GOP Budget Offers First-Rate Vision for First-Rate Country

Spending isn't any higher as a percentage of GDP than it was under that dottering old fuck Reagan
The only nugget in that whole post worth discussing. You're right, so what is the difference? The difference is that DEBT is now ~101% of GDP. Leaving the country with limited options to conquer a massive fiscal crisis that will meet its end long before 2040 if allowed to be pursued.

let the currency wars commence. (they already have)

Gee, I guess you shouldn't have run up all that debt under REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS THEN, HUH?

And where was THIS bit of rationality when CONZ where complaining about Obama spending the stimulus money? Oh, no where. Bush and you CONZ hamstrung Obama by the amount of debt you ran up. You did EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO, try to shrink the government. Only you did it by throwing the country into debt so that the government WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ALL IT'S REVENUE SERVICING THE DEBT CONZ RAN UP and leave NOTHING for it's citizens or a crisis like 9-11 that Bush let happen because he was incompetent.


And the top tax rate was good through 1964 if you were able to read the chart I posted above at a 4th grade comprehension level. Hell it was above 70% until Reagan. Now it's at 35%.

Gee, it appears that you are full of it and have been caught being full of it, haven't you.
Perhaps if you could provide some examples of capital flight when Clinton raised taxes? Or when Reagan did?

I'll wait while you don't provide a SMIDGEN of evidence to back up your contentions and leave the readers to determine who is full of crapola and who has the facts.
 
Spending isn't any higher as a percentage of GDP than it was under that dottering old fuck Reagan
The only nugget in that whole post worth discussing. You're right, so what is the difference? The difference is that DEBT is now ~101% of GDP. Leaving the country with limited options to conquer a massive fiscal crisis that will meet its end long before 2040 if allowed to be pursued.

let the currency wars commence. (they already have)

Gee, I guess you shouldn't have run up all that debt under REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS THEN, HUH?

And where was THIS bit of rationality when CONZ where complaining about Obama spending the stimulus money? Oh, no where. Bush and you CONZ hamstrung Obama by the amount of debt you ran up. You did EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD DO, try to shrink the government. Only you did it by throwing the country into debt so that the government WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ALL IT'S REVENUE SERVICING THE DEBT CONZ RAN UP and leave NOTHING for it's citizens or a crisis like 9-11 that Bush let happen because he was incompetent.


And the top tax rate was good through 1964 if you were able to read the chart I posted above at a 4th grade comprehension level. Hell it was above 70% until Reagan. Now it's at 35%.

Gee, it appears that you are full of it and have been caught being full of it, haven't you.
Perhaps if you could provide some examples of capital flight when Clinton raised taxes? Or when Reagan did?

I'll wait while you don't provide a SMIDGEN of evidence to back up your contentions and leave the readers to determine who is full of crapola and who has the facts.
Yep high taxes till Reagan and a 700 billion national debt when he took office?
He cut taxes on some and raised them on others (me) and nearly doubled the national debt.
But the right did not learn then either.
Reagan proved the debt did not matter.
 
Same old idiocy from the same old idiot.

yes, by all means, lets spread the fixing of our financial picture out over the next 50 or 60 years. Lets let everything just sit as is until then. Fucking brilliant idea.
if you ran a $250B surplus starting next year indefinitely, assuming no new interest is accrued on the debt, it would take over 56 years to pay it off. so actually yes... we are gonna have to figure this out over the next 50-60 years.
 
Why is defense spending totally off limits in Ryan's budget?

not surprisingly, you have not bothered to read anything...

page 13 of the linked pdf... defense spending
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
more on defense in the rest of the pdf.
If you have read it, then you won't have any problem with post #25. :lol:

If it was a link to the details of the budget as opposed to a somewhat more detailed summary, then yes, I'd be able to answer it based on the link. As you obviously know, that specific information is not in the link I provided. If you''d like to know, you have the same ability to search it out that I do. Have at it.

Oh yeah... :tongue:
 
lets cut unnecessary spending.
I asked you a question in post #25. Why did you skip that question in order to reply to post #27?

:lol:

I wasn't aware that a response to every post was a requirement on this board. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
The fact remains that you cannot answer it. And why is that? Because Ryan didn't bother to come up with those figures. :)
 
I asked you a question in post #25. Why did you skip that question in order to reply to post #27?

:lol:

I wasn't aware that a response to every post was a requirement on this board. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
The fact remains that you cannot answer it. And why is that? Because Ryan didn't bother to come up with those figures. :)

And, you've looked in the actual text of the budget plan to determine this? Link?
 
I wasn't aware that a response to every post was a requirement on this board. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
The fact remains that you cannot answer it. And why is that? Because Ryan didn't bother to come up with those figures. :)

And, you've looked in the actual text of the budget plan to determine this? Link?
I'm supposed to link to something that doesn't exist? :lol:
 
The fact remains that you cannot answer it. And why is that? Because Ryan didn't bother to come up with those figures. :)

And, you've looked in the actual text of the budget plan to determine this? Link?
I'm supposed to link to something that doesn't exist? :lol:

No, you're supposed to PROVE it doesn't exist.

I am not saying it does or it doesn't.

Right now, all we have is your say so that it doesn't. If you want to prove yourself correct, find the text of the bill and check. You might be right. Point is, you have not proved that yet.

And, if the official budget has not been submitted and given an HR number yet, wouldn't it be a good idea to wait until it actually is, before whining like a little baby about what it doesn't have?
 
Last edited:
If you steal more money from the public for these clowns, they will spend it and more. That is the whole point. They can not help but spend ALL the revenue and another 1.3 trillion on their failing, economically inept programs. The only way to hold them accountable is to force them to cut waste adn do it in a big way.

Go ahead though, raise the tax rate to 90% on the 200,000+ income crowd and see what happens.

Fair taxation of disposable income is stealing? You're a fucking loon.

And it is up to you and your ilk to determine what is disposable? What other deserve to keep if you think they are 'comfortable'??

Fuck you

Equality in treatment across the board with no subjective bullshit levels or exemptions that politicians love to use to pander for votes...

You and your ilk only want equality in treatment when it benefits you.. and scream for inequality in treatment of others when it benefits you
 
I wasn't aware that a response to every post was a requirement on this board. I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for pointing it out to me.
The fact remains that you cannot answer it. And why is that? Because Ryan didn't bother to come up with those figures. :)

And, you've looked in the actual text of the budget plan to determine this? Link?

Read the budget most of Ryan plans are vague and contain no specifics, perfect example is tax loopholes, hes say he close them to make up for giving millionaires 6 trillion in cuts but he does not name a single one he'd close
 
Mysteriously, though Ryan relies on the CBO to vouch for his plan, he appears to ignore CBO estimates that a repeal of the health care law would lead to an increase in the deficit. Instead, a substantial part of his claimed deficit reduction — $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years — comes from repealing the health care law. Where do those numbers come from? Ryan does not explain, and his spokesman did not respond to a query.

Fact-checking the Ryan budget plan - The Washington Post

Once again, imaginary numbers from the RepubliCONs and the right wing zombies fall into line.

So are you also saying it doesn't cut enough? Or are you just attacking the other side for the sake of...what?

I'm saying Ryan is ignoring facts and fabricating numbers and making the same bullshit promise that proves he is a liar simply seeking power.

ANYTIME a politician, Republican or Democrat, tells you that they can fix the debt and it won't cost an extra penny, they are LYING!

Ryan's plan is vapor ware.
 
The fact remains that you cannot answer it. And why is that? Because Ryan didn't bother to come up with those figures. :)

And, you've looked in the actual text of the budget plan to determine this? Link?

Read the budget most of Ryan plans are vague and contain no specifics, perfect example is tax loopholes, hes say he close them to make up for giving millionaires 6 trillion in cuts but he does not name a single one he'd close

again, you're not talking about the actual budget text. you're talking about summaries. When the actual text of this proposal is made available, then you can look for the specifics you want.

That's how both sides do it, btw.
 
And, you've looked in the actual text of the budget plan to determine this? Link?

Read the budget most of Ryan plans are vague and contain no specifics, perfect example is tax loopholes, hes say he close them to make up for giving millionaires 6 trillion in cuts but he does not name a single one he'd close

again, you're not talking about the actual budget text. you're talking about summaries. When the actual text of this proposal is made available, then you can look for the specifics you want.

That's how both sides do it, btw.


When the actual text of this proposal is made available, then you can look for the specifics you want.

GOP Budget Offers First-Rate Vision for First-Rate Country

Ryan is one of the few politicians brave enough to tell us what we 'need' to hear, not what we 'want' to hear.


But without the actual Text, how does that make Ryan so brave ???
 
Last edited:

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top