kallend 2,148 #176 December 6, 2012 QuoteQuote>However, I would also be in favor of increasing their salary considerably if they are in >a combat zone. Right. You want to use your credit card to increase those soldier's pay. Should we take your credit card away? Nope, because I have the discipline not to spend more than I have coming in. Unlike some we know. Who was the last Republican president to spend less than came in?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #177 December 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote>However, I would also be in favor of increasing their salary considerably if they are in >a combat zone. Right. You want to use your credit card to increase those soldier's pay. Should we take your credit card away? Nope, because I have the discipline not to spend more than I have coming in. Unlike some we know. Who was the last Republican president to spend less than came in? Not about the past, as much as some like to dwell there. It's about what we are going to do about it in the future. If Obama increases taxes, do you honestly believe the money will be used to pay down the debt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #178 December 6, 2012 >If Obama increases taxes, do you honestly believe the money will be used to pay >down the debt? No, not for years. If we cut spending by 10%, do you honestly believe that we will use that extra 10% to pay down the debt? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #179 December 6, 2012 Quote>If Obama increases taxes, do you honestly believe the money will be used to pay >down the debt? No, not for years. If we cut spending by 10%, do you honestly believe that we will use that extra 10% to pay down the debt? Not really. But for once, lets try cutting spending for a while before we talk about raising taxes. I think more people would support the combination if they see government doing something other than continuing to spend and raise taxes to spend even more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #180 December 6, 2012 Quote>If we cut spending by 10%, do you honestly believe that we will use that extra 10% to pay down the debt? tough call but it would be better than increasing revenue by an impotent amount and simultaneously increasing spending by even more that that ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #181 December 6, 2012 Quote Who was the last Republican president to spend less than came in? Congress spends. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #182 December 6, 2012 QuoteQuote Who was the last Republican president to spend less than came in? Congress spends. So Boehner is to blame for the out of control deficit.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #183 December 6, 2012 QuoteIf we cut spending by 10%, do you honestly believe that we will use that extra 10% to pay down the debt? Cutting spending by 10% will reduce the imaginary forecasted debt 10 years from now that people continue to pretend is a realistic estimate. Seriously, the "over ten years" thing is a pretty genius construct so that they can talk in numbers (1.6 trillion, 1.2 trillion) that actually sound meaningful compared to the current deficits we've been running and the current debt we hold. I think whenever someone talks about an amount of money spread over 10 years they shouldn't put the talking person's face on the screen they should just show a plot of the projected deficits/revenue/debt that they are talking about changing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #184 December 6, 2012 >but it would be better than increasing revenue by an impotent amount and >simultaneously increasing spending by even more that that I agree; we have to spend less. We just have to make both parts of that solution work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #185 December 6, 2012 You honestly feel he is personally responsible for all 535 votes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #186 December 6, 2012 Quote You honestly feel he is personally responsible for all 535 votes? No, just the majority.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #187 December 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Who was the last Republican president to spend less than came in? Congress spends. So Boehner is to blame for the out of control deficit. Yep. And Reid. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #188 December 7, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Who was the last Republican president to spend less than came in? Congress spends. So Boehner is to blame for the out of control deficit. Yep. And Reid. My reading of the Constitution put responsibility for spending bills firmly in the House. But your knowledge of the law is doubtless better than mine.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #189 December 17, 2012 thehill.com/opinion/columnists/juan-williams/273133-opinion-the-gops-folly-over-tax-rates... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #190 December 17, 2012 So what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #191 December 17, 2012 QuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #192 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #193 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Appropriate response to your silly question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #194 December 17, 2012 QuotePerhaps it would help if we didn't engage in wars we could not afford? +1... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #195 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Appropriate response to your silly question. Only in your world where more and more oppressive government interference in peoples live is a good thing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #196 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Appropriate response to your silly question. Only in your world where more and more oppressive government interference in peoples live is a good thing. A 39.5% marginal top tax rate is not oppressive. The tax rate was higher under Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Making statements like that just makes you look foolish.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #197 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Appropriate response to your silly question. Only in your world where more and more oppressive government interference in peoples live is a good thing. A 39.5% marginal top tax rate is not oppressive. The tax rate was higher under Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Making statements like that just makes you look foolish. Calling for tax increases to punish a very small part of our society is foolish. We have been snookered by our government promising spending cuts, if only we suppost tax increases, too many times in the past. Only a fool would trust our government to raise taxes first and then cut spending later. I want the cuts to go into effect first. Then we can talk about raising taxes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #198 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Appropriate response to your silly question. Only in your world where more and more oppressive government interference in peoples live is a good thing. A 39.5% marginal top tax rate is not oppressive. The tax rate was higher under Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Making statements like that just makes you look foolish. Calling for tax increases to punish a very small part of our society is foolish. Taxes aren't punishment. You continue to look foolish.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #199 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Appropriate response to your silly question. Only in your world where more and more oppressive government interference in peoples live is a good thing. A 39.5% marginal top tax rate is not oppressive. The tax rate was higher under Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Making statements like that just makes you look foolish. Calling for tax increases to punish a very small part of our society is foolish. Taxes aren't punishment. You continue to look foolish. What's foolish is buying the government line that increasing taxes on wealthy people will get us out of this ditch. What's even more foolish is thinking the government will make the promised spending cut. But please, go ahead and continue your ridiculous beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #200 December 17, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo what!! If the majority of Americans wanted the gpvernment to but them a Lexus, would you support it? That's exactly why we have a government and laws that we live by. Your guy lost. Get over it. That's the poorly thought out response I expected. Thanks for being consistent. Appropriate response to your silly question. Only in your world where more and more oppressive government interference in peoples live is a good thing. A 39.5% marginal top tax rate is not oppressive. The tax rate was higher under Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan. Making statements like that just makes you look foolish. Calling for tax increases to punish a very small part of our society is foolish. Taxes aren't punishment. You continue to look foolish. What's foolish is buying the government line that increasing taxes on wealthy people will get us out of this ditch.. No-one said it would. You continue to look foolish.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
