namelesstavern.net

I really enjoyed tonights debate - aside from Wolf's ribbing, there was no focus on mutual attack, but acceptance that overall they are trying to accomplish the same goals.

And ah Obama, that man cracks me up with some of his quips, what a witty fellow~

Accomplish the same goals of spending way more money than we are currently, when our economy is in the shitter? Woot.

while I'm a Paul supporter, I don't think that either of these two will put our economy in the shitter, regardless of how fiscally 'liberal' they are - yes, they want to spend more money, but it's not what you spend, it's where you spend it and where the money will come from. They said very clearly how they intend funding their spending, and it includes fixing the tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthy that they didn't need. They're absolutely right that the way it's been run is completely backwards.

Not to mention how much money will be saved by getting the fuck out of Iraq. Look at Clinton's presidency - he supported many of the same views being represented now, and his presidency was fantastic for us economically.

It's not these ideas that were represented last night that got us into this mess - it's the 'a printer prints more money!!!' attitude of the Bush administration that has completely obliterated the value of our dollar and sent every newly printed dollar every place that it should've never gone.

Our economy is in the shitter, you're totally right there - but that's not from smart spending and allocating money where it's needed; it's simply from putting money in the wrong hands. Some parts of the government need money, it's as simple as that.

On that same note.. my dad actually wanted to debate politics yesterday and cracked me up, I wanted to die - he said, and argued until his face looked like a cherry about to burst, that the economy is the best it's been in 20 years under Bush. You have to be living under a rock lodged inside Bush's anus to believe that, holy crap. The best part was that he was actually saying this stuff as we're driving on a street with 5 houses that have been up for sale for over a year.

Gypsiyee wrote:while I'm a Paul supporter, I don't think that either of these two will put our economy in the shitter, regardless of how fiscally 'liberal' they are - yes, they want to spend more money, but it's not what you spend, it's where you spend it and where the money will come from. They said very clearly how they intend funding their spending, and it includes fixing the tax cuts that Bush gave to the wealthy that they didn't need. They're absolutely right that the way it's been run is completely backwards.

It sounds like you are buying into the DNC soundbites. I suggest you research the facts yourself. Essentially, most small businesses are considered 'the wealthy', so when you discuss repealing taxes that often comes from them. The other issue is capital gains, but again it doesn't sound like you've done any research, you're merely buying into the hyperbole. Very typical of young people who don't get the big picture but buy into the rhetoric of the side they prefer.

Not to mention how much money will be saved by getting the fuck out of Iraq. Look at Clinton's presidency - he supported many of the same views being represented now, and his presidency was fantastic for us economically.

I'd take a moment to consider why. Also, I'd take a moment to consider why when Clinton left office we were in a recession? Perhaps the executive branch doesn't have as large an effect on the economy, as say a tech bubble burst or a housing one?

It's not these ideas that were represented last night that got us into this mess - it's the 'a printer prints more money!!!' attitude of the Bush administration that has completely obliterated the value of our dollar and sent every newly printed dollar every place that it should've never gone.

Ah, Bush Derangement Syndrome. No facts, just blame it on Bush! I would be slow to complain about your Dad being bad when your arguments are of this nature.

Our economy is in the shitter, you're totally right there - but that's not from smart spending and allocating money where it's needed; it's simply from putting money in the wrong hands. Some parts of the government need money, it's as simple as that.

Again, no facts, and you ignore the strong growth of the last 5 years as well as the low unemployment. The problem with the market revolves around subprime mortgages, primarily, which has nothing to do with the government, except for those wishing the government to bail out people taking piss poor loans.

On that same note.. my dad actually wanted to debate politics yesterday and cracked me up, I wanted to die - he said, and argued until his face looked like a cherry about to burst, that the economy is the best it's been in 20 years under Bush. You have to be living under a rock lodged inside Bush's anus to believe that, holy crap. The best part was that he was actually saying this stuff as we're driving on a street with 5 houses that have been up for sale for over a year.

Our economy has seen the longest uninterrupted period of job growth on record – 52 months of job growth That's a simple fact.

It sounds like you don't care for facts, but prefer to believe what you want, regardless of economic growth lately and of the simple economic facts. It's easy to take populist positions because there will always be winners and losers in free market societies. The shame are those who wish to change things into a nanny state, even if they don't see it, and don't really wish to discuss facts.

In regards to last nights debate, it was boring and uneventful. There were no differences between the candidates and really they both presented the same programs and the only deviance from the love was on drivers licenses for illegal aliens.

It'd be nice if we had candidates who differed on at least one issue.

Lyion wrote:
It sounds like you are buying into the DNC soundbites. I suggest you research the facts yourself. Essentially, most small businesses are considered 'the wealthy', so when you discuss repealing taxes that often comes from them. The other issue is capital gains, but again it doesn't sound like you've done any research, you're merely buying into the hyperbole. Very typical of young people who don't get the big picture but buy into the rhetoric of the side they prefer.

First let me preface with saying that you seem to be fueling an argument with me about being too liberal and buying into democratic propaganda when I'm a Paul supporter, who is not a democrat. Secondly, please state facts if your argument is that I haven't done my research and am some sheep just buying into the media and throwing me into some stereotype which you so often do, behaving like some old geezer with some "Damn kids" logic without ever opening your ears to what anyone said. Your representation here is that small businesses are the majority of who would take a hit with reversing the tax cuts, and that's not true. As for the small businesses who do take a hit, well that's unfortunate depending on the revenue they're producing, but that's a price you pay and a risk you take by opening your own business.

I'd take a moment to consider why. Also, I'd take a moment to consider why when Clinton left office we were in a recession? Perhaps the executive branch doesn't have as large an effect on the economy, as say a tech bubble burst or a housing one?

Fair point that the bubble bursts will hurt the economy far worse, but to say that the economy has not worsened as a result of the wasteful spending that has not benefited this country at all would be turning a blind eye

Ah, Bush Derangement Syndrome. No facts, just blame it on Bush! I would be slow to complain about your Dad being bad when your arguments are of this nature.

Here's a fact: Canada surpassed our dollar. Here's a fact: we are 9 trillion dollars in debt. I hardly see how this is 'the best the economy has been in 20 years.' If we're talking facts, go ahead and debate those two, and then tell me that our economy is great and not to question my Bush-ass-kissing father who only ever watches Fox News and still believes that Obama was sworn in by the Quran and is a practicing muslim supporting terrorism.

Again, no facts, and you ignore the strong growth of the last 5 years as well as the low unemployment. The problem with the market revolves around subprime mortgages, primarily, which has nothing to do with the government, except for those wishing the government to bail out people taking piss poor loans.

See above.

Our economy has seen the longest uninterrupted period of job growth on record – 52 months of job growth That's a simple fact.

It sounds like you don't care for facts, but prefer to believe what you want, regardless of economic growth lately and of the simple economic facts. It's easy to take populist positions because there will always be winners and losers in free market societies. The shame are those who wish to change things into a nanny state, even if they don't see it, and don't really wish to discuss facts.

I welcome you to go to the department of labor website and see the spike of unemployment in his first few years - 52 months of slow job growth supporting a rapidly growing population in sub-par repair of the drastic decline. Go ahead and compare 92-00 to 00-08, and then tell me what a great situation we're in in comparison.

It's easy to bury yourself up a politicians butt because he's a representative of your party and you feel that since you're middle aged now you're superior and all-knowing - it's a lot harder to look at two different data sets and and realize that you're rewarding and praising mediocrity.

There's a very good reason he's got such terrible approval ratings, Lyion. There's a very good reason so many find it easy to dislike him. There's a very good reason there are so many 'Bush Haters' out there. It's not some conspiracy, he's simply not good enough.

When we went grocery shopping last night we heard a radio interview with some dumb lady reporter. She was trying to get the 'man on the streets' perspective on how the gas prices were affecting the economy. So she chose Best Buy for some reason.

She gets some guy on there bemoaning how the gas prices were ruining everything and how soon no one will be able afford anything anymore. At the end of the interview she asks him what he's there to buy. It was a widescreen plasma.

Martrae wrote:When we went grocery shopping last night we heard a radio interview with some dumb lady reporter. She was trying to get the 'man on the streets' perspective on how the gas prices were affecting the economy. So she chose Best Buy for some reason.

She gets some guy on there bemoaning how the gas prices were ruining everything and how soon no one will be able afford anything anymore. At the end of the interview she asks him what he's there to buy. It was a widescreen plasma.

Well that's just not the brightest crayon in the crayola box..

Not the brighest reporter either it seems! The logical destination is a far cry from a Best Buy for that question.. I mean unless of course it was her goal all along to make people there make themselves out to be morons whining about stuff while they're spending money like it's water.. and in that case, bravo on her sneaky media trickery?!

