PDA

View Full Version : A must see for the thinking class.



LWW
10-12-2012, 03:51 PM
>>>TRUTH<<< (http://youtu.be/UnX7TNFIELg)

Qtec
10-12-2012, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> &gt;&gt;&gt;TRUTH&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://youtu.be/UnX7TNFIELg) </div></div>

Just wondering..........do you know what year it is?


Q

LWW
10-12-2012, 06:38 PM
You weren't invited to watch.

Qtec
10-12-2012, 07:04 PM
How would you know?


Q...........LOL

llotter
10-12-2012, 07:46 PM
Historically, America has been an the 'shining city on the hill' for the majority of the world's population who have lived under the evil of statism. Many have been fortunate to immigrant here and have the most eloquent in their warnings against pursuing the same statist goals they experienced first hand.

Whether it's Peterffy, as in this example, or Vaclav Hovel or F. A. Hayek, the story is the same, the reality of their experience is the same and the wide-spread poverty and corruption is the same. Unfortunately, for those still advocating more and more statism are not only blind, that are also deaf to the truth.

Soflasnapper
10-12-2012, 07:53 PM
The 'evil statism' of SS and MC happen to coincide with America's greatest prosperity years. We had them when he came here.

So wtf is he talking about? Those are the pinnacles of American 'socialism' so-called (it isn't, of course). Yes, we do have SOCIALIST programs, but socialism would be turning the largest parts of the economy from private hands to government ownership. I don't see that happening.

Qtec
10-12-2012, 07:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Historically, America has been an the 'shining city on the hill' for the majority of the world's population who have lived under the evil of statism. </div></div>

BS Are you saying the USA has always been a proponent of Democracy?

Q

LWW
10-13-2012, 03:48 AM
America has never been a democracy.

LWW
10-13-2012, 03:49 AM
You don't want to see it happening.

Qtec
10-13-2012, 04:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">America has never been a democracy. </div></div>

That wasn't the question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Throughout the speech,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Bush said the spread of democracy</span> is crucial to defeating terrorists and safeguarding the United States from another attack. "It should be clear that <span style='font-size: 26pt'>the advance of democracy</span> leads to peace because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors," he said. " </div></div>

Q

Qtec
10-13-2012, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You <u>on't</u> want to see it happening. </div></div>

Giggle..........LOL

Q

LWW
10-13-2012, 05:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">America has never been a democracy. </div></div>

That wasn't the question.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Throughout the speech,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> Bush said the spread of democracy</span> is crucial to defeating terrorists and safeguarding the United States from another attack. "It should be clear that <span style='font-size: 26pt'>the advance of democracy</span> leads to peace because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors," he said. " </div></div>

Q </div></div>

Actually ... it was the question.

llotter
10-13-2012, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 'evil statism' of SS and MC happen to coincide with America's greatest prosperity years. We had them when he came here.

<span style="color: #FF0000">My guess is that our most prosperous times pre-date SS and MC and the rest of our Great Society programs. At the very least, pre-date the times went the cost became so high. </span>

So wtf is he talking about? Those are the pinnacles of American 'socialism' so-called (it isn't, of course). Yes, we do have SOCIALIST programs, but socialism would be turning the largest parts of the economy from private hands to government ownership. I don't see that happening. </div></div>

At the federal level, the redistribution programs, including SS and MC, are now consuming more than 100% of all the taxes collected. Now, obviously they didn't start out that way or they never would have passed into law but, like a cancer, it doesn't kill overnight but often live off the host for years before death finally comes. At least, in the case of cancer, it is recognized as a disease and efforts are made to defeat it but the Nanny State is thought of as a friend to be nurtured. These warnings from the people who have first hand experience know that it is not a friend but an evil that is made to look like a friend. So take heed.

Soflasnapper
10-13-2012, 11:09 AM
At the federal level, the redistribution programs, including SS and MC, are now consuming more than 100% of all the taxes collected.

That can only have a remote chance of being true (and I think it is false) because instead of collecting the average of about 22% of gdp, the tax burden has been reduced to the 15% level of gdp, with $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures (tax revenues foregone to various interests, including the middle class and poor but the rich as well).

That shows the ratcheting down of taxes is now a real problem, not a solution, and needs to be substantially reversed.

Only the 'taxes are bad and punishment for success' crowd won't look at real numbers and draw the obvious conclusions.

Ryan praises Alice Rivlin a lot, and she, like all sane parties looking at this situation, says we need the two-track approach of reining in spending AND raising taxes significantly.

LWW
10-13-2012, 01:05 PM
The ratcheting down of taxes is not due to rate ... it is due to massive UE compounded by rinting money for UE benefits.

Returning to Reagan/Bush/ Clinton/Bush era UE ... in combination with jst holding th line on spending ... will fix the debt problem.

Soflasnapper
10-13-2012, 01:25 PM
You are right that the UE adds significantly to the deficit.

However, simply look at the last Bush era stated UE vs. the debt increases to see why your claim here doesn't add up.

With fairly low UE-3 rates (funny no one mentions his own UE-6 rates, and instead compares his UE-3 rates with the UE-6 rates now), the Bush years saw an average of $500 billion per year added to the debt. That was your own finding which you posted on this site. If anything that understates the new annual average debt his policies incurred, which totaled about $5 trillion in new debt over an 8 year period. (Although to be sure there was the compounding of the extra debt laid on by the interest due on it, compounding.)

Note I explicitly say debt, because the stated deficits were deliberately understated by well over $100 billions per year (and yet ended up being borrowed, just off-budget as 'emergency spending.')

So this wouldn't fix the deficit problem, let alone the debt problem. Because simply getting to a (real, correctly stated) balanced budget = no new debt makes no dent in the debt at all.

Do you really misunderstand all of this to this degree?

llotter
10-13-2012, 02:35 PM
It is true, at least for 2010, where total taxes collected were $2.2T and total Nanny State programs, inc. SS and MC were $2.3T. I can't imagine it has improved since then. This is exactly the problem facing Greece and other EU countries where so many have become dependent on continued gov. spending regardless of the taxes required to support it. This inevitable leads to less resources available to the productive sector and killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

hondo
10-13-2012, 02:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You weren't invited to watch. </div></div>

larry, 2 old friends of mine live in Dayton, Jena Snyder and Henna Mumford. You wouldn't perhaps have run into them?

Soflasnapper
10-13-2012, 03:00 PM
When we forego $1.2 trillion in taxes as a large part of the social welfare spending in tax expenditures, your point is pretty much gutted unless you advocate repealing those tax subsidies to people from the tax code. I haven't heard that from you, but maybe that's your position.

Tell me how poor we were in the Clinton economy years, when we taxed at or near record levels of gdp, but spent at near-record low levels of gdp for post-WW II years, and how there was no money left for investments because the government took so much.

To pay down debt, as we did in those last couple of years, $500 billion plus paid off the publicly held debt, with the government thus taking hundreds of billions more out of the economy than paid back into the economy, we still had a uniquely strong economy and national fiscal position, on a track to entirely pay off the publicly held national debt in a 10 year time frame. Longest peace time recovery of our history, beating the Reagan recovery total months, which in his case also occurred with very large tax hikes.

How? By instituting pay-go rules-- no extra spending that would otherwise make the deficit worse, and likewise no extra tax cuts that would do that, unless they were paid for by 1 for 1 spending cuts or tax hikes (or closing loopholes). Plus of course keeping the Bush the Wiser tax HIKES, and adding in the Clinton tax HIKES (minus some growth in tax cuts for expensing business investment (doubled that amount), for the EITC (doubled that amount), and at the end, giving the $500 per child tax credit).

Pay-go exactly what Bush and Co. got rid of, and exactly how our deficit was re-ballooned, and our national debt doubled in 8 years. If we really needed to add $600 billion to the national military budget annually (we didn't, but...), we surely should have had a tax hike to pay for it, as had been our history forever until the 2000s under Bush.

You are looking at the wrong part of the budget, or not enough of the budget, to get the job done.

Qtec
10-13-2012, 05:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is due to massive UE compounded by<span style='font-size: 14pt'> rinting</span> money for UE benefits.

Returning to Reagan/Bush/ Clinton/Bush era UE ... in combination with<span style='font-size: 14pt'> jst</span> holding <span style='font-size: 14pt'>th</span> line on spending </div></div>

LOL

Q

Stretch
10-13-2012, 06:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">it is due to massive UE compounded by<span style='font-size: 14pt'> rinting</span> money for UE benefits.

Returning to Reagan/Bush/ Clinton/Bush era UE ... in combination with<span style='font-size: 14pt'> jst</span> holding <span style='font-size: 14pt'>th</span> line on spending </div></div>

LOL

Q </div></div>

You can always tell when he needs his medication. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

Qtec
10-13-2012, 07:39 PM
LOL.....OR he should just quit drinking Jack Daniels through a straw. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Q

eg8r
10-13-2012, 09:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me how poor we were in the Clinton economy years, when we taxed at or near record levels of gdp, but spent at near-record low levels of gdp for post-WW II years, and how there was no money left for investments because the government took so much.</div></div>Why bring up an example that is not even on the table? Obama wants to tax and spend not tax and lower spending.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pay-go exactly what Bush and Co. got rid of</div></div>Pay-go, seriously. That is what the Dems say out of the corner of their mouth as they continue to borrow money for bills they refuse to pay for. No sooner did they pass pay-go and they were immediately coming up with exceptions to the law. Freaking hilsrious you would actually bring this up.

eg8r

eg8r
10-13-2012, 09:11 PM
LOL, we can always tell when you have nothing intelligent to say on the subject and resort to looking for spelling errors.

eg8r

hondo
10-13-2012, 10:10 PM
Sent you a PM.

llotter
10-14-2012, 04:35 AM
You obviously suffer from what Hayek labeled a 'Fatal Conceit', the belief that a bunch of really smart people can plan the economic affairs for the rest of us 'better' than we can plan it ourselves.

