Both Democrats and the GOP have missed the obvious

Stop taking my money and stop wasting my money.

I mean seriously who gives a shit if gays get married or serve in the military.

stop crying about the poor earth

Go green go gay. Give me an effing break.
 
Not sure how both parties could be so blind.

Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that after the new Republican congress sits, there will be no more compromise. The number one issue for them is not guns, jobs, the economy, nuclear weapons, helping America's poor, the unemployed, health care or anything else that is important to the majority of Americans.

THE most important issue is to make President Obama a "one term" president. That's it and nothing else, period! Republicans have said that over and over again. They are being completely honest.

Everything Republicans have done, whether it's filibuster nearly every piece of legislation or refuse to compromise on tax cuts for rich people at the expense of millions of Americans, they have been completely honest about. They were honest during the entire last two years. Waterloo, fail, one term - honest.

The REAL reason why this congress has passed so many things is because the Tea Baggers will be coming into office. Both Republicans and Democrats will be leaving in record numbers. They don't have to follow either party. They only need to follow their conscience.

They are out and they know it. So why not do some good before they leave?

After the first of the year, we will be back to gridlock. Republicans have said, "NO COMPROMISE" and they mean it. It's not a threat, it's a "fact". They will continue to be honest, at least about that.

None of the pundits have pointed this out. Not one.



Of course its going to be "no compromise"..........THATS what election day was about asshole.:fu: America said on election day, "Stop spending our kids lives into oblivion."

This is a dynamic not at all understood by the k00ks on this forum. For them, racking up 2 trillion more of debt is no big deal. ( imagine these morons managing your finances??:lol:)

After January 3rd...............its repeal time s0ns.

And in the next 2 years, the k00ks had best pray for 3+% growth rates or conservatives will spend '12 to '16 doing the drink and the two step on a daily basis!!!:funnyface::funnyface::funnyface:

I guess some people want to see the end of the GOP "surge" in a hurry!

Is Gridlock and good or bad thing?

Republicans 43% Good, 42% Bad
Independents 28% Good, 57% Bad
Democrats 22% Good, 67% Bad
Overall 31% Good, 56% Bad

http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1113a5 Ask America 5.pdf

Democrats Beat Republicans in Poll With Opposition to Government Shutdown
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...l-with-opposition-to-government-shutdown.html
A recent poll gave congress a 13% approval rating, gridlock will make that 13% rating look good.
The US needs action not gridlock.
Likely gridlock in Congress could threaten economy
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/11/03/business/517622.txt

Those who are cheering gridlock are the people who love their ideology over the needs of their own friggen country! At this time in American history gridlock will hurt America, its that plain and simple.
 
Last edited:
Still living in a world where "we the people" haven't racked up $13 trillion in debt, I see.

How do you derive that from her statement?

She's implying that a tax hike is theft while ignoring the massive debt/deficit the WE have on our hands.

So what if she's ignoring the debt? The debt has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with her belief that taxation is theft, which she also did not say she believed.
 
Whatever they did in regards to taxes it should have been made permanent and not temporary. By making them temporary it has kept the political football in play and continued the "instability" and unpredictable business landscape proponents of keeping the tax cuts were barking about.

Art, you should know better. There's no such thing as a 'Permanent' tax schedule. Sure, they could have written one without a scheduled expiry, but the truth is they do whatever they want, whenever they want.
 
Why has the tea party been silent on the big tax give away if they were so worried about the deficit?

The tea party is a sham

Because, like most intelligent people, we understand that it's spending that creates the deficits.
 
Why has the tea party been silent on the big tax give away if they were so worried about the deficit?

The tea party is a sham

Because, like most intelligent people, we understand that it's spending that creates the deficits.

Wrong. It's spending in excess of revenue that creates deficits. When x < y, you either increase x, decrease y, or both.
 
Why has the tea party been silent on the big tax give away if they were so worried about the deficit?

The tea party is a sham

Because, like most intelligent people, we understand that it's spending that creates the deficits.

Wrong. It's spending in excess of revenue that creates deficits. When x < y, you either increase x, decrease y, or both.

You say "wrong" and then you lay out three different things that need to be done...and one of them is what you said wrong to.

I agree with Avatar and I agree with your solution.

Spend less.

Bear in mind, these deficits were created based on the knowledge of the approximate revenue...so spending created the deficits
 
Because, like most intelligent people, we understand that it's spending that creates the deficits.

Wrong. It's spending in excess of revenue that creates deficits. When x < y, you either increase x, decrease y, or both.

You say "wrong" and then you lay out three different things that need to be done...and one of them is what you said wrong to.

I agree with Avatar and I agree with your solution.

Spend less.

Bear in mind, these deficits were created based on the knowledge of the approximate revenue...so spending created the deficits

No Jughead, Avy said "it's spending that creates the deficits." Incomplete. False @ face value.

A deficit is only created by a situation where spending is greater than revenues. Spending by itself does not create deficits.
 
Bear in mind, these deficits were created based on the knowledge of the approximate revenue...so spending created the deficits

And the tax schedules were determined with knowledge of the approximate expenses.

See how that goes both ways?
Total BS.

Expenditures are set to grow on a baseline percentage every year, irregardless of projected revenues.
 
The only way that I would agree to that is if we make the WW2 tax schedule automatic every time that we have more than 250 military in combat status. And that schedule stays in effect until the cost of the military excursion is paid for.

Great idea. Then we can have 30% unemployment, riots in the streets, and all wait in line for two hours every morning to get our loaf of bread and block of government cheese. It will be Utopia.

Only someone completely ignorant and as economically stupid as you could suggest something so disastrous and destructive. Why do you hate America so much?
 
Excuse me?
I never said taxes should not go up. They will have to as our debt is too great.
I am referring to proper timing TM...I believe I made that clear.

The GOP simply fought for the cuts to be across the board as they believe ( and so do I), that the "wealthy" will be the only ones that will create the jobs. Will they? We hope. But the bottom line is this...they are less likely to be able to if they have an increase in taxes.

So just as you...I can spin too...

The democrats dont want the business owners to create jobs and that is why they wanted to increase the taxes on the business owners.

But I dont spin like you TM.....

Wealthy people don't just "magically" create jobs. There has to be "demand" for anyone to create "supply".

Besides, how many times have people gotten together, took out loans and started a business. They weren't wealthy, but they created wealth by selling something people were willing to buy.

Then there are corporations that create wealth. Stock brokers and others of that "ilk" don't create wealth, they "transfer it". Manufacturing companies create jobs if someone buys their products.

The whole "rich people create jobs" is an often repeated phrase that Republicans can't define in any meaningful way.

Republicans complain that government should stay out of jobs but wants the government to create jobs. When the government tries to with rebuilding our infrastructure, Republicans fight that. Who knows what Republicans want? They don't even know themselves. Not a single one of their policies for over a decade has done anything positive. Democrats aren't "miracle workers". The hole left by Republicans is deep. Turning the Middle Class out into the streets isn't going to solve anything, only make things worse.

You seem naive to how demand is created...and yes, demand is CREATED.

People had TV's....so the "wealthy" spent money on developing better TV's to creeate a new demand for TV's..Without the R and D, there would not be the new demand for TV's...and people would not need a new TV until the old one burnt out...so there was demand created when NEED was NOT there.

Changes in technology spurred by Rand D paid for by the wealthy is what creates demand. Demand creates jobs....and those jobs allow people to meet their want (demand) for the product.

There is logic to the GOP's belief.

You mean paid for by the government. It's amazing how many products come from government sponsored research.

As far as using their own money, that's a laugh.

I remember when Bush, before he was president, was under investigation by the SEC. Because he was on the Board of Directors, he borrowed money from the company, then he used the borrowed money to buy stock. He used the stock he bought as "collateral". Then, at some point, he sold the stock and made nearly a million dollars. What he did was perfectly legal. The reason he was under investigation was because there was an issue with "insider trading", not the way he bought or sold the stock.

See? Rich people can do these kinds of things that simply aren't available to anyone else. He didn't jeopardize a cent of his own money. Right wingers think people like Bush were out there working "hard" to make money. They just fill out some paperwork, as long as it's legal, they don't care about "ethical".
 
Bear in mind, these deficits were created based on the knowledge of the approximate revenue...so spending created the deficits

And the tax schedules were determined with knowledge of the approximate expenses.

See how that goes both ways?
Total BS.

Expenditures are set to grow on a baseline percentage every year, irregardless of projected revenues.

O.......Kay....... And that is inconsistent with my statement because, why?
 
Wealthy people don't just "magically" create jobs. There has to be "demand" for anyone to create "supply".

