Scratch

Satire wrote:

Well obviously the budget will stay balanced in that case (1000th post on this thread)

Yeah, increasing spending and decreasing taxes will balance the budget...

Unless Romney plans to rob a bank or something, his plan makes the budget a lot less balanced than it does today. Not exactly a great plan. So, stop blindly believing everything Romney tells you.

Claude_Monet wrote:

Why is being rich bad all of a sudden, if you are successful, you should be praised for being successful, correct?

I never said it's bad. I'm saying that giving tax cuts to the rich is bad. If anything, they could use a tax increase.

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

Why is being rich bad all of a sudden, if you are successful, you should be praised for being successful, correct?

I never said it's bad. I'm saying that giving tax cuts to the rich is bad. If anything, they could use a tax increase.

From what I've heard, it would be a capital gains tax deduction on moderately rich people, meaning people can invest more in companies, making the economy slightly better, meaning people can jobs that pay more which further enriches the economy.

Also, blaming people who will supposedly spend money while supporting heavily someone who has raised the national debt to 2 trillion(I think) is a litte in unwise.

jvvg wrote:

Satire wrote:

Well obviously the budget will stay balanced in that case (1000th post on this thread)

Yeah, increasing spending and decreasing taxes will balance the budget...

Unless Romney plans to rob a bank or something, his plan makes the budget a lot less balanced than it does today. Not exactly a great plan. So, stop blindly believing everything Romney tells you.

sar·casm/ˈsärˌkazəm/
Noun:   
The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

also his username is Satire, so.

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

Why is being rich bad all of a sudden, if you are successful, you should be praised for being successful, correct?

I never said it's bad. I'm saying that giving tax cuts to the rich is bad. If anything, they could use a tax increase.

From what I've heard, it would be a capital gains tax deduction on moderately rich people, meaning people can invest more in companies, making the economy slightly better, meaning people can jobs that pay more which further enriches the economy.

Also, blaming people who will supposedly spend money while supporting heavily someone who has raised the national debt to 2 trillion(I think) is a litte in unwise.

Claude_Monet wrote:

My mistake, it was 16 trillion.

16 trillion is the total debt, not what Obama added to it.
Also, the main components to what's been adding on to the debt in the past 4 years are the 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq is now over. I seem to recall a certain George Bush started those wars, and he was (gasp), a REPUBLICAN! So, don't blame Obama for what Bush did. He is trying to end the wars, and he has ended one of them already.

Another thing... look at this:

See how that bar got smaller each year? Yeah, that means that the annual deficit has gone down significantly under Obama. Despite what you may be thinking, that actually does mean that the deficit is going down!
The reason it hasn't gone down further is because of Bush's war in Afghanistan which is coming to a stop, and because of Republicans in Congress refusing to do anything.

Last edited by jvvg (2012-10-21 00:13:57)

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

From what I've heard, it would be a capital gains tax deduction on moderately rich people, meaning people can invest more in companies, making the economy slightly better, meaning people can jobs that pay more which further enriches the economy.

Also, blaming people who will supposedly spend money while supporting heavily someone who has raised the national debt to 2 trillion(I think) is a litte in unwise.

Claude_Monet wrote:

My mistake, it was 16 trillion.

16 trillion is the total debt, not what Obama added to it.
Also, the main components to what's been adding on to the debt in the past 4 years are the 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq is now over. I seem to recall a certain George Bush started those wars, and he was (gasp), a REPUBLICAN! So, don't blame Obama for what Bush did. He is trying to end the wars, and he has ended one of them already.

Please, calm down. I said 'raised the current national debt to 16 trillion', not 'caused 16 trillion dollars of debt'

Also, saying 'oh, Obama's exempt because he only caused 5.6 trillion dollars of debt' is completely ignorant.

Speaking of ignorance, if you have a second, please try reading my post. I said that a lot of the debt was a result of Bush's wars. Last time I checked, Obama didn't start those.

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

I never said it's bad. I'm saying that giving tax cuts to the rich is bad. If anything, they could use a tax increase.

From what I've heard, it would be a capital gains tax deduction on moderately rich people, meaning people can invest more in companies, making the economy slightly better, meaning people can jobs that pay more which further enriches the economy.

Also, blaming people who will supposedly spend money while supporting heavily someone who has raised the national debt to 2 trillion(I think) is a litte in unwise.

Claude_Monet wrote:

My mistake, it was 16 trillion.

16 trillion is the total debt, not what Obama added to it.
Also, the main components to what's been adding on to the debt in the past 4 years are the 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq is now over. I seem to recall a certain George Bush started those wars, and he was (gasp), a REPUBLICAN! So, don't blame Obama for what Bush did. He is trying to end the wars, and he has ended one of them already.

Another thing... look at this:
See how that bar got smaller each year? Yeah, that means that the annual deficit has gone down significantly under Obama. Despite what you may be thinking, that actually does mean that the deficit is going down!
The reason it hasn't gone down further is because of Bush's war in Afghanistan which is coming to a stop, and because of Republicans in Congress refusing to do anything.

Right, blame it all on bush, because economics is all two dimension.

Or, maybe because it slope wasn't steeper is because of Obama's spending and not because of a military base occasionally under attack that needs funding. I'm pretty sure the only disagreement is if we should ask China for more money.

soupoftomato wrote:

Animeboy975 wrote:

Barack Obama likes Spongebob 

I hope to pie he wins.

Dude
I'm not saying Obama shouldn't win but
Hitler liked to paint
I like looking at art

if hitler was accepted in an art school he wouldn't have started ww2!!!

Claude_Monet wrote:

jvvg wrote:

Claude_Monet wrote:

From what I've heard, it would be a capital gains tax deduction on moderately rich people, meaning people can invest more in companies, making the economy slightly better, meaning people can jobs that pay more which further enriches the economy.

Also, blaming people who will supposedly spend money while supporting heavily someone who has raised the national debt to 2 trillion(I think) is a litte in unwise.

Claude_Monet wrote:

My mistake, it was 16 trillion.

16 trillion is the total debt, not what Obama added to it.
Also, the main components to what's been adding on to the debt in the past 4 years are the 2 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq is now over. I seem to recall a certain George Bush started those wars, and he was (gasp), a REPUBLICAN! So, don't blame Obama for what Bush did. He is trying to end the wars, and he has ended one of them already.

Another thing... look at this:
See how that bar got smaller each year? Yeah, that means that the annual deficit has gone down significantly under Obama. Despite what you may be thinking, that actually does mean that the deficit is going down!
The reason it hasn't gone down further is because of Bush's war in Afghanistan which is coming to a stop, and because of Republicans in Congress refusing to do anything.

Right, blame it all on bush, because economics is all two dimension.

Or, maybe because it slope wasn't steeper is because of Obama's spending and not because of a military base occasionally under attack that needs funding. I'm pretty sure the only disagreement is if we should ask China for more money.

O yes?  Explain this, this, and this.  Bush 1 brought the debt up, Clinton brought it down, and Bush II brought it up higher than ever.  Problem with logic?   

Last edited by Firedrake969 (2012-10-21 09:54:53)

yousmiledatme wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Animeboy975 wrote:

Barack Obama likes Spongebob 

I hope to pie he wins.

Dude
I'm not saying Obama shouldn't win but
Hitler liked to paint
I like looking at art

if hitler was accepted in an art school he wouldn't have started ww2!!!

1. If he were accepted in art school (subjunctive!)
2. Possibly, but I guess his art wasn't good enough. Anyway, it's perfectly possible that someone else could have started the war if Hitler didn't rule Germany.

jvvg wrote:

yousmiledatme wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

Dude
I'm not saying Obama shouldn't win but
Hitler liked to paint
I like looking at art

if hitler was accepted in an art school he wouldn't have started ww2!!!

1. If he were accepted in art school (subjunctive!)
2. Possibly, but I guess his art wasn't good enough. Anyway, it's perfectly possible that someone else could have started the war if Hitler didn't rule Germany.

1 im sorry ;(
2 of course. it was the climate that started the war, not the subject. europe was very tense after ww2. if hitler hadn't started it, someone else would've. who it would've been is anyone's guess. history is created by people, not a person. just like you couldn't say that a major company was definitely created by one person-a team created a business plan, a team created a logo and catchphrase, one or more people founded it...

soupoftomato wrote:

Animeboy975 wrote:

Barack Obama likes Spongebob 

I hope to pie he wins.

Dude
I'm not saying Obama shouldn't win but
Hitler liked to paint
I like looking at art

Hitler sucked. All his pieces, though I guess they're okay in terms of technique, are SO BORING. Seriously, it's like the kind of stuff your grandmother would have in ugly gold-colored frames. The composition is as bland as possible and the colors are washed out and also boring. In some cases the composition is just plain bad. There's a reason he didn't get into art school twice.