T1B

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:40 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote: the issues facing us are not solved by partisanship.

How the fuck would you know? You don't even know what the issues are let alone what their solution might be. So you can either stop lying, stop talking out your ass or stop posting.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:07 am**

mvscal wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote: the issues facing us are not solved by partisanship.
How the fuck would you know? You don't even know what the issues are let alone what their solution might be. So you can either stop lying, stop talking out your ass or stop posting.

Mvscal, ur right, he is talking out his ass, BECAUSE Obama is the MOST partisan president ive ever seen. He divides us, race baits us, plays class warfare 24/7, and, from what ive seen thus far? He is not as smart as we were told.

The press tried desperately to compare him to Reagan, HOWEVER, that was a TOTAL JOKE, and an insult to REAGAN. Reagan actually reached across the aisle and worked with the speaker of the house, AND at the end of the day, great things were accomplished.

The PROBLEM no one wants to hear? The elephant in the room? Obama is a left radical who masquerades as a moderate. He got elected by doing just that, THE QUESTION OF THE DECADE is this, CAN HE FOOL THE COUNTRY AGAIN?????

Im betting against him.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:24 am**

mvscal wrote:Go ahead and lay the solution on us

okay here's some suggestions.....

first off, we need increased tax revenue...the infrastructure in this country is going to hell in a handbasket so the increased revenue is needed to fix our crumbling roads, power grid, etc.....now it's not fair to ask the wealthiest people to fork over more money, so of course the tax increase must come from the lower tax brackets...so by increasing the tax rate on those that make say $30k to $60k/yr we might be able to address some of the infrastructure problems....with the increased taxes coming from the lower class we can probably cut the tax rates for the wealthiest individuals...that's only fair...maybe if we really work at it, we could figure out a way to exempt the wealthiest from having to pay any taxes whatsoever because everybody knows that if the wealthy have more money, they create jobs....

second, we need to eliminate all entitlement programs, no not scale them down, eliminate them completely...no food stamps, no housing assistance, no welfare of any kind....let those poor bastards go to the nearest church if they need help....of course the churches won't have any money because most of the money collected by church groups come from the lower to middle class, but who cares, at least the richest people will be okay....

third, social security needs to be privatized....lets give the money to wall street types because I like totally trust those guys to do the right thing....lets let them invest it for us because I'm almost positive they could turn social security into a profit making monster (assuming of course, the economy doesn't tank)

fourth, every area in america needs to opened for drilling for oil...of course, the increased oil production will have minimal effect on gas prices, but at least we'll be making the oil companies happy....and we definitely need to continue to provide subsidies to the oil companies because the billions they're making in profits just isn't enough...so lets give them some of the money we'll save by eliminating entitlement programs.....

fifth we need a complete overhaul of environmental laws because the laws we have in place are just too restrictive...lets put companies on the honor system and make them promise not to dump toxic waste into our waterways....

sixth all governmental restrictions on the insurance industries must be eliminated, because it's those pesky laws that are getting in the way of the insurance industry delivering quality health care at affordable costs....we need to allow the insurance companies to tell us who they're willing to insure....

seventh-we need to start a new war....the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just didn't have enough punch, so I think we should pick a foe that could cause us some real trouble....Iran is a good candidate...escalating tensions with them has the potential to draw bigger opponents into a potential conflict...who knows, if we play our cards right we might be able to get Russia and China involved too....N. Korea is also a candidate, but only because they possess nuclear weapons...but a war with Iran has the most potential for global catastrophe.....

eighth, we need to get rid of all illegal immigrants ...lets establish a branch of government with the authority to ask anyone at any time to produce credentials that prove they are citizens of the US and if they can't produce them, we simply put them on a bus back to Juarez....we also need to install security measures that will keep people out of the country...me, I'd like to see a 50 foot metal fence that is electrified....that would put a serious dent in the flow of illegals into this country.....

this is just the start....

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:57 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:Let me know if you daughter needs any pointers on this place...glad to help out.

Is she trying to decide what middle school she wants to attend?

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:59 am**

Felix wrote:first off, we need increased tax revenue...

Good thing you stated that up front.

It totally discredited the rest of that.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:25 pm**

Carson wrote:
Felix wrote:first off, we need increased tax revenue...
Good thing you stated that up front.

It totally discredited the rest of that.

Carson, DID you hear who felix wants to raise taxes on? He said those making between 30K-60K.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???

