Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Re-inventing the languageFollow

#1 Apr 13 2011 at 1:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Huh! So apparently "tax increase" has been relabeled as "decreasing tax expenditures". Gotta love the implications of that one. Anyone still doubt that the political left views our earnings as belonging to the government?

Obama seems to think that rasing taxes is the same as a spending cut. I was watching that speech and my jaw literally dropped. I've always said that this is how the left views private property, but this is the first time I've seen a US president so brazenly use this sort of language. Amazing!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#2 Apr 13 2011 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,300 posts
gbaji wrote:
Huh! So apparently "tax increase" has been relabeled as "decreasing tax expenditures". Gotta love the implications of that one. Anyone still doubt that the political left views our earnings as belonging to the government?

Obama seems to think that rasing taxes is the same as a spending cut. I was watching that speech and my jaw literally dropped. I've always said that this is how the left views private property, but this is the first time I've seen a US president so brazenly use this sort of language. Amazing!
Since these threads are just thinly veiled petty arguments of left vs. right when anyone with half an IQ point can see that the only difference in the arguments is based solely on who's in charge this week, I'll just point out that a topic about reinventing language with spelling errors is kind of funny.

My solutions: Legalize prostitution and marijuana, tax them the same as cigarettes.

Edit: And inadvertently I've also just created more jobs.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:02pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Apr 13 2011 at 2:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
I'll take a closer look, but a quick Ctrl + F of "decreasing tax expenditures" found 0 results, and "tax expenditures" yielded one:
Quote:
I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit.


A quick Google search of the term yielded this business week article:
Quote:
Obama in a speech today urged Congress to raise money by eliminating so-called tax expenditures, which would generate revenue that could be used to reduce tax rates and also increase the government’s take from the economy. He didn’t provide details about which tax breaks he would curtail or eliminate.

The largest U.S. tax expenditures include the deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions and the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.


According to the definition:
Quote:
Loss of revenue attributable to an exemption, deduction, preference, or other exclusion under federal tax law


Considering a lot of the rest of the business week article spoke about simplifying the tax code, it seems that eliminating the expenditures is the same as taking out exceptions.

You're right in that taxes would go up, assuming you are an exceptional case currently below the actual tax rate. Again, just a quick 3 minutes of looking it up.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 4:05pm by LockeColeMA
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#4 Apr 13 2011 at 2:08 PM Rating: Default
****
4,150 posts
Tax increase is Decreasing tax expenditures, War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength.


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#5 Apr 13 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama redefined the language when he wrote:
My budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2% of Americans – a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over ten years. But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. That’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple – so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford. I believe reform should protect the middle class, promote economic growth, and build on the Fiscal Commission’s model of reducing tax expenditures so that there is enough savings to both lower rates and lower the deficit. And as I called for in the State of the Union, we should reform our corporate tax code as well, to make our businesses and our economy more competitive.

So pretty much the same thing I thought sounded good in November 2010 when the bipartisan debt commission recommended it?

Golly, I'm EVER so upset!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6gbaji, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 2:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Ah. So you wont speak up because they aren't coming for you yet, huh? It's ok as long as it's not you paying the extra taxes. Lol...
#7gbaji, Posted: Apr 13 2011 at 2:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yeah. The one that was "doomed to failure"? I don't think anyone was upset, just sure it wouldn't work. So nothing really new on that front. I was mainly pointing out the blatant use of the language swap to label a negative as a positive. He's making "raising taxes" sound like "reducing spending". Want to take any guesses as to how many hours it'll be before some pundit will insist that conservatives should get behind the Obama plan because it "cuts spending" just like they want?
#8 Apr 13 2011 at 2:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
You're right in that taxes would go up, assuming you are an exceptional case currently below the actual tax rate. Again, just a quick 3 minutes of looking it up.


Ah. So you wont speak up because they aren't coming for you yet, huh? It's ok as long as it's not you paying the extra taxes. Lol...


Wow, you're warped Smiley: dubious

So your post is saying, "Obama says he's raising taxes, but only comes out and says it once, and even then when he uses the words 'raising taxes' it's in a negative way, so, uh, it's bad!! But you're content because it's not affecting you!"

I don't even know if it would affect me... I guess the best I can say is... congrats on getting upset over nothing?

This entire post could have been made much shorter if you just said "Obama's going to raise taxes by reducing exemptions and I disagree with his views and presentation." Much more direct, and just as pointless.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#9 Apr 13 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. The one that was "doomed to failure"?

Hey, if I'm wrong about it being doomed to failure, it'll be the happiest kind of wrong :)

Quote:
Want to take any guesses as to how many hours it'll be before some pundit will insist that conservatives should get behind the Obama plan because it "cuts spending" just like they want?

Not really. I don't have the same pathological need to scream "Media!!" every twenty seconds that you do.

So the commission recommended reducing expenditures and Obama used the phrase "reducing expenditures" and now I'm supposed to get all a-fluster because some pundit might say it. Well.... hrmmm...

I'm gonna save my outrage for just a little bit, ok?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Apr 13 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Quote:
Want to take any guesses as to how many hours it'll be before some pundit will insist that conservatives should get behind the Obama plan because it "cuts spending" just like they want?

Not really. I don't have the same pathological need to scream "Media!!" every twenty seconds that you do.

So the commission recommended reducing expenditures and Obama used the phrase "reducing expenditures" and now I'm supposed to get all a-fluster because some pundit might say it. Well.... hrmmm...

I'm gonna save my outrage for just a little bit, ok?


I think the other part is that his plan does call for cutting spending in certain areas, including social services, defense, and healthcare. If a pundit comes out and says that reducing expenditures is cutting spending, then by all means mock them for not understanding the concepts. If they come out and say Obama's plan will cut spending - they're telling the truth.
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#11 Apr 13 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
So your post is saying, "Obama says he's raising taxes, but only comes out and says it once, and even then when he uses the words 'raising taxes' it's in a negative way, so, uh, it's bad!! But you're content because it's not affecting you!"


No, my point is that once again we see the Dems twisting language around in order to make doing something that is the opposite of what the people want sound like they're doing what the people want. It's that by using those phrases, the media will repeat them over and over and insist that Obama is really just cutting spending.

It's the same thing they did when they argued for "tax credits" for the poor, and called them "tax cuts". Then they argued that they were cutting taxes by doing this. In that case, they relabeled a spending increase as a tax cut. And now they're bringing it full circle and labeling a tax increase as a spending cut.

I'm just pointing out the inherent deception to the language.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#12 Apr 13 2011 at 2:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
So the commission recommended reducing expenditures and Obama used the phrase "reducing expenditures" and now I'm supposed to get all a-fluster because some pundit might say it. Well.... hrmmm...


Remember waaaaaay back when Obama was running for President and I was pointing to him promising increased social programs (spending) *and* cutting the deficit *and* not raising taxes? Remember when I said that it was mathematically impossible to do all three? And remember when I predicted that he would do the increased spending, this would result in an increased deficit, and he'd use that deficit to argue for tax increases instead of decreases, thus making his promise a lie? Oh. He'd say that it was unavoidable and use nice words to make it sound all necessary and whatnot, but the end result would be tax increases if we elected him.


Yeah. I was right. Shocker!

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 2:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#13 Apr 13 2011 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
gbaji wrote:

I'm just pointing out the inherent deception to the language.


Hey, welcome to politics. I do see your view, I just don't understand the point. Politicians phrase things to sound better for their cause? He didn't lie at all (even said "raising taxes" right after, by your own admission). At least he didn't lie outright (like Senator Kyl, as we discussed before), or try to spin it in completely nonsensical ways ("Don't retreat, reload!", as per you).
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#14 Apr 13 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Obama was talking about allowing the tax cuts on the upper brackets to expire since forever.

Way to call it?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#15 Apr 13 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night. It was boring. Really boring. So boring, it doesn't warrant it's own thread. Even more depressing is that the only leader who didn't come off as completely useless was the rabid little ********** Jack Layton.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#16 Apr 13 2011 at 2:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
the rabid little sh*tstain, Jack Layton.

His curious village ****** me the **** off >:(
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Apr 13 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.

No, it really isn't.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#18 Apr 13 2011 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.
No, it really isn't.

You wanted a special Canada thread?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Apr 13 2011 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.

No, it really isn't.
Sure it is. Its a pointless topic within another pointless topic.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#20 Apr 13 2011 at 3:00 PM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
We have an OOT for that kind of trivial sh:t. Favorite Color, Best Anime, *** board, Canadian politics. I sense a theme over there.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#21 Apr 13 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Over there, it would have gotten 50+ responses. My hope was to throw it out there and have it completely ignored, which is why I put it here.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#22 Apr 13 2011 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
MoebiusLord wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
This looks like as good a place as any to talk about Canada's Leaders debate from last night.

No, it really isn't.
Sure it is. Its a pointless topic within another pointless topic.


Posting to confirm the above statement, and all other debate related statements are true. What a waste of time and money.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#23 Apr 13 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Ah, so worried about the rate downs.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#24 Apr 13 2011 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
MoebiusLord wrote:
Ah, so worried about the rate downs.
If I was worried about that, I'd never agree with anything you say.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#25 Apr 13 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Decent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Yeah, but you can't be worried about rates & be smart at the same time, so good call.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#26 Apr 13 2011 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This thread is on the move Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Apr 13 2011 at 3:47 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
lolgaxe wrote:


My solutions: Legalize prostitution and marijuana, tax them the same as cigarettes.



I like your solutions, but I think they should be taxed much more heavily than cigarettes.

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#28 Apr 13 2011 at 3:48 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I'm just pointing out the inherent deception to the language.


Hey, welcome to politics. I do see your view, I just don't understand the point. Politicians phrase things to sound better for their cause?


There's a difference between making things sound better (like using the phrase "raising taxes" in a negative and distanced way like I pointed out earlier), and making things sound like they are the exact opposite of what they actually are.

