# Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?



## Sentinel (Aug 6, 2011)

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and
will remain a contentious and fitful process. - S&P Analysis


   Ahh it wont allow me to link to the standard and poors site that has the entire article because I dont have 15 posts as of yet :{  Above is an actual excerpt.


----------



## Ragnar (Aug 6, 2011)

> Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?



Yes.

The one group that wanted a balanced budget and has held miniscule power for almost two years is at fault. 

If we balance the budget the "terrorist" have won! Didn't you get the memo?


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 6, 2011)

What a friggen joke. and you useful sheep spread it along happily for YOUR MASTERS.

You should be ashamed, but we know you aren't.

The fault LIES WITH the Democrats and Republicans, the Tea party is NOT EVEN IN A Majority, remember you all told us that over and over... and this greedy ass Government.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 6, 2011)

The major part of the analysis from S & P focused largely on spending issues, particularly entitlements.  Basically, it mirrors what the Tea Party has said are the big issues with government spending.  This was practically an endorsement of Tea Party policy.


----------



## Annie (Aug 6, 2011)

Sentinel said:


> We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
> fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
> growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
> ...



I don't have your problem regarding posts:

S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News



> S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade
> 
> Standard & Poor's issued a statement Friday about their downgrade of U.S. debt:
> 
> ...


Those are CBS bullets, the full text follows. I'll only give what I think has been missing from the bullets and from the board discussions:



> ...When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with 'AAA' long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers-Canada, France, Germany, and the U.K.-we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.'s net public debt is diverging from the others. Including the U.S., we estimate that these five sovereigns will have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (the U.K.), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%. By 2015, we project that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%. However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015...


 in other words, most of the West is in process of reversing prior behavior, while the US is copying what has failed.



> ...The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. *As our downside alternate fiscal scenario illustrates, a higher public debt trajectory than we currently assume could lead us to lower the long-term rating again. On the other hand, as our upside scenario highlights, if the recommendations of the Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction-independently or coupled with other initiatives, such as the lapsing of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners-lead to fiscal consolidation measures beyond the minimum mandated, and we believe they are likely to slow the deterioration of the government's debt dynamics, the long-term rating could stabilize at 'AA+'.*
> 
> On Monday, we will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 6, 2011)

Good work Annie, of course we don't EXPECT any honesty or honor amongst the left.



> ** The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics.*



Anything for them to keep their NANNY MASTERS in Power. Even Lying. And blaming EVERYBODY ELSE but their Democrat sugar daddies.


----------



## Gareyt17 (Aug 6, 2011)

Sentinel said:


> We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
> fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
> growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
> ...





ONLY if you completely ignore the salient part of what you posted...that being *"progress containing the
growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
agreement on raising revenues is less likely *"

The problem is as it has always been for the rating agencies....Washington's unwillingness to deal with our DEBT and SPENDING in a realistic way!

The Tea Party is the only reason we are even having the conversation.......


----------



## Toro (Aug 6, 2011)

Sentinel said:


> We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
> fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
> growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
> ...



No, its not just the Tea Party, though they are part of it.  It is because of the intractability of the entire political process, of which the Tea Party are a part.

S&P downgraded us because of politics, not because of economics.  They aren't saying we can't pay or make sacrifices.  They are saying we aren't willing to pay or make sacrifices.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 6, 2011)

Toro said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...



If Congress had simply adopted Ryan's budget we would not be having this conversation.  So the issue is Democratic recalcitrance, not the Tea Party.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 6, 2011)

The Tea Party (Representatives) have been in office FOR SEVEN MONTHS. If not for them the Obama and Democrats would of WALKED all over the Republicans and they would of CAVED like they normally do and DID. and see where it GOT US. I am sick with the Republican party yet you on the left are finding BLAME with EVERYONE else and find NOT A SHRED of BLAME with your saintly Democrats and Obama. It is rather sickening to watch. shame shame shame


----------



## Annie (Aug 6, 2011)

Gareyt17 said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...




The tea party is not a party, it's a philosophy. When Paul Ryan was elected, there wasn't a 'Tea Party.'

Paul Ryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> ...He won a 1998 election to succeed two-term Representative Mark Neumann in the United States House of Representatives...



Indeed, he proceeded GW, not just the tea party.

When Ryan submitted his plan which was DOA, I thought and posted, that at least he was beginning a conversation that could lead somewhere to a compromise. Obama and others ignored it, just like they did the Bowles-Simpson committee plan, for they wanted to spend, not contract. Obama thought he could just get his 'clean bill' if he waited, not considering the political capital spent with no budgets and rising unemployment coupled with inflationary pressures on oil and food.


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 6, 2011)

Yeah, REMEMBER when they told us the TEA PARTY was INSIGNIFICANT.

NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, EVERY FUCKING THING WRONG IS THEIR FAULT.

you have to laugh and shake your head with the sheepish like usefulness and pure IGNORANCE of the Democrat voters.

This is why we are HERE TODAY. fine job. you all should BE PROUD.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 6, 2011)

I love it.  The blame is on the Tea Party?  The only ones demanding responsible fiscal policy, massive government spending cuts and program elimination and a return to sensible tax policies are to blame?  On the other hand we have the entrenched elitist party structures of both parties, and a blithering economic illiterate white house spending like soulless dilettante speed freak school girls with no concept of cost and daddy's credit cards at a mall that's open 24 hours buying more than a convoy of semis could haul.

Who's the ones responsible again?


----------



## Annie (Aug 6, 2011)

Remember the early days and the 'won't last' messages?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/70749-tax-day-tea-party.html


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 6, 2011)

Ragnar said:


> > Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean the same group that did not complain about Bush spending?

Partisan politics not real morals and such.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 6, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Yeah, REMEMBER when they told us the TEA PARTY was INSIGNIFICANT.
> 
> NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, EVERY FUCKING THING WRONG IS THEIR FAULT.
> 
> ...



It's fun looking back on Pelosi's statements.  They were such utter bullshit and appear obviously so now.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P44q7Jt68DA]&#x202a;Pelosi on Tea Parties: "We Call it Astroturf"&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)

Sentinel said:


> We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
> fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
> growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
> ...



The treasonous Tea Party will do whatever it takes to destroy America.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 6, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > > Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?
> ...


You mean the same group that didn't exist during it's presidency and started after TARP and the Bailouts were created?



> The *Tea Party movement* (TPM) is an American populist[1][2][3]  political movement that is generally recognized as conservative and libertarian,[4][5]  and has sponsored protests and supported political candidates _*since 2009*_.[6][7][8]  It endorses reduced government spending,[9][10] opposition to taxation in varying degrees,[10]  reduction of the national debt and federal budget  deficit,[9]  and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution.[11]



How about a little fire, Scarecrow?


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 6, 2011)

Chris said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...


Treason?  You of course have evidence of high crimes, misdemeanors and aid and comfort to the enemy, right?

I can't wait to see what pops out of your ass on this one.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 6, 2011)

Toro said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...


True.  We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two.  We choice to do none of the above.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 6, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Sentinel said:
> ...


We don't NEED to increase revenue.  We need to put the revenue AND spending on a diet so the private sector has more capital in which to reinvest and spur on economic growth.

Why is this so friggen hard to get for libs?  Increasing government revenue only DECREASES economic growth and thereby revenues to the government over time.


----------



## Sentinel (Aug 6, 2011)

Toro said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...




 I agree, I got from the article that S&P wanted to see both spending cuts and revenue increases and they believe that the rancor between the two parties is only going to get worse and the problem will not be solved.
   The closer to the election we get the less likely  any kind of common ground will be met.


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Same old bullshit different day.

The Bush administration said all we had to do was lower taxes and that would increase revenue, so the deficit would be no problem.

Well guess what? We have the LOWEST TAX RATES IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD except for Japan and Spain. And Japan has almost no military and Spain is broke.

You can't maintain the most powerful military in the world and pay for Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.

So which are you going to eliminate? Social Security? Medicare? Or our military?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 6, 2011)

> True. We could straiten out the whole mess by cutting spending, increasing revenue, or a combination of the two. We choice to do none of the above.



Both, actually  the budget cant be balanced on cuts alone. 



> You mean the same group that did not complain about Bush spending?



Spending was OK then  spending only became bad 1/20/2009 at Noon EST.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 6, 2011)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


and it kept us from going into a depression post 9/11.  Of course we won't pay attention to that.  How about some of W's poor job growth numbers now?  You want any of them?

But you're right.  You can't maintain the military with global power projection and Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  Let's cut the ones not in the constitution: Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Oh wait... not the answer you were looking for was it.  Hey, I'll even compromise, we'll pull all our foreign bases, and put the troops on our southern boarder and start shooting at the mexican military which we armed as they escort drug cartel shipments into the nation!  Sound like a fair solution?


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 6, 2011)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Care to compare Bush's record on the economy to Obama's?  I'll bet Obama doesn't.


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)




----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...



I have paid into Social Security for FORTY YEARS, SO FUCK YOU.

No, all we have to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and cut back our bloated military.

That's what Clinton did and he balanced the budget and had a strong economy.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 6, 2011)

Chris said:


>



Too bad the chart wasn't extended so you saw Bush's administration prior to the recession.
Obama's "job creation" has been crap, badly lagging what was needed.  This despite his "laser like focus" on jobs.


----------



## Chris (Aug 6, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Bush destroyed the economy and doubled the National Debt.

Obama saved us from another Great Depression.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad the chart wasn't extended so you saw Bush's administration prior to the recession.
> ...



The peak of Obama's economy was the day he was sworn in.  It has been downhill from there.

Nine percent+ unemployment, massive Federal deficits, failed economic policies, and now a credit downgrade for the first time since 1941.
Yes, Obama has saved us.  Right.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Oh pardon me smart guy.  Clinton did not balance the budget, he took credit for it.  He gave in to Gingrich and played games with the accounting numbers, taking credit for it all.  In that he was smart.  He was also riding the Internet bubble that was causing MASSIVE paper profits, and slashed the military, forcing W and Rumsfeld to build it back to functional status after a culture of murder killed over 2000 innocent civilians.  You may have heard of it... made some papers.

Currently the military accounts for about 30% of our budget, over 70% is social spending with most of that being in ponzi schemes and corruption filled rackets like Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.  At least the Military is a constitutionally mandated expense of the federal government.  The others aren't.  And you can shove the 'good and plenty' clause up your ass sideways.  That is a deliberate distortion of the clause for fascist designs on this nation.

I'm fine with cutting most foreign military aid and bases.  I'm also for implementing the Ryan Plan, so you can have your precious little check you think you're owed.  At least then those of use who are going to be fucked when it's time for us to collect our check, thanks to your greed, will get some way to keep what is ours in this mess.

I'm for the abolition of All Great Society medical programs plus most social programs and returning the whole industry to the private market and direct first person payments.  People who earn the money are the ones best qualified and most careful in spending it.  Third parties don't give a ratfuck and waste becomes endemic, causing price inflation and other corruption that is now common today in the industry.  If you could price shop around for your medicine and procedures, you'd get a much better deal.  Simple fact of economics.

Do that and you will not only castrate big government and big spending, you will return freedom and wealth to the people taking a large bite out of poverty by growing the private sector by decreasing the footprint and involvement of government waste.

So, fuck you, the ass you rode in on, and have one for the road, Range Rider.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


And Obama doubled W's overspending in one year.  And yet you are painfully silent on how bad that is, by blaming Bush.

Tell me, was W's problem all because of Clinton?  No?  Huh... then what makes you think you can get away saying it's BOoooooOOoooOOOOOsh's fault?


----------



## Flopper (Aug 7, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


The fact is we are not going to get the necessary deficit reduction by just reducing spending.  It would require cuts that the people aren't going to buy into.  About 1/3 of the adult population will be hurt by cuts in Medicare and Social Security.  Most of the states have made deep cuts.  Federal cuts to welfare, Medicaid, and education will put more pressure on state and local budgets with no federal moneys to ward off cuts in employment. 

The US still remains one of the least tax nations on earth.  Nearly half the population pays no income tax.  The wealthy are taxed at half what they were 50 years ago.  Polls show that people want a balanced approach.  That will only increase when people start seeing how proposed cuts will effect them.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

> The fact is we are not going to get the necessary deficit reduction by  just reducing spending



Incorrect.  You can get that simply by freezing the budget at 2008 levels minus TARP and Bailout monies over the next 10 years.  You do not need to 'pay for' spending cuts.  That's akin to saying that to pay for not going to Starbucks for your twice a day coffee habit, you need a part time job.  It's asinine to even try and say it.  You just stop going and save that money, turn it around and pay off essential bills.  Thereby you live in your means and act responsibly.

You need to listen to Dave Ramsey for some common sense financial advice.  It works on the national scale too.



> It would require cuts that the people aren't going to buy into.



You mean like eliminating duplication of effort, audit for corruption and abuse?  Laying off of non-essential employees and services and then decreasing taxes accordingly so people and business keep their money and invest it or pay off their own debt or get themselves clear of foreclosure?  You mean those kinds of cuts?



> About 1/3 of the adult population will be hurt by cuts in Medicare and  Social Security.



Highly assumptive.  Most of the problems with SS can be solved by the Ryan Plan by changing the format in how it's administered and run.  Those who would be 'hurt by cuts' would be safe from the changes while everyone else would have decades to get used to a new paradigm.  There are billions of dollars of cuts coming to Medicare anyway thanks to Obamacare.  Too late to whine about that now.  But wait, we can't afford that boondoggle either.  Let's pray it's repealed in toto.



> Most of the states have made deep cuts.



I live in MN.  We shut down the government for 19 days and STILL haven't made deep cuts.  We've made deep cuts on INCREASES to spending.  It's a joke.  I'm still waiting for the "Deep Cuts" I voted for and sent my representative to the capital to do.



> Federal cuts to welfare, Medicaid, and education will put more pressure  on state and local budgets with no federal moneys to ward off cuts in  employment.



Only 40 years overdue.  I guess this will end the little fiefdom of socialism found in most metropolitan areas as all the goodies can't be paid for and the local populations will have to pay for what they get instead of relying on state and federal bailouts.  About time they were forced into fiscal sanity.  Of course they'll demagogue and cut police and fire first like a bunch of assholes.  But since that move can backfire so bad, they best consider rational cuts to non-essential services such as welfare and social spending, and address the REAL problems they often face and that is out of control union pension plans that are bankrupting most cities (as illustrated by most of California).  

This is a good but painful thing.  Responsibility often is.



> The US still remains one of the least tax nations on earth.



And thank God for it.  If you want to be taxed higher, I suggest you move to where you can be or pay extra on your taxes voluntarily.  Live your ethics.



