well exactly. and if you keep adding to the debt via deficit spending isn't it fair to say the debt will never go away? we'd need to run a surplus budget for decades to get rid of it, b/c in my mind taxing the everliving shit out of the country won't work, lol.

12/30/2009 12:51:41 PM

Quote :

" if you honestly think we'll stop running a deficit come the new legislators in 2011 you're smoking crack. This problem is going to take 30 years to fix, if ever. "

You are right, the issue is that GOP politicians like to pretend that their shit does not stink as well. As long as this guy can admit that the Republican government did just as shitty of a job as the new liberal democrat coalition then I think he has an argument.

BBBBBUT HUR the liberal democrats are spending an order of magnitude more than Bush and Friends

Well two wrongs do not make a right and at the time this spending was setting its own records. Just because Person A gets a DUI blowing a .22 after hitting two cars does not lessen the degree of seriousness of Person B who blows a .11 who was pulled after speeding 60 mph in a 35 mph zone.

At least from my observations I did not see much of this tea party crap until after Nov 2008.

[Edited on December 30, 2009 at 12:57 PM. Reason : a]

12/30/2009 12:55:39 PM

Quote :

"However, Lincoln set a dangerous precedent - that any attempt to peacefully and voluntarily exit from the union would be prevented using force."

d357r0y3r Let me be clear, I agree with you that states should be able to secede; however, they are contractually prohibited from doing so and this was established well before lincoln.

Lincoln was merely responding within his legal means to resolve this breach.

12/30/2009 1:30:12 PM

Quote :

"Well two wrongs do not make a right and at the time this spending was setting its own records. Just because Person A gets a DUI blowing a .22 after hitting two cars does not lessen the degree of seriousness of Person B who blows a .11 who was pulled after speeding 60 mph in a 35 mph zone."

Then you would be an idiot. Person B looses their license and person A gets thrown in prison for 30 days for destruction of property. One is punished more than the other for a good reason.

Similarly, running a 3% of GDP deficit is ignorable, running a 13% of GDP deficit is criminal. As such, those of us that are thinking straight punish one more than the other.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html
2002 10398.4 1.52
2003 10886.2 3.47
2004 11607 3.56
2005 12339 2.58
2006 13090.8 1.90
2007 13715.7 1.17
2008 14165.6 3.24
2009 14240.2 12.93
2010 14728.8 8.54

12/30/2009 4:53:04 PM

Quote :

"Then you would be an idiot"

Name calling surely wins points in the who has a bigger dick and knows more about the world debate.

Who draws this arbitrary line dipshit between 3% and 13% ??? You?

I try to make a point that both sides are raping the pooch and that republicans are blubbering about shit they were doing not even 4 years ago(with "shit" being financial irresponsibility) and you instead nit-pick an arbitrary scenario I created about abstractly increasing levels of magnitude in drunk driving behavior. What is your point???? In my opinion rather its 3%, 13%, 33%, or whatever other measure you choose to gauge the budget by; planned deficit spending is wrong. Exceptions on an occasional basis maybe are ok but year after year this should not happen.

Quote :

"running a 13% of GDP deficit is criminal."

So is this misdemeanor 1 month of probation criminal with a $500 fine, felony criminal with 6 years mandatory sentencing, or deserving of capital punishment .
Give me a fucking break. Let me guess though that if this were republican deficit 13% GDP spending on 100 squadrons of F-22's, oil subsidies, and juicy contracts to Halliburton then this would be ok in the name of national security.



[Edited on December 30, 2009 at 5:17 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on December 30, 2009 at 5:18 PM. Reason : l]

12/30/2009 5:14:04 PM

Quote :

"Lincoln was merely responding within his legal means to resolve this breach."

It's also interesting to note that the foremost of the framers himself realized very clearly that the US Constitution, unlike the Articles of Confederation, reaffirmed a nation (not a breakable confederacy), and made this clear during the nullification crisis:

Quote :

"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy"

-James Madison

Proponents of secession lost their battle when we ditched the system that made it possible (the Articles) for the Constitution. There are certainly issues of rights delegated to whom still out there, but right of secession isn't one of them based on the existing precedent (and I think the Civil War cleared that up).

I'm sure some sort of exit amendment could be drawn up, though, should states really desire the ability to legally, peacefully leave.

12/31/2009 12:12:38 AM

Ken Paxton impeachment hearing is streaming. Starting to get pretty good!

5/27/2023 3:30:29 PM

He must have done some pretty bad stuff for a large Republican majority to essentially be united in trying to get rid of him. Or they know some REAL dirt that he did and are trying to get him out of there before it comes to light. Of course, Trump and Lyin' Ted Cruz are saying the process is unfair. Also comical to see that election-denier Ken Paxton is claiming the Republican House is trying to override the will of the voters.

5/27/2023 7:36:58 PM