Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

The GOP is trying to fix a very serious problem.

Not trying all that hard, it seems, but they're doing something. Far more than the Democrats.

I think the Dems want this country to fail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

To gollum, hobbitses were nasty.

McCain, your disguise has been blown.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

To gollum, hobbitses were nasty.

McCain, your disguise has been blown.

---

You must be really embarrassed about voting for him, huh?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

No the GOP, more so the teabaggers, are trying to use the situation to achieve their goals of gutting social programs. If they where at all serious about reducing the deficit they would be including cuts to defense. They would also be willing to compromise on the deals laid out which include 4 to 1 spending cuts to revenue increases. The ratio that Dems agreed to. Now which side is compromising?

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and the Dems know that if social programs are gutted the economy will not only slow down, but will most likely stop. That would make the country fail.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

No the GOP, more so the teabaggers, are trying to use the situation to achieve their goals of gutting social programs. If they where at all serious about reducing the deficit they would be including cuts to defense. They would also be willing to compromise on the deals laid out which include 4 to 1 spending cuts to revenue increases. The ratio that Dems agreed to. Now which side is compromising?

---

There's lots in the Federal govt which absolutely needs gutting. And yes, some of those are useless, redundant or constitutionally dubious social programs.

Obama has raised the base line for federal spending by 25%. First thing we need to do is roll back spending to pre '08 levels, and THEN start cutting. Cutting on the projected budgets now gets us no where.

We don't have a lack of revenue, we have a insane amount of reckless spending. CUT SPENDING, secure the future for the free market, and the economy will grow. A growing economy will generate more revenue, with OUT raising taxes. And raising revenue is the POINT of all this, not to 'make the rich pay their fair share'. That's a load of go se. The rich already ARE paying more than their fair share. A LOT more.

Quote:

---

Oh, and the Dems know that if social programs are gutted the economy will not only slow down, but will most likely stop. That would make the country fail.

---

Again, more piles of go se upon steaming piles of go se. Social programs don't drive this economy. They drag it down, if anything. And no one is 'gutting' any damn thing. Keeping these programs at '08 levels isn't remotely 'gutting' anything.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Tax cuts don't drive this economy. They never have, and they never will. Bush cut taxes; unemployment went up. Clinton raised taxes; unemployment went down. Obama cut taxes; unemployment went up.

Looks like it's time to try the Clinton method again.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

No the GOP, more so the teabaggers, are trying to use the situation to achieve their goals of gutting social programs. If they where at all serious about reducing the deficit they would be including cuts to defense. They would also be willing to compromise on the deals laid out which include 4 to 1 spending cuts to revenue increases. The ratio that Dems agreed to. Now which side is compromising?

---

There's lots in the Federal govt which absolutely needs gutting. And yes, some of those are useless, redundant or constitutionally dubious social programs.

Obama has raised the base line for federal spending by 25%. First thing we need to do is roll back spending to pre '08 levels, and THEN start cutting. Cutting on the projected budgets now gets us no where.

We don't have a lack of revenue, we have a insane amount of reckless spending. CUT SPENDING, secure the future for the free market, and the economy will grow. A growing economy will generate more revenue, with OUT raising taxes. And raising revenue is the POINT of all this, not to 'make the rich pay their fair share'. That's a load of go se. The rich already ARE paying more than their fair share. A LOT more.

Quote:

---

Oh, and the Dems know that if social programs are gutted the economy will not only slow down, but will most likely stop. That would make the country fail.

---

Again, more piles of go se upon steaming piles of go se. Social programs don't drive this economy. They drag it down, if anything. And no one is 'gutting' any damn thing. Keeping these programs at '08 levels isn't remotely 'gutting' anything.


" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

---

Please explain to me how taking money out of the economy will help it grow. Cutting government spending does just that. That money goes to people who in turn spend it. If you cut a program you not only take money and resources away from the people who benefit from the program but also the workers that administer it. Economist will tell you that government spending should be counter-cyclic.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and in terms of need and increases in costs, cutting to 08 spending would be gutting.

---

Quote:

---

So, explain to me how cutting social programs or just cutting government spending will grow the economy. I await your response.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Governments should inject money into the BOTTOM of the economy (the bottom of the money stream) during economic downturns, because it will be IMMEDIATELY spent on goods and services. We've tried injecting money at the top, and that hasn't done anything, because the rich are sitting on their money, as are the corporations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Please explain to me how taking money out of the economy will help it grow. Cutting government spending does just that. That money goes to people who in turn spend it. If you cut a program you not only take money and resources away from the people who benefit from the program but also the workers that administer it. Economist will tell you that government spending should be counter-cyclic.

---

Quote:

---

Oh, and in terms of need and increases in costs, cutting to 08 spending would be gutting.

So, explain to me how cutting social programs or just cutting government spending will grow the economy. I await your response.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Hell, don't ask me what he was thinking - YOU voted for the guy!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Cutting Federal spending isn't taking money out of the economy. The stimulus bill should be proof enough for you there. Obama spent over 800 billion $ to 'grow' the economy, with $ we didn't have, and how'd that work out ? Unemployment over 9%, when were were told it 'might' reach 8 %, if we did nothing. Bravo, Dems.

Best to let the American people KEEP their money, and let it work in the free market.

---

Quote:

---

You seem to be under the delusion that there's a giant vault , where we keep ALL our money, and the govt controls where it goes, and who gets to spend it. That ain't how it works.

---

Quote:

---

If you earn $ 100 a week, and then you get paid 125 a week, for the exact same job, how is it 'gutting' a program if you're asked to go back to $ 100 a week ? Obama arbitrarily jacked up the base line spending, and there was no growth for it. That job didn't instantly become 25% more valuable, or worth while , simply because Obama said it was. Sorry, that's ridiculous. Forcing you to take $90 for a job you use to make $ 100 for, now that's a cut.

---

Quote:

---

So are we spending money we don't have or spending people's money?

---

Quote:

---

The government distributes money to programs to pay employees or purchase resources. So it does control where money goes and who/how it is spent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
No confusion here. We're doing both.

And unemployment didn't go up just a little higher than expected, it continued to go up, and up, a LOT higher than we were told it would, if we DIDN'T sign the stimulus bill. How is this hard for you to understand?

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, w/ in the govt. And how's that working out for us so far ? Lotta waste, corruption and spending of OUR $ for projects, jobs which simply aren't under the proper function of govt. THAT'S part of the problem !

---

Quote:

---

The govt isn't designed to be in the business of supporting families. There's your problem, right there. There are cases of extreme situations , where the govt can offer AID, but fully support these families ? Not a proper function of govt, sorry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
☑ First they ignore you (Pre-2007)
☑ Then they laugh at you (2007-2008)
☑ Then they fight you (2008-2011)
☐ Then you win

Ron Paul 2012.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Nick, I hope you're having fun. Because you'll never get a sensible answer to your very sensible questions. Just so's you know.

---

Quote:

---

No taxes of fees where raised to fund it. So it has not take any money from anyone yet.

---

Quote:

---

However since the stimulus has not taken money out of peoples hands you have no argument to suggest that it made things worse. Just the opposite it put money into the economy.

---

Quote:

---

Government workers also spend there money at private businesses, which stimulate the economy.

---

Quote:

---

Well that is your opinion of what government should be, I of course disagree. Then again supporting a family in need until it gets to its feet is aid. Governmental system that offer good safety nets work very well. Do some research on the Nordic Model of government. You will hate it because it promotes large safety nets and high taxation, but the countries that operate under it are very successful.

in fact a dare you to show me how Nordic Model countries have failed economically..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Key word: " yet "

---

Quote:

---

Yes, which means it cannot be negatively effecting the economy now. So you just shot your own argument down. Nicely done!

---

Quote:

---

No it did work, it kept the situation from being worse that it was. While unemployment is still high and the large surplus of houses are keeping home prices down, must other factors have been improving.

---

Quote:

---

The economy is health only when money is moving. It is much like the water in a stream.

---

Quote:

---

What does there size or ethnic makeup have to do with there economic model? Please explain why it can't be scaled up, if you can.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

Same with the health-care thing. Just because it hasn't happened yet is no reason where Raptor and the Tea Partiers are concerned to believe for a minute than that it WON'T totally destroy us...you know...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Good point. McCain has lost it. Hobbits are small but clearly very effectual at destroying rings of power.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
☑ First they ignore you (Pre-2007)
☑ Then they laugh at you (2007-2011)
☐ Then they fight you
☐ Then you win

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
☑ First they ignore you (Pre-2007)
☑ Then they laugh at you (2007-2008)
☑ Then they fight you (2008-2011)
☐ Then you win

Ron Paul 2012.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

---

Apparently, you've forgotten that by your own admission - YOU were the one doing the ignoring pre 2008.

And son, we're STILL laughing at you.

Silly Wulfie.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Awwww - you beat me to it!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

No taxes of fees where raised to fund it. So it has not take any money from anyone yet.

---

Key word: " yet "

Quote:

---

However since the stimulus has not taken money out of peoples hands you have no argument to suggest that it made things worse. Just the opposite it put money into the economy.

---

That was the plan, but it didn't work. And now we're stuck w/ the bill, which WILL have to be paid.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Government workers also spend there money at private businesses, which stimulate the economy.

---

It's clear that you live in this fantasy land, where you think all we need to do is just print more and more $, give it away, then everyone will have money to buy stuff with, which will make everyone prosperous and thrive, and we'll all live in happy happy joy joy land.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Well that is your opinion of what government should be, I of course disagree. Then again supporting a family in need until it gets to its feet is aid. Governmental system that offer good safety nets work very well. Do some research on the Nordic Model of government. You will hate it because it promotes large safety nets and high taxation, but the countries that operate under it are very successful.

in fact a dare you to show me how Nordic Model countries have failed economically..

---

Nordic countries are small, and far more ethnically homogeneous than the United States, and therefor aren't suitable for comparison.

---

Quote:

---

Remember, Nick - you're dealing with Rappy here. He actually believed it when they told him the Iraq fiasco would cost no more than $17 billion, tops. And the thing is, HE STILL BELIEVES THAT! And of course, he doesn't think THAT bill will ever have to be paid.

---

Quote:

---

Rappy lives in a fantasy land where if you just give all the money to your benevolent overlords, the rich, they'll magically rain it down on you in a show of pure love, and we'll all be prosperous, healthy, and happy.

---

Quote:

---

They also don't speak English. But as with Rappy's "points" there, that really has nothing to do with the question at hand.

---

Quote:

---

First thing we need to do is roll back spending to pre '08 levels, and THEN start cutting.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Just as an aside...

Consider the implications of removing so many otherwise productive members of society from our economy and putting them on the government dole at the expense of the rest of us, for no better reason than to shoot at people who don't much like us because we shot at them.

You think unemployment is bad now, just wait till we eventually admit complete failure and those poor bastards come back to find their homes foreclosed and their jobs outsourced.

But no, no one wants to talk about the effect of suddenly yanking thousands of people out of our economy and then throwing the onus of subsidising them upon the rest - as if that didn't have an effect ?

Pffth.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Tax cuts don't drive this economy. They never have, and they never will. Bush cut taxes; unemployment went up. Clinton raised taxes; unemployment went down. Obama cut taxes; unemployment went up.

Looks like it's time to try the Clinton method again.

---