> Nearly half the population pays no income tax.



Time for them to pay their 'fair share' then, isn't it?



> The wealthy are taxed at half what they were 50 years ago.


Yes, they've been overtaxed since the inception of the income tax.  Time to make them pay their fair proportion of the tax burden instead of the top 10% paying 70% of the tab.



> Polls show that people want a balanced approach.



I don't trust polls because they are easy to make to get whatever answer your agenda desires.  People want national health care till they have to suffer massive tax increases out of their own pocket too.  So?  Proves there's a bunch of deadbeats out there who want free shit.  Who knew?



> That will only increase when people start seeing how proposed cuts will  effect them.



Of course.  Nobody likes seeing their gravy train stopped.  Everyone wants a better deal than what they deserve or work for.  This is news how?  This gives credibility to their whining how?

Butch the fuck up.  You aren't entitled to other people's money to pay for you OR your charitable drive you force on others through government sanctioned theft while you sit back thinking your hands are clean.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 7, 2011)

Sentinel said:


> We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
> fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
> growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
> ...



You guys are idiots. They told us, they dont care if it's spending cuts, or new Revenue. We needed to cut 4 Trillion in Borrowing in the next 10 years out, and address entitlements. They have no reason to give a shit how we do it. They don't care what our tax rates are, or what cuts we make. The only thing that matters to them is how much Money we borrow Period. 

The Deal only cuts 2 Trillion and did nothing to address entitlements, so we got downgraded. IMO they are being nice. we probably do not even deserve to be AA+. Anyone with a brain knows that the only way we will ever Pay back our Debt is printing new money. When they Rate a country. And take the rating down a grade they are not saying said country is likely to default. Really we can't default because we can simply print money. So when they rate countries essentially what a lower rating means is that country is very likely to turn to the Printing press to cover Debts. Which we are. 

If you actually think that is the fault of the Tea Party I want some of what you have been smoking.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...


By increasing taxes, all you do is enable the same behavior that got us to this place.  It's like seeing a crackhead and giving him 50 bucks for groceries and knowing full well he's gonna spend most of it on crack.

It is time for a fiscal intervention and rehab.  No more of this Amy Winehouse 'don't wanna go' shit.


----------



## rdean (Aug 7, 2011)

Anyone can see that a country where billionaires have a 18% tax rate and the middle class has a 35% tax rate is not stable.

Worse, by slashing education, health care programs and infrastructure projects simply to pander to said billionaires puts the future of the country in serious doubt.  Is it any wonder they did what they did?

Of course, Republicans don't see the problem.  They see the well being of billionaires as the "future of the country".


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

rdean said:


> Anyone can see that a country where billionaires have a 18% tax rate and the middle class has a 35% tax rate is not stable.
> 
> Worse, by slashing education, health care programs and infrastructure projects simply to pander to said billionaires puts the future of the country in serious doubt.  Is it any wonder they did what they did?
> 
> Of course, Republicans don't see the problem.  They see the well being of billionaires as the "future of the country".


You're right Hairnet.  It should be a 10-14% for everyone regardless of income and deductions are drastically reduced.

Then everyone pays their fair share.


----------



## Charles_Main (Aug 7, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Sentinel said:
> ...



I agree but that is not important to what he is claiming. 

He is trying to say S&P blamed the Tea Party. I was simply saying S&P does not care if it's spending cuts, Tax Increases or Both. What they care about is how much money we have to Borrow, Not why.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Charles_Main said:
> ...


True, a very capitalist way to look at the crisis with a side of demagoguery.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Sentinel said:
> ...



And if the Tea Party had just accepted big tax increases and cut defense spending like the liberal wing wanted, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

See how easy it is to demand the other side do exactly as you want, then blame them for not doing so?


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 7, 2011)

Why would anyone not on drugs want to do what liberals want?


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 7, 2011)

Toro said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



NO, that's actually wrong.
For starters, we already have big defense cuts coming.  The issue is entitlements, not defense.
Secondly, tax increases never produce the amount of revenue they are projected to.  People find ways to get around the new taxes, something the CBO has never realized.
Further, even Obama recognized that raising taxes during a recession is a dumb idea.  Higher taxes depress the economy. There has not been a case in this country where a tax increase solved a deficit problem, and many many where it made it worse.  See, California, New Jersey and Michigan.

It isn't a matter of compromise.  It is a matter of economics. What the Left wanted would not solve the problem.  What the GOP conservatives wanted would solve the problem.  How do you compromise on that?  It's like compromising with a kleptomaniac that instead of going into treatment he can steal just a little bit.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 7, 2011)

Don't allow the Leftist Zombies to change the direction of TRUTH by making this about Bush V/s Obama. .. IT'S ABOUT SPENDING , DEFICITS, and an unsustainable DEBT, period. Both Presidents resided and reside over out of control spending and the MAJORITY of good Americans don't give the first good damn about playing the blame game any longer.. Fuck both of them and fuck all of the partisan hacks who continue to push an agenda for sheer power ONLY. We the PEOPLE DEMAND our Representatives get their fiscal house in order. The Tea Party represents our collective voices and no amount of lies and propaganda coming from the Zombie Squad can change that truth. 2012 is around the corner..


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> Bush destroyed the economy and doubled the National Debt.
> 
> Obama saved us from another Great Depression.



Good luck convincing the voters of that next year.  Obama isn't getting reelected.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > > Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?
> ...



They did not exist during Bush's Presidency dumb ass.


----------



## editec (Aug 7, 2011)

Sentinel said:


> We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
> fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
> growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
> ...


 
Fellow citizens...

We have an economic model that is no longer really viable for most citizens.

Naturally as it is working for a minority of citizens, and since the GOLDEN RULE is in effect, those citizens who are doing well are very reluctant to change that model.

But what the bonds rating agencies are telling us is that if we do not change the economic model, it is going to fail more and more as time goes by.

This nation is, I think, on the cusp of breakdown.

Oh it will continue to exist, but it won't be your father's America anymore, kids.

Get used to that notion.

The American people have been betrayed by their leaders.

We're not the first people in Empires that this has happened to, and we probably will not be the last people this happens to either.

Power corrupts.

Power doesn't forge unity in society, it forges and survives on _division._


----------



## ogibillm (Aug 7, 2011)

largely S&P blamed the inability of our politicians to reach any sort of meaningful compromise. 

with pledges not to increase revenues and walking away from the negotiations several times it's no wonder that republicans - especially tea party supporters - are blamed. you did not see such intractibility on the other side of the aisle.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 7, 2011)

Sentinel said:


> We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related
> fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the
> growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an
> ...



On page four it gets even more clear.

Ill go get the quote.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 7, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> largely S&P blamed the inability of our politicians to reach any sort of meaningful compromise.
> 
> with pledges not to increase revenues and walking away from the negotiations several times it's no wonder that republicans - especially tea party supporters - are blamed. you did not see such intractibility on the other side of the aisle.



You're as blind here as you are over in another place not to mention stuck on stupid. Show for us the budget the Dems proposed over the last two years- or for that matter, the one King Obama proposed???? Come on, you can do it.. try real hard... The S&P UNEQUIVOCALLY states for ALL to read that the out of control spending and no real deficit and debt reduction led to their decision.. you are a propaganda tool of the left. No one buys your BULLSHIT so save it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 7, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> largely S&P blamed the inability of our politicians to reach any sort of meaningful compromise.
> 
> with pledges not to increase revenues and walking away from the negotiations several times it's no wonder that republicans - especially tea party supporters - are blamed. you did not see such intractibility on the other side of the aisle.



