exploding deficit and the burden it puts squarely on the shoulders of our children...their children...and their children?

I think we've reached that point.

This venture would VERY LIKELY have happened without throwing more taxpayer money into the pit that Obama and this Congress have grown to historical proportions.

I wouldn't expect anyone with a liberal bent to understand the immorality of all this -- it's simply not in their playbook.

as i recall the deficit exploded some time back under the watchful eye of GWB . but its never a good time to talk about that administration

Bush is gone and your facts (as noted) are wrong.

This administration and the bunch of Dems controlling Congress have increased the deficit in ways we've NEVER seen before, and the CBO tells us it's likely going to be even worse than first thought.

This mess is on THEIR hands. They are the ones now in power and they have had a choice to pull back the spending even as the warning flags have been raised -- but they aren't listening or simply don't give a damn.

Writerbuckeye wrote: Bush is gone and your facts (as noted) are wrong.

This administration and the bunch of Dems controlling Congress have increased the deficit in ways we've NEVER seen before, and the CBO tells us it's likely going to be even worse than first thought.

This mess is on THEIR hands. They are the ones now in power and they have had a choice to pull back the spending even as the warning flags have been raised -- but they aren't listening or simply don't give a damn.

Just because the regime changed doesn't mean you can wipe your hands clean of it.

The previous one put us in a bad place in terms of deficit spending, and the current one made it that much worse. It was a bipartisan fuck up.

jmog wrote:Might want to recheck your facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Deficits_vs._Debt_Increases_-_2009.png

Look at the deficit under Bush (2001-2009) again, it went up (good or bad) after 9/11 and steadily went down until 2008.

I wonder what happened in 2008? Oh yeah, the democrats in Congress, that was their first fiscal budget after they took over in 2006.

You have to remember, congress controls the budget, not the President. The President can suggest spending measures, but the congress has the only vote, period.

Makes you wonder how much longer the Dems can play the "Blame Bush" card. Oh I forgot...The Fourth Estate is failing to do its job so I guess we'll be blaming Bush for a while longer.

Wait, you mean there are people here who are smart enough to see that the D's pumped steroids into our deficit, not W??

Holy shit. I may have to consider changing my sig.

ts1227 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Bush is gone and your facts (as noted) are wrong.

This administration and the bunch of Dems controlling Congress have increased the deficit in ways we've NEVER seen before, and the CBO tells us it's likely going to be even worse than first thought.

This mess is on THEIR hands. They are the ones now in power and they have had a choice to pull back the spending even as the warning flags have been raised -- but they aren't listening or simply don't give a damn.

Just because the regime changed doesn't mean you can wipe your hands clean of it.

The previous one put us in a bad place in terms of deficit spending, and the current one made it that much worse. It was a bipartisan fuck up.

Who's wiping their hands?

What Bush did wasn't good -- but what the Dems have done since is bordering on a national catastrophe...and they're STILL talking about spending even more.

That part is NOT bipartisan.

Stop looking back so you CAN blame Bush and start looking at who the real culprits are..right here, right now.

Writerbuckeye wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Bush is gone and your facts (as noted) are wrong.

This administration and the bunch of Dems controlling Congress have increased the deficit in ways we've NEVER seen before, and the CBO tells us it's likely going to be even worse than first thought.

This mess is on THEIR hands. They are the ones now in power and they have had a choice to pull back the spending even as the warning flags have been raised -- but they aren't listening or simply don't give a damn.

Just because the regime changed doesn't mean you can wipe your hands clean of it.

The previous one put us in a bad place in terms of deficit spending, and the current one made it that much worse. It was a bipartisan fuck up.

Who's wiping their hands?

What Bush did wasn't good -- but what the Dems have done since is bordering on a national catastrophe...and they're STILL talking about spending even more.

That part is NOT bipartisan.

Stop looking back so you CAN blame Bush and start looking at who the real culprits are..right here, right now.

wasnt good? what bush did was deplorable. so if we are bordering on a national catastrophe that means we are making progress. and as far as the blame game, the dems learned that trick from the bush backers who always blamed clinton for all of bush's failures. and you know what any smart business man will tell you , you have to spend money to make money. if it wasnt for bush and his numerous miss deeds we wouldnt be where we are now. you guys are good at criticizing the dems , and anything they do. but its clear you dont have the answers. if you did you wouldnt have voted for bush to begin with. do you really expect obama to clean up 8 years of bush in 2 years and have no money to do with? thats a impossible task for god himself.

