Lookin' For That Apology...

[NYcarbineer]

did you watch the video?







oh for god sakes stop the crap dude...if you don't want to discuss the issue of the rich getting less good s and services for their buck ad compared to the 'porr' just say so.





hey it aint mine, we were having a discussion, I posted it as a point. if you don't want to watch it don't.

I already stated my position that the rich benefit disproportionately from government spending. Since you rejected my position that constitutes an intellectual impasse and there isn't really anywhere else to go except into the usual does too! does not! does too! routine for a couple hundred posts. Is that what you want to do?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone notice that the more both sides 'compromised' on this Stimulus II bill,

the more expensive it got?

I agree , its turned into the usual piece of shit pork bill, the reps, you know the moderates, the ones the media told us the TP was trying cleanse from the party, Grassley, Nelson et al added the ethanol subsidies back in the bastards.

No. What really got added got added after the GOP rejected the fairly low cost, limited extension of the tax cuts that the Democrats passed last week.

This compromise is the most important point of this that is largely being ignored. Both parties once again took the easy footing, cut everybody's taxes and do some spending and add a trillion dollars to the deficit.

I watched the video you owe me 5 minutes and 15 seconds.

 

[Trajan]

I already stated my position that the rich benefit disproportionately from government spending. Since you rejected my position that constitutes an intellectual impasse and there isn't really anywhere else to go except into the usual does too! does not! does too! routine for a couple hundred posts. Is that what you want to do?

hey, what the hell are we here for? you got somewhere to go?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone notice that the more both sides 'compromised' on this Stimulus II bill,

the more expensive it got?

This may be the post of the year.

Because the compromises were to satisfy everyone that their pet constituencies would get their fair share of the money tree that was being chopped down,

somewhere in Szechuan province I think it was this time.

 

[NYcarbineer]

hey, what the hell are we here for? you got somewhere to go?

If I repped I'd rep you for that one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I support taxes being lowered.

Do you want me to repeat the question? I'll add another one. Are you really that much of a coward that you won't commit to a yea or nay answer on whether you support this bill or not?

Throw your little lefty tantrum. I don't give a damn what you think you deserve.

Your transparency at not wanting to commit to something you might have to eat in the future is rather glaring. You're not a politician; it won't kill you to take a stand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

First of all, this is not getting the government out of the way since every time the government goes deeper in debt it ties the fortunes, or misfortunes of the people ever more inextricably TO the government.

Interest on the debt is one of the biggest government spending programs we have. You phoney fiscal conservatives claim you don't like big government programs, but you support action after action that makes the government program of debt service bigger and bigger and bigger.

You phoney fiscal conservatives rant about the government 'raiding' Social Security, and yet this payroll tax holiday does exactly that...

...which should be the next sub-topic of conversation here. Why the **** are you people supporting reducing the payroll tax?

Watch your language.

1. "...this is not getting the government out of the way..."
Of course it is. By holding the line on taxes, cutting Social Security taxes on both workers and employers, along with a two year guarantee, the government gives more security to the business community.

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the reason that the Obama administration went with the deal is the implicit admission that lower taxes increases the possibility of less unemployment, and a better chance of his re-election.

You are implicitly conceding that the only way our economy can be sustained is for us to go deeper and deeper into debt.



You're equating this to Obamacare, and yet you're supporting it. That would be a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy. 'I'm supporting this because it's comparable to that Obamacare that I consider a disaster.' That is mildly insane.

You will find somewhere in this never-ending thread, my suggestions that the only way to ever, ever reduce the $13 trillion debt is to lower taxes, lower spending, decrease red tape and regulation, and honor initiative and innovation, i.e. business.

First of all, since history has all but proven beyond a reasonable doubt that neither party will cut spending, your 'program' is unworkable.'

Interest on the debt is one of the biggest government spending programs..."
Wrong.
Let's take this year's interest, as per Obama 2011 budget: $251 billion.
The budget is $3,575.94
Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Do the math.

The interest on the national debt was over 400 billion dollars in 2010.

Interest on the debt looks to be about 4th in size on that chart. You want to argue that fourth biggest doesn't qualify as one of biggest? You want to tell me I'm wrong again?

I'll take that deer in the headlights stunned silence as a no.

 

[Trajan]

Anyone notice that the more both sides 'compromised' on this Stimulus II bill,

the more expensive it got?

I agree , its turned into the usual piece of shit pork bill, the reps, you know the moderates, the ones the media told us the TP was trying cleanse from the party, Grassley, Nelson et al added the ethanol subsidies back in the bastards.

No. What really got added got added after the GOP rejected the fairly low cost, limited extension of the tax cuts that the Democrats passed last week.

This compromise is the most important point of this that is largely being ignored. Both parties once again took the easy footing, cut everybody's taxes and do some spending and add a trillion dollars to the deficit.

I watched the video you owe me 5 minutes and 15 seconds.

what? Oh so when Charlie Gibson asks obama why it is hes thinking of raising taxes because for instance lower capital gains are historically shown to raise revenue? that didn't interest you? and the obligatory obama answer- "because I am an ideologue and don't care, I want it to be fair"?

 

[daveman]

Do you want me to repeat the question? I'll add another one. Are you really that much of a coward that you won't commit to a yea or nay answer on whether you support this bill or not?

Throw your little lefty tantrum. I don't give a damn what you think you deserve.

Your transparency at not wanting to commit to something you might have to eat in the future is rather glaring. You're not a politician; it won't kill you to take a stand.

This is what identity politics brings people to: "How DARE you not act like I say you should?! Who are you to disagree with me? I'm a liberal, Gaea damn it!!"

I support cutting taxes. I'm glad this bill does that.

 

[daveman]

I'll take that deer in the headlights stunned silence as a no.

You lefties are funny when you think you scared somebody off the internet.

 

[Gadawg73]

I already stated my position that the rich benefit disproportionately from government spending. Since you rejected my position that constitutes an intellectual impasse and there isn't really anywhere else to go except into the usual does too! does not! does too! routine for a couple hundred posts. Is that what you want to do?

I benefited tremendously years ago because I was bigger, faster and more athletic than most other young men. I benefited "disproportionately" as a result of that. That didn't mean I was treated differently when tax time came.
If producers and the wealthy "benefit disproportionately from government spending" as you claim then explain how that is a negative impact on jobs creation, capital growth and expansion of the economy.
Obama clearly stated that "because that is what I believe is fair" in response to the statement of fact that when you lower capital gains taxes more capital comes to grow the economy and that when tax rates are lowered consumer spending increases.
If any party benefits in any way because of taxes staying low or the same that is never a bad thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I benefited tremendously years ago because I was bigger, faster and more athletic than most other young men. I benefited "disproportionately" as a result of that. That didn't mean I was treated differently when tax time came.
If producers and the wealthy "benefit disproportionately from government spending" as you claim then explain how that is a negative impact on jobs creation, capital growth and expansion of the economy.
Obama clearly stated that "because that is what I believe is fair" in response to the statement of fact that when you lower capital gains taxes more capital comes to grow the economy and that when tax rates are lowered consumer spending increases.
If any party benefits in any way because of taxes staying low or the same that is never a bad thing.

If you're a rich businessman employing a hundred people with college degrees who generate your profits and thus your wealth, it's unlikely that you paid for the education of any of them, but the government did in fact pay a very large portion of the education cost of almost every one of them. You receive the value of that education essentially for free when you hire that person, and if their productivity results in you becoming fantastically rich, the expectation that you give a little extra back is not unreasonable. That's just one example. We could get into infrastructure, too if you want.

 

[Trajan]

If you're a rich businessman employing a hundred people with college degrees who generate your profits and thus your wealth, it's unlikely that you paid for the education of any of them, but the government did in fact pay a very large portion of the education cost of almost every one of them. You receive the value of that education essentially for free when you hire that person, and if their productivity results in you becoming fantastically rich, the expectation that you give a little extra back is not unreasonable. That's just one example. We could get into infrastructure, too if you want.

uhm and if I employ a strong back I didn't donate the sperm to a worker whom as big legs and biceps or feed him as he was growing up either, sorry but your point is absurd....an employee is compensated as to his or her market worth..they can always like, you know, quit if they feel under-appreciated or remunerated.

oh and btw, it isn't fiscal cons who believe we should be paying for peoples college education....flip on the Beeb take a look at our future...


the rich already provide more than their fair share and don't realize the benefits nearly so much as those below them.....yup, back to square one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Watch your language.

1. "...this is not getting the government out of the way..."
Of course it is. By holding the line on taxes, cutting Social Security taxes on both workers and employers, along with a two year guarantee, the government gives more security to the business community.

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the reason that the Obama administration went with the deal is the implicit admission that lower taxes increases the possibility of less unemployment, and a better chance of his re-election.

You are implicitly conceding that the only way our economy can be sustained is for us to go deeper and deeper into debt.



You're equating this to Obamacare, and yet you're supporting it. That would be a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy. 'I'm supporting this because it's comparable to that Obamacare that I consider a disaster.' That is mildly insane.



First of all, since history has all but proven beyond a reasonable doubt that neither party will cut spending, your 'program' is unworkable.'

Interest on the debt is one of the biggest government spending programs..."
Wrong.
Let's take this year's interest, as per Obama 2011 budget: $251 billion.
The budget is $3,575.94
Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

Do the math.

The interest on the national debt was over 400 billion dollars in 2010.

Interest on the debt looks to be about 4th in size on that chart. You want to argue that fourth biggest doesn't qualify as one of biggest? You want to tell me I'm wrong again?

I'll take that deer in the headlights stunned silence as a no.

How about you click on the link that I provided and see the proposed interest payment requested by President Obama....argue with the WH>It is 7% of the total, $251 billion.

 

[Vast LWC]

uhm and if I employ a strong back I didn't donate the sperm to a worker whom as big legs and biceps or feed him as he was growing up either, sorry but your point is absurd....an employee is compensated as to his or her market worth..they can always like, you know, quit if they feel under-appreciated or remunerated.

oh and btw, it isn't fiscal cons who believe we should be paying for peoples college education....flip on the Beeb take a look at our future...


the rich already provide more than their fair share and don't realize the benefits nearly so much as those below them.....yup, back to square one.

Wow, way to take someone else's perfectly rational point and then just say the opposite is true, with no supporting argument. The "absurd" adjective really proves your point, doesn't it?

 

[Vast LWC]

How about you click on the link that I provided and see the proposed interest payment requested by President Obama....argue with the WH>It is 7% of the total, $251 billion.

Yeah, sorry carbineer, I'm going to have to go with PC here.

The chart you provided combines the US treasury budget with interest on the debt.

 

[Gadawg73]

If you're a rich businessman employing a hundred people with college degrees who generate your profits and thus your wealth, it's unlikely that you paid for the education of any of them, but the government did in fact pay a very large portion of the education cost of almost every one of them. You receive the value of that education essentially for free when you hire that person, and if their productivity results in you becoming fantastically rich, the expectation that you give a little extra back is not unreasonable. That's just one example. We could get into infrastructure, too if you want.

If I was a little faster, bigger and stronger I would be in the NFL Hall of Fame.
If is a big word and does not apply in the free market of capitalism and, most importantly:
INVESTMENT CAPITAL.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How about you click on the link that I provided and see the proposed interest payment requested by President Obama....argue with the WH>It is 7% of the total, $251 billion.

Yeah, sorry carbineer, I'm going to have to go with PC here.

The chart you provided combines the US treasury budget with interest on the debt.

Agree with her about what? That the interest on the national debt isn't one of the biggest spending programs in the U.S. budget?

According to wiki the 2009 budget for the U.S. treasury dept. was 19 billion. If it makes you happy, subtract that out and THEN tell me that the interest on the debt isn't STILL the 4th biggest item on that chart.

jeezus christ almighty!!!

United States Department of the Treasury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are implicitly conceding that the only way our economy can be sustained is for us to go deeper and deeper into debt.



You're equating this to Obamacare, and yet you're supporting it. That would be a 2 wrongs make a right fallacy. 'I'm supporting this because it's comparable to that Obamacare that I consider a disaster.' That is mildly insane.



First of all, since history has all but proven beyond a reasonable doubt that neither party will cut spending, your 'program' is unworkable.'




The interest on the national debt was over 400 billion dollars in 2010.

Interest on the debt looks to be about 4th in size on that chart. You want to argue that fourth biggest doesn't qualify as one of biggest? You want to tell me I'm wrong again?

I'll take that deer in the headlights stunned silence as a no.

How about you click on the link that I provided and see the proposed interest payment requested by President Obama....argue with the WH>It is 7% of the total, $251 billion.

Why don't tell me first why that would that would in any way refute my claim that the interest on the debt is one of the biggest spending programs in the federal budget?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'll take that deer in the headlights stunned silence as a no.

You lefties are funny when you think you scared somebody off the internet.

I've killed enough arguments in my time to know that's a common occurrence. Especially with wingnuts. You kick their ass in an argument and they run off or try to change the subject or simply lapse into a comical series of convulsive denials.