Who thinks Ron Paul is the bestest?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That's because I don't offer my OPINION as fact. Keep waiting.

Then you can't be too sore if I dismiss your opinion as factually irrelevant.

No problem - that's why it's CALLED 'opinion' and not 'fact'.

*looks around for the clue-by-four...*

Right, and a factually supported opinion carries a WHOLE LOT MORE weight than does a casual opinion; I do what I can to make my opinions stronger, whereas you ask us to just believe you.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

All this empirical evidence, I'm going to burn my science books

Cmon, should I write a thesis paper to prove to you that I have gray carpet in my living room, or is it sufficient to tell you that I have gray carpet in my living room.

Or you could take the burden of proof upon yourself and show me all this scientifically tested empirical evidence that welfare isn't abused.

Ever wonder why conservatives don't post empirical data? You seem like a smart, level-headed guy who would post data if you could find some that supported your position. The problem is that all of the major, objective data out there that I've seen doesn't reflect well upon your position and so you're unfortunately relegated to just personal opinion. Please, I learn when I get beat in debate, post data to support your position and don't be abstract.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Ever wonder why conservatives don't post empirical data?

Ever wonder why liberals make unfounded generalizations?


Politicians from both parties do both things. Doesn't make either of them right for pointing it out, just makes them both wrong.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Very well said!
I to grew up in a very simular situation and maid it out on my own. What able body person needs the fucking govt. to feed them?. \

From the age of 14 till 18 i worked at a grocery store. I grew up in South Dallas and it was a lower income area. I hated working as a sacker and seeing someone pay with food staps with gold aroung there neck and driving a caddy or nice suv. Seen it every day!

All this empirical evidence, I'm going to burn my science books

He isn't writing a scholary paper, he's reporting what he has seen. I've seen the same thing. And here is some empirical evidence that suggests he is right:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/erik.hurst/research/race_consumption_qje_submission.pdf

I'm not going to read all 64 pages as you didn't, but this is more about raace than it is about class. The abstract states:

Using nationally representative data on consumption, we show that Blacks and Hispanics devote larger shares of their expenditure bundles to visible goods (clothing, jewelry, and cars) than do
comparable Whites.

I don't argue with that and they kinda draw an inverse relationship as how poor minorities tend to spend more than do those in higher classes, but does it state that these poorer minorities are on welfare and use that money to by bling, all that establishes it that there is a problem with enforcement of abuse, not that we should exclude all minorities from needed welfare, opr needy whites for that matter. This article is more about race than about welfare abuse.

In fact, page 45, and I'm suuuuuure you got that far, illustrates family incomes from 57k to 39k, hardly welfare territory. So your article has purely to do with disposal of incomes from families not receiving welfare vs welfare recipients who abuse the system, as the topic actually is.

Besides, if you look at page 54 I think they are refering to Sanford and Son.

Your data does nothing to establish that welfare recipients are abusing gov support by buying jewelry and 22's for their Escalade. If so, explain.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Ever wonder why conservatives don't post empirical data?

Ever wonder why liberals make unfounded generalizations?


Politicians from both parties do both things. Doesn't make either of them right for pointing it out, just makes them both wrong.

The side that's losing usually tries to make it purely a systemic issue, the winners illustrate the contrast.

Here are more specific data for you to chew on:

SPENDING:

Reagan increased by 57% in 8 years

GHWB increased by 42% (adjusted for 8 years)

Clinton increased by 27% in 8 years

GWB increased by 56% in 8 years (not counting Iraq)


ANNUAL DEBT INCREASE:

Reagan increased debt by 250B/yr

GHWB increased debt by 250B/yr

Clinton increased debt by 187B/yr (last year was 33B as it declined every year)

GWB increased debt by 400B/yr


Give me the topic and I'll provide the data; that's why I'm here. Are these too general for you? IS teh sample size too small? 28 years. Can't we infer from this data that Republicans have dropped a big poopy on us? Or do we have to wait for them to drive us all the way into the ground?

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Ever wonder why conservatives don't post empirical data?

Ever wonder why liberals make unfounded generalizations?


Politicians from both parties do both things. Doesn't make either of them right for pointing it out, just makes them both wrong.

The side that's losing usually tries to make it purely a systemic issue, the winners illustrate the contrast.

Here are more specific data for you to chew on:

SPENDING:

Reagan increased by 57% in 8 years

GHWB increased by 42% (adjusted for 8 years)

Clinton increased by 27% in 8 years

GWB increased by 56% in 8 years (not counting Iraq)


ANNUAL DEBT INCREASE:

Reagan increased debt by 250B/yr

GHWB increased debt by 250B/yr

Clinton increased debt by 187B/yr (last year was 33B as it declined every year)

GWB increased debt by 400B/yr

BHO increased by 1200B/yr for his first year so far.


Give me the topic and I'll provide the data; that's why I'm here. Are these too general for you? IS teh sample size too small? 28 years. Can't we infer from this data that Republicans have dropped a big poopy on us? Or do we have to wait for them to drive us all the way into the ground?

It's no secret that the Republicans in congress have screwed the pooch when it comes to the national debt. Given that BHO has borrowed more than GWB, GHWB, Clinton, and Reagan's annual average combined, I'm not understanding how Obama is the solution to this problem.

Regarding the "losing side", it's not D vs. R like the politicians would have you think. The people are the losing side on this, no matter who has been in office.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

It's no secret that the Republicans in congress have screwed the pooch when it comes to the national debt.

And Reagan and GWB, why immunize them?

Quote

Given that BHO has borrowed more than GWB, GHWB, Clinton, and Reagan's annual average combined, I'm not understanding how Obama is the solution to this problem.

Oh, what has he borrowed? The auto-makers bailout? The stimulus started under Bush, as it was his mess after all. Maybe the Obama proposals are huge, but maybe you haven't seen the mess he inherited or are unwilling to acknowledge them.

Seriously, you guys act as if he inherited a stumbling economy, he inherited the banking system total failure and the backbone of America, the auto industry, as it was in total failure about to fold up completely with maybe Ford struggling out. You guys really need to check yourselves, the country was about to fold up, 5 of the previous 6 quarters were neg GDP, and thinsg were just tanking. Can you attribute the bailout costs to Obama? It was like what, 3 months in when he bailed em out? That's a joke, I guess 21% interest was Reagan's fault too, since he inherited it. What a joke. What's your response, let em fail? Brilliant, they tried that once in 1929; how did it work out? Then Hoover got his head out and massively raised taxes his last year and things improved.

Quote

Regarding the "losing side", it's not D vs. R like the politicians would have you think. The people are the losing side on this, no matter who has been in office.

By "losing side" I mean the party that inherited 900B total debt, cut taxes and blew spending thru the roof and trippled the debt. Then GHWB cut spending and raised taxes. CLinton followed and cut spending more and raised taxes. GWB came in and cut taxes dramatically and spent thru teh roof like Reagan. So there is no absolute, but statistically the mode indiccates that the practice of cutting taxes and increasing spending resides with the Republicans, the only distinction from this is with GHWB who acted like the Democrats.

So the winners are the Dems and the losers are the Republicans. You follow conservative thinking, your side's ideologies (cut taxes and overspend) are the ones that got us here. The Dems ran COngress during GHWB's and Clinton tax increases, so that was a total Democratic move other than GHWB and the outcome was the debt increase was almost leveled off. The one defector, GHWB, raised taxes and was voted out by his party because of it.

I understand you want to make a big grab bag, but if my party was the who's policies led to this kind of disaster I would too. Now let's dissect Obama's escape from this fiscal collapse he inherited and blame him. Ridiculous.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

And Reagan and GWB, why immunize them?

My mistake. I meant to type "Washington", but "Congress" ended up in there.

Quote

Oh, what has he borrowed?

Lots and lots of American dollars. The national debt has increased $1,200,000,000,000 in around 8-9 months.

Quote

The auto-makers bailout? The stimulus started under Bush, as it was his mess after all. Maybe the Obama proposals are huge, but maybe you haven't seen the mess he inherited or are unwilling to acknowledge them.

I'm not arguing that what Bush did was good, it wasn't. You can't argue that the dems are any less responsible, they made up the majority of congress when the auto bailouts and TARP passed. We as a nation can't continue to ignore that fact that for some reason we keep electing people that do this kind of crap.