KnightRyder wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Bush is gone and your facts (as noted) are wrong.

This administration and the bunch of Dems controlling Congress have increased the deficit in ways we've NEVER seen before, and the CBO tells us it's likely going to be even worse than first thought.

This mess is on THEIR hands. They are the ones now in power and they have had a choice to pull back the spending even as the warning flags have been raised -- but they aren't listening or simply don't give a damn.

Just because the regime changed doesn't mean you can wipe your hands clean of it.

The previous one put us in a bad place in terms of deficit spending, and the current one made it that much worse. It was a bipartisan fuck up.

Who's wiping their hands?

What Bush did wasn't good -- but what the Dems have done since is bordering on a national catastrophe...and they're STILL talking about spending even more.

That part is NOT bipartisan.

Stop looking back so you CAN blame Bush and start looking at who the real culprits are..right here, right now.

wasnt good? what bush did was deplorable. so if we are bordering on a national catastrophe that means we are making progress. and as far as the blame game, the dems learned that trick from the bush backers who always blamed clinton for all of bush's failures. and you know what any smart business man will tell you , you have to spend money to make money. if it wasnt for bush and his numerous miss deeds we wouldnt be where we are now. you guys are good at criticizing the dems , and anything they do. but its clear you dont have the answers. if you did you wouldnt have voted for bush to begin with. do you really expect obama to clean up 8 years of bush in 2 years and have no money to do with? thats a impossible task for god himself.

I didn't (don't) expect Obama to do anything well. It's one reason I didn't vote for him. And so far, he's proving my lack of a vote correct.

Again with the looking back and blaming crap.

The majority of this outrageous spending has happened on Obama's watch -- and the continuing forecasts for worsening to catastrophic deficits are happening NOW.

This isn't about "cleaning up" the past 8 years -- it's about doing what needs to be done NOW to stop this runaway train from hurtling off a cliff. So what are Obama and Congress doing to stop this from happening? Why proposing even more multi-billion dollar deficit-widening programs we can't afford -- and doing it even after promising to keep things budget neutral (a lie, of course).

The Democrats have the reigns in Congress and have had control of the spending for the past 3-4 years -- and now they also have the President.

This is THEIR time to come up with solutions and put a stop to the madness.

And yet we are seeing more of the same insane spending, with little thought given to the ramifications short-term (a continuing poor economy) and longer (potential economic collapse).

Writerbuckeye wrote:

KnightRyder wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Bush is gone and your facts (as noted) are wrong.

This administration and the bunch of Dems controlling Congress have increased the deficit in ways we've NEVER seen before, and the CBO tells us it's likely going to be even worse than first thought.

This mess is on THEIR hands. They are the ones now in power and they have had a choice to pull back the spending even as the warning flags have been raised -- but they aren't listening or simply don't give a damn.

Just because the regime changed doesn't mean you can wipe your hands clean of it.

The previous one put us in a bad place in terms of deficit spending, and the current one made it that much worse. It was a bipartisan fuck up.

Who's wiping their hands?

What Bush did wasn't good -- but what the Dems have done since is bordering on a national catastrophe...and they're STILL talking about spending even more.

That part is NOT bipartisan.

Stop looking back so you CAN blame Bush and start looking at who the real culprits are..right here, right now.

wasnt good? what bush did was deplorable. so if we are bordering on a national catastrophe that means we are making progress. and as far as the blame game, the dems learned that trick from the bush backers who always blamed clinton for all of bush's failures. and you know what any smart business man will tell you , you have to spend money to make money. if it wasnt for bush and his numerous miss deeds we wouldnt be where we are now. you guys are good at criticizing the dems , and anything they do. but its clear you dont have the answers. if you did you wouldnt have voted for bush to begin with. do you really expect obama to clean up 8 years of bush in 2 years and have no money to do with? thats a impossible task for god himself.

I didn't (don't) expect Obama to do anything well. It's one reason I didn't vote for him. And so far, he's proving my lack of a vote correct.

Again with the looking back and blaming crap.

The majority of this outrageous spending has happened on Obama's watch -- and the continuing forecasts for worsening to catastrophic deficits are happening NOW.

This isn't about "cleaning up" the past 8 years -- it's about doing what needs to be done NOW to stop this runaway train from hurtling off a cliff. So what are Obama and Congress doing to stop this from happening? Why proposing even more multi-billion dollar deficit-widening programs we can't afford -- and doing it even after promising to keep things budget neutral (a lie, of course).

The Democrats have the reigns in Congress and have had control of the spending for the past 3-4 years -- and now they also have the President.

This is THEIR time to come up with solutions and put a stop to the madness.

And yet we are seeing more of the same insane spending, with little thought given to the ramifications short-term (a continuing poor economy) and longer (potential economic collapse).

Arguing with a liberal about spending and how they still blame Bush is like arguing with a retarded cockroach. You'd have more success trying to paint the Great Wall of China by yourself.

^^Arguing about Bush's spending wasn't exactly a day at the beach either.

tk421 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

KnightRyder wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

ts1227 wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote: Bush is gone and your facts (as noted) are wrong.

This administration and the bunch of Dems controlling Congress have increased the deficit in ways we've NEVER seen before, and the CBO tells us it's likely going to be even worse than first thought.

This mess is on THEIR hands. They are the ones now in power and they have had a choice to pull back the spending even as the warning flags have been raised -- but they aren't listening or simply don't give a damn.

Just because the regime changed doesn't mean you can wipe your hands clean of it.

The previous one put us in a bad place in terms of deficit spending, and the current one made it that much worse. It was a bipartisan fuck up.

Who's wiping their hands?

What Bush did wasn't good -- but what the Dems have done since is bordering on a national catastrophe...and they're STILL talking about spending even more.

That part is NOT bipartisan.

Stop looking back so you CAN blame Bush and start looking at who the real culprits are..right here, right now.

wasnt good? what bush did was deplorable. so if we are bordering on a national catastrophe that means we are making progress. and as far as the blame game, the dems learned that trick from the bush backers who always blamed clinton for all of bush's failures. and you know what any smart business man will tell you , you have to spend money to make money. if it wasnt for bush and his numerous miss deeds we wouldnt be where we are now. you guys are good at criticizing the dems , and anything they do. but its clear you dont have the answers. if you did you wouldnt have voted for bush to begin with. do you really expect obama to clean up 8 years of bush in 2 years and have no money to do with? thats a impossible task for god himself.

I didn't (don't) expect Obama to do anything well. It's one reason I didn't vote for him. And so far, he's proving my lack of a vote correct.

Again with the looking back and blaming crap.

The majority of this outrageous spending has happened on Obama's watch -- and the continuing forecasts for worsening to catastrophic deficits are happening NOW.

This isn't about "cleaning up" the past 8 years -- it's about doing what needs to be done NOW to stop this runaway train from hurtling off a cliff. So what are Obama and Congress doing to stop this from happening? Why proposing even more multi-billion dollar deficit-widening programs we can't afford -- and doing it even after promising to keep things budget neutral (a lie, of course).

The Democrats have the reigns in Congress and have had control of the spending for the past 3-4 years -- and now they also have the President.

This is THEIR time to come up with solutions and put a stop to the madness.

And yet we are seeing more of the same insane spending, with little thought given to the ramifications short-term (a continuing poor economy) and longer (potential economic collapse).

Arguing with a liberal about spending and how they still blame Bush is like arguing with a retarded cockroach. You'd have more success trying to paint the Great Wall of China by yourself.

what the hell, you conservatives blamed every thing on clinton when bush was in last year. so dont tell me about the blame. bush put us in this mess and that is fact. what was the deficit when bush took office? why not just quit the bitchin. i bet you werent bitchin when GWB was running amok. at least obama is spending state side . bush spent and spent overseas . the problem conservatives have you are a afraid some one is gonna get some thing for nothing and it aint gonna be you.