Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Don't F--- With The White House Bob!! « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#120 : March 15, 2013, 04:46:13 PM

It's hilarious that you three idiots have never heard of inflation. Almost every year during the non-recession economy the US breaks it's revenue record because of inflation and population growth. True story. Look it up. The only reason this is news is because the recession caused the opposite trend to occur over the last few years. Inflation typically causes the dollar amount to be higher, but not the buying power, you morons. Oh, the buffoonery!

So you trying to say that the increase in Congressional spending is inflationary?

Not entirely, but in large part, yes. Simply looking at the dollar amount gives a hugely inaccurate reflection. For example, Vinny Peanut's article states that tax receipts are higher than they have ever been in history. But what if I was to tell you that since the global recession, tax receipts in relation to GDP have been the lowest that they have been since 1950? What if I was to tell you that the last 4 years have been the longest stretch that tax receipts have been under 16% of GDP since the Great Depression? Kinda puts a different "spin" on things, doesn't it?

This ^^^ is classic CBW. The reason record breaking revenues is significant is because it undercuts the WH argument that more revenues were essential to avoiding sequester/reducing deficit rather than just cutting spending.

It's insignificant, you imbecile, because the term "record breaking revenues" does not mean that the amount of revenue is enough to keep up with the cost of running the government, even if there isn't a dime in additional spending added to the government. Let me explain it like this. Say you start off having to pay $800 a month in living expenses. You make 1000 a month in salary. Your job then drops your pay to $800 over the next 9 years. In the meantime, your rent increases by $35 every year for 10 straight years. but in year 10, your company sees a boost in sales, and bumps up your salary to 1100 a month. You are making RECORD BREAKING REVENUES, based on your previous income levels. unfortunately for you, it now costs you 1150 to live in the same place that you had been living in even without you increasing a single expense. That's why inflation and growth are important factors, you nitwit. Aside from a deep recession or depression, revenues increase EVERY SINGLE YEAR, but SO DO OUTLAYS! EVEN IF YOU DON"T ADD A DIME OF ADDITIONAL SPENDING TO THE BUDGET, THE AMOUNT WILL INCREASE YEARLY DUE TO INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH!

Do you get it, or are you being deliberately obtuse here?

1. The world did not come to and end with sequester, despite WH claims to the contrary

Pretty bold to suggest no negative effects given that it hasn't even been in effect a month yet. What else do you see in that crystal ball of yours, counselor?


2. Sequester was the WH's plan, despite WH claims to the contrary

The sequester was conceived by the WH. It wasn't the WH's plan for it to become law. That was caused by the Republicans refusing to negotiate on additional revenues despite the fact that they actually campaigned on adding additional revenues in the 2012 election.

3 We don't need more revenues,despite WH claims to the contrary?

Yes we do, because revenues are at their lowest points in recent years since they have been since the Great Depression when you account for INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH! Jeezuz, you are a moron...


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7034
Offline
#121 : March 15, 2013, 05:09:57 PM


The sequester was conceived by the WH. It wasn't the WH's plan for it to become law. That was caused by the Republicans refusing to negotiate on additional revenues despite the fact that they actually campaigned on adding additional revenues in the 2012 election.


And the President promised spending cuts. In fact he is still rabbiting on about a balanced approach of cuts and tax increases. Care to point one actual cut he proposed? That is, one program he proposed to cut  by n amount of dollars?

AND, the WH thought of the sequester plan, insisted it be included, refused to consider anything that did not include it, threatened a veto if it was missing, but it's really not their fault it happened. OOOOKAAAAAAY.!!

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#122 : March 15, 2013, 05:29:28 PM


The sequester was conceived by the WH. It wasn't the WH's plan for it to become law. That was caused by the Republicans refusing to negotiate on additional revenues despite the fact that they actually campaigned on adding additional revenues in the 2012 election.


And the President promised spending cuts. In fact he is still rabbiting on about a balanced approach of cuts and tax increases. Care to point one actual cut he proposed? That is, one program he proposed to cut  by n amount of dollars?

http://news.msn.com/politics/obama-renews-offer-to-cut-entitlements-to-end-budget-cuts

Obama offered up cuts to these programs as part of a grand bargain the first time around also, BTW. The Republicans turned it down back then for the same reason that they are turning it down now. Because along with spending cuts, Obama wanted additional revenues.

Republican idea of negotiating, offer us all of what we want, yet none of what you want, or else we'll shut down the government and tank the recovery. That's not a negotiation, that's a hijacking.

AND, the WH thought of the sequester plan, insisted it be included, refused to consider anything that did not include it, threatened a veto if it was missing, but it's really not their fault it happened. OOOOKAAAAAAY.!!

Actually, I think he would have considered something that included additional revenues as opposed to the sequester. He just never got anything like that sent to him, now did he?

FYI, I am highly opposed to cutting entitlements by any means, accept for in ways that do not affect benefits. I vehemently part ways with the president on this issue. Heck, I only wish he was as staunchly opposed to negotiating as the Republicans are, or as you seem to think that he is. If he was, I suspect he would be the most popular president in the last 50 years.


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7034
Offline
#123 : March 15, 2013, 05:43:48 PM

Again, I ask you for one specific spending cut that has been proposed. I will make it even easier for you. I will include the House Democrats. Name me one SPECIFIC cut to any program that has been proposed by either one?

Kelly Thomas

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 2735
Offline
#124 : March 15, 2013, 05:45:13 PM

****Off Topic****

I'm glad CBW is back. I never really knew what Hell was like until I had to endure that psychotic idiot troll go-on unabated for two weeks straight.

Sorry for the backhanded welcome CBW.

P.S. Considering the circumstances your Communist Manifesto diatribes are almost like a breath of fresh air.

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#125 : March 15, 2013, 06:50:16 PM

Again, I ask you for one specific spending cut that has been proposed. I will make it even easier for you. I will include the House Democrats. Name me one SPECIFIC cut to any program that has been proposed by either one?

What in the smelly hell does that matter? It isn't enough that he's stated he's open to cutting entitlements, now you want him to lead off the negotiation process by proposing a number? The Republicans want the cuts. The dems want the revenues. What negotiation have you been in where you start off by doing the other side's work for them?


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16906
Online
#126 : March 16, 2013, 08:09:18 AM

****Off Topic****

I'm glad CBW is back. I never really knew what Hell was like until I had to endure that psychotic idiot troll go-on unabated for two weeks straight.

Sorry for the backhanded welcome CBW.

P.S. Considering the circumstances your Communist Manifesto diatribes are almost like a breath of fresh air.


I was begining to think the Comrade had been picked off by one of Chairman Maobama's drones.....







...colateral damage of course , they would never intentionally harm thier useful idiot.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7034
Offline
#127 : March 16, 2013, 11:13:06 AM

Again, I ask you for one specific spending cut that has been proposed. I will make it even easier for you. I will include the House Democrats. Name me one SPECIFIC cut to any program that has been proposed by either one?

What in the smelly hell does that matter? It isn't enough that he's stated he's open to cutting entitlements, now you want him to lead off the negotiation process by proposing a number? The Republicans want the cuts. The dems want the revenues. What negotiation have you been in where you start off by doing the other side's work for them?

How's about because PrezBo has warbled on about a balanced approach of cuts and "revenues" for the last 6 years and the only thing he has implemented is the "revenunes" part. Here is a thought or you; Each time the Republicans negotiated and the "cuts will come later" bit has totally failed to materialize, now, based on that modus operandi, why should we in all reality think for one moment this time will be any different? In fact PrezBo has gone so far as to rule out a whole swathe of programmes he won't entertain any cuts.

So, in the words of the wise sage Jerry Maguire ... 'Show me the money!"

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#128 : March 16, 2013, 12:38:25 PM

****Off Topic****

I'm glad CBW is back. I never really knew what Hell was like until I had to endure that psychotic idiot troll go-on unabated for two weeks straight.

Sorry for the backhanded welcome CBW.

P.S. Considering the circumstances your Communist Manifesto diatribes are almost like a breath of fresh air.


I was begining to think the Comrade had been picked off by one of Chairman Maobama's drones.....







...colateral damage of course , they would never intentionally harm thier useful idiot.

I've never subscribed to the philosophy of anyone who's openly supported a totalitarian dictatorship. Can you say the same, Delirious Smurf? You've certainly got the idiot part down. The useful part? Well...just keep on trying, sport.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#129 : March 16, 2013, 12:40:31 PM

Again, I ask you for one specific spending cut that has been proposed. I will make it even easier for you. I will include the House Democrats. Name me one SPECIFIC cut to any program that has been proposed by either one?

What in the smelly hell does that matter? It isn't enough that he's stated he's open to cutting entitlements, now you want him to lead off the negotiation process by proposing a number? The Republicans want the cuts. The dems want the revenues. What negotiation have you been in where you start off by doing the other side's work for them?

How's about because PrezBo has warbled on about a balanced approach of cuts and "revenues" for the last 6 years and the only thing he has implemented is the "revenunes" part. Here is a thought or you; Each time the Republicans negotiated and the "cuts will come later" bit has totally failed to materialize, now, based on that modus operandi, why should we in all reality think for one moment this time will be any different? In fact PrezBo has gone so far as to rule out a whole swathe of programmes he won't entertain any cuts.

So, in the words of the wise sage Jerry Maguire ... 'Show me the money!"

Quick question spartan. Requires a one word answer, but feel free to elaborate if you wish. Is the deficit increasing or decreasing?


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7034
Offline
#130 : March 16, 2013, 05:20:25 PM


Quick question spartan. Requires a one word answer, but feel free to elaborate if you wish. Is the deficit increasing or decreasing?

When you increase the deficit by OVER  $1 trillion, and then you reduce that to "only" $900 billion, it is not exactly something to write home about is it?
: March 16, 2013, 05:21:56 PM spartan

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31573
Online
#131 : March 16, 2013, 06:00:23 PM


Quick question spartan. Requires a one word answer, but feel free to elaborate if you wish. Is the deficit increasing or decreasing?

When you increase the deficit by OVER  $1 trillion, and then you reduce that to "only" $900 billion, it is not exactly something to write home about is it?

Semantics, semantics.  The fiscally conscience President is reducing the deficit for the kiddies.


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 16906
Online
#132 : March 16, 2013, 06:01:53 PM


Quick question spartan. Requires a one word answer, but feel free to elaborate if you wish. Is the deficit increasing or decreasing?

When you increase the deficit by OVER  $1 trillion, and then you reduce that to "only" $900 billion, it is not exactly something to write home about is it?

It is something to write home about for the Useful Idiots of the world...

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#133 : March 17, 2013, 01:44:50 AM


Quick question spartan. Requires a one word answer, but feel free to elaborate if you wish. Is the deficit increasing or decreasing?

When you increase the deficit by OVER  $1 trillion, and then you reduce that to "only" $900 billion, it is not exactly something to write home about is it?

How did the president increase the deficit by 1 trillion dollars when outlays only went up by about half that much in the first year of his presidency? In fact, if you were to add up the total amount that spending has increased under Obama over the last 4 and a half years, it's still less than 1 trillion dollars.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19437
Online
#134 : March 17, 2013, 09:45:02 AM

1. The world did not come to and end with sequester, despite WH claims to the contrary

Pretty bold to suggest no negative effects given that it hasn't even been in effect a month yet. What else do you see in that crystal ball of yours, counselor?


2. Sequester was the WH's plan, despite WH claims to the contrary

The sequester was conceived by the WH. It wasn't the WH's plan for it to become law. That was caused by the Republicans refusing to negotiate on additional revenues despite the fact that they actually campaigned on adding additional revenues in the 2012 election.

That^^^^ is as close as you will ever get to "I was wrong/you were right" from CBW. 

On #1 -- instead of saying yeah the "world did not come an end"  CBW counters with the proverbial "yeah, but"  and puts up this strawman: "pretty bold to suggest NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS."  Well CBW, that might be bold but . . .  I didnt suggest "no negative effects"I said world didn't come to an end, which is what the WH was selling.  Anyway, a "yeah but" from CBW equals an "I was wrong/you were right" from most people

On #2 -- CBW admitting, without saying it, that Obama lied and Woodward was right.  Of course, it is with the same "yeah, but" style, this time with the "yeah,  but . . .  it was those evil tricky Republicans"
: March 17, 2013, 11:52:17 AM VinBucFan

Page: 1 ... 7 8 9 10
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Don't F--- With The White House Bob!! « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools