goemaw.com

General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: steve dave on January 09, 2013, 11:03:42 AM

Title: debt ceiling
Post by: steve dave on January 09, 2013, 11:03:42 AM
(http://boingboing.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/1120cbCOMIC-platinum-coin1.jpg)
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Domino on January 09, 2013, 04:42:02 PM
Why does the debt ceiling even exist? Seems like a stupid thing to have. Should just get rid of it IMO.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 09, 2013, 04:46:52 PM
Why does the debt ceiling even exist? Seems like a stupid thing to have. Should just get rid of it IMO.

Yeah. This political theatre is getting old.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on January 09, 2013, 04:58:58 PM
Hearing republicans ask where do we get $1 trillion worth of platinum to mint a coin makes me realize how rough ridin' dumb they really are
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 09, 2013, 05:01:41 PM
Hearing republicans ask where do we get $1 trillion worth of platinum to mint a coin makes me realize how rough ridin' dumb they really are

OMG, who asked that?
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 06wildcat on January 09, 2013, 05:23:23 PM
Hearing republicans ask where do we get $1 trillion worth of platinum to mint a coin makes me realize how rough ridin' dumb they really are

OMG, who asked that?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BALXBqACMAEUf0f.jpg)

https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/289029749555212288 (https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/289029749555212288)
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 09, 2013, 05:43:48 PM
I say we just print up $20 trillion then pay everything off and have plenty left over to make it through the year. Don't know why everyone is so worried. Only morons worry about money.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: steve dave on January 09, 2013, 06:05:35 PM
Hearing republicans ask where do we get $1 trillion worth of platinum to mint a coin makes me realize how rough ridin' dumb they really are

OMG, who asked that?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BALXBqACMAEUf0f.jpg)

https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/289029749555212288 (https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/289029749555212288)

 :lol:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: _33 on January 09, 2013, 06:20:01 PM
Instead of creating a new coin why not just mint 4 trillion quarters? We already have the mold or whatever which would save some money.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: ChiComCat on January 09, 2013, 06:34:06 PM
What is Geitner, Sec of the Treasury?  We need to get an EMAW in that role so next time someone is making Trillion Dollar coins, he can pop a Powercat on there.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: p1k3 on January 09, 2013, 07:01:21 PM
not a huge R guy, but im pretty sure they're not the ones missing the point here
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Dugout DickStone on January 09, 2013, 07:10:40 PM
not a huge R guy, but im pretty sure they're not the ones missing the point here

yeah, you are a real middle of the road guy.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 06wildcat on January 09, 2013, 07:44:15 PM
not a huge R guy, but im pretty sure they're not the ones missing the point here

 :lol:

Your reading comprehension skills strike again.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: p1k3 on January 09, 2013, 08:02:35 PM
not a huge R guy, but im pretty sure they're not the ones missing the point here

 :lol:

Your reading comprehension skills strike again.

 :jerk:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 09, 2013, 08:16:50 PM
Who can forget election season 2006, about the same time Nancy Pelosi was calling for Congressional Investigations of Oil Companies, because of those "insane" Big Oil Profits and gas was about $3 a gallon in her district.

Democrats were blazing a trail:  War Extraction-Check, An End to those Bush Budget Deficits-Check, Stopping the Bleeding of the spiraling National Debt-Check.

Today:  Budget . . . what do we need a budget for?   Debt Ceiling . . . why even worry about it?  Wars . . . all over the world.  Budget Deficits . . . what's a trillion amongst friends?   

Good times.



Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 09, 2013, 08:39:08 PM
not a huge R guy, but im pretty sure they're not the ones missing the point here

It was the libs day to be trolled.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: jtksu on January 09, 2013, 08:42:47 PM
meh.  its already like eleventy trillion dollars.  Just call China and see if they'll loan us a few trillon more.  If they try collect, nuke China.  Profit.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: kim carnes on January 09, 2013, 09:37:36 PM
meh.  its already like eleventy trillion dollars.  Just call China and see if they'll loan us a few trillon more.  If they try collect, nuke China.  Profit.

yeah, you don't know whats going on.  in fact, none of you dumbasses do.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 09, 2013, 10:02:37 PM
I'm really the only one that knows what's going on. You all have reading comprehension problems and are absolute morons so shut up.   :rolleyes:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: jtksu on January 09, 2013, 10:23:45 PM
I'm really the only one that knows what's going on. You all have reading comprehension problems and are absolute morons so shut up.   :rolleyes:

Are you also a squawk?  Cause I was wondering whose sock KC was.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 06wildcat on January 09, 2013, 10:53:14 PM
Republicans really have Obama over the barrel here. They've passed legislation to spend the money so Obama legally has to spend the money. They say they won't let him borrow the money that they've voted to spend.

So Obama can break the law and not spend money on certain government functions or he can break the law and borrow money to avoid breaking the law.

What Kenya do?
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 09, 2013, 11:11:36 PM
Republicans really have Obama over the barrel here. They've passed legislation to spend the money so Obama legally has to spend the money. They say they won't let him borrow the money that they've voted to spend.

So Obama can break the law and not spend money on certain government functions or he can break the law and borrow money to avoid breaking the law.

What Kenya do?

To be fair, the spending has bipartisan support.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 09, 2013, 11:19:14 PM
Republicans really have Obama over the barrel here. They've passed legislation to spend the money so Obama legally has to spend the money. They say they won't let him borrow the money that they've voted to spend.

So Obama can break the law and not spend money on certain government functions or he can break the law and borrow money to avoid breaking the law.

What Kenya do?

Is this money congress appropriated through the budget Obama signed?
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Domino on January 10, 2013, 12:43:31 AM
Who can forget election season 2006, about the same time Nancy Pelosi was calling for Congressional Investigations of Oil Companies, because of those "insane" Big Oil Profits and gas was about $3 a gallon in her district.

Democrats were blazing a trail:  War Extraction-Check, An End to those Bush Budget Deficits-Check, Stopping the Bleeding of the spiraling National Debt-Check.

Today:  Budget . . . what do we need a budget for?   Debt Ceiling . . . why even worry about it?  Wars . . . all over the world.  Budget Deficits . . . what's a trillion amongst friends?   

Good times.

So what do you propose to eliminate the budget deficit? What tax rates are you going to raise and what spending would you cut?

Those 2 questions are open to any libertarian/conservative/republican on the board, I'd like to hear what the other sides solution to eliminating the deficit would be.
 
