Anybody watching the debates?

N Sperlo wrote:

HiTempguy wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: We wont be able to break the deficit without falling onto more debt.

Uh, you guys just did... again... for the third time. You WOULD be able to break the deficit, just you WON'T. There is a difference. Cut spending, LIKE MAD. When the economy returns, fix all of the stuff you had to cut. No different then anyone else. While a road with potholes does suck, it doesn't actually change anything besides someones comfort.

Doing it that way, do you have any idea how many if hundreds of years it would take. We have to create jobs, so we make money, so we can pay taxes. Even if taxes went up, we would have a long way to go. Thats why we need to spend to make.

The government cannot effectively, and is not responsible for, and certainly is not good at: creating jobs. Get them the hell out of the way and the jobs will come.

tuna55 wrote: The government cannot effectively, and is not responsible for, and certainly is not good at: creating jobs. Get them the hell out of the way and the jobs will come.

Would you be the guy refusing a government grant or funding to start or run a company that would in turn pay taxes and lots of them because it is doing SO WELL?

N Sperlo wrote:

tuna55 wrote: The government cannot effectively, and is not responsible for, and certainly is not good at: creating jobs. Get them the hell out of the way and the jobs will come.

Would you be the guy refusing a government grant or funding to start or run a company that would in turn pay taxes and lots of them because it is doing SO WELL?

Yes, the FEDERAL government should not provide grants. If there were some sort of tax holiday program that any company was able to access equally, that may be the only thing I could see. Any grant opportunity is bound to end with the government deciding which companies get money and which do not. That is not just, nor within the control of the federal government.

Real simple - the government should not pick winners and losers. The constitution doesn't allow them to do anything like that.

93EXCivic wrote: In reply to Tom Heath: Is there anything that man hasn't done?

I guess you could say he's been... Putin in long hours.

YEEEAAAAAAAAAH.

In reply to tuna55:

Whatever this program is, it would have to be equal opportunity. I used the word grant. I should not have done that because it creates that misunderstanding. Its unequal tax cuts and huge expenses on a war that got us here in the first case.

N Sperlo wrote:

tuna55 wrote: The government cannot effectively, and is not responsible for, and certainly is not good at: creating jobs. Get them the hell out of the way and the jobs will come.

Would you be the guy refusing a government grant or funding to start or run a company that would in turn pay taxes and lots of them because it is doing SO WELL?

No. Don't hate the player, hate the game. That said, the government can't "create" jobs, other than government jobs, which are funded by taking more money away from me, the private sector business owner. Get it? Even if I get some sort of funding or grant, oh, let's say 500 MILLION berkeleying DOLLARS OF TAXPAYER MONEY, it has to come from somewhere. So it's either printed out of thin air, or taken from someone who is successfully running their lives/business, which is 500 million less that they'll have to expand their business and hire more people. Get it?

Great recent example of why some stupid motherberkeleyer who has never had a real job, much less run a business, should not be picking the winners and losers in his "Centrally planned" economy. Nobody wants your berkeleying solar panels!!!

Replace "Obama" with "Republican President" and "Solar Panel Company" with "Defense Contractor." MSNBC would have 24 hour coverage of this E36 M3.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=14515227

Let me keep more of my money, and I'll create some berkeleying jobs. I literally am "that guy," who killed his competition during tough times, and now wants to expand. I'll be damned if I'm going to do that while some head-scratching blatantly anti-success numbtard with no business experience changes the rules of the game every other week.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to tuna55: Whatever this program is, it would have to be equal opportunity. I used the word grant. I should not have done that because it creates that misunderstanding. Its unequal tax cuts and huge expenses on a war that got us here in the first case.

Sounds like we're in agreement. Such a program would be way too difficult to implement. What's to prevent me from popping up 20 LLCs next year and getting some righteous tax breaks?

Equal taxes for all companies, equal opportunities to government freebies (if any are allowed). I guess this is my platform for the 2012 Presidential bid.

I can't tell you who I work for, but it's a big company that earned a lot of money and yet paid no income taxes last year. That's what you get when you make tax laws so complicated that it actually makes financial sense for a company to hire a 750 person group filled with nothing but tax cheats, err, lawyers. Joe Blow down the street cannot hope to compete. make it simplify, remove all tax breaks, one flat rate = even playing field, better competition, better products, more prosperity for everyone.

In reply to poopshovel:

Exactly.

In reply to poopshovel:

I don't want your company to have money taken from it, but i want your company to pay the same percentage of taxes as every other company NO EXCEPTIONS. The same for the public. Don't care if its on money made, or spent. We have to put money into our system if my children are going to profit. I won't. I've made it this far. Thats why I'm reading grassroots, not the Dupont supercar registry or whatever the berkeley it is.

We have to put money into our system if my children are going to profit.

???

I don't agree that we need to increase spending to get out of debt but we do need to spend more on education. The only way we are going to stay a world power is if the kids of today will be able to offer competitive products tomorrow and the best way to insure that is by providing a good education to them.

poopshovel wrote: Congress hasn't been screaming "PASS THIS BILL. DON'T READ IT. DON'T WORRY ABOUT WHAT'S IN IT. JUST PASS IT!!!" for the last week.

There's no intention of passing the bill, at least not quickly. The Obama folks learned plenty, and they're playing this hand pretty well so far- at least as politcal games go. He tried to let Congress do the leg work on the debt deal, and he tried to work with Boehner. Then how many times did they say "where's the President's plan?" And they keep trying to paint him as a partisan hard liner, which smacks of irony since he's so overly willing to cave in on everything.

So they're in front on this one with a bill that has a ton of stuff Republicans have supported in the past. Kind of turning the tables on them. The last thing he wants is for them to go in, vote on it and pass it in no time. In fact, politically, the Republicans might be smart to do exatly that and move on to something they can drive the agenda on again. No, Obama wants them to stew on it while he tours the country telling people he's trying to put America back to work but the Congress won't do anything. That's the plany from day one- the only reason the bill exists. I hate crap like that. I really do. I understand why they are doing it, but I really hate that crap. Same crap the Republicans have been doing. Running bills that they know can't pass so they can say "see, we're trying, but the other side is keeping us from helping America." When they know damn well they aren't doing anything that has any chance of passing.

I wish we could all get together and call BS on all of it. But everyone piles on to one side of the other and supports their team's BS.

Can't remember what it was earlier this year- maybe the Ryan plan. Democrats held their votes. Then at the last minute they all started voting "present". The thing damn near passed until a load of Republicans had to scurry around and change their votes. It should have been a wake up call, but went largely un-noticed. It showed once and for all that they had no intention of passing the bill and that the whole thing was a political game designed to make the other side look bad. Exactly what Obama and Co. are doing now. They're all great at playing the game, but none of this gets anything done.

poopshovel wrote:

We have to put money into our system if my children are going to profit.

???

Higher taxes will pay off debt, but not by the end of our lifetime.

93EXCivic wrote: I don't agree that we need to increase spending to get out of debt but we do need to spend more on education. The only way we are going to stay a world power is if the kids of today will be able to offer competitive products tomorrow and the best way to insure that is by providing a good education to them.

Or... we could just defund the Department of Education entirely. Giving them more money sure hasn't paid teachers more or improved education any - more again certainly isn't going to do it.. Once again, there is no education clause in the constitution.

poopshovel wrote:

We have to put money into our system if my children are going to profit.

???

Poop - you two agree, trust me, fight the other guys.

tuna55 wrote:

93EXCivic wrote: I don't agree that we need to increase spending to get out of debt but we do need to spend more on education. The only way we are going to stay a world power is if the kids of today will be able to offer competitive products tomorrow and the best way to insure that is by providing a good education to them.

Or... we could just defund the Department of Education entirely. Giving them more money sure hasn't paid teachers more or improved education any - more again certainly isn't going to do it.. Once again, there is no education clause in the constitution.

That is true but considering most of the states are broke and having been funding education, something has to change. I guess it needs to be a state issue though.

tuna55 wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

We have to put money into our system if my children are going to profit.

???

Poop - you two agree, trust me , fight the other guys.

But your football team still sucks.

poopshovel wrote: Great recent example of why some stupid motherberkeleyer who has never had a real job, much less run a business, should not be picking the winners and losers in his "Centrally planned" economy. Nobody wants your berkeleying solar panels!!! Replace "Obama" with "Republican President" and "Solar Panel Company" with "Defense Contractor." MSNBC would have 24 hour coverage of this E36 M3.

The failure of the solar panel company had a lot to do with the fact that China can build them cheaper. In California you are dealing with higher real estate costs, higher living expenses for your employees, higher taxes, more expensive gasoline for your delivery trucks and so on.

Most Defense Contractors don't have to deal with Chinese competition.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: ...So they're in front on this one with a bill that has a ton of stuff Republicans have supported in the past. Kind of turning the tables on them....

This is pretty much what I thought when I heard about it. It has a lot of tax cuts in it that the Reps have been screaming for. In how it is presented though, the tax cuts are included in the indicated Cost of the bill (which realistically is true) which also acts as a bit of a swipe to the Reps since it basically represents tax cuts as part of a "stimulus" (which a Rep would never agree to at this point, that word is poison now)

As indicated though, it seems (almost, it has too much spending though) like a bill the Reps might like, thus they might want to vote for it, but won't because it is from Obama. It would have been more of a "dare" of course if he had only presented the tax cuts. I really don't think anyone thinks this will pass.

It seems the Reps have moved a bit over (because of this?) and are focusing on removing government regulations as the "solution" rather then tax cuts.

N Sperlo wrote: But your football team still sucks.

Professional sports are the modern opiate of the masses.

ReverendDexter wrote:

N Sperlo wrote: But your football team still sucks.

Professional sports are the modern opiate of the masses.

Nicely done, my friend. They are the 'american idol' for aggressive types.

John Stewart's Take:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-8-2011/oh-my-god--rick-perry-is-going-to-be-our-next-president---second-installment

Ian F wrote: I keep listening to the GOP candidates and think, 'damn... they still don't want the presidency...' I still believe McCain would have won had they chosen a less insane running mate.

It seemed pretty clear to me last go around, that the GOP did not want to win. First, McCain was nominated. Then he continually tried to shoot himself in the foot. Then he chose Palin as his running mate. There really was no effort on the GOP side to win the election for whatever reason, or if that is not the case, then the GOP is run by a bunch of incompetent fools.

For everyone who likes to belly ache about Obama, I really don't think things would be any different if McCain would've won.

At lunch yesterday with a couple co-workers, they were both of the school that they do not like the current President and will vote for whomever the GOP puts up to run against him. I think their thoughts are shared by lots of folks, hence our system will not change and we will keep electing the same type of people.

N Sperlo wrote:

poopshovel wrote:

We have to put money into our system if my children are going to profit.

???

Higher taxes will pay off debt, but not by the end of our lifetime.

Cutting spending to sustainable levels will cut the deficit in our life time. You can do that with out raising taxes. In fact you can do it and lower taxes at the same time and do it even faster.

Honestly, it makes sense that the GOP wouldn't want to be elected for this term; it was a hot potato. They were smart enough to see the downturn of the economy that was coming, and know both that it takes time to fix that and that your typical American blames the present situation on the present administration with no thought to the history behind it.