Is felix a fuckin idiot? 30K a year? So, felix thinks that a person making 30K a year should pay more taxes. what about a black person working at McDonalds? Want to raise their taxes too??

You are a clueless prick felix. THE ANSWER IS MORE JOBS, putting millions back to work.
THAT ALONE will cut the debt, due to the fact that when you put people back to work, you no longer cut them a free check every week.

Raising taxes on folks who make 30 to 60 grand a year is ABSOLUTELY STUPID you jerk. WHAT? you think 30 grand is a lot of money? You jerk.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:26 pm**

Carson wrote:
Felix wrote:first off, we need increased tax revenue...
Good thing you stated that up front.

It totally discredited the rest of that.

Oh of course Carson chimes in parroting the GOP line that we need to limit spending. Yet when it's proposed that we stop giving billions in subsidies to oil companies that are raking in billions in profit already guess who objects....the Governors Of Privilege.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:05 pm**

Carson wrote:
Felix wrote:first off, we need increased tax revenue...
Good thing you stated that up front.

It totally discredited the rest of that.

so we don't need additional tax revenues? even with my eight point bullet plan we're still going to need money to wage wars and build useless weapon systems....and regardless of your political leanings, we have to address our deteriorating infrastructure...where is that money supposed to come from?

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:05 pm**

bradhusker wrote:
Carson wrote:
Felix wrote:first off, we need increased tax revenue...
Good thing you stated that up front.

It totally discredited the rest of that.
Carson, DID you hear who felix wants to raise taxes on? He said those making between 30K-60K.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME???

Is felix a fuckin idiot? 30K a year? So, felix thinks that a person making 30K a year should pay more taxes. what about a black person working at McDonalds? Want to raise their taxes too??

You are a clueless prick felix. THE ANSWER IS MORE JOBS, putting millions back to work.
THAT ALONE will cut the debt, due to the fact that when you put people back to work, you no longer cut them a free check every week.

Raising taxes on folks who make 30 to 60 grand a year is ABSOLUTELY STUPID you jerk. WHAT? you think 30 grand is a lot of money? You jerk.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:07 pm**

bradhusker wrote:Raising taxes on folks who make 30 to 60 grand a year is ABSOLUTELY STUPID you jerk.

maybe you'd better take a closer look at the Ryan budget plan because that's exactly what he's proposing......

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:47 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:Oh of course Carson chimes in parroting the GOP line that we need to limit spending. Yet when it's proposed that we stop giving billions in subsidies to oil companies that are raking in billions in profit already guess who objects....the Governors Of Privilege.

We aren't giving subsidies to big oil producers, fuckwit. Spit the kiddy dick out of mouth and get a fucking clue some day.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:49 pm**

Felix wrote:so we don't need additional tax revenues?

Nope. You cut spending and get the economy back on track and tax revenues will take care of themselves.

Raising taxes should have been the last item on your list not the first.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 7:59 pm**

mvscal wrote: You cut spending and get the economy back on track

Recipe for runaway inflation. The ol' "Let my great-grandchildren pay for it" GOP strategy. You just choose to see "spending cuts" by another name, i.e. monetary inflation. You think that by giving Joe Lunchbox a token tax cut, he'll go out and buy a luxury car.

Monetary inflation (artificially pumping up the dollar) is just another tax.

Moron, the problem with your country right now is wage stagnation. People can't spend money they don't have.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:19 pm**

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote: You cut spending and get the economy back on track

Recipe for runaway inflation.

We already on the path to runaway inflation, dumbfuck. Cutting spending is not an inflationary move, in fact, it is the exact opposite.

You increase the supply of money, you cause inflation. The Fed increases the supply of money because we can't sell enough treasury securities to cover our deficits. When that happens, the Fed buys the debt...with newly printed money. Short term deficits aren't a problem. Chronic, long term deficits (such as we face now) will result in hyperinflation.

Since you don't know what you're talking about, it would be a good idea to shut the fuck up.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:51 pm**

mvscal wrote:You increase the supply of money, you cause inflation.

Yeah. That's what I said, numbnuts.

mvscal wrote:The Fed increases the supply of money...

The Fed doesn't wave any "magic wand" and hocus-pocus money out of thin air without consent of:

a) Congress
b) The Treasury

You know what increases (artificially AND short-term) the supply of money?

Tax cuts.

Now wipe your nose and shut the fuck up.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:08 pm**

actually marty, you are only half right. Until we put the millions of unemployed back to work, NOTHING you do will matter one bit.

And if you dont understand that, you are hopeless.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:13 pm**

Martyred wrote:You know what increases (artificially AND short-term) the supply of money?

Tax cuts.

Categorically false. Tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the supply of money. The supply of money is increasing through debt monetization either by deficit spending or quantitative easing. Period.

You're attempting to argue that water isn't wet and exposing yourself as a complete idiot in the process.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:42 pm**

mvscal wrote:Tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the supply of money.

People don't spend money in a "down" economy, nor should they, necessarily (speaking in a strict Austrian sense).

IPSO FACTO...

When people don't spend, this creates a surplus.

Commodity surplus - consumption = wage deflation for workers

Wage deflation for workers = commodity shortage

commodity shortage = inflation.

There's you boom/bust/echo in a nutshell. Now run along and play with your tin soldiers like a good little boy.

~pats mvscal on the head~

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:44 pm**

Scott, I'm sorry this isn't taking place in your Ponzi Forum. Maybe, in another time and place, it might have...

:(

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:19 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote: the issues facing us are not solved by partisanship.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:50 pm**

Martyred wrote:People don't spend money in a "down" economy, nor should they, necessarily (speaking in a strict Austrian sense).

IPSO FACTO...

When people don't spend, this creates a surplus.

You're a fucking idiot. It doesn't create jack shit especially at zero percent interest.

People not spending has nothing to do with the total number of dollars in circulation which is what drives inflation. The printing press is what creates more dollars, you stupid fuck. Government deficits and QE are what increases the total number of dollars in circulation. That isn't even subject to argument.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Posted: **Wed Apr 18, 2012 11:51 pm**

Bizzarofelice wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote: the issues facing us are not solved by partisanship.

Then what are they solved by? Or you can just fuck off.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:00 am**

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Oh of course Carson chimes in parroting the GOP line that we need to limit spending. Yet when it's proposed that we stop giving billions in subsidies to oil companies that are raking in billions in profit already guess who objects....the Governors Of Privilege.
We aren't giving subsidies to big oil producers, fuckwit.

Try again, you shit-slurping mental midget.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:07 am**

mvscal wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote:
Bizzarofelice wrote: the issues facing us are not solved by partisanship.
Then what are they solved by?

addressing the issues directly. and not addressing the wants and needs of political parties.

despite the republicsans handling of the economy in the last decade, couldn't get anyone here to break partisan rank and admit it. they spin against a rival party.

stop thinking in terms of party. completely.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:07 am**

mvscal wrote:Or you can just fuck off.

always bitter.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:55 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Oh of course Carson chimes in parroting the GOP line that we need to limit spending. Yet when it's proposed that we stop giving billions in subsidies to oil companies that are raking in billions in profit already guess who objects....the Governors Of Privilege.
We aren't giving subsidies to big oil producers, fuckwit.
Try again, you shit-slurping mental midget.

Needless to say your shitskinned hero pointedly neglected to identify who exactly is receiving these subsidies. It isn't "big oil."

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:56 am**

mvscal wrote:
People not spending has nothing to do with the total number of dollars in circulation which is what drives inflation. The printing press is what creates more dollars, you stupid fuck.

I'm taking about actual wealth, not your imaginary capital, you blithering dipshit.
If you don't know the difference, I can recommend some reading material for you. Even something at your reading level.

The government firing up the printing press is a causal response to, now get this...

...MARKET INDUCED INFLATION DUE TO WAGE DEFLATION. It's a process where by wealth is extracted from a shrinking spending class in a surplus economy.
This is known is socialist dialectic as "non-government tax". Ergo...tax-cuts are actually a "hidden tax".

i.e. "blood from a stone".

You can shake the peasants upside-down from their ankles, but eventually all the change will have run out of their pockets.

Read Marx.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:57 am**

Bizzarofelice wrote:addressing the issues directly.

Meaning what? Which issues and how do we go about "addressing them directly." Please be specific.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 12:59 am**

Martyred wrote:I'm taking about actual wealth, not your imaginary capital, you blithering dipshit.

No, you were talking about inflation and money supply. "Actual wealth" is semantically and economically null concept.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:04 am**

mvscal wrote: "Actual wealth" is semantically and economically null concept.

Not according to Von Mises.

Read more. Post less.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:07 am**

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote: "Actual wealth" is semantically and economically null concept.
Not according to Von Mises.

Read more. Post less.

