Then we might also add a demand to raise taxes in order to pay for the debt that was the result of putting this money into the economy. Yeah, that will work too. We stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget at the same time. Makes perfect liberal sense, doesn't it?
h/t to Dcat over at "Razor Sharp Claws"
11 comments:
LOL Heh Oh stop before I get too popular...
I'll need one of these
hmmm....learn something new everyday...i didn't realize that we had a positive cash flow before the stimulus...will wonders never cease? of course getting another job to help pay off ones debts is also another solution....
I know it been a while...working on a new spot...but, had to drop by to read your take on all this...
hope all is well with you and yours...SjP
good to see ya again, sjp. we missed ya here.
but have to say i don't understand your reasoning. all taxes is taking money out of the economy regardless of the times. thus the stimulus was nothing but putting back into the economy less than what was taken out of it.
and a financially responsible person would not get so deep in debt as to need a second job either.
"Then we might also add a demand to raise taxes in order to pay for the debt that was the result of putting this money into the economy. Yeah, that will work too. We stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget at the same time. Makes perfect liberal sense, doesn't it?"
Please name one 'liberal' who said "stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget at the same time".
"all taxes is taking money out of the economy regardless of the times."
Not even close to being true. Government spending is a part of USA economy.
Taxes are the price of freedom; "freedom ain't free".
The solutions are simple and easy. Tax the rich/wealth, end government corporate welfare, end the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, increase spending on Social Security and Medicare, and universal free health care for ALL!
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
"Please name one 'liberal' who said "stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget at the same time".
that is an easy one to respond to. the name of one liberal is ema nymton and the proof is seen in her response here. if the raising of taxes is not for the purpose of balancing an already unbalanced budget then it serves no purpose to raise taxes on anyone. that is economics 101.
------
"Taxes are the price of freedom; "freedom ain't free".
if this be true then only those who pay taxes deserves the right to possess freedom. everyone else deserves to be enslaved. and in a progressive state the ones who pay the most taxes deserves the greatest amount of freedom.
this is logic 101.
------
if you consider yourself a typical liberal then your response is affirmation of the shallowness if not the foolishness of the liberal thought process. envy and pity are poor substitutes for reason.
"financially responsible person would not get so deep in debt as to need a second job either"
can't disagree with you there...but, now we're both operating under the premise that our elected officials - regardless of how they lean - are responsible, let alone financially responsible...
SjP
he grins, well, let's say we apply a little Christian charity and apply irresponsibility to Congress prior to the last election for getting us into the financial mess we have now and reserve judgment on this Congress today until we see the end results of their agreed upon budget, shall we? tho i'll admit i have very little faith that my judgment will change for this Congress but we'll see.
.
I'll type this slowly so you do not get too confused too fast, Wuss.
"the name of one liberal is ema nymton and the proof is seen in her response here"
Noooooo. Ema Nymton's response to your original post has nothing to do with balancing the nation's budget. You cannot show where a liberal said "stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget at the same time". So are you a loser or a liar?
Ema Nymton has NEVER worried about the nation's debt. Cannot imagine a situation where a sane person would ever worry about the nation's debt.
"that is economics 101" and "this is logic 101" Where, at Beck University? Are you an honor gradumacte at Beck University? It must be hell for chumps like you to defend the rich. Has paris Hilton thanked you for paying her taxes for her? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.
The solutions are simple and easy. Tax the rich/wealthy, end government corporate welfare, end the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, increase spending on Social Security and Medicare, and universal free health care for ALL!
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
"Noooooo. Ema Nymton's response to your original post has nothing to do with balancing the nation's budget. You cannot show where a liberal said "stimulate the economy and balance the federal budget at the same time"."
oh yes you did, ema. it may have been unintentional on your part but you did.
your words:
tax the rich/wealthy,
since the people are already being taxed then the only thing left is to raise taxes. raising taxes can only serve one purpose as i stated before. thus, implicitly you were addressing the issue of the budget. that is only logical.
end corporate welfare,
since by ending corporate welfare would be eliminating a government expense that will further lead to a balanced budget. so implicitly you were addressing the issue of the budget again.
end the wars would still be addressing a government expense thus a budget item.
that, my dear, is economics 101
you can't talk money without implicitly addressing the budget.
if you believe only the sane does not worry about the budget or government debt then your liberal thinking must also believe that government is a god with unlimited resources instead being of the people with limited resources. and that is the best reason i have heard yet to denounce liberalism as a false religion.
any government is subject to the same rules of economics as any other enterprise. and it is very apparent from your posts that you have no idea what those rules are.
so, a little advice. i would suggest you go back to high school and take a beginning course in Economics because right now you're making yourself look very foolish with your posts.
.
I guess I didn't type my previous response slow enough for you. I did not realize I was dealing with an honor gradumacate at Glenda Beck University, "you bett-cha"? Did you get a chalk board and eveythin?
So _you_ are for:
corporate welfare but against welfare for people,
tax breaks for the wealthy international corporations so they can ship jobs off to third world toilet bowl countries but against USA government programs for the working people,
and for wars but against health care for USA people who come back injured.
Ya. You are a TeaBagging Becker.
"... liberal thinking must also believe that government is a god with unlimited resources instead being of the people with limited resources. and that is the best reason i have heard yet to denounce liberalism as a false religion."
Aren't you one who denounce liberals as godless?
By the way, do you get a kiss when _you_ pay Paris Hilton's taxes for her?
__________________
The solutions are simple and easy. Tax the rich/wealthy, end government corporate welfare, end the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, increase spending on Social Security and Medicare, and universal free health care for ALL!
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema,
with each and every comment you make you further exemplify just how shallow liberal thinking is as well as misleading. and i'll admit that i'm assuming that you consider yourself as an example of the typical liberal.
i never said anything either explicitly or implicitly during this discussion to lead anyone to the conclusion you have come to in regards to what i am for or against.
so the most that a person can get from your last comment is a poor attempt to change the direction of the discussion.
and i find your ad hominem attacks as amusing in that it only can lead you into a state of humiliation for your cause.
Post a Comment