Okay, so I do realize that this forum is "US Political Madness", but...

reply to post by Indigo5

And how do you see collapsed bridges, crumbling roads and a lawless state fostering increased economic output?

Not my problem or anyone else's who does not live there.

Because that is what lotteries,property taxes,toll road tax are suppose to pay for.

Didn't pay attention to what was said ?

People have more money they are opening up new business's. They are moving in to larger homes. They are buying their own homes.

That all increase property tax, and PAYS FOR ALL THAT.

What happens when you request a liberal to a debate.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by AlienScience

 

How about this.

Reducing the federal budget to the same dollar amount that it was in 19. . . . err. . . . . 68.

How about it?

Can we adjust for inflation and population growth?

edit on 26-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

NO!

Originally posted by neo96

Originally posted by AlienScience
reply to post by neo96

 

Yep like some people think spending less money we DON'T have means a 'shrinking deficit'.

Yes, it quite literally does mean that.

Quite literally leaving out the CREDIT DOWNGRADE because WE ARE SPENDING too much.

Doesn't take in to account how much fiat currency is being printed, QE's anyone ?

Doesn't take in to account how much increased Foreign acquisition of US Treasuries.

IE STILL SPENDING money we don't have.

I said in the other thread that you simply just don't understand budget terminology, and I stick by that.

None of the above matter, a deficit is a deficit...it can be increasing, decreasing, or staying the same...for the past 4 years, it has been decreasing. This is just documented fact.

It doesn't matter if the credit was downgraded, just as it wouldn't matter if an individuals credit score gets lowered, if the deficit was smaller than the year before, it is shrinking....end of story.

It doesn't matter if it shrinks because we collected more taxes or cut spending...it doesn't matter how much money is in circulation, it doesn't matter who we owe the money to...if the deficit is shrinking...IT IS SHRINKING.

btw, the sky is blue.

reply to post by beezzer

How about this.

Reducing the federal budget to the same dollar amount that it was in 19. . . . err. . . . . 68.

How about it?

Ok...what is the debate?

That we should attempt to do it?

How we should do it?

Is it even possible?


Do you not understand how a debate works.

Here, let me give you a topic like you are giving me a topic and I want to hear your response.

Let's debate the Sun.....GO!!!

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by AlienScience

 

How about this.

Reducing the federal budget to the same dollar amount that it was in 19. . . . err. . . . . 68.

How about it?

Can we adjust for inflation and population growth?

edit on 26-8-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

NO!

Why wouldn't you adjust for those things?

reply to post by BritofTexas


Wow what a jerk!

His response to me was a comment that I made about corporate tax rate. Which has nothing to do with Romney.

Romney is not president he does not impose taxes.

Just another liberal jab (not surprising) more deflection.

Edit to add: Also it should be noted that Obama is part of US political madness. In fact he is the poster boy!
Romney does not exist in American politics.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SunnyDee

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by SunnyDee
If you think Benghazi was a non-scandal, you don't understand the true implications of all the actions that took place in that event.

I have actually delved down into the testimony,transcripts, and documents of the 15 plus investigations and hearing the GOP sponsored...the assertation that the President of the United States gleefully allowed Americans to die is false. And the real scandal is the stark difference between how a terrorist attack is recieved by the GOP depending on whom is in the Whitehouse.

please post some of your findings. I'd really like to see the most significant, seriously..

PM me what you think supports the specific claims of Scandal with Benghazi, what exactly you think the scandal is and why and I can respond via PM...It's a much bigger discussion...and I am not going to bury this thread with off-topic Benghazi links or excerpts.

I think you have just dodged my question. That is not right.

WHAT QUESTION??? You claimed that Benghazi was some sort of non-specific "Scandal".....WHY?

You want me to ramble on with dozens of links making a case for what??? Reality??

Let me know what the conspiracy was with Benghazi...and I suggested PM cuz it will derail the thread...Not good at real conversation? Only fluff posts like this last one?

What was the conspiracy with Benghazi? Be specific.

Originally posted by SunnyDee
You don't have to bog this thread down, just name one or two of the GOP sanctioned report sections that prove your point.

All of them? This is a sky blue argument. Again...what was the conspiracy? Or the Scandal?

Originally posted by SunnyDee
If you are not willing to back up your comments when you clearly state you have done a lot of research on GOP sanctioned reports on Benghazi, you are not believable. Like I said previously, I don't think you have any interest in learning any truths, or sharing apparently.

Derail much??? What do you think was the Scandal of Benghazi? That Americans died? Hell we have had more congressional investigations about Benghazi than 9-11!

Spit it out...what is your claim about Benghazi? Pick one...

Otherwise you are asking me to write a short book on the topic.

Indigo. YOU stated early:

And only slightly abated with non-scandals...like Benghazi...morphed into some crazy ass accusations...

from page 4

I asked you how you could call Benghazi a non-scandal, taking my question to you from your own words.

You then said you've done lots of research on Benghazi, republican sanctioned investigations research. You said there was nothing to prove any scandal. I ask you to post a couple, couple! of important findings. Post a link.That was my request of you. You then turn it around on me and say, you don't want to bog down this thread and if I have specific concerns about benghazi to PM you.

Nice work. No links, no specifics to your initial opinion of a "non-scandal". I ask you for something concrete and you start evading and saying things like "derail much"?"

I see you also cropped out your part in this above. I love how you left out your own "non-scandel" initial comment.
What are you trying to do here????? Do you figure I won't come back and point out your manipulation?

I think you should be reported to the MODS. You have lied here. You took your own words pretended they were mine and have the audacity to post it all!

reply to post by AlienScience

I said in the other thread that you simply just don't understand budget terminology, and I stick by that.

Wasn't true then, still isn't true now, and won't be true in the next thread.

None of the above matter, a deficit is a deficit...it can be increasing, decreasing, or staying the same...for the past 4 years, it has been decreasing. This is just documented fac

A deficit is spending more money than you take in.

True story.

We are spending too much money which is why the US credit down grade. Which was someone saying the US is a bad risk. A decision I agree with.

It doesn't matter if the credit was downgraded, just as it wouldn't matter if an individuals credit score gets lowered, if the deficit was smaller than the year before, it is shrinking....end of story.

The reduced credit rating translates in to high INTEREST RATES.

End of story.

It doesn't matter if it shrinks because we collected more taxes or cut spending...it doesn't matter how much money is in circulation, it doesn't matter who we owe the money to...if the deficit is shrinking...IT IS SHRINKING.

Yeah it does, and no it's NOT.

One last time we are spending MORE money than we TAKE IN. that creates a DEFICT.

Here is the definiton too :

2 a : an excess of expenditure over revenue

www.merriam-webster.com...

Sorry for the wall of text above, but when I see someone try to frame me for their words, I don't sit quietly.

reply to post by seeker1963


Perhaps you should re-read my post. What specifically did I say that made you think I was cheerleading for one team over the other. All I said was, most of us lefties fully accept that Republicans don't represent Conservatives why can't we get the same consideration in return? Some lefties in this thread might be okay with Democrats... I think most of us though recognize that Democrats don't represent the left.

My post says exactly what you're bitching at me for... it is my belief that neither major Party represents any ideology. I'm not obscure about this, not sure how you managed to interpret it the way you did.

reply to post by neo96

A deficit is spending more money than you take in.

Yes.

Now do you know the definition of "decreasing"?



I'm beginning to think that you don't think a deficit is capable of "decreasing" by definition. Is that your opinion? That a deficit can never "decrease" or "shrink"?

reply to post by SunnyDee


You are missing a very basic fact.

It is not up to him to prove there is no scandal, it is up to you to prove it was a scandal.

Asking him to prove that it wasn't a scandal is you taking the Argument From Ignorance stance by implying that since he can't prove there was no scandal, then in fact there was.

Okay.

Liberals, I challenge you, ANY of you to a debate.

YOU pick the topic!

reply to post by AlienScience

I'm beginning to think that you don't think a deficit is capable of "decreasing" by definition. Is that your opinion? That a deficit can never "decrease" or "shrink"?

If a person was spending 1 trillion but now they are spending 2 trillion.

Don't call that a 'reduction' of deficit spending.

reply to post by beezzer


OK...so you want us to spend less than we did in 1968...and not account for population differentials or inflation....so even less than was spent in 1968 in real dollars.

OK...I am on board so far...Niether Democrats nor Republicans want to spend for the sake of spending...Where do you want to cut????

Cuz that is where the debate starts..

reply to post by beezzer


Don't get mad at us because you can't come up with a specifically defined debate topic.

My debate topic still stands....the Sun...you go first.

reply to post by Kali74

Perhaps you should re-read my post. What specifically did I say that made you think I was cheerleading for one team over the other. All I said was, most of us lefties fully accept that Republicans don't represent Conservatives why can't we get the same consideration in return? Some lefties in this thread might be okay with Democrats... I think most of us though recognize that Democrats don't represent the left.

My post says exactly what you're bitching at me for... it is my belief that neither major Party represents any ideology. I'm not obscure about this, not sure how you managed to interpret it the way you did.

My post was quite simple to understand!

Why not believe in the Constitution?????????

Lefty, Righty, who gives a snip?

You are seeking for me to agree with you when you try to make me feel like because you are a Democrat or whatever the term for the day is?

Sorry, I don't belong to ANY team except those whom believe in the Constitution of the United States of America as I do!!!!

Politicians are liars!! Thus those whom believe in them and stick up for them are worse in my eyes!

Hillary Clinton, ON RECORD, said, "We are losing the information war."

John Kerry last week said, "Because of the internet, it is getting harder to govern." OH you mean harder to lie?

I really do think you are a good person and mean well, but I don't buy into being a D or and R!!!!!!

If a party goes against the Constitution, then I am AGAINST that party!!!!! PERIOD!!!!

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by AlienScience

 

How about this.

Reducing the federal budget to the same dollar amount that it was in 19. . . . err. . . . . 68.

How about it?

I'll add one...


How about reducing the federal government foot print so we can actually be a republic of 50 states and not a democracy due to a huge federal government over seeing it all....

Someone needs to tell Obama we are actually a republic....

Love the screaming bunny!
This thread is over for me though.

I did my best pointing out comments that have no real bearing on truth. Those that are here and speaking their heart no matter their politics, have my respect.

Sadly, there are many that have an agenda. I hate even saying that because those specific people will just attack that fact vehemently.

Adios!