@AThousandYoung saidI don't hate them when appropriate....as long as you get them past the debate judges who are looking at their watches. They want YOUR thoughts, don't you know.
Of course. No research at all.
And don't you hate all those links I put up? What's up with those?
Just being helpful. Surely you cannot falut me that much, have you seen the ones from Marauder....he is vying for first place with Sonhouse in the way of overload. But give Shouse his due, he is DEF saying his own opinions!
@AThousandYoung saidOh, Lord. You fellas, really......think, please. Leave such statements to Shouse.
That's because it is in their economic interests to disagree, not because they have any evidence supporting their belief.
You see, everyone has incentives and biases ....politicians. economists. journalists.,voters. The real question is whether their arguments hold up.
But here's the big point. If we dismiss every economist because they have interest, then we'd have to dismiss every political commentator, activist and politician too.!!
@kmax87 saidTell us what a day would be like if they all just stay in bed, sleep all day? Have some fun here, Kmax. Sock it to me. Can't wait for THAT answer.
Producers have money. They can invest in industry they can produce their own IP they can accumulate property and engage in rent seeking behavior.
Calling the never having to do a day's physical labor in their life the producer class is one of the most perverse inversions of function I have ever heard. Do they really make things happen or are they useless without the producers of labor. Its a bit chicken and eggy to be sure, but there you have it.
Dam, I think, I will go sit in a chair at the grocery store and watch what happens at the shelves!!! Then, a visit to Amazon as the conveyor belts slow down!!!!
@AverageJoe1 saidDeficit direction does prove ideology.
I can easily answer that, but might I wish that people like and marauder are idealists? Like, we can agree that I am more realistic, as you are more idealist? Thanks.
You see, You’re treating ‘raw deficit’direction like it proves ideology, while ignoring what actually drives deficits: recessions, wars, tax revenue cycles, Congress, and emergency spending. Not your fae ...[text shortened]... , I just sold something and made a lot of money. Should I give that to someone? you,?
Give it up!
Both parties spend money. Only one party thinks about the receipts.
And your cartooniah description of what political leaders in both parties "tend to favor" breaks down in reality. Republicans don't spend less money, this is evident in their actions. They don't think that anyone currently alive should pay for the war in Iran, give that receipt to the next generation down the line.
@AverageJoe1 saidI didn't dismiss them. I said they have no evidence for what they say.
Oh, Lord. You fellas, really......think, please. Leave such statements to Shouse.
You see, everyone has incentives and biases ....politicians. economists. journalists.,voters. The real question is whether their arguments hold up.
But here's the big point. If we dismiss every economist because they have interest, then we'd have to dismiss every political commentator, activist and politician too.!!
@AThousandYoung saidHoly smoke,clueless indeed. Try to understand, that there are too many factors for you to make such a flat out comment, different societal changes, decisions, catastrophes, newly elected officials, pandemics, and ohhhh different presidents every few years.
That's because Republicans refuse to allow any access to revenue for the government, not because of any fault of the Dems.
https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/democrats/2024/10/the-u-s-economy-performs-better-under-democratic-presidents
Your post is totally wasted. It says absolutely nothing.
@wildgrass saidThe Iran war is the direct of the Muslim obama giving the worst terrorist nation pallet loads of cash, in the dead of night trying to keep it hidden.
Deficit direction does prove ideology.
Both parties spend money. Only one party thinks about the receipts.
And your cartooniah description of what political leaders in both parties "tend to favor" breaks down in reality. Republicans don't spend less money, this is evident in their actions. They don't think that anyone currently alive should pay for the war in Iran, give that receipt to the next generation down the line.
How many people have died for his Muslim cause?
@Mott-The-Hoople saidGet Marauder to tell us why he gave it to them, why it was all cash in various diff currencies, and why was it done in the middle of the night, in obvious cloaked circumstances? Ask,,,,,in his own words. We canall do links, Boring. I want to get his reasoning.We want to know the reason, Marauder. What Obama intended by doing this, I think it was just before he took AirForce one over to bow to the Saudi Prince. He was dressed like a man, though, like Trunp dresses. He was not in a FLLIIIIIIIgggghht jacket!!! Note how the multisexual Newsome likes to wear a white open-at-the-top shirt. OIbama did that. He also put his vague-color feet on tjhe resolute desk. Donal d does not put his white feet on the resolute desk.
The Iran war is the direct of the Muslim obama giving the worst terrorist nation pallet loads of cash, in the dead of night trying to keep it hidden.
How many people have died for his Muslim cause?
Are the libs here OK with their slime leaders putting feet on the desk?
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidCould you explain how that statement could possibly be true?
The Iran war is the direct of the Muslim obama giving the worst terrorist nation pallet loads of cash, in the dead of night trying to keep it hidden.
How many people have died for his Muslim cause?
The money was owed to Iran since before the revolution of 1979 as Iran had paid for military equipment that was never delivered. The case was about to reach a verdict in an international tribunal which was likely to give Iran a greater amount, so the Obama administration settled.
"Public records and reporting from outlets like Reuters, AP, and The Wall Street Journal broadly agree on several points:
The $1.7 billion payment did occur
It was linked to a pre-1979 legal dispute
The $400 million portion was delivered in cash due to sanctions
The timing overlapped with prisoner releases, which were diplomatically coordinated
Where disagreement persists is in interpretation, not the core facts."
"“Cash sent to Iran” is easy to understand
Legal settlements and arbitration are not
This gap allows simplified claims to gain traction."
https://www.breezyscroll.com/world/did-obama-send-cash-to-iran-what-the-2016-payment-really-was/
The simple minded propaganda you are fed probably never told you any of that.
EDIT: The Tribunal where the case was pending was created pursuant to an agreement made between the US and Iran by the Reagan administration on its first day in office said agreement including the release of the US hostages.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 said
Oh, Lord. You fellas, really......think, please. Leave such statements to Shouse.
You see, everyone has incentives and biases ....politicians. economists. journalists.,voters. The real question is whether their arguments hold up.
But here's the big point. If we dismiss every economist because they have interest, then we'd have to dismiss every political commentator, activist and politician too.!!
The real question is whether their arguments hold up.
But, but, your argument does not hold up.
The bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax. If that money went away from the government booty bag, they wouldn't even notice. Drop in the bucket. It would, however, make a huge difference for everyday Americans. $1,000 more a month is a car payment and money towards a mortgage down payment and groceries. It can make a huge difference.
On the other half of the spectrum, $1,000 a month is meaningless to a billionaire. The entire deficit number can be eliminated by charging one penny on wealth over $50 million. And you're against it. You would rather have the nurse making $75k a year pay the difference. Or you want no one to pay now, just pay later let the next generation deal with it.
Your arguments don't hold up.
@wildgrass saidDoes your logic hold up??????The real question is whether their arguments hold up.
But, but, your argument does not hold up.
The bottom 50% pay only 3% of the income tax. If that money went away from the government booty bag, they wouldn't even notice. Drop in the bucket. It would, however, make a huge difference for everyday Americans. $1,000 more a month is a car payment and money ...[text shortened]... ne to pay now, just pay later let the next generation deal with it.
Your arguments don't hold up.
You are saying, and you cannot deny it, that the rich people do not need money that they could otherwise be giving to someone else. I think that is what you are saying.
So if my neighbor needs some money for something, and I have some money in my shoebox, do you think that I should give him that money?
Wildgrass, can you answer this question like a human. It is a straight question about two neighbors. Forget everything else on the forum, if I have money in my shoebox and you, my neighbor, Sam, need a new lawnmower, should I give you money out of my shoebox.
Further, if we reach an impasse, should the town council have the power to tell me to give you money out of my shoebox.
Wild grass, even Sue and Sunhouse would love to see you, up against the wall, as I usually put people, answer this question.
Make the Forum entertaining!
And yes, this is what you liberals might call a trick. Question, there is no possible way that you will answer yes or no. Absolutely impossible.
1 edit
@AverageJoe1 saidYou keep making the transfer of wealth analogy but that has nothing to do with the current questions. Trump already spent the money. The bill needs to be paid.
Does your logic hold up??????
You are saying, and you cannot deny it, that the rich people do not need money that they could otherwise be giving to someone else. I think that is what you are saying.
So if my neighbor needs some money for something, and I have some money in my shoebox, do you think that I should give him that money?
Wildgrass, can you answer ...[text shortened]... l a trick. Question, there is no possible way that you will answer yes or no. Absolutely impossible.
If you have the poor people pay it, well, they don't have any money and even if they did and you asked them to pay more, it wouldn't come close to covering the $2 trillion deficit. The government could double income taxes for poor people and it wouldn't put a dent in this number. I suppose if you asked all poor people to give the government everything they have, that would cover the number but then what do you do next year?
@no1marauder saidI think Mott is allergic to facts.
Could you explain how that statement could possibly be true?
The money was owed to Iran since before the revolution of 1979 as Iran had paid for military equipment that was never delivered. The case was about to reach a verdict in an international tribunal which was likely to give Iran a greater amount, so the Obama administration settled.
"Public records and repor ...[text shortened]... n administration on its first day in office said agreement including the release of the US hostages.
@wildgrass saidYeah, I read that. So anyway, if I have a neighbor who needs money, do you think that I should be required to give it to him?
You keep making the transfer of wealth analogy but that has nothing to do with the current questions. Trump already spent the money. The bill needs to be paid.
If you have the poor people pay it, well, they don't have any money and even if they did and you asked them to pay more, it wouldn't come close to covering the $2 trillion deficit. The government could double inco ...[text shortened]... the government everything they have, that would cover the number but then what do you do next year?
It is a good question, because it is an analogy to what you all want on the national scale. So if you think that the billionaires in New York should pay for the people that don’t have any money, then what do you think about the Neighbor, who doesn’t have any money… Should you pay for his needs if you have money?
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidThat makes the most sense to me, and that's always been the way until recently when we just decided to heave the burden of taxation onto our grandkids. The people who have money should pay. If a person does not have wealth, he does not need his stuff protected by the government. If a person does have wealth, he should pay into a system of defending his/her assets. Somehow we ended up with a system where the people with the most assets pay the least taxes and the people who work the most pay the most.
Yeah, I read that. So anyway, if I have a neighbor who needs money, do you think that I should be required to give it to him?
It is a good question, because it is an analogy to what you all want on the national scale. So if you think that the billionaires in New York should pay for the people that don’t have any money, then what do you think about the Neighbor, who doesn’t have any money… Should you pay for his needs if you have money?