It would be if Massa ‘Bama just raised taxes high enough!
The mere fact that we have arguments about whether the deficit is solved, instead of arguments about how soon the deficit will destroy civilization, shows how much has changed since 2010.
…and we keep producing more petroleum so your smoke generator will keep on chugging along.
“The mere fact that we have arguments about whether the deficit is solved, instead of arguments about how soon the deficit will destroy civilization, shows how much has changed since 2010.”
This is about as huge a piece of illogic as I’ve ever seen you blather… On top of that, your statement a perfect application of an Obama-technique (they’ve schooled you well):
You create a false debate and then use the existence of the false debate to prove your side of the debate is valid.
Good little obedient Alinsky drone….transparent obedient Alinksi drone.
We are having this debate because one side (yours) chooses to take a position, that by every objective analysis and every single bit of observational evidence both here and abroad, and every single bit of economic history, is totally and utterly indefensible. In addition common sense tells you the deficit is not solved. Unfunded liabilities that are not only not being paid down but are growing, and debt/deficits that go uncounted because of ruinous, dishonest Obama administration counting techniques (e.g. counting Medicare savings twice ) are but two reasons why we are nowhere near close to solving even the deficit problem let alone the debt.
This illustrates yet another Obama technique – distraction:
Instead of debating what is actually helpful – debating how to solve the debt and deficit problem – you (and they) are trying to move the discussion off the real issue and onto your false debate. Thereby leaving the real issue unsolved and festering.
Sensible people laugh at you and continue to look at the real problem and solve that.
Your knot-headedness is insoluble.
*takes a large drag of the cigarette and drops it on Jim’s gasoline-drenched strawman*
The mere fact that we have arguments about whether the deficit is solved, instead of arguments about how soon the deficit will destroy civilization, shows how much has changed since 2010.
Who is saying that the deficit is “solved”?
Who is saying that the deficit is “solved”?
The current projection is for a deficit that’s 2% of GDP in 2015. That’s a sustainable level, down 80% from the 10% of GDP deficit we ran in 2009.
The deficit will not destroy civilization. I’m sure the soldiers and law enforcement will gladly go in harm’s way for free. We should also add in NSA telescreens in every private room so that the august bureaucracy can monitor and ensure that everyone is happy doing work without getting paid.
Jim Clone:
Slight modification:
The people get paid for working but have to pay a 110% tax. Good thing we have payroll deduction huh?
There is one slight additions I’d make to the Kevin Williamson article:
Deep cuts and serious intelligent austerity would send the signal to the market that the US is serious about solving the problem. This positive psychological impact would spur expansion and investments of business, get the better growth that would generate jobs and therefore taxes, long before the systemic economic benefits of such a step would take effect:
in short people would have a reason to be optimistic for the future and therefore be willing to take a risk.
“This is about as huge a piece of illogic as I’ve ever seen you blather. . . ”
Wow, Gregg–given that you’re addressing Jim, that is quite a sockdolager!
It would be if Massa ‘Bama just raised taxes high enough!
The mere fact that we have arguments about whether the deficit is solved, instead of arguments about how soon the deficit will destroy civilization, shows how much has changed since 2010.
…and we keep producing more petroleum so your smoke generator will keep on chugging along.
“The mere fact that we have arguments about whether the deficit is solved, instead of arguments about how soon the deficit will destroy civilization, shows how much has changed since 2010.”
This is about as huge a piece of illogic as I’ve ever seen you blather… On top of that, your statement a perfect application of an Obama-technique (they’ve schooled you well):
You create a false debate and then use the existence of the false debate to prove your side of the debate is valid.
Good little obedient Alinsky drone….transparent obedient Alinksi drone.
We are having this debate because one side (yours) chooses to take a position, that by every objective analysis and every single bit of observational evidence both here and abroad, and every single bit of economic history, is totally and utterly indefensible. In addition common sense tells you the deficit is not solved. Unfunded liabilities that are not only not being paid down but are growing, and debt/deficits that go uncounted because of ruinous, dishonest Obama administration counting techniques (e.g. counting Medicare savings twice ) are but two reasons why we are nowhere near close to solving even the deficit problem let alone the debt.
This illustrates yet another Obama technique – distraction:
Instead of debating what is actually helpful – debating how to solve the debt and deficit problem – you (and they) are trying to move the discussion off the real issue and onto your false debate. Thereby leaving the real issue unsolved and festering.
Sensible people laugh at you and continue to look at the real problem and solve that.
Your knot-headedness is insoluble.
*takes a large drag of the cigarette and drops it on Jim’s gasoline-drenched strawman*
The mere fact that we have arguments about whether the deficit is solved, instead of arguments about how soon the deficit will destroy civilization, shows how much has changed since 2010.
Who is saying that the deficit is “solved”?
Who is saying that the deficit is “solved”?
The current projection is for a deficit that’s 2% of GDP in 2015. That’s a sustainable level, down 80% from the 10% of GDP deficit we ran in 2009.
The deficit will not destroy civilization. I’m sure the soldiers and law enforcement will gladly go in harm’s way for free. We should also add in NSA telescreens in every private room so that the august bureaucracy can monitor and ensure that everyone is happy doing work without getting paid.
Jim Clone:
Slight modification:
The people get paid for working but have to pay a 110% tax. Good thing we have payroll deduction huh?
There is one slight additions I’d make to the Kevin Williamson article:
Deep cuts and serious intelligent austerity would send the signal to the market that the US is serious about solving the problem. This positive psychological impact would spur expansion and investments of business, get the better growth that would generate jobs and therefore taxes, long before the systemic economic benefits of such a step would take effect:
in short people would have a reason to be optimistic for the future and therefore be willing to take a risk.
“This is about as huge a piece of illogic as I’ve ever seen you blather. . . ”
Wow, Gregg–given that you’re addressing Jim, that is quite a sockdolager!