18
   

Despite a bipartisan effort...

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 04:18 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

One day you will be drawing your 'entitlement' check just like everyone else. And you won't bitch about it then. Until the day I see Republicans turning down their piece of our social programs, I really could care less about the bitching.


This would crack me up if it wasn’t so scary. For you speak the truth here, don’t you, Cyclops?

This is the 'progressive' wet dream, isn't it? To turn the US into another European socialist-democracy where every citizen is dependent on the government in some manner or another?

Where we all get an entitlement check in one form or another, where the best 'job' one can find is one working for the government? But that’s only if you really want to work; if not, the government (but in reality, those still paying taxes) will take care of your food, medical, and housing needs.

What libs such as yourself never seem to figure out is the government does not produce anything of value. They don’t manufacture anything, or raise income on their own. They only take money from those who already have it.

Someday, the gravy train just might dry up.

Until then, I'll continue paying my taxes (in all the forms they come in) while people like you cash in on my hard work...



'People like me?' Am I to assume that you are implying that I do not pay taxes, just like you do?

It's a good thing that your fantasies have very little to do with the actuality of America. While entertaining, they don't really describe a realistic scenario which resembles anything we see today.

I do speak the truth: in that you will not turn down your part of the so-called 'entitlements.' None of you Republicans will. You like to bitch about the programs, but you secretly approve of them to the same extent that everyone else does.

Cycloptichorn
H2O MAN
 
  -4  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 04:21 pm



Laughing Cyclotroll can be such a bitch.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/PrezBO.jpg
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 04:21 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:

Cyclops....stop this 'chump change' BULLSHIT.

You realize that they are borrowing this money right? You realize that every penny we borrow NOW will make it that much more difficult to fix/respond to these types of problems in the future.

People OUR age are getting fucked in the ass and saddled with debt that we'll have to pay back.


Of course I realize that.

What the **** did you think was going to happen, Maporsche? This is what the last few decades of Republican/Fiscal conservative rule have done to us. It takes a lot of spending to help avert the recession that the economists say is headed our way; do you think I'm happy about it?

I'm not. But bitching about where less than 1% of the spending is going is asinine. It doesn't make a difference, literally. If you want to attack the stimulus, go for it; but attack the major part of it, not the piddling little **** that gets thrown in.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 04:25 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

And I'll argue that the country was ran into this mess by the Congress your party controlled and have as much validity in my argument as you in yours that a Repub-controlled president did it.


Bull **** you will. Make your argument, in detail, as to how the Dem-ran Congress is responsible for the current mess. Please detail how the Dem-ran Congress failed to run the SEC correctly, failed to investigate the corruption in the mortgage and financial industries, and failed to take steps to keep the problems from spreading once they started. Detail how the Dem-ran Congress forced that idiot Paulson to let Lehman Bros collapse and trigger much of the crisis of last September and October.

What a ******* joke. You have no evidence that the Dem-controlled Congress is responsible for any of this. Just partisan idiocy.

Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 04:54 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
No need for me to do so...a quick google search would reveal that there is more than enough blame to go around in both parties and in all branches of Government. It's your one-eyed partisanship that blames everything on the Bush administration and absolves the democratically controlled Congress from any of the stench...

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 05:31 pm
@slkshock7,
slkshock7 wrote:

No need for me to do so...a quick google search would reveal that there is more than enough blame to go around in both parties and in all branches of Government. It's your one-eyed partisanship that blames everything on the Bush administration and absolves the democratically controlled Congress from any of the stench...


You are incorrect. The truth is that the agencies most responsible for overseeing the problems that led to the recession are ran by the Executive branch. You're not going to pin that on the Dems.

The Dems didn't control Congress for long enough to cause this problem. And I'm wondering what specific actions you can claim they did or didn't do, that led to the problem.

I'm betting that you can name no specific actions that they did that led to the problem. If that's the case, you're full of ****. Not that this is surprising.

This is what happens when your leadership sucks and your party gets kicked out of running the joint, Republicans: you get to put up with the recriminations about how you bunch caused the problems that the other guys are now responsible for fixing. Get used to it, b/c for the next several years, we are going to continually remind you that your leaders - the people you said were competent and should run the country - fucked it up bad.

You are going to be tempted to rebut that the Dems are responsible too. You might want to come prepared with some actual facts next time, though.

Cycloptichorn
slkshock7
 
  2  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 06:58 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Since you're too lazy to do the google review and instead obstinately persist in your bush-phobic delusions, here's what FactCheck says:

Quote:
So who is to blame? There's plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn't fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn't do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility ... with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here's a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.


Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.


Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.


Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.


The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.


Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.


Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.


Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.


The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.


An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.


Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

The U.S. economy is enormously complicated. Screwing it up takes a great deal of cooperation. Claiming that a single piece of legislation was responsible for (or could have averted) the crisis is just political grandstanding. We have no advice to offer on how best to solve the financial crisis. But these sorts of partisan caricatures can only make the task more difficult.



DontTreadOnMe
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 07:54 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
What a bunch of assholes those Wall Street Journal people are!


couldn't have said it better meself.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 08:19 pm
@slkshock7,
So, basically, what the Economist is saying is that capitalism is unworkable. It requires a great deal of government intervention because people are greedy fucks. A great deal of government control is also needed to control the government controllers who are too incompetent to be allowed to keep their jobs.

And the buck stops with the person who was overseeing the whole mess, GWB. But no one knew or realized that he was the greatest incompetent of all because he brought such a shining track record to office.



slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 08:31 pm
@JTT,
Or the Clinton Administration...take your pick on incompetence. Remains to be seen if four/eight years from now, we'll add Obama to the list....

Actually any reasonable person would state, as the Economist points out, the "blame" can be laid at the feet of any number of organizations and people and the actions or inaction they took....combine that with a spate of simple bad luck and here we are.

By the same token, when the economy heals, it'll be due to any number of actions or inactions that people, governments, and organizations take...plus simple good luck.

I'll take odds that, a few years from now, we'll be having nearly identical arguments over who gets credit for the improvement, and none of us will have any more proof to take credit than we have proof to lay blame.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 08:35 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
So, basically, what the Economist is saying is that capitalism is unworkable.


And this is total crap. Capitalism, flawed as any worldly system is bound to be, is still the most robust, productive, wealth-producing, and viable economic system this side of heaven.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 10:08 pm
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

------------

BANG FOR THE BUCK
What a dollar of stimulus puts back into the economy when spent on...


http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2009/01/bang-for-the-buck.jpg


Why stop here? A dollar for food stamps puts $1.73 into the economy? Hey, not everybody is entitled to food stamps, and there are restrictions on what you can buy. Let everybody have them, and buy whatever they want. We can use the extra $.73 to retire the national debt. Well, can't we?
A Lone Voice
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 11:37 pm
@nimh,
Quote:

Obama didn't promise an "infrastructure recovery bill"; he promised an economical stimulus package to help the economy. Infrastructure was always just going to be one of the means to do so. You're just making stuff up now.


C'mon now, Nimh. Usually, you stay on track during these discussions. OK, maybe I should have phrased it 'Obama's Infrastructure Plan?'

Like here?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/whats-missing-from-obamas_b_149135.html

Or here:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/levin031/transportationist/2008/12/obama_infrastructure_plan.html

Obama didn't have a 'National Entitlement Recovery Program', did he? Our left wing congress sure does.

Spending tax dollars on entitlements is as useless as Bush's rebate plan was; food stamp and rent money is not going to help the economy recover or create jobs.

Is some of it needed right now? Sure. But don't try to mislabel it or hide it.

Why does does this congress feel they have to fool the American public?
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 11:49 pm
@H2O MAN,
You should avoid things which could be perceived as racially motivated like the anti-mouse mouse-ka-ears and just refer to the guy as oinkbama like I do...

0 Replies
 
A Lone Voice
 
  0  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 11:51 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

A Lone Voice wrote:

Quote:

One day you will be drawing your 'entitlement' check just like everyone else. And you won't bitch about it then. Until the day I see Republicans turning down their piece of our social programs, I really could care less about the bitching.


This would crack me up if it wasn’t so scary. For you speak the truth here, don’t you, Cyclops?

This is the 'progressive' wet dream, isn't it? To turn the US into another European socialist-democracy where every citizen is dependent on the government in some manner or another?

Where we all get an entitlement check in one form or another, where the best 'job' one can find is one working for the government? But that’s only if you really want to work; if not, the government (but in reality, those still paying taxes) will take care of your food, medical, and housing needs.

What libs such as yourself never seem to figure out is the government does not produce anything of value. They don’t manufacture anything, or raise income on their own. They only take money from those who already have it.

Someday, the gravy train just might dry up.

Until then, I'll continue paying my taxes (in all the forms they come in) while people like you cash in on my hard work...



'People like me?' Am I to assume that you are implying that I do not pay taxes, just like you do?

It's a good thing that your fantasies have very little to do with the actuality of America. While entertaining, they don't really describe a realistic scenario which resembles anything we see today.

I do speak the truth: in that you will not turn down your part of the so-called 'entitlements.' None of you Republicans will. You like to bitch about the programs, but you secretly approve of them to the same extent that everyone else does.

Cycloptichorn


Funny, how you never refute my points...

Yep. A progressive wet dream. You described it perfectly, cyclops. Right down to the hope of me drawing my entitlement check one day like everyone else.

So this doesn't include you, being a 'tax receiver' instead of a tax payer? Funny, you sure seem to walk to walk. And talk the talk.

Hmm, school loans you left the government with? Unpaid taxes? C'mon cyclops, you know you're good for it. But we owe you, after all, don't we?

Boomers have done more to ruin US society than any other generation; we'll be paying their debt for decades...

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 11:51 pm
Quote:
Despite a bipartisan effort........


"Bipartisan(TM)" in America means that the stupid party (pubbies) and the evil party (dems) have gotten together to perpetrate something or other both stupid AND evil on the long-suffering public.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2009 11:59 pm
@roger,
Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? If the governmet would just provide all the money we need to spend, according to that chart, we would be awash in cash within a week or so. By golly I think you're onto something big here.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 12:23 am
@A Lone Voice,
Laughing Just how old do you think I am?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:39 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:
Why stop here? A dollar for food stamps puts $1.73 into the economy? Hey, not everybody is entitled to food stamps, and there are restrictions on what you can buy. Let everybody have them, and buy whatever they want. We can use the extra $.73 to retire the national debt. Well, can't we?

Funny, but you realise that it wouldn't quite work that way, don't you?

Give extra food stamps to someone who struggles to pay a minimum rent and buy enough food for his children, and he'll use them to buy basic goods he can't afford now. Give them to an upper/middle class earner, and he will use them instead of money he normally uses on them, and save much of the money he can free up that way -- depleting the stimulus effect.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2009 09:56 pm
@A Lone Voice,
A Lone Voice wrote:

Spending tax dollars on entitlements is as useless as Bush's rebate plan was; food stamp and rent money is not going to help the economy recover or create jobs.

Of course it is. Whyever do you think it wouldn't create jobs? That's money that's immediately spent - mostly on local products (foodstuffs etc) - which people are hired to make and grow.

Here's one way of explaining it - you won't agree with it, of course, but maybe others will see it:

Quote:
Still, isn't the bill just a hodgepodge of unrelated spending? Sure. What else could it be? There's no way to spend $800 billion on infrastructure over the next two years, so most of the money has to be spent on other stuff. But so what? Employing clerks or crossing guards or home care workers counts every bit as much as employing backhoe operators or engineers. Spending money on contraceptives does as much for the economy as spending money on rebar. An unemployment check gets spent on food the same way a paycheck does.

The conservatives just still don't seem to grasp how serious and acute the problem is. The number of workers filing claims for jobless benefits lasting more than one week has soared to a record high. Employers slashed payrolls at a rate of about half a million per month in the final four months of 2008. This month's claims figures point to another drop of that magnitude when January data are released next week.

The economy shrunk by the most in 26 years in the last quarter of 2008. GDP fell at a seasonally adjusted 3.8% annual rate - and the only reason it wasn't worse still is because of rising inventories, the result of companies getting stuck with unwanted merchandise because demand has tailed off. Were it not for that, GDP would have shrunk something like 5.1%.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/Blog_GDP_2008_Q4.jpg

It's an emergency. Money needs to be pumped into the system quickly, to at least try to prevent the economy from collapsing into another Great Depression. And if you're demanding some responsibility toward the tax payers from the government, you should press for ways to spend that money that's most effective in terms of stimulating the economy. Infrastructural projects are - or at least can be if the Democrats succeed in passing a provision requiring American steel to be used in them. Food stamps are too. Cutting capital gains taxes is not. Tax cuts for upper income earners are not.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/20/2019 at 01:03:21