A series of Questions for the GOP/TEA Party supporters in this forum...

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Now we have to add in the fact that you are apparently blind as well as stupid. Did you not notice the portion of your post that I highlighted in bold? You ASSumed that I apparently don't pay for my medical care. .

Did you notice the Medicare portion of my post?

From what you have provided , I highly doubt that you will pay more into that system than you take out....THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM OF MEDICARE. And God forbid , you do get sick before 65 , you will drain even more government resources with disability checks.

Typical Tea Wackado that does not understand simple math and plain fucking English.

Originally Posted by WTF

Saying that we are taking more out of Medicare than we are putting in is a fact not an assumption. Saying that you are likely to take out more than you put in is an assumption. ...albeit , from the information you have provided, a likely accurate one.


If you think you do not make assumption to come up with your judgements. ..your ass is full of more shit that lustyladyboy's ass is full of dick.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

God damn WTF, you are one heartless SOB. Is this what you mean, if the "clueless" are not included nobody gets help?

“I want to help the helpless, but I don’t give a rat’s ass about the clueless any more,”... Dennis Miller

]

Heartless? Come on man, telling the truth can be brutal but it isn't always heartless.

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by WTF

Did you notice the Medicare portion of my post?

From what you have provided , I highly doubt that you will pay more into that system than you take out....THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM OF MEDICARE. And God forbid , you do get sick before 65 , you will drain even more government resources with disability checks.

Typical Tea Wackado that does not understand simple math and plain fucking English.

So we should do away with Medicare completely then. I thought conservatives were supposed to be the hard nosed assholes with no compassion. Silly me.

Most people who find themselves in a position where they must apply for disability before they reach retirement age will receive more benefits than they paid in. This is why Medicare is a safety net. The majority of workers will reach retirement age without needing to claim benefits, but not all. Even among those who work until the age of retirement, many will receive more benefits than they paid in.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans will work and pay into SS and Medicare for years, but never collect any of it back because they die in accidents, fall victim to crime, or unexpected illness before they reach retirement age.

Those of us who work hard, pay into SS and Medicare, then collect the benefits we are entitled to when the time comes are not the problem. While I believe wholeheartedly in the principle of leading by example, you are truly, genuinely, an idiot if you think that those of us who believe in fiscal discipline should be expected to cut our own throats and refuse the benefits we are entitled to in return for the work and taxes we spent a lifetime paying.

By the way, since you can't seem to keep your focus on a single thread, I will quote your statement from the Noam Chomsky thread here and respond:

Originally Posted by WTF

SOTF...prophet of the mantra.... ''All debt is bad....."

So banks should stop loaning money and everyone should just pay cash for a house , car and rent until they can...

I know the USSC made the monumentally stupid mistake of confusing corporations for people, but are you saying that you can't tell the difference between our Gov't and individuals?

Furthermore, there are actually situations when debt is justified. I will wait with baited breath for you to ask under what circumstances I would approve of deficit spending.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

Those of us who work hard, pay into SS and Medicare, then collect the benefits we are entitled to when the time comes are not the problem. Yes in fact you are....People that die before 75 are not the problem....people that live past 75 are the problem. You do not even understand the fucking problem.

wholeheartedly in the principle of leading by example, you are truly, genuinely, an idiot if you think that those of us who believe in fiscal discipline should be expected to cut our own throats and refuse the benefits we are entitled to in return for the work and taxes we spent a lifetime paying.

.

You believe in fiscal discipline and do not want to leave your children and grandchildren with debt but yet you refuse to cut the biggest generator of debt this country has?

What about Defense spending ..... do you refuse to cut that too?

If so WTF is left?

That is why I call you Hillbilly Tea Cups hypocrites.


To recap...your cry about debt. You cry about leaving your children with debt. I point out that you can cut the biggest form of long term debt by cutting Medicare benefits and you then cry bloody murder.

What a fucking loon....

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

I know the USSC made the monumentally stupid mistake of confusing corporations for people, but are you saying that you can't tell the difference between our Gov't and individuals?

Furthermore, there are actually situations when debt is justified. I will wait with baited breath for you to ask under what circumstances I would approve of deficit spending.

I do not want to smell your baited breath.

I have been the one pointing out that all debt is not bad....if you have now changed your mind about that ignorant assertion, good for you.

[lustylad]

"Tea Loons"... "Tea Turkies"... "Tea Nut Jobs"... "Tea Wackado"...

Hey fagboy, why do you have such a hard-on for Tea Party folks? You're the one whose brilliant analysis in this thread validated the Laffer Curve and Reaganomics... Did Ronnie tickle your "sweet spot" today? Was your orgasm 65% stronger?

The problem with deficit spending is once you tell the politicians it's not always a sin, they go crazy and think it's ok to wallow in sin in good times and bad. The Tea Party folks are making a positive contribution to our politics by stepping in and saying - listen you fucktard politicians, stop pissing away all of our money! It's the people's money! It doesn't belong to you! We didn't send you to Washington to piss it all away!

Tax, spend, tax, spend, tax, spend - it's time to put a stop to the madness!

Remember those words of wisdom from your favorite economist Milton Friedman:

"Nobody spends somebody's else's money as carefully as he spends his own."

Milton's quote should be inscribed on the walls of the US Congress and chanted by every legislator whenever a spending bill comes up for a vote.

.

[Mizzou82]

I am not a democrat or a republican. I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate. What scares me about Obama and the democrats is they are building a base of voters that want something from the government. They don't want to work for their livelihood, they feel that they are owed an income just for being alive. This is a great tactic for the dems as more and more people view a lifetime of living on govt. handouts is preferable to working for the American dream. People voted for Reagan because they felt he would mold an economy that would help them lift themselves from poverty or low middle class to a prosperous life and economic prosperity. People vote for Obama because they want to know if they give up and go on assistance, they will not be hassled for their laziness and will be able to still live a comfortable life. Well, someone has to pay for that. Once you take away so much of the working man's income to give to those that won't work, we are on the road to economic disaster. I believe there are a very very small percentage of citizens in this country that have had misfortune or a disability and deserve our help. I do not count fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients as underprivileged or in need of a helping hand, I view them as lazy people who found a great gig in living off of the taxes the rest of us pay. Those are the people who elected Obama. They voted for him to make sure the gravy never runs out.

I worked as a manager of a company that employed hundreds of lower income workers. The managers were not paid exorbitant salaries and the company made a small profit. I walked into the break room the day after the elections and the low wage workers were having a party, chanting "we are going to get ours now!!" I felt like saying, "Excuse me, you are 22 and have 4 children, you did not invest in an education and even at our low pay, you are not qualified to do the job you have. Why don't you go on birth control for a few years, get an associates degree and find a job that pays more than 125% of minimum wage?"

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Mizzou82

I am not a democrat or a republican. I am a fiscal conservative and social moderate. What scares me about Obama and the democrats is they are building a base of voters that want something from the government. They don't want to work for their livelihood, they feel that they are owed an income just for being alive. This is a great tactic for the dems as more and more people view a lifetime of living on govt. handouts is preferable to working for the American dream. People voted for Reagan because they felt he would mold an economy that would help them lift themselves from poverty or low middle class to a prosperous life and economic prosperity. People vote for Obama because they want to know if they give up and go on assistance, they will not be hassled for their laziness and will be able to still live a comfortable life. Well, someone has to pay for that. Once you take away so much of the working man's income to give to those that won't work, we are on the road to economic disaster. I believe there are a very very small percentage of citizens in this country that have had misfortune or a disability and deserve our help. I do not count fourth and fifth generation welfare recipients as underprivileged or in need of a helping hand, I view them as lazy people who found a great gig in living off of the taxes the rest of us pay. Those are the people who elected Obama. They voted for him to make sure the gravy never runs out.

I worked as a manager of a company that employed hundreds of lower income workers. The managers were not paid exorbitant salaries and the company made a small profit. I walked into the break room the day after the elections and the low wage workers were having a party, chanting "we are going to get ours now!!" I felt like saying, "Excuse me, you are 22 and have 4 children, you did not invest in an education and even at our low pay, you are not qualified to do the job you have. Why don't you go on birth control for a few years, get an associates degree and find a job that pays more than 125% of minimum wage?"

WOW! I guess you can spot a "taker" a mile away, can't ya!

[SinsOfTheFlesh]

Originally Posted by WTF

You believe in fiscal discipline and do not want to leave your children and grandchildren with debt but yet you refuse to cut the biggest generator of debt this country has?

What about Defense spending ..... do you refuse to cut that too?

If so WTF is left?

That is why I call you Hillbilly Tea Cups hypocrites.


To recap...your cry about debt. You cry about leaving your children with debt. I point out that you can cut the biggest form of long term debt by cutting Medicare benefits and you then cry bloody murder.

What a fucking loon....




I do not want to smell your baited breath.

I have been the one pointing out that all debt is not bad....if you have now changed your mind about that ignorant assertion, good for you.

I believe (keywords here) that we could reduce our military spending to a quarter of what we now spend without compromising our security in the world. Of course, other countries would have to get the message that they are on their own when the shit hits the fan in their respective countries, but I like that idea too.

Now, I'm not saying that we could slash defense spending overnight, to do so would send our economy into a tailspin. But speaking strictly in terms of our security yes, we could be just as safe with a much smaller, more efficient military.

I realize that your memory is as piss poor as your reading comprehension though, so I will simply gently remind you that a couple of pages ago I said quite clearly that I support cutting defense spending. I'm going a little farther in this post by saying that we could safely do much more than just reduce spending; we could slash our military and still be just as secure as we are right now.

By the way, before you say it, the idea that we will slash our military spending as much as we realistically can is a pipe dream. Even the most hawkish deficit hawk goes into full on attack mode when it is a base in his district that is about to be closed, or some piece of military equipment in his district that is about to be discontinued.

Meanwhile, there is certainly a great deal that can also be done to reduce Medicare spending as well. Going after waste, fraud, and abuse should be a much higher priority. We don't even know for certain how much money is lost every year to fraud. Even the GAO can't say for certain. Eric Holder is on record estimating that losses every year may be as high as $60-90 billion (yes, that was a B, not a typo). We are currently running at about a $400 billion deficit, so if Holder's estimate is in the ball park, cutting out the fraud could take one hell of a bite out of our deficit without having to cut so much as a penny in benefits.

By the here is the short list of circumstances when deficit spending is acceptable:

1. Crisis - think Katrina
2. Investment in major infrastructure improvements - such as when we built our interstate system, or when we built the transcontinental railroad, or made major purchases like the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly
3. War - this one is pretty obvious
4. Recession - temporary shortfalls in tax revenues from GDP contraction are understandable and an immediate move to cut spending in response to a drop in tax revenue generation would be more likely to exacerbate the recession.

As I said earlier, there is no excuse for passing a budget that is not in balance. When we have made payment on our debts only 13% of the time over the last century, there is absolutely no way anyone can claim that all that spending was a response to events such as a national disaster or war. We do love to fight wars, but we haven't spent 83 out of the last hundred years at war, nor have we had a constant string of crises to justify the spending either.

When our politicians run up debts simply because they lack the moral fortitude to trim back spending to be in line with tax revenues, it is fair to say that they have neither the intention to repay what they have borrowed, nor the intellect to figure out how to balance the nation's checkbook.

PS. Forgot to mention: I am a smoker, I am diabetic, I spent most of my younger years severely obese and am now grimly hang onto the status of "healthy weight" by my fingertips. I say this because I consider it extremely unlikely that I will see the age of 75. Or at least, God I hope I don't. If I hurt this much getting out of bed at age 40, I shudder to think what 75 is going to be like. So actually, there is a pretty decent chance that I will not live long enough to collect more than I paid into Medicare. Since I don't have a crystal ball though, who knows?

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

....
I realize that your memory is as piss poor as your reading comprehension though, so I will simply gently remind you that a couple of pages ago I said quite clearly that I support cutting defense spending.....

WTF's ability to draw logical conclusions is piss poor too. But you've figured that out by now.

"Sins" if you were less lippy and learned to laugh at his jokes I'm sure WTF would invite you over for company.

Again, the funniest thing about this thread is WTF's self-delusion that he believes he can represent what the GOP/TEA Party stands for. He was backing Rand Paul for President not knowing he was closely associated with the TEA Party. Just utterly hilarious. WTF's "Moronic Buffoon" title is well earned.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

"Tea Loons"... "Tea Turkies"... "Tea Nut Jobs"... "Tea Wackado"...

Hey fagboy, why do you have such a hard-on for Tea Party folks? You're the one whose brilliant analysis in this thread validated the Laffer Curve and Reaganomics... Did Ronnie tickle your "sweet spot" today? Was your orgasm 65% stronger?

Listen you one ear Cyclop....you dumb muther fuckers only heard/understood half the Laffer Curve.

It also states that if tax rates get to low you have to raise taxes to increase tax revenues.

That part you silly Grover Tea Bumpkins do not care to understand.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Remember those words of wisdom from your favorite economist Milton Friedman:

"Nobody spends somebody's else's money as carefully as he spends his own."

Milton's quote should be inscribed on the walls of the US Congress and chanted by every legislator whenever a spending bill comes up for a vote.

.

In that case there should be no Corporations.

Only single proprietorship(s).

I could go for that.

You donate to a politician , no tax deduction , no write off.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Again, the funniest thing about this thread is WTF's self-delusion that he believes he can represent what the GOP/TEA Party stands for. He was backing Rand Paul for President not knowing he was closely associated with the TEA Party. Just utterly hilarious. WTF's "Moronic Buffoon" title is well earned.

Let's see....Rand Paul is trying to explain to you numbnuts how to expand your old white man base that is dying off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...arty-audience/

You keep telling that lie about me not knowing about Rand Paul and your nose is going to grow a inch longer than you three inch dick.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by SinsOfTheFlesh

1. Crisis - think Katrina
2. Investment in major infrastructure improvements - such as when we built our interstate system, or when we built the transcontinental railroad, or made major purchases like the Louisiana Purchase and Seward's Folly
3. War - this one is pretty obvious
4. Recession - temporary shortfalls in tax revenues from GDP contraction are understandable and an immediate move to cut spending in response to a drop in tax revenue generation would be more likely to exacerbate the recession.

?

Sounds like Keynesian economics to me....

The rest is just a playbook from Boweles/Simpson except you seem not to want to cut out some end of life Medicare expenses. A huge waste of money IMHO.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Listen you one ear Cyclop....you dumb muther fuckers only heard/understood half the Laffer Curve.

It also states that if tax rates get to (sic) low you have to raise taxes to increase tax revenues.

So what? Looks like Ronnie got it right when he cut taxes, since revenues increased by 65% during his tenure! And Bushie Boy must have been on the right side of the curve too, since revenues surged by 44% in the four years after he cut taxes. Wow, those Republicans sure know how to tickle your "sweet spot", don't they fagboy?

(P.S. Van Gogh had one ear, cyclops have two.)

Originally Posted by WTF

In that case there should be no Corporations.

Only single proprietorship(s).

Wrong. Corporate CEOs have to be VERY careful about how they spend shareholder money - if they fail to show a profit, they get fired. Compare that to politicians who spend taxpayer money with reckless abandon all day every day and rarely get held accountable. That's why we need the Tea Party - to hold the bastards accountable. Get it, fagboy?

.

[JD Barleycorn]

The problem with definite spending is the misunderstanding that people in government have. A person can buy a house, car, or education by going into debt. They have an end date in mind that the debt will be retired. A politician has the idea that because THEY didn't get to spend the money for some expensive project then they get to spend their (meaning ours) money and increase the debt. The next politician has the same idea and so on and so on. There is no end point when the debt is retired in politics. My debt becomes your debt and you debt becomes the next guys debt. It gets passed off to the next generation and grows at the same time. The Tea Party are the adults that say "pay off the debt before growing more debt" and "enter into debt for only what is necessary and not something to impress your descendants".

The Tea Party philosophy is common sense. Making fun of it with your crude, tastless names says more about your stupidity than anything you can say about Tea Party.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let's see....Rand Paul is trying to explain to you numbnuts how to expand your old white man base that is dying off.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...arty-audience/

You keep telling that lie about me not knowing about Rand Paul and your nose is going to grow a inch longer than you three inch dick.

It is no lie, moronic buffoon, you typed it. Just like you admitted you were a racist.

I thought in a post a few weeks ago that you don't take this forum seriously.