Gypsiyee wrote:First let me preface with saying that you seem to be fueling an argument with me about being too liberal and buying into democratic propaganda when I'm a Paul supporter, who is not a democrat. Secondly, please state facts if your argument is that I haven't done my research and am some sheep just buying into the media and throwing me into some stereotype which you so often do, behaving like some old geezer with some "Damn kids" logic without ever opening your ears to what anyone said. Your representation here is that small businesses are the majority of who would take a hit with reversing the tax cuts, and that's not true. As for the small businesses who do take a hit, well that's unfortunate depending on the revenue they're producing, but that's a price you pay and a risk you take by opening your own business.

I don't know your political stand, but your previous points came from the DNC talking meme's. You simply throw a bunch of buzzwords that have been repeated Ad Nauseum. That isn't debate, that's a bad commercial.

It IS true that small business would be a major player hurt in reversing the tax cuts. It's not just reversing the tax cuts, it's new taxes that will definitely be implemented to pay for the chunk of new entitlements that are forthcoming, in addition to the increasing burden on that system by the large influx of baby boomers who are starting to retire right now.

Gypsiyee wrote:Fair point that the bubble bursts will hurt the economy far worse, but to say that the economy has not worsened as a result of the wasteful spending that has not benefited this country at all would be turning a blind eye

What do you deem to be wasteful spending? Outside of military, what programs would you cut back? Supporting Paul is all well and good, but since he will not be the nominee, I'll wager you'll pull the lever for a (D) candidate if you pull it at all. Both of them are going to raise spending and increase taxes, which will offset any gains.

Here's a fact: Canada surpassed our dollar. Here's a fact: we are 9 trillion dollars in debt. I hardly see how this is 'the best the economy has been in 20 years.' If we're talking facts, go ahead and debate those two, and then tell me that our economy is great and not to question my Bush-ass-kissing father who only ever watches Fox News and still believes that Obama was sworn in by the Quran and is a practicing muslim supporting terrorism.

First, Canada's valuation for the dollar has no heavy bearing on the economy. Second, the debt does not effect the economy. The economy has been growing and doing well, but you seem to correlate it to the National Debt, which while bad, is not directly inline.

The economy is based on jobs, taxes, revenues, and GDP growth. Revenues have been going up and the economy has been growing the last 5 years. Granted, we may be near a recession, but that again is moreso based on subprime lending and the Real Estate bubble.

Also, to combat the recession, the Democrats and the President are using a 150+ billion stimulus package.. which will also raise the debt we owe. Do you support that?

Plus, you use the talking points of a party that wants to vastly raise spending, which will not allow for any debt reduction. Saying one can pay for it is one thing. These things always cost more.

I welcome you to go to the department of labor website and see the spike of unemployment in his first few years - 52 months of slow job growth supporting a rapidly growing population in sub-par repair of the drastic decline. Go ahead and compare 92-00 to 00-08, and then tell me what a great situation we're in in comparison.

In relation to the 9/11 attacks, the job loss then is understandable. Also, he inherited the tech bubble boom recession from the Clinton years. Neither of those things can be attributed to Mr. Bush, although I'm sure some will.

Each Presidency is not an apples to apples comparison, and a lot must be taken into account for the legislative branch and their role. President Clinton was fortunate not to have to deal with the amount of crisis' that President Bush had to. He also behaved fiscally well and was a good president for the economy.

It's easy to bury yourself up a politicians butt because he's a representative of your party and you feel that since you're middle aged now you're superior and all-knowing - it's a lot harder to look at two different data sets and and realize that you're rewarding and praising mediocrity.

Nice. I do not make polemic hyperbolic statements. I think that is moreso a sign of maturity.

There's a very good reason he's got such terrible approval ratings, Lyion. There's a very good reason so many find it easy to dislike him. There's a very good reason there are so many 'Bush Haters' out there. It's not some conspiracy, he's simply not good enough

No president will ever be good enough. However, it'd be nice if people discussed facts and not solely talking points from groups or tangent issues without any bearing.

Gypsiyee wrote:

Martrae wrote:When we went grocery shopping last night we heard a radio interview with some dumb lady reporter. She was trying to get the 'man on the streets' perspective on how the gas prices were affecting the economy. So she chose Best Buy for some reason.

She gets some guy on there bemoaning how the gas prices were ruining everything and how soon no one will be able afford anything anymore. At the end of the interview she asks him what he's there to buy. It was a widescreen plasma.

Well that's just not the brightest crayon in the crayola box..

