[QUOTE=Jaehead;32969454]where do you keep getting the idea that i want to reduce the deficit
I'm encouraging deficit spending, because that's what the US needs right now to avoid a double dip[/QUOTE]
The fuck? Why WOULDN'T you want to reduce the deficit!?
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32969454]increasing taxes would what... decrease disposable income for the population? what good would that do?[/QUOTE]
Good job doing your research on who would have their taxes increased. That's why you only raise on those who can afford it, which means the rich take the hit and not the poor or the middle class. this may blow you mind but the most prosperous times in American history were when taxes were high.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32969633]The fuck? Why WOULDN'T you want to reduce the deficit!?
Good job doing your research on who would have their taxes increased. That's why you only raise on those who can afford it, which means the rich take the hit and not the poor or the middle class. this may blow you mind but the most prosperous times in American history were when taxes were high.[/QUOTE]
uh because the debt is a long-term problem, and really it can't be fixed until you fix unemployment, income gap, etc etc...
I'm supposed to somehow know that when people say "increase taxes" they mean "tax the rich"?
Also, how did the United States become prosperous during those times again? because deficit spending
you worry about the short term issues first, then when the economy gets in a better shape, then you raise the taxes
[editline]wef[/editline]
and you're the one to tell people to learn "basic economics" when you yourself fail to grasp the basic of the basics
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32969314]Times change, which is funny because it apparently doesn't for Republicans.[/QUOTE]
I am trying to be optimistic by hoping that Obama will defy everyone's expectations and win again, but the few Political Analysts I talked to (my professors at LMU who are all raging liberals) say that it is statistically impossible for Obama to win, unless he somehow fixes the economy tomorrow.
[editline]25th October 2011[/editline]
Or runs his campaign by bashing Congress, instead of his rivals.
[editline]25th October 2011[/editline]
Sort of like what Truman did in 1948.
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32969682]
and you're the one to tell people to learn "basic economic concepts" when you yourself fail to grasp the basic of the basics[/QUOTE]
Don't misquote me.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32969773]Don't misquote me.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32968733]It seems that basic economics escapes you.[/QUOTE]
ok let me elaborate
you say something that blatantly goes against basic modern economics, then you tell the guy to learn some basic concepts
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32969782]quote[/QUOTE]
I don't see the word "concepts" in that quote, do you?
And please don't act like "deficit spending" is the be all end all only solution that should be used in the beginning. You can do more than one thing at a time.
that's seriously petty man, what did you mean then?
also you're ignoring my main points
[editline]wef[/editline]
okok i'll edit my post
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32969827]And please don't act like "deficit spending" is the be all end all only solution that should be used in the beginning. You can do more than one thing at a time.[/QUOTE]
yeah and you're going to tell me how the government's supposed to pay off debt and spend more at the same time?
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32969839]that's seriously petty man, what did you mean then?
also you're ignoring my main points
[editline]wef[/editline]
okok i'll edit my post[/QUOTE]
I have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to people quoting me. If you're gonna quote me don't change it unless you are just removing something to focus on a particular part.
[editline]25th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32969839]
yeah and you're going to tell me how the government's supposed to pay off debt and spend more at the same time?[/QUOTE]
Tax hike on the rich and close loop holes, removing subsides on those who don't need them(big oil companies). Cut [I]reckless and unnecessary[/I] spending BOOM more revenue. I also never said they should spend more. I just don't think they should cut spending on things like education, medicare/medicaid, welfare, and that woman's help program.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32969865]Tax hike on the rich and close loop holes, removing subsides on those who don't need them(big oil companies). Cut [I]reckless and unnecessary[/I] spending BOOM more revenue. I also never said they should spend more. I just don't think they should cut spending on things like education, medicare/medicaid, welfare, and that woman's help program.[/QUOTE]
definitely agree with you with the first two points, but honestly, a $20b saving over 10 years isn't going to do much for the economy.
however, I don't think they should cut spending at all, merely reallocate and increase, mainly in infrastructure/education if you ask me
[editline]wef[/editline]
because this applies to everyone, including the government, that the main positive contributor to economy is spending
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32969986]definitely agree with you with the first two points, but honestly, a $20b saving over 10 years isn't going to do much for the economy.
however, I don't think they should cut spending at all, merely reallocate and even increase, mainly in infrastructure/education if you ask me[/QUOTE]
Better than nothing and I think even you can agree with that. At the very least it's better that it get fixed slowly than get worse faster.
I don't think they should cut spending to essential and helpful programs, but your bloated defense budget needs to get a serious slashing. And I agree that education and the like should get budget increases(especially NASA's budget). However, I also acknowledge that sacrifices must be made by everyone.
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;32970076]Better than nothing and I think even you can agree with that. At the very least it's better that it get fixed slowly than get worse faster.
I don't think they should cut spending to essential and helpful programs, but your bloated defense budget needs to get a serious slashing. And I agree that education and the like should get budget increases(especially NASA's budget). However, I also acknowledge that sacrifices must be made by everyone.[/QUOTE]
Increased spending doesn't necessarily equate to worsening of the economy.
If planned out, the money comes back to the government. Obama's jobs bill that he proposed recently - that would've made no impact on the debt in the long-run, because it was designed to pay for itself.
As for the defense budget, I don't really follow the political aspect of it, but as the US gets more and more withdrawn from it (at least that's what I heard) I can only imagine that budget would naturally decrease. I still think the government should increase its spending on certain aspects though, for the same reason that increased spending can be done without negative economic consequences
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32970151]Increased spending doesn't necessarily equate to worsening of the economy.
If planned out, the money comes back to the government. Obama's jobs bill that he proposed recently - that would've made no impact on the debt in the long-run, because it was designed to pay for itself.
As for the defense budget, I don't really follow the political aspect of it, but as the US gets more and more withdrawn from it (at least that's what I heard) I can only imagine that budget would naturally decrease. I still think the government should increase its spending on certain aspects though, for the same reason that increased spending can be done without negative economic consequences[/QUOTE]
The Jobs Bill was MEANT to pay for itself and NOT add to the debt. It's main job was to create jobs, not deal directly with the debt.
Didn't I say that?
Chunky are you actually reading jaehead's posts?
[editline]25th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=person11;32969245]The candidate who wins the Republican nomination can be anyone, even Bachmann, and Obama will still lose. I love the guy, I really do, but the way things are a year from the election, I do not think he has a chance.. :smith:
No incumbent has ever won with an unemployment rate higher than 7.4%. It is 9.1% as of now.[/QUOTE]
No incumbent has ever ran against people as stupid as the current republican nominees either.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32970199]Chunky are you actually reading jaehead's posts?[/QUOTE]
I skimmed that last one, but otherwise yes, I have.
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Jaehead;32970192]Didn't I say that?[/QUOTE]
I suppose you did. I misread it as a shitting on the Jobs Bill somehow. Oops, my apologies.
I fucking hope Ron Paul wins, and before some fucking asshole cry over his view on religious bullshit or how states handles their laws i must say. He is the best the Republicans got hands down, i rather see him in charge then any other Republican nut job.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;32970291]I fucking hope Ron Paul wins, and before some fucking asshole cry over his view on religious bullshit or how states handles their laws i must say. He is the best the Republicans got hands down, i rather see him in charge then any other Republican nut job.[/QUOTE]
I'd rather not see any of them in office at all.
I hate those [i]NOBAMA 2012[/i] idiots all around me. Lots of people around here are voting GOP no matter what. Most my age and their parents are at least. I'd settle if everyone around me would just not talk about the elections/politics in public because it just gives me cancer and pisses me off.
[QUOTE=Chicken_Chaser;32970430]I hate those [i]NOBAMA 2012[/i] idiots all around me. Lots of people around here are voting GOP no matter what. Most my age and their parents are at least. I'd settle if everyone around me would just not talk about the elections/politics in public because it just gives me cancer and pisses me off.[/QUOTE]
suggest that the democrat "h8ing" times are over, and they are in for a world of hurt unless they go probama
Crap, I'd rather see Ron Paul in the oval office, compared to this braindead bucket of sludge.
Heck, even a bucket of sludge could be a better candidate than Cain.
Bucket of Sludge 2012: It's used to dealing with shit
[QUOTE=Lambeth;32965184]Obama doesn't have a blind hatred of muslims either[/QUOTE]
well it's because he's a secret muslim himself duh
just look at this actual real birth certificate (not the faked one he uses in public)
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/795329/1303983107574.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=person11;32969245]The candidate who wins the Republican nomination can be anyone, even Bachmann, and Obama will still lose. I love the guy, I really do, but the way things are a year from the election, I do not think he has a chance.. :smith:
No incumbent has ever won with an unemployment rate higher than 7.4%. It is 9.1% as of now.[/QUOTE]
Alternatively, no incumbent has ever lost with an approval rating below the expected 45%-50%+ pre-election ramp up Obama is expected to get just like every other president. Statistics are fun.
There's a reason why even right rags like Forbes have writers who think he's gonna win- because that unemployment statistic is making the public pissed at [I]congress[/I], and Obama's actually doing rather well approval-wise based on the fickle and blatantly cyclical opinions of the public.
[QUOTE=Miskav;32962975]I've said it before, I'll say it again; There is no way a republican will become president, and there will be no republican majority after the shit they've been pulling.
I'll bet 30 dollars and my first born child on that.[/QUOTE]
"There will not be a Republican President because the news reports on them I see show them doing and saying things I disagree with"
You have Pauline Kael Syndrome.
I told my parents about the ideas of the rupblicans, they asked me what i've been smoking.
[QUOTE=Sexy Eskimo;32970291]I fucking hope Ron Paul wins, and before some fucking asshole cry over his view on religious bullshit or how states handles their laws i must say. He is the best the Republicans got hands down, i rather see him in charge then any other Republican nut job.[/QUOTE]
Second that. In order to dispel preconceptions and show people that he's literally the most qualified candidate in the race, here's a quote from his book [I]Liberty Defined[/I]:
[quote]
The creationists frown on the evolutionists, and the evolutionists dismiss the creationists as kooky and unscientific. Lost in this struggle are those who look objectively at all the scientific evidence for evolution without feeling any need to reject the notion of an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator. My personal view is that recognizing the validity of an evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one’s view about God and the universe.
From my viewpoint, this is a debate about science and religion (and I wish it could be more civil!) and should not involve politicians at all. Why can’t this remain an academic debate and not be made the political issue it has become?
The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn’t mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith.[/quote]
[QUOTE=Funcoot;32966552]Kind of wish Clinton could run for a 3rd term.
[editline]25th October 2011[/editline]
and fuck more bitches :v:[/QUOTE]
And refuse to work with Congress.
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;32967332]Do you have proof?[/QUOTE]
"We don't need proof, [i]we[/i] are the inherently rational view, and anyone else is just a right-wing lunatic!"
[QUOTE=snuwoods;32977078]Second that. In order to dispel preconceptions and show people that he's literally the most qualified candidate in the race, here's a quote from his book [I]Liberty Defined[/I]:
[QUOTE]The answer is simple. Both sides want to use the state to enforce their views on others. One side doesn’t mind using force to expose others to prayer and professing their faith. The other side demands that they have the right never to be offended and demands prohibition of any public expression of faith.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
i'm realllly sick of this "they're oppressing us with political correctness" spiel
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
i mean the quote is, for the most part, solid but this one mentality which attributes some sort of intent of social control to "political correctness" and the secularization of public schools really bothers me
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.