DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Kramer on June 25, 2011, 11:01:07 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-jim-demint-warns-republicans-debt-ceiling-vote/story?id=13916811 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-jim-demint-warns-republicans-debt-ceiling-vote/story?id=13916811)
Conservative firebrand Sen. Jim DeMint has a message to fellow Republicans in Congress: If you support increasing the debt ceiling without first passing a balanced budget amendment and massive across-the-board spending cuts, you're gone -- destined to be swept out of Congress by a wave of voter anger.
"Based on what I can see around the country," DeMint, R-S.C., said in an interview for the ABC News Subway Series, "not only are those individuals gone, but I would suspect the Republican Party would be set back many years.
"It would be the most toxic vote," DeMint said. "I can tell you if you look at the polls, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, they do not think we should increase the debt limit."
DeMint is not just talking political analysis here. He has a significant fundraising base and has shown a willingness to use his campaign money to support or oppose fellow Republicans.
DeMint will use that political muscle to oppose fellow Republicans who don't stand firm on the debt ceiling issue. He said he will not support any candidate for Congress -- incumbent or challenger -- who does not sign a pledge promising not to vote for a debt limit increase without first passing a balanced budget amendment, making deep spending cuts and putting strict limits on future government spending. The same rule applies to presidential candidates.
"I don't have many litmus tests, but this is one: Any candidate who doesn't understand that we need to balance the budget should not be president of the United States," DeMint said. "So, I'm looking for candidates to sign the pledge."
During the 2010 midterm elections, DeMint played key role in several high-stakes Republican primaries, supporting insurgent conservatives often at odds with party leaders. Many of those insurgents -- including Rand Paul of Kentucky, Marco Rubio of Florida, Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Ken Buck of Colorado -- went on to win their Republican primaries.
DeMint said he plans to get involved, once again, in Republican primaries for the 2012 elections. One race he has his eye on is the open Senate seat in New Mexico, which is being vacated by retiring Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman. Republican leaders have recruited former Rep. Heather Wilson to run, but she faces a challenge against the more conservative John Sanchez, New Mexico's lieutenant governor.
"She's a friend, but we've talked to her and I don't think Heather's going to be thought of as a conservative, and she's got a good opponent," DeMint said. "We may get involved with that race, but we haven't made a final decision. I won't commit, at this point, but I think we're going to have a strong conservative there."
-
Why isn't DeMint running for president?
-
Taxes are going up.
-
Taxes are going up.
they should for the people that aren't paying their fair share. People like XO deserve at least a 20% increase in taxes.
-
if they do not raise the debt ceiling it is a sure thing that the interest rate on both the present rate and future rate will increase greatly, and we will be paying vastly more than we would be if the debt ceiling were raised. The cost to the taxpayers will be much more than if it isn't.
DeMint deserves to be drawn and quartered. He is a total idiot.
-
if they do not raise the debt ceiling it is a sure thing that the interest rate on both the present rate and future rate will increase greatly, and we will be paying vastly more than we would be if the debt ceiling were raised. The cost to the taxpayers will be much more than if it isn't.
DeMint deserves to be drawn and quartered. He is a total idiot.
DeMint isn't an idiot, Obama is the idiot, and you are an idiot for voting for Obama. I guess that is the result of bad economics polices by our elected officilas -- so be it. We need to take the medicine.
-
Taxes are going up.
Why?
-
Taxes are going up.
Why?
they should on people that aren't paying taxes now. The ones that pay the least or none at all take the most from government.!
-
Because you can't balance the budget without raising revenue.
How Much Credibility Does the GOP Have on Taxes?
By Kevin D. Williamson
Posted on June 23, 2011 3:22 PM
How you know the White House is not taking the bipartisan deficit-reduction talks seriously: Joe Biden is in charge. I?ve made that observation before, and people think it?s a quip, but I mean it. The vice president is a fundamentally unserious figure, especially on fiscal issues. Barack Obama is a lot of things, many of them regrettable, but he is not a buffoon. This is a crisis that requires direct presidential leadership and top-level congressional leadership. It requires Barack Obama, John Boehner, and Harry Reid locked in a room. A small, uncomfortable room would be best. No pizza.
The Biden effort is disintegrating. Eric Cantor walked on the talks today. He says he wants the president to step in and ?resolve? the question of tax increases. There are two ways to read that word ?resolve?: One is: Obama should step in and hand the Republicans a victory by taking tax increases off the table. The other is: Obama should step in and hand Democrats a defeat by volunteering to take all the flak from the tax increases that almost certainly are going to be part of any bipartisan deficit deal.
Here?s Cantor:
?Each each side came into these talks with certain orders, and as it stands the Democrats continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases,? Cantor said in a statement. ?There is not support in the House for a tax increase, and I don?t believe now is the time to raise taxes in light of our current economic situation. Regardless of the progress that has been made, the tax issue must be resolved before discussions can continue.?
?Given this impasse, I will not be participating in today?s meeting, and I believe it is time for the president to speak clearly and resolve the tax issue. Once resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here.?
And that is the heart of the thing: If Cantor & Co. can in fact achieve ?trillions? in cuts ? tens of trillions, really ? then they have a credible case for taking tax increases off the table.
So, how?s that looking?
The most ambitious deficit-reduction plan so far has been the Ryan Roadmap, which the House passed and then sent to its death in the Senate. I like the Roadmap, and I would be surprised to see a significantly more aggressive plan gain any traction in Congress. But even under the Roadmap, spending as a share of GDP would continue to rise through 2037 and would stay above 19 percent of GDP until 2063. Publicly held debt would hit 100 percent of GDP in 2043, which could very well prove catastrophic. (Tables here.) But while spending continues to grow as a share of GDP under the Roadmap, tax revenue is projected never to exceed 19 percent of GDP. That is by design, as Mr. Ryan?s team has made clear:
Eventually, as economic activity picks up, revenues in the Roadmap plan rise back up above 18 percent of GDP, finally reaching the intended maximum amount of 19 percent of GDP in 2029.
Intended maximum. Which is to say, the most aggressive deficit-reduction plan yet produced by Republicans by design holds tax revenues below projected spending. For decades to come, the deficit-reduction plan is a plan for deficits. The turnaround year of 2037 is a long way?s away. That means that even if the Roadmap were enacted, further deficit-reduction measures would be needed, and needed sorely.
So, the question for Eric Cantor is: What evidence do you have that you can get something even more aggressive than the Roadmap through Congress and past Barack Obama? My guess is that his case sounds a lot like one hand clapping. And if my guess is correct, then the Republicans? anti-tax stance is just that: a stance, another word for which is a posture.
So, fine, posture, do your political calculating, whatever. Meanwhile, children being born today will be cursing our names for the burdens we have left them.
Political posturing is a question for Eric Cantor and Barack Obama. The question for the rest of us is: Where lies the consensus? I don?t mean that in a touchy-feely sense. I mean: What balance of taxation and spending are we prepared to accept? (And ?we? describes an electorate that elected Barack Obama after twice electing George W. Bush, that has made both Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House. That ?we.? That inexplicable, maddening ?we.?)
Federal spending in 2012 is expected to hit 23.6 percent of GDP, but tax revenue is only going to hit 16.6 percent. That?s bad. (Real bad.) But these are poison years. Let?s revisit happier days: From 1980?2000, federal outlays averaged 21.3 percent of GDP, taxes averaged 18.5 percent, deficits 2.8 percent. So, if there?s a post-recession return to historical norms, one or both of those factors still has to move by total of 2.8 percent of GDP to balance the budget. That would mean cutting about $400 billion from the 2012 budget or adding $400 billion in taxes, or a bit of both. (Assuming we get back to historical norms is a big assumption.)
Is there a consensus for cutting spending to 18.5 percent, the level we might expect taxes to hit? That?s a big drop from the forecast level of 2012 spending, about a 22 percent cut. The last time federal spending was only 18.5 percent of GDP was . . . 1999, not exactly the Dark Ages or a time of notable national austerity. So, it?s not impossible to imagine a consensus for 18.5 percent spending. On the flipside: Is there a consensus for taxation at 21 percent? That?s pretty high ? higher than it has ever been, in fact, even during World War II, when taxes topped out at 20.9 percent of GDP in 1944. The last time it?s been close ? 20.6 percent ? was in . . . 2000, not exactly the Dark Ages or a time of notable national austerity. Those variations show that, Democratic protestations aside, currently high spending is the larger abnormality, and so suggest that spending cuts should make up the bulk of the deficit-reduction plan.
But: How much?
I don?t want taxes or spending at 21.3 percent of GDP. I don?t want them at 18.5 percent, for that matter. I might go for spending at 14.2 percent and taxes at 16.1 percent as a good start, which would take us to the savage Darwinian conditions of . . . 1951, not exactly the Dark Ages or a time of notable national austerity. As I hear it, 1951 was a pretty good year. From 1950 to 1955, our average real GDP growth exceeded that magic 5 percent threshold that Tim Pawlenty and Larry Kudlow and the optimists are talking about, and that includes a little recession in 1954. (Granted, there are excellent reasons to believe that the postwar boom is not easily replicable. Here?s one. Here?s another. And one more. Not a unicorn in the bunch.)
But here?s the thing: If you want spend 21 percent, you really need to tax 21 percent. If you want to tax only 18.5 percent, you can only spend 18.5 percent. So far, Republicans have been pretty insistent about taxes, and not without reason (this probably is not the optimum moment to announce a large tax increase). But if you are not willing to move one variable, then you have to show yourself willing and able to move the other variable far enough to bring things into balance. The Republicans have been moving in the right direction, but they aren?t quite there. You want to take taxes off the table, then show me you can get the job done with cuts alone ? not on paper, but in Congress.
Why haven?t I mentioned the Democrats? They control the Senate and the White House, holding a far stronger hand than do the Republicans. The reason is that the Democrats are a lost cause. Their commitment to maintaining the current path of entitlement spending and public-sector expansion will ensure national bankruptcy at virtually any level of taxation. (Don?t believe me? Have a gander at what a $30 trillion deficit looks like.) Removing Democrats from power probably is a precondition for averting a national fiscal meltdown. A necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/270372 (http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/270372)
-
we need to cut taxes....drastically
-
The country is in the midst of a recession so of course the government needs LESS money. Duh.
Naturally, the only way for the government to get MORE money is to cut taxes again. Duh, duh.
-
The country is in the midst of a recession so of course the government needs LESS money. Duh.
Naturally, the only way for the government to get MORE money is to cut taxes again. Duh, duh.
Tell it to JFK!
Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU#)
-
If rates were the same now as they were then, it might be a good idea, but (a) they are not, and (b) there was no recession in 1961.
Rates are lower now than since the 1930's.
-
Tax cuts can increase tax revenue, it has been seen happening before.
Do we understand this phenominon enough to cause it on purpose?
Taxes are definately a drag on employment , productivity, saveing and are inflationary, but of course you get most of these with oversized debt as well.
Tax cuts ought to work as well as stimulus did, only without nearly as much middleman to misdirect the money.
-
The problem is that DeMint is demanding a Balanced Budget Amendment in exchange for raising the ceiling. The problem is that the only way to balance a budget immediately is to cut spending and raise revenue so that in flow and out go balance. That won't happen with tax cuts as they tend to take a while to increase receipts in DC.
In essense what DeMint is doing is posturing, showboating for the crowd. He isn't serious about righting the fiscal ship, he is interested in threatening fellow Republicans with his supposed power of influencing the Tea Party voters. Ryan on the other hand is a serious person, putting his name on a budget that could possibly right the ship 10 years down the road.
I'll back the Walkers, Ryans, Daniels, Christies, Kassich's etc, who are willing to do the work and take the risks. And I'll laugh at the DeMints who actually think they can herd cats.
-
Tax cuts do not always goose the economy.
If you set taxes at zero, you have no government at all. If you set taxes at 100%, you have no production. There is an ideal rate that is needed for a modern country to progress. This rate will vary with the type of economy and the resources of the country.
If you have big business, you will need a government powerful enough to regulate it. Capitalism by its very nature causes bubbles and busts every seven to ten years, as past history has shown us. The present mess was caused by government not having the proper regulations and enforcing those that it had due to excessive pressure by a few big business types who made put like bandits.
BT is right: DeMint is a posturing clown, who thinks he is the Big Swinging Dick of the GOP. He should be ignored except as a suitable target for banana creme pies.
Ryan's budget sucks, but he is sincere, just horribly wrong about what this country needs.
-
Leave it to Xo to bring up the all or nothing tax strawman tact. Does it nearly every time the debate on taxes come up....neatly ignoring that those who support tax cuts aren't advocating a 0% tax, and never have
The issues is the here and now, and what does increases or decreasing taxes do, right now. The country is arguably in a double dip recession, if not a depression. Jobs have been hemorrhaging, leading to decreased tax revenues into government coffers. So, NO, increasing taxes may help the government coffers in the immediate short term, but severely exacerbate the condition that the economy is already in, as companies hire less, and pass on their taxes to their customers, in the matter of higher prices
So NO, increasing taxes isn't the answer. Historically speaking, everytime the country's leadership enacted across the board tax cuts, INCLUDING that of corporate America, MORE money into people's hands, MORE MONEY to spend (increased sales tax dollars to the Government), MORE MONEY to invest/expand, leads to MORE jobs (and increased income tax dollars, to the Government)
But see, leftists like Xo, don't get that. Well they do, but that requires less need/control for Government, and we sure as hell can't be having that. Because the more people "struggle", the more they "need" the Government......thus the perpetuating abyss that Obama and company have been taking us down in
DeMint may be posturing, but the cycle has to stop. Goverment can't just keep crying wolf, and let the status quo continue, making, what the CBO made clear in their latest reports, a situation, where we will NOT be able to recover. We'll be Greece on an exponential scale
The funny thing with Ryan, is he barely scratched the surface of what needs to be done, but at least it was a starting point
-
DeMint is making an ass of himself.
He is not correct about anything.
Taxes are not too high.
-
Yes, they are...and increasing them will only exacerbate what is already a dreadful death spiral that Obama & company have sent us in
-
The disgraceful hidden tax on working people also known
as the Corporate Tax should be immediately abolished.
Most Capital Gains taxes should be greatly reduced or eliminated.
All death taxes should also be eliminated.
-
The disgraceful hidden tax on working people also known
as the Corporate Tax should be immediately abolished.
Most Capital Gains taxes should be greatly reduced or eliminated.
All death taxes should also be eliminated.
How does those bring immediate balance to the budget as DeMint is demanding?
-
How does those bring immediate balance to the budget as DeMint is demanding?
A balanced budget is done primarily via "across the board" (shared burden)
cuts until it is brought into balance. PERIOD! No excuses for the heroin addict
to continue the "oh just one more needle today and I'll stop tomorrow." If
you wanna "play nice" you could phase in the across the board automatic cuts
over 2-5 years...whatever. But the immoral deficit addiction must be stopped!
-
How does those bring immediate balance to the budget as DeMint is demanding?
A balanced budget is done primarily via "across the board" (shared burden)
cuts until it is brought into balance. PERIOD! No excuses for the heroin addict
to continue the "oh just one more needle today and I'll stop tomorrow." If
you wanna "play nice" you could phase in the across the board automatic cuts
over 2-5 years...whatever. But the immoral deficit addiction must be stopped!
So the tax cuts you propose do nothing to balance the budget, in fact it might delay balancing.
Just so you understand my position, i am not against a balanced budget amendment with appropriate wording to allow for unbalanced spending in case of war or disaster.
What i find rediculous is DeMints posturing as if he speaks for the Tea Party demanding a balanced budget amendment now in exchange for raising the ceiling.
I wouldn't be against a surtax on sales, say 3%, limited to 2 years, collected by the states and kept by the states with a dollar for dollar deduction from federal block grants. I would be against raising taxes on only one class, be it the richest or the poorest.
-
So the tax cuts you propose do nothing to balance the budget,
in fact it might delay balancing.
Surprise....no exactly the opposite.
The tax cuts to balance the budget would show
the herion addict was serious about getting well.
The economy would be ignited and govt revenues
would increase with a vibrant economy.
Govt revenues increase when companies hire and create more new taxpayers.
I am with the economists that believe lower taxes equals greater govt revenue, not less.
What i find ridiculous is DeMints posturing as if he speaks for the Tea Party
demanding a balanced budget amendment now in exchange for raising the ceiling
Why?
You find it strange to demand a balanced budget amendment
before the herion addict gets another hit of crack? Why is it
odd to demand a commitment to "get well" before another shot
of the disgraceful drug?
I wouldn't be against a surtax on sales, say 3%, limited to 2 years, collected by the states and kept by the states with a dollar for dollar deduction from federal block grants. I would be against raising taxes on only one class, be it the richest or the poorest.
I am against any new taxes. The answer isn't more taxes, it's shrinking govt that
wants to run our lives from light bulbs to toilets. It is a sick, sick, thieving addict!
-
So the tax cuts you propose do nothing to balance the budget,
in fact it might delay balancing.
Surprise....no exactly the opposite.
The tax cuts to balance the budget would show
the herion addict was serious about getting well.
The economy would be ignited and govt revenues
would increase with a vibrant economy.
Govt revenues increase when companies hire and create more new taxpayers.
I am with the economists that believe lower taxes equals greater govt revenue, not less.
What i find ridiculous is DeMints posturing as if he speaks for the Tea Party
demanding a balanced budget amendment now in exchange for raising the ceiling
Why?
You find it strange to demand a balanced budget amendment
before the herion addict gets another hit of crack? Why is it
odd to demand a commitment to "get well" before another shot
of the disgraceful drug?
I wouldn't be against a surtax on sales, say 3%, limited to 2 years, collected by the states and kept by the states with a dollar for dollar deduction from federal block grants. I would be against raising taxes on only one class, be it the richest or the poorest.
I am against any new taxes. The answer isn't more taxes, it's shrinking govt that
wants to run our lives from light bulbs to toilets. It is a sick, sick, thieving addict!
The GOP has had the opportunity to propose massive spending cuts since January 1. How are they doing with that? Not so well. Best they can do is go after low ticket items like NPR and Planned Parenthood.
This is not about heroin addicts smoking crack. What a rediculous analogy. The Grandma you want to kick to the curb isn't a heroin addict. She worked all her life and contributed her fair share to Medicare and Social Security and rightfully should expect that the govt honor its side of the bargain. Unfortunately Granny is 43% of the deficit. But if your tough love is kicking her to the curb, so be it. Your majority should last about one election cycle.
This is about restructuring the entire federal government and the best way to decentralize what we as a nation feel are worthy expenditures. And it could well be that the feds do defense and federal courts and that's it. But in order to do that we need a revolution, not the promise of one. (Sorry Reagan fans, but did he really deliver on his promises?)
Now if you have some concrete proposals that will quickly balance the budget without raising taxes, i'm all ears. I just don't think it can be done immediately, nor do i think DeMint thinks it can be done immediately. Which is why he isn't absolutely correct.
-
The GOP has had the opportunity to propose massive spending cuts since January 1. How are they doing with that? Not so well. Best they can do is go after low ticket items like NPR and Planned Parenthood.
This is not about heroin addicts smoking crack.
Yes, it is EXACTLY like that. It's an addiction....Government spending. What used to be somewhat rational, is now completely out of control, and yes, an addiction, just like crack
We've even had some concrete proposals, but they keep being demagogued, as usual, as trying to throw Grandma and the family on the street, and everyone is going to lose their medicare, not to mention their SS. You know, the same'ol same'ol
-
The GOP has had the opportunity to propose massive spending cuts since January 1. How are they doing with that? Not so well. Best they can do is go after low ticket items like NPR and Planned Parenthood.
This is not about heroin addicts smoking crack.
Yes, it is EXACTLY like that. It's an addiction....Government spending. What used to be somewhat rational, is now completely out of control, and yes, an addiction, just like crack
We've even had some concrete proposals, but they keep being demagogued, as usual, as trying to throw Grandma and the family on the street, and everyone is going to lose their medicare, not to mention their SS. You know, the same'ol same'ol
So you have nothing? Just showboating politicians making ridiculous threats with powers they don't have? DeMint comes across as no more rational than the police chief of Chicago.
Show me how you and your fellow deficit hawks would balance the budget without raising taxes.
I'm all ears.
-
The GOP has had the opportunity to propose massive spending cuts since January 1. How are they doing with that? Not so well. Best they can do is go after low ticket items like NPR and Planned Parenthood.
This is not about heroin addicts smoking crack.
Yes, it is EXACTLY like that. It's an addiction....Government spending. What used to be somewhat rational, is now completely out of control, and yes, an addiction, just like crack
We've even had some concrete proposals, but they keep being demagogued, as usual, as trying to throw Grandma and the family on the street, and everyone is going to lose their medicare, not to mention their SS. You know, the same'ol same'ol
So you have nothing?
LOL....I just demonstate a huge "something", as in Ryan's budget blueprint, as has Cu4, and you've concluded "nothing". Priceless
-
Ryan's blueprint doesn't balance the budget for 26 years. How does that meet DeMints demands?
-
Ryan's budget is toast. A shameless sucking up to the oligarchy.
-
Ryan's budget is toast. A shameless sucking up to the oligarchy.
Ryan's budget is a start. It is not the be all and end all.
-
CBO Figures Once Again Prove Tax Hikes Unnecessary to Fix Budget
By Curtis Dubay
June 25, 2011
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just released its long-term outlook for the federal budget.
As expected, we are going broke slightly faster than we were a few months ago.
No doubt the usual bigger-government types (BT) will use this news to repeat the mantra
that we need to both cut spending and "enhance revenues" (a thinly veiled euphemism for tax hikes).
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner used this oft-repeated line just this week.
But their argument is exactly backwards. The CBO report actually once again proves that no
tax hikes are necessary to fix our budget woes.
The CBO calculates that if Congress leaves the tax code as it is today, which would include permanently extending the 2001/2003 tax cuts for all taxpayers (even those greedy, job-producing rich folks and small businesses), patching the alternative minimum tax so it does not impact middle-income families, and continuing a host of other tax-reducing provisions that regularly expire tax revenues would exceed their historical average of 18 percent of GDP in 2021. Revenue would continue growing thereafter absent any policy changes and soon surpass the all-time record high hit back in 2000 at the height of the Internet-tech boom.
Earlier CBO reports show (and this latest release confirms) that revenue would actually match the 18 percent of GDP mark by 2017 and could get there even sooner.
Renewed economic growth once it finally takes hold is the reason tax revenues will shoot up in the coming years. Faster growth means that taxpayers earn more income and move into higher tax brackets. Faster growth also means that there are more taxpayers than before.
The impending rebound in tax revenues seen in the CBO data also rebuts the argument that "taxes as a percentage of GDP are at their lowest levels since 1950." It has been repeated most recently by Fareed Zakaria.
These low tax receipts have nothing to do with changes in policy, like lower tax rates, as those making this argument would have us believe. Tax revenues are low compared to their historical averages, but that has everything to do with a terrible recession and a worse-than-anemic recovery that has repressed incomes and driven millions to the unemployment lines.
Conveyors of the wrongheaded wisdom about the necessity of tax hikes are trying to convince the American people that there is just no way to lower the deficit with spending cuts alone, that some tax hikes are necessary in any "reasonable" plan.
Higher taxes are not a mathematical necessity. They are a choice Washington politicians would make to expand the size of government. After all, history has shown us that Congress rarely if ever uses revenue from tax hikes to lower the deficit. Rather, it uses the money on new or expanded big-government programs. And tax hikes now would further harm job creation.
The reality is that hikes are not necessary to fix the budget. If Congress restrained spending to its historical level of 20 percent of GDP (rather than the bloated 25 percent that President Obama's budget aspires for), the deficit would fall to manageable levels as revenues climb, and the national debt would stabilize as a share of the economy.
It is all about the spending, and no amount of reiterating false claims about plunging tax revenue can change that. Washington has spent us into this budget hole and wants more of our money to fill the void they've created. It is time they realize they?ll be getting plenty of our money in the coming years, and the only way out of this mess is to cut spending.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/25/cbo-figures-once-again-prove-tax-hikes-unnecessary-to-fix-budget/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/25/cbo-figures-once-again-prove-tax-hikes-unnecessary-to-fix-budget/)
-
Still no balanced budget and revenues would hit 18% of GDP 10 years down the road?
Are we playing kickball? Jeez.
-
Yes, they are...and increasing them will only exacerbate what is already a dreadful death spiral that Obama & company have sent us in
What would be wrong with raising taxes on the typical Democrat Voter? And I'm being serious here...
-
Because you can't base a tax on a political affiliation
-
He was basing it on a demographic or economic class.
-
Doesn't change anything.
-
Sure it does.
-
Sure it doesn't. Raising taxes is the wrong tact to take, even when the notion is inflicting it on a specific political demographic that one might not like, because most of them vote for a particular party
-
Then you are presenting a different argument. Because you certainly can discriminate against one income class over another.
But the question is do you really want a balanced budget in the near future, as demanded by DeMint, because even with the Bush Tax cuts still in place the economy is not healing, even with the payroll tax holiday the economy is not healing. And even though you want a target revenue of 18% of gdp and spending at the same level or lower, your revenues still need to be higher than spending by at least 3% so as to deal not only with deficits but also debt. So how do you get there?
-
Sure I want a balanced budget....but not by exacerbating the current economic misery Obama has put this country in
-
So you don't think Obama should have cut taxes?
-
Do you read?? What part of cut taxes are you not grasping?? And what part of reigning in out of control spending are you not getting??
-
Do you read?? What part of cut taxes are you not grasping?? And what part of reigning in out of control spending are you not getting??
Sure i read. I read this:
but not by exacerbating the current economic misery Obama has put this country in
One of the things Obama has done was keep the Bush Tax cuts and also implemented a reduction in the payroll tax. Were those wrongheaded moves?
-
KEEP, is not cutting, so don't try to pull that
SPENDING is what he IS DOING......IN SPADES, AND IS WHAT IS "exacerbating the current economic misery Obama has put this country in"
-
KEEP, is not cutting, so don't try to pull that
SPENDING is what he IS DOING......IN SPADES, AND IS WHAT IS "exacerbating the current economic misery Obama has put this country in"
When did Bush cut payroll taxes? Obama did. So he did Bush one better. And the GOP in the House controls the appropriations, what have they cut?
Best i can figure is the economy is gonna flounder until the winners of the next election are sworn in and the GOP better have a 2/3rd majority in both houses if they expect a Balanced Budget Amendment Resolution to get passed.
Which is why these threats by DeMint are meaningless.
-
Which is also why it has to start somewhere, and NOT with additional taxes
-
SPENDING is what he IS DOING......
OMG! YES!
(http://exposethemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/obama-deficit-201011.jpg)
-
Would the recession have been worse without the stimulus spending?
-
Would the recession have been worse without the stimulus spending?
Would a heroin addict's withdrawl symptoms be worse without a new shot of dope?
Sure...not doing the dope anymore is going to hurt like hell.
But the longer you do dope the worse the crash at the end.
-
Would the recession have been worse without the stimulus spending?
Would a heroin addict's withdrawl symptoms be worse without a new shot of dope?
Sure...not doing the dope anymore is going to hurt like hell.
But the longer you do dope the worse the crash at the end.
You write that like you are 100% sure that neither you or your company benefited directly or indirectly from any stimulus funds that made their way through Texas.
I don't think you can make that claim.
-
Because you can't base a tax on a political affiliation
Who is the typical Democrat Voter? Remove political affiliation from the discussion. The typical Democrat voter is someone
that wants a free ride. I just want those folks that want me to pay their way to pay their own way. I'm sure there could be
some Republican free-loaders out there too and they should have to pay their way as well.
-
You write that like you are 100% sure that neither you or your company benefited
directly or indirectly from any stimulus funds that made their way through Texas.
I don't think you can make that claim.
Uh? I didn't make that claim nor would I.
Some of my clients might be also be drug dealers using
fronts as legit business operations. I can't control that.
But because I may benefit from drug-dealing money
does not mean I should oppose stopping drug dealers.
BT we are on an unsustainable path!
-
You write that like you are 100% sure that neither you or your company benefited
directly or indirectly from any stimulus funds that made their way through Texas.
I don't think you can make that claim.
Uh? I didn't make that claim nor would I.
Some of my clients might be also be drug dealers using
fronts as legit business operations. I can't control that.
But because I may benefit from drug-dealing money
does not mean I should oppose stopping drug dealers.
BT we are on an unsustainable path!
Actually politicians are drug addicts and the drug is money, and the spend other peoples money, not their money!
-
But Bt doesn't agree with that addiction analogy. Thinks its ridiculous, in fact :o
-
But Bt doesn't agree with that addiction analogy. Thinks its ridiculous, in fact :o
maybe he's one of them!
-
BT we are on an unsustainable path!
Yes
-
Finally....some common ground (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15392.0)
-
But Bt doesn't agree with that addiction analogy. Thinks its ridiculous, in fact :o
maybe he's one of them!
Didn't you say at one time that the military was one of your bigger customers?
And wasn't Sirs complaining about all the paperwork he has to fill out for his patients paid for by the govt?
-
But Bt doesn't agree with that addiction analogy. Thinks its ridiculous, in fact :o
maybe he's one of them!
And wasn't Sirs complaining about all the paperwork he has to fill out for his patients paid for by the govt?
and..........................? Are you seriously trying to reference the bureaucracy as the main problem with Obama & the economy??
-
But Bt doesn't agree with that addiction analogy. Thinks its ridiculous, in fact :o
maybe he's one of them!
Didn't you say at one time that the military was one of your bigger customers?
And wasn't Sirs complaining about all the paperwork he has to fill out for his patients paid for by the govt?
yes the military is a customer of mine. spending needs to be cut. I am sure that the military could be cut as well and I am OK with that.
-
I am sure that the military could be cut as well and I am OK with that.
yeah....what the hell are we doing in Libya?
-
Very good question.......where's the MSM on that one?
-
But Bt doesn't agree with that addiction analogy. Thinks its ridiculous, in fact :o
maybe he's one of them!
Didn't you say at one time that the military was one of your bigger customers?
And wasn't Sirs complaining about all the paperwork he has to fill out for his patients paid for by the govt?
yes the military is a customer of mine. spending needs to be cut. I am sure that the military could be cut as well and I am OK with that.
So you are comfortable with CU pointing out that needle in your arm?
-
How is a non government entity, who supports decreased spending to his own constituents, make him an addict?? Inquiring minds, and all that ???
-
But Bt doesn't agree with that addiction analogy. Thinks its ridiculous, in fact :o
maybe he's one of them!
Didn't you say at one time that the military was one of your bigger customers?
And wasn't Sirs complaining about all the paperwork he has to fill out for his patients paid for by the govt?
yes the military is a customer of mine. spending needs to be cut. I am sure that the military could be cut as well and I am OK with that.
So you are comfortable with CU pointing out that needle in your arm?
Doesn't bother me at all. If not for people like me that support military operations a lot of people would get killed. Still spending needs to be cut.
-
How is a non government entity, who supports decreased spending to his own constituents, make him an addict?? Inquiring minds, and all that ???
You'll have to ask CU that one. I thought the analogy was ridiculous. Remember?
-
Actually, the analogy is dead on. Its your transparent attempt to twist it into something it's not, as ridiculous
-
Actually, the analogy is dead on. Its your transparent attempt to twist it into something it's not, as ridiculous
How so? The analogy concerned govt spending. I simply localized the recipients of some of that largesse.
Personally I'm pretty sure Kramer provides a value added product at a fair price. And I don't have a problem with that.
-
The anlogy concerned the junky as the Government, and spending as the drug. The spending is not by the likes of Kramer, thus the ongoing ridiculous flaw to your tactic
-
The anlogy concerned the junky as the Government, and spending as the drug. The spending is not by the likes of Kramer, thus the ongoing ridiculous flaw to your tactic
You'll have to take that up with Kramer. He seemed to think the junky was me.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127234#msg127234 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127234#msg127234)
-
The anlogy concerned the junky as the Government, and spending as the drug. The spending is not by the likes of Kramer, thus the ongoing ridiculous flaw to your tactic
You'll have to take that up with Kramer. He seemed to think the junky was me.
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127234#msg127234 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127234#msg127234)
I said maybe as in maybe you are and maybe you aren't -- I don't know, are you?
-
The anlogy concerned the junky as the Government, and spending as the drug. The spending is not by the likes of Kramer, thus the ongoing ridiculous flaw to your tactic
You'll have to take that up with Kramer. He seemed to think the junky was me.
I don't have to take up anything with anyone. I merely demonstrated where your continuos ridiculous flaw kept perpetuating itself
-
You'll have to take that up with Sirs. He apparently is the definer of analogies.
-
Your misrepresentations of me, have no ceiling, do they? :-\
-
Your misrepresentations of me, have no ceiling, do they? :-\
Are you denying defining the analogy?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127266#msg127266 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127266#msg127266)
-
$3.7 Trillion being spent with $2.1 coming in.
So to stop deficit spending you'd have to cut spending by about half.
To pay the debt in 20 years at $727 Billion per year you'd have to cut spending by another 20%.
There is no way that the politicians will cut spending by that much
unless there is an economic disaster.
Therefore more counterfeiting.....excuse me...a.k.a.
QE2....QE3...by the Federal Reserve which will lead to hyperinflation.
Good luck.
The band will keep playing...
most of the passengers dont know.....
i am telling you...it's not sustainable.
This ship is going to sink....
"The Ship will sink" - Titanic Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SOPCyr-RaI#)
-
Your misrepresentations of me, have no ceiling, do they? :-\
Are you denying defining the analogy?
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127266#msg127266 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127266#msg127266)
I am denying that I am the all knowing "definer of analogies". I merely presented what this current analogy was referencing, and your efforts to make it something, it was not
-
Perhaps we should leave the defining of analogies to those who make them.
-
And omit the efforts to make them what they are not
-
They are what they are as defined by the one who made it.
-
Since, I and numerous others have made the same analogy, we'd appreciate if you'd stop trying to make it what its not
-
I am denying that I am the all knowing "definer of analogies". I merely presented what this current analogy was referencing, and your efforts to make it something, it was not
SIRS...it's just more dodging.
It doesn't matter if you, Kramer, me, or anyone else indirectly got "counterfeit money"
via the disgraceful porkulus money intended for DC's pals, insiders, and contributors.
If a mafia wife pays for an RX at Walgreens with "blood money" you dont demonize
Walgreens when Walgreens says they support fighting organized crime.
It really doesnt matter what BT or the Liberals think...
no amount of spin will over-come reality
they are protesting reality in Greece
it will eventually arrive here too....
it is not sustainable....
BT can say "Grandma is getting thrown to the gutter"...whatever
nothing changes the fact that it's not sustainable
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/federal-spending-per-household-6004.jpg)
(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/tax-deficit.jpg)
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Xo saw that last graph, and proclaimed...."See?, the rich aren't paying their fair share"
But yes, I do concur with dodging efforts being made :-\
-
I wouldn't be surprised if Xo saw that last graph, and proclaimed...."See?, the rich aren't paying their fair share"
But yes, I do concur with dodging efforts being made :-\
that is why I say tax the Democrats, I mean the losers that don't pay their fair share and are skating by without paying in to the system. The people that take the most and pay the least.
-
KEEP, is not cutting, so don't try to pull that
SPENDING is what he IS DOING......IN SPADES, AND IS WHAT IS "exacerbating the current economic misery Obama has put this country in"
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz062911dAPR20110629124517.jpg)
-
Speaking of dodging efforts, did CU ever clarify who was the heroin addict and who was the heroin dealer in his little analogy?
My take on it is that DC is the dealer, selling smack for votes.
And the addicts are those who sell their votes for govt programs that they benefit directly or indirectly from.
-
Speaking of dodging efforts, did CU ever clarify who was the heroin addict and who was the heroin dealer in his little analogy?
My take on it is that DC is the dealer, selling smack for votes.
And the addicts are those who sell their votes for govt programs that they benefit directly or indirectly from.
even gangsters have their addictions, as in power. Money is just a means to the addiction.
-
Speaking of dodging efforts, did CU ever clarify who was the heroin addict and who was the heroin dealer in his little analogy?
My take on it is that DC is the dealer, selling smack for votes.
And the addicts are those who sell their votes for govt programs that they benefit directly or indirectly from.
even gangsters have their addictions, as in power. Money is just a means to the addiction.
So are you saying DC is the dealer or the addict? or is DC the dealer of heroin but addicted to power?
Your tax the democrats thing seems to be throwing me off.
that is why I say tax the Democrats, I mean the losers that don't pay their fair share and are skating by without paying in to the system. The people that take the most and pay the least.
-
Speaking of dodging efforts, did CU ever clarify who was the heroin addict and who was the heroin dealer in his little analogy?
The analogy I've always referenced is DC is the addict, and spending is the addiction that feeds the need for power
-
Speaking of dodging efforts, did CU ever clarify who was the heroin addict and who was the heroin dealer in his little analogy?
The analogy I've always referenced is DC is the addict, and spending is the addiction that feeds the need for power
So are you saying power is the drug, and spending is just one way of feeding it. Cutting spending and deciding who gets to receive what is left is also an exercise in power.
-
Spending is the addiction. That's what I and many others have been saying, all along. And its DC doing the spending. Power is the ultimate goal
-
Spending is the addiction. That's what I and many others have been saying, all along. And its DC doing the spending. Power is the ultimate goal
Then i disagree with the analogy. because if power is the addiction, it can be fed by things other than spending.
-
thier not spending money anymore, it`s credit now . much worst.
people don`t understand the difference.
-
While it is true that cash and credit are not the same, it is also true that lots of businesses are run entirely on borrowed money. Airlines rent the planes and the terminal sites, buy the fuel on credit, and of course, only pay employees AFTER the end of the pay period.
-
thier not spending money anymore, it`s credit now . much worst.
people don`t understand the difference.
so they are addicted to charge cards -- that's even worse.
-
Spending is the addiction. That's what I and many others have been saying, all along. And its DC doing the spending. Power is the ultimate goal
Then i disagree with the analogy. because if power is the addiction, it can be fed by things other than spending.
Then its you who are wrong in your assessement of the analogy (you being on record as already claiming it to be ridiculous to begin with), since its spending that's the addiction.
Power is merely the goal, but spending, as is currently the case, is the addiction. Both in what's spent to impart more oppresive regulations, as well as what's spent in trying to procure more votes, to maintain power, in order to impart more regulations and procure more votes......rinse, repeat
-
Spending is the addiction. That's what I and many others have been saying, all along. And its DC doing the spending. Power is the ultimate goal
Then i disagree with the analogy. because if power is the addiction, it can be fed by things other than spending.
but power does = money because the money you have the more power you get so it hard to get one without the other and it also takes money to buy firepower in order to keep the minions under control. The debate is silly but the point about the addiction is worthy.
Then its you who are wrong in your assessement of the analogy (you being on record as already claiming it to be ridiculous to begin with), since its spending that's the addiction.
Power is merely the goal, but spending, as is currently the case, is the addiction. Both in what's spent to impart more oppresive regulations, as well as what's spent in trying to procure more votes, to maintain power, in order to impart more regulations and procure more votes......rinse, repeat
-
i still stand by my assessment that the analogy is ridiculous, both in the fact that it has no real definition, and that it misses the mark completely.
If power is the addiction, and feeding that addiction is the goal, then spending is just one of many drugs that would fit the bill.
-
That's because your assessment is ridiculous...the analogy is dead on
-
BTW i just heard Michelle Bachman would consider picking Jim DeMint as her running mate.
-
That's because your assessment is ridiculous...the analogy is dead on
That's just your opinion. You don't own the analogy. You don't get to define it.
-
BTW i just heard Michelle Bachman would consider picking Jim DeMint as her running mate.
she has an open mind. Refreshing!
-
That's because your assessment is ridiculous...the analogy is dead on
That's just your opinion. You don't own the analogy. You don't get to define it.
It's pretty much identical to mine, which I do get to define. Your assessment remains just as ridiculous
-
That's because your assessment is ridiculous...the analogy is dead on
That's just your opinion. You don't own the analogy. You don't get to define it.
It's pretty much identical to mine, which I do get to define. Your assessment remains just as ridiculous
Was I commenting on your analogy?
-
Since its pretty much identical, I'd say yes
-
Since its pretty much identical, I'd say yes
I believe i was commenting on CU's analogy and was defending my position when you interjected yourself into the topic. Sorry if you mistook my comments concerning his analogy to be comments about yours. I'm not sure what your version of the analogy is, because i wasn't paying attention to it.
-
Since its pretty much identical, I'd say yes
I believe i was commenting on CU's analogy and was defending my position when you interjected yourself into the topic. Sorry if you mistook my comments concerning his analogy to be comments about yours. I'm not sure what your version of the analogy is, because i wasn't paying attention to it.
Strange how you both responded to "my version" (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127335#msg127335), and directly referenced it (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127340#msg127340) yet again. Were you not paying attention as to who you were responding to??
But let's placate your sense of semantics. Is mine now deemed "ridiculous", as well as Cu4's, and Kramer's??
-
Yours is a false analogy and as such is ridiculous if your analogy is what i replied to in 92.
Did Kramer offer an analogy?
-
Yours is a false analogy and as such is ridiculous if your analogy is what i replied to in 92.
And as I accurately concluded, your conclusion is just as ridiculous
Did Kramer offer an analogy?
Yea, he did (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127231#msg127231)
-
This one
Actually politicians are drug addicts and the drug is money, and the spend other peoples money, not their money!
It's incomplete and differs from yours in that he says the drug is money and you claim its power.
You guys want to caucus and settle on an analogy?
-
Naaa, they're pretty close to identical, and I never claimed power was a "drug". I made it very clear its merely the goal. Spending (i.e. MONEY) is the addiction (or drug) if you wish
-
How is spending money addictive? That makes little sense.
Money is basically an abstraction.
-
anything desireable can be addictive and spending is definately in that catagory.
pretty much our economic situation can be sumed up by saying" too much spending"
who really needs a 50" tv ?
I think it`s not greed since thiers no money to be gained.
I`ll even confirm spending is addictive. I bought a $500 laptop and i totally didn`t need it. I keerp it as a future reminder to be more mindful of my idiocy
-
How is spending money addictive?
Have you not seen certain women, at the mall? Have you not seen that particular stereotype perpetuated on countless Hollywood movies and TV shows?? Spend, spend, spend was all that Jennifer Aniston's character, Rachel, on the show Friends, did, before she was cut off by her father.
It's an addiction to some.....DC in particular, Liberal Democrats especially
-
How is spending money addictive? That makes little sense.
Money is basically an abstraction.
I can see how power could be intoxicating and i could see how that intoxication could be addictive and i can see how having the power to spend other peoples money could be part of the high but i don't see the act of spending to be the addiction, just a symptom of the addiction.
It's kinda like cutting funding to NPR and Planned Parenthood was a bold plan during the last go round of raising the debt ceiling. You know, its symbolic or its a start.
-
It's an addiction to some.....DC in particular, Liberal Democrats especially
lol
like there were no defits and or national debt under GOP congresses and Executive branches.
The problem with addiction is that it can not be abated by those still in denial.
-
SHOPPING is addictive, not spending. And I hardly think that it is related to the way anyone votes.
-
How is spending money addictive? That makes little sense.
Money is basically an abstraction.
http://www.bowmansmoneycollege.com/Blog/Consumer_News/spending_money_most_addictive_behavior (http://www.bowmansmoneycollege.com/Blog/Consumer_News/spending_money_most_addictive_behavior)
4 Reasons Why Spending Money Is The Most Addictive Behavior
1) Spending money is ruthlessly marketed to you.
You are overtly encouraged via advertising to spend your money on thousands of different things. Spending is covertly encouraged, for example, by product placement in TV shows. It is inferred that you will be better off if you look, live, travel, sleep, or even smell like highly compensated celebrities.
2) Spending money is extremely easy.
You can shop online or at a store, use store or major credit cards, take out a loan, have automatic deductions from income checks, get advances on tax refunds, use payday loans, put merchandise on layaway, get short term “same as cash” financing, use gift cards, and even use old fashion cash! There are endless ways to spend money.
3) Spending money is rewarded with recognition.
Who will receive more positive attention at work today? The woman who saved $200.00 by purchasing new work clothes at the Goodwill or the woman who spent $200.00 on a stylish new dress at the boutique? The guy who paid cash for his “new” 10 year old car, or the guy who leased a new luxury sports car? The guy who just ate the appropriate ratio of carbs, protein, and fat for lunch or the girl who is wearing new diamond earrings? The guy who gave $100 to charity or the guy who just bought everyone a round? The positive attention we are rewarded with when spending money validates the behavior in our minds.
4) Spending money is the patriotic thing to do.
Late in 2006 when worries of a recession were taking hold the advice we received from the President of the United States was “to go shopping”. Today, even as we still recover from the Great Recession our government leaders encourage us to spend in order to allow the creation of more jobs. The nation hovers around the consumer confidence index in hopes we are always spending more.
We have been conditioned to get “high” on the biological euphoria of spending money. Rewarding yourself even with little expenditures, such as gourmet morning coffee at the drive thru or cool ringtones for your phone, gives the constant drizzle of dopamine we all love. Spending money is one of the easiest things you can do. We are routinely told that it is not just ok, but life enhancing and even good for the country by professional marketers and respected leaders. Is it any wonder we are addicted to spending money?
-
SHOPPING is addictive, not spending. And I hardly think that it is related to the way anyone votes.
either way it needs to addressed to the folks who do too much of it.
I try by thinking what i need vs what I want. my wants lean toward the irrational. I get urges to buy stuff I already have.
-
4) Spending money is the patriotic thing to do.
Late in 2006 when worries of a recession were taking hold the advice we received from the President of the United States was “to go shopping”. Today, even as we still recover from the Great Recession our government leaders encourage us to spend in order to allow the creation of more jobs. The nation hovers around the consumer confidence index in hopes we are always spending more.
this particularly needs to be address
-
I filled up the Pup Truck today.
God what a rush!
-
It's an addiction to some.....DC in particular, Liberal Democrats especially
lol
like there were no defits and or national debt under GOP congresses and Executive branches.
The problem with addiction is that it can not be abated by those still in denial.
Must have missed the part where I clearly said "IN PARTICULAR" & "ESPECIALLY", and no where did I claim "exclusively". Then again, when the goal is to misrepresent sirs, in any way possible, this sure fits the bill
-
It's an addiction to some.....DC in particular, Liberal Democrats especially
lol
like there were no defits and or national debt under GOP congresses and Executive branches.
The problem with addiction is that it can not be abated by those still in denial.
Must have missed the part where I clearly said "IN PARTICULAR" & "ESPECIALLY", and no where did I claim "exclusively". Then again, when the goal is to misrepresent sirs, in any way possible, this sure fits the bill
I'd work on that victim hood thing if I were you. Fact remains that deficit spending is a bipartisan affair.
-
Never said it wasn't.....thus your ongoing misrepresentation. If I were you, I'd find a new hobby
-
And my misrepresentation was ...?
-
It's an addiction to some.....DC in particular, Liberal Democrats especially
lol
like there were no defits and or national debt under GOP congresses and Executive branches.
The problem with addiction is that it can not be abated by those still in denial.
Must have missed the part where I clearly said "IN PARTICULAR" & "ESPECIALLY", and no where did I claim "exclusively". Then again, when the goal is to misrepresent sirs, in any way possible, this sure fits the bill
I'd work on that victim hood thing if I were you. Fact remains that deficit spending is a bipartisan affair.
Who voted for ObamaCare, Stimulus in 09, and no budget in 2011, the Democrats. And who wants to stop extending the budget? The Republicans!
-
And my misrepresentation was ...?
Your little joke that I'm claiming that spending addictions in DC, were the mutually exclusive realm of liberal democrats
-
And my misrepresentation was ...?
Your little joke that I'm claiming that spending addictions in DC, were the mutually exclusive realm of liberal democrats
Could you provide a direct quote where i explicitly said that? Not a quote where you infer that was my meaning, but an exact quote?
Thanks so much in advance.
-
Then what the hell were you laughing at and inferring (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127374#msg127374), if that wasn't what was being inferred??
Inquiring minds, and all
-
Then what the hell were you laughing at and inferring (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127374#msg127374), if that wasn't what was being inferred??
Inquiring minds, and all
No quote?
-
No answer? You pleading the 5th now?
-
No direct quote?
Hmmm.
-
Not really a smart move Bt. I called you on a misrepresentation, and you're gonna hide behind a "direct quote"? The meaning of your guffaw (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127374#msg127374) was quite clear. You have yet to clarify that joke, if your meaning was something other that what it clearly infers
You ready to fix that? I know its your hobby now, but the apparent repetition is leaving subsequent efforts, sorely lacking
-
Not really a smart move Bt. I called you on a misrepresentation, and you're gonna hide behind a "direct quote"? The meaning of your guffaw (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127374#msg127374) was quite clear. You have yet to clarify that joke, if your meaning was something other that what it clearly infers
You ready to fix that? I know its your hobby now, but the apparent repetition is leaving subsequent efforts, sorely lacking
You made a direct charge that i lied about your position. You didn't ask for clarification before you called me a liar, you just called me a liar.
The least you can do is show a direct quote as to where i lied.
Otherwise it would probably be in the best interest of your reputation to walk back that charge and admit you might have read things into what i actually did say.
Or you know, back up the charge with a direct quote.
-
Not really a smart move Bt. I called you on a misrepresentation, and you're gonna hide behind a "direct quote"? The meaning of your guffaw (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127374#msg127374) was quite clear. You have yet to clarify that joke, if your meaning was something other that what it clearly infers
You ready to fix that? I know its your hobby now, but the apparent repetition is leaving subsequent efforts, sorely lacking
You made a direct charge that i lied about your position.
Not lied, misrepresented, since your inference was crystal CLEAR, and linked that specific passage, twice to compliment your original effort. You then went and tried to hide behind some "direct quote" defense. Lame, but it was all you had, rather than either
a) clarify that you did NOT mean to imply I was referencing ONLY 1 party, even though that's how it clearly looked
b) admit that "yea, perhaps I took a little liberty on your position"
Your choice, your credibility. Simple as that
-
Lying about your position and misrepresenting your position are the same thing.
It's obvious you can't provide a direct quote so all this is about what you inferred.
Next time ask for clarification before you call me a liar.
-
Lying about your position and misrepresenting your position are the same thing.
If you say so
It's obvious you can't provide a direct quote
Never claimed a quote, that'd be your lame deflection effort
so all this is about what you inferred.
sirs It's an addiction to some.....DC in particular, Liberal Democrats especially
Bt lol
like there were no defits and or national debt under GOP congresses and Executive branches.
The problem with addiction is that it can not be abated by those still in denial.
It's what anyone would infer. If that's not clearly implying an all inclusive democrat position, then you're using a different dictionary
Next time ask for clarification before you call me a liar.
Per your request.......if you wish to be known as a liar, so be it. I guess if you meant to do so.... I was really hoping it was an a) or b) option, that I referenced above. Sad to see it was a far more nefarious option c), apparently :(
-
Per your request.......if you wish to be known as a liar, so be it.
Calling someone a liar yet being unable to produce the lie makes the charge and the one leveling the charge suspect.
-
I produced the clear inference, in spades. Your non-answering it, isn't helping you out, in the least
-
I produced the clear inference, in spades. Your non-answering it, isn't helping you out, in the least
Telling me how came to your conclusions is not the same as producing the lie you said i told. There is a huge difference and i am beginning to see that you don't comprehend that.
Work on it.
-
Your non answering the clear message is validating it more and more, Bt. Why do you insist on bring yourself down, like that?? :-[
-
You know what. I don't need to put up with being called a liar by someone who can't produce the lie.
Maybe you need some time to think about that.
-
I demonstrated the misrepresentation. You're the one insisting its a lie, and your continued efforts to not clarify that, validates it more, each and every time you try to make this about me
Think about that
-
I demonstrated the misrepresentation. You're the one insisting its a lie, and your continued efforts to not clarify that, validates it more, each and every time you try to make this about me
Think about that
You did not produce a direct quote. You simply inferred meaning and claimed misrepresentation. And prior to making that claim you did not ask for clarification. Those were your actions so of course it is about you. And frankly i am tired of being accused about lying about your positions when you can't even come up with the lie.
You owe me an apology.
-
I demonstrated the misrepresentation. You're the one insisting its a lie, and your continued efforts to not clarify that, validates it more, each and every time you try to make this about me
Think about that
You did not produce a direct quote.
I DID NOT REQUIRE ONE, NOR WAS ONE REFERENCED. THATS A MISDIRECTION TACTIC ON YOUR END
You simply inferred meaning
WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO DISAGREE WITH AND/OR CLARIFY
and claimed misrepresentation.
THE LACK OF YOU RESPONDING DIRECTLY TO A CLARIFICATION (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127387#msg127387) CONTINUES TO VALIDATE THE VERY CLEAR WORDING, AND DEBUNKS THE NOTION THAT NO CLARIFICATION WAS EVER ASKED FOR
YOUR EFFORTS TO MAKE THIS ABOUT ME DEMONSTRATE JUST HOW DEEP A HOLE YOU'RE DIGGING FOR YOURSELF
You owe me an apology.
NOT EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST. THIS IS NOT THE ROAD YOU WANT TO GO DOWN, BT
-
Your choice. I'll rethink your suspension in a week.
-
Sirs is always right. The truth is always on his side. If it is not, then he waits for the truth to appear.
Has anyone else noted how many discussions end with sirs blathering about some minuscule detail so trivial that it is impossible to understand what it really is?
-
Sirs is always right. The truth is always on his side. If it is not, then he waits for the truth to appear.
Has anyone else noted how many discussions end with sirs blathering about some minuscule detail so trivial that it is impossible to understand what it really is?
piss off
-
Sirs is always right. The truth is always on his side.
Oh as if you dont think you are always right
and give credit to conservatives for ever being right!
Ha!
Has anyone else noted how many discussions end with sirs blathering about some minuscule detail so trivial that it is impossible to understand what it really is?
SIRS is right a heck of a lot more often than not.
In fact I think SIRS is dead-on about 95% of the time.
Hell yeah SIRS follows the discussion down to "minuscule details"
isn't that the point?
or are we just to shout slogans and not dig deeper?
sure occasionally the "define is" gets boring between the "two bickering old ladies"
sure it becomes more about ego..."you did!"...."did not!"...."did too"....blah blah
However without SIRS this place would really suck....
But to be honest it would suck without you too XO.
whateva......
-
totally agree
before I joined that intense little club in yahoo. I could never carry a conversation very well on these topics. you guys has given so much ammo that now no one can talk down to me .nobody has any doubts about my knowledge nowadays.,despite admitting I eat paint chips as a little kid and did stare at the sun alot.
looking forward learning more
-
totally agree
before I joined that intense little club in yahoo. I could never carry a conversation very well on these topics. you guys has given so much ammo that now no one can talk down to me .nobody has any doubts about my knowledge nowadays.,despite admitting I eat paint chips as a little kid and did stare at the sun alot.
looking forward learning more
Glad to hear the forums have served a useful purpose.
-
Hell yeah SIRS follows the discussion down to "minuscule details"
isn't that the point?
===================================================
Details MIGHT have a point, but the detail that sirs like to quibble over is almost always the use of the word "liar".
Often this is about whether the "liar" can be labelled thusly because something he said might happen or would happen and did not.
That is not the point. That is a waste of time.
-
totally agree
before I joined that intense little club in yahoo. I could never carry a conversation very well on these topics. you guys has given so much ammo that now no one can talk down to me .nobody has any doubts about my knowledge nowadays.,despite admitting I eat paint chips as a little kid and did stare at the sun alot.
looking forward learning more
As a child once I drank gutter water to get a reaction out of my older sisters and their friends.
-
totally agree . before I joined that intense little club in yahoo. I could never carry a conversation very well on these topics.
so true Kimba
this place is a learning experience for sure
almost every subject that arises we all know more by the end of the discussion
also my typing got so good.. and it was horrible before
that i think i could be the fastest "hunt & peck" in the country!
i just wish we had a 100 regulars instead of a handful
-
As a child once I drank gutter water to get a reaction out of my older sisters and their friends.
====================================
Curiously, I am not surprised at all to hear this.
-
it not easy getting folks here period. the topics here I also use amoung my friends who are very very intelligent and all of them has cameby and just can`t handle it. to be truthful I remember whats it liked when I 1st joined and remember it to be very intimidating and I totally loved it . I jumped right in .
politically incorrect-yahoo
i forgot what the msn version was
I can`t drink gutter water,but I`ll bet eatting chicken feet would get a reaction to some folks
-
As a child once I drank gutter water to get a reaction out of my older sisters and their friends.
====================================
Curiously, I am not surprised at all to hear this.
You really need to STOP being so predictable. As I typed it (which I made it up) I knew without a doubt you would respond and your response was exactly as I presumed it to be. SUCKER!
-
I`ve gained skills here that allow me to stay on par with pretty much anyone. does even matter I know anything about the subject talked about.
-
you sure have kimba!
hey if you dont mind me asking
how has your health situation been progressing?
-
very stable, . but the tear in my aorta is permanent till they figure out how to fix. so it`s extreme blood pressure control from now on. guess that mean no more bar fights,knife fights and stuff.
the tough part is less spam except chanukah,of course
-
You really need to STOP being so predictable. As I typed it (which I made it up) I knew without a doubt you would respond and your response was exactly as I presumed it to be. SUCKER!
=======================================================
I am never surprised when you say something incredibly stupid.
I really don't give a hoot whether you drank water from the gutter, or said idiotic things to annoy people. It is what we have come to expect from you.
Now we know that you play exceedingly imbecilic games with people.
-
the tough part is less spam except chanukah,of course
That's funny
-
You really need to STOP being so predictable. As I typed it (which I made it up) I knew without a doubt you would respond and your response was exactly as I presumed it to be. SUCKER!
=======================================================
I am never surprised when you say something incredibly stupid.
I really don't give a hoot whether you drank water from the gutter, or said idiotic things to annoy people. It is what we have come to expect from you.
Now we know that you play exceedingly imbecilic games with people.
Guess what -- I knew you would reply that way too.
-
very stable, . but the tear in my aorta is permanent till they figure out how to fix.
so it's extreme blood pressure control from now on.
Great to hear Kimba.
Hope the tear is figured out and fixed soon.
It seems like an usual amount of friends & coworkers are having heart problems.
One guy went in for a checkup & he was 100% blocked in one, 85% in a 2nd, and 65% in a 3rd.
He had a quad bypass, and one is still leaking.
But it's looking better for him....
Another guy's Mother got in a hot tub this past weekend
Not a very smart idea in Texas during the summer.
I got in my vehicle recently and the inside temp gauge read "120" degrees!
After being in the hot tub awhile Sun around lunch
She fell over & basically croaked right in the water with my buddy.
They dragged her out of the water, but her heart was stopped for 8-10 minutes.
When paramedics got there they got her heart going again...
But she had suffered brain damage & the family let her go Mon morning.
guess that mean no more bar fights,knife fights and stuff.
LOL....Kimba I didn't know you were a John Wayne starter kit!
-
I`m a common story. growing up people expect me to be dead or in jail when i`m an adult, but as time goes on I end up getting beaten up by ten year old nieces and nephews.watching massive amount of Glee. time has a tendency to burn off the wild teenager in some of us. those that done`t very rarely live past 35.
I`VE seen super wild teenager turn into archie bunker style coach potatoes.
-
I`m a common story. growing up people expect me to be dead or in jail when i`m an adult, but as time goes on I end up getting beaten up by ten year old nieces and nephews.watching massive amount of Glee. time has a tendency to burn off the wild teenager in some of us. those that done`t very rarely live past 35.
I`VE seen super wild teenager turn into archie bunker style coach potatoes.
Archie, How old are you?
-
46
-
46
Listen to your body!
-
So what's the story, is Sirs on suspension or not?
-
time has a tendency to burn off the wild teenager in some of us. those that done`t very rarely live past 35.
oh yeah thats me.....no more crazy for me....well maybe a little...but very little
I had a buddy a few years ago that was wild as hell
He told me we should buy a life insurance policy on him & make me the benefactor
I said...."dude shut up"
He said..."I wont make it to 30...you know it and I know it...
lets do it...you make the small premium payments
why shouldnt you get a million off it...premiums would be cheap at my age"
I told him...he was crazy....didnt wanna get rich over his dead body
He was dead at 28.
-
So what's the story, is Sirs on suspension or not?
i think it was a joke...wasnt it?
-
Listen to your body!
actually that might be why I decided to go to the ER instead of sleeping this annoying back off. I really should of died that day. it was a irrational behaviour on my part
-
Listen to your body!
actually that might be why I decided to go to the ER instead of sleeping this annoying back off. I really should of died that day. it was a irrational behaviour on my part
You have a guardian angle. Do you look at life differently now? Seems to me that you do.
-
40 can be tough
that`s the age you really notice people around start passing away. I REALLY hate when people say I`m still young,my body just don`t feel young and I don`t even remember what young feels like. unless I get my annual cortizone steriod shot.
I just don`t care about those 60 year old marathon runners.
-
I`m different now.
I got no idea what`s going on. it`s not radical. I`m not gonna hemmingway and run with the bulls. but I crave change in my life.
I want to volunteer to visit hospital to people who get no visitors.
the world is vast and i want to se alittle more.
I`m also talking crazy more
-
40 can be tough
that`s the age you really notice people around start passing away. I REALLY hate when people say I`m still young,my body just don`t feel young and I don`t even remember what young feels like. unless I get my annual cortizone steriod shot.
I just don`t care about those 60 year old marathon runners.
Maybe you should pay attention to the 60 year old marathon runners. Check out Life Extensions (http://Life Extensions). You might be able to reverse some of the damage to your body. http://www.lef.org/ (http://www.lef.org/)
-
I`m different now.
I got no idea what`s going on. it`s not radical. I`m not gonna hemmingway and run with the bulls. but I crave change in my life.
I want to volunteer to visit hospital to people who get no visitors.
the world is vast and i want to se alittle more.
I`m also talking crazy more
did you have a death experience while in the hospital? You know, saw a white light and then an angel appeared?
-
thanks
I`m already doing a variation on that. is control my self destructive side.
eating fried catfish or salted plum. i`m not talking a plate a week,but 3 servings in one sitting kind of craziness.
goodthing my stomache shrank from eating small portions.
I have minor impulse problems, but to my credit I`ve been fairly good at keeping under wraps
no death experience just a knowledge of facing my mortality. it was a slow process that took weeks for it to sink into my head I could simply not be here now. not scarey just something that just won`t leave my head. I want to do more of my life.
i want to earn more money to help my grand-niece to goto college. see her garduate. see my nephew get married or have a good life.
see crazy talk in my head
-
thanks
I`m already doing a variation on that. is control my self destructive side.
eating fried catfish or salted plum. i`m not talking a plate a week,but 3 servings in one sitting kind of craziness.
goodthing my stomache shrank from eating small portions.
I have minor impulse problems, but to my credit I`ve been fairly good at keeping under wraps
no death experience just a knowledge of facing my mortality. it was a slow process that took weeks for it to sink into my head I could simply not be here now. not scarey just something that just won`t leave my head. I want to do more of my life.
i want to earn more money to help my grand-niece to goto college. see her garduate. see my nephew get married or have a good life.
see crazy talk in my head
are you back to work yet?
-
no death experience just a knowledge of facing my mortality.
That seems to be the common denominator among those who have had a close call.
-
So what's the story, is Sirs on suspension or not?
Yes
-
So what's the story, is Sirs on suspension or not?
i think it was a joke...wasnt it?
No
-
are you back to work yet?
yep
it`ll take abit more then that to get me to not work. but i am workinmg less. I think my pills are making me forget things.
super hard keep my schedule with my medication. I forgot to put my patch on once and in a few days I went through withdrawls. nasty stuff. bp shot up 30 points screwed up my sleep royaly.
I got some much medicine in me I barely have a pulse. it`s superlight
I have to do afew jumping jack every once in awhile to not pass out sometimes.hopefully this is asign thy`ll start weaning me off this stuff
-
No
So you hammer SIRS in the back and forth discussion
for not providing an "exact quote" about what you guys
were bickering about, but then you suspend the guy over
a charge where you yourself can not provide an exact quote
where he calls you a "liar" as you claim he did?
Do you not see that as a bit ironic?
I think you should take a deep breath,
sleep on it, step away from the situation
and reconsider.
You were way too involved in that argument
to be able to render a fair judgment. But
this is your circus and it's your decision.
-
No
So you hammer SIRS in the back and forth discussion
for not providing an "exact quote" about what you guys
were bickering about, but then you suspend the guy over
a charge where you yourself can not provide an exact quote
where he calls you a "liar" as you claim he did?
Do you not see that as a bit ironic?
I think you should take a deep breath,
sleep on it, step away from the situation
and reconsider.
You were way too involved in that argument
to be able to render a fair judgment. But
this is your circus and it's your decision.
I can provide the exact quote where he claimed i misrepresented his position.
Must have missed the part where I clearly said "IN PARTICULAR" & "ESPECIALLY", and no where did I claim "exclusively". Then again, when the goal is to misrepresent sirs, in any way possible, this sure fits the bill
http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127380#msg127380 (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=15408.msg127380#msg127380)
mis?rep?re?sent
verb \(ˌ)mis-ˌre-pri-ˈzent\
Definition of MISREPRESENT
transitive verb
1
: to give a false or misleading representation of usually with an intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misrepresent (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misrepresent)
-
then why did you change the word to "liar" when
SIRS never used that word until you said it?
If "misrepresent" means the exact same thing
(which it actually does not)
why BT did you feel the need to change the word?
You are so hung up on "quotes" but then you
change wording to get the "indictment"?
You cant ask for the quote because what you
claim he said would not be there.
Very ironic.
It's obvious why YOU...not SIRS had to change the word
to the much more inflammatory "liar" instead of "misrepresent".
How is it that the much more inflammatory "liar"
is used in discussions between others and
nothing happens? But this time the word
"liar" was not even used and SIRS get
suspended?
I have several times asked XO to
"quit lying" about my positions.
NOTHING.
No suspension.
No nothing.
(and of course nothing should have happened....that's normal discourse)
In fairness when you discuss issues are you not "fair game"?
Why as a debater, not moderator, are you different than XO or anyone else?
As a debater you should hold your own and not suddenly switch to moderator to "win"
Do you need the "extra help" where if you get pissed you throw someone out?
Do we need to "walk on eggshells" in debates with you and treat you different?
This is a huge overreaction to SIRS stating you are "misrepresenting".
I can see if he says "BT you're an F-ing LIAR" or something like that.
But "you're misrepresenting"......come on.....that's ridiculous!
You guys are both good guys that mean so much to this place,
please reconsider...its the holiday weekend.....
24-48 hours is enough time for a cooling off period
and then lets move on to other issues we all love to debate.
-
1. There is little difference between a misrepresentation and a lie.
2. the quote i provided indicates serial misrepresentation (lies)
3. Sirs could not provide a quote indicating the lie, the best he could do was explain how he came to that conclusion.
4. He hurled the charge without seeking clarification before hurling the charge
5. The archives can show a pattern of him doing this.
In fairness when you discuss issues are you not "fair game"?
Why as a debater, not moderator, are you different than XO or anyone else?
As a debater you should hold your own and not suddenly switch to moderator to "win"
Do you need the "extra help" where if you get pissed you throw someone out?
Do we need to "walk on eggshells" in debates with you and treat you different?
You might have a point there. And i struggled with it. And basically i came to the conclusion that i don't have to put up with being called a liar (misrepresenter) if the accuser can't even come up with the lie (misrepresentation), even if i am a moderator.
But the larger lesson was for all members to think twice before calling someone a liar, dumbass, communist, cripple or any other off topic slur that they would hurl with the intent to insult or hurt instead of furthering the debate.
But apparently that lesson did not succeed, what with debating the difference between the meaning of misrepresentation vs lie, or why it even matters.
I'll lift Sirs suspension.
-
But the larger lesson was for all members to think twice before calling someone a liar, dumbass, communist, cripple or any other off topic slur that they would hurl with the intent to insult or hurt instead of furthering the debate.
Point well taken....
I agree we all need to make an effort to be more "civil"...myself included.
I know it's a balancing act for you that none of us would want.
Thanks BT.