Simple questions - never answered.

[cutter]

Eliminate the dept of education. Our schools were #1 in the world before the DOE.
Bring the military home. Close bases around the world and station our military on bases located along our borders. We no longer need or can afford bases around the world. We can have a base located in any ocean in the world with the deployment of a naval battle group.
Do away with Dept of Homeland Security. Let the FBI, CIA, DIA do their jobs. I don't think we need a massive, expensive govt agency that think returning combat vets and citizens that believe in the constitution are terrorist.
There are a few things that would go a long way to balancing our budget. Get back to the constitution and all things not specifically assigned to the federal govt by the constitution are the responsibility of the states. Quit using interstate commerce as an excuse to govern every aspect of everyone's life.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

We're now having to explain simple math to these asshats?

Good grief.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Not that simple, Frank. Please explain your hypothesis on how "doubling the GDP" (a hypothesis in itself" is going to pay down our National Debt.

OK.

If GDP is $10 and income tax is 10%, then treasury will collect approximately $1. With me so far?

If GDP doubles to $20 at the 10% tax rate, guess how much the treasury should collect?

Hint: $2.

See how that works?

I do. But with unemployment not impacted by your scenario, we will still be paying out more than we are taking in, and we will have lost the taxes on these new companies for 5 years.

So... your contention is that GDP doubling won't impact employment positively? HUH?????

 

[Oddball]

The stereo-typical RWer wants to cut taxes and cut regulations and cut government but never suggests which taxes will be cut & the impact of such cuts; which regulations to eliminate and the impact of less oversight; and which government agencies to cut and the consequences of those cuts.

Probably because such a RWer doesn't think of the consequences. It's the tea party mentality, simple solutions to complex problems, and exactly why I find the new right to be populated by simple simons and simple susans.

In place of the usual personal attacks and idiotgrams is there anyone who plans to vote for a Sarah Palin type candidate whose considered the consequences? Or, as I suspect, is a vote for a tea party candidate nothing more than an emotional brain fart?

They've been specified times so numerous that you have to be either too stupid and/or too lazy to do a forum search, for those proposed tax & policy changes and projected resultant effects.

But one effect is for certain: Just propose slowing the growth of the authoritarian socialistic do-gooder nanny state (and don't dare let out a peep about actual cuts) and you'll be howled and screeched about as the mean-spirited, hard-hearted, wrongheaded, cold, cruel, selfish, bigoted, neanderthal anarchist, who wants the elderly and sainted pooooooooor to die in the streets, the holy chiiiiillllllldrrreeeeeennnnnn starving, barefoot and uneducated, the skies brown, rivers burning with oil fires, unwanted kittens put in gunny sacks and thrown into those burning rivers, women stampeded and cattle raped.

 

[Nosmo King]

1. Cut capital gains to 5%.

2. No corporate income tax for the first 5 years of any new business

Effect: GDP doubles in 5 years

And the impact on the federal debt?

All those tax cuts. What goes toward reducing debt?

You should know I'm for the wholesale closure of entire government departments including Fannie and Freddie, HUD, Department of Education.

Good thinking! No sense having poor folks live in decent, safe and sanitary housing when there are slum lords waiting to offer rat traps at astronomical rents! No sense investing in education. We can afford to slip down the pole a little further (behind Singapore, Bangladesh and Sudan)

Yep! Shutting down the Department of Education could eliminate a lot of Pell Grants so the poorest kids can learn their place in American society and not how to lead her in the future.

But, we absolutely have to coddle every corporation we can!

And you wonder why those of us who consider consequences shake our heads in incredulity whenever simple solutions for complex problems are proffered.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not that simple, Frank. Please explain your hypothesis on how "doubling the GDP" (a hypothesis in itself" is going to pay down our National Debt.

OK.

If GDP is $10 and income tax is 10%, then treasury will collect approximately $1. With me so far?

If GDP doubles to $20 at the 10% tax rate, guess how much the treasury should collect?

Hint: $2.

See how that works?

I do. But with unemployment not impacted by your scenario, we will still be paying out more than we are taking in, and we will have lost the taxes on these new companies for 5 years.

Unemployment will plummet as business expand.

Also, lowering the cost of energy will help almost as much as a tax cut

 

[VaYank5150]

OK.

If GDP is $10 and income tax is 10%, then treasury will collect approximately $1. With me so far?

If GDP doubles to $20 at the 10% tax rate, guess how much the treasury should collect?

Hint: $2.

See how that works?

I do. But with unemployment not impacted by your scenario, we will still be paying out more than we are taking in, and we will have lost the taxes on these new companies for 5 years.

So... your contention is that GDP doubling won't impact employment positively? HUH?????

That is precisely my contention.

 

[Oddball]

And the impact on the federal debt?

All those tax cuts. What goes toward reducing debt?

You should know I'm for the wholesale closure of entire government departments including Fannie and Freddie, HUD, Department of Education.

Good thinking! No sense having poor folks live in decent, safe and sanitary housing when there are slum lords waiting to offer rat traps at astronomical rents! No sense investing in education. We can afford to slip down the pole a little further (behind Singapore, Bangladesh and Sudan)

Yep! Shutting down the Department of Education could eliminate a lot of Pell Grants so the poorest kids can learn their place in American society and not how to lead her in the future.

But, we absolutely have to coddle every corporation we can!

And you wonder why those of us who consider consequences shake our heads in incredulity whenever simple solutions for complex problems are proffered.

Wow....Did I call it, or what?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And the impact on the federal debt?

All those tax cuts. What goes toward reducing debt?

You should know I'm for the wholesale closure of entire government departments including Fannie and Freddie, HUD, Department of Education.

Good thinking! No sense having poor folks live in decent, safe and sanitary housing when there are slum lords waiting to offer rat traps at astronomical rents! No sense investing in education. We can afford to slip down the pole a little further (behind Singapore, Bangladesh and Sudan)

Yep! Shutting down the Department of Education could eliminate a lot of Pell Grants so the poorest kids can learn their place in American society and not how to lead her in the future.

But, we absolutely have to coddle every corporation we can!

And you wonder why those of us who consider consequences shake our heads in incredulity whenever simple solutions for complex problems are proffered.

Why do Libs always assume the worst about people?

Do landlords keep apartments filled by denying heat in the winter? Seriously?

 

[Liability]

I do. But with unemployment not impacted by your scenario, we will still be paying out more than we are taking in, and we will have lost the taxes on these new companies for 5 years.

So... your contention is that GDP doubling won't impact employment positively? HUH?????

That is precisely my contention.

Points for clarity.

But you are a little light on the logic.

Why, exactly, in your estimation, would such a huge increase in Gross Domestic Product not impact, wonderfully, on improving employment?

 

[Nosmo King]

But one effect is for certain: Just propose slowing the growth of the authoritarian socialistic do-gooder nanny state (and don't dare let out a peep about actual cuts) and you'll be howled and screeched about as the mean-spirited, hard-hearted, wrongheaded, cold, cruel, selfish, bigoted, neanderthal anarchist, who wants the elderly and sainted pooooooooor to die in the streets, the holy chiiiiillllllldrrreeeeeennnnnn starving, barefoot and uneducated, the skies brown, rivers burning with oil fires, unwanted kittens put in gunny sacks and thrown into those burning rivers, women stampeded and cattle raped.

This shows that you have not really considered the consequences of draconian cuts. You also have demonstrated with your churlish language and sophomoric rants that you don't really consider the true plight of the disadvantaged, the environmentally fragile or the American who is not a rich, white man.

Now, quick, while you're rhetorically on the ropes, move the goal posts and declare victory or some other ham handed simpleton will lose respect for you.

 

[Nosmo King]

You should know I'm for the wholesale closure of entire government departments including Fannie and Freddie, HUD, Department of Education.

Good thinking! No sense having poor folks live in decent, safe and sanitary housing when there are slum lords waiting to offer rat traps at astronomical rents! No sense investing in education. We can afford to slip down the pole a little further (behind Singapore, Bangladesh and Sudan)

Yep! Shutting down the Department of Education could eliminate a lot of Pell Grants so the poorest kids can learn their place in American society and not how to lead her in the future.

But, we absolutely have to coddle every corporation we can!

And you wonder why those of us who consider consequences shake our heads in incredulity whenever simple solutions for complex problems are proffered.

Why do Libs always assume the worst about people?

Do landlords keep apartments filled by denying heat in the winter? Seriously?

I'm the county building inspector. Do you want to argue from anedotal evidence, or shall I give you real world examples of landlord abuse?

 

[VaYank5150]

So... your contention is that GDP doubling won't impact employment positively? HUH?????

That is precisely my contention.

Points for clarity.

But you are a little light on the logic.

Why, exactly, in your estimation, would such a huge increase in Gross Domestic Product not impact, wonderfully, on improving employment?

The assumption being made here is that IF companies were not "straddled" with the burden of big government, or it's tax structure, that they would be so flush with cash that they would just automagically hire more workers here in the United States. Now, since we already know that corporate America is, and has been flush with cash for almost a full year and they have simply chosen to sit on it, I would say this "doubling of GDP" strategy is doomed to fail.

 

[VaYank5150]

Good thinking! No sense having poor folks live in decent, safe and sanitary housing when there are slum lords waiting to offer rat traps at astronomical rents! No sense investing in education. We can afford to slip down the pole a little further (behind Singapore, Bangladesh and Sudan)

Yep! Shutting down the Department of Education could eliminate a lot of Pell Grants so the poorest kids can learn their place in American society and not how to lead her in the future.

But, we absolutely have to coddle every corporation we can!

And you wonder why those of us who consider consequences shake our heads in incredulity whenever simple solutions for complex problems are proffered.

Why do Libs always assume the worst about people?

Do landlords keep apartments filled by denying heat in the winter? Seriously?

I'm the county building inspector. Do you want to argue from anedotal evidence, or shall I give you real world examples of landlord abuse?

Be careful now....that is our wonderful Capitalistic society you are talking about....

 

[Oddball]

But one effect is for certain: Just propose slowing the growth of the authoritarian socialistic do-gooder nanny state (and don't dare let out a peep about actual cuts) and you'll be howled and screeched about as the mean-spirited, hard-hearted, wrongheaded, cold, cruel, selfish, bigoted, neanderthal anarchist, who wants the elderly and sainted pooooooooor to die in the streets, the holy chiiiiillllllldrrreeeeeennnnnn starving, barefoot and uneducated, the skies brown, rivers burning with oil fires, unwanted kittens put in gunny sacks and thrown into those burning rivers, women stampeded and cattle raped.

This shows that you have not really considered the consequences of draconian cuts. You also have demonstrated with your churlish language and sophomoric rants that you don't really consider the true plight of the disadvantaged, the environmentally fragile or the American who is not a rich, white man.

Now, quick, while you're rhetorically on the ropes, move the goal posts and declare victory or some other ham handed simpleton will lose respect for you.

Draconian schmaconian.

You've never considered for a moment that the average guy on the street is a vastly better man than you give him credit for being....Your pessimistic attitude toward your fellow man is your problem.

Your simple-minded crapola that if entire federal departments disappeared, then the entire country would collapse into utter anarchy is the stuff of pettifogging propagandists and knuckle-dragging nitwits.

Fact remains that the socialistic do-gooder nanny state has such an abysmal track record, that all its knee-jerk pimps can do is exaggerate, demagogue, browbeat and defame anyone who wants to take out the trash.

 

[VaYank5150]

But one effect is for certain: Just propose slowing the growth of the authoritarian socialistic do-gooder nanny state (and don't dare let out a peep about actual cuts) and you'll be howled and screeched about as the mean-spirited, hard-hearted, wrongheaded, cold, cruel, selfish, bigoted, neanderthal anarchist, who wants the elderly and sainted pooooooooor to die in the streets, the holy chiiiiillllllldrrreeeeeennnnnn starving, barefoot and uneducated, the skies brown, rivers burning with oil fires, unwanted kittens put in gunny sacks and thrown into those burning rivers, women stampeded and cattle raped.

This shows that you have not really considered the consequences of draconian cuts. You also have demonstrated with your churlish language and sophomoric rants that you don't really consider the true plight of the disadvantaged, the environmentally fragile or the American who is not a rich, white man.

Now, quick, while you're rhetorically on the ropes, move the goal posts and declare victory or some other ham handed simpleton will lose respect for you.

Draconian schmaconian.

You've never considered for a moment that the average guy on the street is a vastly better man than you give him credit for being....Your pessimistic attitude toward your fellow man is your problem.

Your simple-minded crapola that if entire federal departments disappeared, then the entire country would collapse into utter anarchy is the stuff of pettifogging propagandists and knuckle-dragging nitwits.

Fact remains that the socialistic do-gooder nanny state has such an abysmal track record, that all its knee-jerk pimps can do is exaggerate, demagogue, browbeat and defame anyone who wants to take out the trash.

I think your buddies over at Bank of America might disagree with you. That same nanny state saved their asses from bankruptcy. Just sayin'.

 

[Oddball]

I think your buddies over at Bank of America might disagree with you. That same nanny state saved their asses from bankruptcy. Just sayin'.

It was exactly that nanny state which forced them to buy up the bad debt that resulted in that bailout.

Nice fail.

 

[Liability]

That is precisely my contention.

Points for clarity.

But you are a little light on the logic.

Why, exactly, in your estimation, would such a huge increase in Gross Domestic Product not impact, wonderfully, on improving employment?

The assumption being made here is that IF companies were not "straddled" with the burden of big government, or it's tax structure, that they would be so flush with cash that they would just automagically hire more workers here in the United States. Now, since we already know that corporate America is, and has been flush with cash for almost a full year and they have simply chosen to sit on it, I would say this "doubling of GDP" strategy is doomed to fail.

Your assumption is that if we could cut the nightmare Gordian Knot of mindless and needless red tape here in America, and lower the cost of doing business by cutting the ridiculously high taxes, that the American businessman would nevertheless seek the benefits of production in such idyllic heavenly locals as India. Your assumption is ridiculous.

Companies sought the refuge of producing in other countries to flee the burdens of producing here. If we lighten the burdens the incentive -- the perceived benefits -- of fleeing to other places gets eliminated proportionally.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

That is precisely my contention.

Points for clarity.

But you are a little light on the logic.

Why, exactly, in your estimation, would such a huge increase in Gross Domestic Product not impact, wonderfully, on improving employment?

The assumption being made here is that IF companies were not "straddled" with the burden of big government, or it's tax structure, that they would be so flush with cash that they would just automagically hire more workers here in the United States. Now, since we already know that corporate America is, and has been flush with cash for almost a full year and they have simply chosen to sit on it, I would say this "doubling of GDP" strategy is doomed to fail.

Wow.... just wow. Ok, here goes....

1. Businesses are in business to make money,
2. Business need to invest money to make money,
3. Businesses will not, much like humans will not, intentionally starve itself (i.e., not investing)

Point? NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE FUCK IS COMING AT THEM VIA OBAMACARE, HUGE TAX INCREASES, ETC. THIS IS WHY THEY ARE SITTING ON THEIR CASH. Shit.. the goons that wrote Obamacare can't even explain it.

 

[Nosmo King]

The total amount in sub prime mortgages was below $480 billion. It was the bankers who sold debt, bundled mortgages and created derivatives that drove the car into the ditch.

Goldman Sachs. Lehman Brothers. Bear Stearns. Innocent bystanders? Nope! Just forgivable Capitalists. It's easier, and more politically prudent to blame the victims and the Democrats. And if we have learned anything about the contemporary Conservative movement, they always opt for the easy solution. Less thinking that way.