|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 20, 2011 16:32:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Apr 21, 2011 8:39:09 GMT -8
Great comment on the article.
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 21, 2011 23:01:56 GMT -8
I'll tell you what is in everybody's best interest: To understand that this country, like any country, cannot continue to pile up debt forever. At some moment in time the piper will have to be paid, as it has is Greece currently, and in other countries earlier, such as Argentina.
If you confiscate all the income of the top 1% of taxpayers in this country you would hardly touch our national debt. Raising their taxes is not going to do much, since that select group of citizens always has ways of greatly reducing the amount they actually have to pay Uncle Sam. If Obama, or anyone else, is serious about using taxation (rather than serious cuts in govt. spending) to pay down the national debt, just about everyone is going to have to pay more in taxes - - - a LOT more. It's simple arithmetic, folks.
Oh, yes. If most people, including Tea Party followers, do not want Medicare cut, why should anyone be surprised? Just about everyone has become addicted to getting handouts from the government. The concept that, "Hey, buddy, the gravy train has gone off the tracks- - - you are just not going to get more because there isn't any" - - - will never be popular. Rule of thumb which applies here: A government can give benefits to the people but can almost never take them away.
Those on the Left who ridicule Ryan and others for suggesting that we need to cut back out spending ought to answer this question: How long can we go on piling up debt at this rate without doing very serious danger to our economy?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 22, 2011 16:28:46 GMT -8
I'll tell you what is in everybody's best interest: To understand that this country, like any country, cannot continue to pile up debt forever. At some moment in time the piper will have to be paid, as it has is Greece currently, and in other countries earlier, such as Argentina. AzWm Fine. Let's cut the defense budget in half and we'll be talking. We spend upwards of 6 times what China, our closest nation spends: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expendituresOur defense spending is the greatest jobs program this country has; we hand massive amount of bucks over to the farking defense industry because it has become the largest job provider our economy. Surely, as a libertarian, you oppose our foreign policy and the defense spending that's bankrupting this country in order to perpetuate the American empire. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 22, 2011 16:34:09 GMT -8
Those on the Left to ridicule Ryan and others for suggesting that we need to cut back out spending ought to answer this question: How long can we go on piling up debt at this rate without doing very serious danger to our economy? AzWm Sorry Will, but the assumption that American voters agree with you libertarian belief system is nonsense. Those people are his constituents. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 23, 2011 5:43:40 GMT -8
Is this what real thinking liberals think about Medicare and even Social Security? I will bet those who study the problem agree with most of this WSJ piece. xrl.us/bjvq58Note the reference to private accounts and pay as you go finance. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 27, 2011 16:52:11 GMT -8
Is this what real thinking liberals think about Medicare and even Social Security? I will bet those who study the problem agree with most of this WSJ piece. xrl.us/bjvq58Note the reference to private accounts and pay as you go finance. That's an opinion piece while this is a political issue for those who disagree with Ryan, which is most of the country. The real stupidity was sending someone that young out to try to sell this plan to seniors. Hell, Boehner is back-peddling, claiming it's "Paul's idea" and he's not wedded to it. Ryan has officially been thrown under the bus. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 28, 2011 11:13:10 GMT -8
A sound plan that costs anyone will get some opposition even from Conservative voters. You have to admit that this is just a starting point and that is what they will work from since no coherent plan was forthcoming from Obama or any other Dimocrat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 28, 2011 11:19:49 GMT -8
A sound plan that costs anyone will get some opposition even from Conservative voters. You have to admit that this is just a starting point and that is what they will work from since no coherent plan was forthcoming from Obama or any other Dimocrat. 75% of the American public thinks taxes should be raised on the rich. Don't expect them to accept more tax cuts while being asked to sacrifice. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 30, 2011 10:02:49 GMT -8
Those on the Left to ridicule Ryan and others for suggesting that we need to cut back out spending ought to answer this question: How long can we go on piling up debt at this rate without doing very serious danger to our economy? AzWm Sorry Will, but the assumption that American voters agree with you libertarian belief system is nonsense. Those people are his constituents. =Bob Bob, I don't think that you understood what I was saying. The welfare state exists to (A) convince the average citizen that he or she needs help from the government. and (B) that somebody else is going to pay for those benefits. As for the Tea Party adherents, I suspect that plenty of them, perhaps the vast majority, understand that the government cannot spend, and spend, and borrow and borrow without eventually going broke. I.e., we end up like Greece. Reducing the budget deficit is not going to be enough. We are going to have to run surpluses for a number of years until the national debt is down to a manageable level. The Left simply does not want to do that since such a program inevitably means cutting back on the welfare state. But surely there are some on the Left, the less ideologically brainlocked ones, who understand that the national debt has to be reduced. Perhaps they really think that raising taxes on the rich will be enough . . . if won't be, pure and simple. I think there are lot of ways we can economize, even in the area of national defense. Still, unless and until we reduce the cost of entitlements, we are sunk. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 30, 2011 10:33:48 GMT -8
You know, I would like to pose these questions to the American public:
1. The U.S. national debt is now about as much as the total yearly national product of this country, the highest it's been since the emergency of World War Two. Furthermore, even President Obama's budget projections for the next several years predict that the national debt will rise even more due to yearly deficits. Do you think that this trend can continue indefinitely without running the risk of a collapse of the U.S. economy?
