60 minutes = $188 million in new debt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

$478.2 billion in new debt in the 106 days this thread has existed.

And the beat goes on, and the beat goes on, La de da de de, la de da de da..

---

I believe you meant, La de da da, la de la de da da da da... which would be the tune to "Dixie". Like the old saying; "just whistling Dixie". Fadur, I say your, 'just whistling Dixie'.

But some Republicans are ready for action. They are willing to let the payroll tax expire, which in fact would be a tax increase (in Republican terms) for even the lowest paid workers. I agree that sacrifices are needed. My disagreement would be on who, should be the ones to give a little more. So in other words, they are leaving out an important class of people.

Indeed. Despite the Norquist pledge, the GOP wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES. They want the payroll tax cut to expire and (using their terminology) raise your taxes. At the same time they 're willing to run us over a cliff and renege on our bills in order to protect the wealthiest among us! Not only are they engaged in class warfare and lining their own pockets...they're hypocrites too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Indeed. Despite the Norquist pledge, the GOP wants to RAISE YOUR TAXES. They want the payroll tax cut to expire and (using their terminology) raise your taxes. At the same time they 're willing to run us over a cliff and renege on our bills in order to protect the wealthiest among us! Not only are they engaged in class warfare and lining their own pockets...they're hypocrites too.

---

Ok, I challenge you to find one reference where Tea Party members have encouraged or indicated "renege on our bills". If you are describing cutting services we cannot afford I question the intent of your terminology. Had we not extended the debt limit there would have been more than adequate monies to pay outstanding debts. We would not have however enough monies to pay for frivolous social programs. Thats not "reneging" thats living within your means. If you chose to max out every credit card you had and the bank funding those cards made the decision not to increase your debt limit. The bank would not be forcing you to "renege" on your bills. The bank would simply be reigning in an irresponsible individuals spending habits. (No implication that you are irresponsible Trish, just an example)

"Class warfare"? What is it when those who feel entitled to others hard earned monies continue to raise taxes on a very small percentage of citizens all the while not contributing anything themselves.

Payroll tax? How can you have give away services without requiring those who may use the programs to pay for services. Your living in a dream world Trish. Were broke, get into your head, there is no more money left. obuma has delivered $4.23 in new debt in just 945 days. You don't have any money left!

Oh there you go... Tax the poor to feed the rich. Instead of babbling incessantly about false conservatismm, why don't you stop lying & call it what it is? Feudalism.

We're not broke. There's no limit to the money supply. The whole argument is bullshit because it's based on a false premise. None of this is about money. It's just about gaining power & control. You know. That stuff that the government isn't supposed to have, according to those who are trying to get it by taking over the government. It's all just a big lie. Every time power changes hands, nothing else changes. But the new guys will tell you "It's okay now because we're in charge.". The ideologues either don't know what their talking about, or they're lying in hopes that nobody else knows what they're talking about. Not one philosophical economic plan has ever worked, & can't work because none of them take humanity into account. So give me one good reason why I should pay even the slightest bit of attention to any of this crap. Especially the drivel coming out of a bunch of blatant know-nothings like the teabaggers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Oh there you go... Tax the poor to feed the rich. Instead of babbling incessantly about false conservatismm, why don't you stop lying & call it what it is? Feudalism.

We're not broke. There's no limit to the money supply. The whole argument is bullshit because it's based on a false premise. None of this is about money. It's just about gaining power & control. You know. That stuff that the government isn't supposed to have, according to those who are trying to get it by taking over the government. It's all just a big lie. Every time power changes hands, nothing else changes. But the new guys will tell you "It's okay now because we're in charge.". The ideologues either don't know what their talking about, or they're lying in hopes that nobody else knows what they're talking about. Not one philosophical economic plan has ever worked, & can't work because none of them take humanity into account. So give me one good reason why I should pay even the slightest bit of attention to any of this crap. Especially the drivel coming out of a bunch of blatant know-nothings like the teabaggers.

---

Well quite frankly you obviously believe the drivel you just posted so I wouldn't and really hope you don't pay attention to anything.

Show me where austerity programs like you advocate has ever been of benefit to a nation. Give me just one example.

You said it, Faldur. You insisted that we not raise the debt ceiling, knowing full well that means reneging on our bills, (you have to admit that or else admit you're stupid) unless we adhere fully to the Norquist pledge. What was the result. Because of tea-bagging shennanigans the S&P thought there might really be an imminent danger that we would renege on our bills and consequently the tea party got us downgraded. Thank you. You many now take credit for the consequences of your tea-bagging actions. The rest of the country will remember you for it. And now we find out that you don't give two shits about the Norquist pledge when it applies to tax cuts for the middle class and under.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Show me where austerity programs like you advocate has ever been of benefit to a nation. Give me just one example.

---

Implementation of budget controls, cutting out of control spending, (austerity program if you wish). Is not going to produce any sort of economic growth for many years. We have a government that currently has a debt to gdp of 96%.

If you think you can continue with business as usual and see any type of long term growth with 100% debt to gdp your mad. A stable US living within its means would initiate a prosperous growth period possibly like none we have seen.

And an example is not needed, the elephant in the room is pretty easy to spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

You said it, Faldur. You insisted that we not raise the debt ceiling, knowing full well that means reneging on our bills, (you have to admit that or else admit you're stupid) unless we adhere fully to the Norquist pledge. What was the result. Because of tea-bagging shennanigans the S&P thought there might really be an imminent danger that we would renege on our bills and consequently the tea party got us downgraded. Thank you. You many now take credit for the consequences of your tea-bagging actions. The rest of the country will remember you for it. And now we find out that you don't give two shits about the Norquist pledge when it applies to tax cuts for the middle class and under.

---

Firstly I think I have pretty well shown in this forum that I am not stupid. An asshole maybe, but not stupid.

Cutting useless and wasteful government programs is not "reneging", its called living responsibly. And had the Tea Party passed the "Cut, Cap, and Balance" bill the S&P wouldn't have down graded our status.

And in case you haven't noticed Trish, I could give a flying fuck about the Norquist pledge. You won't find my signature on it. We need to raise taxes on the 50% of US taxpayers who are not paying there fair share. Obuma calls it "shared sacrifice". So yes, I am all about raising taxes.

Hmmmm

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/08/...d-for-america/

Bartlett, who culled Internal Revenue Service data for his analysis, which appears this week in his New York Times column, goes on to say: "If this group were still paying 33.1 percent, federal revenue would have been more than $166 billion higher in 2008 alone. That would be enough to reduce the budget deficit by about 10 percent this year. If the top 1 percent of taxpayers had continued to pay the same effective tax rate they paid in 1986 every year from 1987 to 2008, the federal debt today would be $1.7 trillion lower."