Who Increased the Debt?

[Guns Guns Guns]

creating the Tea Party........

Really? The Tea Party was created during the Bush Administration?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

 

[Damocles]

Really? The Tea Party was created during the Bush Administration?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

You are confusing the first protests with the genesis of the movement.

Let's see what the wiki site has to say:

"The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives."

Interesting 2008... Let me see. Was 2008 in 2008? There seems to be some confusion on that and I was wondering if you could help with that? I think it might have been. Can you tell me?

Now, we find out that they are trying to "reach everybody who voted for the bailout" (that bailout was in 2008, it seems we have a repeating theme here)...

On January 19, 2009, Graham Makohoniuk, a part-time trader and a member of Ticker Forum, posted a casual invitation on the market-ticker.org forums to "Mail a tea bag to congress and to senate,"[34] a tactic that had first been attempted by the Libertarian Party in 1973.[35] The idea quickly caught on with others on the forum, some of whom reported being attracted to the inexpensive, easy way to reach "everyone that voted for the bailout."[36]

It seems that there is a strong argument, assuming that 2008 was actually IN 2008, that the genesis of the movement was in 2008...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

The reality is earning is often static, just saying, "get a better job" (which seems to be what you are saying) and increase debt is inane. A family needs to reduce spending and pay debt to lower debt burden, not just "get more credit"... That same family can't simply "raise taxes" to supposedly increase their income.

And how do you propose to pay the debt if your income won't cover the payments?

Are you positing that the same family can simply cut expenses to pay their debts?

What makes sense is to aim at higher earnings through better production (get a new job), not by simply lowering the kids' allowance (taxing). You just aren't going to get enough without the growth and increased production (new job) to pay the bills that are increasing. Saying, "Just tax more" will solve all our problems is foolish.

Explain how 'better production' = higher earnings if you cut taxes on the better producers.

Who said 'just tax more' anyway, strawman?

We absolutely need to take a hard long look at spending in order to get our fiscal house in order.

But just on programs that conservatives don't like, and we can't even think about closing tax loopholes or rolling back tax cuts, right?

We can go on and on with the family's finances and create analogies. It's interesting how you look at it so differently. There is no endless pool of money just ready for the government to get through "taxing the rich"... The parents only have so much money.[/QUOTE]

Because they only own 87% of the wealth?

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You are confusing the first protests with the genesis of the movement.

Let's see what the wiki site has to say:

"The libertarian theme of the "tea party" protest was previously used by Republican Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters as a fundraising event during the primaries of the 2008 presidential campaign to emphasize Paul's fiscal conservatism which they later claimed laid the groundwork for the modern-day Tea Party movement, although many of them also claim their movement has been hijacked by neoconservatives."

Interesting 2008... Let me see. Was 2008 in 2008? There seems to be some confusion on that and I was wondering if you could help with that? I think it might have been. Can you tell me?

Now, we find out that they are trying to "reach everybody who voted for the bailout" (that bailout was in 2008, it seems we have a repeating theme here)...



It seems that there is a strong argument, assuming that 2008 was actually IN 2008, that the genesis of the movement was in 2008...

You are confusing mythology with fact. Dick Armey tried the same argument. It wasn't valid then, it ain't valid now.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/a/Tea-Party.htm

 

[Damocles]

And how do you propose to pay the debt if your income won't cover the payments?

Are you positing that the same family can simply cut expenses to pay their debts?

It is, in fact, the only way they can pay their debts if they are unable to make more money.

Explain how 'better production' = higher earnings if you cut taxes on the better producers.

Who said 'just tax more' anyway, strawman?

By lowering expenses the "family" (as you wanted the scenario to be) now has more money to pay debt, and to "invest" in their future (education) so that they can get a better job (increase production and sales) which will increase their income (revenue) by a certain percentage. The government can do this by allowing companies to invest in their future, usually through targeted cuts in taxes (if you hire "x" you get "y" credit, if you spend "a" on expanding you get "c" credit). The government needs to pay for the excess through cuts in other areas or we simply add to the debt problem that began the whole thing...

Those companies when they begin to produce more will increase our revenues, growth in the economy should be the goal. It will create a "raise" for the "family" (government) through increased revenues without increased taxation.

But just on programs that conservatives don't like, and we can't even think about closing tax loopholes or rolling back tax cuts, right?

We can go on and on with the family's finances and create analogies. It's interesting how you look at it so differently. There is no endless pool of money just ready for the government to get through "taxing the rich"... The parents only have so much money.

Because they only own 87% of the wealth?

In 2004, the wealthiest 25% of US households owned 87% ($43.6 trillion) of the country’s wealth, while the bottom quartile held no net wealth at all.The middle 50% of the country held 13% or $6.5 trillion of the total household net wealth.The previous data are taken from analysis of the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) which over samples wealthy households. This over sampling more accurately represents the true wealth distribution [since most of the wealth is concentrated at the top]. This data shows that the top 25% of American society holds on average a net wealth of $1,556,801 which is 33 times more than those of the lower middle class, or the 25th-50th percentile....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_in_the_United_States

Now this part is just a complete inanity. Everything must be on the table if we are to get our fiscal house in order, not just "what republicans don't like".

We absolutely have redundancy and can begin there, get rid of overlapping agencies, then we can do "small" things like stop forcing the military to take planes they say they don't need or want so you can have an earmark for your district for example.

We have an unprecedented moment where we can actually make a difference and build something towards a present that doesn't steal from the future in order to live in the "manner we've become accustomed"...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It is, in fact, the only way they can pay their debts if they are unable to make more money."

On what do you base your assumption that they are unable to make more money? This sounds like the "zero-sum game" gambit.

By lowering expenses the "family" (as you wanted the scenario to be) now has more money to pay debt, and to "invest" in their future (education) so that they can get a better job (increase production and sales) which will increase their income (revenue) by a certain percentage. The government can do this by allowing companies to invest in their future, usually through targeted cuts in taxes (if you hire "x" you get "y" credit, if you spend "a" on expanding you get "c" credit). The government needs to pay for the excess through cuts in other areas or we simply add to the debt problem that began the whole thing..."...

The "family/household" anaolgy is widely used by conservatives to explain why government cannot spend more than it takes in. Why should the government forego needed revenue by "incentivizing" companies? I thought the free market with the lure of profitability was supposed to take care of incentives.

Those companies when they begin to produce more will increase our revenues, growth in the economy should be the goal. It will create a "raise" for the "family" (government) through increased revenues without increased taxation."

The "family" in my analogy isn't "government" per se, it's us. You're proposing trickle-down, sounds like. "If we give the rich a break, they'll spend more and create jobs". How's that working for the nation so far?

[/B]We can go on and on with the family's finances and create analogies. It's interesting how you look at it so differently. There is no endless pool of money just ready for the government to get through "taxing the rich"... The parents only have so much money."

Has the money represented by the 87% of wealth held or controlled by the rich disappeared? Where'd it go?

Now this part is just a complete inanity. Everything must be on the table if we are to get our fiscal house in order, not just "what republicans don't like".

We absolutely have redundancy and can begin there, get rid of overlapping agencies, then we can do "small" things like stop forcing the military to take planes they say they don't need or want so you can have an earmark for your district for example. We have an unprecedented moment where we can actually make a difference and build something towards a present that doesn't steal from the future in order to live in the "manner we've become accustomed"...

Here's where we agree, yet you apparenty diverge from GOP House Speaker Boehner and the other newly-minted deficit Puritans. Read their statements on tax cuts vs spending cuts, and get back to me.

 

[Damocles]

On what do you base your assumption that they are unable to make more money? This sounds like the "zero-sum game" gambit.

Do you in fact know what the word "if" means?

The "family/household" anaolgy is widely used by conservatives to explain why government cannot spend more than it takes in. Why should the government forego needed revenue by "incentivizing" companies? I thought the free market with the lure of profitability was supposed to take care of incentives.

You "thought" whatever was necessary to continue to hold whatever opinion you want to hold about others. You have clearly not actually "listened" to anything people actually say.

The "family" in my analogy isn't "government" per se, it's us. You're proposing trickle-down, sounds like. "If we give the rich a break, they'll spend more and create jobs". How's that working for the nation so far?

It worked well for us in the 90s. I don't know about you, but I have yet to have obtained any employment from anybody who wasn't rich or could spend more money than any of the rich ever could (government).

Has the money represented by the 87% of wealth held or controlled by the rich disappeared? Where'd it go?

Usually it goes either to shareholders who spend it or invest it, or it goes into reinvestments which are also a form of purchase. Without investment the nation's economy would be devastated. Now investment value can absolutely make much of the wealth of a nation "disappear"...

Here's where we agree, yet you apparenty diverge from GOP House Speaker Boehner and the other newly-minted deficit Puritans. Read their statements on tax cuts vs spending cuts, and get back to me.

I have read their statements on cuts. Boehner makes it clear that "everything is on the table" regarding spending cuts. What you dislike is that he is refusing to put tax increases on the table. You spend a bunch of time telling me what you wanted to hear rather than what was said.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Really? The Tea Party was created during the Bush Administration?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

are you pretending the Tea Party wasn't opposed to spending by Republicans?.......did you somehow miss the 2008 election?.....

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Do you in fact know what the word "if" means?

So your attempt at deflection was invalid.

Do you in fact know what the word "unable" means?

If we can make more money, on the other hand...

You "thought" whatever was necessary to continue to hold whatever opinion you want to hold about others. You have clearly not actually "listened" to anything people actually say.

Sure, you're the lonely crier in the wilderness, proclaiming the need to cut government spending all down the ages, aren't you?

It worked well for us in the 90s.

It did? So we were more prosperous before the Bush tax cuts.

I don't know about you, but I have yet to have obtained any employment from anybody who wasn't rich or could spend more money than any of the rich ever could (government).

Statement is garbled. Want to clarify?

Usually it goes either to shareholders who spend it or invest it, or it goes into reinvestments which are also a form of purchase. Without investment the nation's economy would be devastated. Now investment value can absolutely make much of the wealth of a nation "disappear"....

Therefore, the government must "incentivize" investment because without bailouts, tax breaks and loopholes the profit motive doesn't work?

I have read their statements on cuts. Boehner makes it clear that "everything is on the table" regarding spending cuts. What you dislike is that he is refusing to put tax increases on the table. You spend a bunch of time telling me what you wanted to hear rather than what was said.

The hypocrisy started when the GOP ended Democrats’ “pay-go” rules requiring that any tax cut or entitlement increase be offset by a tax increase or entitlement cut, implementing new ideologically driven “cut-go” rules requiring increases in entitlement spending to be paid for, but not tax cuts. Further, an entitlement increase cannot be offset with revenue-generating measures like closing a special-interest tax loophole. Even after introducing a budget that actually requires an increase in America’s debt limit, Boehner, Ryan, McConnell et al have stuck to the GOP mantra that Washington only has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.



http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/karen-finney/161531-boehners-u-turn

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

are you pretending the Tea Party wasn't opposed to spending by Republicans?.......did you somehow miss the 2008 election?.....

Are you pretending that you supplied some evidence to support your claim?

Did you somehow miss the fact that the GOP lost the 2008 election?

 

[Damocles]

So your attempt at deflection was invalid.

Do you in fact know what the word "unable" means?

If we can make more money, on the other hand...

I do, most are not able to increase their wages at a whim. Hence the effectiveness of the analogy.

Sure, you're the lonely crier in the wilderness, proclaiming the need to cut government spending all down the ages, aren't you?

Sometimes it feels that way.

It did? So we were more prosperous before the Bush tax cuts.

Had he cut spending concurrently we would have been, instead he spent like a drunken sailor, and the next one spent like ten drunken sailors who found somebody else's wallet.

Statement is garbled. Want to clarify?

I have yet to obtain employment from somebody who wasn't rich, including the government who can spend far more than any "rich" person out there. How 'bout you? Can you name the poor person that last hired you as an employee?

Therefore, the government must "incentivize" investment because without bailouts, tax breaks and loopholes the profit motive doesn't work?

This is another example of simply you simply "hearing" whatever you want rather than listening to what people say. Bailouts are simply the government continuing to inflate the same balloon that created the problem to begin with.

The hypocrisy started when the GOP ended Democrats’ “pay-go” rules requiring that any tax cut or entitlement increase be offset by a tax increase or entitlement cut, implementing new ideologically driven “cut-go” rules requiring increases in entitlement spending to be paid for, but not tax cuts. Further, an entitlement increase cannot be offset with revenue-generating measures like closing a special-interest tax loophole. Even after introducing a budget that actually requires an increase in America’s debt limit, Boehner, Ryan, McConnell et al have stuck to the GOP mantra that Washington only has a spending problem, not a revenue problem.



http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/karen-finney/161531-boehners-u-turn

Right, you quote somebody other than them so you can attempt to pretend they haven't actually said what they said. You spend an incredible amount of energy pretending people are saying whatever you imagine them saying rather than actually listening. Boehner has directly stated that "everything is on the table" yet you continue to use the opinion of others to support your imaginary boogerman (thanks Huckabee, I'll forever remember that newfangled word)...

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

I do, most are not able to increase their wages at a whim. Hence the effectiveness of the analogy.

Are you saying there's no way to increase your income at need?

Sometimes it feels that way.

Perhaps you should call yourself Diogenes. You could ask the Saints to show you how to change your name.

Had he cut spending concurrently we would have been, instead he spent like a drunken sailor, and the next one spent like ten drunken sailors who found somebody else's wallet.

How does Bush's failure to realize that you can't cut taxes and spend more prove that trickle-down led to prosperity in the 90s?

I have yet to obtain employment from somebody who wasn't rich, including the government who can spend far more than any "rich" person out there. How 'bout you? Can you name the poor person that last hired you as an employee?

Aren't most people in America employed by small businesses?

This is another example of simply you simply "hearing" whatever you want rather than listening to what people say. Bailouts are simply the government continuing to inflate the same balloon that created the problem to begin with.

.

