GOP will sooner see our nation collapse than agree to Clinton-era taxes on wealthy

[ssd]

Muff:

Based on the census graph you posted and the population # from the Census for 1960 and 2011, there are more people in poverty today than 50 years ago.

This after we have spent trillions (? - I am guessing here) on anti-poverty programs?

Yes - the % of the population that is impoverished is lower but the actual # based on growth is higher.

You look at it as having a positive effect.

I do not.


I understand that some people really need help. I also highly doubt that everyone on a government assistance program REALLY needs that help. That is why I like to determine where I send my own charitable contributions.

Freeze - that statement you put up was Obama in 2006, I believe, when the argument about raising the debt ceiling was brought up while he was in Congress. I have to laugh when he calls it a failure of leadership. I wonder why no one in the media is bringing up his argument against raising the limit back then?

 

[Trench]

whats puzzeling is you always leave out meat of fact your trying to hide.

Would amount of debt be pertinant DAH

Could you give something that contains all the facts
-instead of the ole liberal ropea dope

Now since you initiated this--bring us back a report of increase in debt in GW's 8 years compared to Gumby's 2 years and give us an accurate comparison

Not a problem, Dogs...

As I said, notice the precipitous drop in GOP Senate votes for increasing the debt under a Democratic Admin. vs. a Republican Admin. No one wants to see the national debt continue to increase. I'm just pointing out the consistent hyposcrisy that you Republicans exhibit.

Even if we balance the budget tomorrow, we'll have to create significant budget surpluses just to offset the interest on the national debt. Once we do that, then we can begin discussing ways to actually decrease the national debt.

Of our current $14 Trillion in national debt, approx. $8 Trillion of it is interest that's accumulated since fiscal year 1988.

Here's a link showing the interest we've incurred on the debt each year since 1988. Add up the numbers and see for yourself.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Be sure and let me know if you need further assistance on understanding our debt problem, Dogs. :0corn

 

[The Sponge]

]


Cheney--how many million and which year you want?????

Just curious. How did this slimeball accumulate his wealth? He hasn't used the Gov't to get his fortune has he? What part of that money was actually his and what part was the tax payers money? Since every last dollar he has ever made was tax payer funded no need to answer the last question. There hasn't been a guy in history that has been on the Gov't tit like this fraud. You are just to stupid to realize this.

 

[azbob]

"Let's take a better look at that $304 billion

$100 billion of that is to religious orgs, where mostly it's spent on facilities and salaries, and promoting religion."

Duff...what do you think happens when we send money to the government? Others in this thread have already decried the fact that most of it goes to the military.

Would you rather give directly to a charity or filter that same dollar through the government? How about a larger take break for charitable giving to offset elimination of some of the current loopholes.

Let the government run the military and protect the borders...I'll pay for that. For everything else, keep the money at the state and local level so we can better control where it goes.

 

[Skulnik]

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8mZ39Zet97Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Fucking HYPOCRITE POS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:thefinger

 

[Trench]

Let the government run the military and protect the borders...I'll pay for that.

I won't.

A military empire that spans the globe?

$Trillion wars?

Meanwhile, our aging infrastructure crumbles, which the private sector can't and won't rebuild because there's no profit in it. Outdated energy policies that feed and subsidize our oil addiction. Regressive healthcare policy that continues it's economic stranglehold on both small business and large.

No thanks, Bob. I want my country looking to the future instead of clinging to the past.

 

[Duff Miver]

Muff:

Based on the census graph you posted and the population # from the Census for 1960 and 2011, there are more people in poverty today than 50 years ago.

This after we have spent trillions (? - I am guessing here) on anti-poverty programs?

Yes - the % of the population that is impoverished is lower but the actual # based on growth is higher.

You look at it as having a positive effect.

I do not.

That reasoning is about as bizarre as I have ever seen. Cutting the poverty rate in half is not progress because the population is larger? It's only the gross number in poverty that counts?

By that reasoning, Nigeria has a smaller poverty problem than the USA because only 12 million of their 12.5 million population are living in poverty.

That makes sense to you? Good grief:facepalm:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Not a problem, Dogs...

