Belgian_Draft 0 #76 July 23, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteFor how long of a period do you feel the government should provide unemployment benefits? A year? 18 months? 36 months? Indefinitely? As long as there is a lot of unemp, 9.5% then it's warranted. Let's say 7% is a good time to let up as a start. What part of "for how long" don't you understand? Edit to add: In case the concept slipped by you.....for how long do you think any one person should be able to collect unemployment benefits from the government? I can be socratic too; at what point do you throw a person to thestreet for an economic condition they couldn't control? So you think unemployment benefits should continue indefinitely. It is good that you are not the one to make that decision. And you think they should be minimal to non-existent; good thing you and yours just lost in congress, now maybe in Nov more people will see that the R's don't care if people go homeless all the name of personal responsibility. I do? Where did I say that? What political group are you claiming I am a part of? Are you still of the mind that unless someone shares your exact political views, they must be a neo-con?HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #77 July 23, 2010 QuoteI do? Where did I say that? What political group are you claiming I am a part of? Are you still of the mind that unless someone shares your exact political views, they must be a neo-con? Of course he is - it's all he's got.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #78 July 23, 2010 QuoteAre you still of the mind that unless someone shares your exact political views, they must be a neo-con? WOW.... Hit that nail on the head. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #79 July 23, 2010 Quote Are you still of the mind that unless someone shares your exact political views, they must be a neo-con? or closet libertarian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #80 July 24, 2010 Quote Quote OK, so an enginner gets laid off, he can't find an engineering job so he collects unemp comp until he can find an engineering job. You say he should take a sleezy car salesman job? It would fuck up his resume making it harder to find an engineering job and reestablish his wage scale. Quote bullshit. You aren't obligated to list anything on your resume. You can say you weren't working at the time. Yea, unemployed for 3 or 5 years sounds better . And many jobs requiring a security clearance require you disclose everything honestly, a starnger to Republicans (honesty). Quote I can think of reasons why an engineer might better use his time then sell cars (if that's really the only option), but it's not going to hurt his job chances. Uh huh. I'm sure as a Circle K clerk you think that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #81 July 24, 2010 Quote Yep, they care about not running the deficit so high that it will be almost impossible to recover. Then explain how Reagan tripled the 900B debt he inherited. A debt that wasn't escalating. Explain how GWB doubled the 5.5T debt he inherited from a strong economy. Both Clinton and esp Obama inherited sick economies and Clinton fixed his, Obama has made major steps in healing his. Explain your inane claim that the R's want to avoid running the deficit (you probably meant debt) so high that we cannot recover when it is the R's responsibel for most of the debt and for virtually all of the leaving a mess of an economy. Quote You don't seem to worry about spending money we don't have or spending someone else's money. Yes I do, that's why I want to chop the military. Quote Also, it has been shown that people go back to work when they are close to losing their benefit. ***"Mr. MIRON: Oh no - there are analyses done by economists, going back, you know, a couple decades, in which they document that the rate of job-leaving is very, very high when people are in their last week or two of eligibility for their unemployment. For people who are eligible for 26 weeks, you see high exit rates out of unemployment in weeks 24, 25, 26. For people who are eligible 52, high exit rates then. Now there's a real objective source, a socipathic Libertarian; an outspoken one at that. And you would shit all over the place if I posted the words of a social liberal. Nice source, really drove home your argument.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Miron Quote So there's more than just anecdotes. There's certainly some systematic stuff published in journals. Yes, by a sociopathic RW maggot; what have you proven? That Libertarians are against social services? WOW, you get the Purlitzer for establishing the Libertarians are against social welfare. Quote CONAN: So at some point people, well, if they've got the benefits available, take advantage of it. Mr. MIRON: They do, and I don't think we should refer to that as gaming the system or be casting aspersions on the people who are doing that. They're doing the intelligent thing. They're responding to incentives that are created. But it's appropriate for policymakers, for society, to say do we want to create that incentive, and to what degree do we want to create that incentive? Obviously, doing a little bit to provide the safety net is reasonable, but doing it extensively, at some point, generates a large number of people who stay unemployed for a long time, and that's not in anybody's interest. " From NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128696646 But hey, Jeffrey Miron is only the director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University at the Department of Economics.... What would he know? Love how you leave out he's a scoiopathic Libertarian. Real credibility there. Quote So given that the Republicans were concerned about how to pay for the benefits AND how some studies have shown that some people just stay on Unemployment instead of taking a job..... Ahhh, "some studies." Yea, written/interpreted by sociopathic Libertarians. Quote Yeah, they do care about people. Yep, rich people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #82 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteYeah, they do care about people. Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #83 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, they do care about people. Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct? Yep, the rich pay virtually sll taxes regardless. Wait, they hold almost all teh money too; go figure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 July 24, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, they do care about people. Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct? Yep, the rich pay virtually sll taxes regardless. Wait, they hold almost all teh money too; go figure. So, you want Barry to *raise* taxes, which will increase the number of people from the LOW end of the spectrum that have to pay taxes and have the comcommitant effect of shifting the tax burden more toward the lower end. Sounds like your usual logic - heck of a plan!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #85 July 24, 2010 Quote Uh huh. I'm sure as a Circle K clerk you think that. As the guy who has seen more bubbles, and likely pays more taxes than you gross, yeah, that's what I think. But what can I expect from a Perot voter, anyhow? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #86 July 24, 2010 QuoteYes, by a sociopathic RW maggot Got it... You can't debate the data, so you ignore it. I am quickly finding out that this is your method. QuoteLove how you leave out he's a scoiopathic Libertarian Your opinion.... I guess you are better schooled in economics than the director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University at the Department of Economics???? QuoteYep, rich people. Yep making more people rich. As opposed to your Dems wanting to make more people poor.... (See I can play your all attitude, no data game as well). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #87 July 24, 2010 QuoteYea, unemployed for 3 or 5 years sounds better Working those years in any job is better than actually being unemployed for that same time period. I have to think you have never been involved in hiring. If you would prefer to hire the guy that did nothing as opposed to the guy that did what he had to do to pay the bills. One shows a desire to make his life better, the other shows a desire to be taken care of and wanting to do nothing to control his own life. In other words.... One is a Republican that feels he has to contribute to his own life. The other a Dem feeling that the world owes him. (See I can play your silly little game as well) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kali 0 #88 July 25, 2010 The only reason you are so adamant on welfare , is because you are too pathetic and useless to take care of yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #89 July 25, 2010 QuoteThe only reason you are so adamant on welfare , is because you are too pathetic and useless to take care of yourself. Bill has been notified, have a good one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #90 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteYea, unemployed for 3 or 5 years sounds better QuoteWorking those years in any job is better than actually being unemployed for that same time period. No, being gainfully employed requires at least breaking even. And if you get locked into a job you cannot search for gainful employment. I get it, unless it's you, others can just take min wage jobs. QuoteI have to think you have never been involved in hiring. If you would prefer to hire the guy that did nothing as opposed to the guy that did what he had to do to pay the bills. Yes and collecting unemp comp is what I would do until a descent opportunity opened up or pergaps consider retraining. QuoteOne shows a desire to make his life better, the other shows a desire to be taken care of and wanting to do nothing to control his own life. To make your life better you must find real employment where you can save, invest and plan for the future. QuoteIn other words.... One is a Republican that feels he has to contribute to his own life. The other a Dem feeling that the world owes him. Well then, I bet many, many Republicans collect unemp comp and turn down jobs under their threshold. Of course they have a rationalization for it. Kinda like all those Republican socialists collecting Socialism Security, Medicare, etc. Quote(See I can play your silly little game as well) Not really, we must assume that Republicans don't collecct social welfare, or atleast they are willing to wash cars and scrub floors to get off it, and I know several who wait for the best job to come along before letting go of the welfare nipple. And you didn't address this: And many jobs requiring a security clearance require you disclose everything honestly, a starnger to Republicans (honesty). No response? Hmm, I guess you can't play the game for shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #91 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteYes, by a sociopathic RW maggot QuoteGot it... You can't debate the data, so you ignore it. I am quickly finding out that this is your method. I'm attacking the source as EXTREMELY biased. You think we can consider a Libertaian as an objective source? I guess you can't debate then, as it requires using a reasonable source to all. We must agree that the Libertarian model is the standard ion order to buy your (or whomevers it was) source and platform. You didn't even qualify the source as a Libertarian so we could place his opinions in context, just as a noted economist or something of the sort. Try honesty, it's more fun. QuoteLove how you leave out he's a scoiopathic Libertarian QuoteYour opinion.... I guess you are better schooled in economics than the director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University at the Department of Economics???? I see, you're a garden variety name-dropper. Here's a dose of your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He was voted sixth in a 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals by Prospect.