Can we cut the bullshit about spending under Obama?

[S.J.]

Where'd you go?

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

Can we call a timeout here and use just an ounce of common sense? Please? I'm begging everybody...

100% of our debt is the result of one thing and one thing only - spending more money than you bring in. People can bitch about tax cuts all they want, but when the government brings in less money, they have to spend less. And they don't. Both sides are guilty of that reality. It's not rocket science - you don't spend more than you bring in.

The difference is, the liberals in America don't want to accept less spending because they are thoroughly enjoying their gravy-train. So instead, they create the absurd narrative that the wealthy owe them something. Now, I want you liberals to watch this video closely. Besides being hilarious listening to the blithering idiocy of Nancy Pelosi, watch what they say about taxes and confiscating 100% of the wealth for anyone with more than $1 million (hint: it's' not enough to even cover the deficit for ONE year under Obama - much less federal budget in FULL).

[ame=http://youtu.be/-T2i9-0PL1o]Highlights from The Blithering Idiot. - YouTube[/ame]

Gawd, that is one profoundly stupid woman!

 

[P@triot]

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

Can we call a timeout here and use just an ounce of common sense? Please? I'm begging everybody...

100% of our debt is the result of one thing and one thing only - spending more money than you bring in. People can bitch about tax cuts all they want, but when the government brings in less money, they have to spend less. And they don't. Both sides are guilty of that reality. It's not rocket science - you don't spend more than you bring in.

The difference is, the liberals in America don't want to accept less spending because they are thoroughly enjoying their gravy-train. So instead, they create the absurd narrative that the wealthy owe them something. Now, I want you liberals to watch this video closely. Besides being hilarious listening to the blithering idiocy of Nancy Pelosi, watch what they say about taxes and confiscating 100% of the wealth for anyone with more than $1 million (hint: it's' not enough to even cover the deficit for ONE year under Obama - much less federal budget in FULL).

[ame=http://youtu.be/-T2i9-0PL1o]Highlights from The Blithering Idiot. - YouTube[/ame]

So you think taxes don't pay government expenses? You actually think that. This is a very simple concept. Less revenue means more BORROWING. Borrowing means MORE debt.

Well sure, in the mind of the libtard Dumbocrat it means "more borrowing".

However, for a rational person of common fuck'n sense (immediately eliminates all Dumbocrats), less revenue simply means LESS SPENDING!

By the way, you're missing the most important part of this video. What happened to your "critical thinking"? If confiscating 100% of the wealth of 100% of the American people who have over $1 million dollars doesn't even cover the DEFICIT (forget about the entire federal budget, this doesn't cover what they over spent beyond the budget), how the fuck can you draw the conclusion that we don't have a severe spending problem?!?!

 

[Billy000]

Where'd you go?

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

And so the simple solution is that you cut spending.

If revenue is "low", a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending equally low.

If tax revenue is "16.7% of GP", then a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending "16.7% of GDP".

God forbid we cut anything, right? I suggest we start with the over $1 trillion per year in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Yes but the government spending money was in reality the only way to save the economy. If people are getting laid off in record numbers, obviously you are going to provide them with a safety net (extension of unemployment ) When people actually have money to spend while unemployed, they spend it all on the bare necessities. That STIMULATES the economy. Without the help, they spend LESS on the market because they are BROKE. Not only that, but the economic growth is significantly higher than the expense of the tax payers.

Facts are fun.

 

[P@triot]

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

And so the simple solution is that you cut spending.

If revenue is "low", a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending equally low.

If tax revenue is "16.7% of GP", then a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending "16.7% of GDP".

God forbid we cut anything, right? I suggest we start with the over $1 trillion per year in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Yes but the government spending money was in reality the only way to save the economy. If people are getting laid off in record numbers, obviously you are going to provide them with a safety net (extension of unemployment ) When people actually have money to spend while unemployed, they spend it all on the bare necessities. That STIMULATES the economy. Without the help, they spend LESS on the market because they are BROKE. Not only that, but the economic growth is significantly higher than the expense of the tax payers.

Facts are fun.

Facts are fun - which is why you should actually try them sometime!

Government spending is what collapsed the economy in the first place genius. The federal government (along with state and local) takes more than 60% of the middle classes income. How the fuck are people supposed to "spend in the market" when the government takes so much?

Come on chief - give us one of those really clever bat-shit crazy liberal answers. I eagerly await.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Link required.

Research capability required. Stop being lazy.

The PJ Tatler » Heritage Foundation Publishes Complete List of Obama?s ?Green? Flops
Up to 50 Obama-backed energy companies financially troubled | The Daily Caller
List: The 36 Obama-Funded Green Energy Failures? | Weasel Zippers
LIST: Obama?s Failed Green-Energy Companies « FactReal
List: 36 Of Obama?s Taxpayer-Funded Green Energy Failures - Fox Nation
The Green Corruption Files : Green Alert: Tracking President Obama's Green Energy Failures

That is not how it works asshole. If YOU post it, YOU are responsible to provide the link. Ask a mod you turd brain.

Hey, why must it be a one way street? If you're so curious, look it up yourself, nitwit. If I could find corroborating links for this argument, I bet you could have as well. I don't need to ask a mod anything, since that rule only applies to plagiarized material and copy paste OPs.

Let me 'splain something to you boy, learning takes effort. If you aren't willing to apply the effort, don't ask for the links.

 

[P@triot]

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

Can we call a timeout here and use just an ounce of common sense? Please? I'm begging everybody...

100% of our debt is the result of one thing and one thing only - spending more money than you bring in. People can bitch about tax cuts all they want, but when the government brings in less money, they have to spend less. And they don't. Both sides are guilty of that reality. It's not rocket science - you don't spend more than you bring in.

The difference is, the liberals in America don't want to accept less spending because they are thoroughly enjoying their gravy-train. So instead, they create the absurd narrative that the wealthy owe them something. Now, I want you liberals to watch this video closely. Besides being hilarious listening to the blithering idiocy of Nancy Pelosi, watch what they say about taxes and confiscating 100% of the wealth for anyone with more than $1 million (hint: it's' not enough to even cover the deficit for ONE year under Obama - much less federal budget in FULL).

[ame=http://youtu.be/-T2i9-0PL1o]Highlights from The Blithering Idiot. - YouTube[/ame]

Gawd, that is one profoundly stupid woman!

Seriously S.J. - I simply can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are adults walking around out there that are this stupid - much less that they can find people dumb enough to vote for them.

This woman takes dumb to unfathomable levels...

 

[Billy000]

And so the simple solution is that you cut spending.

If revenue is "low", a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending equally low.

If tax revenue is "16.7% of GP", then a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending "16.7% of GDP".

God forbid we cut anything, right? I suggest we start with the over $1 trillion per year in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Yes but the government spending money was in reality the only way to save the economy. If people are getting laid off in record numbers, obviously you are going to provide them with a safety net (extension of unemployment ) When people actually have money to spend while unemployed, they spend it all on the bare necessities. That STIMULATES the economy. Without the help, they spend LESS on the market because they are BROKE. Not only that, but the economic growth is significantly higher than the expense of the tax payers.

Facts are fun.

Facts are fun - which is why you should actually try them sometime!

Government spending is what collapsed the economy in the first place genius. The federal government (along with state and local) takes more than 60% of the middle classes income. How the fuck are people supposed to "spend in the market" when the government takes so much?

Come on chief - give us one of those really clever bat-shit crazy liberal answers. I eagerly await.

So again, are you okay with the fact that we are in 17 trillion in debt? Much of that is because of the Bush tax cuts. Less revenue means more BORROWING which means MORE debt. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes but the government spending money was in reality the only way to save the economy. If people are getting laid off in record numbers, obviously you are going to provide them with a safety net (extension of unemployment ) When people actually have money to spend while unemployed, they spend it all on the bare necessities. That STIMULATES the economy. Without the help, they spend LESS on the market because they are BROKE. Not only that, but the economic growth is significantly higher than the expense of the tax payers.

Facts are fun.

Facts are fun - which is why you should actually try them sometime!

Government spending is what collapsed the economy in the first place genius. The federal government (along with state and local) takes more than 60% of the middle classes income. How the fuck are people supposed to "spend in the market" when the government takes so much?

Come on chief - give us one of those really clever bat-shit crazy liberal answers. I eagerly await.

So again, are you okay with the fact that we are in 17 trillion in debt? Much of that is because of the Bush tax cuts. Less revenue means more BORROWING which means MORE debt. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Uhm... but Bush did not reduce tax revenue, he reduced tax rates. Are you retarded?

 

[Billy000]

Facts are fun - which is why you should actually try them sometime!

Government spending is what collapsed the economy in the first place genius. The federal government (along with state and local) takes more than 60% of the middle classes income. How the fuck are people supposed to "spend in the market" when the government takes so much?

Come on chief - give us one of those really clever bat-shit crazy liberal answers. I eagerly await.

So again, are you okay with the fact that we are in 17 trillion in debt? Much of that is because of the Bush tax cuts. Less revenue means more BORROWING which means MORE debt. Tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Uhm... but Bush did not reduce tax revenue, he reduced tax rates. Are you retarded?

Wow you people just astound me. It just blows me away. Answer me this honestly. What do you think the government does with your tax money? Do you think they just stick it in a mattress somewhere? They USE it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that i even need to is something I find very depressing. Tell me, genius. When the government spends money, how is it paid for if not by revenue?

Where'd you go?

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt?

No, I think we should cut spending, a lot.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

 

[Billy000]

Where'd you go?

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt?

No, I think we should cut spending, a lot.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Yes I agree. Let's cut spending. However we also need to generate more revenue to PAY for our government expenses.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt?

No, I think we should cut spending, a lot.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Yes I agree. Let's cut spending. However we also need to generate more revenue to PAY for it.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

 

[Billy000]

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt?

No, I think we should cut spending, a lot.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Yes I agree. Let's cut spending. However we also need to generate more revenue to PAY for it.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes I agree. Let's cut spending. However we also need to generate more revenue to PAY for it.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

Is $100 more government debt worse than $100 more private debt?

 

[Listening]

Yes I agree. Let's cut spending. However we also need to generate more revenue to PAY for it.

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

Or a failure to cut spending.

 

[Billy000]

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

Is $100 more government debt worse than $100 more private debt?

Yes as long as the right people are being taxed. Middle class and the wealthy. The poor are spared through their tax returns.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

Is $100 more government debt worse than $100 more private debt?

Yes as long as the right people are being taxed. Middle class and the wealthy. The poor are spared through their tax returns.

Why is government debt worse than private debt?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So you think it is a good thing we are 17 trillion in debt? A lot of our debt is the result of low revenue which has been 16.7 percentage of our GDP. That is LOW.

And so the simple solution is that you cut spending.

If revenue is "low", a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending equally low.

If tax revenue is "16.7% of GP", then a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending "16.7% of GDP".

God forbid we cut anything, right? I suggest we start with the over $1 trillion per year in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Yes but the government spending money was in reality the only way to save the economy. If people are getting laid off in record numbers, obviously you are going to provide them with a safety net (extension of unemployment ) When people actually have money to spend while unemployed, they spend it all on the bare necessities. That STIMULATES the economy. Without the help, they spend LESS on the market because they are BROKE. Not only that, but the economic growth is significantly higher than the expense of the tax payers.

Facts are fun.

Facts are not what you have my friend. I have already demonstrated how woefully misinformed you are, Billy. I was raised with no safety net, I never asked to be coddled, so this government can keep out, let me succeed or fail on my own.

 

[Billy000]

If the government cuts my taxes, and I have an extra $100 of my own income, how is the economy hurt?

Show me, step by step.

Because it means we go further into debt. That's how. How am I supposed to break it down simpler than that? Debt grows because of a drop in revenue.

Or a failure to cut spending.

Oh my god dude. Less revenue means MORE SPENDING.

 

[Billy000]

And so the simple solution is that you cut spending.

If revenue is "low", a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending equally low.

If tax revenue is "16.7% of GP", then a person with an ounce of common fuck'n sense makes their spending "16.7% of GDP".

God forbid we cut anything, right? I suggest we start with the over $1 trillion per year in waste, fraud, and abuse.

Yes but the government spending money was in reality the only way to save the economy. If people are getting laid off in record numbers, obviously you are going to provide them with a safety net (extension of unemployment ) When people actually have money to spend while unemployed, they spend it all on the bare necessities. That STIMULATES the economy. Without the help, they spend LESS on the market because they are BROKE. Not only that, but the economic growth is significantly higher than the expense of the tax payers.

Facts are fun.

Facts are not what you have my friend. I have already demonstrated how woefully misinformed you are, Billy. I was raised with no safety net, I never asked to be coddled, so this government can keep out, let me succeed or fail on my own.

Here is the problem with the right: your political beliefs are based less on facts and more in emotion and philosophy. You refuse to accept facts that do not accommodate your bias.