Jobs report

The dems while in office just like always.

You guys fuck it up then we clean up your fucking messes then you blame them on us
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us then Dung... who pays for the excess borrowing you want to do today? You never answer that.

What happens in 10/20 years when the bonds come due?

Why do you avoid that?
Click to expand...


I've answered those questions time and again. They're just stupid questions.

I thought at one time you basically agreed that we should spend more now on things we have to pay for anyway in the future (basically, shifting future demand to the present) and reduce spending in the future but didn't want to do that because the future spending reductions never come. That position I can understand. The position that we should cut now and make our current problems worse because we might have problems in the future is just fucking insane, though.
 
Dungheap said:
I'd hve no problem with it either if it was actually a good idea, but I don't think there is much evidence at all that it would lead to stronger and more sustainable growth in the future. Also, too, it would mean lots and lots of human suffering.

We don't really have exploding debt.
Click to expand...
well we do, if Congress can't do anything about it. I get the basics, i get the wealth gap,
Wondering where this all goes down the road....wondering if this is the new normal...
 
Dungheap said:
I've answered those questions time and again. They're just stupid questions.
Click to expand...

No, you always claim that you have answered them and then you run away. You think asking who has to pay for this debt is stupid? Yeah, that is a huge part of the problem of your plan.

I thought at one time you basically agreed that we should spend more now on things we have to pay for anyway in the future (basically, shifting future demand to the present) and reduce spending in the future but didn't want to do that because the future spending reductions never come. That position I can understand. The position that we should cut now and make our current problems worse because we might have problems in the future is just fucking insane, though.
Click to expand...

Actual Keynesian spending, yes. The free for all spending that Obama does, hell no. Infrastructure can be done and on that I agree with borrowing today at low rates. Those are projects that must be done anyway. Those projects also benefit future generations as well. But that is not the type of spending Obama has done, nor is it what you support. You support spending, regardless. You think it stupid to ask who pays for the bailouts to the states, unions, etc...

Those bailouts to the states... all they did was push the same problem into the future. It didn't resolve anything.
 
If only congress would pass a comprehensive infrastructure bill, favored by a majority of Americans instead of a weekly vote to kill Obamacare. Just think how much lower unemployment would be!
 
Howey said:
If only congress would pass a comprehensive infrastructure bill, favored by a majority of Americans instead of a weekly vote to kill Obamacare. Just think how much lower unemployment would be!
Click to expand...

If the Senate would also vote to kill Obamacare, think how much lower it would be.

That said, I do think they should both pass an infrastructure only bill.
 
Ummmmm I didn't think the president created jobs. Could someone point to the article in the Constitution where that is his job?
 
Dungheap said:
You're quite simply out of your fucking mind, but I'll at least take the concession that the policies you want to impose would mean higher unemployment and lower growth than we have now.
Click to expand...

Do you think anyone sane posts here DH? I ask because I do think SF has issues upstairs, but I think he's far from alone. I have noticed that a lot of posters here have them, and not just cons. So this of course makes me worry...about me. What do you make of this?
 
Socrtease said:
except for 1988 aren't taxes under Obama lower than they were when Reagan was in office?
Click to expand...

she was referring to the slowdown in the economy being due to the sequester 'cuts'. That amounts to about $40-45B this year (much of which is not in place). I was referring to the fact that the SS tax increased back to norm by 2% which had a much greater affect on the economy.

As for Reagan rates vs. Obama's, yes, Obama kept the majority of the Bush tax cuts. Those same cuts that liberals said were hurting the economy. He kept them becausse in reality they are good for the economy, provided the idiots in DC stop outspending revenue. Obama is correct to go after loopholes and deductions (similar to what Reagan did)... but he is wrong in the desire to continue trying to increase tax rates at the same time (granted just on those evil rich).

Obviously I have made my case many times on where I stand on the tax code... but if you want a refresher, just let me know.
 
Darla said:
Do you think anyone sane posts here DH? I ask because I do think SF has issues upstairs, but I think he's far from alone. I have noticed that a lot of posters here have them, and not just cons. So this of course makes me worry...about me. What do you make of this?
Click to expand...

that you are truly delusional... so yes, you should be worried. You think Desh is getting 'bullied', while ignoring her non stop hostility. You just focus on what she receives in return for that hostility. You then pretend you are sane... which is truly comical.
 
Superfreak said:
she was referring to the slowdown in the economy being due to the sequester 'cuts'. That amounts to about $40-45B this year (much of which is not in place). I was referring to the fact that the SS tax increased back to norm by 2% which had a much greater affect on the economy.

As for Reagan rates vs. Obama's, yes, Obama kept the majority of the Bush tax cuts. Those same cuts that liberals said were hurting the economy. He kept them becausse in reality they are good for the economy, provided the idiots in DC stop outspending revenue. Obama is correct to go after loopholes and deductions (similar to what Reagan did)... but he is wrong in the desire to continue trying to increase tax rates at the same time (granted just on those evil rich).

Obviously I have made my case many times on where I stand on the tax code... but if you want a refresher, just let me know.
Click to expand...
No no, you just referred to Obama's tax increases and as far as I knew taxes are no higher now than they were when Reagan was president. Hell, you know I don't like the tax code. I want a flat tax.
 
Socrtease said:
No no, you just referred to Obama's tax increases and as far as I knew taxes are no higher now than they were when Reagan was president. Hell, you know I don't like the tax code. I want a flat tax.
Click to expand...

yes... tax increases over what they were the previous year. Not EVER. You see the economy reacts to changes year over year. We can take a look at rates under Ike too... kind of meaningless to the discussion we were having about what caused the slowdown THIS year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top