The Ball-less Buffoons Of Bad and Badder Bargains.”

[Robo]

Well the congressional Republicans proved yet once again that they’re long on bullshit and short on gonads. Enough of them voted for Harry Reid’s pathetic tax hiking bill that sent it into law and delivered it to the neo-communist President for his signature.

Fox News is reporting that the bill to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” is made up of tax dollars of a 41 to 1 ratio of taxes to spending cuts. WOW! What a deal!!! I can just see the neo-communist President now laughing his ass off.

The new identifying term to identify Republicans should be “Ball-less Buffoons Of Bad and Badder Bargains.”

 

[evince]

Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?

 

[Robo]

Does it hurt to be as stupid as you are?

I know the truth hurts, but that’s no excuse to show your stupidity and total lack of opposing argument simply by asking childish questions.

 

[I'm Watermark]

Well the congressional Republicans proved yet once again that they’re long on bullshit and short on gonads. Enough of them voted for Harry Reid’s pathetic tax hiking bill that sent it into law and delivered it to the neo-communist President for his signature.

Fox News is reporting that the bill to avoid the so-called “fiscal cliff” is made up of tax dollars of a 41 to 1 ratio of taxes to spending cuts. WOW! What a deal!!! I can just see the neo-communist President now laughing his ass off.

The new identifying term to identify Republicans should be “Ball-less Buffoons Of Bad and Badder Bargains.”

Funny you would say that. Their compromise was pretty moderate, in relative terms.

 

[Robo]

Funny you would say that. Their compromise was pretty moderate, in relative terms.

Relative to what? You think a 41 to 1 ratio of tax hikes to spending cuts is “moderate?” Holy crap! What would a real drubbing look like? I guess Obama and the Democrats would just line Republicans up against a wall and shoot them, huh?

 

[I'm Watermark]

No, I'm talking about the tax hikes specifically. Relatively, even if Obama didn't have to compromise, his tax increases are rather minor.

Germany

Tax % - Tax Base (EUR)
0 - Up to 8,004
14% - 8,005-52,881
42% - 52,882-250,730
45% - 250,731 and over

Austria

Income (EUR) - Tax (%)
1-11,000 - 0
11,001-25,000 - 36.5
25,001- 60,000 - 43.21
60,001 and over - 50

France

Tax % - Income EURO
0% - Till 5,963 Euro
5,5% - From 5,963 Euro to 11,896 Euro
14% - From 11,896 Euro to 26,420 Euro
30% - From 26,420 Euro to 70,830 Euro
41% - Over 70,830 Euro

Israel

Tax % - Income (IS)
10% - 1-62,400
14% - 62,401-106,560
21% - 106,561-173,160
30% - 173,161-261,360
33% - 261,361-501,960
48% - 501,961 and over

Croatia

Income (HRK) - %
1-26,400 - 12
26,400-105,600 - 25
over 105,600 - 40

Italy

Tax (%) - Tax Base (EUR)
23% 0 - 15,000
27% 15,001-28,000
38% 28,001-55,00
41% 55,001-75,000
43% 75,001 and over
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

Reagan

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

So if you want to complain about the tax hikes, then, by all means, do so. Just keep in this in perspective.

 

[evince]

thank you for providing facts.


the right will likely just pretend they are not facts.

that is their ususal procedure

 

[evince]

I know the truth hurts, but that’s no excuse to show your stupidity and total lack of opposing argument simply by asking childish questions.

The truth is the only thing that will save mankind, you should become aquainted with it.

 

[Howey]

thank you for providing facts.


the right will likely just pretend they are not facts.

that is their ususal procedure

He hasn't met Dixie yet.

Germany

Tax % - Tax Base (EUR)
0 - Up to 8,004
14% - 8,005-52,881
42% - 52,882-250,730
45% - 250,731 and over

That monopoly money's withering away!

 

[Robo]

No, I'm talking about the tax hikes specifically. Relatively, even if Obama didn't have to compromise, his tax increases are rather minor.

