View Full Version : Debt Ceiling Raised
So, we are raising the debt ceiling with this new "bill" being passed. Without spewing my own partisan feelings (because this bill really isn't):
We pass spend-u-lous and create trillions in debt
We scare the American people into supporting our increase to the debt ceiling
We now give permission to gut the military to pay for our out of control spending
We now give permission to raise taxes as needed to pay for this debt
We now give permission to SPEND EVEN MORE that we don't have
Seriously, are we ever really going to stop the bleeding? How long until the dollar is as worthless as the Zimbabwe currency? In effect this whole debt ceiling deal has allowed our awesome politicians to just spend more and more (and more, and more, and more) with no real debt reduction nor a balanced budget requirement.
I'm a dyed in the wool conservative (not republican mind you) and I can say that regardless of party affiliation, I'm so sick of our irresponsible politicians that I'm nearly ready to join a rebellion!
Arghhhh! Rant over :).
Inconel710
08-02-2011, 11:56
Patience my friend. If 2012 goes as well for conservatives as 2010 did, you will see some real change!
blacklabel
08-02-2011, 12:11
Patience my friend. If 2012 goes as well for conservatives as 2010 did, you will see some real change!
Are you sure of that? I haven't seen much difference between either party concerning their ability/desire to get us out of the fiscal hole we're in and not make it deeper. I don't have faith in either side to fix this.
Are you sure of that? I haven't seen much difference between either party concerning their ability/desire to get us out of the fiscal hole we're in and not make it deeper. I don't have faith in either side to fix this.
I'm right with you. Neither party is going to compromise, neither party is going to actually stop the spending, and hate to say it, but we're spiraling out of control to the point where we may just see a revolution within our life time. Who knows, maybe it would be for the best.
we are doomed, until 12/21/2012 LOL
Zundfolge
08-02-2011, 13:42
Patience my friend. If 2012 goes as well for conservatives as 2010 did, you will see some real change!
And if it doesn't than America is truly dead ... so stock up on ammo and MREs because shit's gonna get nasty.
(note that Republican doesn't automatically mean conservative)
CMP_5.56
08-02-2011, 14:24
Our current administration has been focused on driving our nation in bankruptcy, creating new crises to terrify the public with to push gun control, and really just pushing for the "change" that was promised in the campaigns. Well too bad nobody knew that when they meant change, they meant destroying everything this country once stood for. That is their entire plan, break this government so they can establish a new one.
Tin foil hat removed, rant over.
And I cant even get my limit raised on my credit card!![Bang]
Patience my friend. If 2012 goes as well for conservatives as 2010 did, you will see some real change!
What a return to the 6 years Bush had all GOP everything and spending exploded?[Luck]
CrufflerSteve
08-02-2011, 15:04
What a return to the 6 years Bush had all GOP everything and spending exploded?[Luck]
One positive thing I've seen in the Tea Party people is a willingness to put everything on the table for cuts. Republicans talk about cutting spending but it turns out they are only for cutting things they don't like and symbolic cuts like grants for nutjob artists. What's wrong with gutting some of the military? Do we need bases in Germany and more nuke subs? I think every branch of government should be looked at under a microscope.
Steve
hollohas
08-02-2011, 15:39
What a return to the 6 years Bush had all GOP everything and spending exploded?[Luck]
You're killing me nynco.
If you notice Inconel mentioned 2010...which has nothing to do with Bush or his 6 years with all GOP, it has to do with the different type of conservatives that were elected to office at that time. "Conservative" doesn't automatically mean the GOP.
Typical bullshit bringing up Bush anytime people are talking about how bad the current administration is. You didn't even get this one in the right context just jumped right to the bias.
I'm sure you won't find many people here that think Bush did a good job NOT spending. I have news for you, just because Washington spent to much under Bush doesn't mean the current administration has a free pass to continue fucking up. They are doing a shitty job.
hollohas
08-02-2011, 15:40
...just pushing for the "change" that was promised in the campaigns. Well too bad nobody knew that when they meant change, they meant destroying everything this country once stood for. That is their entire plan, break this government so they can establish a new one.
I hated the word "Change" from day one. It has always thrown up red flags to me. What we really need to do is "Restore" our country, not change it.
I'm sure you won't find many people here that think Bush did a good job NOT spending. I have news for you, just because Washington spent to much under Bush doesn't mean the current administration has a free pass to continue fucking up. They are doing a shitty job.
This. Bush was not a great president, I believe he was a good man who had his principals but played to those way too hard. I think after having NOT had congress for so long, the republicans came in and pushed through everything they wanted for the past 12 years.
BUT, lest we forget that Obama spent more in his first six months in office than the idiot congress before him did in their entire term, or that the straw that broke the camels back was the Clinton LEFT controlled congress and the republicans just heaped more crap on the pile.
So, I am blaming both parties equally for the financial mess we are in, but I think the spend-u-lous bill was idiotic when we were in a recession and the conspiracy side of me thinks that in some strange way that Obama really hates America as much as his wife does and wants it to fall and that is why he has done much of what he's done. I'm a kook for thinking that, but deep down inside I sort of believe it - and frankly I'm a rational non-conspiracy type of guy.
Would I want another term of Bush? No way Jose! But would I take it over another of Obama? In a heartbeat!
I hated the word "Change" from day one. It has always thrown up red flags to me. What we really need to do is "REBOOT" our country, not change it.
Changed. We need to hit the reset button and get back to what made this country so great in the first place - not promises of easy money and slick litigation but rather an industrial powerhouse that brought the world kicking and screaming into the 19th & 20th centuries.
This. Bush was not a great president, I believe he was a good man who had his principals but played to those way too hard. I think after having NOT had congress for so long, the republicans came in and pushed through everything they wanted for the past 12 years.
BUT, lest we forget that Obama spent more in his first six months in office than the idiot congress before him did in their entire term, or that the straw that broke the camels back was the Clinton LEFT controlled congress and the republicans just heaped more crap on the pile.
So, I am blaming both parties equally for the financial mess we are in, but I think the spend-u-lous bill was idiotic when we were in a recession and the conspiracy side of me thinks that in some strange way that Obama really hates America as much as his wife does and wants it to fall and that is why he has done much of what he's done. I'm a kook for thinking that, but deep down inside I sort of believe it - and frankly I'm a rational non-conspiracy type of guy.
Would I want another term of Bush? No way Jose! But would I take it over another of Obama? In a heartbeat!
I would have to agree 1000% on this. Are both parties responsible? Hell yes. And I even would go as far as believing that Obama hates this country as much as his stupid c-word wife. And Ranger, like you, I think conspiracy nuts are that- NUTS! But if I smell fish, I can guess what's for dinner... and what Obama is cooking up sure smells like national failure.
This will especially be true if we have to endure 4 more years of that re-re:
http://www.shipmentoffail.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/failboat.jpg
hollohas
08-02-2011, 15:55
Changed. We need to hit the reset button and get back to what made this country so great in the first place - not promises of easy money and slick litigation but rather an industrial powerhouse that brought the world kicking and screaming into the 19th & 20th centuries.
Yeah, "reboot" fits our computer generation better too...
Yeah, "reboot" fits our computer generation better too...
Yea, the one that the industrial powerhouse of the United States brought to the world through our aggressive defense and space programs. I used that term intentionally :).
My response to anyone that throws up Bush when it comes to spending and Obama: Carter again? Double digit unemployment, mortgage rates, prime rate.
The point I was trying to make is the GOP had all branches of Gov for over 6 years. They broke the bank.... what makes you think they won't do the same again?
The point I was trying to make is the GOP had all branches of Gov for over 6 years. They broke the bank.... what makes you think they won't do the same again?
