PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Budget Deficit Down, Lowest in 5 Years


Bronco Yoda
10-30-2013, 02:55 PM
http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/30/u-s-budget-deficit-down-to-680b-lowest-in-5-years/

Fedaykin
10-30-2013, 03:30 PM
In before all the wankers who start claiming Obama caused the huge deficits in the first place, which is of course a total fiction.

BroncoBeavis
10-30-2013, 03:45 PM
In before all the wankers who start claiming Obama caused the huge deficits in the first place, which is of course a total fiction.

I agree. It was Harry Pelosi's fault. :)

Fedaykin
10-30-2013, 03:48 PM
I agree. It was Harry Pelosi's fault. :)

More like 30 years of stupid conservative policy enacted by both Rs and Ds.

BroncoBeavis
10-30-2013, 03:51 PM
More like 30 years of stupid conservative policy enacted by both Rs and Ds.

Yep. Never had a supermajority. Rarely even had majorities in both houses when a Republican was president.

But everythin' still they fault. :)

cutthemdown
10-30-2013, 03:51 PM
Thanks to the sequester that wouldn't have happened had Obama had his way.

Fedaykin
10-30-2013, 03:52 PM
Yep. Never had a supermajority. Rarely even had majorities in both houses when a Republican was president.

But everythin' still they fault. :)

Read what I wrote again, and then try once more to demonstrate that you understand what I am saying.

cutthemdown
10-30-2013, 03:52 PM
Remeber all the nonesense about how the sequester would destroy us? That's what the fed govt does. They want to make us think without them spending all of our money, taking care of us, we won't be able to survive.

Meck77
10-30-2013, 03:53 PM
*Meanwhile reality. Economy is so ****ed the fed cannot stop the $85 Billion a month asset purchasing. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-says-economy-too-weak-to-begin-taper-2013-10-30?dist=afterbell

Sub trillion dollar deficits. Something to celebrate?

BroncoBeavis
10-30-2013, 03:58 PM
Read what I wrote again, and then try once more to demonstrate that you understand what I am saying.

No I get it. Even when they have no power to do anything, it's still their IDEAS that are the problem.

Conservativism is like the new International Jewry. LOL

Fedaykin
10-30-2013, 04:02 PM
Thanks to the sequester that wouldn't have happened had Obama had his way.

The sequestor cut $85 billion.
The deficit change is $410 billion.

As usual, you're not particularly in touch with reality.

If you weren't illiterate, you would have been able to comprehend this part in the OP:

Revenue jumped 13.3 percent to $2.77 trillion, reflecting a slightly better economy and higher tax rates. And government spending declined 2.4 percent to $3.45 trillion, in part because of across-the-board spending cuts that took effect in March.

Read more: U.S. Budget Deficit Down to $680B, Lowest in 5 Years | TIME.com http://swampland.time.com/2013/10/30/u-s-budget-deficit-down-to-680b-lowest-in-5-years/#ixzz2jFGowZuY

Fedaykin
10-30-2013, 04:06 PM
No I get it. Even when they have no power to do anything, it's still their IDEAS that are the problem.

Conservativism is like the new International Jewry. LOL

I know in your little fantasy world there is a leftist party in the U.S., but there isn't. There's a right wing party, and an extreme right wing party.

BroncoBeavis
10-30-2013, 04:07 PM
I know in your little fantasy world there is a leftist party in the U.S., but there isn't. There's a right wing party, and an extreme right wing party.

And so Fed Cries "Where is America's Trotsky!?!?! Where is our Mao!?!?! Save us!!!" LOL

Fedaykin
10-30-2013, 04:08 PM
And so Fed Cries "Where is America's Trotsky!?!?! Where is our Mao!?!?! Save us!!!" LOL

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnDZqIP8ChJU7c6wDpHTYdUpXegTQxg Mv7jIoDDFvLmJg2aiearw

BroncoBeavis
10-30-2013, 04:10 PM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnDZqIP8ChJU7c6wDpHTYdUpXegTQxg Mv7jIoDDFvLmJg2aiearw

Flesh that guy out for me. What would be the 'real left' party's inaugural first order of business?

Meck77
10-30-2013, 04:12 PM
Isn't it interesting that our government has turned citizens against one another? Rather than holding our politicians accountable average hard working Americans attack one another.

Fedaykin
10-30-2013, 04:12 PM
Flesh that guy out for me. What would be the 'real left' party's inaugural first order of business?

Who said I wanted a "real left" party?

BroncoBeavis
10-30-2013, 04:22 PM
Who said I wanted a "real left" party?

Well, it's safe to assume you define the 'middle' of the political spectrum somewhere left of pretty much everything in mainstream American politics today.

I mean your post history leaves no mystery about how you feel about right-wing politics. Then you go on to call all of it right-wing.

Where else is there for you to go?

Arkie
10-30-2013, 06:22 PM
We still need to cut half a trillion (much more painful than 85 billion) to get spending down to 3 trillion, and then we need a record 3 trillion in revenue to break even. The government still looks too big to sustain.

mhgaffney
10-31-2013, 12:00 PM
You must be desperate for a silver lining -- to be scraping the bottom like this.

Rohirrim
10-31-2013, 12:20 PM
We still need to cut half a trillion (much more painful than 85 billion) to get spending down to 3 trillion, and then we need a record 3 trillion in revenue to break even. The government still looks too big to sustain.

**** like this happens when you give the wealthiest top of the pyramid in the country 50% tax breaks. Actually, it's much more than that when you include all the various "adjustments" of capital gains, estate taxes, etc. that have come since. Not to mention the slash in corporate taxes accompanied by the trade deals that encouraged the offshoring of manufacturing and jobs. Oh, and then add in a trillion dollar unfunded war.

Parasites have turned the U.S. into their personal blood bank. Then, when the blood flow starts to slow down, they blame it on the poor. Same as it ever was.

mhgaffney
10-31-2013, 12:55 PM
You could cut a $ trillion by ending the crazy wars and bringing the troops home. Of course, if they did this it would be impossible to hide the absence of jobs. We'd have a million angry unemployed ex- service men and women.

You could bring jobs back to the US by taxing foreign investment. It would work -- but where's the political will to do it? Is anyone even talking about it?

No. We are a busted nation -- shorn of solutions -- drifting toward anther meltdown and social chaos.

MHG

BroncoBeavis
10-31-2013, 01:44 PM
You could cut a $ trillion by ending the crazy wars and bringing the troops home. Of course, if they did this it would be impossible to hide the absence of jobs. We'd have a million angry unemployed ex- service men and women.

You could bring jobs back to the US by taxing foreign investment. It would work -- but where's the political will to do it? Is anyone even talking about it?

No. We are a busted nation -- shorn of solutions -- drifting toward anther meltdown and social chaos.

MHG

Even if you disbanded the military entirely, it wouldn't net you an annual trillion in savings. That's how significant a trillion dollar deficit is. Crazy.

Rigs11
10-31-2013, 02:03 PM
Even if you disbanded the military entirely, it wouldn't net you an annual trillion in savings. That's how significant a trillion dollar deficit is. Crazy.

nope but instead let's cut food stamps. yayLOL

BroncoBeavis
10-31-2013, 02:05 PM
nope but instead let's cut food stamps. yayLOL

Stupid move, as I've said a time or two before.

Pick Six
10-31-2013, 02:42 PM
**** like this happens when you give the wealthiest top of the pyramid in the country 50% tax breaks. Actually, it's much more than that when you include all the various "adjustments" of capital gains, estate taxes, etc. that have come since. Not to mention the slash in corporate taxes accompanied by the trade deals that encouraged the offshoring of manufacturing and jobs. Oh, and then add in a trillion dollar unfunded war.

Parasites have turned the U.S. into their personal blood bank. Then, when the blood flow starts to slow down, they blame it on the poor. Same as it ever was.

Why can't the federal government live within their means? That shouldn't be a difficult concept. You addressed part of that with the "war" comment, but revenue will NEVER catch up with expenses...

elsid13
10-31-2013, 03:17 PM
Why can't the federal government live within their means? That shouldn't be a difficult concept. You addressed part of that with the "war" comment, but revenue will NEVER catch up with expenses...

And why do they have to? This is public government, not your household or your business. There is no real need to balance the books annually.

Pony Boy
10-31-2013, 04:02 PM
And why do they have to? This is public government, not your household or your business. There is no real need to balance the books annually.

Right, no real need to balance the books just keep printing.

Arkie
10-31-2013, 04:08 PM
And why do they have to? This is public government, not your household or your business. There is no real need to balance the books annually.

The debt is real and unsustainable. At some point, we'll be forced into a partial default where some bond holders won't get their interest payments on time.

elsid13
10-31-2013, 04:26 PM
The debt is real and unsustainable. At some point, we'll be forced into a partial default where some bond holders won't get their interest payments on time.

The only way we going into default if some stupid political decision drives us there. I understand the debt and the impact it has on long term saving and interest rates but right now we are not any risk of partial or complete default.

Rohirrim
10-31-2013, 04:47 PM
The debt is real and unsustainable. At some point, we'll be forced into a partial default where some bond holders won't get their interest payments on time.

IMO, the number one item on the agenda is getting the country back to work and getting the engine of the economy fired up again. That means getting rid of trade deals that export jobs. Write new deals, and new laws, that bring jobs home and protect our jobs and markets. Here's what comes first: Benefit the people of the U.S. Stop putting the interests of multi-national corporations first. It's risky doing business. If you fail. You fail. Tough. Nobody ever seems to worry when a large swath of Americans lose their jobs over market forces. When it happens to banksters and Wall Street, we're supposed to bail them out? WTF?

It also means the Right Wing fanatics have to stop throwing wrenches into the economy every couple of months. Austerity in down times destroys economies. That much is clear. Stop blaming everything on SS and Medicare while we carry the most bloated military budget on Earth. SS has been creating surpluses for years. Those surpluses were stolen to fund tax breaks for the rich. It pays a pittance to the elderly and poor. To go after that first shows a miserliness of spirit that America should be ashamed of. Take away those 50% tax breaks on the rich. The top one percent has raked in 95% of the recovery over the last few years. That should be embarrassing to those in leadership positions. Means test SS and Medicare.

Of course, nothing is going to happen while our government is for sale to the highest bidder. We are where we are now because greedy bastards wrote the legislation (and deregulation) that made them rich while making our country weaker by destroying the livelihoods of many of our countrymen. While we let it continue, it will only get worse. As we speak, the House is showing strong bipartisan support to pass the complete emasculation of the already too weak Dodd/Frank regulations with a new bill written by Wall Street and the banksters, putting us right back on schedule for more casino bubbles and crashes.

Garcia Bronco
10-31-2013, 08:10 PM
lol...let's just assume those numbers are correct. 680 Billion is more than double in 2005. Hmmm what happened in 2006?

peacepipe
10-31-2013, 10:20 PM
lol...let's just assume those numbers are correct. 680 Billion is more than double in 2005. Hmmm what happened in 2006?

IDK, what spending bills did GWB sign into law?

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 06:59 AM
IMO, the number one item on the agenda is getting the country back to work and getting the engine of the economy fired up again. That means getting rid of trade deals that export jobs. Write new deals, and new laws, that bring jobs home and protect our jobs and markets. Here's what comes first: Benefit the people of the U.S. Stop putting the interests of multi-national corporations first. It's risky doing business. If you fail. You fail. Tough. Nobody ever seems to worry when a large swath of Americans lose their jobs over market forces. When it happens to banksters and Wall Street, we're supposed to bail them out? WTF?

It also means the Right Wing fanatics have to stop throwing wrenches into the economy every couple of months. Austerity in down times destroys economies. That much is clear. Stop blaming everything on SS and Medicare while we carry the most bloated military budget on Earth. SS has been creating surpluses for years. Those surpluses were stolen to fund tax breaks for the rich. It pays a pittance to the elderly and poor. To go after that first shows a miserliness of spirit that America should be ashamed of. Take away those 50% tax breaks on the rich. The top one percent has raked in 95% of the recovery over the last few years. That should be embarrassing to those in leadership positions. Means test SS and Medicare.

Of course, nothing is going to happen while our government is for sale to the highest bidder. We are where we are now because greedy bastards wrote the legislation (and deregulation) that made them rich while making our country weaker by destroying the livelihoods of many of our countrymen. While we let it continue, it will only get worse. As we speak, the House is showing strong bipartisan support to pass the complete emasculation of the already too weak Dodd/Frank regulations with a new bill written by Wall Street and the banksters, putting us right back on schedule for more casino bubbles and crashes.

While your "tax breaks for the rich" recording is cute. You do highlight a fundamental problem with SS. Its basically been a huge codified slush fund for federal government. By law that's all it really could be. So we gathered all that promise money and spent it. Or "invested" it in Obamaspeak. Regardless there is no return on that spending that can now be used to pay it back. So what was once an asset is now a liability. No matter how much the left wants to act like those IOUs in the drawer are worth something.

This is why retirement funds should be earmarked in accounts for retirees. The government's investment methods don't serve anyone (except the government) well.

cutthemdown
11-01-2013, 09:19 AM
Rho your plan would most likely send prices skyrocketing with inflation as corporations were forced by law to return manufacturing to the USA. Not to mention our workforce not skilled like the Chinese when it comes to assembling electronics.

cutthemdown
11-01-2013, 09:25 AM
Food stamps shouldn't be cut. Just not enough money there to make a huge difference. Not fair to make kids go hungry because their parents can't feed them. Not in this country people. Cmon this is America we are rich enough to feed everyone under 18 whose parents can't get it done.

Having said that they will need to extend retirement a few yrs for the ones that do work hard. Sucks but the only place to grab money is from the people who work for a living. I wish you could just tax the rich, but there just isn't enough of the super rich, and their money isn't easy to get from them. Liberals have to admit that their party is unwilling to really tackle spending.

BroncoBeavis
11-01-2013, 10:26 AM
This did make me think of something I haven't thought of before.

Looks like last year we spent $78 billion on food stamps.

Most recent estimates of the cost of 'the uninsured' to hospitals at around $50 billion.

Just something to think about next time someone decides to argue how insignificant food stamp spending is.

barryr
11-01-2013, 05:40 PM
This did make me think of something I haven't thought of before.

Looks like last year we spent $78 billion on food stamps.

Most recent estimates of the cost of 'the uninsured' to hospitals at around $50 billion.

Just something to think about next time someone decides to argue how insignificant food stamp spending is.

Food stamps going up, wages and jobs not. A liberal democrats paradise.

pricejj
11-02-2013, 08:57 AM
Pitiful Socialists celebrating the 5th highest annual government deficit in the history of the world, after their hero broke records with > $1T deficits in the previous four.

Despite Obama and Harry Reid's attempts to lock-in trillion dollar deficits with spending increases, the House has successfully kept spending flat, even reducing spending with the bi-partisan sequester.

Hopefully by next year federal spending will decrease to 19% (historical 30-year average).

However, as interest rates rise, debt service payments will skyrocket.

pricejj
11-02-2013, 09:07 AM
Stupid move, as I've said a time or two before.

The 2009 Recovery Actís temporary boost to Supplemental Nutrition SNAP benefits was not meant to go on forever.

A reduction of 6% annually (not even close to historic benefits levels) is not the doomsday scenario that Socialists would have you believe.

BroncoBeavis
11-02-2013, 09:31 AM
The 2009 Recovery Actís temporary boost to Supplemental Nutrition SNAP benefits was not meant to go on forever.

A reduction of 6% annually (not even close to historic benefits levels) is not the doomsday scenario that Socialists would have you believe.

I agree, it's not.

But it's also not worth giving away the talking point while there's SO much other fat to trim.

pricejj
11-02-2013, 02:01 PM
I agree, it's not.


But it's also not worth giving away the talking point while there's SO much other fat to trim.

Sooner or later, it will be necessary to make all entitlement programs sustainable.

The Socialist 'talking points' are worthless.

Rohirrim
11-02-2013, 02:23 PM
Sooner or later, it will be necessary to make all entitlement programs sustainable.

The Socialist 'talking points' are worthless.

Meanwhile, your fascist corporatism is doing such a good job of making a very small sliver of people very rich.

pricejj
11-04-2013, 09:01 PM
Meanwhile, your fascist corporatism is doing such a good job of making a very small sliver of people very rich.

LOL. YOUR fascist corporatism is doing quite well in the Obama economy.

Government is supposed to exist to create an environment in which free market economies can exist...not to create give zero-interest loans and taxpayer 'stimulus' to banks and other crony capitalists.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Bernanke are some of the worst criminals in American history.

Garcia Bronco
11-05-2013, 09:16 AM
IDK, what spending bills did GWB sign into law?

None. It was in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress that deficit spending increased. By 2008 it had increased 400 percent to 1.2 Trillion.

alkemical
11-05-2013, 03:58 PM
I haven't verified these #'s - but i thought it was an interesting place to start.

BroncoBeavis
11-05-2013, 04:03 PM
I haven't verified these #'s - but i thought it was an interesting place to start.

No way that number isn't bull****.

Rohirrim
11-05-2013, 04:38 PM
LOL. YOUR fascist corporatism is doing quite well in the Obama economy.

Government is supposed to exist to create an environment in which free market economies can exist...not to create give zero-interest loans and taxpayer 'stimulus' to banks and other crony capitalists.

Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and Bernanke are some of the worst criminals in American history.

Actually, our government was founded to, "... form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

It doesn't say anything in there about free market economies. In fact, it doesn't mention economies of any kind whatsoever.

alkemical
11-05-2013, 04:54 PM
No way that number isn't bull****.

Which #?

I can help you with some places to start for your research -

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/23

It's commondreams - so some of the info will be slanted - but you have to start somewhere.

peacepipe
11-06-2013, 07:57 AM
None. It was in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress that deficit spending increased. By 2008 it had increased 400 percent to 1.2 Trillion.

so tell us how medicare part D and the Iraq war brought down our deficit? dems weren't in control then. BTW no money can be spent without senate(controlled by rethugs at the time)approval. constitution requires spending to be originated out of HOR,but still requires the presidents signature.

Again what spending bills did GWB sign into law?

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 08:20 AM
so tell us how medicare part D and the Iraq war brought down our deficit? dems weren't in control then. BTW no money can be spent without senate(controlled by rethugs at the time)approval. constitution requires spending to be originated out of HOR,but still requires the presidents signature.

Again what spending bills did GWB sign into law?

I love this "Blame the Nearest Republican" logic.

Budget problems from 2001-2009? Blame Bush!
Budget problems from 2010-2013? Blame Congressional Rethugs! LOL

peacepipe
11-06-2013, 12:46 PM
I love this "Blame the Nearest Republican" logic.

Budget problems from 2001-2009? Blame Bush!
Budget problems from 2010-2013? Blame Congressional Rethugs! LOL

well, if the shoe fits, wear it.

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 03:20 PM
None. It was in 2006 when the Democrats took control of congress that deficit spending increased. By 2008 it had increased 400 percent to 1.2 Trillion.

This is a really dumb, dumb thing to say. The direct cause of >1T deficits was the recession (including automatic, mandatory social safety net spending as well as the first wave of baby boomers retiring, and large reductions in revenue).

Pull your head out of your ass GB.

alkemical
11-06-2013, 03:24 PM
I love this "Blame the Nearest Republican" logic.

Budget problems from 2001-2009? Blame Bush!
Budget problems from 2010-2013? Blame Congressional Rethugs! LOL

Or, posters like yourself when things contradict your perception - you call it bunk but can't back it up and make hypocritical statements.

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 04:18 PM
Or, posters like yourself when things contradict your perception - you call it bunk but can't back it up and make hypocritical statements.

