Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hippifried
Yeah, enough of your shit. You idiots are trying to put the US on an economic par with central Africa. You don't know what you're talking about.
How can you live in such a closed box, your a smart guy to think that everyone who has a different opinion than you is an idiot. Onmyknees, Rustaffa, and of coarse myself, lets not forget all Tea Party members are idiots, and of coarse ANY conservative republican. Your party has built walls around itself that are dooming it to a very private, lonely death.
At least we can look at the other side of the isle and understand they love America just as much as we do. That they honestly think their policies will help our country.
Big difference between the two of us, I hope your party finds its way out of the box. Cause you all are really making fools out of yourselves.
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BluegrassCat
The entire science establishment accepts the fact of evolution,
That statement is 100% wrong, there is competing science for both evolution and man made global warming. And to make a statement like that is disingenuous.
1 Attachment(s)
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
But I thought you guys believed God was everywhere at all times, and so his mere presence is not what made the burning bushes holy. Spanked again little boy!
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Faldur
That statement is 100% wrong, there is competing science for both evolution and man made global warming. And to make a statement like that is disingenuous.
Name the ten leading refereed biology journals devoted to anti-evolution research and cite their proportion of readership relative to the community of working biologists.
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
hippifried
Yeah, enough of your shit. You idiots are trying to put the US on an economic par with central Africa. You don't know what you're talking about. We're not broke. It's just a lie told in furthurance of a power grab. You swallowed that hook like a trout. I can't tell if you're just gullible or dishonest, but either way you're promoting the lie & trying to get the USA into surrender mode. Maybe you should move to France.
WWII comes to mind right off hand. All done on a borrowed dime. Took over 20 years to pay it off, & that was in the middle of the biggest economic boom in history. How long you figure it'll take to pay this off if y'all manage to get us into the permanent recession you'r aiming for?
Hippie...you're really a simpleton.....not because you're a lib, but because you're lazy and close minded,
and probably have bad personal hygiene..even in the face over overwhelming evidence. And you'll get worse, and more shrill as the American public rejects your philosophy at an astounding rate. So here's some numbers...call it economics for dummies, and by all means if the shoe fits for any of your cohorts on here... wear it! These are CBO numbers....got an issue with them? Take your case to them...
Follow along ....OK?
There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion. In 2011, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, the government will take in $2.230 trillion and spend $3.629 trillion, for a deficit of $1.399 trillion.
That's an increase of $901 billion in spending and a decrease of $338 billion in revenue in a very short time. Put them together, and that's how you go from a $160 billion deficit to a $1.399 trillion deficit.
But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No: The deficits are largely the result not of entitlements but of an explosion in spending related to the economic downturn and the rise of Democrats to power in Washington. While entitlements must be controlled in the long run, Washington's current spending problem lies elsewhere.
There is no line in the federal budget that says "stimulus," but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government. "It's spread all through the budget," says former Congressional Budget Office chief Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "It was essentially a down payment on the Obama domestic agenda." Green jobs, infrastructure, health information technology, aid to states -- it's all in there, billions in increased spending.
See how simple it really is Hippie ?
No need to take us back 70 years to WW2, no need to bad mouth fiscal conservatives...it's all right the in 3 paragraphs.
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
:whistle: I decided to briefly take him off ignore, just to see where he was going here. I mean, I notice that he's constantly posting in this section because his name always appears on the main list of threads. And, just as I thought, it's the same old bullshit. His head is planted firmly up his goosestepping ass.
But then it dawned on me. And I noticed a pattern with OMK. He generally has horrible grammar, and relies on ad hominem nonsense. But, lo and behold, he suddenly sandwiches seemingly well-rehearsed quasi-facts in between corny, hateful diatribes.
So I did a little research, and found something interesting.
But first, did anyone see a quote getting credited to someone better suited to be a fascist propagandist? I didn't think so. He leaves those out, because he's a plagiarizer. Case in point: here's the jist of his arguement, stolen word-for-word from Byron York in the Washington Examiner.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...eated-deficits
And now I'm putting him back on ignore, where he belongs. :loser:
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Faldur
That statement is 100% wrong, there is competing science for both evolution and man made global warming. And to make a statement like that is disingenuous.