Ya Obama did not walk away and did not break the deal when it was made just before signing. Sure thing retard.


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 7, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Sentinel said:
> ...



Same would be true if we simply returned to Clinton tax rates.  

Once again, it's unwillingness, not inability.


----------



## ogibillm (Aug 7, 2011)

RetiredGySgt said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > largely S&P blamed the inability of our politicians to reach any sort of meaningful compromise.
> ...



hey - fucktard - he left once. early on.

how many times did boehner walk away?


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 7, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> largely S&P blamed the inability of our politicians to reach any sort of meaningful compromise.
> 
> with pledges not to increase revenues and walking away from the negotiations several times it's no wonder that republicans - especially tea party supporters - are blamed. you did not see such intractibility on the other side of the aisle.





You were offered revenue increases, then you moved the goal posts.

Lets not forget how talks started.  ANY CUT IS EXTREME.
ON CONFERENCE CALL NO LESS.

Take your phoney ass and preach to the herd.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Bubba was forced to move right, kicking and screaming regarding welfare reform, balancing the budget, and taxes.. Nice try liberal.

http://govt.eserver.org/contract-with-america.txt


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 7, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> l*argely S&P blamed the inability of our politicians to reach any sort of meaningful compromise. *
> 
> with pledges not to increase revenues and walking away from the negotiations several times it's no wonder that republicans - especially tea party supporters - are blamed. you did not see such intractibility on the other side of the aisle.



Yeah sure that is what they said.
And the Republicans and the Tea party is blamed because we have a Pravda media who mainly supports the Democrat-Progressive party. If we had ANY type of FACTUAL reporting on the negotiations, I would of been SHOCKED.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 7, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



Boehner is a loser too..  what's your point? Link for us the budgets DEMS proposed and PASSED being they held majorities in both houses and held the Presidency???? COME ON.. WHERE IS IT????????? I'm sorry, I can't hear you?


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 7, 2011)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Your post is misguided and does not, even minutely, address mine.

Are you arguing that Republicans forced 'Bubba' into raising taxes?  Is that your argument? And even if it were, how does that address what I've said?


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I stated very clearly what I meant.. Lastly, Bill Clinton: Lower The Corporate Tax Rate For Debt-Ceiling Deal


Oops, don't look now...


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 7, 2011)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



mmm-hmm... mmm-hmmm... mmm-hmmmm...

So... Yes?  You believe the Republicans pressured Clinton into raising taxes?


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


No, that is not the case.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I wasn't old enough then to know but I do know from the texts I've read that Bubba moved to the right in order to get re-elected and that the Contract With America was credited with being his saving grace or do you deny this?  I don't see Bubba out pushing raising tax rates.. quite the opposite as related in my link that you pretend to ignore.. ,Mmmmhmmm indeed.


----------



## CoolBreeze (Aug 7, 2011)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Oh, I like you handle, you are my kind of babe.  However, what I can't understand is why welfare, and foodstamps are not considered income.  My social security check is considered income, even though the taxes on the money that the government supposedly socked away for me, before the money was removed from my check.  They should be paying something in taxes as well.


----------



## peach174 (Aug 7, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > > Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?
> ...



Yes it is the same group and they did complain about Bush's spending.

Opponents objected to the plan's cost and rapidity, pointing to polls that showed little support among the public for "bailing out" Wall Street investment banks, claimed that better alternatives were not considered, and that the Senate forced passage of the unpopular version through the opposing house by "sweetening" the bailout package.

That was the start of the Tea Party. And the tea party ideology has been building up for the last 15 or more years,of government becoming to big and totally unconstitutional.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Aug 7, 2011)

CoolBreeze said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



Thank you and I agree..  That's the problem.. The top 2% pay the majority of taxes in this country while an ungodly percentage pay NOTHING at all.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 7, 2011)

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
13th paragraph

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/05/national/main20088952.shtml


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
> 13th paragraph
> 
> S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News


I wonder how many people here understand that the credit card company raising your credit limit is actually a bad thing, encouraging you to increase your debt and spending?  They WANT you indebted to them, making constant MINIMUM payments unable to ever catch up.  That is economic stability for THEM... not you.

Is this point lost on you people?


----------



## Stephanie (Aug 7, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> "We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."
> 13th paragraph
> 
> S & P statement on U.S. debt downgrade - CBS News


----------



## peach174 (Aug 7, 2011)

That has always been the Dems philosophy tax and spend.More and more and more.
I also blame the Repubs also, because they were starting to do the same thing, just a little more slowly, in growing the government.
And it is exactly that ideology, that has grown our government to an unsustainable monster.
Entitlements must be reformed and the whole government must be scaled back into a more manageable entity.
We also need tax reform.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Aug 7, 2011)

It is self evident the New Right, aka, the Tea Party and radical Republicans set in motion the crisis which lead to the downgrade.  There is no other rational explanation.  If the Congress had taken a balanced approach to our economic problems and both parties worked together to offer and pass a budget based on both higher taxes for those with a net personal income of 250,000 or greater, and less spending we would be on the road to recovery (note, members of Congresss never mentioned cutting their own salary or benefits).

Brinkmanship rarely works, and in this case President Obama blinked.  We are all lucky he did for if we were still fighting about the debt ceiling things may have gotten much worse - though the final rock may not have yet fallen.

Taxes must raise and will raise if we are ever to get past the hole both parties have dug.  The right wants to keep digging, which is insane.  The arguments for cutting taxes to the wealthiest among us is based on false claims, unemployment is not a product of personal income taxes being too high and the argument to raise taxes on the poor is simply one more example of callous disregard for the poor with at least a hint of racisim.


----------



## Toro (Aug 7, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Cutting spending during a recession is a bad idea also.  But that doesn't seem to be stopping the right from demanding it right now.  We have to cut entitlement spending, but doing so when unemployment is 9% is a bad idea.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes when he was governor of California and he balanced the budget.  Clinton and Bush raised taxes and the budget was balanced.  It's a weird argument that tax increases never balance the budget.  If this were true, there could never be a balanced budget anywhere, ever, because at some time or another, taxes were increased, otherwise there would be no revenues coming into the government coffers.  Yet, states by law must balance their operating budgets.  But according to this religious dogma that masquerades as economic thought in this country - and only in this country - ipso facto, tax increases cannot balance budgets.  Yet, every state has at one point or another increased taxes and most states balance their budgets.  So the argument is not grounded in reality.

But that's beside the point.  Both sides of the political spectrum are demanding the other do what they want, then blaming the other when they don't.  That's why we were downgraded.  S&P makes it very clear that this is a political problem, not an economic one.  So the ideologues on both sides are the ones who are the cause of this.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 7, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



The House passed two bills. The Democrats rejected both of them in the Senate and yet you people have the audacity to solely blame the Tea Party? This is the inanity in rabid partisanship. It blinds you to reality. Lying to yourself about what happened just to feel secure in your political views is not going to alter reality, so what is the point?


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 7, 2011)

Toro said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



No, cutting spending is a good idea any time.  Gov't spending creates perverse incentives.  So the extension of unemployment benefits has increased unemployment, because there is little incentive to find a job,
When did Bush raise taxes and achieve a balanced budget?  The opposite happened with the "Deal of the Century."
Your argument against raising taxes to balance the budget ignores a key element: taxes being raised specifically to balance the budget.  That never works.  Clinton was the beneficiary of the largest one time increase in the economy since the Industrial Revolution.  He also inherited a dead Soviet Union so he could cut the military dramatically. Remember the "Peace Dividend"?
The counter ecamples of NJ, CA, and MI are instructive.  In every case taxes were raised to balance the budget.  In no case was a balanced budget achieved.  Additionally Reagan signed on to a tax increase to balance th ebudget and was promised $3 in cuts for every dollar in increase.  There was no cut in spending.  The opposite in fact.


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 7, 2011)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



Nobody is pushing for tax increases, except those in Congress considered far-left by today's standards (eg Sanders).  That's the problem.  Everyone's afraid to introduce solutions that might not be popular.  

Hence the political inexpediency, hence the perceived unwillingness to meet obligations, hence the downgrade.  How any of your jabs at Clinton-era policies apply to the conversation, I have no idea.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 7, 2011)

The vast majority of Americans want taxes raised on the wealthy


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 7, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> ogibillm said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



The bills passed in the House were passed with the full knowledge that they'd never clear the Senate, much less the veto pen.  How you can view it as anything other than political posturing escapes me.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 7, 2011)

Toro said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



S&P directly blames the republicans in the statement.
"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." 


Lets remember that the republicans said they got 98% of what they wanted in the bill.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 7, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Sentinel said:
> ...


Do you mean the Lyin' Ryan budget that called for raising the debt ceiling almost $9 trillion over the next 10 years? That Lyin' Ryan budget????


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



What escapes me is your inconsistent logic.  The Republicans passed two bills.  The Democrats rejected them.  You blame the Republicans for not wanting to compromise, but when it comes to the Democrats all we get are crickets chirping.  So your logic, or lack thereof, rather, is that compromise means only Republicans are supposed to give in their positions while Democrats can keep their feet planted firmly in the ground.  It's hypocrisy and the worst kind of partisanship.

Deflect all you want, but at the end of the day it's the man sitting in the Oval Office who gets the credit for the good things and the blame for the bad things and the 9% unemployment, lack of jobs for people unemployed for three years now, and the first credit downgrade in American history will fall solely on his shoulders when the blame game begins among the American voters.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 7, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Neg repped for stupidity.
That's all the answer you're entitled to, sonny.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 7, 2011)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Funny how when Clinton was replaced with Bush, that same GOP congress never balanced a single budget ever again!!!! Hummmmmm


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 7, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



I haven't specifically blamed anyone.  The bottom line is an inability to pass anything that remotely resembles a balanced budget.  The reason is that lawmakers are afraid to propose anything that might be unpopular - Particularly desperately needed tax increases.  And yes, I think the Repubs have been far more stubborn, but it's not what I said.  None of it affects the fact that the bills passed by the house were passed with the full, open, and public knowledge that they would not advance.

So why would they bother to pass them then?  Seems like a waste of time.  Answer: So they could create the illusion that they were doing something, so people like you could pontificate to me that "The repubs passed two bills that got shot down in the Senate."  There was no progress, or even an attempt at progress, related to said bills.

Nothing changes by you pointing out my biases or vis a vis.  Nothing is getting through that will significantly change trajectory, and the reason is that lawmakers are afraid of proposing anything that's unpopular.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 7, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > > Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?
> ...



they weren't around then and as a former bush sppter I don't give him an out. 


so, what now?


----------



## Oldstyle (Aug 7, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...



Lying Ryan?  You know what's really pathetic about the attacks on Paul Ryan?  Someone FINALLY had the balls to attempt to tackle entitlement reform...something that liberals avoided like the plague for the two years they had super majorities and control of the Oval Office...and he's instantly attacked by those same liberals.

Let's see the Obama solution to unfunded entitlements...
Let's see the Nancy Pelosi solution.
Let's see the Harry Reid solution.

The fact is...they don't HAVE any.  They've purposely ignored the looming problem, kicking that can down the road in hopes that they can use any attempt by conservatives to address the the issue as an "attack" on the poor and senior citizens.  THAT is why we're getting downgraded.  A total failure of leadership from the Left.  They purposely ignored the problem because they thought it was politically advantageous.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 7, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


I'll take that as a Yes you support Lyin' Ryan's proposed raising the debt ceiling almost $9 trillion over the next 10 years because YOU were too STUPID know that the Lyin Ryan budget calls for raising the debt ceiling nearly $9 trillion over the next 10 years.
Thank you for your candor.


----------



## Ragnar (Aug 7, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Ragnar said:
> 
> 
> > > Is Standard and Poor Blaming the Teaparty for credit Downgrade ?
> ...



The Tea Started Brewing Under Bush



> Liberal politicians and their fellow travelers in the media seemed to assume that Americans disapproved of Bush for the same reasons they did. Yet many rejected Bush because he was not their kind of conservative (or, they might say, no conservative at all). *William F. Buckley* was tactful in 2006 when he said that Bush suffers from the absence of effective conservative ideology -- with the result that he ended up being very extravagant in domestic spending. And *George Will* wrote in 2004 that Republicans are swiftly forfeiting the perception that they are especially responsible stewards of government finances. The President had recently proposed some cuts, but the $4.9 billion saved would pay less than six days interest on the national debt. These deficits were apparently one way compassionate conservatism defines itself.
> 
> These are hardly figures on the fringe, and they object to Bushs government growth and deficit spending. Another example from the same year is Richard Viguerie, a pioneer of conservative strategy, whose *Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause, is a clear precursor to the Tea Party movement.*
> 
> Yet the rejection of big-government conservatism, amongst libertarians, reaches further back. A *Cato Institute* article from 2003 calls Bush the most gratuitous big spender to occupy the White House since Jimmy Carter. It was not possible to blame this on the wars alone, since non-defense discretionary spending had increased by even more (20.8%) than total spending (15.6%). Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 and 65 percent respectively. While some expenditures are matters of political expediency, this only means that Bush spends like Carter and panders like Clinton. The chairman of Cato even hoped for a divided government, and Doug Bandow at *The American Conservative lamented the Republican majority that was promoting larger government at almost every turn.*



The Tea Party represents the failure of Bush and the establishment Republican Party to be serious about controlling spending and responsible economics. GW Bush all but killed the party as was witnessed in 2006 and 2008. Libertarian conservatives and fed up Republicans are the only agents of real change among any movement in America.

Through the Tea Party we revived the broken shell of the old Republican Party. If the establishment ignores the Tea Party in 2012, they will seal their own fate. They have a legitimate fear of the rise of a third party. They should be terrified that "Republican" will be that fringe third party if they don't change their ways.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...





> That's the problem.  Everyone's afraid to introduce solutions that  might not be popular.


You mean like the third rails of reforming Social Security, Foreign military cuts and Medicare Medicaid reform plus repealing Obamacare?  Those kind of unpopular moves?

Raising taxes is not just unpopular, it is fiscally stupid.

If you were overspending on luxuries (like the gubmint is doing), is it smarter to get a second, third or fourth job (if you have the time) or to cut spending and learn to live within your means?


----------



## BDBoop (Aug 7, 2011)

From Fark. So very true.




> Biden's on to something. The GOP isn't a terrorist group, they're a drunken, abusive spouse: You take a little slapping around in return for some semblance of a normal life, and the vague hope that they won't blow the entire paycheck on strippers. Again.
> 
> It probably seems like a decent plan in the short term; the hope of making it through a week without getting hit, versus the certainty of having to face family and friends, and justifying why you put up with the lout after the first shiner.


