Schizophrenic Republicans

What a crazy idea! Almost every firm at some time or another goes into debt in order to invest the cash into making money, as do people. That's what banks are for. Obviously you can borrow your way out of debt, and all countries do it. Americans do have some odd notions!

If you are not being sarcastic it's no wonder this country is so fucked.

kynaston, is right.

You have to spend money to make money. This is a simple notion.

Yip, completely ***ed. The government is not a business, the people are not it's product. The simple conceptual difference between government and a business seeems to be eluding some.

Yip, completely fucked. The government is not a business, the people are not it's product. The simple conceptual difference between government and a business seeems to be eluding some.

Wait, hold on a minute here.

you said you cannot borrow your way out of debt, this statement of yours has come into question, we have given you examples of how this is not true and now you hop trains. You switched arguments because you realized you were wrong.

So before we argue whether or not government is a business you must concede our point that sometimes you CAN borrow your way out of debt.

There's no switching anything going on. you can NOT borrow your way out of debt. Say it to yourself a few times, and let the words kind of sink in for a minute. If you are $2,000 in debt, and you borrow $8000 and pay it off, you aren't out of debt $2,000, you are now in debt for $8,000. [SIZE="4"]Now, if the government were producing a product, widgets, than sure, you invest in materials, marketing, etc, and hopefully turn a profit,[/SIZE] that's NOT what the government is borrowing money for. The only way the government is going to get the money back is by taxing us. The SPENDING has to stop.

{read line in large bold}

You just said it wasn't possible now you're saying it IS POSSIBLE, just that is not what the government is doing.

You contradict yourself.

So which is it?

Why do people borrow money? To spend it.

Why do they spend it? To make money (sometimes)

How do you get out of debt? By making money.





"Borrowing your way out of debt" requires that you "spend money to make money". Any other questions?


SCORE

92b: 0
FF: 1

Simply writing 0-1 doesn't make it so,

especially since you can not grasp the simplest of concepts.

I'm not going to waste anymore time, discussing tthe obsurdly obvious with apologist who play stupid word games, and declare "victory" when they don't even comprehend what they are talking about.

Correct, your inability/refusal to address arguments made -- makes it so.

You've not provided a single convincing argument, you simply thrash about accusing others of being blind partisans and "full of fail". Perhaps if you attempt to carry on a meaningful discussion, you could be more effective in conveying your point.

No, it seems you are the one who cannot understand the simplest of concepts.

To borrow your way out of debt you need to "spend money to make money".

You have not even attempted to refute this statement. You've not provided anything but personal discontent and scoffing.

Take off your fail cap, and put on your thinking cap for a minute.



Your attempt at a strawman is weak, and ill conceived. The government isn't borrowing money to spend it to make money to get themselves out of debt. You trying to equate a business taking out a loan to produce a product, or service to repay the loan and make a profit to the governments out of control spending is just...desperate.



Because you're trying to create a correlation that is not there. You're trying to argue the point that you can borrow your way out of debt by spending money to make money, and is a complete non sequitur derailment of the topic at hand. You know as well as I do that isn't what the government is doing, and isn't going to happen. If you were the government, there isn't a bank in the world that would give you a loan, you'd have a negative credit score, and probably be in jail.

And since you have yet to address the FACT that you, and just about ever other left leaning person here was screaming bloody murder at Bush's spending (which funny enough, if the war had been for oil, and we got it, his spending would have actually produces the imaginary return you are trying to imply Obamanations spending is going to), but now that Obama is dwarfing all past presidents spending combined, you're creating this ridiculous strawmen like "Gotta spend money to make money", it isn't even worth my time as obviously it's nothing but partisan hackery.

Unsubscribing

Take off your fail cap, and put on your thinking cap for a minute.

Your attempt at a strawman is weak, and ill conceived.

The government isn't borrowing money to spend it to make money to get themselves out of debt.

You trying to equate a business taking out a loan to produce a product, or service to repay the loan and make a profit to the governments out of control spending is just...desperate.

Because you're trying to create a correlation that is not there. You're trying to argue the point that you can borrow your way out of debt by spending money to make money, and is a complete non sequitur derailment of the topic at hand.

You know as well as I do that isn't what the government is doing, and isn't going to happen.

If you've been following Washington DC politics you'll have noticed that the "cough cough" conservatives are back. True for eight years we saw the real republican persona, borrow and spend with a large slice of fiscal irresponsibility. But now that the republicans are back in the minority, it's all about balanced budgets and fiscal propriety. They are also demanding transparency now even though the Cheney/Bush administration was so steeped in secrets that they hid Cheney in the crypt of the White House.

One could come to the conclusion that the republicans in the minority of today are running against the republicans when they were in the majority and in control. The very things they are running against now are the very things they ppracticed under Cheney/Bush.

Perhaps the most astounding instance of this reversal of political policies is found in the media that is silent on calling the republicans out for their two faced politics. Let me give you an example. The republicans demanded that "labor" renegotiate their contracts before those industries could be bailed out. But do the republicans demand the same from upper management of industries such as the financial industry? So on one hand the republicans prance around demanding the little people make sacrifices but when it comes to the CEOs that tanked their industries in the first place, well the republicans can't pay them enough. All this goes unnoticed by the media...

I wonder what kind of country we've become? A country that allows the mentally deranged run the country like they did under the Cheney/Bush administration. The two faced politics of the republicans is so patently blatant, overt and obvious that it is astounding that it isn't the front page news day in and day out.

[SIZE="5"]We saw who the republicans really are over the last eight years, so don't be fooled by their lying claims of conservatism now.[/SIZE]

Here's the difference... the one difference between Bush's spending and Obama's spending.

Bush had money when he started. He decided to build a jetpack that keeps him suspended three feet in the air simply by shooting cash out the back. He went through the surplus so *** quick. Then he started borrowing from China and everywhere else that would give us hundreds of billions of dollars on a whim.

We gave our teenage son all the money from our wallet and both of our credit cards and he ate it all!

With Obama, we have no choice but to spend in the red. You're basically saying "Whoops, my half of the chocolate milk was at the bottom of the carton! Sorry, kid." and expecting the Democrats to pinch every Abraham Lincoln till it's telling us Al-Qeida's plans.

Obama ran on this agenda. He won based on that. We voted for him based on that and we knew the money was gone.

You lost. You are out of power. It's supposed to taste like a sh!t sandwich. We've gnawed on this thing for almost a decade. Your turn.

Look, in the length of our lifetimes, there has been more Republican defecit spending than there has been Democratic. Thank the Gipper for that one.

The above is nothing more than a bunch of Librul hyperbolic BS.

By the way, who do you think owns most of the US Debt? This should help you become more informed instead of sounding like another typical uninformed talking head who spews nonsensical Democrat talking points in a vacuum of the facts.

Fascinating argument from a Librul who now wants to support deficits on steroids with little to point to as economic results from the irresponsible spending spree we are seeing from Democrats without any honest debate about how to pay for it all.

This is also a completely stupid argument; the notion that we have no choice but to spend future generations into massive deficits cannot be supported by an intelligent argument based on facts or history.

Ten months into this spending spree you have NOTHING to show for it except for an increasing level of joblessness, massive closures of businesses and foreclosed housing, massive deficits and a skyrocketing Debt obligation.

Oh my; the denial is strong with this one. :rollinglaugh:

This is an outright lie; but then you are a Librul and in order to support your failed political philosophy lying is all that you have.

Congress is the ONLY entity that can tax and spend; and for six decades it was controlled by Democrats for the most part. The ONLY congress to have balanced a budget in two decades was a Republican Congress; the same one you and your pals in the uninformed mainstream media demagogue.

Now we see what Democrats do best; SPEND the American taxpayer into generations of massive deficits and debt with NOTHING credible to show for it. And here you are once again blaming Republicans even though Democrats have controlled the purse strings since 2007 and regained that control by lying to the American people.

Carry on; your farcical attempts to make a joke of the facts and reality are duly noted.

That would be China and (GASP) Saudi Arabia. Guess who leeched from them.

Three trillion dollars is deficits on steroids. That's what is effectively left behind after the first eight years of the 21st century. You appear to support that fully.

Cue the 9/11 crutch in 3...2...1...

So where's the money gonna come from? Simple question, simple answer, right? Since the money we HAD is spent and in China's hands, where are we to get money to do things like, I dunno, pay for security in airports... upgrade our electrical grid... keep the troops troopin' on... things like that. They cost money y'know.

Speaking of, how do you plan we pay for the last administration? Again, three trillion large slapped into my son's lap.

Cue the 9/11 crutch AGAIN in 3...2...1...

Its ALL deficit spending, you can't pick and choose. At least I can admit its deficit spending and that I'd prefer not to do so, however choices are limited. You guys built guns that shoot money like water cannons.

No, *YOU* have nothing to show for it. *I* have three cars, a new house and a pair of very secure jobs between the wife and I to pay for it all.

How did I do it? I saw the last few years coming from a parsec away. Sorry if you didn't. Being able to see an impending train wreck is kinda neat when you need to do something such as get out of the way.

Psst, my mortgage is cheaper than rent on a place half this size!

Homework assignment: Show me where your taxes have been raised. I can show you were mine have dropped. Pay stubs and all

Reaganomics. Nuff said on that front. Trickle own has been a staple of Republican rhetoric for decades. Still is, hence the tax breaks for the top 1%.

As for blaming the other side: Clinton. Thought it was religious doctrine that he let Binnie get the slip and that he put us into recession.

This is called projection.

An outright lie? I'm 30 and a hair, that means Jimmy was on the way out shortly after I was. So my presidential line is as follows: Gipper -> Bush -> Clinton -> Bush the 2nd -> Obama.

Two Dems, three Pubs. Do we REALLY wanna see the books these guys left us with?

YES WE DO!

But it's Obama who is taxing you...

Oh, and the above nosedive in dollars per the graph... Republican congress. The Dems went along because of the endless riders attached to military spending bills. Neat tactic, can't line-item veto, so if ya vote Nay, you are seen as unAmerican... you don't support the troops.