Where Is The PROOF That The Conservative Agenda Works?

[NoDrama]

here lies a problem with conservative mindsets.

it's the idea that the government cannot operate under a budget deficit.

it's incorrect. the government can operate under budget deficits.

comparing the deficit level with the quick ratio used by investors is incorrect. this idea that the government operating under a budget deficit will lead to bankruptcy (like a corporation operating after continuous losses) is not correct. it is incorrect b/c we do not use the same accounting principles when dealing with government, as we do with corporations. simplistic conservatives argue as if it were the same thing.....

these spending cuts will have a devastating effect on the economy, and republicans want to ride that wave in the 2012 elections.

they're playing politics with our well-being..... it's deplorable....

sorry dude, no matter how you swing it 4-5=-1. Do that enough times and eventually people give up buying your debt and it all goes in the crapper, just wait and watch.

 

[redivider]

i've been waiting.

the US government has managed its way out of periods of deficit spending no problem.

the problem is that money isn't flowing how it used to. instead of flowing through a lot of hands quickly. it's quickly making its way into few hands.

the deficit level in the government really doesn't matter. it's because it works that way that we decided to use it.

it's brilliant.

then we have ppl like you trying to convince idiots to go back to trading coins and the gold standard and what not.

our monetary system and financial system isn't as stable as it is b/c of how much money is used. it's stable b/c a lot of people use it.

 

[NoDrama]

You can have a gold standard without any coins.

 

[beardo]

You can have a gold standard without any coins.

It will happen
https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/423737-who-here-believes-power-sla-3.html#post5580104

 

[redivider]

It will happen
https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/423737-who-here-believes-power-sla-3.html#post5580104

of the what???

 

[UncleBuck]

I said go ahead and tax the rich, but you have to tax the other classes too. We got into this mess as a group and we have to get out of it as a group.

i was just silently lurking this thread with no plans on responding until i read this.

and it prompted me to send a big fat flying "FUCK YOU" in your direction.

i lived within my means the whole time. i paid my taxes. i worked.

i had NO HAND in creating "this mess".

i did, however, lose my job in the process.

so, by what logic am i responsible to cover the excesses of others?

let's hear it, fucktard.

democrats/liberals/progressive/communists/whatever

since i am responding anyway, allow me to inform you: WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. these things you try to make equivalent are very different things.

The big issue isn't how much money we are taking in, it is how much we are spending.

only a blithering fucktard even tries to make this argument.

when i balance my budget, i take into account both my revenue AND my expenses. it is not just one or the other.

you partisan HACK.

a billion dollars in bombs on Libya in the last month? ...What was the point? None.

not quite, einstein.

it was a direct roadblock in gaddafi's path toward killing his own citizens.

That is how bad it is, democrats actually had a bright ray of reality shine through the unicorn curtains.

unicorn curtains? ha.

at least they are not blackout curtains, like you apparently have in your domicile.

because i refuse to believe that anyone who does not live under a rock or is otherwise unable to see the light of day would take the time to spew the back-asswards projectiles of bullshit that you do.

saddest of all, you seem to do it proudly.

ignorance is NOTHING to be proud of.

 

[beardo]

of the what???

Silver Liberation Army,........ that was a link in my post you quoted
we are returning to a gold standard.

 

[redivider]

i've been waiting.

the US government has managed its way out of periods of deficit spending no problem.

the problem is that money isn't flowing how it used to. instead of flowing through a lot of hands quickly. it's quickly making its way into few hands.

the deficit level in the government really doesn't matter. it's because it works that way that we decided to use it.

it's brilliant.

then we have ppl like you trying to convince idiots to go back to trading coins and the gold standard and what not.

our monetary system and financial system isn't as stable as it is b/c of how much money is used. it's stable b/c a lot of people use it.

i just want to add that the theory behind financial de-regulation was that it would make our monetary and financial system more stable because it would make it easier for money to flow from person to person (company to company)....

we all know how that turned out....

 

[NoDrama]

Wait wait wait UB, are you blaming everyone who makes more than $250K for the bad economy? The ULTRA rich can suck a dick, but they will never be made to pay for their sins as long as they are the ones who have all the politicians in their pockets, dems and repubs alike.

BTW Ghadaffi did not wake up one day and decide to start killing Libyan citizens, the rebels started off killing soldiers and it escalated. We have no business sticking our noses in there even if the UN so dearly wants it, the US Constitution does not recognize the authority of the UN one bit.

 

[Dan Kone]

Everyone is being robbed. When the Supreme Court has ruled against paying tax on wages and those taxes are enforced by confiscation of all property and incarceration, we are ALL being robbed.

"Warren Buffet pays a lower % wages in taxes..." I know the words are english but I just don't understand the meaning of this "... pays a lower % wages in taxes..." What does that mean? Proofreading is your friend.

The problems only came around when our elected officials started to sell out their convictions and ignored the Constitution.

% means percent/percentage anywhere on planet earth. You're from earth right?

 

[UncleBuck]

- (minus) stuff that accounts for 1% or less of the budget.

thanks for clearing that up. i though he had you. i took it as a 'dash' rather than a 'minus' as well.

confusion cleared.

 

[Dan Kone]

You don't fix that by raising the tax %. You fix it by making the tax simpler with little to no write offs across the board.

The write offs only bring it down so far. It should be closer to 50%. But I agree, getting rid of the write offs is necessary.

With Warren Buffets Secretary, you have to remember Social Security isn't income tax, it is an insurance premium. You pay in to get the retirement. Rich people get the same benefit as poor people. Why would they pay more in?

Because they can afford it.

Obviously you still haven't looked at the 2008 IRS compilation of who payed taxes and how much or you wouldn't suggest poor people pay more taxes. To do so is dishonest at best.

I didn't say they pay more taxes. I said they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

 

[UncleBuck]

Everyone is being robbed. When the Supreme Court has ruled against paying tax on wages and those taxes are enforced by confiscation of all property and incarceration, we are ALL being robbed.

go ahead and send that back on your tax return.

you will soon learn the meaning of what a 'frivolous' tax return is.

the lesson might stick, as that is a costly thing to do.

so are you gonna put your money where your mouth is and send back a frivolous return?

 

[UncleBuck]

You choose to have kids, you choose to buy a house, having dogs is little different.

i've never fucked a bitch and had her end up pregnant with a dog.

please note that 'bitch' refers to a human female, not a canine.

i join with johnnyo in denying ALL canine fucking.

i'm barely surprised that this is the second time the distinction between fucking bitches and canines has been made on this forum.

 

[UncleBuck]

Wait wait wait UB, are you blaming everyone who makes more than $250K for the bad economy? The ULTRA rich can suck a dick, but they will never be made to pay for their sins as long as they are the ones who have all the politicians in their pockets, dems and repubs alike.

i only ever said 'the excesses of others'.

that means my good buddy in az who bought a home he could afford but decided to do a strategic default once the recession hit because it would have taken him more time than he wanted to break even. all the while, the taxpayer covered his strategic default.

but people like him are not my main concern.

i am much more angered with the bigger fish. you know, the greasy, slicked-back-hair people of wall street selling their hats to each other over and over again until those hats are worth a million a piece.

and i hold a special contempt for corporations like ge that make billions of dollars, pay not a dime, and then get money back.

i wish i lived in that world.

BTW Ghadaffi did not wake up one day and decide to start killing Libyan citizens, the rebels started off killing soldiers and it escalated. We have no business sticking our noses in there even if the UN so dearly wants it, the US Constitution does not recognize the authority of the UN one bit.

i agree we have no business in that particular matter because it seems more a civil war than a situation like darfur.

the only reason it seems we got entangled is because other euro countries wanted access to their oil (not necessarily the oil itself). we were playing ally. and our role is dwindling. there is no comparison to the debacle in iraq in which a certain shrub got us entagled.

 

[Carthoris]

It's funny because that 2004 UCLA study is widely regarded by many to be a conservative attempt at revisionism. The New Deal as a whole had a positive effect on the economy. The study says that market forces would have been able to work at a pace 60% faster than they would have without NIRA in effect for those two years. That's all well and good, but how fast exactly do market forces move? The answer is, historically, at a glacial pace. That is why the New Deal is still credited with speeding the recovery of the great depression. There is no evidence to suggest that market forces alone could drop unemployment from over almost 24% to 14.6% that's 4 million people who gained employment in that time, the New Deal did, in fact, preside over the fastest recovery in history and to credit market forces alone is at best misguided and at worst sabotaging the future.

In response to that graph, if you look at debt as a percentage of GDP, our post WW2 debt was ~120% of the U.S. economy. Funny how inflation works (overstating our debt). Also, it seems war is expensive.View attachment 1543730

When I look at how much money I owe, I don't decide I owe less because I make more. I might justify debt if I make more, but it doesn't mean I owe less. I still have to pay back that debt no matter how much I make.

 

[Carthoris]

here lies a problem with conservative mindsets.

it's the idea that the government cannot operate under a budget deficit.

it's incorrect. the government can operate under budget deficits.

comparing the deficit level with the quick ratio used by investors is incorrect. this idea that the government operating under a budget deficit will lead to bankruptcy (like a corporation operating after continuous losses) is not correct. it is incorrect b/c we do not use the same accounting principles when dealing with government, as we do with corporations. simplistic conservatives argue as if it were the same thing.....

these spending cuts will have a devastating effect on the economy, and republicans want to ride that wave in the 2012 elections.

they're playing politics with our well-being..... it's deplorable....

So basically you are saying your plan for the economy is to run a deficit forever, continue to increase it, and never pay it off?

 

[Carthoris]

i was just silently lurking this thread with no plans on responding until i read this.

and it prompted me to send a big fat flying "FUCK YOU" in your direction.

i lived within my means the whole time. i paid my taxes. i worked.

i had NO HAND in creating "this mess".

i did, however, lose my job in the process.

so, by what logic am i responsible to cover the excesses of others?

let's hear it, fucktard.

"so, by what logic am I responsible to cover the excesses of others"..... That sounds about what I say about taxing people differently depending on if they have kids, a house, or ect.


Denial. You deny that you had any part of the collapse? It is obvious you vote democrat, didn't the democrats add to the housing bubble bursting quite a bit? Isn't that what toppled the economy to begin with? Democrats created a demand for houses by passing laws that helped people who couldn't afford houses buy them. This raised the price on everyone and created more subprime loans. While 1 rich banker might impact the world more individually, there are a million of you to his 1.

since i am responding anyway, allow me to inform you: WORDS HAVE MEANINGS. these things you try to make equivalent are very different things.

Words do have meanings. What makes them very different? You don't feel comfortable admitting you support the ultimate goal of communism, and that the leftist policies in the country are ultimately leading us towards communism. I understand that, I don't blame you for not wanting to be labeled communist. In theory, they may be different. In practice, they are different shades of the same color.

only a blithering fucktard even tries to make this argument.

when i balance my budget, i take into account both my revenue AND my expenses. it is not just one or the other.

you partisan HACK.

Yes, you look at both and you spend less than you make long term or you go bankrupt. Only a blithering idiot would do otherwise (points at the government)

I base my expenditures off of my income. Not spend all the money I want without a plan to pay it off. While income is an issue too, Spending is the 600 pound gorilla. We could increase tax revenues by 500 billion tops, but that money primarily comes out of the money people invest and start businesses with. That would be raising the taxes a lot on everyone over 200,000. We would still in the long run be underwater without spending cuts. I want both to be done, but the spending is the bigger issue.

not quite, einstein.

it was a direct roadblock in gaddafi's path toward killing his own citizens.

We haven't done anything productive there, only spend more money. The civil war would be over if we hadn't of gotten involved. They are still killing each other, and the death toll there was minor compared to many places in the world where we don't intervene. We haven't accomplished our goals, and we are only exchanging one brutal dictator for another. Obviously we didn't learn our lessons of the last 50 years. You must of supported the Iraq war whole heartedly! Saddam killed hundreds of thousands.

unicorn curtains? ha.

at least they are not blackout curtains, like you apparently have in your domicile.

because i refuse to believe that anyone who does not live under a rock or is otherwise unable to see the light of day would take the time to spew the back-asswards projectiles of bullshit that you do.

saddest of all, you seem to do it proudly.

ignorance is NOTHING to be proud of.

So basically you are just a big touchy feely crybaby. Good to know. Hey, welcome to the thread

 

[Carthoris]

The write offs only bring it down so far. It should be closer to 50%. But I agree, getting rid of the write offs is necessary.

Corporate tax should stay the same % and be enforced. Tax shelters should go away. You also have to give an incentive or disincentive for staying in the USA or why wouldn't they go somewhere else?

Ideally, income tax should be done away with altogether. However, we know that is a long way off. We should instead strive for fairness and actually enforcing the current tax code while simplifying it. If it was simpler, there would be less ability to use the complexity of the system against itself. I would support a progressive tax that charged all people in every bracket the same percent without exception. With the goal being that it was a small step closer to getting rid of the income tax. (Kind of like the democrats vote to raise taxes on the rich with the goal being complete equalization of the country.)

Because they can afford it.

That is a poor reason for raising taxes on people. Maybe they should just go door to door in neighborhoods and take everything they don't need and give it to someone else. You have two cars, the guy on the next block has none. Give me one your cars, we are giving it to the less fortunate. Sure, you can lose a car and still function but it doesn't make it right.

I didn't say they pay more taxes. I said they pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

They neither pay a higher percent on average or a higher dollar amount. Look at the official IRS compilation I provided. Straight from IRS.gov. Individuals may pay a higher % than someone in a higher tax bracket but overall this isn't true and is a small minority of the cases. You could rewrite the entire tax code on 1 page and fix that.

 

[Carthoris]

go ahead and send that back on your tax return.

you will soon learn the meaning of what a 'frivolous' tax return is.

the lesson might stick, as that is a costly thing to do.

so are you gonna put your money where your mouth is and send back a frivolous return?

You realize what you said was that it is OK because the government can overpower you.