So are you actually worried about this or are you just concern trolling?
A rate increase from 35% to 39.6% which yields about $80B/yr. That is the great liberal/proggie/Dem solution to the budget gap.
And you assholes have the audacity to claim that the Republicans aren't serious?
And I note that you haven't re-engaged on Stiglitz. Yes, you posted something - and then promptly ignored it. You actually created an opportunity there for discussion. Why?
That is the great liberal/proggie/Dem solution to the budget gap.
No, that's the "in the bubble" view of what liberals and progressives want. 1/3 revenue, 2/3s spending cuts. That's what the president and most Democrats support.
I have been out of town and unable to leave longer responses so that's why I didn't respond to the latest Stiglitz post. I'll go do so now.
You realize that even with that ratio of 1:2 (yielding $240B/yr) that's only a bit more than a quarter of the deficit? I'll believe the budget cuts when I see them.
OK. So $80B in revenue would mean $160B in spending cuts (i.e. real decreases in spending, not just reduced increases). That only leaves you half a trillion dollars or so from closing the gap. You still claim that you are serious about this?
2/3s spending cuts. That's what the president and most Democrats support.
Hahahahahahahhhahhahahahhahahahah!
1st - Where is the serious discussion of this?
2nd - If most of it consists of spending cuts rather than 'revenue increases' does this actually mean that when you said 'our problem is a revenue issue, not a spending issue' - were you incorrect?
Well, GD, you have to come out of the bubble first and get your information from sources other than hotair or biggovernment. Start by actually listening to the president for a change.
First one - a simple link would suffice...........and remember, I did say serious discussion. Meaning not only a discussion of something that actually might succeed at being accepted - but also might actually succeed at solving the problem that it is intended to solve.
Second. Were you or were you not incorrect in your earlier position that we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem?
I have to help out with you listening dysfunction, GD?
I've always said that we have to approach our debt issues with both revenue increases and spending cuts. I've said it time and again but you don't listen and choose instead to play these games.
As far as the president goes, did you watch any of the debates? He said it many times during each one. Further, it's been repeated many times from many sources over the last year+....that is, outside of the bubble.
Now, either you already know this and are just being a dick or you truly are living in bubble that is so far separated from reality that I doubt little ol' me can help you.
I've always said that we have to approach our debt issues with both revenue increases and spending cuts. I've said it time and again but you don't listen and choose instead to play these games.
I listen Mark - you don't. This has not a damn thing to do with you having said we need both revenue increases and spending cuts. This has to do with you specifically, vehemently and repeatedly saying that our problems are not due to us having a spending problem, but rather a revenue problem.
The question is - if you (and Obama) think that in order to solve that problem we need more cutting of the spending than raising of the revenue does that emphasis on the spending now negate your prior insistence that we do not have a spending problem?
He said it many times during each one.
Yippee skippy. He also said he was going to have the most transparent administration ever!!!>.1!!1
You apparently don't even read your own links. O's plan to 'reduce' spending won't even reach Bowles-Simpson requirements and he won't actually get his stated deficit reduction targets with his own budget.
You call that a serious discussion of spending reduction?
And I have specifically said that it is a problem of both revenue and spending not simply spending. Your hyper-obsessiveness with spending blinds you to the good that it actually does in our culture and the world at large. In your world, the government hands out free money to poor people that don't want to work and lay around watching their flat screen TVs and using their food stamp money to buy steak. That world is a work of fiction. In reality, government spending...even non defense spending...is a good thing for large swaths of our economy.
if you (and Obama) think that in order to solve that problem we need more cutting of the spending than raising of the revenue
As I have said many, many times...as the president has said many, many times...more spending cuts than revenue raising.
I have specifically said that it is a problem of both revenue and spending not simply spending.
And you wouldn't mind providing a link that says specifically that? Because, to my recollection, you have said specifically that we do not have a spending problem. Not only that, but you argued for weeks on end to defend that specific position.
In your world, the government hands out free money to poor people that don't want to work and lay around watching their flat screen TVs and using their food stamp money to buy steak
I have said this many, many, many times......Oh wait - I have never said this, not anything remotely approaching this particular voice in your head. If you believe otherwise you are also free to post a link showing where I said specifically this.
As I have said many, many times...as the president has said many, many times...more spending cuts than revenue raising.
Then of course you are able to provide links where you have said this those many, many times. Specifically where you have made the case for more cutting than taxing?
In reality, government spending...even non defense spending...is a good thing for large swaths of our economy.
Then riddle me this: If said spending is indeed a good thing - then why pray tell is it now necessary to reduce that spending in a 2-1 ratio to tax increases? Are you and the President attempting to damage our economy?
blinds you to the good that it actually does in our culture
Really?
You always assert that non-liberals are obsessed with welfare queens. Ok, here is a motherfucking welfare queen that pisses me off no end. You going to try and tell me that that govt spending is all so fucking wonderful?
And you wouldn't mind providing a link that says specifically that?
Great, here we go again. I waste my time trying to prove I said something which I've said many times in comments and in posts on here and you get to sit back and laugh. No thanks, GD. I'm not playing your game anymore and I'm not doing your work for you. This is why I put tags on the site. Click on the ones that say "Debt" and "Deficit." Read the comments.
then why pray tell is it now necessary to reduce that spending in a 2-1 ratio to tax increases?
Because of the long term debt and deficit concern. Contrary to the in the bubble thinking, Democrats don't want to continue to spend money like there's no tomorrow. There are relative levels of spending, after all, not just A BUNCH or VERY LITTLE. Sheesh...
Democrats don't want to continue to spend money like there's no tomorrow.
Well, we shall watch what they do in California over the next two years for a clear-as-a-bell indicator, no?
And spending cuts are still nearly as rare as hens teeth in Wash, DC (where spending more than last year can be called "a cut" since it was less than was previously planned for the current year).
I waste my time trying to prove I said something which I've said many times
Except you never actually prove it by providing a link to your quote. Your time is wasted by attempting to weasel out of your assertion that you actually said what you are then unable to prove. Repeat ad nauseum.
the long term debt and deficit concern
You mean the long term past where DC has been spending more money than they had for such a long time that there is concern that we may go broke in the future if we don't change our ways? That long term concern?
Does this mean that you now are saying that the government may have to 'live within its means' just like sally homemaker has to? Does that mean you retract your opposition to that concept as well?
Except you never actually prove it by providing a link to your quote.
Click on the tags "Debt" or "Deficit" and see the many examples...examples of conversations of which you were a part. Instead of one link, there are many, that's why I have tags.
I'm surprised you don't remember these conversations especially since they are the same ones over and over again. But that's part of the game, isn't it?
I created the tabs for this very reason, juris. In fact, it was last in line who whined that I never talked about Obama's policies. Now there is a tab for it so anyone can see my posts on it. The same is true here. I have tabs for "debt" "deficit" "taxes"-all of which will lead Guard Duck to these discussions and my assertions on revenue and spending for over a year.
He (and you) can use them. You are both big boys. Not my problem if you and he don't want to do so...in which case, that will be the end of this conversation...other than a simple "Click Tabs" cut and paste:)
22 comments:
So are you actually worried about this or are you just concern trolling?
A rate increase from 35% to 39.6% which yields about $80B/yr. That is the great liberal/proggie/Dem solution to the budget gap.
And you assholes have the audacity to claim that the Republicans aren't serious?
And I note that you haven't re-engaged on Stiglitz. Yes, you posted something - and then promptly ignored it. You actually created an opportunity there for discussion. Why?
That is the great liberal/proggie/Dem solution to the budget gap.
No, that's the "in the bubble" view of what liberals and progressives want. 1/3 revenue, 2/3s spending cuts. That's what the president and most Democrats support.
I have been out of town and unable to leave longer responses so that's why I didn't respond to the latest Stiglitz post. I'll go do so now.
You realize that even with that ratio of 1:2 (yielding $240B/yr) that's only a bit more than a quarter of the deficit? I'll believe the budget cuts when I see them.
1/3 revenue, 2/3s spending cuts.
OK. So $80B in revenue would mean $160B in spending cuts (i.e. real decreases in spending, not just reduced increases). That only leaves you half a trillion dollars or so from closing the gap. You still claim that you are serious about this?
Not that I really give a shit about Norquist, but he may not be as irrelevant as you wish he was.
2/3s spending cuts. That's what the president and most Democrats support.
Hahahahahahahhhahhahahahhahahahah!
1st - Where is the serious discussion of this?
2nd - If most of it consists of spending cuts rather than 'revenue increases' does this actually mean that when you said 'our problem is a revenue issue, not a spending issue' - were you incorrect?
M wasn't serious the last time this was all pointed out.
Well, GD, you have to come out of the bubble first and get your information from sources other than hotair or biggovernment. Start by actually listening to the president for a change.
Two part question up there Mark.
You answered neither.
First one - a simple link would suffice...........and remember, I did say serious discussion. Meaning not only a discussion of something that actually might succeed at being accepted - but also might actually succeed at solving the problem that it is intended to solve.
Second. Were you or were you not incorrect in your earlier position that we have a revenue problem and not a spending problem?
Start by actually listening to the president for a change.
Obama says shut up and suck me you dumbass bitch.
I mean Really? That is your solution? That is so far beyond pathetic I don't believe the English language has a word to describe it.
Then again, this isn't anything you are remotely serious about.
I have to help out with you listening dysfunction, GD?
I've always said that we have to approach our debt issues with both revenue increases and spending cuts. I've said it time and again but you don't listen and choose instead to play these games.
As far as the president goes, did you watch any of the debates? He said it many times during each one.
Further, it's been repeated many times from many sources over the last year+....that is, outside of the bubble.
Here is one place to start...
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0910/Obama-vs.-Romney-101-5-ways-they-differ-on-debt-and-deficits/How-much-should-the-government-spend
Now, either you already know this and are just being a dick or you truly are living in bubble that is so far separated from reality that I doubt little ol' me can help you.
I've always said that we have to approach our debt issues with both revenue increases and spending cuts. I've said it time and again but you don't listen and choose instead to play these games.
I listen Mark - you don't. This has not a damn thing to do with you having said we need both revenue increases and spending cuts. This has to do with you specifically, vehemently and repeatedly saying that our problems are not due to us having a spending problem, but rather a revenue problem.
The question is - if you (and Obama) think that in order to solve that problem we need more cutting of the spending than raising of the revenue does that emphasis on the spending now negate your prior insistence that we do not have a spending problem?
He said it many times during each one.
Yippee skippy. He also said he was going to have the most transparent administration ever!!!>.1!!1
You apparently don't even read your own links. O's plan to 'reduce' spending won't even reach Bowles-Simpson requirements and he won't actually get his stated deficit reduction targets with his own budget.
You call that a serious discussion of spending reduction?
And I have specifically said that it is a problem of both revenue and spending not simply spending. Your hyper-obsessiveness with spending blinds you to the good that it actually does in our culture and the world at large. In your world, the government hands out free money to poor people that don't want to work and lay around watching their flat screen TVs and using their food stamp money to buy steak. That world is a work of fiction. In reality, government spending...even non defense spending...is a good thing for large swaths of our economy.
if you (and Obama) think that in order to solve that problem we need more cutting of the spending than raising of the revenue
As I have said many, many times...as the president has said many, many times...more spending cuts than revenue raising.
I have specifically said that it is a problem of both revenue and spending not simply spending.
And you wouldn't mind providing a link that says specifically that? Because, to my recollection, you have said specifically that we do not have a spending problem. Not only that, but you argued for weeks on end to defend that specific position.
In your world, the government hands out free money to poor people that don't want to work and lay around watching their flat screen TVs and using their food stamp money to buy steak
I have said this many, many, many times......Oh wait - I have never said this, not anything remotely approaching this particular voice in your head. If you believe otherwise you are also free to post a link showing where I said specifically this.
As I have said many, many times...as the president has said many, many times...more spending cuts than revenue raising.
Then of course you are able to provide links where you have said this those many, many times. Specifically where you have made the case for more cutting than taxing?
In reality, government spending...even non defense spending...is a good thing for large swaths of our economy.
Then riddle me this: If said spending is indeed a good thing - then why pray tell is it now necessary to reduce that spending in a 2-1 ratio to tax increases? Are you and the President attempting to damage our economy?
blinds you to the good that it actually does in our culture
Really?
You always assert that non-liberals are obsessed with welfare queens. Ok, here is a motherfucking welfare queen that pisses me off no end. You going to try and tell me that that govt spending is all so fucking wonderful?
And you wouldn't mind providing a link that says specifically that?
Great, here we go again. I waste my time trying to prove I said something which I've said many times in comments and in posts on here and you get to sit back and laugh. No thanks, GD. I'm not playing your game anymore and I'm not doing your work for you. This is why I put tags on the site. Click on the ones that say "Debt" and "Deficit." Read the comments.
then why pray tell is it now necessary to reduce that spending in a 2-1 ratio to tax increases?
Because of the long term debt and deficit concern. Contrary to the in the bubble thinking, Democrats don't want to continue to spend money like there's no tomorrow. There are relative levels of spending, after all, not just A BUNCH or VERY LITTLE. Sheesh...
Democrats don't want to continue to spend money like there's no tomorrow.
Well, we shall watch what they do in California over the next two years for a clear-as-a-bell indicator, no?
And spending cuts are still nearly as rare as hens teeth in Wash, DC (where spending more than last year can be called "a cut" since it was less than was previously planned for the current year).
I waste my time trying to prove I said something which I've said many times
Except you never actually prove it by providing a link to your quote. Your time is wasted by attempting to weasel out of your assertion that you actually said what you are then unable to prove. Repeat ad nauseum.
the long term debt and deficit concern
You mean the long term past where DC has been spending more money than they had for such a long time that there is concern that we may go broke in the future if we don't change our ways? That long term concern?
Does this mean that you now are saying that the government may have to 'live within its means' just like sally homemaker has to? Does that mean you retract your opposition to that concept as well?
Except you never actually prove it by providing a link to your quote.
Click on the tags "Debt" or "Deficit" and see the many examples...examples of conversations of which you were a part. Instead of one link, there are many, that's why I have tags.
I'm surprised you don't remember these conversations especially since they are the same ones over and over again. But that's part of the game, isn't it?
But that's part of the game, isn't it?
A very childish and dishonest game that you are so very fond of. It isn't even as good as Calvinball.
I created the tabs for this very reason, juris. In fact, it was last in line who whined that I never talked about Obama's policies. Now there is a tab for it so anyone can see my posts on it. The same is true here. I have tabs for "debt" "deficit" "taxes"-all of which will lead Guard Duck to these discussions and my assertions on revenue and spending for over a year.
He (and you) can use them. You are both big boys. Not my problem if you and he don't want to do so...in which case, that will be the end of this conversation...other than a simple "Click Tabs" cut and paste:)
M, when you "talk" about Obama, all you do is regurgitate whatever he has said. You don't discuss the disconnect between his words and his actions.
Then you accuse the other side of game playing.
It is tiresome. You didn't even look at the link I gave about the welfare queen - did you?
Post a Comment