----------



## Trajan (Aug 7, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...



compromise? they did create 2, score them and pass them on. like it or not, and I do see your point, the senate was free to craft their own, as well as Obama, who btw,  has owed the country a budget since April and didn't pass one in 2010.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 7, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Do you mean the Lyin' Ryan budget that called for raising the debt ceiling almost $9 trillion over the next 10 years? That Lyin' Ryan budget????



A 60%+ increase in the debt ceiling to accommodate Ryan's deficits over the next decade! And all but one member of the Tea Party Caucus voted for it.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Aug 7, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Do you mean the Lyin' Ryan budget that called for raising the debt ceiling almost $9 trillion over the next 10 years? That Lyin' Ryan budget????
> ...



Correct.  The Ryan Plan was not good.  It would have taken 26 years to achieve a balanced budget (which means it wouldn't have happened because future Congresses are not bound to the fiscal policies of their predecessors) and still would have massively increased the debt spending in the short term.


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 7, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



Yes.  Like those kinds of unpopular moves.



> Raising taxes is not just unpopular, it is fiscally stupid.



That's a debate to be had, but it is an option for balancing a budget.  If your talking stagnating economy, higher UE, etc, cuts to spending will do the same thing.

Do we want to balance the thing or not?  Likely needed is something from every category, including tax increases and entitlement reform.

Preponderance of evidence suggests Dems are more likely to compromise on cuts than Repubs are to compromise on revenue.  That of course is my opinion, and once again has no bearing on the issue at hand.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 7, 2011)

There is no historical proof that taxes cause deficits.

There is historical proof that taxes cause revenues.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

ogibillm said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > ogibillm said:
> ...


At every unreasonable 'compromise'.  He should have left a few more times and force more concessions from the left.


----------



## Truthmatters (Aug 7, 2011)

98% of what they wanted


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


but it would have done it with far less pain that what we are now about to experience.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> There is no historical proof that taxes cause deficits.
> 
> There is historical proof that taxes cause revenues.


You're right.  there's historical proof that OVERSPENDING causes all deficits.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2011)

According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day. 

Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151. 

Bill Clinton was the first president to slow the rate of the accrual of debt after the current out-of-control spending began with the Borrow and Spend Republicans in 1981. 

The final amount of the senior Bush debt was $4,174,218,594,232.91 (according to Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)), and Clinton became president on January 20th, 1993. Bill Clinton saw $1,553,558,144,071.73 added to the national debt during the eight years of his presidency. 

However, from the start of fiscal year 1994 (7 months after Clinton became president), until the start of fiscal year 2002 (7 months after Bush took office), the amount of money paid toward interest on the existing Federal debt was $2,767,282,794,374.59 (Government - Interest Expense on the Debt Outstanding). 

Therefore, no amount of the national debt is attributable to Bill Clinton - his policies of higher taxes and reduced spending actually simultaneously reduced the debt and brought about the strongest economy since World War II, despite the fiscal disaster left in the wake of Reagan and the first Bush. 

The debt was at $5,727,776,738,304.64 on January 19th, 2001, the last business day before George W. Bush took the office of president. The debt was at $10,628,881,485,510.23 on January 16th, 2009, the last business day before Barack H. Obama became president. 

ReaganBushDebt.org Calculation Details


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.
> 
> Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.
> 
> ...


That was an increase of $5 trillion, ($6 trillion if you go by fiscal years), which averages out to a $625 billion deficit per year. But pathological liars like the fairy Jeffy Sessions said today on the Sunday talk shows "SESSIONS:  Well, Governor, let me just say this.  *The highest debt President Bush ever had was $450 billion*."
You gotta love GOP fuzzy math if you're a CON$ervative!!! 

Page 4: 'This Week' Transcript: S&P's John Chambers, Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Jeff Sessions - ABC News


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2011)

The Republican HAVE to lie because all the facts are against them.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...



If by America you mean, socialist embedded in the Democratis Party, you are correct.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> The Republican HAVE to lie because all the facts are against them.


facts like Hairnet's pollaganda saying 80% of Americans want the rich to be taxed more?  Those kind of "facts"


----------



## Trajan (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> The Republican HAVE to lie because all the facts are against them.



we had an entire thread on this, a number reps acknowledged that bush added between 6 and 7 trillion to the debt. and , you posted in it, your memory that frail?


----------



## Si modo (Aug 7, 2011)

Damn, another thread saying the same bullshit.

These idiots really should coordinate which parrot is going to post the latest idea someone gave them.

I mean, at least the parroting wouldn't be so obvious.


----------



## Chris (Aug 7, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Sentinel said:
> ...



Socialist?

People who support Social Security, Medicare, and the rich paying taxes at the same rate as the rest of us are socialists?

You really need to do a little research on what socialism is.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 7, 2011)

Chris said:


> According to Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999, the debt at the end of the 1980 fiscal year, on September 30th, 1980, was $907,701,000,000. On September 30th, 1981, it was $997,855,000,000. Averaging it out over the year gives a debt of $246,997,260.27 per day.
> 
> Reagan took office 112 days later on January 20th, 1981. The debt on that date could be estimated as $907,701,000,000 plus 112 x $246,997,260.27, or $935,364,693,151.
> 
> ...


In Republican's zeal to cut taxes, as Bush did twice, they seem to loose sight of the fact that cutting spending along with the the tax cuts is the way to go.  Instead, they hope that tax cuts will stimulate the economy so as to produce enough revenue to cover the tax cuts.  This of course didn't happen in the Bush years and we were screwed when the recession of 2008 hit.  We had a high deficit, low interest rates, and historically low income taxes leaving the government few options for fighting the recession.

During times of economic prosperity, tax rates should raised, spending should be cut, and interest rates raised.  During recession we should do opposite.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 7, 2011)

Flopper said:


> In Republican's zeal to cut taxes, as Bush did twice, they seem to loose sight of the fact that cutting spending along with the the tax cuts is the way to go.  Instead, they hope that tax cuts will stimulate the economy so as to produce enough revenue to cover the tax cuts.



Remember, however, that the argument that tax cuts will increase revenue only returns when it's convenient. When surpluses seemed to be the order of the day, Republicans sold their tax cuts as a way to _decrease_ revenue:



> The growing surplus exists because taxes are too high and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged and on their behalf, I am here to ask for a refund.



Whichever one happens to be most convenient will end up being the justification du jour for tax cuts.


----------



## Chris (Aug 8, 2011)

Tax cuts decrease revenue.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 8, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > In Republican's zeal to cut taxes, as Bush did twice, they seem to loose sight of the fact that cutting spending along with the the tax cuts is the way to go.  Instead, they hope that tax cuts will stimulate the economy so as to produce enough revenue to cover the tax cuts.
> ...


Actually they are both true.  But a loser hack like yourself won't see that.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Tax cuts decrease revenue.
> 
> Anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.


Tax Cuts increase private sector economic activity increasing overall taxation.  What may be lost in income tax is more than made up for in consumption taxes and investment taxes, idiot, because people have more money in their pocket to spend!


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Tax cuts decrease revenue.
> ...



That and we aren't talking about a tax cut.  We are discussing the continuation of a tax cut, which is not a new cut.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > Tax cuts decrease revenue.
> ...