Oh, I have equal confidence that the libs will do much better at it - and not because I'm against them but because they have to spend the money on their social programs, the very thing that is killing us right now. I'm not naive, I know BOTH parties (and everyone in between) loves to spend the taxpayers dollars, but lets just agree that everyone is at fault here (the libs just a little more [ROFL1])
Zundfolge
08-02-2011, 16:23
The point I was trying to make is the GOP had all branches of Gov for over 6 years. They broke the bank.... what makes you think they won't do the same again?
I don't buy the premise.
The bank was broken after Reid and Pelosi took over (actually the bank was broken by Frank & Dodd on purpose to make sure Obama won).
Bush was clearly not a great president, nor was he a rock ribbed conservative, but when it comes to spending Obama makes Bush look like a piker.
It isn't just Obama; it wasn't just Bush; it wasn't just Clinton - etc...
The gutting of the Tenth Amendment by the Lincoln administration laid the ground for the destruction of all Constitutional limitations on government. Major 'progress' was made in this destruction by such events as the Spanish-American War (which we entered based upon a fabrication and which established the new American empire), the illegal delegation of Congress' duty to "...coin money and regulate the value thereof." to a private banking cartel called the Federal Reserve (which removed the link between direct taxation and spending through the creation of a fiat currency), World War One (our participation again based on fraud), the 'New Deal' (Roosevelt's response to the depression caused by the Federal Reserve's currency expansion and contraction, which created the welfare state) and the post-World War Two establishment of the massive security state as an overlay upon the welfare state.
Thus, before most of us were born, the Republic created by the Founders had already been destroyed. The recent acceleration in the growth of tyranny in the former 'land of the free' has been permitted by the completion of the public 'education' system's conditioning process. We must keep in mind that our system was modeled after the Prussian one - designed to transform a classical liberal* society into an authoritarian one.
It would appear to be our duty to our children and grandchildren to recreate the free society promised in our Declaration of Independence. Should we fail, Liberty itself will be but a distant memory, rapidly erased by the officially sanctioned 'historians' of the coming 'brave new world'.
*(think Thomas Jefferson instead of Teddy Kennedy)
Milt, that was a very smart response. I don't agree with your assertions 100% but your history is certainly based in fact. I do, however, agree that problems started long before Clinton.
hollohas
08-02-2011, 16:47
The point I was trying to make is the GOP had all branches of Gov for over 6 years. They broke the bank.... what makes you think they won't do the same again?
My point was the GOP in 2012 wasn't mentioned by Inconel710. You brought that up when quoting Inconel assuming he meant a return to GOP. With his reference to the 2010 election I think Inconel was pointing to the different type of conservatives that won that year. Many were Tea Party types not supported by the GOP. Conservative doesn't mean tired old Republican.
Stop thinking in terms of Dem and Rep, there are now more options...
Ok I see your point now Hollahos
One way or the other we are getting to the end of the 'awkward stage'.
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards. Claire Wolfe
The next election will determine if the system can be used to turn things around or push us over the edge to shooting. I personally don't have much, if any, confidence in the system any more.
Keep your powder dry.
hollohas
08-02-2011, 16:52
...actually the bank was broken by Frank...
Bingo.
I have seen video of Frank saying "nothing is wrong with Freddie and Fannie" after being tasked with investigating them sometime around 2005 or something...
Small piece of the pie but that dipshit is responsible for a lot of this stuff happening on his watch.
Sand, I hate to admit it, but I feel the same way. I've felt we are on the verge of civil war for a while now and that the chasm is getting greater and greater when it comes to left vs right, black vs white, religious vs non and so on. I'm not preparing for a terrorist act or the all elusive EMP, I'm preparing for what I believe is inevitable, and that's armed conflict. As our founding fathers said "when this system fails to work, scrap it an start over" (paraphrased for modern times).
So who you guys going to fight......... because the ones who pay for your politics are the ones offshoring your jobs to china
It isn't just Obama; it wasn't just Bush; it wasn't just Clinton - etc...
The gutting of the Tenth Amendment by the Lincoln administration laid the ground for the destruction of all Constitutional limitations on government. Major 'progress' was made in this destruction by such events as the Spanish-American War (which we entered based upon a fabrication and which established the new American empire), the illegal delegation of Congress' duty to "...coin money and regulate the value thereof." to a private banking cartel called the Federal Reserve (which removed the link between direct taxation and spending through the creation of a fiat currency), World War One (our participation again based on fraud), the 'New Deal' (Roosevelt's response to the depression caused by the Federal Reserve's currency expansion and contraction, which created the welfare state) and the post-World War Two establishment of the massive security state as an overlay upon the welfare state.
Thus, before most of us were born, the Republic created by the Founders had already been destroyed. The recent acceleration in the growth of tyranny in the former 'land of the free' has been permitted by the completion of the public 'education' system's conditioning process. We must keep in mind that our system was modeled after the Prussian one - designed to transform a classical liberal* society into an authoritarian one.
It would appear to be our duty to our children and grandchildren to recreate the free society promised in our Declaration of Independence. Should we fail, Liberty itself will be but a distant memory, rapidly erased by the officially sanctioned 'historians' of the coming 'brave new world'.
*(think Thomas Jefferson instead of Teddy Kennedy)
Not to say I disagree, but I sure hope that isn't the case. If it took that long to screw up the country, how long will it take to fix it?
It has been the last 30 years going off the track and will take at least that long to fix.
Drilldov2.0
08-02-2011, 19:08
Mack Penny Plan looks promising (along with a separate BBA, since the dims and nobama will table or veto any bill that requires them to account for their irresponsible spending)
But that would take a lot of strong leadership to get through, not to mention massive marketing to the public to circumvent the usual BS fear mongering and party rhetoric from them.
What we need is someone on Capital Hill who understands basic economics. This bill is horrible and will result in a lot of house cleaning come 2012.
American politicians have a credit card for which they are not personally responsible for the bill, regardless of how much that bill is. Anyone that has faith in their (either party) holding back needs to lay off the crack pipe.
68Charger
08-02-2011, 20:25
I don't know much about the deal they came up with, but it's pretty obvious Wall St. didn't like it much... Dow dropped about 2.2% today.
Good thing I shuffled a few things around in the 401(k), figured this wasn't going to end well... it can sit in the safer stuff until this & the crap at work blows over, trick is figuring out when to move it back.
[Beer]
we are doomed, until 12/21/2012 LOL
Thanx for bringing up the fact that I get to die on my birthday again,
I almost forgot about it.....:([Coffee]
It has been the last 30 years going off the track and will take at least that long to fix.
The last 30 years have been Reaganomics with no change. The Dems change it a little but for the most part its still voodoo economics and no tariffs.
Zundfolge
08-03-2011, 08:09
The last 30 years have been Reaganomics with no change. The Dems change it a little but for the most part its still voodoo economics and no tariffs.
If ONLY!
Supply Side economics (or "Reaganomics" or "voodoo economics" as you put it) has worked wonderfully every time its been tried.
When Harding did it we had a huge boom, when Coolidge did it, again huge boom, John Kennedy had the same results and Reagan created the greatest peacetime economic boom when he did it, Hell the only good thing US Grant did was push us back toward the supply side model which greatly helped during Reconstruction.
Its always you Keynesian/Marxist Democrats that come along and screw it up because you want government to have all the power, not the people. So you reverse Supply Side and replace it with more of Keynes pump priming BS not so that you help the economy but so you empower your god; government. You're like a bunch of religious fanatics that way.
You Keynesians need to realize that that kool-aid is laced with cyanide.
If ONLY!
Supply Side economics (or "Reaganomics" or "voodoo economics" as you put it) has worked wonderfully every time its been tried.
When Harding did it we had a huge boom, when Coolidge did it, again huge boom, John Kennedy had the same results and Reagan created the greatest peacetime economic boom when he did it, Hell the only good thing US Grant did was push us back toward the supply side model which greatly helped during Reconstruction.
Its always you Keynesian/Marxist Democrats that come along and screw it up because you want government to have all the power, not the people. So you reverse Supply Side and replace it with more of Keynes pump priming BS not so that you help the economy but so you empower your god; government. You're like a bunch of religious fanatics that way.
You Keynesians need to realize that that kool-aid is laced with cyanide.
Ahhhhhhhhhh. Blast of fresh air Zund.
Ahhhhhhhhhh. Blast of fresh air Zund.
I have to agree. If the Obama followers had their way everyone would drive a Prius and make the same wage. I say no thanks.
ghettodub
08-03-2011, 12:56
It has been the last 30 years going off the track and will take at least that long to fix.
agreed
n8tive97
08-03-2011, 13:02
The point I was trying to make is the GOP had all branches of Gov for over 6 years. They broke the bank.... what makes you think they won't do the same again?
Hey nynco.... RIFFLES FOR LIFE!
Hey nynco.... RIFFLES FOR LIFE!
Hey n8tive........ doesn't hurt me in the least. I am man enough to laugh at my small mistakes.... are you?
n8tive97
08-03-2011, 13:07
Hey n8tive........ doesn't hurt me in the least. I am man enough to laugh at my small mistakes.... are you?
I don't make mistakes nynco! I am RIGHT! [Beer]
I hated the word "Change" from day one. It has always thrown up red flags to me. What we really need to do is "Restore" our country, not change it.
Bama was just trying to "change" us into a socialist country, when that didn't work, he just said fuck it.
Inconel710
08-03-2011, 13:35
Thanks Hollohas - you were correct and I don't live on the internet to defend myself.
I brought up 2010 because of the fiscal conservatives that got elected, not the Republicans! If we can get more folks like Rand Paul and Paul Ryan elected, things will get much better
Like Zund pointed out, supply side economics works every time it's tried. Folks like nynco always seem to ignore the fact that when Reagan (and Bush II) lowered tax rates, tax revenue went up the following years. They poopoo ideas like the Laffer curve, which has been proven in practice as well. They think rich people are stupid and will keep giving up the money just cuz they say so! They never seem to realize that all they're doing is squeezing a balloon - everywhere they apply pressure causes the money to go somewhere else!
I challenge you to look at this graph of Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Tax_Receipts_as_a_Percentage_of_ GDP_1945%E2%80%932015.jpg) and then ponder this question - "Why is tax revenue as a % of GDP so constant despite top tax rates varying from 30% to 70%?"
You'll find the answer here: Hauser's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauser's_Law)
I don't make mistakes nynco! I am RIGHT! [Beer]
If I think I am correct, I will back up my claims. If I am wrong, I will admit it. I have admitted I am wrong on more than a few occasions here.
But hey.... demonize me if it makes your ego feel better.
n8tive97
08-03-2011, 13:44
Bama was just trying to "change" us into a socialist country, when that didn't work, he just said fuck it.
+1
I personally like our socialist - military, roads, FAA, fire depts, police depts, food safety inspections, product safety inspections, and many other things.
Whats the difference between Rome and the dark ages........ socialism.
n8tive97
08-03-2011, 13:55
If I think I am correct, I will back up my claims. If I am wrong, I will admit it. I have admitted I am wrong on more than a few occasions here.
But hey.... demonize me if it makes your ego feel better.
What? I'm not demonizing you! I don't need you to make my ego feel better? What the hell are you talking about?
Remember nynco, you called me a name (Riffle, note my new signature)! I have never called you anything, in fact I appreciate you! It's the truth. The more you vomit at the mouth about your cool aid drinking talking points, it just makes us conservatives feel more secure in the way we think the country should be run.
YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE THAT SO STOP TRYING!
Keep posting a rebuttal for every post here, it helps!
Here, let me give you another TRUE statement you can go on for 4 pages disagreeing with me about! "Nynco, the sky is blue"! There you go, have at it! [Beer]
I personally like our socialist - military, roads, FAA, fire depts, police depts, food safety inspections, product safety inspections, and many other things.
Whats the difference between Rome and the dark ages........ socialism.
Turns out, the Dark Ages weren't so dark, and as for the might and glory of Rome... Caligula [ROFL1]
Some government is necessary. Most government is luxury. All government is wasteful. Just my $.02
Zundfolge
08-03-2011, 14:05
I personally like our socialist - military, roads, FAA, fire depts, police depts, food safety inspections, product safety inspections, and many other things.
Whats the difference between Rome and the dark ages........ socialism.
Wow the idiocy here just shot into the stratosphere.
You do realize that it was higher and higher taxes (that were considerably lower than they are here and now) and other elements of socialism that killed the Roman empire and brought about the dark ages?
Everything you lefties want destroyed Rome. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html)
(yeah, I know, he's not going to read it ... at best he'll attack the source as some sort of "extreme uber super duper right wing cabal" without even looking at the footnotes ... assuming he knows what footnotes are, most of those lefty blogs he reads don't use 'em)
You also engage in typical leftist splitting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29).
SOME government is good therefore TOTAL government is good.
and
You Teabaggers want limited government therefore you want ANARCHY!
We can have military, fire, roads and reasonable safety regulations for 1/10th what we're paying for government now.
We don't need a cradle to grave nanny state ruling every aspect of our lives and robbing the productive to waste it on the non productive. THAT is the socialism you want, not reasonable and limited government.
Wow the idiocy here just shot into the stratosphere.
You do realize that it was higher and higher taxes (that were considerably lower than they are here and now) and other elements of socialism that killed the Roman empire and brought about the dark ages?
Everything you lefties want destroyed Rome. (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-7.html)
(yeah, I know, he's not going to read it ... at best he'll attack the source as some sort of "extreme uber super duper right wing cabal" without even looking at the footnotes ... assuming he knows what footnotes are, most of those lefty blogs he reads don't use 'em)
You also engage in typical leftist splitting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_%28psychology%29).
SOME government is good therefore TOTAL government is good.
and
You Teabaggers want limited government therefore you want ANARCHY!
We can have military, fire, roads and reasonable safety regulations for 1/10th what we're paying for government now.
We don't need a cradle to grave nanny state ruling every aspect of our lives and robbing the productive to waste it on the non productive. THAT is the socialism you want, not reasonable and limited government.
I will admit, I didn't read the entire article- but most of it, and holy shit! That is kinda what is happening here today... If we keep up this liberal nonsense seeping into every pore of America we will fall just the same as Rome. I believe in as little government as possible (while maintaining order), and let's downsize some of these programs that help people who aren't even legal citizens! But that would be inhuman to deny help to people who don't have legal right to be here, right? I think it says on the statue of Liberty "Give me your tired, your poor, and your hungry," not "Give me your lazy, stupid and stubborn" (with extreme reference to the influx of Mexican illegals that come here and 1) refuse to participate in our economy (send money back to family in Mex), 2) refuse to learn our language, 3) by no fault of their own, are undocumented and have no payroll taxes paid on their behalf or are paid small wages out of pocket by the company illegally hiring them). The margins are growing, we have too many out of work (more now after this FAA snafu), congress is really doing a bang up job /sarcasm, and we have slowly shrinking freedom day by day... what next? Will America go down the same road as Rome? /rant
Zundfolge
08-03-2011, 14:59
For those that don't want to read a long academic article, there's also a wonderful comic version of FA Hayek's The Road to Surfdom (http://mises.org/books/TRTS/). which goes a long way toward explaining why leftist policies are dangerous.
68Charger
08-03-2011, 15:05
YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE THAT SO STOP TRYING!
Keep TROLLING in every post here, it helps!
Here, let me give you another TRUE statement you can go on for 4 pages disagreeing with me about! "Nynco, the sky is blue"! There you go, have at it! [Beer]
Fixed for you...
mcantar18c
08-03-2011, 15:22
Just came across this little chart, figured this was the best place to stick it.
