Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Baker Boy

National Debt tops $18 Trillion

Recommended Posts

All hail the central bank

All hail the Rothschilds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Newbie is a soothsayer?! :shocking:

Well, not really.  The reason the deficit climbs is because yearly, it gets more and more expensive to fund Democrat policies.  The only people that don't see that, are pretty foolish.  I think the term we use to identify those people, is "Democrats".

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

The problem that I have with this is that if you get a good person in office, then you're forced to remove that person after a certain period of time.  You could be forced to vote for a lesser person.

But even this thinking if flawed.

Congress's approval rating is at 25%. Both chambers are full of multi-term geezers. These clowns keep getting re-elected - why? They keep getting re-elected bcoz voters think "their" guy is good. If left up to the voting populous to determine who is and isn't good - it will never correct itself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy fix

1. cut off all safety net social programs. 

2. Every February 29th purge the poorest 1% of the population. 

Overtime you will see less and less lazy motherfockers, less homeless, and less poor people. Its a win for everyone. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

But even this thinking if flawed.

Congress's approval rating is at 25%. Both chambers are full of multi-term geezers. These clowns keep getting re-elected - why? They keep getting re-elected bcoz voters think "their" guy is good. If left up to the voting populous to determine who is and isn't good - it will never correct itself. 

That's a separate argument.  I would say that 100% of all Democrat politicians suck because, well they do.  People like Worms would say that 100% of the Republican politicians suck, because he's wrong.  In the end, that's 2 people who say that all politicians suck.  Do I like all Republican politicians?  No.  I'm not a fan at all of Mitch McConnell, but aside from him, of the other one's I've heard from, I like them.  Other than a few select Democrat politicians, who at least seem reasonable (even though I may disagree with - to which I won't say they suck), the rest are just hateful people.


That said, Republican's don't support the idea of funding social programs that have no specified end in sight with a dollar amount of total expenditure.  Democrats never look at that aspect.  Their solution as to why their social program didn't work was because not enough money was spent... and not the common sense though of... the program didn't work because it was a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bostonlager said:

Easy fix

1. cut off all safety net social programs. 

2. Every February 29th purge the poorest 1% of the population. 

Overtime you will see less and less lazy motherfockers, less homeless, and less poor people. Its a win for everyone. 

If you are not contributing to society, ie 'a one way valve's, you are exterminated. Watch how fast these lazy fockers get up and get a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

That's a separate argument.  I would say that 100% of all Democrat politicians suck because, well they do.  People like Worms would say that 100% of the Republican politicians suck, because he's wrong.  In the end, that's 2 people who say that all politicians suck.  Do I like all Republican politicians?  No.  I'm not a fan at all of Mitch McConnell, but from the one's I've heard from, I like them.


That said, Republican's don't support the idea of funding social programs that have no specified end in sight with a dollar amount of total expenditure.  Democrats never look at that aspect.  Their solution as to why their social program didn't work was because not enough money was spent... and not the common sense though of... the program didn't work because it was a bad idea.

You're making the argument of Rep v. Dem here - not one one of term limits though.

Which goes back to my point - your suggestion is subjective... i.e. All the Reps I like have unrestricted terms, those I don't - are limited to 2 terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Cruzer said:

You're making an argument of Rep v. Dem here - not one one of term limits though.

Which goes back to my point - your suggestion is subjective... i.e. All the Reps I like have unrestricted terms, those I don't - are limited to 2 terms.

Oh, I thought you were talking about the money aspect.

On the term limits issue, I'm fine across the board.  If there's a democrat out there who, while foolish, likes their representative, they should be able to have him/her as an option.  I don't think people should be forced to vote for someone they may not like.  Now, I would be ok with forced opponents for primaries.  Meaning, that after you've served for "x" number of years, you must run opposed in your primary and there must be at least 1 televised debate.  Now of course, those debates don't need to be national as only the people in their district can vote for them, but they need to be available to their constituents.  At least if you hear someone else's thoughts and ideas, then you may find a representative you like better.  It's better than being force fed a candidate you may not like.  As an example, I like Ben Carson.  If I lived in his district, I want the option to keep him as my representative.  I don't want to forced to have to move on from him... but, if someone else were to go toe-to-toe with him, then I'd at least have the opportunity to see if I like that someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Oh, I thought you were talking about the money aspect.

On the term limits issue, I'm fine across the board.  If there's a democrat out there who, while foolish, likes their representative, they should be able to have him/her as an option.  I don't think people should be forced to vote for someone they may not like.  Now, I would be ok with forced opponents for primaries.  Meaning, that after you've served for "x" number of years, you must run opposed in your primary and there must be at least 1 televised debate.  Now of course, those debates don't need to be national as only the people in their district can vote for them, but they need to be available to their constituents.  At least if you hear someone else's thoughts and ideas, then you may find a representative you like better.  It's better than being force fed a candidate you may not like.  As an example, I like Ben Carson.  If I lived in his district, I want the option to keep him as my representative.  I don't want to forced to have to move on from him... but, if someone else were to go toe-to-toe with him, then I'd at least have the opportunity to see if I like that someone else.

Some good points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Well, not really.  The reason the deficit climbs is because yearly, it gets more and more expensive to fund Democrat policies.  The only people that don't see that, are pretty foolish.  I think the term we use to identify those people, is "Democrats".

Not the unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the ultra-rich? Interesting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Not the unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the ultra-rich? Interesting 

Wars aren't as expensive any more, as they're more technologically driven.  Also, the tax cuts for the ultra-rich, while massive over exaggerated, has been proven to improve the market, job growth, and wages (except when Democrats are in charge - interesting... no?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Wars aren't as expensive any more, as they're more technologically driven.  Also, the tax cuts for the ultra-rich, while massive over exaggerated, has been proven to improve the market, job growth, and wages (except when Democrats are in charge - interesting... no?).

Lol all around 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Well, not really.  The reason the deficit climbs is because yearly, it gets more and more expensive to fund Democrat policies.  The only people that don't see that, are pretty foolish.  I think the term we use to identify those people, is "Democrats".

Unfortunately, you can't cut spending on those focking social programs. It'll never happen. Stop increasing and adding can be done however.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, shorepatrol said:

Unfortunately, you can't cut spending on those focking social programs. It'll never happen. Stop increasing and adding can be done however.  

Agreed.  Just stating what the real cause of the problem is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Agreed.  Just stating what the real cause of the problem is.

You're right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Logan's Run. Only not with age, but rather a desire to be a productive part of a capitalistic and therefore a productive part of society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/14/2019 at 8:58 AM, NorthernVike said:

True.

 

 

BTW how you doing fuckstick?

Living the dream every day broham.  You?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×