Not the Tea Party speaking here

[plainolebill]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising
America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that
the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now
depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance
our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest
growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden
domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in
infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families
and our children of critical investments in education and health care
reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they
have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is
not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest
payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that
Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about
honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our
national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically
and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.”
Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the
backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and
a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)**

**World's foremost hypocrite and bullshit artist.

[LottaKash]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising
America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)**

**World's foremost hypocrite and bullshit artist.


HaHa, what a lying chit....:ThmbDown: :ThmbDown: :ThmbDown:

Can't wait to see the next chart or some lame rationality as to what "He really meant"....


.

[NJ Stinks]

Thanks for bringing this up, Plainolebill. When the hell are we going to raise federal income taxes and capital gains tax on the top 2% so we can start to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies?

[plainolebill]

Thanks for bringing this up, Plainolebill. When the hell are we going to raise federal income taxes and capital gains tax on the top 2% so we can start to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies?

IMHO he is fully in the camp of the 2% - not much chance for the peons.

[lamboguy]

we always hear about the $17 trillion that is owed, what you don't hear about are the assets that this country owns like Yellowstone National Park and other land. you don't hear how much all the fighter bombers are worth, or the big buildings that are federally owned, the gold in their treasury. all they do is scare the living shit out of you with the debt that is owed so they can go back in your pockets and put you on your knees.

[newtothegame]

we always hear about the $17 trillion that is owed, what you don't hear about are the assets that this country owns like Yellowstone National Park and other land. you don't hear how much all the fighter bombers are worth, or the big buildings that are federally owned, the gold in their treasury. all they do is scare the living shit out of you with the debt that is owed so they can go back in your pockets and put you on your knees.
Not too mention the government actually takes in more revenue then what is required for the interest on our debt......But you wont hear that part...is fear fear fear......(for their jobs) lol

[Tom]

When the hell are we going to raise federal income taxes and capital gains tax on the top 2% so we can start to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies?

When you want to stall the growth of the economy.
Why not start responsible fiscal policies now? You admit we have unresponsible policies under Obama....why wait?

[classhandicapper]

Thanks for bringing this up, Plainolebill. When the hell are we going to raise federal income taxes and capital gains tax on the top 2% so we can start to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies?

You could take practically every dollar the top 2% makes and you wouldn't even come close to solving our long term deficit and debt issues (not to mention they'd all hand in their citizenship, take their money, and leave the US).

The problem is spending. We are growing spending faster than the economy is growing.

Imagine you just took out out a giant mortgage on your house, have a large car loan, credit cards are maxed out from your extravagant life style, student loans etc... and you can't even come close to making ends meet now. You are borrowing more and more every month. Now suppose you expect to get a 5% raise every year just like in the past, but your spending commitments will continue rising much faster than that every year as they have been (which is why you are in this mess to begin with).

Basically you are pretty much fvcked. It's pretty much over.

Welcome to the United States.

[Tom]

How much total money does the top 2% have?
Surely,those who think taxing them will solve all our problems know this.
So.....how much, boys? Round off to the nearest million or so.

[jballscalls]

when asked in 2011 about that vote in 2006

“That was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it," Obama told ABC.

[OntheRail]

Thanks for bringing this up, Plainolebill. When the hell are we going to raise federal income taxes and capital gains tax on the top 2% so we can start to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies?

Sure you could raise the limit... and it would not make a positive impact. Matter of fact we'd slip deeper into debt faster. As the asshats would spend 10X what was raised on things like the toilet habits of Asian Hookers... yellow mud bugs in Paraguay and other such waste.

[mostpost]

You could take practically every dollar the top 2% makes and you wouldn't even come close to solving our long term deficit and debt issues (not to mention they'd all hand in their citizenship, take their money, and leave the US).

The problem is spending. We are growing spending faster than the economy is growing.

Imagine you just took out out a giant mortgage on your house, have a large car loan, credit cards are maxed out from your extravagant life style, student loans etc... and you can't even come close to making ends meet now. You are borrowing more and more every month. Now suppose you expect to get a 5% raise every year just like in the past, but your spending commitments will continue rising much faster than that every year as they have been (which is why you are in this mess to begin with).

Basically you are pretty much fvcked. It's pretty much over.

Welcome to the United States.
Every time this subject comes up someone puts forth the same idea you have put forth above. The idea that if you took all the money from all the people in the top one or two or five percent, you would still not pay off the debt. As if anyone were talking about paying off the debt in one year or five or ten. Your attitude seems to be, if we can't pay off the debt immediately by raising taxes lets not raise them at all.

We got into this mess for a number of reasons, none of which has to do with spending. All of which can be blamed on conservative Republicans. First is the conservative Republican idea that businesses should pay no or very little taxes because they are providing jobs. This ignores the fact that those businesses use public services to a greater degree than individuals.

Second is the conservative Republican idea that if you lower the businessman's tax burden, he will always use that money to expand his business. The fact is he will use it to expand his profit. The way to encourage and assure that a businessman will expand his business is by raising his tax rate and giving him incentives to expand. Of course more is needed than that. No business will expand and no business will produce more product if there is no demand.

That brings us to rotten conservative idea number three. The idea that labor is an inferior part of the economic system. The conservative Republican campaign to destroy unions has left the working man of the country unable to afford any but the basics. It has caused him to go into debt to afford things that his ancestors could have paid for outright.

Basically, we should have never lowered the tax rates in the 80's. We should have raised the minimum wage at regular intervals over the past 33 years. We should have continued to support strong unions. If we had done these things, many who are now living in poverty would be middle class. The earnings of the middle class would be higher. Small businesses would be much more profitable. Big business would be thriving.

Sadly, there would be a few who instead of being worth $30 or $40 billion would only be worth $5 or $10 billion, which you conservative Republicans think would be a tragedy. By the way, I would not really be sad if this occurred.

[NJ Stinks]

You could take practically every dollar the top 2% makes and you wouldn't even come close to solving our long term deficit and debt issues (not to mention they'd all hand in their citizenship, take their money, and leave the US).

The problem is spending. We are growing spending faster than the economy is growing.



Surely, you understand what the word "start" means. As in "Let's start the climb up the mountain."

We are giving away the ranch via tax cuts to the rich. (This has been going on for at least the last 30 years.) Which is exactly why the rich have become filthy rich. Meanwhile, the budget deficit has soared over those 30 years. Yet, like Sergeant Shultz, you see nothing. :rolleyes:

[NJ Stinks]

Missed your post #12 while I was handicapping, Mostpost. Isn't it amazing how righties think skillionaires are the best thing since sliced bread? :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Missed your post #12 while I was handicapping, Mostpost. Isn't it amazing how righties think skillionaires are the best thing since sliced bread? :rolleyes:
How do they not see this? The evidence is overwhelming. High taxes were accompanied by forty years of high prosperity. Tax cuts in the 80's and 2000's and we end up with the worst recession in eighty years and thirty years of stagnant wages.

Here is my layman's thought on what the tax rates should be:
We keep the current rates up to 35% which ends at $450,000.
From $450,000 to $700,000 the rate will be 40%.
From $700,000 to $1,000,000 the rate will be 45%
From $1,000,000 to $5,000,000 the rate will be 50%
Over five million the rate will be 60%.
Of course the righties will hate this, but the truth is these rates are lower than in the prosperous 60's and 70's.

[Clocker]

Of course the righties will hate this, but the truth is these rates are lower than in the prosperous 60's and 70's.

Once upon a time, top income tax brackets were 50% or higher. None of the rich bastages in those brackets could figure out how to avoid those rates, or to hire accountants and tax attorneys to do it for them. And none of the rich bastages could figure out how to invest off shore, or to leave their new ill-gotten gains overseas. So they all actually paid those rates and we all lived happily ever after.

[Tom]

How much total money does the top 2% have?
Surely,those who think taxing them will solve all our problems know this.
So.....how much, boys? Round off to the nearest million or so.


*Bump*

(Jeopardy theme playing in the background)

[Tom]

when asked in 2011 about that vote in 2006

“That was just an example of a new senator making what is a political vote as opposed to doing what was important for the country. And I'm the first one to acknowledge it," Obama told ABC.

So, his very sparse credentials to be president turn to been even less than we were led to believe?

