The Republicans gave it their best shot . . .

The right just can't seem to help but lie and demonstrate just how little they know or understand about the economy.
It's amazing how truly clueless they are about the things they claim to care about.
Propaganda and brainwashing will do that to them I guess.

 

Crazy Horse and Tecumseh felt no obligation to help the development of a new pattern of settlement and existence in the US. They were defeated by people they saw as aliens. They refused to accept the course of action of accommodation pursued by Sitting Bull. Although they were defeated they refused to surrender. Instead the Others had to shoot them out of the saddle as it were.

PS: In the case of Tecumseh it was LITERALLY necessary to shoot him out of the saddle.

 

maybe you should just admit you don't know what you're talking about

 

maybe if you actually read the articles rather than take the title out of context, you might understand. "selfish" in Rand's context means putting your own welfare first. If you find that a strange concept then you are a strange person.

The point being that if everyone takes care of themselves, the entire society is better off. No where in any books or articles did she ever advocate letting the helpless go hungry.

I know this whole discussion is probably too intellectual for you, but maybe if you take some time and actually read you might eventually get it.

 

OK, then how about telling us how borrowing 46 cents of every dollar spent by the govt is good economics. Or to put it another way, why is spending 46% more than your income good economic policy? .How long would you last if you ran your personal finances like that?

 

Stupid liberal answer, "Oh, you can't run a govt the way you run your personal life!" "Its all different!"

Broke is broke, see: Europe.

 

right, isn't it funny how the libs leave the debate when a simple question is asked?

I suspect the next answer will be---------just take more from the evil rich and the evil corporations

 

is that what jesus taught?

if you've ever taken a finance class, you should understand that personal finance is much different than public finance

for example, you can't legally print currency

 

That was about the best example of a shut down post you'll see here.

 

not at all, dujac posted a picture and tried to make an out of context conclusin without reading the articles or understanding what was being said.

 

"Do onto others as you would have them do onto you" does not mean that the rulers should take from one person and give to another.

Yes, public finance is different, but printing money only makes each dollar worth less. No govt has ever printed itself out of debt.

 

you realize ayn rand was an atheist, right?

and without taxation we wouldn't have a functioning country

george washington said there must be taxes and acted upon those words

http://mrkash.com/activities/whiskey.html

 

the discussion is on the philosophy of the characters in her books, not her personal beliefs. BTW, you do know that Atlas Shrugged is fiction, right?

taxation and redistribution are not the same thing. conservatives want taxation to pay the govt's bills, liberals want taxation to redistribute wealth.

 

Here's the facts. It was just 12 very short years ago that we had a balanced budget. Then we decided the rich didn't need to pay taxes. Now we have $trillion dollar deficits. Coincidence??? I think not.

 

here beliefs fueled her writing

bad fiction at that

taxation is a form of redistribution

Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistribution_of_wealth

 

The bush/obama tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich. And if they were so bad, why were obama and all the dems doing everything they could do to keep them in place?

 

The bush/obama tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich. And if they were so bad, why were obama and all the dems doing everything they could do to keep them in place?

 

1. Republicans forced Clinton into the balanced budget.

2. 6 short years ago, [FY 2007] with the $70 billion tax break for the wealthy and the $300 billion plus tax break for the less than wealthy, we had a deficit of $160.7 billion. One Eighth of usama's average deficit.

What changed? Democrats took over control of both Houses of Congress for FY 2008 and beyond. Coincidence? Hell NO!
Largest deficit in history BEFORE Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress. $412.7 billion, FY 2004.
Smallest deficit since Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress, $458.6 billion, FY 2008. [then a record,,,,now routinely broken by the idiot usama]

If you want to cite history, don't try to cherry pick partisan nonsense.

IF the tax breaks are the problem, WHY is usama extending them? In 2010 he not only extended them for all, he increased the tax breaks for the middle class.

usama was OFFERED a rewrite of our present tax code by both Democrat and Republican Congressmen. He insisted on increasing the tax rate on a tiny segment of the population and INCREASED SPENDING. Rewriting the tax code entirely would have saved A TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR. Instead usama the idiot turd, insisted on a $60 billion dollar POTENTIAL increase in tax rates to apply against AVERAGE deficits of $1.3 TRILLION!
Tell me HOW a deficit of $1.24 TRILLION solves the problems caused by deficits of $1.3 TRILLION?

The stupidity of usama's insistence on a SMALL tax increase on a tiny segment of the population. [The part that provides many jobs] is exceeded only by the stupidity of his insistence on passing a horrible health care law. Have you noted that insurers have JUST announced rate increases exceeding 20%? One of the main lying selling points of obamaSCAM was that it would keep insurance prices down. In Loony Liberalland, is a 20+% increase, keeping prices down?

usama offers NO actual reductions in present spending, just offers a slowing in future increases in spending [which won;t happen] and a chump change increase in tax revenue, IF IT DOES COME IN, INSTEAD OF MORE MONEY GOING OFFSHORE. Which is the likely case.

Stupid is as stupid does, and usama is the stupid leader.

 

i don't remember it that way

1993 budget signaled the return of fiscal responsibility

Bill's economic plan [finally passed in August 1993]. Before the vote, I had spoken with wavering Democrats. In the end, not a single Republican voted for the balanced budget package. It squeaked through the House by one vote, and Al Gore had to vote to break a 50-50 vote tie.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htm

 

I don't know if liberals love to lie or are just brainwashed into total stupidity.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, (Pub.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, enacted August 5, 1997) is when and HOW the budget got balanced.

The Speaker of the House was Newt Gingrich. The House was comprised of 227 Republicans and 207 Democrats.

The Senate Majority leader was Trent Lott and the Senate was comprised of 55 Republicans and 45 Democrats.

THEREFORE THE BALANCED BUDGET ACT COULD NOT HAVE PASSED WITHOUT REPUBLICAN VOTES.

Deficits under Clinton were:

93, $255.1 billion
94, $203.2 billion
95, $164.0 billion
96, $107.4 billion
97, $21.9 billion
Surpluses were:
98, $69.3 billion
99, $125.6 billion.
00, $236.2 billion.

The Clinton/Gingrich compromises can also take credit for the surplus of 01, $128.2 billion.

While President, Clinton moved to the right and was essentially a "Blue Dog" Democrat in the latter half of his first term and in his second term.

FACTS, not lying propaganda.

 

Beats me. Keeping those middle class tax cuts in place, as puny as they are, was not Obama's finest hour. He should have just run on rescinding everything Bush did.

 

"AS PUNY AS THEY WERE"

Do you live a life, INTENTIONALLY, devoid of a single fact about anything?

The Bush tax cuts cut the top rate from 39.6% to 35%. That is an 11.6% cut and it was PHASED IN over years. The full cut to 35% did not go into effect until 2006.

The Bush tax cuts for the lower earners were 25% to 33% and went into effect immediately in 2003.

The savings realized by the lower brackets were 4.3 times more than those by the top bracket, and were realized for 3 years longer.

All told the lower brackets saved $1.7 TRILLION over the time the Bush tax cuts were in effect under Bush. And they continue to save now under usama.

Would you rather that the middle class and lower earning workers did not have an extra $1.7 trillion for they and they alone to decide how it should be used. You think its better the govt had that $1.7 trillion to waste?

And while the middle class and lower earners were saving that money, the US deficit was going DOWN from $412.7 billion in 2004 to $318 billion in 2005, to 248 billion in 2006, to $161 billion in 2007.

How do you EXPLAIN THAT?

The usual and massively stupid liberal claim is that Bush held back all the debt and dumped it on usama. That's blatantly stupid and also IMPOSSIBLE to do.

FYI, the explanation is this: Spending in 2007 was $2.7 trillion instead of the $3.8 trillion we're spending today. And we had MORE revenue, WITH, the tax cuts.

 

you don't know what you're talking about

clinton decided to work toward balancing the budget long before 1997

most of the gop fought it tooth and nail


THE BUDGET STRUGGLE; HOUSE PASSES BUDGET PLAN, BACKING CLINTON BY 218-216 AFTER HECTIC MANEUVERING

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM - August 06, 1993


Mr. Clinton and his supporters in Congress stressed that 80 percent of the new taxes would be paid by taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 and that 90 percent would be paid by those with incomes above $100,000.

The legislation would lower the annual budget deficit by a total of $496 billion over the next five years, with $241 billion coming from tax increases and $255 billion from spending cuts.

The national debt, the accumulation of all the deficits over the years, would continue to rise by about $1 trillion over the five years. That is because the annual deficit, now about $300 billion, would still be close to $200 billion at the end of five years. In the absence of any budget cuts, the deficit in that period would rise by about $1.5 trillion.

The central elements of the bill would raise the tax rates on upper-income taxpayers, increase the Federal tax on gasoline by 4.3 cents a gallon, reduce military spending and limit the explosive growth in Medicare spending. Views on the Record

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/06/us/budget-struggle-house-passes-budget-plan-backing-clinton-218-216-after-hectic.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm

Republicans said their opposition was not a matter of partisanship but of principle.
"This debate defines the difference between Republicans and Democrats," said Representative Dick Armey, Republican of Texas. "Democrats believe prosperity comes from bigger Government.

Republicans know it comes from ordinary people acting on behalf of themselves and their families."

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/06/us/budget-struggle-house-passes-budget-plan-backing-clinton-218-216-after-hectic.html

 

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997, (Pub.L. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, enacted August 5, 1997) is when and HOW the budget got balanced.

Passed by a Republican controlled House and a Republican controlled Senate. PASSED! Not "worked toward," PASSED.

Look up the LAW. There is the number and the date. READ it and weep over your lies.

 

I think we're derned if we do and derned if we don't. We can't afford our government spending, yet neither can we afford to cut it. Bankruptcy ahead.