Post: #226

   

Post: #227

[quote='Foolsgo1d' pid='1210029' dateline='1454511628']

Quote:The US is already in debt up to its eyeballs but socialists don't believe in debt from my experience. They only believe in OPM, Other Peoples Money.

At least the left wants to raise taxes to pay for their spending. The right just charges it to the credit card and kicks the can down the road. If I have the choose between the two I take the left on fiscal responsibility.

Post: #228

(02-04-2016 02:25 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  [quote='Foolsgo1d' pid='1210029' dateline='1454511628']

Quote:The US is already in debt up to its eyeballs but socialists don't believe in debt from my experience. They only believe in OPM, Other Peoples Money.

At least the left wants to raise taxes to pay for their spending. The right just charges it to the credit card and kicks the can down the road. If I have the choose between the two I take the left on fiscal responsibility.

This is a complete falsehood. Obama has added $11 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it, and when the Republicans tried to barely cut spending, he cried like the biggest baby in the world.

BTW, raising tax rates often over time LOWERS tax revenues. Tax rate increases/decreases does not guarantee tax revenue increases/decreases.

Post: #229

Post: #230

(02-04-2016 04:04 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:25 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  [quote='Foolsgo1d' pid='1210029' dateline='1454511628']

Quote:The US is already in debt up to its eyeballs but socialists don't believe in debt from my experience. They only believe in OPM, Other Peoples Money.

At least the left wants to raise taxes to pay for their spending. The right just charges it to the credit card and kicks the can down the road. If I have the choose between the two I take the left on fiscal responsibility.

This is a complete falsehood. Obama has added $11 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it, and when the Republicans tried to barely cut spending, he cried like the biggest baby in the world.

BTW, raising tax rates often over time LOWERS tax revenues. Tax rate increases/decreases does not guarantee tax revenue increases/decreases.

I've had this same debate with you multiple times in the past. Deficits are caused by many things. When one claims that Obama "added" such and such to the deficit, it gives the impression that $11 trillion was discretionary spending.

For a more non-partisan breakdown on what happened, I'd suggest everyone to look here: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-...no-or-not/

Post: #231

(02-05-2016 02:05 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 04:04 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:25 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  [quote='Foolsgo1d' pid='1210029' dateline='1454511628']

Quote:The US is already in debt up to its eyeballs but socialists don't believe in debt from my experience. They only believe in OPM, Other Peoples Money.

At least the left wants to raise taxes to pay for their spending. The right just charges it to the credit card and kicks the can down the road. If I have the choose between the two I take the left on fiscal responsibility.

This is a complete falsehood. Obama has added $11 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it, and when the Republicans tried to barely cut spending, he cried like the biggest baby in the world.

BTW, raising tax rates often over time LOWERS tax revenues. Tax rate increases/decreases does not guarantee tax revenue increases/decreases.

I've had this same debate with you multiple times in the past. Deficits are caused by many things. When one claims that Obama "added" such and such to the deficit, it gives the impression that $11 trillion was discretionary spending.

For a more non-partisan breakdown on what happened, I'd suggest everyone to look here: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-...no-or-not/

Obama added to the debt by passing bills that destroyed jobs. Obamacare, as I have said before, will go down as one of the worst bills in the history of our country. Obamacare is only one of a few bills passed that have hurt the economy. If the Democrats had their way, we would have passed much bigger and much more damaging bills.

Obamacare simply destroyed full time jobs and replaced them with part time jobs. We have 3,000,000 less full time jobs now than when it was passed. People are now working part time, many multiple part time jobs, for less pay and less benefits. All in all, the COL has gone up around 15% since Obama took over and the average wage is exactly the same. In other words, the average American is 15% poorer now than 7 years ago. Obamacare is going no where, so this trend will only continue.

When you do this, you crush the middle class, which is the biggest tax base. So you have to cut spending. But any time they tried to cut a tiny fraction of spending Obama acted like the biggest baby in the world. He tried to hurt the American people by doing childish things like cutting air traffic control just to inconvenience the people and make it political.

IF you crush the tax base in the middle class and you refuse to cut spending, you end up with $11 trillion more of debt. This is what happens when you pass things like Obamacare and then combine it with awful ideas like the trillion dollar stimulus that just ended up in the feminist teacher's union and Democrat donors hands.

Sure Obama did raise taxes. But there were less people able to pay the taxes and in the end we end up not covering the bills and following in the footsteps of soon to be bankrupt Europe.

Simply put 25% of $100,000 is less than 10% of $300,000. The rate isn't the only part of the equation, you have to have an economy that works and grows or you have to cut spending or a combination or your debt will go up. We have an economy that is barely growing and out of control spending.

Post: #232

(02-05-2016 04:07 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(02-05-2016 02:05 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 04:04 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(02-04-2016 02:25 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  [quote='Foolsgo1d' pid='1210029' dateline='1454511628']

Quote:The US is already in debt up to its eyeballs but socialists don't believe in debt from my experience. They only believe in OPM, Other Peoples Money.

At least the left wants to raise taxes to pay for their spending. The right just charges it to the credit card and kicks the can down the road. If I have the choose between the two I take the left on fiscal responsibility.

This is a complete falsehood. Obama has added $11 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it, and when the Republicans tried to barely cut spending, he cried like the biggest baby in the world.

BTW, raising tax rates often over time LOWERS tax revenues. Tax rate increases/decreases does not guarantee tax revenue increases/decreases.

I've had this same debate with you multiple times in the past. Deficits are caused by many things. When one claims that Obama "added" such and such to the deficit, it gives the impression that $11 trillion was discretionary spending.

For a more non-partisan breakdown on what happened, I'd suggest everyone to look here: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-...no-or-not/

Obama added to the debt by passing bills that destroyed jobs. Obamacare, as I have said before, will go down as one of the worst bills in the history of our country. Obamacare is only one of a few bills passed that have hurt the economy. If the Democrats had their way, we would have passed much bigger and much more damaging bills.

Obamacare simply destroyed full time jobs and replaced them with part time jobs. We have 3,000,000 less full time jobs now than when it was passed. People are now working part time, many multiple part time jobs, for less pay and less benefits. All in all, the COL has gone up around 15% since Obama took over and the average wage is exactly the same. In other words, the average American is 15% poorer now than 7 years ago. Obamacare is going no where, so this trend will only continue.

When you do this, you crush the middle class, which is the biggest tax base. So you have to cut spending. But any time they tried to cut a tiny fraction of spending Obama acted like the biggest baby in the world. He tried to hurt the American people by doing childish things like cutting air traffic control just to inconvenience the people and make it political.

IF you crush the tax base in the middle class and you refuse to cut spending, you end up with $11 trillion more of debt. This is what happens when you pass things like Obamacare and then combine it with awful ideas like the trillion dollar stimulus that just ended up in the feminist teacher's union and Democrat donors hands.

Sure Obama did raise taxes. But there were less people able to pay the taxes and in the end we end up not covering the bills and following in the footsteps of soon to be bankrupt Europe.

Simply put 25% of $100,000 is less than 10% of $300,000. The rate isn't the only part of the equation, you have to have an economy that works and grows or you have to cut spending or a combination or your debt will go up. We have an economy that is barely growing and out of control spending.

Look at Labor Force Participation Rate. This is far closer to being truth than "unemployment", which is a political number calculated by a different standard, depending on who is doing it:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CIVPART

There's a sharp drop off in this value since Obama. We were in decline under bush as well.

Post: #233

Girls are using Tinder to promote Bernie Sanders.

Quote:Stumping for Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Tinder is getting some women banned from the online dating app after sending campaign messages to prospective matches.

Two women - one from Iowa and the other from New Jersey - confirmed to Reuters on Friday that they received notices from Tinder in the previous 24 hours that their accounts were locked because they had been reported too many times for peppering men on the site with messages promoting Sanders' candidacy.

Lena Lent, 22, a photographer from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, told Reuters in a Twitter message that she also got locked out of the app on Thursday night after sending messages trying to convince people to vote for Sanders the previous night.

Lent, who is married, said she talked to 50 to 100 people on the app. She had even bought a Tinder premium membership, which allows users to change their location, for a month so that she could reach people in New Hampshire and promote Sanders.

http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/sand...1115257631

Post: #234

gimme a blower and I'll vote for Bernie.

Post: #235

Post: #236

(02-04-2016 04:04 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  This is a complete falsehood. Obama has added $11 trillion to the national debt, more than doubling it, and when the Republicans tried to barely cut spending, he cried like the biggest baby in the world.

BTW, raising tax rates often over time LOWERS tax revenues. Tax rate increases/decreases does not guarantee tax revenue increases/decreases.

How was he supposed to pay for unfunded wars and a crashing economy from the prior administration? And then be blocked every time he wanted to get stuff done that he had to use executive orders.

And if anyone says, "well we didn't want Obama to make it worse by pushing through his legislation" - why didn't Congress create any legislation? Basically, the Republicans delayed to make him look bad to keep him from being re-elected and then just sat on their hands. Suntan Lotion Boehner quit because he couldn't deal with the craziness of his felloe Republicans and Teapartiers. I am not a total Obama Homer, my goal is to be objective. He has not been perfect. But this current batch of Republican candidates can show you what a clown show the conservatives are. Trump really is just an independent.

The spending cuts were never to big behemoths like military, they were to things like planned parenthood etc. I don't like how women have become complete whores but better they abort the babies than bring them into the world where they can't take care of themselves let alone their children. When these women have kids welfare aid goes up. So it isn't cost effective to do this. It wasn't about money it was about their political and religious views. While I want a lot less feminism in this world, a lot of guys like the sluts they get to bang because of it.

The problem with debating is no one ever tries to objectively debate, they just pick things to make themselves look good. And that is why debating in some ways is useless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...-he-right/

Post: #237

(02-03-2016 12:38 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The problem is that under Islam, the presence of a Caliph reactivates huge sections of the Islamic scriptures that are currently lying dormant. For instance, Islam compels its followers to migrate to the territory of a caliph once he is recognized -- which is why thousands of Muslims are now doing just that. It also reactivates a bunch of punishments, such as being required to cut off the hands of thieves, which apparently isn't mandated if there is no caliph in power. It also reactivates expansionism at large. The texts say that if a caliph doesn't at least attempt to expand the territory of the caliphate every year, he should be removed.

Islam is just straight-up dark evil Borg-like shit. Shit getting "reactivated" like in some sci-fi movie.

All that stuff from the left about ISIS being "not real islam" is a bare faced lie. ISIS citizens are required to follow Islam to the letter, and nothing else. Everything they're chanting on TV is direct from scripture, unadulterated. ISIS is an ignition of Islam, not a pervertion, and it needs to be put out now before it reignites the now billion strong of Islam.

It seems that the majority of them are going in the opposite direction from what you said.

Post: #238

(02-05-2016 11:48 PM)The Truth Wrote:  

(02-03-2016 12:38 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  The problem is that under Islam, the presence of a Caliph reactivates huge sections of the Islamic scriptures that are currently lying dormant. For instance, Islam compels its followers to migrate to the territory of a caliph once he is recognized -- which is why thousands of Muslims are now doing just that. It also reactivates a bunch of punishments, such as being required to cut off the hands of thieves, which apparently isn't mandated if there is no caliph in power. It also reactivates expansionism at large. The texts say that if a caliph doesn't at least attempt to expand the territory of the caliphate every year, he should be removed.

Islam is just straight-up dark evil Borg-like shit. Shit getting "reactivated" like in some sci-fi movie.

All that stuff from the left about ISIS being "not real islam" is a bare faced lie. ISIS citizens are required to follow Islam to the letter, and nothing else. Everything they're chanting on TV is direct from scripture, unadulterated. ISIS is an ignition of Islam, not a pervertion, and it needs to be put out now before it reignites the now billion strong of Islam.

It seems that the majority of them are going in the opposite direction from what you said.

False. ISIS has declared a Caliphate across Europe, so that's why Muslims are moving there.

Post: #239

If you ignore the part where they're not going to any of the places that ISIS highlighted on their map of europe's caliphate. Sure.

My country offered 5000 asylum spots, so far we have gotten 20 or 30 refugees. They don't wanna come

Post: #240

Can we get Sanders added to this t-shirt? He could be "Grouchy Marx".

Post: #241

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/02/0...th-bernie/

Seriously this statement has got more irony than Popeye's forearms. Gloria Steinem saying women attend Sanders' rallies because of they only think about where the guys are.

Post: #242

^^^ It's better than admitting the real reason; women neither want to be independent nor take care of themselves. Bernie is the ultimate sugar daddy.

'oh they're just chasing the boys!'. it's a lot more serious than that.

Post: #243

Post: #244

From Heartiste:

Post: #245

Just for fun, here is a critique of Sanders from full-throated socialists (which, for most Americans, would be his defense):
https://roarmag.org/essays/whose-lives-m...e-sanders/
Sanders is criticized for not being globalist/internationalist enough.

Post: #246

delete.

Post: #247

(02-08-2016 04:47 AM)Liberty Sea Wrote:  Just for fun, here is a critique of Sanders from full-throated socialists (which, for most Americans, would be his defense):
https://roarmag.org/essays/whose-lives-m...e-sanders/
Sanders is criticized for not being globalist enough.

It's extraordinary to read such articles and realise the writer is serious.
It takes quite some flight from reality to espouse such views with a straight face.
We really are talking complete indoctrination here, probably someone who was brainwashed in Frankfurt School economics in University and still sees the world from within his protected bubble of utopia where the problem is always capitalism and people who actually get up off their arses and create jobs, and the problem is never themselves or big government.
In fact the solution to everything apparently is big government, sweeping taxes of those who create wealth and jobs and close to zero taxes for him and his ilk.
And the sad thing is he probably will never learn how wrong he is, thanks to the impenetrable echo chamber of progressive politics that is modern day millenial journalism.

Post: #248

(02-08-2016 05:39 AM)amity Wrote:  In fact the solution to everything apparently is big government, sweeping taxes of those who create wealth and jobs and close to zero taxes for him and his ilk.

Well, for full-throated socialists such as this guy, the solution is not high tax, not even 99% tax. The solution is the utter abolition of private property (i.e. the private ownership of the means of production). Tax presupposes private property. In socialist economy, there is no private property, no private income and hence no tax. All products are directly expropriated by the dictatorship of the proletariat (which is the state representing the interest of the working class, in one version, or the whole body of the working class itself, in another version) and distributed to all workers according to their input (in the early stage, i.e socialist society) or according to their need (in the later stage, i.e communist society).
The goal of socialism is communism.

This is what socialists want. But most socialists in the US are more practical than this guy. They know that to advance to socialism they first need to catch up with Europe first, i.e. gradually moving further left, by supporting Sanders. What this guy proposes is to diss Sanders (or anyone not socialist enough, not ideologically pure enough) and move straight up to socialism.

Strictly speaking, Sanders is only a social democrat (i.e. still accepting private property, just imposing high taxes and welfare state). But his election would provide the condition for the advance of full-throated socialism.

Post: #249

(01-27-2016 02:33 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Notice the differences between the two candidates.

On one side, we've got hunchback Sanders barely poking his head over the podium giving a pat on the back to a Muslim woman who looks like she's from Somalia, home to some of the most dangerous Muslims on the planet. On the other side we have Trump towering over his platform commanding the audience with powerful hand gestures.

Then, look at the audience itself. Behind Bernie there are smartphone addicted sluts attention whoring and not listening, single moms, a coked out brotha, a bunch of mangia dweebs who have probably never seen a pussy outside of the internet.

Meanwhile, Trump's audience is full of well-dressed successful people of all races, and in the center of the photo looking up at Trump is a Norman Rockwell White man looking up attentatively at Trump who could easily represent any average White guy in the country.

Who do you think voters are going to identify with? The reason Trump is going to win is because his competition is trash. The great irony of the above tweet is that the man who posted it thought it would help Bernie!

Post: #250

(02-04-2016 02:25 AM)speakeasy Wrote:  [quote='Foolsgo1d' pid='1210029' dateline='1454511628']

Quote:The US is already in debt up to its eyeballs but socialists don't believe in debt from my experience. They only believe in OPM, Other Peoples Money.

At least the left wants to raise taxes to pay for their spending. The right just charges it to the credit card and kicks the can down the road. If I have the choose between the two I take the left on fiscal responsibility.

Food for thought

http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/08/news/eco...d=21086984

Quote:Median income would soar by more than $22,000. Nearly 26 million jobs would be created. The unemployment rate would fall to 3.8%.
Those are just a few of the things that would happen if Bernie Sanders became president and his ambitious economic program were put into effect, according to an analysis given exclusively to CNNMoney. The first comprehensive look at the impact of all of Sanders' spending and tax proposals on the economy was done by Gerald Friedman, a University of Massachusetts Amherst economics professor.
Friedman found that if Sanders became president -- and was able to push his plan through Congress -- median household income would be $82,200 by 2026, far higher than the $59,300 projected by the Congressional Budget Office.

America's biggest problems are the inefficiencies of its tax system, government fiscal mismanagement not to mention the prison and military insdustrial complex which gobbles up a gargantuan amount of tax dollars. General Eisenhower, perhaps the last of the true great American leaders warned against this back in 1961. The worst damage done to America happened on the Republicans watch, in particular Nixon, Reagan and Dubya.

Sanders is simply saying that instead of ploughing trillions into the army and pointless foreign policy follies, how about investing that money into infrastructure, education and tackling youth unemployment.

Quote:Many presidential hopefuls say their economic programs would boost growth. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush justify their big tax cuts by saying GDP would grow at a 4% rate. But their plans have been panned by experts as overly optimistic.
Friedman, however, argues that Sanders' plan would be more stimulative because it is pouring money into the economy, as opposed to cutting taxes. Several of Sanders' proposals -- such as spending $1 trillion on infrastructure -- will happen in the first few years of his administration.