Quote

Seriously, you guys act as if he inherited a stumbling economy, he inherited the banking system total failure and the backbone of America, the auto industry, as it was in total failure about to fold up completely with maybe Ford struggling out.

Please don't group me in with "you guys", I'm an individual, not a group. If you wish to discuss something, I'd prefer we discuss my view, not the view of the party of which you believe I am am member.

It's worth nothing that any industry that politicians want to keep alive is suddenly the "backbone of America". The US government (both sides) spent a bunch of money to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. It was gambling. Politicians took a chance and now we're are now stuck with the 25-30 billion dollar bill, plus interest.

The part of this that angers me the most is not that they went ahead and did it, despite the fact that most of the american people were against the bailouts, it's that they had the audacity to tell me it was good for me.

Quote

You guys really need to check yourselves, the country was about to fold up, 5 of the previous 6 quarters were neg GDP, and thinsg were just tanking.

I won't disagree. As a voter who usually votes for people in the Republican party, we've done a piss poor job of keeping assholes and crooks out of office. Both parties have. We can argue back and forth all day, but unless voters from both sides own up to it and decide to change things, it won't change.

There is a growing movement of candidates like Ron and Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and a few others that I believe truly represent the values of the republican party. Getting the current party leadership out and these guys in isn't going to be easy.

Quote

Can you attribute the bailout costs to Obama?

Did he vote for it?

Quote

It was like what, 3 months in when he bailed em out?

If I did anything three months in at my job I'd have a really hard time blaming it on the last guy.

Quote

That's a joke, I guess 21% interest was Reagan's fault too, since he inherited it.

Paul Volcker was hated, yet he did what was necessary, and it worked.

Ben Bernanke is loved. Doesn't that worry you sometimes?

Quote

What a joke. What's your response, let em fail?

They've already failed. I see no reason to give them some cash as a reward for doing it.

Quote

Brilliant, they tried that once in 1929; how did it work out? Then Hoover got his head out and massively raised taxes his last year and things improved.

You think there were no bailouts during the great depression? No government intervention? You need to do some reading.

Quote

By "losing side" I mean the party that inherited 900B total debt, cut taxes and blew spending thru the roof and trippled the debt.

The party didn't inherit it, US taxpayers did. I know they screwed it up, already said that. I just don't see the point in screwing it up more.

If you're complaining about debt, how can Obama raising it more be good? I'm not defending the R's, they're both wrong.

Quote

So the winners are the Dems and the losers are the Republicans.

The losers are the american people. Dems and Repubs get to argue about it, the people get to foot the bill.

Quote

You follow conservative thinking, your side's ideologies (cut taxes and overspend) are the ones that got us here.

Those aren't conservative ideologies at all. Bush ran on that platform, but that's not what he did.

Quote

The Dems ran COngress during GHWB's and Clinton tax increases, so that was a total Democratic move other than GHWB and the outcome was the debt increase was almost leveled off. The one defector, GHWB, raised taxes and was voted out by his party because of it.

Except it's not just the issue of taxes, it's the issue of taxes and spending. lowering taxes without lowering spending isn't lowering taxes, it's just deferring them until a later date.

Quote

I understand you want to make a big grab bag, but if my party was the who's policies led to this kind of disaster I would too.

Not sure what you mean by "make a big grab bag".

I'm not blaming the democrats any more or less than the republicans, policies from both sides that led to this disaster. We could argue who is more at fault all day long, but it really doesn't make a difference either way.

Quote

Now let's dissect Obama's escape from this fiscal collapse he inherited and blame him. Ridiculous.

How is anything he's doing an escape? How does spending more money let you escape from debt?

[Ion01 1]

justinb138 -
Mad props! You said just about everything I would have said!

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

My mistake. I meant to type "Washington", but "Congress" ended up in there.

No prob

Quote

Lots and lots of American dollars. The national debt has increased $1,200,000,000,000 in around 8-9 months.

OK, if so, break it down for me; he allocated $X for what program. Then establish why it was wasteful and what we should have done. What you feel would have happened if he did or did not allocate the funds. Not really too much to ask.

Quote

I'm not arguing that what Bush did was good, it wasn't. We as a nation can't continue to ignore that fact that for some reason we keep electing people that do this kind of crap.

Well, Bush had to either bail out the banks or create a US banking system. Doing nothing would have been a replay of the Great Depression.

So Bush gave away the first 350B and Obama the next. I think congressional support was virtually accross the board, we really can't fault the bailout, but we can blame who and / or what got us there.

Quote

You can't argue that the dems are any less responsible, they made up the majority of congress when the auto bailouts and TARP passed.

Wrong. The House was Dem run and the Senate was 49-49-2. 1 Indep was basically a Dem, the other, Lieberman pretended to be a Dem, but voted all pro-war when teh Dems didn't and wholly supported McCain in the general election, he was almost thrown out of the Dem caucus after the election until he promised to fly right. Also, Lieberman was elected by 2/3 registered Republicans. The Senate was split, the VP breaks some ties.

Shall we also mention that before Jan 07, the last 2 years of Bush's terms, there was 1 veto and no overrides from congress. http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2006/07/20/congress-fails-to-override-bush-veto.htm

After the Dems took the House in Jan 07 and tied the senate there were 11 more vetoes with 4 of them overridden. A 1:3 override ratio is pretty bad, but to say the Dem House and split Senate did nothing is incorrect, they did what they could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_vetoes

Clinton onlhy had 2 of 37 overridden and he had a Republican congress for his last 6 years. You have to go to Pierce and Andrew Johnson to find a pres with a higher ratio of veto / override. And to think, Bush virtually let congress run teh country w/o checcking him, so if he had a Dem congress ever, esp for 4 or more years, he would have been #1 instead of #3 on all-time veto overrides.

SO to say the Dems are to blame or did nothing bush's last 2 years when they owned the House and tied the Senate is wrong.

Quote

Please don't group me in with "you guys", I'm an individual, not a group. If you wish to discuss something, I'd prefer we discuss my view, not the view of the party of which you believe I am am member.

Your views, for what I can see, parrot the Republcian Party: tax cuts, social cuts, pro-military spending. Don't get distracted by that, let's talk the points.

Quote

It's worth nothing that any industry that politicians want to keep alive is suddenly the "backbone of America".

OK, I won't act as tho it's all of the sudden: http://www.industryweek.com/articles/the_2007_iw_u-s-_500_--_charts_and_tables_14144.aspx

1/2 way down teh page Automobiles are #4 and auto parts are #10, so I guess 2 in teh top 10 is kinda important.

Quote

The US government (both sides) spent a bunch of money to keep GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy. It was gambling. Politicians took a chance and now we're are now stuck with the 25-30 billion dollar bill, plus interest.

Yep and we're stuck with viable manufacturing, that sucks. 30B is kiddies play, don't you think? Bank bailouts for 700B+, 1 trillion for the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars...30B...you must be joking.

Quote

The part of this that angers me the most is not that they went ahead and did it, despite the fact that most of the american people were against the bailouts, it's that they had the audacity to tell me it was good for me.

The part that bothers me is that we refuse to read about history and that we think we can just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps and be ok. But of course McCain thought we were all just whiners.

Quote

I won't disagree. As a voter who usually votes for people in the Republican party, we've done a piss poor job of keeping assholes and crooks out of office.

Ya know, most Republican politicians replulse me by simply looking at them, but it really isn't them, it's this template that says we can cut taxes and everything will be ok. Find me a major federal tax cut and show me where it worked out for the better. No microcosms, please, a major cut or find a major fed tax increase and show me how it fucked everything up. So it's the policies, not the people that are ugly.

Quote

Both parties have.

Show me recent Dems that have fucked everything up and how.

Quote

We can argue back and forth all day, but unless voters from both sides own up to it and decide to change things, it won't change.

We need to elect politicians that will raise taxes and cut spending, esp military spending as that helps a very small sector of society. I don't care which party, just that policy will work and has worked, please show me how it hasn't.

Quote

There is a growing movement of candidates like Ron and Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and a few others that I believe truly represent the values of the republican party. Getting the current party leadership out and these guys in isn't going to be easy.

What do ya mean, the Republican Party is wide open. They're so in trouble, they need to change their platform, not some other zealot with a bad haircut. Anyine can walk into the Repub Party tho, when Huckabee and Palin are teh front-runners, you got poop. As for your dream of the Libertarians, check yourself, you got 3% of the vote, Perot makes you guys look weak and he got 0 EV's.