The fact is that in a free society, the citizens are not mere subjects for economic experiments, to be pushed and prodded with taxes and credits and deductions and penalties designed by central planners in Washington. Hayek's point is that these experiments always fail because the planners are not smart enough and cannot have enough information. They are simply a bunch of conceited bastards ruining whatever they fiddle with.

Your comments about the glorious Clinton years clearly illustrates this conceit, essentially saying that you understand the economic motivations of hundreds of millions, how and why they make their individual decisions when such knowledge is impossible.

LWW
10-14-2012, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me how poor we were in the Clinton economy years, when we taxed at or near record levels of gdp, but spent at near-record low levels of gdp for post-WW II years, and how there was no money left for investments because the government took so much.</div></div>Why bring up an example that is not even on the table? Obama wants to tax and spend not tax and lower spending.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pay-go exactly what Bush and Co. got rid of</div></div>Pay-go, seriously. That is what the Dems say out of the corner of their mouth as they continue to borrow money for bills they refuse to pay for. No sooner did they pass pay-go and they were immediately coming up with exceptions to the law. Freaking hilsrious you would actually bring this up.

eg8r </div></div>

I love it when dembots brag about the restraint forced on Billy Jeff by the republicans and demand that we return to that restrainst ... and in the next breath assail anyone who actually wants to reimplement said restraint, while canonizing those who block a return to such restraint.

Doublethink is a fascinating thing to watch.

Qtec
10-14-2012, 06:22 AM
Pay Go for the ignorant.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The PAYGO statute expired at<u> the end of 2002.</u> After this, Congress enacted President George W. Bush's proposed 2003 tax cuts (enacted as the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003), and the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act.[5] <span style='font-size: 23pt'>The White House acknowledged that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit plan would not meet the PAYGO requirements:</span></div></div>

OH MY?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After the expiration of PAYGO, <u>budget deficits returned.</u> The federal <span style='font-size: 23pt'>surplus</span> shrank from $236.2 billion in 2000 to $128.2 billion in 2001, then a $157.8 billion deficit in 2002—the last year statutory PAYGO was in effect. The deficit increased to $377.6 billion in 2003 and $412.7 billion in 2004.[3] The federal deficit excluding trust funds was $537.3 billion in FY2006.[7] <span style='font-size: 26pt'>In the first 6 years of President Bush's term, with a Republican controlled Congress, the federal debt increased by $3 trillion.</span>[8][9] The public debt continued to grow after Democrats gained control of Congress on January 3rd, 2007. <span style='font-size: 26pt'>At the end of the Bush Administration, public debt had nearly doubled from when President Bush took office in January 2001, to January 2009.</span> </div></div>

...and the economy was in free fall. Banking crisis,housing crisis, credit crisis, etc etc etc. Now Mittens wants to repeat the experiment!


Tell me about the Dems again.

Q

Gayle in MD
10-14-2012, 06:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Historically, America has been an the 'shining city on the hill' for the majority of the world's population who have lived under the evil of statism. Many have been fortunate to immigrant here and have the most eloquent in their warnings against pursuing the same statist goals they experienced first hand.

Whether it's Peterffy, as in this example, or Vaclav Hovel or F. A. Hayek, the story is the same, the reality of their experience is the same and the wide-spread poverty and corruption is the same. Unfortunately, for those still advocating more and more statism are not only blind, that are also deaf to the truth. </div></div>

I guess you didn't hear Ryan saying that he wanted a woman's constitutional Right to control her own body, turned back to the states.

Ryan wants to outlaw birth control, and legalize rape.

Do you ever ask yourself how you would feel if your mother, wife, daughter, niece, sister, or Grand Daughter had been viciously raped and beaten, and was denied the right to take the morning after pill, to prevent a pregnancy, or worse, forced to bring the rapists fetus to term/

Do you understand that our environment is being poisoned by CEO pigs, who dont' care about anything but how much money they can stuff into their pockets?

Do you realize that people were dying because they couldn't get any health coverate, hundreds of thousand of them?

Do you realize that that freedom to a woman means having the right to control her own body?

You Libertarians give me a big pain when you start spouting off about Statism.

Get the definitions straight, will ya? We are NOT a socialist country.

The President is NOT a Muslim, nor a communist.

But, the fact is, that even if he were a Muslim, which he is not, the Constitution would be in support of his right to be elected president, as long as he is an American citizen, which he is, and that has been proven, over and over, yet the slimebag Repiglicans coontinue to spread tthe lie around in dishonest e-mails with fake information.

G.

Soflasnapper
10-14-2012, 11:22 AM
Obama wants to raise some taxes, and has already implemented pay-go rules. Doing both things you said he won't do. Basically Clinton's pay-go rules did NOT reduce spending. They kept any new spending revenue neutral as to the effect on the deficit.

