Stupid Committee Failing Because Dems Want Tax Increases & A Promise To Cut Spending

[Cuyo]

Bullshit.

There's no damage to me by pulling a tick off of my neck.

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

No, you don't understand the broken window fallacy at all....Either that or you just don't give a shit.

I'm betting it's the latter.

Nah. No amount of snark is going to make you any less wrong.

If the government is to be shrunk it will have to be done slooooowly. You don't pull the rug out from under an economy completely dependent on deficit spending. I'm not discussing how we got here or whether or not we should be here at this point - But we are here, and you need to acknowledge that.

 

[Cuyo]

Bullshit.

There's no damage to me by pulling a tick off of my neck.

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

So, if we gave every unemployed person a government job, that would fix everything. Do you think that would increase revenue?

I don't advocate that, but assuming we have something useful to do with them, putting them to work in public works would probably help the recovery. Surely you can agree that it's better than having them on UE literally contributing nothing.

]This is a debt crisis cause by too much spending. I think too many government jobs are bad for the economy.

The debt crisis and the sluggish economy are two different things, and not two that are very convenient to have at the same time.

But again I'm trying to discuss where we are, not how we got here. The finger pointing and 'nuh-uh it was your guys!' would never end. It'd be chaos.

 

[Oddball]

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

No, you don't understand the broken window fallacy at all....Either that or you just don't give a shit.

I'm betting it's the latter.

Nah. No amount of snark is going to make you any less wrong.

If the government is to be shrunk it will have to be done slooooowly. You don't pull the rug out from under an economy completely dependent on deficit spending. I'm not discussing how we got here or whether or not we should be here at this point - But we are here, and you need to acknowledge that.

Uh-huh....Sure.

What would be your incremental program to end slavery or repeal alcohol prohibition?....Where is the "ease off it" wing at Hazelden?

 

[Cuyo]

Uh-huh....Sure.

What would be your incremental program to end slavery or repeal alcohol prohibition?....Where is the "ease off it" wing at Hazelden?

What in god's name are you talking about? You're comparing adjustments to the size of government to the process of passing laws now? Have you ever, at any point in your life, been able to focus on one thing for more than 2 minutes?

Forget it, doesn't matter.

 

[Mr Liberty]

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

So, if we gave every unemployed person a government job, that would fix everything. Do you think that would increase revenue?

I don't advocate that, but assuming we have something useful to do with them, putting them to work in public works would probably help the recovery. Surely you can agree that it's better than having them on UE literally contributing nothing.

]This is a debt crisis cause by too much spending. I think too many government jobs are bad for the economy.

The debt crisis and the sluggish economy are two different things, and not two that are very convenient to have at the same time.

But again I'm trying to discuss where we are, not how we got here. The finger pointing and 'nuh-uh it was your guys!' would never end. It'd be chaos.

How are the debt crisis and a sluggish economy two different things? I am discussing where we are. We have a national debt crisis, a housing debt crisis, banks that hold unsustainable foreign debt, falling corporate profits, accelerating inflation and the end of the bear market rally. I think we are in the same position as my grand parents were in 1936. It's game over. All this government knows how to do is print money and spend.

 

[Cuyo]

So, if we gave every unemployed person a government job, that would fix everything. Do you think that would increase revenue?

I don't advocate that, but assuming we have something useful to do with them, putting them to work in public works would probably help the recovery. Surely you can agree that it's better than having them on UE literally contributing nothing.

]This is a debt crisis cause by too much spending. I think too many government jobs are bad for the economy.

The debt crisis and the sluggish economy are two different things, and not two that are very convenient to have at the same time.

But again I'm trying to discuss where we are, not how we got here. The finger pointing and 'nuh-uh it was your guys!' would never end. It'd be chaos.

How are the debt crisis and a sluggish economy two different things? I am discussing where we are. We have a national debt crisis, a housing debt crisis, banks that hold unsustainable foreign debt, falling corporate profits, accelerating inflation and the end of the bear market rally. I think we are in the same position as my grand parents were in 1936. It's game over. All this government knows how to do is print money and spend.

Why are cancer and AIDS two different things? I don't know, they just are. Just because they're both bad doesn't mean they're the same thing.

 

[BDBoop]

Obama's threat to veto any legislation that seeks to block the automatic spending cuts means he plans to make this a campaign issue and will attempt to hang the whole failed deficit reduction plan around the neck of Republicans.

Exactly.

Works for me. They can get 98% of what they were shooting for, he can get re-elected.

 

[Mr Liberty]

I don't advocate that, but assuming we have something useful to do with them, putting them to work in public works would probably help the recovery. Surely you can agree that it's better than having them on UE literally contributing nothing.



The debt crisis and the sluggish economy are two different things, and not two that are very convenient to have at the same time.

But again I'm trying to discuss where we are, not how we got here. The finger pointing and 'nuh-uh it was your guys!' would never end. It'd be chaos.

How are the debt crisis and a sluggish economy two different things? I am discussing where we are. We have a national debt crisis, a housing debt crisis, banks that hold unsustainable foreign debt, falling corporate profits, accelerating inflation and the end of the bear market rally. I think we are in the same position as my grand parents were in 1936. It's game over. All this government knows how to do is print money and spend.

Why are cancer and AIDS two different things? I don't know, they just are. Just because they're both bad doesn't mean they're the same thing.

I'm sorry, I though you wanted to discuss this.
Good night

 

[Flopper]

I'm familiar with the broken window parable. But it doesn't really address a shop keeper who borrowed the money to fix the window; Money he otherwise wouldn't have borrowed or spent.

and borrowed money that doesn't even exist. Do we intend to pretend forever ?

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

There will always be buyers of treasury bonds because the interest is determined by the market via weekly auctions.

 

[Oddball]

and borrowed money that doesn't even exist. Do we intend to pretend forever ?

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

There will always be buyers of treasury bonds because the interest is determined by the market via weekly auctions.

The Fed (y'know...the crooks in charge of the money supply) has been buying up scads of T-Bills, you fool.

How fucking willfully stupid do you have to be to not see the impending train wreck?

 

[Oddball]

Uh-huh....Sure.

What would be your incremental program to end slavery or repeal alcohol prohibition?....Where is the "ease off it" wing at Hazelden?

What in god's name are you talking about? You're comparing adjustments to the size of government to the process of passing laws now? Have you ever, at any point in your life, been able to focus on one thing for more than 2 minutes?

Forget it, doesn't matter.

I'm talking about you being purposefully obtuse...Which you appear to be.

OTOH, there's also the possibility that you're simply plain old dumb as a bag of hammers.

 

[bripat9643]

Mmm-hmm.

Now I know I might not be as brilliant and enlightened as you, but I'll try to explain this to you in the small words that I know.

When someone has a job, they are employed, even if they work for the government.

When you then take away that job, they become unemployed.

When you take employed people and make them unemployed, unemployment goes up.

Unemployment going up is bad for the economy.


I don't think you're stupid Oddball, but your judgment is so clouded by right wing dogma that you can only address what you think should be, and you are incapable to the nth degree of acknowledging and addressing what is.

Whether they are collecting unemployment insurance or they are collecting a paycheck from the government, in either case, they are sucking off the taxpayers. In fact, they are sucking more off the taxpayers in the later case. The taxpayers do not beneift one thin dime by putting someone on the government payroll.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obama's threat to veto any legislation that seeks to block the automatic spending cuts means he plans to make this a campaign issue and will attempt to hang the whole failed deficit reduction plan around the neck of Republicans.

Exactly.

Works for me. They can get 98% of what they were shooting for, he can get re-elected.

You want 4 more years of this???

Chris Mathews summed it up.

Obama isn't letting anyone know what he's gonna do in his next 4 years.

Is this the best it's gonna get????

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pB4b11_LREA]Thrill Is Gone? Matthews Turns On Obama; 'I Hear Stories That You Would Not Believe' - YouTube[/ame]

Obama was caught reading a book about the post-American world when he got off the plane in Hawaii the day after he won the election. Are you trying to tell me he hasn't planned on causing the turmoil we're seeing now? He goes over to Europe to help the Euros oust one leader after another, he supports the Occupiers, he helps overthrow several Middle Eastern governments, he is currently decimating our military as we speak, he spent us into more debt in less time than any president in our history, and you think the GOP wanting spending cuts will lead to our destruction.

Word is he and the Dems weren't going to do shit without raising taxes by $1,000,000,000,000.00

That was the big sticking point in the Super Committee. The huge tax increases the Dems wanted. The Republicans weren't about to give them that on a promise to cut spending later. How stupid did the Dems think they are? Fact is this is all about whom you're willing to believe, and Obama and his cronies have their massive media. They figure they can sell it to most of America.

That's right......forget spending cuts.......the Dems have been angling for huge tax increases all along. Talk about destructive behavior.


I saw the speech yesterday. Obama looked so upset when he came to the podium yesterday. (phiffffffft) An obvious smile was present when he pimp-walked his way in front of the mic. I saw how quickly the smile left his face once he thought the cameras were on him. The failure of his committee must have hit him really hard.


So Obama tried selling his "tax the rich" nonsense and like said before it was all about a $1 trillion dollar tax increase all along. Getting rid of the Bush Tax Cuts would have only addressed less then half of this. Where do you think the rest was gonna come from? The rich???? If they took every cent they own they wouldn't even be able to put a dent in that.
The truth is he was so depressed that the Supercommittee failed last night that HE THREW A CONCERT TOGETHER in the GOD DAMNED WHITE HOUSE!!!

He must of been really distraught. So upset. Some people eat chocolate.....Obama throws fucken parties.

He must have really been upset. (Yeah Right) That explains why he gets off his trip around the world in time to celebrate. In time to party hearty.

What was really funny about it is he was trying to celebrate Country Fucken Music.....as if he likes it in the first place. Does he seriously think we think he loves country music??? Yeah and Michelle loves NASCAR too I suppose???


How fucken stupid does he think we are?????

 

[Cuyo]

Uh-huh....Sure.

What would be your incremental program to end slavery or repeal alcohol prohibition?....Where is the "ease off it" wing at Hazelden?

What in god's name are you talking about? You're comparing adjustments to the size of government to the process of passing laws now? Have you ever, at any point in your life, been able to focus on one thing for more than 2 minutes?

Forget it, doesn't matter.

I'm talking about you being purposefully obtuse...Which you appear to be.

OTOH, there's also the possibility that you're simply plain old dumb as a bag of hammers.

You can rip off a band-aid quickly when the wound is healed.

But what you want to do is rip off a tourniquet when the wound is still gushing.

Got it? Or am I still being obtuse?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Republicans had their chance to prove to us how fiscally conscious they were during the debt ceiling debate. They could have held firm and not voted to increase it and that would have proven their commitment to what they promised. Instead they made that lame ass deal which resulted in a whopping $39 billion reduction in growth, not actual spending cuts, in exchange for this useless Super Committee to come up with bigger cuts and if that failed, which it has, allow automatic across the board cuts to kick in. Well, guess what. John McLame and Lindsey Graham are now working on repealing the automatic cuts! Federal spending has increased 5% over last year!

I'm not sure why you assume Americans see through this "bullshit propaganda stunt" because you sure as shit didn't see through it last year.

Honest to God, how many times are you people going to allow yourselves to be duped?

They were also told that if we defaulted there would be havoc and everyone would blame the GOP, which I dont doubt would have happened. They played the default debate just fine.

Not raising the debt ceiling is not defaulting. They didn't play it fine at all. They chickened out like the liars they've always been.

As long as they dont go back and undo the cuts scheduled we'll have spending back to 2007 levels!

Oh don't worry. Those cuts are going to be repealed. I guarantee you the House will vote for repeal.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The Republicans had their chance to prove to us how fiscally conscious they were during the debt ceiling debate. They could have held firm and not voted to increase it and that would have proven their commitment to what they promised. Instead they made that lame ass deal which resulted in a whopping $39 billion reduction in growth, not actual spending cuts, in exchange for this useless Super Committee to come up with bigger cuts and if that failed, which it has, allow automatic across the board cuts to kick in. Well, guess what. John McLame and Lindsey Graham are now working on repealing the automatic cuts! Federal spending has increased 5% over last year!

I'm not sure why you assume Americans see through this "bullshit propaganda stunt" because you sure as shit didn't see through it last year.

Honest to God, how many times are you people going to allow yourselves to be duped?

John McLame and Lindsey Gramnesty are just putting a GOP face on the repeal of the automatic default spending cuts. I remember they were the same assholes that tried to pass amnesty. As long as they're willing to do the dirty work it allows the Democraps to remain blameless.

Fuck both of them.

Neither McCain nor Graham are in the House and the debt ceiling couldn't be raised without the House voting to raise it just like the House will vote to repeal the automatic cuts.

 

[mudwhistle]

The Republicans had their chance to prove to us how fiscally conscious they were during the debt ceiling debate. They could have held firm and not voted to increase it and that would have proven their commitment to what they promised. Instead they made that lame ass deal which resulted in a whopping $39 billion reduction in growth, not actual spending cuts, in exchange for this useless Super Committee to come up with bigger cuts and if that failed, which it has, allow automatic across the board cuts to kick in. Well, guess what. John McLame and Lindsey Graham are now working on repealing the automatic cuts! Federal spending has increased 5% over last year!

I'm not sure why you assume Americans see through this "bullshit propaganda stunt" because you sure as shit didn't see through it last year.

Honest to God, how many times are you people going to allow yourselves to be duped?

John McLame and Lindsey Gramnesty are just putting a GOP face on the repeal of the automatic default spending cuts. I remember they were the same assholes that tried to pass amnesty. As long as they're willing to do the dirty work it allows the Democraps to remain blameless.

Fuck both of them.

Neither McCain nor Graham are in the House and the debt ceiling couldn't be raised without the House voting to raise it just like the House will vote to repeal the automatic cuts.

No shit???

There are no Senators in the House???

Damn!!! Learn something new every day.

Btw, the cuts aren't as draconian as advertized. They don't take place till 2013 and they will be phased in over 10 years. The cuts the House really wants to do will be much worse.

 

[mudwhistle]

So we must face facts.

Obama ran up the debt because he wanted to raise taxes. That's all this was about.

Anyone who tries to be responsible by doing the right thing is called fucken terrorists for Christ's sake.

This is as good as it will ever get under Obama. One motherfucking crisis after another.

I say to the Republicans, stop fighting him. Stop trying to fix the mess he's made. Pack your fucken bags and go home and let this asshole go down in flames. Hopfully once everyone is fed up with him maybe there will be enough left to salvage.

A wise man once said "When your competition is bent on eating themselves alive just pass them the fucken salt".

 

[Flopper]

I agree, we are behind the eight ball big time. If we continue down this path a day will come when we go to sell treasury bonds like we do every day and nobody's going to show up to buy them. What do you think the reaction will be if and when that day arrives?

Nobody likes the situation we're in but the truth is that we're not going to get out of it with spending cuts alone. Too much damage would result.

There will always be buyers of treasury bonds because the interest is determined by the market via weekly auctions.

The Fed (y'know...the crooks in charge of the money supply) has been buying up scads of T-Bills, you fool.

How fucking willfully stupid do you have to be to not see the impending train wreck?

The fed is currently purchasing less than 15% of treasuries sold. If non-government sales fall significantly, the fed will not be able to keep interest rates from rising. There will always be buyers, although the rates may be highers.

 

[EriktheRed]

Stupid Committee Failing Because Dems Want Tax Increases & A Promise To Cut Spending

Well, geez that sounds like a good combo for cutting the deficit, something the Repubs have been crowing a lot more than the Dems about for the last couple of years now. What was that committee supposed to be about again?