• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Return of Tax and Spend

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,939
3,083
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
I suspect he is more of a Limbaugh fan than anything. Hillary support was the Ditto thing to do.
I'm starting to think that also. Most Limbaugh fans tend to run away when confronted with logic.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,286
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: jpeyton
An independent study on each candidate's tax policy shows McCain would run up $1.1 TRILLION MORE in debt than Obama.

Imagine that. Democrats being more fiscally responsible with our national debt than Republicans.
It's been like that for over 30 years now.
but...but..but..pay as you go...change...hope...argh!
Yup.

Amazing how ten years of PayGo brought the budget into balance and started paying down Federal Debt - - - and then a criminal Republican President and Congress mis-managed our finances for six years so that we will be paying $500 billion in INTEREST each year for the foreseeable future on our debt.

Explain to us again how Voodoo Economics is going to work ??
 

Bitek

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2001
9,390
3,453
136
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: jpeyton
An independent study on each candidate's tax policy shows McCain would run up $1.1 TRILLION MORE in debt than Obama.

Imagine that. Democrats being more fiscally responsible with our national debt than Republicans.
It's been like that for over 30 years now.
but...but..but..pay as you go...change...hope...argh!
wtf is your problem?
Seriously. Maybe you should focus your energy on finding a hobby or a woman (or man) or something rather than incessantly juvenile and whiny posts?

I don't understand why someone would spend so much energy to constantly and publicly humiliate themselves. I mean come'on, we all have our bad posts, but to keep doing it over and over and over...
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,541
260
126
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Explain to us again how Voodoo Economics is going to work ??



That's my point, I keep seeing billions of promised spending, the spending cuts not so much.

but damn, it was a sweet sounding campaign slogan.
 

misle

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2000
3,371
0
76
A. Tax and spend
B. Borrow and spend
...
C. Cut spending?

I didn't see it as an option, but can we just cut spending? I know of about 535 federal employees that could (should?) be fired immediately.
 

woodie1

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2000
5,947
0
0
Originally posted by: misle
A. Tax and spend
B. Borrow and spend
...
C. Cut spending?

I didn't see it as an option, but can we just cut spending? I know of about 535 federal employees that could (should?) be fired immediately.
And that's the truth ...
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi
As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
So who can I vote for that will reduce gov't spending or the deficit? Or are you just here to bitch with no solution to the problem whatsoever? Name the candidate, and maybe I'll consider voting for him/her instead.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,519
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
No offense, but that's a really stupid argument. This may be news to you, but not everyone thinks exactly like you do, and it's not automatically assumed in all political circles that all possible forms of government spending are inherently evil. So your smart-ass comments aside, I see no conflict between "hope", "change" and "not slashing government programs".

Now if you think government should be reduced, that's perfectly valid. But don't get your panties in a bunch and assume Obama MUST do that if he wants to talk about change. Not all of us view the role of government the same way you do.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,541
260
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: lupi
As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
No offense, but that's a really stupid argument. This may be news to you, but not everyone thinks exactly like you do, and it's not automatically assumed in all political circles that all possible forms of government spending are inherently evil. So your smart-ass comments aside, I see no conflict between "hope", "change" and "not slashing government programs".

Now if you think government should be reduced, that's perfectly valid. But don't get your panties in a bunch and assume Obama MUST do that if he wants to talk about change. Not all of us view the role of government the same way you do.
Then when the collective you is defending his economic stances feel free to stop linking to his policies of PAYG, cutting spending and other such nonsense that has no basic other than existing on a webpage as every thing he has actually said is in direct opposition to it.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,077
494
126
What happened to cut spending and lower taxes? It is completely devoid from either candidates platform.
 

neodyn55

Senior member
Oct 16, 2007
230
0
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: cliftonite
As opposed to borrow and spend.
I forgot, the politics of change meant do the wrong thing in a different manner.
And Hillary's policies would have been different how? Yes, the candidate you were so vigorously supporting just a few weeks back? We didn't see much criticism from you *then*

Away with thou, troll.

 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,989
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
What happened to cut spending and lower taxes? It is completely devoid from either candidates platform.
By ending the Iraq war Obama will cut some unnecessary spending and he is going to cut taxes. I don't think he said he was going to cut them across the board (everyone) but if he did please show me some proof.


Originally posted by: neodyn55
Originally posted by: lupi
I forgot, the politics of change meant do the wrong thing in a different manner.
And Hillary's policies would have been different how? Yes, the candidate you were so vigorously supporting just a few weeks back? We didn't see much criticism from you *then*

Away with thou, troll.
He's been trolling Obama for months. Nothing new here. These bitter Hillary supporters are a broken record.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Genx87
What happened to cut spending and lower taxes? It is completely devoid from either candidates platform.
True. Hell, even keep taxes level would be fine for a while with me.
Yes, just holding the line on spending would bring the budget into balance in a just a few years.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Wow. The OP is uneducated. The difference is that the Iraq war, a lot of what we spend money on either 1) gets blown up (literally) 2) stays in Iraq.

If you spend money in the USA on "capital projects" then the economy, and citizens of the USA benefit for years to come. The 20th century was great for the USA largely because we spend an unbelievable amount of money on capital projects from about 1900 to 1950.

Many of the schools, roads, hospitals etc that we still use were built back then and they are still paying dividends.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,571
9
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: lupi

As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
I'm an atheist so he's not my messiah, but here's a clue:

1. Your Traitor In Chief's war of lies has cost trillions of dollars. Since you pimp so hard for him and his lies, you should pay the bill.

2. Your Traitor In Chief squandered that money but that's not all he wasted. As of 6/16/08, 4,101 American troops are dead, and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life.
:(

Those who died will never return to work as contributing taxpayers, and if there's any humanity left in this government, we will be paying the medical expenses of those survivors damaged by his war.

3. As a direct result of your Traitor In Chief's war of lies, the money needed for maintaining our infrastructure, including roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, power systems, water systems and so much more have been deferred, and they are in sad shape.

If we don't come up with the money to fix them, our economy could fall apart just because they don't work.

4. Then, there's the real damage done by all those "polluters." You put that in quotes like it really doesn't mean anything, but it does. Beyond the big media issue of global warming, which is real, regardless of any FUD you care to spread on the subject, pollution also carries increased health costs and lost productivity in the workforce.

And when these "polluters" get taxed, I wonder whom is really going to foot that bill.
I think we should send the bills to lying, brainless trolls like you. :cool:
*klaxon*

Harvey-bot incoming!

*klaxon*

He's not a Bush supporter, numbnuts. He's a stooge for Hillary.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,541
260
126
Originally posted by: LordSegan
Wow. The OP is uneducated. The difference is that the Iraq war, a lot of what we spend money on either 1) gets blown up (literally) 2) stays in Iraq.

If you spend money in the USA on "capital projects" then the economy, and citizens of the USA benefit for years to come. The 20th century was great for the USA largely because we spend an unbelievable amount of money on capital projects from about 1900 to 1950.

Many of the schools, roads, hospitals etc that we still use were built back then and they are still paying dividends.
Talk about uneducated; I'm about the last person you wan't to try and go down the infastructure route with. Besides, once the BHO crowd gets gas near a 4 digit per gallon total then the roads will be empty when no one can afford to drive.
 
D

Deleted member 4644

Saying that you are the last person I want to go down the infrastructure route is a meaningless statement. Want to elaborate?
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Genx87
What happened to cut spending and lower taxes? It is completely devoid from either candidates platform.
True. Hell, even keep taxes level would be fine for a while with me.
Yes, just holding the line on spending would bring the budget into balance in a just a few years.
But but but that would mean "cuts".... well "cuts" according to the democrat's definition.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,071
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi
As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
i don't want government spending to decrease
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: lupi
As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
i don't want government spending to decrease
neither does anyone else hence the problem.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY