Down another 400, thanks Tea Party!

Again I wasn't asking you for any information. you are the one who takes somebody asking for a link to your so called source. as a reason to give somebody a econ lesson.

If you can't understand that the person was asking for a LINK TO YOUR SOURCE. then you have a very bad comprehension problem.

you can try to make up your biased facts all day it gives you no credibility if you can't give somebody a link when asked for one. it actually makes you look very incompetent

and in this case I'm guessing that looks are not deceiving.

 

had congress passed stronger cuts on the budget then the US would not be in this mess

 

Last time I checked, Boehner was a Republican. Why would he cooperate with Democrats?

 

Congress should cut taxes for people like me who earn more than ten million a year.

 

"informed progressive" is an oxymoron.

 

You must be quite a scholar, Landru... and the book made quite an impact on you, right...?

Poor Landru... can't you get anything right? Were you meaning to refer to "Aftershock", by Robert Reich? [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Aftershock-Next-Economy-Americas-Future/dp/0307592812"]Amazon.com: Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future (9780307592811): Robert B. Reich: Books[/ame]

Remember the old proverb, Landru, that goes sort of like this: You can keep your mouth shut, and people may merely wonder if you're a moron... or, you can open your mouth, and remove all doubt...!

 

Thanks I get that alot. I suspect you don't.

 

Oxymoron is a ********** breathing air.

 

Go to Reich's blog. Read everything. Twice. And maybe you can actually discuss something with economic issues with a soupcon of insight. But I doubt it.

http://robertreich.org/

 

Hell, if you can even get the name of Reich's book right you'll be doing better than Landru... but Landru will lecture everybody who isn't a hyperlib Obamanite about how stupid and reactionary we are. BTW, professor, I think you forgot your "ç"....

It's amazing how many of these pseudo-intellectual pantloads appear in every forum these days... I wonder which sorts of street-corner "colleges" people like these are being graduated from that they think themselves so singularly well-educated....

 

I take it this means you're not going to read Reich's book but instead continue to make uninformed posts filled with ********** memes.

I thought so.

 

I'm not at all sure YOU read the book, Landru... you couldn't even name the book correctly! Do you pay that much scholarly attention to everything you "study"? With adherents like you, no wonder the hyperlib wing of the Democrat Party is in such disarray....

If you are citing some book as being a pillar of your "wisdom", and you can't even get the name of the book right, then why should any of us think you've paid any attention to anything inside the book...? Naw. I've been through dozens of egocentric self-glorifiers like you. Hired 'em, and fired 'em, too... dime a dozen....

I've never put anyone on "ignore" before, but you will be the first. You are a total waste of my time....

 

By revenue, you mean taxes. Tax increases would be great for job growth.

 

Do you realize that an author's opinion is only that? The author's opinion.

Ian Fleming wrote a number of Bond books. None are factual.

Economic THEORIES are just that, theories, not rules, not laws, NOT PROVEN. To take what some highly biased author says and live your life by their opinion is a sign of very low intelligence and an inability to find facts on your own from unbiased sources.

 

See here is the deal. I did not ask you for the link. I showed you where instead of giving somebody a so called "Econ lesson" or Econ 101 as you put it. you should take some reading comprehension classes. because all he did was ask you for a link to your source. but you were not able to provide him with a link to your source. you had to try and teach him a Econ lesson.

and since you have continued to have a reading comprehension problem and are not able to get it through to your brain. (could be a number of reasons for that)

but instead of trying to push your bias BS on me. why not just answer the question when asked. and provide a link when asked. instead of telling everybody else they need to learn how to do something.

You are the one who is trying to prove a point. so if you have a illegitimate point you should have no excuse or problem to provide a liable source and link to that source.

 

I'm sure all of the "constituents" (1) of the tea party are very upset with the economy. Probably because while you and a couple hundred others blame them for something they had no hand or say in....they like everyone else suffer the consequences. The Tea Party is a organization, nothing more, they have no say in our politics, all they represent is a view.

Let's but the blame squarely where it belongs, ironically what you said and then failed to show, Obama and our lawmakers. Obama has spent us into oblivion and has made no real strides in his presidency. The only thing he can claim during his presidency so far is the killing of bin laden (something he didn't have hand in anyways, but hey whatever). Finally Obama killed any and all budget plans that came before him...in order to appease unions, small interest groups, and other organizations that the tax payer has no business funding.

Lets stop passing the buck......


(1) quotations are because the Tea Party is a citizen organization, and that word is defined as an individual voter within an electoral constituency, which the tea party is not, but I digress.....

 

How so? How is an amendment to the constitution dictating that we can't spend more than we take in, a bad thing in your eyes?

Are people this stupid?

 

"I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on that alone for the reduction of the administration of our government to the genuine principles of its constitution; I mean an article taking from the Federal government the power of borrowing." - Thomas Jefferson

A constitutional amendment, while daunting to actually pass, would be the most effective and enduring way of guaranteeing that our leaders cannot spend us into serfdom. It doesn't have to be complicated, but there are a few things that have to be addressed to prevent the weasels in Washington from finding loopholes:

1. Spending cannot be higher than the prior year's amount, plus the rate of inflation and population growth.

2. If, at the end of a given fiscal year, the estimates were wrong and the budget is still not balanced, the difference would automatically be cut from the budget for the next fiscal year according to a very specific, predetermined formula.

3. An exception can be included for a war declared by Congress, or a national calamity. The benchmark for meeting the definition of the latter would beed to be quite high, think something in the range of 90% of members of congress agreeing. That may seem like an unrealistic bar, but how many politicians would have voted against declaring 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina a national calamity?

4. Federal expenses cannot be pawned off on the states.

What's amazed me most about this particular issue is that it really seems to be something that anyone who honestly cares about our financial health would get behind. I understand there might be some disagreements about the wording, but the premise itself should have bipartisan appeal.

In fact, the only way someone could argue against it (besides a strict Constitutionalist who doesn't want to ever touch the Constitution), would be to make the case that this amendment would necessitate significant reforms to the entitlement programs.

But isn't that exactly the point?

Oh, and there's one other influential group of people who always want to argue against this kind of amendment: Congress.

And that might just be the best reason of all to fight for it.

So, please explain to me how a Balanced Budged amendment would be bad for our economy.

And while you're at it, why the left is sadly, pathetically, trying to blame a group of people who for nearly three years have been trying to cut back on government spending, for the same government spending which got us into the mess we're in now?

 

LOL. One thing I think we can all agree on is 401ks will no longer be considered a perk when picking a job. Working poor, for the most part, are no longer paid in checks. If they don't direct deposit, they have to get paid on debit cards and pay to get the money that is already theirs, with the company who employs them no doubt getting a kickback from the bank they set the scam up with. I must admit, it is kind of nice to know that the middle class got scammed as bad as us by bankers, and the employers who set you up to be robbed by them. If there are people out there who still refuse to fight when the option presents itself, know this, you are the very definition of the word coward.

 

Quite true. Although, progressives see them as one in the same. The problem is their "logic" dictates that it is better to take in 50 percent of 1 dollar as opposed to 20 percent of 10. Business growth is apparently not a major factor in raising revenue in their world.......obviously.

 

So of course that means, it's because we didn't raise taxes...absolutely nothing to do with the millions out of work, right?

 

This apparently is your problem in a nut shell. I have been reading your comments here, and have realized that you really have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I blame your progressive idiot professors...you are of course a student, correct?

Can you answer for me...why you think our government would need to print more money? And, when they do...what happens? Do they use the money to balance the budget? Because, you sure have gone on a wild tear about how when the government prints more money it does not add to the debt...so tell us what it does do, and tell us what happens when our dollar becomes inflated? I can't wait to see how much you really know.

 

Forget it KK, they are not going to admit to anything, everything is falling down around them and they still look to blame others. One would think they would look at the other countries and what they are going through, and it all comes down to the same thing...spending.
Was the tea party over in Greece too? Idiots, always have been always will be. They are failures and if they can drain every dime from this country they will.

 

Most of that ongoing spending was approved when the dems controlled the entire government. All the GOP is doing is revisiting the spending and telling the folk who did it that they need to return some of the goodies bought as we, the country, cannot pay for them.