# Let's talk about the National Debt



## Wry Catcher

First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.

The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!

Borrowing and the Federal Debt

Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.


 
*Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*

Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
Then we'll look at tax hikes.


----------



## Missourian

Exactly.  I'm not opposed to raising taxes...as long as the cuts come first.

When we do it the other way,  the new taxes are enforced,  but the proposed cuts evaporate.

Pick a target...if it's 2007 spending levels...that would be fine...when we reach that goal,  new taxes kick in that go solely to reducing the debt...not new spending.


----------



## hangover

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
Click to expand...

Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half. Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%. THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS. If the national debt is ever going to get paid, that is how it must be done, because corporations and the 1%ers have all the money, not the peasants, which is the rest of us.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hangover said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half. Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%. THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS. If the national debt is ever going to get paid, that is how it must be done, because corporations and the 1%ers have all the money, not the peasants, which is the rest of us.
Click to expand...

 
*Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half.*

He did no such thing.

*Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%.*

They were never anywhere close to that high.

*THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS.*

Yes, driving all your employers away is the quickest path to paying off your debt.
Have you always been this stupid, or did it take lots of practice?

If you'd like to educate yourself, the below link might help.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
Click to expand...


NO!  The Tax cuts were one of the two events which created our current problem; even Reagan and Bush I raised taxes when necessary.   Grover Norquist and his cut, cut, cut taxes ideology is insane.  Reality gets in the way of ideology every time.

Cutting spending requires discipline, compromise and establishing priorities.  Something no Congress in recent memory has every exhibited.

My idea is this:

Repeal the 22nd Amendment; Change the term to six years; POTUS can only serve once;
Amend Art. II and give POTUS the line-item veto; which like any veto can be overridden by the same vote in Congress as for any other veto.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO!  The Tax cuts were one of the two events which created our current problem; even Reagan and Bush I raised taxes when necessary.   Grover Norquist and his cut, cut, cut taxes ideology is insane.  Reality gets in the way of ideology every time.
> 
> Cutting spending requires discipline, compromise and establishing priorities.  Something no Congress in recent memory has every exhibited.
> 
> My idea is this:
> 
> Repeal the 22nd Amendment; Change the term to six years; POTUS can only serve once;
> Amend Art. II and give POTUS the line-item veto; which like any veto can be overridden by the same vote in Congress as for any other veto.
Click to expand...

 
*The Tax cuts were one of the two events which created our current problem;*

What is our current problem?
Why did the tax cuts create it?

*Grover Norquist and his cut, cut, cut taxes ideology is insane.*

And so is the liberal idealogy of raise taxes and raise spending more.

*Cutting spending requires discipline, compromise and establishing priorities. Something no Congress in recent memory has every exhibited.*


And this makes you want to give them more tax revenues?

*Amend Art. II and give POTUS the line-item veto; which like any veto can be overridden by the same vote in Congress as for any other veto.*

Sounds good. Add term limits for Congress and privatizing Social Security.


----------



## hangover

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half. Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%. THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS. If the national debt is ever going to get paid, that is how it must be done, because corporations and the 1%ers have all the money, not the peasants, which is the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half.*
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> *Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%.*
> 
> They were never anywhere close to that high.
> 
> *THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS.*
> 
> Yes, driving all your employers away is the quickest path to paying off your debt.
> Have you always been this stupid, or did it take lots of practice?
> 
> If you'd like to educate yourself, the below link might help.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf
Click to expand...

Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation

Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent

Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.

Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee

I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.

But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.

Less revenue, bigger deficits.

The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hangover said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half. Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%. THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS. If the national debt is ever going to get paid, that is how it must be done, because corporations and the 1%ers have all the money, not the peasants, which is the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half.*
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> *Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%.*
> 
> They were never anywhere close to that high.
> 
> *THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS.*
> 
> Yes, driving all your employers away is the quickest path to paying off your debt.
> Have you always been this stupid, or did it take lots of practice?
> 
> If you'd like to educate yourself, the below link might help.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation
> 
> Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent
> 
> Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.
> 
> Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee
> 
> I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
> But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.
> 
> But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
> 
> Less revenue, bigger deficits.
> 
> The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.
Click to expand...

 
*I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*

Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.

*But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*

It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.

*And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*

The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.

*With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*

It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.

*The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*

I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!


----------



## hangover

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half. Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%. THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS. If the national debt is ever going to get paid, that is how it must be done, because corporations and the 1%ers have all the money, not the peasants, which is the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half.*
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> *Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%.*
> 
> They were never anywhere close to that high.
> 
> *THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS.*
> 
> Yes, driving all your employers away is the quickest path to paying off your debt.
> Have you always been this stupid, or did it take lots of practice?
> 
> If you'd like to educate yourself, the below link might help.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation
> 
> Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent
> 
> Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.
> 
> Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee
> 
> I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
> But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.
> 
> But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
> 
> Less revenue, bigger deficits.
> 
> The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
Click to expand...


*But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*

It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.

That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.

*And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*

The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.

You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.

*With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*

It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.

You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?

*The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*

I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!

Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hangover said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half. Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%. THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS. If the national debt is ever going to get paid, that is how it must be done, because corporations and the 1%ers have all the money, not the peasants, which is the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half.*
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> *Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%.*
> 
> They were never anywhere close to that high.
> 
> *THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS.*
> 
> Yes, driving all your employers away is the quickest path to paying off your debt.
> Have you always been this stupid, or did it take lots of practice?
> 
> If you'd like to educate yourself, the below link might help.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation
> 
> Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent
> 
> Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.
> 
> Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee
> 
> I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
> But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.
> 
> But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
> 
> Less revenue, bigger deficits.
> 
> The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
Click to expand...

 
The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.

*You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*

1980   517,112
1981   599,272
1982   617,766
1983   600,562
1984   666,438
1985   734,037
1986   769,155
1987   854,287
1988   909,238
1989   991,104
Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.

*You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*

They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO!  The Tax cuts were one of the two events which created our current problem; even Reagan and Bush I raised taxes when necessary.   Grover Norquist and his cut, cut, cut taxes ideology is insane.  Reality gets in the way of ideology every time.
> 
> Cutting spending requires discipline, compromise and establishing priorities.  Something no Congress in recent memory has every exhibited.
> 
> My idea is this:
> 
> Repeal the 22nd Amendment; Change the term to six years; POTUS can only serve once;
> Amend Art. II and give POTUS the line-item veto; which like any veto can be overridden by the same vote in Congress as for any other veto.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Tax cuts were one of the two events which created our current problem;*
> 
> What is our current problem?
> Why did the tax cuts create it?
> 
> *Grover Norquist and his cut, cut, cut taxes ideology is insane.*
> 
> And so is the liberal idealogy of raise taxes and raise spending more.
> 
> *Cutting spending requires discipline, compromise and establishing priorities. Something no Congress in recent memory has every exhibited.*
> 
> 
> And this makes you want to give them more tax revenues?
> 
> *Amend Art. II and give POTUS the line-item veto; which like any veto can be overridden by the same vote in Congress as for any other veto.*
> 
> Sounds good. Add term limits for Congress and privatizing Social Security.
Click to expand...


The current problem is the debt, but in fact it's not a serious problem.
Why did tax cuts create it?  Duh, less revenue and more spending (how much per month did the Iraq war cost?)

Tax and spend liberals is a cliche, and a talking point without valid evidence that only Democrats spend like drunken Marines.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO!  The Tax cuts were one of the two events which created our current problem; even Reagan and Bush I raised taxes when necessary.   Grover Norquist and his cut, cut, cut taxes ideology is insane.  Reality gets in the way of ideology every time.
> 
> Cutting spending requires discipline, compromise and establishing priorities.  Something no Congress in recent memory has every exhibited.
> 
> My idea is this:
> 
> Repeal the 22nd Amendment; Change the term to six years; POTUS can only serve once;
> Amend Art. II and give POTUS the line-item veto; which like any veto can be overridden by the same vote in Congress as for any other veto.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Tax cuts were one of the two events which created our current problem;*
> 
> What is our current problem?
> Why did the tax cuts create it?
> 
> *Grover Norquist and his cut, cut, cut taxes ideology is insane.*
> 
> And so is the liberal idealogy of raise taxes and raise spending more.
> 
> *Cutting spending requires discipline, compromise and establishing priorities. Something no Congress in recent memory has every exhibited.*
> 
> 
> And this makes you want to give them more tax revenues?
> 
> *Amend Art. II and give POTUS the line-item veto; which like any veto can be overridden by the same vote in Congress as for any other veto.*
> 
> Sounds good. Add term limits for Congress and privatizing Social Security.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The current problem is the debt, but in fact it's not a serious problem.
> Why did tax cuts create it?  Duh, less revenue and more spending (how much per month did the Iraq war cost?)
> 
> Tax and spend liberals is a cliche, and a talking point without valid evidence that only Democrats spend like drunken Marines.
Click to expand...

 
*Why did tax cuts create it? Duh, less revenue and more spending*

Obama fixed the Bush economy, won the wars and raised taxes on the rich.
Let's cut spending to 2007 levels and balance the budget already.


----------



## hangover

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half. Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%. THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS. If the national debt is ever going to get paid, that is how it must be done, because corporations and the 1%ers have all the money, not the peasants, which is the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half.*
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> *Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%.*
> 
> They were never anywhere close to that high.
> 
> *THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS.*
> 
> Yes, driving all your employers away is the quickest path to paying off your debt.
> Have you always been this stupid, or did it take lots of practice?
> 
> If you'd like to educate yourself, the below link might help.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation
> 
> Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent
> 
> Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.
> 
> Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee
> 
> I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
> But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.
> 
> But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
> 
> Less revenue, bigger deficits.
> 
> The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
Click to expand...

Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.

1980 517,112
1981 599,272
1982 617,766
1983 600,562
1984 666,438
1985 734,037
1986 769,155
1987 854,287
1988 909,238
1989 991,104
Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.

Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime," 

more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.

In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.

The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.

All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hangover said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Better yet, let's go back to before when Raygun cut corporate taxes in half.*
> 
> He did no such thing.
> 
> *Let's go back to when corporate taxes were 90%.*
> 
> They were never anywhere close to that high.
> 
> *THAT ALONE WILL PAY OFF THE NATIONAL DEBT IN TEN YEARS.*
> 
> Yes, driving all your employers away is the quickest path to paying off your debt.
> Have you always been this stupid, or did it take lots of practice?
> 
> If you'd like to educate yourself, the below link might help.
> 
> http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/corporate_historical_bracket.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation
> 
> Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent
> 
> Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.
> 
> Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee
> 
> I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
> But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.
> 
> But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
> 
> Less revenue, bigger deficits.
> 
> The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
Click to expand...

 
*In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*

LOL!

*Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*

Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
Are you sure?


----------



## hangover

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation
> 
> Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent
> 
> Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.
> 
> Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee
> 
> I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
> But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.
> 
> But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
> 
> Less revenue, bigger deficits.
> 
> The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
Click to expand...

*In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*

LOL!

Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.
*Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*

Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
Are you sure

He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk. But nice deflection of big oil and war machine corporations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hangover said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure
> 
> He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk. But nice deflection of big oil and war machine corporations.
Click to expand...

 
*Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*

I alway laugh at idiot libs.

*He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*

He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!


----------



## hangover

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure
> 
> He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk. But nice deflection of big oil and war machine corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*
> 
> I alway laugh at idiot libs.
> 
> *He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*
> 
> He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
Click to expand...

*Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*

I alway laugh at idiot libs.
Mentally challenged cons calling libs idiots, always happens every time they lose on an issue that they're on the wrong side of, healthcare, confederate flag, equal rights, just this week alone.
*He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*

He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
^^^^Mentally challenged tries to pretend big oil and war was created by Obama because the reality of Iraq is to shameful for him to own up to. You're so lame, if you were a horse they'd have to shoot you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hangover said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure
> 
> He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk. But nice deflection of big oil and war machine corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*
> 
> I alway laugh at idiot libs.
> 
> *He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*
> 
> He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*
> 
> I alway laugh at idiot libs.
> Mentally challenged cons calling libs idiots, always happens every time they lose on an issue that they're on the wrong side of, healthcare, confederate flag, equal rights, just this week alone.
> *He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*
> 
> He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
> ^^^^Mentally challenged tries to pretend big oil and war was created by Obama because the reality of Iraq is to shameful for him to own up to. You're so lame, if you were a horse they'd have to shoot you.
Click to expand...

 
You're the idiot who said we should raise corporate tax rates to 90%.
You're the idiot who said they used to be 90%.

I didn't say anything about big oil and war being created by Obama.
If you don't like the loopholes Obama put into effect for corporations like GE,
you should just come right out and say it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.



Obama Fulffers motto: Obama had nothing to do with the debt, its all somebody else's fault

Even the failed stimulus wasn't his fault


----------



## Manonthestreet

record revenue continues to roll in and yet its never enough.....I know lets create more bureaucracy to manage more programs handing out money to god knows who or why and then bitch


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.



They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.

Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
Click to expand...

 
*That tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.*

They cut spending to 2007 levels? Link?

*Tax increases at the top are essential*

Obama already did that. Why do you want more?

*if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.*

Why can't spending be cut to 2007 levels?
Obama fixed the Bush economy and ended the wars.
He should be able to cut to much less than 2007.


----------



## Derideo_Te

The best way to eliminate the National Debt is to tie it directly to the topmost tax rate.

It works like this;

All income in excess of $1,000,000 pa from whatever source is taxed at 95% as long as the National Debt is greater than zero.

If the National Debt is zero that rate does not apply.

Great incentive for the 1% to stop sucking all the money out of the taxpayer trough because they are only going to receive 5 cents on the dollar returns. 

And while we are at it we could put another one in place at 99.99% for all earnings over $5 million again tied to the National Debt.

Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave. 

Instead they will try to "offshore" their money and the remedy for that is hard time behind bars if they want to live in the USA while evading paying their taxes by moving it offshore.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama a genius! Nothing is ever his fault!


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why can't spending be cut to 2007 levels?
> Obama fixed the Bush economy and ended the wars.
> He should be able to cut to much less than 2007.



Why don't you look at the facts first?

Government Spending Chart United States 2007-2017 - Federal State Local Data





Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels. 

Time to raise taxes according to your own dogma. 

And yes, I do want taxes raised to pay down the national debt.

Why don't you want to pay off the ND?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't spending be cut to 2007 levels?
> Obama fixed the Bush economy and ended the wars.
> He should be able to cut to much less than 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you look at the facts first?
> 
> Government Spending Chart United States 2007-2017 - Federal State Local Data
> 
> View attachment 43348
> 
> Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels.
> 
> Time to raise taxes according to your own dogma.
> 
> And yes, I do want taxes raised to pay down the national debt.
> 
> Why don't you want to pay off the ND?
Click to expand...

 
*Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels.*

Federal spending in 2007 was $2.7 trillion. Last year, $3.5 trillion.
We're about $800 billion too high.


----------



## Derideo_Te

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't spending be cut to 2007 levels?
> Obama fixed the Bush economy and ended the wars.
> He should be able to cut to much less than 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you look at the facts first?
> 
> Government Spending Chart United States 2007-2017 - Federal State Local Data
> 
> View attachment 43348
> 
> Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels.
> 
> Time to raise taxes according to your own dogma.
> 
> And yes, I do want taxes raised to pay down the national debt.
> 
> Why don't you want to pay off the ND?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels.*
> 
> Federal spending in 2007 was $2.7 trillion. Last year, $3.5 trillion.
> We're about $800 billion too high.
Click to expand...


Total spending in 2007 was just over $3 trillion.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't spending be cut to 2007 levels?
> Obama fixed the Bush economy and ended the wars.
> He should be able to cut to much less than 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you look at the facts first?
> 
> Government Spending Chart United States 2007-2017 - Federal State Local Data
> 
> View attachment 43348
> 
> Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels.
> 
> Time to raise taxes according to your own dogma.
> 
> And yes, I do want taxes raised to pay down the national debt.
> 
> Why don't you want to pay off the ND?
Click to expand...


Republican Congress cut spending with the Brutal Sequester that Obama was against


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Wry Catcher said:


> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!



Raising taxes while cutting spending can be considered fiscally conservative policy.  Furthermore, austerity absolutely should be part of the plan.  There is a shit ton of waste in government.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

CrusaderFrank said:


> Republican Congress cut spending with the Brutal Sequester that Obama was against



After they ran up the bulk of our debt.  The Republican Party has no credibility to claim they are a fiscally responsible party.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't spending be cut to 2007 levels?
> Obama fixed the Bush economy and ended the wars.
> He should be able to cut to much less than 2007.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you look at the facts first?
> 
> Government Spending Chart United States 2007-2017 - Federal State Local Data
> 
> View attachment 43348
> 
> Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels.
> 
> Time to raise taxes according to your own dogma.
> 
> And yes, I do want taxes raised to pay down the national debt.
> 
> Why don't you want to pay off the ND?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Spending is already cut back to 2007 levels.*
> 
> Federal spending in 2007 was $2.7 trillion. Last year, $3.5 trillion.
> We're about $800 billion too high.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total spending in 2007 was just over $3 trillion.
Click to expand...

 
Why are you involving state and local spending in a discussion about Federal spending?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Top Federal Income Tax Rate Was Once Over 90 Percent Tax Foundation
> 
> Economists Say We Should Tax The Rich At 90 Percent
> 
> Reagan pushed through sweeping tax cuts, slashing the top rate from 70.1 percent to 28.4 percent, and the lowest rate from 14 percent to 11 percent.
> 
> Read more here: The end of voodoo GOP changes Reagan approach to tax cuts The Sacramento Bee
> 
> I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%, it was income tax rates that were 90%.
> But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich. And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.
> 
> But we all know that corporations have all the money. And it's corporations that own the politicians too. With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.
> 
> Less revenue, bigger deficits.
> 
> The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did. There are no poor in congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
Click to expand...


POTUS signs the bill, the buck stops there!


----------



## hangover

Toddsterpatriot said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure
> 
> He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk. But nice deflection of big oil and war machine corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*
> 
> I alway laugh at idiot libs.
> 
> *He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*
> 
> He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*
> 
> I alway laugh at idiot libs.
> Mentally challenged cons calling libs idiots, always happens every time they lose on an issue that they're on the wrong side of, healthcare, confederate flag, equal rights, just this week alone.
> *He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*
> 
> He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
> ^^^^Mentally challenged tries to pretend big oil and war was created by Obama because the reality of Iraq is to shameful for him to own up to. You're so lame, if you were a horse they'd have to shoot you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the idiot who said we should raise corporate tax rates to 90%.
> You're the idiot who said they used to be 90%.
> 
> I didn't say anything about big oil and war being created by Obama.
> If you don't like the loopholes Obama put into effect for corporations like GE,
> you should just come right out and say it.
Click to expand...

You're the idiot that likes corporations running up the national debt and then getting a free ride on paying it off. You're the idiot that is too fucking stupid to realize that corporations have all the money. And you're the moron that thinks the poor are going to pay off the national debt. If you look up idiot in the dictionary, it's a picture of you.


