Click on photo for the video – sorry for the commercial
Do you believe the Republican Party is doing what John Taylor claims?
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Do you believe the Republican Party is doing what John Taylor claims?
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Bad Behavior has blocked 25405 access attempts in the last 7 days.
He’s absolutely right. Recession is getting worse. The second round of layoffs is happening – the government employees are getting sacked now. The so-called deficit spook by the Repubs is doing it. And they will blame Obama.
But, then again, they have no choice if they want even a slight chance to win the country back in 2012 because their presidential slate is an absolute joke.
So. I predict they will fail and they will be responsible for bringing the deep recession upon us in 2012. Of course I could be wrong because (I’m hoping) the American public really isn’t as stupid as the Republicans think they are. They think most people are Tea Party idiots.
#41 Obama’s budget and policies are in effect now, not Tea Party, therefore these are to be blamed, not those of the Tea Party.
As for GOP candidates, anyone not Obama can win, Howard Dead points out the lousy track record of the pundits:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/164765-howard-dean-warns-palin-could-beat-obama-in-2012
Therefore your predictions are worthless spin and you are wrong.
Obama will fall on the sword of four words:
He made it worse.
“Haywire” is a good name for you, on that you showed insight.
#41 And you confuse Tea Party with Republicans:
http://ronpaul2012.com/
We either take charge of the Republican party, or we form a new one.
That’s what Palin warned the GOP ruling elite, and its true:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2011/06/04/palin_doesnt_shy_away_from_third_party_talk
I has a declarashunz on dis!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llclw9kBm81qiz030o1_400.png
#40
Granted, you are certifiably ignorant and possibly insane, but for the moment let’s look past your comments related to things I did not say and look at the issue of the deficit. Even if we eliminated all expenditures on all three wars today, it would represent 5% of our over spending. It is akin to putting a band-aid on a cut on your leg while your carotid artery has been severed. Yes, we should find a way of bringing the troops home but let’s be honest now, fixing 5% of the problem isn’t going to solve the issue.
Thomas–don’t you think cutting wasteful military spending would be five steps forward in building a consensus to cut ALL wasteful spending and event to increase revenues?
Why parse and hem the solution down to a point that makes no sense?
Don’t listen to fools who say its all one thing or another or similar fools who say one thing or another won’t help.
Its all of the same thing.
Yea, verily.
#45 Your argument is 5% cut is a band aid so why bother.
But you aren’t consistent and therefore violate “the law of non contradiction.”
Eating a meal doesn’t stop lifetime hunger, yet you do it never arguing it’s a waste of time.
Working for weekly pay doesn’t cover a years worth of bills, yet never would you suggest a weeks pay isn’t 5% of your yearly expenses so why bother.
Etc.
Progressives always apply unsound principles to Government they would never do in their personal life, for example VP Biden would never suggest he could spend his way out of bankruptcy with his own money:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=LHFEcyUNBjg
He only says that about taxpayer money.
I would end the wars on various grounds, but being unable to afford them certainly should be at the top of the list. Its irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent the cost is only a percentage of our deficient spending, the entire is paid for with borrowed or printed money…meaning we cannot afford it.
#46
Reducing other military expenditures is a separate issue from the costs of the wars. Sure, we can try to pair down the military portion of the budget but let’s be clear that increased military expenditures from say 10 years ago is not how we got a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit. As I said, even if eliminated all expenditures for all wars tomorrow, we’d still have 95% of the problem.
#45
Your argument is 5% cut is a band aid so why bother.
Nope. I said nothing of the sort. My argument is that a 5% is tiny in the grander scheme of things and is not the primary source of our 1400 B budget deficit. It contributed that’s clear but at 5% we need to look at the other 95% and determine where we are overspending in order to make any real progress. Thus, arguments for “end the war and reduce the deficit” are akin to to using a few coupons in the hopes that it will make a dent in your problem of spending 150% of your revenue each year. I have no problem with bringing the troops home and ending the wars but let’s be clear that doing so isn’t going to make a significant dent in the deficit.
#48–Thomas==do you consciously recognize you did not respond to what I posted at all and only repeated your position?
How often do you think you do that?
Very telling.
Give it another shot–just for practice.
#49, Thomas,
A very good point well made. Which is why it is time to raise taxes.
The idea that the “uber rich” create jobs just doesn’t cut it any more. Every time we cut taxes we were told how that would stimulate the economy. Now we have the highest unemployment in decades and it ain’t looking like things are getting any better. As much as I would like to see us return to the rates of 1980, I would settle for 1992.
@34, Asshole,
#33 You are Canadian, which economy is actually freer than ours…and forces loosing attorneys pay for the harm they caused by phoney lawsuits…therefore Canada’s economy is growing.
The majority of our country DOES want a free market…we are center right country.
Yes I am. I am also an American. That’s OK, I know your jealousy knows no bounds.
Guess what. In most American courts the losing side pays the court costs. Not always, but generally and especially in frivolous cases they do. Of course, you couldn’t care less what the truth is because you’re an idiot who like to invent his own facts.
Canada’s economy is strong for several reasons. Socialized healthcare is one. Regulation of natural resources is another. Strong government interest and investment in education is another. A strong social safety net keeps the nation’s citizens healthy and educated to stay abreast of paradigms in manufacturing and business.
The most important aspect of Canada’s strong economy is the government investment over the years in telecommunications, transportation, oil, manufacturing, health, and new technologies.
Taxes have been higher in Canada for many years. I believe though they are lower today. Corporations are taxed at higher rates.
Yup. Canada sure is freer because those lawyers pay for phoney lawsuits. Did I mention it is easier to have insane idiots like you incarcerated as a danger to society.
#46
Cutting “wasteful” spending isn’t going to be enough. Even if you cut 25% of the military budget which would be a little over twice what the wars are costing us, it would be a drop in the bucket. I don’t think you grasp the scope of the problem. No I do not think cutting military spending would result in a five fold consensus to cut all wasteful spending (not even close. not even a 1:1 consensus to cut all wasteful spending) nor do I think it will lead to increased revenues (how could cutting spending ever lead to increased revenue? a surplus perhaps but increased revenues?!).
#51
At this stage, I’d agree that something needs to be tried and raising taxes on the upper 1-5% in addition to significant reductions in spending is a reasonable course. We cannot keep spending half again as much as we make, each year, and hope the problem will go away. I would love to hit the stage where eliminating the wars represents a significant impact on the deficit if for nothing else it would add yet another reason to end them. I can think of all kinds of great reasons for ending those wars but deficit reduction isn’t one of them. 10 years ago perhaps they were but not anymore. It is a scary new world when spending on wars is utterly dwarfed by spending on everything else.
#52 Lets see your birth certificate.
I recall you admitting to Canadian citizenship…until now.
Everything you said is a lie.
And loser doesn’t pay if the extortionist agrees to settle for a fraction of the lawsuit…which many accept as its unquantifiable the awards an irrational jury, having only a mind numbing progressive education consisting of leftist slogan and propaganda, will do.
#45 Yes, you repeated the same premise again, albeit with different words, in a poor attempt to change the subject:
My argument is that a 5% is tiny in the grander scheme of things and is not the primary source of our 1400 B budget deficit.
Progressives don’t think clearly, if they did, they wouldn’t be progressives.
Progressives always change the subject when their illogic is documented, or they wouldn’t be progressives.
It’s a different subject what percentage the cost of the war is to the total deficient, that’s of interest to bean counters.
If you want to stop all deficit spending, then regardless how tiny the deficit spending is, you stop it.
#55
Progressives don’t think clearly, if they did, they wouldn’t be progressives.
A. I’m not fiscally “progressive” nor liberal.
B. You have to be a clear thinker to recognize clear thinking and you’re not.
C. You clearly did not understand my premise…twice.
So, let’s try again for the hat trick. There are many good reasons for ending the wars. At this stage, their impact on the deficit is no longer one of them. That in and of itself is indicative of a sad state of affairs. Thus, arguments along the lines of ending the wars to reduce the deficit shows a lack of understanding of the scope of the overspending. We need to address the other 95% of the overspending. My preference would be to force the deficit to zero this year or next. That means if the government wants to continue prosecuting the wars, they’ll have to cut from somewhere else. The only problem here is the that politicians are unethical. Rather than cut spending, they’ll increase taxes on everyone else ( except themselves of course ) so that they do not have to make those cuts.
#56 The only problem with ending the wars is that in the grander scheme of the deficit, they are a drop in the bucket
You violate the law of consistency, as I will prove:
Example 1)The only problem with you eating one meal when hungry, is that in the grander scheme of your life, that amount of food is only a drop in the bucket.
Example 2)The only problem with working for money is that in the grander scheme of expenses, the money earned is only a drop in the bucket.
Example 3)The only problem with going to Elementary school, is that in the grander scheme of educational requirements for employment, that learning gained is only a drop in the bucket what is necessary.
According to your own “drop in the bucket” premise, you should argue eating daily is a waste of time; working for weekly or monthly pay a waste of time; Elementary education is a waste of time.
I pointed out your argument is logically unsound…your protests against that elementary fact is characteristic of progressives…and religious cultists…they simply cannot reason upon facts clearly.
Whether you actually are a progressive, or a progressive who is fiscally something else, is unknown to me…I never bothered to find out.
#57
What you have there are false analogies and thus you have come to wrong conclusion…again. Let me help you:
1. The only problem with a starving person eating one crumb is that amount of food in relation to the larger problem of burning 150% of your caloric intake per day is that it is a drop in the bucket.
2. The only problem with working for one penny per day when tens of thousands are owed is that the money earned in relation to spending 150% of your revenue per day is that it is a drop in the bucket.
3. The problem with only reading a single sentence in a single book once in elementary school is that in relation to the performance of other students with whom you will compete in the work force, it is a drop in the bucket.
Now, given your juvenile understanding of logic, I’ll spell it out for you. It is an issue of resource allocation. Would ending the wars have an effect on the deficit. Sure. Would it have a significant effect on the deficit? No. So, expending resources focusing on 5% of the problem is how 95% of problem becomes 99.9999% of the problem.
As I said innumerable times, ending the wars for reasons other than deficit reduction have merit. Ending them as a means to reduce the deficit is ridiculous misguided at this stage. The logic is perfectly sound to someone that is mentally sound.
#54, Alphie,
#52 Lets see your birth certificate.
I recall you admitting to Canadian citizenship…until now.
Let’s see your release papers from the State Hospital.
I think Mr. Fusion admitted to having both citizenships. Of course, reading your responses to Thomas shows you aren’t taking your meds.