thaibeachlovers Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I see you didn,t mention cutting back on Military spending. Well I know two sure fire way,s off quickly balancing the Budget. Dont fight wars for Energy and Tax those that can afford to pay more. i am yet to read a response from a republican in this thread as to how the romney/ryan economic plan for increasing 'defence' spending by $2 trillion and cutting taxes by 20% constitutes improving the US economy. they seem deafeningly silent on the issue. Well you obviously missed my post when I pointed out that R/R didn't propose increasing spending on the military. They were just not going to cut it, as Obama is going to. That was a classic piece of democrat misinformation that you seem to have fallen for. Like Hitler or whoever used to say, "if you tell a lie often enough, people will come to believe it". Romney also said that his plan was revenue neutral as a deduction cap would compensate for the tax cuts. I guess you missed that as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Social Security is an entitlement for which I and every other working American have already paid. I contributed for 50 years for my government "stipend". I never drew unemployment, food stamps or welfare of any sort. You may be the expert on that, I do not know. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Samran, give me a little time to do some things around the house. Let me address one thing before I complete my chores. Your suggestion that we cut out all agricultural subsidies will save about $20 Billion per year. You have just covered the cost of 2 days and five hours of government operations. Congratulations. How about cutting the EPA, DHS, Energy Dept., Education Dept., foreign aid, Labor Dept, Czar Dept., ad nauseum? This is only the start of my suggestions. Are you an Anachist? Did you get Expelled by the Education Department? Obviously let those honest Loggers and miners into Yellowstone and <deleted> places like the Congo. I'm a little confused by your post. Are you wondering if I am an anarchist or the Anti-Christ? The Education Department has noting to do with expelling students, but even considering your little faux pas about that...No, I have never been expelled from any school. How about you? Yellowstone is a national park. I don't think anybody is threatening to log or mine in Yellowstone. Care to pass on any rumors about that? The Congo is doing very well "<deleted>" itself without any help from me. Im a little confused by some of your post Are you pointing out a spelling mistake, with the missed r in anarchist, or do you think I believe in a negative fake saviour.? Your post pointed out that you would like a cut in the EPA- What, and let Industry self regulate. Cut the Labour Dept.- The US working poor are already on pathetic wages and by cutting back services they would be slaughtered at Wage negotiations Cut backs on Foriegn Aid only goes to show how Greedy we are in the Capitalist first world. I see you didn,t mention cutting back on Military spending. Well I know two sure fire way,s off quickly balancing the Budget. Dont fight wars for Energy and Tax those that can afford to pay more. I am sending an sms to the big O. Foreign aid is more often than not a scam. If it actually went to people that needed it and not into politicians pockets, less people would oppose it. Even PC Britain is going to cut aid to India in 2014, which is two years too late given the wealth there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaibeachlovers Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The republican party doesn't appeal to the vast majority of black people in ANY recent presidential election. Doesn't matter if the candidate is black or not! The three constituencies that are basically married to the democratic party are blacks, Jews, and gays. In recent years the democrats are locking up some new constituencies: Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Muslims, and single women in general. The biggest prize is the Latinos. That shift is HUGE. The republicans have: majority of whites, men in general, older straight white men in particular. In other words, they've got a big problem (yeah!). Perhaps a more realistic comparison would be to work out the % of people on welfare that voted for Obama or Romney. Not exactly difficult to predict that people on food stamps and those that want someone else to pay for their contraception voted for Obama, the man who borrows money from China to give freebies to those that want stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samran Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 The republican party doesn't appeal to the vast majority of black people in ANY recent presidential election. Doesn't matter if the candidate is black or not! The three constituencies that are basically married to the democratic party are blacks, Jews, and gays. In recent years the democrats are locking up some new constituencies: Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Muslims, and single women in general. The biggest prize is the Latinos. That shift is HUGE. The republicans have: majority of whites, men in general, older straight white men in particular. In other words, they've got a big problem (yeah!). Perhaps a more realistic comparison would be to work out the % of people on welfare that voted for Obama or Romney. Not exactly difficult to predict that people on food stamps and those that want someone else to pay for their contraception voted for Obama, the man who borrows money from China to give freebies to those that want stuff. ergo, the % of people who are on $250K plus who wanted to keep their low tax rates and loopholes. The key question is - what is the point of your fox news talking points? People vote for those who best represent their interests. Democracy and all that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Just to put things in perspective, a lot of people fancied themselves on the road to riches some years back. It wasn't that the Republican party really gave them much of anything, but they saw themselves as one day being a member of the monied class. This little bubble has been burst and a lot of people now know that what they have is probably where they are going to stay. We live in a world with a lot more people and a lot fewer resources. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Are you an Anachist? Did you get Expelled by the Education Department? Obviously let those honest Loggers and miners into Yellowstone and <deleted> places like the Congo. I'm a little confused by your post. Are you wondering if I am an anarchist or the Anti-Christ? The Education Department has noting to do with expelling students, but even considering your little faux pas about that...No, I have never been expelled from any school. How about you? Yellowstone is a national park. I don't think anybody is threatening to log or mine in Yellowstone. Care to pass on any rumors about that? The Congo is doing very well "<deleted>" itself without any help from me. Im a little confused by some of your post Are you pointing out a spelling mistake, with the missed r in anarchist, or do you think I believe in a negative fake saviour.? Your post pointed out that you would like a cut in the EPA- What, and let Industry self regulate. Cut the Labour Dept.- The US working poor are already on pathetic wages and by cutting back services they would be slaughtered at Wage negotiations Cut backs on Foriegn Aid only goes to show how Greedy we are in the Capitalist first world. I see you didn,t mention cutting back on Military spending. Well I know two sure fire way,s off quickly balancing the Budget. Dont fight wars for Energy and Tax those that can afford to pay more. I am sending an sms to the big O. Permit me to respond to your post somewhat belatedly.. 1. I have no idea what your religious beliefs are or are not. It is no concern of mine, but even you must admit your spelling mistake could be interpreted more than one way. 2. Yes, the EPA is a waste of money. All they do is pass numerous costly regulations under the guise of protecting the environment while at the same time costing thousands of jobs for ordinary citizens and billions to the economy, yet doing nothing to halt so-called global warming. If they were doing their jobs, why do we still have so-called global warming? http://www.huffingto...y_n_942142.html http://washingtonexa...38#.UKNil-STx_x 3. Cutting the Labor Department will harm low wage employed Americans exactly how??? The labor department is nearly as bad as the EPA when it comes to job killing edicts. They do not control wages and do not mediate labor disputes. They do produce those monthly unemployment figures that nobody understands. I have still not found a logical explanation how the department suddenly discovered some 600,000 newly employed citizens in the September 2012 unemployment report that dropped the unemployment rate from 8.2% to 7.9%. I'm still shaking my head over that little bit of legerdemain. Any input from you on that issue? 4. I do believe it is time for the US to be greedy. It is also called looking out for ourselves. As an example, why does the Obama State Department somehow consider the rebuilding of the sewer system in Cairo and preserving a few mosques to the tune of $770 Million rate higher than reducing our national debt? Can you suggest some better ways to spend taxpayer's money? I certainly can. http://www.ncpa.org/...rticle_ID=19765 5. I have already posted on this forum ways to slash the defense budget by, among other things, closing military bases in the UK, Germany, Japan, South Korea, et al and using those assets to effectively close the southern border with Mexico, but don't cut your aircraft carriers or naval assets. A carrier has been called 100,000 tons of diplomacy. Much more effective than Hillary going to a wine tasting in Australia. Finally on to Obama's "taxing the rich" scheme. The CBO has studied Obama's plan on taxing the rich and estimates it will raise nearly $90 Billion in additional revenue annually. Under current spending requirements for the federal government, that amount will run the federal bureaucracy for a grand total of 8 days and 19 hours. What's his plan for the remaining 356 days and 5 hours? Cheers. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3SoiDogNight Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Finally on to Obama's "taxing the rich" scheme. The CBO has studied Obama's plan on taxing the rich and estimates it will raise nearly $90 Billion in additional revenue annually. Under current spending requirements for the federal government, that amount will run the federal bureaucracy for a grand total of 8 days and 19 hours. What's his plan for the remaining 356 days and 5 hours? Cheers. His plan for the remaining 356 days and 5 hours? Blame Bush. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poanoi Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Warren Buffet remarked on the fact that his secretary paid more percentage wise than he did. This is a matter of fairness, justice, and morality. Rich will keep getting richer and the gap to poor will increase, at least tax on capital gains will slow down the pace at which this segregation and alienation goes on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Chicog Posted November 14, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted November 14, 2012 I see you didn,t mention cutting back on Military spending. Well I know two sure fire way,s off quickly balancing the Budget. Dont fight wars for Energy and Tax those that can afford to pay more. i am yet to read a response from a republican in this thread as to how the romney/ryan economic plan for increasing 'defence' spending by $2 trillion and cutting taxes by 20% constitutes improving the US economy. they seem deafeningly silent on the issue. Well you obviously missed my post when I pointed out that R/R didn't propose increasing spending on the military. They were just not going to cut it, as Obama is going to. That was a classic piece of democrat misinformation that you seem to have fallen for. Like Hitler or whoever used to say, "if you tell a lie often enough, people will come to believe it". What Romney was proposing was fixing the military budget at 4% of GDP which is necessary when you are fighting two wars but is a $2 Trillion waste of money when you're not. Compared to Obama, he was going to spend $2 Trillion on the military for which they were not even asking. The liar in this election was Romney, he was going to cut taxes alright, but behind that soundbite was no plan, just "I'm a businessman" chants. Where was he going to get the money? He never specifically said. It was all just to get elected. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 Off-topic posts deleted. Continued off-topic posting will earn suspensions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 //Closed for clean up// Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts