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!
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 ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
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:
Game over. When you use both sides of an argument to try and win your case, you've lost. Now please, stop embarrassing yourself.
.
That was not both sides of the argument. Jesus
It was an argument to quit spending money policing the world/nation building and use that new found oil money on paying our obligation to our citizens in the form of SS and Medicare.
We/You were having a discussion about our children being saddled with our debt. Try and keep up. Again you are not talking to some impressionable dweeb dressed up like George Washington. This is not a Tea Rally....bring your A game or move on.
Hopefully lustyladyboy and SinsoftheFlesh are asking for their money back for that freshmen Economics and History class at Liars R' Us and not plotting together to keep posting Uncle Milton ecenomic babble about that model helping the middle class. That model has been shown to destroy it.
Reagan's tax cuts INCREASED revenue into the US treasury but the democrats who controlled the House and Senate spend more rather than less. Spending increased the debt, not tax cuts. No wonder people like WTF vote for people like Obama. The dim leading the stupid.
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.
I did? Really? So that is your issue then? Please quote precisely what statements I made that gave you the impression that the Tea Party is "above it all". For that matter, please quote anything I said that indicates that I am aligned with the Tea Party. Some portions of my posts actually state the precise opposite - that my opinions on our debt and constant deficits were formed more than two decades ago, long before the Tea Party was a twinkle in Rick Santelli's eye.
You and Wellendowed are both very good at seeing things that just aren't there. Meanwhile, you still can't grasp basic reading comprehension.
Furthermore, I also stated quite clearly in very plain language that the only way we will ever balance the budget and pay down our debt is for all sides to abandon their sacred cows (what you refer to as pet projects), and take an even handed approach to reducing spending in ALL areas. I have no "pet projects", all assumptions of yours to the contrary. So again, work harder at reading what IS there, and try not to make more assumptions.
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.
This is something that hasn't even been touched on in this thread. I will be happy to discuss the commingling evangelical politics with both the Tea Party and the GOP in a separate discussion if you like. However, now that we've reached page 9 on this discussion, lets keep the focus on what has been covered so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
That was not both sides of the argument. Jesus
It was an argument to quit spending money policing the world/nation building and use that new found oil money on paying our obligation to our citizens in the form of SS and Medicare.
We/You were having a discussion about our children being saddled with our debt. Try and keep up. Again you are not talking to some impressionable dweeb dressed up like George Washington. This is not a Tea Rally....bring your A game or move on.
Yes, actually you did attempt to take both sides of the argument. Do not take me for a fool. When you referenced Cheney, you did so while setting up your argument that the Reagan years, with Cheney functioning as the Sec'y of Defense are solely to blame for the out of control spending that created our debt. Something that you have repeatedly condemned. You threw in the Cheney comment in a laughable attempt to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those of us who oppose deficit spending in general. "See look, even Cheney says debt is OK".
Then you turned around used the same argument yourself. That is a textbook example of speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Unless, of course, you would like to amend your statements here and tell us that you thought Cheney's comments were insightful, accurate, and that you agreed with him. No? Didn't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
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?
You really, really need the help. Maybe one day, with a great deal of effort and study on your part, you will be able to comprehend the difference between our national debt, and the debt to GDP ratio. Somehow, in spite of the fact that I have discussed both of them at length, you are still unable to grasp the difference between them. I will give you a hint. One is our actual tangible debt, the other is a mathematical equation derived from the other.
Reagan's tax cuts INCREASED revenue into the US treasury but the democrats who controlled the House and Senate spend more rather than less. Spending increased the debt, not tax cuts. No wonder people like WTF vote for people like Obama. The dim leading the stupid.
Ok, maybe JD, SinsoftheFlesh and lustladyboy can take a 8th grade Civics class and try and figure out wtf a Presidential veto is and how it works. They can then take a history class and tell me which spending bills Reagan vetoed and the eventual outcome of that veto.
on a side note...JD loves Reagan because JD was sucking sailors dicks in the eighties and Reagan provided more sailors in the form of more Defense spending.
Look you Tea Loons....there is a reason why I posted the huge rise in the deficit on that graph. It was because Reagan spent more even after a raise in tax revenues. He spent more because he wanted to spend more on Defense and the only way the Dem controlled congress would go along was if they could spend money on projects dear to their heart. That is how a two party system works....what you fucking loons propose is a god damn one party your way is the only way.... pack of spending that you have tried to ignorantly wrap up in the Constitution to justify why nobody should oppose you.
