The Truth About the Economy in 135 seconds

[Jaxx]

So, Jaxx Off, what do you want less of, what do you want to cut? Let's see your ideas, real ideas, real cuts, real money. Go ahead, let's see your ideas.

No ideas, just noise and complaints? Bitch, piss whine and moan, cry like a spoiled child, but nothing to contribute? No ideas, nothing positive. That's you. That's the teabagger line.

Get bent. Get lost.

:mj07: :mj07:

You are more of an idiot than I thought you were if you do not think cuts can be made. They have to start somewhere. They can't keep growing government like idiots want. How the hell am I to know what to cut dumbass. I am not in the federal government. You are just another one of the Internet liberal tough guys on this forum that talk tough but I am sure are pussies away from the keyboard.
:lol:

 

[Duff Miver]

You are more of an idiot than I thought you were if you do not think cuts can be made. They have to start somewhere. They can't keep growing government like idiots want. How the hell am I to know what to cut dumbass. I am not in the federal government. You are just another one of the Internet liberal tough guys on this forum that talk tough but I am sure are pussies away from the keyboard.
:lol:

No ideas at all? Sounds about right for a teabagger.

Here, I'll give you a start: Cut the $5 million for NPR. That'll save 1.6 cents per citizen.

Your turn. LOL!

 

[Turfgrass]

I think a compromise is in order?if we could go back to the Clinton era level of taxes, maybe we could also go back to the Clinton era level of spending?

But that would require hard decisions on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Defense since those are the big 4. But who would ever touch those, and if they did what would the answer be? (Maybe a even cut of 5% across the board?)

It seems to me that the only way to effectively raise taxes on the ?rich? is to create a ?millionaire? tax bracket.(Credit Mags) All the tax breaks we all enjoy could be eliminated, and then really put the hammer and sickle to em?. And if they decide to leave the country we could put em' in jail.

I wouldn?t mind seeing Tom Cruise taxed at 70% (or any athlete/actor/CEO for that matter). But for the most part I don?t think there are enough CEO?s, Athletes, or Actors to make up the difference.

opcorn2

 

[Mags]

So, Jaxx Off, what do you want less of, what do you want to cut? Let's see your ideas, real ideas, real cuts, real money. Go ahead, let's see your ideas.

No ideas, just noise and complaints? Bitch, piss whine and moan, cry like a spoiled child, but nothing to contribute? No ideas, nothing positive. That's you. That's the teabagger line.

Get bent. Get lost.

:mj07: :mj07:

Um, Mr. Duff, it is time for you to be honest with yourself. The Democratic party does not have the balls to pass a budget - and they never will.

FACT: The House passed a budget months ago.

FACT: Since Obama has been president, he has not passed a budget yet. This is unprecidented in the history of our country.

FACT: In Obama's first 2 years, he did not even present a budget to be considered.

FACT: When Obama finally, after 2 years, presented a budget, it was voted on in the Senate - and lost 97-0. Not a single member of his own pussy majority voted for their president's budget.

FACT: Again, the House has passed a budget.

See, the difference between Republicans and Democrats is, the Republicans will do what is good for the country. They are not afraid to confront the problems and solve them. They knew very well that the Ryan plan on Medicare would be very unpopular, but still were willing to take political risk to start the conversation and try to solve the problem.

Compare that to Obama and the Dems. They refuse to even present a budget. They have no plan for Medicare. They just keep hiding and hoping it goes away.

Why? It is all political. Obama and the Dems need the votes of those who get all the entitlements - the real workers out there won't vote for them. Obama and the Dems are a bunch of pussies - too scared to lead and do what is right for the country.

At least the Republicans aren't afraid to lead, even if it is unpopular. Which is why they have a great shot at the presidency, no matter who they run out there.

Where is the budget, Mr. Obama? Is 2.75 years not enough time to develop one?? :mj07:

Why are you so scared, Mr. Obama? Lead for once, instead of just cowtowing to your base.

Start with the Ryan plan, and keep cutting from there - including Medicare/Medicaid/Defense. That is where the big money is, and the best place to cut. Keep going until we get a balanced budget.

It is simple really.

 

[rusty]

The problem is that even as simple as this is, the same ol' hillbillies will get into the voting booth and vote for the guy who hates gays and loves god.

hillbillie??:facepalm:

 

[Trampled Underfoot]

hillbillie??:facepalm:

If the shoe fix.

 

[rusty]

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8y06NSBBRtY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

this one again :facepalm:

 

[rusty]

If the shoe fix.

wayyyyyyyyyoffffffff.Try again

 

[Duff Miver]

the Republicans will do what is good for the country.

That's the glaring centerpiece of your ignorant rant.

What will the republicans do? I'll tell you what - exactly as they have done when in power.

