Yea the Bush years certainly proved that to be true didn't they.
You've got BDS real bad. Better see a doctor about that.
Even your hero Ronald Reagan raised taxes on the rich to generate revenue as a means of cancelling spending. Its strange that raising taxes on the rich is such a non-issue to fixing the problem when you guys always jump at the opportunity to protect the rich. Especially this ridiculous notion that raising taxes 3 or 4 points on those making $250,000, and thats every dollar after that amount mind you, or more a year will cripple the economy.
I just love it when you libtards start bashing Reagan. Take a look and feast your eyes:
You're still not getting it. You could confiscate 100% of millionaires' income and you'd fund the government for only 4 months, according to Paul Ryan. Let me type slowly so you can understand:
REVENUE ISN'T THE PROBLEM. SPENDING IS THE PROBLEM.
It isn't that there isn't enough coming in -- there's plenty coming in, even without the infamous 47% that Romney talked about and took an enormous amount of heat over (factual statement for the most part, but politically unwise). It's simply that there's too much going out. Too much pork, too much Medicare, too much nanny state.
A study was shown demonstrating how many manufacturing jobs are constantly lost under Republican leaders and created under Democratic leaders. More jobs will generate more revenue. Even though their supposed to be killing the economy with their crazy spending.
If you think austerity policies work so well, maybe Greece and Spain have had good economic policies for you.
Point #1 - you actually have the balls to quote Krugman? That's rich!
There isn't a bigger moonbat on the planet than that guy. When it comes to economics, go ahead and start your own economy on Mars. Hire Krugman to come in and be your Money Czar. And watch the shit collapse.
Point #2 - who the hell is talking about austerity? Last I heard, we were discussing excessive spending. Since when does keeping to a legitimate budget (something your libtard heroes in the Senate haven't bothered to pass in over 3 years, btw) qualify as austere
measures? Wouldn't simple common sense be a little more accurate?
First of all, I was talking about the tea partiers, they were the ones kicked out and they are a very small minority. Second, just because a person voted republican doesn't mean they believe in every policy the party puts forth or defends. Poll after poll shows that the country believes in raising taxes on the rich. Even republicans are coming around to this idea. So, yes, the majority side with Obama on this position like I said but tea partiers don't care because they want something different.
Correct on points #1 and #2. You're doing well so far. Oops, there it is! When you start babbling about "poll after poll" about "the country favors this and that" doesn't make it wise.
You make it sound as if those who are advocating simple common sense and living within your means are somehow glued to rich people's hips. Wrong answer, condor breath. When you can somehow control spending (difficult to do for you libtards) you'll have gone a long, long way in restoring fiscal credibility to this out-of-****ing-control Congress that spends money like drunken sailors. And hell, even drunken sailors are spending THEIR OWN MONEY, not somebody else's.
You are correct, however, in saying that SOME Republicans are joining your bandwagon. People like Bill Kristol and Saxby Chambliss and Lindsey Graham. You'll note that these idiots are making the same mistake AGAIN. Trust the Dhimmirats to actually cut spending while agreeing to raising taxes on allegedly the rich only (but that says nothing about the various tax brackets/rates that will surely go up though IRS has conveniently not published that information yet), while Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown yet again.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again. Looks to me like Chambliss and Graham need to be checked in to a mental ward.
So are you telling me that a representative republic is not a form of democracy and that it is wrong to describe it as one ?
I'm telling you that you're making a juvenile mistake when you call the US a "democracy." It is not. Learn the difference.
Whatever you think of Christie is irrelevant. He got a backlash from Republicans the moment he thanked Obama...which is how you people always are. Most of your party is actually afraid to say one good thing about Obama around other conservatives because you're afraid of the reaction you'll get. You people are like a colony with Rush Limbaugh or Grover Norquist as your queen. You guys aren't allowed to show dissent from the colony opinion. Liberals know very well that your prime directive always been to make Obama look bad, even if that means killing the economy or lying. So if anyone says anything good of him they get stoned.
What I think of Christie is most definitely relevant -- to me. I personally don't give a rat's ass whether or not you agree with my assessment. I'm simply putting it out there.
Christie is a RINO Republican. He's governor of a largely blue state. That means a number of things. First, he's no friend of the Second Amendment. Secondly, he's another RINO who has "evolved" on his stance vis a vis abortion. How convenient.
Chris Christie is a loudmouth who, when on the podium, sounds convincingly like a badass. And there's a certain amount of chutzpah that most red-blooded Americans admire. But when Christie, huffing and puffing while tagging along beside Barry and looking concerned as only a politician should look when his job is on the line, simply looked like he was capitalizing on the moment -- as most politicians do.
Regarding Barry and his lies, I can think of absolutely NOTHING redeemable about the man. He's lied about everything imaginable and I'm simply too lazy to post them here. He's a world-class narcissist who focuses on nothing but himself. Don't believe me? On the night that that SEALs took out bin Laden, where was Barry? On the golf course, of course. I wondered if he bogeyed the 10th...
The real reason for everyone's backlash at Roberts was because he found the Affordable Care Act..., I'm sorry Obamacare, constitutional. The fact that Obama basically won that fight with the Supreme court was what ate you people alive. That was the main reason you backlashed at Justice Roberts, not the tediousness of taxes and clauses argument. Lets not play these games.
Games? **** you and your accusations. I did my homework and I've formed my opinion based on what I've read. I don't give a shit about your research or anybody else's. I form my own opinions based on what I've read and understand. When was the last time a Supreme Court justice -- any of them -- actually wrote BOTH the majority and dissenting opinions?
Did you know that Roberts actually co-wrote the first roughly two-thirds of what eventually became the dissenting opinion? And then decided to throw his lot in with the moonbats? And then co-wrote the majority opinion? AYFKM? That's the mark of a well-reasoned, thoughtful, adhere-to-the-Constitution Supreme Court Chief Justice? Evidently so, according to one account I recently read.
Explain to me how it is the government lawyers can insist that the penalty for noncompliance with Obamacare is NOT a tax, but is a lawful penalty assessed by Congress under the commerce clause, but then Roberts goes ahead and calls it a tax anyway.
I'd call that flat-out lying.
The only saving grace about Roberts and Obamacare is that he threw out the individual mandate. Jesus, at least SOMETHING went well.
Lol...and Chief Justice Roberts is still a judge.
Go ahead and call Roberts "Judge" while you're arguing in front of the Supreme Court. They MIGHT let you keep your balls.