Right, you quote somebody other than them so you can attempt to pretend they haven't actually said what they said. You spend an incredible amount of energy pretending people are saying whatever you imagine them saying rather than actually listening. Boehner has directly stated that "everything is on the table" yet you continue to use the opinion of others to support your imaginary boogerman (thanks Huckabee, I'll forever remember that newfangled word)...

Perhaps you should listen to Orangeman speak in the embedded video at this link:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88110/john-boehners-tax-gibberish

 

[Damocles]

Are you saying there's no way to increase your income at need?

You are simply repeating nonsense. Almost nobody can increase their income at demand, hence the need for most families to decrease spending in times of crisis.

Perhaps you should call yourself Diogenes. You could ask the Saints to show you how to change your name.

No thanks. But I think Sisyphus might have been a more apt name when arguing with somebody who just repeats the same nonsense questions.

How does Bush's failure to realize that you can't cut taxes and spend more prove that trickle-down led to prosperity in the 90s?

It didn't, Bush was a negative example, not a positive one. The 90s are a great example of how prosperity lifts all boats.

Aren't most people in America employed by small businesses?

So you won't answer the question honestly, this means that an honest answer would be that you have not ever worked for somebody who was not "rich"...

Most of the small businesses who can afford to hire you as an employee earn in the "rich" territory.

.



Perhaps you should listen to Orangeman speak in the embedded video at this link:

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88110/john-boehners-tax-gibberish

Here I will thank you for simply proving what I said in post 47 in answer to your (paraphrasing here) "Boehner only wants to cut things he doesn't like" nonsense.

Here is what I said there:
"I have read their statements on cuts. Boehner makes it clear that "everything is on the table" regarding spending cuts. What you dislike is that he is refusing to put tax increases on the table. You spend a bunch of time telling me what you wanted to hear rather than what was said."

You really do spend an inordinate amount of time repeating talking points. It might behoove you to actually read what people say.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You are simply repeating nonsense. Almost nobody can increase their income at demand, hence the need for most families to decrease spending in times of crisis.

And along with cutting spending, nobody asks for a raise, offers to work overtime, finds another income stream, takes a second job, seeks better pay elsewhere, or starts their own business? Doesn't bode well for the American spirit.

No thanks. But I think Sisyphus might have been a more apt name when arguing with somebody who just repeats the same nonsense questions.

I'll remember your suggestion the next time I encounter someone ike that. I'll be sure to give you credit. Fair's fair.

It didn't, Bush was a negative example, not a positive one. The 90s are a great example of how prosperity lifts all boats.

So what was this statement in reference to? It's the one you offered as proof that "trickle-down" works.

It worked well for us in the 90s.

So you won't answer the question honestly, this means that an honest answer would be that you have not ever worked for somebody who was not "rich".

Working for a small business, as most Americans do, is very likely working for someone who is not rich.

Most of the small businesses who can afford to hire you as an employee earn in the "rich" territory..

According to the dictionary of Damocles?

Here I will thank you for simply proving what I said in post 47 in answer to your (paraphrasing here) "Boehner only wants to cut things he doesn't like" nonsense.

Here is what I said there:
"I have read their statements on cuts. Boehner makes it clear that "everything is on the table" regarding spending cuts. What you dislike is that he is refusing to put tax increases on the table. You spend a bunch of time telling me what you wanted to hear rather than what was said."

You really do spend an inordinate amount of time repeating talking points. It might behoove you to actually read what people say.

I cannot in good conscience accept thanks for something that I didn't do.

Paraphrasing seems a safer bet for you than actually posting what I said. Here it is.

Here's where we agree, yet you apparenty diverge from GOP House Speaker Boehner and the other newly-minted deficit Puritans. Read their statements on tax cuts vs spending cuts, and get back to me.

Did you listen to Orangeman in the video clip?

Have you read what "the other newly-minted deficit Puritans" have said vis taxes?

 

[Damocles]

And along with cutting spending, nobody asks for a raise, offers to work overtime, finds another income stream, takes a second job, seeks better pay elsewhere, or starts their own business? Doesn't bode well for the American spirit.

All of those are possible for some, but not for all. When companies are shedding jobs (times of crisis) the only sure way to reduce debt is to first reduce spending. Let's take our company, along with shedding jobs they also disallow all overtime. A second job is very often difficult to find when companies are shedding jobs rather than hiring, and raises are out of the question when even unions are negotiating pay freezes in the hopes of keeping just a few more on the payroll.

I'll remember your suggestion the next time I encounter someone ike that. I'll be sure to give you credit. Fair's fair.

Okay, next time you meet somebody that argues the same way you do you can "suggest" that and "credit" me. I personally don't care.

So what was this statement in reference to? It's the one you offered as proof that "trickle-down" works.

Ronald Reagan was famous for "Trickle Down" economics, the 90s are an example of where it worked. Are you really this slow? When the water level rises all of the boats are lifted, not just the ones with "the rich" in them...

Working for a small business, as most Americans do, is very likely working for someone who is not rich.

Again you avoid the question, which tells me I was correct. The vast majority of us work for somebody that would be perceived to be in the "rich" category, including most of those working for small business.

According to the dictionary of Damocles?

No, according to the earning limits set out by our illustrious President.

I cannot in good conscience accept thanks for something that I didn't do.

Yet you should accept thanks for what you did.

Paraphrasing seems a safer bet for you than actually posting what I said. Here it is.



Did you listen to Orangeman in the video clip?

Have you read what "the other newly-minted deficit Puritans" have said vis taxes?

Right, and the previous post? You know the one you said this (post 43, this thread): "But just on programs that conservatives don't like, and we can't even think about closing tax loopholes or rolling back tax cuts, right?"

To which I answered that you were wrong and pointed out that "everything must be on the table", to which you answered:

(post 46, this thread) "Here's where we agree, yet you apparenty(sic) diverge from GOP House Speaker Boehner and the other newly-minted deficit Puritans. Read their statements on tax cuts vs spending cuts, and get back to me."

Now we're back to my post (post 47, this thread). "I have read their statements on cuts. Boehner makes it clear that "everything is on the table" regarding spending cuts. What you dislike is that he is refusing to put tax increases on the table. You spend a bunch of time telling me what you wanted to hear rather than what was said."

Then you later posted how much what he says about "taxes" are what you are upset about.

Again, I thank you for proving what I stated in post 47....

(Now, I suspect you will again miss everything that has happened in current history in this thread, and you will again say something stupid, then I'll have to read the thread to you again. Will you do that?)

You have no idea what Boehner has said other than what has been fed to you on some lefty website, and you are really upset that he doesn't think a failing government deserves a raise from the shareholders.. we get that.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

All of those are possible for some, but not for all. When companies are shedding jobs (times of crisis) the only sure way to reduce debt is to first reduce spending. Let's take our company, along with shedding jobs they also disallow all overtime. A second job is very often difficult to find when companies are shedding jobs rather than hiring, and raises are out of the question when even unions are negotiating pay freezes in the hopes of keeping just a few more on the payroll.

Before it was "almost none". You can be taught!

Your reliance on anecdotal evidence is one of the tings I enjoy most about these little talks we have.

Okay, next time you meet somebody that argues the same way you do you can "suggest" that and "credit" me. I personally don't care.

I don't care that you don't care. So there!

Ronald Reagan was famous for "Trickle Down" economics, the 90s are an example of where it worked. Are you really this slow? When the water level rises all of the boats are lifted, not just the ones with "the rich" in them....

Some say he was infamous for "voodoo economics". Are you claiming that Reagan was responsible for the prosperity of the 90s? It's hard to keep track of your position.

Again you avoid the question, which tells me I was correct. The vast majority of us work for somebody that would be perceived to be in the "rich" category, including most of those working for small business.

In the US, small business (less than 500 employees) accounts for around half the GDP and more than half the employment. Regarding small business, the top job provider is those with fewer than 10 employees, and those with 10 or more but fewer than 20 employees comes in as the second, and those with 20 or more but fewer than 100 employees comes in as the third (interpolation of data from the following references). The most recent data shows firms with less than 20 employees account for slightly more than 18% of the employment. Of the 5,369,068 employer firms in 1995, 78.8 percent had fewer than 10 employees, and 99.7 percent had fewer than 500 employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_business#Contribution_to_the_economy

No, according to the earning limits set out by our illustrious President.

Bush?

Yet you should accept thanks for what you did.

I would, had I done it.

Right, and the previous post? You know the one you said this (post 43, this thread): "But just on programs that conservatives don't like, and we can't even think about closing tax loopholes or rolling back tax cuts, right?"

To which I answered that you were wrong and pointed out that "everything must be on the table", to which you answered:

(post 46, this thread) "Here's where we agree, yet you apparenty(sic) diverge from GOP House Speaker Boehner and the other newly-minted deficit Puritans. Read their statements on tax cuts vs spending cuts, and get back to me."

Now we're back to my post (post 47, this thread). "I have read their statements on cuts. Boehner makes it clear that "everything is on the table" regarding spending cuts. What you dislike is that he is refusing to put tax increases on the table. You spend a bunch of time telling me what you wanted to hear rather than what was said."

Then you later posted how much what he says about "taxes" are what you are upset about.

Again, I thank you for proving what I stated in post 47....

(Now, I suspect you will again miss everything that has happened in current history in this thread, and you will again say something stupid, then I'll have to read the thread to you again. Will you do that?)

Whose statements did you read on cuts? Did you listen to Orangeman's recorded comments in the video link I gave you?

You have no idea what Boehner has said other than what has been fed to you on some lefty website, and you are really upset that he doesn't think a failing government deserves a raise from the shareholders.. we get that.

I simply had no idea that when I thought I was watching live proceedings on C-Span, listening to news broadcasts and viewing video of conservative deficit Putitans, I was actually on a lefty website!

Thanks for the tip.

 

[Damocles]

Before it was "almost none". You can be taught!

Your reliance on anecdotal evidence is one of the tings I enjoy most about these little talks we have.



I don't care that you don't care. So there!

You're almost getting there. In times of crisis there is almost nothing a family can do to "increase their pay", it is only government that seems to think that a nice pay increase is a great idea for them. Unfortunately it damages the chances of that family. We use that analogy to explain to people like you, who are too mentally crippled to get that "more debt" is not a solution to a debt problem.

Some say he was infamous for "voodoo economics". Are you claiming that Reagan was responsible for the prosperity of the 90s? It's hard to keep track of your position.

Most who are honest with themselves and understand economic cycles will say that.

In the US, small business (less than 500 employees) accounts for around half the GDP and more than half the employment. Regarding small business, the top job provider is those with fewer than 10 employees, and those with 10 or more but fewer than 20 employees comes in as the second, and those with 20 or more but fewer than 100 employees comes in as the third (interpolation of data from the following references). The most recent data shows firms with less than 20 employees account for slightly more than 18% of the employment. Of the 5,369,068 employer firms in 1995, 78.8 percent had fewer than 10 employees, and 99.7 percent had fewer than 500 employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_business#Contribution_to_the_economy

And none of this changes what I said, those who are rich enough to afford to employ you are almost always in the category that Obama presents as "rich", the reality is that, as I stated previously, almost all of us are employed by "the rich". And the fact that you refuse to answer the question pretty much tells me you too have been solely in the employ of "the rich"...

Bush?

Bush isn't President, you need to catch up to the present.

I would, had I done it.

Whatever, deny reality as you wish I couldn't care any less if you accept my offered thanks.

Whose statements did you read on cuts? Did you listen to Orangeman's recorded comments in the video link I gave you?

Again, comments on taxation (which I stated you were fixated on) are not the direct statement about spending cuts that I quote. "Everything is on the table"...

My point to you was, that your repetition of the talking point that "only things you don't like" and "only things that republicans don't like" is based on false assumption and a firm base in imagination rather than in reality. You proved that I was correct, you have a fixation on taxation that cannot be overcome by what people actually say about something. It gets in the way of any other knowledge proffered to you. I thank you for proving it yet again.

I simply had no idea that when I thought I was watching live proceedings on C-Span, listening to news broadcasts and viewing video of conservative deficit Putitans, I was actually on a lefty website!

Thanks for the tip.

No, you got the clip from leftyblog'r'us who cut the clip out of myriad statements from the Speaker. The reality is every program is on the table for cuts, including defense and other things that you believe the republicans "love".

Your firm base in imagination is safe. I firmly believe that you will later be quoting some idiot Congressperson who says that republicans want old people to eat dog food.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

You're almost getting there. In times of crisis there is almost nothing a family can do to "increase their pay", it is only government that seems to think that a nice pay increase is a great idea for them. Unfortunately it damages the chances of that family. We use that analogy to explain to people like you, who are too mentally crippled to get that "more debt" is not a solution to a debt problem.

But cutting spending alone without even considering eliminating tax cuts, loopholes, corporate welfare or increasing taxes is?

Most who are honest with themselves and understand economic cycles will say that.

So, who did you ask?

And none of this changes what I said, those who are rich enough to afford to employ you are almost always in the category that Obama presents as "rich", the reality is that, as I stated previously, almost all of us are employed by "the rich". And the fact that you refuse to answer the question pretty much tells me you too have been solely in the employ of "the rich"....

Obama's categorizations are valid when you can use them to score a point, but otherwise he's an idiot? Trouble is, I don't recall saying that I accept Obama's definition of "rich". What is it?

I also couldn't help but notice that you forgot to cite a source for your contention that small business employers are "amost always" rich.

What question did I "refuse" to answer that gave you the basis for your fabrication?

Bush isn't President, you need to catch up to the present.

My mistake, you said the president in question was "illustrious", so I wrongly assumed you meant Bush.

Whatever, deny reality as you wish I couldn't care any less if you accept my offered thanks.

Then you'll stop mentiong it, I guess.

Again, comments on taxation (which I stated you were fixated on) are not the direct statement about spending cuts that I quote. "Everything is on the table"... My point to you was, that your repetition of the talking point that "only things you don't like" and "only things that republicans don't like" is based on false assumption and a firm base in imagination rather than in reality. You proved that I was correct, you have a fixation on taxation that cannot be overcome by what people actually say about something. It gets in the way of any other knowledge proffered to you. I thank you for proving it yet again.[/b].

Everything is on the table, except raising taxes or eliminating tax cuts, you mean?

Do you normally declare yourself the winner in accordance with self-made rules? Your kids must love playing games with you.

I see we're back to the question of undeserved thanks, again.

No, you got the clip from leftyblog'r'us who cut the clip out of myriad statements from the Speaker. The reality is every program is on the table for cuts, including defense and other things that you believe the republicans "love".

Then you have evidence that I didn't hear (and see) Orangeman saying "tax hikes are off the table"?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/42970180#42970180

I'd better let the folks at CNS know that they're "lefties".

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/speaker-boehner-tax-hikes-are-table

As for cuts that are specifically on the table, what have the deficit Puritans said they'd cut?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...es-demand-deficit-by-cut-in-half-by-next-year


Hmmm... Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid...all beloved by the GOP? And check out the big tax break for corporations that the GOP proposed...."c

onservatives also expected the budget plan to tout a temporary tax change that would let U.S. multinationals bring home as much as $1 trillion in profits at a greatly reduced tax rate..."​

​

From the well-known 'leftyblogrus' the Wall St. Journal....​

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576240751124518520.html

Your firm base in imagination is safe. I firmly believe that you will later be quoting some idiot Congressperson who says that republicans want old people to eat dog food.

Your firm base is imagination is safe.

 

[Damocles]

But cutting spending alone without even considering eliminating tax cuts, loopholes, corporate welfare or increasing taxes is?

It is wise. Imagine your family being in business selling pizza. If customers have less money due to a downturn and stop buying your product it is not time to raise prices. If you want to ensure you remain in business during that downturn t may seem counter intuitive but you need to make it affordable so you have enough customers buying your product to keep you in business. Democrats seem to think that is the "right time" to raise taxes on the very people who will provide the employment when the economy finally turns around.

It is foolish to raise taxes during an economic crisis. Much like selling stock during a slide is foolish. Buy when people are selling, sell when people think it is "safe" to buy. That is how you make money. Consider the government in the "business" of economics. Taking money out of the economy is exactly what they should not be doing during a downturn.

So, who did you ask?


Obama's categorizations are valid when you can use them to score a point, but otherwise he's an idiot? Trouble is, I don't recall saying that I accept Obama's definition of "rich". What is it?

Again, it is what is currently used as "rich". I always put quotes on that because I do not necessarily agree that it is "rich"...

I also couldn't help but notice that you forgot to cite a source for your contention that small business employers are "amost always" rich.

What question did I "refuse" to answer that gave you the basis for your fabrication?

Mostly because the wiki you linked backed up my assertion. In order to afford 10 employees at even $10 per hour they are already getting in the arena that Obama considers "rich". Most people make more than that.

My mistake, you said the president in question was "illustrious", so I wrongly assumed you meant Bush.

No you didn't. You thought you'd score some inane point making ridiculous claims. But whatever.

Then you'll stop mentiong it, I guess.

Sure.

Everything is on the table, except raising taxes or eliminating tax cuts, you mean?

What part of "spending" is tax cuts. I said, "I have listened to what they say on spending" then included in the same paragraph of the same quote, "what you are upset about is that they don't include tax increases."

Do you normally declare yourself the winner in accordance with self-made rules? Your kids must love playing games with you.

I see we're back to the question of undeserved thanks, again.

There are no winners as long as there continue to be people foolish enough to believe that only more debt will get us out of a debt crisis.

Then you have evidence that I didn't hear (and see) Orangeman saying "tax hikes are off the table"?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/42970180#42970180

No, what I have evidence of is me saying that you were fixated on taxes and therefore apparently couldn't hear that every program is on the table, including those you assume republicans "love"...

I'd better let the folks at CNS know that they're "lefties".

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/speaker-boehner-tax-hikes-are-table

As for cuts that are specifically on the table, what have the deficit Puritans said they'd cut?

Right, leftyblogs'r'us linked to that opinion piece. I'm good with that.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...es-demand-deficit-by-cut-in-half-by-next-year


Hmmm... Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid...all beloved by the GOP? And check out the big tax break for corporations that the GOP proposed...."c

onservatives also expected the budget plan to tout a temporary tax change that would let U.S. multinationals bring home as much as $1 trillion in profits at a greatly reduced tax rate..."​

​

From the well-known 'leftyblogrus' the Wall St. Journal....​

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703806304576240751124518520.html





Your firm base is imagination is safe.

Right. Because you are still fixated on taxation and fully cannot comprehend that still more debt will never fix a debt crisis, whether it is for your family or it is for the government.

You said I didn't know what Boehner had to say about spending, repeated several times that it was "only the programs that republicans don't like" I quoted the Speaker and you went off into taxation, as I stated you would. I'm well seated in reality. So much so I was able to predict your reaction.

I notice you still avoid honestly answering the question. Who have you worked for that wasn't "rich"?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

It is wise. Imagine your family being in business selling pizza. If customers have less money due to a downturn and stop buying your product it is not time to raise prices. If you want to ensure you remain in business during that downturn t may seem counter intuitive but you need to make it affordable so you have enough customers buying your product to keep you in business. Democrats seem to think that is the "right time" to raise taxes on the very people who will provide the employment when the economy finally turns around.

Really? Which Democrats advocated a tax increase for small business owners? I want names.

It is foolish to raise taxes during an economic crisis. Much like selling stock during a slide is foolish. Buy when people are selling, sell when people think it is "safe" to buy. That is how you make money. Consider the government in the "business" of economics. Taking money out of the economy is exactly what they should not be doing during a downturn.

Is it foolish to cut taxes during an economic crisis? Especially with corporate bailouts and massive defense contracts to pay for?

Again, it is what is currently used as "rich". I always put quotes on that because I do not necessarily agree that it is "rich"... Mostly because the wiki you linked backed up my assertion. In order to afford 10 employees at even $10 per hour they are already getting in the arena that Obama considers "rich". Most people make more than that.

Do you think that revenue (which is where expenses like labor costs are deducted from) is the same as net profit, which is what the owner(s) get to keep or reinvest after expenses? Awesome.

I still don't recall saying I accept that definition of "rich' that you and your illustrious president agree is "rich". It's the damndest thing.

More financially successful entrepreneurs tend to form sub chapter S corporations, and less successful ones tend to run sole proprietorships.

While the income of the average S corp was less than seven percent of its sales, there was wide variation across major industry sectors on this measure. Income only equaled about two percent of sales for sub chapter S corporations in retail, but almost 55 percent in management of companies, and almost 29 percent in mining. Similarly, wide industry differences can be seen in the average income of these businesses, ranging from only a little more than $28,000 in other services to $692,000 in management of companies. In fact, in four industry sectors – utilities, manufacturing, mining and management of companies – the average Sub Chapter S Corporation is making its owner rich by President Obama’s standards, generating more than $250,000 in income in 2007.

IRS figures show that,in 2008, the average revenue of a sole proprietorship ranged from $11,862 for unclassified establishments to $1,073,406 for coal mines, and average net income ranged from -$47,455 for coal mines to $117,685 for dentists’ offices.

http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/11/how-much-money-do-small-business-owners-make.html

It's interesting that actual wealthy people don't seem to agree with you (or your illustrious president) on the subject of the level of income needed to be 'rich'.

Just as there are two economies today — the rich and everyone else — there are also diverging definitions of rich. There’s America’s definition (the top 5%) and the wealthy’s definition.
A new survey by Chicago-based Spectrem Group asked affluent households (those with investible assets of $500,000 or more) how much it takes to be rich. Of the respondents, 45% said $5 million or more, 25% said $25 million or more, and 8% said $100 million (It’s a good bet that the 8% lives in Manhattan or Silicon Valley.)
Only 22% said $1 million is enough to be rich.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/09/a-rich-persons-definition-of-rich/​

No you didn't. You thought you'd score some inane point making ridiculous claims. But whatever.

Now that I know that you consider Obama illustrious and place great credence in him, I won't make that error again.

Sure.

Yeah. Sure.

What part of "spending" is tax cuts. I said, "I have listened to what they say on spending" then included in the same paragraph of the same quote, "what you are upset about is that they don't include tax increases."

If you're the government and you give Damocles Inc. a tax cut that reduces it's payments to the Treasury, you have reduced the amount available to pay down government debt, haven't you?

Especially irresponsible if Damocles Inc. gets government subsidies, incentives, and services, wouldn't you agree?

There are no winners as long as there continue to be people foolish enough to believe that only more debt will get us out of a debt crisis.

What about people who say that only spending and tax cuts are the solution to paying off debt? Are people who say that denying the government tax revenue in a debt crisis winners?

No, what I have evidence of is me saying that you were fixated on taxes and therefore apparently couldn't hear that every program is on the table, including those you assume republicans "love"....

Then you shouldn't have any problem cutting defense by the same margin as social programs. Good. Now we just have to work on Boehner & Co.

Right, leftyblogs'r'us linked to that opinion piece. I'm good with that.

If the Wall St. Journal is linked to a "lefty" site, you're "good with that"? Swell.

Right. Because you are still fixated on taxation and fully cannot comprehend that still more debt will never fix a debt crisis, whether it is for your family or it is for the government.

Taxation = income, debt and spending = liabilities. Do the math.