To reduce the debt, would you support a tax hike for rich?

Electric_Delta wrote:

His economic policies CLEARLY speak for themselves. I don't see how putting our nation in the position of defaulting on financial obligations FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY is good for business or the people at large.

He does not hate the concept of poverty. Trust me, I will never accuse him of that - you can bet.

so then they ALL hate the economy?

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i guess doing their fucking job for the american people is too much of a sacrifice...

Well... a job is what you get paid to do.

And since the GOP have proven that they're bought and paid for by banks and huge corporations, they kinda ARE doing what they were paid to do... which is fuck over the country so long as it puts the white house back in control of Republicans.

usamamasan1 wrote:

cut spending and taxes. there's a winner!

Um... so you want less money going out and less coming in and that's going to reduce debt... how? :(

Electric_Delta wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pardon me my friend, but it it the gop who is not compromising on the debt ceiling. could it be that this is the first time that congress has attached a debt ceiling debate onto a budget debate? because yeah, it is the first time in our history the two have been lumped together.

obama has put the entitlement programs on the table like the gop demanded, and the gop will not buckle on the tax issue. they have to meet halfway, but they are unwilling to do that. they said they "have sacrificed too much" by even entering negotiations...

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gop- ... 15729.html

i guess doing their fucking job for the american people is too much of a sacrifice...

No, I think Boehner understands you can't end a debt crisis by piling on more debt.

Entitlements need rolled back, simple as that.

plus increased revenues....it's a simple as that...

Electric_Delta wrote:

No, I think Boehner understands you can't end a debt crisis by piling on more debt.

Entitlements need rolled back, simple as that.

It's almost pathetic that you keep saying that when no... it's NOT simple and it's not "that" at all.

Boehner doesn't "understand" anything other than "if I want to keep my job with free health care and all these perks, I need to do what the billionaires who fund my campaign want me to do which is lower taxes on the people who need it the least, pour the burden on the people who need it the most and cut everything by giving it a cushy-sounding name like 'poor person rewards' or 'entitlements' so the gullible will stand up and cheer for me as I kick the chair out from under them."

Don't you have like a breast cancer clinic to close down in the name of stopping abortions (that aren't performed there)? I mean.. where are you priorities? You stop that innocent cancer tumor from being killed while Boehner takes away your grandmother's health care coverage like a good peasant.

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today...barely 5 years later...fucking joke...shouldn't need anymore proof than that they these people would argue for the killing of their own mother if the other side was against it...

Well but no, you don't "find it funny" at all.

It's just the new sound byte that makes sense until you think about what it means.

"The Dems" didn't vote to lower taxes on ultra-rich and take away any social safety net from the poor in 2006. Just like Paul Revere didn't ride through the streets "firin' his guns" to warn the British." You can't revise history to suit your own needs until you open the Ministry Of Truth and Room 101.

Actually I do find it funny...so please don't fucking tell me or anyone else what they think or what there motivations are...seriously dude, you don't know the way everyone thinks...if you think I am one of the uneducated masses then you are wrong...

so I cannot find the politicization on the debt ceiling funny?
What can I laugh at? why don't you tell me...

it is like you stopped at the first sentence

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

so I cannot find the politicization on the debt ceiling funny?

Oh you could find THAT funny... but that's not what you said before.

What can I laugh at? why don't you tell me...

Well, how you think I can't scroll back to read what you wrote... that's kinda humorous.

"I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today"

seems like I was talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

seems like I was talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling

well no... you weren't talking about it... you were doing it. You were saying "It's funny that The Dems....."

Which isn't "talking about the politicization of the debt ceiling," it's "politicizing the debt ceiling."

You weren't talking about how people are trying to blame one side or the other (which would be talking about it)... you were blaming one side and not the other (which would be politicizing it).

Shall I draw you a diagram?

please please please read this sentence and tell me what it means
[referring to the debt ceiling in reponse to a post referencing the debt crisis]
"I find it funny that Obama and other dems voted against it in 2006 but are all for it today, and republicans who were dead set for raising it are against it today"

tell me what that means...

seriously we should probably just argue on PM because we are all over the map...
we can take each topic and clear this up...

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

seriously we should probably just argue on PM because we are all over the map...
we can take each topic and clear this up...

OK... we'll meet in the middle and see that we're probably not THAT far apart in ideology in a lot of ways.

Yes... I guess you did say "I find it funny that everyone has changed their position" which I don't personally think has happened but... ok... in the interest of getting in the shower and getting to work on time today... We can leave it at that.

lol, I guess maybe not everyone, but certainly the major players...

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

No, I think Boehner understands you can't end a debt crisis by piling on more debt.

Entitlements need rolled back, simple as that.

It's almost pathetic that you keep saying that when no... it's NOT simple and it's not "that" at all.

Boehner doesn't "understand" anything other than "if I want to keep my job with free health care and all these perks, I need to do what the billionaires who fund my campaign want me to do which is lower taxes on the people who need it the least, pour the burden on the people who need it the most and cut everything by giving it a cushy-sounding name like 'poor person rewards' or 'entitlements' so the gullible will stand up and cheer for me as I kick the chair out from under them."

Don't you have like a breast cancer clinic to close down in the name of stopping abortions (that aren't performed there)? I mean.. where are you priorities? You stop that innocent cancer tumor from being killed while Boehner takes away your grandmother's health care coverage like a good peasant.

That was the most sensationalist, non-sensical argument I've ever read. WTF?