Quote

Did he vote for it?

OK, so you blame Obama for the bailouts, do you think letting the banks go flat, having people run on them and the manufacturing base go to shit is a good idea? Most countries had fat bailouts/stimulus, but you think just quit whining and pulling ourselves up would be a good idea? You differ from all the logistic data and experts then, or you like teh movei, Mad Max and want to see it up close and personal.

Quote

If I did anything three months in at my job I'd have a really hard time blaming it on the last guy.

So Obama inherited an economy in its worst quarter, 3 of the previous 4 had been negative and increasing steeply and it's Obama's fault. As I asked, Reagan inherited 21% interest, was that his fault? Get off the fence and quit posturing, it's ridiculous.

Quote

Paul Volcker was hated, yet he did what was necessary, and it worked.

Ben Bernanke is loved. Doesn't that worry you sometimes?

Yea, and what Volcker did was to contract the money supply and drive unemp to 10.8%, I'm sure Reagan was proud as crusty diapers was known for shitting on the little guy. That was the wrong thing to do, cut taxes and contract the money supply to leave teh little guy w/o money or a job, that's why he was justifyably hated. The fed could have lowered the int rate some as they increased taxes on the rich and opened social programs; show me where that didn't work in the past.

Quote

They've already failed. I see no reason to give them some cash as a reward for doing it.

Ok an dthen we lose an industry and our GDP falls to shit. In case you haven't checked, that's all we have going for us is our GDP, we export death in military toys, create gate around teh world, but the world loves our open market and huge GDP, lose banks/autos and we become a veritable 3rd world country with a debt that exceeds our GDP. Obama's stimulus saved the GDP, next quarter will be well +.

Quote

You think there were no bailouts during the great depression? No government intervention? You need to do some reading.

Please, I read that data all the time. Under Hoover he intially cut taxes and fucked the Bonus Army, etc. He started some projects like what was eventually called the Hoover Dam. Then his last year he opened it up with big tax increases and FDR blew out huge tax increases, the New Deals, SS, 1938 FLSA and a myriad of things that pulled us out. Under teh early GD years Hoover thought we could pull ourselves up by the bootstraps, his last year he realized that was idiotic neo-con ramble. Point is things were bad until he opened up social progs at the end and FDr did nothing but oipen those, they were the savior.

Quote

The party didn't inherit it, US taxpayers did.

Are you that desperate that you have to get semantic? The Party that inherited the economy and the running of the country in 1981 was Reagan, he represented the tax payers.

Quote

I know they screwed it up, already said that. I just don't see the point in screwing it up more.

They screwed it up by cutting taxes, esp for the rich and hugely increasing spending on the military to thwart the USSR, a country on the brink of internal fiscal disaster not giving a shit what we did anyway. Spending on things good for teh country is a positive, wasting on programs that will benefit only the top 5% is elitist, then compound that with tax cuts for the same and that is elitist pandering. That describes Reagan.

Quote

If you're complaining about debt, how can Obama raising it more be good? I'm not defending the R's, they're both wrong.

Tell ya what, the Dem record for the last 28 years is great, not horrible for the years preceeding that. The Republican record since Eisenhower with the exception of GHWB for 4 years is absolute crap, so let's let Obama do his thing and grade him when it's over. All of his spending so far is as a result of saving the country from YOUR FAILED PRESIDENT; how is it that Republicans even have a voice here?

Quote

The losers are the american people. Dems and Repubs get to argue about it, the people get to foot the bill.

The losers, the Republicans elected reps that fucked this country, the data is abundant and clear. The Dems had little representation and tried to fix it, but were then trumped. That defines the winners from teh losers.

Quote

Those aren't conservative ideologies at all. Bush ran on that platform, but that's not what he did.

OH, Reagan didn't run under that brilliance too? In fact didn't he draw the template for GWB? At least when the Republican Party started to fall apart in the 1920's they had the sense to not overspend. Oh sure they are the same incompassionate group of thugs, but they were true fiscal conservatives. And didn't the Republican Congress run under that ideology too? I mean, they drew it up and GWB put blinder son and signed it, so it's more than presidential losers, it's Repub congressional losers too.

BTW, those are neo-conservative ideals, neo = new.

Quote

Except it's not just the issue of taxes, it's the issue of taxes and spending. lowering taxes without lowering spending isn't lowering taxes, it's just deferring them until a later date.

That's right and The Dems in congress reduced spending and increased taxes under both GHWB and CLinton, and these presidents signed it, why do we have to be redundant?

Quote

Not sure what you mean by "make a big grab bag".

Convolute the whole thing to mix the blame.

Quote

I'm not blaming the democrats any more or less than the republicans, policies from both sides that led to this disaster.

How many times do we have to go thru this? I've posted all kinds of data, do I need to again? I wil, no prob.

REAGAN: Cut taxes for the rich esp, jacked up spending 57% based upon annual federal budget.

GHWB: Increased taxes to fend off Reagan's debt, lowered spending to 57% based upon annual federal budget., adjusted for 8 years.

CLINTON: Increased taxes for the rich, cut spending to 27% based upon annual federal budget.

GWB: Cut taxes for the rich esp, jacked up spending 56% based upon annual federal budget not counting Iraq/Afghanistan.

So how is that both parties fault? It's not 100-0, but how is it not virtually all teh Repub fault? After facist Ronnie started the debt machine, it took GHWB and Clinton 12 years, major tax increases and spending / military cuts to level off the debt increase, then GWB came in and fucked it. The 1 descent Repub pres was voted out for raising taxes, the right thing to do. It's the Republican cut tax and overspend philospohy that stinks.

Quote

See how Reagan and GWB are the same president?

How is anything he's doing an escape? How does spending more money let you escape from debt? ***

It's an escape from this near depression that YOU GUYS seem to minimize as a little burble. You act as tho you handed off teh economy, washed your hands of it and now it all Obama's fault and mess.....oh gee, look at the spending, oh my God, he's out of control. I don't think you're young, but you act like a young kid not getting what Obama inherited. The last time there were that many neg GDP quarters, market slide, job losses it was the Great Depression, the other Republican gift.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

justinb138 -
Mad props! You said just about everything I would have said!

But didn't have the knowledge too. Show me a time when a major federal tax cut led to a positive result.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

justinb138 -
Mad props! You said just about everything I would have said!

But didn't have the knowledge too. Show me a time when a major federal tax cut led to a positive result.

1. That's a useless insult, and disappointing, especially since you're one of the few that I actually don't mind arguing with about stuff on here.

2. I'll respond to the longer post tomorrow, I'm at work and kind of short on time.

Quote

Show me a time when a major federal tax cut led to a positive result.

Show me a time when a major spending cut was included with it and I think we'll find one. (Not sure it's ever happened though).

I don't think taxes are the issue, I think it's the spending, and more accurately, the debt. Repubs want to cut taxes and spend on unnecessary wars. Dems want to raise taxes and spend on wasteful social programs.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

1. That's a useless insult, and disappointing, especially since you're one of the few that I actually don't mind arguing with about stuff on here.

I wrote: But didn't have the knowledge too. Show me a time when a major federal tax cut led to a positive result.

That's not an insult, just a call to address my request for data, it's apparent that he didn't have the knowledge to respond. Furthermore, I believe that was to the other poster that was kissing your ass with mad props, he posted his on top, so it came out weird - a few people respond like that. Please, when ya get time, I'm looking for an answer: show me tax cuts gone good / tax increases gone bad. All I ask is that you use major federal cuts/increases and don't be abstract or look at a 1-month period, look at a stretch so the data has a larger sample size.

Quote

2. I'll respond to the longer post tomorrow, I'm at work and kind of short on time.

Fair enough.

Quote

Show me a time when a major spending cut was included with it and I think we'll find one. (Not sure it's ever happened though).

With what? Find one what? Kinda ambiguous; tell me what you want.

Quote

I don't think taxes are the issue, I think it's the spending, and more accurately, the debt.

It's all those things. Federal outlays (spending) are established on an annual basis. The preseident submits a proposal to the House (since 1921), the House drafts a bill, if tehy pass it it goes to teh Senate, if they pass it it goes to the president for signing or veto. If funds are needed mid-year, as with Iraq, they draft a seperate measure that I believe starts with the House, most spending bills do, then it goes on up.