[6]QuoteYep, rich people. QuoteYep making more people rich. As opposed to your Dems wanting to make more people poor.... Nope, distributing wealth so we have more in the middle, fewer on the extremes. Quote(See I can play your all attitude, no data game as well). Just not well, now ignore my source as you will. Oh, and while you're at it, ignore this for teh 2nd time: -- Then explain how Reagan tripled the 900B debt he inherited. A debt that wasn't escalating. Explain how GWB doubled the 5.5T debt he inherited from a strong economy. Both Clinton and esp Obama inherited sick economies and Clinton fixed his, Obama has made major steps in healing his. Explain your inane claim that the R's want to avoid running the deficit (you probably meant debt) so high that we cannot recover when it is the R's responsibel for most of the debt and for virtually all of the leaving a mess of an economy. -- Yes I do, that's why I want to chop the military. -- And you would shit all over the place if I posted the words of a social liberal. Nice source, really drove home your argument. "> This guy's resume is even more impressive than your sociopath's, so I must be right, right? Being accomplished doesn't make a person right in their opinions. You righties are soooo funny, you latch onto a dead fish and expect to ride it to the deep ocean. QuoteYep, rich people. QuoteYep making more people rich. As opposed to your Dems wanting to make more people poor.... Nope, distributing wealth so we have more in the middle, fewer on the extremes. Quote(See I can play your all attitude, no data game as well). Just not well, now ignore my source as you will. Oh, and while you're at it, ignore this for teh 2nd time: -- Then explain how Reagan tripled the 900B debt he inherited. A debt that wasn't escalating. Explain how GWB doubled the 5.5T debt he inherited from a strong economy. Both Clinton and esp Obama inherited sick economies and Clinton fixed his, Obama has made major steps in healing his. Explain your inane claim that the R's want to avoid running the deficit (you probably meant debt) so high that we cannot recover when it is the R's responsibel for most of the debt and for virtually all of the leaving a mess of an economy. -- Yes I do, that's why I want to chop the military. -- And you would shit all over the place if I posted the words of a social liberal. Nice source, really drove home your argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Miron [url] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #92 July 25, 2010 Quote Quote Uh huh. I'm sure as a Circle K clerk you think that. As the guy who has seen more bubbles, and likely pays more taxes than you gross, yeah, that's what I think. But what can I expect from a Perot voter, anyhow? Ahhh, if true, so sorry your taxes are going up What bubbles have you seen, the ones in your champagne? Love how you disclose your career field or any other aspect; must be proud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #93 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, they do care about people. Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct? Yep, the rich pay virtually sll taxes regardless. Wait, they hold almost all teh money too; go figure. So, you want Barry to *raise* taxes, which will increase the number of people from the LOW end of the spectrum that have to pay taxes and have the comcommitant effect of shifting the tax burden more toward the lower end. Sounds like your usual logic - heck of a plan! Raising top taxable income rarely if even affects teh lower end and if it does it's minimal. The revs collected more than make up for it. Back to your regularly scheduled argument for the rich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zep 0 #94 July 25, 2010 "Remember, it is the Republican Party who cares about the people." + a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care how many I'd personally pay for the lead to put paid to the democrats (lefties) from my own pocket , I'd go into debt for a life time, I'd put my family in debt for thier life time, and the next 100 generations of my family I'd happily put in debt to rid the the world of the socialist scum. Thier now you know how I feel about socialists. The other day I was having a conversation with a punter in the bar and the out come was that, (we if we could) we would with the exception of North America Europe and Austaralisia wipe out human kind and start again. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #95 July 25, 2010 Quote "Remember, it is the Republican Party who cares about the people." + a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care how many I'd personally pay for the lead to put paid to the democrats (lefties) from my own pocket , I'd go into debt for a life time, I'd put my family in debt for thier life time, and the next 100 generations of my family I'd happily put in debt to rid the the world of the socialist scum. Thier now you know how I feel about socialists. The other day I was having a conversation with a punter in the bar and the out come was that, (we if we could) we would with the exception of North America Europe and Austaralisia wipe out human kind and start again. It's hard to extrapolate the exact meaning of this rant, so I'll generalize it to be obviously anti-dem/socialist. Now actually strike an argument for capitalism and against socialism, better yet, quasi-Socialism. Use historical examples of why quasi-Socialism, as with Canada is inneffective and how capitalism has worked well. I'm not expecting a cogent response here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scruffy 0 #96 July 25, 2010 You know, I wonder. I wonder in the coming years when the US loses it's credit rating and can't take on any more debt, and starts dramatically, draconianly cutting benefits for no other reason then there isn't any money to pay for it if people like lucky are going to look back to today and remember that we had a chance to get our financial house in order with common sense cuts in welfare spending, and yes lucky before you say it, military spending as well. I wonder if they will remember they have only themselves to blame just like the greeks, or if it'll still be all the "sociopathic" rw's faultPeace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #97 July 25, 2010 QuoteYou know, I wonder. I wonder in the coming years when the US loses it's credit rating and can't take on any more debt, and starts dramatically, draconianly cutting benefits for no other reason then there isn't any money to pay for it if people like lucky are going to look back to today and remember that we had a chance to get our financial house in order with common sense cuts in welfare spending, and yes lucky before you say it, military spending as well. I wonder if they will remember they have only themselves to blame just like the greeks, or if it'll still be all the "sociopathic" rw's fault Yea, I wonder if we will look back to the Reagan era and the GWB era and think: You know, those tax cuts and grotesque spending really stuck us in a hole. If it werenot for GHWB and esp Clinton having the guts to raise taxes we could actually be worse off. Hmmmm, I think I'll go vote for the politician that will cut taxes, even tho only a moron would think that will help, as it never has, but it sounds good. Yea, amazing that you guys didn't have such a cut-spending agenda as your turd was in office. Also, not so amazing that you guys won't acknowledge that tax cuts only exacerbate a bad economy, even Hoover was smart enough to finally understand that, it seems the R's have dumbed down from then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scruffy 0 #98 July 25, 2010 So again instead of looking at yourself and thinking is what i'm supporting going to be good or bad in the long run you say "well it doesn't matter look what bush did!" Which is doubly insulting because i'm a libertarian and probably like bush and Reagan about as much as you do.Peace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #99 July 25, 2010 QuoteSo again instead of looking at yourself and thinking is what i'm supporting going to be good or bad in the long run you say "well it doesn't matter look what bush did!" Which is doubly insulting because i'm a libertarian and probably like bush and Reagan about as much as you do. My experiences are that given the choice, virtually all Libertarians run to the Republican Party, Ron Paul is an outstanding and prominent examp,e of this. So, Libertarian, other than trickle-down theory, show me historical examples of where tax cuts have helped. I have to ask this question more in a rhetorical sense than anything. Of course it elicits no intelligent response from respondents as there is no possible answer and is therefore rhetorical. SHOW ME A FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS LED TO OVERALL BETTERMENT FOR THE ECONOMY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scruffy 0 #100 July 25, 2010 When did I say tax cut either. Having a debate with you is like herding cats. I'm talking about cutting needless spending as our debt is unsustainable and at some point we are going to have to rely on something other than being able to just pay off the interest and let china foot the bill. Do i really need to quote historical context of why spending money you don't have is bad, or do you have a basic understanding of macroeconomics?Peace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #91 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteYes, by a sociopathic RW maggot QuoteGot it... You can't debate the data, so you ignore it. I am quickly finding out that this is your method. I'm attacking the source as EXTREMELY biased. You think we can consider a Libertaian as an objective source? I guess you can't debate then, as it requires using a reasonable source to all. We must agree that the Libertarian model is the standard ion order to buy your (or whomevers it was) source and platform. You didn't even qualify the source as a Libertarian so we could place his opinions in context, just as a noted economist or something of the sort. Try honesty, it's more fun. QuoteLove how you leave out he's a scoiopathic Libertarian QuoteYour opinion.... I guess you are better schooled in economics than the director of undergraduate studies at Harvard University at the Department of Economics???? I see, you're a garden variety name-dropper. Here's a dose of your own: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman Paul Robin Krugman (pronounced /ˈkruːɡmən/;[3] born February 28, 1953) is an American economist, columnist and author. He is Professor of Economics and International Affairs at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics, and an op-ed columnist for The New York Times.[4][5] In 2008, Krugman won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He was voted sixth in a 2005 global poll of the world's top 100 intellectuals by Prospect.[6]QuoteYep, rich people. QuoteYep making more people rich. As opposed to your Dems wanting to make more people poor.... Nope, distributing wealth so we have more in the middle, fewer on the extremes. Quote(See I can play your all attitude, no data game as well). Just not well, now ignore my source as you will. Oh, and while you're at it, ignore this for teh 2nd time: -- Then explain how Reagan tripled the 900B debt he inherited. A debt that wasn't escalating. Explain how GWB doubled the 5.5T debt he inherited from a strong economy. Both Clinton and esp Obama inherited sick economies and Clinton fixed his, Obama has made major steps in healing his. Explain your inane claim that the R's want to avoid running the deficit (you probably meant debt) so high that we cannot recover when it is the R's responsibel for most of the debt and for virtually all of the leaving a mess of an economy. -- Yes I do, that's why I want to chop the military. -- And you would shit all over the place if I posted the words of a social liberal. Nice source, really drove home your argument. "> This guy's resume is even more impressive than your sociopath's, so I must be right, right? Being accomplished doesn't make a person right in their opinions. You righties are soooo funny, you latch onto a dead fish and expect to ride it to the deep ocean. QuoteYep, rich people. QuoteYep making more people rich. As opposed to your Dems wanting to make more people poor.... Nope, distributing wealth so we have more in the middle, fewer on the extremes. Quote(See I can play your all attitude, no data game as well). Just not well, now ignore my source as you will. Oh, and while you're at it, ignore this for teh 2nd time: -- Then explain how Reagan tripled the 900B debt he inherited. A debt that wasn't escalating. Explain how GWB doubled the 5.5T debt he inherited from a strong economy. Both Clinton and esp Obama inherited sick economies and Clinton fixed his, Obama has made major steps in healing his. Explain your inane claim that the R's want to avoid running the deficit (you probably meant debt) so high that we cannot recover when it is the R's responsibel for most of the debt and for virtually all of the leaving a mess of an economy. -- Yes I do, that's why I want to chop the military. -- And you would shit all over the place if I posted the words of a social liberal. Nice source, really drove home your argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Miron [url] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #92 July 25, 2010 Quote Quote Uh huh. I'm sure as a Circle K clerk you think that. As the guy who has seen more bubbles, and likely pays more taxes than you gross, yeah, that's what I think. But what can I expect from a Perot voter, anyhow? Ahhh, if true, so sorry your taxes are going up What bubbles have you seen, the ones in your champagne? Love how you disclose your career field or any other aspect; must be proud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #93 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, they do care about people. Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct? Yep, the rich pay virtually sll taxes regardless. Wait, they hold almost all teh money too; go figure. So, you want Barry to *raise* taxes, which will increase the number of people from the LOW end of the spectrum that have to pay taxes and have the comcommitant effect of shifting the tax burden more toward the lower end. Sounds like your usual logic - heck of a plan! Raising top taxable income rarely if even affects teh lower end and if it does it's minimal. The revs collected more than make up for it. Back to your regularly scheduled argument for the rich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zep 0 #94 July 25, 2010 "Remember, it is the Republican Party who cares about the people." + a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care how many I'd personally pay for the lead to put paid to the democrats (lefties) from my own pocket , I'd go into debt for a life time, I'd put my family in debt for thier life time, and the next 100 generations of my family I'd happily put in debt to rid the the world of the socialist scum. Thier now you know how I feel about socialists. The other day I was having a conversation with a punter in the bar and the out come was that, (we if we could) we would with the exception of North America Europe and Austaralisia wipe out human kind and start again. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #95 July 25, 2010 Quote "Remember, it is the Republican Party who cares about the people." + a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care how many I'd personally pay for the lead to put paid to the democrats (lefties) from my own pocket , I'd go into debt for a life time, I'd put my family in debt for thier life time, and the next 100 generations of my family I'd happily put in debt to rid the the world of the socialist scum. Thier now you know how I feel about socialists. The other day I was having a conversation with a punter in the bar and the out come was that, (we if we could) we would with the exception of North America Europe and Austaralisia wipe out human kind and start again. It's hard to extrapolate the exact meaning of this rant, so I'll generalize it to be obviously anti-dem/socialist. Now actually strike an argument for capitalism and against socialism, better yet, quasi-Socialism. Use historical examples of why quasi-Socialism, as with Canada is inneffective and how capitalism has worked well. I'm not expecting a cogent response here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scruffy 0 #96 July 25, 2010 You know, I wonder. I wonder in the coming years when the US loses it's credit rating and can't take on any more debt, and starts dramatically, draconianly cutting benefits for no other reason then there isn't any money to pay for it if people like lucky are going to look back to today and remember that we had a chance to get our financial house in order with common sense cuts in welfare spending, and yes lucky before you say it, military spending as well. I wonder if they will remember they have only themselves to blame just like the greeks, or if it'll still be all the "sociopathic" rw's faultPeace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #97 July 25, 2010 QuoteYou know, I wonder. I wonder in the coming years when the US loses it's credit rating and can't take on any more debt, and starts dramatically, draconianly cutting benefits for no other reason then there isn't any money to pay for it if people like lucky are going to look back to today and remember that we had a chance to get our financial house in order with common sense cuts in welfare spending, and yes lucky before you say it, military spending as well. I wonder if they will remember they have only themselves to blame just like the greeks, or if it'll still be all the "sociopathic" rw's fault Yea, I wonder if we will look back to the Reagan era and the GWB era and think: You know, those tax cuts and grotesque spending really stuck us in a hole. If it werenot for GHWB and esp Clinton having the guts to raise taxes we could actually be worse off. Hmmmm, I think I'll go vote for the politician that will cut taxes, even tho only a moron would think that will help, as it never has, but it sounds good. Yea, amazing that you guys didn't have such a cut-spending agenda as your turd was in office. Also, not so amazing that you guys won't acknowledge that tax cuts only exacerbate a bad economy, even Hoover was smart enough to finally understand that, it seems the R's have dumbed down from then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scruffy 0 #98 July 25, 2010 So again instead of looking at yourself and thinking is what i'm supporting going to be good or bad in the long run you say "well it doesn't matter look what bush did!" Which is doubly insulting because i'm a libertarian and probably like bush and Reagan about as much as you do.Peace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #99 July 25, 2010 QuoteSo again instead of looking at yourself and thinking is what i'm supporting going to be good or bad in the long run you say "well it doesn't matter look what bush did!" Which is doubly insulting because i'm a libertarian and probably like bush and Reagan about as much as you do. My experiences are that given the choice, virtually all Libertarians run to the Republican Party, Ron Paul is an outstanding and prominent examp,e of this. So, Libertarian, other than trickle-down theory, show me historical examples of where tax cuts have helped. I have to ask this question more in a rhetorical sense than anything. Of course it elicits no intelligent response from respondents as there is no possible answer and is therefore rhetorical. SHOW ME A FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS LED TO OVERALL BETTERMENT FOR THE ECONOMY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites scruffy 0 #100 July 25, 2010 When did I say tax cut either. Having a debate with you is like herding cats. I'm talking about cutting needless spending as our debt is unsustainable and at some point we are going to have to rely on something other than being able to just pay off the interest and let china foot the bill. Do i really need to quote historical context of why spending money you don't have is bad, or do you have a basic understanding of macroeconomics?Peace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 4 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Lucky... 0 #92 July 25, 2010 Quote Quote Uh huh. I'm sure as a Circle K clerk you think that. As the guy who has seen more bubbles, and likely pays more taxes than you gross, yeah, that's what I think. But what can I expect from a Perot voter, anyhow? Ahhh, if true, so sorry your taxes are going up What bubbles have you seen, the ones in your champagne? Love how you disclose your career field or any other aspect; must be proud. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #93 July 25, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYeah, they do care about people. Yep, rich people. That be the rich people that pay a HIGHER part of the tax burden under the Bush cuts, correct? Yep, the rich pay virtually sll taxes regardless. Wait, they hold almost all teh money too; go figure. So, you want Barry to *raise* taxes, which will increase the number of people from the LOW end of the spectrum that have to pay taxes and have the comcommitant effect of shifting the tax burden more toward the lower end. Sounds like your usual logic - heck of a plan! Raising top taxable income rarely if even affects teh lower end and if it does it's minimal. The revs collected more than make up for it. Back to your regularly scheduled argument for the rich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #94 July 25, 2010 "Remember, it is the Republican Party who cares about the people." + a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care how many I'd personally pay for the lead to put paid to the democrats (lefties) from my own pocket , I'd go into debt for a life time, I'd put my family in debt for thier life time, and the next 100 generations of my family I'd happily put in debt to rid the the world of the socialist scum. Thier now you know how I feel about socialists. The other day I was having a conversation with a punter in the bar and the out come was that, (we if we could) we would with the exception of North America Europe and Austaralisia wipe out human kind and start again. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #95 July 25, 2010 Quote "Remember, it is the Republican Party who cares about the people." + a million, a billion, a trillion, I don't care how many I'd personally pay for the lead to put paid to the democrats (lefties) from my own pocket , I'd go into debt for a life time, I'd put my family in debt for thier life time, and the next 100 generations of my family I'd happily put in debt to rid the the world of the socialist scum. Thier now you know how I feel about socialists. The other day I was having a conversation with a punter in the bar and the out come was that, (we if we could) we would with the exception of North America Europe and Austaralisia wipe out human kind and start again. It's hard to extrapolate the exact meaning of this rant, so I'll generalize it to be obviously anti-dem/socialist. Now actually strike an argument for capitalism and against socialism, better yet, quasi-Socialism. Use historical examples of why quasi-Socialism, as with Canada is inneffective and how capitalism has worked well. I'm not expecting a cogent response here. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy 0 #96 July 25, 2010 You know, I wonder. I wonder in the coming years when the US loses it's credit rating and can't take on any more debt, and starts dramatically, draconianly cutting benefits for no other reason then there isn't any money to pay for it if people like lucky are going to look back to today and remember that we had a chance to get our financial house in order with common sense cuts in welfare spending, and yes lucky before you say it, military spending as well. I wonder if they will remember they have only themselves to blame just like the greeks, or if it'll still be all the "sociopathic" rw's faultPeace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #97 July 25, 2010 QuoteYou know, I wonder. I wonder in the coming years when the US loses it's credit rating and can't take on any more debt, and starts dramatically, draconianly cutting benefits for no other reason then there isn't any money to pay for it if people like lucky are going to look back to today and remember that we had a chance to get our financial house in order with common sense cuts in welfare spending, and yes lucky before you say it, military spending as well. I wonder if they will remember they have only themselves to blame just like the greeks, or if it'll still be all the "sociopathic" rw's fault Yea, I wonder if we will look back to the Reagan era and the GWB era and think: You know, those tax cuts and grotesque spending really stuck us in a hole. If it werenot for GHWB and esp Clinton having the guts to raise taxes we could actually be worse off. Hmmmm, I think I'll go vote for the politician that will cut taxes, even tho only a moron would think that will help, as it never has, but it sounds good. Yea, amazing that you guys didn't have such a cut-spending agenda as your turd was in office. Also, not so amazing that you guys won't acknowledge that tax cuts only exacerbate a bad economy, even Hoover was smart enough to finally understand that, it seems the R's have dumbed down from then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy 0 #98 July 25, 2010 So again instead of looking at yourself and thinking is what i'm supporting going to be good or bad in the long run you say "well it doesn't matter look what bush did!" Which is doubly insulting because i'm a libertarian and probably like bush and Reagan about as much as you do.Peace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #99 July 25, 2010 QuoteSo again instead of looking at yourself and thinking is what i'm supporting going to be good or bad in the long run you say "well it doesn't matter look what bush did!" Which is doubly insulting because i'm a libertarian and probably like bush and Reagan about as much as you do. My experiences are that given the choice, virtually all Libertarians run to the Republican Party, Ron Paul is an outstanding and prominent examp,e of this. So, Libertarian, other than trickle-down theory, show me historical examples of where tax cuts have helped. I have to ask this question more in a rhetorical sense than anything. Of course it elicits no intelligent response from respondents as there is no possible answer and is therefore rhetorical. SHOW ME A FUCKING MAJOR FED TAX CUT THAT HAS LED TO OVERALL BETTERMENT FOR THE ECONOMY. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
scruffy 0 #100 July 25, 2010 When did I say tax cut either. Having a debate with you is like herding cats. I'm talking about cutting needless spending as our debt is unsustainable and at some point we are going to have to rely on something other than being able to just pay off the interest and let china foot the bill. Do i really need to quote historical context of why spending money you don't have is bad, or do you have a basic understanding of macroeconomics?Peace, love and hoppiness Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
