Who's ready for a... $5 trillion budget deficit?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Reported today in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-18/federal-deficit-accounting/55179748/1

The logic to this one is if you use the accounting practices passed under Sarbanes-Oxley and applied them to the federal budget, this is the number that would pop out. This is probably also why the debt increased under Clinton every year even when it was claimed we ran surpluses.

In short, this ain't good news for Obama. Expect at least one question at the next White House Press Briefing on this. Jay Carney will be flummoxed.

CUT DEFENCE ALREADY.

Anyway, I don't understand the determination conservatives have in balacing the budget yet supporting ideas like Privatised Medicne the Death Penalty and others which are more expensive then the alternatives. I just hope the Republicans lose badly enough in this election so that Obama can actually put policies into place.

Who here has that lovely little chart that shows the primary cause of that deficit still being the Bush tax cuts?

Big_Willie_Styles:

This is probably also why the debt increased under Clinton every year even when it was claimed we ran surpluses.

Actually, I believe that discrepency came because they balanced the budget by borrowing off of social security. Social security ran a surplus so they skimmed some off the top.

tstorm823:

Big_Willie_Styles:

This is probably also why the debt increased under Clinton every year even when it was claimed we ran surpluses.

Actually, I believe that discrepency came because they balanced the budget by borrowing off of social security. Social security ran a surplus so they skimmed some off the top.

Yeah, they've done that every year Social Security ran a surplus.

Ninjamedic:
CUT DEFENCE ALREADY.

Anyway, I don't understand the determination conservatives have in balacing the budget yet supporting ideas like Privatised Medicne the Death Penalty and others which are more expensive then the alternatives. I just hope the Republicans lose badly enough in this election so that Obama can actually put policies into place.

The defense budget is nothing compared to the federal entitlement programs.

Yes, close our bases in Germany and every other country outside of those that are next to hostile countries. That pretty much just leaves South Korea and Israel. That will save a ton of money. But, of course, the countries we close bases in might actually have to provide their own national defense.

You really think Obamacare, in an effort to insure like 50 million more people, would save money? How exactly do you propose that would work out? Rationing care? Or a magical spinning wheel which spins garbage into gold and insulin shots?

The death penalty is not about cost, it is about justice and retribution. And it is only so expensive because of the endless appeals process. And all the stupid stuff we have to give men on death row.

As I gather from the way you spell "defense," you are not American. Obama is heading towards a crash and burn if his campaign continues to be run as shabbily as it currently is.

Big_Willie_Styles:

The defense budget is nothing compared to the federal entitlement programs.

That doesn't mean you automaticaly have to cut social welfare. There is no point in having to perpetuate a military development complex when you already stand in a position to stop anyone who would pose even a remote threat.

Yes, close our bases in Germany and every other country outside of those that are next to hostile countries. That pretty much just leaves South Korea and Israel. That will save a ton of money. But, of course, the countries we close bases in might actually have to provide their own national defense.

How about the fact that your armed forces can batter the shite out of anyone elses? Or the fact that you can wipe out entire coutries if you felt like? You have a hell of a lot more to cut in defence.

The Gentleman:
Who here has that lovely little chart that shows the primary cause of that deficit still being the Bush tax cuts?

Who has that lovely bit of information that that chart assumes economic growth would be the same with or without the Bush tax cuts? Oh, right, stupid static analysis is stupid. You do realize that federal income tax revenues doubled under Bush? Tax cuts are a means of stimulating risk-taking, especially since Bush cut the capital gains tax.

The primary drivers of the debt right now are the federal entitlement programs, sir.

Cut defense, bar contractors who have defrauded the government, repeal the Bush tax cuts, reform education to get rid of that fucking NCLB bullshit, institute a government works program to improve infrastructure, mandate a livable wage, and close tax loopholes and shelters. This isn't complicated.

Big_Willie_Styles:
The defense budget is nothing compared to the federal entitlement programs.

