Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The Debt Fairy.

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:35:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:24:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Who do liberals expect to pay off the national debt, and how? Just curious.

Obama.
They feel that he will be a form of Clinton.

And we will see?
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:39:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:24:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Who do liberals expect to pay off the national debt, and how? Just curious.

Obama.
They feel that he will be a form of Clinton.

And we will see?

Clinton had a truly conservative congress. Congress writes the spending bills. But good try.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:48:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:39:26 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:24:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Who do liberals expect to pay off the national debt, and how? Just curious.

Obama.
They feel that he will be a form of Clinton.

And we will see?

Clinton had a truly conservative congress. Congress writes the spending bills. But good try.

I am not saying it is going to work... I am just specking for the Libs I know.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/24/2010 5:59:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:48:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:39:26 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:24:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Who do liberals expect to pay off the national debt, and how? Just curious.

Obama.
They feel that he will be a form of Clinton.

And we will see?

Clinton had a truly conservative congress. Congress writes the spending bills. But good try.

I am not saying it is going to work... I am just specking for the Libs I know.

I thought it was a little odd that you were defending liberals with Ben Franklin as your profile pic. That guy was a real American. And I don't recall him championing wellfare, health care, socialism, high taxes, big government, etc. You have me confused their for a minute.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 1:13:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Getting the American troops out of the middle east would certainly help to decrease this debt everybody speaks of... I really don't understand many conservatives. They're willing to waste money killing people, but won't put money towards helping people. Makes sooooooooo much sense.
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 10:15:14 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 1:13:19 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Getting the American troops out of the middle east would certainly help to decrease this debt everybody speaks of... I really don't understand many conservatives. They're willing to waste money killing people, but won't put money towards helping people. Makes sooooooooo much sense.

not even a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements costs. but i agree we should not fight ANY wars unless we are being attacked or can pay cash.
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 11:23:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/24/2010 5:39:26 PM, HandsOff wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:35:39 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 3/24/2010 5:24:45 PM, HandsOff wrote:
Who do liberals expect to pay off the national debt, and how? Just curious.

Obama.
They feel that he will be a form of Clinton.

And we will see?

Clinton had a truly conservative congress. Congress writes the spending bills. But good try.

And Clinton still managed to get his spending bills passed, plus he had veto power and used the office effectively while dealing with an inconsistent nutjob of a Speaker. But good try.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 1:54:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 11:23:57 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
And Clinton still managed to get his spending bills passed, plus he had veto power and used the office effectively while dealing with an inconsistent nutjob of a Speaker. But good try.

Tehe. Republican Congress for six years and Newt Gingrich as Co-Ruler of the country is the only reason Clinton did OK.
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 2:07:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 1:54:00 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/25/2010 11:23:57 AM, Scott_Mann wrote:
And Clinton still managed to get his spending bills passed, plus he had veto power and used the office effectively while dealing with an inconsistent nutjob of a Speaker. But good try.

Tehe. Republican Congress for six years and Newt Gingrich as Co-Ruler of the country is the only reason Clinton did OK.

The GOP Congress in the 90's was the most incompetent of all them. I suggest you read the book The Freshmen: What Happened to the Republican Revolution? by Linda Killian. The whole thing fell apart so badly that Clinton ended up getting the balanced budget job done for them. Congress deserves no credit or blame for the overall shape of the country. The buck always stops at the current president.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 2:14:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 2:07:39 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
The GOP Congress in the 90's was the most incompetent of all them.

Bill Clinton was the most incompetent of all them.

I suggest you read the book The Freshmen: What Happened to the Republican Revolution? by Linda Killian.

Nope.

The whole thing fell apart so badly that Clinton ended up getting the balanced budget job done for them.

The whole thing fell apart so badly that Gingrich ended up getting the balanced budget job done for Clinton.

Congress deserves no credit or blame for the overall shape of the country.

Bill Clinton deserves no credit or blame for the overall shape of the country.

Clinton's Presidency ended with soaring oil and electricity prises, the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and a recession.

The buck always stops at the current president.

Oh. So you're openly admitting you don't know how separation of powers works?
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 5:33:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 2:14:12 PM, Nags wrote:
At 3/25/2010 2:07:39 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
The GOP Congress in the 90's was the most incompetent of all them.

Bill Clinton was the most incompetent of all them.

I suggest you read the book The Freshmen: What Happened to the Republican Revolution? by Linda Killian.

Nope.

The whole thing fell apart so badly that Clinton ended up getting the balanced budget job done for them.

The whole thing fell apart so badly that Gingrich ended up getting the balanced budget job done for Clinton.

Congress deserves no credit or blame for the overall shape of the country.

Bill Clinton deserves no credit or blame for the overall shape of the country.

Clinton's Presidency ended with soaring oil and electricity prises, the bursting of the dot-com bubble, and a recession.

The buck always stops at the current president.

Oh. So you're openly admitting you don't know how separation of powers works?

So far the only thing you've given me are witty remarks. Nothing of any actual meaning, though.

Short-term recessions are perfectly normal after economic booms. The economy will stabilize shortly after, however.

Read the book and see how Clinton got his stuff through without worrying about a different party controlling Congress. It was Congress that was responsible for the government shut-down. When Congress passed a bill that cut too much, it was vetoed. Gingrich never had the votes to overturn a veto, this is one reason why he was such an incompetent, cocky, arrogant (sort of like you) Speaker who turned Congress into a disaster. Had people seen any progress from the GOP, they would have gained more seats in 1996, 1998, and 2000, instead of just losing more of them. There were several things Gingrich wanted to get done, but completely failed many of them. And, as I've told you before, even some of his freshmen grew to hate him. That's why there were meetings proposing a removal of him from his Speakership, even though it was never carried out. So, not even many of the Republicans liked Gingrich leading their party.