Some do and some don't. The tax cut that gives the most economic bang for the buck is cutting payroll taxes. That's the tax cut Obama proposed and the GOP blocked!!!!!

What I would do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
*This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand,* and the *businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job* as well as saving the cost of compliance. *The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from the tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.*


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

> That's the tax cut Obama proposed and the GOP blocked!!!!!



Really?  Link?  
Secondly, If it was blocked, I'd love to see what allegator was in that swamp.  Very common practice to attach a deal killer or poison pill to popular legislation to prevent passage or try to sneak one through.  Kinda like all the pork loaded into legislation via riders.

Don't think you get to pull that fast one here Edthecretin.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Right, and my point is still valid on that front.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

> Bush's American job killing tax cuts



Tax cuts kill jobs?  Government jobs maybe.  Which is a good thing.

But if you're talking good honest private sector jobs, I'd need to see some real good proof from a reliable source.  No blogs, no advocacy sites, no hack propaganda sites like the Huffypoo.  Reuters, AP, I'd even accept CNN (but not MSNBS)and other similar level of reputable news organizations.

The loss of American Job to other nations is not caused by tax cuts, it's caused by free trade agreements with nations with massively lower costs of living, regulatory standards (like the ones the left loves so much), labor costs (because of slave labor and no unions) and government economic intervention (unfair tax breaks and subsidies designed to hurt the US competition).  You know, in nations like Mexico, India and China.  That's what you need to fix.


----------



## Maple (Aug 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...



" Socialism is the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy and the equality of misery." Winston Churchill.

" The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of OTHER PEOPLE'S money." Margaret Thatcher.

BTW if you took all of the money the so-called rich have including all of their assets, make them live under the bridge, it would finance this debt for app 24 days and then that's gone too and so are they.


----------



## Maple (Aug 8, 2011)

Chris said:


> Sentinel said:
> 
> 
> > We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the
> ...



the tea party are the people who have been attempting to stop this train wreck for the last three years, duhhhhhhhhhhhhh, just look at their rally's, they are attempting to control an out of control President who spends like a drunken sailor and wants to raise everyone's taxes to pay for his spending binges. 4.1 billion dollars a day for your information. Now sustain that spending level and then with your obvious brilliance tell me how you can sustain that when we have a 9.2% unemployment rate and 46% of Americans pay NO federal income taxes AT ALL.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > That's the tax cut Obama proposed and the GOP blocked!!!!!
> 
> 
> Really?  Link?
> ...


GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

*GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension* 

			 				By: CNN's Ted Barrett
*(CNN) * *Two top Republican  lawmakers said Wednesday they don't support extending a payroll tax cut  as a way to stimulate the economy* -an idea the White House is weighing  because they don't believe it helped create jobs and that money is  needed to shore up Social Security and Medicare.
 Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas,  who both hold GOP leadership positions,* told reporters that the current  high unemployment rate is proof that short-term stimulus programs, like  the payroll tax reduction, don't work.*

 "I don't sense how this move will install the confidence that small  businesses in east Texas and Fortune 50 companies are going to need to  take care of the Obama employment gap," Hensarling said.
*"We don't need short term gestures,* we need long term strategies  that build into our system simpler taxes, lower taxes, fewer mandates,  lower costs, lower energy costs, more certainty," Alexander said


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2011)

Looks like American coporations are going to sit on new jobs and cash until Washington makes real cuts and balances their budget...


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 8, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas,  who both hold GOP leadership positions,* told reporters that the current  high unemployment rate is proof that short-term stimulus programs, like  the payroll tax reduction, don't work.*
> 
> "I don't sense how this move will install the confidence that small  businesses in east Texas and Fortune 50 companies are going to need to  take care of the Obama employment gap," Hensarling said.
> *"We don't need short term gestures,* we need long term strategies  that build into our system simpler taxes, lower taxes, fewer mandates,  lower costs, lower energy costs, more certainty," Alexander said



Paul Ryan made the same argument yesterday on Chris Wallace's show. A payroll tax cut is "temporary," "demand-sided," and is "proven not to work" in the esteemed Budget Committee Chairman's words.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> > That's the tax cut Obama proposed and the GOP blocked!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


GOP lawmakers say no to a payroll tax cut extension &#8211; CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 8, 2011)

Maple said:


> Chris said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


BULLSHIT!!!!!!!

DittoTards are the most ignorant people on Earth. They stupidly parrot anything their MessiahRushie spits out!

The top 1% alone have 40% of the $50+ trillion in wealth of this great country CON$ hate. Do the math, 

July 27, 2011
RUSH:  Let me tell you, you could confiscate all the wealth over $250,000 in this country, and you would run the government for a couple of weeks.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

So you pull a blog on CNN.  

Well I guess that's as close as you comprehend to 'reputable'.

When you said 'lawmakers' I assumed you were talking a vote, not two reps voicing their opinions.  But at least you misrepresented the argument.

Secondly, it was an "Idea the white house was weighing", not proposed.  What's that mean?  They mentioned it so they could get a reaction before they actually proposed it and get political cover by saying "we mentioned it but...".

And that payroll tax cut was a short term one, not a permanent one, which in that case both of them would be right in their criticism that we don't need "Short Term" solutions.  Again, reading comprehension problems on your part, but that stems from your base dishonesty.

Your postulate is awful sickly and weak Cretin.

And then to have Fucky Schumer then say this was a 'vote to raise taxes" by the GOP, is damn near worthy of Goebbels himself.

No wonder you loved this article for the basis of your bullshit premise.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Maple said:
> 
> 
> > Chris said:
> ...


Actually if you seized all the income from everyone over 250k to pay the deficit, you'd still fall 400 billion short, having only amassed only once 1.2 trillion.

Of course, since you have then destroyed your tax base, since the top 10% pay around 75% of all taxes, you'll be screwed the next year all the more with over a 75% drop in total revenues having reduced the nation to abject poverty as is the goal for all you socialist fucks.


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> So you pull a blog on CNN.
> 
> Well I guess that's as close as you comprehend to 'reputable'.
> 
> ...


I guess you missed this part of the quote, "Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas,  *who both hold GOP leadership positions*,"

And it would be easy to fix, make the payroll tax cut permanent, but the GOP LEADERS who opposed the payroll tax cut did not say they would support it if it was a permanent cut!!!!!!


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Maple said:
> ...


It typical CON$ervative fashion, when CON$ can't argue against what was actually said, they change the words and create a Straw Man they can argue against.

And saying the top 10% pay 75% of ALL taxes is just more EXAGGERATED CON$ervative BULLSHIT. They pay 50%.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

And it was an idea never OFFICIALLY given by the White House.  So this is much ado about nothing.  You've got nothing here.  No proposal was made, it was only 'mentioned' to give political cover for a bunch of breeze checking hacks in the white house catching a break from two party hack establishment elites who popped off too early.  You know what you got here?


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 8, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...




Oh, 50%... yeah, that makes a HUGE difference.    You like to split hairs for political expediency but sure can't hack it when they get split back on you.

And the bottom 50% still pays nothing.  When're the poor going to pay THEIR fair share?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 8, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


As I have shown many times on this board, when CON$ are caught in their exaggerated lies, they just lie some more. The bottom 50% pay 15% of ALL taxes!
Lie, er ...., er ...., try again.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 8, 2011)

Wealthy people have wealth?  Well I never...


----------



## rdean (Aug 8, 2011)

They got 98% of what they wanted.  It was that 2% downgrade they gave to Obama.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 9, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > edthecynic said:
> ...