Like fuckin' clockwork. Every time the issue of the budget comes up, it's always the fault of those stupid, smelly poor people.

The reason your complaints about the safety nets ring so hollow is because if you qualify for any of them, you'll take them. If you lose your job, you'll take unemployment checks from the government. If you qualify for food stamps, you'll take that Access card. The day you get your Medicare card, it's going straight in your wallet. And in every case, you'll have a line ready about why your case is different and you deserve it. I've seen it a million times. You're not going to be the exception.

Ninjamedic:
That doesn't mean you automaticaly have to cut social welfare. There is no point in having to perpetuate a military development complex when you already stand in a position to stop anyone who would pose even a remote threat.

How about the fact that your armed forces can batter the shite out of anyone elses? Or the fact that you can wipe out entire coutries if you felt like? You have a hell of a lot more to cut in defence.

Ah, the magical word "social" in front of another word. The unfunded liabilities for our federal entitlement programs is over $100 trillion by some estimates.

Yes, powerful military. That's an insurance policy. It is a message to every other country: Don't fuck with us. It's nice to have the biggest stick, ain't it?

Yes, we can cut all foreign aid and disaster-relief troops.

Big_Willie_Styles:
You really think Obamacare, in an effort to insure like 50 million more people, would save money? How exactly do you propose that would work out? Rationing care? Or a magical spinning wheel which spins garbage into gold and insulin shots?

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/96404/class-obamacare-deficits-lindsey-graham-fox-news-math

That not good enough for ya? Try this:

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12069/hr2.pdf

Wherein is stated, quite clearly:

"Impact on the Federal Budget in the First Decade
CBO and JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending and revenue
effects of enacting H.R. 2 would cause a net increase in federal budget
deficits of $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1).1 By
comparison, last March CBO and JCT estimated that enacting PPACA and
the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act would reduce federal
deficits by $124 billion over the 2010-2019 period.2 The difference
between the two estimates for the 10-year projection periods is primarily
attributable to the different time periods they cover. Over the eight years
that are common to the two analyses (2012-2019), enactment of PPACA
and the health-related provisions of the Reconciliation Act was projected
last March to reduce federal deficits by $132 billion, whereas the repeal of
that legislation is projected now to increase deficits by $119 billion."

Big_Willie_Styles:
You really think Obamacare, in an effort to insure like 50 million more people, would save money? How exactly do you propose that would work out? Rationing care? Or a magical spinning wheel which spins garbage into gold and insulin shots?

Then give us a public option. The current Republican plan is, "Don't get sick. And if you do get sick, hurry up and die so that you're not sucking up anymore of our resources, you stupid commie."

The death penalty is not about cost, it is about justice and retribution. And it is only so expensive because of the endless appeals process. And all the stupid stuff we have to give men on death row.

What would you prefer? Execute someone with a bullet to the back of the head in back of the courthouse as soon as the sentence is passed?

As I gather from the way you spell "defense," you are not American. Obama is heading towards a crash and burn if his campaign continues to be run as shabbily as it currently is.

If he wins, I'm going to laugh in your face.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Ah, the magical word "social" in front of another word. The unfunded liabilities for our federal entitlement programs is over $100 trillion by some estimates.

Whose estimates?

Yes, powerful military. That's an insurance policy. It is a message to every other country: Don't fuck with us. It's nice to have the biggest stick, ain't it?

Ah, the old, "But we might need it later!" standby. Bullshit. This is not Call of Duty, this is real life. The only nations that could pose a semi-credible threat to us are all major trading partners. They're not going to fuck with us because peace is more profitable. Novel concept, no?

Yes, we can cut all foreign aid and disaster-relief troops.

You do realize that foreign aid consumes less than 1% of our budget, right?

Big_Willie_Styles:

You really think Obamacare, in an effort to insure like 50 million more people, would save money? How exactly do you propose that would work out? Rationing care? Or a magical spinning wheel which spins garbage into gold and insulin shots?

Your country spends 17% of its relative GDP in healthcare despite it being privatised. Compare to the UK of France which sit at 9 and 10% respectively.

The death penalty is not about cost, it is about justice and retribution. And it is only so expensive because of the endless appeals process. And all the stupid stuff we have to give men on death row.

Ignoring the REVENGE issues, it's still incompatible with your lust for a balanced budget.

As I gather from the way you spell "defense," you are not American. Obama is heading towards a crash and burn if his campaign continues to be run as shabbily as it currently is.

And you're telling me that BushV3 will do any better? Or do you just love a party that engages in class warfare?

DrVornoff:
Cut defense, bar contractors who have defrauded the government, repeal the Bush tax cuts, reform education to get rid of that fucking NCLB bullshit, institute a government works program to improve infrastructure, mandate a livable wage, and close tax loopholes and shelters. This isn't complicated.

Like fuckin' clockwork. Every time the issue of the budget comes up, it's always the fault of those stupid, smelly poor people.

The reason your complaints about the safety nets ring so hollow is because if you qualify for any of them, you'll take them. If you lose your job, you'll take unemployment checks from the government. If you qualify for food stamps, you'll take that Access card. The day you get your Medicare card, it's going straight in your wallet. And in every case, you'll have a line ready about why your case is different and you deserve it. I've seen it a million times. You're not going to be the exception.

Get rid of our military bases in all foreign countries except South Korea and Israel. Check.

Cut taxes further. Check.

Education will never be reformed until the public employee unions take one to the shorts. We already spend the second most per pupil of any country, yet education levels have been flat since the Department of Education was created. The unions and the politicians they support are the ones getting in the way of real reform.

Ah, because you haven't seen the chart that shows the poorest of the poor in the United States is still in the top 30% of all people in the world.

Infrastructure is not falling apart. That's a lie the Democrats tell you. Not all those bridges and roads listed on that "in need of repair" list are about to collapse. They may just have some cosmetic abnormalities they want fixed or something. No bridge in this country that is about to collapse is being driven on. They'd close it (or at least the section that is about to,) as they did with a bridge near me.

Oh, yes, because the government works program during the New Deal was so helpful. LOL.

Mandate a livable wage? No, that's not happening. People are paid what they are worth. You're not making a livable wage flippin' burgers because anybody can do that. It seems you want teenage unemployment to be 100%. (Teenage unemployment always spikes every time the minimum wage is increased.)

Close tax loopholes and shelters while lowering taxes. That broadens the base while making taxes less complicated for everyone.

Yes, it is complicated. The two parties do not have a compatible definition of what the federal government must do. Until they reconcile their two competing definitions, partisanship in Washington will continue.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Ah, the magical word "social" in front of another word. The unfunded liabilities for our federal entitlement programs is over $100 trillion by some estimates.

I sense much rhetoric in this one....

Please give me a link to those "Estimates".

Yes, powerful military. That's an insurance policy. It is a message to every other country: Don't fuck with us. It's nice to have the biggest stick, ain't it?

I can see you have a lot of respect for the rest of the world don't you?

Yes, we can cut all foreign aid and disaster-relief troops.

Says the man whose party supported tax cuts for the whealthy so badly you would screw over 911 relief workers?

Ninjamedic:
I sense much rhetoric in this one....

Please give me a link to those "Estimates".

I can see you have a lot of respect for us dont you?

Says the man whose party supported tax cuts for the whealthy so badly you would screw over 911 relief workers?

Yes, because you're using rhetoric as well. A tyranny of cliches as it were.

I believe this is the correct link (but it is not loading for me): http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=77bebb53-bac2-4a38-8de4-0279680ab520

It shows that the unfunded liabilities are nearly $100 trillion. I'll find some more later.

Respect for the military of other nations? Sure. The ones that have a recent record of good forces, like Israel.

Tax cuts for everyone. It should be noted that the bottom 50% of wage earners in America don't pay a cent in federal income taxes, something that America does not share with other countries, especially in Europe where the middle class is taxed incredibly.

Yes, believe what Mr. Twit-Pic told you. No, the Republicans were trying to force the Democrats to play by the rules they themselves passed. The "Pay-Go" rule was passed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. One of the best rules to follow in politics is making sure your opponent follows their own rules.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Cut taxes further. Check.

How are we supposed to get more revenue when you cut off a revenue source?

Education will never be reformed until the public employee unions take one to the shorts. We already spend the second most per pupil of any country, yet education levels have been flat since the Department of Education was created. The unions and the politicians they support are the ones getting in the way of real reform.

So... NCLB is the fault of the unions? That's a new one by me. Are the Illuminati involved at some point?

Ah, because you haven't seen the chart that shows the poorest of the poor in the United States is still in the top 30% of all people in the world.

So, what? They're not allowed to complain because they're better off than political refugess in Darfur?

Infrastructure is not falling apart. That's a lie the Democrats tell you. Not all those bridges and roads listed on that "in need of repair" list are about to collapse. They may just have some cosmetic abnormalities they want fixed or something. No bridge in this country that is about to collapse is being driven on. They'd close it (or at least the section that is about to,) as they did with a bridge near me.

So we shouldn't bother trying to maintain infrastructure until society is about to collapse?

Oh, yes, because the government works program during the New Deal was so helpful. LOL.

Saved my family.

Mandate a livable wage? No, that's not happening. People are paid what they are worth. You're not making a livable wage flippin' burgers because anybody can do that. It seems you want teenage unemployment to be 100%. (Teenage unemployment always spikes every time the minimum wage is increased.)

Do not tell me what I want. By saying there should be no livable wage, you are saying that you don't think American citizens have a right to a right livelihood. They should be grateful to have a job at all and quit complaining about the fact that you can't fucking live on $10,000 a year.

Close tax loopholes and shelters while lowering taxes. That broadens the base while making taxes less complicated for everyone.

Taxes are only complicated because rich people and major corporations keep lobbying for more loopholes. Close the fucking loopholes and make them pay their fair share. Do not bullshit me by saying you want to destroy social welfare and then advocate for corporate welfare.

Yes, it is complicated. The two parties do not have a compatible definition of what the federal government must do. Until they reconcile their two competing definitions, partisanship in Washington will continue.

We need debate and disagreement because no one is right 100% of the time.

Ninjamedic:
Your country spends 17% of its relative GDP in healthcare despite it being privatised. Compare to the UK of France which sit at 9 and 10% respectively.

Ignoring the REVENGE issues, it's still incompatible with your lust for a balanced budget.

And you're telling me that BushV3 will do any better? Or do you just love a party that engages in class warfare?

Yeah, and we have better health outcomes, more drug research (we do 50% of all drug research in the world,) better drugs (countries like Britain just refuse to allow the sale of some of the more expensive drugs, results be damned,) and better technology. Also, shorter wait times. Health insurance in this country is a heavily regulated industry, which is why it is so expensive.

The funny thing there is that you're stupid enough to think the federal government is paying for the death penalty. You really need to brush up on your American civics.

Romney is Bush 3? Um, last time I checked, he doesn't support bailing out companies that are failing.

No, the Democrats are the party of class warfare and identity politics. It is their cracker and mustard. Which party again is engaging in the 99% vs. the 1% rhetoric again?

Big_Willie_Styles:

Cut taxes further. Check.

...

...

...

...Is there anything I need to say about this? Please tell me you mean "Raise taxes further." That would technically be misguided ("further" being completely out of place; the correct descriptive is closer to "for once"), but not completely out of place in a thread bitching about the budget deficit.

Stagnant:

Big_Willie_Styles:

Cut taxes further. Check.

...

...

...

...Is there anything I need to say about this? Please tell me you mean "Raise taxes further." That would technically be misguided ("further" being completely out of place; the correct descriptive is closer to "for once"), but not completely out of place in a thread bitching about the budget deficit.

Your the American, you tel me.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Yes, because you're using rhetoric as well. A tyranny of cliches as it were.

