75 Years in the Future

[B. Kidd]

In 75 years, we'll have..........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV2N4KSh3x4]Sleeper - Jewish Robot Tailors - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Borillar]

Indeed. What amazes me is that liberals never realize that maybe, just maybe, wealth inequality is do to inequality in effort in ability. Do you really think that most billionaires were just born rich? The truth is that most are self-made.

And to say nothing (of course) of stagnant wages and tax breaks for the wealthy... the "job creators".. so where are the jobs?

So, did Reagan not get the debt ball rolling and didn't he triple the national debt in his terms?

Perhaps you expect Fox News to become the only source of history and information in the distant future?... Given that circumstance I could see repub inventions like "trickle-down" being blamed on dems.

Thx

Keep driving that wedge between the "haves" and "have-nots". You'll have you're much-desired insurrection soon enough.

I much prefer recognition of wealth defined by self, family, and friends.

You know, the kind of shit that money can't buy.

Liberals languish in the fantasies of others, Conservatives work to make fantasy... reality.

Yeah, well the have-nots do have that kind of "wealth". That and a couple bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

 

[hangover]

Imagine someone 75 years from the future came here, knowing that their America was in a steep decline, eclipsed by China and India, losing ground, deep in debt, void of freedom, and mired in a permanent recession. Liberals, ask yourself this?
How could you justify to that person spending trillions of dollars you know the US didn't have?
How could you justify opposing a balanced-budget amendment when the debt was skyrocketing out of control?
How could you justify supporting policies that reduced economic freedom when the evidence (see siggy) overwhelmingly shows that anti-economic freedom policies kill jobs and destroy countries?
How could you justify a government that continues to extend its grasp into e-mails, phone records, tax returns, news offices, and virtually every facet of private life?

Ask yourself this, liberals. And please, vote differently.

Imagine republicans running up $11 trillion of the national debt on war and tax cuts to the rich, and destroying the economy, then getting thrown out of power, only then whining about spending. Nice one slime ball.

 

[Thx]

Indeed. What amazes me is that liberals never realize that maybe, just maybe, wealth inequality is do to inequality in effort in ability. Do you really think that most billionaires were just born rich? The truth is that most are self-made.

And to say nothing (of course) of stagnant wages and tax breaks for the wealthy... the "job creators".. so where are the jobs?

So, did Reagan not get the debt ball rolling and didn't he triple the national debt in his terms?

Perhaps you expect Fox News to become the only source of history and information in the distant future?... Given that circumstance I could see repub inventions like "trickle-down" being blamed on dems.

Thx

Keep driving that wedge between the "haves" and "have-nots". You'll have you're much-desired insurrection soon enough.

I much prefer recognition of wealth defined by self, family, and friends.

You know, the kind of shit that money can't buy.

Liberals languish in the fantasies of others, Conservatives work to make fantasy... reality.

And keep side-stepping away from the fact that the OP is wrong.

Govt spending has slowed far below the rates of repub admins.

But I realize the facts are like kryptonite to you guys and you will blather out any kind of BS to avoid the unsavory truth about your "fiscal conservatives"...

1.4% for Obama, show me any admin that can match that.

I do agree with your statement that repubs make reality out of fantasy.. I just call it "lying" though.

Thx

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

And to say nothing (of course) of stagnant wages and tax breaks for the wealthy... the "job creators".. so where are the jobs?

So, did Reagan not get the debt ball rolling and didn't he triple the national debt in his terms?

Perhaps you expect Fox News to become the only source of history and information in the distant future?... Given that circumstance I could see repub inventions like "trickle-down" being blamed on dems.

Thx

Keep driving that wedge between the "haves" and "have-nots". You'll have you're much-desired insurrection soon enough.

I much prefer recognition of wealth defined by self, family, and friends.

You know, the kind of shit that money can't buy.

Liberals languish in the fantasies of others, Conservatives work to make fantasy... reality.

And keep side-stepping away from the fact that the OP is wrong.

Govt spending has slowed far below the rates of repub admins.

But I realize the facts are like kryptonite to you guys and you will blather out any kind of BS to avoid the unsavory truth about your "fiscal conservatives"...

1.4% for Obama, show me any admin that can match that.

I do agree with your statement that repubs make reality out of fantasy.. I just call it "lying" though.

Thx

First, not attributing the 2009 budget at least partly to Obama is completely disingenuous. The stimulus affected the 2009 budget and that was purely the product of Obama/D's. They also passed a lot of additional spending too under that period. That was $1 trillion and clearly 2009 should be given mostly to Obama(and note, Bush was a lame duck by then anyways). AND the Democratic Congress exploded the deficit under Bush. It was $150 billion before the Dems took over in 2007, and they tripled it to $450 billion for FY2008. Then, the genius triple-D trifecta more than doubled it to $1 trillion. Second, even if I do accept your attributions, it still shows Obama has a horrible spending record because he started out with a record high level of government spending and he maintained it and even added to it! That's insane. Your logic is like saying if I gain 50 pounds a year for 3 years, I'm "making progress" if I go down to gaining 40 pounds a year. No, it's going even further in the wrong direction. You're increasing the deficit and the debt.

Under Obama, the debt's increased faster than any President ever. That's a fact you can't deny. Another fact you can't deny is that more Republicans support a balanced-budget amendment than Democrats. By definition, a party that supports a balanced-budget amendment supports smaller deficits and the party opposed supports bigger deficits.
H J Res 103 Balanced Budget Amendment - Voting Record - U.S. House - Project Vote Smart

 

[eagle1462010]

The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intensions.............

Perhaps that will be on the grave stone.........

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

And to say nothing (of course) of stagnant wages and tax breaks for the wealthy... the "job creators".. so where are the jobs?

So, did Reagan not get the debt ball rolling and didn't he triple the national debt in his terms?

Perhaps you expect Fox News to become the only source of history and information in the distant future?... Given that circumstance I could see repub inventions like "trickle-down" being blamed on dems.

Thx

Keep driving that wedge between the "haves" and "have-nots". You'll have you're much-desired insurrection soon enough.

I much prefer recognition of wealth defined by self, family, and friends.

You know, the kind of shit that money can't buy.

Liberals languish in the fantasies of others, Conservatives work to make fantasy... reality.

And keep side-stepping away from the fact that the OP is wrong.

Govt spending has slowed far below the rates of repub admins.

But I realize the facts are like kryptonite to you guys and you will blather out any kind of BS to avoid the unsavory truth about your "fiscal conservatives"...

1.4% for Obama, show me any admin that can match that.

I do agree with your statement that repubs make reality out of fantasy.. I just call it "lying" though.

Thx

Oh, and under Obama average government spending is at 24% of GDP, higher than Bush(20% of GDP). In fact, 24% is the highest since WWII. And Obama's locking in this super-high recession spending for years, which is absurd.
The Obama Spending Binge - Hit & Run : Reason.com
No, Obama Is Not ?the Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower?

More evidence rebutting Rex "The Nut" Nutter.

 

[Thx]

Keep driving that wedge between the "haves" and "have-nots". You'll have you're much-desired insurrection soon enough.

I much prefer recognition of wealth defined by self, family, and friends.

You know, the kind of shit that money can't buy.

Liberals languish in the fantasies of others, Conservatives work to make fantasy... reality.

And keep side-stepping away from the fact that the OP is wrong.

Govt spending has slowed far below the rates of repub admins.

But I realize the facts are like kryptonite to you guys and you will blather out any kind of BS to avoid the unsavory truth about your "fiscal conservatives"...

1.4% for Obama, show me any admin that can match that.

I do agree with your statement that repubs make reality out of fantasy.. I just call it "lying" though.

Thx

First, not attributing the 2009 budget at least partly to Obama is completely disingenuous. The stimulus affected the 2009 budget and that was purely the product of Obama/D's. They also passed a lot of additional spending too under that period. That was $1 trillion and clearly 2009 should be given mostly to Obama(and note, Bush was a lame duck by then anyways). AND the Democratic Congress exploded the deficit under Bush. It was $150 billion before the Dems took over in 2007, and they tripled it to $450 billion for FY2008. Then, the genius triple-D trifecta more than doubled it to $1 trillion. Second, even if I do accept your attributions, it still shows Obama has a horrible spending record because he started out with a record high level of government spending and he maintained it and even added to it! That's insane. Your logic is like saying if I gain 50 pounds a year for 3 years, I'm "making progress" if I go down to gaining 40 pounds a year. No, it's going even further in the wrong direction. You're increasing the deficit and the debt.

Under Obama, the debt's increased faster than any President ever. That's a fact you can't deny. Another fact you can't deny is that more Republicans support a balanced-budget amendment than Democrats. By definition, a party that supports a balanced-budget amendment supports smaller deficits and the party opposed supports bigger deficits.
H J Res 103 Balanced Budget Amendment - Voting Record - U.S. House - Project Vote Smart

Notice, that they include the preceding year in each case... do you want them to make an exception for Bush2?

And to the bold, let's see your "facts" that can't be denied.

I posted mine, let's see yours, if you would be so kind.

Other than that, just sounds like more unfounded baloney blather... back up your "facts".

Oh, and your "fat" analogy... it's more like you put 300 pounds on over 30 years, then you wake up one morning and say "Oh damn!" and now you think going on a "crash" diet of celery and nothing more is in order...

Thx

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

And keep side-stepping away from the fact that the OP is wrong.

Govt spending has slowed far below the rates of repub admins.

But I realize the facts are like kryptonite to you guys and you will blather out any kind of BS to avoid the unsavory truth about your "fiscal conservatives"...

1.4% for Obama, show me any admin that can match that.

I do agree with your statement that repubs make reality out of fantasy.. I just call it "lying" though.

Thx

First, not attributing the 2009 budget at least partly to Obama is completely disingenuous. The stimulus affected the 2009 budget and that was purely the product of Obama/D's. They also passed a lot of additional spending too under that period. That was $1 trillion and clearly 2009 should be given mostly to Obama(and note, Bush was a lame duck by then anyways). AND the Democratic Congress exploded the deficit under Bush. It was $150 billion before the Dems took over in 2007, and they tripled it to $450 billion for FY2008. Then, the genius triple-D trifecta more than doubled it to $1 trillion. Second, even if I do accept your attributions, it still shows Obama has a horrible spending record because he started out with a record high level of government spending and he maintained it and even added to it! That's insane. Your logic is like saying if I gain 50 pounds a year for 3 years, I'm "making progress" if I go down to gaining 40 pounds a year. No, it's going even further in the wrong direction. You're increasing the deficit and the debt.

Under Obama, the debt's increased faster than any President ever. That's a fact you can't deny. Another fact you can't deny is that more Republicans support a balanced-budget amendment than Democrats. By definition, a party that supports a balanced-budget amendment supports smaller deficits and the party opposed supports bigger deficits.
H J Res 103 Balanced Budget Amendment - Voting Record - U.S. House - Project Vote Smart

Notice, that they include the preceding year in each case... do you want them to make an exception for Bush2?

And to the bold, let's see your "facts" that can't be denied.

I posted mine, let's see yours, if you would be so kind.

Other than that, just sounds like more unfounded baloney blather... back up your "facts".

Oh, and your "fat" analogy... it's more like you put 300 pounds on over 30 years, then you wake up one morning and say "Oh damn!" and now you think going on a "crash" diet of celery and nothing more is in order...

Thx

Here's my evidence: National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush - CBS News
Oh, and your analogy is faulty. If you went on a celery diet, you wouldn't be still gaining weight; you'd be losing a ton of it.
The debt's increased more under Obama than under Bush, and in a smaller timeframe.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Wealth is overrated. Yet Liberals use it as leverage to justify and enable lethargy, indifference, and incivility.

As long as someone has more than do you, you will be compensated by the government.

Indeed. What amazes me is that liberals never realize that maybe, just maybe, wealth inequality is do to inequality in effort in ability. Do you really think that most billionaires were just born rich? The truth is that most are self-made.

Since no one plays by the rules or plays fair, water finds its own level.

 

[Hoosier4Liberty]

Wealth is overrated. Yet Liberals use it as leverage to justify and enable lethargy, indifference, and incivility.

As long as someone has more than do you, you will be compensated by the government.

Indeed. What amazes me is that liberals never realize that maybe, just maybe, wealth inequality is do to inequality in effort in ability. Do you really think that most billionaires were just born rich? The truth is that most are self-made.

Since no one plays by the rules or plays fair, water finds its own level.

People with an MBA make more money on average than those who don't have one. That's a matter of qualifications, not "unfairness" or something of the like. The market values certain things, and people who succeed are those who meet the market's demands.

 

[candycorn]

Imagine someone 75 years from the future

Will the GOP still be talking about Benghazi and voter fraud?