2nd one is just a detailed view of the last 2 decades on the first one.
http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/223901_2129534715998_1174860069_32172334_5935274_n .jpg
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/283426_2129536476042_1174860069_32172335_6286737_n .jpg
n8tive97
08-03-2011, 15:24
Fixed for you...
Thanks man..... [Beer]
UberTong
08-03-2011, 15:37
http://i1215.photobucket.com/albums/cc518/UberTong/TrollSpray.jpg
I really don't appreciate being called a troll. Just because you don't agree with me gives you no right. I am not going around this board calling any of you guys names.
Its rather childish in my opinion.
Just came across this little chart, figured this was the best place to stick it.
2nd one is just a detailed view of the last 2 decades on the first one.
http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/283426_2129536476042_1174860069_32172335_6286737_n .jpg
Quite telling isn't it? I'll have to dig deep to figure out who controlled the executive and legislative branches during those peaks and valleys.
hollohas
08-03-2011, 15:51
You make me pull my hair out sometimes nynco and I don't agree with you on most of what we have bantered about. But that being said, in all honesty you are participating in the discussions and giving many of us a challenge to strengthen our arguments on many topics. In order to debate opinions effectively those opinions periodically need to be challenged.
So here's to you nynco [Beer] for forcing me to have stronger arguments when debating liberals.
UberTong
08-03-2011, 15:52
I never called anyone a troll for the record. A 'troll' is not deemed a troll for one's opinion. A troll makes frequent, annoying and often times irrelevant posts.
Quite telling isn't it? I'll have to dig deep to figure out who controlled the executive and legislative branches during those peaks and valleys.
The longest period of spending cuts in that graph was Clinton. Bush exploded it after Clinton.
Zundfolge
08-03-2011, 15:56
I agree, nynco isn't a troll. I don't think he's just posting here to stir the shit (which is what trolls do)... I think he actually believes what he posts ... he's just wrong :p
The longest period of spending cuts in that graph was Clinton. Bush exploded it after Clinton.
Thing is, its the house and senate that spend the money ... the only reason there were spending cuts under Clinton is because Newt and the boys took over and ran rough shod over him, forcing him to do a lot of conservative stuff he wouldn't have done if he was in control.
As for Bush, yes he agreed to too much spending ... but the explosion under Bush happened after the Dems took over the house and senate ... and then the REAL explosion happened after Obama took the white house with the Dems in charge of the house and senate.
Spending under Reid, Pelosi and Obama has been significantly greater than ever before.
You make me pull my hair out sometimes nynco and I don't agree with you on most of what we have bantered about. But that being said, in all honesty you are participating in the discussions and giving many of us a challenge to strengthen our arguments on many topics. In order to debate opinions effectively those opinions periodically need to be challenged.
So here's to you nynco [Beer] for forcing me to have stronger arguments when debating liberals.
I think the more we as Americans talk to each other the better off this nation will be. Just preaching to choir or only surrounding yourself with like minded people can lead to bad ideas no matter what side or topic.
So cheers to taking the time to write that. I only hope others take your words to heart too. [Beer]
I really don't appreciate being called a troll. Just because you don't agree with me gives you no right. I am not going around this board calling any of you guys names.
Its rather childish in my opinion.
Troll (in internet jargon) is not "name calling" or trying to call you something mean (per se) like asshole or faggot...
Troll- A deliberately provocative message board user.
So yes, you sir are a troll... it's not meant to be an insult at you in the traditional sense, it just means that you tend to annoy people with your libtard bullshit. The childish part is that you're coming off as crying about it...
Quite telling isn't it? I'll have to dig deep to figure out who controlled the executive and legislative branches during those peaks and valleys.
Careful Ranger, you're going down a path that may lead to destruction... [ROFL2]
Darth Clinton approaches!
UberTong
08-03-2011, 16:34
Great examples of name calling Ronin, honestly got me to lol. [ROFL2]
it just means that you tend to annoy people with your libtard bullshit. The childish part is that you're coming off as crying about it..
I could say the same about the right wing conservatards too.[Beer]
But I try not to[Coffee]
KevDen2005
08-03-2011, 17:06
Are you sure of that? I haven't seen much difference between either party concerning their ability/desire to get us out of the fiscal hole we're in and not make it deeper. I don't have faith in either side to fix this.
Yeah, it seems that both sides are full of Sh!@
I could say the same about the right wing conservatards too.[Beer]
But I try not to[Coffee]
The exception is YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY US HERE! It's not like this is the Boulder Group of Phish fans forums, we're all like minded, (mostly) conservative leaning, right wing, gun and 2A loving people who all agree that liberals are dense and represent everything wrong with America. So yes, you trolling and then saying you could say we annoy you just makes you a hypocrite because you get mad when we jump down your throat for ideas contrary to ours. Now, if most of your arguments were based on 100% fact (like citing actual viable sources instead of far left-leaning op-ed) we might not be so harsh on you.
68Charger
08-04-2011, 10:26
Originally Posted by nynco
I really don't appreciate being called a troll. Just because you don't agree with me gives you no right. I am not going around this board calling any of you guys names.
Its rather childish in my opinion.
Troll (in internet jargon) is not "name calling" or trying to call you something mean (per se) like asshole or faggot...
Troll- A deliberately provocative message board user.
So yes, you sir are a troll... it's not meant to be an insult at you in the traditional sense, it just means that you tend to annoy people with your libtard bullshit. The childish part is that you're coming off as crying about it...I didn't see nynco's response until it was quoted- I wasn't name-calling, I was referring to the internet definition of "trolling" by posting inflammatory comments in order to get a reaction, frequently with the effect of derailing the original discussion. The very way nynco posts seems to be to provoke a response, not actually be a healthy discussion. (this is really noticeable when someone is on ignore.. you see a blocked post, then the whole thread goes somewhere else, but because of the blocked post, you're still looking for continuity where the thread WAS going before it)
As an example, my last post in this thread (in which nynco thought I was name calling) was trolling (I was a troll)... [Beer]
I'll try to restrain myself, but sometimes it simply leads to non-participation when I don't have the time or inclination to read thru 2 pages of arguing and bantering before I get the real point...
That aside, I'm firmly in the camp of "Democrat, Republican; same shit, different piles"
I have seen benefit from the TEA party movement (though not an actual party) in that it leads the right direction- but it will take a lot of work to undo the power grabs that have already taken place.
I also see the current trend of "Super committee" or "Super Congress" as disturbing attempts to strengthen the 2-party system, and not in a good way (notice how independents are NEVER represented in these schemes?) Perhaps it's a sign that they're afraid that the 2-party system may be unpopular, that they sense the American people are tired of the partisan rhetoric...
They don't want a discussion about what's best for the country, or the people, they're just out for ground they can gain against the other party.[Rant1]
My responses tend to get people riled up because I don't sing the same tune in the choir. I challenge the assumptions of many around here. I know I am in the minority. So naturally it is usually 100 to 1 against me. Its not my fault if 100 other people want to rebut me. For the most part, I am not the one derailing either. I just respond to what others have posted and use other things in life examples to prove my point.
If you all want to block me, its your choice. But its rather sad that you need to block someone so you don't have to have your feelings hurt from reading a differing view on some subjects.
Heck many times I agree with those who disagree with me. I don't block them because we don't always agree.
The exception is YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY US HERE! It's not like this is the Boulder Group of Phish fans forums, we're all like minded, (mostly) conservative leaning, right wing, gun and 2A loving people who all agree that liberals are dense and represent everything wrong with America. So yes, you trolling and then saying you could say we annoy you just makes you a hypocrite because you get mad when we jump down your throat for ideas contrary to ours. Now, if most of your arguments were based on 100% fact (like citing actual viable sources instead of far left-leaning op-ed) we might not be so harsh on you.
Just because a source comes from the left does not make the facts wrong. Shooting the messenger is not a viable argument. Besides how the heck do you want me to find a source to counter act a right wing argument and use only right wing sources? It nuts to think that is possible. So open up your mind a little and read from both sides.
Not everyone around here thinks liberals are dense and misrepresent everything. Thats you and many other projecting your hate for the other side. As to my feelings... what ever. I am more pointing out the childishness of many of you. You guys use those terms as way of trying to delegitimize or purposely disrespect me. I try to be respectful of those I disagree with. Why not try to do the same?
As to fish.... barf[ROFL1]
68Charger
08-04-2011, 11:25
My responses tend to get people riled up because I don't sing the same tune in the choir. I challenge the assumptions of many around here. I know I am in the minority. So naturally it is usually 100 to 1 against me. Its not my fault if 100 other people want to rebut me. For the most part, I am not the one derailing either. I just respond to what others have posted and use other things in life examples to prove my point.
I don't have a problem with opposing viewpoints- but I don't feel the need to go back and find examples where you posted something, and "felt" like you were just provoking a response- and it turned into something like this:
teMlv3ripSM
If you all want to block me, its your choice. But its rather sad that you need to block someone so you don't have to have your feelings hurt from reading a differing view on some subjects.
Heck many times I agree with those who disagree with me. I don't block them because we don't always agree.
my feelings aren't hurt, don't fool yourself to think that you have that kind of effect on me- I blocked you because I didn't have time to read all your hype that appeared to be just to provoke a reaction- at the very least, I don't have the time to draft a well-organized reply, so I choose to just skim threads that I have an interest in, and block your posts so I'm not sucked into spending time I don't have to spare...
Very busy time at work, and if this 'event' happens that I'm being trained for, I will virtually disappear for a while.
on that note, break's over- gotta get back to work.
Zundfolge
08-04-2011, 11:31
Just because a source comes from the left does not make the facts wrong.
More often than not the leftist source does have the facts wrong.
If you and others of your political persuasion didn't constantly attack FoxNews as "FauxNews" while posting links from MSNBC and the Huffington Post we might actually take some of you seriously.
I don't see that happening.
sneakerd
08-04-2011, 11:41
Fox Lies Fox Lies Fox Lies!!!!!!!!!![ROFL3]
sneakerd
08-04-2011, 11:42
Just kidding- I love Fox News, and occasionally tune into pms nbc to see what the enemy is saying.
Delfuego
08-04-2011, 11:46
the only reason there were spending cuts under Clinton is because Newt and the boys took over and ran rough shod over him,That is factually wrong.
Bush 1 implemented the changes that would negate the massive deficits created by Ronald Reagan (at his peril, as it was the reason he was not re-elected). Clinton merely allowed them to continue. Bush 2 inherited a budget surplus and proceeded to give it away, and finance 2 wars with no tax increases, or draft.
Just because a source comes from the left does not make the facts wrong. Shooting the messenger is not a viable argument. Besides how the heck do you want me to find a source to counter act a right wing argument and use only right wing sources? It nuts to think that is possible. So open up your mind a little and read from both sides.
Not everyone around here thinks liberals are dense and misrepresent everything. Thats you and many other projecting your hate for the other side. As to my feelings... what ever. I am more pointing out the childishness of many of you. You guys use those terms as way of trying to delegitimize or purposely disrespect me. I try to be respectful of those I disagree with. Why not try to do the same?
I'm not shooting the messenger, because you are not a messenger. You grab for information and post it here that makes you a presenter, and you use that information to represent your opinion. Well hate to tell you, but much like the graph you posted a few pages back, the bashing on Bush and Reagan (no let's not get into it, I'm just stating of past examples of your errors) are all based on false information gathered from extremely biased and non-factual sources- not saying Fox isn't biased, but at least they have fact based reporting, even if there is a lean on it. You can lean one way and still present facts. I'm not trying to disrespect you as a person, I'm questioning the validity of your arguments when you present opinion as fact and false information as foundation for your opinions. I would love to read from both sides, but my morals, ethics, views and opinions don't really allow me to give much credence to the views of the left... I'd like to keep my money, guns and freedom, those that support Obama and the Democratic party can keep the "Change."
So you admit you don't read from both sides then.
So you admit you don't read from both sides then.
I never said that, otherwise my comment stating:
I would love to read from both sides, but my morals, ethics, views and opinions don't really allow me to give much credence to the views of the left.
would be based on the fact that I don't know that the left's views are contrary to my own.... think! So usually it ends up being 2 paragraphs of a news story or 2 minutes of Anderson Cooper before I get frustrated to go back to watching Bill O'Reilly tearing down any argument the left has while on his show.
Thats the same thing as admitting you don't read the other side. You just said it all flowery.[Flower]
Thats the same thing as admitting you don't read the other side. You just said it all flowery.[Flower]
No... it's the same as I give it a chance, but their rantings and ravings about how evil the Republicans are just pushes me away... I said I try, at least I make it that far. Do you ever flip over to Fox news and at least give them a shot?
Sure I post fox news links here because thats all you guys will read.
Sure I post fox news links here because thats all you guys will read.
Nice generalization... let's take it a bit further like saying all Native Americans are alcoholics... [Bang]
Are you not admitting that you will rarely read liberal links no more than a few posts back. That is why I said I post the Foxnews ones. Because you admit you don't read the others.
Are you not admitting that you will rarely read liberal links no more than a few posts back. That is why I said I post the Foxnews ones. Because you admit you don't read the others.
Actually I'm not admitting that. I'm saying I give them a chance, read a bit, and if the stench of bias against the conservative viewpoint is too strong I stop and continue on... I rarely read through libtard opinions in full.
ghettodub
08-04-2011, 13:31
Sure I post fox news links here because thats all you guys will read.
we're not all repubs here, dude
Perhaps the shoe fits sometimes. It may hurt your feelings but sometimes the truth does. Does not mean you should not read it.
we're not all repubs here, dude
Agreed Ghetto...... but if I want to prove my point to someone I suspect will never read the other side, then I try to use their own media that will listen too.
mcantar18c
08-04-2011, 13:32
Nice generalization... let's take it a bit further like saying all Native Americans are alcoholics...
Sorry man, I couldn't help myself [Muaha]...
Karma huh? I'd love to see a group of [B]alcoholic casino owners try and claim payback for something that happened before my family even entered this country through legal channels that existed back then. [AR15]
ghettodub
08-04-2011, 13:38
Agreed Ghetto...... but if I want to prove my point to someone I suspect will never read the other side, then I try to use their own media that will listen too.
Making assumptions about your audience is bad practice, that's all I'm sayin...
Its not an assumption when they reply and tell me that they won't read it because its on a "Libtard" site.
ghettodub
08-04-2011, 13:43
Its not an assumption when they reply and tell me that they won't read it because its on a "Libtard" site.
You've done the same thing with other people in other threads on this board. Myself included, but whatever, I don't want to go back and forth about this.
But people do the same thing on the other side here too. I don't think everyone who is a dem is stupid, or for that matter, anyone who is different than me is stupid
Sorry man, I couldn't help myself [Muaha]...
Damn... okay, using my old statement against me. Good memory. My bad.
And as to nynco, well let's see here, how to put this without sounding like a complete asshole... READ! I think that conveys better than adding in profanity.
but if I want to prove my point to someone I suspect will never read the other side, then I try to use their own media that will listen too.
I already said I try to read the other side... maybe you need an optometrist. And as for your quote:
It may hurt your feelings but sometimes the truth does. Does not mean you should not read it.
You RARELY POST THE TRUTH! We've dismantled some of your "findings" you've posted on here, we've revealed that you don't have enough facts to back up what you say, and a lot of your ramblings are simply your opinion. How many times do we have to beat the dead horse around you? You sound like a broken record. If I read a factual article posted by a liberal, and it has fact, isn't excessively biased against my right wing ideals, and actually makes sense instead of cursory ramblings about how bad the tea party and the repubs are then sure, I'll read it and consider it... but most of what I read these days from the left is just hatred and textual diarrhea telling how evil the right is. So there ya go, I actually read it, but my feelings don't get hurt when I watch a clip on the news about how the Dems are pissed because the republicans are stubborn. Dammit! Everyone on this debt issue is being stubborn. Obama has no right to berate the republicans in congress for not compromising when he is doing the exact same thing.
I don't think you guys proved me wrong on as much as you think.
I don't think you guys proved me wrong on as much as you think.
In your opinion. Perception is reality, our perception is that we have, your perception is that we have not. You believe in your position so you lean towards getting information supporting your opinion from those who share it, we all do that. The tough thing is to find that information supporting your side, find the information supporting the other side and find the gray area without the bias of saying "oh, they lie, they lie" but realize that in the middle is probably the truth.
The way it generally goes is that if, say, Fox New or Rush Limbaugh made a statement that supports YOU then you'll say "look here, YOUR guy agrees", but you are cherry picking since there is nothing else that person says that you agree with. So instead of cherry picking, find a source that supports YOU, find a source that supports ME, then prove to me via independent non-biased third parties the areas in between.
Come on, Nynco, you're not going to give me any credit if I post an article from Fox or Rush in support of my opinion - how then can we possible take your libertarian or leftist sites as gospel in support of you.
It always seems to be a double standard. We MUST accept something from Huffington Post as the truth but aren't allowed to dispute it from Fox. I could give you partisan examples all day long of my position and you will berate them and say how much of a conservitard I am. Double standards...
I don't think you guys proved me wrong on as much as you think.
"What a return to the 6 years Bush had all GOP everything and spending exploded?" -liberal heresay, not entirely true.
"the GOP had all branches of Gov for over 6 years. They broke the bank." -not entirely sure you can fault the GOP with "breaking the bank." And not to mention Obama put us further down this hole by "bailing out the bank."
"Private scholarships based on race are fine." -This is just ridiculous and perpetuates the libtard affirmative action bs agenda.
"Watch out for the adams apple [on Ann Coulter]... She might have had a stay in Trinidad at one point in her life.... just sayin" -I really don't need to say much on this, but makes me think you wouldn't know a real woman if one came and sat on your lap.
"the VP, which is pretty much the same thing as the president." -I'm trying really hard right now...
"Video games are nothing more than the modern worlds version of crossword puzzles. Some better puzzles than others." -Not exactly... and you did say you'd don't play video games so I'll let this one slide on the basis of your lack of knowledge.
"your middle class if you can survive a year without a job and still not lose everything. Your working class if live paycheck to paycheck.
Your middle class if you can afford to have health insurance and send your kids to college. Your working class if you can't do either." I know I'm middle class and I would loose everything if I didn't have a job... And no I do not live paycheck to paycheck.
"The internet is not protected under the 4th Amendment........???" -No mention of the internet, it's kind of a legal anomaly that drives lawyers and the USSC nuts.
"So the answer is to use Nukes great.... enjoy your nuke fallout." -I totally blew this one out of the water since you decided it pertinent to take my post waaay out of context.
"Seems like as soon as a debate with Nynco starts, the thread it toast." -had to throw that in. Singing the song by Tom Petty "Runaway train never coming back..."
"Whats the difference between Rome and the dark ages........ socialism." -Zund quickly shot this out of the air...
I could go on all day, especially about FDR and Reagan that you so inappropriately assumed was like Jesus vs Stalin... But I digress, I think I've proved my point enough here.
"What a return to the 6 years Bush had all GOP everything and spending exploded?" -liberal heresay, not entirely true.
http://instruction.blackhawk.edu/ghoffarth/economics/US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg
The last conservative that lowered our debt was Nixon
Federal spending rose faster under all conservative presidents since Nixon
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg
hollohas
08-04-2011, 14:40
Federal spending rose faster under all conservative presidents since Nixon
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/us-size-spending-by-president.jpg
Did you forget the last blue line on the right? That's the biggest jump I see...
"Private scholarships based on race are fine." -This is just ridiculous and perpetuates the libtard affirmative action bs agenda. I am agree with the conservatives here. As to what a private institution wants to do with their money. Well the gov has no business telling a private person how to give out his donations. I have no clue why you would disagree with that. Unless you are arguing for big gov?
"Watch out for the adams apple [on Ann Coulter]... She might have had a stay in Trinidad at one point in her life.... just sayin" -I really don't need to say much on this, but makes me think you wouldn't know a real woman if one came and sat on your lap. She looks like a man to me. Don't blame me if you are attracted to man coulter. Its an Opinion how do you prove that wrong[ROFL1]
"the VP, which is pretty much the same thing as the president." -I'm trying really hard right now... In my assessment they were attacking Biden in order to attack the whole administration. Its not a hard concept. You all said the same thing about Bush and Darth Cheney
"Video games are nothing more than the modern worlds version of crossword puzzles. Some better puzzles than others." -Not exactly... and you did say you'd don't play video games so I'll let this one slide on the basis of your lack of knowledge. In my opinion they are. They both challenge the brain to solve problems.
"your middle class if you can survive a year without a job and still not lose everything. Your working class if live paycheck to paycheck.
Your middle class if you can afford to have health insurance and send your kids to college. Your working class if you can't do either." I know I'm middle class and I would loose everything if I didn't have a job... And no I do not live paycheck to paycheck. Yeah thats my opinion what the middle class is vs working class. I think we Americans need to learn to distinguish those economic realities.
"The internet is not protected under the 4th Amendment........???" -No mention of the internet, it's kind of a legal anomaly that drives lawyers and the USSC nuts. I have no clue how you misread me. I believe the internet should be covered under the 4th Amendment. I think you just want to find reasons to not agree with me.
"So the answer is to use Nukes great.... enjoy your nuke fallout." -I totally blew this one out of the water since you decided it pertinent to take my post waaay out of context. Fine you think I took you out of context... What ever. Perhaps I went to the logical conclusion and played the chess moves out to the end of the game.
"Whats the difference between Rome and the dark ages........ socialism." -Zund quickly shot this out of the air...No Zund gave other factors. I was not talking about the fall of Rome and why. I was commenting on the differences in society pre and post Rome. With Rome there was public universities and many other public things. Post rome in the Dark Ages there was not. Ergo there was no socialism in the dark ages like schools for the public.
I could go on all day, especially about FDR and Reagan that you so inappropriately assumed was like Jesus vs Stalin... But I digress, I think I've proved my point enough here.
I gave my reasons for supporting FDRs policies over Reagan and you guys most of the time replied that I was wrong. Not why. When you did say why you posted stuff that I already showed was wrong. Like a broke record... supply side economics has failed. No matter how you slice it.... it only works if we go into massive debt to hide the loss of Demand.
Dear lord your OCD
Did you forget the last blue line on the right? That's the biggest jump I see...
Correct Hollohas..... I think Obama is Bush's 3rd term. Just because I don't agree with conservative economics does not mean I support Obamas weak spineless leadership.
CrufflerSteve
08-04-2011, 14:49
All I can say about that is that Obama inherited the biggest shit sandwich in my lifetime. OTOH, if it counted all the tricksy stuff of the trillions of bailouts through the Fed, it would need logarithmic notation to avoid hitting the stratosphere the last few years. Obama & Geithner have become masters at bailing out the casino capitalists.
Look at the far left. Now that was a Democrat! World wars were expensive and Truman believed, as did most everybody, the most immediate need was to pay down that debt.
To bad he's dead. I'd still vote for a zombie Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower over any of the current st of jokers.
Steve
hollohas
08-04-2011, 14:50
Correct Hollohas..... I think Obama is Bush's 3rd term. Just because I don't agree with conservative economics does not mean I support Obamas weak spineless leadership.
But to say Obama is a conservative is extremely inaccurate even if not much has changed since Bush left...
hollohas
08-04-2011, 14:52
All I can say about that is that Obama inherited the biggest shit sandwich in my lifetime. OTOH, if it counted all the tricksy stuff of the trillions of bailouts through the Fed, it would need logarithmic notation to avoid hitting the stratosphere the last few years. Obama & Geithner have become masters at bailing out the casino capitalists.
Look at the far left. Now that was a Democrat! World wars were expensive and Truman believed, as did most everybody, the most immediate need was to pay down that debt.
To bad he's dead. I'd still vote for a zombie Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower over any of the current st of jokers.
Steve
Yup, been a long time since our government cut spending...
All I can say about that is that Obama inherited the biggest shit sandwich in my lifetime. OTOH, if it counted all the tricksy stuff of the trillions of bailouts through the Fed, it would need logarithmic notation to avoid hitting the stratosphere the last few years. Obama & Geithner have become masters at bailing out the casino capitalists.
Look at the far left. Now that was a Democrat! World wars were expensive and Truman believed, as did most everybody, the most immediate need was to pay down that debt.
To bad he's dead. I'd still vote for a zombie Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower over any of the current st of jokers.
Steve
Man Steve, I could not agree more[Beer]
But to say Obama is a conservative is extremely inaccurate even if not much has changed since Bush left...
Hollohas..... set aside what the right wing tells you and look at his actions. Actions speak louder than words and Obamas actions are Bush part 3.
Heck the Dem base who are not Obama bots want to primary him. I know I hate the douche (obama).
I want Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul.
hollohas
08-04-2011, 15:17
Hollohas..... set aside what the right wing tells you and look at his actions. Actions speak louder than words and Obamas actions are Bush part 3.
I look at his actions from before he was the president and he isn't a conservative...
Compared to Nixon, JFK, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower he is more conservative than all of them.
Compared to Nixon, JFK, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower he is more conservative than all of them.
Mainly because politics is not a static entity, it's constantly evolving. If you go back to the late 1700's the definition of liberal and conservative are completely different. Our two party system here today wasn't around back in the early 1900's. In fact, even as recent as the 1960's our conservative and liberal definitions were different. So technically the comparison doesn't really work.
CrufflerSteve
08-04-2011, 21:18
There's also been a change as communism faded away. A bunch of Islamists who want
to return us to the feudal ages just don't make it. The Evil Empire was a real enemy.
Nixon very explicitly found the economy uninteresting. Reagan was very involved with foreign policy as well as most other Presidents who only paid attention to the economy when it fell apart.
Nowadays the economy is all we care about as it gets worse daily. Obama is flat out inadequate. He was an empty suit before being elected and is not getting any better. We need an economic Winston Churchill.
Steve
I just thought of something....
if the media stopped reporting on our economic woes do you think it would improve? Think about it, whenever they talk about the market doing bad on the news the market gets worse... We create our own climate with our rationalizing and false predictions.
I just thought of something....
if the media stopped reporting on our economic woes do you think it would improve? Think about it, whenever they talk about the market doing bad on the news the market gets worse... We create our own climate with our rationalizing and false predictions.
Yes we do Ronin, I agree. But I think one of the main problems is we care about Wallstreet. Truth is Wallstreet reacts positively when we outsource American jobs to China. Wallstreet does not give a crap about the health of the nation. Only about Wallstreet profit and if they can get those profits from over seas, they will slit Americas neck for 50cents more.
I believe in free market and free enterprise, but I believe in America first. There has to be a balance.
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 12:26
Yes we do Ronin, I agree. But I think one of the main problems is we care about Wallstreet. Truth is Wallstreet reacts positively when we outsource American jobs to China. Wallstreet does not give a crap about the health of the nation. Only about Wallstreet profit and if they can get those profits from over seas, they will slit Americas neck for 50cents more.
I believe in free market and free enterprise, but I believe in America first. There has to be a balance.
This does not really go hand in hand with what you consistently post on this forum.
This does not really go hand in hand with what you consistently post on this forum.
I maintain most of you people don't understand how markets work. Gov is the one who sets the rules of the market. If you don't like those rules or break them then you have no right to take part in our markets. In a free market all people play by the same rules. Innovation and efficiency (to a point) are what makes or breaks those within it. Monopolies and other forms of market manipulations are to be stopped by democratically elected (beholden to the people and constitutionally limited) governments.
Corporations are not people.
I maintain most of you people don't understand how markets work.
Wow, what a massive generalization of how God like YOU are and how we all are simply idiots who need to hear the gospel from you. So tell us, Obi Wan, what exactly is YOUR expertise in this matter that makes you the defacto authority on this topic? Doctorate in economics? For such a statement, I'm expecting that we little children need to heed your words.
I maintain most of you people don't understand how markets work....
tAlVKgl_zCQ
Sorry had to... [ROFL1]
I love that movie, Robert Downy should have gotten an academy award for that performance.
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 12:50
Wow, what a massive generalization of how God like YOU are and how we all are simply idiots who need to hear the gospel from you. So tell us, Obi Wan, what exactly is YOUR expertise in this matter that makes you the defacto authority on this topic? Doctorate in economics? For such a statement, I'm expecting that we little children need to heed your words.
He went to public school. What more does he need.
Let me fix this
I maintain most people don't understand how markets work.
I took out "of you"
If you don't agree with me, post what you think a free market is...
tmleadr03
08-05-2011, 13:18
Let me fix this
I maintain most people don't understand how markets work.
I took out "of you"
If you don't agree with me, post what you think a free market is...
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_FpV1odorlOY/TEuU8ejiOrI/AAAAAAAAAHw/OKnHyrTM2vc/s1600/backpedaling34.jpg
He went to public school. What more does he need.
Woah! I went to public school! What are you saying?
Ronin, he's saying that you and Nynco went to public schools. Damn Japanese characters :).
Ronin, he's saying that you and Nynco went to public schools. Damn Japanese characters :).
Ranger, you just like to instigate... stop it, you're making my tummy hurt from laughing! [ROFL1]
The point I am trying to make is most people who say they are for the "free market" are in actuallity for economic anarchy and they themselves are actually economic anarchists. Many people don't understand free markets outside of no gov interference positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
The point I am trying to make is SOME people IN YOUR OPINION who say they are for the "free market" are in actuality (spelling corrected) for economic anarchy and they themselves are actually economic anarchists. Many people don't understand free markets outside of no gov interference positions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
FIXED!
But again, this is a generalization of the American people and your opinion of what free market means. In your view of things, those who are for a free market (and against your position by the way) are anarchists based on cherry picking certain qualifiers from their position. It would be no different in saying "ahh, see, you are a libertarian" just because one position I hold is the same as a libertarian. I would like to see you try to hold your water against a panel of economists as you tell them "this is economic anarchy".
Now, if you are going to make such sweeping accusations of the level of our understanding of the free market why don't you then pick out something someone has stated as a definition of free market and show them the error of their ways so they can give a rebuttal? Rather than throw a label on the entire country, why not say "Ranger, according to my understanding of economic anarchy, that position would lend itself to that model and less of the free market position which is stated as....".
With a well thought out rebuttal that is respectful of the fact that you're not going to dictate anything to me but rather understand my position clearly and concisely, understand why I stand there, show me how someone who isn't on a left wing blog doesn't agree and I'll give credit where credit is due and say "you know, Nynco, you're right, that particular part of my position was not founded in reality". Then we have a discussion and not a debate or war.
And by the way, I believe we are a MARKET ECONOMY, not a FREE MARKET - there is a difference.
