UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
actually, obama has been decreasing the deficit, shrub went the other way with it.
you guys should worry about your own junk bond status before casting stones. we'll be fine over here.
Over the cliff we go!
- Thread starter Red1966
- Start date
you guys should worry about your own junk bond status before casting stones. we'll be fine over here.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Know what a malcontent is?
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Again seriously, it's a conversation, why the butthurt?
Our budget will be balanced in 2014, the only way for us is up.
Also my country isn't the one looming over a fiscal cliff and having to ask China for money constantly.
But lets stay on topic here.
How high does the debt have to go before the magic cure starts? 20 trillion? 25 trillion?
hasn't stopped you yet.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Show me where I have done that. cnhasn't stopped you yet.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
How come the Liberals who you usually can't get to shut up wont address the point in bold above?
When will the deficit be reduced? 2032 when Rand Paul is making his 5th failed run at President?
(I bet the possum-headed shit-apple doesn't fall far from the tree)
bassclef
Active Member
The deficit will never be reduced. They claim to, but it's actually a decrease in planned increases. Still a net increase.
Harsh words for the Senator. Name calling in politics usually is the result of listening to divisive talking heads, and little understanding of how things actually work.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
empirically, deficit reduction happens with democrats, not republicans.
we've got a lot of deficit to keep chipping away at before we can think too much about debt reduction. but we have similar models, like japan, who show us that debt and deficits are not the end all, be all of economic health.
don't even mention the possum head. he urged people to vote for mitt. 'nuff said.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
ok, you're a rand paul fanboy, we get it. god bless your opossum love, sir.
but the deficit has been reduced by clinton and obama, whereas reagan and the bush fucks both increased them, sometime drastically.
and rawn pawl's 1 trillion dollar budget cut in year one would send the world economy into massive recession. great plan.
i fucking hate rawn pawl fanboys as much as i hate gypsies.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Dude for the love of God please Google "Japan's Lost Generation".
I gladly troll Obama, it's because he's got such MASSIVE cult status amongst his followers so it's easier, but remember, I call myself a "pragmatic Libertarian", that basically puts me in the centre with a "focus" on personal freedoms.
So that said, if you can genuinely answer my questions, I'll actually agree with you and I will (this is a signature bet, you can have ownership of my sig for two months if I don't) admit Obama is not only doing a good job, but I'll defend him in future when necessary
As I said, lets have this thread as a genuinely civil discussion with a focus on economic theory relating to the fiscal cliff.
Now... feed me the data and if I point out an error, make the admission, he's not perfect and it's ok to admit that, you're still a Democrat, they won't excommunicate you for saying "We'll maybe he's doing this wrong".
Lets build economic theory here, ourselves, the only solution is the solution that is a bit of everything so it works for everyone.
Fuck Austrian School, fuck Keynesian shite, lets tear up the rulebook and debate and make a solution...we are a shitload smarter than the dickheads we vote for, we can all agree on that, right?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
I bet Obama's cousin knows how many states we have, at least.dude, you can't even spell "practicing".
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
What fiscal cliff?
There never was any to begin with. And if you think we were actually going to go over it
You probably live in a forest with unicorns
There never was any to begin with. And if you think we were actually going to go over it
You probably live in a forest with unicorns
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Funny that for once the "picture with words" is one of the most relevant things to the conversation.
Thank you for your input, you seem to know a bit more than the people posting no content, what do you think is a solution that'll hurt the least people without unfairly raping the rich (which is the Democrats only plan/desire)?
BadDog40
Well-Known Member
Seriously, I'm not sure if you suffer from a mental disability or you're just trolling but if its the former let me help you out.
Clicking this link
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/30/1379681/lindsay-graham-i-will-destroy-americas-solvency-unless-the-social-security-retirement-age-is-raised/
and what does the headline say?
It says
Lindsay Graham: I Will Destroy Americas Solvency Unless The Social Security Retirement Age Is Raised
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Chucky lying about someone lying?
canndo
Well-Known Member
They were so counting on our relief that they thought none of us would actually read and comprehend what they did and did not do.
1. No one CARES about the cuttoff, 250k or 450k, those folks are still upper middle to upper upper middle class and not "rich" in any sense
2. another year of unemployment benefits is not a "win" for Dems, nor is it a loss for Repubs it is simply a matter of course act that had to be made.
3. Putting off the spending cuts because this absolutely simple "compromise" was so exhausting is just typical of these folks, that was a significant part of the whole and it should have been part of the "compromise"
While I am relieved that my income will only be tagged 2 percent, that I will dodge the minimum tax and that my capital gains will not be too much under assault, the problem is not fixed, the deficit remains and the cuts remain undone - yet now they are unattached from revenue. Now we can all be relieved for our own wallets (for a while) but we still have the communal wallet to worry about. I want to see a genuine start, I want to see some direction that wends it's financial and political way between defense cuts and frivolity, between ineffectual government appendages and excessive government giveaways whether it be to welfare or to Exxon.
They are all either inept, assholes or idiots.
1. No one CARES about the cuttoff, 250k or 450k, those folks are still upper middle to upper upper middle class and not "rich" in any sense
2. another year of unemployment benefits is not a "win" for Dems, nor is it a loss for Repubs it is simply a matter of course act that had to be made.
3. Putting off the spending cuts because this absolutely simple "compromise" was so exhausting is just typical of these folks, that was a significant part of the whole and it should have been part of the "compromise"
While I am relieved that my income will only be tagged 2 percent, that I will dodge the minimum tax and that my capital gains will not be too much under assault, the problem is not fixed, the deficit remains and the cuts remain undone - yet now they are unattached from revenue. Now we can all be relieved for our own wallets (for a while) but we still have the communal wallet to worry about. I want to see a genuine start, I want to see some direction that wends it's financial and political way between defense cuts and frivolity, between ineffectual government appendages and excessive government giveaways whether it be to welfare or to Exxon.
They are all either inept, assholes or idiots.