Originally posted by @no1marauderLet me guess, Hitler's evil twin?
Who said this regarding the 22th Amendment:
This is the only office that is elected by all the people. I think that is an infringement on the democratic rights of the people. And now that I’m out of office, so that they can’t accuse me of wanting to do it for myself, I’m going to see if I can’t mobilize the people to demand the repeal of that Amendme ...[text shortened]... ver long.
http://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=3066[/b]
You are more hysterical at times than Suzy.....and that is not easy I can assure you.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyIt won't "implode" because of the debt level. Our debt to GDP level is lower than it was in 1946.https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
So at what debt level will the Republic implode?
You fail to answer this time and again.
Two possibilities, you have no idea for which you claim to know so you can't answer it or there is no debt level that will destroy the Republic cuz the sky is the limit.
Which is it?
If it is the later, why not give us free everything?
Answer your question?
21 Jan 18
For those of us who are concerned with the insane debt, here is a question, how can either party address it without losing votes? Americans either want free stuff or lower taxes. There is no in between.
Those suggesting government cuts will be demonized as draconian, and those who refuse to lower taxes will bear the responsibility of cracking the whip to the new slaves of the massive debt.
The only way to address this is for an outside source to give them no option. The only way to address this serious issue is an amendment that forces a balanced budget of some kind, and the only way to get it done is apart from the power hungry Congress.
It would be akin to a husband cutting up his wife's credit cards who has a spending problem.
Sure, it would be ugly but there needs to be an intervention or else she will destroy herself.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderNo, at what level would the Republic implode regarding debt?
It won't "implode" because of the debt level. Our debt to GDP level is lower than it was in 1946.https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
Answer your question?
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyJesus, the balanced budget nonsense again.
For those of us who are concerned with the insane debt, here is a question, how can either party address it without losing votes? Americans either want free stuff or lower taxes. There is no in between.
Those suggesting government cuts will be demonized as draconian, and those who refuse to lower taxes will bear the responsibility of cracking the whip ...[text shortened]...
Sure, it would be ugly but there needs to be an intervention or else she will destroy herself.
If it's soooooooooooooooooooooooooo impossible to not run a budget deficit, how come the US did it in the late 1990s by raising taxes on the rich and cutting military spending?
Originally posted by @no1marauderWho cares about raising taxes on the rich? After all, we are no where near a gazillion dollars in debt yet.
Jesus, the balanced budget nonsense again.
If it's soooooooooooooooooooooooooo impossible to not run a budget deficit, how come the US did it in the late 1990s by raising taxes on the rich and cutting military spending?
You sound like you just want to punish the rich. Why is that?
In fact, why not make the corporate tax zero dollars so that every business on the planet wishes to come to the US?
Think of the jobs created and the subsequent revenue.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyWhen you're done talking gibberish (if ever), I'll return to this conversation.
Who cares about raising taxes on the rich? After all, we are no where near a gazillion dollars in debt yet.
You sound like you just want to punish the rich. Why is that?
In fact, why not make the corporate tax zero dollars so that every business on the planet wishes to come to the US?
Think of the jobs created and the subsequent revenue.
The richest 1% in many countries are "punished" by having an effective tax rate over the 23% they pay in the US. Somehow, this draconian and sadistic infliction of pain on them doesn't stop them from enjoying the benefits of the societies they enriched themselves in.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @no1marauderWhy have a tax rate at all, they are no where near a gazillion dollars in debt?
When you're done talking gibberish (if ever), I'll return to this conversation.
The richest 1% in many countries are "punished" by having an effective tax rate over the 23% they pay in the US. Somehow, this draconian and sadistic infliction of pain on them doesn't stop them from enjoying the benefits of the societies they enriched themselves in.
Low tax rates attracts business which then creates jobs.
I think you will find that once the US lowers it's tax rates other countries will feel compelled to do the same in order to compete globally.
- Joined
- 15 Oct 10
- Moves
- 98630
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyYou want a dictatorship. Suddenly, I understand you.
The only way to address this is for an outside source to give them no option. The only way to address this serious issue is an amendment that forces a balanced budget of some kind, and the only way to get it done is apart from the power hungry Congress.
It would be akin to a husband cutting up his wife's credit cards who has a spending problem.
Sure, it would be ugly but there needs to be an intervention or else she will destroy herself.[/b]
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyNot term limits, moron. Everyone knows 'term limits' is code for get the good ones out and keep rotating another corporate puppet in.
More baseless hysteria.
How will putting term limits in place empower corporations Suzy? How will it gut the Constitution?
Your 'Article 5' stupidity is what I'm talking about.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyYou sexist PoS.
For those of us who are concerned with the insane debt, here is a question, how can either party address it without losing votes? Americans either want free stuff or lower taxes. There is no in between.
Those suggesting government cuts will be demonized as draconian, and those who refuse to lower taxes will bear the responsibility of cracking the whip ...[text shortened]...
Sure, it would be ugly but there needs to be an intervention or else she will destroy herself.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyMan, you're stupid.
Why have a tax rate at all, they are no where near a gazillion dollars in debt?
Low tax rates attracts business which then creates jobs.
I think you will find that once the US lowers it's tax rates other countries will feel compelled to do the same in order to compete globally.
I assume you're not rich, even though you sound like you are by the way you tout lowering taxes. You've even swallowed the tired old Reaganomics theories which have been entirely debunked. They're deep in your head, aren't they, whodey? How are they paying you back for your loyalty? Here's a hint: They're not. In fact they're trying to screw you over (along with the rest of us) even more.
21 Jan 18
Originally posted by @whodeyBut why do you believe term limits will have such a dramatic impact? Certainly the alleged desired impact from the viewpoint of presidential elections didn't materialize.
Funny how the establishment, as well as apologists for them such as yourself, fights against something so minor.
It is equally amusing that Congress chose to limit the Presidential term to 8 years after FDR citing corruption as the reason they needed to limit those terms.
I accept none of what you said.
Why not, instead, look at the most successful democracies, copy what makes them work, and see what you can improve from there?