Start two wars, costing trillions of dollars, with not one cent in revenue increases or expenditure cuts to pay for those wars.

Exacerbate the deficit by giving tax cuts to the most wealthy.

Install a Medicare Drug plan with not one cent in increased revenue or one cut in expenditures to pay for it.

Attack the middle class by layoffs and pay cuts while they continue their multi-million dollar expenses, golf outings, rides on corporate jets, and other forms of bribe taking unabated.

Continue tax breaks for the richest individuals and corporations while 20 million working people are unemployed.

Initiate a bank bailout for their pals in banking when those same pals have destroyed house values and foreclosed on tens of millions.

Propose and pass in the House a plan which destroys Social Security and Medicare.

Any day now one of their leaders is going to address the problem of declining living standards of most Americans by suggesting that they eat cake, and finally the majority of people will come to realize how often they have been sodomized by Republicans.

A few dozen guillotines operating 24/7 will finally solve the Republican problem.

Just ask Marie Antoinette.

 

[Duff Miver]

what would the answer be? (Maybe a even cut of 5% across the board?)

Nice try, but 5% is nearly meaningless when the Federal deficit is 37%.

 

[Turfgrass]

Nice try, but 5% is nearly meaningless when the Federal deficit is 37%.

I guess the rest of your message got cut off somewhere because I didn't see your counterpoint...

 

[Duff Miver]

I guess the rest of your message got cut off somewhere because I didn't see your counterpoint...

Hmmmmm. I guess I'll have to be more wordful.

The Federal deficit is 37% of expenditures, therefore -

your proposal to cut expenditures by 5%, while a small step in the right direction, is way insufficient to solve the problem.

It's better than cutting $5 million for NPR to reduce the deficit by .0001%, but still too little, too late.

And that's the teabagger problem. They rant about balancing the budget, but when asked how they propose to do that, they have no answers.

It's as though simple arithmetic is a mystery to them. Perhaps it is.

 

[Trench]

And that's the teabagger problem. They rant about balancing the budget, but when asked how they propose to do that, they have no answers.

It's as though simple arithmetic is a mystery to them. Perhaps it is.

They do seem to be challenged by arithmetic, science, history, geography and basic grammar and spelling.

 

[rusty]

They do seem to be challenged by arithmetic, science, history, geography and basic grammar and spelling.

You sound like TU,hence the pack!!:0074

 

[Turfgrass]

Hmmmmm. I guess I'll have to be more wordful.

The Federal deficit is 37% of expenditures, therefore -

your proposal to cut expenditures by 5%, while a small step in the right direction, is way insufficient to solve the problem.

It's better than cutting $5 million for NPR to reduce the deficit by .0001%, but still too little, too late.

And that's the teabagger problem. They rant about balancing the budget, but when asked how they propose to do that, they have no answers.

It's as though simple arithmetic is a mystery to them. Perhaps it is.

So, if I understand you correctly (bear with me I'm pretty dumb), the only way to fix this is to raise taxes and increase revenue by 37%?

 

[Duff Miver]

So, if I understand you correctly (bear with me I'm pretty dumb), the only way to fix this is to raise taxes and increase revenue by 37%?

That's not what I said, and you damned well know it.

What I said is the deficit is 37% of government spending, and if you want to have a balanced budget, you have to eliminate all 37%.

Some of it can be eliminated by spending cuts, but probably not much. When spending cuts become too deep, jobs are lost, revenue falls, and cutting becomes a self-defeating scheme. 5% across the board? Maybe, but that's going to be a really tough sell to the DoD, Medicare, and Social Security. Simply freezing expenditures at the present level is a de factio cut of 3% or so, depending on inflation.

Some deficit can be cut by raising selected taxes and fees. The very rich can pay more, and that is not really counterproductive because, contrary to the Republican line, most of the money of the rich is not used to create jobs.

In addition to increased taxes for the rich, I'm in favor of user fees. Gas-guzzler penalties, large boat fees, private aircraft fees, and possibly fees on excess domestic electric consumption. I might even be talked into school fees for families with more than 2 children in public schools. Wanton consumption pf public money should be discouraged, so if you want to breed a herd of children, don't expect taxpayers to educate all of them for you. Unemployed? I'd certainly go along with WPA style employment projects. I'd rather the unemployed clean streets, build parks, assist shut-ins than to simply get a handout check. That way the public at least gets something for their money.

Remember when we had luxury taxes?

Elimination of some loopholes is surely possible, and elimination of some outright business subsidies should be possible. Farm subsidies, oil depletion allowances.

Maybe we can increase revenues by 5% without doing anything draconian.

That still leaves a 30% deficit. The ONLY way that can be overcome is through robust economic growth. How that level of growth might be fostered is a long subject, but one scheme which is often proposed, and demonstrated a failure is cutting taxes for the wealthy. Republicans under Bush cut taxes for the rich, cut LTCG taxes, cut inheritance taxes, and we now see how well that worked - huge unemployment, real property values devastated, record deficits.

So, I'm back where I started: disgusted with Teabaggers and the like who howl about cutting expenditures without having ever looked at the budget, and never having put a pencil to the problem.

 

[Trench]

What I said is the deficit is 37% of government spending, and if you want to have a balanced budget, you have to eliminate all 37%.

So, I'm back where I started: disgusted with Teabaggers and the like who howl about cutting expenditures without having ever looked at the budget, and never having put a pencil to the problem.

What is it with right-wingers and basic economic fundamentals?

For years, Sponge and Jabbers tried to explain the difference between deficits and debt to Dogs. He never caught on.

 

[Turfgrass]

That's not what I said, and you damned well know it.

What I said is the deficit is 37% of government spending, and if you want to have a balanced budget, you have to eliminate all 37%.

Some of it can be eliminated by spending cuts, but probably not much. When spending cuts become too deep, jobs are lost, revenue falls, and cutting becomes a self-defeating scheme. 5% across the board? Maybe, but that's going to be a really tough sell to the DoD, Medicare, and Social Security. Simply freezing expenditures at the present level is a de factio cut of 3% or so, depending on inflation.

Some deficit can be cut by raising selected taxes and fees. The very rich can pay more, and that is not really counterproductive because, contrary to the Republican line, most of the money of the rich is not used to create jobs.

In addition to increased taxes for the rich, I'm in favor of user fees. Gas-guzzler penalties, large boat fees, private aircraft fees, and possibly fees on excess domestic electric consumption. I might even be talked into school fees for families with more than 2 children in public schools. Wanton consumption pf public money should be discouraged, so if you want to breed a herd of children, don't expect taxpayers to educate all of them for you. Unemployed? I'd certainly go along with WPA style employment projects. I'd rather the unemployed clean streets, build parks, assist shut-ins than to simply get a handout check. That way the public at least gets something for their money.

Remember when we had luxury taxes?

Elimination of some loopholes is surely possible, and elimination of some outright business subsidies should be possible. Farm subsidies, oil depletion allowances.

Maybe we can increase revenues by 5% without doing anything draconian.

That still leaves a 30% deficit. The ONLY way that can be overcome is through robust economic growth. How that level of growth might be fostered is a long subject, but one scheme which is often proposed, and demonstrated a failure is cutting taxes for the wealthy. Republicans under Bush cut taxes for the rich, cut LTCG taxes, cut inheritance taxes, and we now see how well that worked - huge unemployment, real property values devastated, record deficits.

So, I'm back where I started: disgusted with Teabaggers and the like who howl about cutting expenditures without having ever looked at the budget, and never having put a pencil to the problem.

I think I might me going into shock?we agree on some stuff. I really liked your ideas of putting folks to work for unemployment and some of the school ideas. As far as the schools go I would like to eliminate the entire Education Department. We'd save a few billion and I don?t think Federal involvement improves education at the local level.

I also agree on the subsidy thoughts. I don?t think the Federal government has any business subsidizing anyone or anything?Period. (Up to, and including Corporations) I also think I read somewhere that Agriculture subsidies cost something like $30 billion a year. Let's get rid of them.

State and local governments can subsidize whatever they want (states' rights). If you don't like it, get rid of it at the state/local level.

I?d also like to end the war on drugs. That should save $50 billion and more money on the back end by incarcerating less folks in prison.

So those are some real ideas that could happen, and by jacking up taxes on the actors/athletes/ CEOs of the world and maybe just freezing spending for the 3% cut we?d be balanced in 10 years or so. From that point I would like to see some kind of balanced budget amendment to keep our house financially sound.

Whatdoyathink?

 

[Duff Miver]

.

Whatdoyathink?

I think a handful of informed people who were willing to reason together, did not take bribes and refused to tolerate lies could solve the budget problem in a matter of days.

I think you could lock Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich in a room, not let them out until they had produced a solution, and the problem would be solved in days if not hours.

However the collection of idealogues, liars, thieves, cowards and just plain dolts in Congress won't get the job done.

 

[The Sponge]

You are more of an idiot than I thought you were if you do not think cuts can be made. They have to start somewhere. They can't keep growing government like idiots want. How the hell am I to know what to cut dumbass. I am not in the federal government. You are just another one of the Internet liberal tough guys on this forum that talk tough but I am sure are pussies away from the keyboard.
:lol:

Jaxx don't worry about the other thread i found ur plan when Duff was opening u up like a peanut :mj07: :mj07: :mj07: