A question for Republicans

[ilia25]

Isn't that about the time we started having serious illegal alien problems, where people came here, took jobs, and did not pay taxes on those jobs? The feds then started passing laws giving those same illegals "benefits" without having them contribute. Thank you, it shows clearly how illegals are hurting our country and our economy.

It shows clearly that you are willing to make an outrageous claims w/o providing a single shred of evidence in support. How typical of the rights.

 

[ilia25]

What is the world are you talking about???

Reality. Something you obviously have no clue about and seem to be allergic to. To explain this to you would take too much time I'm not interested in wasting on you. I don't find teaching remedial economics and civics to an ignoramus entertaining.

No, you've just reached the limits of that tiny brain of yours.

 

[logical4u]

Isn't that about the time we started having serious illegal alien problems, where people came here, took jobs, and did not pay taxes on those jobs? The feds then started passing laws giving those same illegals "benefits" without having them contribute. Thank you, it shows clearly how illegals are hurting our country and our economy.

It shows clearly that you are willing to make an outrageous claims w/o providing a single shred of evidence in support. How typical of the rights.

I was trying to match your logic. You put up a chart and said that it proved: blah, blah, blah. I just used the chart and said it proved different: blah, blah, blah (only mine was more believable).

 

[Full-Auto]

The red line shows government spending rising steadily with the population growth -- as they should be and as they have been forever.

Thankfully there is a bill that just passed the house that will hopefully be ENDING this practice

No it won't -- the spending will continue to grow even if that bill is passed. If only becuase the discretionary spending, excluding the military, count only for 18% of US budget. Even if you completely shut down NASA, Homeland Security and everything else in it, you'd be lucky to reduce the deficit by half.

Of course you could not possibly know that -- you vote Republican.



No, it should not have. The tax revenues are supposed to grow with the economy -- unless something like a tax cut slows them down even though the economy is growing.

So even after tax cuts revenue were bound to start growing again -- but they started growing from a low base and too late in the cycle, ensuring that US were running bigger deficits for longer time.



If course it did -- the revenues started to drop even before Bush's tax cuts. But the cuts accelerated that drop and made sure that it continued long after the recession was over.



Oh no -- you made yourself look silly. Again.

Very obvious that you don't get causation versus corollary at all.

What is the world are you talking about???

I can also see that for about 2.5 years, revenues fell by only 200 billion, but then the subsequent 5 years it rose over 800 billion from the low and would have probably kept going for a while till the housing and credit bubbles popped.

Well, popping the bubble was unfortunate, although inevitable. But in any case, the US have no "spending problem". It was the tax revenues that were lagging behind -- partly because of the recessions, partly because of the tax cuts.

No spending problem? Really? With a straight face?

 

[Listening]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I don't care whose in charge as long as his last name is not Obama.

 

[Sunshine]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I don't care whose in charge as long as his last name is not Obama.

I wish you would work on that. The 'anybody but Bush' mantra is what got us Obama. The 'anybody but Obama' mantra will not help this country.

As to who runs the country. I will stand up and say that I want a wealthy CEO for our country. The common man can't figure out how to pay his monthly bills. We see evidence of this in Congress who are elected from the masses, who are not wealthy when they get into office but are at the taxpayers' expense when they leave office. Congress is the reason our finances in this country are such a mess. They pander to their voters giving out favors willy nilly in return for votes. A fortune 500 company wouldn't hire the 'common man' to be its CEO.

 

[Big Fitz]

Thankfully there is a bill that just passed the house that will hopefully be ENDING this practice

No it won't -- the spending will continue to grow even if that bill is passed. If only becuase the discretionary spending, excluding the military, count only for 18% of US budget. Even if you completely shut down NASA, Homeland Security and everything else in it, you'd be lucky to reduce the deficit by half.

Of course you could not possibly know that -- you vote Republican.



No, it should not have. The tax revenues are supposed to grow with the economy -- unless something like a tax cut slows them down even though the economy is growing.

So even after tax cuts revenue were bound to start growing again -- but they started growing from a low base and too late in the cycle, ensuring that US were running bigger deficits for longer time.



If course it did -- the revenues started to drop even before Bush's tax cuts. But the cuts accelerated that drop and made sure that it continued long after the recession was over.



Oh no -- you made yourself look silly. Again.



What is the world are you talking about???

I can also see that for about 2.5 years, revenues fell by only 200 billion, but then the subsequent 5 years it rose over 800 billion from the low and would have probably kept going for a while till the housing and credit bubbles popped.

Well, popping the bubble was unfortunate, although inevitable. But in any case, the US have no "spending problem". It was the tax revenues that were lagging behind -- partly because of the recessions, partly because of the tax cuts.

No spending problem? Really? With a straight face?

straight face and pollyanna faith in the truthiness of his conviction.

 

[rdean]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I dunno. Someone with experience successfully handling billions of dollars would be a refreshing change of pace, don't you think?

See what I mean? Get rid of anyone who thinks of Americans as "people". Instead, we would be so much better off being thought of as "commodities".

 

[Big Fitz]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I dunno. Someone with experience successfully handling billions of dollars would be a refreshing change of pace, don't you think?

See what I mean? Get rid of anyone who thinks of Americans as "people". Instead, we would be so much better off being thought of as "commodities".

if it weren't for the fact I didn't know you were totally daft, I'd be surprised at your stupidity, hairnet. How well's your little college professor/community organizer in chief doing with his billions and billions of overspending, hmmmm? Last check his spending is greater than all the former presidents combined. It's as if he has no idea of the value of money NOR what responsible monetary policy is.

So we've tried someone who knows nothing about economics, let's try someone who does. Again, a refreshing change.

Oh, as for the 'commodoties r peepul' stupidity you spouted, are we really people to the "Great Black Nope" in office now? Seems like he doesn't see us as individuals but rather as economic classes, special interests and sheep to be fleeced and pitted against each other. So what the ****'s your problem if we do get by some chance a president who doesn't see you as an individual? You aren't one to the one we got now.

 

[Sunshine]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I dunno. Someone with experience successfully handling billions of dollars would be a refreshing change of pace, don't you think?

Obama's philosophy of money is from generational poverty:

spending money right as they get it and teaches children to do the same

Cycle of poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Big Fitz]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I dunno. Someone with experience successfully handling billions of dollars would be a refreshing change of pace, don't you think?

Obama's philosophy of money is from generational poverty:

spending money right as they get it and teaches children to do the same

Cycle of poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Great... and we've been running our government like this for about 80 years.

 

[beagle9]

Nothing wrong with Billionares being in charge, it's just that people should make absolutely sure with their votes, upon who exactly those billionares are..

 

[Listening]

Republicans feel the country would be better off with billionaires in charge.

I dunno. Someone with experience successfully handling billions of dollars would be a refreshing change of pace, don't you think?

See what I mean? Get rid of anyone who thinks of Americans as "people". Instead, we would be so much better off being thought of as "commodities".

That is simply ignorant.

America is probably more diverse than Europe. It isn't people it is peoples. And that is why the 10th amendment was written.

That we even have a government in D.C. that spends this kind of money would scare any intelligent person.

But, as some demonstrate...not all fit that classification.

 

[ilia25]

Isn't that about the time we started having serious illegal alien problems, where people came here, took jobs, and did not pay taxes on those jobs? The feds then started passing laws giving those same illegals "benefits" without having them contribute. Thank you, it shows clearly how illegals are hurting our country and our economy.

It shows clearly that you are willing to make an outrageous claims w/o providing a single shred of evidence in support. How typical of the rights.

I was trying to match your logic. You put up a chart and said that it proved: blah, blah, blah. I just used the chart and said it proved different: blah, blah, blah (only mine was more believable).

Like a said -- if Republican voters were able to read charts, they wouldn't be voting Republican.

 

[ilia25]

No spending problem? Really? With a straight face?

People probably used to ask -- so Earth is not flat? Really? With a straight face?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No spending problem? Really? With a straight face?

People probably used to ask -- so Earth is not flat? Really? With a straight face?

People who think the government overspends are like flat-Earthers?

 

[Big Fitz]

No spending problem? Really? With a straight face?

People probably used to ask -- so Earth is not flat? Really? With a straight face?

Mr. Galileo... the pope requests your presence in his dungeon to discuss your recanting of the belief the Earth orbiting the sun.

 

[Chris]

 

[ilia25]

No spending problem? Really? With a straight face?

People probably used to ask -- so Earth is not flat? Really? With a straight face?

People who think the government overspends are like flat-Earthers?

A fair comparison for people refusing to believe the numbers. Americans are bad at math that's a well known fact. Honestly, what kind of people can get fooled by a credit card company (which had diligently sent its victims letters describing how the scheme works)?

 

[Sunshine]

Your source? Or do prefer to just plagiarize? Or perhaps you just made it up!