I did? Really? So that is your issue then? Please quote precisely what statements I made that gave you the impression that the Tea Party is "above it all". For that matter, please quote anything I said that indicates that I am aligned with the Tea Party. Some portions of my posts actually state the precise opposite - that my opinions on our debt and constant deficits were formed more than two decades ago, long before the Tea Party was a twinkle in Rick Santelli's eye.
Fuck like asking me what started the Tea Party movement wasn't a give away. You are Tea Party through and through.
This is something that hasn't even been touched on in this thread. I will be happy to discuss the commingling evangelical politics with both the Tea Party and the GOP in a separate discussion if you like. However, now that we've reached page 9 on this discussion, lets keep the focus on what has been covered so far.
Why of course you do not want to talk about how fucking twisted the Tea Party is...
Yes, actually you did attempt to take both sides of the argument. Do not take me for a fool. When you referenced Cheney, you did so while setting up your argument that the Reagan years, with Cheney functioning as the Sec'y of Defense are solely to blame for the out of control spending that created our debt. Something that you have repeatedly condemned. You threw in the Cheney comment in a laughable attempt to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those of us who oppose deficit spending in general. "See look, even Cheney says debt is OK".
You are a fool and I'd take you no where.
Reagan years taught folks (incorrectly) that cutting taxes produces tax revenues.
While that can be true if the tax rate is 99% , it is not true if the tax rate is 1%. All I have done for the last 10 years is dispel the Reagan tax myth. The Reagan spending myth and try and educate you fucking Tea pumpkins the last 4 years.
Please state your understanding of the Laffer Curve of which all Reaganites fuck up.
Please tell me how after following Milton Friedman school of thought our country has now shrunk the middle class much like in Chile where is worshipers like to point as a success story.
Tell me what theory that you Freidman's turned to in time of crisis? Was it John Maynard Keynes or was it John Maynard Keynes? A person too who espoused that all debt is not bad....
Then you turned around used the same argument yourself. That is a textbook example of speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Unless, of course, you would like to amend your statements here and tell us that you thought Cheney's comments were insightful, accurate, and that you agreed with him. No? Didn't think so.
Of course I do not agree with Cheney's context but I do agree with mine. As does anyone else who has ever bought a house. All debt is not bad. That said....me personally , I think one should have to put down 50% of a home loan at least.
Do you even understand wtf I'm talking about and how some see certain debt as a good thing? Probably not....that is why you think I was talking out both sides. You do not understand different type of debt.
You really, really need the help. Maybe one day, with a great deal of effort and study on your part, you will be able to comprehend the difference between our national debt, and the debt to GDP ratio. Somehow, in spite of the fact that I have discussed both of them at length, you are still unable to grasp the difference between them. I will give you a hint. One is our actual tangible debt, the other is a mathematical equation derived from the other.
You cried about the national debt of the last 100 years. I corrected that misleading crap and pointed out the spike around 1980. That was when it started spiraling out of control. When Reagan taught you numbnuts that tax cuts produce more tax revenue and did not explain the qualifier to that tidbit.
btw the debt to GDP tracks closely to the actual debt.
"You cried about the national debt of the last 100 years. I corrected that misleading crap and pointed out the spike around 1980. That was when it started spiraling out of control. When Reagan taught you numbnuts that tax cuts produce more tax revenue and did not explain the qualifier to that tidbit.?
Sigh. Again, "debt" and "debt to GDP ratio" are not interchangeable.
We have paid down debt in 17 out of the last 100 years. We have added more debt in 83 of the last 100 years. Go back to my first response I wrote to you for links backing up what I just said. Now, what EXACTLY is misleading about what I just said?
We now pay more than $400 billion in interest on our debt every single year.
Now, you tell me again how some debt isn't bad, and why it is acceptable to you to spend nearly half a trillion dollars every single year just to keep up with the interest on our debt.
"You cried about the national debt of the last 100 years. I corrected that misleading crap and pointed out the spike around 1980. That was when it started spiraling out of control. When Reagan taught you numbnuts that tax cuts produce more tax revenue and did not explain the qualifier to that tidbit.?
Sigh. Again, "debt" and "debt to GDP ratio" are not interchangeable. I did not say they were...they each have their own useful purpose. Without understanding each , you can be fooled by rhetoric.
We have paid down debt in 17 out of the last 100 years. We have added more debt in 83 of the last 100 years. Go back to my first response I wrote to you for links backing up what I just said. Now, what EXACTLY is misleading about what I just said?
Because it had a huge spike starting in 1980.
Kinda like homeruns were hit every year in baseball but there was a huge spike in the nineties because of steroids. You act as if not mentioning the steroid spike is ok in a discussion about how to drop the number of homeruns back to a much more manageable rate. That was the discussion. Manageable debt. Until you get a grasp of how and why we got here, you will never fix the problem. I have pointed out where the problem started. Until you can grasp how that has spurned a generation of "Cut taxes!" as the solution to every problem, you will never solve the spending problem. When you raise taxes , people will be motivated to cut spending. Why the fuck should anyone care about spending if their taxes are low? That has been the God Damn number one problem for the last 34 years.
We now pay more than $400 billion in interest on our debt every single year.
Now, you tell me again how some debt isn't bad, and why it is acceptable to you to spend nearly half a trillion dollars every single year just to keep up with the interest on our debt.
I have told you twice that not all debt is bad. If you buy a house you can afford, that is not bad debt. If you buy one you can not afford with a ARM feature that can explode at anytime that is not good.
Can you get that simple concept through your dense skull?
WTF is right about good and bad debt. Bad debt includes going into debt to pay for lazy motherfuckers who wont work and pay taxes, and illegal workers who don't pay their fucking taxes.
WTF is right about good and bad debt. Bad debt includes going into debt to pay for lazy motherfuckers who wont work and pay taxes, and illegal workers who don't pay their fucking taxes.
What do you call illegal workers tjat pay FICA taxes but will never see a dime of that money? Lucky bastards?
What do you call illegal workers tjat pay FICA taxes but will never see a dime of that money? Lucky bastards?
OK - agreed that if you withhold their FICA, MCare etc. and match it that they might not personally receive it, if they go back, but low income workers don't generally pay enough in lifetime taxes to cover themselves and their family that they burden the rest of the taxpayers with, do they?
They need to pay about 13,100 per person per year to cover the expenses of the average taxpayer. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/taxes-...-united-states
I suspect you pay less than 15 per hour, hence 600 per week max, 30,000 per year. No way they cover themselves and their dependents. If someone comes to this country they should benefit everyone, shouldn't they, rather than some ragtag homebuilder?
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 (sic) 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. Thanks for explaining the Laffer Curve. Since there was a 65% “bump in tax revenues” under Reagan, you're saying taxes must have been too high before he cut them. I guess Ronnie found your sweet spot, huh? Is that why you squeal in pleasure each time you hear his name?
Back to your ignorant question...Reagan spent the revenue increase on military mostly... Why are you trying to muddy the water? Still trying to defend the debunked supply side voodoo? So you agree Reagan had a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Thanks for making my point... I'm not trying to muddy the water. I'm just trying to keep it simple for simple-minded simpletons like you. Btw, you just made a case for the Laffer Curve, explaining how it worked under Reagan. Now you want to "debunk" it? Make up your mind!
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. Housing (aka residential construction) normally accounts for only 5% of our GDP. The other 95% of the economy also expanded during 2003-07. Regardless of which sector led the growth, it doesn't look like the Bush tax cuts starved the government of revenues, does it?
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... Thanks for making my point again - it was a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Next Bush's bump was followed by a huge meltdown. It was a faux bump. That's a libtard talking point that is readily swallowed by simple-minded simpletons like you. Even if you put housing in the “faux” category, what about the other 95% of the economy? All fake?
Reagan's (revenue bump) was followed by a tax increase that was aimed at cutting the deficit which in fact it did! The deficit shrank under Clinton because he enjoyed the fruits of Reagan/Bush Sr. winning the Cold War, i.e. the peace dividend. Defense spending fell from 6.8% of GDP in 1986 to only 3.4% in 1999. The deficit turned into a surplus after Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate in 1997, triggering a big surge in revenues.
So if federal revenues were healthy, where did the deficits come from? Well maybe... you... 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... Maybe... Reagan and Bush didn't have a revenue problem. 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. Yeah, you explained the Laffer Curve all right. You also credited your hero Ronald Reagan with applying the concept successfully... Btw, I'm not a hypocrite on spending. You won't find a single post I made anywhere whining about anything being too “essential” to cut. Stop making this stuff up, fagboy.
WTF is right about good and bad debt. Bad debt includes going into debt to pay for lazy motherfuckers who wont work and pay taxes, and illegal workers who don't pay their fucking taxes.
