Hope and Change

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you also intentionally cut your income when you are trying to pay off your debts?

Obama was trying to pay off our debts? When?

amateurish deflection noted.

Obama didn't try to pay off our debts?

Amateurish avoidance of the subject noted.

 

[rightwinger]

and how many acres of solar panels will be required to power, lets say New York City for example? Have we forgotten THAT small detail?

Today? Probably a lot.

Tomorrow, WITH government support? Probably a lot less.

Government support has furthered many things that would have languished otherwise, including the Internet (which Senator Gore was an early supporter for, via legislation and funding. )

The private free market has done very well for Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, and Thomas Edison. Yet they each were able to have a great impact at furthering innovation, and without any government assistance.

Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers received Government contracts. Nobody would have bought Fords cars if the Government did not provide roads for them to be driven on. Edisons light bulbs would have been useless without government investment in the power grid.

 

[Listening]

Today? Probably a lot.

Tomorrow, WITH government support? Probably a lot less.

Government support has furthered many things that would have languished otherwise, including the Internet (which Senator Gore was an early supporter for, via legislation and funding. )

The private free market has done very well for Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, and Thomas Edison. Yet they each were able to have a great impact at furthering innovation, and without any government assistance.

Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers received Government contracts. Nobody would have bought Fords cars if the Government did not provide roads for them to be driven on. Edisons light bulbs would have been useless without government investment in the power grid.

Had the free market been in force and people wanted roads and a grid...it would have materialized.

Are you saying that isn't the case ?

 

[rightwinger]

The private free market has done very well for Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, and Thomas Edison. Yet they each were able to have a great impact at furthering innovation, and without any government assistance.

Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers received Government contracts. Nobody would have bought Fords cars if the Government did not provide roads for them to be driven on. Edisons light bulbs would have been useless without government investment in the power grid.

Had the free market been in force and people wanted roads and a grid...it would have materialized.

Are you saying that isn't the case ?

Where were those roads going to go? Over whose land? If people had to pay a toll every time they took their car out, nobody would have bought them. The power grid needed public investment and public land to get from point A to point B.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Today? Probably a lot.

Tomorrow, WITH government support? Probably a lot less.

Government support has furthered many things that would have languished otherwise, including the Internet (which Senator Gore was an early supporter for, via legislation and funding. )

The private free market has done very well for Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, and Thomas Edison. Yet they each were able to have a great impact at furthering innovation, and without any government assistance.

Henry Ford and the Wright Brothers received Government contracts. Nobody would have bought Fords cars if the Government did not provide roads for them to be driven on. Edisons light bulbs would have been useless without government investment in the power grid.

There was NO Federal Government involvement in the actual creating process of each of these innovators, they were each privately funded. Thank you for spinning the argument for after the fact though.

 

[Listening]

Where were those roads going to go? Over whose land? If people had to pay a toll every time they took their car out, nobody would have bought them. The power grid needed public investment and public land to get from point A to point B.

You are making statements you can't back up.

Subdivisions put in roads all the time.

If people want roads they will pay for them.

If a city council is elected by people who don't want roads, then they won't have them or as many and they will deal with the consequences.

The public grid may have been one of the worst things government has ever put in.

 

[Synthaholic]

Nice try, but you still haven't explained why these other countries received a drop in their credit rating, if it wasn't as a result of those nations Government's spending problem or the size of their countries debt. You failed.

France, Italy, Spain, and Greece can no longer print their own money.


Dumbass.

Germany is doing fine, as they haven't suffered a reduction in their credit rating. Yet Germany can no longer print their own money, not since 2002. Interesting how your responses seem to have holes in them. So I suppose you are saying Greece doesn't have a debt, spending problem? Who's the dumbass now?

You were talking about countries who had a reduction in credit rating, and the cause. Germany is irrelevant to this discussion.

The reason why they got a reduction is because they cannot print more money. We can, so obviously the fact that we can always pay our debts means there was a different reason why we were downgraded: Republican intransigence and gamesmanship.

 

[Dick Tuck]

 

[M14 Shooter]

Should America not pay it's owed debts?