Ranger, I need to be more humble in my presentations and opinions.
Noted. Thank you for rationally presenting that to me.
And by the way, I believe we are a MARKET ECONOMY, not a FREE MARKET - there is a difference.
ZING! [LOL]
And by the way, I believe we are a MARKET ECONOMY, not a FREE MARKET - there is a difference.
Agreed because in the real world the definition of what a free market is, is not absolute.
The point I was trying to make is the only absolute free market is anarchy. Even then after a short period of time economics of scale trump the free market. That ends the free market real quick.
Agreed because in the real world the definition of what a free market is, is not absolute.
The point I was trying to make is the only absolute free market is anarchy. Even then after a short period of time economics of scale trump the free market. That ends the free market real quick.
We are a mixed economy based on a market economy. To define what we are in any single term is ludicrous. We stray further and further from a market economy as we become more socialized - you do realize this right? All the social programs that you love are killing our market economy as the government owns more and more of what our economy is based upon. Your beloved FDR really got the ball rolling faster than any president before or after him. All of the new deal short term economic solutions started us swaying from market economy to mixed to socialist economy. So when you say you want to return the 60's with the tax rate and increase taxes on the rich so we can "be like we used to be", well it can never be that way again unless we trim the fat. Bear in mind that the 50's and 60's were prosperous because our market economy grew fast as a result of us establishing ourselves as a world player and world market, not because the rich were taxed or this party or that controlled the house. We were a nation to contend with.
If were to place a single economic marker on our economy, WWII would be near the top, if not THE top, of the list as the single largest turning point in our economic development. We were flush with cash with so many nations owing us so much money, with so many added to the workforce in the way of women who were now qualified to be so much more than a home maker that we started tapping into that cash as if it were a never ending aquifer. Now we are paying the price and it has nothing to do with taxing the rich or economic anarchy.
I disagree that social programs manipulate the market as much as you think. I think they are part of the rules of the game.
I also don't think that "free market" principles should be used on important things that are vital for the health of the economy as a whole. I don't want to have the "free market" price me or others out of life liberty of the pursuit of happyness. Nor do I want the "free market" to manipulate other sections of the market through the control of vital resources like food shortages, power, water or healthcare.
Also WWII is Keynesian economics on steroids.
I disagree that social programs manipulate the market as much as you think. I think they are part of the rules of the game.
Really, why? How can increasing debt and providing social programs not impact the bottom line? Ask Greece about how social programs killed them. Ask England how hard they are trying to reform because social programs killed them. The more we allow government to dictate our economy the less likely we are to recover. They own the welfare program, medicare, social security, Obamacare, stakes in the banks, stakes in the market, stakes in housing. Tell me what economic model then allows for this much governmental economic control without sinking the economy?
Really, why? How can increasing debt and providing social programs not impact the bottom line? Ask Greece about how social programs killed them. Ask England how hard they are trying to reform because social programs killed them. The more we allow government to dictate our economy the less likely we are to recover. They own the welfare program, medicare, social security, Obamacare, stakes in the banks, stakes in the market, stakes in housing. Tell me what economic model then allows for this much governmental economic control without sinking the economy?
The other Europeans esp the Germans are more regulated than us. Germany is doing far better than us too. They have problems but their economic growth is twice ours right now. Their social programs cushioned the fall of the economy. This made sure that demand did not drop as much and they rebounded faster than us.
As to Greece....... perfect example of a dysfunctional economy. They manufacture nothing. Greece would be a 3rd world nation without tourism. Also the Greek gov was purposely crashed by the bankers who bet against them in the derivatives markets. Read up on Goldman Sachs and Greece.
hollohas
08-05-2011, 16:22
Their social programs cushioned the fall of the economy. This made sure that demand did not drop as much and they rebounded faster than us.
There is no way in hell social programs put back as much into the system as they take out. A negative cash flow is what you want to avoid when you're out of money like our government is...
So raise taxes by ending taxcuts and taxbreaks. End the all in my opinion. Make taxes real simple. Only area where there should be any form of complication is in matters of national interest and tariffs to protect our economy from unfair foreign competition. I would lower taxes on business to half the amount to counter act the loss of taxbreaks.
Attacking Soc Sec is not the answer. We paid for that. Screw that about cutting that instead of ending taxbreaks for billionaires.
So raise taxes by ending taxcuts and taxbreaks.
No, I disagree. Tax breaks encourage people to spend money because they feel that they have more in their pocket. I challenge you to prove otherwise.
tariffs to protect our economy from unfair foreign competition.
I would lower taxes on business to half the amount to counter act the loss of taxbreaks.
Yes, but you have to be very careful how you do this. Consider how many jobs are HERE from foreign countries. You can price us right out of the market that way, send those foreign jobs home.
Attacking Soc Sec is not the answer. We paid for that. Screw that about cutting that instead of ending taxbreaks for billionaires.
Social security cannot be mucked with, it's funded with the idea that it comes back to us. However, FUTURE social security can and should be dealt with now. The problem isn't as much social security as it is how the coffers have been plundered by the government to fund things like Medicare. Eliminate social security, or at the very least allow people to choose how to fund their own retirement.
End a tax break for a billionaire and watch how many people he lays off so he can keep his jet. And yet, I'm glad he has that jet and a billion more things than I do - he was smart enough to figure out how and I have no reason to penalize him for that.
You guys make no sense. You call for a flat tax but when I say we tax the billionaires the same as a worker, you defend the billionaire. As to foreign companies in the US. Well they would not be taxed on anything more than what they import. This encourages US sources of manufacture. If they want to leave, fine....... I am sure another AMERICAN will come along and fill the demand they chose not to meet.
You guys make no sense. You call for a flat tax but when I say we tax the billionaires the same as a worker, you defend the billionaire. As to foreign companies in the US. Well they would not be taxed on anything more than what they import. This encourages US sources of manufacture. If they want to leave, fine....... I am sure another AMERICAN will come along and fill the demand they chose not to meet.
A flat tax is different, it's based on consumption and not earnings. I support a flax tax and doing away with the IRS - it'll never happen but I support it in principal. Despite how you try to spin it, the top income earners pay the lions share of the taxes already and to burden them more doesn't make sense. And don't give that line about how they don't earn but through distributions and dividends - those are still taxable. As a business owner I pay a HUGE amount in taxes on my profits not to mention my share of employee taxes, personal income taxes, dividend taxes, distribution taxes, quarterly earning taxes. Few billionaires are not business owners.
Wrong a flat tax is a flat tax........ you are talking about a consumption tax and saying that is the only form of flat tax.
A flat tax is different, it's based on consumption and not earnings. I support a flax tax and doing away with the IRS - it'll never happen but I support it in principal. Despite how you try to spin it, the top income earners pay the lions share of the taxes already and to burden them more doesn't make sense. And don't give that line about how they don't earn but through distributions and dividends - those are still taxable. As a business owner I pay a HUGE amount in taxes on my profits not to mention my share of employee taxes, personal income taxes, dividend taxes, distribution taxes, quarterly earning taxes. Few billionaires are not business owners.
OK good, now you are thinking.... few billionaires are business owners. Therefor they have rigged the system so the small business owners and the middle class pay the majority of taxes in percentage of earnings. I think we could lower taxes if we raised them on people like Waren Buffet and all the other hedgefund parasites.
I think that long term cap gains should be any investment over 10 to 20 years not 1. That would incentive's long term growth. As it stands now, we have it at 1 year and you only pay 15%. This incentivises investors to only look at short term gain.
Since you are a small business owner they shift what they don't pay onto YOU.
I agree do away with the IRS. Make i a level playing field. Set the tax rate with next to NO deductions. Not even for your mortgage interest. None...... you pay tax on what you earn. Only tax breaks for national security reasons.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.