The way that worked to bring a balanced budget was the other piece of it-- hard caps on the discretionary domestic budget. By reducing the GROWTH of the DDB, although it still went up, the tax hikes were able to catch up revenues to expenditures.

Now, your apparent position is that the party that got RID of pay-go, and then refused to vote to reinstitute it (zero votes for that) is blameless, but the party that had instituted it originally, opposed getting rid of it in 2002, and has now reinstituted it (with some exceptions), is to blame.

That may make perfect sense in some other world, but in this one, it is nonsensical. Remember, reinstituting it now was passed only with Democratic votes, with no, zero, zilch nada GOP votes. Why? Because they want to be able to pass TAX CUTS that grow the deficit without having to pay for them. As they did, using budget reconciliation rules in 2001, on so narrow a vote margin in the Senate that the Vice President Cheney cast the deciding vote to break the tie.

And here is the final epiphany. Using budget reconciliation rules allows such a bill to pass with a bare majority (in this case a 51 aye vote). No filibusters allowed, no 60 vote requirement to invoke cloture and call the question. Only if such a bill doesn't cause a net budget deficit in 10 years. That was why all the Bush tax cut sunsetted in the 10th year. A gross misuse of the budget reconciliation process which was designed to get deficit REDUCING budget bills through.

LWW
10-14-2012, 04:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are right that the UE adds significantly to the deficit.

However, simply look at the last Bush era stated UE vs. the debt increases to see why your claim here doesn't add up.

With fairly low UE-3 rates (funny no one mentions his own UE-6 rates, and instead compares his UE-3 rates with the UE-6 rates now), the Bush years saw an average of $500 billion per year added to the debt. That was your own finding which you posted on this site. If anything that understates the new annual average debt his policies incurred, which totaled about $5 trillion in new debt over an 8 year period. (Although to be sure there was the compounding of the extra debt laid on by the interest due on it, compounding.)

Note I explicitly say debt, because the stated deficits were deliberately understated by well over $100 billions per year (and yet ended up being borrowed, just off-budget as 'emergency spending.')

So this wouldn't fix the deficit problem, let alone the debt problem. Because simply getting to a (real, correctly stated) balanced budget = no new debt makes no dent in the debt at all.

Do you really misunderstand all of this to this degree? </div></div>

1 - I have never defended the Bush era spending.

2 - The Bush era average deficit is distorted by the last two years coming with the help of a demokrook kongress ... as I predicted the day after the 2006 election, Bush would make a Faustian deal with the new kongress in which the demokrooks would sign off on war funding in exchange for Bush signing off on increased pork, both wiling and gnashing their teeth the entire way.

3 - Bush was an economic fascist.

4 - So is Obama.

5 - During one Obama term the deficit has increased essentially as much as two terms of Bush.

6 - The Obama era UE rate has been roughly 175% that of the Bush era.

7 - You neglected my comment that solving the deficit involved lowering UE plus holding the line on spending.

hondo
10-14-2012, 05:12 PM
From the 1st time you came on AZ you passionately defended everything Bush did. As he was nearing the end of his 8 years, you offered some mild criticism.
After he left one would have thought you had been critical of him all along.
You forget that I was there for years before you arrived although you quickly passed me in posts.
I remember when you arrived with your Undertaker profile pic huffing and pugging and arrogantly stirring up shit.
Like this place , AZ was a friendlier place before you arrived.
Then the nastiness followed and even bigger shit stirrers joined the "fun" : yugo, bama, sliderule. I can even remember when Casual Observer seemed halfway decent.
On BD, all we had was Eg and his monthly moods but most of the time he was okay, not the hate-filled name-caller he is now.
And, yes, larry wilson, I know I invited you over. If I knew your sole intent was trashing this forum like you did for a long time I wouldn't have done it.
We all make mistakes and that was a doozy on my part. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
10-14-2012, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">From the 1st time you came on AZ you passionately defended everything Bush did.</div></div>

Yet you can never produce quotes?

Soflasnapper
10-14-2012, 05:58 PM
2 - The Bush era average deficit is distorted by the last two years coming with the help of a demokrook kongress ... as I predicted the day after the 2006 election, Bush would make a Faustian deal with the new kongress in which the demokrooks would sign off on war funding in exchange for Bush signing off on increased pork, both wiling and gnashing their teeth the entire way.

So you predicted it, and you continue to claim it.

The only thing missing? Any details showing that happened at all.

Even though you've been asked repeatedly to 'show your work,' to provide the slightest shred of the new increased pork you describe. You refuse, leading to the same conclusion a sensible person would take as to Romney's 'plan'-- there is no answer, no plan, and no showing that what you say is so. Certainly not by you.

Here's your clue. The '07 Congress (elected late '06) came in under the PREVIOUS Congress's budget for FY '07, which was in effect until Sept. 30th that year.

It's all been explained, and you must understand this overlapping of FYs, and just pretend you don't.

LWW
10-14-2012, 06:48 PM
What are you denying ... that the dems agreed to fund the wars, or that Bush signec off on increased sending, or both?