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: jtksu on January 10, 2013, 01:54:26 AM
Republicans really have Obama over the barrel here. They've passed legislation to spend the money so Obama legally has to spend the money. They say they won't let him borrow the money that they've voted to spend.

So Obama can break the law and not spend money on certain government functions or he can break the law and borrow money to avoid breaking the law.

What Kenya do?

Is this money congress appropriated through the budget Obama signed?

Have we even seen a budget yet? 
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: p1k3 on January 10, 2013, 07:21:14 AM
it's never O's fault  :runaway:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: steve dave on January 10, 2013, 07:41:47 AM
I'm really the only one that knows what's going on. You all have reading comprehension problems and are absolute morons so shut up.   :rolleyes:

 :lol:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: chum1 on January 10, 2013, 07:55:50 AM
True or false:  The deficit is pretty much just the government covering our asses because we import more than we export.

(I know nothing about this, including the relationship between the debt and the deficit.)
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 06wildcat on January 10, 2013, 09:34:55 AM
Republicans really have Obama over the barrel here. They've passed legislation to spend the money so Obama legally has to spend the money. They say they won't let him borrow the money that they've voted to spend.

So Obama can break the law and not spend money on certain government functions or he can break the law and borrow money to avoid breaking the law.

What Kenya do?

Is this money congress appropriated through the budget Obama signed?

Why are you so hung up on having an omnibus budget? Why is that so important to Republicans? You do realize Congress still has to authorize all spending to be executed by the executive branch right?
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Panjandrum on January 10, 2013, 11:35:16 AM
Here's something I need someone to explain to me because I probably don't have enough background on this to speak intelligently...

When I hear Conservatives discussing taxes, they say they don't want increased rates, but they want to limit deductions and simplify the tax code.  In theory, I'd rather just know that I'm going to pay X percent of my income at the federal and state level and be done with it.  I get my W2, plug a little data into an online form that would take about five minutes, and then I'd get my return pretty quickly.  Seems efficient.  It would also make me less confused about my own personal finances because I'm always paranoid that making an investment, moving money, etc. is going to trigger some sort of tax or I'm going to miss a deduction.  So, overall, I'm on board with this for the most part.

But what I don't get is how this doesn't fall under a "tax increase".  I get all kinds of deductions and tax credits for certain types of interest rates, having kids, buying green stuff, etc.  But by eliminating deductions, I'm increasing my taxable amount, therefore, I'm paying more in taxes.  My rates may not go up at all, but I'm ultimately paying more, right?  If I pay off all of the interest on my house, and I can't claim a deduction on it, then my taxable dollars go up, and I pay more in taxes.

I'm sure some brain trust somewhere has estimated the revenue difference in eliminating current deductions and credits vs. raising rates, and I'd be interested to see what the numbers are.  But I guess I'm just not understanding how the Grover Norquists of the world are cool with paying more in taxes if the rates are low and deductions and credits are limited/eliminated vs. paying more in taxes via rates but adjusted overall via deductions and credits.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 10, 2013, 11:45:51 AM
Here's something I need someone to explain to me because I probably don't have enough background on this to speak intelligently...

When I hear Conservatives discussing taxes, they say they don't want increased rates, but they want to limit deductions and simplify the tax code.  In theory, I'd rather just know that I'm going to pay X percent of my income at the federal and state level and be done with it.  I get my W2, plug a little data into an online form that would take about five minutes, and then I'd get my return pretty quickly.  Seems efficient.  It would also make me less confused about my own personal finances because I'm always paranoid that making an investment, moving money, etc. is going to trigger some sort of tax or I'm going to miss a deduction.  So, overall, I'm on board with this for the most part.

But what I don't get is how this doesn't fall under a "tax increase".  I get all kinds of deductions and tax credits for certain types of interest rates, having kids, buying green stuff, etc.  But by eliminating deductions, I'm increasing my taxable amount, therefore, I'm paying more in taxes.  My rates may not go up at all, but I'm ultimately paying more, right?  If I pay off all of the interest on my house, and I can't claim a deduction on it, then my taxable dollars go up, and I pay more in taxes.

I'm sure some brain trust somewhere has estimated the revenue difference in eliminating current deductions and credits vs. raising rates, and I'd be interested to see what the numbers are.  But I guess I'm just not understanding how the Grover Norquists of the world are cool with paying more in taxes if the rates are low and deductions and credits are limited/eliminated vs. paying more in taxes via rates but adjusted overall via deductions and credits.

I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: steve dave on January 10, 2013, 12:04:40 PM
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: michigancat on January 10, 2013, 12:08:14 PM
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I know a guy like this. Big time doctor who made big time money.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 06wildcat on January 10, 2013, 12:16:55 PM
Here's something I need someone to explain to me because I probably don't have enough background on this to speak intelligently...

When I hear Conservatives discussing taxes, they say they don't want increased rates, but they want to limit deductions and simplify the tax code.  In theory, I'd rather just know that I'm going to pay X percent of my income at the federal and state level and be done with it.  I get my W2, plug a little data into an online form that would take about five minutes, and then I'd get my return pretty quickly.  Seems efficient.  It would also make me less confused about my own personal finances because I'm always paranoid that making an investment, moving money, etc. is going to trigger some sort of tax or I'm going to miss a deduction.  So, overall, I'm on board with this for the most part.

But what I don't get is how this doesn't fall under a "tax increase".  I get all kinds of deductions and tax credits for certain types of interest rates, having kids, buying green stuff, etc.  But by eliminating deductions, I'm increasing my taxable amount, therefore, I'm paying more in taxes.  My rates may not go up at all, but I'm ultimately paying more, right?  If I pay off all of the interest on my house, and I can't claim a deduction on it, then my taxable dollars go up, and I pay more in taxes.

I'm sure some brain trust somewhere has estimated the revenue difference in eliminating current deductions and credits vs. raising rates, and I'd be interested to see what the numbers are.  But I guess I'm just not understanding how the Grover Norquists of the world are cool with paying more in taxes if the rates are low and deductions and credits are limited/eliminated vs. paying more in taxes via rates but adjusted overall via deductions and credits.

Because "simplifying the tax code" is a scam. Rates will be lowered and paid for by closing loopholes. People are OK with this because it means higher effective taxes for a year or two before those loopholes start coming back. Reagan simplified the tax code and did away with a bunch of deductions, almost all of them are now back.

The actual tax rate structure is as simple as it can be in a progressive system. It only gets complicated when you try to take advantage of the loopholes. Someone could treat all income as ordinary and could do their taxes quite easily. They'd overpay by a shitload do that though.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 8manpick on January 10, 2013, 12:17:59 PM
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

Yeah, it is pretty incredible how wrong that is, and how widespread that belief is.  I also think it is a belief that many right-wing politicians would like to perpetuate among the stupid.  I can't say that I knew any better until I took an econ class in college.  I just figured that if you made enough to be in tax bracket X, you paid percentage X on all of your income.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 8manpick on January 10, 2013, 12:20:48 PM
Can someone tell me why politicians do things like the Bush tax cuts and make it so they expire after 10 years?  Why not just make them "permanent" (as they now supposedly are), with the understanding that they could be changed again in a few years?  Why eff around with an expiration date?  I understand it is basically for political jockeying, but it seems to create a bunch of unnecessary bullshit.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 'taterblast on January 10, 2013, 12:31:57 PM
politicians ... unnecessary bullshit.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 06wildcat on January 10, 2013, 12:34:37 PM
Can someone tell me why politicians do things like the Bush tax cuts and make it so they expire after 10 years?  Why not just make them "permanent" (as they now supposedly are), with the understanding that they could be changed again in a few years?  Why eff around with an expiration date?  I understand it is basically for political jockeying, but it seems to create a bunch of unnecessary bullshit.

Because of how backloaded the tax cuts were. Without an expiration date the tax cuts blew up the deficit beyond 2010, Republicans didn't want to advertise that so put in a sunset provision believing they they would go back later and quietly extend them after the trickle down worked its magic.

I do laugh at the "permanent" thing as well.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Kat Kid on January 10, 2013, 12:50:31 PM
Can someone tell me why politicians do things like the Bush tax cuts and make it so they expire after 10 years?  Why not just make them "permanent" (as they now supposedly are), with the understanding that they could be changed again in a few years?  Why eff around with an expiration date?  I understand it is basically for political jockeying, but it seems to create a bunch of unnecessary bullshit.

yeah, basically so the CBO score will be more reasonable.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Domino on January 10, 2013, 02:04:25 PM
True or false:  The deficit is pretty much just the government covering our asses because we import more than we export.

(I know nothing about this, including the relationship between the debt and the deficit.)

Partially, but it's not the main driver. Tax rates were overall much higher in the past, which helped quite a bit. Further, we export $1.8 trillion while importing $2.2 trillion.

Also, the 60s were the greatest decade of growth in terms of the economy. Some people who don't follow politics that much are really surprised when I tell them this.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 10, 2013, 03:24:17 PM
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.
Title: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rams on January 10, 2013, 04:01:55 PM
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.
someone should tell your sister in law that she's not paying any income taxes. that should cheer her up.
Title: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 10, 2013, 04:05:00 PM
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.
someone should tell your sister in law that she's not paying any income taxes. that should cheer her up.

I've almost done that a few times, but I was slightly worried that they might actually be paying like 1% or something and that could come back to bite me. Also, I'm a very nice person in real life, so I try to just ignore her. It's not like she would believe me if I told her that, anyway.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 06wildcat on January 10, 2013, 04:25:01 PM
I don't even see what's so complicated about the current tax system. Everything about doing my own taxes seems pretty straightforward. I think most of the people who get pissed off about it just look at what bracket their income level puts them in and aren't good enough at math to figure out that they actually pay far less than that.

A really smart guy once told me he didn't want to make any more money because he would go up into a higher tax bracket and actually bring home less

I have a sister in law with 2 kids whose joint income is about $60,000. They are constantly complaining about taxes and how they want a flat tax and how half this country doesn't even pay taxes. I don't have kids, so I'm not sure what kind of deduction you get for them, but if they pay taxes at all, I'm betting it's less than 5%.

Assuming they take the standard deduction and claim the kids their effective tax rate is about 5.3 percent. This assumes they don't have health insurance, aren't contributing to a retirement plan, have no other deductions because they're poor etc.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2013, 07:14:17 PM
This might be the lowest iq thread ever in the history of goEMAW (and I didn't even look at the cartoon).

NK, 06, Domino, other like minded (read ignorant or thoughtless) morons, you should know that the anecdotal hearsay you've provided to denigrate your own "kin" will likely serve as someone else's anecdote about how clueless the average Joe and/or democrat is on this topic. The only difference is that someone else might actually have a chance of understanding what the hell they are criticizing.

Pease stop. I feel like I'm reading a blog on how to avoid bankruptcy authored by MC Hammer. You're humiliating yourselves. Go read a book, or learn how to dig a trench or something.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: chum1 on January 10, 2013, 07:24:43 PM
This might be the lowest iq thread ever in the history of goEMAW (and I didn't even look at the cartoon).

NK, 06, Domino, other like minded (read ignorant or thoughtless) morons, you should know that the anecdotal hearsay you've provided to denigrate your own "kin" will likely serve as someone else's anecdote about how clueless the average Joe and/or democrat is on this topic. The only difference is that someone else might actually have a chance of understanding what the hell they are criticizing.

Pease stop. I feel like I'm reading a blog on how to avoid bankruptcy authored by MC Hammer. You're humiliating yourselves. Go read a book, or learn how to dig a trench or something.

What economics books have you read?  What are some examples of fundamental mistakes people are making?  (Keep it short and simple since these are fundamental mistakes.)
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: star seed 7 on January 10, 2013, 07:31:08 PM
This might be the lowest iq thread ever in the history of goEMAW (and I didn't even look at the cartoon).

NK, 06, Domino, other like minded (read ignorant or thoughtless) morons, you should know that the anecdotal hearsay you've provided to denigrate your own "kin" will likely serve as someone else's anecdote about how clueless the average Joe and/or democrat is on this topic. The only difference is that someone else might actually have a chance of understanding what the hell they are criticizing.

Pease stop. I feel like I'm reading a blog on how to avoid bankruptcy authored by MC Hammer. You're humiliating yourselves. Go read a book, or learn how to dig a trench or something.

What economics books have you read?  What are some examples of fundamental mistakes people are making?  (Keep it short and simple since these are fundamental mistakes.)

 :excited:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2013, 07:47:38 PM
I'm currently breezing through "The Economics of 2 - 4 = No Problem; why my Cousin Might be a Red Neck" by Jeff Foxworthy
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: chum1 on January 10, 2013, 08:08:38 PM
I'm currently breezing through "The Economics of 2 - 4 = No Problem; why my Cousin Might be a Red Neck" by Jeff Foxworthy

I have no idea whether or not this is a serious answer.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: star seed 7 on January 10, 2013, 08:13:56 PM
I'm currently breezing through "The Economics of 2 - 4 = No Problem; why my Cousin Might be a Red Neck" by Jeff Foxworthy

sounds like a tool of the liberal media.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Domino on January 10, 2013, 08:21:40 PM
It's like most people don't realize that currently trying to reduce the deficit would mean eliminating jobs. And by an overwhelming majority people favor job growth vs. deficit reduction. Which is why this whole debt ceiling theatre is pointless.

I'm also reposting this question, since no one decided to answer:

So what do you propose to eliminate the budget deficit? What tax rates are you going to raise and what spending would you cut?

I'm sure FSD can give me a quick answer that addresses how to make things right.

Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2013, 08:51:46 PM
It's like most people don't realize that currently trying to reduce the deficit would mean eliminating jobs. And by an overwhelming majority people favor job growth vs. deficit reduction. Which is why this whole debt ceiling theatre is pointless.

I'm also reposting this question, since no one decided to answer:

So what do you propose to eliminate the budget deficit? What tax rates are you going to raise and what spending would you cut?

I'm sure FSD can give me a quick answer that addresses how to make things right.

You can't even identify the largest drivers of the spending portion of the deficit problem and are hung up on marginal tax rates as the solution to the revenue side of the equation. You've basically brought the big red plastic bat to the fast pitch batting cage. . . and you forgot your glasses.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: chum1 on January 10, 2013, 09:26:50 PM
Domino answered my question about imports and exports.  FSD did not answer my question about economics books.

Advantage:  Domino.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 10, 2013, 09:41:24 PM
Domino answered my question about imports and exports.  FSD did not answer my question about economics books.

Advantage:  Domino.
:lol: x 1,000

Chum and Domino =
(http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/state-farm-french-model.jpg)

Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: p1k3 on January 10, 2013, 10:06:07 PM
It's like most people don't realize that currently trying to reduce the deficit would mean eliminating jobs. And by an overwhelming majority people favor job growth vs. deficit reduction. Which is why this whole debt ceiling theatre is pointless.

lol yeah. We're really growing jobs in the good ol' USA these days.

We won't have significant job growth until spending is reduced. Too many inefficiencies out there and the taxpayer picks up the tab
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: chum1 on January 10, 2013, 11:31:47 PM
Domino answered my question about imports and exports.  FSD did not answer my question about economics books.

Advantage:  Domino.
:lol: x 1,000

Chum and Domino =
(http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/state-farm-french-model.jpg)

Please tell me about your qualifications to speak about economics.  (I'm asking you because you're the one saying that everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about.)
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: yoga-like_abana on January 10, 2013, 11:37:56 PM
Hearing republicans ask where do we get $1 trillion worth of platinum to mint a coin makes me realize how rough ridin' dumb they really are

OMG, who asked that?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BALXBqACMAEUf0f.jpg)

https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/289029749555212288 (https://twitter.com/NRCC/status/289029749555212288)
jokes on them the titanic has already sank
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 11, 2013, 06:17:04 AM
It's like most people don't realize that currently trying to reduce the deficit would mean eliminating jobs. And by an overwhelming majority people favor job growth vs. deficit reduction. Which is why this whole debt ceiling theatre is pointless.

lol yeah. We're really growing jobs in the good ol' USA these days.

We won't have significant job growth until spending is reduced. Too many inefficiencies out there and the taxpayer picks up the tab

We are creating lots of jobs.  Just the other day we gave Nissan a couple billion to build more of their shitty electric cars that no one wants to buy.  They said that would create 100's of jobs and when people realize the cars aren't shitty(they are) and actually start buying them unlike the other 74 times we have tried this, it will create even more jobs. 
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 11, 2013, 08:16:44 AM
It's like most people don't realize that currently trying to reduce the deficit would mean eliminating jobs. And by an overwhelming majority people favor job growth vs. deficit reduction. Which is why this whole debt ceiling theatre is pointless.

I'm also reposting this question, since no one decided to answer:

So what do you propose to eliminate the budget deficit? What tax rates are you going to raise and what spending would you cut?

I'm sure FSD can give me a quick answer that addresses how to make things right.

Well, the tax increase on those who make more than $400,000 gets us about 5% of the way there, so that's a good first step. The proposed increase on those making more than $200,000 would have been better. There are also a ton of things the government should do that would get us back on the right track. We could shave billions of dollars from the defense budget and nobody would even notice. Everyone seems to hate the TSA, so why not eliminate them and let airports privatize security? It's not like they have ever caught a terrorist. I also think that social security needs to be reformed so that it is just a social safety net and not a retirement plan. The government should not be giving payments to people who can afford to take care of themselves because those payments do not help the economy as much as payments to those who cannot. Also, no more medicare payments to those over the age of 80. They have already outlived their life expectancy, and it is enormously expensive to keep those people alive. The government needs to stop trying to do what is fair and start doing what is best for the productive sector of society.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: eastcat on January 12, 2013, 05:11:53 PM
Who can forget election season 2006, about the same time Nancy Pelosi was calling for Congressional Investigations of Oil Companies, because of those "insane" Big Oil Profits and gas was about $3 a gallon in her district.

Democrats were blazing a trail:  War Extraction-Check, An End to those Bush Budget Deficits-Check, Stopping the Bleeding of the spiraling National Debt-Check.

Today:  Budget . . . what do we need a budget for?   Debt Ceiling . . . why even worry about it?  Wars . . . all over the world.  Budget Deficits . . . what's a trillion amongst friends?   

Good times.

So what do you propose to eliminate the budget deficit? What tax rates are you going to raise and what spending would you cut?

Those 2 questions are open to any libertarian/conservative/republican on the board, I'd like to hear what the other sides solution to eliminating the deficit would be.

Take over Canada
???
Profit
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: eastcat on January 12, 2013, 05:19:12 PM
It's like most people don't realize that currently trying to reduce the deficit would mean eliminating jobs. And by an overwhelming majority people favor job growth vs. deficit reduction. Which is why this whole debt ceiling theatre is pointless.

I'm also reposting this question, since no one decided to answer:

So what do you propose to eliminate the budget deficit? What tax rates are you going to raise and what spending would you cut?

I'm sure FSD can give me a quick answer that addresses how to make things right.

