Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Good Lord...when I get to a computer I will correct your lies.
There is no need sweetheart. You've already contradicted yourself enough as it is. No need to pile on by demonstrating your inability to distinguish between fact and opinion, or further demonstrate your difficulties with reading for comprehension.
Quote:
It has not been a century that has been the debt problem but the last 34 years in particular. Dick Cheney who worked for Regan and was Bush's VP , said debt did not matter. Google it
Quote:
I hate to tell your silly ass this...butt all debt is not bad. If it was very few of us would buy a home. Our debt is generally looked at vs our GDP. Debt without the ability to repay it is bad. Do you understand that the discovery of all this oil in the United States has righted our ship? Given us the ability to actually repay this debt and get out of the policing the world/nation building business ?
Game over. When you use both sides of an argument to try and win your case, you've lost. Now please, stop embarrassing yourself.
I would have thought that admitting that you are less intelligent than an 8th grader would have been humiliating enough as it is. There is no need to continue your need for self flagellation on my account.
Game over. When you use both sides of an argument to try and win your case, you've lost. Now please, stop embarrassing yourself.
.
its nigh an impossibility for anything to embarrass WTF
he is renown for claiming both sides of an argument in midstream..in fact the more deep and swirling the waters..the more he flails about for any life hold
he will never, repeat never, recognize in print he does such
.
Originally Posted by WTF
You have basically repeated wtf I said. I just did not give an 8th grade history blurp. But would you make a mental note of when that graph spiked. It was thirty 34 years ago....just like I said ...not a hundred like you said.
Good of you to admit that an 8th grader is smarter than you.
There are a bunch of 8th graders smarter than both of us , only one of us is man enough to admit so.
No evidently you can not read....they can choose to not pay for granny and grandpa's Medicare that granny and grandpa did not pay for. Do you understand that they will cut social services? Do you understand where that money went? We bought military toys and left the SS/Medicare system a bunch of IOU's. Hopefully our children will see through this sham and cut military spending too.
Still with the finger pointing. Did Kennedy buy military toys? Did Carter buy military toys? Did Clinton buy military toys? Hey, lets dig Ronnie Ray-gun up and bitch slap him for running up debts. That will solve the problem right? Since, according to your narrative he is apparently the only President to ever run huge deficits.
Can you read a graph? Do you understand where it spiked?
Why do labor under the delusion that if our kids choose to cut or even abolish Medicare to pay off our debts, that somehow makes it ok? It will still be their tax dollars, their hard earned money being used to pay for our and our parent's piss poor irresponsible choices.
Not if they choose not to pay it. Which was my point.
No evidently you can not read....they can choose to not pay for granny and grandpa's Medicare that granny and grandpa did not pay for
Sorry...you have proposed nothing that Bowles/Simpson haven't already proposed.
I fuckin love it. "The bitch is right and that pisses me off. Oh well, I can still trash talk better than she does"
You can love it all you want...the fact is we are not doing what they proposed. I understand human nature and understand why. You on the other hand choose to dress in 1776 garb and proclaim that as doing something positive.
Both sides acted like Monkeys and started throwing shit at each other. The Tea Party thinks they are above the fray yet their hands are just as shit smeared as any. It is called human nature my dear, you throw shit with the best of us.
[/FONT]
Now this, I am in complete agreement with you.
You admit that your hands are smeared with shit? We are making progress if so.
You do realize though, that with your reply here, you have basically admitted that your only real problem here is that you have rolled over and waved a white flag of surrender, believing that our spending addiction can never be solved. It will be addressed when a crisis arrives. I understand that fact, you on the other hand do not. Furthermore, apparently your only problem with the Tea Party is that those of us who still call for a balanced budget and debt repayment haven't given up yet. The problem with the Tea Party is they think they are the only one that understands the solution...yet they do not understand pure politics. They will have to become that which they despise to get anything done. That is called politics. Sad. You keep wringing your hands and wailing over our inevitable destruction. Meanwhile, I'll be over here, still preaching the gospel of fiscal discipline and responsibility.
Preach it girl! I plan on taking the Adam Smith route ...not that you will understand that.
Game over. When you use both sides of an argument to try and win your case, you've lost. Now please, stop embarrassing yourself.