Not the brighest reporter either it seems! The logical destination is a far cry from a Best Buy for that question.. I mean unless of course it was her goal all along to make people there make themselves out to be morons whining about stuff while they're spending money like it's water.. and in that case, bravo on her sneaky media trickery?!

Which really was sort of my point. In a bad economy people hunker down and don't buy anything or they buy small.

Lyion are you SERIOUSLY still defending the Bush administration?

Un fucking real.

Actually, my point was moreso the Presidency has very little to do with the economy. Market factors have more to do with it, or catastrophic events.

It had nothing to do with Mr Bush.

Martrae wrote:

It's funny after listening to about 6 years of Lyion guzzling and regurgitating propaganda on a weekly basis.

Not every country can have the perfect leader. I envy you, and your nations choice!

I'll ignore most of the post as it's just going to be back and forth opinion spewing, which won't get us anywhere. For the points that I'll go ahead and address because they're certainly valid:

Lyion wrote:I don't know your political stand, but your previous points came from the DNC talking meme's. You simply throw a bunch of buzzwords that have been repeated Ad Nauseum. That isn't debate, that's a bad commercial.

My previous points were referencing that due to this topic being about last nights democratic debate.. I thought that was obvious

It IS true that small business would be a major player hurt in reversing the tax cuts. It's not just reversing the tax cuts, it's new taxes that will definitely be implemented to pay for the chunk of new entitlements that are forthcoming, in addition to the increasing burden on that system by the large influx of baby boomers who are starting to retire right now.

Never said it wasn't true, simply said that they're not the majority and that it's a price to pay for going into business for yourself - it's unfortunate that they're in the same class, but it's the nature of the beast.

Gypsiyee wrote:What do you deem to be wasteful spending? Outside of military, what programs would you cut back? Supporting Paul is all well and good, but since he will not be the nominee, I'll wager you'll pull the lever for a (D) candidate if you pull it at all. Both of them are going to raise spending and increase taxes, which will offset any gains.

Correct on both counts - overall, I'm an avid Paul supporter when it comes to economy and federal cutbacks. Military is my main concern, for sure, and aside from that, you're absolutely right - the democratic party does plan to increase spending, and my vote will go with them if Paul does not get the miracle we're hoping for. Frankly the rest of the GOP options disgust me. My hope is that proper allocation of the funding will start to take place, and Americans will be able to benefit from the changes through the correct delegation of funding. They want to increase spending on healthcare, and personally I much prefer Obama's plan. While yes, this would be an increase in spending, it's something that we all can benefit from, which is something that we can't say about the current spending on the war. Apples to oranges indeed, but it's just a matter of where the money is being cycled.

First, Canada's valuation for the dollar has no heavy bearing on the economy. Second, the debt does not effect the economy. The economy has been growing and doing well, but you seem to correlate it to the National Debt, which while bad, is not directly inline.

The economy is based on jobs, taxes, revenues, and GDP growth. Revenues have been going up and the economy has been growing the last 5 years. Granted, we may be near a recession, but that again is moreso based on subprime lending and the Real Estate bubble.

I never said Canada's valuation had any bearing on the economy; I mentioned it because it gives a nod to what I'm saying about the economy and how it's not doing as hot as seems to be the idea here. The fact that Canada's dollar surpassed ours certainly makes me question what we're doing wrong when we're meant to be a financial superpower (I'm using the wrong words there- unable to grasp how exactly I'm trying to put this, but I'm sure you can get my drift)

Not directly in line, no - but at the end of the day in the big picture, it is aligned. One cannot prosper dramatically while the other suffers horribly.. if you disagree, I'm more than happy to listen if you'll provide an example of any other situation where the government is broke with its people dancing in the street in great shape or vice versa.

Also, to combat the recession, the Democrats and the President are using a 150+ billion stimulus package.. which will also raise the debt we owe. Do you support that?

While I'm not going to refuse to cash my check in protest, no - I don't support it, actually. I don't think we should be rewarded for being in debt, which is essentially what it is.

In relation to the 9/11 attacks, the job loss then is understandable. Also, he inherited the tech bubble boom recession from the Clinton years. Neither of those things can be attributed to Mr. Bush, although I'm sure some will.

Each Presidency is not an apples to apples comparison, and a lot must be taken into account for the legislative branch and their role. President Clinton was fortunate not to have to deal with the amount of crisis' that President Bush had to. He also behaved fiscally well and was a good president for the economy.

9/11 certainly had an effect on jobs then, but it can't be used as a complete all encompassing excuse, either. Even if you don't count the first two years, he still doesn't represent the economic benefit that Clinton did. I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but for me there's no denying the economy's prosperity in his era.

Nice. I do not make polemic hyperbolic statements. I think that is moreso a sign of maturity.

My statement was in reply to your implication that I haven't done my homework and I'm just spouting off at the mouth in addition to your constant pawning off opinions of anyone below the age of 30. It's a bit ridiculous to consistently discredit those who don't share your beliefs and aren't in your age bracket. For you to say that you don't make hyperbolic-polemic statements is kind of amusing, because they're kind of your entire platform in a lot of these types of discussions.

No president will ever be good enough. However, it'd be nice if people discussed facts and not solely talking points from groups or tangent issues without any bearing.

What facts do you want, exactly? You keep saying this but you haven't provided a single fact aside from 52 months of economic growth. My initial post was not one to debate anything that can be found on paper, my initial post was complete opinion which you apparently took offense to and joined the conversation - good on you, happy to discuss my position with you. But why do you keep on bringing up people who talk without facts when you've cited none yourself and there's absolutely no implication in my post that I have nothing to go on but a bunch of media inspired Bush hatred?

I've posted my stance and why I feel the way I do, I've invited you to review statistical facts on the US Department of Labor's website and to compare evidence of both presidencies in question, I've mentioned the fact that Canada's dollar surpassed our own, I mentioned an actual dollar amount of debt. These are but a few that I find relevant to the topic at hand, but nonetheless they are facts that can be found anywhere without influence from either side and have contributed to my feeling on the subject. so please tell me why I'm still being told that people need to learn to discuss facts.

Well I totally lied, I didn't ignore most of the post at all.

Actually, Gyps, small businesses are a major driving force in our economy. If you tax them out of business the economy suffers far quicker than under 'normal' circumstances.

Martrae wrote:Actually, Gyps, small businesses are a major driving force in our economy. If you tax them out of business the economy suffers far quicker than under 'normal' circumstances.

Bullshit.

Tossica wrote:

Martrae wrote:Actually, Gyps, small businesses are a major driving force in our economy. If you tax them out of business the economy suffers far quicker than under 'normal' circumstances.

Bullshit.

Please qualify these statements.

Martrae wrote:Which really was sort of my point. In a bad economy people hunker down and don't buy anything or they buy small.

This is assuming that the citizens have a brain that doesn't work in line with "OOOH, 0% interest for this many months, that's free money!"

Unfortunately, so long as that option is available, it doesn't matter what happens to the economy. You can bet that guy wasn't paying cash for his TV. The buy now, pay later attitude isn't representative of a great economy, it's just representative of the fact that we can blow through other people's money. The credit card debt in the country is testament to that.. what is it now, 2 trillion or so?

Edit - again, Mart, I never said small businesses weren't important.. I said they weren't a *majority* and higher tax brackets for owning your own company is the nature of the beast.

Martrae wrote:Actually, Gyps, small businesses are a major driving force in our economy. If you tax them out of business the economy suffers far quicker than under 'normal' circumstances.

Small business' have so many tax shelters already for this exact reason.

Evermore wrote:

Tossica wrote:

Martrae wrote:Actually, Gyps, small businesses are a major driving force in our economy. If you tax them out of business the economy suffers far quicker than under 'normal' circumstances.

Bullshit.

Please qualify these statements.

Some quick facts:

The estimated 23.7 million small businesses in the United States:

* Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade
* Employ 50 percent of the country’s private workforce
* Represent more than 97 percent of all the exporters of goods
* Represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers
* Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United States companies
* Account for more than 40 percent of the offline economy of the United States


And Zan....those 'tax shelters' do nothing for small business. Most small businesses cannot afford to take advantage of them.

I work for an 8 person company. A strong business plan is what makes a small business succeed, not the bullshit "tax breaks" that Bush put in place.

Martrae wrote:Some quick facts:

The estimated 23.7 million small businesses in the United States:

* Have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually over the last decade
* Employ 50 percent of the country’s private workforce
* Represent more than 97 percent of all the exporters of goods
* Represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers
* Generate a majority of the innovations that come from United States companies
* Account for more than 40 percent of the offline economy of the United States


And Zan....those 'tax shelters' do nothing for small business. Most small businesses cannot afford to take advantage of them.

I guess we need to determine what a "small business" is because your numbers are bullshit.

Small business is generally less than 100 employees, at least in the US.