2. In order to balance the federal budget it will be necessary to raise taxes significantly, reduce spending significantly, or perhaps a combination of the two. Since even confiscation of all income earned by the top 1% of Americans would not be enough, taxes on the middle class would have to be raised significantly. That being the case, which of the following policies would you support?
A) Raise everybody's taxes significantly.
B) Cut federal spending in all areas, including some reductions in entitlements, such as increasing the retirement age for full Social Security benefits by several years, such as from 65-68.
Yes, pollsters would probably choke upon reading such long questions, but it's time to stop assuming that all Americans are stupid. It's also time to stop asking Americans pointless questions such as "Would you rather raise taxes on the rich or get fewer benefits from the government?" That's like my saying to you, "Would you like chocolate or vanilla?" as if both come free of charge from some magic box that never needs replenishment.
Oh, yes, one more thing, Bob. You are very good at taking pot shots at other people's ideas (in this case how to solve our budget crisis). It's always easy to criticize, but not so easy to put forth your own proposals.
Or maybe you think that it is no big deal if the U.S. government runs deficits until the national debt is 20 or 30 trillion dollars.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by billhammett on May 1, 2011 6:43:16 GMT -8
You know...Liberals are the first to cry fowl when they think people are being inappropriate with their comments against them...but they insist on using an extremely vulger term like "teabaggers" to describe a group of Americans they disagree with. It is this type of hypocricy that drives me nuts.
I thought the President asked us all to 'tone down the rhetoric.' I guess he was just talking to those on the right...the children on the left can continue to do and say whatever they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on May 1, 2011 9:26:03 GMT -8
Our defense spending is the greatest jobs program this country has; we hand massive amount of bucks over to the farking defense industry because it has become the largest job provider our economy. Surely, as a libertarian, you oppose our foreign policy and the defense spending that's bankrupting this country in order to perpetuate the American empire. =Bob Most so called libertarians do not know the meaning of the word. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on May 1, 2011 11:49:51 GMT -8
Our defense spending is the greatest jobs program this country has; we hand massive amount of bucks over to the farking defense industry because it has become the largest job provider our economy. Surely, as a libertarian, you oppose our foreign policy and the defense spending that's bankrupting this country in order to perpetuate the American empire. =Bob Most so called libertarians do not know the meaning of the word. That's an assertion, Joe. An opinion. My counter to that is to say that probably the vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians have a pretty good idea of what the term means. Now, then, if you do not agree with my opinion on the question, how about offering some objective evidence to back your claim. As for backing my claim, I will offer this evidence. Those who formally join the Libertarian Party (as opposed to merely registering to vote Libertarian) must sign a pledge which defines that party's basic belief. Here is the pledge. . . "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." (By the way, I am among those who have just registered to vote for the Libertarian Party.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 20, 2011 20:36:22 GMT -8
I'll tell you what is in everybody's best interest: To understand that this country, like any country, cannot continue to pile up debt forever. At some moment in time the piper will have to be paid, as it has is Greece currently, and in other countries earlier, such as Argentina. AzWm Fine. Let's cut the defense budget in half and we'll be talking. We spend upwards of 6 times what China, our closest nation spends: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expendituresOur defense spending is the greatest jobs program this country has; we hand massive amount of bucks over to the farking defense industry because it has become the largest job provider our economy. Surely, as a libertarian, you oppose our foreign policy and the defense spending that's bankrupting this country in order to perpetuate the American empire. =Bob That Chinese figure is very misleading. The PLA is most of the government economy and uses economic and soft power means to achieve their goals which aren't reflected in those numbers. It is a massive understatement of their defense budget and frankly, their real strategic intent. Think of Japan in the 30s. |
|
|
|
Post by 78aztec82 on May 20, 2011 20:37:11 GMT -8
You know...Liberals are the first to cry fowl when they think people are being inappropriate with their comments against them...but they insist on using an extremely vulger term like "teabaggers" to describe a group of Americans they disagree with. It is this type of hypocricy that drives me nuts. I thought the President asked us all to 'tone down the rhetoric.' I guess he was just talking to those on the right...the children on the left can continue to do and say whatever they want. Sadly, this is pretty common for these folk. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on May 23, 2011 8:38:35 GMT -8
Most so called libertarians do not know the meaning of the word. That's an assertion, Joe. An opinion. My counter to that is to say that probably the vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians have a pretty good idea of what the term means. Now, then, if you do not agree with my opinion on the question, how about offering some objective evidence to back your claim. As for backing my claim, I will offer this evidence. Those who formally join the Libertarian Party (as opposed to merely registering to vote Libertarian) must sign a pledge which defines that party's basic belief. Here is the pledge. . . "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." (By the way, I am among those who have just registered to vote for the Libertarian Party.) AzWm You are most correct. It is an opinion, but it is based upon meeting and talking with scads of people who claim to be Libertarians. Each individual seems to have his own ax to grind, and I doubt that a room of them could ever reach a common consensus on any political platform. You idea is a darn good one. Make them sign a pledge so we could find the real Libertarians and separate them from those people who do not have the concept clearly defined. Sadly, I can not join you because I believe in the use of force. It is only through force that we will ever bring the world's massive overpopulation problem under control. Women are aggressively copulating and then squatting and squirting gooey babies out all over the place and those babies are growing up to repeat the process and by so doing wiping out most of the world's other species of life. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 23, 2011 12:09:10 GMT -8
That's an assertion, Joe. An opinion. My counter to that is to say that probably the vast majority of people who call themselves libertarians have a pretty good idea of what the term means. Now, then, if you do not agree with my opinion on the question, how about offering some objective evidence to back your claim. As for backing my claim, I will offer this evidence. Those who formally join the Libertarian Party (as opposed to merely registering to vote Libertarian) must sign a pledge which defines that party's basic belief. Here is the pledge. . . "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." (By the way, I am among those who have just registered to vote for the Libertarian Party.) AzWm You are most correct. It is an opinion, but it is based upon meeting and talking with scads of people who claim to be Libertarians. Each individual seems to have his own ax to grind, and I doubt that a room of them could ever reach a common consensus on any political platform. You idea is a darn good one. Make them sign a pledge so we could find the real Libertarians and separate them from those people who do not have the concept clearly defined. Sadly, I can not join you because I believe in the use of force. It is only through force that we will ever bring the world's massive overpopulation problem under control. Women are aggressively copulating and then squatting and squirting gooey babies out all over the place and those babies are growing up to repeat the process and by so doing wiping out most of the world's other species of life. I admire the use of colorful descriptive language. It always makes me laugh when it is used like you to to try to inflame the dimwits on the left. This in spite of your being a BAL.  Maybe if those were the terms used in Europe to describe how they are being defeated by Muslims by just being out-bred and using the increasing numbers to suck the life blood out of Europe's economy through forms of welfare. I would bet a political leader here in the US who would use that kind of language would really get some attention. I don't know if he would wake up Conservatives and those hard working Moderates to be able to see what is happening here as well or if he would be attacked to the point of being "offed". At any rate I get a kick out of the use of that kind of language to rile folks up. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on May 30, 2011 18:40:51 GMT -8
You know...Liberals are the first to cry fowl when they think people are being inappropriate with their comments against them...but they insist on using an extremely vulger term like "teabaggers" to describe a group of Americans they disagree with. It is this type of hypocricy that drives me nuts. I thought the President asked us all to 'tone down the rhetoric.' I guess he was just talking to those on the right...the children on the left can continue to do and say whatever they want. I see. I guess the right wing who continues to claim Obama was born in Kenya is okay while you protest that the left cries fowl? Yeah, that's the ticket - we on the left should just bend over and take it up the ass because you on the right demand we do so. Sorry, Buckwheat, that's not going to happen. Learn to live with it. And, BTW, stay out of these arguments - you're in over your head. Stick to sports. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 31, 2011 11:31:04 GMT -8
You know...Liberals are the first to cry fowl when they think people are being inappropriate with their comments against them...but they insist on using an extremely vulger term like "teabaggers" to describe a group of Americans they disagree with. It is this type of hypocricy that drives me nuts. I thought the President asked us all to 'tone down the rhetoric.' I guess he was just talking to those on the right...the children on the left can continue to do and say whatever they want. I see. I guess the right wing who continues to claim Obama was born in Kenya is okay while you protest that the left cries fowl? Yeah, that's the ticket - we on the left should just bend over and take it up the ass because you on the right demand we do so. Sorry, Buckwheat, that's not going to happen. Learn to live with it. And, BTW, stay out of these arguments - you're in over your head. Stick to sports. =Bob Grow up, Bob. I would think that even you could see the difference between someone suggesting in plain language that Obama has not shown where he was born and the vile language that liberals seem to use daily in their description of people. |
|
Maybe if those were the terms used in Europe to describe how they are being defeated by Muslims by just being out-bred and using the increasing numbers to suck the life blood out of Europe's economy through forms of welfare. I would bet a political leader here in the US who would use that kind of language would really get some attention. I don't know if he would wake up Conservatives and those hard working Moderates to be able to see what is happening here as well or if he would be attacked to the point of being "offed". At any rate I get a kick out of the use of that kind of language to rile folks up.