Even if that were true (and it isn't), it would have nothing whatsoever to do with money supply which is defined as the total number of dollars in circulation. The relative value of the that currency is irrelevant.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:26 am**

mvscal wrote:Needless to say your shitskinned hero pointedly neglected to identify who exactly is receiving these subsidies. It isn't "big oil."

You don't consider BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil & ConocoPhillips to be "big oil?"

The way you keep sticking your foot in between your cum-lined lips you're going to come down with athlete's mouth.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:16 am**

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:Let me know if you daughter needs any pointers on this place...glad to help out.
Is she trying to decide what middle school she wants to attend?

No worries. "Older women" are safe around Diego

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 2:28 am**

Cuda wrote:
No worries. "Older women" are safe around Diego

rack

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:19 am**

mvscal wrote:
Categorically false. Tax cuts have absolutely nothing to do with the supply of money. The supply of money is increasing through debt monetization either by deficit spending or quantitative easing. Period.

You're attempting to argue that water isn't wet and exposing yourself as a complete idiot in the process.

Thatcher abandoned that way of thinking because it didn't work and she denied she ever subscribed to it. Taxes were substituted by fees, bills, service charges, etc. The name changed, but everything remained the same. They did all of that and they couldn't stop the growth of the money supply.

EDIT: actually they didn't remain the same, the cost of all services doubled the pace of inflation. Deficit spending is in theory paying to keep consumer spending and the economy functioning.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 3:34 am**

mvscal wrote:

Nope. You cut spending and get the economy back on track and tax revenues will take care of themselves.

Raising taxes should have been the last item on your list not the first.

yeah the old trickle down economic theory that's been proven time and time again that it doesn't work....Reagan tried it and drove the debt to record levels...but that's when deficits didn't matter..... Bush tried it and we got a recession that was one failed major banking institute away from a full blown depression, still the republicans insisted that deficits didn't matter.....bush cut huge tax breaks for the wealthy and had the worst job creation record of all time....the tax rates are at their all time lowest and yet all of the jobs these tax breaks were supposed to create simply haven't developed....want to take another swing there slugger

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:13 am**

Since when have Labour, Liberal or the Democrats done anything different? Thatcher was the only one to take a serious, all out run at that approach.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:15 am**

Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:Needless to say your shitskinned hero pointedly neglected to identify who exactly is receiving these subsidies. It isn't "big oil."
You don't consider BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil & ConocoPhillips to be "big oil?"

They aren't the ones receiving the subsidies, you stupid, pedophile faggot.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:23 am**

Felix wrote:yeah the old trickle down economic theory that's been proven time and time again that it doesn't work....Reagan tried it and drove the debt to record levels...but that's when deficits didn't matter..... Bush tried it and we got a recession that was one failed major banking institute away from a full blown depression, still the republicans insisted that deficits didn't matter.....bush cut huge tax breaks for the wealthy and had the worst job creation record of all time....the tax rates are at their all time lowest and yet all of the jobs these tax breaks were supposed to create simply haven't developed....want to take another swing there slugger

None of that has even the slightest bit of relevance to anything I just said, you fucking idiot. If you knew anything about deficits (and you don't), you would understand that modest, short term deficits are not damaging and can even be beneficial. Long term, structural deficits, OTOH, will destroy your economy. Straight up.

Our stupid niggger pres__ent has rung up $5 trillion dollars in debt in less than four years and utter morons like Gayguyblo in Seattle are hung up on 3 billion dollars subsidies like it's going to make a difference.

We can't afford $1.3 trillion dollar plus deficits every year and you can't tax your way out of that hole. This is not an opinion. It is not an expression of partisan politics. It is a mathematical inevitability.

Deal with it, dicklips.

Posted: **Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:38 am**

mvscal wrote:
Diego in Seattle wrote:
mvscal wrote:Needless to say your shitskinned hero pointedly neglected to identify who exactly is receiving these subsidies. It isn't "big oil."
You don't consider BP, Shell, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil & ConocoPhillips to be "big oil?"

They aren't the ones receiving the subsidies, you stupid, pedophile faggot.

No, I guess they aren't.

The five firms that qualify for the breaks are now among the most well-established and profitable companies in the world. Two of them--BP and Royal Dutch Shell--aren't even American companies. Along with the other three--Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips--the five companies combined earned $116 billion in profits in 2011. If the tax breaks were eliminated and the whole tally came straight out of the bottom line, with no offsetting savings, the total decline in profits would be a paltry 1.8 percent.

Know when to stay down, felchcal.

T1B

Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats

Re: Stay Classy, DemocRats