Latest Topics

[zartan]

Gidnik, on 05 September 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

because dod employs 10% of American workers. Directly or indirectly.

But if it's teachers, auto workers, etc then go for it, right?

[dawgbit]

Offshore accounts violate no law nor tax code, therefore the argument that they are unfair or somehow a "dodge" is moot. Same with the retaliatory  poor~v~rich argument. Is the earned-income-credit for dependant children any less a dodge for those who fall below a taxable income bracket than offshore accounts?

Besides, there are far easier ways for a "rich guy" to pay no taxes if he/she so chooses.

Raise their taxes, they'll raise the price for the goods/services they produce to make up the difference. Who does it affect? The middle-class consumer.

Raise their taxes again, they'll lay off a percentile of the folk they employ to offset the burden. Again, who gets hurt? Again, the middle-class worker.


So when I hear libs screaming to make the "rich" pay their share, I'll remember who it is they are really punishing with their same tired rhetoric.

[Hothotz]

The Doctor, on 05 September 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

You know NASA only gets 18.4 billion dollars a year right? That is a complete non-factor and cutting that already extremely low number will do nothing for the debt but will detract a ton from the field of science.

Really? Because I consider 18 billion dollars a lot of money when we are 16 trillion in the whole. The only thing I need from NASA is them to keep my Direct Tv satellite up lol.

[nova]

zartan, on 05 September 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

When you're running for president and you won't show your tax returns birth certificate college transcript whatever, these things kinda seem like a smoke/fire situation

Hmmmmm, silly arguments are silly no?

I swear to high heaven, you guys will talk about anything but actual substantive issues.  It's nothing but all these stupid deflective arguments.

It blows my mind that you on the left have been far more concerned with Romney's tax returns than questions like "How many people did the Obama admin get killed with their cross border gun running?"

Edited by nova, 05 September 2012 - 10:44 AM.

[JDawg]

zartan, on 05 September 2012 - 10:22 AM, said:

If you're for across the board cuts for ALL political sacred cows, I'm with you

Hell I'm always on board for drastically cutting congress/presidential/elected official pay/stipends/per diems etc. across the board.  It may not put much a dent in anything but I think it'd be a good motivator from law-makers becoming to complacent and lazy.

[WadeWilson]

I say it's time we get some red-and-black tight wearing psychopath into DC to really clean up the filth and scum that call themselves politicians. I promise you, my constituents, that I will personally lay the smackdown on all politicians who have driven this country further and further into the shitter, and will represent you, the people, by restoring this once-great nation to glory. Or, you know, I might go crazy with power and only serve myself. I love me some self-serve.



I am Deadpool, and I approved this message (because I typed it out) (they know that dumbass) (shut up).

[JDawg]

dawgbit, on 05 September 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Raise their taxes, they'll raise the price for the goods/services they produce to make up the difference. Who does it affect? The middle-class consumer.

Raise their taxes again, they'll lay off a percentile of the folk they employ to offset the burden. Again, who gets hurt? Again, the middle-class worker.

People are too dense to understand these simple facts.

[zartan]

nova, on 05 September 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Hmmmmm, silly arguments are silly no?

I swear to high heaven, you guys will talk about anything but actual substantive issues.  It's nothing but all these stupid deflective arguments.

It blows my mind that you on the left have been far more concerned with Romney's tax returns than questions like "How many people did the Obama admin get killed with their cross border gun running?"

So, conservative talking points = legit concerns
Liberal talking points = class warfare, red herrings

Okay

[Large Marge]

zartan, on 05 September 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

So, conservative talking points = legit concerns
Liberal talking points = class warfare, red herrings

Okay

Polititians are just a buncha hunks.

[The Doctor]

Hothotz, on 05 September 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Really? Because I consider 18 billion dollars a lot of money when we are 16 trillion in the whole. The only thing I need from NASA is them to keep my Direct Tv satellite up lol.

Ahh so lets cut that whopping .001125% percent of the budget. That's going to get us out of the hole.

[nova]

zartan, on 05 September 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

So, conservative talking points = legit concerns
Liberal talking points = class warfare, red herrings

No.  There are legit issues from all sides, but you damn sure don't want to talk about them.  You know all those assinine policies you spent 8 years bitching about under Dubya that Barry O not only didn't change in the least but in some cases doubled down on?  Those would be great places to start a discussion.

But instead you'd rather talk about Mitt Romney's tax returns.  You're more concerned about that, than anything else under the sun.  Not rampant cronyism, not endless wars, not political thuggery, not debts as far as the eye can see, and definitely not the fiscal cataclysm we're rapidly approaching or any of the abject failures of the current administration.

No the only thing matters is that Mitt Romney hasn't released his tax returns.  JFC the decline and collapse of this country is going to be EPIC.

[Hothotz]

The Doctor, on 05 September 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Ahh so lets cut that whopping .001125% percent of the budget. That's going to get us out of the hole.

What budget are you referring too?

[The Doctor]

Hothotz, on 05 September 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

What budget are you referring too?

My apologies, I meant to say deficit. Point is, NASA is probably one of the few worth while government funded ventures we have and it's already MASSIVELY underfunded. To put it in perspective, the U.S. defense budget as of 2010 was 683 billion, and it rises every year. To say that NASA has anything whatsoever to do with our deficit is ridiculous.

[nova]

The Doctor, on 05 September 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

My apologies, I meant to say deficit. Point is, NASA is probably one of the few worth while government funded ventures we have and it's already MASSIVELY underfunded. To put it in perspective, the U.S. defense budget as of 2010 was 683 billion, and it rises every year. To say that NASA has anything whatsoever to do with our deficit is ridiculous.

Put it further in perspective, you could cut DoD and Discretionary spending in half and we'd still be sporting a deficit to the tune of $100-$200 billion a year.

Any solution is going to have to included reductions across the board leaving nothing out...

[Hothotz]

The Doctor, on 05 September 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

My apologies, I meant to say deficit. Point is, NASA is probably one of the few worth while government funded ventures we have and it's already MASSIVELY underfunded. To put it in perspective, the U.S. defense budget as of 2010 was 683 billion, and it rises every year. To say that NASA has anything whatsoever to do with our deficit is ridiculous.

Sorry, I see as it as a complete waste of money. I think all of DoD advertising should be cut to just about zero conidering we have no trouble meeting recruitment numbers. That's just one cut off the top of my head. Not arguing Defense need to be looked at, just don't agree on outlook of NASA.