[NJ Stinks]

*Bump*

(Jeopardy theme playing in the background)

OK. Here's a few stats to chew on.
____________________________________

If this year’s Forbes 400 list makes you feel especially pauper-like, you have good reason, because the income gap is also growing. The income gap between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent of US earners is the widest it’s been in nearly a century, according to a study released last week. A joint analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by economists at University of California at Berkeley (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/University+of+California-Berkeley), the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University found that the top 1 percent (defined as families making $394,00 or more in 2012) has grown its income 86.1 percent since 1993, while the 99 percent grew its income only 1.1 percent. The study also found that the Great Recession, which sent stock prices and real estate values plunging, hit the 1 percenters harder than the rest, but they also recovered more quickly. That group’s incomes grew 31 percent between 2009 and 2012, while the 99 percent's grew 0.4 percent.

"This implies that the top 1% incomes captured just over two-thirds of the overall economic growth of real incomes per family over the period 1993-2012," UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez wrote in the study. He told the Associated Press last week: "We need to decide as a society whether this increase in income inequality is efficient and acceptable."

Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0916/Forbes-400-The-richest-get-richer-but-Bill-is-still-on-top-video

[Clocker]

A joint analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by economists at University of California at Berkeley, the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University found that the top 1 percent (defined as families making $394,00 or more in 2012) has grown its income 86.1 percent since 1993, while the 99 percent grew its income only 1.1 percent.

So all those super brainy economists put their heads together and found that rich people are getting richer. Something a researcher for the WSJ could have discovered. But as far as I can tell from the article, not a one of them bothered to ask why. Must be just because the rich folks are greedy and ripping off the poor folks. How do they do that? Inquiring minds want to know.

[newtothegame]

OK. Here's a few stats to chew on.
____________________________________

If this year’s Forbes 400 list makes you feel especially pauper-like, you have good reason, because the income gap is also growing. The income gap between the top 1 percent and the bottom 99 percent of US earners is the widest it’s been in nearly a century, according to a study released last week. A joint analysis of Internal Revenue Service data by economists at University of California at Berkeley (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/University+of+California-Berkeley), the Paris School of Economics, and Oxford University found that the top 1 percent (defined as families making $394,00 or more in 2012) has grown its income 86.1 percent since 1993, while the 99 percent grew its income only 1.1 percent. The study also found that the Great Recession, which sent stock prices and real estate values plunging, hit the 1 percenters harder than the rest, but they also recovered more quickly. That group’s incomes grew 31 percent between 2009 and 2012, while the 99 percent's grew 0.4 percent.

"This implies that the top 1% incomes captured just over two-thirds of the overall economic growth of real incomes per family over the period 1993-2012," UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez wrote in the study. He told the Associated Press last week: "We need to decide as a society whether this increase in income inequality is efficient and acceptable."

Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0916/Forbes-400-The-richest-get-richer-but-Bill-is-still-on-top-video

No, we as a society need to figure out what got the top percent earners to that point and emulate it.
I am far from biblical but for those that are, they will relate....isn't there something in there about judging others, coveting etc etc....???
I need to worry about how to provide for myself and family versus how to take from others that which I have not earned.
Next you may say, "but you did earn it".....and my reply will be that I earned EXACTLY what I agreed upon as a condition of my employment. And, was given such in accordance with those terms.

I am still amazed at how you libs can run around trying to lay claim to others "goods" that you have no rights too.....

[Tom]

I am still amazed at how you libs can run around trying to lay claim to others "goods" that you have no rights too.....

Around here, we that stealing.
Libs are short on ethics.

Maybe if they spent half as much time working as they do whining, that gap would go away. One word not found in Webster's Liberal Dictionary - EARN!

[NJ Stinks]

No, we as a society need to figure out what got the top percent earners to that point and emulate it.
I am far from biblical but for those that are, they will relate....isn't there something in there about judging others, coveting etc etc....???
I need to worry about how to provide for myself and family versus how to take from others that which I have not earned.
Next you may say, "but you did earn it".....and my reply will be that I earned EXACTLY what I agreed upon as a condition of my employment. And, was given such in accordance with those terms.

I am still amazed at how you libs can run around trying to lay claim to others "goods" that you have no rights too.....

I thought we were talking about doing something about reducing the national debt.

[NJ Stinks]

So all those super brainy economists put their heads together and found that rich people are getting richer. Something a researcher for the WSJ could have discovered. But as far as I can tell from the article, not a one of them bothered to ask why. Must be just because the rich folks are greedy and ripping off the poor folks. How do they do that? Inquiring minds want to know.

