Lookin' For That Apology...

[NYcarbineer]

Only a True Statist would equate letting people keep more of the money they earned with taking money away from them to give to others.

The People do not have a right to government they won't pay for. The government spending is there NOW. That debt is owed. Only a true Free Lunch Freeloader would want the government to borrow money to pay for its operations so his taxes could be lowered.

Only a true Free Lunch Freeloader would want the government to take money from other citizens to pay for his life.

I have no dependents and no deductions of any consequence so I am currently paying at least as much in taxes as anyone in my bracket.

We're talking about borrowing money to pay for this newest stimulus package btw. You're for it, I'm against it.

And btw, since you are a government employee who depends on tax dollars for your living, you're the last person who should be going on about anyone wanting the government to take money from others to pay for his life.

You want the government to borrow your wages from the Chinese, the Saudis, and any or all of our friends and enemies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's a start. Spending has to be cut, too.

Then why won't you oppose tax cuts unless they are accompanied by spending cuts?

Like I said...it's a start.

Heh. The GOP-led House isn't even seated yet, and you're complaining they haven't done anything.

You know they'll never make the cuts. No tax cut in the past 30 years has ever been followed up with proportionate spending cuts, and every tax cut in the past 30 years has been accompanied by some promise of some sort of 'future' cuts.

You are an accomplice to the tax cut death spiral. You are a fiscally irresponsible enabler.

So then, leftist claims that tax cuts don't increase revenues must be wrong, huh?

Tax cuts plus spending cuts are the only way to prosperity. What you advocate is economic suicide.

What? That makes no sense. The tax cut death spiral started with Reagan in 1981. We were less than a trilliion dollars in debt then; we're at 14 trillion now. And about to add another trillion in one stroke.

No, tax cuts have never paid for themselves. They no more increase revenue than getting a lower paying job would pay off your debt faster. It's so comically absurd that it is astounding (or the better word I'm waiting for) that anyone can believe.

It's the Free Lunch Myth. And of course people love it. People are easily susceptible to believe something that sounds too good to be true.

 

[The T]

The People do not have a right to government they won't pay for. The government spending is there NOW. That debt is owed. Only a true Free Lunch Freeloader would want the government to borrow money to pay for its operations so his taxes could be lowered.

Only a true Free Lunch Freeloader would want the government to take money from other citizens to pay for his life.

I have no dependents and no deductions of any consequence so I am currently paying at least as much in taxes as anyone in my bracket.

We're talking about borrowing money to pay for this newest stimulus package btw. You're for it, I'm against it.

And btw, since you are a government employee who depends on tax dollars for your living, you're the last person who should be going on about anyone wanting the government to take money from others to pay for his life.

You want the government to borrow your wages from the Chinese, the Saudis, and any or all of our friends and enemies.

What presumptive fucking arrogance on your part. Ever heard of serving one's country to be willing to lay down your life for other's for their LIBERTY.

You carbonated are a giant asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Things will start to get better once the Republican House is seated in January. The Senate will still be a bit of a mess though. The Socialist Wingers still control it and i'm sure they'll continue to do everything they can to fuck the country up some more. Hopefully the Republicans can talk some sense into them though. But don't count on that. One thing is for sure...It's time to wave bye bye to this Dem-Led Worst Congress in History. The sooner they're gone,the better.

And what, exactly, are the GOP's plans for 2011? Reducing the size of government? Then they'll come up with 900 billion in cuts that will pay for this new stimulus package?

And no one will be adversely affected economically when they do that eh? The GOP has a plan to unstimulate the economy that won't cost a single person his job? Won't cost a single company a government contract?

Seriously, I want to see the GOP Congress sell austerity as a pain-free cure for what ails us.

That should be funny.

 

[rightwinger]

Then why won't you oppose tax cuts unless they are accompanied by spending cuts?

Like I said...it's a start.

Heh. The GOP-led House isn't even seated yet, and you're complaining they haven't done anything.

You know they'll never make the cuts. No tax cut in the past 30 years has ever been followed up with proportionate spending cuts, and every tax cut in the past 30 years has been accompanied by some promise of some sort of 'future' cuts.

You are an accomplice to the tax cut death spiral. You are a fiscally irresponsible enabler.

So then, leftist claims that tax cuts don't increase revenues must be wrong, huh?

Tax cuts plus spending cuts are the only way to prosperity. What you advocate is economic suicide.

What? That makes no sense. The tax cut death spiral started with Reagan in 1981. We were less than a trilliion dollars in debt then; we're at 14 trillion now. And about to add another trillion in one stroke.

No, tax cuts have never paid for themselves. They no more increase revenue than getting a lower paying job would pay off your debt faster. It's so comically absurd that it is astounding (or the better word I'm waiting for) that anyone can believe.

It's the Free Lunch Myth. And of course people love it. People are easily susceptible to believe something that sounds too good to be true.

Every time we have had significant tax cuts we have used the deficit to pay for them. Reagan tripled the deficit for his, Bush doubled the deficit for his

Don't we ever learn?

 

[SFC Ollie]

And of course the Dems assume that this deal will cost 900 billion. I've also heard 700 Billion. But either way they are assuming that the taxes would have been raised and counting that money as having already been in their grubby little hands.

Notice I did not say tax cuts. Because they were tax cuts yesterday, if they are suspended they will be tax raises.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.”

This has been the biggest issue with Obama. Its the reason why if the GOP runs a legitimately sane candidate, they'll win in 2012.

I can't regret voting against a ticket that included Sarah Palin, just as I can't regret voting against the Kerry/Edwards dumb and dumber ticket in 2004. If a party wants my vote, they have to run a better candidate than the other side. I never liked Bush and at this point I feel about the same way when it comes to Obama. But if you run someone worse than the current idiot no one likes, don't complain when you lose.

We'll see who the GOP put up in 2012. I'd imagine that as long as the ticket doesn't include Palin, or someone of her stripe, I'm likely to vote GOP in 2012. Obama's turned out to be just too weak to stand up to anyone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.”

This has been the biggest issue with Obama. Its the reason why if the GOP runs a legitimately sane candidate, they'll win in 2012.

I can't regret voting against a ticket that included Sarah Palin, just as I can't regret voting against the Kerry/Edwards dumb and dumber ticket in 2004. If a party wants my vote, they have to run a better candidate than the other side. I never liked Bush and at this point I feel about the same way when it comes to Obama. But if you run someone worse than the current idiot no one likes, don't complain when you lose.

We'll see who the GOP put up in 2012. I'd imagine that as long as the ticket doesn't include Palin, or someone of her stripe, I'm likely to vote GOP in 2012. Obama's turned out to be just too weak to stand up to anyone.

This is a too darned reasonable post for this board!

Are you sure you didn't wander in through the wrong door?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.”

This has been the biggest issue with Obama. Its the reason why if the GOP runs a legitimately sane candidate, they'll win in 2012.

I can't regret voting against a ticket that included Sarah Palin, just as I can't regret voting against the Kerry/Edwards dumb and dumber ticket in 2004. If a party wants my vote, they have to run a better candidate than the other side. I never liked Bush and at this point I feel about the same way when it comes to Obama. But if you run someone worse than the current idiot no one likes, don't complain when you lose.

We'll see who the GOP put up in 2012. I'd imagine that as long as the ticket doesn't include Palin, or someone of her stripe, I'm likely to vote GOP in 2012. Obama's turned out to be just too weak to stand up to anyone.

This is a too darned reasonable post for this board!

Are you sure you didn't wander in through the wrong door?

Just taking a few minutes off while grading Final Exams. I'll go back to venting anger soonish.

But in all seriousness, I soured on Obama after the second clash with McChrystal (is that right, I'm getting forgetful). He's the Commander in Chief, he ought to act like it. There shouldn't have been a first clash, much less a second one.

 

[boedicca]

And of course the Dems assume that this deal will cost 900 billion. I've also heard 700 Billion. But either way they are assuming that the taxes would have been raised and counting that money as having already been in their grubby little hands.

Notice I did not say tax cuts. Because they were tax cuts yesterday, if they are suspended they will be tax raises.

Indeed. Taxes going up if the rates are not extended is an increase.

Which is something which anyone who can do basic math and is in possession of intellectual integrity would understand.

 

[HUGGY]

I'm watching the SEC hearing from Wednesday on C-Span right now and the Chairman testified that between 2005 and 2007 they were forced to downsize 10 percent in personnel during that period decimating thier investigation and prosecution capability which led directly to our financial crisis. Maybe you should ask George Bush and the Republican congress for an apology for all of us.

For you who think a smaller government is always better...tell that to yourself and your neighbors as we all pay for these "mistakes/thefts" in our taxes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm watching the SEC hearing from Wednesday on C-Span right now and the Chairman testified that between 2005 and 2007 they were forced to downsize 10 percent in personnel during that period decimating thier investigation and prosecution capability which led directly to our financial crisis. Maybe you should ask George Bush and the Republican congress for an apology for all of us.

For you who think a smaller government is always better...tell that to yourself and your neighbors as we all pay for these "mistakes/thefts" in our taxes.

You have quite an amazing grasp of fantasy.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why the Enron scandal erupted via the Bush SEC and escaped notice under Clinton's.

"...our financial crisis."
It is too long to begin now, but in summary, 'our financial crisis' can be timelined as follows:
1. Fanny and Freddy, 1938, Democrat FDR
2. CRA, 1979, Democrat Carter
3. Democrat Cuomo HUD Sec'y under Democrat Clinton.
4. Demorats Dodd and Frank.

Pick up a book....that seems to be the only four letter word you don't know.

 

[The T]

I'm watching the SEC hearing from Wednesday on C-Span right now and the Chairman testified that between 2005 and 2007 they were forced to downsize 10 percent in personnel during that period decimating thier investigation and prosecution capability which led directly to our financial crisis. Maybe you should ask George Bush and the Republican congress for an apology for all of us.

For you who think a smaller government is always better...tell that to yourself and your neighbors as we all pay for these "mistakes/thefts" in our taxes.

Smaller Government is ALWAYS the way...or do you prefer a Government that promises to be everything to everyone...until the money runs out and that government's debt is margin called and they cannot pay it?

As we are seeing in England, Greece, France...?

 

[Madeline]

I think we can agree one reason Greece is tanking is because it lacks the political will to impose reasonable regulations on business.

 

[NYcarbineer]

“This is a lack of leadership on the part of Obama,” fumed Moran (D-Va.) “I don’t know where the f*** Obama is on this or anything else. They’re AWOL.”

This has been the biggest issue with Obama. Its the reason why if the GOP runs a legitimately sane candidate, they'll win in 2012.

I can't regret voting against a ticket that included Sarah Palin, just as I can't regret voting against the Kerry/Edwards dumb and dumber ticket in 2004. If a party wants my vote, they have to run a better candidate than the other side. I never liked Bush and at this point I feel about the same way when it comes to Obama. But if you run someone worse than the current idiot no one likes, don't complain when you lose.

We'll see who the GOP put up in 2012. I'd imagine that as long as the ticket doesn't include Palin, or someone of her stripe, I'm likely to vote GOP in 2012. Obama's turned out to be just too weak to stand up to anyone.

Unless you have no set of personal political beliefs and vote for presidents only on issues of character, you should not abandon the idea of the lesser of 2 evils. An Obama who has little stomach for holding back the GOP's disastorous agenda is a far less evil than a Republican president who would go to the whip to push that agenda forward.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm watching the SEC hearing from Wednesday on C-Span right now and the Chairman testified that between 2005 and 2007 they were forced to downsize 10 percent in personnel during that period decimating thier investigation and prosecution capability which led directly to our financial crisis. Maybe you should ask George Bush and the Republican congress for an apology for all of us.

For you who think a smaller government is always better...tell that to yourself and your neighbors as we all pay for these "mistakes/thefts" in our taxes.

Smaller Government is ALWAYS the way...or do you prefer a Government that promises to be everything to everyone...until the money runs out and that government's debt is margin called and they cannot pay it?

As we are seeing in England, Greece, France...?

The current tax stimulus bill that you are now joining Obama to support is promising to boost the economy and make everything wonderful again by BORROWING more and more and more money.

 

[daveman]

The People do not have a right to government they won't pay for. The government spending is there NOW. That debt is owed. Only a true Free Lunch Freeloader would want the government to borrow money to pay for its operations so his taxes could be lowered.

Only a true Free Lunch Freeloader would want the government to take money from other citizens to pay for his life.

I have no dependents and no deductions of any consequence so I am currently paying at least as much in taxes as anyone in my bracket.

We're talking about borrowing money to pay for this newest stimulus package btw. You're for it, I'm against it.

And btw, since you are a government employee who depends on tax dollars for your living, you're the last person who should be going on about anyone wanting the government to take money from others to pay for his life.

You want the government to borrow your wages from the Chinese, the Saudis, and any or all of our friends and enemies.

Gee, imagine that. One more idiot leftist who can't tell the difference between a military member who earns his pay and benefits, and a welfare recipient who merely has to breathe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Only a true Free Lunch Freeloader would want the government to take money from other citizens to pay for his life.

I have no dependents and no deductions of any consequence so I am currently paying at least as much in taxes as anyone in my bracket.

We're talking about borrowing money to pay for this newest stimulus package btw. You're for it, I'm against it.

And btw, since you are a government employee who depends on tax dollars for your living, you're the last person who should be going on about anyone wanting the government to take money from others to pay for his life.

You want the government to borrow your wages from the Chinese, the Saudis, and any or all of our friends and enemies.

What presumptive fucking arrogance on your part. Ever heard of serving one's country to be willing to lay down your life for other's for their LIBERTY.

You carbonated are a giant asshole.

I'm a veteran. I don't get a boner over it though. Calm down. The military is the ultimate exercise in Statism. The bigger, the more Statist.

 

[Madeline]

PC, it seems dishonest to me to point to all the fraud committed by businesses in the recent past and in the same breath, advocate for lower levels of regulation so we can "unburden business". It seems dishonest to me to pretend to care about the nightmare the deficit is going to create and yet at the same time, advocate for a ginormous tax break for the wealthiest among us. It seems dishonest to say the issue is the economy but then, once the election has passed, alter the message to say no, not really -- it's earmarks.

Do I truely believe McCain would have done a better job? No, but that's partially because I don't happen to think our economic woes can be solved by government this time. They can, however, be made far worse by government -- and some of what you agitate for seems to me to be precisely the sort of government act that may expose us to such harm.

 

[daveman]

Then why won't you oppose tax cuts unless they are accompanied by spending cuts?

Like I said...it's a start.

Heh. The GOP-led House isn't even seated yet, and you're complaining they haven't done anything.

You know they'll never make the cuts. No tax cut in the past 30 years has ever been followed up with proportionate spending cuts, and every tax cut in the past 30 years has been accompanied by some promise of some sort of 'future' cuts.

You are an accomplice to the tax cut death spiral. You are a fiscally irresponsible enabler.

So then, leftist claims that tax cuts don't increase revenues must be wrong, huh?

Tax cuts plus spending cuts are the only way to prosperity. What you advocate is economic suicide.

What? That makes no sense. The tax cut death spiral started with Reagan in 1981. We were less than a trilliion dollars in debt then; we're at 14 trillion now. And about to add another trillion in one stroke.

No, tax cuts have never paid for themselves. They no more increase revenue than getting a lower paying job would pay off your debt faster. It's so comically absurd that it is astounding (or the better word I'm waiting for) that anyone can believe.

It's the Free Lunch Myth. And of course people love it. People are easily susceptible to believe something that sounds too good to be true.

Of course it makes sense. If spending is cut at the same time taxes are lowered, the debt would be paid off in short order.

What you don't want to do is cut spending -- because you'd lose a lot of Democrat voters.