Well, the tax increase on those who make more than $400,000 gets us about 5% of the way there, so that's a good first step. The proposed increase on those making more than $200,000 would have been better. There are also a ton of things the government should do that would get us back on the right track. We could shave billions of dollars from the defense budget and nobody would even notice. Everyone seems to hate the TSA, so why not eliminate them and let airports privatize security? It's not like they have ever caught a terrorist. I also think that social security needs to be reformed so that it is just a social safety net and not a retirement plan. The government should not be giving payments to people who can afford to take care of themselves because those payments do not help the economy as much as payments to those who cannot. Also, no more medicare payments to those over the age of 80. They have already outlived their life expectancy, and it is enormously expensive to keep those people alive. The government needs to stop trying to do what is fair and start doing what is best for the productive sector of society.

LOL, that would be wildly rough ridin' popular.
(though I I don't disagree in principle)

As far as the DoD goes, the army basically doesn't even need to exist in it's current state. Once we finish in Iraq (lol) a massive land army isn't suitable for future conflicts, crap it didn't even work in Iraq that well and it's failing in A-Stan miserably. The Marines already have a suitable expeditionary force. The Navy and AF would have to remain large for power projection but the U.K. functioned like this for over 500 years and I think they had it perfected... I mean they practically took over the world with it.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Cartierfor3 on January 12, 2013, 08:07:16 PM
It's like most people don't realize that currently trying to reduce the deficit would mean eliminating jobs. And by an overwhelming majority people favor job growth vs. deficit reduction. Which is why this whole debt ceiling theatre is pointless.

I'm also reposting this question, since no one decided to answer:

So what do you propose to eliminate the budget deficit? What tax rates are you going to raise and what spending would you cut?

I'm sure FSD can give me a quick answer that addresses how to make things right.

Well, the tax increase on those who make more than $400,000 gets us about 5% of the way there, so that's a good first step. The proposed increase on those making more than $200,000 would have been better. There are also a ton of things the government should do that would get us back on the right track. We could shave billions of dollars from the defense budget and nobody would even notice. Everyone seems to hate the TSA, so why not eliminate them and let airports privatize security? It's not like they have ever caught a terrorist. I also think that social security needs to be reformed so that it is just a social safety net and not a retirement plan. The government should not be giving payments to people who can afford to take care of themselves because those payments do not help the economy as much as payments to those who cannot. Also, no more medicare payments to those over the age of 80. They have already outlived their life expectancy, and it is enormously expensive to keep those people alive. The government needs to stop trying to do what is fair and start doing what is best for the productive sector of society.

LOL, that would be wildly rough ridin' popular.
(though I I don't disagree in principle)

As far as the DoD goes, the army basically doesn't even need to exist in it's current state. Once we finish in Iraq (lol) a massive land army isn't suitable for future conflicts, crap it didn't even work in Iraq that well and it's failing in A-Stan miserably. The Marines already have a suitable expeditionary force. The Navy and AF would have to remain large for power projection but the U.K. functioned like this for over 500 years and I think they had it perfected... I mean they practically took over the world with it.

And we could have more robots.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 13, 2013, 08:00:17 AM
Domino answered my question about imports and exports.  FSD did not answer my question about economics books.

Advantage:  Domino.
:lol: x 1,000

Chum and Domino =
(http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/state-farm-french-model.jpg)

The use of this pic deserves to be pointed out.  :cheers:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: jtksu on January 14, 2013, 01:30:01 AM
Domino answered my question about imports and exports.  FSD did not answer my question about economics books.

Advantage:  Domino.
:lol: x 1,000

Chum and Domino =
(http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/state-farm-french-model.jpg)

The use of this pic deserves to be pointed out.  :cheers:

Uhhhhh, Bonjour.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 14, 2013, 10:02:28 AM
The hypocrisy is deafening...  :dubious:

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 14, 2013, 11:37:45 AM
The hypocrisy is deafening...  :dubious:

Can you do it again but take out military spending?
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 14, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
The hypocrisy is deafening...  :dubious:

Can you do it again but take out military spending?

Does military spending not count towards Federal Growth?

Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 14, 2013, 03:09:46 PM
The hypocrisy is deafening...  :dubious:

Can you do it again but take out military spending?

Does military spending not count towards Federal Growth?

No, it counts, but I think it's relevant to consider.  Reagan didn't ask the Rooskies to do Rooskie things, George Bush didn't ask Saddam to roll tanks into Kuwait, and G-Dub didn't ask Al-Qaeda to fly airplanes into the WTC.  FWIW I'm all for cutting the defense budget.  I'm just saying the statistics you cited weren't completely within the control of the President.  Also, doesn't Congress make the budget?  So ya there's that.  :flush:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 14, 2013, 03:25:23 PM
The hypocrisy is deafening...  :dubious:

Can you do it again but take out military spending?

Does military spending not count towards Federal Growth?

No, it counts, but I think it's relevant to consider.  Reagan didn't ask the Rooskies to do Rooskie things, George Bush didn't ask Saddam to roll tanks into Kuwait, and G-Dub didn't ask Al-Qaeda to fly airplanes into the WTC.  FWIW I'm all for cutting the defense budget.  I'm just saying the statistics you cited weren't completely within the control of the President.  Also, doesn't Congress make the budget?  So ya there's that.  :flush:

True. Although Clinton did have the first WTC and kosovo. As well, remind me again what Iraq had to do with the WTC for W?

On another note, is the tax rate not the lowest in 60 years? Maybe it could be adjusted just to mix things up a bit?

But yes, Congress does set the budget and given the numbskulls we have there now...
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 14, 2013, 03:32:54 PM
And while for most presidents the VP is a glorified Plan B... during the W years let's not forget that Cheney was essentially the President for all intensive purposes.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 14, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
And while for most presidents the VP is a glorified Plan B... during the W years let's not forget that Cheney was essentially the President for all intensive purposes.

Don't fall for that liberal meme. Cheney may have set all of the cutter bombs that brought down the twin towers, but W was the decider.

Que Skinny Benny.

Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: puniraptor on January 14, 2013, 03:58:16 PM
And while for most presidents the VP is a glorified Plan B... during the W years let's not forget that Cheney was essentially the President for all intensive purposes.

Don't fall for that liberal meme. Cheney may have set all of the cutter bombs that brought down the twin towers, but W was the decider.

Que Skinny Benny.

No way. Bush was Cheney's puppet. Lil' Bush was absolutly terrified of being shot in the face by that psycho.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 14, 2013, 07:15:27 PM
The hypocrisy is deafening...  :dubious:

LOL, you're a tard

(http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/wapoobamabudget1.jpg)

I know it says projections, but they actually under projected.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 14, 2013, 09:18:05 PM
Maybe we do have a revenue problem.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 14, 2013, 09:32:10 PM
Maybe we do have a revenue problem.

