If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Crooks & Liars)   New Obama scandal: "Fake" interviews   (crooksandliars.com) divider line 701
    More: Strange  
•       •       •

30072 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jul 2008 at 11:50 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



701 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-07-22 02:00:53 PM
canyoneer: WaltzingMathilda: "...trillion dollar war..."



The war is a small part of what's bankrupting America. We could leave Iraq today and never spend another penny there, and the federal government would go bankrupt about 17 seconds later than otherwise. What's worse, the U.S. is now exporting half a trillion dollars/year to buy petroleum. That's what's killing the dollar, not the war. Not only that, but it's a vicious circle, because every time we export dollars for oil, the dollar inflates, making oil more expensive, meaning we export yet more dollars for oil. And so on.

No, the perception that the war is bankrupting America is just a perception, not reality. In fact, defense spending (including war supplementals) is at its lowest percentage of GDP since WWII.

Besides, I bet you thought invading Iraq was a good idea in March 2003, didn't you?


You forgot the part about how the Repiglicans have been borrowing against SS fund since the RayGun years.
 
2008-07-22 02:01:46 PM
Nightjars: WaltzingMathilda: And saying that "leaving now" wouldn't do anything doesn't change that we should never have put ourselves in this position. Without W, we don't spend hundreds of billions on Iraq ... period.

You're both right. The war is very expensive (and I was never in favor of it), but, social programs are even more so. Look at the total obligations of our country over the next 20 years. Googling for David Walker is a good place to start your research.


Erm ... so spending money on social programs to better our own citizens is just as bad as spending billions to level a country and nation build? Surely you can't be serious.

/will not stop calling you surely [sic]
 
2008-07-22 02:02:03 PM
I just had to throw this in there for good measure. For the last 8 years this country has been run into the ground, it can only get better once the W idiot is out of office:

RESUME
GEORGE W. BUSH
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington , DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

*Law Enforcement:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport , Maine , in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol.
I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver's license suspended for 30 days.
My Texas driving record has been "lost" and is not available.

Military:
I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use.
By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam .

College: I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
· I ran for U.S. Congress and lost.
· I began my career in the oil business in Midland Texas in 1975.
. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas
. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
· I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using taxpayer money.
· With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas .

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS :
· I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union . During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America .
· I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.
· I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.
· With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida , and my father's appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President of the United States , after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
· I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.
· I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.
· I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.
· I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.
· I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
· I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period.
· I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market.
· In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues.
· I'm proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history.
· My "poorest millionaire," Condoleezza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
· I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.
· I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history, Enron.
· My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.
· I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history.
· I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.
· I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.
· I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
· I appointed more convicted criminals to my administration than any President in U.S. history·
I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States Government.
· I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.
· I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.
· I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.
· I refused to allow inspector's access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.
· I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US election).
· I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.
· I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history.
· I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.
· I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.
· I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens and the world community.
· I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.
· In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.
· I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.
· I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker Buster," a WMD.
· I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.
RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
· All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view.
· All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.
· All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. I specified that my sealed documents will not be available for 50 years. PLEASE SEND THIS TO EVERY VOTER YOU KNOW!"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -This an original quote from Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
 
2008-07-22 02:02:11 PM
Bloody William: Am I completely shrooming, or has this election driven everybody completely bugfark insane?

Triaxis: (C.O.M.M.I.E.) Really?

Degreeless: (Obama/Osama photo) Really?

Satan_Sunburn (Obama/Nixon animation) Really??


Why so serious?
 
2008-07-22 02:08:04 PM
BojanglesPaladin: Wha? They are all funded by Federal Taxes, and are all part of the Federal Budget. Can you clarify why you think that a breakdown of Federal Moneys should exempt these two items?

Are you seriously that clueless about how our budget works? The level of ignorance in this country these days is astounding.

Social Security and Medicare are funded separately from the rest of the budget. Social Security, for example, is funded through payroll taxes, and is supposed to work on the basis that the money you pay in is money you will eventually get back, in the form of social security. The rest of the budget in no way, absolutely, at all works on that principle.

The fact that the social security fund is abused, and social security taxes are used to pay other programs, is a travesty (as Gore rightly pointed out) but it does not change the essential nature of the social security program.
 
2008-07-22 02:08:44 PM
Fark-the-Fnord
U.S. military spending - Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) - is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.

That makes sense. The United States provides enough defense around the world that other countries don't have to. In large part this is a direct result of the Cold War era, where we put in American Missile defense systems and military bases all over Europe to defend against the potential threat of the Soviet Union that many European Countries were able to significantly reduce their standing army capacities. With the Soviet Union gone, the arrangement still exists.

When you add in places like Japan and Germany that aren't allowed a real military, and all the countries in the world with little or no military to speak of, it makes even more sense.

Then you add in the cost of hyper expensive nuclear arsenals - which few countries even have, and none in the sheer numbers that we do, and it makes even more sense that our military spending - even to maintain the status quo - would dwarf that of most other countries.

But it misses the real question - is there something inherently wrong with our nation having a better and stronger military than anyone else in the world? If so, why?
 
2008-07-22 02:09:27 PM
i281.photobucket.com

/obligatory for Obama thread
 
2008-07-22 02:11:00 PM
BojanglesPaladin: That makes sense. The United States provides enough defense around the world that other countries don't have to

What nation are we armed against?
 
2008-07-22 02:11:51 PM
Obdicut

What abot Medicare? But either way, these are Federal expenditures paid for by Federal Taxes. Should we also exempt Federal Revenue derived from Tarriffs and FDA fees for instance? I can;t speak to the accuracy of the graph presented, but it seems to me that any breakdown of TOTAL Federal income and TOTAL Federal expinditures should certainly include SS and Medicare. After all, with the war fund being 'extra-budgetary' expenditures, you are not calling for it to be exluded as well, though it is funded seperately too.
 
2008-07-22 02:12:55 PM
BojanglesPaladin: But it misses the real question - is there something inherently wrong with our nation having a better and stronger military than anyone else in the world? If so, why?

Not necessarily. Balance is the question when you arrive at your point.

The Romans ruled most the the "known" world. What happened to them?

It's not just because depressed kids dressed in black became visible.
 
2008-07-22 02:12:57 PM
BojanglesPaladin: I can;t speak to the accuracy of the graph presented, but it seems to me that any breakdown of TOTAL Federal income and TOTAL Federal expinditures should certainly include SS and Medicare. After all, with the war fund being 'extra-budgetary' expenditures, you are not calling for it to be exluded as well, though it is funded seperately too.

Do you understand that the vast majority of the money paid into Social Security is paid back to citizens?
 
2008-07-22 02:14:00 PM
BojanglesPaladin: Fark-the-Fnord
U.S. military spending - Dept. of Defense plus nuclear weapons (in $billions) - is equal to the military spending of the next 15 countries combined.

That makes sense. The United States provides enough defense around the world that other countries don't have to. In large part this is a direct result of the Cold War era, where we put in American Missile defense systems and military bases all over Europe to defend against the potential threat of the Soviet Union that many European Countries were able to significantly reduce their standing army capacities. With the Soviet Union gone, the arrangement still exists.

When you add in places like Japan and Germany that aren't allowed a real military, and all the countries in the world with little or no military to speak of, it makes even more sense.

Then you add in the cost of hyper expensive nuclear arsenals - which few countries even have, and none in the sheer numbers that we do, and it makes even more sense that our military spending - even to maintain the status quo - would dwarf that of most other countries.

But it misses the real question - is there something inherently wrong with our nation having a better and stronger military than anyone else in the world? If so, why?


Sorry I am just trying to tell if we are on the same side of the fence here. You are saying that our country is spending entirely too much money on defense right? And if you are then I have to completely agree with you. If the government needs to invest more money into defense then it should take care of its soldiers and sailors first and make sure that they are no longer below the poverty line. It seems like our government is trying to foreign policy itself into extinction.
 
2008-07-22 02:14:01 PM
WaltzingMathilda: Erm ... so spending money on social programs to better our own citizens is just as bad as spending billions to level a country and nation build? Surely you can't be serious.

Promising money with no plans in place to be able to actually fund these promises is very bad. If you don't understand why, then, well, I don't know what to say.
 
2008-07-22 02:14:56 PM
CNN had a picture of Obama facing troops in Iraq, with an airplane hangar and a cell tower in the background. Obama appeared to be a foot taller than every single troop. Hell, his head was above the hangar too, and damn near as tall as the tower. How frickin' tall is this messiah anyway?
 
2008-07-22 02:15:21 PM
obdicut
What nation are we armed against?

Interesting logical assumption. So UNTIL we have a nation that threatens us directly, we needn't maintain a powerful military? We should only build a military in response to a threat?

I'm not sure your view of the role of a national military jives with the role of a national military.

/and of course that doesn't even get us started on non-combat roles of the military such as peace-keeping missions, tsunami relief, etc.
 
2008-07-22 02:15:24 PM
UnkleKrakker: "So who you voting for?"

Neither.

Obdicut

Wrong. Just like when Clinton supposedly "balanced" the budget (a lie), medicare and ss are not seperate, because those funds are being borrowed against through intergovernmental transfers, in which the government promises to pay itself back at a later date. So, these supposedly "seperately funded" accounts are being ballooned up by intergovernmental transfers all the time. So, you're either full of sh*t or you don't understand accounting or you don't know what's going on. These programs are not seperately funded when their debts are supposedly going to be repaid from income tax revenues sometime in the future, and they're constantly borrowed against to support current outlays.

Fark-the-Fnord

That's the discrectionary federal budget only. You forgot mandatory spending, which makes discretionary spending look like pocket change. SS and medicare are crushing the country financially. What's the actual debt at now? $10 trillion and growing asymptotically? The war is minor in comparison, and costs far less than the dollars offshored to buy petroleum every year. In short, the cost of the war is a red herring. It's a gob of spit in the torrent. It doesn't help, but it isn't the main driver by any stretch of the imagination.
 
2008-07-22 02:16:11 PM
Nightjars: WaltzingMathilda: Erm ... so spending money on social programs to better our own citizens is just as bad as spending billions to level a country and nation build? Surely you can't be serious.

Promising money with no plans in place to be able to actually fund these promises is very bad. If you don't understand why, then, well, I don't know what to say.


Kind of like incentive checks that are backed by money that is borrowed from China?
 
2008-07-22 02:17:10 PM
Obdicut:
Do you understand that the vast majority of the money paid into Social Security is paid back to citizens?

Yes I do. and how does an accounting of total Federal Expindatures not include SS outpayments again?
 
2008-07-22 02:17:14 PM
canyoneer: UnkleKrakker: "So who you voting for?"

Neither.


There are more than two choices, or do you mean you're not voting?
 
2008-07-22 02:17:17 PM
Fark-the-Fnord: Kind of like incentive checks that are backed by money that is borrowed from China?

Yep, pretty much.
 
2008-07-22 02:17:52 PM
Because people will not educate themselves about Obama and will vote for him based upon skin color and oratory skills, they will be voting for a man: 1) with 145 days experience in Congress, 2) whose voting record is to the left of Bernie Sanders, the self-avowed socialist and 3) with absolutely no management skills who thinks raising the capital gains tax is a great economic policy.

The people who are going to be hurt the most by Obama are the ones who vote for him.
 
2008-07-22 02:18:35 PM
Fark-the-Fnord

Does which 'side-of-the-fence' we are on, and whether it is the same side make anything I've said untrue?
 
2008-07-22 02:21:07 PM
UnkleKrakker: There are more than two choices, or do you mean you're not voting?

I dunno about him but for the first time since I turned 18 I probably will not be voting for a Presidential candidate.
 
2008-07-22 02:21:59 PM
2xcited: The people who are going to be hurt the most by Obama are the ones who vote for him.

and you, apparently
 
2008-07-22 02:24:04 PM
BojanglesPaladin: Interesting logical assumption. So UNTIL we have a nation that threatens us directly, we needn't maintain a powerful military? We should only build a military in response to a threat?

I'm not sure your view of the role of a national military jives with the role of a national military.

/and of course that doesn't even get us started on non-combat roles of the military such as peace-keeping missions, tsunami relief, etc.


Great dodge. What is your answer to the question? That there is no nation we are armed against? What are the threats that our military is supposed to counter? Why do we have a military?


BojanglesPaladin: Yes I do. and how does an accounting of total Federal Expindatures not include SS outpayments again?

It does. I never said that it didn't. I'm glad you can admit that Social Security has a very unique and special place in Federal expenditures, given that the money goes directly back to the citizenry.

Given that this is not true for the rest of the budget, do you see any reason to treat SS differently than the rest of the budget?

canyoneer: Wrong. Just like when Clinton supposedly "balanced" the budget (a lie), medicare and ss are not seperate, because those funds are being borrowed against through intergovernmental transfers, in which the government promises to pay itself back at a later date. So, these supposedly "seperately funded" accounts are being ballooned up by intergovernmental transfers all the time. So, you're either full of sh*t or you don't understand accounting or you don't know what's going on. These programs are not seperately funded when their debts are supposedly going to be repaid from income tax revenues sometime in the future, and they're constantly borrowed against to support current outlays.

You can read the above (again, since I've told you this about a zillion times by now), and read what I already stated as well:


The fact that the social security fund is abused, and social security taxes are used to pay other programs, is a travesty (as Gore rightly pointed out) but it does not change the essential nature of the social security program.
.

By the way, there's a good difference between Gore and Bush-- you were looking for one, right?
 
2008-07-22 02:24:35 PM
BojanglesPaladin said:

The United States provides enough defense around the world that other countries don't have to.


Um, I'm gonna have to ask the same question that Obdicut asked.

Who... exactly... are we providing all this "defense" against?
 
2008-07-22 02:25:45 PM
canyoneer: "Jan. 2001 - Present would like a word with you."

And what would it say?

I am sincerely curious about this perception that things have gotten worse because of any specific actions or policies of the federal government. Please enlighten me.


IRAQ! TAX CUTS WHEN ALL READY DEFICIT SPENDING!
 
2008-07-22 02:25:56 PM
Also, I can't help but wonder how staged was his "review" of the troops. I wonder if some officer picked all the short troops to line up for the photo-op with Obama. It looked like a lillipution formation unless Obama is 8 feet tall. I would have thought our military would not contribute to the orchestration of such a picture.
 
2008-07-22 02:26:25 PM
obdicut
do you see any reason to treat SS differently than the rest of
the budget?


No I do not. Glad to see you finally joined the point.
 
2008-07-22 02:26:56 PM
2xcited:

The people who are going to be hurt the most by Obama are the ones who vote for him.


I REALLY doubt the NeoCons and the filthy rich will be voting for Obama.
 
2008-07-22 02:27:16 PM
canyoneer: That's the discrectionary federal budget only. You forgot mandatory spending, which makes discretionary spending look like pocket change. SS and medicare are crushing the country financially. What's the actual debt at now? $10 trillion and growing asymptotically? The war is minor in comparison, and costs far less than the dollars offshored to buy petroleum every year. In short, the cost of the war is a red herring. It's a gob of spit in the torrent. It doesn't help, but it isn't the main driver by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah OK, Medicare and SS is totally crippling the US. So the best practice is to bomb the crap out of a country at billions of dollars per week but when it comes to taking care of our own people we just have to put up the big Fark You sign? Medicare and Social Security are taking care of people that have fought for this country before you. Should we not take care of them? I know that a lot of money is going that way but the Baby Boomers are retiring, they are needing those services, they are American citizens too.
 
2008-07-22 02:28:13 PM
Friction8r: Also, I can't help but wonder how staged was his "review" of the troops. I wonder if some officer picked all the short troops to line up for the photo-op with Obama. It looked like a lillipution formation unless Obama is 8 feet tall. I would have thought our military would not contribute to the orchestration of such a picture.

Mutherfarker, there is documented evidence that during a time of war the PRESIDENT was being asked questions by a gay prostitute. If you haven't spent everyday since '05 trying to get answers for that then you can STFU right now. You have no credibility.
 
2008-07-22 02:29:27 PM
BojanglesPaladin: No I do not. Glad to see you finally joined the point.

So the fact that SS is different from every other expenditure, that it is money paid back to the citizenry, that the fund would ideally be revenue neutral at any given moment, none of these seem different to you than, say, collecting taxes to build a bridge?

If you really can't see any difference between Social Security payroll taxes being paid in order to pay money to Social Security recipients, and collecting taxes (from many various sources) in order to fund projects, then I don't think I need to argue with you anymore.
 
2008-07-22 02:29:58 PM
Fark-the-Fnord: Nightjars: WaltzingMathilda: Erm ... so spending money on social programs to better our own citizens is just as bad as spending billions to level a country and nation build? Surely you can't be serious.

Promising money with no plans in place to be able to actually fund these promises is very bad. If you don't understand why, then, well, I don't know what to say.

Kind of like incentive checks that are backed by money that is borrowed from China?


Or the warNightjars: WaltzingMathilda: Erm ... so spending money on social programs to better our own citizens is just as bad as spending billions to level a country and nation build? Surely you can't be serious.

Promising money with no plans in place to be able to actually fund these promises is very bad. If you don't understand why, then, well, I don't know what to say.


"Funding" the war by borrowing from China would not have been necessary without the invasion. If you recall correctly, we had a budget surplus under Clinton. Which means that all the social programs were funded and paid for with money left over. I will be voting for the party who pulled that off. And I will blame Bush and company for the squandering of those sound budget principles that you are saying were inevitable. And I refuse to believe that the "promises" without appropriate funding can be pinned on the Dems when they are the ones who left Bush in control of a budget surplus.
 
2008-07-22 02:30:05 PM
General Zang: BojanglesPaladin said:

The United States provides enough defense around the world that other countries don't have to.

Um, I'm gonna have to ask the same question that Obdicut asked.

Who... exactly... are we providing all this "defense" against?


Don't be stupid! It's the turrurists and liberals we're defending against!
Geeze, it's so damn obvious...
 
2008-07-22 02:30:05 PM
Obdicut, General Zang
Great dodge. What is your answer to the question? That there is no nation we are armed against? What are the threats that our military is supposed to counter? Why do we have a military?

There is no dodge - Your question itself shows how utterly you miss the point of a strong military. All nations maintain a military. Who is Denmark 'defending' against? They have a standing army. Who is Australia 'defending' against? They have a robust military.

One does not maintain a military in response to a threat.
 
2008-07-22 02:30:56 PM
Missfire. Only meant to quote Nightjars in my post above.
 
2008-07-22 02:33:21 PM
with my last post in mind, this article is very sad with future knowledge in mind ... Multiple record surpluses (new window)

FTL: In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
This is the first year we've balanced the budget without using the Medicare trust fund since Medicare was created in 1965. I think we should follow Al Gore's advice and lock those trust funds away for the future," he said.
 
2008-07-22 02:35:07 PM
WaltzingMathilda: "Funding" the war by borrowing from China would not have been necessary without the invasion. If you recall correctly, we had a budget surplus under Clinton. Which means that all the social programs were funded and paid for with money left over. I will be voting for the party who pulled that off. And I will blame Bush and company for the squandering of those sound budget principles that you are saying were inevitable. And I refuse to believe that the "promises" without appropriate funding can be pinned on the Dems when they are the ones who left Bush in control of a budget surplus.

Who did it doesn't matter. I'm no fan of the republicans, but there's no reason to bring partison squabbling into the situation.

The situation is that baby boomers retiring is going to strech social security beyond imagination, and there are no plans in place to fix the situation. The fact that there was a surplus under Clinton is great, but it doesn't address the situation.

Nothing you've said disputes this point, i'm not sure what you're trying to say, but my entire point is that there are no plans in place to deal with the promised payouts.
 
2008-07-22 02:35:13 PM
WaltzingMathilda: Missfire. Only meant to quote Nightjars in my post above.

No big deal, i was a little confused at first but you do have a valid point.
 
2008-07-22 02:36:02 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND: Mutherfarker, there is documented evidence that during a time of war the PRESIDENT was being asked questions by a gay prostitute.

Now that's a terrible complaint. I mean, you totally missed an excellent opportunity for double entendre. Here's let me fix it for you.

"Mutherfarker, there is documented evidence that during a time of war a gay prostitute was pitching softball questions for the PRESIDENT to catch."
 
2008-07-22 02:36:51 PM
Obdicut:
If you really can't see any difference between Social Security payroll taxes ...then I don't think I need to argue with you anymore.

That would be cool.
Sure, SS taxes are 'different'. (I notice you jettisoned Medicare). Tarriff revenue is 'different' too. So are stamps. But in a discussion about what percentage of the total Federal Budget is taken up by Defense Spending, why would you not look at ALL Federal income and ALL Federal Expenditures? Social Security is NOT a net zero account, but even if it were, it should still be accounted, even if it was a wash. Just as 'non-budgetary' military expenditures should be calculated in. Just because you consider SS to be 'special' does not make it magically exempt from the Federal Spending Calculation.
 
2008-07-22 02:37:38 PM
It doesn't matter, Vegas already has everything figured out. They run the world! There are like 6 really rich guys, 20x that of Bill Gates, that just sit and bet on all kinds of, seemingly, extremely important world events and then laugh when one of them looses 1 billion dollars. I will find this place. And put an end to ... oooo you have hookers and beer here!? nevermind, there is no such place vegas. gotta go now!
 
2008-07-22 02:39:33 PM
"I REALLY doubt the NeoCons and the filthy rich will be voting for Obama."

Bruce Dickinson, the 1st thing the investment class is going to do is to re-direct investment and transfer funds, if Obama is elected, and before he can ask Congress to pass legislation. If there is no money for investment, guess what businesses are going to cut. That's right, your job!

So who is going to be hurt more? A member of the investment or entreprenurial class, who loses some dividends, interest, stock growth or value: or some Obama voting schmuck who loses, his $30K a year job, which is his family's only source of income.

Surely you cannot mean what you just posted, other than to further some misguided class envy. I hope you are advocating for Obama, because your rantings will drive people from Mr. Obama.
 
2008-07-22 02:40:13 PM
BojanglesPaladin: Sure, SS taxes are 'different'.

Up until they are dumped into the general fund.
 
2008-07-22 02:40:13 PM
DroxInxThexWind Mutherfarker, there is documented evidence that during a time of war the PRESIDENT was being asked questions by a gay prostitute. If you haven't spent everyday since '05 trying to get answers for that then you can STFU right now. You have no credibility.

Is dat yo' way o' sayin' I ain't gots no street cred? Whatever. It is clear that these types of photo shots are staged, they just become increasingly blatant in their orchestration - which has nothing to do with gay prostitute reporters.
 
2008-07-22 02:42:06 PM
Nightjars: WaltzingMathilda: "Funding" the war by borrowing from China would not have been necessary without the invasion. If you recall correctly, we had a budget surplus under Clinton. Which means that all the social programs were funded and paid for with money left over. I will be voting for the party who pulled that off. And I will blame Bush and company for the squandering of those sound budget principles that you are saying were inevitable. And I refuse to believe that the "promises" without appropriate funding can be pinned on the Dems when they are the ones who left Bush in control of a budget surplus.

Who did it doesn't matter. I'm no fan of the republicans, but there's no reason to bring partison squabbling into the situation.

The situation is that baby boomers retiring is going to strech social security beyond imagination, and there are no plans in place to fix the situation. The fact that there was a surplus under Clinton is great, but it doesn't address the situation.

Nothing you've said disputes this point, i'm not sure what you're trying to say, but my entire point is that there are no plans in place to deal with the promised payouts.


It all goes back to my original point that the war is more than a drain on our budget.

The conversation evolved to "well it's not the only thing. look at all these social programs."

And I said "well, spending money here for good causes is not as bad as spending money there for nation building"

And you said "if you can't see how promising things that aren't budgeted for is bad then you're a dumbass" or something

So I said, they could be paid for under sound budget principles that we had in place only 8 years ago. And the war is unnecessary and super damaging to all of that ... that was my original point. If we crumble, we can blame the war, not welfare.
 
2008-07-22 02:46:35 PM
Dancin_In_Anson:
BojanglesPaladin: Sure, SS taxes are 'different'.

Up until they are dumped into the general fund.


Aren't they spending SS taxes just as fast as it comes in?
 
2008-07-22 02:46:41 PM
canyoneer: So, even though the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed enthusiastically with Bush in 2003, they are blameless for what Bush has done? Is that it? I just have to say that's a really chickensh*t attitude.

You know who else had the overwhelming support of the majority...
ahoy.tk-jk.net

You cannot justify illegal and detrimental activities due to their popularity at a point in time due to imperfect information relayed to a populace which was told blatant lies and scared into supporting a despot.
 
2008-07-22 02:47:54 PM
Pair-o-Dice: Aren't they spending SS taxes just as fast as it comes in?

Have been since 1965. Had to find some way to pay for Vietnam and The Great Society.
 
Displayed 50 of 701 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report