JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,522
- 2,165
- Banned
- #81
Alexander Hamilton's assumption, funding, and debt fund was huge for the day. It was also the right thing to do.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Congress is like a circus act gone wrong. They all need to be put in a clown car and driven off a cliff.
More like a great con game...
Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...
Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....
Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...
i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...
Congress is like a circus act gone wrong. They all need to be put in a clown car and driven off a cliff.
More like a great con game...
Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...
Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....
Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...
i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...
Rush explained, eh. So you get your politics from an obese junkie. Kind of explains your logic.
More like a great con game...
Rush explained the "big spending cuts" con...
Obama increased spending like 9 trillion.....which created a new higher BASE LINE of spending....so we are just cutting off from the new higher baseline....
Boehner's 1.2 trillion cut...spaced out over the next ten years....is but a drop in the bucket...and who knows if the proposed cuts will really even be made after they get to the bipartisan "committee"...of course we know Reid's "cuts" are not really cuts...
i like the idea of going back to 2007 or 2008 levels...we need REAL substantial cuts in spending...
Rush explained, eh. So you get your politics from an obese junkie. Kind of explains your logic.
The higher base line is accurate.
Rush explained, eh. So you get your politics from an obese junkie. Kind of explains your logic.
The higher base line is accurate.
No, it is not.
Given that you don't know what you are talking about at any given time, Auto, a far righty extremist's comments such as yours are given the weight it deserves, then is flushed down the toilet.
Demanding that a Balanced Budget amendment has "assurances it will be sent to the states" is voting for default. I wish the Tea Partiers would just be honest.
No. It's not.
I wish you'd be honest.
of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:
1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.
2. We default.
Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.
Obama will have no bill to sign so he won't get blamed for this crash that is coming
There is no default coming (even if there's no agreement). There will be no "crash" coming unless, for traitorous partisan political reasons, the liberal Democrats cause one.
If the debt is defaulted, a great recession occurs, more individual and family harm happens, then the far right will be blamed by the American people, the Tea Party will be destroyed and the GOP grievously hurt in the next elections.
If you fools on the far right want an Obama New Deal beginning in 2013 that those to the left in 1933 would drool at, do the stupid thing.
Do it and reap your sorrow.
No. It's not.
I wish you'd be honest.
of course it is. It leaves two possibilities, one of which is impossible:
1. We have "assurances" that a balanced budget amendment will be sent to the states. Exactly what assurances do you have in mind? It's impossible.
2. We default.
Since (1) is impossible, it's a vote for (2). But luckily for sane people, the Tea Party doesn't have a large enough caucus to prevent sane people from passing a sane debt limit increase.
You're wasting your breath. Liability is one of those teabaggers who believe "there is no crisis - it's all a Liberal trick".
Liability wears blinders and cannot see the forest for the trees.
The Dems will win the crisis if the default occurs.
In cas you missed my earlier post LIEability, I suggested you're insane. Doing it right now, solving decades long overspending in one year isn't possible without creating a crisis. What the Congress needs to do is stop the bullshit and create jobs. Yes, notwithstanding RW dogma, government can create jobs.
Nobody cares what YOU "suggested," Fly Catcher since you are merely a dishonest, propagandized moron.
Also, dipshit, nobody said anything about fixing the entire problem in one year. Good God but you are a fucking imbecile.
And, no. Despite yojur willingness to repeat your utterly baseless mantra like a magical incantation, here in REALITY (which confuses the shit out of tools like you) the Government does not create jobs -- except "government jobs" which is really another form of spending, you senseless jerk-off.
um you said it exactly two posts above this one:
It is not "false" to say that the reining in of this utterly out of control spending MUST be done RIGHT now. It is a simple, declarative and completely accurate statement.
Take a step back. When the ass-clowns in Government who DEMAND an increase in the debt limit make that "demand," what they are SAYING is crystal clear. They want to be free to continue doing the very thing that got us to the precipice. They want to be unshackled in order to spend, spend, spend, spend and then do some serious additional spending. We don't have the money, so they want the credit line INCREASED. But it's beyond irresponsible when we KNOW for a fact that we have created an urgent, dire problem by doing exactly that kind of thing. It will not be ameliorated by doing more of the same; it will only be made that much worse. And when that becomes an even bigger and more imminent crisis, the answer will be some 'stop gap" INCREASE (yet again) in the debt ceiling. It's insanity.
Yes. It MUST be done right now.
__________________
You dont even know what you are arguing. You are literally trying to have it both ways. Your opinion in your own thread has become essentially irrelevant.