Taxes are seperate random bills, but I think they can be piggybacked on the federal annual budget. They are sporadic in nature and may be rapid-fire or have long stretches inbetween them.

Anyway, so we spend, we tax and common sense would dictate that the difference is what beccomes the deficit or surplus. But it isn't exact, it's close sometimes, but that's the essence.

So is it the debt? The debt is just the main symptom of too much spending or not enough taxing. The point I'm making is that when tax cuts are entered into, all hell breaks loose. Hoover cut em early, Reagan did, GWB did as well. Look at the result. Reagan and GWb also spent thru their ass, so is it the spending or the taxing? I think both. I've heard arguments that it's primarily one or the other, but I think it's moot and ridiculous. The key here, if your a rich person, is to get the poor and MC to buy into this horseshit that cutting taxes creates relief for all classes. I just ask for an example; enough chalkboard economics, let's put it to the test and make observations.

Quote

Repubs want to cut taxes and spend on unnecessary wars.

Yes, remember the Dems were teh warmongers in teh last century, but they did it because they loved wars. The neo-cons today create pseudo enemies to justify spending massive amounts on the Military Industrial Complex teh great Eisenhower warned us against. Reagan is the best example of a loser that did that to us, the USSR was just trying to eat and wipe their ass, Reagan made us believe they wanted to attack. Who's teh bigger idiot: Reagan or his followers.

Quote

Dems want to raise taxes and spend on wasteful social programs.

See, this is where conservatives reveal their incompassion. They don't know or care who's hurting, they just want to deny and dismiss all claims as frivalous. A guy on here said he drove by DES or whatever he called his welfare office, and said he can see the wheels on teh cars cost more than his car, hence it's all fraud. Not sure how to argue with that illogic. Then someone else piped in and posted a 64-page article about how blacks are more likely to buy jewelry and bling, but it only went as low as $39k/yr, so that wasn't talking poverty.

In case you can't see, it's deny, then find a reason to justify it. Again, blind incompassion. What's really funny is when one of them ends up in a wheelchair, they become one of the biggest champions for social svs.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

A guy on here said he drove by DES or whatever he called his welfare office, and said he can see the wheels on teh cars cost more than his car, hence it's all fraud. Not sure how to argue with that illogic.

To clarify this, I didn't just drive by once and observe a bunch of nice cars. I work right next to the building. Its the WIC/Medicaid office. Its not the welfare office. They also include utility assistance. Those eligible can bring in their utility bills to have them paid as well.

I understand that many of the cars in the parking lot are employees cars as well. But I've worked right next to this office for 2 years now, I know which vehicles are there everyday and see which ones are there to collect, because they actually distribute goods at this location as well. So usually people go in and come out with groceries etc, to put in there car. Yesterday I watched a lady with 4 kids loading groceries into a newer Lexus SUV. No this is not empirical, but I'm not going to do a case study on this and make my point so I can convince some guy I've never met that I'm debating with on the internet.

Also, I've gotten to know one of my neighbors across the street very well. They have a decent house which I'm not making any conclusions about how they obtained. He's been unemployed since I've lived here and he's told me he plans on going back to school, so I've been encouraging him to enlist for classes at the local junior college and even told him that my company needed workers for the plant. He said he'd already looked into it, but wouldn't be worth it because the amount of his govt assistance would be cut more than the amount he would make at this job. He does share the house with his Sister (whom I work with) her boyfriend and their kids and his kid. BTW, he drives a 2008 Nissan Titan Crew cab 4X4. This is an able bodied healthy young man in mid twenties. I think he's a nice guy, but he's abusing the system. 2 years later he has still not enlisted for classes. Hell, if he's not gonna work, he could at least go to class and take advantage of what would pretty much be a free education for someone in his circumstances.

If you think I'm blowing smoke, thats fine, I have no intention of doing a tape recorded interview with this individual and posting his private information on here to prove my point. Its not that important to me, because I think its fairly common knowledge with most folks that this is not an uncommon scenario. Even an old roommate and close friend of mine that had two kids remained unemployed for this exact reason because the govt paid more than what a job would.

I could go on and on with people I personally know that abuse the system. Can you honestly say that you don't personally know your fair share of healthy, able-bodied individuals that are milking the govt tit for all its worth? I'm having a difficult time believing that one.