The buck virtually does stop at the President. It takes 2/3 of each House to overturn a veto. Gingrich did not have 2/3 most of the time, Dole and Lott did not have 2/3 most of the time, and so, vetoed bills proposed by Congress died.

Once again you've based your entire "argument" on witty comebacks and "facts" backed by crappy logic and judgment... or the lackthereof.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
collegekitchen7
Posts: 974
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 6:01:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 5:33:38 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
This is me pretending like I understand economics and blaming a figurehead for past recessions.
: At 3/24/2010 1:38:15 PM, Mirza wrote:
: But it's human nature. You're born inside your mother, so what's wrong with having some sexual activity with her?

: At 3/18/2010 6:48:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:
: read some credible history books, unplug from the matrix.

: At 3/21/2010 4:13:56 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
: Stocks would not go up 30% over something that hasn't even happened yet.

: At 3/21/2010 6:06:10 PM, banker wrote:
: It apears you have a wierd grasp of english..! its only second to
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/25/2010 9:23:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/25/2010 6:01:06 PM, collegekitchen7 wrote:
At 3/25/2010 5:33:38 PM, Scott_Mann wrote:
This is me pretending like I understand economics and blaming a figurehead for past recessions.

I looked at your profile. Koopin says you were banned? Maybe it's time you were due for it again.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 2:05:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
^ Scott, you're an absolute failure to think that the President can pass bills or anything without Congress. Seriously, it's quite an epic failure.

And I suggest you just stick with talking about the political process, and not economics, unless you want to be embarrassed even more.
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 5:51:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 2:05:54 PM, Nags wrote:
^ Scott, you're an absolute failure to think that the President can pass bills or anything without Congress. Seriously, it's quite an epic failure.

And I suggest you just stick with talking about the political process, and not economics, unless you want to be embarrassed even more.

Are you THAT illiterate? I'm saying that the GOP in the 90's FAILED to run Congress efficiently. Clinton got his way a lot of the time and was able to gain bipartisan support for some of his proposals. As for the GOP, they were either too reckless or too sheepish to legislate the way they had visioned the way it would be. America kept siding with Clinton on most issues and Gingrich continued to lose support, as well as seats in Congress. They had been forced to accept budge bills Clinton supported under pressure of public opinions.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 8:06:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What if we not only stopped pumping money into the defense department but also started taking money out. Selling off half the military would take at least a big chunk out of the debt.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 9:00:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 8:06:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What if we not only stopped pumping money into the defense department but also started taking money out. Selling off half the military would take at least a big chunk out of the debt.

Yeah, it would... but why would you do that?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 9:17:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 9:00:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/26/2010 8:06:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What if we not only stopped pumping money into the defense department but also started taking money out. Selling off half the military would take at least a big chunk out of the debt.

Yeah, it would... but why would you do that?

Because it's better than massive inflation or taxation to fix it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 10:06:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 9:17:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/26/2010 9:00:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/26/2010 8:06:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What if we not only stopped pumping money into the defense department but also started taking money out. Selling off half the military would take at least a big chunk out of the debt.

Yeah, it would... but why would you do that?

Because it's better than massive inflation or taxation to fix it.

Getting conquered by China which I'm fairly sure has higher tax rates is?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Scott_Mann
Posts: 278
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 10:15:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 8:01:27 PM, Nags wrote:
^ That logic is impeccable. /sarcasm

Too bad everything you say is not backed up in any way whatsoever.

I JUST told you a source and you refused to look into it.
The more posts you have, the less value they contain.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 10:24:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 10:06:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/26/2010 9:17:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/26/2010 9:00:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/26/2010 8:06:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What if we not only stopped pumping money into the defense department but also started taking money out. Selling off half the military would take at least a big chunk out of the debt.

Yeah, it would... but why would you do that?

Because it's better than massive inflation or taxation to fix it.

Getting conquered by China which I'm fairly sure has higher tax rates is?

Has it ever occurred to you that possibly war is the single largest incentive for growing government?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/26/2010 10:28:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 10:24:15 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Has it ever occurred to you that possibly war is the single largest incentive for growing government?

I'm sure it has. I'm also pretty sure submitting to whatever tyrant tries to conquer you is generally worse...that and, you know, being a socialist...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 1:07:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/26/2010 10:06:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/26/2010 9:17:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/26/2010 9:00:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/26/2010 8:06:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What if we not only stopped pumping money into the defense department but also started taking money out. Selling off half the military would take at least a big chunk out of the debt.
Getting conquered by China which I'm fairly sure has higher tax rates is?

China isn't a threat.[1]

[1] http://static.globalissues.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
HandsOff
Posts: 504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/27/2010 8:02:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/27/2010 1:07:21 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 3/26/2010 10:06:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 3/26/2010 9:17:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/26/2010 9:00:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/26/2010 8:06:17 PM, FREEDO wrote:
What if we not only stopped pumping money into the defense department but also started taking money out. Selling off half the military would take at least a big chunk out of the debt.
Getting conquered by China which I'm fairly sure has higher tax rates is?

China isn't a threat.[1]

[1] http://static.globalissues.org...

The liberals better feed that war machine if they plan on continuing to borrow money they can't repay. Since we know there is no way on earth to pay down the national debt or sustain current deficits, only the military will be able to protect us from our creditors. Don't forget the military Obama!