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.
And they were so much smarter when they elected Bush, huh? It was just a sudden virus of dumbass, huh?
Nope. Just what we in democratic republics assume is hopefully best: choice of the People.
It's obviously not best to allow numskulls like to choose how our country is run. That's the fatal flaw in democracy, not its strength. Allowing the stupid to run the country is the reason that democracies inevitably implode.
I never said the more taxes the better, stop putting words in my mouth.
My point is that we can easily afford to fund a proper care for seniors and disabled -- just like Canada or Germany do.
No we can't easily afford more healthcare for anyone. The reason is, healthcare isn't the only expensive issue on the table. It has been demonstrated that if you tax the rich at 100% of earned income, you can't right the fiscal situation.
Again, where are your numbers? Our current deficits are mostly cyclical -- that part appeared when the economy became severely depressed in 2008, but it will go away once the economy is recovered.
As for the structural part of the deficit, I seriously doubt that doubling taxes on 1% (about 70% top marginal rate) would not fix it. But even if it would not, than only means the middle class would have to see a small tax hike. Like it happened under Clinton -- and guess what, nobody died back then.
Again, we can easily afford the entitlement programs in they current form. Reps want you to believe otherwise only because they want to dismantle the welfare state, as they are instructed by their billionaire patrons.
No we can't easily afford more healthcare for anyone. The reason is, healthcare isn't the only expensive issue on the table. It has been demonstrated that if you tax the rich at 100% of earned income, you can't right the fiscal situation.
Again, where are your numbers? Our current deficits are mostly cyclical -- that part appeared when the economy became severely depressed in 2008, but it will go away once the economy is recovered.
As for the structural part of the deficit, I seriously doubt that doubling taxes on 1% (about 70% top marginal rate) would not fix it. But even if it would not, than only means the middle class would have to see a small tax hike. Like it happened under Clinton -- and guess what, nobody died back then.
Again, we can easily afford the entitlement programs in they current form. Reps want you to believe otherwise only because they want to dismantle the welfare state, as they are instructed by their billionaire patrons.
Yes...the GOP wants to cater to only 1% of the electorate.
No we can't easily afford more healthcare for anyone. The reason is, healthcare isn't the only expensive issue on the table. It has been demonstrated that if you tax the rich at 100% of earned income, you can't right the fiscal situation.
Again, where are your numbers? Our current deficits are mostly cyclical -- that part appeared when the economy became severely depressed in 2008, but it will go away once the economy is recovered.
As for the structural part of the deficit, I seriously doubt that doubling taxes on 1% (about 70% top marginal rate) would not fix it. But even if it would not, than only means the middle class would have to see a small tax hike. Like it happened under Clinton -- and guess what, nobody died back then.
Again, we can easily afford the entitlement programs in they current form. Reps want you to believe otherwise only because they want to dismantle the welfare state, as they are instructed by their billionaire patrons.
Yes...the GOP wants to cater to only 1% of the electorate.
That, in itself, is moronic thinking.
Is moronic a word? I assume you would know for if it was, you likely have had it hurled toward you more often than once.
Nope. Just what we in democratic republics assume is hopefully best: choice of the People.
It's obviously not best to allow numskulls like to choose how our country is run. That's the fatal flaw in democracy, not its strength. Allowing the stupid to run the country is the reason that democracies inevitably implode.
Perhaps. But our little experiment in what Cicero thought was a good idea, is still around. And whadaya know. It's a military, political and economic power the world had yet to see. Double the GDP of China, with fewer than half as many people. But they, like you, are none too keen on democracy. How's your Cantonese?
Meanwhile, what other parts of the Constitution do ya'll wish were not in it?
It's obviously not best to allow numskulls like to choose how our country is run. That's the fatal flaw in democracy, not its strength. Allowing the stupid to run the country is the reason that democracies inevitably implode.
Perhaps. But our little experiment in what Cicero thought was a good idea, is still around. And whadaya know. It's a military, political and economic power the world had yet to see. Double the GDP of China, with fewer than half as many people. But they, like you, are none too keen on democracy. How's your Cantonese?
Meanwhile, what other parts of the Constitution do ya'll wish were not in it?
Being against Democracy doesn't automatically make you for a totalitarian dictatorship. What I favor is removing government from as many spheres of society is possible. Government is always a bad way to run any sphere of human endeavor. It should be eliminated from society to the maximum extent feasible, not vastly expended until it has its tentacles into every crevice of society.
It's obviously not best to allow numskulls like to choose how our country is run. That's the fatal flaw in democracy, not its strength. Allowing the stupid to run the country is the reason that democracies inevitably implode.
Perhaps. But our little experiment in what Cicero thought was a good idea, is still around. And whadaya know. It's a military, political and economic power the world had yet to see. Double the GDP of China, with fewer than half as many people. But they, like you, are none too keen on democracy. How's your Cantonese?
Meanwhile, what other parts of the Constitution do ya'll wish were not in it?
Being against Democracy doesn't automatically make you for a totalitarian dictatorship. What I favor is removing government from as many spheres of society is possible. Government is always a bad way to run any sphere of human endeavor. It should be eliminated from society to the maximum extent feasible, not vastly expended until it has its tentacles into every crevice of society.
Again, where are your numbers? Our current deficits are mostly cyclical -- that part appeared when the economy became severely depressed in 2008, but it will go away once the economy is recovered.
As for the structural part of the deficit, I seriously doubt that doubling taxes on 1% (about 70% top marginal rate) would not fix it. But even if it would not, than only means the middle class would have to see a small tax hike. Like it happened under Clinton -- and guess what, nobody died back then.
Again, we can easily afford the entitlement programs in they current form. Reps want you to believe otherwise only because they want to dismantle the welfare state, as they are instructed by their billionaire patrons.
Yes...the GOP wants to cater to only 1% of the electorate.
Why else would they lie about the entitlement programs being unsustainable unless they are cut?
oh so your simply refering the Paul Ryan budget which has since been trashed by both sides. so what is the GOP proposing now? other than nothing? they havent put a proposal forth yet during this current debate. yet the president has. so whos at fault here?youre a moron. you deride the presidents plans, but are more than willing to accept that fact the GOP doesnt have a plan at all.When have I ever claimed the Republicans had some master plan?
There are no cuts in that plan, only tax increases. The "cuts" refers to the imaginary cuts in the deficit Obama claims, not any cuts in his boondoggle spending.
wingnut logic from a wingnut.
The GOP house has presented budget after budget for 3 years with their proposed cuts in spending. The democratic senate wouldnt even vote on it.
So the GOP is saying...."fine...you know what we want to cut, you wont consider it...so tell us what you want to cut"
You havent been paying attention for the last 4 years.
youre a moron. you deride the presidents plans, but are more than willing to accept that fact the GOP doesnt have a plan at all.
wingnut logic from a wingnut.
Perhaps. But our little experiment in what Cicero thought was a good idea, is still around. And whadaya know. It's a military, political and economic power the world had yet to see. Double the GDP of China, with fewer than half as many people. But they, like you, are none too keen on democracy. How's your Cantonese?
Meanwhile, what other parts of the Constitution do ya'll wish were not in it?
Being against Democracy doesn't automatically make you for a totalitarian dictatorship. What I favor is removing government from as many spheres of society is possible. Government is always a bad way to run any sphere of human endeavor. It should be eliminated from society to the maximum extent feasible, not vastly expended until it has its tentacles into every crevice of society.
Oops. No guvmint. Somalia it is! Enjoy the trip and keep an eye peeled for pirates.
the CEO of Goldman Sach calls Obama's plan credible. pretty sure he's about 1000x more intelligent than you are.youre a moron. you deride the presidents plans, but are more than willing to accept that fact the GOP doesnt have a plan at all.
wingnut logic from a wingnut.
Sorry, but there's no logical connection between those to claims. Whether the GOP has a plan or not has no bearing on whether the president's plans are idiotic. Obama claimed he had a "balanced" plan, so he's on the hook for one. Where's the balance? Where are the spending cuts to balance his revenue increases?
The Republicans never claimed to have a plan, so they aren't on the hook for one. I know that Obama fluffers like you are wishing desperately for the Republicans to fall on their sword and offer up a pile of spending cuts that you can use to paint them as "mean" and "callous" with, but they just aren't going to do it.
Perhaps. But our little experiment in what Cicero thought was a good idea, is still around. And whadaya know. It's a military, political and economic power the world had yet to see. Double the GDP of China, with fewer than half as many people. But they, like you, are none too keen on democracy. How's your Cantonese?
Meanwhile, what other parts of the Constitution do ya'll wish were not in it?
Being against Democracy doesn't automatically make you for a totalitarian dictatorship. What I favor is removing government from as many spheres of society is possible. Government is always a bad way to run any sphere of human endeavor. It should be eliminated from society to the maximum extent feasible, not vastly expended until it has its tentacles into every crevice of society.
Monarchy? The weather in Saudi Arabia is nice currently. How's your Arabic?
Being against Democracy doesn't automatically make you for a totalitarian dictatorship. What I favor is removing government from as many spheres of society is possible. Government is always a bad way to run any sphere of human endeavor. It should be eliminated from society to the maximum extent feasible, not vastly expended until it has its tentacles into every crevice of society.
Monarchy? The weather in Saudi Arabia is nice currently. How's your Arabic?
Are you intent on proving you're a jackass?
How does Saudi Arabia fit the description of "as little government as possible?"
the CEO of Goldman Sach calls Obama's plan credible. pretty sure he's about 1000x more intelligent than you are.
Blankfein Calls Obama's Fiscal Cliff Plan "Credible" - Business Insider
According to CNBC's Katie Little, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein characterized Obama's fiscal cliff plan as "very credible" and expressed optimism about a deal getting done.
the CEO of Goldman Sach calls Obama's plan credible. pretty sure he's about 1000x more intelligent than you are.
Blankfein Calls Obama's Fiscal Cliff Plan "Credible" - Business Insider
According to CNBC's Katie Little, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein characterized Obama's fiscal cliff plan as "very credible" and expressed optimism about a deal getting done.
Yeah, right. Goldman Sachs has never received any benefits from the Obama administration, have they? What possible ulterior motive could they have for brown nosing the president?
the CEO of Goldman Sach calls Obama's plan credible. pretty sure he's about 1000x more intelligent than you are.
Blankfein Calls Obama's Fiscal Cliff Plan "Credible" - Business Insider
According to CNBC's Katie Little, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein characterized Obama's fiscal cliff plan as "very credible" and expressed optimism about a deal getting done.
Yeah, right. Goldman Sachs has never received any benefits from the Obama administration, have they? What possible ulterior motive could they have for brown nosing the president?
Sure. But only for a short while. Paulson's Treasury (the department) was a Goldman branch office.
