or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Budget Deal - Page 6

post #201 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How do you feel about the Ryan plan adding an additional $62 trillion to the debt by 2060. Nearly all repubs voted for it.

Without seeing the full plan and what all was included I am going to reserve judgement. One part of the entire plan does not give a full enough picture. Also, how did they arrive at the dollar amount that it would add to the debt? If you have a link to where you are looking that would be great. That way I can see where you are arriving at your figures from. Otherwise I can look for some other site that might have similar information.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #202 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

---Stimulus=not Republican

WHAT!? It was Bush's fucking stimulus!
Quote:
---Obamacare=not Republican

95% written by Mitt Romney. No public option. Republican through and through.
Quote:
---Deficits 4x higher than Bush's worst=not Republican

Hand-me-down deficits, TYVM. Bush. Combined with 100% Republican military and tax policy.
Quote:
---Pushing tax increases=not Republican

"Pushing?" WTF? I thought we were talking about what he DID.
Quote:
---"I think when we spread the wealth around, it's better for everybody"=not Republican.

Again, is this something he did?
Quote:
---Not following any military recommendation on Afghanistan policy recently=not Republican

LMFAO! Right.
Quote:
---Offshore drilling moratoriums=not Republican

Okay, you got me.
Quote:
---Proposed doubling of CAFE standards by 2025=not Republican

Again, is this something he DID?
Quote:
He has succeeded at quite a bit of his agenda, namely spending money faster than imaginable.

Not part of his published agenda, and wouldn't have happened if he had followed his published agenda.
Quote:
And he's still blaming Bush and claiming that our current situation is the result of fucking tax cuts and the two wars.

Which he is mostly right to do, but he could have made some fixes if not for the fact that he was constantly allowing Republican policies to pass.
Quote:
This is literally the stupidest, most dishonest argument imaginable, but people still buy it.

Because it's true.
Quote:
And you're wrong about "better medical care." The US has the best care in the world. The problem is the debate about the right to access it.

If all the cars in the world were Lamborghinis, would it matter to most people? The US has among the worst "care" in the civilized world for the majority of people, because of access. You can't just ignore access.
post #203 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

If all the cars in the world were Lamborghinis, would it matter to most people? The US has among the worst "care" in the civilized world for the majority of people, because of access. You can't just ignore access.

If all computers were high end Mac Pros would that make all computers in the world terrible because they cannot be afforded by everyone?

Access does not describe the quality of the product. It describes how easy it is to get that product. Healthcare is getting entirely too expensive and needs to be brought back into line with reality.

Is the US government the one to do that, I don't think so. They have not done well with their forays into medical as far as costs go from where I am looking. \
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #204 of 736
Hands, are any of the links on this site where you got your data from?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #205 of 736
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Without seeing the full plan and what all was included I am going to reserve judgement. One part of the entire plan does not give a full enough picture. Also, how did they arrive at the dollar amount that it would add to the debt? If you have a link to where you are looking that would be great. That way I can see where you are arriving at your figures from. Otherwise I can look for some other site that might have similar information.


I haven't read it either, just gathered some info about it.

Here's relating to how the repubs want to add at least $62 trillion to Americas debt-

"In a Feb. 24, 2011, column in the Washington Post, Matt Miller, a senior fellow with the liberal Center for American Progress, criticized Republican plans for the federal budget. Miller specifically took aim at a "roadmap" put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the chairman of the House Budget Committee.

"We're so accustomed to political flimflam that, as (the late Democratic Sen.) Daniel Patrick Moynihan might have put it, we're defining truth-telling down," Miller wrote. He charged that leading Republicans have so far only offered "half-truths" about the long-term budget realities.

"Thanks to House budget chief Paul Ryan, it's possible to measure the size of this fraud. And it's colossal," Miller wrote. "As can never be said often enough, Ryan is absurdly hailed as a fiscal ‘conservative’ for a ‘roadmap’ that doesn't balance the budget until the 2060s and that adds an unthinkable $62 trillion to the national debt between now and then."

Miller said that Ryan "pretends we can keep federal taxes at their recent historic levels of 19 percent of gross domestic product as the boomers age. No can do. The math doesn't work. Ryan's endless red ink proves this."

As Congressional leaders and the White House negotiate over the next federal budget, we thought we’d check whether Miller fairly characterizes Ryan’s proposal -- specifically whether it’s true that Ryan’s roadmap "doesn't balance the budget until the 2060s and … adds an unthinkable $62 trillion to the national debt."

First, we turned to Ryan’s roadmap itself. In a summary table, Ryan provided the amounts for outlays, revenues, deficits or surpluses, and debt for every year of the plan through 2083. (Yes, through 2083 -- more on that in a moment.) Ryan’s table offers these figures as a percentage of gross domestic product rather than as dollar amounts.

For the question of when the budget reaches balance, Miller is correct. The percentage of GDP shifts from negative (representing a deficit) to positive (a surplus) in 2063. From that point on, the percentage stays in positive territory -- that is, in surplus -- through 2083.

An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office -- Congress’s non-partisan arbiter of budgetary figures -- doesn’t list the exact year that surpluses first occur under Ryan’s plan, but it agrees that it will happen sometime between 2060 and 2080. So on this point Miller appears to be correct.

How about Miller’s claim that Ryan would add $62 trillion to the debt?

We couldn’t find a $62 trillion figure in either Ryan’s roadmap or in the CBO analysis. We looked back at a previous column and discovered that Miller had also mentioned the figure there. Here’s what he wrote:

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, Ryan's plan would result in annual deficits of between 3.5 and 4.5 percent of GDP between now and somewhere after 2040, with a balanced budget coming only around 2063," Miller wrote. "This would add at least $62 trillion to the national debt over the period. (My estimate is conservative mostly because the independent Tax Policy Center says Ryan's tax reforms would produce far less revenue than Ryan required the CBO to assume.)"

In other words, the $62 trillion figure is an estimate that Miller -- not Ryan or CBO -- produced, and it doesn’t cover the debt added by Ryan’s plan through either 2080 (the final year of CBO’s analysis) or 2083 (the final year of Ryan’s projection).

Miller told PolitiFact that his $62 trillion estimate was conservative, stopping the count at 2050 rather than the deficit/surplus tipping point of 2063, and using lower annual debt estimates than CBO did.

Whether or not Miller's figure is right -- and the number is certainly in the trillions of dollars -- it's important to note that he was selective in choosing his time frame.

That’s because between 2063 and 2080, the federal debt under Ryan’s plan is projected to disappear. In fact, by 2083, the debt under Ryan’s plan would actually turn into a surplus -- a surplus equal to one-sixth of the nation’s GDP.

These numbers come from Ryan’s proposal, but CBO’s analysis essentially backs them up, agreeing that the national debt would fall to between negative 0.5 percent and positive 0.5 percent of GDP in 2080. In other words, CBO reckons that the debt would be either small, zero, or in a modest surplus by then.

So while Miller has a point that it would take Ryan 52 years to balance the budget -- and that perhaps trillions of dollars in debt will be added between now and then -- the columnist leaves out the counterpoint that Ryan’s plan would eliminate the federal debt after an additional 17 to 20 years.

There’s also another bit of missing context: Under the status quo, it would take even longer to reach a surplus, and the U.S. would acquire even more debt.

There aren’t many budgetary projections that look 69 years into the future. But CBO does produce long-term budget analyses, including one under a scenario in which the current baseline budget numbers are adjusted to include changes to those policies that are widely expected to be enacted.

Under this status-quo scenario, CBO sees the deficit growing consistently as a percentage of GDP, from 7.4 percent of GDP in 2020 to 17.2 percent in 2040, 28 percent in 2060 and 42.8 percent in 2080.

So under this model there isn’t a surplus in sight at all, at least through 2080.

As for debt, the situation is similar. According to CBO, the status-quo model produces debt levels that reach 433 percent of GDP by 2060 and 716 percent of GDP by 2080. The comparable numbers for Ryan’s plan are 77 percent of GDP by 2060 and essentially zero by 2080.

By glossing over what happens to the debt under Ryan’s plan between 2063 and 2083, Miller does give a misleading impression of its projected full fiscal impact.

Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, calls Miller’s debt assertion "ridiculous. Yes, Ryan's plan may allow $62 trillion of debt, but that is far, far, far less than what would happen under current law."

But Miller makes two counter-arguments.

First, Miller isn’t advocating the status-quo plan CBO used. To the contrary, his point is that while some of Ryan’s proposed policies are admirable, the lawmaker should be more aggressive about deficits and the debt by proposing tax increases. Such increases, which are anathema to most Republicans, could help reduce the deficit and the debt much more quickly than Ryan’s plan would.

Second, 70-year budgetary estimates ought to be taken with a big grain of salt. On the one hand, economists use the tools they have available, and because much of the federal budget is dictated by long-term demographics -- including Social Security and Medicare -- experts in the field say that the numbers are reasonable approximations.

Still, 2083 is as long in the future as 1939 is in the past. Any estimates made in 1939 about what the nation’s economy would look like in 2011 would not have accounted for factors that were unimaginable then, from the baby boom to free trade policies to computerization and the Internet.

"Ryan is the one who claims his plan is ‘conservative,’" Miller told PolitiFact. "The idea that he runs 62 or 80 or 100 trillion in debt but then pledges to do better when all of us are long dead is silly."

So where does this leave us?

On the one hand, Miller’s statement fails to mention the fact that Ryan’s plan does eventually eliminate the debt, according to CBO -- a sizable achievement when one realizes that under status quo policies, the debt would be more than seven times the size of the nation’s economy. Still, an outcome 70 years from now is subject to a lot of uncertainty, and Miller’s actual statement was phrased carefully. It’s true, as he says, that Ryan’s plan "doesn't balance the budget until the 2060s," and before it gets there, it will probably add trillions of dollars in debt. It’s a close call, but we rate his statement Mostly True."
~ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...cations-paul-/
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #206 of 736
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Hands, are any of the links on this site where you got your data from?

I've re-posted what info I had on this above.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #207 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I've re-posted what info I had on this above.

Thank you. I will look it over and see if there is anything I have to say about it more than I have.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #208 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

WHAT!? It was Bush's fucking stimulus!
95% written by Mitt Romney. No public option. Republican through and through.
Hand-me-down deficits, TYVM. Bush. Combined with 100% Republican military and tax policy.
"Pushing?" WTF? I thought we were talking about what he DID.
Again, is this something he did?
LMFAO! Right.
Okay, you got me.
Again, is this something he DID?
Not part of his published agenda, and wouldn't have happened if he had followed his published agenda.
Which he is mostly right to do, but he could have made some fixes if not for the fact that he was constantly allowing Republican policies to pass.

Because it's true.

If all the cars in the world were Lamborghinis, would it matter to most people? The US has among the worst "care" in the civilized world for the majority of people, because of access. You can't just ignore access.


This was such a good reply it bears repeating tonton. These are all things the GOP would rather not see.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #209 of 736
post #210 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

WHAT!? It was Bush's fucking stimulus!
95% written by Mitt Romney. No public option. Republican through and through.
Hand-me-down deficits, TYVM. Bush. Combined with 100% Republican military and tax policy.
"Pushing?" WTF? I thought we were talking about what he DID.
Again, is this something he did?
LMFAO! Right.
Okay, you got me.
Again, is this something he DID?
Not part of his published agenda, and wouldn't have happened if he had followed his published agenda.
Which he is mostly right to do, but he could have made some fixes if not for the fact that he was constantly allowing Republican policies to pass.

Because it's true.

If all the cars in the world were Lamborghinis, would it matter to most people? The US has among the worst "care" in the civilized world for the majority of people, because of access. You can't just ignore access.

Obama is the fall guy everyone knows this by now. It is pathetic the so called prosperous country in the world has the worst health care plan.I agree with you on this point.
post #211 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

WHAT!? It was Bush's fucking stimulus!

Bizzaro world. Not supported by Republicans.

Quote:
95% written by Mitt Romney. No public option. Republican through and through.

Considerably different than the Romney plan. And put into action in a state where most Republicans are RINOS anyway.

Quote:
Hand-me-down deficits, TYVM. Bush. Combined with 100% Republican military and tax policy.

Bullshit. The deficit go from $400 billion to $1.65 trillion because of "hand me downs". Right.

Quote:

"Pushing?" WTF? I thought we were talking about what he DID.
Again, is this something he did?

Fair enough, if you'd like to avoid his actual agenda.

Quote:
LMFAO! Right.

This is 100% true. The option he chose for drawdown was not recommended by the military. They presented a number of options...he ignored them.

Quote:
Okay, you got me.

Not sure why that's funny. Unless tens of thousands losing their jobs and less energy security and higher prices for the poor make you laugh.

Quote:
Again, is this something he DID?

Try reading the news, champ.

Quote:
Not part of his published agenda, and wouldn't have happened if he had followed his published agenda.

I thought we were focusing on things he did?

Quote:

Which he is mostly right to do, but he could have made some fixes if not for the fact that he was constantly allowing Republican policies to pass.

tonton, I consider you an intelligent guy with whom I happen to disagree. But when you say things like this, I honestly start questioning my perception. The wars and tax cuts are objectively not the main reason...or even a significant part of the reason we are in our current situation. First, the tax cuts did not cost revenue over the long-term. In fact, federal revenue hit a record in 2007. Any short-term revenue losses were more than made for by the resulting economic growth (incidentally, the tax code became MORE progressive as a result of them). The wars have will have cost a TOTAL of about 1.3 trillion by the end of FY 2011. Our current deficit is $1.65 trillion...PER YEAR. What you claim is absolutely and provably false.

Quote:

Because it's true.

It's not. It's not even close to true...which is a fact I just showed you. It amazing that a smart guy like you who, in another thread, is talking about SCIENCE, can be so blind as to not understand basic arithmetic.

Quote:

If all the cars in the world were Lamborghinis, would it matter to most people? The US has among the worst "care" in the civilized world for the majority of people, because of access. You can't just ignore access.

Absolute nonsense. The vast majority of people who want insurance HAVE health insurance. There are some that cannot afford it for various reasons, and some that are uninsurable (and no, this number is not 48 million, or 37 million, or 20 million...the real number--excluding illegal immigrants--is about 10 million). Addressing this problem does not require socialized medicine. And unlike you, I don't believe that free unlimited "healthcare" is a right. But that's another matter.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #212 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I've re-posted what info I had on this above.

That's a lot of text to explain that you don't understand basic economics.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #213 of 736
In other news, it looks like the deal will be:

--2 trillion in "*cuts" over decade.
--Approximately equal amount of debt ceiling increase
--Two stage process: 1 trillion raise, committee studies further cuts. If Congress does not act, they must vote on a BBA. If that fails, 1.2 trillion in cuts occurs immediately, presumably with debt ceiling increase of equal amount.
--No new taxes
--Takes us through 2012 election.


*Cuts are not actual cuts because Congress uses baseline budgeting. In other words, if a program cost 100 Billion this year, a 0% increase would be whatever it would cost NEXT year. That program might be budgeted at 107 billion, but end up with 2 billion in "cuts." That's how Washington gets to call a 5% increase a "two billion dollar cut."

http://news.yahoo.com/really-close-d...200915476.html


Not great, but a step in the right direction. Definitely better than just raising the debt ceiling with no caveats, or taking a deal with tax increases.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #214 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

In other news, it looks like the deal will be:

--2 trillion in "*cuts" over decade.
--Approximately equal amount of debt ceiling increase
--Two stage process: 1 trillion raise, committee studies further cuts. If Congress does not act, they must vote on a BBA. If that fails, 1.2 trillion in cuts occurs immediately, presumably with debt ceiling increase of equal amount.
--No new taxes
--Takes us through 2012 election.


*Cuts are not actual cuts because Congress uses baseline budgeting. In other words, if a program cost 100 Billion this year, a 0% increase would be whatever it would cost NEXT year. That program might be budgeted at 107 billion, but end up with 2 billion in "cuts." That's how Washington gets to call a 5% increase a "two billion dollar cut."

http://news.yahoo.com/really-close-d...200915476.html


Not great, but a step in the right direction. Definitely better than just raising the debt ceiling with no caveats, or taking a deal with tax increases.

Not great at all. No hard choices made.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #215 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Not great at all. No hard choices made.

That wasn't going to happen. Democrats would have never allowed real cuts. We're lucky the GOP didn't cave on raising taxes to get more fake cuts.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #216 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That wasn't going to happen. Democrats would have never allowed real cuts. We're lucky the GOP didn't cave on raising taxes to get more fake cuts.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-says-con...005642677.html

Quote:
Obama told the nation on television that more than $2 trillion in spending cuts will be imposed gradually so they don't create a drag on the economy.

He said the spending cuts will reduce government spending to the lowest level it has been since when Dwight Eisenhower was president in the 1950s.

I doubt the veracity of this statement without seeing what the actual deal is. If true I would be surprised. Unless Eisenhower had some really high spending...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #217 of 736
By "gradually" he means "never". Hope that clears things up a bit.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #218 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

By "gradually" he means "never". Hope that clears things up a bit.

Yeah, that would be closer to reality wouldn't it...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #219 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Yeah, that would be closer to reality wouldn't it...

Let's be honest, here.

The government just voted to perpetuate and expand itself at the expense of the individual. Nothing has changed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #220 of 736
And the right wing wants to promote a few individuals at the expense of society. You decry socialism but when removing corporate subsidies is off the table for the tea party, you know what its real motivation is.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #221 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And the right wing wants to promote a few individuals at the expense of society. You decry socialism but when removing corporate subsidies is off the table for the tea party, you know what its real motivation is.

From what I am reading nothing has actually been voted on. It has simply made it to the point of being possibly passable.

Getting information on what is in these bills is not easy. Can you link to where corporate subsidies are off the table? I want to know what is actually going on, not just the media sound bytes. This subject is very critical and if they mulligan on this it will answer a couple of important question for me.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #222 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And the right wing wants to promote a few individuals at the expense of society. You decry socialism but when removing corporate subsidies is off the table for the tea party, you know what its real motivation is.

Corporate subsidies are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #223 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

From what I am reading nothing has actually been voted on. It has simply made it to the point of being possibly passable.

Getting information on what is in these bills is not easy. Can you link to where corporate subsidies are off the table? I want to know what is actually going on, not just the media sound bytes. This subject is very critical and if they mulligan on this it will answer a couple of important question for me.

It what I heard on the news radio channel on the way home the other day. I don't have a source other than that.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #224 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Corporate subsidies are unconstitutional and should be eliminated.

*Citation needed.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #225 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

*Citation needed.

unconstitutional

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #226 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

And the right wing wants to promote a few individuals at the expense of society.

You say that like the left wing doesn't do the same thing.

You've got partisan blinders on.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #227 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

By "gradually" he means "never". Hope that clears things up a bit.

Yeah, just like tax cuts for the rich which when voted on by Congress, were set to 'expire'.
post #228 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

unconstitutional

You just gave me the definition of the word unconstitutional. You did not cite any specific language as to why corporate subsidies fall under that category. That's very weak.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #229 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Getting information on what is in these bills is not easy.

And, of course, it will remain that way because it prevents the American public from seeing what's really happening and, thus, enables both sides to spin this as they need to.


Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

This subject is very critical and if they mulligan on this it will answer a couple of important question for me.

I'll bet spending won't be cut one bit in any real sense of the way normal people use that term and, in fact, it will increase to the new debt ceiling.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #230 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, just like tax cuts for the rich which when voted on by Congress, were set to 'expire'.

They actually were going to expire, but both Congress and the President, wisely, to specific action to extend them. Had they done nothing, they would have expired.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #231 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You just gave me the definition of the word unconstitutional. You did not cite any specific language as to why corporate subsidies fall under that category. That's very weak.

Not as weak as refusing to discuss the word consent.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #232 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It what I heard on the news radio channel on the way home the other day. I don't have a source other than that.

So you just believed it? If it is true it should be able to be found. I will look a bit, but I recommend that you look as well rather than just accepting it as fact. That kind of argument would get me a brand shiny new hole ripped in my argument, by you.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #233 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You just gave me the definition of the word unconstitutional. You did not cite any specific language as to why corporate subsidies fall under that category. That's very weak.

Actually, it appears to be a misunderstanding from where I am looking at it.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #234 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

So you just believed it? If it is true it should be able to be found. I will look a bit, but I recommend that you look as well rather than just accepting it as fact. That kind of argument would get me a brand shiny new hole ripped in my argument, by you.

Just saying what I heard on a legitimate news station (not one of the 50 right wing echo chambers or the 1 stupid liberal one). I simply haven't bothered to get a corroborating evidence because I frankly don't care enough to on this one. It's not that important to me.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #235 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Actually, it appears to be a misunderstanding from where I am looking at it.

Oh bullshit. When I say he needs a citation to support his claim, it's pretty obvious just pointing me to a dictionary definition isn't what I was asking for. Your bias underpants are showing.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #236 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Not as weak as refusing to discuss the word consent.

Make a thread. Though, tonton already put you in your place. Seems kinda pointless now.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #237 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

They actually were going to expire, but both Congress and the President, wisely, to specific action to extend them. Had they done nothing, they would have expired.

Then explain to me exactly why the idiots called their 'expiry' a tax increase? In actuality, their extension was a tax cut enacted by Congress under Obama. But the right will never admit to that.
post #238 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Not as weak as refusing to discuss the word consent.

Not as stupid as not having the vaguest clue what 'consent' means in the first place.

Quiz: Can an adult 'consent' to murder someone? Can an adult consent to being euthanized? A woman who is raped... Did she consent? Did the rapist?
post #239 of 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Make a thread. Though, tonton already put you in your place. Seems kinda pointless now.


Really?

You're no fun anymore BR. There used to be some lucidity to your postings. Now they just are hateful diatribes and ranting.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #240 of 736
You mean, I used to agree with you more frequently in the past, but over the last few years you have drifted far to the right and I've realized I care about people too much to be a Libertarian. I've learned, grown, and changed my mind significantly about economic matters. You've just hardened into a bigger curmudgeon than you were before.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Budget Deal