False premise.
The US government does not need to borrow a single dime more than it has now to pay its debts.

How much would you like to cut the Pentagon's budget by, then?

Amateurish deflection.
The point stands; your response indicates that you agree the point is sound.

Not bring able to borrow momeny in no way necessitates a default, and you know it.
Stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

 

[Synthaholic]

False premise.
The US government does not need to borrow a single dime more than it has now to pay its debts.

How much would you like to cut the Pentagon's budget by, then?

Amateurish deflection.
The point stands; your response indicates that you agree the point is sound.

Not bring able to borrow momeny in no way necessitates a default, and you know it.
Stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

America has obligations. It's amazing how Rightwingers will defend some CEO getting $60 million per year in bonuses, because that was a contract that must not be broken, yet are willing to rip up the contract made with the American people, decades ago. Especially since most of you are blue collar also, or at least not wealthy, and are therefore voting against your own interests.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How much would you like to cut the Pentagon's budget by, then?

Amateurish deflection.
The point stands; your response indicates that you agree the point is sound.

Not bring able to borrow momeny in no way necessitates a default, and you know it.
Stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

America has obligations.

Do you have a point here? If so, what?

It's amazing how Rightwingers will defend some CEO getting $60 million per year...

Red herring.
If you were able to post someting substantive, you'd not need to offer such things.

...yet are willing to rip up the contract made with the American people, decades ago.

You'll have to be far more specific than this.
What "contract", where is this "contract" found, who made that "contract", who is "ripping" it up, how are they doing so - and how does any of that apply to the issue at hand?

As I said:
You know that not being able to further borrow money in no way necessitates a default; stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

 

[Synthaholic]

Amateurish deflection.
The point stands; your response indicates that you agree the point is sound.

Not bring able to borrow momeny in no way necessitates a default, and you know it.
Stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

America has obligations.

Do you have a point here? If so, what?

It's amazing how Rightwingers will defend some CEO getting $60 million per year...

Red herring.
If you were able to post someting substantive, you'd not need to offer such things.

...yet are willing to rip up the contract made with the American people, decades ago.

You'll have to be far more specific than this.
What "contract", where is this "contract" found, who made that "contract", who is "ripping" it up, how are they doing so - and how does any of that apply to the issue at hand?

As I said:
You know that not being able to borrow momeny in no way necessitates a default; stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

On it's face, the bolded statement is false.

Perhaps if you explain how we could not default while not borrowing money, then you could change it to a true statement.

Feel up to it?

 

[M14 Shooter]

America has obligations.

Do you have a point here? If so, what?

Red herring.
If you were able to post someting substantive, you'd not need to offer such things.

...yet are willing to rip up the contract made with the American people, decades ago.

You'll have to be far more specific than this.
What "contract", where is this "contract" found, who made that "contract", who is "ripping" it up, how are they doing so - and how does any of that apply to the issue at hand?

As I said:
You know that not being able to borrow momeny in no way necessitates a default; stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

On it's face, the bolded statement is false.

This is a lie - my statement is absolutely true and you know it.

Federal revenue exceeds federal outlays for debt service by a considerable margin.
As such, not a single dime need be borrowed to pay for our debt service, and so not being able to borrow money in no way necessarily means a default -- it only leads to a default if the government -chooses- to not pay the debt service..

Thus, my position is sound; thus, you continue to lie.

 

[Synthaholic]

Do you have a point here? If so, what?

Red herring.
If you were able to post someting substantive, you'd not need to offer such things.

You'll have to be far more specific than this.
What "contract", where is this "contract" found, who made that "contract", who is "ripping" it up, how are they doing so - and how does any of that apply to the issue at hand?

As I said:
You know that not being able to borrow momeny in no way necessitates a default; stop lying to people in an attempt to scare them.

On it's face, the bolded statement is false.

This is a lie - my statement is absolutely true and you know it.

Federal revenue exceeds federal outlays for debt service by a considerable margin.
As such, not a single dime need be borrowed to pay for our debt service, and so not being able to borrow money in no way necessarily means a default -- it only leads to a default if the government -chooses- to not pay the debt service..

Thus, my position is sound; thus, you continue to lie.

You keep saying this, but are unwilling to explain how. With, oh I don't know...figures? Links? Anything?

 

[M14 Shooter]

On it's face, the bolded statement is false.

This is a lie - my statement is absolutely true and you know it.

Federal revenue exceeds federal outlays for debt service by a considerable margin.
As such, not a single dime need be borrowed to pay for our debt service, and so not being able to borrow money in no way necessarily means a default -- it only leads to a default if the government -chooses- to not pay the debt service..
Thus, my position is sound; thus, you continue to lie.

You keep saying this, but are unwilling to explain how.

Another lie on your part.
I -clearly- explained my position when I said:
Federal revenue exceeds federal outlays for debt service by a considerable margin.

As to the specific:
FY2009:
Total federal revenue: $2104.6B
Spending on debt service: 187.3B (8.9% of revenue)
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

As such, not a single dime need be borrowed to pay for our debt service, and so the inability to borrow in no way necessarily leads to a default.

Thus, my position is sound; thus, you continue to lie.

 

[rightwinger]

This is a lie - my statement is absolutely true and you know it.

Federal revenue exceeds federal outlays for debt service by a considerable margin.
As such, not a single dime need be borrowed to pay for our debt service, and so not being able to borrow money in no way necessarily means a default -- it only leads to a default if the government -chooses- to not pay the debt service..
Thus, my position is sound; thus, you continue to lie.

You keep saying this, but are unwilling to explain how.

Another lie on your part.
I -clearly- explained my position when I said:
Federal revenue exceeds federal outlays for debt service by a considerable margin.

As to the specific:
FY2009:
Total federal revenue: $2104.6B
Spending on debt service: 187.3B (8.9% of revenue)
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

As such, not a single dime need be borrowed to pay for our debt service, and so the inability to borrow in no way necessarily leads to a default.

Thus, my position is sound; thus, you continue to lie.

He is correct, we could have always pulled the plug on our military and sent them all home as well as tell Social Security retirees they are out of luck

 

[Synthaholic]

You keep saying this, but are unwilling to explain how.

Another lie on your part.
I -clearly- explained my position when I said:
Federal revenue exceeds federal outlays for debt service by a considerable margin.

As to the specific:
FY2009:
Total federal revenue: $2104.6B
Spending on debt service: 187.3B (8.9% of revenue)
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

As such, not a single dime need be borrowed to pay for our debt service, and so the inability to borrow in no way necessarily leads to a default.

Thus, my position is sound; thus, you continue to lie.

He is correct, we could have always pulled the plug on our military and sent them all home as well as tell Social Security retirees they are out of luck

Yeah, that would do it!

But other than breaking contracts with Americans, I don't see any other way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But other than breaking contracts with Americans, I don't see any other way.

I'm sorry -- I didn't see where you openly admit that I am correct and that you are wrong.
Can't muster the intellectual honesty to do so? No surprise.

Further, as I already asked and as you have failed to answer:
What "contract", where is this "contract" found, who made that "contract", who is "ripping" it up, how are they doing so - and how does any of that apply to the issue at hand?

 

[rightwinger]

But other than breaking contracts with Americans, I don't see any other way.

I'm sorry -- I didn't see where you openly admit that I am correct and that you are wrong.
Can't muster the intellectual honesty to do so? No surprise.

Further, as I already asked and as you have failed to answer:
What "contract", where is this "contract" found, who made that "contract", who is "ripping" it up, how are they doing so - and how does any of that apply to the issue at hand?

That contract is backed up by one hundred million votes. Just try ripping it up

 

[Immanuel]

But other than breaking contracts with Americans, I don't see any other way.

I'm sorry -- I didn't see where you openly admit that I am correct and that you are wrong.
Can't muster the intellectual honesty to do so? No surprise.

Further, as I already asked and as you have failed to answer:
What "contract", where is this "contract" found, who made that "contract", who is "ripping" it up, how are they doing so - and how does any of that apply to the issue at hand?

That contract is backed up by one hundred million votes. Just try ripping it up

Sorry, but the two parties that so many people worship have long since accomplished that task.

Immie