|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 16, 2012 22:18:46 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 17, 2012 9:58:27 GMT -8
Very disturbing! Most folks don't understand the real impact of our spendng and debt load and how it will affect the future.
"The four-year increase in borrowing amounts to $55,000 per U.S. household."
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 18, 2012 9:52:28 GMT -8
How come no cons get bitter when Rep presidents increase spending?
|
|
|
|
Post by tuff on Sept 18, 2012 12:01:20 GMT -8
This is exactly what the entertainer in chief wants to do. Wreck our economy so more will be subserviant to the feds. He's a socialist, and that's what they do.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 18, 2012 12:55:50 GMT -8
How come no cons get bitter when Rep presidents increase spending? Your response is not valid. Basically, the Tea Party movement arose as much from dismay at Bush's lack of spending discipline as it did from disagreement with Obama's policies. The Paul Ryan type of Republican today rejects profligate spending no matter which party is in power. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2012 13:22:44 GMT -8
How come no cons get bitter when Rep presidents increase spending? Here is where you go wrong. Many Conservatives were against lots of the spending during the Bush years and before. We are never bitter about anything, that is for small minded liberals.  |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 18, 2012 14:38:52 GMT -8
How come no cons get bitter when Rep presidents increase spending? Your response is not valid. Basically, the Tea Party movement arose as much from dismay at Bush's lack of spending discipline as it did from disagreement with Obama's policies. The Paul Ryan type of Republican today rejects profligate spending no matter which party is in power. AzWm LMAO @ not valid after reading what you just wrote. Its founding was in 2009. If it were from dismay of Bush why didn't it start in 2001 or sometime while he was in office? Yes, Ryan is part of the starve the beast mode when the GOP commits class warfare on every class but the rich. Got that. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 18, 2012 14:40:19 GMT -8
How come no cons get bitter when Rep presidents increase spending? Here is where you go wrong. Many Conservatives were against lots of the spending during the Bush years and before. We are never bitter about anything, that is for small minded liberals. LOL Nice quip I get some were dismayed, but not to the degree they are with a dem doing less of a spending increase...roughly half the increase. Also nobody from the GOP called Bush a socialist when he was signing off on autobailouts and giving away tax rebates. Why is the right only using that term for dems they dislike? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 18, 2012 18:15:09 GMT -8
Here is where you go wrong. Many Conservatives were against lots of the spending during the Bush years and before. We are never bitter about anything, that is for small minded liberals. LOL Nice quip I get some were dismayed, but not to the degree they are with a dem doing less of a spending increase...roughly half the increase. Also nobody from the GOP called Bush a socialist when he was signing off on autobailouts and giving away tax rebates. Why is the right only using that term for dems they dislike? One guess would be that no one ever caught Bush calling for "redistribution of wealth" like the clip that surfaced today from obama. I put a link in another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 19, 2012 8:37:13 GMT -8
LOL Nice quip I get some were dismayed, but not to the degree they are with a dem doing less of a spending increase...roughly half the increase. Also nobody from the GOP called Bush a socialist when he was signing off on autobailouts and giving away tax rebates. Why is the right only using that term for dems they dislike? Who cares what he says when his actions dictate otherwise? One guess would be that no one ever caught Bush calling for "redistribution of wealth" like the clip that surfaced today from obama. I put a link in another thread. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 19, 2012 13:07:25 GMT -8
Who cares what he says when his actions dictate otherwise? One guess would be that no one ever caught Bush calling for "redistribution of wealth" like the clip that surfaced today from obama. I put a link in another thread. I think you are reading the pig's entrails improperly. Obama is doing just as he said he believes. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 19, 2012 13:31:49 GMT -8
I think you are reading the pig's entrails improperly. Obama is doing just as he said he believes. Or you believe he's doing what you think he believes :-) |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Sept 19, 2012 13:37:57 GMT -8
Your response is not valid. Basically, the Tea Party movement arose as much from dismay at Bush's lack of spending discipline as it did from disagreement with Obama's policies. The Paul Ryan type of Republican today rejects profligate spending no matter which party is in power. AzWm LMAO @ not valid after reading what you just wrote. Its founding was in 2009. If it were from dismay of Bush why didn't it start in 2001 or sometime while he was in office?Yes, Ryan is part of the starve the beast mode when the GOP commits class warfare on every class but the rich. Got that. It's a fact that the Bush administration was not as fiscally responsible as it should have been. In what way is citing that fact a rebuttal to what I have posted? It's also a fact that the national debt has gone up far more rapidly under Obama than under any other president in our history. No doubt many Republicans who had long wanted a more prudent federal government had hopes for the G.W. Bush administration. When those hopes we dashed, many of the rank and file decided to get active; that's how the Tea Party movement came about. (We should not forget that 9/11 and our responses to that attack cost the country billions. That made Bush's job of formulating a rational federal spending strategy much more difficult. Compare that with the "peace dividend" that Clinton enjoyed in the '90s.) Here are a couple of basic economic facts. (1) You cannot in perpetuity continue to borrow close to have of every dollar you spend. You cannot, I cannot, and neither can a government continue on that path without having the whole thing blow up eventually. Frankly, neither candidate has presented a serious plan to balance the federal budget any time soon. . . if ever! And unless we run at least modest surpluses for several years in a row, we will not be able to stabilize our federal government's fiscal situation. (2) It's been proven pretty definitively that one can raise tax rates only so high without the higher taxes leading to reduced, not raised, revenue flowing to the government. It tough to say just where that "sweet spot" in terms of tax rates is found. By "sweet spot," I mean a tax rate above which AND below which revenue to the government falls. The trouble with the Democrats is that they claim to believe that there never is a tax rate so high that it causes tax revenue to fall. Well, I have no doubt that such a belief on their part is mostly a pose. The Democrats favorite strategy is to convince less affluent voters that the "rich" are the cause of economic woes and if only we would soak those fact cats, things would be well. The Dems know that is just nonsense, but - - -hey! - - - ya gotta get elected, right? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 19, 2012 13:54:24 GMT -8
LMAO @ not valid after reading what you just wrote. Its founding was in 2009. If it were from dismay of Bush why didn't it start in 2001 or sometime while he was in office?Yes, Ryan is part of the starve the beast mode when the GOP commits class warfare on every class but the rich. Got that. It's a fact that the Bush administration was not as fiscally responsible as it should have been. In what way is citing that fact a rebuttal to what I have posted? It's also a fact that the national debt has gone up far more rapidly under Obama than under any other president in our history. No doubt many Republicans who had long wanted a more prudent federal government had hopes for the G.W. Bush administration. When those hopes we dashed, many of the rank and file decided to get active; that's how the Tea Party movement came about. (We should not forget that 9/11 and our responses to that attack cost the country billions. That made Bush's job of formulating a rational federal spending strategy much more difficult. Compare that with the "peace dividend" that Clinton enjoyed in the '90s.) Here are a couple of basic economic facts. (1) You cannot in perpetuity continue to borrow close to have of every dollar you spend. You cannot, I cannot, and neither can a government continue on that path without having the whole thing blow up eventually. Frankly, neither candidate has presented a serious plan to balance the federal budget any time soon. . . if ever! And unless we run at least modest surpluses for several years in a row, we will not be able to stabilize our federal government's fiscal situation. (2) It's been proven pretty definitively that one can raise tax rates only so high without the higher taxes leading to reduced, not raised, revenue flowing to the government. It tough to say just where that "sweet spot" in terms of tax rates is found. By "sweet spot," I mean a tax rate above which AND below which revenue to the government falls. The trouble with the Democrats is that they claim to believe that there never is a tax rate so high that it causes tax revenue to fall. Well, I have no doubt that such a belief on their part is mostly a pose. The Democrats favorite strategy is to convince less affluent voters that the "rich" are the cause of economic woes and if only we would soak those fact cats, things would be well. The Dems know that is just nonsense, but - - -hey! - - - ya gotta get elected, right? AzWm 1. I get that. That's common sense. I see we differ on how to fix it in number 2. :-) 2. The Clinton tax rates seemed to work just fine. That seemed like a tax sweet spot. What's wrong with that? This starve the beast the Grover Norquiest Reps love is even worse than over-spending, because you are disabling the ability to bring in the same money. Does spending need to be wiser? Hell yeah! Also, it's proven statistically all that lower taxes on the rich do is widen the income gap. It does not spur job creation or any part of the economy, except for line the pockets of rich folks. 3. Everything I read on the Tea Party shows their founding after Obama was already in office. I will eat crow if you can provide a link showing otherwise. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 19, 2012 16:36:12 GMT -8
I think you are reading the pig's entrails improperly. Obama is doing just as he said he believes. Or you believe he's doing what you think he believes :-) Are you telling me he does not believe what he says he believes? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 19, 2012 16:45:45 GMT -8
It's a fact that the Bush administration was not as fiscally responsible as it should have been. In what way is citing that fact a rebuttal to what I have posted? It's also a fact that the national debt has gone up far more rapidly under Obama than under any other president in our history. No doubt many Republicans who had long wanted a more prudent federal government had hopes for the G.W. Bush administration. When those hopes we dashed, many of the rank and file decided to get active; that's how the Tea Party movement came about. (We should not forget that 9/11 and our responses to that attack cost the country billions. That made Bush's job of formulating a rational federal spending strategy much more difficult. Compare that with the "peace dividend" that Clinton enjoyed in the '90s.) Here are a couple of basic economic facts. (1) You cannot in perpetuity continue to borrow close to have of every dollar you spend. You cannot, I cannot, and neither can a government continue on that path without having the whole thing blow up eventually. Frankly, neither candidate has presented a serious plan to balance the federal budget any time soon. . . if ever! And unless we run at least modest surpluses for several years in a row, we will not be able to stabilize our federal government's fiscal situation. (2) It's been proven pretty definitively that one can raise tax rates only so high without the higher taxes leading to reduced, not raised, revenue flowing to the government. It tough to say just where that "sweet spot" in terms of tax rates is found. By "sweet spot," I mean a tax rate above which AND below which revenue to the government falls. The trouble with the Democrats is that they claim to believe that there never is a tax rate so high that it causes tax revenue to fall. Well, I have no doubt that such a belief on their part is mostly a pose. The Democrats favorite strategy is to convince less affluent voters that the "rich" are the cause of economic woes and if only we would soak those fact cats, things would be well. The Dems know that is just nonsense, but - - -hey! - - - ya gotta get elected, right? AzWm 1. I get that. That's common sense. I see we differ on how to fix it in number 2. :-) 2. The Clinton tax rates seemed to work just fine. That seemed like a tax sweet spot. What's wrong with that? This starve the beast the Grover Norquiest Reps love is even worse than over-spending, because you are disabling the ability to bring in the same money. Does spending need to be wiser? Hell yeah! Also, it's proven statistically all that lower taxes on the rich do is widen the income gap. It does not spur job creation or any part of the economy, except for line the pockets of rich folks. 3. Everything I read on the Tea Party shows their founding after Obama was already in office. I will eat crow if you can provide a link showing otherwise. :-) Crow Recipes bertc.com/subfive/recipes/threecrows.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protestsQuote from link: The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints. It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest has also been used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters during fundraising events in the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement. Will you post a utube of your feast? |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 19, 2012 18:34:45 GMT -8
1. I get that. That's common sense. I see we differ on how to fix it in number 2. :-) 2. The Clinton tax rates seemed to work just fine. That seemed like a tax sweet spot. What's wrong with that? This starve the beast the Grover Norquiest Reps love is even worse than over-spending, because you are disabling the ability to bring in the same money. Does spending need to be wiser? Hell yeah! Also, it's proven statistically all that lower taxes on the rich do is widen the income gap. It does not spur job creation or any part of the economy, except for line the pockets of rich folks. 3. Everything I read on the Tea Party shows their founding after Obama was already in office. I will eat crow if you can provide a link showing otherwise. :-) Crow Recipes bertc.com/subfive/recipes/threecrows.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protestsQuote from link: The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints. It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest has also been used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters during fundraising events in the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement. Will you post a utube of your feast? D'oh! A year away. lol What sort of sauce do you recommend? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 20, 2012 10:32:04 GMT -8
Crow Recipes bertc.com/subfive/recipes/threecrows.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_protestsQuote from link: The theme of the Boston Tea Party, an iconic event of American history, has long been used by anti-tax protesters with libertarian and conservative viewpoints. It was part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier. The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest has also been used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters during fundraising events in the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism, which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement. Will you post a utube of your feast? D'oh! A year away. lol What sort of sauce do you recommend? Eating crow is something I know little about. I suggest calling on your on experience. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsustoner on Sept 20, 2012 10:46:44 GMT -8
D'oh! A year away. lol What sort of sauce do you recommend? Eating crow is something I know little about. I suggest calling on your on experience. I wish I wasn't a tech retard and knew how to post pics. There's one I found that's perfect for this moment. lol |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 20, 2012 11:16:44 GMT -8
Eating crow is something I know little about. I suggest calling on your on experience. I wish I wasn't a tech retard and knew how to post pics. There's one I found that's perfect for this moment. lol Insert image is one of the options within add tags. It can be done. ![]() put in image url[/img] |
|
