Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.
Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.
I'm on par with the Republican and Democratic national parties? You are living in denial, that must be your problem.You are continuously running with the political parties are like private businesses like grocery chains meme. That isn't what we are discussing. The political parties are deeply involved in government, you are either propagandizing or stuck on stupid.How would that translate to government usurping control?No. No, they shouldn't. We have no need for the government to usurp even more control of the lives and choices of individuals.
Did you just ask me how Congress dictating rules for private organizations is the government usurping control? Seriously?
They're no more "deeply involved" with the government than any group of citizens attempting to influence the policies of the government that affect their lives. They're private organizations. Being organized to affect public policy rather than organized to generate income changes that not in the slightest. There is no amount of "Ehrmagerd, they want to get a candidate elected, that means they're GOVERNMENT!" that will make that true.
They aren't doing anything that you aren't doing, really, except they're working harder at it, spending more money on it, and being more effective at it.
The entire election process on local, state and federal government is run through them. How does that not speak to you?
I don't take homework assignments from nit wits. You chose a particular tax cut I didn't name. I am referring to the extensive research that has been done by the field of economics.
As for W, it was overall beneficial, but he did dilute the benefit by making the tax code more complex, complexity drives inefficiency. He also had a massive Social Security and Medicare tax increase. Like everything, W did almost nothing right and then when he did he screwed it up
Federal government. All of the stuff you mentioned is state and local.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply the military are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy. Local, state and national police agencies and the various courts add a lot to the economy also.
How is removing religion from taxpayer-funded public buildings "moving to the Left"? The Constitution separates church and state. Is the Constitution a Leftist document?This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.You asked for an example, I gave you one.
I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?
So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...
You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.
Your examples were all the Republicans not wanting to move to the left. So your argument is the religious right control the Republican party because they are fighting moving to the left?
Are you claiming that religion belongs to the Right?
Separation of church and State isn't in the Constitution, that was a statement by a judge 100 years ago. Also, it doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't argue it was or wasn't. The law is changing by moving us to the left. It wasn't prohibited to post the 10 commandments, you people fought for it. Try to follow the discussion.
On your point though. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not seeing the issue in what is actually in the Constitution. How is posting the 10 commandments a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which commandment do you disagree with?
If the room is a large barren, hard to traverse wasteland like the Texas/Arizona border there's plenty of time to catch up with all the marbles.Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!You're flailing. Badly.We can successfully monitor and enforce a no-fly zone across all of Iraq all the way from Incirlik, Türkiye but the military is incompetent when it comes to a no-walk zone in Texas?
Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?
a) I roll an occasional bowling ball
b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.
You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?
The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.
Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?
a) I roll an occasional bowling ball
b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.
Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?
Begging the question. I have a question though.
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?
a) I roll an occasional bowling ball
b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.
So what's your answer? You're an inane little boy making an idiotic argument
But they didn't spend it.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.That's been proven false.
Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.
It's not true if you believe empirical data.
Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Oh, that's right - you don't back up your bullshit.Show where tax cuts = more jobs.The rest of us investing our own money and giving them jobs does nothing for the economy.
Oh, that's right - you don't back up your bullshit.
Sure I can, but I'm not interested in explaining the field of economics to an imbecile. Take econ 101. If you turn off the lawyers in your head, it'll change your life when you realize the leftist lawyers are full of shit
Who produced the Hoover Dam?Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.
It's not true if you believe empirical data.
Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply the military are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy. Local, state and national police agencies and the various courts add a lot to the economy also.
Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.
I think it is foolish to always believe that "cheaper" is better. Bush drastically cut back on the financial regulators. How did THAT savings work out for ours and the world's economies?
Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.
You're full of shit, as usual.But he CONTINUED a Clinton policy, he didn't create it.
How is removing religion from taxpayer-funded public buildings "moving to the Left"? The Constitution separates church and state. Is the Constitution a Leftist document?This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...
You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.
Your examples were all the Republicans not wanting to move to the left. So your argument is the religious right control the Republican party because they are fighting moving to the left?
Are you claiming that religion belongs to the Right?
Separation of church and State isn't in the Constitution, that was a statement by a judge 100 years ago. Also, it doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't argue it was or wasn't. The law is changing by moving us to the left. It wasn't prohibited to post the 10 commandments, you people fought for it. Try to follow the discussion.
On your point though. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not seeing the issue in what is actually in the Constitution. How is posting the 10 commandments a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which commandment do you disagree with?
The first Amendment;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. -
btw, for all you morons out there, the Constitution refers to the political parties with the passage
"..right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If the room is a large barren, hard to traverse wasteland like the Texas/Arizona border there's plenty of time to catch up with all the marbles.Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!You're flailing. Badly.Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?
a) I roll an occasional bowling ball
b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.
You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?
The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.
Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?
a) I roll an occasional bowling ball
b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.
Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?
Begging the question. I have a question though.
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?
a) I roll an occasional bowling ball
b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.
So what's your answer? You're an inane little boy making an idiotic argument
Even the ones you've obviously lost!
But they didn't spend it.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.
It's not true if you believe empirical data.
Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
And more taxes collected means more infrastructure spending, which creates jobs, which adds to the pool of taxpayers.
After Boehner campaigned in 2010 on "Where are the jobs, Mr. President", Republicans won, and haven't produced one Jobs Bill to help employ people.
Who produced the Hoover Dam?Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
Name the company that's going to take on the cost of extending an interstate, or building a new bridge between Lexington and Cincinnati.Hold up there. It does none of those things without taking or borrowing money. That isn't adding to the economy. In fact, the people could have private companies do it cheaper, which they do anyway but we have to funnel the money through government meat hooks to get to them.Isn't that the point?Not unless they are spending it.
Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.
Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes
I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy.