I believe this is the correct link (but it is not loading for me): http://budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=77bebb53-bac2-4a38-8de4-0279680ab520

It shows that the unfunded liabilities are nearly $100 trillion. I'll find some more later.

So the Republicans, who oppose all forms of social welfare, are telling you it's super expensive, but we can totally afford more corporate welfare? And you believe them?

Respect for the military of other nations? Sure. The ones that have a recent record of good forces, like Israel.

So the only thing you respect is force? That explains a lot.

Tax cuts for everyone. It should be noted that the bottom 50% of wage earners in America don't pay a cent in federal income taxes, something that America does not share with other countries, especially in Europe where the middle class is taxed incredibly.

They still pay taxes on everything else. You know like state, local, gas and sales taxes.

Yes, believe what Mr. Twit-Pic told you. No, the Republicans were trying to force the Democrats to play by the rules they themselves passed. The "Pay-Go" rule was passed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. One of the best rules to follow in politics is making sure your opponent follows their own rules.

You think Republicans play by the rules? What's the weather like on your planet?

Big_Willie_Styles:
Yeah, and we have better health outcomes,

No we don't.

more drug research (we do 50% of all drug research in the world,)

And what do we spend it on? Overpriced boner pills and pharmaceuticals that have a list of side-effects larger than the ingredients list on most breakfast cereals.

better drugs (countries like Britain just refuse to allow the sale of some of the more expensive drugs, results be damned,)

Such as?

and better technology.

Such as?

Also, shorter wait times.

I have yet to see proof of this claim.

Health insurance in this country is a heavily regulated industry, which is why it is so expensive.

Ha!

The funny thing there is that you're stupid enough to think the federal government is paying for the death penalty. You really need to brush up on your American civics.

This should be good. Who is paying for it? Also, chill on the personal attacks. It's a beautiful day today and I don't need you fucking that up with your attitude problem.

No, the Democrats are the party of class warfare and identity politics. It is their cracker and mustard. Which party again is engaging in the 99% vs. the 1% rhetoric again?

Can we all please agree to drop this class warfare bullshit? Class warfare was what happened in the French Revolution.

DrVornoff:
How are we supposed to get more revenue when you cut off a revenue source?

So... NCLB is the fault of the unions? That's a new one by me. Are the Illuminati involved at some point?

So, what? They're not allowed to complain because they're better off than political refugess in Darfur?

So we shouldn't bother trying to maintain infrastructure until society is about to collapse?

Saved my family.

Do not tell me what I want. By saying there should be no livable wage, you are saying that you don't think American citizens have a right to a right livelihood. They should be grateful to have a job at all and quit complaining about the fact that you can't fucking live on $10,000 a year.

Taxes are only complicated because rich people and major corporations keep lobbying for more loopholes. Close the fucking loopholes and make them pay their fair share. Do not bullshit me by saying you want to destroy social welfare and then advocate for corporate welfare.

We need debate and disagreement because no one is right 100% of the time.

Revenues only go up if there's economic growth. Reagan cut the top rate of like 70% to 28% and tax revenues still went up. When you tax something more, you get less of it. That's basic economics. Also, to think the federal government can spend my money better than I can is a foolish assertion.

NCLB was an attempt to make results matter, but it failed in its implementation. Remember, that bill had bipartisan support originally. Ted Kennedy was sitting at the signing table when Bush signed it into law.

Better than 70% of all other people in the world. That's not just the refugees in Darfur. And that's just the Americans at the very bottom.

We shouldn't make infrastructure a priority. And definitely not through a federal government program. Leave it to the states.

And made the Great Depression worse and last longer, too.

No one is entitled to happiness, only the pursuit thereof. No one deserves anything outside of the inalienable rights. You have to earn everything else. No one ever handed me anything, yet, unlike a majority of college graduates this year in America, I am gainfully employed, not unemployed or underemployed.

Yes, so close the loopholes. I'm not arguing with you on that one. I actually liked the 9-9-9 Plan.

