(08-13-2018 11:53 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 10:58 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

Sent from my ZTE A2017U using Tapatalk

once again we see that free health and education leads to no food or toilet paper.

many of the dems probably wouldnt miss the toilet paper though.

Yea free stuff!!!!

^ Those pictures legitimately made me sick to my stomach. To think, democrats want to put that same suffering on America, just because they are spiteful failures that can't compete in a market economy.

(08-13-2018 12:05 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

♩ ♪ ♫ ♬ Hey girl I got somethin' real important to give you
So just sit down and listen
Girl you know we've been together such a long long time (such a long time)
And now I'm ready to lay it on the line
(Wooow) You know it's Christmas and my heart is open wide
Gonna give you something so you know what's on my mind
A gift real special, so take off the top
Take a look inside -- it's my kid in a box ♩ ♪ ♫ ♬

(08-13-2018 11:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yep, the vast amount of people hate social security. You guys are onto something here.

Let it be know here to everyone that Mach loves Hugo Chavez and his wonderful socialist state.

(08-13-2018 12:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  ^ Those pictures legitimately made me sick to my stomach. To think, democrats want to put that same suffering on America, just because they are spiteful failures that can't compete in a market economy.

I'll be the A-Hole here.

While those photos are cringe worthy, they really have no one to blame but themselves.

Chavez was duly elected in free elections. Sure the corruption of the previous regime didn't help, but Chavez wasn't exactly secretive about what his ideas/plans were. They bought in to his new constitution, socialist and populist economics and social policies.

If anything, this should be the perfect example of just what happens when socialism runs out of other people's money.

What's scarier than those pics is that there's a large number on the left (and growing) that want us to head down that same path.

(08-13-2018 11:36 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yep, if Washington didn’t borrow from the Socual Security Trust fund it wouldn’t be going broke. Keep cutting taxes and supporting trillion dollar deficits.

Barack Obama gave us the trillion dollar deficit.

The 2nd largest financial crash in the history of the country gave us the trillion dollar deficit.

It wouldn’t have if Trump had been president.

(08-13-2018 11:29 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yep, the vast amount of people hate social security. You guys are onto something here.

Verbal sleight of hand. Social security was sold as employment insurance. What it really was and is is a Ponzi Scheme to fund the government. Trouble is the American electorate stopped having linear pyramid style population expansion after the Boomers. This is why SS is now bankrupt, in addition to politicians from both sides spending the money on other things.

And yes, given the full light of the horror show that is SS most Americans do hate it. Glad you've come around on this Mach. You must have been reading some Hazlitt or Hayek.

If it's the same setup for Mach as it is in Texas teachers are not eligible for SS payments they have had to work outside the system to tap into it. Fortunately, my wife worked herself through school and got a few credits to receive a very small amount but that's better than nothing. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

PS. Perhaps if Mach didn't contribute then he'll get nothing. Remember, we're talking about an individual that loves the Demoncraptic Socialist system and they're all about free stuff and maybe he ain't getting a cent and that's WHY he hates it.

It’s what happens when those that want other people’s stuff outnumber those that work for their stuff. Socialism is pure evil. Look no further than those pictures. Ben Franklin warned us. We should listen.

(08-13-2018 12:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  ^ Those pictures legitimately made me sick to my stomach. To think, democrats want to put that same suffering on America, just because they are spiteful failures that can't compete in a market economy.

Those pictures should be ran in ads for the next 3 months.....

this is free health care
this is free education
this is free.......do you really want to replace what you have today, with it?

(08-13-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yep, if Washington didn’t borrow from the Socual Security Trust fund it wouldn’t be going broke. Keep cutting taxes and supporting trillion dollar deficits.

Barack Obama gave us the trillion dollar deficit.

Sure thing dude...

Quote:There are two ways to look at the U.S. budget deficit when determining which president has run the largest deficit. The first is to look at each president's term or terms in office, total the deficits run over the course of their four or eight years, and base your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method, Barack Obama's budget deficit was $6.69 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years, and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.

Read more: Which U.S. presidents have run the largest budget deficits? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers...z5O5T1d0p5
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Addtionally:

Quote:President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.

FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. This amount is calculated from $1.413 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act.

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-pr...de-3306151

(08-13-2018 01:41 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 12:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  ^ Those pictures legitimately made me sick to my stomach. To think, democrats want to put that same suffering on America, just because they are spiteful failures that can't compete in a market economy.

Those pictures should be ran in ads for the next 3 months.....

this is free health care
this is free education
this is free.......do you really want to replace what you have today, with it?

Excellent suggestion. They would certainly make powerful set of ads.

(08-13-2018 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yep, if Washington didn’t borrow from the Socual Security Trust fund it wouldn’t be going broke. Keep cutting taxes and supporting trillion dollar deficits.

Barack Obama gave us the trillion dollar deficit.

Sure thing dude...

Quote:There are two ways to look at the U.S. budget deficit when determining which president has run the largest deficit. The first is to look at each president's term or terms in office, total the deficits run over the course of their four or eight years, and base your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method, Barack Obama's budget deficit was $6.69 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years, and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.
Read more: Which U.S. presidents have run the largest budget deficits? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers...z5O5T1d0p5
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Addtionally:

Quote:President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. This amount is calculated from $1.413 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act.

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-pr...de-3306151

2009 is an odd beast because the Bush budget was never enacted. Bush's budget called for revenues of $2.7 trillion and expenses of $3.1 trillion, for a deficit off $400 billion, roughly the same as 2004 the larger than any other to that point. Because of the recession, actual revenues came in lower, at about $2.1 trillion, so the Bush budget would in theory have gotten us right about to $1 trillion.

But Obama added $400 billion in expenditures to the final budget as passed, for a deficit of $1.4 trillion. And it's easy to argue that, "Obama didn't really want a trillion dollar deficit, it was forced upon him but the recession," except for one thing--he continued to run $1.3 trillion deficits in 2010 and 2011, and the deficit didn't really start to come back down until republicans took control of the branch of congress that initiates expenditures. Deficits with republicans controlling the house were $1.1 trillion in 2012, and $0.7 trillion, $0.5 trillion, and $0.4 trillion in 2013-16, respectively.

At minimum, giving you all your points, the average annual deficit under GWB was $400B, going to $800B under Obama. Those two things are not the same. If I change my comment to, "Obama gave us the $800 billion average annual deficit," are you okay with that?

I think what this really says is that neither democrats nor republicans are worth a damn at fiscal responsibility, and about the only time we have real progress is when they are split. To republicans' credit, they did reduce the deficit when they controlled everything, from $400B in 2004 to $318B in 2005, $248B in 2006, and $160B in 2007, but democrats took both houses of congress in 2006, and immediately pumped the deficit back up.

I want to vote for someone who says balance the budget and really means it. Not a balanced budget amendment--an actual balanced budget. Looking for fiscal responsibility among either democrats or republicans or democrats is almost like looking for virginity in a whorehouse.

(08-13-2018 03:08 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 02:13 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 11:14 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Yep, if Washington didn’t borrow from the Socual Security Trust fund it wouldn’t be going broke. Keep cutting taxes and supporting trillion dollar deficits.

Barack Obama gave us the trillion dollar deficit.

Sure thing dude...

Quote:There are two ways to look at the U.S. budget deficit when determining which president has run the largest deficit. The first is to look at each president's term or terms in office, total the deficits run over the course of their four or eight years, and base your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method, Barack Obama's budget deficit was $6.69 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years, and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.
Read more: Which U.S. presidents have run the largest budget deficits? | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers...z5O5T1d0p5
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Addtionally:

Quote:President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. This amount is calculated from $1.413 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act.

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-pr...de-3306151

2009 is an odd beast because the bush budget was never enacted. Bush's budget called for revenues of $2.7 trillion and expenses of $3.1 trillion, for a deficit off $400 billion, roughly the same as 2004 the larger than any other to that point. Because of the recession, actual revenues came in lower, at about $2.1 trillion, so the Bush budget would in theory have gotten us right about to $1 trillion.

But Obama added $400 billion in expenditures to the final budget as passed, for a deficit of $1.4 trillion. And it's easy to argue that, "Obama didn't really want a trillion dollar deficit, it was forced upon him but the recession," except for one thing--he continued to run $1.3 trillion deficits in 2010 and 2011, and the deficit didn't really start to come back down until republicans took control of the branch of congress that initiates expenditures. Deficits with republicans controlling the house were $1.1 trillion in 2012, and $0.7 trillion, $0.5 trillion, and $0.4 trillion in 2013-16, respectively.

I think what this really says is that neither democrats nor republicans are worth a damn at fiscal responsibility, and about the only time we have real progress is when they are split. To republicans' credit, they did reduce the deficit when they controlled everything, from $400B in 2004 to $318B in 2005, $248B in 2006, and $160B in 2007, but democrats took both houses of congress in 2006, and immediately pumped the deficit back up.

I want to vote for someone who says balance the budget and really means it. Not a balanced budget amendment--an actual balanced budget. Looking for fiscal responsibility among either democrats or republicans or democrats is almost like looking for virginity in a whorehouse.

That's a lot of words to say Obama did NOT create THE trillion dollar deficit.

And of course, neither D's nor R's are fiscally responsible. That's why we have a 21.3T national debt. Additionally, a annual budget for a governmental entity controlling the entirety of the US is pretty much worthless and would take a miracle to actually hit a "random" budgetary target anyway. Not to say they shouldn't try, but it's a pretty much pointless exercise. We have a hard enough time hitting a budget for our tiny 1,000 attender church!

Lastly, if you want to vote for someone who wants to balance a budget, you better vote for one promising tax increases, cause that's the ONLY way it's going to happen.

(08-13-2018 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That's a lot of words to say Obama did NOT create THE trillion dollar deficit.

Well he and the democrat congress certainly gave us the recurring trillion dollar deficit. If you look at it from the congressional perspective, the deficit went down generally as republicans controlled more of congress and went up as they controlled less of congress during both the GWB and Obama administrations.

Quote:And of course, neither D's nor R's are fiscally responsible. That's why we have a 21.3T national debt.

Absolutely, which is why I'm neither R nor D, despite efforts by some to portray me as one or the other.

Quote:Additionally, a annual budget for a governmental entity controlling the entirety of the US is pretty much worthless and would take a miracle to actually hit a "random" budgetary target anyway. Not to say they shouldn't try, but it's a pretty much pointless exercise. We have a hard enough time hitting a budget for our tiny 1,000 attender church!

1,000 is not exactly a tiny church, we have more like 400. Not buying the rest of your argument. You'll never hit it to the penny, or even to the dollar, in neither churches nor governments, but that doesn't make it a pointless argument in either.

Quote:Lastly, if you want to vote for someone who wants to balance a budget, you better vote for one promising tax increases, cause that's the ONLY way it's going to happen.

Absolutely agree on tax revenue increases. But the only way to raise tax revenues to anything remotely approaching current expenditures without making tax rates confiscatory and driving investment to lower-tax jurisdictions is to do what those pother jurisdictions do--a consumption tax. A 15% across the board consumption tax would yield $2.5 trillion (average consumption tax base of 81-82% of GDP times $20 trillion GDP times 15% tax rate). We could get rid of the personal tax (which generates about $1.5 trillion) entirely and still have enough to eliminate the $1 trillion deficit.

But we also need to cut spending. The left wants to pick on defense, but if we eliminated defense entirely, which is patently unreasonable, that wouldn't be enough to eliminate the deficit. Bottom line is that the reason we spend more on defense than the next ten countries or whatever is that, for about 8 of those 10 countries, we are their defense. That needs to change for us to accomplish any meaningful reduction in defense spending, but when Trump presents Europe with that, "OMG, he's destroying NATO." We can do defense more efficiently, but even in a perfect world the absolute max we could probably cut is 20%. And quite frankly, we would have to add about half of that back, because right now we don't have the defense resources to meet current commitments. Wearing out our resources, including overburdening our people, is why two Navy ships got run into by merchantmen in the Pacific. That, and promoting people based on political correctness instead of competence. As I said, the solution there is for allies to take on some of those commitments.

But even picking defense to death, there just isn't enough there. The real problem long-term is entitlements and social security (social security is not an entitlement, its just people getting their money back). Social security is fixable--raise or eliminate the earnings cap, advance the retirement age very gradually, and do like Sweden and incorporate a privatized port to raise ROI. Entitlements need a rethink. I think we need to replace the hodgepodge of focused and means-tested programs with a universal basic income. Do that and Bismarck health care and you pretty much build a decent floor under everybody. That plus a minimum wage job at current minimum wage puts everybody above the poverty line. And that ends up being cheaper because we don't need to spend trillions on bureaucratic gate-keepers.

Europe provides a better welfare safety net than we do, and also a more tax efficient ROI for investment. We could learn from them.

(08-13-2018 01:41 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 12:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  ^ Those pictures legitimately made me sick to my stomach. To think, democrats want to put that same suffering on America, just because they are spiteful failures that can't compete in a market economy.

Those pictures should be ran in ads for the next 3 months.....

this is free health care
this is free education
this is free.......do you really want to replace what you have today, with it?

Same for Cuba. Leftists say hey they got free health care in Cuba, as if Cubans who make $40 a month get to go to the same clinics as those from abroad who come for medical tourism, LOL.

(08-13-2018 04:06 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 01:41 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 12:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  ^ Those pictures legitimately made me sick to my stomach. To think, democrats want to put that same suffering on America, just because they are spiteful failures that can't compete in a market economy.

Those pictures should be ran in ads for the next 3 months.....
this is free health care
this is free education
this is free.......do you really want to replace what you have today, with it?

Same for Cuba. Leftists say hey they got free health care in Cuba, as if Cubans who make $40 a month get to go to the same clinics as those from abroad who come for medical tourism, LOL.

Health care can't be free enough to be worth having to live on $40 a month to get it.

(08-13-2018 04:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 04:06 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 01:41 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(08-13-2018 12:12 PM)Kronke Wrote:  ^ Those pictures legitimately made me sick to my stomach. To think, democrats want to put that same suffering on America, just because they are spiteful failures that can't compete in a market economy.

Those pictures should be ran in ads for the next 3 months.....
this is free health care
this is free education
this is free.......do you really want to replace what you have today, with it?

Same for Cuba. Leftists say hey they got free health care in Cuba, as if Cubans who make $40 a month get to go to the same clinics as those from abroad who come for medical tourism, LOL.

Health care can't be free enough to be worth having to live on $40 a month to get it.

Ouch! That left a mark!