Lookin' For That Apology...

[NYcarbineer]

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"?

No, Gibson didn't. He cited a few post hoc fallacy examples of lower capital gains being following in time by higher revenues without any evidence of cause and effect.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So in your opinion the increasing gap between rich and poor in this country can be cited as a positive?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Adding a trillion dollars to the national debt at, say, 3% interest, creates an annual government 'spending program' of 30 billion dollars a year, to pay that interest.

 

[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.

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.

I'm sure that's happened in your mind many times.

 

[Trajan]

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"?

No, Gibson didn't. He cited a few post hoc fallacy examples of lower capital gains being following in time by higher revenues without any evidence of cause and effect.

I see. well first you seem to have missed a number of points this post and vid contain, and was supposed to make- this is because we are so far removed from the point where I initially posted it, the surrounding conversation would have added the necessary filler and reminders of what was going back on forth at that point.

Anyway, points….hummm, first- that its very interesting to me Gibson certainly believes it to the point he'd make it the basis of a question to the lefty fav. in a nationally televised debate , ahhh hes such a far right whackaloon old Charlie eh? ( oh and I don’t believe that you read the brookings chart correctly, you read it the way YOU wanted to read it, cherry picked etc …I think charley got it though) ,second- obama's answer . Apparently caught flat footed was in short, its a matter of “fairness”, so what does that tell you? You realize how corrupt an answer that is? In the face of Charlie’s question, Obamas answer, I would think you’d take a minute to really ponder that while you argue with others over fiscal sanity.

 

[Trajan]

So in your opinion the increasing gap between rich and poor in this country can be cited as a positive?

you see, this is why I would like to approach this systemically....you are already jumping ahead and are throwing darts all over the place ......

so; do you beleive that equal opportunity should result in equal outcome?

 

[NYcarbineer]

you see, this is why I would like to approach this systemically....you are already jumping ahead and are throwing darts all over the place ......

so; do you beleive that equal opportunity should result in equal outcome?

Of course not. Do you believe the bigger the gap between the rich and poor, the better the condition of the nation?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I'm sure that's happened in your mind many times.

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Way back when, before the election of '08, what were those of us on the right telling you guys?

We told you that the press wasn't vetting this articulate senator...

we told you you were unaware of his politics, that you were pickin,' with due respect to the President, 'a pig in a poke'...

we even suggested the dire possibilities...

did you listen? Nooooooooooo!

Then, finally, after the election, Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw admit they don't know who he is....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw


Now, the Democratic Party itself is saying the same things"

"But many other Democrats, including Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.), a member of the defense appropriations subcommittee, said they didn’t even know the provision was included.

Moran’s anger with the president boiled over in a short interview Thursday with The Hill about the provision and the tax debate held shortly after the Democratic Caucus voted to reject Obama’s tax-cut deal.

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.”

Dems show signs of abandoning Obama elsewhere after frustration with tax deal - TheHill.com

Democrats were too busy dancing to the beat of "hope and change" to pay attention to details .. however, the alternate (McCain) was a disgusting and comedic choice .. and Hillary Clinton is the same corporatist warmonger that Obama is.

Additionally, after George Bush, even republicans were running away from republicans.

The problem isn't those who didn't know Obama, the problem is the failed duopoly of the two-party system.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay I've read the OP and read or skimmed over most of the thread--I have not read every single post--but two things strike me as significant right off the bat.

1. We don't know much, if anything, about President Barack Hussein's world view other than the radical one-world-government Marxist types with which he surrounds himself. The lack of media (or his base's) curiosity about that is pretty remarkable.

2. Brokaw made one comment that sort of slid right on past but which I thought significant. That was the comment about the young and inexperienced 'bloggers' who travel with the President and also demonstrate a remarkable lack of curiosity about the big picture re much of anything. Instead they are always lurking looking for that 'gotcha' moment that they can then blog/report/broadcast and pretend that it is important to the exclusion of everything else.

Sounds a lot like some folks on message boards doesn't it?

 

[daveman]

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.

I'm sure that's happened in your mind many times.

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

Yeah, except for the part where she didn't do any of that, sure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I'm sure that's happened in your mind many times.

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

Time to give you the spanking that you have been begging for...

1. The interest payment is, as I have documented, $251 billion.

2. Based on the budget for 2011, this is 7%.

3. Clearly your GED diploma didn't cover reading/understanding graphs, as your link/graph did not specify debt interest, merely the allocation of the Treasury Dept that included interest on the debt.

This is the part where you should humbly apologize.

4. You force me to do the work that you should have done to document the point that you thought you were making...
"...interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs."

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 (20%)

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251 (7%)

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94

So, in conclusion, there are five far larger elements in the budget, you are both incorrect and a pompous oaf.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure that's happened in your mind many times.

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

Time to give you the spanking that you have been begging for...

1. The interest payment is, as I have documented, $251 billion.

2. Based on the budget for 2011, this is 7%.

3. Clearly your GED diploma didn't cover reading/understanding graphs, as your link/graph did not specify debt interest, merely the allocation of the Treasury Dept that included interest on the debt.

This is the part where you should humbly apologize.

4. You force me to do the work that you should have done to document the point that you thought you were making...
"...interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs."

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 (20%)

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251 (7%)

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94

So, in conclusion, there are five far larger elements in the budget, you are both incorrect and a pompous oaf.

Do you know what the phrase 'one of the biggest' means? And your stupid post doesn't list all programs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure that's happened in your mind many times.

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

Yeah, except for the part where she didn't do any of that, sure.

What? She just did it again. She said I was incorrect. She is saying I'm incorrect in claiming that interest on the debt is one of government's biggest spending programs.

You're claiming she's not saying that. What is wrong with you? Are you hoping for a little? Trust me she doesn't look like her avatar. They never do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

2010 $413,954,825,362.17
2009 $383,071,060,815.42
2008 $451,154,049,950.63
2007 $429,977,998,108.20
2006 $405,872,109,315.83
2005 $352,350,252,507.90
2004 $321,566,323,971.29
2003 $318,148,529,151.51
2002 $332,536,958,599.42
2001 $359,507,635,242.41
2000 $361,997,734,302.36
1999 $353,511,471,722.87
1998 $363,823,722,920.26
1997 $355,795,834,214.66
1996 $343,955,076,695.15
1995 $332,413,555,030.62
1994 $296,277,764,246.26
1993 $292,502,219,484.25
1992 $292,361,073,070.74
1991 $286,021,921,181.04
1990 $264,852,544,615.90
1989 $240,863,231,535.71
1988 $214,145,028,847.73

there's your interest on the debt program for the last 22 years. Who besides PC and daveman do NOT think that is one of the government's biggest spending programs?

Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm sure that's happened in your mind many times.

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

Time to give you the spanking that you have been begging for...

1. The interest payment is, as I have documented, $251 billion.

2. Based on the budget for 2011, this is 7%.

3. Clearly your GED diploma didn't cover reading/understanding graphs, as your link/graph did not specify debt interest, merely the allocation of the Treasury Dept that included interest on the debt.

This is the part where you should humbly apologize.

4. You force me to do the work that you should have done to document the point that you thought you were making...
"...interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs."

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 (20%)

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251 (7%)

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94

So, in conclusion, there are five far larger elements in the budget, you are both incorrect and a pompous oaf.

There are about 35 programs lumped into #3, from your own link, not one of which is bigger than the interest on the national debt.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course not. Do you believe the bigger the gap between the rich and poor, the better the condition of the nation?

See, no answer. I should have stuck with not answering your stupid question since I'm not getting the same courtesy, big surprise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

Time to give you the spanking that you have been begging for...

1. The interest payment is, as I have documented, $251 billion.

2. Based on the budget for 2011, this is 7%.

3. Clearly your GED diploma didn't cover reading/understanding graphs, as your link/graph did not specify debt interest, merely the allocation of the Treasury Dept that included interest on the debt.

This is the part where you should humbly apologize.

4. You force me to do the work that you should have done to document the point that you thought you were making...
"...interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs."

Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 (20%)

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251 (7%)

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94

So, in conclusion, there are five far larger elements in the budget, you are both incorrect and a pompous oaf.

Do you know what the phrase 'one of the biggest' means? And your stupid post doesn't list all programs.

It is not my post that is stupid....

1. Your feeble attempt to hide behind the phrase 'ONE of the biggest' is well past your usual infantile mode, and had gravitated to the dishonest...

2. Since I have documented- more than once- that the figure represents a mere 7% of the budget, it is cowardly and fraudulent to attempt to claim 'see- that's what I meant.." and think that will relieve you of admitting error, and begging pardon.

But- what one has come to expect from your side.

3. Some day, you will reach high school, which, for most folks is a four year period- although, I admit, for you it may take several times that to accomplish, and by your specious argument that four year period would be 'one of the longest periods of ones life.'

Actually, based on your ability- it probably would be 'one of the longest periods of [your] life.'


I can almost believe that you invented stupidity- rather than just perfected it.

 

[daveman]

It's happened right here unless of course you think you can support PC's argument that the interest on the national debt is NOT one of our government's biggest spending programs.

Yeah, except for the part where she didn't do any of that, sure.

What? She just did it again. She said I was incorrect. She is saying I'm incorrect in claiming that interest on the debt is one of government's biggest spending programs.

You're claiming she's not saying that. What is wrong with you? Are you hoping for a little? Trust me she doesn't look like her avatar. They never do.

Yay! Another Carby tantrum!

Nevertheless, you said: "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."

She hasn't done any of that. Idiot.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, except for the part where she didn't do any of that, sure.

What? She just did it again. She said I was incorrect. She is saying I'm incorrect in claiming that interest on the debt is one of government's biggest spending programs.

You're claiming she's not saying that. What is wrong with you? Are you hoping for a little? Trust me she doesn't look like her avatar. They never do.

Yay! Another Carby tantrum!

Nevertheless, you said: "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."

She hasn't done any of that. Idiot.

You're full of shit. She's comically denying this right now. And btw, do you or do you not believe that interest on the debt is one of the government's biggest spending programs. How about it?