Germany

Tax % - Tax Base (EUR)
0 - Up to 8,004
14% - 8,005-52,881
42% - 52,882-250,730
45% - 250,731 and over

Austria

Income (EUR) - Tax (%)
1-11,000 - 0
11,001-25,000 - 36.5
25,001- 60,000 - 43.21
60,001 and over - 50

France

Tax % - Income EURO
0% - Till 5,963 Euro
5,5% - From 5,963 Euro to 11,896 Euro
14% - From 11,896 Euro to 26,420 Euro
30% - From 26,420 Euro to 70,830 Euro
41% - Over 70,830 Euro

Israel

Tax % - Income (IS)
10% - 1-62,400
14% - 62,401-106,560
21% - 106,561-173,160
30% - 173,161-261,360
33% - 261,361-501,960
48% - 501,961 and over

Croatia

Income (HRK) - %
1-26,400 - 12
26,400-105,600 - 25
over 105,600 - 40

Italy

Tax (%) - Tax Base (EUR)
23% 0 - 15,000
27% 15,001-28,000
38% 28,001-55,00
41% 55,001-75,000
43% 75,001 and over
http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

Reagan

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449

So if you want to complain about the tax hikes, then, by all means, do so. Just keep in this in perspective.

So in your opinion Americans should be as enslaved to government as Europeans, right? Do you believe that’s what made America great or that America will actually be great when it becomes Europe?

In case you haven’t noticed, Europe has even worse financial problems than America and places like Greece are rioting in the streets because it’s government is bankrupted and having to trim socialism to survive. The majority of Europe is a cheap tent about to fold and America is right behind them.

 

[I'm Watermark]

So in your opinion Americans should be as enslaved to government as Europeans, right? Do you believe that’s what made America great or that America will actually be great when it becomes Europe?

In case you haven’t noticed, Europe has even worse financial problems than America and places like Greece are rioting in the streets because it’s government is bankrupted and having to trim socialism to survive. The majority of Europe is a cheap tent about to fold and America is right behind them.

No, what I think is that taxes don't equate to slavery. What I think is that taxes are simply a means of the government collecting revenue to fund essential services like the armed forces and law enforcement.

As for Europe? It's not socialism that's got them in to trouble - Sure, they're socialized, like the US, and they're a lot more socialism friendly than we are, but a bulk of European country's aren't socialist - it's spending more than they take in and the austerity measures resulting from their debt. Socialism and taxes have nothing to do with it and the times seems to agree with me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/opinion/europes-failed-course-on-the-economy.html?_r=0

 

[Robo]

No, what I think is that taxes don't equate to slavery. What I think is that taxes are simply a means of the government collecting revenue to fund essential services like the armed forces and law enforcement.

The armed forces are constitutional for federal funding, where’s the constitutional authority for funding the federal cops and the social programs and so much more like bailouts and subsidies?

As for Europe? It's not socialism that's got them in to trouble - Sure, they're socialized, like the US, and they're a lot more socialism friendly than we are, but a bulk of European country's aren't socialist - it's spending more than they take in and the austerity measures resulting from their debt. Socialism and taxes have nothing to do with it and the times seems to agree with me.

You’re kidding right? What in hell do you suppose their debt comes from if not their out of control spending on their social programs? Are their social programs socialism?

 

[I'm Watermark]

The armed forces are constitutional for federal funding, where’s the constitutional authority for funding the federal cops and the social programs and so much more like bailouts and subsidies?

Don't be ridiculous. Are you implying that social programs, the FBI, bailouts and subsidies are unconstitutional?

You’re kidding right? What in hell do you suppose their debt comes from if not their out of control spending on their social programs?

I already answered that question. Their debt comes from spending more than they take in. Now, their revenues consist primarily of taxes and their expenditures consist of whatever's in their budget(such as military, foreign aid, transportation, veteran benefits, social security, medicare, government salaries, and, yes, social programs).

The way that it works is that the revenues have to fit the expenses, if they don't, you're in the position of many European countries. Reasons behind this vary widely country to country with some being heavily connected to the oil embargo. But I don't have to explain basic economics to you, do I?

Are their social programs socialism?

No, and if anyone tells you otherwise they've got some serious confusion with respect to history.

 

[Robo]

Don't be ridiculous. Are you implying that social programs, the FBI, bailouts and subsidies are unconstitutional?

YES!!!

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

There’s no federal power in the Constitution for social programs, the FBI or bailouts and subsidies for anybody. I’ll be totally amazed when you show me that authority in the Constitution. What the hell do you think Amendment 10 is saying?

I already answered that question. Their debt comes from spending more than they take in. Now, their revenues consist primarily of taxes and their expenditures consist of whatever's in their budget(such as military, foreign aid, transportation, veteran benefits, social security, medicare, government salaries, and, yes, social programs).

And aside from the military and veterans benefits, everything else is unconstitutional in the United States and that’s why they’re bankrupted and it’s why we’re bankrupted.

The way that it works is that the revenues have to fit the expenses, if they don't, you're in the position of many European countries. Reasons behind this vary widely country to country with some being heavily connected to the oil embargo. But I don't have to explain basic economics to you, do I?

Leftist like you have no basic concept of basic economics, so, there’s absolutely no danger of you ever teaching anybody any kind of economics with any kind of validity.

No, and if anyone tells you otherwise they've got some serious confusion with respect to history.

So, social programs are not socialism, right? So why do they call them “SOCIAL” programs? Why don’t they just call them “government” programs and leave it at that?

SOCIALISM: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles. (Encarta Dictionary)

Redistribution of the wealth totally fits the definition of “socialism.”

The government of the people is taking upon itself to control the means of production through regulation and taxation and distributing the wealth through taxation and bribing the vote with socialist programs, excusing the unconstitutional criminal activity by a perceived equity and fairness and ignoring market principles.

“Social” programs are “socialism.”


BTW, The United States federal entitlement socialist programs are the largest part of the federal budget and bleeding red ink profusely. The same is even truer in Europe where only a fraction of their budgets are spent on national defense, unlike the United States where we spend more on national defense than most of the rest of the world combined. We are the World’s Idiot Police Force and the Neo-Roman-Empire.

 

[I'm Watermark]

For real? The general welfare clause allows congress to spend money for the general welfare of the people.

And did it never occur to you while writing this rant to look up the definition of "social"?

: of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social

Social programs are nothing more than programs aimed towards the aid of a population.

 

[evince]

They will just spew whatever Rush and Beck tell them to say.



Facts mean niothing to the far right in this country.

they need to be heaved to the curb and ignored.

At some point the republican party will realise this.

The party may commit suicide before they get to guts to do it.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

For real? The general welfare clause allows congress to spend money for the general welfare of the people.

And did it never occur to you while writing this rant to look up the definition of "social"?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social

Social programs are nothing more than programs aimed towards the aid of a population.

That wasn't what was intended by the clause and leftists know it. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken this long. Adherents could have pointed to the Constitution

Lastly to blow the final hole in this argument, why did Obama not use this as a defense of his healthcare plan? Why do politicians always use the Commerce Clause? Seems to me this would be an easier clause to defend if in fact you were correct which you are not.

 

[I'm Watermark]

That wasn't what was intended by the clause and leftists know it. Otherwise it wouldn't have taken this long. Adherents could have pointed to the Constitution

Lastly to blow the final hole in this argument, why did Obama not use this as a defense of his healthcare plan? Why do politicians always use the Commerce Clause? Seems to me this would be an easier clause to defend if in fact you were correct which you are not.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you're not exactly correct here.

First, "and you know it" isn't an argument. The clause was meant to allow congress to fund programs it sees beneficial to the people.

As for your attempt to tie this to ACA? The supreme court had an issue with the fee, not that it was a social program. In any case, we're not talking about Obamacare.

Your argument is that social programs are unconstitutional, no? Well, I have the constitution and decades of history to support me. What have you got? Rhetoric?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you're not exactly correct here.

First, "and you know it" isn't an argument. The clause was meant to allow congress to fund programs it sees beneficial to the people.

As for your attempt to tie this to ACA? The supreme court had an issue with the fee, not that it was a social program. In any case, we're not talking about Obamacare.

Your argument is that social programs are unconstitutional, no? Well, I have the constitution and decades of history to support me. What have you got? Rhetoric?

You are interpreting the Constitution on suit your big gobblement narrative. Look at any quotes from the men who actually wrote the document and you would learn that the general welfare clause was not intended as you claim. That politicians have ignored this does not make it OK.

One could argue that banning welfare and banning porn is part of the "general welfare" but I am sure you would disagree.

Read Madison's quotes on the matter then get back to me

 

[I'm Watermark]

You are interpreting the Constitution on suit your big gobblement narrative. Look at any quotes from the men who actually wrote the document and you would learn that the general welfare clause was not intended as you claim. That politicians have ignored this does not make it OK.

One could argue that banning welfare and banning porn is part of the "general welfare" but I am sure you would disagree.

Read Madison's quotes on the matter then get back to me

But that's not the point. The point is that congress may constitutionally spend money for the general welfare of the people - whatever they, as a group of elected officials, decide that means. It doesn't matter what Madison said in the 1800s, it matters what congress can and does do now(That is horrible grammar )