In the deficit equation, it's definitely the second biggest problem.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 14, 2013, 09:35:14 PM
Maybe we do have a revenue problem.

In the deficit equation, it's definitely the second biggest problem.

I don't know. I would tend to agree, but when you put the two graphs next to each other, the deficit is growing much faster than spending.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 14, 2013, 09:47:43 PM
Maybe we do have a revenue problem.

In the deficit equation, it's definitely the second biggest problem.

I don't know. I would tend to agree, but when you put the two graphs next to each other, the deficit is growing much faster than spending.

That's because his graph is an intentional misrepresentation of government growth.
Title: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: mocat on January 14, 2013, 11:10:56 PM
for all intensive purposes.

Great debate everyone. I would like to jump in and disqualify camKSU from any further posting
Title: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 14, 2013, 11:20:00 PM
for all intensive purposes.

Great debate everyone. I would like to jump in and disqualify camKSU from any further posting

I was saving it for SkinnyBenny, but he must be busy.
Title: Re: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: mocat on January 14, 2013, 11:23:53 PM
for all intensive purposes.

Great debate everyone. I would like to jump in and disqualify camKSU from any further posting

I was saving it for SkinnyBenny, but he must be busy.

I saw that but sometimes its best to nip things in the bud.
Title: Re: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: jtksu on January 14, 2013, 11:35:57 PM
for all intensive purposes.

Great debate everyone. I would like to jump in and disqualify camKSU from any further posting

I was saving it for SkinnyBenny, but he must be busy.

I saw that but sometimes its best to nip things in the bud.

I was so gonna bust his balls about that but I had to weed through two pages of crap before I got to it.   Nice work boys.
Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 08:00:00 AM
for all intensive purposes.

Great debate everyone. I would like to jump in and disqualify camKSU from any further posting

Right... I forgot there is no room for any other ideas or opinions than the ignorant right wing propaganda that you jabronies spout... Please proceed.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2013, 08:00:00 AM
Oh, oh, BUT you see, he was just a young Senator trying to make a name for himself.  Today, it's "Golly, why do we need that silly debt ceiling thing anyway?   They're just numbers, nothing but silly numbers."


Mr. OBAMA: Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.



Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 08:03:40 AM
Oh, oh, BUT you see, he was just a young Senator trying to make a name for himself.  Today, it's "Golly, why do we need that silly debt ceiling thing anyway?   They're just numbers, nothing but silly numbers."


Mr. OBAMA: Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.


Link?
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 8manpick on January 15, 2013, 08:16:58 AM
The national debt is a big problem, but can we stop acting like this is all of a sudden such a big deal, or that it is all Obama's fault or all the republican congressmen and senators' fault?  I mean, JFC, the debt ceiling being raised is only new in that it is a news issue now.  I think everyone agrees that we need to get the deficit under control, and although there is obvious discord about how to do it, holding our credit hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling seems to be more petty political gamesmanship rather than an actual solution.

(http://s7.postimage.org/n7r4sxpnf/debt.png)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31967.pdf
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: puniraptor on January 15, 2013, 08:18:54 AM
for all intensive purposes.

Great debate everyone. I would like to jump in and disqualify camKSU from any further posting

Right... I forgot there is no room for any other ideas or opinions than the ignorant right wing propaganda that you jabronies spout... Please proceed.

It's not your ideas under attack, you are being nitpicked for your Eggcorn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn)
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2013, 08:25:45 AM
Oh, oh, BUT you see, he was just a young Senator trying to make a name for himself.  Today, it's "Golly, why do we need that silly debt ceiling thing anyway?   They're just numbers, nothing but silly numbers."


Mr. OBAMA: Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.


Link?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 15, 2013, 08:28:01 AM
The national debt is a big problem, but can we stop acting like this is all of a sudden such a big deal, or that it is all Obama's fault or all the republican congressmen and senators' fault?  I mean, JFC, the debt ceiling being raised is only new in that it is a news issue now.  I think everyone agrees that we need to get the deficit under control, and although there is obvious discord about how to do it, holding our credit hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling seems to be more petty political gamesmanship rather than an actual solution.

(http://s7.postimage.org/n7r4sxpnf/debt.png)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31967.pdf

No I view the problem remembering the faux cries of Democrats in 2006 who used War, Deficits, Debt as a way to win control of Congress . . . then to turn around and not find a war funding bill they didn't pass, a federal budget deficit they didn't increase dramatically, and national debt that grew at record pace.
Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 08:30:01 AM
for all intensive purposes.

Great debate everyone. I would like to jump in and disqualify camKSU from any further posting

Right... I forgot there is no room for any other ideas or opinions than the ignorant right wing propaganda that you jabronies spout... Please proceed.

It's not your ideas under attack, you are being nitpicked for your Eggcorn. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggcorn)

The error that has them all butt hurt is my malapropism but calling posters "tard" is cool with them. Gotcha.
Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 08:37:53 AM
Oh, oh, BUT you see, he was just a young Senator trying to make a name for himself.  Today, it's "Golly, why do we need that silly debt ceiling thing anyway?   They're just numbers, nothing but silly numbers."


Mr. OBAMA: Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America’s debt problem. The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘‘the buck stops here.’’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.


Link?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/debtlimit.asp

Thanks. Was ill informed that he had taken this stance 7 years ago. Although as he has since responded, to hold this increase hostage is in error and is a mere political ploy and posturing.

What would be your response as to why taxes cannot be increased when they are the lowest in 60 years?
Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 09:27:11 AM
Another graphic displaying the debt increases over the last five presidents.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 8manpick on January 15, 2013, 09:29:36 AM
Another graphic displaying the debt increases over the last five presidents.

I meaan, that is missing like 21 months of data for Barry O., but it is kind of interesting I guess.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 15, 2013, 09:34:52 AM
Another graphic displaying the debt increases over the last five presidents.

Do it without military spending. :curse:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: TheHamburglar on January 15, 2013, 10:54:53 AM
Another graphic displaying the debt increases over the last five presidents.

Do it without military spending. :curse:

That's kind of hard to do since there is no specific "military" revenue.  Do you mean if each president kept annual military spending the same as their first year in office?  Take military spending completely out of the equation?  Need defined parameters.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 15, 2013, 02:52:20 PM
Another graphic displaying the debt increases over the last five presidents.

These graphics are hilarious.

The national debt was about $10 trillion 4 years ago, it's now $16 trillion. Spin it any way you want. Bush sucked, Obama is worse.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: eastcat on January 15, 2013, 03:42:29 PM
Another graphic displaying the debt increases over the last five presidents.

Did you post this for laughs or are you serious? That is one of the most painful cooked number comparisons I have ever seen.

Look honey, we can upgrade the kitchen, it will only cost 1/3rd the houses entire value! Don't worry though, the guy before us renovated the living room at 1/4th of the house's previous value!

Debt = 1.0
Regan - 1.0* 1.89 = 1.89 total gain = .89 (8 years)
Bush - 1.89*1.55 = 2.92 total gain = 1.04 (4 years)
Clinton - 2.92*1.37 = 4.04 total gain = 1.084 (8 years)
Bush - 4.04*1.86 = 7.51 total gain = 3.47 (8 years)
Obama - 7.51*1.35 = 10.13 total gain = 2.62 (4 years)

Obama is on track to spend roughly 1.66 times as much money as bush over an equal amount of time.

Edit: didn't realize that info was from 2 years ago, Obama is on track to spend over 3x as much money as bush over the same time period. Congrats Obama!
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 03:50:53 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/)

Hmm, either you guys are right or 37 economists from across the country are wrong...

 :dunno:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 15, 2013, 03:58:58 PM
Wait, is camKSU's point that because one idiot did it then it's okay to keep doing it?  Because if so that's a stupid rough ridin' argument.  Just curious though.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 15, 2013, 04:41:53 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/)

Hmm, either you guys are right or 37 economists from across the country are wrong...

 :dunno:

LOL, all university professors. Find me some real world CFO's and we can talk. You're horrible at this, Jay Carney.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 04:48:54 PM
Wait, is camKSU's point that because one idiot did it then it's okay to keep doing it?  Because if so that's a stupid rough ridin' argument.  Just curious though.

Not directly my point... moreso that it really has only become a major point of debate (even while then Sen. O's position in 2007) on a national scale the last two years.

In addition, the house, senate, and president all contribute to the creating budget for a given year so to decide on what is being spent and to then say we shouldn't raise the debt to pay for it is a little contradictory.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 05:03:03 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/)

Hmm, either you guys are right or 37 economists from across the country are wrong...

 :dunno:

LOL, all university professors. Find me some real world CFO's and we can talk. You're horrible at this, Jay Carney.

When did professors, most of whom have to be experts in their field of study, become discredited as viable sources?

And to say I agree with the WH on everything is greatly overstating my position.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 15, 2013, 05:34:18 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-debt-ceiling-is-pointless-and-dangerous-nearly-all-economists-agree/267218/)

Hmm, either you guys are right or 37 economists from across the country are wrong...

 :dunno:

LOL, all university professors. Find me some real world CFO's and we can talk. You're horrible at this, Jay Carney.

When did professors, most of whom have to be experts in their field of study, become discredited as viable sources?

And to say I agree with the WH on everything is greatly overstating my position.

......most of whom have never had a job outside of academia. It's a major problem having professors running the country.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Domino on January 15, 2013, 08:27:39 PM
Still don't see why we have a debt-ceiling. This entire fiasco is over money already spent.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 09:42:52 PM
Libtards and B.O. sheeple,

Stop defending the indefensible. Stop attaching Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) graphics. Stop saying its not that big of a deal when your own fool says its a big deal. Stop saying its just as bad as the guy you think is the worst. Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

You look amateurish.

Your pal,
Sugar Dick
Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 10:04:20 PM
Libtards and B.O. sheeple,

Stop defending the indefensible. Stop attaching Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) graphics. Stop saying its not that big of a deal when your own fool says its a big deal. Stop saying its just as bad as the guy you think is the worst. Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

You look amateurish.

Your pal,
Sugar Dick

Hahaha... Discredit experts, discredit history, say it's different this time but it was ok before. Call things and people Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if they aren't in line with Fox News propaganda machine.

Non stop entertainment. Please don't stop.

Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 10:13:46 PM
Libtards and B.O. sheeple,

Stop defending the indefensible. Stop attaching Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) graphics. Stop saying its not that big of a deal when your own fool says its a big deal. Stop saying its just as bad as the guy you think is the worst. Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

You look amateurish.

Your pal,
Sugar Dick

Hahaha... Discredit experts, discredit history, say it's different this time but it was ok before. Call things and people Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if they aren't in line with Fox News propaganda machine.

Non stop entertainment. Please don't stop.

You're the one twisting facts and discrediting history. As for experts, either side can line the up around the block. In sum, you're an amateurish Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).


I love the snappy "you must watch fox" retort from the guy who cant delineate propaganda and rhetoric from objective fact. Oh brother, get this guy a rachel maddow T-shirt.
 

Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 15, 2013, 10:27:28 PM
Libtards and B.O. sheeple,

Stop defending the indefensible. Stop attaching Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) graphics. Stop saying its not that big of a deal when your own fool says its a big deal. Stop saying its just as bad as the guy you think is the worst. Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

You look amateurish.

Your pal,
Sugar Dick

Hahaha... Discredit experts, discredit history, say it's different this time but it was ok before. Call things and people Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if they aren't in line with Fox News propaganda machine.

Non stop entertainment. Please don't stop.

You're the one twisting facts and discrediting history. As for experts, either side can line the up around the block. In sum, you're an amateurish Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

No, you are.

As for my thoughts on Ms. Maddow... How dare that damn talking $!#* speak her mind. She needs to take off her shoes and get back into the kitchen where she belongs. Damn women, neegras, and homosexuals are what's destroying this country. - Right FSD?
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 15, 2013, 10:52:53 PM

No, you are.

As for my thoughts on Ms. Maddow... How dare that damn talking $!#* speak her mind. She needs to take off her shoes and get back into the kitchen where she belongs. Damn women, neegras, and homosexuals are what's destroying this country. - Right FSD?

msnbc post
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 16, 2013, 07:17:24 AM
Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

"To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States.  The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession."

Yep. Hand-picked experts.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 08:21:58 AM
Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

"To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States.  The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession."

Yep. Hand-picked experts.

That's the definition of hand picked.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 16, 2013, 09:17:29 AM
Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

"To that end, our panel was chosen to include distinguished experts with a keen interest in public policy from the major areas of economics, to be geographically diverse, and to include Democrats, Republicans and Independents as well as older and younger scholars. The panel members are all senior faculty at the most elite research universities in the United States.  The panel includes Nobel Laureates, John Bates Clark Medalists, fellows of the Econometric society, past Presidents of both the American Economics Association and American Finance Association, past Democratic and Republican members of the President's Council of Economics, and past and current editors of the leading journals in the profession."

Yep. Hand-picked experts.

That's the definition of NON PARTISAN EXPERTS.

Fixed it for you.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 8manpick on January 16, 2013, 09:25:05 AM
Libtards and B.O. sheeple,

Stop defending the indefensible. Stop attaching Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) graphics. Stop saying its not that big of a deal when your own fool says its a big deal. Stop saying its just as bad as the guy you think is the worst. Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

You look amateurish.

Your pal,
Sugar Dick

Hahaha... Discredit experts, discredit history, say it's different this time but it was ok before. Call things and people Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if they aren't in line with Fox News propaganda machine.

Non stop entertainment. Please don't stop.

You're the one twisting facts and discrediting history. As for experts, either side can line the up around the block. In sum, you're an amateurish Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

No, you are.

As for my thoughts on Ms. Maddow... How dare that damn talking $!#* speak her mind. She needs to take off her shoes and get back into the kitchen where she belongs. Damn women, neegras, and homosexuals are what's destroying this country. - Right FSD?


(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTR3rrDk5XuXOIzoqZbprOaRBRfvBNBVogvG6ZQblNOQUopssMeIrCLjBgNQ)<---camKSU
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Emo EMAW on January 16, 2013, 10:05:27 AM
This is a clear violation of the First Rule of Holes.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 16, 2013, 10:09:55 AM
Quote
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTTR3rrDk5XuXOIzoqZbprOaRBRfvBNBVogvG6ZQblNOQUopssMeIrCLjBgNQ)<---camKSU

 :jerk:

Just trying to speak his language, brah
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 16, 2013, 11:59:01 AM
Libtards and B.O. sheeple,

Stop defending the indefensible. Stop attaching Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) graphics. Stop saying its not that big of a deal when your own fool says its a big deal. Stop saying its just as bad as the guy you think is the worst. Stop linking stories with 37 hand picked economists.

You look amateurish.

Your pal,
Sugar Dick

Hahaha... Discredit experts, discredit history, say it's different this time but it was ok before. Call things and people Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) if they aren't in line with Fox News propaganda machine.

Non stop entertainment. Please don't stop.

You're the one twisting facts and discrediting history. As for experts, either side can line the up around the block. In sum, you're an amateurish Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).

No, you are.

As for my thoughts on Ms. Maddow... How dare that damn talking $!#* speak her mind. She needs to take off her shoes and get back into the kitchen where she belongs. Damn women, neegras, and homosexuals are what's destroying this country. - Right FSD?

haha.  nuh uh, you are, nuh uh....

I also love how Libs just absolutely hate Fox news and bring it up in every argument, but as soon as someone even mentions MSNBC or that Maddow guy.... :chainsaw: :chainsaw: :chainsaw: :chainsaw:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on January 16, 2013, 07:51:47 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 09:13:03 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.
Title: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 8manpick on January 16, 2013, 09:20:44 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.
Title: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 09:25:34 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs.
Title: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 16, 2013, 10:15:43 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs.


By "won't answer a direct question" you mean disagree with their extremely narrow conservative Christian worldview.
Title: Re: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: 8manpick on January 16, 2013, 10:30:09 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs people in front of a microphone or camera with an opinion different from the person asking the question
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: john "teach me how to" dougie on January 16, 2013, 10:49:42 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs.


By "won't answer a direct question" you mean disagree with their extremely narrow conservative Christian worldview.

No, i mean when you ask someone a simple yes or no question, and they go on for 2 minutes and never answer the question you're going to get cut off. If you answer the question first, you will probably get a little more time to explain why you take that position. Television is a fast paced medium and there isn't time for rhetoric and deflection.
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: eastcat on January 16, 2013, 11:04:53 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs.


By "won't answer a direct question" you mean disagree with their extremely narrow conservative Christian worldview.

Cam, quit while you're behind dog. It's over, you lost. Obama is spending crap tons of money, no way to hide it. Move on.
Title: Re: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: michigancat on January 16, 2013, 11:14:51 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs.

Usually
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: sonofdaxjones on January 17, 2013, 09:19:05 AM
I can just picture and hear the Reid-Pelosi press conference if a Republican administration failed to present a passable budget for 5 consecutive years. 

It would be You Tube Glory!!

Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 17, 2013, 03:50:53 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs.


By "won't answer a direct question" you mean disagree with their extremely narrow conservative Christian worldview.
Obama is spending crap tons of money, no way to hide it. Move on.


[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2013, 06:39:08 PM
Who would have ever thought that cartoons and graphics would have been the most effective medium for the left wing to communicate with its constituency?   :lol:  Just like cavemen.  :lol:

What a bunch of rubies  :lol:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 17, 2013, 06:55:49 PM
Who would have ever thought that cartoons and graphics would have been the most effective medium for the left wing to communicate with its constituency?   :lol:  Just like cavemen.  :lol:

What a bunch of rubies  :lol:

Must be all that free thinking and book learning we get...

"Facts & Figures? Experts from universities? Quotes from the holy one? Nope, all I know is that President Blackie McBlackerson is wrong. I got my bible (Atlas Shrugged) in one hand and my rifle in the other and there ain't no convincing me otherwise.." -FSD

:lol: just like glenn beck, sean hannity, karl rove, paul ryan, mitt romney, and all the other ignorant losers on the right... :lol:
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) on January 17, 2013, 07:05:14 PM

Sock
Title: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: camKSU on January 17, 2013, 07:16:04 PM

Sock

Haha...

That's all you got?
Title: Re: Re: Re: debt ceiling
Post by: Stupid Fitz on January 18, 2013, 12:36:15 PM
I don't really get the Maddow hate. I mean, yeah, she's biased as hell, but at least she cherry-picks somewhat accurate facts to build an incredibly slanted argument. Also, her homosexuality gives her every reason to hate the republicans. Hannity is just an bad person who is every bit as biased and just makes crap up on his show and bullies his guests. They both make pretty good television, but Maddow seems like the better person.

I don't like her smug condescending attitude, which she learned from Olbermann. She is the female Olbermann.

I'm not a fan of Hannity or fox in general, but what I do like is they always have opposing view points, which MSNBC tries to avoid because they have no argument.

They almost always railroad the person with the opposing argument though. It's like, throw this token opposer out there and yell over him when he tries to speak.

Only if they won't answer a direct question, which is usually the case with libs.

Usually

They also say, "the american people want" a lot.  I hate this fwiw.  I am an American people and not once have they ever asked me anything.  Repubs prob do this to, but I notice it way more with Libs.   :dunno: