NationStates

Lord Tothe wrote:How's this: no more deficits, cut spending across the board? Cut the military, end redundant departments, consolidate federal services, transfer all welfare and education programs to the state level, end federal foreign aid, end farm and industry subsidies, and generally act like we people do where we have budgets and compromises in our personal finance - AND DON'T TAX ME MORE FOR YOUR ASININE CHOICES! I didn't consent to these programs you want to fund to feather your own nests and guarantee your next election.

Your consent is implied in your continuing to live in the country. You can always vote for people who agree with you and change things.

Wreck the economy? Yeah. Okay.

The link I have for my IC Constitution shows one that isn't perfect, but is a considerable improvement, hamstringing the Feds as it should.

Didn't Obama vote against raising the debt limit in '06? Why did he want to wreck the economy?

Lerro wrote:Didn't Obama vot against raising the debt limit in '06? Why did he want to wreck the economy?

He did. He was confident that it would pass anyway, he says.

Provisional America wrote:

Lord Tothe wrote:How's this: no more deficits, cut spending across the board? Cut the military, end redundant departments, consolidate federal services, transfer all welfare and education programs to the state level, end federal foreign aid, end farm and industry subsidies, and generally act like we people do where we have budgets and compromises in our personal finance - AND DON'T TAX ME MORE FOR YOUR ASININE CHOICES! I didn't consent to these programs you want to fund to feather your own nests and guarantee your next election.

You, sir, have what we in America call "common sense".

the same sort of common sense that says that a 16 pound bowling ball should fall faster than a 3 ounce bouncy ball.

Lerro wrote:Didn't Obama vote against raising the debt limit in '06? Why did he want to wreck the economy?

Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

Of course, getting out of these damned "nation-building" wars would be a start. We went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. He's still missing and we're still there, a decade later. Give it up already. He's probably in Germany now, if he isn't dead. If we were going to catch him, we would have. This business of repeating the Soviet mistake of 1979 is just plain dumb.

Provisional America wrote:

Lord Tothe wrote:How's this: no more deficits, cut spending across the board? Cut the military, end redundant departments, consolidate federal services, transfer all welfare and education programs to the state level, end federal foreign aid, end farm and industry subsidies, and generally act like we people do where we have budgets and compromises in our personal finance - AND DON'T TAX ME MORE FOR YOUR ASININE CHOICES! I didn't consent to these programs you want to fund to feather your own nests and guarantee your next election.

You, sir, have what we in America call "common sense". Just beware. The Left will crucify you for it or burn you at the stake for challenging their orthodoxy. Watch out for the Red Inquisition.

The right won't like my appeal to cut the military or end industry subsidies.

Farnhamia wrote:Your consent is implied in your continuing to live in the country. You can always vote for people who agree with you and change things.

Lolz. No matter where I may choose to move, you would assume I consent to whatever government exists in that other region, too. And do you really think voting means anything? It's just slaves trying to pick their foreman every few years.

NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE

Provisional America wrote:

Lerro wrote:Didn't Obama vote against raising the debt limit in '06? Why did he want to wreck the economy?

Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

Of course, getting out of these damned "nation-building" wars would be a start. We went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. He's still missing and we're still there, a decade later. Give it up already. He's probably in Germany now, if he isn't dead. If we were going to catch him, we would have. This business of repeating the Soviet mistake of 1979 is just plain dumb.

And where were you in 2001 and 2003? Protesting loudly, no doubt, writing your elected representatives every day.

Provisional America wrote:

Lerro wrote:Didn't Obama vote against raising the debt limit in '06? Why did he want to wreck the economy?

Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

Of course, getting out of these damned "nation-building" wars would be a start. We went into Afghanistan to get bin Laden. He's still missing and we're still there, a decade later. Give it up already. He's probably in Germany now, if he isn't dead. If we were going to catch him, we would have. This business of repeating the Soviet mistake of 1979 is just plain dumb.

A default would wreck the economy.

Lord Tothe wrote:

Provisional America wrote:
You, sir, have what we in America call "common sense". Just beware. The Left will crucify you for it or burn you at the stake for challenging their orthodoxy. Watch out for the Red Inquisition.

The right won't like my appeal to cut the military or end industry subsidies.

Farnhamia wrote:Your consent is implied in your continuing to live in the country. You can always vote for people who agree with you and change things.

Lolz. No matter where I may choose to move, you would assume I consent to whatever government exists in that other region, too. And do you really think voting means anything? It's just slaves trying to pick their foreman every few years.

NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE

Good luck with that. Anarcho-capitalism is the ideal state and final objective, but reaching it will take about a dozen revolutions.

In case you haven't figured out, I'm hardly a neo-con. The neo-cons these lefties no doubt swat and crush every day, because they are so silly and inconsistent. That's why the radical libertarian/minarchist/anarcho-capitalist movement confuses the left. They still don't know how to present their case. They think their arguments are convincing and compelling, but only if you accept their flawed premise. I don't, just as I reject the premises of neo-cons and the religious right.

Provisional America wrote:Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

Lord Tothe wrote:

Provisional America wrote:
You, sir, have what we in America call "common sense". Just beware. The Left will crucify you for it or burn you at the stake for challenging their orthodoxy. Watch out for the Red Inquisition.

The right won't like my appeal to cut the military or end industry subsidies.

Farnhamia wrote:Your consent is implied in your continuing to live in the country. You can always vote for people who agree with you and change things.

Lolz. No matter where I may choose to move, you would assume I consent to whatever government exists in that other region, too. And do you really think voting means anything? It's just slaves trying to pick their foreman every few years.

NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE

I expected no less.

Free Soviets wrote:

Provisional America wrote:Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

Free Soviets wrote:

Provisional America wrote:Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

Oh you know that they'll only do that when there's a Republican in the White House, THAT way they can claim that they solved the job crisis while Obama would be equated to Hoover.

Free Soviets wrote:also, you know, republican leadership is bad for the economy on every measure for everyone except the tiniest sliver of the elite. there's data on this and everything!

This is true. Because it is true of all leadership since Ford. Fiddling with tax policy isn't going to reverse the structural trends here.

Wait, did the article in the OP seriously say that the Republicans were going to try to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes?

Well, ancient Rome had no income tax, and they met their budget most years. Then again, their welfare state was small, too. Just the grain dole, which was supplemented by private donations.

Tahar Joblis wrote:Wait, did the article in the OP seriously say that the Republicans were going to try to reduce the deficit by cutting taxes?

Of course, cutting taxes is the universal remedy for everything that ails you.

Late Republican Rome wrote:Well, ancient Rome had no income tax, and they met their budget most years. Then again, their welfare state was small, too. Just the grain dole, which was supplemented by private donations.

Rome used a head-tax instead. Don't make it out that they never taxed anyone. The Empire also had an extensive ... empire from which to draw funds. And there were periodic financial crises and currency devaluations, too. It wasn't as simple as you make it out.

Free Soviets wrote:

Provisional America wrote:Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

But if the economy is looking up, folks will re-elect Obama.

Hence it's not in the interest of the Republican party to do anything to help the economy.

Tahar Joblis wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

But if the economy is looking up, folks will re-elect Obama.

Hence it's not in the interest of the Republican party to do anything to help the economy.

Exactly.

Free Soviets wrote:

Provisional America wrote:Frugality won't wreck the economy, but our crippling national debt will, if it is allowed to continue.

actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

Where do you suggest the money comes from to pay for people digging 'effin holes'?

Oh wait... more borrowing...

wow, how responsible of you... spoken like a typical democrat: goodies NOW, screw the next generations.

F1-Insanity wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

Where do you suggest the money comes from to pay for people digging 'effin holes'?

Oh wait... more borrowing...

wow, how responsible of you... spoken like a typical democrat: goodies NOW, screw the next generations.

You miss the rest of the plan. The hole-diggers spend that money, the economy improves, the hole-diggers get jobs doing something else, the hole-digging project gets shut down, tax revenue goes up as more people work and the deficit is reduced. You need to think this stuff through, you know.

F1-Insanity wrote:

Free Soviets wrote:actually, 'frugality' has been acting as a serious retardant on the recovery, and the proposed further cuts are expected to cost a couple hundred thousand jobs and drag down GDP by a percent or two. adding much more to the debt, on the other hand, would be excellent for the economy right now.

literally, we are still in a situation where we would benefit from paying people to dig holes and paying other people to fill them back in - though obviously we'd benefit even more from more productive uses of labor.

Where do you suggest the money comes from to pay for people digging 'effin holes'?

Oh wait... more borrowing...

wow, how responsible of you... spoken like a typical democrat: goodies NOW, screw the next generations.

Or, you know, stop handing out tax cuts to people who don't need them, aren't using them, and are not doing us any good and then turning around and whining, "We don't have any money, clearly it's time once again to fuck over the defenseless!"