Dude, $4k a ludicrous number on its face. Just juxtapose the $250 on defense vs $4,000 for "corporate subsidies"

Proportionally, since $4k is 16x $250, and we spend roughly $700 billion on defense.... you'd have to be saying that we give out something like $11 trillion in "corporate subsides"

That's laughable. Our entire national GDP isn't much larger than that. There's no sniff test (or laugh test) that could possibly pass.

When the bull**** is that easy to spot on the surface, there's no reason to dig any further.

alkemical
11-06-2013, 04:45 PM
Dude, $4k a ludicrous number on its face. Just juxtapose the $250 on defense vs $4,000 for "corporate subsidies"

Proportionally, since $4k is 16x $250, and we spend roughly $700 billion on defense.... you'd have to be saying that we give out something like $11 trillion in "corporate subsides"

That's laughable. Our entire national GDP isn't much larger than that. There's no sniff test (or laugh test) that could possibly pass.

When the bull**** is that easy to spot on the surface, there's no reason to dig any further.

You are full of logical fallacies. You don't fact check anything.

Go 'Murica!

SoCalBronco
11-06-2013, 05:49 PM
And why do they have to? This is public government, not your household or your business. There is no real need to balance the books annually.

Sure there is. More debt=need to finance it=share of federal budget tied up in dead money i.e. paying interest will increase which is an inefficient use of money and needlessly will result in higher taxes.

Short term deficit not a huge issue.....long term SS and Medicare is the bigger issue due to demographic strains on funds. Really need to start cost shifting away from govt. Means testing, premium support/voucher, changing inflationary increases etc.

peacepipe
11-06-2013, 05:55 PM
Sure there is. More debt=need to finance it=share of federal budget tied up in dead money i.e. paying interest will increase which is an inefficient use of money and needlessly will result in higher taxes.

Short term deficit not a huge issue.....long term SS and Medicare is the bigger issue due to demographic strains on funds. Really need to start cost shifting away from govt. Means testing, premium support/voucher, changing inflationary increases etc.

cutting benefits is not going to happen. and shouldn't happen.

peacepipe
11-06-2013, 06:04 PM
you can actually expand SS. remove the cap on which higher earners make,once someone reaches 120,000(somewhere around there) they no longer pay the 6.2 into SS. get rid of that cap and most issues with SS go away.

Rohirrim
11-06-2013, 06:10 PM
First, we must address the false religion of a "pure" capitalism. Capitalism, like any other system devised by man, is inherently flawed. We have enough history to know that laissez faire capitalism leads to the kind of income disparities that lead to social upheaval. In other words, no society can sustain it for long, at least without resorting to a police state. This is the bush we keep beating around. We have an entrenched, ideologically based political wing that is fanatically wedded to the dogma of laissez faire capitalism, and the majority of them are the dupes of corporate sharks who are getting reamed by the economics. They are the equivalent of modern ghost dancers.

Look what happened within two years of the U.S. taking down Glass/Steagle? Now we have corporations laying off a third of their workforce, piling that work onto the shoulders of the two thirds left, reducing their wages, and then using the leftover money to buy back stocks and give themselves more money. Research? Zip. New equipment and building? Zip. This has become the basic workings of our economy.

If you explained it to a third grader, they'd think you were insane.

houghtam
11-06-2013, 06:17 PM
First, we must address the false religion of a "pure" capitalism. Capitalism, like any other system devised by man, is inherently flawed. We have enough history to know that laissez faire capitalism leads to the kind of income disparities that lead to social upheaval. In other words, no society can sustain it for long, at least without resorting to a police state. This is the bush we keep beating around. We have an entrenched, ideologically based political wing that is fanatically wedded to the dogma of laissez faire capitalism, and the majority of them are the dupes of corporate sharks who are getting reamed by the economics. They are the equivalent of modern ghost dancers.

Look what happened within two years of the U.S. taking down Glass/Steagle? Now we have corporations laying off a third of their workforce, piling that work onto the shoulders of the two thirds left, reducing their wages, and then using the leftover money to buy back stocks and give themselves more money. Research? Zip. New equipment and building? Zip. This has become the basic workings of our economy.

If you explained it to a third grader, they'd think you were insane.

Actually my four year old has it down pretty well already, thanks to the good Doctor.

"Business is business, and business must grow, regardless of crummies in tummies, you know."

Fedaykin
11-06-2013, 06:31 PM
First, we must address the false religion of a "pure" capitalism. Capitalism, like any other system devised by man, is inherently flawed. We have enough history to know that laissez faire capitalism leads to the kind of income disparities that lead to social upheaval. In other words, no society can sustain it for long, at least without resorting to a police state. This is the bush we keep beating around. We have an entrenched, ideologically based political wing that is fanatically wedded to the dogma of laissez faire capitalism, and the majority of them are the dupes of corporate sharks who are getting reamed by the economics. They are the equivalent of modern ghost dancers.

Look what happened within two years of the U.S. taking down Glass/Steagle? Now we have corporations laying off a third of their workforce, piling that work onto the shoulders of the two thirds left, reducing their wages, and then using the leftover money to buy back stocks and give themselves more money. Research? Zip. New equipment and building? Zip. This has become the basic workings of our economy.

If you explained it to a third grader, they'd think you were insane.


Laisez-faire == opposite side of the coin to communism. Both are fatally flawed ideas. Someplace in the middle, favoring capitalism (i.e. what we did from 1930-1980) is what has proved to be the best solution so far. Too bad even that center-right philosophy is now called "marxism" by the rabid right.

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 08:56 PM
You are full of logical fallacies. You don't fact check anything.

Go 'Murica!

"A Chicken in Every Pot and Toyota in every Driveway so long as we cut out those Eleventy Trillion Bajillion Katrillion Dollars in Corporate Welfare!" LOL

As usual, the easy fixes are too good to be true.

alkemical
11-06-2013, 10:57 PM
"A Chicken in Every Pot and Toyota in every Driveway so long as we cut out those Eleventy Trillion Bajillion Katrillion Dollars in Corporate Welfare!" LOL

As usual, the easy fixes are too good to be true.

You're the one supporting government subsidies which lead to the demand of public welfare programs, refusing to even examine data based upon your illusory fallacy of a presumed ideological position. You've been conned and you don't even see it, then you doublespeak yourself creating your own hypocrisy. You're a shining example of the Idiocracy and why fascism is winning.

houghtam
11-06-2013, 11:06 PM
You're the one supporting government subsidies which lead to the demand of public welfare programs, refusing to even examine data based upon your illusory fallacy of a presumed ideological position. You've been conned and you don't even see it, then you doublespeak yourself creating your own hypocrisy. You're a shining example of the Idiocracy and why fascism is winning.

I'll put it more bluntly:

Beavis is a rube.

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 11:07 PM
You're the one supporting government subsidies which lead to the demand of public welfare programs, refusing to even examine data based upon your illusory fallacy of a presumed ideological position. You've been conned and you don't even see it, then you doublespeak yourself creating your own hypocrisy. You're a shining example of the Idiocracy and why fascism is winning.

Never said anything about supporting subsidies. Just about diving into an argument with fantasmical amounts of exaggeration and hyperbole.

Government is a balancing act. Its impossible to strike a decent balance with people keeping score based on make-believe numbers.

alkemical
11-06-2013, 11:09 PM
Never said anything about supporting subsidies. Just about diving into an argument with fantasmical amounts of exaggeration and hyperbole.

Government is a balancing act. Its impossible to strike a decent balance with people keeping score based on make-believe numbers.

You have supported those policies. What's make believe? Prove the data is flawed.

BroncoBeavis
11-06-2013, 11:12 PM
You have supported those policies. What's make believe? Prove the data is flawed.

Prove we don't spend 16 times as much on corporate subsidies as on defense? Do you know how completely impossible that is?

alkemical
11-07-2013, 08:06 PM
That's a lazy response, and also illustrates you believe things without facts.