LWW
10-14-2012, 07:05 PM
US federal spending FY 2007 = $2,728,686M.

US federal spending FY 2009 = $3,517,677M.

US federal deficit FY 2007 = ($160,701M)

US federal deficit FY 2008 = ($458,553M)

US federal deficit FY 2009 = ($1,412,688M)

US federal deficit FY 2010= ($1,293,483M)

US federal deficit FY 2011 = ($1,299,595M)

US federal deficit FY 2012 estimate = ($1,326,948)

My source?

THE OBAMA REGIME (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/hist01z1.xls)

Every time you ask for evidence I present it ... Only to hear you deny it's very existence next time around.

Your argument, once again, boils down to <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"JUST BECAUSE IT'S TRUE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S TRUE!"</span>

LWW
10-14-2012, 07:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You weren't invited to watch. </div></div>

larry, 2 old friends of mine live in Dayton, Jena Snyder and Henna Mumford. You wouldn't perhaps have run into them? </div></div>

Go ahead ... embarrass yourself, again you hillbilly stalker.

I googled them with the name you assigned to me and was amazed ... at how utterly obsessed, and downright foolish, you are.

Your PM stalkings also amuse me.

hondo
10-14-2012, 09:25 PM
You need to control your temper.
So now you're saying your name is not larry wilson?
This was after posting that you weren't that larry wilson?
I hope you have a door by the corner you've just painted yourself into.

hondo
10-14-2012, 09:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You weren't invited to watch. </div></div>

larry, 2 old friends of mine live in Dayton, Jena Snyder and Henna Mumford. You wouldn't perhaps have run into them? </div></div>

Go ahead ... embarrass yourself, again you hillbilly stalker.

I googled them with the name you assigned to me and was amazed ... at how utterly obsessed, and downright foolish, you are.

Your PM stalkings also amuse me.
</div></div>

Why not just post the info you found to show how foolish I was?

hondo
10-14-2012, 10:14 PM
I see that you removed your facebook account. LOL! I've been expecting that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

LWW
10-15-2012, 03:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I see that you removed your facebook account. LOL! I've been expecting that. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

I have never had a FB account ... but proceed to embarrass yourself again.

Qtec
10-15-2012, 04:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US federal deficit FY 2009 = ($1,412,688M) </div></div>

A deficit owned by Bush and the Republicans. Check this out, from YOUR link.

Revenue 2008 2.523.991
Revenue 2009 2.104.989

Revenue 2000 2.025.191

After 8 yrs of Bush and his trillion $ tax cuts for the 'job creators [ie, the 1%! ], he managed to raise revenue by 80 Billion!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Mittens wants to do the same.

Q

LWW
10-15-2012, 04:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US federal deficit FY 2009 = ($1,412,688M) </div></div>

A deficit owned by Bush and the Republicans. Check this out, from YOUR link.

Revenue 2008 2.523.991
Revenue 2009 2.104.989

Revenue 2000 2.025.191

After 8 yrs of Bush and his trillion $ tax cuts for the 'job creators [ie, the 1%! ], he managed to raise revenue by 80 Billion!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Mittens wants to do the same.

Q

</div></div>

How totally dishonest of you.

FY 2007 revenue was $2,567,985M.

Yes, not only did the demokrook kongress blow up the budget, they also imploded the tax base.

Grow up.

Stretch
10-15-2012, 05:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US federal deficit FY 2009 = ($1,412,688M) </div></div>

A deficit owned by Bush and the Republicans. Check this out, from YOUR link.

Revenue 2008 2.523.991
Revenue 2009 2.104.989

Revenue 2000 2.025.191

After 8 yrs of Bush and his trillion $ tax cuts for the 'job creators [ie, the 1%! ], he managed to raise revenue by 80 Billion!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Mittens wants to do the same.

Q

</div></div>

How totally dishonest of you.

FY 2007 revenue was $2,567,985M.

Yes, not only did the demokrook kongress blow up the budget, they also imploded the tax base.

Grow up. </div></div>

You, telling someone he's being dishonest and to grow up???? BWAHAHAHAHA!!! Thanks for my morning laugh.

Qtec
10-15-2012, 05:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">US federal deficit FY 2009 = ($1,412,688M) </div></div>

A deficit owned by Bush and the Republicans. Check this out, from YOUR link.

Revenue 2008 2.523.991
Revenue 2009 2.104.989

Revenue 2000 2.025.191

After 8 yrs of Bush and his trillion $ tax cuts for the 'job creators [ie, the 1%! ], he managed to raise revenue by 80 Billion!!!!!!!!!!!

Now Mittens wants to do the same.

Q

</div></div>

How totally dishonest of you.

FY 2007 revenue was $2,567,985M.

Yes, not only did the demokrook kongress blow up the budget, they also imploded the tax base.

Grow up. </div></div>

That's cute.
Despite being asked numerous times to prove this ridiculous theory that its the Dems who are responsible for the mess Bush and the Reps created, you never come up with the goods! SoFla just challenged you on this very point in a recent thread, as usual, YOU BAILED OUT.

Facts for you. In 2007 when the Dems controlled the House, it was still 48-48 in the Senate with 2 independents! ie they could not pass any legislation on their own!

FFW. Today the Republicans rule the house. They don't have a majority in the Senate, JUST LIKE 2007.

If the Dems, by your 'logic', are responsible for the mess in 2007 and not Bush, then the Republicans must be responsible for the present mess, NOT Obama!

QED


Q

hondo
10-15-2012, 05:52 AM
Not embarrassed at at all. I know a liar when I see one.
Don't forget to delete your Myspace account.
1984 was not meant to be an instructional manual.

LWW
10-15-2012, 06:49 AM
Bush and the R's most certainly are responsible for the mess of 2007. Quote me all you like, just please be honest.

LWW
10-15-2012, 06:52 AM
Play your cards coward ... you have now been called out in PM, in the shout box and in the forum.

El Dubb fears no <span style='font-size: 14pt'>K</span>eyboard <span style='font-size: 14pt'>K</span>ommando <span style='font-size: 14pt'>K</span>oward.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 07:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are you denying ... that the dems agreed to fund the wars, or that Bush signec off on increased sending, or both? </div></div>

Of course, with the country at war, the Congress funded those two wars. That isn't on them, it's on the guy who started the wars and prosecuted them so lamely that they kept going indefinitely.

They also continued to fund Medicare D. Why? Because it was the law. Also not on them-- it was W who put the poorly constructed law together without any funding source or offset, and at the highest possible cost since he forbade in the legislation any ability to bargain for bulk discounts on drugs as the VA does.

This is the general point. What the Congress spent was what W put in motion. Not any new wild-eyed domestic program, or some huge increased previously existing program.

Or else you could easily point to what it was. You've been asked, it's been pointed out you refuse or decline to provide any answer, and then go to irrelevant budget totals that do not prove your point at all.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 07:51 AM
Your argument, once again, boils down to "JUST BECAUSE IT'S TRUE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S TRUE!"

Exactly right, in semi-reverse style:

Just because you say it's true isn't evidence that it's true.

You apparently have no evidence, or are cleverly hiding it for inexplicable reasons.

You don't realize that the Medicare D costs grow over time, as more and more people get in the program, and as the cost of the unbargained for prescription drugs goes up? You don't realize that the VA costs soar as more and more crippled, wounded, brain-injured or amputated vets come home and get in that system? When new children are born, and this is an on-going event, families get another $1,000 tax credit for that new child.

Your position is that there was no growth in the programs W put in, and you also must claim that you never saw the workforce participation rate decline began in his years?

Then you quote the massaged deficit numbers, refusing to admit they were net of the SS surplus (counting that money OWED as reducing the stated deficit, contrary to law), and net of the war expenses, meaning the stated deficit understated the growth of the debt those years by $400+ billion dollars.

Your framework is either wholly ignorant or dishonest. Which one is it?

eg8r
10-15-2012, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess you didn't hear Ryan saying that he wanted a woman's constitutional Right to control her own body, turned back to the states.

Ryan wants to outlaw birth control, and legalize rape.</div></div>These two sentence are in direct contrast with each other.

eg8r

eg8r
10-15-2012, 08:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama wants to raise some taxes, and has already implemented pay-go rules.</div></div>He already has taxed the poor and middle. As far as implementing pay-go rules, what good is that if you are going to side-step them every single time. Kind of like setting up a speed limit and then speeding past it every single time.

eg8r

eg8r
10-15-2012, 08:36 AM
I will tell you about the Dems. sofla made is sound like it was a horrible thing to get rid of the pay-go rule. However when his beloved Dems reinstated it they ignored it. What is the difference?

eg8r

LWW
10-15-2012, 09:25 AM
Don't interrupt the cabal's collective wet dream.

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 10:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama wants to raise some taxes, and has already implemented pay-go rules.</div></div>He already has taxed the poor and middle. As far as implementing pay-go rules, what good is that if you are going to side-step them every single time. Kind of like setting up a speed limit and then speeding past it every single time.

eg8r </div></div>

No he hasn't raised taxes on the poor and middle. (Yes, they may be somewhat taxed as before, but not at any higher LEVEL. A lower level, in fact). Where do you get that information? The cigarette tax? What?

Fact is, he immediately implemented a $400/person $800/couple tax break per year. By immediately, I mean in January or February of 2009. In more recent years, and continuing through this year, he got through a 2% payroll tax reduction, which on a median household income of approx. $54,000 would amount to $1,080 dollars less taxes owed.

Your commentary on pay-go is ludicrous. They side step it every single time? Untrue. Again, where in the world did you get that misimpression? Of course, if it were always ignored, it would be a meaningless thing, but you'd then have to admit, exactly as if it were repealed entirely (the GOP tactic, when they controlled the whole government). However, to whatever degree the pay-go is honored it is obviously an improvement over the repeal situation.

Show me anywhere that says pay-go has been entirely ignored, and never implemented on spending. (They may have foregone it on the payroll tax extension and some other needed support that go to relief, but not even the majority of things.)

eg8r
10-15-2012, 11:11 AM
It was ignored immediately after being reinstated. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif You just don't want to admit reality.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-15-2012, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for Pelosi, defends the Democratic record on PAYGO. He said that PAYGO waivers have only been used on "emergencies" -- such as the stimulus -- and for "the extension of current policies," such as the AMT update and the Medicare reimbursement increase. In the case of the AMT, Elshami added, the House initially passed a version that complied with PAYGO but could not convince the Senate to go along.

In addition, Elshami said, "viewing PAYGO's efficacy by only looking at the exceptions doesn’t present a complete picture of how the House has dealt with its rules regarding PAYGO. Many of the major acts under Democrats were PAYGO-compliant." He specifically cited the House version of the health care reform bill, the farm bill and the expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Elshami also fired back at the Republicans' record on the deficit, noting that party leaders essentially waived PAYGO when they passed the 2001 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts and that they created the Medicare drug benefit in 2003 after the prior incarnation of PAYGO had lapsed -- bills that added hundreds of billions of dollars to the federal deficit.

Outside experts agree that PAYGO has had some impact. "I think it has changed the culture," said Marc Goldwein, policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a centrist think tank. "I do see a lot of bills proposed with offsets. The rule has caused Congress to think more carefully about the costs of what they pass." </div></div>

hondo
10-15-2012, 01:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Play your cards coward ... you have now been called out in PM, in the shout box and in the forum.

El Dubb fears no <span style='font-size: 14pt'>K</span>eyboard <span style='font-size: 14pt'>K</span>ommando <span style='font-size: 14pt'>K</span>oward. </div></div>

I can't see what good it would do. Just like I never understood your motive for attacking and threatening Gayle like you did.
The "larry wilson" involved was either you, your son, or possibly someone else.
If it's you, you'll just deny it and figure it would eventually drop , which it would.
If it's your son, my exposure just needlessly hurts someone I don't know.
If it's someone else or you and I accuse you, which I've never done, I risk a law suit. Seeing how that person escaped double vehicular homicide, I would hate to tangle with them in court.
And, unlike Gayle and Wolfie and me , who just get upset at your antics and would never go through with a lawsuit, you strike me as someone who would jump at the chance.

I figure it has nothing to do with you but I AM taken aback by your frantic responses.
I just wanted you to know it's out there. It has nothing to do with you. Relax.

eg8r
10-15-2012, 01:33 PM
LOL, paygo has been ignored time and time again. I don't have time to fix the tables so you will need to do it in your head or look at the source data (http://budget.house.gov/paygotracker/).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Listed below are the instances in which the Majority waived or ignored its PAYGO rule during the 111th Congress.

Table 1: Spending, Tax, and Deficit Effects of Enacted Pay-Go Legislation, 111th Congress
(dollars in billions)








Legislation


Net Increase in
Direct Spending


Tax/Fee Change
[a]

Scored Pay-Go
Deficit Impact


Adjusted Deficit
[b]



State Children’s Health Insurance Program [SCHIP] (enacted 4 Feb. 2009)

73.8

74.8

-1.0[c]

40.2



American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (‘stimulus’) (enacted 17 Feb. 2009)[d]

318

-236

0

862[e]



Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (enacted 22 June 2009)

0.42

1.47

-1.04

-1.04



Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act (enacted 6 November 2009)

6.6

6.7

[f]

[f]



Department of Defense Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2010 (enacted 19 Dec. 2009)

12.2

-6.4

0

18.6



Temporary Extension Act of 2010
(enacted 3 March 2010)

8.2

-2.2

0[g]

10.3



Health Care/Ed. Reconciliation, Patient Protection Act (enacted 23 March 2010)

938

569.2

-138.0

662.0[h]



The Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (H.R. 2847) (enacted 18 March 2010)[I]

29.2

29.9

-0.657

-0.657



The Continuing Extension Act of 2010 (H.R. 4851)(enacted 15 April 2010)

15.4

-2.8

0

18.2



The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act (enacted 21 July 2010)

10.2

13.5

-3.2

22.3



The Unemployment Compensation Extension Act (H.R. 4213) (enacted 22 July 2010)

33

-0.9

0

33.9



TOTALS

1,445.0

447.3

-143.9

1,665.8

[a] Tax or fee increases, reflected as positive numbers, should be subtracted from spending totals because they have the effect of reducing deficits; tax or fee reductions (negative numbers) should be added to spending, because they increase deficits.

[b] The “adjusted” figure reflects the deficit impact as measured against the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] current-law baseline, and removes exceptions for emergency designations, gimmicks, and other pay-go maneuvers. Positive numbers indicate deficit increase; negative numbers indicate deficit reduction.

