Lookin' For That Apology...

[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.

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...?

Do you always have to be such a hack asshole? I am reporting on a C-Span broadcast that goes exactly to the heart of the matter concerning the financial difficulties we are experiencing and you the perpetual asshat cannot understand the parallel between the SEC being forced to reduce it's monitoring, investigating and prosecution agencies at the very same time the financial houses were playing "hide the sausage" with the troubled assets.

Yes you fucking moron. There are times when a more robust government agency is GOOD!!!!

 

[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...?

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.

Presumptive arrogance. I'm against it on principle and due to the PORK-LADEN nature of it.

Plod on jackass.

 

[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.

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.

So you're going to tell us that the only government spending you want to cut that would take money out of anyone's pockets is welfare spending?

lolol. And how much does that amount to?

Let me ask you this. If this country did do a meaningful spending reduction, what are you willing to sacrifice?

 

[westwall]

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

Wow, just simply wow. Even CNN has a better grasp on the realities than you do Madeline.

Q&A: Greece's financial crisis explained - CNN.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Presumptive arrogance. I'm against it on principle and due to the PORK-LADEN nature of it.

Plod on jackass.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

...you sit here and argue with me for hours and then admit I'm right.

lol

 

[The T]

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.

Presumptive arrogance. I'm against it on principle and due to the PORK-LADEN nature of it.

Plod on jackass.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

...you sit here and argue with me for hours and then admit I'm right.

lol

But yet...you remain absolutely WRONG.

Sorry Carbonated...you ain't gonna weasel your way outta this and make it look like *I* am at fault.

Now go to the nearest mirror. Someone wants to have a rather revealing CHAT with you.

 

[Trajan]

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.

yes, thats a point worth discussing but if you look you'll find for instance that they knew of Maddoff, but made a conscious decision not to pursue it, bad move that’s for sure, but its not because they were under-staffed.

Its common knowledge by now that their under-staffing didn't stop them from watching porn and playing games on their computers.

I’d say it was a management problem and yes they who were in charge deserve some of the responsibility for that, no doubt.

And the housing meltdown had nothing to do with lack of SEC oversight; we were long past that point Huggy.

 

[Trajan]

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.

So you're going to tell us that the only government spending you want to cut that would take money out of anyone's pockets is welfare spending?

lolol. And how much does that amount to?

Let me ask you this. If this country did do a meaningful spending reduction, what are you willing to sacrifice?

did you watch the you tube video NYC?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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.

Now YOU"RE agreeing with me. I'm saying taxes can't be cut unless spending is cut at the same time. THAT'S my opposition to this GOP/Obama stimulus package.

Now you're saying do it at the same time, but, you won't INSIST on doing it at the same time, you're willing to let them do the easy part, cutting taxes. That never works. The cuts are never made later.

Pay as you go has to work both ways. No spending without paying for it. No tax cuts without paying for them.

 

[Trajan]

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.

so if I told you that people who make say, over 250K, use fewer services, receive fewer goods etc. as compared to people who say make less than 45K which I believe is still the median income for the US, what would you say?

I'd say that has nothing to do with my point. You're arguing FOR running up the deficit and debt, I'm arguing against it.

it is exactly on point, 90% of the fed income taxes are paid by folks who use the fewest services rendered in specie or otherwsie.


You said the gov. does not have a right to gov. they don't pay for......well???

 

[Trajan]

Pay as you go has to work both ways. No spending without paying for it. No tax cuts without paying for them.

so NOW you're a believer in paygo?

 

[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.

yes, thats a point worth discussing but if you look you'll find for instance that they knew of Maddoff, but made a conscious decision not to pursue it, bad move that’s for sure, but its not because they were under-staffed.

Its common knowledge by now that their under-staffing didn't stop them from watching porn and playing games on their computers.

I’d say it was a management problem and yes they who were in charge deserve some of the responsibility for that, no doubt.

And the housing meltdown had nothing to do with lack of SEC oversight; we were long past that point Huggy.

Not according to the witnesses I have been watching for the last hour and a half which include all the top dogs at the SEC.

 

[Madeline]

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.

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.

Hello? I have been banging on spending cuts for weeks now, at least, Dave. But even if we slashed government spending to the bone, we STILL need tax increases to ward off the deficit-induced financial suicide we signed up for.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

DISHONEST only three times?

Lovely, simply lovely.

This is what passes for spirited debate by the left.

 

[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.

DISHONEST only three times?

Lovely, simply lovely.

This is what passes for spirited debate by the left.

I wasn't meaning to be unduly insulting, PC. Just saying, from where I sit your notions are inconsistent.

 

[Madeline]

so if I told you that people who make say, over 250K, use fewer services, receive fewer goods etc. as compared to people who say make less than 45K which I believe is still the median income for the US, what would you say?

I'd say that has nothing to do with my point. You're arguing FOR running up the deficit and debt, I'm arguing against it.

it is exactly on point, 90% of the fed income taxes are paid by folks who use the fewest services rendered in specie or otherwsie.


You said the gov. does not have a right to gov. they don't pay for......well???

I find this incredibly short-sighted, Trajan. The middle class family benefits from the peace, security and sense of hope instilled in the poor by every social program we create -- at least those that don't go completely sideways. Is your family safer or happier is riots break out over food shortages?

Mine certainly is not.

 

[The T]

I'd say that has nothing to do with my point. You're arguing FOR running up the deficit and debt, I'm arguing against it.

it is exactly on point, 90% of the fed income taxes are paid by folks who use the fewest services rendered in specie or otherwsie.


You said the gov. does not have a right to gov. they don't pay for......well???

I find this incredibly short-sighted, Trajan. The middle class family benefits from the peace, security and sense of hope instilled in the poor by every social program we create -- at least those that don't go completely sideways. Is your family safer or happier is riots break out over food shortages?

Mine certainly is not.

But it begs the question as to WHY we are creating ANY programs for people for things they should be doing for themselves?

What is wrong with some of you? When are some of you going to realize that Government is NOT your friend and means to program YOU...with the boubles and trinquests they hand out to make YOU reliant upon THEM and other people?

-Friggin' SHAME-

 

[daveman]

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.

So you're going to tell us that the only government spending you want to cut that would take money out of anyone's pockets is welfare spending?

lolol. And how much does that amount to?

Let me ask you this. If this country did do a meaningful spending reduction, what are you willing to sacrifice?

How many times do I have to tell you idiots before you stop claiming I never told you?

Government waste at it’s finest | Political Realities

 

[daveman]

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.

Now YOU"RE agreeing with me. I'm saying taxes can't be cut unless spending is cut at the same time. THAT'S my opposition to this GOP/Obama stimulus package.

Now you're saying do it at the same time, but, you won't INSIST on doing it at the same time, you're willing to let them do the easy part, cutting taxes. That never works. The cuts are never made later.

Pay as you go has to work both ways. No spending without paying for it. No tax cuts without paying for them.

It's funny the way you pretend you want to decrease the size of the government.

Where have you been the last two years while the Democrats were skyrocketing the deficit?

 

[daveman]

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.

Hello? I have been banging on spending cuts for weeks now, at least, Dave. But even if we slashed government spending to the bone, we STILL need tax increases to ward off the deficit-induced financial suicide we signed up for.

You can't tax a nation into prosperity.