Liberal free for all coming to an end

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

BECAUSE CUT CAP BALANCE DOES IT ALL ON THE BACKS OF THE SENIORS POOR AND LOWER MIDDLE CLASS WHILE THE TOP 10 PERCENT INCOME MAKERS GET EVEN MORE TAX CUTS

CAP CUT BALANCE IS A TYPICAL GOP FU TO MOST OF AMERICA WHILE TAKING CAR OF THE RICH
JG J

I guarantee you that Cut Capt and Balance does nothing like this:

What happens if the US credit rating is officially downgraded from AAA status?

Standard and Poor?s warning, combined with long-term bond holder recent sentiment, clearly indicates the highest level of risk to the Treasury market since the great depression. The world knows that if we lose our AAA credit rating, America?s ability to run its government on borrowed money will be compromised. As the Fed found out, bond yields didn?t behave as expected with the implementation of QE2. Instead of falling because of QE2, bond yields rose. If we lose our AAA credit rating, bond yields will rise dramatically as prices continue to fall. In short, we will have to pay through the nose to keep borrowing money from the Chinese. Consequently, taxes would then have to be dramatically increased and draconian budget cuts would filter down to the municipal level. The Fed would also have to print money like never before, which would further devalue the dollar and probably end its reserve status. If that happens, oil will no longer be priced in dollars and the price of gas would skyrocket to current levels in Europe; around the $8 per gallon. Local governments would also be in serious trouble. For example: Many may consider raising occupational license fees for small businesses from $125.00 to over $500.00. States many have to implement new and higher highway tolls, and increase the price for an automobile tag by several hundred dollars. In short, the burden of the ensuing budget shortfalls will be passed along to the public. Prices for everything would increase dramatically across the board; food energy, you name it. Finally, all of the associated increased austerity will abort the current hyper-anemic economic recovery and usher the United States into a second Great Depression.

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok. Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

p.s. you know that the necessity to raise the debt ceiling has been known since at least before last November right? And did you know that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi could have easily raised it back then before the newly elected GOP took office? They chose not to because they wanted the GOP to share the blame of raising the debt ceiling. Not that that would have kept us from losing our credit rating, we still need to cut all that debt that the dems added in the last 3 years.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Before Obama became president, i.e. $4 trillion ago, the seniors, poor and lower middle class have been doing relatively ok.

More lies from Tracy Coxx. The budget for the first year of the Obama administration was Bush's budget. That's how it works. But Tracy Coxx wants to pin those trillions on Obama, so Tracy Coxx tries to make it sound as if it's Obama's fault. Of course, Tracy Coxx will say Tracy Coxx never specifically wrote that. Fortunately, most everyone reading here is brighter than Tracy Coxx wishes you were.

To repeat, as I wrote earlier: Obama is responsible for $1.44 trillion of the deficit, not the amount Tracy Coxx writes. Obama inherited unfunded wars and a budget. No matter how much lying Tracy Coxx does, it doesn't make the facts go away.

As for "doing relatively ok" ... well, that just negates 30 or so years of economic truth in the United States. But when you're trying to paint a picture for ideological reasons, why should facts get in the way?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Certainly better than they will be when the above happens. And we haven't even got to the part where medicare goes bankrupt because fiscal responsibility is not a trait of democrats. It is your party that will break the backs of seniors, the poor and lower middle class as well as at least the upper middle class. Pat yourself on the back libs.

I am no Democrat, but this is another crock of shit from Tracy Coxx. The implication is that "fiscal responsibility is, by contrast, a trait of Republicans. The war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans -- all of which reversed the U.S. surplus and made it a deficit -- now there are great examples of "fiscal responsibility." Oh, by the way, Bush was a Republican.

Tracy Coxx is an ideologue without conscience, which means that facts are fungible or downright ignorable if they get in the way of making the ridiculous arguments that are the Tracy Coxx hallmark.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

Observe this graph:

You will notice that there is a nice downward progression from the war for both republicans and democrats until the mighty moron Reagan arrives and from that day on, Republicans have embraced his broken economic idiocy.

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

[randolph]

Since we are in graphing mode , here is a comparison, if Regan and Bush had kept debt under control..

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

And btw... THE CAKE IS A LIE!

[KittyKaiti]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

And btw... THE CAKE IS A LIE!

The cake is NOW a lie cuz I ated it like two weeks ago. But it wasn't a lie at the time I posted that blog. YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

As stated before though, many times, Obama has only spent like ~$1.5 trillion and that's from ongoing wars started by Bush, while I agree Afghanistan was necessary but totally failed in planning, Iraq was total horseshit Bush's personal agenda and also then the bailouts, which we shouldn't have bailed out those banks, let them fail and take them over under government authority. Also "Obamacare" actually will save money in the long run, as also pointed out in earlier posts.

Also it is one of the most helpful pieces of legislation passed by him, regardless of cost, to protect people from corporate corruption. If it wasn't for Obama's healthcare bill, I wouldn't have health coverage right now. I will be able to stay on my mom's insurance provider for another two years because of the extension he passed, otherwise I'd be paying for not just my doctor, hospital and dentist visits but my transition too out of pocket. There's a shitload of other things that bill did to secure people's equal right to receive treatment.

[smc]

Originally Posted by KittyKaiti

Stop blaming Obama. Note the year on the second to last red dot says "2003". Bush's second term hadn't kicked in yet, so keep going higher and that's all Bush and then like a last tiny sliver counts as Obama, as marked "2009".

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I blame Obama for the trillions he spent as president, decimating high tech jobs, passing Obamacare, and generally ignoring the wishes of the majority of Americans. There is more of course, but I'm busy with the freebies section.

Thank you to Tracy Coxx for providing such a vivid lesson in dissembling the truth. Tracy Coxx has been called out on specific claims regarding how much of the deficit is Obama's "fault." Called on the lie, Tracy Coxx tries to divert your attention away from the actual numbers, because Tracy Coxx cannot justify the hyperbolic bullshit that is the substance of the claim. So, Tracy Coxx tries to shift the goalpost from the dollar figure to something else.

Kudos to Kaiti for joining the chorus calling out the deliberate misrepresentations of Tracy Coxx.

[SluttyShemaleAnna]

Originally Posted by ila

Except that under Clinton it went up before reducing slightly and under Obama it has gone up.

Debt was rising when Clinton comes into power, Clinton slows the rise then reverses it, you can't expect an upward trend to be reversed instantly, as rapid spending cuts lead economic contraction, ditto rapid tax increases. With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Let's add one more year to that and see where Obama is taking us. And I'm not sure where your graph came from, but this one seems a little different. It does not go down during the clinton years, and this graph shows that there's been a rise since at least the 1870s except for the period between the 1930s and 1950s.

Difference between your graph and mine is simple. Mine correlates to what we were actually discussing, government debt. Note yours says total debt, mine says federal debt, yours includes private debts. This new graph will explain the difference, note that it is a stacked graph, you want t be looking at the thickness of the bands here..

[ila]

Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna

...With Obama, well, his dick and ball fell off so he's just letting his economic policies be written by republicans, he already let them make the decision on tax cuts for the rich, and continue fighting the wars they started, and he just let them write the next move in his economic policies, so if it continues we'll just put Obama down as the latest (secret) republican to follow Regan...

That's quite funny, Anna, and also true.