Maybe I can help out here. What WTFuddlehead really meant to say is Republican debt is a "problem" whereas Democratic debt is "not bad". Try to keep that distinction in mind.
Carry on.
Adam Smith? The Wealth of Nations? Bring it on, WTFagboy!
and ohh I haven't forgotten about you sweetie I'll see if I can get to you sometime this weekend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh
You are more patient than I am. I fell asleep waiting
Wow... Zanyzit is the same guy who got his panties all in a bunch in another thread because I let a week go by before I came back and demolished his arguments... at which point all he could do was bitch and moan about how long it took me... he is a buzzword bozo... nothing but worn-out talking points... facts tend to confuse him... aw never mind, go back to sleep SOTF...
Maybe I can help out here. What WTFuddlehead really meant to say is Republican debt is a "problem" whereas Democratic debt is "not bad". Try to keep that distinction in mind.
Carry on.
Adam Smith? The Wealth of Nations? Bring it on, WTFagboy!
-I[/YOUTUBE]
I merely pointed out the factual history of wvhich most Tea Turkeys are ignorant of... http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
In 1981, the supply-siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency and employed their Voodoo economics, as Bush senior had called it in 1980. He was saying that tax cuts would not increase government revenues. As you can see on the graph above (get it on your smartphone app info), the Voodoo failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply-siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20 years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased. Twenty years in a row can't be just an accident, but to understand you need to learn the voodoo strategy. (Why graph Debt / GDP ?)
What's causing today's huge deficits? Deficit basics. Top 4 deficit causes.
Bush senior fought against supply-side debt, so the Republicans didn't support him and he lost to Clinton, who put an end to supply-side economics. G. W. Bush brought it back full strength, with V.P. Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Currently supply-siders are in full control of the Republican party.
I merely pointed out the factual history of wvhich most Tea Turkeys are ignorant of... http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
In 1981, the supply-siders commandeered the Reagan Presidency and employed their Voodoo economics, as Bush senior had called it in 1980. He was saying that tax cuts would not increase government revenues. As you can see on the graph above (get it on your smartphone app info), the Voodoo failed just as Bush predicted, and the supply-siders turned a 32-year winning streak into a debt disaster that continues to this day. For 20 years, under Reagan and the Bushes, the national debt increased compared to GDP every single year. In most other years it decreased. Twenty years in a row can't be just an accident, but to understand you need to learn the voodoo strategy. (Why graph Debt / GDP ?)
What's causing today's huge deficits? Deficit basics. Top 4 deficit causes.
Bush senior fought against supply-side debt, so the Republicans didn't support him and he lost to Clinton, who put an end to supply-side economics. G. W. Bush brought it back full strength, with V.P. Cheney saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Currently supply-siders are in full control of the Republican party.
Wow, what a fake you are! You stumble across a fake economist/blogster and then cut and paste his fake comments without attribution so everyone will think they are your own... When it comes to economics you are worse than a dilettante. You know nothing. Here are some inconvenient facts for you, idiot poseur:
Under Reagan, federal tax revenues swelled by 65% from $599 bn in 1981 to $991 bn in 1989 - despite a nasty recession in 1982 which cut revenues at the time. So fagboy, tell me again - how did the Reagan tax cuts starve the government of revenues? Or maybe we should look at the Bush record. In the 4 years immediately following the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues surged by 44% from $1,782 bn in 2003 to $2,568 bn in 2007.
Hmmm, do you think you could be comfortable and make ends meet if your income went up by 65% in 8 years (Reagan) or by 44% in 4 years (Bush), fagboy? Most people would be thrilled to see that kind of income growth. Some of us might even put some money aside for a rainy day.
So if federal revenues were healthy, where did the deficits come from? Well maybe, just maybe you (or your faux economist, the guy you pretend to be) are looking in the wrong place when you keeping bitching and moaning about tax cuts. A deficit means you spend more than you take in. That's a simple concept - even a fucking dilettante like you ought to be able to grasp it. Maybe, just maybe Reagan and Bush didn't have a revenue problem. Maybe, just maybe they had a spending problem. Duh? So if you want to bash them over deficits, do it right - bash them for overspending, not for undertaxing, you ignorant dipshit.
Evidently you fell off the same gay ass chicken little turnip truck COG did. WTF tried to pass off material as his own...even though he provided a link.
If I could ever talk you two homo' s down for a drink I'd pull COG dick out of JD's mouth and shove it up your ass to see which one of you were the gayist.
Evidently you fell off the same gay ass chicken little turnip truck COG did. WTF tried to pass off material as his own...even though he provided a link.
If I could ever talk you two homo' s down for a drink I'd pull COG dick out of JD's mouth and shove it up your ass to see which one of you were the gayist.
There you go again... NGIAT was spot-on about you... Who taught you to cuss and insult so well? Adam Smith?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
the only time your posts are worth their electronic transmission is when you don't try to make a point but just cuss at someone
When WPF has his ass handed to him, he breaks out the "homo" epithets. He's very unsure of his masculinity.
You only wish I would hand my ass over to your tongue you tally wag....
When SOF comes on here posting trying to defend the huge spike in deficit spend that started with the notion of supply side bullshit on Ronnie's watch and I post a factual graph disputing her misleading assertion, why the fuck do you feel the need to make an ass of yourself too?
Under Reagan, federal tax revenues swelled by 65% from $599 bn in 1981 to $991 bn in 1989 - despite a nasty recession in 1982 which cut revenues at the time. So fagboy, tell me again - how did the Reagan tax cuts starve the government of revenues?
Well let me give you a brief factoid of the Laffer Curve....If taxes are to high and you cut them, you will get a bump in tax revenues. If they are to low and you raise them, you will get an increase in tax revenues. It is called a sweet spot. COG will confuse that with your asshole but it is not a set number but a fluid number that convolute to economic conditions at the time. SOF will not understand...it cuts against her Tea Bumpkin simpleton thought process. Probably yours too. You two only understood half of the equation.
Back to your ignorant question...Reagan spent the revenue increase on military mostly. I was talking about deficits though....see the chart. GDP vs, Debt. Why are you trying to muddy the water? Still trying to defend the debunked supply side voodoo?
Or maybe we should look at the Bush record. In the 4 years immediately following the Bush tax cuts, federal revenues surged by 44% from $1,782 bn in 2003 to $2,568 bn in 2007. That was called a Housing Bubble that had nothing to do with tax cuts and everything to do with a Housing bubble you dumbshit. I suppose you think the fucking Rooster wakes up the Sun.
Hmmm, do you think you could be comfortable and make ends meet if your income went up by 65% in 8 years (Reagan) or by 44% in 4 years (Bush), fagboy? Most people would be thrilled to see that kind of income growth. Some of us might even put some money aside for a rainy day. Not if you spend that and more on the fucking military. That would be like getting a raise and then having to pay a security guard ten times more than your raise. Next Bush's bump was followed by a huge meltdown. It was a faux bump. Reagan's was followed by a tax increase that was aimed at cutting the deficit which in fact it did! God Damn you fuckers are either stupid as shit or lying cocksuckers. Probably a combination ...
So if federal revenues were healthy, where did the deficits come from? Well maybe, just maybe you (or your faux economist, the guy you pretend to be) are looking in the wrong place when you keeping bitching and moaning about tax cuts. A deficit means you spend more than you take in. That's a simple concept - even a fucking dilettante like you ought to be able to grasp it. Maybe, just maybe Reagan and Bush didn't have a revenue problem. Maybe, just maybe they had a spending problem. Duh? So if you want to bash them over deficits, do it right - bash them for overspending, not for undertaxing, you ignorant dipshit.
I have explained the Laffer Curve. I understand wtf a deficit is. I also understand the problem of overspending. It is caused by hypocrites like you who do not want to cut what you think is essential and the other side not wanting to cut what they think essential. So they cut neither.
.
What I was doing was making fun of that SinsoftheFlesh coming on here acting like the Tea Party is above it all. Fuck them....they do not want to cut their pet projects yet want others to cut theirs.
Furthermore they have gotten in bed with the God Damn Evangelical Christians and all their bullshit about wanting more personal freedom is compromised. So Fuck them again, I hit them over their ignorant ass heads with their own rhetoric.