As I said, notice the precipitous drop in GOP Senate votes for increasing the debt under a Democratic Admin. vs. a Republican Admin. No one wants to see the national debt continue to increase. I'm just pointing out the consistent hyposcrisy that you Republicans exhibit.

Even if we balance the budget tomorrow, we'll have to create significant budget surpluses just to offset the interest on the national debt. Once we do that, then we can begin discussing ways to actually decrease the national debt.

Of our current $14 Trillion in national debt, approx. $8 Trillion of it is interest that's accumulated since fiscal year 1988.

Here's a link showing the interest we've incurred on the debt each year since 1988. Add up the numbers and see for yourself.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

Be sure and let me know if you need further assistance on understanding our debt problem, Dogs. :0corn

I see your getting your charts from Muffins factory--

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5041/5320633295_898c5d5c45.jpg
:142smilie


Sheez what liberals won't do to avoid "The Simple" facts-- but obviously everyone understand why-

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

--and this isn't even counting 2011:scared

Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
<!-- InstanceBeginEditable name="content" -->Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
<TABLE class=data1><TBODY><TR><TH>Date </TH><TH>Dollar Amount</TH></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2010</TD><TD>13,561,623,030,891.79</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2009</TD><TD>11,909,829,003,511.75</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2008</TD><TD>10,024,724,896,912.49</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2007</TD><TD>9,007,653,372,262.48</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2006</TD><TD>8,506,973,899,215.23</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2005 </TD><TD>7,932,709,661,723.50</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2004 </TD><TD>7,379,052,696,330.32</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2003 </TD><TD>6,783,231,062,743.62</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2002 </TD><TD>6,228,235,965,597.16</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2001 </TD><TD>5,807,463,412,200.06</TD></TR><TR><TD>09/30/2000 </TD><TD>5,674,178,209,886.86</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>



Da Base/Gumby economics 101-
Get another credit card to pay debt/interest on old ones--

Their prob--They are always running out of other peoples money-

 

[smurphy]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America?s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can?t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government?s reckless fiscal policies. ? Increasing America?s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ?the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."

Who said this in 2006?:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie

I totally agree - and it's the fault of both parties. We have a chance right now to make a *slight* improvement. I hope the two sides come together to get something done. We had a chance at a 4.5 $ trillion deal, if only the GOP would allow a return the 1990's taxes on wealthy. If only....

 

[Trench]

I see your getting your charts from Muffins factory--

Sheez what liberals won't do to avoid "The Simple" facts-- but obviously everyone understand why-

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

--and this isn't even counting 2011:scared

Da Base/Gumby economics 101-
Get another credit card to pay debt/interest on old ones--

Their prob--They are always running out of other peoples money-

Now what are you mumbling about?

You posted a link to the same site I did.

Is it somehow more credible if you post it?

But then, one's reading comprehension usually mirrors their grammar, spelling and syntax, doesn't it?

 

[ssd]

No, I said that there are more people in poverty today after the trillions we have spent to fight poverty.

Your chart proved my statement.


The interesting stat ( i do not have time right now to find it - if it exists.....i just picked 150 lbs of eggplant and now have to go pick the broccoli) is how much money it cost to wage the war on poverty in 1960 and how much it costs today?

 

[dr. freeze]

I totally agree - and it's the fault of both parties. We have a chance right now to make a *slight* improvement. I hope the two sides come together to get something done. We had a chance at a 4.5 $ trillion deal, if only the GOP would allow a return the 1990's taxes on wealthy. If only....

How about this: If only the democrats would repeal Obamacare (and all the bribes and backroom deals that come with it)

Not sure the government needs more revenue than the 50% or so they already take from the people who make money in this country. I would be for a flat tax so that some (like Obama's cronies at GE) can't cheat the tax system and effectively pay ZERO income tax.

The government spends money much more ineffectively than "the rich" so other than getting their fair share (which I would put at 25-33% personally) I don't want them getting any more of it. They need to slim down and become more efficient. Right now they are a haven for incompetence and deserve nothing more from anyone.

The lying cheats/frauds in Washington deserve no more control (money) over us than they already have.

Bush screwed us up. Obama is screwing us up more.

WHen the democrats and Republicans agree on something, we know we are the ones who are going to get screwed.

I hope they default and the country has to take its medicine the right way personally. It is immoral to pass this disastrous cycle on to our kids.

Obama sounded real good in Congress when he said it was a failure of leadership to have to raise the debt limit. The incompetent hypocrite is NOT HELD ONE IOTA TO BE ACCOUNTABLE BY THE ACCOMPLICES IN THE MEDIA.

We cannot continue on this course or there will be riots in the streets and the federation will cease to exist.

Right now we have to many selfish people feeling entitled to everyone else's money and two corrupt parties feeding off of that.

 

[pd1]

I totally agree - and it's the fault of both parties. We have a chance right now to make a *slight* improvement. I hope the two sides come together to get something done. We had a chance at a 4.5 $ trillion deal, if only the GOP would allow a return the 1990's taxes on wealthy. If only....[/QUO


Come on S. those hedge fund managers making a billion+ a year work so hard for their money, there is no way we should raise their taxes.

But on the other hand we got this guy makin' 14 bucks an hour digging a ditch and he ain't really payin' his fair share. Lets tax his ass just a little harder.

 

[PaSprint]

opcorn2

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jpIrJE_iuSQ?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jpIrJE_iuSQ?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

[smurphy]

How about this: If only the democrats would repeal Obamacare (and all the bribes and backroom deals that come with it)

Not sure the government needs more revenue than the 50% or so they already take from the people who make money in this country. I would be for a flat tax so that some (like Obama's cronies at GE) can't cheat the tax system and effectively pay ZERO income tax.

The government spends money much more ineffectively than "the rich" so other than getting their fair share (which I would put at 25-33% personally) I don't want them getting any more of it. They need to slim down and become more efficient. Right now they are a haven for incompetence and deserve nothing more from anyone.

The lying cheats/frauds in Washington deserve no more control (money) over us than they already have.

Bush screwed us up. Obama is screwing us up more.

WHen the democrats and Republicans agree on something, we know we are the ones who are going to get screwed.

I hope they default and the country has to take its medicine the right way personally. It is immoral to pass this disastrous cycle on to our kids.

Obama sounded real good in Congress when he said it was a failure of leadership to have to raise the debt limit. The incompetent hypocrite is NOT HELD ONE IOTA TO BE ACCOUNTABLE BY THE ACCOMPLICES IN THE MEDIA.

We cannot continue on this course or there will be riots in the streets and the federation will cease to exist.

Right now we have to many selfish people feeling entitled to everyone else's money and two corrupt parties feeding off of that.

I am with you on much of this. Obamacare is a joke, in fact I see it as nothing more than more money for insurance companies for absolutely no reason.

....People like you and me are fucked in these arguments - neither side looks out for us. BUSH SUCKED. OBAMA SUCKS. These are givens - let's talk like actual real people....

Why not allow a *slight* tax increase on the wealthiest of our citizens (not even an increase compared to Reagan - his taxes were actually higher) ? ....especially given that the Dems were willing to cut 3 trillion? Take the friggin deal. Let's come together on what's good for the country. ....At least this once.

We might only have a few more times at this luxury. If we don't come together and get beyond the easy media partisan bullshit then we are fucked. People like you and me can figure this out. FUCK GOP, FUCK DEM. Make a deal that's good for US!(a)

 

[smurphy]

The "rich" spends thier money in india and china. I know that for a certain fact. There is nothing good about the modern *rich* in terms of OUR NATION . ...Let's get that off the table as fast as possible...please!!!! and no fox and no msnbc and no other media bullshit.....again, please

 

[Duff Miver]

How about a larger take break for charitable giving to offset elimination of some of the current loopholes.

A larger break? It's already fully deductible. And much of it it isn't really charitable. Money to build a new church building which uses public services, but is free of local property taxes? Money to promote faith-based political agendas? Money which pays multi-million salaries and rides on the Concord? Money which is only used to solicit more money?

No thanks. In fact I'd tighten up on so-called "charitable" giving, limiting it to only money which was actually used for the avowed purpose, free of political, religious and personal bias.