Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Republicans ready to raise taxes.Follow

#1 Nov 26 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,668 posts
ABC story and Fox's article.

It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more" and similar things but it does look like Republicans are slowly coming back from being the party of NO.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#2 Nov 26 2012 at 11:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
In a sense, they don't have much choice. The tax cuts are expiring and they can either sign on let some of them increase or do nothing and let all of them increase.

Fox Story wrote:
Indiana Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, on the same show, acknowledged that his party needs to “bring entitlement reform into the conversation.”

Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Nov 26th 2012 11:31am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Nov 26 2012 at 11:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,123 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more"
I'm okay with that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Nov 26 2012 at 11:34 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,668 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more"
I'm okay with that.
Depends on what's being cut really. Somehow I don't think it's going to affect the yearly new carpet in your office.




edit: I do hope it was you who commented on that some time a while ago. I can't be arsed to look it up and you've probably posted 10000 times since then

Edited, Nov 26th 2012 6:34pm by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#5 Nov 26 2012 at 11:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
They really don't have a choice.

It was incredibly short-sighted of the party to even communicate such an inflexible unbounded pledge to the public to begin with.

I liked Lindsey Grahams quote:
Quote:
When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece
'''

Gyro's be damned.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#6 Nov 26 2012 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
Elinda wrote:
I liked Lindsey Grahams quote:
Quote:
When you're $16 trillion in debt, the only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece


Something like that, yes. If they can actually agree and get something passed before the 11th hour I'll be somewhere in a state of shock, but it's nice to see the rhetoric softening a bit. Gives hope that somewhere in there we may well find a solution.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#7 Nov 26 2012 at 11:54 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Does this mean we can finally get back to making policies based on what's good for the country rather than what looks good come election season?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#8 Nov 26 2012 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
cidbahamut wrote:
Does this mean we can finally get back to making policies based on what's good for the country rather than what looks good come election season?


That's crazy talk!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#9 Nov 27 2012 at 8:43 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,123 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
It's all very careful and wrapped in "only if democrats agree to cut even more"
I'm okay with that.
Depends on what's being cut really. Somehow I don't think it's going to affect the yearly new carpet in your office.
As much as I'd like that particular funding to be reduced, I doubt it will be. Thankfully, we're in full force reduction so a ton of inept people are being barred from re-enlisting, which is nice overall. But overall I can't say I really care what is cut as long as something is. Need both reduced spending and increased taxes to really make a realistic difference.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#11 Nov 27 2012 at 11:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,495 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:


Any Republican that supports tax increases will lose in the mid term.
That will make things easier.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#12 Nov 27 2012 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Any Republican that supports tax increases will lose in the mid term.

Hopefully to Democrats! Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Nov 27 2012 at 4:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,067 posts
Ironically, Obama's been the least spendy president since the 1950s. (Wall Street Journal.)

Edited, Nov 27th 2012 5:59pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#14 Nov 28 2012 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,123 posts
But that's using math and history, so it doesn't count.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Nov 28 2012 at 12:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
catwho wrote:
Ironically, Obama's been the least spendy president since the 1950s. (Wall Street Journal.)

Edited, Nov 27th 2012 5:59pm by catwho

It's not ironic. Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.


Did you see the asterisk? They moved the extra spending he approved into his column.

They also did the same thing (giving the prior year to the previous president) for all prior presidents too so it's not like it's inconsistent or anything.

Edited, Nov 28th 2012 10:33am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Nov 28 2012 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,010 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:

Any Republican that supports tax increases will lose in the mid term.


dont toy with me
#18 Nov 28 2012 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.
So that's how you're selling the lies to yourself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19 Nov 28 2012 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.
So that's how you're selling the lies to yourself.

If you unskew the numbers...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Nov 28 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
It's not ironic. Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.


Did you see the asterisk? They moved the extra spending he approved into his column.

They also did the same thing (giving the prior year to the previous president) for all prior presidents too so it's not like it's inconsistent or anything.


Sure. And if I ignore the tendency to explode when suffering a rear-end collision for all cars, I can make a Ford Pinto look like it's a safe car. Nothing inconsistent with that at all. You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right? That's where the argument fails.


Oh. And also "revenue" is not the same as "tax rates". Just putting that out there for general consumption.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Nov 28 2012 at 11:37 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
It's not ironic. Simply ignoring all of Obama's first year of spending is your best bet to sell the lie to yourself.


Did you see the asterisk? They moved the extra spending he approved into his column.

They also did the same thing (giving the prior year to the previous president) for all prior presidents too so it's not like it's inconsistent or anything.


Sure. And if I ignore the tendency to explode when suffering a rear-end collision for all cars, I can make a Ford Pinto look like it's a safe car. Nothing inconsistent with that at all. You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right? That's where the argument fails.


Oh. And also "revenue" is not the same as "tax rates". Just putting that out there for general consumption.



God you are stupid. The budget is done up the year prior, not the year of. Christ, gibberish boy you got a lot dumber in your 2 weeks of mourning.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#22 Nov 28 2012 at 11:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...
God you are stupid.


Gbaji doesn't understand the difference between election year, calendar year, and fiscal year. It's hogwash!
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#23 Nov 28 2012 at 11:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
Oh. And also "revenue" is not the same as "tax rates". Just putting that out there for general consumption.


But "revenue" does equal "taxes", when we're talking about the federal government's revenue, you semantically obsessed little birther, you.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#24 Nov 29 2012 at 12:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
gbaji wrote:
. You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right? That's where the argument fails.


Right, hence the asterisk. That whole stimulus thing was out of the ordinary, so they corrected the number in that case to correct for it, increasing his numbers.

Quote:
When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook.

Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009.


Or am I missing something? Smiley: confused

If anything they should probably point out that the Bush administration dialing down the Iraq war helps make Obama look good? Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#25 Nov 29 2012 at 4:19 AM Rating: Excellent
BrownDuck wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
gbaji wrote:
...
God you are stupid.


Gbaji doesn't understand the difference between election year, calendar year, and fiscal year. It's hogwash obvious!
Fixx0r'ed
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#26 Nov 29 2012 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,123 posts
gbaji wrote:
You get that most presidents also don't embark on massive spending increases in their first year in office, right?
But somehow the economy is their fault that first year.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#28 Nov 29 2012 at 4:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
God you are stupid. The budget is done up the year prior, not the year of. Christ, gibberish boy you got a lot dumber in your 2 weeks of mourning.


The proposed budget is. Now if there was no spending in 2009 other than that passed in 2008, you'd have a valid point. But Obama and the Dems massively increased spending in 2009 beyond that passed in the budget bill. Which is precisely why it's unreasonable to pretend that said spending is the responsibility of the previous administration.

Always amuses me how the likelihood that someone will call someone else stupid is directly proportional to how wrong they are themselves.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Nov 29 2012 at 4:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
gbaji wrote:

The proposed budget is. Now if there was no spending in 2009 other than that passed in 2008, you'd have a valid point. But Obama and the Dems massively increased spending in 2009 beyond that passed in the budget bill. Which is precisely why it's unreasonable to pretend that said spending is the responsibility of the previous administration.


Just curious, because I get curious about stuff. Besides the stimulus package what other spending are you referring to? Is this the increased unemployment stuff (I'm assuming that's part of it)?

You wouldn't happen to have a linky that breaks down his spending would you?

Smiley: flowers

Edit:

Well this helps some... Linky.

This analysis has a breakdown and assigns him blame for $203 billion...

Quote:
Our own analysis leads us to conclude that Obama deserves responsibility for somewhat more fiscal 2009 spending than Nutting or Mitchell assign to him, as we’ve noted. Spending in that year shot up an incredible $535 billion. Nutting and Mitchell hold Obama responsible for only 26 percent of that increase, but we conclude that Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for as much as 38 percent.


I can google... Smiley: nod

Edited, Nov 29th 2012 2:44pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#30 Nov 29 2012 at 4:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Oh. And also "revenue" is not the same as "tax rates". Just putting that out there for general consumption.


But "revenue" does equal "taxes", when we're talking about the federal government's revenue, you semantically obsessed little birther, you.


But not "tax rates", which is what I actually said. Increases in "tax rates" are implied when someone says (as in the title) that someone is going to "raise taxes". Increases in tax revenue are a completely different animal. If I tax $100 at 20%, or $50 at 40%, or $200 at 10%, I will collect the exact same taxes. It should therefore be obvious that if I wish to increase tax revenue that I can do this by either increasing the tax rate *or* increasing the number of dollars I'm taxing.

The latter choice can occur one of three ways:

1. Remove loopholes in the existing tax code.
2. Expand the scope of taxes (tax things that aren't currently being taxed). Note that this is pretty similar to the first option depending on how you look at it.
3. Increase the number of dollars involved in taxable areas of the economy (basically, fix unemployment, increase economic growth, etc).


These are the options (specifically 1 and 3) which the Republicans have continually argued are the best ways to raise tax revenue. But unfortunately, the Obama administration is fixated on a class warfare based tax increase, which will have minimal effect on our current deficit problem, will likely raise very very little revenue, and may have vastly more negative impact on future economic growth and employment. Basically, he's chasing after at best an $80B/year piece of tax revenue, while tossing away what could amount to $300-$400 Billion dollars of revenue a year as the "cost" of that tax hike.


The best case increase in revenue if Obama gets his way (reverting to Clinton era tax rates for those making more than $250k/year) is $80B/year. That assumes that no one changes their behavior as a result of the tax (very unlikely). But we're currently somewhere between $300-$400B down in yearly tax revenue, which has nothing to do with tax rates and everything to do with not enough money being invested in areas which cause economic growth and employment. Some of us argue that the reason we're still down, and the reason that number hasn't bounced back as it should have is precisely because of the looming threat of increased taxes on "the rich". Take that off the table (ie: make the Bush tax rates permanent for everyone), and that money will come rushing in. GDP will grow, corporate tax base will increase, and employment will increase.

Do that and instead of getting a paltry $80B/year in tax revenue and we gain in three ways:

1. Direct tax revenue will increase by far more than $80B/year. While it'll probably take several years to get back to the trend line (the $300-$400B/year number), we'll still take in many times more dollars in revenue due to simply broadening the tax base.

2. Increased employment also means decreased spending. For every person we employ and are now taxing we're also *not* paying unemployment and other social services for. This could be a direct savings of $150-$200B/year in addition to the revenue increase. Now we're getting somewhere near a half a trillion dollars of deficit reduction per year, not just over 8 or 10 or whatever number of years Obama likes to roll his numbers into in order to make it look like its something worth doing.

3. Increased job growth and business activity also translates to increased GDP growth rate. This means that the calculation we use to generate relative debt works in our favor. So even if we're still running a deficit, the rate of the total debt growth relative to the total GDP growth is better. As I've argued many times in the past, you don't have to have a zero or negative deficit to decrease relative debt. You just have to grow the economy at a rate higher than you're growing your debt. This is why during the 2006/2007 years under Bush, our debt percentage shrank even though we were still running deficits. The same math works even when a Democrat is in office.


Those are three factors that Obama is tossing in the trash with his tax plan. It really is moronic what he's proposing. Unless, of course, his actual objective is to keep unemployment high, economic growth low, and basically keep extending our economic problems as long as possible. Which one might think is ridiculous, but then we can also argue that the social liberal movement has made greater gains as a result of this one economic recession than they made in the previous 40 years, so maybe that is the goal. I don't know. But I can say that chasing after $80B/year in tax revenue at the cost of greater tax revenue and economic recovery is pretty stupid.


And just to bring this back to the topic, that's what Republicans are talking about when they talk about increasing revenue. So when you hear a Republican talk about this, pay close attention to what he actually says. It's not correct to assume that because he acknowledges the need to increase federal revenue that this means he's on board with raising tax rates (on the rich or anyone else). Those are *not* the same thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Nov 29 2012 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:

The proposed budget is. Now if there was no spending in 2009 other than that passed in 2008, you'd have a valid point. But Obama and the Dems massively increased spending in 2009 beyond that passed in the budget bill. Which is precisely why it's unreasonable to pretend that said spending is the responsibility of the previous administration.


Just curious, because I get curious about stuff. Besides the stimulus package what other spending are you referring to? Is this the increased unemployment stuff (I'm assuming that's part of it)?


Because many sources tend to place the "blame" for TARP on the Bush administration. But they gloss over the fact that the original proposal was more like $350-$400B. The Democrats controlled congress and dramatically changed the proposal, increasing both the cost and the scope of the bailout. It was also quite obviously an election year issue, with Obama clearly on the side of the changed (and twice as expensive) version and McCain in opposition. So it's more than fair to heap that on him IMO.

They also play games with math. The spending in Bush's last year was an outlier. It was abnormally high relative to spending through the rest of his terms in office. This was intentional. TARP was a one time expense. So using that as the marker for "start/finish" points when calculating relative increase/decrease in spending is going to provide a very false impression. What you have to remember is that when folks do this sort of calculation, they're basically planting flags in points in time on a calendar, and calculating the relative spending from one point to another. But that tells us nothing about what happened in between.


Let's pretend for example that you and your wife switch back and forth for being responsible for the monthly spending in your household. Each one of you does this for one year, then hands the duty over to the other. Let's say that when you take over, monthly spending is $2000/month and during your one year you keep spending at that level for the first 11 months, but then in the very last month the washer/dryer broke and you had to spend an extra $1000 buying a new set. So spending the last month of the year before was $2000 and your last was $3000. Thus, you increased spending by 50%, right?

Now, your wife takes over and decides to spend $2500/month during the entire year she's running things. Thus, the first month before she took over was $3000 and the last of her year was $2500. So by that calculation she decreased spending by 16.6%. So she's doing a better job of keeping expenses low, right? Wrong! She's spending much more money in total because her spending is constantly and consistently higher. She certainly spent far far more over the course of the entire year than you did (42k versus 25k). It's only because of a statistical anomaly which just happened to occur right at the point we arbitrarily decided to use as a calculating point that it appears differently.

To put this in a real world perspective, let's imagine that the crash happened in 2006 instead of 2008. So the one time TARP spending would happen in the middle of his term instead of in the last year. Assuming no other spending increase, you'd see a jump that one year, then back closer to normal in the next two. If Obama then decided to increase spending as he did in his first year, it would show up as the much greater increase in spending it really is because we're no longer comparing long term ongoing spending increases with one time spending events. Also, Bush's spending would appear to be completely flat, since the spending in his first year was the same (or close to the same) as the spending in his last. The spending during the years in between are not examined when using this method (which is why it's a really poor way to do this).

Another way to do this is to calculate average spending in adjusted dollars over an entire multi-year period of time (like a 4 year term perhaps). What you'll find if you do that, is that even if you put all the TARP spending in Bush's column (which I happen to think is unfair, but whatever), you'll see that spending under Obama is much much much greater than that under Bush.

Quote:
You wouldn't happen to have a linky that breaks down his spending would you?


You're free to examine the CBO historical budget data on your own, if you want (http://cbo.gov), but lets say we just ignore 2009 as an outlier entirely (so we ignore the issue of who's responsible for which spending) and just look at the two years prior for Bush and the two years after for Obama, we come up with this sort of average spending calculation. Bush: (2728+2982)/2 = 2855. Obama: (3456+3598)/2 = 3527. So we're talking about an average of $672B per year more spending under Obama. I didn't adjust for inflation, but it didn't go up that much over a 5 year period of time to affect this calculation. For your information, I used two years because we only have complete spending data for 2010 and 2011 for Obama. I could do the math for the entire Bush years as well, but then I'd have to also adjust each year for inflation to make a more fair number (7 years of data on one side starts to make inflation significant).

The idea that Obama is somehow "less spendy" is absurd. Only when using the most tortured mathematical methodology can you even remotely make that sort of claim. Any honest assessment of actual spending over time shows a dramatic and very very real spending increase under Obama as president and no sign that that is going to stop anytime soon. What happened is that he took the one time cost of TARP and made it into the normal spending level for each year. Spending should have spiked in 2008/2009, and then dropped from 2010 onward. But that didn't happen. Spending only dropped a small amount in 2010 (3456 from 3517 in 2009), and then actually increased over that "one time" spending level in 2011 (3598. Oh. These are in Billions btw in case you didn't noodle that out).

Those are the real numbers. They don't lie. There's no agenda behind them. They simply are. Anyone can do the same simple math I just did. As I said earlier, what matters isn't a calculation between two arbitrary points in a spending time line, but the total "volume" of spending over a period of time. Because that's what adds up into our debt. The other stuff is just statistical masturbation IMO.

Edited, Nov 29th 2012 3:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Nov 29 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,390 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because many sources tend to place the "blame" for TARP on the Bush administration.


Which honestly I think is more than a bit unfair as well. Anyone in their right mind would have done that or something similar to keep the economy from taking a serious dive. I have no problems railing against Bush for increased military spending and the like, but TARP blame always has seemed a bit absurd.

(By the way I did read the rest, that was the only point I really had a comment. Smiley: lol Thanks for sharing the POV. Smiley: smile)
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#33 Nov 29 2012 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,802 posts
Gbaji wrote:
but then in the very last month the washer/dryer broke and you had to spend an extra $1000 buying a new set.

Where the @#%^ are you getting a washer/dryer set for a grand? I paid $900 just for a washer at the beginning of the year.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#34 Nov 29 2012 at 6:21 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,493 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
but then in the very last month the washer/dryer broke and you had to spend an extra $1000 buying a new set.

Where the @#%^ are you getting a washer/dryer set for a grand? I paid $900 just for a washer at the beginning of the year.

Washers

Dryers

That was just a quick google, and with the cheapest on each of those, you are looking at just less then a grand.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#35 Nov 29 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,802 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
but then in the very last month the washer/dryer broke and you had to spend an extra $1000 buying a new set.

Where the @#%^ are you getting a washer/dryer set for a grand? I paid $900 just for a washer at the beginning of the year.

Washers

Dryers

That was just a quick google, and with the cheapest on each of those, you are looking at just less then a grand.

Eeeewwwww...who would willingly buy a top loader?
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#36 Nov 29 2012 at 6:27 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Eeeewwwww...who would willingly buy a top loader?


What's wrong with top loaders? I've used them my whole life and don't have any problems.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#37 Nov 29 2012 at 6:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
***
2,493 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
but then in the very last month the washer/dryer broke and you had to spend an extra $1000 buying a new set.

Where the @#%^ are you getting a washer/dryer set for a grand? I paid $900 just for a washer at the beginning of the year.

Washers

Dryers

That was just a quick google, and with the cheapest on each of those, you are looking at just less then a grand.

Eeeewwwww...who would willingly buy a top loader?


Someone who wanted to buy a washer AND a dryer for less then a thousand bucks.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#38 Nov 29 2012 at 7:10 PM Rating: Good
****
7,802 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Eeeewwwww...who would willingly buy a top loader?


What's wrong with top loaders? I've used them my whole life and don't have any problems.

I used one for 30 some odd years. I bought a front loader earlier this year, and can't believe the difference. I can't see myself ever going back to a top loader.

Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
but then in the very last month the washer/dryer broke and you had to spend an extra $1000 buying a new set.

Where the @#%^ are you getting a washer/dryer set for a grand? I paid $900 just for a washer at the beginning of the year.

Washers

Dryers

That was just a quick google, and with the cheapest on each of those, you are looking at just less then a grand.

Eeeewwwww...who would willingly buy a top loader?


Someone who wanted to buy a washer AND a dryer for less then a thousand bucks.

Fair enough.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#39 Nov 29 2012 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I look forward to this thread being derailed into a debate over the merits of top vs front loading washing machines.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Nov 29 2012 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
7,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I look forward to this thread being derailed into a debate over the merits of top vs front loading washing machines.

"It's all going according to plan."
::wrings hands::
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#41 Nov 29 2012 at 7:15 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,592 posts
The main reason I don't care about ever trying a front load is not being able to open it mid cycle and add things last moment. And of course the door being left open when not in use puts it right out in the way.

I always keep my washer lid open when not in use, and would want to for a front load as well.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#42 Nov 29 2012 at 7:20 PM Rating: Good
****
7,802 posts
TirithRR wrote:
The main reason I don't care about ever trying a front load is not being able to open it mid cycle and add things last moment. And of course the door being left open when not in use puts it right out in the way.

I always keep my washer lid open when not in use, and would want to for a front load as well.

With the newer ones, you have to leave it open afterwards, lest you get a mildewy smell in the tub. Thankfully there's a handy little lock that keeps the door open about 3 inches, yet locks it in place. As for adding things mid-cycle, you could stop the cycle and throw it in there. The new HE machines use very little water to wash.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#43 Nov 29 2012 at 10:08 PM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
You forgot to use an asterisk.
Your ineptitude needs no quantification.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Nov 29 2012 at 10:52 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,830 posts
Gbaji wrote:
but then in the very last month the washer/dryer broke and you had to spend an extra $1000 buying a new set.

Somewhat relevant: In the past few months, our water pressure has slowly been getting worse and worse, until a few weeks ago we could barely use water for anything. Filling up the washing machine (top-loader) took over an hour; so a full wash took four to six hours depending on the size. If you started it before going to bed, you could put it in the dryer in the morning. And you couldn't use any water for anything else while it was filling. So finally we called the plumbers and discovered that our external pipes were pretty totally destroyed. It came to digging up and replacing a hundred feet of pipe and replacing the well and pump, which all came to almost $10k. After that though we had tons and tons of marvelous water! And the dryer stopped heating. It would still spin, but without heat it never stopped. So we could air-dry our clothes...it just took six hours. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#45 Nov 29 2012 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
******
21,717 posts
Debalic wrote:
And the dryer stopped heating. It would still spin, but without heat it never stopped. So we could air-dry our clothes...it just took six hours. Smiley: oyvey


Dunno if you got that fixed or not, but it's very likely a 10 dollar thermo safety switch that needs replacing. Had that happen to me once and 2 other friends. If the vents get clogged and the dryer gets too hot, some melty goo separates inside the safety switch breaking the current to the heating element and rendering it useless until the switch is replaced.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#46 Nov 29 2012 at 11:29 PM Rating: Excellent
my washing machine broke and covered a bunch of clothes with oil. thankfully they were old and so it didn't matter much. only got acheap top load replacement because of room and because its for the renters and i don't want to spend that much money.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#47 Nov 30 2012 at 12:24 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,830 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Debalic wrote:
And the dryer stopped heating. It would still spin, but without heat it never stopped. So we could air-dry our clothes...it just took six hours. Smiley: oyvey


Dunno if you got that fixed or not, but it's very likely a 10 dollar thermo safety switch that needs replacing. Had that happen to me once and 2 other friends. If the vents get clogged and the dryer gets too hot, some melty goo separates inside the safety switch breaking the current to the heating element and rendering it useless until the switch is replaced.

I thought it might be something like that, or maybe a heating element or core of some kind, that would be like $100 to fix. But the service guy say no, there's no way to fix it so we should go buy a new one.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#48 Nov 30 2012 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
Debalic wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Debalic wrote:
And the dryer stopped heating. It would still spin, but without heat it never stopped. So we could air-dry our clothes...it just took six hours. Smiley: oyvey


Dunno if you got that fixed or not, but it's very likely a 10 dollar thermo safety switch that needs replacing. Had that happen to me once and 2 other friends. If the vents get clogged and the dryer gets too hot, some melty goo separates inside the safety switch breaking the current to the heating element and rendering it useless until the switch is replaced.

I thought it might be something like that, or maybe a heating element or core of some kind, that would be like $100 to fix. But the service guy say no, there's no way to fix it so we should go buy a new one.
We did that, bought a new one. Turns out the repair guy was wrong because when we bought the new one, it didn't work. Apparently that one breaker in the house was actually two breakers. One ran the power for the heat, the other for the air/spin. Got that fixed and then our new and old dryers both worked.
____________________________
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

#49 Nov 30 2012 at 9:02 AM Rating: Good
******
43,123 posts
We got one of those doubled up washer/dryer units to save space.
____________________________
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 Nov 30 2012 at 9:05 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,830 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Debalic wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Debalic wrote:
And the dryer stopped heating. It would still spin, but without heat it never stopped. So we could air-dry our clothes...it just took six hours. Smiley: oyvey

Dunno if you got that fixed or not, but it's very likely a 10 dollar thermo safety switch that needs replacing. Had that happen to me once and 2 other friends. If the vents get clogged and the dryer gets too hot, some melty goo separates inside the safety switch breaking the current to the heating element and rendering it useless until the switch is replaced.

I thought it might be something like that, or maybe a heating element or core of some kind, that would be like $100 to fix. But the service guy say no, there's no way to fix it so we should go buy a new one.
We did that, bought a new one. Turns out the repair guy was wrong because when we bought the new one, it didn't work. Apparently that one breaker in the house was actually two breakers. One ran the power for the heat, the other for the air/spin. Got that fixed and then our new and old dryers both worked.

Our circuit box has two breakers for the dryer, too. Just tried re-setting it and we'll see.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#51 Nov 30 2012 at 11:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
God you are stupid. The budget is done up the year prior, not the year of. Christ, gibberish boy you got a lot dumber in your 2 weeks of mourning.


The proposed budget is. Now if there was no spending in 2009 other than that passed in 2008, you'd have a valid point. But Obama and the Dems massively increased spending in 2009 beyond that passed in the budget bill. Which is precisely why it's unreasonable to pretend that said spending is the responsibility of the previous administration.

Always amuses me how the likelihood that someone will call someone else stupid is directly proportional to how wrong they are themselves.


You really need to start taking facts on as reliable sources of information. The tablet budget increased spending by some 700 billion, largely on the back of the corporate welfare program Bush initiated at the end of fiscal year 2008, and began paying out in fiscal year 2009. Obama at best could be on the hook for maybe a third of total increased spending over the course of 2009, which would put him in the area of about 6% in the 2009 fiscal year. Since 2009 his spending has been minimal at best... and the majority of the money he spent in 2009 (from the Stimulus package) has been repaid (the primary source GM has repaid their debt in full and the government continues to make money off of its holdings in GM stock.)

Obama spent less money than Bush did in 2009, and he made what money he did spend back.

So yes you are @#%^ing stupid go look at the CBO numbers, do a little bit of @#%^ing math and learn something..





____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. @#%^ OFF YOU. @#%^ YOUR BULLsh*t SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS @#%^ING sh*tTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 92 All times are in CDT