From the article:

The study also found that the Great Recession, which sent stock prices and real estate values plunging, hit the 1 percenters harder than the rest, but they also recovered more quickly. That group’s incomes grew 31 percent between 2009 and 2012, while the 99 percent's grew 0.4 percent.

The why is bold.

[newtothegame]

I thought we were talking about doing something about reducing the national debt.

Reduce???? WTH are you talking about??? Obama will not have a gun held to his head over the debt ceiling (nevermind that it was unpatriotic in 08).
Debt??? That's nothing to worry about!!!!
C'mon stinks, you're straying to far from the reservation....maybe we need to get the NSA to check on you!! :lol:

[Clocker]

From the article:

The study also found that the Great Recession, which sent stock prices and real estate values plunging, hit the 1 percenters harder than the rest, but they also recovered more quickly. That group’s incomes grew 31 percent between 2009 and 2012, while the 99 percent's grew 0.4 percent.

The why is bold.

But why did the rich recover more quickly? That's not the way it usually happens. Even the Democrats agree with that. JFK used to say that a rising tide lifts all boats. Why all of a sudden, under a Democratic administration, is a rising tide not lifting all boats? Why are the yachts of the rich rising with the tide, while the rowboats of the poor are being dashed against the rocks? Why is this recovery so different from all previous recoveries?

[Clocker]

I thought we were talking about doing something about reducing the national debt.

The Republicans are still trying to get Obama to talk about reducing the deficit. As long as we are spending more than we take in every year, we are adding to the debt. Not even the Republicans are even hoping to reduce the debt over the course of a 10 year budget. The Republicans are still just trying to get Obama to agree to a slow down in the rate of growth of spending, and therefore to slow down the rate of growth of the debt.

[NJ Stinks]

But why did the rich recover more quickly? That's not the way it usually happens. Even the Democrats agree with that. JFK used to say that a rising tide lifts all boats. Why all of a sudden, under a Democratic administration, is a rising tide not lifting all boats? Why are the yachts of the rich rising with the tide, while the rowboats of the poor are being dashed against the rocks? Why is this recovery so different from all previous recoveries?

One reason is because the rich were paying capital gains at a federal tax rate of 15% instead of 28% or higher as they did before 2003 . Also, dividends suddenly qualified as a capital gain in 2003.

The poor don't have capital gains.

Then there are the reduced income tax rates which, of course, add wealth.

[LottaKash]

One reason is because the rich were paying capital gains at a federal tax rate of 15% instead of 28% or higher as they did before 2003 . Also, dividends suddenly qualified as a capital gain in 2003.

The poor don't have capital gains.

Then there are the reduced income tax rates which, of course, add wealth.

Bull crap, your guy is running the show, and the looting is still going at full throttle....Wake up, your chosen one is ruining the whole thing...Wake up ! Do you really believe that your chosen one gives a chit about the poor ?...Wake up, and just look around...

[newtothegame]

Bull crap, your guy is running the show, and the looting is still going at full throttle....Wake up, your chosen one is ruining the whole thing...Wake up ! Do you really believe that your chosen one gives a chit about the poor ?...Wake up, and just look around...
Of course he (OBAMA), cares about their votes.....errr I mean them!! :lol:

[JustRalph]

Bull crap, your guy is running the show, and the looting is still going at full throttle....Wake up, your chosen one is ruining the whole thing...Wake up ! Do you really believe that your chosen one gives a chit about the poor ?...Wake up, and just look around...

From 2008 to 2010 they owned both houses of Congress too.........

Remember?

[HUSKER55]

you guys do know that most of the "rich money" is old money and comes from investments that have been held a long time. that is called prudence and those people are entitled to the rewards earned by their efforts.

in Wisconsin our governor is returning money to property owners so as to lower taxes instead of finding more ways to spend money.

it is working. Wisconsin is in the black, and we are gaining new business.

In case you haven't heard Amazon is building a distribution center here and will employ 1000 to start.

[Greyfox]

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK



The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Oct 2013 at 05:45:31 AM GMT is:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

[Tom]

The left just keeps repeating the same old lies over and over - hoping to find some stray idiot who will listen to them.

[classhandicapper]

Every time this subject comes up someone puts forth the same idea you have put forth above. The idea that if you took all the money from all the people in the top one or two or five percent, you would still not pay off the debt. As if anyone were talking about paying off the debt in one year or five or ten. Your attitude seems to be, if we can't pay off the debt immediately by raising taxes lets not raise them at all.

We got into this mess for a number of reasons, none of which has to do with spending. All of which can be blamed on conservative Republicans. First is the conservative Republican idea that businesses should pay no or very little taxes because they are providing jobs. This ignores the fact that those businesses use public services to a greater degree than individuals.

Second is the conservative Republican idea that if you lower the businessman's tax burden, he will always use that money to expand his business. The fact is he will use it to expand his profit. The way to encourage and assure that a businessman will expand his business is by raising his tax rate and giving him incentives to expand. Of course more is needed than that. No business will expand and no business will produce more product if there is no demand.

That brings us to rotten conservative idea number three. The idea that labor is an inferior part of the economic system. The conservative Republican campaign to destroy unions has left the working man of the country unable to afford any but the basics. It has caused him to go into debt to afford things that his ancestors could have paid for outright.

Basically, we should have never lowered the tax rates in the 80's. We should have raised the minimum wage at regular intervals over the past 33 years. We should have continued to support strong unions. If we had done these things, many who are now living in poverty would be middle class. The earnings of the middle class would be higher. Small businesses would be much more profitable. Big business would be thriving.

Sadly, there would be a few who instead of being worth $30 or $40 billion would only be worth $5 or $10 billion, which you conservative Republicans think would be a tragedy. By the way, I would not really be sad if this occurred.

Look, I'm not going to argue with you on this because IMO it's people like you that ARE THE PROBLEM. Once last attempt and then I'm gone.

1. Could we make a dent in the deficit in the short term if we raised taxes on the wealthy now?

Yes.

2. Would the deficit and debt be lower now if we didn't cut taxes or had raised them at some other points in the past?

That's debatable because raising taxes has negative economic consequences that are hard to measure. But I'll say yes just to get past the question.


The problem is that the focus on taxes indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between the left and right on some important budget matters.

Other than the harder right (the Ron Paul types), both republicans and democrats are Keynesians. That means, when an economy weakens, they BOTH believe you have to run government deficits to stimulate the economy in the short term.

The republicans do it by lowering taxes because they believe putting extra money in the hands of private individuals and businesses gets more bang for the buck than increased government spending.

The democrats do it by raising government spending and targeting what they believe are societal goals and needs etc...

So had we not lowered taxes at various times in the past when the economy was weak, we would have raised spending even faster than we did or we would have had a short term economic debacle that politicians wanted to avoid.

The net would have been a non event.

But most important, what I am saying to you is that the tax rate is basically irrelevant over the long haul when spending is growing faster that GDP.

That's what's been going on for awhile now and it's set to explode even faster long term.

It's a 100% mathematical certainty that government spending cannot grow faster than GDP over the long haul. That's the only thing that is not debatable.

So simply look at spending growth, various long term projections of spending growth from private non partisan sources (like investors that don't care which imbeciles are charge), and then you'll understand why we are so fvcked.

It's not taxes.

It's spending.

It's over man.

Instead of arguing about republicans and democrats (both complete imbeciles) you should be arguing about how best to financially survive the future when inflation rises rapidly, your savings are inflated away, the government makes draconian cuts on promises that were made that the government never had any hope of delivering on, interest rates rise rapidly as foreigners bail out on us like we used to bail out on 3rd world countries etc...

A storm is coming! We just don't know the exact date.

[Clocker]

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK



The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Oct 2013 at 05:45:31 AM GMT is:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/debtiv.gif

That's the government's numbers. The real outstanding debt of the United States is conservatively estimated at $70 trillion. Source. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/california-economist-says-real-us-debt-70-trillion-not-16-trillion-government/) Other studies I have seen put it at $90-120 trillion.

[Tom]

Nancy Pelosi has stated that there is nothing left to cut.
No one from the dems has refuted that claim.

I'mm typing this really slow, NJ, so feel free to move your lips.....NO amount of taxation will EVER compensate for irresponsible spending.

Printing unlimited amounts of money, spending even more......taxes are bot a the problem, NJ.....not even close.

[fast4522]

Cruz crushes field in presidential straw poll at Values Voters Summit

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/12/cruz-crushes-field-presidential-straw-poll-values-/

Just maybe some want to hear more from the Senator.

More tea please.

[hcap]

Cruz crushes field in presidential straw poll at Values Voters Summit

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/12/cruz-crushes-field-presidential-straw-poll-values-/

Just maybe some want to hear more from the Senator.

More tea please.The Values Voters Summit?

::sleeping: :sleeping:

[Greyfox]

That's the government's numbers. The real outstanding debt of the United States is conservatively estimated at $70 trillion. Source. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/15/california-economist-says-real-us-debt-70-trillion-not-16-trillion-government/) Other studies I have seen put it at $90-120 trillion.

I can't believe that.
The IRS is already spending over 40 cents on every dollar it receives just paying interest.
It the figs you posted are correct, how would the interest even be paid?

[tucker6]

The Values Voters Summit?

::sleeping: :sleeping:
you know, the equivalent of the Black Caucus highly anticipated presidential endorsement ...

[fast4522]

Faster than many think . . . . .

[hcap]

you know, the equivalent of the Black Caucus highly anticipated presidential endorsement ...The Religious Rights' Values Voters Summit is much, much worse. Probably if Unskewed Polls.org ever returned from the dead. and came back into the repug fold, the first place to hail their "momentous and glorious" return would be those dunces. :)

But of no consequence to Cruz's chances---except of course to extreme TeePeer's and the extreme repug base----- a definite plus :D :D

[fast4522]

Why people listen to the junior Senator.

[Capper Al]

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising
America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that
the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now
depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance
our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest
growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden
domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in
infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families
and our children of critical investments in education and health care
reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they
have counted on.

Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is
not going to investment in America’s priorities. Instead, interest
payments are a significant tax on all Americans–a debt tax that
Washington doesn’t want to talk about. If Washington were serious about
honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our
national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically
and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.”
Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the
backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and
a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit."

Sen. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., (Senate – March 16, 2006)**

**World's foremost hypocrite and bullshit artist.

What's up for grabs is who will benefit from America's future. If it keeps going in the Tea Party's direction then the middle-class will continue to erode. The power will keep shifting from Government, where people have a vote, to corporate fiefdoms where people don't have a vote and only money matters.

[Capper Al]

Why people listen to the junior Senator.

Scaring people? Do you really know if this amount is too much or too little? You are trying to make a point that this is too much without a point of reference. This is how fools think. The easy way without doing their homework.

[fast4522]

Please note: I did read your last two messages that prove to me at least that you do not recognize a problem. There is a financial shitstorm that neither you or I or anyone else will be able to outrun headed our way, it will make 2008 look like a small bruise. Now take into account that half or better of the American people do not buy into the way things are being handled now, instead of another thread about treason you started there will be threads starting about impeachment. It is just fine as Americans we do not share the same view, but neither view can deny that half the country have opposite views right?

[newtothegame]

Fast, don't tell them the truth (that half the country disagrees with them). They believe what they want......Libs will always disregard others opinions when it doesn't concur with their own and therefore, it must not exist.....:lol:

[fast4522]

This is where he jumps threads before being objective.

[Greyfox]

What's up for grabs is who will benefit from America's future. If it keeps going in the Tea Party's direction then the middle-class will continue to erode. The power will keep shifting from Government, where people have a vote, to corporate fiefdoms where people don't have a vote and only money matters.

How does smaller Government equal less government power??
Government power is not related to government size in any country.
Look at dictatorships which have 1 man and a small group of cronies running the show. The power of a dictator is diminished if he begins to bring more and more cronies into his circle.
Smaller Government means redistribution of how services are delivered and who delivers them , but the controls of government are not given up.
Your idea that "people have a vote in Government" deserves to be looked at as well. In reality people get 1 vote every two to four years.
Otherwise you don't have much say.
In what you refer to as "corporate fiefdoms" people actually have more votes.
You don't see that? Not surprising.
In corporate fiefdoms people vote by whether they buy or don't buy a company's products.
Look at the recent problems of the once powerful Blackberry (Research In Motion) corporate fiefdom. People aren't buying their products. In effect, people are electing to go elsewhere.
I'd suggest that you have far more opportunity to vote for or against corporate fiefdoms than you ever do than you have with government.
Smaller Government does not mean increased power for corporate fiefdoms.

[fast4522]

250 taken in 20 on the interest, someone is full of shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7zAjqDiHJ4