Oh, my bad.  it's 47%.  I figured 3% was within the 'margin of error' for exaggration.

Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax - Yahoo! Finance



> About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009.  Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits,  deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's  according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research  organization.



Oh and that's from the AP... you know... a REPUTABLE source?



> In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown  so much that *a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no  federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger  than 17,* according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm  Deloitte Tax.



Why aren't they paying THEIR fair share?



> *The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal  income tax*, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would  otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a  payment.







> In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a  figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the  Tax Policy Center.




Do I need to continue illustrating how big a liar you are?


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 9, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas,  who both hold GOP leadership positions,* told reporters that the current  high unemployment rate is proof that short-term stimulus programs, like  the payroll tax reduction, don't work.*
> ...


You mean like the LAST one time tax break?  No they don't work for sustained growth.  They only give a brief bump to consumption, but nothing anyone's going to invest long term for.  This is the equivalent of turning the ignition for less than a second on a car with a bad starter.  You'll get a noise and then nothing.  you gotta keep that key turned till the engine catches.  

THAT is why a piddlyass little tax credit doesn't work.  But the whole truth doesn't meet your political needs, so... why use it?


----------



## Chris (Aug 9, 2011)

The Republicans almost destroyed the country with George Bush, now the Tea Party is continues the damage.

But since most Republicans and Tea Party members are over 55, their numbers will slowly die out.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> THAT is why a piddlyass little tax credit doesn't work.



Lowering the payroll tax is not a tax credit. Try again.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 9, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas,  who both hold GOP leadership positions,* told reporters that the current  high unemployment rate is proof that short-term stimulus programs, like  the payroll tax reduction, don't work.*
> ...



And he was right on all counts.
None of Obama's "tax cuts" have worked for precisely those reasons.  Some of them, like the homebuyers credit, simply shoved demand from the future into the present.
Obama cannot stand a permanent tax cut.  But he always lobbies for permanent tax increases.  This is partly why things suck.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 9, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > THAT is why a piddlyass little tax credit doesn't work.
> ...


Give me details of the officially proposed tax cut then.  You know, the one that was actually presented in committee, not just blue-skied in the press to see what the reaction would be from non-compoops?


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 9, 2011)

Chris said:


> The Republicans almost destroyed the country with George Bush, now the Tea Party is continues the damage.
> 
> But since most Republicans and Tea Party members are over 55, their numbers will slowly die out.


Like most of the diehard liberals who are pushing 70?  How's that spring chicken Bawney Fwank?  Or the young buck, Harry Reid?

Did you push too hard and shit your entire brainstem today, or did you make some sort of resolution to be even more fucking stupid than yesterday?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Along with continuing to lie, CON$ also play dumb.
To recap, the first lie was the exaggerated claim that the top 10% pay 75% of ALL taxes, they pay 50% of ALL taxes. And it was Little Fizzle who mentioned ALL taxes, not income taxes. 

Then he followed that lie with the exaggerated claim that the bottom 50% pay NOTHING, when they pay 15% of ALL taxes. 

Now he pretends he was off by 3% because he has now moved the goalposts from ALL taxes to INCOME taxes only. CON$ will never admit they are wrong! Mind you I highlighted and capitalized his own use of the word ALL when he brought up taxes, but he still shamelessly pretends he was only talking about INCOME taxes. 

Now the reason the bottom half pay no income taxes is because the GOP has been buying votes every election by promising tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts, that CON$ want to make permanent, doubled the non-payers from ~25% to ~50%. So the non-taxpayers are bought and paid for Republican voters.

The Dems are always trying to raise taxes, and if you remember for both Clinton and Obama the GOP said they were raising taxes in the "rich" people who make $31,000 and up, so the Dems are not responsible for anyone making over $31,000 paying no income taxes. 

Both Parties spend, the Dems tax and spend and therefore have added little to the national debt, the GOP borrows and spends committing generational theft and running up the bulk of the national debt. But like not taking responsibility for the non-payers, they don't take responsibility for the GOP National Debt and blame the Dems for both. 

A flashback to a typical CON$ervative spin during the 2008 election:

$31,850 is the new definition of rich | Presidential Race Blog
March 13, 2008
Written by *Michael Vass*
 How rich do you feel if you are making $31,850 or more?
 If you are like most families and individuals in America, I imagine  that you don&#8217;t. In fact I would say most would feel relatively poor. Not  because of a lack of luxury items or failing in a competition with the  Jones&#8217; but because of a scarcity of essentials and a knowledge that loss  of everything is possible.
 Americans in the middle class don&#8217;t feel rich because they are the  ones losing their homes to the mortgage crisis. They are the ones  incapable of affording better colleges (or sometimes any college) for  their children. They are the families most often without healthcare  coverage and unable to afford medical costs. 
 And they are the ones that are going to feel even worse if Democrats,  and the Presidential candidates Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, get  their way. I don&#8217;t say this because of some ideal, or dedication to the  Republican Party. I say this because that is exactly what they are  voting for.&#8220;Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush&#8217;s tax  cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they&#8217;ll be  voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making  as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.&#8221;​So, if you make $31,850 or more you may not feel like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but you are going to get taxed like them.


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm sorry, are you calling the AP a liar?  I can't help it that you got pantsed and paddled over the FACT that 47% don't pay any taxes and 40% of all tax 'payers' MAKE money on doing their taxes.

Of course, your blog opinion piece alters that.  mmhmm yes indeedy.  A leftwingkookist blog on a leftwingkookist site spouting propaganda for leftwingkookists to parrot in their effort to be the leftwingkookiest useful idiot or the Party. 

 Your wishing these FACTS away and going all Goebbels doesn't change this reality.  Popping flares and chaff with nonsense isn't going to fix the fact you're a fucking liar exposed once again.

BTW, poopcicle , "CON$" is so clever it wrapped around the dial and became lame again.

Snarky Lenin sez:


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> I'm sorry, *are you calling the AP a liar*?  I can't help it that you got pantsed and paddled over* the FACT that 47% don't pay any taxes* and 40% of all tax 'payers' MAKE money on doing their taxes.


Your tactic of pretending AP said that 47% "don't pay ANY taxes" the lie you made up, when AP said that thanks to GOP tax cuts for votes 47% pay no INCOME taxes, they still pay payroll taxes, is an example of how CON$ lie by trying to muddy the waters. You are trying to muddy "income taxes" into "all taxes" so they can be used interchangeably and you don't have to admit your EXAGGERATED lies..


----------



## Big Fitz (Aug 10, 2011)

edthecynic said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, *are you calling the AP a liar*?  I can't help it that you got pantsed and paddled over* the FACT that 47% don't pay any taxes* and 40% of all tax 'payers' MAKE money on doing their taxes.
> ...


Read the article attribution next time dumbass.  Better still, don't prove you never read the article by making such stupid fucking statements.  This discussion has been about income taxes pretty much from the start.  way to try and move the goalposts.  Did you hurt your back with that failure?


----------



## edthecynic (Aug 10, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> edthecynic said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Let me refresh your faulty memory with a quote of YOURS:



> Originally Posted by *Big Fitz*
> 
> 
> _ Of course, since you have then destroyed your tax base, *since the top 10% pay around 75% of all taxes*,  you'll be screwed the next year all the more with over a 75% drop in  total revenues having reduced the nation to abject poverty as is the  goal for all you socialist fucks._


----------

