I Have A Question For Republicans

[JoeNormal]

Nice dodge. So genius, what HAVE you ever done?

Me? I've consistently voted for candidates that will uphold the U.S. Constitution. That's what we all should be doing. Not voting for Democrat candidates who promise to violate the Constitution and redistribute wealth.

I was really looking for profession but I can see how that might be embarrassing.

Well most people would say "what do you do" as opposed to "what have you EVER done". But in terms of profession - I've worked most of my life in IT. Recently though I left that to start my own business. Why?

Must be a lot of slack time in IT. It seems that our most prolific posters are in that field.

 

[P@triot]

I was really looking for profession but I can see how that might be embarrassing.

I'm curious because you seem to be living in some sort of bizarro ultra-right wing world in which everything you see or hear is further proof that the wealthy must be appeased at all cost before anyone else is given the tiniest crumb. Your story could form the basis for a cautionary tale.

That summarizes the mindset of the liberal. The belief that things are given instead of earned. It is so irrational. Nobody gives the wealthy anything They simply go out and earn it. Why do you guys insists like acting like victims and pretend that someone is holding you back?

And this pretty much summarizes the mindset of your ilk. You get so preoccupied with the details of casual conversation that the point is completely lost. It's like trying to show a dog the moon and he just keeps staring at your finger.

And that's why liberals struggle. Lack of attention to detail. So what you mean, mean what you say.

 

[P@triot]

Nice dodge. So genius, what HAVE you ever done?

Me? I've consistently voted for candidates that will uphold the U.S. Constitution. That's what we all should be doing. Not voting for Democrat candidates who promise to violate the Constitution and redistribute wealth.

I was really looking for profession but I can see how that might be embarrassing.

Well most people would say "what do you do" as opposed to "what have you EVER done". But in terms of profession - I've worked most of my life in IT. Recently though I left that to start my own business. Why?

Must be a lot of slack time in IT. It seems that our most prolific posters are in that field.

I've been away from USMB for over two years. I just returned recently. Notice that just happens to coincide with starting my own company? That's not coincidence.

 

[P@triot]

The data doesn't lie. History has proven over and over that socialism/communism/marxism ends in famine, poverty, and misery, while free-market conservatism ends in wealth and prosperity...

We Know What's Solving Poverty Around the World

 

[P@triot]

The data is simply indisputable...

Index of Economic Freedom: Promoting Economic Opportunity and Prosperity by Country

 

[Political Junky]

When Bill Clinton left a balanced budget with surpluses in line to completely eliminate the national debt by 2012, why did George W. Bush slash tax rates for the rich and double the debt from $5.7 trillion to nearly $12 trillion?

What do you have Alzheimer's?

Clinton handed Bush a mini recession.

.

The Right exists on lies.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Rottweiler, I've listened to your staccato like repeat of conservative drivel yet you still haven't answered the question I posed almost 12 hours ago. That tells me that if you were to accidentally swallow a laxative we can all safely bet that in a very short period of time you will simply disappear.

All one has to do to prove you completely wrong is look at the last 80 years years of economic history. It's very simple to see what party leads and what party follows and obstructs. All you do is recycle demonstrable falsehoods and attempt to run them by us as fact. Your narrow minded opinion refuses to be subjected to thought and analysis. You treat the opposition as some sort of mindless lunatics and try to bully people into submission to your own version of stupidity. A famous man once said we may be entitled to our own opinion but we are not entitled to our own version of the facts. It is worthwhile to lay down your sword and explore the facts, you actually might learn something.

 

[Markle]

"Truth" like death panels. ROTFLMBAO!

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Yes, indeed my good friend, like the death panels. You're just way too easy. Perhaps they have beginners forums where you can learn to do research PRIOR to making foolish, easily disproved posts such as yours.

Keep in mind that it was Jonathan Gruber who called you stupid.

Gruber: There Will be Obamacare Death Panels

by WESLEY J. SMITH December 30, 2014 9:21 PM
Back in 09–when Obamacare advocates castigated those who worried that Obamacare would lead to rationing–Jonathan Gruber said get the law passed first, then refuse treatment later. From the Daily Caller story: “Let’s get the people covered and then let’s do cost control,” [Gruber said] Gruber also said that the only way to control costs is to effectively deny treatment. “The real substance of cost control is all about a single thing: telling patients they can’t have something they want. It’s about telling patients, ‘That surgery doesn’t do any good, so if you want it you have to pay the full cost.’” And guess who decides what “doesn’t do any good” means? Bioethicists–who believe that some lives have greater value than others–and Obamacare technocrats.

And that is known as a Michael Kinsley definition of a gaffe.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/human...ill-be-obamacare-death-panels-wesley-j-smitha

Obama returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir

By Robert Pear Dec. 25, 2010


WASHINGTON – When a proposal to encourage end-of-lie planning touched off a political storm over death Panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/us/politics/26death.html?_r=2

 

[Markle]

Other than solar companies, what big businesses get millions of dollars in grants?

Please share with us specifically who pays corporate taxes?

Do your own DD Just because the rich get handouts differently from the poor doesn't mean they're not on the dole too

Your desperation is duly noted. You have NOTHING. I am shocked...SHOCKED I SAY!

 

[80zephyr]

Zimbabwe could "mine dollars" as well, since they print their own currency. Hows that working out for them?

Mark

it all about the reserve currency. Everything is traded and based in US dollars, not Venezuela dollars or Zimabwes dollar. The world economy runs on US dollars, and again, we are the only ones who make em.

Everything is traded in US dollars...until it isn't. The "value" of money is in the eye of the beholder. Too much debt will cause those to rely on stability to look elsewhere. Several credit rating agencies around the world have downgraded their credit ratings of the US dollar already.

I suspect that every great power on earth figured it "wouldn't happen to them"...until it did.

Mark

Of course they did, and eventually they all failed. It's a fact about fiat currency, it always ends bad, and virtually all major countries and most of Europe deal in Fiat currency now. Good luck guessing when it will all come crashing down.

You were asking "what is wrong with having debt"? Have we just answered that question?

Mark

We have confirmed what I already thought, that is, it doesn't matter until it does matter, and nobody knows when that will happen.

I agree. But what we both should b able to agree on, is that the mounting debt makes it more likely that that day will happen.

Mark

 

[Markle]

Does fracking help those states???

Yes, jobs.

 

[80zephyr]

Sigh. Math doesn't lie. "Creative" accounting does. Please tell me, in any situation on the planet(other than our government) where an increase in debt equals a "surplus"?

PERFECT EXAMPLE!!!

Remember a few pages back I said Republicans just simply change the definition of Surplus and viola! No Surplus (in their minds).

He says: Please tell me, in any situation on the planet(other than our government) where an increase in debt equals a "surplus"?

But LOOK! We ARE talking about Government! And according to GOVT STANDARDS we had a surplus. NOW you want to change the meaning to mean something else.

What the government says doesn't interest me. The accounting practices that our government uses would have any company in America in serious legal trouble.

But we are talking about govt. Now you want to change the discussion into "if govt wasn't govt". According to historical standards we had a surplus. Now you want to change the definition. Only now.

Reality is our guideline here. If the country actually ran a surplus, then our total debt would be LESS from one year to the next. Like I said, math doesn't lie.

Mark

And the reality is that according to government and historical standards we ran a surplus. You think that using a different standard means reality changes according to whatever you say.

Just like I said you would. It's what you guys always do. It just like saying a track star isn't fast because you compared them to a Porsche.

Reality doesn't change when I say it does. Reality is reality. Did it occur to you that maybe the people telling you that we ran a surplus changed the definition to make themselves look good?

2+2 will always equal 4. If the government wants to blow smoke up our collective asses so we believe we had a surplus doesn't interest me in the least.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

but W was responsible for a recession that started six months before he took office.

Were THAT true, what justified GWB's humongous tax cuts??? ...and why did the tax cuts continue with the TWO major wars Bush was conducting?

So even by partisan Republican dumb-dumb logic, Bush made it WORSE. Right?

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk

Of course he did.Numbers don't lie. Tell me, did Obama make it "worser"?

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

The right says he never left a surplus. That's because they just simply changed what surplus means to claim it never happened.

the national debt was not eliminated by Clinton. there were a couple of years when there was a net budget surplus. But to say he "left a surplus" is simply a lie.

Did he leave a surplus or not?

As the math shows, no, he did not.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

The right says he never left a surplus. That's because they just simply changed what surplus means to claim it never happened.

the national debt was not eliminated by Clinton. there were a couple of years when there was a net budget surplus. But to say he "left a surplus" is simply a lie.

Did he leave a surplus or not?

No, the national debt went up every year Clinton was in office

I SAID SURPLUS!!!!!

Maybe I can help you understand. Lets say the governments projected spending during a budget year was 2 trillion dollars, and they "only" spent 1.9 trillion.

That would leave a "surplus" of .1 trillion.

Now, does that really mean anything since the projected spending is nothing more than a guess?

And if the government takes in only 1.5 trillion, does that leave a surplus or a debt?

Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

George Orwell


Mark

 

[80zephyr]

the national debt was not eliminated by Clinton. there were a couple of years when there was a net budget surplus. But to say he "left a surplus" is simply a lie.

Did he leave a surplus or not?

No, the national debt went up every year Clinton was in office

I SAID SURPLUS!!!!!

an annual net surplus for one year did not eliminate the national debt. So, no, he did not leave a surplus.

Why is the CBO wrong?

The government puts out an "official inflation rate" to tell us if our money is losing value. You know whats not included? The cost for food and travel.

So, if our gas went to 10 bucks a gallon tomorrow, and the price for a can of beans went to 3 bucks, the government(all other prices staying about the same) would tell us how rosy our economy is because our rate of inflation was stable.

My advice to you is, to believe no one. Do you own research, and come to your own conclusions.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

Gnat doesn't believe in stimulating the economy, he believes in politicians who stimulate him with that special little tug

Another right wing moron, chimes in.......Yes, folks like Trump can "legitimize" ANY business expense and wind up with zero tax liability.....and all this, while spewing "we billionaires live in a country that has the highest tax rate on the planet"........While still paying ZERO in taxes.

You are showing us how little you know about corporate taxes and taxes overall.
Right off the bat, he tax matches for everyone of his employees. Yes, that a tax on every employee he pays.
One can not legitimize "anything" as a write off. One can claim anything as a write off, but if one is audited, one will be able to legitimize everything.
Are you aware that you can only write off HALF of each business meal?
Are you aware that you must PROVE each business meal WAS a business meal when you are audited?
Are you aware of the AMT?
Do you know what it is?
Do you know why they instituted it?
Are you aware of restrictions on the amount of tax deferred retirement account annual contributions?
Are you aware that if you are a C-Corp and you leave money in the company, you may not have to pay income tax on it as the owner of the c-corp, but you cant spend it on personal use as well?
Are you even aware of what a C-Corp is?
How about an S-Corp?

If you know the answers to most...or ANY of these questions, you would never had made the statement you made.

If the government passed a law requiring every citizen to run their own business for 5 years, all this debate would come to a halt.

George McGovern, who never saw a business he didn't want to tax, bought a hotel after he retired. The results of what he learned was obvious.

What I Know Now: Nibbled to Death

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

an annual net surplus for one year did not eliminate the national debt. So, no, he did not leave a surplus.

Why is the CBO wrong?

they are not wrong. there were budget surpluses in those years, but the national debt increased in each of those years. So Clinton did not "leave a surplus".

Were not talking about the national debt and never have when measuring a surplus. Thats you again throwing in extra conditions never applied before to claim something is different than what it is. Its just like the Unemployment rate. NOW you guys like to throw in other things (people who stopped looking) as a way to say it isnt right.

You change the rules and think that everyone else is supposed to play under them

OMG, what an imbecile

You don't know what a surplus means, classic

No, the CBO doesnt! HAR HAR! Isnt that hilarious!! Some numbskull on the interwebs knows better than they do and as proof you use cute smilies!

Just so you know the CBO by law, has to write reports exactly the way Congress demands them to. Its why quite a few of their reports aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Mark

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hahahhahaha, if they wrote the numbers from demands then why aren't the numbers better under every president? Ole conspiracy angle huh?

 

[80zephyr]

You'll notice the article conveniently stops before Bush's deficits. We went from an $18 billion deficit under Clinton to a $1.9 trillion deficit under Bush.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2015

.....AND, the wars' cost were "off-budget".....