The Market, 101

Notamonkey · Jul 14, 2011

blueapplepaste said:
Don't you know that if those millionaires have their private jets that it benefits everyone?! If they have to switch to commercial flights or pay a little extra to fly private, it will result in economic doom!!!

[/irresponsible GOP talking point]

Don't you know the private jet tax break was in the Stumulus Bill? It benefitted many wealthy liberal pals of the Prez.

EdwinWillers · Jul 14, 2011

kermit said:
Reps were offered every cut they asked for. In exchange Dems want some revenue increases. Reps should jump at that as both spending cuts and revenue increases will reduce the deficit.

Deal of the century - you can have some cuts while we get some more money to spend. 1 step forward, 2 steps back. Reagan accepted a similar "deal" and soon realized he'd been lied to.

Dems have no intention of using additional revenue (false premise anyway - that raising taxes would increase revenues, but I digress...) to pay down debt. They just want more money to spend.

Last time we were in such a "crisis" ('79) we actually did default for a period - and back then the "debt ceiling" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) was just $800 billion dollars. Yet here we are a few decades later - with nearly 18 times that amount in debt and what do the Dems want? Well naturally, they want permission to spend even more money...

Dems chide Reps for claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility - well we've yet to see ANY evidence THEY are remotely worthy of such a title.

Panzerkamfwagen · Jul 14, 2011

EdwinWillers said:
Deal of the century - you can have some cuts while we get some more money to spend. 1 step forward, 2 steps back. Reagan accepted a similar "deal" and soon realized he'd been lied to.

Dems have no intention of using additional revenue (false premise anyway - that raising taxes would increase revenues, but I digress...) to pay down debt. They just want more money to spend.

Last time we were in such a "crisis" ('79) we actually did default for a period - and back then the "debt ceiling" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) was just $800 billion dollars. Yet here we are a few decades later - with nearly 18 times that amount in debt and what do the Dems want? Well naturally, they want permission to spend even more money...

Dems chide Reps for claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility - well we've yet to see ANY evidence THEY are remotely worthy of such a title.

We could always pass a "revenue increase" on luxury yachts.

variant · Jul 14, 2011

IbrahimFahim said:
Republicans were offered the deal they said they wanted a few months ago, and they rejected it.

To prove my point, provide the specifics on what Obama has offered and show how it is inadequate.

That would be because their goal here is not to solve problems but defeat the President at all costs.

Panzerkamfwagen · Jul 14, 2011

President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.

He won.

EdwinWillers · Jul 14, 2011

Panzerkampfwagen said:
We could always pass a "revenue increase" on luxury yachts.

What he ought to do is fly Jet Blue if he's that concerned about how the wealthy travel. Put Michele and the kiddoes on a charter flight next time they want to take a little vacation in Europe.

EdwinWillers · Jul 14, 2011

variant said:
That would be because their goal here is not to solve problems but defeat the President at all costs.

That might be (if it were true) because Barack Obama isn't interested in solving problems but getting re-elected - and he is fully aware the ONLY way he can do that is by demonizing Republicans.

He certainly can't run on HIS record.

EdwinWillers · Jul 14, 2011

Notamonkey said:
Don't you know the private jet tax break was in the Stumulus Bill? It benefitted many wealthy liberal pals of the Prez.

Shhhh! This is a fact-free zone...

variant · Jul 14, 2011

EdwinWillers said:
He certainly can't run on HIS record.

They shouldnt be able to run on theirs either.

Not letting Obama give you what you want because you would then get blamed for wanting what you want and co-operating with Obama (the horror).

EdwinWillers · Jul 14, 2011

variant said:
They shouldnt be able to run on theirs either.

Then if Barack Obama can't run on his (and he definitely can't), and Republicans can't run on their (debatable), that would leave the Tea Party, a party without the negative record of either. I could go for that... You bet.

variant said:
Not letting Obama give you what you want because you would then get blamed for wanting what you want and co-operating with Obama (the horror).

Whaa?

IbrahimFahim · Jul 14, 2011

EdwinWillers said:
Deal of the century - you can have some cuts while we get some more money to spend. 1 step forward, 2 steps back. Reagan accepted a similar "deal" and soon realized he'd been lied to.

do you have any evidence that Reagan believed he had been lied to?

citizenthom · Jul 14, 2011

kermit said:
Reps were offered every cut they asked for. In exchange Dems want some revenue increases.

Then they were not offered what they are asking for, as was claimed above. Thanks for clearing that up.

IbrahimFahim · Jul 14, 2011

citizenthom said:
Then they were not offered what they are asking for, as was claimed above. Thanks for clearing that up.

Are you aware that the Republicans produced a document conducting historical analysis of economic recoveries, where they claimed that an 85-15% split between budget cuts and revenue increases. The democrats then offered them a 87-13% split.

The republicans balked at essentially the same plan they originally said was necessary a few months ago.

Now they are claiming they want far less revenue increases than they originally said was historically proven.

In light of these facts (and they are not debatable, these really are the facts), how can you make the statement you have above?

Are you aware that the revenue increases that the republicans offered are less than what the Republicans initially claimed were necessary?

Are you speaking from ideology, or because you are actually familiar with the facts.

lordbt · Jul 14, 2011

IbrahimFahim said:
Are you aware that the Republicans produced a document conducting historical analysis of economic recoveries, where they claimed that an 85-15% split between budget cuts and revenue increases. The democrats then offered them a 87-13% split.

The republicans balked at essentially the same plan they originally said was necessary a few months ago.

Now they are claiming they want far less revenue increases than they originally said was historically proven.

In light of these facts (and they are not debatable, these really are the facts), how can you make the statement you have above?

Are you aware that the revenue increases that the republicans offered are less than what the Republicans initially claimed were necessary?

Are you speaking from ideology, or because you are actually familiar with the facts.

Got a link to any of that?

variant · Jul 14, 2011

EdwinWillers said:
Then if Barack Obama can't run on his (and he definitely can't), and Republicans can't run on their (debatable), that would leave the Tea Party, a party without the negative record of either. I could go for that... You bet.

You mean the tea party the main reason nothing is getting done?

The guys who can't accept the deal of the last thirty years because it's not absolutely everything they want?

Yeah their record should be spotless if this whole debt celing thing goes the way they want.

Whaa?

As the quote I quoted stated he gave them what they asked for a few months ago and now they don't want it.

Panzerkamfwagen · Jul 14, 2011

EdwinWillers said:
What he ought to do is fly Jet Blue if he's that concerned about how the wealthy travel. Put Michele and the kiddoes on a charter flight next time they want to take a little vacation in Europe.

I think you missed my point

:lost:

IbrahimFahim · Jul 14, 2011

lordbt said:
Got a link to any of that?

It has been in the news lately. Do you really not know this?

(here is where LordBT says something about how there is no evidence, hoping he can finally attack something. Then I can post the evidence and not only show it is true, but also that there is a serious lack of information on LordBT's behalf, and LordBT goes into another rage spiral, because his lack of information bites him again. I love the theatre.)

lordbt · Jul 14, 2011

IbrahimFahim said:
It has been in the news lately. Do you really not know this?

(here is where LordBT says something about how there is no evidence, hoping he can finally attack something. Then I can post the evidence and not only show it is true, but also that there is a serious lack of information on LordBT's behalf, and LordBT goes into another rage spiral, because his lack of information bites him again. I love the theatre.)

So no link then?

oldbetang · Jul 14, 2011

lordbt said:
So no link then?

It's been in the news lately, dang it! Can't you read?

citizenthom · Jul 14, 2011

IbrahimFahim said:
It has been in the news lately.

Thing is we don't know what you consider "news" or how reliable it is.

The Market, 101

Member

Well-Known Member

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

Happy Cat

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Happy Cat

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Well-Known Member

$

Happy Cat

Es braust unser Panzer im Sturmwind dahin.

Well-Known Member

$

Senior Veteran

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Similar threads