Every penny you have earned until today goes to government..

[frostedflakes]

I don't have a problem with investing in our future, but this just seems like too much spending too fast. I'm also big on fiscal responsibility. I'm not even necessarily against larger govt (for example, with health care, it probably all evens out -- you either spend money on private insurance and pay less in taxes, or pay more in taxes but don't have to pay for private insurance), but govt needs to increase taxes to pay for all this spending. Running enormous deficits is not sustainable.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Palehorse, I highly doubt you actually voted for Obama. I think your just saying that to sound bipartisian, and thus insulate yourself from attack.

I most certainly did. In fact, my outspoken support for Obama is well known around here, and goes back to very early on in his campaign. I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you believe it.

But, as opposed to many people here, that vote does not qualify Obama for blind support for everything he decides to do. I have grown very wary of my decision to vote for him given his apparent propensity to sign every spending bill he sees... and, he will lose me before 2012 if he doesn't reign it in.

It's easy to criticize the stimulus and bailouts sitting nice and comfortable in your armchair, not so easy when your the POTUS and the American people want action. Would you rather Obama did nothing and just let AIG, Citi, Chrysler, GM file for a proper Chapter 11?

fixed, and yes.

Why do you think Obama is spending so much with regards to energy reform, health care, and education? Oh because he wants to put our country into greater debt, not because he wants to make investments that will pay off in the future right?

Most of his spending, thus far, has hardly touched on any of those items. Instead, all we've seen from Congress is bunch of bullshit piled high in a "stimulus" package -- pet projects and other nonsense that they've waited years to shove into one massive bill.

I'm sorry, but I'm never going to agree with the "spend our way out of debt" bullshit.

 

[trenchfoot]

These are the worst times for a President to take office, yet Obama's Approval ratings have been holding steady at ~63% (Gallup).

Even in these ridiculously hard times, the majority thinks he's doing what he has to do and have confidence in his ideas.

END OF STORY.

and I just LOL at how the OP uses the "If X=Y, and X is wrong then Y is also wrong" repub talking point to specifically criticize Pres. Obama, never mind that the Bush (X) factor in the equation is null and void, thus rendering the whole equation null and void. LOL

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
No, government needs to raise taxes. If Americans actually had to pay for all the crap they feel they're entitled to, people might start to reconsider government's role in their lives. Instead we just deficit spend like mad, which shields citizens from the actual cost of government.

This.

This is why as a libertarian, I advocate raising taxes. All spending (budget, supplemental, stimulus, or whatever) should have a tax raised or levied to to pay for it. It's like people live in a fantasyland. Oh, the gov't needs to do this; the gov't needs to do that. Fine, but you have to pay for it.

I have an idea that would cost less, and yield the same point.

Eliminate automatically deducted Federal and State tax from people's paychecks, and have them write out a check for their total taxes owed come tax time.

Bam. That'd be quite a dose of reality.

 

[palehorse]

How many more stimulus packages are each of you willing to see Obama sign? When will you consider the number(s) too high?

Ever?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Mean MrMustard

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
No, government needs to raise taxes. If Americans actually had to pay for all the crap they feel they're entitled to, people might start to reconsider government's role in their lives. Instead we just deficit spend like mad, which shields citizens from the actual cost of government.

This.

This is why as a libertarian, I advocate raising taxes. All spending (budget, supplemental, stimulus, or whatever) should have a tax raised or levied to to pay for it. It's like people live in a fantasyland. Oh, the gov't needs to do this; the gov't needs to do that. Fine, but you have to pay for it.

Exactly, the only way to bring government spending under control is to force all Americans to pay for it with taxes instead of borrowing.
Only when you bear the cost of your vote will you care how the people your vote elects spend the money.

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: palehorse
I most certainly did. In fact, my outspoken support for Obama is well known around here, and goes back to very early on in his campaign. I don't give a flying fuck whether or not you believe it.

But, as opposed to many people here, that vote does not qualify Obama for blind support for everything he decides to do. I have grown very wary of my decision to vote for him given his apparent propensity to sign every spending bill he sees... and, he will lose me before 2012 if he doesn't reign it in.

Again, I find this hard to believe given your liberal use of the racial epitaph "koolaid". But then you don't give a fuck so it's all good.

fixed, and yes.

Chapter 11 is great isn't it? Saves companies from failing..... like Lehman Brothers. Oh wait... Lehman is defunct, all 26,000 employees fired.

Most of his spending, thus far, has hardly touched on any of those items. Instead, all we've seen from Congress is bunch of bullshit piled high in a "stimulus" package -- pet projects and other nonsense that they've waited years to shove into one massive bill.

As Obama said, pork accounted for less than 1% of the stimulus package. But being a follower of Faux News, you'd rather believe it amounts to 95% of the stimulus. Hard to believe you voted Obama when you rather listen to Republican critics than to Obama.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: palehorse
How many more stimulus packages are each of you willing to see Obama sign? When will you consider the number(s) too high?

Ever?

I think you're making a good point in and of itself, but it doesn't hold water if you're attempting to justify your disapproval for what Pres. Obama is doing in the here and now, vs. what you claim "may" happen in the future.

Or am I not looking at your argument correctly? Please explain further...

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
These are the worst times for a President to take office, yet Obama's Approval ratings have been holding steady at ~63% (Gallup).

Even in these ridiculously hard times, the majority thinks he's doing what he has to do and have confidence in his ideas.

END OF STORY.

and I just LOL at how the OP uses the "If X=Y, and X is wrong then Y is also wrong" repub talking point to specifically criticize Pres. Obama, never mind that the Bush (X) factor in the equation is null and void, thus rendering the whole equation null and void. LOL

September 12 , 2001. GWB had an approval of 80+%, when people relaized the true cost of his actions, they turned against him. They will with Obama too.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Again, I find this hard to believe given your liberal use of the racial epitaph "koolaid". But then you don't give a fuck so it's all good.

Your problem is that you try to fit everyone into little molds of yourself, or those you oppose by default.

We're not all little robots marching to the beat of one side or the other, ya know. Some of us are not koolaid-sipping robots from any particular party...

Chapter 11 is great isn't it? Saves companies from failing..... like Lehman Brothers. Oh wait... Lehman is defunct, all 26,000 employees fired.

So be it. What's bullshit is when we continue to hand out bailouts, one after another after another, and then the companies receiving those bailouts turn out defunct anyways. That is what's fucked up!

As Obama said, pork accounted for less than 1% of the stimulus package. But being a follower of Faux News, you'd rather believe it amounts to 95% of the stimulus. Hard to believe you voted Obama when you rather listen to Republican critics than to Obama.

I don't watch Fox News or CNN.

That criticism was my own, nobody else's. Just because it sounds like right-wing rhetoric doesnt make any less true.

The majority of the first "Stimulus" package was fail. It was a complete pile of Congressional dogshit that will solve nothing. It also won't be the last time they get together to come up with such a pile. <---- my own words, again.

Not everyone is a Lemming like you.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: palehorse
How many more stimulus packages are each of you willing to see Obama sign? When will you consider the number(s) too high?

Ever?

I think you're making a good point in and of itself, but it doesn't hold water if you're attempting to justify your disapproval for what Pres. Obama is doing in the here and now, vs. what you claim "may" happen in the future.

Or am I not looking at your argument correctly? Please explain further...

I disapprove of what Bush did, what Obama is doing now, and what Obama may do in the future. I believe that excessive spending will be the death of this country.

What part of that needs to be clarified? I'll do my best to address it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: palehorse
How many more stimulus packages are each of you willing to see Obama sign? When will you consider the number(s) too high?

Ever?

I think you're making a good point in and of itself, but it doesn't hold water if you're attempting to justify your disapproval for what Pres. Obama is doing in the here and now, vs. what you claim "may" happen in the future.

Or am I not looking at your argument correctly? Please explain further...

I disapprove of what Bush did, what Obama is doing now, and what Obama may do in the future. I believe that excessive spending will be the death of this country.

What part of that needs to be clarified? I'll do my best to address it.

So you don't understand the difference between irresponsible, corrupt spending (Bush), and spending to 'save the economy in a once in a century crisis' (Obama).

Obama said he had really not wanted to have his presidency forced to spend like this, and there's every reason to believe that, it's harmed his own agenda.

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: palehorse

We're not all little robots marching to the beat of one side or the other, ya know. Some of us are not koolaid-sipping robots from any particular party...

Lipstick on a pig.

That criticism was my own, nobody else's. Just because it sounds like right-wing rhetoric doesnt make any less true.

If it quacks like a duck.

So be it. What's bullshit is when we continue to hand out bailouts, one after another after another, and then the companies receiving those bailouts turn out defunct anyways. That is what's fucked up!

Maybe you were too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh rant about Koolaid drinkers when this happened, but a day after Lehman collapsed the credit markets froze. Bernake and Paulson instigated TARP to prevent a total collapse. Perhaps you'd like to live through a second great depression, but not I nor most of the American people.

Not everyone is a Lemming like you.

I don't agree with all of Obama's policies, but I guess I am a "lemming" with regards to his economic policies. I believe that Obama has the best interests of the nation at heart and he is currently going in the right direction. I accept that his policies might be totally off track, only time will tell. What I will not do is write him off 4 months into his 4 year term. What I also will not do is proclaim that my views on this issue are absolute and insult anyone who argues otherwise with racially motivated epithets.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: palehorse
How many more stimulus packages are each of you willing to see Obama sign? When will you consider the number(s) too high?

Ever?

I think you're making a good point in and of itself, but it doesn't hold water if you're attempting to justify your disapproval for what Pres. Obama is doing in the here and now, vs. what you claim "may" happen in the future.

Or am I not looking at your argument correctly? Please explain further...

I disapprove of what Bush did, what Obama is doing now, and what Obama may do in the future. I believe that excessive spending will be the death of this country.

What part of that needs to be clarified? I'll do my best to address it.

OK, I see where you're coming from. Thanks.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Again, I find this hard to believe given your liberal use of the racial epitaph "koolaid". But then you don't give a fuck so it's all good.

Umm, what?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Again, I find this hard to believe given your liberal use of the racial epitaph "koolaid". But then you don't give a fuck so it's all good.

First off, the word you're looking for is "epithet"; an epitaph is a short line of verse carved into a tombstone. Second, koolaid is not a racial epithet; the origins of the phrase "drinking the koolaid" come from the People's Temple cult at Jonestown where over 900 cult members drank Koolaid laced with poison in the largest mass suicide in history. The phrase is thus about blindly following a group even if the group's actions will ultimately harm the follower.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Again, I find this hard to believe given your liberal use of the racial epitaph "koolaid". But then you don't give a fuck so it's all good.

First off, the word you're looking for is "epithet"; an epitaph is a short line of verse carved into a tombstone. Second, koolaid is not a racial epithet; the origins of the phrase "drinking the koolaid" come from the People's Temple cult at Jonestown where over 900 cult members drank Koolaid laced with poison in the largest mass suicide in history. The phrase is thus about blindly following a group even if the group's actions will ultimately harm the follower.

Exactly, thanks for explaining it, I didn't even have the patience to correct how wrong that statement was :laugh:

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: ericlp
Edit, I don't think anyone knows what a trillion dollars is. I think your a little too late. Hell, if bush can spend 6-7 trillion in 8 year I don't see why Obama can't spend 3 or 4 trillion in his 4 years... What's your problem?

uhhh, your math is way off. Obama is on a pace to spend 3-4 trillion in just his first year alone.

I figured we'd be screwed just trying to pay down the debt on bushes tab. Now if Obama can't turn things around with his plan then yeah... Were gonna be toast. China will own and laugh at us idiots even harder. If you gave bush 8 years, why not give obama a few years to see if he can make it better? I'm will to give him a chance just like I gave bush a chance.

See above.

Obama's spending habits are making Bush's spending habits look like a day in the park.

That said, the real problem is Congress. Both sides of the aisle are out of control. Period.

You arent account for the differences... Bush spent his way into this mess - Obama is spending to get us out. you act like the bailouts and stimulus "just for fun" type ventures. It sucks rocks, but we have to do it, or we WILL be in depression.

How does the koolaid taste today?

I voted for Obama, yet I will never buy into the "spend more to save us" bullshit. My question for you is this: How many more stimulus packages and bailouts are you willing to suffer?

EDIT: From your signature, it appears as though there might be hope for you yet... you're g'damn right his spending is starting to "stink"!

I know... I know. I dont like the spending, but he is doing it for a reason. Do I think its getting out of hand? hell yes - but its not the same as what Bush did. Right or wrong, just enough, or too much money - Obama is doing it because to do nothing=depression.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
No, government needs to raise taxes. If Americans actually had to pay for all the crap they feel they're entitled to, people might start to reconsider government's role in their lives. Instead we just deficit spend like mad, which shields citizens from the actual cost of government.

You think Americans spending beyond there means is a bad thing, therefore the solution to this problem is for the government to spend WAY WAY WAY beyond its means?

Basically you are saying that as if as a punishment for the the son maxing out the $500 limit on his credit card, the father should max out his own $25,000 credit card limit to teach him a lesson by bankrupting the whole family out of spite.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: palehorse
How many more stimulus packages are each of you willing to see Obama sign? When will you consider the number(s) too high?

Ever?

I think you're making a good point in and of itself, but it doesn't hold water if you're attempting to justify your disapproval for what Pres. Obama is doing in the here and now, vs. what you claim "may" happen in the future.

Or am I not looking at your argument correctly? Please explain further...

I disapprove of what Bush did, what Obama is doing now, and what Obama may do in the future. I believe that excessive spending will be the death of this country.

What part of that needs to be clarified? I'll do my best to address it.

So you don't understand the difference between irresponsible, corrupt spending (Bush), and spending to 'save the economy in a once in a century crisis' (Obama).

Obama said he had really not wanted to have his presidency forced to spend like this, and there's every reason to believe that, it's harmed his own agenda.

Wait, so spending hundreds of billions on defense spending due to a war is corruption, but giving hundreds of billions to Unions, ACORN, and pork is a worthy cause that will somehow save the economy?

Liberalism: It's standing on your head and telling the world they're upside down.

 

[JSFLY]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Again, I find this hard to believe given your liberal use of the racial epitaph "koolaid". But then you don't give a fuck so it's all good.

First off, the word you're looking for is "epithet"; an epitaph is a short line of verse carved into a tombstone. Second, koolaid is not a racial epithet; the origins of the phrase "drinking the koolaid" come from the People's Temple cult at Jonestown where over 900 cult members drank Koolaid laced with poison in the largest mass suicide in history. The phrase is thus about blindly following a group even if the group's actions will ultimately harm the follower.

Thank you for the grammatical correction.

As for word Kool aid, it has a double entendre, the second meaning being a poor black man's drink of choice.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kool-aid

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
No, government needs to raise taxes. If Americans actually had to pay for all the crap they feel they're entitled to, people might start to reconsider government's role in their lives. Instead we just deficit spend like mad, which shields citizens from the actual cost of government.

You think Americans spending beyond there means is a bad thing, therefore the solution to this problem is for the government to spend WAY WAY WAY beyond its means?

Basically you are saying that as if as a punishment for the the son maxing out the $500 limit on his credit card, the father should max out his own $25,000 credit card limit to teach him a lesson by bankrupting the whole family out of spite.

How did you get that from my post? I'm saying that government should raise taxes to cover any increases in spending they propose. That's called responsible fiscal policy; what we're doing now (deficit spending) is spending beyond our means.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Wait, so spending hundreds of billions on defense spending due to a war is corruption, but giving hundreds of billions to Unions, ACORN, and pork is a worthy cause that will somehow save the economy?

Liberalism: It's standing on your head and telling the world they're upside down.

Lol...."due to a war"?? Nice passive voice usage there.

How about "increased spending 10 fold to fund an optional war sold on a false premise while simultaneously cutting taxes needed to fund the war"??

Quantumpionism: It's using selective facts then acting defensive when people call you on your line of bullshit.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JSFLY

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: JSFLY
Again, I find this hard to believe given your liberal use of the racial epitaph "koolaid". But then you don't give a fuck so it's all good.

First off, the word you're looking for is "epithet"; an epitaph is a short line of verse carved into a tombstone. Second, koolaid is not a racial epithet; the origins of the phrase "drinking the koolaid" come from the People's Temple cult at Jonestown where over 900 cult members drank Koolaid laced with poison in the largest mass suicide in history. The phrase is thus about blindly following a group even if the group's actions will ultimately harm the follower.

Thank you for the grammatical correction.

As for word Kool aid, it has a double entendre, the second meaning being a poor black man's drink of choice.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kool-aid

Yes, we all know this. No, that's not how he was using it. Search koolaid in P&N and you'll find about 1000 hits 99% of which are about toeing the party line, not racially motivated.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
April 13th is Tax Freedom Day.. which means every penny the average American has made up until today goes to the government. Its kind of freightening when you think about it. It was wrong when Bush did it, its wrong when Obama is doing it. Government needs to FINALLY say enough is enough and we need to stop spending! How long until we are working 50% of the time just to support government spending?

Who said it was wrong when Bush did it? Sounds like you are blaming America first on this one. Yes there is a lot of waste in the govt. but you know what?

Name me a country with a better system of govt... Go ahead, I dara ya.

/crickets .... That is exactly what I thought you would say.

What's the matter Fear No Evil? No comeback for this? Did you realize that you are blaming America first and that there isnt a better system on the planet? or did you just post your troll fodder and move on?