It is simply indisputable - we have a severe spending problem

[JoeB131]

[

He had to - because incompetent Dumbocrat cowards like Carter surrendered our embassy and handed innocent American's on a platter to be hostages of a foreign nation. I mean, seriously, who the fuck orders an embassy to surrender?!?

Sensible people who don't want civilians killed for no good reason? You do realize the embassy was full of civilian workers and business people.

[
As far as the missiles, do you have a point? Of course not - you've spent the last 40 years drunk and being fired from jobs. The missiles posed no threat to us, were never used against us, and even had the approval of Israel (who stood the most to lose). In fact, the Israeli's even brokered the entire deal.

1) Israel should not be running our foreign policy.
2) The missiles did allow the Iranian Regime to survive, and they went on to fire missiles at American shipping.
3) I notice you go right for the unsubstatiated personal attack when you can't really make a point.

Bottom line, we sold dangerous weapons to very bad people, and had nothing to show for it in the end.

Now tell us again how America and Israel are "evil", Iran and China are "righteous", how Republicans were behind Clinton's free trade agreements, and how conservatives are to blame for collapsing Detroit even though Dumbocrats had full control of the city council and mayorship for the past 60 years.

Yawn, guy, you see, now you want the argument to be all over the map, because you can't really justify why your boy sold weapons to terrorist sponsors.

[
I get the feeling that you're 17 and haven't wondered outside of your parents backyard yet. Maybe your accusations about my age were all a desperate form of projection? You're such a mountain of misinformation, I can't imagine you're an adult who actually lived through this stuff.

No, guy, honestly, you are the one acting like a 17 year old who just got spanked.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Yeah - you really "lose the benefit of the doubt" in Joe's mind when you collapse communism (as Reagan largely did) because Joe is a self-professed communist (he has openly and publicly declared his deep love for communism over and over right here on USMB). However, so long as you are a Dumbocrat and promise him pitiful government table scraps, he will worship your lavish spending (ball gowns, Martha Vineyard, Hawaii, etc.) and disparate wealth.

He's an angry and confused lad.

Guy, the end of the USSR (not Communism) had nothing to do with Reagan.

It was the failure of a colonial empire, not the failure of a political system.

And frankly, the cost of Reagan's policy was to arm the Jihadists and terrorists, who are a hell of a lot more scary than the Communists ever were.

When was the last time the Communists collapsed a skyscraper full of people?

 

[The Professor]

Despite that obnoxiously long list of taxes, and despite revenues to the government being as high as they have ever been, it's still not enough for the Democrats. So now they have added these taxes:

Supporters of the deal are claiming this isn’t a tax increase—but take a look at your airline receipt. The airline security charge is just one of the taxes you’ll see. According to Delta Airlines, there’s also the Domestic Transportation Tax (7.5 percent), Travel Facilities Tax ($8.40), and U.S. International Transportation Tax ($17.20). These are all considered taxes.

And that sad part is, it has become so egregious, even the Dumbocrats are now ashamed of how much they are taxing and taking. So now they won't even call a spade a spade anymore - and taxes are being called "user fees"

Ryan-Murray Budget Deal Includes Sneaky Tax Increase

I humbly suggest there is one tax that most people do not mention, a tax which is disproportionately paid by the poor: the lottery.

 

[P@triot]

He had to - because incompetent Dumbocrat cowards like Carter surrendered our embassy and handed innocent American's on a platter to be hostages of a foreign nation. I mean, seriously, who the fuck orders an embassy to surrender?!?

Sensible people who don't want civilians killed for no good reason? You do realize the embassy was full of civilian workers and business people.

Yeah Joe, because handing those civilians over to be tortured first, held as hostages second, and then killed third is so "sensible". Jesus God do your arguments get weaker and more desperate with each post that I own you with facts.

As far as the missiles, do you have a point? Of course not - you've spent the last 40 years drunk and being fired from jobs. The missiles posed no threat to us, were never used against us, and even had the approval of Israel (who stood the most to lose). In fact, the Israeli's even brokered the entire deal.

1) Israel should not be running our foreign policy.

Then it's a good thing they don't and never did. How does it feel being my personal bitch on USMB?

2) The missiles did allow the Iranian Regime to survive, and they went on to fire missiles at American shipping.

Riiiiiight... without the weapons sold to Iran, that nation would be a giant, empty desert (kind of like Detroit after you ignorant Dumbocrats collapsed it). As I've already stated Joe, you're so desperate to make an argument you're just being absurd (not to mention completely inaccurate).

3) I notice you go right for the unsubstatiated personal attack when you can't really make a point.

Funny, I've noticed you go right to lies and nonsensical analogies (rape with a dildo much, Joe? ) when you've had your ass handed to you with facts.

Bottom line, we sold dangerous weapons to very bad people, and had nothing to show for it in the end.

Bottom line, you've now contradicted your own position out of chase-your-own-tail-desperation for like the 500th time. Before you stated that the Iranians were the good guys and we deserved to have our embassy overran because we provided safe haven for the Shah. Now you're suddenly contradicting yourself and declaring the Iranians as "very bad people" simply because your desperate to demonize Reagan because there was an "R" bear his name while he held office. So which is it Joe? Are the Iranians the righteous folks you first tried to make them out to be or are they they "evil" folks you later tried to make them out to be?

Now tell us again how America and Israel are "evil", Iran and China are "righteous", how Republicans were behind Clinton's free trade agreements, and how conservatives are to blame for collapsing Detroit even though Dumbocrats had full control of the city council and mayorship for the past 60 years.

Yawn, guy, you see, now you want the argument to be all over the map, because you can't really justify why your boy sold weapons to terrorist sponsors.

I did that three posts ago, stupid. Remember - which is why you got desperate and went unhinged with the nonsensical Israel "running our policy" stuff?

 

[P@triot]

That's right folks - the federal government dropped $100k on a fucking outhouse. But hey, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Just know that we have a "revenue" problem, you're not paying your "fair" share, and your money does not actually belong to you. I think that's the complete holy trinity of the very fucked up and failed liberal ideology...

10. Outhouse in Alaska: $98,670. The Interior Department spent nearly $100,000 to install an outhouse on an Alaskan trail, which includes a single toilet with no internal plumbing.

Top 10 Examples of Government Waste in 2013

 

[P@triot]

He had to - because incompetent Dumbocrat cowards like Carter surrendered our embassy and handed innocent American's on a platter to be hostages of a foreign nation. I mean, seriously, who the fuck orders an embassy to surrender?!?

Sensible people who don't want civilians killed for no good reason? You do realize the embassy was full of civilian workers and business people.

Then he should have secured his embassy instead of gutting defense, cowering to his enemies, and surrendering his embassy like a dog peeing on the floor with its tail between its legs.

Carter, Clinton, and Obama have proved over and over that the Dumbocrat appeasement strategy doesn't work.

 

[JoeB131]

This would be expeditures the Republican Congress signed off on, which makes you wonder if they are really upset about wasteful spending.

Here's a hint. Alaska has a Republican Governor, one Republican Senator, a Republican Congressman....

And apparently, they were all totally good with that outhouse...

 

[JoeB131]

He had to - because incompetent Dumbocrat cowards like Carter surrendered our embassy and handed innocent American's on a platter to be hostages of a foreign nation. I mean, seriously, who the fuck orders an embassy to surrender?!?

Sensible people who don't want civilians killed for no good reason? You do realize the embassy was full of civilian workers and business people.

Then he should have secured his embassy instead of gutting defense, cowering to his enemies, and surrendering his embassy like a dog peeing on the floor with its tail between its legs.

Carter, Clinton, and Obama have proved over and over that the Dumbocrat appeasement strategy doesn't work.

yeah, tell me, I know you weren't around at the time, but do you know how many Americans wanted to go to war with Iran over the Shah?

Not many.

We were still licking our wounds from Vietnam, and no one really wanted to prop up yet another asshole for no good reason.

What we should have done, handed the Shah over and let the Iranians do what they wanted to him. The guy was dying anyway.

 

[JoeB131]

I agree that our country's leaders haven't been the smartest tools in the woodshed. Some of them have armed one country in order to pressure another into certain actions or prevent others. I've not always agreed with the foreign policies set forth by our elected officials, but I've always supported our elected officials believing they knew more about those matters than myself.

Um, yeah. Right.

I think when you sell weapons over to a state you've designated as a sponsor of terrorism, and then use the proceeds of those sales to fund drug-running terrorists in another country, y ou kind of lose the benefit of the doubt.

Even the stated reasons why we sold Iran those weapons backfired. Sure we got a whole whopping 3 hostages freed, and they just grabbed up three more hostages.

Yeah - you really "lose the benefit of the doubt" in Joe's mind when you collapse communism (as Reagan largely did) because Joe is a self-professed communist (he has openly and publicly declared his deep love for communism over and over right here on USMB). However, so long as you are a Dumbocrat and promise him pitiful government table scraps, he will worship your lavish spending (ball gowns, Martha Vineyard, Hawaii, etc.) and disparate wealth.

He's an angry and confused lad.

Except Reagan only "collapsed Communism" in the tiny minds of Talk Radio listeners.

The reality. Reagan and Bush never saw the collapse of the USSR coming. The Department of Defense continued to publish these big glossy books about how scary the USSR was all the way up until 1989.

And again, now we have China becoming ascendent because the Plutocrats you love can't wait to ship American jobs over there.

 

[JoeB131]

Sensible people who don't want civilians killed for no good reason? You do realize the embassy was full of civilian workers and business people.

Yeah Joe, because handing those civilians over to be tortured first, held as hostages second, and then killed third is so "sensible". Jesus God do your arguments get weaker and more desperate with each post that I own you with facts.

First, our embassy personnel weren't tortured. they just whine a lot. 35 years later, these folks are still whining.

Reality- the Iranians let all the women and blacks go free in the first weeks of the crisis... and were perfectly willing to return the rest.

None of which has anything to do with "tough guy" Reagan selling this "Terrorist" state missiles and letting them take more hostages in Lebanon.

No, problem, Poodle, it's easy to be a "tough guy" 30 years later sitting in your basement.

 

[OnePercenter]

We have an income problem.

 

[Intense]

On this issue we might have found common ground with our democrat / liberal brothers and sisters.

We all agree we have spending problems.

Conservatives and some republicans believe we spend too much.
Liberals/Democrats believe we don't spend nearly enough.

Written by a classic, but classless partisan hack ^^^.

Spending is all about establishing priorities. The R's pretend tax breaks to the rich pay dividends which trickle down to the hoi polloi. We know that is bullshit, but bullshit repeated over and over and over stops stinking (at least to the senses of the naïve).

If we believe something meets the vision of the Founding Fathers as outlined in the Preamble to our Constitution, then we should be willing to pay the tax needed. If we believe the common defense includes protection from bacterial and viral infections, as well as from the guns of foreign invaders, than we need to pay the tax necessary for our protection; if we believe liberty is precious, then we must support it in all of its manifestations - freedom from hunger, from poverty, from oppression, and pay the tax necessary to secure its blessing to ourselves, our fellow citizens and to our posterity.

Written by a classic greedy communist ^^^^^

Only greedy, lazy, parasites believe that common defense "includes protection from bacterial and vial infections". How many hospitals bills have you covered for someone in need Wry?

Our founders never promised freedom from hunger. And if you want someone free from hunger, then you can buy them food any time you want. But you don't do it, do you [MENTION=20297]Wry Catcher[/MENTION]? Nope! Because like all communists, you're greedy and selfish.

When is the last time you skipped a meal to make sure someone else had a meal? Exactly...

You're hypocrisy is repulsive and deplorable. You make real Americans sick...

I think State and Federal Pension checks need a User Fee.
You are big on taxing the rest of us to bankroll your perks, Wry Catcher, while destroying the quality of life of those all around you, I'm amazed that you haven't fallen off of your soap box. What percentage of total income needs to be taxed to support your burden? 605? 70% 80%. Yeah, I see how that feeds Liberty, and respect for private property, right up the ass. It really should be called the stick it up your ass tax, to make it credible.

 

[Intense]

We have an income problem.

And exactly how do you give yourelf more, without either taking it from another? We know you don't produce, so that is off the table.

 

[P@triot]

Sensible people who don't want civilians killed for no good reason? You do realize the embassy was full of civilian workers and business people.

Then he should have secured his embassy instead of gutting defense, cowering to his enemies, and surrendering his embassy like a dog peeing on the floor with its tail between its legs.

Carter, Clinton, and Obama have proved over and over that the Dumbocrat appeasement strategy doesn't work.

yeah, tell me, I know you weren't around at the time, but do you know how many Americans wanted to go to war with Iran over the Shah?

Not many.

We were still licking our wounds from Vietnam, and no one really wanted to prop up yet another asshole for no good reason.

What we should have done, handed the Shah over and let the Iranians do what they wanted to him. The guy was dying anyway.

So you're admitting that Carter caved to popularity concerns rather than doing what was right? Oops. Didn't think that desperate and weak argument through very well, did you?

By the way, your argument doesn't even make sense (as usual). I said SECURE the embassy to avoid problems in the first place. What does that have to with "propping up" a foreign leader? You struggling a bit here, junior?

 

[JoeB131]

[

So you're admitting that Carter caved to popularity concerns rather than doing what was right? Oops. Didn't think that desperate and weak argument through very well, did you?

By the way, your argument doesn't even make sense (as usual). I said SECURE the embassy to avoid problems in the first place. What does that have to with "propping up" a foreign leader? You struggling a bit here, junior?

No, Carter should have just handed over the Shah and been done with it.

ANd there's no way you can Secure an embassy if the Host Country decides to not defend it. You do get this, right?

Of course, maybe you should try to understand WHY the Iranians took our embassy. They did it beause they thought when we allowed the Shah into our country for cancer treatment, that was a cover for a CIA Operation to put him back into power. Again, this is what we did the last time they threw the Shah out, and he went on to murder hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

Again, another wonderful case of our own stupidity in the Middle East. We topple a Democratically elected government and put in a dictator. He proceeds to eliminate any credible oppossition, save for the Religious Authorities, and when the religious types lead a revolution, you get religious crazy running the country.

 

[P@triot]

So you're admitting that Carter caved to popularity concerns rather than doing what was right? Oops. Didn't think that desperate and weak argument through very well, did you?

By the way, your argument doesn't even make sense (as usual). I said SECURE the embassy to avoid problems in the first place. What does that have to with "propping up" a foreign leader? You struggling a bit here, junior?

No, Carter should have just handed over the Shah and been done with it.

ANd there's no way you can Secure an embassy if the Host Country decides to not defend it. You do get this, right?

Of course, maybe you should try to understand WHY the Iranians took our embassy. They did it beause they thought when we allowed the Shah into our country for cancer treatment, that was a cover for a CIA Operation to put him back into power. Again, this is what we did the last time they threw the Shah out, and he went on to murder hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

Again, another wonderful case of our own stupidity in the Middle East. We topple a Democratically elected government and put in a dictator. He proceeds to eliminate any credible oppossition, save for the Religious Authorities, and when the religious types lead a revolution, you get religious crazy running the country.

Really junior? So there is no way for the nuclear super-power United States to defend it's embassy against Iran (no nukes and a pitiful military)?

Come one junior - keep digging. The more you desperately come up with an excuse to cover for your last ignorant and erroneous comment, the more humiliate yourself.

 

[OnePercenter]

We have an income problem.

And exactly how do you give yourelf more, without either taking it from another? We know you don't produce, so that is off the table.

What I'm writing of is tax revenue drop because corporations aren't receiving subsidies anymore, so no expansion and attempting to pay the existing employees less. This creates less total tax revenue.

Then you have to factor in the complete failure of the BushCo in allowing Bank of America to buy CountryWide, allowing 'Made-Off' to do his thing for four years before actually doing something about it.

I don't produce? I'm an Angel Investor ($50M) for two companies, one that designs WiFi transmission towers and the other that builds and maintains said towers. The lowest paid employee (250 as of today) has compensation of $48K/yr plus benefits.

Thanks for playing!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Gutting science, r@d and education is away to turn this country into a third world crap hole. WE have a war and corruption problem because I believe our president is giving the money to wall street.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Really junior? So there is no way for the nuclear super-power United States to defend it's embassy against Iran (no nukes and a pitiful military)?

Come one junior - keep digging. The more you desperately come up with an excuse to cover for your last ignorant and erroneous comment, the more humiliate yourself.

Yeah, we should have totally nuked Iran over an incident where no one died because the other nuclear powers would have been totally cool with that when both sides had thousands of nukes aimed at each other.

Hey, we got everyone out and no one died. Oh, boo, hoo, they burned a couple of our flags.

 

[Bombur]

There is no doubt that we have a spending problem. In fact the military goes before Congress all the time telling them that they can save them money but Congress refuses because they treat all spending, especially military spending, like it is an entitlement or pork.

Both parties do this because voters demand that they do.