The point of cutting government spending is to reduce the total cost of government. The point of doing that is to reduce the total amount of taxes which must be paid by the people to cover for that cost. The ultimate objective is to reduce that total amount of taxes (the economic footprint of the government).

Spending cuts are a means to achieve the goal of lower total taxes. A "spending cut" which is actually an increase in taxes runs completely counter to that objective. Using such a label deliberately to get the people to accept the opposite of what they want makes said language a lie. The clear intent is to deceive. He wants people to accept tax increases by relabeling them "spending cuts".

You do get this, right?

And Joph? We all know he's been talking about allowing those cuts to expire. But he lost that battle, didn't he? And what he's proposing now goes several steps beyond even that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Apr 13 2011 at 3:58 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:

I'm just pointing out the inherent deception to the language.


Hey, welcome to politics. I do see your view, I just don't understand the point. Politicians phrase things to sound better for their cause?


There's a difference between making things sound better (like using the phrase "raising taxes" in a negative and distanced way like I pointed out earlier), and making things sound like they are the exact opposite of what they actually are.

The point of cutting government spending is to reduce the total cost of government. The point of doing that is to reduce the total amount of taxes which must be paid by the people to cover for that cost. The ultimate objective is to reduce that total amount of taxes (the economic footprint of the government).

Spending cuts are a means to achieve the goal of lower total taxes. A "spending cut" which is actually an increase in taxes runs completely counter to that objective. Using such a label deliberately to get the people to accept the opposite of what they want makes said language a lie. The clear intent is to deceive. He wants people to accept tax increases by relabeling them "spending cuts".

You do get this, right?

And Joph? We all know he's been talking about allowing those cuts to expire. But he lost that battle, didn't he? And what he's proposing now goes several steps beyond even that.
Cutting spending AND taxes doesn't significantly impact the deficit though. That just reduces the funding for programs you don't like without actually addressing the issue of debt.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#30 Apr 13 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
I feel what it really comes down to are the goals.

-Republicans want tax cuts. Best way to do that? Cut spending on social programs to make cuts for certain portions of the population more palatable.
-Democrats want social programs. Best way to do that? Raise taxes on a certain portion of the population using rhetoric to make it more palatable.
-The American population at large wants a balanced budget. Best, likely only, way to do that? Reduce spending (especially on the big three sacred cows: social security, defense, and Medicare/Medicaid) AND raise taxes.

And no party is offering that Smiley: glare
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#31 Apr 13 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
bsphil wrote:
Cutting spending AND taxes doesn't significantly impact the deficit though. That just reduces the funding for programs you don't like without actually addressing the issue of debt.


The goal isn't about balancing the budget (although that's obviously an important consideration). The goal is to reduce the tax burden of the government on the people. Balancing the budget by increasing that burden is the wrong answer, doubly so when it's clear that the budget was placed out of balance because of spending increases. The correct answer is to cut spending to balance out the increased spending over the last couple years. That way taxes stay the same and the budget is balanced (or at least out of the danger zone).


Let me step out of partisan mode for a moment and make an observation. It's something I've commented on in the past, but it bears repeating. Liberals and conservatives really do speak different languages when it comes to spending and taxes. For liberals, the goal is for government to do as much as it can to improve the socio-economic conditions of the people. For conservatives, the goal is for government to do the minimum it must to allow maximum liberty for the people. This often leads us to arguing over each other. The liberal supports some new social program because it is inline with his goals. The conservative opposes that program because it will cost money, which will require additional taxes, which is in opposition to his.

The "talking over each other" comes in because the liberal assumes that the conservative opposes the new program because he wants people to suffer without it. He interprets the conservatives actions within the context of how he views the issue. The conservative does the same sort of thing, believing that the liberal doesn't care about freedom and liberty because he's constantly trying to increase the size, scope, power, and cost of the government. Heck. I almost did this two paragraphs above. I almost wrote the following:

"..., doubly so when it's clear that the budget was placed out of balance deliberately in order to require additional taxes to pay for the difference".

I then realized that I was doing the same thing I accuse liberals of and changed the wording. The point is that liberals don't expand government because they want people to have to pay higher taxes. They do it out of an honest belief that the programs they're creating are good for us all and that government should take on those things. Similarly, conservatives don't oppose those programs because they hate the groups they would help, but out of an honest belief that the costs of those programs are a reduction of our liberty and that the cost is too high to pay for anything but the most necessary of things.


That's where liberals and conservatives disagree, yet we almost always end out in arguments like this one, where a conservative will complain about something and the liberals response is "so what?". I honestly believe that political discussions would be much much more productive if more people understood these differences and applied that understanding to their discussions. It's completely unproductive, for example, for a liberal to just label conservative opposition as a hate of the poor (or whatever group is involved). That's not the reason. Similarly, it is of no value for me to accuse liberals of deliberately attempting to eliminate our liberty (although I'll certainly argue they're doing it accidentally or without knowing the consequences of their actions). This is one of the reasons why I have often in the past argued that we should discuss these things in terms of cost versus benefit. It's useless for me to just say "but that reduces our freedom!!!", and it's useless for the other side to just argue "but we need to help the poor!!!". What we should be doing is looking at the proposed thing, assessing how important the benefit it provides is, and comparing it to the costs.


Sadly, this is very very rarely done. And thus, we end out with arguments that eternally spin in circles with easy rhetoric tossed in all directions.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 3:37pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Apr 13 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
I feel what it really comes down to are the goals.

-Republicans want tax cuts. Best way to do that? Cut spending on social programs to make cuts for certain portions of the population more palatable.
-Democrats want social programs. Best way to do that? Raise taxes on a certain portion of the population using rhetoric to make it more palatable.


Absolutely correct.


Quote:
-The American population at large wants a balanced budget. Best, likely only, way to do that? Reduce spending (especially on the big three sacred cows: social security, defense, and Medicare/Medicaid) AND raise taxes.


Here's my problem with that (the raising taxes part at least). You have to look at this with a broader perspective. If the Democrats can massively raise spending over a two year period of time, put us massively in debt as a result, and then the "compromise" is to cut spending *and* raise taxes, why wouldn't they just do this over and over?


The net effect over that period of time is not parity, but an increase in both taxes and spending. Tax rates did not change over the last decade or so. We're in a deficit crisis because spending increased massively. The conservatives should not have to sacrifice our position because the liberals pushed theirs so hard that they broke the economy. They should have to give up an amount of spending equal to what they increased.

That's "fair", right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Apr 13 2011 at 4:45 PM Rating: Good
******
44,300 posts
gbaji wrote:
Here's my problem with that (the raising taxes part at least). You have to look at this with a broader perspective. If the Democrats can massively raise spending over a two year period of time, put us massively in debt as a result, and then the "compromise" is to cut spending *and* raise taxes, why wouldn't they just do this over and over?
I'll just point out I don't follow this stuff nearly as closely, so if there are bigger expenditures than humanitarian aid and Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/the dozens of unnecessary military bases in dozens of other countries, then please enlighten me. If not, then I'm pretty sure both parties are guilty for this deficit.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Apr 13 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And Joph? We all know he's been talking about allowing those cuts to expire. But he lost that battle, didn't he?

For 2011. It was a one year extension. He's saying he won't extend it again.

How far beyond that it goes (if any) really can't be said until there's some hard details.
Quote:
If the Democrats can massively raise spending over a two year period of time, put us massively in debt as a result...

PW, yet again, wrote:
First Read: "So how did we get from a budget surplus at the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency to deficits and debt as far as the eye can see? Here's a quick timeline: the Bush tax cuts (2001), 9/11 and the Afghanistan war (2001), the Iraq war (2003), more tax cuts, the unpaid-for Medicare prescription-drug benefit (2003), the financial collapse and economic downturn (2008), the Obama stimulus (2009), and the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts (2010). Then you add the aging Baby Boomers to the whole mix. Back in 2009, the New York Times calculated that 37% of the deficits were due the economic downturn, 33% were due to Bush's policies, 20% were due to Obama's extensions of Bush's policies, and another 10% were due to Obama's policies like the stimulus."


Edited, Apr 13th 2011 5:51pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#35 Apr 13 2011 at 5:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
12,008 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:

[quote]If the Democrats can massively raise spending over a two year period of time, put us massively in debt as a result...

PW, yet again, wrote:
First Read: "So how did we get from a budget surplus at the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency to deficits and debt as far as the eye can see? Here's a quick timeline: the Bush tax cuts (2001), 9/11 and the Afghanistan war (2001), the Iraq war (2003), more tax cuts, the unpaid-for Medicare prescription-drug benefit (2003), the financial collapse and economic downturn (2008), the Obama stimulus (2009), and the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts (2010). Then you add the aging Baby Boomers to the whole mix. Back in 2009, the New York Times calculated that 37% of the deficits were due the economic downturn, 33% were due to Bush's policies, 20% were due to Obama's extensions of Bush's policies, and another 10% were due to Obama's policies like the stimulus."
]


Inb4 "lolNYTimes" or "lol liberalmedia"
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#36 Apr 13 2011 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
So your post is saying, "Obama says he's raising taxes, but only comes out and says it once, and even then when he uses the words 'raising taxes' it's in a negative way, so, uh, it's bad!! But you're content because it's not affecting you!"


No, my point is that once again we see the Dems twisting language around in order to make doing something that is the opposite of what the people want sound like they're doing what the people want. It's that by using those phrases, the media will repeat them over and over and insist that Obama is really just cutting spending.

It's the same thing they did when they argued for "tax credits" for the poor, and called them "tax cuts". Then they argued that they were cutting taxes by doing this. In that case, they relabeled a spending increase as a tax cut. And now they're bringing it full circle and labeling a tax increase as a spending cut.

I'm just pointing out the inherent deception to the language.


Because only Dems do this, never the GOP! Hahhahahaahahahaahhaaa
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#37 Apr 13 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:


My solutions: Legalize prostitution and marijuana, tax them the same as cigarettes.



I like your solutions, but I think they should be taxed much more heavily than cigarettes.



Especially the prostitution..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#38 Apr 13 2011 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Here's my problem with that (the raising taxes part at least). You have to look at this with a broader perspective. If the Democrats can massively raise spending over a two year period of time, put us massively in debt as a result, and then the "compromise" is to cut spending *and* raise taxes, why wouldn't they just do this over and over?
I'll just point out I don't follow this stuff nearly as closely, so if there are bigger expenditures than humanitarian aid and Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/the dozens of unnecessary military bases in dozens of other countries, then please enlighten me. If not, then I'm pretty sure both parties are guilty for this deficit.


it's not about blaming parties. it's about where the deficit came from. I'm going to show you some historical budget numbers to illustrate what I'm talking about:

 
Year    Revenue         Spending        Deficit         Debt% 
1980	19.0		21.7		-2.7		26.1 
1981	19.6		22.2		-2.4		25.8 
1982	19.2		23.1		-3.7		28.7 
1983	17.5		23.5		-6.0		33.1 
1984	17.3		22.2		-4.8		34.0 
1985	17.7		22.8		-5.3		36.4 
1986	17.5		22.5		-5.4		39.5 
1987	18.4		21.6		-3.6		40.6 
1988	18.2		21.3		-3.8		41.0 
1989	18.4		21.2		-3.8		40.6			 
1990	18.0		21.9		-4.8		42.1 
1991	17.8		22.3		-5.4		45.3 
1992	17.5		22.1		-5.5		48.1 
1993	17.5		21.4		-4.6		49.3 
1994	18.0		21.0		-3.7		49.2 
1995	18.4		20.6		-3.1		49.1 
1996	18.8		20.2		-2.3		48.4 
1997	19.2		19.5		-1.3		45.9 
1998	19.9		19.1		-0.3		43.0 
1999	19.8		18.5		0.0		39.4 
2000	20.6		18.2		0.9	        34.7 
2001	19.5		18.2		-0.3		32.5 
2002	17.6		19.1		-3.0		33.6 
2003	16.2		19.7		-4.9		35.6 
2004	16.1		19.6		-4.9		36.8 
2005	17.3		19.9		-4.0		36.9 
2006	18.2		20.1		-3.3		36.5 
2007	18.5		19.6		-2.5		36.2 
2008	17.5		20.7		-4.5		40.3 
2009	14.9		25.0		-11.0		53.5 
2010	14.9		23.8		-9.4		62.1 



These numbers are in %GDP values, so as to get a general sense of their relative size over a 30 year period of time. From this, we can see that revenue right now is abnormally low. That's because of the economic downturn. Businesses are not spending money on expansion. They're not creating jobs, and those people out of work are not paying taxes. The relevant point is that during most of Bush's term, total revenu was in the 16-18% range, and spending was around 19%. This resulted in deficits each year, but when you look at the debt percentage (that's debt held by public as a percentage of GDP), that value stays pretty steady in the mid 30% range.

What we see in 2008 is the predicted effects of a major economic slowdown. Revenue drops. Spending increases slightly (in this case because of a combination of negative GDP growth and the TARP spending). Debt percentage slightly increases as well.

What we see in 2009 and 1020 once Obama is in office and the Dems completely in control is that revenue drops more. we can debate why, but remember that there were no changes to the tax rates during this time period, so those are purely economic effects which should correct themselves without any need for tax changes. But look what else happens. Spending spikes massively. The government spent 25% of the entire US economy in 2009. That's unprecedented spending. And that's not because of GDP shrinkage. That's all "new spending". And look at the debt. We haven't had debt levels like this since WW2. In 2010, revenue still stays low. Spending drops a bit (but still way way way too high), and debt continues to skyrocket up to 62%!


The question before us is: What do we change to correct this? As I stated above, we did not change our tax code during 2008, or 2009, or 2010. Thus, the revenue figure isn't because of any change other than external. If we recover the economy, that revenue will return without any change needed. Raising the tax rates is the wrong answer. We didn't lower them to cause that drop. But we absolutely did increase spending. Now some of that was one time spending (stimulus stuff), which is why 2009 is higher than 2010. But a good portion of it is increases to ongoing programs that the Dems have tossed in during their drunken orgy of spending once they got full control of the government.

We can sit here and debate what was increased, but the numbers don't lie. We increased spending. And that spending isn't going down. That is a real "change" which our government made. And it's that change that is hurting us right now. Take away the spending increases and the deficits, while high, are manageable. Same with the debt percentage. With that spending left in place, our debt will continue to spiral out of control. You have to understand that since the debt is calculated as a percentage of GDP, and GDP tends to grow over time, there's an amount of dollar debt you can incur each year that doesn't add at all to the debt percentage. But if you go past that point, the debt will grow. And the more past it you go, the faster it grows. That's why one debt level is fine, but doubling it is a disaster. Tripling or quadrupling it is a mile past a disaster.


Note that our deficits were shrinking at the end of Bush's term. Barring the economic collapse, things were going in the right direction. What that means is that the tax and budget system in place at that time were working just fine. What we should be doing is only what needs to be done to weather the economic downturn while attempting to return to the tax and spending levels we had in 2007.

And at the risk of being obvious, we haven't changed the tax rates. We've only changed the spending levels. That's why us conservatives keep talking about cutting spending and *not* raising taxes. It's the spending that is killing us, not the tax rates.


I could go on and show you the adjusted dollar amounts, but this is long enough already. Suffice it to say that they show similar things, just in a different way. You can see even more clearly how the dollar amounts of spending equate into dollars of deficit and how those launch us into massive debt. And in case you're curious, it's that debt% that the markets look at when determining the risk of our debt. That's how they determine if a country is too much in debt or if the debt level is safe. We're well into the danger zone right now. Which in turn means that we can't get the same terms on our debt, meaning that a dollar borrowed costs us more, which puts us more in debt down the line paying it off, and we spiral out of control.


We need to cut spending. Not raise taxes. And this is why.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Apr 13 2011 at 6:43 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,300 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm going to show you some historical budget numbers to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Unless those numbers explain why we need active military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, and Greenland, I'll just ignore said numbers. Which is kind of the point you decided to bypass. A huge chunk of this deficit is because we have MASSIVE amounts of wasted funds going to military bases in ally countries that serve no real purpose. They're not there for training, they're not there as midpoints for deploying soldiers, and I'll be damned if someone tries to make a case for Greenland being a viable threat that needs to be monitored. Its all wasted funds, dating back to at least 70 years.

I don't sidestep, sweetheart. Stay on point.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Apr 13 2011 at 6:47 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Here's my problem with that (the raising taxes part at least). You have to look at this with a broader perspective. If the Democrats can massively raise spending over a two year period of time, put us massively in debt as a result, and then the "compromise" is to cut spending *and* raise taxes, why wouldn't they just do this over and over?
I'll just point out I don't follow this stuff nearly as closely, so if there are bigger expenditures than humanitarian aid and Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/the dozens of unnecessary military bases in dozens of other countries, then please enlighten me. If not, then I'm pretty sure both parties are guilty for this deficit.


it's not about blaming parties. it's about where the deficit came from. I'm going to show you some historical budget numbers to illustrate what I'm talking about:
......


There's something that I don't understand, because I don't much about politics. I'm currently looking at Bill O'Reilly (Very Conservative) and Sen. Kucinich (Dem) gave different different numbers accrediting Pres. Clinton as setting up the country with success with less than $2 trillion (?) in debt and that Pres. Bush increased it by a trillion and now Pres Obama has done the same.. So what am I missing?

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 3:07am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#41 Apr 13 2011 at 6:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm going to show you some historical budget numbers to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Unless those numbers explain why we need active military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, and Greenland, I'll just ignore said numbers. Which is kind of the point you decided to bypass. A huge chunk of this deficit is because we have MASSIVE amounts of wasted funds going to military bases in ally countries that serve no real purpose. They're not there for training, they're not there as midpoints for deploying soldiers, and I'll be damned if someone tries to make a case for Greenland being a viable threat that needs to be monitored. Its all wasted funds, dating back to at least 70 years.

I don't sidestep, sweetheart. Stay on point.


I'll tell you what a Colonel told me, there's a reason why the Army is in Germany, because we want to be there. That's simply what it is. I can't imagine a CONUS military, outside of war.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#42 Apr 13 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
******
44,300 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'll tell you what a Colonel told me, there's a reason why the Army is in Germany, because we want to be there. That's simply what it is. I can't imagine a CONUS military, outside of war.
Yeah, that's the explanation I always get when I ask. I'm kind of hoping someone without an over inflated paycheck that has nothing to lose from useless base closures could explain it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Apr 13 2011 at 7:05 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I'll tell you what a Colonel told me, there's a reason why the Army is in Germany, because we want to be there. That's simply what it is. I can't imagine a CONUS military, outside of war.
Yeah, that's the explanation I always get when I ask. I'm kind of hoping someone without an over inflated paycheck that has nothing to lose from useless base closures could explain it.


Well to be fair, depending on some of these locations, it does help THEIR economies. I'm not sure how that actually benefits us, but it isn't completely useless.

Edit: It's probably for global positioning. If anything pops off, we are already close. It's much easier and cheaper to pull from Germany to go to the sandbox than from Ft. Sill.

Edited, Apr 14th 2011 3:09am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#44 Apr 13 2011 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,476 posts
Correct me If I am wrong but is Fiscal year 2009 (IE that glaring eyesore in that table) Bush's final fiscal year as far as budgets go? Hence that was really his recommended expenditures and not Obama's, and according to this table, under Obama's Fiscal Budget years spending has actually decreased.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#45 Apr 13 2011 at 7:28 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,300 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well to be fair, depending on some of these locations, it does help THEIR economies. I'm not sure how that actually benefits us, but it isn't completely useless.
Its noble, but stupid. We should be concentrating on our own economy before helping other people out.

Almalieque wrote:
Edit: It's probably for global positioning. If anything pops off, we are already close. It's much easier and cheaper to pull from Germany to go to the sandbox than from Ft. Sill.
As far as Germany, that was the reasoning behind it. A bunch of bases were constructed and manned during the Cold War to be ready in case Russia attacked. That's kind of over, those bases are still operational. To make a point, we have more than 50 active US Army facilities in Germany. That's a ridiculous number. And to further pull hair, we have bases in GREENLAND! What possible tactical vantage point is that?! Is Bjork recording another album and we just HAVE to stop that *****?

Seriously, shut some of these useless facilities down, pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan, don't go into Libya, boom. Economy a little better shape.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 9:29pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#46 Apr 13 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,744 posts
Greenland is an excellent staging point to hit Iceland. Oh, and to help try and claim northern waters that you have very little right to.

Edited, Apr 13th 2011 10:30pm by Uglysasquatch
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#47 Apr 13 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
lolgaxe+1 wrote:
As far as Germany, that was the reasoning behind it. A bunch of bases were constructed and manned during the Cold War to be ready in case Russia attacked. That's kind of over, those bases are still operational. To make a point, we have more than 50 active US Army facilities in Germany. That's a ridiculous number.


And give up the drinking and legal prostitution? Now that's CRRAAAAZY!
lolgaxe+1 wrote:

And to further pull hair, we have bases in GREENLAND! What possible tactical vantage point is that?! Is Bjork recording another album and we just HAVE to stop that *****?

Seriously, shut some of these useless facilities down, pull out of Iraq/Afghanistan, don't go into Libya, boom. Economy a little better shape.


Well, if I'm not mistaken, all of these "cool" posts/bases like England are from the Chair Force.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#48 Apr 13 2011 at 7:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And Joph? We all know he's been talking about allowing those cuts to expire. But he lost that battle, didn't he?

For 2011. It was a one year extension. He's saying he won't extend it again.


He said that last year too! We'll see how that goes. I'm not for a moment suggesting he doesn't want to raise those taxes, just that this isn't something the American people agree with him on. I guess my point being that when people understand that the issue is increased taxes, they oppose it. Which is presumably why the language change is being used here.

PW, yet again, wrote:
Back in 2009, the New York Times calculated that 37% of the deficits were due the economic downturn, 33% were due to Bush's policies, 20% were due to Obama's extensions of Bush's policies, and another 10% were due to Obama's policies like the stimulus."


That's some "interesting" measuring of the deficits though. Some nice vague phrasing too! I'm assuming they just calculated the total dollar amount of the deficit that year and did some math. But that's not really a fair way of calculating it though, since it's the deltas that really matter. X amount of spending is ok, X+Y puts you over the top. It's somewhat ludicrous to simply calculate the percentage Y is of the total (X+Y) and conclude that Y only contributed a tiny amount to the problem.


I'm also still unsure where the **** they got their numbers, or what kind of magical math they used. Here's the numbers as I see them:

 
Year    Revenue         Spending        Deficit         Debt         Debt% 
2006	2,406.9		2,655.1		-434.5		4,829.0      36.5 
2007	2,568.0		2,728.7		-342.2		5,035.1      36.2 
2008	2,524.0		2,982.5		-641.8		5,803.1      40.3 
2009	2,105.0		3,517.7		-1,549.7	7,544.7	     53.3 
2010	2,161.7		3,455.8		-1,371.1	9,017.8      62.1 


I'm including 2006 and 2007 numbers to help establish a baseline, and including the deb% figure because it gives us a better idea of the actual relative "size" of the resulting debt.


From this we can see that the deficit in 2007 was "sustainable" since the debt ratio was actually decreasing. Thus, we can say that 434B over budget doesn't hurt us economically in the long run (as long as GDP growth remains relatively constant, and it's not like we're talking abnormally high GDP growth rates during this time period, so that's a reasonable assumption). This is our baseline for calculating where we went wrong. Let me again remind you that there were no tax changes during this time period. All revenue losses are due to economic downturn and not tax changes.

From that baseline we can see that in 2008 (the first year the downturn hit us), revenue only dropped slightly ($44B). Spending increased by $254B. This is reflected by a deficit increase of almost exactly $300B. Notice that by increasing from 342B to 641B we went from a Debt% that was decreasing to a debt% that increased by 4%. This illustrates what I'm talking about. Each dollar of deficit is not equal. We can presumably assume that most of the spending increases were due TARP costs incurred that year. We could certainly place this at Bush's feet. And we could even argue that the delta was 100% Bush's fault, since 100% of the increased deficit which resulted in an increasing debt% was the result of his actions (we'll ignore the contributions of the congress for the moment since it really doesn't matter in this case). Technically, it's more like 87/13, since about 13% of that drop was from the economy losing ground from our baseline.

Here's where it gets sticky though. In 2009, revenues dropped $419B. That's not good. However, spending went up $535B. Our deficit went up an additional $908B. We're well into danger territory, but where did the danger come from? Well, from our baseline, which we've established is sustainable, revenues dropped a total of $463B. And during that entire time, deficit increased by $1207B. Which means that economic losses account for 38% of the deficit delta (pretty close to the NYT numbers!). But what about the rest? We can simplify the math and just look at spending deltas each year and conclude that the spending increase of $535B is 44% of the deficit delta since 2007. That amount is 100% the "fault" of Obama and the Democrats since the GOP had no hand in (and in fact strongly opposed) the spending increases that year.

In case you're wondering, since I calculated the delta between 2009 and 2007, but included both years total revenue losses as "economic effects", and only the 2009 spending increases as "Obama's spending", the remaining 18% left over is the percentage of that total deficit delta which can be attributed to spending increases prior to Obama taking office. But let's check that math, just in case: 254/1207=.21. Hmmm... I'm off a bit, but I've been rounding numbers off as well, so that's close enough.

The point being that the numbers clearly show that by 2009, the largest single contributing factor to the deficit increase since the start of the "economic crisis" was from spending increases in 2009. The next largest was the revenue losses from the economic crisis itself, and the smallest factor was increases generated by the Bush administration.


Um... Obviously, your numbers will be different if you calculate the whole deficit number instead and attribute that starting 342B to Bush. Doing that gets you: Revenue loss 30%, Obama spending 34%, and Bush spending 38%. Still not exactly the NYT numbers either, but I'm sure they dug a bit deeper and managed to even more obfuscate the bigger picture in their calculations.


I just think that when figuring out why things were working before and aren't working now, we should look at what has changed. When we examine those deltas, it's very clear that there are two effects at work: decreased revenue from the downturn and increased spending. The decreased revenue isn't the result of a tax code change though, so we don't need to change anything (or at least we shouldn't). The increased spending is quite clearly the result of a political agenda which has sought to take advantage of the economic crisis to push its own social agenda and spend as much as possible while they had the power to do so. They did this in 2009 and 2010 and now the bill is coming due. But instead of being responsible and reversing the unwise spending, they're insisting that we "compromise" by raising taxes and cutting spending.


IMO, that's not a compromise. It wasn't a combination of tax cuts and spending increases that got us here, so it's unfair to argue that we need a combination of tax increases and spending cuts to get us out. Doubly so when one side is attempting to make some of those "spending cuts" in the form of actual tax increases. I honestly suspect that this is one of the reasons for the language being used. The Dems want to be able to point to those tax increases and call them spending cuts so that they can claim that they cut spending as well as increased taxes. Kinda like how they argued that they were "offering" 30B in cuts in the latest budget debate, when in fact that 30B was cuts that had already been agreed to and were mostly defense cuts the GOP had given up as their part of a "compromise" on the budget. So we're supposed to share in the cuts, the GOP offers up some cuts in the military and defense budgets, then the Dems claim those cuts as their own when arguing that they shouldn't have to give up spending on their precious social programs.


How many times do we have to watch this sort of underhanded game before the people take notice and realize that the Dems will do anything they can to avoid having to ever cut any real spending? It's pretty disgusting really. Made all the more worse by just how predictable the behavior is.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Apr 13 2011 at 7:43 PM Rating: Good
******
44,300 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Well, if I'm not mistaken, all of these "cool" posts/bases like England are from the Chair Force.
Correct, Greenland is an Air Force compound. And if there was ever a bloated pack of lost funds, it'd be the Air Force. You know that in joint bases like in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Air Force gets extra money for living in the same housing as everyone else, because of Sub-Standard Living Arrangements? They get money because the living arrangements aren't good enough for them, but good enough for everyone else. Does that sink in? Is there any real question why the economy is fucked up?

I really wouldn't pretend to care as much as it appears that I do if I wasn't quarantined due to an eye infection and having nothing to do.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Apr 13 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,875 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm going to show you some historical budget numbers to illustrate what I'm talking about:
Unless those numbers explain why we need active military bases in Japan, Germany, Italy, and Greenland, I'll just ignore said numbers.


None of those things caused the current debt crisis. I'm focusing on the changes in spending and showing you why those things aren't the problem, but all the new stuff the Dems have pushed on us in the last couple years are. Maybe we should focus on those things and worry about the other stuff later?

Quote:
A huge chunk of this deficit is because we have MASSIVE amounts of wasted funds going to military bases in ally countries that serve no real purpose.


By that argument everything we spend money on is a "huge chunk" of this deficit. And it's an irrelevant argument anyway. It's like looking at your credit card debt and noticing that over the last two years, you've gone from always paying off your balance every month to falling deep in debt but refusing to look at what changed during that time. That kinda foolish, isn't it?

Quote:
I don't sidestep, sweetheart. Stay on point.


Lol! That's funny.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Apr 13 2011 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,300 posts
gbaji wrote:
Nothing to do with explaining why we need 50 bases in Germany.
It is funny.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
« Previous 1 2 3 4
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (38)