----------



## hangover

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I concede that corporate tax rates weren't 90%*
> 
> Excellent! You've probably been pushing that error for decades.
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *But Raygun did cut income tax rates from 70% down to 28% for the rich.*
> 
> It's true, he cut income tax rates for everybody.
> 
> That tax rate was "for the rich" and it's still over half.
> 
> *And because of it, he tripled the national debt in eight years.*
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.
> 
> *With all the loop holes corporations get, most pay NO TAXES AT ALL.*
> 
> It's true, friends of Obama get reduced taxes. Those "Green Energy" loopholes are very lucrative for Obama's donors.
> 
> You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?
> 
> *The poor didn't run up the national debt, the rich did.*
> 
> I know, those rich big spenders in Congress are awful!
> 
> Yeah, those GOP war mongers wasted $3 trillion on Iraq and Afghanistan. But their buddies Halliburton got a trillion of it. And think of all the kickbacks those cons get from big oil from lobbyists and campaign contributions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rate cuts didn't reduce government revenues.
> 
> *You've probably been telling that lie since Raygun.*
> 
> 1980   517,112
> 1981   599,272
> 1982   617,766
> 1983   600,562
> 1984   666,438
> 1985   734,037
> 1986   769,155
> 1987   854,287
> 1988   909,238
> 1989   991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> .
> *You trying to tell us big oil and war machine contractors don't do that?*
> 
> They get loopholes from Obama? Bastards!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.
> 
> 1980 517,112
> 1981 599,272
> 1982 617,766
> 1983 600,562
> 1984 666,438
> 1985 734,037
> 1986 769,155
> 1987 854,287
> 1988 909,238
> 1989 991,104
> Total revenues went from $517 billion in 1980, to $991 billion in 1989.
> 
> Two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 together"constituted the biggest tax increase ever enacted during peacetime,"
> 
> more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited.
> There were other notable tax increases under Reagan.
> 
> In 1983, for example, he signed off on Social Security reform legislation that, among other things, accelerated an increase in the payroll tax rate, required that higher-income beneficiaries pay income tax on part of their benefits, and required the self-employed to pay the full payroll tax rate, rather than just the portion normally paid by employees.
> 
> The tax reform of 1986, meanwhile, wasn't designed to increase federal tax revenue. But that didn't mean that no one's taxes went up. Because the reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, high-income tax filers who previously paid little ended up with bigger tax bills.
> 
> All told, the tax increases Reagan approved ended up canceling out much of the reduction in tax revenue that resulted from his 1981 legislation.
> Taxes What people forget about Reagan - Sep. 8 2010
> In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POTUS signs the bill, the buck stops there!
Click to expand...

Only if it's a dem. When a con POTUS gets caught in a crime, like Nixon, and Raygun(Iran/Contra), and Shrub daddy(out of the loop), and Shrub Jr.(yellow cake lies) and signing deregulation bills that destroy the economy, then the buck never comes to them. Raygun tripled the national debt, Shrub daddy doubled it again in only four years, and Shrub Jr. doubled the debt yet again adding more than all presidents added together. And cons still claim to be the fiscally responsible party. The last three con presidents own $12 trillion of the national debt. Actually Shrub owns what Obama added, because that asshole caused the economic collapse that Obama has had to clean up. Cons are just chickenshit lying cowards that never own up to their fuck ups.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

hangover said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure?
> 
> 
> 
> *In straight language, it means Raygun cut taxes on the rich and raised them on everybody else.*
> 
> LOL!
> 
> Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.
> *Congress has the purse strings, not Obama. Congress makes the loopholes, not Obama.*
> 
> Obama didn't sign those "Green Energy" loopholes into law?
> Are you sure
> 
> He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk. But nice deflection of big oil and war machine corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*
> 
> I alway laugh at idiot libs.
> 
> *He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*
> 
> He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Cons always laugh wen the GOP fucks Americans.*
> 
> I alway laugh at idiot libs.
> Mentally challenged cons calling libs idiots, always happens every time they lose on an issue that they're on the wrong side of, healthcare, confederate flag, equal rights, just this week alone.
> *He can only sign them when congress puts the bill on his desk.*
> 
> He signed them? Is he in the pocket of big oil and big war? Bastard!
> ^^^^Mentally challenged tries to pretend big oil and war was created by Obama because the reality of Iraq is to shameful for him to own up to. You're so lame, if you were a horse they'd have to shoot you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the idiot who said we should raise corporate tax rates to 90%.
> You're the idiot who said they used to be 90%.
> 
> I didn't say anything about big oil and war being created by Obama.
> If you don't like the loopholes Obama put into effect for corporations like GE,
> you should just come right out and say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the idiot that likes corporations running up the national debt and then getting a free ride on paying it off. You're the idiot that is too fucking stupid to realize that corporations have all the money. And you're the moron that thinks the poor are going to pay off the national debt. If you look up idiot in the dictionary, it's a picture of you.
Click to expand...

* 
You're the idiot that likes corporations running up the national debt*

Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass?
Let me help you out, government spending runs up the debt, corporations do not.

*and then getting a free ride on paying it off.*

Hey, idiot, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican Congress cut spending with the Brutal Sequester that Obama was against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After they ran up the bulk of our debt.  The Republican Party has no credibility to claim they are a fiscally responsible party.
Click to expand...


Have you even seen a chart of spending vs party in charge of Congress?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Fulffers motto: Obama had nothing to do with the debt, its all somebody else's fault
> 
> Even the failed stimulus wasn't his fault
Click to expand...


You wonder why I believe you're not only a partisan hack but dumb as a box of rocks:

Google

Read it and then run away and hide.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Fulffers motto: Obama had nothing to do with the debt, its all somebody else's fault
> 
> Even the failed stimulus wasn't his fault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wonder why I believe you're not only a partisan hack but dumb as a box of rocks:
> 
> Google
> 
> Read it and then run away and hide.
Click to expand...


Obama. He's a Deity. Never did anything wrong. It's always somebody else fault. Surely a more perfect man never walked the Earth.

Freddo, you're turning into a characture of yourself.


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Fulffers motto: Obama had nothing to do with the debt, its all somebody else's fault
> 
> Even the failed stimulus wasn't his fault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wonder why I believe you're not only a partisan hack but dumb as a box of rocks:
> 
> Google
> 
> Read it and then run away and hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama. He's a Deity. Never did anything wrong. It's always somebody else fault. Surely a more perfect man never walked the Earth.
> 
> Freddo, you're turning into a characture of yourself.
Click to expand...


Obama has made mistakes, stumbled on issues and  too often been reactive when being proactive was necessary.  But assholes like you have hated him since he received the nomination, and assholes like you have never given him credit for a thing.

Of course that's to be expected from partisan assholes, like you; the character flawed self righteous assholes, like you, who lie, spread half-truths and rumors as facts and attack President Obama on every issue; all the while excusing  G. W. Bush & Co. for egregious incompetence costing the lives of 3,000 on 9/11/01 (Cole was attack a few months before the horror on that day, any competent person/administration would have been focused on protection American soil).

The deaths of over 4,500 American service personal are on the hands of Bush & Co. and what have we gained for invading and occupying a Muslim Country  - ISIS, more deaths and more threats to attack Americans.

Yeah, you're piece of human excrement, that's for sure, and as is typical of your kind, facts have no bearing on your prejudices and never temper your mendacity.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Fulffers motto: Obama had nothing to do with the debt, its all somebody else's fault
> 
> Even the failed stimulus wasn't his fault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wonder why I believe you're not only a partisan hack but dumb as a box of rocks:
> 
> Google
> 
> Read it and then run away and hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama. He's a Deity. Never did anything wrong. It's always somebody else fault. Surely a more perfect man never walked the Earth.
> 
> Freddo, you're turning into a characture of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has made mistakes, stumbled on issues and  too often been reactive when being proactive was necessary.  But assholes like you have hated him since he received the nomination, and assholes like you have never given him credit for a thing.
> 
> Of course that's to be expected from partisan assholes, like you; the character flawed self righteous assholes, like you, who lie, spread half-truths and rumors as facts and attack President Obama on every issue; all the while excusing  G. W. Bush & Co. for egregious incompetence costing the lives of 3,000 on 9/11/01 (Cole was attack a few months before the horror on that day, any competent person/administration would have been focused on protection American soil).
> 
> The deaths of over 4,500 American service personal are on the hands of Bush & Co. and what have we gained for invading and occupying a Muslim Country  - ISIS, more deaths and more threats to attack Americans.
> 
> Yeah, you're piece of human excrement, that's for sure, and as is typical of your kind, facts have no bearing on your prejudices and never temper your mendacity.
Click to expand...


Freddo I despise the entire Bush Clan, a more traitorous group never existed. 

Let's stick with your pathetic op where you pretend Obama is not actually potus. Who was it that proposed the Failed Stimulus? Was that Cheney or Obama? Who has not passed a single budget during his entire Presidency?


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Fulffers motto: Obama had nothing to do with the debt, its all somebody else's fault
> 
> Even the failed stimulus wasn't his fault
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wonder why I believe you're not only a partisan hack but dumb as a box of rocks:
> 
> Google
> 
> Read it and then run away and hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama. He's a Deity. Never did anything wrong. It's always somebody else fault. Surely a more perfect man never walked the Earth.
> 
> Freddo, you're turning into a characture of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has made mistakes, stumbled on issues and  too often been reactive when being proactive was necessary.  But assholes like you have hated him since he received the nomination, and assholes like you have never given him credit for a thing.
> 
> Of course that's to be expected from partisan assholes, like you; the character flawed self righteous assholes, like you, who lie, spread half-truths and rumors as facts and attack President Obama on every issue; all the while excusing  G. W. Bush & Co. for egregious incompetence costing the lives of 3,000 on 9/11/01 (Cole was attack a few months before the horror on that day, any competent person/administration would have been focused on protection American soil).
> 
> The deaths of over 4,500 American service personal are on the hands of Bush & Co. and what have we gained for invading and occupying a Muslim Country  - ISIS, more deaths and more threats to attack Americans.
> 
> Yeah, you're piece of human excrement, that's for sure, and as is typical of your kind, facts have no bearing on your prejudices and never temper your mendacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freddo I despise the entire Bush Clan, a more traitorous group never existed.
> 
> Let's stick with your pathetic op where you pretend Obama is not actually potus. Who was it that proposed the Failed Stimulus? Was that Cheney or Obama? Who has not passed a single budget during his entire Presidency?
Click to expand...


7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on  lies.  The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it.  Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep.  Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Fulffers motto: Obama had nothing to do with the debt, its all somebody else's fault
> 
> Even the failed stimulus wasn't his fault
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wonder why I believe you're not only a partisan hack but dumb as a box of rocks:
> 
> Google
> 
> Read it and then run away and hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama. He's a Deity. Never did anything wrong. It's always somebody else fault. Surely a more perfect man never walked the Earth.
> 
> Freddo, you're turning into a characture of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has made mistakes, stumbled on issues and  too often been reactive when being proactive was necessary.  But assholes like you have hated him since he received the nomination, and assholes like you have never given him credit for a thing.
> 
> Of course that's to be expected from partisan assholes, like you; the character flawed self righteous assholes, like you, who lie, spread half-truths and rumors as facts and attack President Obama on every issue; all the while excusing  G. W. Bush & Co. for egregious incompetence costing the lives of 3,000 on 9/11/01 (Cole was attack a few months before the horror on that day, any competent person/administration would have been focused on protection American soil).
> 
> The deaths of over 4,500 American service personal are on the hands of Bush & Co. and what have we gained for invading and occupying a Muslim Country  - ISIS, more deaths and more threats to attack Americans.
> 
> Yeah, you're piece of human excrement, that's for sure, and as is typical of your kind, facts have no bearing on your prejudices and never temper your mendacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freddo I despise the entire Bush Clan, a more traitorous group never existed.
> 
> Let's stick with your pathetic op where you pretend Obama is not actually potus. Who was it that proposed the Failed Stimulus? Was that Cheney or Obama? Who has not passed a single budget during his entire Presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on  lies.  The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it.  Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep.  Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.
Click to expand...


Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about. 

Then Obama switched sides


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wonder why I believe you're not only a partisan hack but dumb as a box of rocks:
> 
> Google
> 
> Read it and then run away and hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama. He's a Deity. Never did anything wrong. It's always somebody else fault. Surely a more perfect man never walked the Earth.
> 
> Freddo, you're turning into a characture of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama has made mistakes, stumbled on issues and  too often been reactive when being proactive was necessary.  But assholes like you have hated him since he received the nomination, and assholes like you have never given him credit for a thing.
> 
> Of course that's to be expected from partisan assholes, like you; the character flawed self righteous assholes, like you, who lie, spread half-truths and rumors as facts and attack President Obama on every issue; all the while excusing  G. W. Bush & Co. for egregious incompetence costing the lives of 3,000 on 9/11/01 (Cole was attack a few months before the horror on that day, any competent person/administration would have been focused on protection American soil).
> 
> The deaths of over 4,500 American service personal are on the hands of Bush & Co. and what have we gained for invading and occupying a Muslim Country  - ISIS, more deaths and more threats to attack Americans.
> 
> Yeah, you're piece of human excrement, that's for sure, and as is typical of your kind, facts have no bearing on your prejudices and never temper your mendacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freddo I despise the entire Bush Clan, a more traitorous group never existed.
> 
> Let's stick with your pathetic op where you pretend Obama is not actually potus. Who was it that proposed the Failed Stimulus? Was that Cheney or Obama? Who has not passed a single budget during his entire Presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on  lies.  The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it.  Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep.  Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.
> 
> Then Obama switched sides
Click to expand...


Iraq was stable?  You're insane.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama. He's a Deity. Never did anything wrong. It's always somebody else fault. Surely a more perfect man never walked the Earth.
> 
> Freddo, you're turning into a characture of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has made mistakes, stumbled on issues and  too often been reactive when being proactive was necessary.  But assholes like you have hated him since he received the nomination, and assholes like you have never given him credit for a thing.
> 
> Of course that's to be expected from partisan assholes, like you; the character flawed self righteous assholes, like you, who lie, spread half-truths and rumors as facts and attack President Obama on every issue; all the while excusing  G. W. Bush & Co. for egregious incompetence costing the lives of 3,000 on 9/11/01 (Cole was attack a few months before the horror on that day, any competent person/administration would have been focused on protection American soil).
> 
> The deaths of over 4,500 American service personal are on the hands of Bush & Co. and what have we gained for invading and occupying a Muslim Country  - ISIS, more deaths and more threats to attack Americans.
> 
> Yeah, you're piece of human excrement, that's for sure, and as is typical of your kind, facts have no bearing on your prejudices and never temper your mendacity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Freddo I despise the entire Bush Clan, a more traitorous group never existed.
> 
> Let's stick with your pathetic op where you pretend Obama is not actually potus. Who was it that proposed the Failed Stimulus? Was that Cheney or Obama? Who has not passed a single budget during his entire Presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on  lies.  The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it.  Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep.  Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.
> 
> Then Obama switched sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable?  You're insane.
Click to expand...


Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Derideo_Te said:


> The best way to eliminate the National Debt is to tie it directly to the topmost tax rate.
> 
> It works like this;
> 
> All income in excess of $1,000,000 pa from whatever source is taxed at 95% as long as the National Debt is greater than zero.
> 
> If the National Debt is zero that rate does not apply.
> 
> Great incentive for the 1% to stop sucking all the money out of the taxpayer trough because they are only going to receive 5 cents on the dollar returns.
> 
> And while we are at it we could put another one in place at 99.99% for all earnings over $5 million again tied to the National Debt.
> 
> Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
> 
> Instead they will try to "offshore" their money and the remedy for that is hard time behind bars if they want to live in the USA while evading paying their taxes by moving it offshore.



Redistribution: 100% fail rate. Guaranteed


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Missourian said:


> Exactly.  I'm not opposed to raising taxes...as long as the cuts come first.
> 
> When we do it the other way,  the new taxes are enforced,  but the proposed cuts evaporate.
> 
> Pick a target...if it's 2007 spending levels...that would be fine...when we reach that goal,  new taxes kick in that go solely to reducing the debt...not new spending.



The federal reserve could raise interest rates to 28% and freeze them for 2 years.  That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes. Our economy would go to hell but it would only be for 2 more years. We can handle it.


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has made mistakes, stumbled on issues and  too often been reactive when being proactive was necessary.  But assholes like you have hated him since he received the nomination, and assholes like you have never given him credit for a thing.
> 
> Of course that's to be expected from partisan assholes, like you; the character flawed self righteous assholes, like you, who lie, spread half-truths and rumors as facts and attack President Obama on every issue; all the while excusing  G. W. Bush & Co. for egregious incompetence costing the lives of 3,000 on 9/11/01 (Cole was attack a few months before the horror on that day, any competent person/administration would have been focused on protection American soil).
> 
> The deaths of over 4,500 American service personal are on the hands of Bush & Co. and what have we gained for invading and occupying a Muslim Country  - ISIS, more deaths and more threats to attack Americans.
> 
> Yeah, you're piece of human excrement, that's for sure, and as is typical of your kind, facts have no bearing on your prejudices and never temper your mendacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freddo I despise the entire Bush Clan, a more traitorous group never existed.
> 
> Let's stick with your pathetic op where you pretend Obama is not actually potus. Who was it that proposed the Failed Stimulus? Was that Cheney or Obama? Who has not passed a single budget during his entire Presidency?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on  lies.  The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it.  Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep.  Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.
> 
> Then Obama switched sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable?  You're insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.
Click to expand...


Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.  

I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS.  Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.

I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Tax cuts work very well for state governments and local governments. That doesn't translate to the federal government. The federal government has a somewhat unlimited ability to borrow money. It's not completely unlimited but the ability to pay our debts is a matter of national security. Nobody cares if Pardow County Nevada pays it's debts or not. This means the banks and bond holders are a self regulating mechanism for state and local governments. Bond holders and banks think that the United States will always pay back its debt forever. This means nobody will stop lending to the United States ever. They know that in the worst case scenario the federal reserve could be abolished or ignored. This would give the federal government the ability to print just enough money to make minimum monthly payments on its debt. As long as they don't pay the debts in full this system can exist for hundreds of years. You may say you are worried about your grand children or your great grand children.  I think it is our great great great great great great great great great grand children that we need to be worrying about the most.

Yes.  There is disaster ahead but it's still 300 or 400 years away.  Trying to get someone to care about a disaster 400 years down the road is next to impossible.  That's why there are so many nutjobs trying to convince us that it is going to be much sooner.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

vasuderatorrent said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  I'm not opposed to raising taxes...as long as the cuts come first.
> 
> When we do it the other way,  the new taxes are enforced,  but the proposed cuts evaporate.
> 
> Pick a target...if it's 2007 spending levels...that would be fine...when we reach that goal,  new taxes kick in that go solely to reducing the debt...not new spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal reserve could raise interest rates to 28% and freeze them for 2 years.  That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes. Our economy would go to hell but it would only be for 2 more years. We can handle it.
Click to expand...

 
Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?

*That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*

Why would it do either of those things?


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Derideo_Te said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
Click to expand...


North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?



60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.


----------



## Wry Catcher

vasuderatorrent said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
Click to expand...


If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Derideo_Te said:


> Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.



I hear that threat all the time.  Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Wry Catcher said:


> If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.



Our system of government is great.  We have states to experiment with various theories. If it fails then it doesn't destroy the entire country. If it works then we know it works. This eliminates the necessity to rely on speculation or political rhetoric. If it works in North Carolina then other states will be doing it too. From personal experience I can tell you that it is sucking pretty bad for us poor folks in North Carolina.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Freddo I despise the entire Bush Clan, a more traitorous group never existed.
> 
> Let's stick with your pathetic op where you pretend Obama is not actually potus. Who was it that proposed the Failed Stimulus? Was that Cheney or Obama? Who has not passed a single budget during his entire Presidency?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on  lies.  The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it.  Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep.  Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.
> 
> Then Obama switched sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable?  You're insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.
> 
> I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS.  Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.
Click to expand...


I've posted this at least 6 times

"*Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]*
In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]

In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]

*Iraqi Police Development Played a Key Role in Tribal Engagement Strategy[edit]*
One major shortcoming in the efforts to wrest control of Ramadi from the insurgency was the failure of the Iraqi Police to effectively combat the insurgency. As part of the Tribal Engagement Strategy, Ready First developed and implemented a plan to quickly recruit, train, and employ Iraqi Policemen on the streets of Ramadi. COL MacFarland, and LTC James Lechner, Deputy Brigade Commander, successfully developed an Iraqi Police recruiting, training, and employment plan that was implemented by HHC, 2-152 Infantry (Mech), an Army National Guard unit that lived in Iraqi Police Stations and Combat Outposts conducting daily patrols and clearing operations with their counterparts. HHC, 2-152 Infantry, also known in Ramadi as "the 152nd", or the Police Transition Team (PTT) Company would provide the Iraqi Police in Ramadi with the leadership and oversight that proved crucial in re-establishing a police presence in Ramadi to ensure insurgent forces did not return to neighborhoods that had been secured. Consequently, the success of the Iraqi Police program in Ramadi convinced the Ramadi populace that their government could effectively provide for their security needs, a critical element of defeating the insurgency. The 152nd PTT Company's Iraqi Police efforts began in October 2006 and would continue through the departure of Ready First and into the tenure of 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division until the 152nd departed in October 2007. The 152nd was responsible for recruiting, training, and conducting patrols with hundreds of Iraqi Police, and opened several new Iraqi Police stations in the city of Ramadi."

Battle of Ramadi 2006 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province."  Until Obama switched sides and threw in with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists


----------



## Wry Catcher

The debt is a problem, but as posted by vasuderatorrent it is not and does not portend any immediate crisis.  The hysteria around the size of the debt is simply a talking point, & one more fear based effort to garner votes and fix blame, blame which has many fathers on both sides of the aisle.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican Congress cut spending with the Brutal Sequester that Obama was against
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After they ran up the bulk of our debt.  The Republican Party has no credibility to claim they are a fiscally responsible party.
Click to expand...


Agree times 1 trillion.  My God!  I am a republican but sometimes I wonder why republicans lie so much about this matter.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

vasuderatorrent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
Click to expand...

 
*At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*

When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
tax receipts and increase spending.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Click to expand...


The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.

The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 7,500 killed in my example alone and you focus on  lies.  The stimulus is not and never has been a failure - failure was going into Iraq with the force you had, not the one you wanted, and failing to properly equip it.  Budget impasses are the result of assholes like you, well not like you exactly they accomplished something - they got elected to the H. of Rep.  Of course like you they don't have a brain, they are stuck doing what they've been told to think and follow the direction of dirt bags like Grove Limbaugh, or is it Rush Norquist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.
> 
> Then Obama switched sides
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable?  You're insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.
> 
> I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS.  Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted this at least 6 times
> 
> "*Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]*
> In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]
> 
> In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]
> 
> *Iraqi Police Development Played a Key Role in Tribal Engagement Strategy[edit]*
> One major shortcoming in the efforts to wrest control of Ramadi from the insurgency was the failure of the Iraqi Police to effectively combat the insurgency. As part of the Tribal Engagement Strategy, Ready First developed and implemented a plan to quickly recruit, train, and employ Iraqi Policemen on the streets of Ramadi. COL MacFarland, and LTC James Lechner, Deputy Brigade Commander, successfully developed an Iraqi Police recruiting, training, and employment plan that was implemented by HHC, 2-152 Infantry (Mech), an Army National Guard unit that lived in Iraqi Police Stations and Combat Outposts conducting daily patrols and clearing operations with their counterparts. HHC, 2-152 Infantry, also known in Ramadi as "the 152nd", or the Police Transition Team (PTT) Company would provide the Iraqi Police in Ramadi with the leadership and oversight that proved crucial in re-establishing a police presence in Ramadi to ensure insurgent forces did not return to neighborhoods that had been secured. Consequently, the success of the Iraqi Police program in Ramadi convinced the Ramadi populace that their government could effectively provide for their security needs, a critical element of defeating the insurgency. The 152nd PTT Company's Iraqi Police efforts began in October 2006 and would continue through the departure of Ready First and into the tenure of 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division until the 152nd departed in October 2007. The 152nd was responsible for recruiting, training, and conducting patrols with hundreds of Iraqi Police, and opened several new Iraqi Police stations in the city of Ramadi."
> 
> Battle of Ramadi 2006 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province."  Until Obama switched sides and threw in with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists
Click to expand...


History:

U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn t Want Them There - The Atlantic

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0

History revised:

No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama took over a stable Iraq, AQ and the islamists were contained. That's what those men died to bring about.
> 
> Then Obama switched sides
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable?  You're insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.
> 
> I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS.  Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted this at least 6 times
> 
> "*Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]*
> In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]
> 
> In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]
> 
> *Iraqi Police Development Played a Key Role in Tribal Engagement Strategy[edit]*
> One major shortcoming in the efforts to wrest control of Ramadi from the insurgency was the failure of the Iraqi Police to effectively combat the insurgency. As part of the Tribal Engagement Strategy, Ready First developed and implemented a plan to quickly recruit, train, and employ Iraqi Policemen on the streets of Ramadi. COL MacFarland, and LTC James Lechner, Deputy Brigade Commander, successfully developed an Iraqi Police recruiting, training, and employment plan that was implemented by HHC, 2-152 Infantry (Mech), an Army National Guard unit that lived in Iraqi Police Stations and Combat Outposts conducting daily patrols and clearing operations with their counterparts. HHC, 2-152 Infantry, also known in Ramadi as "the 152nd", or the Police Transition Team (PTT) Company would provide the Iraqi Police in Ramadi with the leadership and oversight that proved crucial in re-establishing a police presence in Ramadi to ensure insurgent forces did not return to neighborhoods that had been secured. Consequently, the success of the Iraqi Police program in Ramadi convinced the Ramadi populace that their government could effectively provide for their security needs, a critical element of defeating the insurgency. The 152nd PTT Company's Iraqi Police efforts began in October 2006 and would continue through the departure of Ready First and into the tenure of 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division until the 152nd departed in October 2007. The 152nd was responsible for recruiting, training, and conducting patrols with hundreds of Iraqi Police, and opened several new Iraqi Police stations in the city of Ramadi."
> 
> Battle of Ramadi 2006 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province."  Until Obama switched sides and threw in with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History:
> 
> U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn t Want Them There - The Atlantic
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0
> 
> History revised:
> 
> No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online
Click to expand...


Bullshit, Freddo. The troops could have stayed in place, but Obama switched sides


----------



## CrusaderFrank

vasuderatorrent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
Click to expand...


It's call the Welfare State and the "War on Poverty"


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.
Click to expand...

 
*If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*

Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

I'll repeat this message:

There is disaster ahead but it's still 300 or 400 years away.  Trying to get someone to care about a disaster 400 years down the road is next to impossible.  That's why there are so many nutjobs trying to convince us that it is going to be much sooner.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

vasuderatorrent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
Click to expand...

 
*States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.*

Most states have balanced budget laws on their books.

*All we can do is speculate.*

Yeah, let's leave the idiotic, 28% interest rate, speculation out of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

vasuderatorrent said:


> I'll repeat this message:
> 
> There is disaster ahead but it's still 300 or 400 years away.  Trying to get someone to care about a disaster 400 years down the road is next to impossible.  That's why there are so many nutjobs trying to convince us that it is going to be much sooner.


 
*There is disaster ahead but it's still 300 or 400 years away.*

Medicare will cause a crisis in a much, much shorter time frame.
Even if we stop importing poverty from Mexico and South America.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

CrusaderFrank said:


> It's call the Welfare State and the "War on Poverty"



Anybody with a 4th grade education can look at the Federal Budget and cut 60% off without thinking too hard.  None of the cuts would stop any legitimate government operations. It isn't rocket science if you dismiss the fact that we are a democracy.  Once you take into account that we are a democracy it becomes way more advanced than brain surgery.

100% of Americans think that their receipt of a particular government service is necessary.  They think it is the other guy that needs to be cut off. On the other hand the other guy thinks it is his receipt of a particular government service that is necessary and it is the other guy who needs to be cut off.

Ad nauseam


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Most states have balanced budget laws on their books.



It's not too far fetched to see this as a constitutional amendment in the distant future.  Almost all states require a balanced budget. That's usually how the federal government is changed.  The states do it first then if it works the federal government does it.  Example: Romneycare was first implemented in Massachusetts.  Since it worked so well it was implemented at the national level.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

vasuderatorrent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most states have balanced budget laws on their books.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not too far fetched to see this as a constitutional amendment in the distant future.  Almost all states require a balanced budget. That's usually how the federal government is changed.  The states do it first then if it works the federal government does it.  Example: Romneycare was first implemented in Massachusetts.  Since it worked so well it was implemented at the national level.
Click to expand...

 
*Since it worked so well*

OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*
> 
> Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
> For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.



That's how they did it in North Carolina but the threshold was way lower than $60,000.  It was like $10,000.  lol


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Since it worked so well*
> 
> OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.



Why would they implement it nationally if they knew it would fail?

Was failure the intent?  I'm not sure I understand.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

vasuderatorrent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Since it worked so well*
> 
> OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they implement it nationally if they knew it would fail?
> 
> Was failure the intent?
Click to expand...

 
Failure has never stopped liberals from expanding government.


----------



## Wry Catcher

vasuderatorrent said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
Click to expand...


One Example of which I am most familiar:

In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells.  To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax  - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level

Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE).  The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have.  Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.


Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*
> 
> Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
> For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
Click to expand...



Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000?  You ask why that would impact income inequality?

A flat tax is regressive.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Since it worked so well*
> 
> OMG! Hilarious. It's been a huge failure in Massachusetts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they implement it nationally if they knew it would fail?
> 
> Was failure the intent?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Failure has never stopped liberals from expanding government.
Click to expand...


[head banging on desk]


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One Example of which I am most familiar:
> 
> In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells.  To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax  - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
> 
> Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE).  The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have.  Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*
> 
> Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
> For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000?  You ask why that would impact income inequality?
> 
> A flat tax is regressive.
Click to expand...

 
* You ask why that would impact income inequality?*

Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.

*A flat tax is regressive.*

Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Fed raise interest rates to 28%?
> 
> *That would eliminate a lot of spending or increase a lot of taxes.*
> 
> Why would it do either of those things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One Example of which I am most familiar:
> 
> In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells.  To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax  - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
> 
> Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE).  The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have.  Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*
> 
> Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
> For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000?  You ask why that would impact income inequality?
> 
> A flat tax is regressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * You ask why that would impact income inequality?*
> 
> Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
> 
> *A flat tax is regressive.*
> 
> Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
Click to expand...


A *regressive tax* is a *tax* imposed in such a manner that the *tax* rate decreases as the amount subject to *taxation* increases.  However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.

Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 60% of federal spending is borrowed. At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.  That means you have to cut 60% of the spending or increase revenue to pay for the spending. It would take easy borrowing out of the equation. That is what happens to households, businesses, state governments and local governments when they spend too much for an extended period of time. The federal government is a different animal altogether. It isn't as self regulating as other entities. It's kind of tricky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One Example of which I am most familiar:
> 
> In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells.  To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax  - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
> 
> Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE).  The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have.  Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*
> 
> Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
> For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000?  You ask why that would impact income inequality?
> 
> A flat tax is regressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * You ask why that would impact income inequality?*
> 
> Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
> 
> *A flat tax is regressive.*
> 
> Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A *regressive tax* is a *tax* imposed in such a manner that the *tax* rate decreases as the amount subject to *taxation* increases.  However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
> 
> Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
Click to expand...

 
*A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.*

Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *At 28% the borrowing would be severely limited if not eliminated.*
> 
> When have higher rates ever limited government spending?
> Incredibly stupid idea. Causing a massive recession would crash
> tax receipts and increase spending.
> Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One Example of which I am most familiar:
> 
> In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells.  To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax  - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
> 
> Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE).  The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have.  Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.  Some think this is great, cause the rich are the engine of the economy.  We'll see, I come down on the side that our economy is consumer driven and a progressive income tax defends democratic institution, combating the two Citizens United Decisions which supports the power of the plutocrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*
> 
> Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
> For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000?  You ask why that would impact income inequality?
> 
> A flat tax is regressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * You ask why that would impact income inequality?*
> 
> Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
> 
> *A flat tax is regressive.*
> 
> Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A *regressive tax* is a *tax* imposed in such a manner that the *tax* rate decreases as the amount subject to *taxation* increases.  However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
> 
> Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.*
> 
> Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
> Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
Click to expand...


Before going all captious, try reading my post above.  Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.

The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.  Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.  

The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together.  It's them or us is no way to run a country.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government is a tricky animal. States can cut their taxes in half for a long period of time and spending is reduced by default.
> 
> The federal government can't do that.  Nobody really knows the answer.  We have had this problem for over 75% of the years that our nation has existed.  There was this weird period in the 1800's where the national debt went down every year for like 20 years in a row.  There have been 5 years out of the last 60 years that the national debt decreased.  You and me are not the only ones that don't know how to handle this monster.  All we can do is speculate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One Example of which I am most familiar:
> 
> In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells.  To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax  - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
> 
> Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE).  The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have.  Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If I understand a flat tax, it will simply exacerbate income inequality.*
> 
> Why? Every proposal I've seen has a decent sized exclusion.
> For example, the first $60,000 of income for a family of 4 is tax-free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000?  You ask why that would impact income inequality?
> 
> A flat tax is regressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * You ask why that would impact income inequality?*
> 
> Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
> 
> *A flat tax is regressive.*
> 
> Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A *regressive tax* is a *tax* imposed in such a manner that the *tax* rate decreases as the amount subject to *taxation* increases.  However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
> 
> Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.*
> 
> Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
> Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before going all captious, try reading my post above.  Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.  Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
> 
> The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together.  It's them or us is no way to run a country.
Click to expand...

 
*Before going all captious, try reading my post above.*

I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.

*Your ideology is not defensible,*

What ideology is that? Be specific.

*The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.*

Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> One Example of which I am most familiar:
> 
> In CA the State refused to cut taxes and expanded Prison Construction as well as passing new laws sure to fill the new cells.  To pay for this expansion revenue was taken from counties, cities and local districts used to support local services - spend and don't tax  - created the mess we are still struggling with on the local level
> 
> Soon cities began to compete for active law enforcement officers (LE).  The cost to background and train a new LE officer is enormous, by offering a greater salary and enhanced benefits agencies could raid other departments and not spend dollars they did not have.  Soon we had a bidding contest, and the result is a pension crisis only now being changed.
> Gee, so the top one percent pay the same (example) 10% on $10,000,000 as do the family of four on everything over $60,000?  You ask why that would impact income inequality?
> 
> A flat tax is regressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * You ask why that would impact income inequality?*
> 
> Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
> 
> *A flat tax is regressive.*
> 
> Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A *regressive tax* is a *tax* imposed in such a manner that the *tax* rate decreases as the amount subject to *taxation* increases.  However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
> 
> Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.*
> 
> Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
> Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before going all captious, try reading my post above.  Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.  Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
> 
> The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together.  It's them or us is no way to run a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Before going all captious, try reading my post above.*
> 
> I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
> 
> *Your ideology is not defensible,*
> 
> What ideology is that? Be specific.
> 
> *The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.*
> 
> Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
Click to expand...


Your use of a straw man is tedious.  Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.  Or, do you claim a different flag?  A black flag of anarchy?  Of our you simply a curmudgeon whose song carries the same refrane, "Ain't it awful" and no idea how to correct or reform what is perceived as awful.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * You ask why that would impact income inequality?*
> 
> Median household income, after falling during Obama's tenure, is below $60,000.
> 
> *A flat tax is regressive.*
> 
> Your claim makes me think you don't know the definition of that word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A *regressive tax* is a *tax* imposed in such a manner that the *tax* rate decreases as the amount subject to *taxation* increases.  However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
> 
> Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.*
> 
> Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
> Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before going all captious, try reading my post above.  Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.  Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
> 
> The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together.  It's them or us is no way to run a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Before going all captious, try reading my post above.*
> 
> I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
> 
> *Your ideology is not defensible,*
> 
> What ideology is that? Be specific.
> 
> *The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.*
> 
> Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your use of a straw man is tedious.  Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.  Or, do you claim a different flag?  A black flag of anarchy?  Of our you simply a curmudgeon whose song carries the same refrane, "Ain't it awful" and no idea how to correct or reform what is perceived as awful.
Click to expand...

 
* Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.*

Pointing out your faulty definition means I'm libertarian? Oookay.


----------



## Derideo_Te

vasuderatorrent said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They tried that failed Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is ruining their economy.
> 
> Tax increases at the top are essential if you want to keep the economy growing while you cut spending.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> North Carolina is experimenting with a flat tax that was passed in 2013.  We'll see how that goes in the next few years.
Click to expand...


Most states have flat taxes but they include exemptions for those earning below the poverty line which  means they are true flat taxes.


----------



## Derideo_Te

vasuderatorrent said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that threat all the time.  Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
Click to expand...


Not in any significant numbers. The ones who got rich by putting together a business with employees are the least likely to leave. 

Those who are simply leeches sucking off the Wall St Casino not the "job creators" so leaving makes no difference.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> A *regressive tax* is a *tax* imposed in such a manner that the *tax* rate decreases as the amount subject to *taxation* increases.  However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.
> 
> Maybe a new word might have been a better choice, how about Plutocrat's Choice Tax, does that work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.*
> 
> Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
> Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Before going all captious, try reading my post above.  Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.  Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
> 
> The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together.  It's them or us is no way to run a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Before going all captious, try reading my post above.*
> 
> I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
> 
> *Your ideology is not defensible,*
> 
> What ideology is that? Be specific.
> 
> *The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.*
> 
> Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your use of a straw man is tedious.  Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.  Or, do you claim a different flag?  A black flag of anarchy?  Of our you simply a curmudgeon whose song carries the same refrane, "Ain't it awful" and no idea how to correct or reform what is perceived as awful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.*
> 
> Pointing out your faulty definition means I'm libertarian? Oookay.
Click to expand...


That leaves curmudgeon, also a subset of Libertarians and those on the idiot fringe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases. However, when the tax is the same whether one pays 10% on $100,000 or $10,000,000 it sure as hell isn't progressive.*
> 
> Excellent! A flat income tax, even without an exclusion, is not regressive.
> Who said old libs can't learn new tricks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before going all captious, try reading my post above.  Your ideology is not defensible, it is a prescription to change the course of our nation from one of the people and by the people, that is a democratic republic, into an Oligarchy - something we have seen being implemented since the Administration of Ronald Reagan.
> 
> The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.  Sadly, many of the hoi polloi have been hoodwinked and bamboozled into believing our nation is better off if our laws and policies are created by a government supported by the largess of the power elite, and greatly limited.
> 
> The Libertarian movement, much like the Conservative ideology of the 21st Century lacks a pragmatic foundation, and much like the callous conservatives of today rejects the social contract which binds a society together.  It's them or us is no way to run a country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Before going all captious, try reading my post above.*
> 
> I read your post. I'm glad you'll stop repeating your error.
> 
> *Your ideology is not defensible,*
> 
> What ideology is that? Be specific.
> 
> *The Conservative movement is anti-democratic, elitist and self serving.*
> 
> Only an ever larger, more powerful government can save democracy form the self-serving elites? That's precious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your use of a straw man is tedious.  Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.  Or, do you claim a different flag?  A black flag of anarchy?  Of our you simply a curmudgeon whose song carries the same refrane, "Ain't it awful" and no idea how to correct or reform what is perceived as awful.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * Your Libertarian ideology is of what I spoke.*
> 
> Pointing out your faulty definition means I'm libertarian? Oookay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That leaves curmudgeon, also a subset of Libertarians and those on the idiot fringe.
Click to expand...

 
LOL!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Derideo_Te said:


> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that threat all the time.  Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in any significant numbers. The ones who got rich by putting together a business with employees are the least likely to leave.
> 
> Those who are simply leeches sucking off the Wall St Casino not the "job creators" so leaving makes no difference.
Click to expand...


Do most millionaires and billionaires really own businesses?  Some people say they create jobs, reading the link below I've found this meme to be unbelievable.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf


----------



## vasuderatorrent

Wry Catcher said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that threat all the time.  Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in any significant numbers. The ones who got rich by putting together a business with employees are the least likely to leave.
> 
> Those who are simply leeches sucking off the Wall St Casino not the "job creators" so leaving makes no difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do most millionaires and billionaires really own businesses?  Some people say they create jobs, reading the link below I've found this meme to be unbelievable.
> 
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf
Click to expand...


They might create jobs but that doesn't mean they leave the United States when taxes get too high.


----------



## Wry Catcher

vasuderatorrent said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vasuderatorrent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Libertarians will screech that the wealthy will run away and take their money with them. But reality tells us that never happens because life is just too good here for them to leave.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear that threat all the time.  Is there any truth to it? Do millionaires and billionaires really shut their businesses down when taxes get too high?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in any significant numbers. The ones who got rich by putting together a business with employees are the least likely to leave.
> 
> Those who are simply leeches sucking off the Wall St Casino not the "job creators" so leaving makes no difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do most millionaires and billionaires really own businesses?  Some people say they create jobs, reading the link below I've found this meme to be unbelievable.
> 
> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ocwage.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They might create jobs but that doesn't mean they leave the United States when taxes get too high.
Click to expand...


According to the BLS link posted in the OP consumers create the need for most small business:

"The 10 largest occupations accounted for 21 percent of total employment in May 2014. In addition to retail salespersons and cashiers, the largest occupations included combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food; general office clerks; registered nurses; customer service representatives; and waiters and waitresses." (See chart 1.)


----------



## Wry Catcher

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq was stable?  You're insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes Freddo. I'll post the Battle of ramadi again when I can. Find a grown up to read it to you. Before Obama switched sides, Iraq was stable -- at great cost in lives and treasure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which battle of Ramadi, there have been several - not a sign of stability unless one is totally reality challenged.
> 
> I do suppose you mean the most recent one, the one when the Iraqi Forces ran away leaving implements of war for ISIS.  Shit happens when a nation removes the stable, albeit evil government, creating chaos, and when their chosen leader exploits a thousand year long schism in Islam.
> 
> I don't know if you're ignorant Frank, a fool who lies or a partisan hack of some alien ideology, but your posts suggest all of he above.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've posted this at least 6 times
> 
> "*Raider" Brigade takes over Ramadi[edit]*
> In January 2007, the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, on its third tour to Iraq, arrived in Ramadi and assumed responsibility from Macfarland's brigade on February 18 at a transfer ceremony at Camp Ramadi. During the ceremony, which was attended by Sheikh Sattar, MacFarland said that his brigade had lost 86 soldiers, sailors and Marines during the 8 month campaign (though the Brigade had spent a total of nearly 17 months in Iraq).[43][44]
> 
> In January 2007, Ramadi averaged approximately 35 enemy attacks on US forces per day. Following heavy fighting over an 8-week campaign, which was led by a Task Force commanded by 1st Brigade, 3rd ID, also known as Task Force Raider, attacks in the brigade's area of operations dropped to one or two per day within the city of Ramadi. In the early months of 2007, 3-69 Armor Battalion, in conjunction with two Marine Battalions, along with TF PathFinder was largely responsible for securing Southern and Central Ramadi. By August 2007, Ramadi had gone 80 consecutive days without a single attack on US forces and the 1st BDE, 3rd ID commander commander, Colonel John Charlton, stated, "...al-Qaida is defeated in Al Anbar". However, despite 1-3 ID's effectiveness, insurgents continued to launch attacks on Ramadi and the surrounding areas in the weeks and months to follow. On June 30, 2007, a group of between 50 and 60 insurgents attempting to infiltrate Ramadi were intercepted and destroyed, following a tip from Iraqi Police officers. The insurgents were intercepted by elements of the 1st Battalion, 77th Armor on 30 June 2007 and on 1 July 2007 they were destroyed by elements of Bravo company, 2nd Squad, 1st platoon, 1-18 Infantry Regiment. 1-18 operated out of the Ta'Meem district of Ramadi's western sector. North of Ramadi, elements of 3-69 Armor, whose headquarters had been moved north of Ramadi, engaged elements of al-Qaeda in Iraq who had taken refuge in rural areas north of the city. After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province. By March 2008, Ramadi, Iraq had become a vastly safer city than it had been only a year before and the number of enemy attacks in the city had fallen drastically. Years later, by mid 2012, Ramadi remained far safer than it had been since 2003.[45][46][47]
> 
> *Iraqi Police Development Played a Key Role in Tribal Engagement Strategy[edit]*
> One major shortcoming in the efforts to wrest control of Ramadi from the insurgency was the failure of the Iraqi Police to effectively combat the insurgency. As part of the Tribal Engagement Strategy, Ready First developed and implemented a plan to quickly recruit, train, and employ Iraqi Policemen on the streets of Ramadi. COL MacFarland, and LTC James Lechner, Deputy Brigade Commander, successfully developed an Iraqi Police recruiting, training, and employment plan that was implemented by HHC, 2-152 Infantry (Mech), an Army National Guard unit that lived in Iraqi Police Stations and Combat Outposts conducting daily patrols and clearing operations with their counterparts. HHC, 2-152 Infantry, also known in Ramadi as "the 152nd", or the Police Transition Team (PTT) Company would provide the Iraqi Police in Ramadi with the leadership and oversight that proved crucial in re-establishing a police presence in Ramadi to ensure insurgent forces did not return to neighborhoods that had been secured. Consequently, the success of the Iraqi Police program in Ramadi convinced the Ramadi populace that their government could effectively provide for their security needs, a critical element of defeating the insurgency. The 152nd PTT Company's Iraqi Police efforts began in October 2006 and would continue through the departure of Ready First and into the tenure of 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division until the 152nd departed in October 2007. The 152nd was responsible for recruiting, training, and conducting patrols with hundreds of Iraqi Police, and opened several new Iraqi Police stations in the city of Ramadi."
> 
> Battle of Ramadi 2006 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> "After several counter-insurgency operations, 3-69 AR Battalion effectively removed Al Qaeda in Iraq from the greater Anbar province."  Until Obama switched sides and threw in with ISIS, Al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and the Jihadists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> History:
> 
> U.S. Troops Are Leaving Because Iraq Doesn t Want Them There - The Atlantic
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/22/w...expected-troops-would-have-to-leave.html?_r=0
> 
> History revised:
> 
> No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, Freddo. The troops could have stayed in place, but Obama switched sides
Click to expand...


LOL, Okay Frank, just 'cause you say so i'm convinced.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;


Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.
Click to expand...


Q.  Who benefited from the deaths of 4,500 + and the grievous wound to tens of thousand more young Americans serving our country?

A.  The Military-Industrial Complex.

Q.  Who benefits from medicaid, medicare, SS and TANF?

A.  American citizens; children, the aged, the infirm and their families.  Anyone remember the conservatives supporting family values?  Of course not, today the callous conservatives have taken over the right wing and tossed that talking point under the bus.  Today's self defined conservatives have rejected the Social Contract and seek to return to the way life was structured during the late 18th Century.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Q.  Who benefited from the deaths of 4,500 + and the grievous wound to tens of thousand more young Americans serving our country?
Click to expand...

Ah.  Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.


----------



## Derideo_Te

M14 Shooter said:


> Ah.  *Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.*



Ironic coming from someone who has already proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that he doesn't even understand the meaning of the term in his own thread.

And yes, by failing to even try and answer the OP's questions you proved yet again that you don't.

Go on, let's see you try and answer them honestly. 

Do you deny that the MIC benefited from the illegal warmongering in Iraq?

Do you deny that American citizens benefit from social programs like medicaid, medicare, SS and TANF?

Do you deny that the extremist right wants to destroy those programs for the enrichment of the wealthy under the failed Libertarian dogma of the Koch bros?


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Q.  Who benefited from the deaths of 4,500 + and the grievous wound to tens of thousand more young Americans serving our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.
Click to expand...


Dirt bag ^^^.  Can't answer a fair question and asks loaded questions then whines when the answer isn't a simple yes or no.  

Dirt bag defined, someone unclean, dishonest and a self righteous jerk - *imagine* a culture which would allow this dirt bag and others like him to own or possess a gun:

Mass murders of innocents
enormous ER costs to treat thousands of GS victims
Road rage creating carnage on the roads and highways
Shoot outs among rival gangs
Children shot and killed in their homes by errant bullets
Homeowners shooting and killing paper boys and children on Halloween
Children accidentally killing themselves, a sibling or a neighbor's child
Oh yeah, we don't need to imagine such a culture, we live in one.


----------



## Zander

Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.

Then we can talk about raising taxes.  But not until the spending cuts are REAL


----------



## Derideo_Te

Zander said:


> Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.
> 
> Then we can talk about raising taxes.  But not until the spending cuts are REAL



They tried that Libertarian dogma in Kansas and it is a complete and utter disaster.

Why do you want to destroy the American economy...again?

There is no way to reduce the ND without raising taxes.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Zander said:


> Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.
> 
> Then we can talk about raising taxes.  But not until the spending cuts are REAL



Cool, let's start with cutting SSI, those disabled people are worthless, we can have the private sector build ovens, and generate electricity, making a profit out of there worthless hides.  I'm sure Halliburton will get the bid - if and only if JEB gets into the White House.

Next we'll privatize medicare, repeal Obamacare and stop supporting all those lazy people who wont save for a medial savings account.

Then we'll privatize the schools, public schools are a waste and if people can't afford private schools they shouldn't have kids.

And of course then we'll cut taxes for those earning over $500,000 per year, for they are the producers and will create jobs so even those still earning $7.00 per hour can afford health care - all they need to do is  work seven days a week and 15 hours a day.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;
> 
> 
> 
> Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Q.  Who benefited from the deaths of 4,500 + and the grievous wound to tens of thousand more young Americans serving our country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.  Another topic for which you have no real desire for an honest conversation.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't answer a fair question...
Click to expand...

Whines he who has no intention or capability to have an honest discussion.
Your question is a red herring, asked with the intent to avoid the point put to you.
So, again


> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe;


Compare this spending, which had to be appropriated by Congress, to entitlement spending, which does not.


----------



## Zander

Wry Catcher said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.
> 
> Then we can talk about raising taxes.  But not until the spending cuts are REAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, let's start with cutting SSI, those disabled people are worthless, we can have the private sector build ovens, and generate electricity, making a profit out of there worthless hides.  I'm sure Halliburton will get the bid - if and only if JEB gets into the White House.
> 
> Next we'll privatize medicare, repeal Obamacare and stop supporting all those lazy people who wont save for a medial savings account.
> 
> Then we'll privatize the schools, public schools are a waste and if people can't afford private schools they shouldn't have kids.
> 
> And of course then we'll cut taxes for those earning over $500,000 per year, for they are the producers and will create jobs so even those still earning $7.00 per hour can afford health care - all they need to do is  work seven days a week and 15 hours a day.
Click to expand...


You're a wing nut more interested in scoring political points than finding actual solutions. 

Here is  a real solution - Lets start by cutting Federal spending by 1%.  For every 1% of REAL spending cuts- Not baseline cuts, but actual decreases in spending from the year before, we'll raise taxes by 1% on the "rich"?    

How about 2%? Or 5%?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Zander said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.
> 
> Then we can talk about raising taxes.  But not until the spending cuts are REAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, let's start with cutting SSI, those disabled people are worthless, we can have the private sector build ovens, and generate electricity, making a profit out of there worthless hides.  I'm sure Halliburton will get the bid - if and only if JEB gets into the White House.
> 
> Next we'll privatize medicare, repeal Obamacare and stop supporting all those lazy people who wont save for a medial savings account.
> 
> Then we'll privatize the schools, public schools are a waste and if people can't afford private schools they shouldn't have kids.
> 
> And of course then we'll cut taxes for those earning over $500,000 per year, for they are the producers and will create jobs so even those still earning $7.00 per hour can afford health care - all they need to do is  work seven days a week and 15 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a wing nut more interested in scoring political points than finding actual solutions.
> 
> Here is  a real solution - Lets start by cutting Federal spending by 1%.  For every 1% of REAL spending cuts- Not baseline cuts, but actual decreases in spending from the year before, we'll raise taxes by 1% on the "rich"?
> 
> How about 2%? Or 5%?
Click to expand...


That's foolish.  Cutting spending means cutting jobs which means taking money out of circulation.  Those who lose their jobs may need government aid, may not be able to pay their mortgage and have their home foreclosed.  That can have a real impact on the neighbor' home values and potentially created deflation, further foreclosures and hello again 2008.

Simple solutions as suggested by Zander are for simple people - impractical and will likely have unintended consequences.  The first paragraph is one example.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Cutting spending means cutting jobs...


Non sequitur


> which means taking money out of circulation.


Money that is borrowed from someone else.
The money that would have been borrowed is still in circulation, so...  no.


> Those who lose their jobs may need government


Proceeds from a false premise (see above)


> Simple solutions as suggested by Zander are for simple people...


And yet, you cannot mount a sound counter argument.


----------



## Wry Catcher

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting spending means cutting jobs...
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur
> 
> 
> 
> which means taking money out of circulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Money that is borrowed from someone else.
> The money that would have been borrowed is still in circulation, so...  no.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who lose their jobs may need government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proceeds from a false premise (see above)
> 
> 
> 
> Simple solutions as suggested by Zander are for simple people...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, you cannot mount a sound counter argument.
Click to expand...


I know you don't think, before you post or at anytime.  But maybe I'm too rash, explain for us how government spending can be cut by percentages, without cutting employees.

I can think of one, cutting all government employees salary to the Federal Minimum Wage - of course then they couldn't pay their mortgage, go to restaurants, buy durable goods, etc. etc.

No, I take it back, I wasn't too rash.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cutting spending means cutting jobs...
> 
> 
> 
> Non sequitur
> 
> 
> 
> which means taking money out of circulation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Money that is borrowed from someone else.
> The money that would have been borrowed is still in circulation, so...  no.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who lose their jobs may need government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proceeds from a false premise (see above)
> 
> 
> 
> Simple solutions as suggested by Zander are for simple people...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, you cannot mount a sound counter argument.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you don't think, before you post or at anytime.
Click to expand...

Says he who tucked tail and ran away from the open, honest debate he asked for.


> But maybe I'm too rash, explain for us how government spending can be cut by percentages, without cutting employees.


Wait...  you don't understand that the huge majority of federal spending goes to entitlement programs that provide direct benefits to their recipients?
You think that the vast majority of federal spending goes to federal employees?


----------



## Zander

Wry Catcher said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties give a lot of lip service to "the national debt. But when in power they both spend like crazy. So the deal is simple - cut spending first.
> 
> Then we can talk about raising taxes.  But not until the spending cuts are REAL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool, let's start with cutting SSI, those disabled people are worthless, we can have the private sector build ovens, and generate electricity, making a profit out of there worthless hides.  I'm sure Halliburton will get the bid - if and only if JEB gets into the White House.
> 
> Next we'll privatize medicare, repeal Obamacare and stop supporting all those lazy people who wont save for a medial savings account.
> 
> Then we'll privatize the schools, public schools are a waste and if people can't afford private schools they shouldn't have kids.
> 
> And of course then we'll cut taxes for those earning over $500,000 per year, for they are the producers and will create jobs so even those still earning $7.00 per hour can afford health care - all they need to do is  work seven days a week and 15 hours a day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a wing nut more interested in scoring political points than finding actual solutions.
> 
> Here is  a real solution - Lets start by cutting Federal spending by 1%.  For every 1% of REAL spending cuts- Not baseline cuts, but actual decreases in spending from the year before, we'll raise taxes by 1% on the "rich"?
> 
> How about 2%? Or 5%?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's foolish.  Cutting spending means cutting jobs which means taking money out of circulation.  Those who lose their jobs may need government aid, may not be able to pay their mortgage and have their home foreclosed.  That can have a real impact on the neighbor' home values and potentially created deflation, further foreclosures and hello again 2008.
> 
> Simple solutions as suggested by Zander are for simple people - impractical and will likely have unintended consequences.  The first paragraph is one example.
Click to expand...


Like I said, you're a wingnut.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Looks as if personal attacks are all zander and shooter have, which is not a surprise to anyone who frequents this message board.  Note to both:  Personal attacks are not rebuttals, they are not substantive and they are a ubiquitous tool of those incapable of responding intelligently and honestly.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
Click to expand...


When was the last time, if ever, the members of Congress lead by example?  They won't raise the minimum wage, and yet won't take a pay or benefit cut.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Wry Catcher said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was the last time, if ever, the members of Congress lead by example?  They won't raise the minimum wage, and yet won't take a pay or benefit cut.
Click to expand...

 
Let's end Congressional pensions and put term limits into place.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!*
> 
> Excellent idea! Let's cut spending back to 2007 levels.
> Then we'll look at tax hikes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When was the last time, if ever, the members of Congress lead by example?  They won't raise the minimum wage, and yet won't take a pay or benefit cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's end Congressional pensions and put term limits into place.
Click to expand...


My suggestion to limit POTUS to one six year term, and provide him the line-item veto makes much more sense than imposing term limits on members of Congress.  Maybe an age limit for members of Congress and for the members of the Supreme Court.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Wry Catcher said:


> Looks as if personal attacks are all zander and shooter have, which is not a surprise to anyone who frequents this message board.  Note to both:  Personal attacks are not rebuttals, they are not substantive and they are a ubiquitous tool of those incapable of responding intelligently and honestly.


In other words...  I made points you know you cannot refute - as usual.
I accept your concession.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Wry Catcher said:


> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.



If you believe there's a solution to the national debt, you're wholly ignorant about big numbers. Couldn't pay off a $1 trillion debt never mind whatever it is now.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Delta4Embassy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe there's a solution to the national debt, you're wholly ignorant about big numbers. Couldn't pay off a $1 trillion debt never mind whatever it is now.
Click to expand...


We will always carry a debt, that does not mean we should not work to reduce the annual deficit.


----------



## Delta4Embassy

Wry Catcher said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and our policy of foreign intervention has greatly contributed to the amount of money we owe; cutting taxes at a time of war and the Great Recession exacerbated a long term and growing issue.
> 
> The debt will come down, once we elect a fiscally responsible Congress. Note, fiscal conservatism and austerity are not solutions, they are political talking points. Raising taxes and cutting unnecessary spending is the solution!
> 
> Borrowing and the Federal Debt
> 
> Whining about the national debt is one more wedge issue, a talking point by the Republican Party (and callow posters who parrot the current meme) who contributed greatly to the problem and now want to point fingers at President Obama. That's one more BIG LIE by the Party of Grover Limbaugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe there's a solution to the national debt, you're wholly ignorant about big numbers. Couldn't pay off a $1 trillion debt never mind whatever it is now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We will always carry a debt, that does not mean we should not work to reduce the annual deficit.
Click to expand...



Does when doing so doesn't effect it but gains the ones supposedly doing something votes. All it is. They know the math, they know no cut or reduction's gonna touch the interest of the debt let alone the principle. Just gonna harm Americans while winning themselves votes.


----------

