Posted:
#51
@thirdperson
And that's a good thing, because we don't need more spending ! When will you guys ever get it !!!!
0
It’s amazing how the tail on the right is wagging the dog !
Posted:
#52
Quote Originally Posted by fubah2:
Republican shutdown looming over America,
Republican shutdown looming over America,
and what are the GOP elected reps doing in the House about it?
Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
Instead they are holding a "kangaroo court" hearing on alleged Joe Biden criminality despite no evidence!
That's what...
laugher at the inquiry hearings today 
"I'm the MOST HONEST human being that GOD EVER created!" - Donald "the felon" Trump
1
Posted:
#53
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
@thirdperson And that's a good thing, because we don't need more spending !
@thirdperson And that's a good thing, because we don't need more spending !
A government shutdown is the last thing US economy need. Lives of millions of Americans would be disrupted. US travel association estimates travel economy would lose up to $140 million a day. Congress budget office estimates previous shutdown for 35 days cost $11 billion in economy losses. Budget deficits that lead to more debt cannot be eliminated by spending cuts alone. More tax revenue is necessary. Senator McConnell says government shutdowns never result in lasting policy changes.
2
Posted:
#54
What’s it to me ? What’s it to you ? Politics is bubblegum shut up and chew . Through the fat and the pork . Of these pigs litigating useless things while being dramatic and coarse . I could dig through the gravel and reanimate a corpse . And it wouldn’t babble as bad with the back and the forth . Like these bastards with their sanctions do that always battle in the courts . While the average man gets taxed to the maximum of the force . Allowed by the law . In my shorts there’s a sack and it’s fat I say “ Naw “ . I ain’t goin’ out like that . I ain’t Willy Lump Lump . I’m a motherfucker who stands up to what’s corrupt so who’s to judge stuff ? You ? Them ? Him ? Her ? You can crucify me through my testicle skin or do worse . And I’ll still never budge . Thinkin’ this shit is fucked . And awful . Plus morbid and cursed . The diabolicalness of it all makes it impossible it hurts . Cuz it’s unfixable and it’s fuckin’ rotten . And it’s gotten me cynical plus a little toxic . But you do you and bark about the details . As the bigger picture gets darker and harder to see how we’ve failed……..
wallstreetcappers craps in his draws and pees fuckin backwards from his vaj with a squirt.
0
Posted:
#55
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
A government shutdown [ed,by the MAGAs] is the last thing US economy need. Lives of millions of Americans would be disrupted. US travel association estimates travel economy would lose up to $140 million a day.
A government shutdown [ed,by the MAGAs] is the last thing US economy need. Lives of millions of Americans would be disrupted. US travel association estimates travel economy would lose up to $140 million a day.
Yes, true. And take a wild guess who the republicans will blame for those costs to the economy....
1
Posted:
#56
@Rush51
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
@thirdperson And that's a good thing, because we don't need more spending ! When will you guys ever get it !!!!
@thirdperson And that's a good thing, because we don't need more spending ! When will you guys ever get it !!!!
For example:
1) New York Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand want to spend $1 million to the "WE ACT for Environmental Justice. The program would link intersectionality to grievances based on race.
2) $35 million for balloons in Michigan.
3) $300,000 for the NAACP's Baltimore headquarters.
4) Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski is sponsoring an earmark to give $4 million to the tiny city of Pelican, Alaska, for a sewer. Only 98 people live in Pelican. The cost equates to $40,816 per person.
5) Pennsylvania Democratic Senators Bob Casey and John Fetterman back a $1 million gift to the William Way LGBT Community Center in Philadelphia. The House Appropriations Committee rejected this earmark, but it's back in the Senate version.
6) Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Angus King (I-Maine) have earmarked $20.5 million for the tiny Presque Isle International Airport. The amount is larger than what is given to most major hubs.
7) New Hampshire Democrat Senator Jeanne Shaheen wants $2.5 million for a recreational project in the small town of Franklin to create "in-river features for Olympic-style competition" for sports such as kayaking and slalom.
As David Ditch notes: "While stopping one or all these absurd boondoggles would not make much of a dent in the national debt, it would mark a rare victory for common sense and fiscal sanity."
Common sense and sanity are not the first words that come to mind when dealing with congressional spending. They can't help themselves because they aren't spending their money. They're spending our money and borrowing the rest. It's a form of vote buying.
The federal government takes in record amounts of revenue, so income isn't the problem. Unrestrained spending is the problem.
0
forced by trump, remember]
Posted:
#59
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
The federal government takes in record amounts of revenue, so income isn't the problem. Unrestrained spending is the problem.
The federal government takes in record amounts of revenue, so income isn't the problem. Unrestrained spending is the problem.
The real problem is that tax cuts are primarily responsible for increasing deficit and debt. Since 2012, Congress budget office projected future tax revenue should be more than enough to cover future spending. But failure to reverse decades of tax cuts add over $300 billion every year to deficit according to Center for American progress and Center for budget priorities. So mathematically impossible to eliminate deficit by spending cuts alone. For countries, increasing tax revenue is usually more effective than spending cuts in reducing deficits.
1
Posted:
#61
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: The federal government takes in record amounts of revenue, so income isn't the problem. Unrestrained spending is the problem. The real problem is that tax cuts are primarily responsible for increasing deficit and debt.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: The federal government takes in record amounts of revenue, so income isn't the problem. Unrestrained spending is the problem. The real problem is that tax cuts are primarily responsible for increasing deficit and debt.
@thirdperson
Of course! Everybody should know that much.
1
Posted:
#62
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: The federal government takes in record amounts of revenue, so income isn't the problem. Unrestrained spending is the problem. The real problem is that tax cuts are primarily responsible for increasing deficit and debt. Since 2012, Congress budget office projected future tax revenue should be more than enough to cover future spending. But failure to reverse decades of tax cuts add over $300 billion every year to deficit according to Center for American progress and Center for budget priorities. So mathematically impossible to eliminate deficit by spending cuts alone. For countries, increasing tax revenue is usually more effective than spending cuts in reducing deficits.
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: The federal government takes in record amounts of revenue, so income isn't the problem. Unrestrained spending is the problem. The real problem is that tax cuts are primarily responsible for increasing deficit and debt. Since 2012, Congress budget office projected future tax revenue should be more than enough to cover future spending. But failure to reverse decades of tax cuts add over $300 billion every year to deficit according to Center for American progress and Center for budget priorities. So mathematically impossible to eliminate deficit by spending cuts alone. For countries, increasing tax revenue is usually more effective than spending cuts in reducing deficits.
This is incorrect 
0
Posted:
#63
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51:
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa So, you think McCarthy should not be speaker? Who would you rather see as speaker?Someone who could lead their party and the house to do whats good for the country.Not someone who's gonna worry about what an ex president and a couple nut jobs in the party think he should do.So realistically,no current republican house member would be my answer.Most of them are just as "inflatable tube guy" as McCarthy. Well , if you honestly believe that , then $33 Trillion should mean something to you .. Because it does to the "fringe" House members that are taking the heat for this. I get the sense you're like all other Dems out there that feel there will never be any repercussions for all our debt. Meanwhile, Dems are whistling by the graveyard that we will all collectively have to deal with at some point.
33 trillion does mean something to me.Does 20 trillion going to 28 trillion mean anything to you,or are you like most republicans only worrying about the debt when a democrat is holding the office of president?I don't remember you whining when trump increased the national debt by 8 trillion in just 4 years.Did you hear the whistling by the graveyard(what a drama queen) when trump was in office,or did you just believe trump could wipe out the debt just by thinking about wiping it out,like him being able to magically declassify documents?Were you crying when George W more then doubled it from 5 trillion to 11 trillion?
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa So, you think McCarthy should not be speaker? Who would you rather see as speaker?Someone who could lead their party and the house to do whats good for the country.Not someone who's gonna worry about what an ex president and a couple nut jobs in the party think he should do.So realistically,no current republican house member would be my answer.Most of them are just as "inflatable tube guy" as McCarthy. Well , if you honestly believe that , then $33 Trillion should mean something to you .. Because it does to the "fringe" House members that are taking the heat for this. I get the sense you're like all other Dems out there that feel there will never be any repercussions for all our debt. Meanwhile, Dems are whistling by the graveyard that we will all collectively have to deal with at some point.
2
Posted:
#65
Oh,it just must be I don't remember you whining in any post of yours when trump was raising the debt.I don't remember the post stating,"WTF is trump doing giving tax cuts while hes increasing the debt in record amounts".It is shocking,so shocking I'm not sure I believe what you are saying.If you are not a rino and are fiscally conservative,why do you support trump?The guy who is responsible for about 25% of this country's total debt,all from being in office for just 4 years.
P.S.-I don't claim to be the smartest guy around,but I'd be willing to bet that if you took your head from being up trumps ass,that reeking you smell might just go away.
2
Posted:
#66
@MrWhatsItToYa
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa So, you think McCarthy should not be speaker? Who would you rather see as speaker?Someone who could lead their party and the house to do whats good for the country.Not someone who's gonna worry about what an ex president and a couple nut jobs in the party think he should do.So realistically,no current republican house member would be my answer.Most of them are just as "inflatable tube guy" as McCarthy. Well , if you honestly believe that , then $33 Trillion should mean something to you .. Because it does to the "fringe" House members that are taking the heat for this. I get the sense you're like all other Dems out there that feel there will never be any repercussions for all our debt. Meanwhile, Dems are whistling by the graveyard that we will all collectively have to deal with at some point.33 trillion does mean something to me.Does 20 trillion going to 28 trillion mean anything to you,or are you like most republicans only worrying about the debt when a democrat is holding the office of president?I don't remember you whining when trump increased the national debt by 8 trillion in just 4 years.Did you hear the whistling by the graveyard(what a drama queen) when trump was in office,or did you just believe trump could wipe out the debt just by thinking about wiping it out,like him being able to magically declassify documents?Were you crying when George W more then doubled it from 5 trillion to 11 trillion?
Quote Originally Posted by Rush51: Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa: Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22: @MrWhatsItToYa So, you think McCarthy should not be speaker? Who would you rather see as speaker?Someone who could lead their party and the house to do whats good for the country.Not someone who's gonna worry about what an ex president and a couple nut jobs in the party think he should do.So realistically,no current republican house member would be my answer.Most of them are just as "inflatable tube guy" as McCarthy. Well , if you honestly believe that , then $33 Trillion should mean something to you .. Because it does to the "fringe" House members that are taking the heat for this. I get the sense you're like all other Dems out there that feel there will never be any repercussions for all our debt. Meanwhile, Dems are whistling by the graveyard that we will all collectively have to deal with at some point.33 trillion does mean something to me.Does 20 trillion going to 28 trillion mean anything to you,or are you like most republicans only worrying about the debt when a democrat is holding the office of president?I don't remember you whining when trump increased the national debt by 8 trillion in just 4 years.Did you hear the whistling by the graveyard(what a drama queen) when trump was in office,or did you just believe trump could wipe out the debt just by thinking about wiping it out,like him being able to magically declassify documents?Were you crying when George W more then doubled it from 5 trillion to 11 trillion?
I would go back and look at all the complaining during those administrations. I think you would be surprised at how quickly you forgot about it. Or maybe you were not keeping up with it then. A lot, and I mean a lot, of Republicans were upset about the spending during both of those administrations.
0
Posted:
#67
@Raiders22
In the 1 post I was actually talking specifically about if Rush was crying about trumps raising of the debt.But now that you mention it about a lot,and I mean a lot of different republicans complaining about it,could you show some proof of that.Or give some names of the said republicans who were complaining about it.Cause I sure don't remember about any while talking about the trump years,there might of been some during W's fiasco,but I certainly don't remember a lot or any from trumps shit show.
2
Posted:
#68
Quote Originally Posted by MrWhatsItToYa:
@Raiders22 In the 1 post I was actually talking specifically about if Rush was crying about trumps raising of the debt.But now that you mention it about a lot,and I mean a lot of different republicans complaining about it,could you show some proof of that.Or give some names of the said republicans who were complaining about it.Cause I sure don't remember about any while talking about the trump years,there might of been some during W's fiasco,but I certainly don't remember a lot or any from trumps shit show.
@Raiders22 In the 1 post I was actually talking specifically about if Rush was crying about trumps raising of the debt.But now that you mention it about a lot,and I mean a lot of different republicans complaining about it,could you show some proof of that.Or give some names of the said republicans who were complaining about it.Cause I sure don't remember about any while talking about the trump years,there might of been some during W's fiasco,but I certainly don't remember a lot or any from trumps shit show.
Yessir. I realize you don’t. That is why I am asking for you to do your own research. It is fairly easy to do.
If I do it for you it becomes, more or less, my opinion backed by selective items.
Research it and you will see why those types of candidates have not been getting the backing of fiscal conservatives. Some decide to vote against a democrat. But there are reasons that McCain, Romney, and those guys could not keep the support of that key group of Republicans.
0
Posted:
#69
@MrWhatsItToYa
I am still more interested in you staying focused on your first couple of points, instead of moving into all of the other stuff.
I would like to see your research on the economy points.
For example, you have to convince more than just Republicans that your opinion is right.
Right now there are THREE huge issues that are killing Biden in the polls. He has now dropped down to even, or slightly behind, Trump in some polls.
This is awful. By all accounts he should be blowing Trump out. If he is not careful there is going to be a huge push to get him to step aside and get Newsome to run.
The SECOND WORST polling issue for Biden is the ECONOMY. It continues to get worse for him.
So, you have to be able to really justify your opinion with solid data and facts to convince your own party — let alone Republicans (whether they are fiscal conservatives or not).
The latest statistic I saw is that it now takes the household with a median income about $9000 more per year to buy the same household goods and services they were buying just two years ago.
These folks would like to believe your opinion. But their pocketbooks and 401Ks say differently.
What would you point to to convince these folks?
0
Posted:
#70
@Raiders22
I wasn't looking for you to do the research for me,even though it is easy to do.I just figured if there was a lot,and I mean a lot of them.And you had just so happened to remember what I had quickly forgotten.You could just tell me all their names,or at least some of their names.I'm kind of busy and I wasn't really looking to verify someone else's statement.
2
Posted:
#72
Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.)
Mike Braun (Ind.)
Bill Cassidy (La.)
Tom Cotton (Ark.)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Steve Daines (Mont.)
Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
Deb Fischer (Neb.)
Cory Gardner (Colo.)
Josh Hawley (Mo.)
Ron Johnson (Wis.)
John Kennedy (La.)
James Lankford (Okla.)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Rand Paul (Ky.)
Jim Risch (Idaho)
Mitt Romney (Utah)
Marco Rubio (Fla.)
Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Rick Scott (Fla.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Thom Tillis (N.C.)
Pat Toomey (Pa.)
0
Posted:
#74
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
@MrWhatsItToYa I am still more interested in you staying focused on your first couple of points, instead of moving into all of the other stuff. I would like to see your research on the economy points. For example, you have to convince more than just Republicans that your opinion is right. Right now there are THREE huge issues that are killing Biden in the polls. He has now dropped down to even, or slightly behind, Trump in some polls. This is awful. By all accounts he should be blowing Trump out. If he is not careful there is going to be a huge push to get him to step aside and get Newsome to run. The SECOND WORST polling issue for Biden is the ECONOMY. It continues to get worse for him. So, you have to be able to really justify your opinion with solid data and facts to convince your own party — let alone Republicans (whether they are fiscal conservatives or not). The latest statistic I saw is that it now takes the household with a median income about $9000 more per year to buy the same household goods and services they were buying just two years ago. These folks would like to believe your opinion. But their pocketbooks and 401Ks say differently. What would you point to to convince these folks?
Hold on a f*ckin second here.How bout this,you keep your interest focused on yourself,I don't care what you think I should be focused on.What do you think you are,someones teacher,and you are giving me an assignment or something?I don't have to convince anybody of f*ckin anything.
@MrWhatsItToYa I am still more interested in you staying focused on your first couple of points, instead of moving into all of the other stuff. I would like to see your research on the economy points. For example, you have to convince more than just Republicans that your opinion is right. Right now there are THREE huge issues that are killing Biden in the polls. He has now dropped down to even, or slightly behind, Trump in some polls. This is awful. By all accounts he should be blowing Trump out. If he is not careful there is going to be a huge push to get him to step aside and get Newsome to run. The SECOND WORST polling issue for Biden is the ECONOMY. It continues to get worse for him. So, you have to be able to really justify your opinion with solid data and facts to convince your own party — let alone Republicans (whether they are fiscal conservatives or not). The latest statistic I saw is that it now takes the household with a median income about $9000 more per year to buy the same household goods and services they were buying just two years ago. These folks would like to believe your opinion. But their pocketbooks and 401Ks say differently. What would you point to to convince these folks?
If I was you,I wouldn't be worried about the "THREE huge issues that are killing Biden".I'd worry about the NINETY ONE f*ckin charges trump is facing.There ain't a problem Joe Biden is gonna face that will compare to that.
"I'm more interested in you" deciding if you are gonna still vote for a candidate who might be convicted of some felonies and get some jail time.
4
Hot Forum Topics