Besides, how many times have people gotten together, took out loans and started a business. They weren't wealthy, but they created wealth by selling something people were willing to buy.

Then there are corporations that create wealth. Stock brokers and others of that "ilk" don't create wealth, they "transfer it". Manufacturing companies create jobs if someone buys their products.

The whole "rich people create jobs" is an often repeated phrase that Republicans can't define in any meaningful way.

Republicans complain that government should stay out of jobs but wants the government to create jobs. When the government tries to with rebuilding our infrastructure, Republicans fight that. Who knows what Republicans want? They don't even know themselves. Not a single one of their policies for over a decade has done anything positive. Democrats aren't "miracle workers". The hole left by Republicans is deep. Turning the Middle Class out into the streets isn't going to solve anything, only make things worse.

You seem naive to how demand is created...and yes, demand is CREATED.

People had TV's....so the "wealthy" spent money on developing better TV's to creeate a new demand for TV's..Without the R and D, there would not be the new demand for TV's...and people would not need a new TV until the old one burnt out...so there was demand created when NEED was NOT there.

Changes in technology spurred by Rand D paid for by the wealthy is what creates demand. Demand creates jobs....and those jobs allow people to meet their want (demand) for the product.

There is logic to the GOP's belief.

You mean paid for by the government. It's amazing how many products come from government sponsored research.

As far as using their own money, that's a laugh.

I remember when Bush, before he was president, was under investigation by the SEC. Because he was on the Board of Directors, he borrowed money from the company, then he used the borrowed money to buy stock. He used the stock he bought as "collateral". Then, at some point, he sold the stock and made nearly a million dollars. What he did was perfectly legal. The reason he was under investigation was because there was an issue with "insider trading", not the way he bought or sold the stock.

See? Rich people can do these kinds of things that simply aren't available to anyone else. He didn't jeopardize a cent of his own money. Right wingers think people like Bush were out there working "hard" to make money. They just fill out some paperwork, as long as it's legal, they don't care about "ethical".

You seem to have forgotten what you said....he BORROWED money to buy the stock. No, not his money, but yes, his debt. So he took as much a risk as one would take if it were their own money.

So what is the issue there? What is different borrowing money to invest in real estate (a mortgage for a house) compared to borrowing money to invest in stocks? Both do it with the hopes to cash in when they sell.

DO you see how you just villified a "rich man" for doing something that many middle class people do...and with the help of programs, many poor people do as well.

Im sorry...but I dont get where you are going...but I believe it opened the door for people to realize how the rich are criticized for doing what EVERYONE does.
 
Bear in mind, these deficits were created based on the knowledge of the approximate revenue...so spending created the deficits

And the tax schedules were determined with knowledge of the approximate expenses.

See how that goes both ways?

Exactly....but then the government opted to spend more than it allotted itself to spend.
So therefore it was the spending that created the deficit...not the fact that the tax revenue was too low.

Bear in mind...the argument was whether or not the deficit was created by excessive spending or too small a tax revenue.

I believe we both agree that it was excessive spending...at least based on what you said.
 
Bear in mind, these deficits were created based on the knowledge of the approximate revenue...so spending created the deficits

And the tax schedules were determined with knowledge of the approximate expenses.

See how that goes both ways?

Exactly....but then the government opted to spend more than it allotted itself to spend.
So therefore it was the spending that created the deficit...not the fact that the tax revenue was too low. Or opted to tax less than it knew it was going to need

Bear in mind...the argument was whether or not the deficit was created by excessive spending or too small a tax revenue. Or both

I believe we both agree that it was excessive spending...at least based on what you said.

Excessive spending and/or insufficient taxation, yes. Which one it actually is; That's in the eye of the beholder.

If you read my posts carefully, I never really favored one solution or the other. But I do like to get the fact that there's more than one solution out in the open.

As far as cutting spending... I've tried to get real answers from people about what they want to cut. I never seem to get a reasonable response. Mandatory spending and military combined make up about 80% of spending. Everything else (about $600B) comprises of every suggestion I've heard. This is less than half of this year's deficit alone...

That said, I find it unlikely that a balanced budget is possible at the current tax rates. Frankly, I find it unlikely that a balanced budget is possible under any circumstances in the near future. But I feel very comfortable saying that if you oppose any increases in taxation, you have no right complaining about the deficit.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top