Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......
Then again how bout we don't.....
Don't be fooled Roz.
The reps are spending us into oblivion also, they are just doing it slower.
It's kinda like chosing between getting beaten to death with an iron pipe or a rubber hose.
One will kill you faster, but death will be the final out come.
I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.
The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.
Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.
Debunked by blogger Jay bookman? C'mon now Jay Bookman? Really?
That link contains no factual debunking, just opinions as to why Bookman believes Laffer's theory to be wrong.
Laffer's, um, THEORY?! What's the difference?
I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.
The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.
Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.
not that I enjoy defending Bush
Clinton did not have wars do deal with and he got to rid the tech bubble.
Not that Bush was a fiscal conservative by any stretch of my imagination.
Bush did not have to have two wars to deal with. Bush could have retaliated with some bombings and then been done with it. Bush chose to listen to Cheney and the other neocons and to enter the field of nation-building. Note: he chose, he made the choice. We didn't have to go in as an occupying force.
Immie
So, tell me, are you saying it is our responsibility to take care of and provide for the children of every illegal alien that gets across our borders? If so, why don't you just extend that to every child on earth?
I would have no child starve if I could get away with it, but it seems to me that you are saying these children are our responsibility. I'm more than willing to help, but they are not my responsibility.
Immie
I'm simply saying that, according to the Constitution, if a person is born here, he/she is a citizen of the United States. And that means even if it's a child of an illegal immigrant. Nowhere do I say that if said child goes off on his own, just because he's a citizen, the government is obligated to support him. That child would be treated the same as any other. He'll qualify for some government benefits and not others, depending on his situation, if he ever finds the need.
I must have mis-understood you. My interpretation of what you said was that if illegals brought their children across the border with them those children were our responsibility. Rather you are speaking of anchor babies. Different story and something that we as a nation need to decide upon. Under the Constitution as it stands now, those children are U.S. Citizens... the question is does that give the parents full citizenship rights?
My apologies
Immie
Do you also think a person is entitled to the fruits of his labors even though his actions were illegal?
Two separate issues. Children of illegal immigrants should not be punished for the illegal actions of their parents.
I also think that people who think it's "easy" for illegals to collect government welfare, don't know what they're talking about. First off, to even apply, they would be admitting they're not here legally, and all it would take is a quick phone call to ICE. That's why they stay in the shadows.
The law is the law you break it you are a criminal
I also think that people who think it's "easy" for illegals to collect government welfare, don't know what they're talking about.
I don't know about other states or cities but in Meckliburg county does give money to illegals.
Cover Story: Breaking law to punish lawbreakers? - WBTV 3 News, Weather, Sports, and Traffic for Charlotte, NC-The total cost of welfare, food stamps and Medicaid for suspected illegal immigrants in Mecklenburg county in July was 2-point-7 million dollars. About 3 and a half percent of the 77 million dollars in total payments. Not all of it county money.
Especially in a year.
I think Maggie's heart is in the right place on that, but I think she should do the math on it, because I simply don't see where she is getting her idea.
Immie
Because in the 90's, the budget was balanced (okay, we didn't have extra cash on hand, but money was moved around enough so that we were in the best financial position in decades), and it was balanced by raising taxes, cutting discretionary spending, scaling back Reagan's HUGE increase in defense spending to where it was before it was increased, and living by an established pay-go rule.
I don't see why it can't be done again. But I'll tell you how it won't happen, and that's if the powers that be continue to shove wedges into sane propositions offered by both sides before they can even iron out an agreement. Every time a big issue is tackled, everybody and his brother has to get his/her face on television and ask a bunch of obscure questions or make some ridiculous statements, which get taken back to the table for "discussion." The lawmakers need to shut out the noise and get down to business.
Yeah? But raising taxes only 2 points and cutting spending only 5%?
Do you really think that is enough? Hell, that should be frigging easy!
Easy unless you are a politician that is.
Immie
I can't speak for Republicans since I'm not one, but YES to a certain degree Conservatives do "hate" a large number of those groups; for one simple reason.... they are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, thereby forcing us (and society in general) to help take care of them.
Why don't we just let the Libs spend us into oblivion......
Then again how bout we don't.....
How we going to stop them? It seems to me that it is pretty clear that the American electorate will not vote very many incumbents out of office and unless we are willing to do so, we gain nothing. The American electorate won't make them accountable for their actions so we get no where.
Immie
On the contrary, tax cuts are very popular and so is most of the spending. Anyone to suggest - Or enact - doing away with either, loses. That's where most of the problem is coming from.
The tea party rallies dont really relate to the congress' inability to debate this issue without the B.S. liberal lines such as "republicans want seniors eating dog food" "Republicans will raise the national deficit by cutting spending more than they would if they dont cut spending"
Congress debating vs Union/Tea Party Protesting are apples and oranges.
I don't know which "congressperson" made the dog food comment, but I have heard the rationale that if certain programs are cut, that will result in more unemployment and more people collecting "welfare" anyway. There is some rationale to that, although I haven't seen any examples of what programs they're talking about.
I was merely pointing out the absurdity of how one-liners can capture an audience and dominate a debate. I'm not playing favorites with who does it, but you must admit the protesters at the tea party rallies were pros, as were the anti-war protesters when Bush was president.
Honestly the tea party protestors were not pros. Not by a long shot. I know from experience. I had only been to 2 other ones in my life prior and both were after bush signed the first 700b bailout but prior to my first tax day tea party rally in 08. My liberal family was there with me at the first one in hyannis, it wasn't about politics for any of us that first time it was just about us all being pissed off about the bailouts and corporate welfare and we were hoping it would stop obama from continuing down the road.
How we going to stop them? It seems to me that it is pretty clear that the American electorate will not vote very many incumbents out of office and unless we are willing to do so, we gain nothing. The American electorate won't make them accountable for their actions so we get no where.
Immie
On the contrary, tax cuts are very popular and so is most of the spending. Anyone to suggest - Or enact - doing away with either, loses. That's where most of the problem is coming from.
Exactly!! Americans in general want their cake and eat it too. This is the most recent Gallup poll on where Americans want spending cuts, and other polls show similar results:
Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense
It's like "the government" to some is an intangible facility unto its own, where there's a White House, a Rose Garden, and a Money Garden, and what they do there shouldn't affect Mr. and Mrs. US Citizen living on Main Street in East Podunk.
I know plenty of americans willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
I'd give up all my payments into social security right now and accept never seeing a dime of that forced investment back if it meant helping reduce and eliminate our national debt.
I'd even pay more in taxes if those taxes were guaranteed to go toward the national debt and nothing else.
Because in the 90's, the budget was balanced (okay, we didn't have extra cash on hand, but money was moved around enough so that we were in the best financial position in decades), and it was balanced by raising taxes, cutting discretionary spending, scaling back Reagan's HUGE increase in defense spending to where it was before it was increased, and living by an established pay-go rule.
I don't see why it can't be done again. But I'll tell you how it won't happen, and that's if the powers that be continue to shove wedges into sane propositions offered by both sides before they can even iron out an agreement. Every time a big issue is tackled, everybody and his brother has to get his/her face on television and ask a bunch of obscure questions or make some ridiculous statements, which get taken back to the table for "discussion." The lawmakers need to shut out the noise and get down to business.
Yeah? But raising taxes only 2 points and cutting spending only 5%?
Do you really think that is enough? Hell, that should be frigging easy!
Easy unless you are a politician that is.
Immie
It is too easy. It would be a one-page bill, and we can't have that.
I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.
The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.
Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.
not that I enjoy defending Bush
Clinton did not have wars do deal with and he got to rid the tech bubble.
Not that Bush was a fiscal conservative by any stretch of my imagination.
Bush did not have to have two wars to deal with. Bush could have retaliated with some bombings and then been done with it. Bush chose to listen to Cheney and the other neocons and to enter the field of nation-building. Note: he chose, he made the choice. We didn't have to go in as an occupying force.
Immie
Don't be fooled Roz.
The reps are spending us into oblivion also, they are just doing it slower.
It's kinda like chosing between getting beaten to death with an iron pipe or a rubber hose.
One will kill you faster, but death will be the final out come.
I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.
The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.
Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.
not that I enjoy defending Bush
Clinton did not have wars do deal with and he got to rid the tech bubble.
Not that Bush was a fiscal conservative by any stretch of my imagination.
I know plenty of americans willing to sacrifice for the greater good.
I'd give up all my payments into social security right now and accept never seeing a dime of that forced investment back if it meant helping reduce and eliminate our national debt.
I'd even pay more in taxes if those taxes were guaranteed to go toward the national debt and nothing else.
Typical liberal scheme. Well intentioned, poorly conceived. Your money would do more for the economy invested rather then given to government. That's the fact.
Because in the 90's, the budget was balanced (okay, we didn't have extra cash on hand, but money was moved around enough so that we were in the best financial position in decades), and it was balanced by raising taxes, cutting discretionary spending, scaling back Reagan's HUGE increase in defense spending to where it was before it was increased, and living by an established pay-go rule.
I don't see why it can't be done again. But I'll tell you how it won't happen, and that's if the powers that be continue to shove wedges into sane propositions offered by both sides before they can even iron out an agreement. Every time a big issue is tackled, everybody and his brother has to get his/her face on television and ask a bunch of obscure questions or make some ridiculous statements, which get taken back to the table for "discussion." The lawmakers need to shut out the noise and get down to business.
Yeah? But raising taxes only 2 points and cutting spending only 5%?
Do you really think that is enough? Hell, that should be frigging easy!
Easy unless you are a politician that is.
Immie
It is too easy. It would be a one-page bill, and we can't have that.
I don't even agree with this. I was told on the 2000 campaign trail that Bush was way more fiscally conservative than Clinton, he turned out to be twice as liberal as Clinton.
The same will happen in 2016, I'm confident a republican will be elected as prez, and when that happens you'll find out he's even more fiscally liberal than Obama is.
Makes no difference in party, they're both on par in terms of being low, nasty, disgusting sewage.
not that I enjoy defending Bush
Clinton did not have wars do deal with and he got to rid the tech bubble.
Not that Bush was a fiscal conservative by any stretch of my imagination.
I hate hearing this excuse.
Then why did his welfare/social security budgets increase and pork barrel spending increase every single year of his presidency? 6 of those years he had a republican congress.
There's zero excuse, zero defense for it.
The only explanation is that fiscal conservatism and small government are no longer principles of the republican party.
But don't you think that would take all the fun out of a site like this?
Immie
NO!! Just once, I'd like to enter a forum where all The Stupids from both "sides" are playing somewhere else.
Oh? So now you too are telling me to STFU! Or actually GTFO (Get the F! Out).
Sheesh!!! I can't win for losing.
Immie
I remember learning about that at college, the Laffer curve.
Laffer curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <-------why do so many on one side of the issue ignore this?!?!?!?!
In theory. But why, then, when the tax rates were reduced, sustainable jobs weren't created? That, to me, was a major assist to the economic collapse. Businesses were not able to maintain themselves due to lack of working capital in tim
es of stress, so they had to lay people off. I call that the Laffmyassoff curve!!
But in reality we have the actual data in these charts from actual government data not from blog sites:
united states
iceland