[c] Funding cliff after 5 years. The CBO estimates the spending increase in the legislation as written – which terminates provisions after 5 years – at $73.8 billion. If provisions are continued after 5 years, the spending increase is $115 billion, CBO estimates.

[d] Declared an “emergency,” hence no pay-go deficit impact.

[e] Includes $308.3 billion in discretionary spending increases.

[f] Less than $50 million.

[g] Uses provision of S. Con. Res. 13 allowing the House Budget Committee Chairman to ignore physician payment changes scheduled under current law in calculating the deficit impact of this legislation.

[h] Includes the effect of the “doc fix,” also shown in House-passed legislation in Table 2.

[I] Figures based on the best available estimates by CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Figures may not add due to rounding.

Table 2: Spending, Tax, and Deficit Effects of Additional House-Passed Pay-Go Legislation, 111th Congress
(dollars in billions)








Legislation


Net Increase in
Direct Spending


Tax/Fee Change
[a]

Scored Pay-Go
Deficit Impact


Adjusted Deficit
[b]



The American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) (passed 26 July 2009)

821

846

-24

-24



Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act
(passed 11 November 2009)

209.6

0

0

209.6



Permanent Estate Tax Relief (H.R. 4154) (passed 3 December 2009)

0

-233

0

233[c]



The Flood Insurance Reform Priorities Act of 2010 (H.R. 5114) (passed 15 July 2010)

2.8

2.8

0

0



TOTALS

1,033.4

615.8

-24

418.6

[a] Tax or fee increases, reflected as positive numbers, should be subtracted from spending totals because they have the effect of reducing deficits; tax or fee reductions (negative numbers) should be added to spending, because they increase deficits.

[b] The “adjusted” figure reflects the deficit impact as measured against the Congressional Budget Office current-law baseline, and removes exceptions for emergency designations, gimmicks, and other pay-go maneuvers. Positive numbers indicate deficit increase; negative numbers indicate deficit reduction.

[c] Deficit relative to the Congressional Budget Office current-law baseline.
Figures may not add due to rounding.
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In whatever form, however, pay-as-you-go has failed to prevent an explosion of deficit spending
over the past 3½ years; and when enforced, the rule has mainly driven higher taxes to chase
higher spending. Here are some of the results:
R Since the start of the Democratic congressional Majorities in January 2007, the deficit has
widened nearly 10-fold, from $160 billion to $1.5 trillion this year, and deficits will total
$9.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.3
R So far during the 111th Congress, the President and Democratic Majority have enacted
more than $1.6 trillion in 10-year deficit increases under pay-go, using various methods
to hide the red ink and claim they were “paying for” their spending binge.
R They also have increased spending by $1.4 trillion over 10 years, and used pay-as-you-go
to raise taxes by $447.3 billion.
R In addition, the House has passed numerous other deficit- or tax-increasing bills that are
awaiting further action.</div></div> Source (http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/paygo-track-111th.pdf)

It is funny to see all the leftie weenie cry foul for Romney using legal loopholes to get out of taxes and then turn their eyes away from Dems using legal loopholes to get our of their own legislation.

PayGO yet another failure of Barak Obama.

eg8r

hondo
10-15-2012, 01:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess you didn't hear Ryan saying that he wanted a woman's constitutional Right to control her own body, turned back to the states.

Ryan wants to outlaw birth control, and legalize rape.</div></div>These two sentence are in direct contrast with each other.

eg8r </div></div>

s.

hondo
10-15-2012, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess you didn't hear Ryan saying that he wanted a woman's constitutional Right to control her own body, turned back to the states.

Ryan wants to outlaw birth control, and legalize rape.</div></div>These two sentence are in direct contrast with each other.

eg8r </div></div>

Seems like they should, doesn't it? But those wild whacky wonderful tea partiers don't see things in a normal way. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

hondo
10-15-2012, 01:37 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't interrupt the cabal's collective wet dream. </div></div>

Exhibit 247.

eg8r
10-15-2012, 01:45 PM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

eg8r
10-15-2012, 01:45 PM
Quit hypocritically shadowposting.

eg8r

hondo
10-15-2012, 04:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You weren't invited to watch. </div></div>

larry, 2 old friends of mine live in Dayton, Jena Snyder and Henna Mumford. You wouldn't perhaps have run into them? </div></div>

Go ahead ... embarrass yourself, again you hillbilly stalker.



Your PM stalkings also amuse me.
</div></div>

In case anybody believes his bile, here is his last PM to me:

"I'm going to put this quite simply ... you are not only a stalker, but also a fool and a criminal with passive aggressive tendencies and a latent homosexual.

Now, back your lame threat ... you have nothing, and you know it.

Sadly, that won't sink into your deviant sociopathic hillbilly brain."

This was in response to a PM where I told him I was sorry I brought up those 2 ladies in the 1st place and I sincerely apologized.
larry likes to play the martyr but I felt the truth should be known.
And, before Q and eg get after me, believe me, I'm trying to drop a subject that i admit should never have been brought up in the 1st place. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif