For The "Liberals" In The Forum ...

[mame]

What's wrong with the government not spending more than it takes in?

Okay, lets repeal the Bush tax cuts then because that's caused a loss of several trillion in revenues in the last decade; That'd go well towards cutting our deficits and paying off our debts.

 

[BudMcLovin]

good enough white flag for me.

Haha you can call it that but I just refuse to continue discussing issues with someone who offers no real intellectual debate but just tries to play some got you game. My dad warned me not to argue with fools so I won't waste anymore of my time.

 

[BudMcLovin]

Okay, lets repeal the Bush tax cuts then because that's caused a loss of several trillion in revenues in the last decade; That'd go well towards cutting our deficits and paying off our debts.

How can a person keeping more of their own money "cost" the government anything? Lets cut spending along with taxes. Please provide a link to a source show that they "cost" the government trillions in dollars. You could repeal the Bush tax cuts it's not going to come close to paying off our debt. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year alone that's a spending problem not a revenue problem. We've had a spending problem for years.
How much should the government be allowed to take? Why is one person's life worth more to the government than another?

 

[UncleBuck]

Haha you can call it that but I just refuse to continue discussing issues with someone who offers no real intellectual debate but just tries to play some got you game. My dad warned me not to argue with fools so I won't waste anymore of my time.

you can't even support the premise of your argument, yet i am the fool?

you libertarians live in a world entirely devoid of reality.

you made a condescending argument about how liberals are emotional, and libertarians are logical, and how being forced to work and pay taxes was a form of slavery. i pointed out that no one is forced to work (slaves and possibly prisoners aside) and you talked about chickens in soup with hairy legs.

you still want to boast of yourself as logical after i showed you the faultiness of your argument with a single question?

 

[mame]

How can a person keeping more of their own money "cost" the government anything? Lets cut spending along with taxes. Please provide a link to a source show that they "cost" the government trillions in dollars. You could repeal the Bush tax cuts it's not going to come close to paying off our debt. We have a $1.5 trillion deficit this year alone that's a spending problem not a revenue problem. We've had a spending problem for years.
How much should the government be allowed to take? Why is one person's life worth more to the government than another?

See this is what doesn't make sense to most sane people.

"Government is too far in debt!"
"okay, lets cut spending and close loopholes, maybe go back to Clinton era tax rates..."
"WTF you're gonna raise taxes?"
"Well yeah, you said you wanted to cut waste, spending and the deficit right? Economic experts tell us a balanced approach is the best way to do this to minimize damage to the economy."
"fuck you, you gonna raise my taxes? This is BS QQQQQQ fucking stupid dick ass government should be able to run on no revenue! So not fair! Why punish those who succeed QQQQ"


Listen, if full employment ever happens our projected deficits are likely to range between 4-6% of GDP (so 600 billion a year on the low end estimate)... Our short term debt problem could largely be solved by closing loopholes and going back to Clinton era tax rates or something similar. Our long term problem - deficits equal to 62% of GDP in 2085 - is not caused by discretionary spending or the stimulus bill or healthcare reform... It is caused by the rising costs of our entitlement programs - which mostly has to do with the cost of medical care in the U.S. (which is double that of most other advanced nations... Canada, France, Germany, UK, Japan, etc). The funny thing here is, Obamacare does many of the things economists already know curbs costs - this is another argument though as far as Obamacare... But the important point I'm trying to make here is that our road to fiscal restraint and a balanced budget is simple, first:

• Reach full employment (stimulus, infrastructure)

Then(in no particular order):

• control medical costs (encourage more competition, universal coverage, etc)

• raise revenues in modest ways (the bowles-simpson tax reform plan is quite moderate... raising revenue while cutting tax rates)

• reform entitlments (really doesn't need to be anything too major TBH as the main problem is with rising medical costs)

That's really all that's needed; This whole "we must destroy it to save it" attitude Republicans have with medicare (see Paul Ryan's plan) is really unfounded and is centered much more around starving the beast (I'm sure you libertarians are all happy about that, w/e) than it is about anything economic; If it were they'd admit that infrastructure is the way to go to reach full employment (a few have actually, but they get shunned!).

 

[BudMcLovin]

you can't even support the premise of your argument, yet i am the fool?

you libertarians live in a world entirely devoid of reality.

you made a condescending argument about how liberals are emotional, and libertarians are logical, and how being forced to work and pay taxes was a form of slavery. i pointed out that no one is forced to work (slaves and possibly prisoners aside) and you talked about chickens in soup with hairy legs.

you still want to boast of yourself as logical after i showed you the faultiness of your argument with a single question?

Let me quote myself from a few post ago because you obviously missed it. So learn to read what people are saying instead of just trying to find misspelled words.

True people aren't forced to work.

 

[UncleBuck]

Is force [sic] a person to work for the benefit of another not a form of slavery?

True people aren't forced to work.

see? you destroyed the premise of your own argument.

i don't know how i can make this any clearer.

 

[UncleBuck]

i weigh 180 pounds and also do not weigh 180 pounds.

see how that is not logically possible, bud?

and you accuse liberals of not being logical. HA!

bet you didn't know you were talking to a liberal with an almost degree in philosophy, did ya?

 

[londonfog]

So are you saying because Bush spent so much it's ok for Obama to spend even more? Bush accumulated 4 trillion in debt in 8 years. I think that's way to much. Yea I think that bullshit stimulus check they sent out was a bad idea but Bush is gone so is Clinton. Obama has accumulated $5 trillion in debt in 3 years and he is still in office today. So do we just keep spending money we don't have? What's wrong with the government not spending more than it takes in?

When you leave office with two wars still going on that you never paid for(Bush)..Tax breaks for the rich that did not go away even during your two wars(Bush)..what do you expect the next POTUS to do ???? Please go find out how much wars cost..and why not let the taxes at least go back to pre-Bush years...

 

[RDWC Farmer]

see? you destroyed the premise of your own argument.

i don't know how i can make this any clearer.

You focus on one thing I have to say and ignore all others. Why? I’m guessing because you don’t know how to have an adult conversation. Are you mentally retarded or just a fucking idiot? Why don’t you actually say something intelligent for a change instead of playing your liberal games? I guess you can’t. I’m sure this post will go right over your head as well. Oh well that’s what I get for trying to have a debate with a child.

 

[RDWC Farmer]

When you leave office with two wars still going on that you never paid for(Bush)..Tax breaks for the rich that did not go away even during your two wars(Bush)..what do you expect the next POTUS to do ???? Please go find out how much wars cost..and why not let the taxes at least go back to pre-Bush years...

No shit Bush spent to much but Obama is taking it to a whole new level. Blame Bush isn’t going to get Obama re elected. So keep harping on Bush like he’s the one running the country in the ground today. So how much money should we spend? How far in debt do you want to go? Didn’t Obama run as the antiwar candidate and then get us involved in a 3rd without congressional approval? But the left is silent on that. Why?

 

[londonfog]

tell me what 3rd war we are in and also tell me what troops, platoons, infantry, or squadron are assigned...surely we would need them assigned if we are at war

 

[BudMcLovin]

See this is what doesn't make sense to most sane people.

"Government is too far in debt!"
"okay, lets cut spending and close loopholes, maybe go back to Clinton era tax rates..."
"WTF you're gonna raise taxes?"
"Well yeah, you said you wanted to cut waste, spending and the deficit right? Economic experts tell us a balanced approach is the best way to do this to minimize damage to the economy."
"fuck you, you gonna raise my taxes? This is BS QQQQQQ fucking stupid dick ass government should be able to run on no revenue! So not fair! Why punish those who succeed QQQQ"



Listen, if full employment ever happens our projected deficits are likely to range between 4-6% of GDP (so 600 billion a year on the low end estimate)... Our short term debt problem could largely be solved by closing loopholes and going back to Clinton era tax rates or something similar. Our long term problem - deficits equal to 62% of GDP in 2085 - is not caused by discretionary spending or the stimulus bill or healthcare reform... It is caused by the rising costs of our entitlement programs - which mostly has to do with the cost of medical care in the U.S. (which is double that of most other advanced nations... Canada, France, Germany, UK, Japan, etc). The funny thing here is, Obamacare does many of the things economists already know curbs costs - this is another argument though as far as Obamacare... But the important point I'm trying to make here is that our road to fiscal restraint and a balanced budget is simple, first:

• Reach full employment (stimulus, infrastructure)

Then(in no particular order):

• control medical costs (encourage more competition, universal coverage, etc)

• raise revenues in modest ways (the bowles-simpson tax reform plan is quite moderate... raising revenue while cutting tax rates)

• reform entitlments (really doesn't need to be anything too major TBH as the main problem is with rising medical costs)

That's really all that's needed; This whole "we must destroy it to save it" attitude Republicans have with medicare (see Paul Ryan's plan) is really unfounded and is centered much more around starving the beast (I'm sure you libertarians are all happy about that, w/e) than it is about anything economic; If it were they'd admit that infrastructure is the way to go to reach full employment (a few have actually, but they get shunned!).

I’m ok with Clinton era tax rates as long as we go back to Clinton level spending.

Government spending will never create full employement because government doesn’t create or manufacture anything. It confiscates wealth from the private sector to pay for it’s programs.

Liberals always want to raise taxes on the rich but the poor pay nothing that should change. Why not make everyone pay a little in taxes You guys talk about fairness but where is it in liberal policies? They also say we should be progressive in our ideas but never say where that progression should go. Progression toward more government control is what it sound like to me. Now Obama’s talking about shared sacrifice and tells the American people to eat our peas. Why doesn’t the government take it’s own advise.

Ok so you say the government will still run a deficit at full employment. They would still be spending more than they take in. Is that supposed to continue forever? Why not have a balanced budget? Why would counties continue to lend us money if we never really pay it back? Why continue

The rising cost of entitlements is caused by a lot more than just rising medical cost. You say economists predict Obamacare will reduce cost but there are also economist who say it will increase cost. The reason it reduce cost on paper is the taxes kick in a couple of years before the program actually starts. But that doesn’t even matter. The problem I have with Obamacare is it’s not the job of the government to take on the personal responsibility of the citizens. Where in the constitution does it say that? I guess we’ll find out when the Supreme Court decides the case.
Spending on infrastructure was supposed to be part of the stimulus, shovel ready jobs and all that jazz. Unemployment went up and it’s staying up.

Government run health insurance isn’t going to promote competition it will destroy it. As they place more and more requirements on insurance companies the cost of private insurance will continue to rise causing more and more people to turn to the government. Remember when Obama said if you like your health insurance you can keep it? Well that’s only if your able to afford it.

Raise revenues is all the left ever says. What is wrong with cutting spending? Why should the American people be required to pay for a study on why pigs smell? Or why should we pay to teach Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly? Government waste large amounts of money on bullshit, why do we need to keep paying for http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/08/50-examples-of-government-waste/

The Ryan plan is dead so there’s no point in debating it. But I’ve carried on way to long so I’ll stop here.

 

[BudMcLovin]

No shit Bush spent to much but Obama is taking it to a whole new level. Blame Bush isn’t going to get Obama re elected. So keep harping on Bush like he’s the one running the country in the ground today. So how much money should we spend? How far in debt do you want to go? Didn’t Obama run as the antiwar candidate and then get us involved in a 3rd without congressional approval? But the left is silent on that. Why?

You focus on one thing I have to say and ignore all others. Why? I’m guessing because you don’t know how to have an adult conversation. Are you mentally retarded or just a fucking idiot? Why don’t you actually say something intelligent for a change instead of playing your liberal games? I guess you can’t. I’m sure this post will go right over your head as well. Oh well that’s what I get for trying to have a debate with a child.

These are me just to let you know. I logged in on a different computer but it was under that screen name. Was going to use this one for the one for the rest of the site but decided not to.

 

[mame]

No shit Bush spent to much but Obama is taking it to a whole new level. Blame Bush isn’t going to get Obama re elected. So keep harping on Bush like he’s the one running the country in the ground today. So how much money should we spend? How far in debt do you want to go? Didn’t Obama run as the antiwar candidate and then get us involved in a 3rd without congressional approval? But the left is silent on that. Why?

Not really. If I remember right, he was always against the Iraq war but for the Afghan war; He has said that he wouldn't hesistate to go to war if it's justified... I found a source, here:

Obama on Terrorism is a Cipher in Pre-Election Months


Obama's probable views on terrorism were ideologically distinct, while blurry on specifics in the early part of the 2008 presidential campaign. He was perceived as left of his primary competitor, Hillary Clinton, and therefore generally understood to have liberal views. Much of the momentum of his campaign came from his anti-Iraq War stance. In the final part of the campaign, he has come out strongly in favor of beefing up the war in Afghanistan and pursuing Al Qaeda.

War on Terrorism:

In the early part of his campaign, Obama funneled many of his comments about the "war on terrorism" through his concerns with human and civil rights issues that it has raised. His campaign website establishes both small weapons proliferation and potential nuclear terrorism as significant U.S. priorities.

Obama responded in strong terms to the passage of the Military Commissions Act in September 2006, which granted the Bush Administration wide latitude to define what would constitute the torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He joined critique of the bill's suspension of habeas corpus for potentially innocent detainees with the accusation that the government was not addressing the actual issues:

"…We have Al Qaeda and the Taliban regrouping in Afghanistan while we look the other way. We have a war in Iraq that our own government's intelligence says is serving as Al Qaeda's best recruitment tool. And we have recommendations from the bipartisan 9/11 commission that we still refuse to implement five years after the fact."

Once he all-but-gained the nomination in the early summer of 2008, Obama became much more specific about his objectives regarding the 'war on terror.' In July, Obama told audiences that the war in Afghanistan and the potential of a nuclear Iran were high on his list.

 

[BudMcLovin]

tell me what 3rd war we are in and also tell me what troops, platoons, infantry, or squadron are assigned...surely we would need them assigned if we are at war

Are you serious? If it were Bush what would you be saying? Why is it ok for President Obama to get us involved the war in Lydia without congressional and you guys think it’s ok. President Bush went to war with congressional approval and the left went bat shit crazy. Amazing and it tells people a lot about your character. What’s the use of having principles if you don’t apply them to everyone? So run your liberal games, ignore the facts and watch Obama lose in 2012. I only hope the Republicans can come up with a candidate that will actually do what needs to be done instead of business as usual.

 

[BudMcLovin]

Not really. If I remember right, he was always against the Iraq war but for the Afghan war; He has said that he wouldn't hesistate to go to war if it's justified... I found a source, here:

Fair enough. Does the U.S. have a justifiable reason for taking military action in Lydia without congressional approval?

 

[londonfog]

Are you serious? If it were Bush what would you be saying? Why is it ok for President Obama to get us involved the war in Lydia without congressional and you guys think it’s ok. President Bush went to war with congressional approval and the left went bat shit crazy. Amazing and it tells people a lot about your character. What’s the use of having principles if you don’t apply them to everyone? So run your liberal games, ignore the facts and watch Obama lose in 2012. I only hope the Republicans can come up with a candidate that will actually do what needs to be done instead of business as usual.

i served under Bush..and did what I was told and assigned to do..again

tell me what 3rd war we are in and also tell me what troops, platoons, infantry, or squadron are assigned...surely we would need them assigned if we are at war​

 

[napa23]

Fair enough. Does the U.S. have a justifiable reason for taking military action in Lydia without congressional approval?

The whole thing about it was Gaddafi was going to massacre a large number of his own civilians. So we are lending our military advice to the rebels. And using UAVs to take out targets ourselves. Last I heard we aren't in a war, no troops fighting. Just expensive aerial vehicles. It was a time-sensitive thing.

 

[BudMcLovin]

The whole thing about it was Gaddafi was going to massacre a large number of his own civilians. So we are lending our military advice to the rebels. And using UAVs to take out targets ourselves. Last I heard we aren't in a war, no troops fighting. Just expensive aerial vehicles. It was a time-sensitive thing.

And that's our responsibility how? Isn't that what the U.N. and NATO are for? I don't know what you call it when you drop bombs on people but I call it war. Keep making excuses for the guy it's not going to help his reelection.