But we need to have a workable definition of what the federal government must do. Everything else just becomes a "should."

Big_Willie_Styles:

Yeah, and we have better health outcomes, more drug research (we do 50% of all drug research in the world,) better drugs (countries like Britain just refuse to allow the sale of some of the more expensive drugs, results be damned,) and better technology. Also, shorter wait times. Health insurance in this country is a heavily regulated industry, which is why it is so expensive.

Source please.

The funny thing there is that you're stupid enough to think the federal government is paying for the death penalty. You really need to brush up on your American civics.

The funny thing here is that you ignored my point intirely.

Romney is Bush 3? Um, last time I checked, he doesn't support bailing out companies that are failing.

No, the Democrats are the party of class warfare and identity politics. It is their cracker and mustard. Which party again is engaging in the 99% vs. the 1% rhetoric again?

Which party is constantly bitching for tax cuts for the rich again?

Ninjamedic:

Stagnant:

...

...

...

...Is there anything I need to say about this? Please tell me you mean "Raise taxes further." That would technically be misguided ("further" being completely out of place; the correct descriptive is closer to "for once"), but not completely out of place in a thread bitching about the budget deficit.

Your the American, you tel me.

Cutting taxes while ridding the tax code of all tax loopholes is my policy.

Raising taxes is never a good idea. That's because when you tax something more, you get less of it. That's the logic behind excise taxes on cigarettes. Doesn't stop the government from creating perverse incentives because it uses the revenues from that tax to fund S-CHIP (so, it shouldn't want less people to smoke as less kids will get health insurance.)

Taxes were raised under Clinton and Bush 41. Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 cut taxes. Raising taxes has been the norm in Washington since Wilson.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Revenues only go up if there's economic growth. Reagan cut the top rate of like 70% to 28% and tax revenues still went up. When you tax something more, you get less of it. That's basic economics. Also, to think the federal government can spend my money better than I can is a foolish assertion.

Reagan raised taxes. Don't bullshit me.

NCLB was an attempt to make results matter, but it failed in its implementation. Remember, that bill had bipartisan support originally. Ted Kennedy was sitting at the signing table when Bush signed it into law.

And they were fucking wrong. How is it the fault of the unions as you implied? Answer the question. Now.

Better than 70% of all other people in the world. That's not just the refugees in Darfur. And that's just the Americans at the very bottom.

So the answer to my question was "yes."

We shouldn't make infrastructure a priority. And definitely not through a federal government program. Leave it to the states.

Ah, yes. The "leave it to the states." Is there anything you want the federal government to do at all that doesn't involve curb stomping any nation that so much as looks at us funny?

And made the Great Depression worse and last longer, too.

Debatable. Fact of the matter I'm looking at is that it got my great-grandparents jobs and prevented them from starving to death. So yeah, I kind of like that.

No one ever handed me anything,

Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, a thousand times bullshit. Leaving aside the fact that you only have what you do because of the commons, national defense and law enforcement, you spent at least 18 years being raised by your parents. They fed you, clothed you, provided you with everything you had. No one ever handed you anything my ass.

And don't give me this nonsense that just because you never needed a social safety net that means starving children don't need food stamps. If you're that selfish, then you're the real freeloader in this equation.

Yes, so close the loopholes. I'm not arguing with you on that one. I actually liked the 9-9-9 Plan.

You liked 9-9-9? So what, you think real economics work just like in SimCity?

Big_Willie_Styles:

Cutting taxes while ridding the tax code of all tax loopholes is my policy.

So you support a party who stops the closing of said loopholes?

Raising taxes is never a good idea. That's because when you tax something more, you get less of it. That's the logic behind excise taxes on cigarettes. Doesn't stop the government from creating perverse incentives because it uses the revenues from that tax to fund S-CHIP (so, it shouldn't want less people to smoke as less kids will get health insurance.)

