Why democrats are the lesser of two evils

[Billy000]

Well when I got to the parts about taxing wealthy and raising the minimum wage, I realized you have absolutely Zero business intelligence and are one of those tit sucking, ass sitting morons who should have been swallowed at birth .......... those are some of the good points ......

So how are we supposed to pay for our gov expenses without revenue?

We have no revenue today?

really?

Not to mention he obviously doesn't even know the difference between revenue and receipts. These libs are stupid beyond belief.

No what you people don't understand is the proper way to measure revenue. You people tout that the receipts are at an all time high but that doesn't mean revenue is at a place where it needs to be. Receipts only measure raw dollars. It doesn't take into account the size of the economy and inflation. The only way to accurately measure revenue is by computing it as a percentage of GDP. Right now it is at 16% which is near a historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Since 2000, the economy (GDP) has grown significantly. That means the economy can afford higher taxes then it has now.

How does the fact that revenue was a at a higher % of the GDP in the past mean that higher taxes can be afforded now?
How does the fact that more taxes might be affordable now support an argument that taxes should be higher?

Because government costs go up. That's the nature of our economy and inflation. Prices go up. Even without Bush and Obama's mega defense spending, tax rates still need to be at a high enough level. Think about how much it costs to fund highways, social security, our military, Medicare, and our public schools. Higher taxes can be afforded now because our GDP is very high.

I know you cons love tax cuts but you fail to understand their costs. Bush's tax cuts added trillions to our nations debt. The truth is cutting taxes for the wealthy does very little to stimulate job growth. If you want to stimulate job growth, you must boost the middle class. It's about consumer spending. Consumer spending drives the economy.

 

[Rotagilla]

Higher taxes can be afforded now because our GDP is very high.

You don't know what you're talking about, loyal partisan.

Our GDP is up 2.2 for the year
Sounds ok....but

china is up 7.3 for the year
britain 3.1
Czeh Republic is up 2.5 !
hungary is up 3.0
turkey 3.0
australia 3.0
india 6.0 !
indonesia 5.2
malaysia 6.0
pakistan PAKISTAN! 5.4
singapore 3.5
south korea 3.6
taiwan 3.7
colombia COLOMBIA! 5.0
saudi arabia 4.0

cut spending...never mind raising taxes.

 

[Billy000]

Higher taxes can be afforded now because our GDP is very high.

You don't know what you're talking about, loyal partisan.

Our GDP is up 2.2 for the year
Sounds ok....but

china is up 7.3 for the year
britain 3.1
Czeh Republic is up 2.5 !
hungary is up 3.0
turkey 3.0
australia 3.0
india 6.0 !
indonesia 5.2
malaysia 6.0
pakistan PAKISTAN! 5.4
singapore 3.5
south korea 3.6
taiwan 3.7
colombia COLOMBIA! 5.0
saudi arabia 4.0

cut spending...never mind raising taxes.

Our GDP Is still very high. Until recently it was the highest I the world.. How do you not understand that? You are also terrible at math. Do you think a 5.0 increase in GDP in Columbia amounts to the same if our GDP went up 5.0? Not even close. That 5.0 refers to the baseline of that country's economy. A 5.0 increase here is much higher than a 5.0 increase in Columbia.

 

[Rotagilla]

Higher taxes can be afforded now because our GDP is very high.

You don't know what you're talking about, loyal partisan.

Our GDP is up 2.2 for the year
Sounds ok....but

china is up 7.3 for the year
britain 3.1
Czeh Republic is up 2.5 !
hungary is up 3.0
turkey 3.0
australia 3.0
india 6.0 !
indonesia 5.2
malaysia 6.0
pakistan PAKISTAN! 5.4
singapore 3.5
south korea 3.6
taiwan 3.7
colombia COLOMBIA! 5.0
saudi arabia 4.0

cut spending...never mind raising taxes.

Our GDP Is still very high. Until recently it was the highest I the world.. How do you not understand that? You are also terrible at math. Do you think a 5.0 increase in GDP in Columbia amounts to the same if our GDP went up 5.0? Not even close. That 5.0 refers to the baseline of that country's economy. A 5.0 increase here is much higher than a 5.0 increase in Columbia.

Sure..sure....jumble it all up...spin it around and it always comes out the way you want. I didn't say any of those things, did I?
You made up a strawman you could knock over...
Whatever...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh' the praising of the violent black thugs for trashing entire cities....For one.
Another is lying about the crime rate and who does it.
Another is telling men that we shouldn't have any say in our families

I agree with your first two points but I'm not sure what you mean by your third.

Come on, Matthew. I know you're intelligent. It is evidenced by the spot on thread you made about the importance of government a few months back. I just don't understand some of the stuff you say sometimes. It's so off the wall partisan. I think deep down you don't want to identify as republican. You're a pro government liberal like me. Ditch these nutters.

you agree with those Billy?.....

For the most part yes. I think the black community needs to take a good long look in the mirror and people like Al Sharpton need to recognize that. However, racism does a play a role in this. To me it's become a bit of a chicken or the egg situation with the black community and the police. Both sides need to admit fault.

Here's a bonus for you Harry. I completely agree with Bill Maher's view of Islam. Mull that over.

wait a minute Billy....you asked ...." what specific liberal POLICIES do you agree with?"

so you agree with...the praising of the violent black thugs for trashing entire cities?.....
and..... lying about the crime rate and who does it?......clear this up for me....

I don't understand why you got that impression. No. I am saying the "thug" problem is a complex one. I agree with the rightwing that the black community can be self destructive and poses a crime problem beyond that of any other race. However I don't subscribe to the rightwing belief that they alone need to make reforms. It isn't that cut and dry. I think racism against them does play a role in this as well. When it comes to improving relations between the "thugs" and police, both sides need to make changes on how they interact.

It's a psychological issue. Meaning, their thug behavior puts the police in an understandably defensive and overly cautious position. However by that same token, the police often treat innocent black people unfairly because of their extreme cautiousness and bias, which in turn fuels the "fuck the police" mentality that the thug community has. It's a chicken or the egg argument about whose fault it is. What it needs to come down to is both sides changing their behavior to improve relations.

i got that impression because you asked....what specific liberal POLICIES do you agree with?

and you told Matthew that you agree with his first 2 points.....the first one being....the praising of the violent black thugs for trashing entire cities.....you are saying you agree with telling them they are doing a great job at trashing their cities.....are you not?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Democrats support state-enforced involuntary servitude.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for state-enforced involuntary servitude.

and republicans dont?......

According to the Dems, the GOP would get rid of every program that does this -- so, apparently not.

well thats just political bullshit....but in reality they aint much different....

 

[dblack]

So how are we supposed to pay for our gov expenses without revenue?

We have no revenue today?

really?

Not to mention he obviously doesn't even know the difference between revenue and receipts. These libs are stupid beyond belief.

No what you people don't understand is the proper way to measure revenue. You people tout that the receipts are at an all time high but that doesn't mean revenue is at a place where it needs to be. Receipts only measure raw dollars. It doesn't take into account the size of the economy and inflation. The only way to accurately measure revenue is by computing it as a percentage of GDP. Right now it is at 16% which is near a historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Since 2000, the economy (GDP) has grown significantly. That means the economy can afford higher taxes then it has now.

How does the fact that revenue was a at a higher % of the GDP in the past mean that higher taxes can be afforded now?
How does the fact that more taxes might be affordable now support an argument that taxes should be higher?

Because government costs go up. That's the nature of our economy and inflation. Prices go up. Even without Bush and Obama's mega defense spending, tax rates still need to be at a high enough level. Think about how much it costs to fund highways, social security, our military, Medicare, and our public schools. Higher taxes can be afforded now because our GDP is very high.

I know you cons love tax cuts but you fail to understand their costs. Bush's tax cuts added trillions to our nations debt. The truth is cutting taxes for the wealthy does very little to stimulate job growth. If you want to stimulate job growth, you must boost the middle class. It's about consumer spending. Consumer spending drives the economy.

I know it's not a popular view, even among fellow libertarians, but I'm actually in favor of raising taxes to whatever it takes to balance the budget. Nothing would incentivize cutting government more. Voters would demand it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So how are we supposed to pay for our gov expenses without revenue?

We have no revenue today?

really?

Not to mention he obviously doesn't even know the difference between revenue and receipts. These libs are stupid beyond belief.

No what you people don't understand is the proper way to measure revenue. You people tout that the receipts are at an all time high but that doesn't mean revenue is at a place where it needs to be. Receipts only measure raw dollars. It doesn't take into account the size of the economy and inflation. The only way to accurately measure revenue is by computing it as a percentage of GDP. Right now it is at 16% which is near a historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Since 2000, the economy (GDP) has grown significantly. That means the economy can afford higher taxes then it has now.

How does the fact that revenue was a at a higher % of the GDP in the past mean that higher taxes can be afforded now?
How does the fact that more taxes might be affordable now support an argument that taxes should be higher?

Because government costs go up...

If we choose to let them, yes.
But, that's a choice, Its not a necessity.
Its funny how you people cannot even conceive of spending cuts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats support state-enforced involuntary servitude.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for state-enforced involuntary servitude.

and republicans dont?......

According to the Dems, the GOP would get rid of every program that does this -- so, apparently not.

well thats just political bullshit....but in reality they aint much different....

Wait... you mean the Democrats are lying when they say the GOP wants to gut welfare, SocSec, etc?

 

[Billy000]

We have no revenue today?

really?

Not to mention he obviously doesn't even know the difference between revenue and receipts. These libs are stupid beyond belief.

No what you people don't understand is the proper way to measure revenue. You people tout that the receipts are at an all time high but that doesn't mean revenue is at a place where it needs to be. Receipts only measure raw dollars. It doesn't take into account the size of the economy and inflation. The only way to accurately measure revenue is by computing it as a percentage of GDP. Right now it is at 16% which is near a historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Since 2000, the economy (GDP) has grown significantly. That means the economy can afford higher taxes then it has now.

How does the fact that revenue was a at a higher % of the GDP in the past mean that higher taxes can be afforded now?
How does the fact that more taxes might be affordable now support an argument that taxes should be higher?

Because government costs go up...

If we choose to let them, yes.
But, that's a choice, Its not a necessity.
Its funny how you people cannot even conceive of spending cuts.

Obviously I conceive of spending cuts. That isn't what we were talking about now was it? We were talking about the importance of taxes. Yes Obama and Bush have spent a shit on our military. They obviously contributed to the problem.

You're wrong. Inflation cannot be controlled. Also, you do know that private defense contracts are controlled by the companies right?

 

[Billy000]

Democrats support state-enforced involuntary servitude.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for state-enforced involuntary servitude.

and republicans dont?......

According to the Dems, the GOP would get rid of every program that does this -- so, apparently not.

well thats just political bullshit....but in reality they aint much different....

Wait... you mean the Democrats are lying when they say the GOP wants to gut welfare, SocSec, etc?

Tell me do you even know how much the gov spends on food stamps?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Democrats support state-enforced involuntary servitude.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for state-enforced involuntary servitude.

and republicans dont?......

According to the Dems, the GOP would get rid of every program that does this -- so, apparently not.

well thats just political bullshit....but in reality they aint much different....

Wait... you mean the Democrats are lying when they say the GOP wants to gut welfare, SocSec, etc?

gutting it is not getting rid of it.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Democrats support state-enforced involuntary servitude.
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for state-enforced involuntary servitude.

and republicans dont?......

According to the Dems, the GOP would get rid of every program that does this -- so, apparently not.

well thats just political bullshit....but in reality they aint much different....

Wait... you mean the Democrats are lying when they say the GOP wants to gut welfare, SocSec, etc?

Tell me do you even know how much the gov spends on food stamps?

The US government spent $2,337B on entitlements in F2013.
This represents 67.7% of all spending and accounts for 84.2% of all revenue.
How is your question about food stamps relevant?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not to mention he obviously doesn't even know the difference between revenue and receipts. These libs are stupid beyond belief.

No what you people don't understand is the proper way to measure revenue. You people tout that the receipts are at an all time high but that doesn't mean revenue is at a place where it needs to be. Receipts only measure raw dollars. It doesn't take into account the size of the economy and inflation. The only way to accurately measure revenue is by computing it as a percentage of GDP. Right now it is at 16% which is near a historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Since 2000, the economy (GDP) has grown significantly. That means the economy can afford higher taxes then it has now.

How does the fact that revenue was a at a higher % of the GDP in the past mean that higher taxes can be afforded now?
How does the fact that more taxes might be affordable now support an argument that taxes should be higher?

Because government costs go up...

If we choose to let them, yes.
But, that's a choice, Its not a necessity.
Its funny how you people cannot even conceive of spending cuts.

Obviously I conceive of spending cuts. That isn't what we were talking about now was it?

No. You;re talking about increasing taxes, for no reason other than you think we can.

 

[Billy000]

and republicans dont?......

According to the Dems, the GOP would get rid of every program that does this -- so, apparently not.

well thats just political bullshit....but in reality they aint much different....

Wait... you mean the Democrats are lying when they say the GOP wants to gut welfare, SocSec, etc?

Tell me do you even know how much the gov spends on food stamps?

The US government spent $2,337B on entitlements in F2013.
This represents 67.7% of all spending and accounts for 84.2% of all revenue.
How is your question about food stamps relevant?

Well it matters because when it comes to welfare spending, it is very broad and covers many different programs. It's important to put it in perspective. Food stamps is less than 75 billion a year.

 

[Billy000]

No what you people don't understand is the proper way to measure revenue. You people tout that the receipts are at an all time high but that doesn't mean revenue is at a place where it needs to be. Receipts only measure raw dollars. It doesn't take into account the size of the economy and inflation. The only way to accurately measure revenue is by computing it as a percentage of GDP. Right now it is at 16% which is near a historic low. In 2000, it was at 20%. Since 2000, the economy (GDP) has grown significantly. That means the economy can afford higher taxes then it has now.

How does the fact that revenue was a at a higher % of the GDP in the past mean that higher taxes can be afforded now?
How does the fact that more taxes might be affordable now support an argument that taxes should be higher?

Because government costs go up...

If we choose to let them, yes.
But, that's a choice, Its not a necessity.
Its funny how you people cannot even conceive of spending cuts.

Obviously I conceive of spending cuts. That isn't what we were talking about now was it?

No. You;re talking about increasing taxes, for no reason other than you think we can.

Um we should because 16% of GDP is too low. Even without the big defense spending by Obama and Bush, that is still too low. Besides over spending, it is the chief reason our debt is so high.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to the Dems, the GOP would get rid of every program that does this -- so, apparently not.

well thats just political bullshit....but in reality they aint much different....

Wait... you mean the Democrats are lying when they say the GOP wants to gut welfare, SocSec, etc?

Tell me do you even know how much the gov spends on food stamps?

The US government spent $2,337B on entitlements in F2013.
This represents 67.7% of all spending and accounts for 84.2% of all revenue.
How is your question about food stamps relevant?

Well it matters because when it comes to welfare spending, it is very broad and covers many different programs. It's important to put it in perspective

That's exactly what I did.

Food stamps is less than 75 billion a year.

Entitlement spending is $2337B/yr.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does the fact that revenue was a at a higher % of the GDP in the past mean that higher taxes can be afforded now?
How does the fact that more taxes might be affordable now support an argument that taxes should be higher?

Because government costs go up...

If we choose to let them, yes.
But, that's a choice, Its not a necessity.
Its funny how you people cannot even conceive of spending cuts.

Obviously I conceive of spending cuts. That isn't what we were talking about now was it?

No. You;re talking about increasing taxes, for no reason other than you think we can.

Um we should because 16% of GDP is too low. Even without the big defense spending by Obama and Bush, that is still too low. Besides over spending, it is the chief reason our debt is so high.

Nothing here changes anything I said. Your argument for raising taxes is you think we can. Far from compelling.

 

[Billy000]

Because government costs go up...

If we choose to let them, yes.
But, that's a choice, Its not a necessity.
Its funny how you people cannot even conceive of spending cuts.

Obviously I conceive of spending cuts. That isn't what we were talking about now was it?

No. You;re talking about increasing taxes, for no reason other than you think we can.

Um we should because 16% of GDP is too low. Even without the big defense spending by Obama and Bush, that is still too low. Besides over spending, it is the chief reason our debt is so high.

Nothing here changes anything I said. Your argument for raising taxes is you think we can. Far from compelling.

You do understand the importance of taxes right? They are vital to this country functioning. Without them, we are simply borrowing money.

 

[ninja007]

yes, OP. Those libs have done awesome the last 6 years!