Wow 100%, huh? LMFAO. Then you should have no problem presenting examples of biologists working at top universities or publishing in top (biology) journals saying evolution isn't true. If you can't then it's clear YOU'RE the disingenuous one. That or you have no clue what you're talking about. I guess there's always option C that it's both.
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Nicole Dupre
:whistle: I decided to briefly take him off ignore, just to see where he was going here. I mean, I notice that he's constantly posting in this section because his name always appears on the main list of threads. And, just as I thought, it's the same old bullshit. His head is planted firmly up his goosestepping ass.
But then it dawned on me. And I noticed a pattern with OMK. He generally has horrible grammar, and relies on ad hominem nonsense. But, lo and behold, he suddenly sandwiches seemingly well-rehearsed quasi-facts in between corny, hateful diatribes.
So I did a little research, and found something interesting.
But first, did anyone see a quote getting credited to someone better suited to be a fascist propagandist? I didn't think so. He leaves
those out, because he's a plagiarizer. Case in point: here's the jist of his arguement, stolen word-for-word from Byron York in the Washington Examiner.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...eated-deficits
And now I'm putting him back on ignore, where he belongs. :loser:
Busted! LOL!
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
Name the ten leading refereed biology journals devoted to anti-evolution research and cite their proportion of readership relative to the community of working biologists.
Rather than being anti-evolution, I like the term "intelligent design". It's not nescessary to believe in god, under common religious definitions. It's belief in the possibility that the nature and man are so complex, that it appears there is a higher intelligence than man, that was/is involved in its creation.
Re: 60 minutes = $188 million in new debt
Quote:
There's no doubt federal spending has exploded in recent years. In fiscal 2007, the last year before things went haywire, the government took in $2.568 trillion in revenues and spent $2.728 trillion, for a deficit of $160 billion.
Well actually, things went haywire in 2005. That's why Congress changed hands in the 2006 election, & the first order of business in the 2007 Congress was a tax rebate. Follow along, okay. Through accounting tricks, the 2 wars we're still tangled up in were kept off budget & didn't show in the deficit reports, even though it was all on a borrowed dime. That $160 billion is a bogus number to start with. The numbers are honest now.
I expect the government to run up deficits during downturns. That's what they're supposed to do. It keeps money flowing when the private sector crashes, & keeps things from total collapse. I don't know why that concept is so hard for you to grasp. It promotes the general welfare & provides for the common defense against the consequences of domestic stupidity, like bank panics.
Quote:
But how, precisely, did that happen? Was there a steep rise in entitlement spending? Did everyone suddenly turn 65 and begin collecting Social Security and using Medicare? No:
Wrong again. The answer to that question is yes. Not everybody, but this is the year the baby boomers start turning 65. It's going to be another decade before the increase flattens back out. But this has already been budgeted in for the next 40 years or so, & the Social Security & Medicare entitlements have their own separate revenue stream. They're self funded. The 2 biggest entitlements have nothing to do with the current deficit problems, aside from their heavy investment in Treasury bonds.
Quote:
There is no line in the federal budget that says "stimulus," but Obama's massive $814 billion stimulus increased spending in virtually every part of the federal government.
That's because it's called "the Recovery Act". Over half of it was tax cuts for small business & wage earners. I believe those are due to expire at the end of this year. Since Republicans are already clamoring to let the "Obama tax cuts" go by the wayside, how does that jive with the "pledge"?
Yeah, it's all very simple. Y'all're willing to let the whole country become collateral damage in your attempt at a power grab. Somehow, I can't seem to find anyting patriotic about putting ideology or vendettas ahead of the nation's wellbeing. There's niothing conservative about your austerity approach either. It's reactionary. You should learn the difference. This is a panic response to a trumped up crisis, & personally, I don't think it's a genuine response. Dollars to donuts says that if by some fluke y'all manage to take full control after 2012, all these proposals will go right out the window. All punditry is lies. Otherwise it'd be news.