So you don't want to tax the estate of a man who makes over a million a year to help someone stay just above the poverty line due to unemployment or disabilities or lack of capital for enrty?

Taxes were raised under Clinton and Bush 41. Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 cut taxes. Raising taxes has been the norm in Washington since Wilson.

Reagan and Bush also oversaw out of control spending, they caused the defecits that we have faced/and are now facing.

Big_Willie_Styles:

The death penalty is not about cost, it is about justice and retribution.

And occasionally executing the WRONG PERSON, but hey, omlettes, egges, and they weren't rich so they didn't matter anyway, RIGHT?

DrVornoff:
What would you prefer? Execute someone with a bullet to the back of the head in back of the courthouse as soon as the sentence is passed?

DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

(Edit: And anyway, that's not what they want. They want the policemen to be able to administer summary execution _at the arrest scene_.)

Yes, powerful military. That's an insurance policy. It is a message to every other country: Don't fuck with us. It's nice to have the biggest stick, ain't it?

9_9

It's spelled with a "D", not an "ST".

(Edit to add: Come to think of it, you do call yourself "Big Willy".... *snicker*.)

Big_Willie_Styles:
Cutting taxes while ridding the tax code of all tax loopholes is my policy.

Which taxes should we cut? On what brackets?

Raising taxes is never a good idea. That's because when you tax something more, you get less of it. That's the logic behind excise taxes on cigarettes.

And this applies to paid labor as well? I reject that notion entirely.

Taxes were raised under Clinton and Bush 41. Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, and Bush 43 cut taxes. Raising taxes has been the norm in Washington since Wilson.

Bush 43's tax cuts are the largest contributor to the current national deficit. Once again: how do you reconcile cutting taxes with lowering the deficit?

Ninjamedic:

Source please.

The funny thing here is that you ignored my point intirely.

Which party is constantly bitching for tax cuts for the rich again?

Excluding the studies that throw cost into it, the United States does very well. We also do 50% of the world's drug research.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/09/where_drugs_come_from_by_country.php

Considering pretty much all the major drug companies are American companies, it really shouldn't be hard to fetter that one out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Clinical_Excellence#Criticism

You're ignoring my point. This is about the federal budget deficit. Also, the states who kill the most criminals aren't the states seeped in red ink. California and Illinois have terrible budget deficits they will not get out of until the stranglehold a certain party has in those states loosens its grip.

The Democrat Party is constantly bitching about it. The Republicans just disagree with them.

arbane:
snip

I was wondering when you'd join in. Popcorn?

Big_Willie_Styles:

Infrastructure is not falling apart. That's a lie the Democrats tell you.

I hope you're not under the delusion that things built in the 1950s are made of imperishable matter that will endure eternally. 60 years is a long time.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Not all those bridges and roads listed on that "in need of repair" list are about to collapse. They may just have some cosmetic abnormalities they want fixed or something. No bridge in this country that is about to collapse is being driven on. They'd close it (or at least the section that is about to,) as they did with a bridge near me.

Have they repaired it yet?

And why is it the same tough-guy Republicans who are happy playing Russian Roulette with their poor people's food, roads, and retirement funds turn into paranoid fear-freaks every time they see a Muslim?

...and with the above correction, I guess I answered my own question.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Oh, yes, because the government works program during the New Deal was so helpful. LOL.

Yes, yes it was. But I realize on Planet Republican, helping poor people learn a trade and not starve to death is considered a mark AGAINST the WPA.

Big_Willie_Styles:

Mandate a livable wage? No, that's not happening. People are paid what they are worth. You're not making a livable wage flippin' burgers because anybody can do that. It seems you want teenage unemployment to be 100%. (Teenage unemployment always spikes every time the minimum wage is increased.)

Considering that right now those teenagers are competing for jobs with adults who need those shit jobs to continue subsisting, yeah, just a little.

So, you'd rather mandate an UNlivable wage?

arbane:
And occasionally executing the WRONG PERSON, but hey, omlettes, egges, and they weren't rich so they didn't matter anyway, RIGHT?

DrVornoff:
What would you prefer? Execute someone with a bullet to the back of the head in back of the courthouse as soon as the sentence is passed?

DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS!

9_9

It's spelled with a "D", not an "ST".

Which has happened, what, four times in the history of the death penalty in the United States? The existence of DNA evidence and fingerprints has made the last case of that like forty years ago or longer.

That's how it should go. It shouldn't take more than 30 years to kill a dude who shot a cop in the back (and then end up giving him life in prison instead somehow.)

Oh, a play on words. How wonderful! I was referencing the Teddy Roosevelt quote, but whatever. The reason your metaphor doesn't work is because it is not the size that counts in that respect, it is how you use it. A big stick is meant to be an intimidation device that is not meant to be used often. A big member is meant to be used on a daily basis.

Oh, the Afghanistan War has been a failure. Unless every member of every Islamic terrorist organization suddenly died all at the same time, that country will never be stable. Iraq has a chance because of all the oil it can export for trade.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Which has happened, what, four times in the history of the death penalty in the United States? The existence of DNA evidence and fingerprints has made the last case of that like forty years ago or longer.

http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/features/10-infamous-cases-of-wrongful-execution.html

You're so full of shit.

That's how it should go. It shouldn't take more than 30 years to kill a dude who shot a cop in the back (and then end up giving him life in prison instead somehow.)

I take it you never saw The Thin Blue Line. It's a good movie. Check it out.

Oh, a play on words. How wonderful! I was referencing the Teddy Roosevelt quote, but whatever. The reason your metaphor doesn't work is because it is not the size that counts in that respect, it is how you use it.

Wait, are we talking about military hardware or male hardware?

A big stick is meant to be an intimidation device that is not meant to be used often. A big member is meant to be used on a daily basis.

Ask a stupid question.

Still the fact that you would compare your penis to an ICBM speaks volumes.

Oh, the Afghanistan War has been a failure. Unless every member of every Islamic terrorist organization suddenly died all at the same time, that country will never be stable. Iraq has a chance because of all the oil it can export for trade.

So exporting oil will prevent crazy or incompetent people from gaining positions of power?

DrVornoff:

Big_Willie_Styles:
No one ever handed me anything,

Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, a thousand times bullshit. Leaving aside the fact that you only have what you do because of the commons, national defense and law enforcement, you spent at least 18 years being raised by your parents. They fed you, clothed you, provided you with everything you had. No one ever handed you anything my ass.

And don't give me this nonsense that just because you never needed a social safety net that means starving children don't need food stamps. If you're that selfish, then you're the real freeloader in this equation.

What the good Doctor said. have you used public roads, drank tap water, eaten USDA-inspected food, been vaccinated, gone to public school, or ...

Oh, Thud, here's the best take on your Ayn Rand BS.

http://tvnewslies.org/tvnl/index.php/editorial/guest-commentary/21099-day-in-the-life-of-joe-middle-class-republican.html

By the way, Willy, didn't you mention you were earning minimum wage at some point, or am I getting you mixed up with one of our other self-victimizing rightwingers?

Big_Willie_Styles:

Excluding the studies that throw cost into it, the United States does very well. We also do 50% of the world's drug research.

http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2010/11/09/where_drugs_come_from_by_country.php

Considering pretty much all the major drug companies are American companies, it really shouldn't be hard to fetter that one out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_and_Clinical_Excellence#Criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_the_United_States#Efficiency
And if you cannot afford insurance?
Not sure what you're point is for the second.

You're ignoring my point. This is about the federal budget deficit. Also, the states who kill the most criminals aren't the states seeped in red ink. California and Illinois have terrible budget deficits they will not get out of until the stranglehold a certain party has in those states loosens its grip.

And your ignoring my main point. The policies that most republicans support will cost the budget more in the long and short term. And when you start using emotionally charged rhetoric as your justification for it, it becomes more suspect that there is arbitrary line drawn at what can have money thrown at and what cannot.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked