[quote]Dear Hu,
We already have your money and we are going to keep it, so you don’t have to lend us shit anymore. We will happily have our shitty plastic toys made in your other shitty little asian satellites. Then when we establish diplomatic relations with them we will borrow trillions from them and then tell them to fuck themselves.
We will try to ensure that you are heavily invested in those countries as well, so that we can fuck you twice.
As far as our purity, a sewer is pure to you, so compared to you we are pure as the fresh driven snow.
Then we are going to stand in front of the UN and tell them to fuck themselves.
We like the Japanese way better anyway. They make quality cars and have sushi. Their chicks are hotter too. You eat rat and make complete crap.
I am thankful we can have this meaningful dialog.
Regards,
King Obama (mother fucker!)[/quote]
Your most venerable majesty King Obama of America,
I humbly agree with everything you so eloquently said, especially your fair assessment of japanese women.
That’s why i hope you won’t mind if we have already bought all of them while you were busy borrowing money from our sattelite and buying indian ipads.
I’m sure you will understand that, just like you, i have graying middle and upper classes to satisfy.
By, the way, I heard Europe planned to export its ugly infertile feminists, and i promise we will let you seize this great opportunity without interfering.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then that must be you too as you said he was not handling the debt properly. Welcome to the right wing. You’ll find over here that we take responsibility for what we do and we don’t blame others. Obam raised the debt more than Washington (as in George) to Reagan. Live with it.[/quote]
Responsibility for what you do? The last guy who was in charge of your side drastically cut taxes while drastically increasing spending. That sounds responsible. Party of responsibility alert guys. Tax cuts, stimulus checks, TARP, two wars. This sounds like a guy who knows how to have a hell of a party. But you have your right wing talking points. Look what Obama did. Look what he did. We ARE responsible. Seriously, are you just trolling everyone cause if so brilliant.
And what he posted below: Doesn’t bode well for your talking points. I’m sure you have plenty of others waiting in tow. Party apologists and cheerleaders always do. All they do is get filled with the confirmation bias of the sides they lap up like candy.
I don’t need to “defend” Obama, but it’s necessary when you have someone as hypocritical as your average right winger. The guys who said America fuck yeah as we rolled into other nations, cut taxes, sent stimulus checks, passed Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc. You threw a hell of a party. Then another guy came and in partied as well. Now you want to blame him for all the mess and wonder how he’s going to clean it up, after all HE’s in charge, NOT YOU. You had nothing to do with it. Hands wiped clean! Not our team boys, not our mess.
Look I get it. Your mad. The Democrats tried to hand you guys this election on a platter and you managed to fuck it up. You’re really pissed and you need to start threads and point fingers and try to spike your little right wing political football. You gotta try and blame someone so bad and YOU CAN’T look at your teams faults so let’s talk about them.
The left is fun to call out on other websites, but it’s been a while since I found some true right wing koolaid drinkers to point and laugh at. And everyone in this thread sees it man. You should stop while you’re behind. Way behind.
The fact of the matter is that neither party has done jack to keep this country strong.
But guess what? It isn’t their fault - it is the fault of a populace that doesn’t care enough to impose term limits by voting the politicians out.
[/quote]
Shh. You have to be for one team or the other. Don’t you know how to play the game they all want you to play?
Our debt issue is similar to weight loss (since this is a fitness site) in that you can’t out exercise a voracious appetite.
The willingness to offshore manufacturing, the desire to police the world including overseeing the oil lanes which we don’t even get our oil from, lack of reforming entitlements to change with a population that lives 30 years longer than when they were begun, a non exercise of immigration laws , whew! the list can on and on.
But the only real answer is nothing short of cutting governmental spending across the board.
And I mean like 10% the first year and increasing from there - until we really fix it.
Short of this - our increased entitlements are increasing by 10,000 retirees/day and the beauty of compounding interest on debt. We will literally have to fight wars when the debt owners come to collect.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Then that must be you too as you said he was not handling the debt properly. Welcome to the right wing. You’ll find over here that we take responsibility for what we do and we don’t blame others. Obam raised the debt more than Washington (as in George) to Reagan. Live with it.[/quote]
Responsibility for what you do? The last guy who was in charge of your side drastically cut taxes while drastically increasing spending. That sounds responsible. Party of responsibility alert guys. Tax cuts, stimulus checks, TARP, two wars. This sounds like a guy who knows how to have a hell of a party. But you have your right wing talking points. Look what Obama did. Look what he did. We ARE responsible. Seriously, are you just trolling everyone cause if so brilliant.
And what he posted below: Doesn’t bode well for your talking points. I’m sure you have plenty of others waiting in tow. Party apologists and cheerleaders always do. All they do is get filled with the confirmation bias of the sides they lap up like candy.
I don’t need to “defend” Obama, but it’s necessary when you have someone as hypocritical as your average right winger. The guys who said America fuck yeah as we rolled into other nations, cut taxes, sent stimulus checks, passed Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc. You threw a hell of a party. Then another guy came and in partied as well. Now you want to blame him for all the mess and wonder how he’s going to clean it up, after all HE’s in charge, NOT YOU. You had nothing to do with it. Hands wiped clean! Not our team boys, not our mess.
Look I get it. Your mad. The Democrats tried to hand you guys this election on a platter and you managed to fuck it up. You’re really pissed and you need to start threads and point fingers and try to spike your little right wing political football. You gotta try and blame someone so bad and YOU CAN’T look at your teams faults so let’s talk about them.
The left is fun to call out on other websites, but it’s been a while since I found some true right wing koolaid drinkers to point and laugh at. And everyone in this thread sees it man. You should stop while you’re behind. Way behind. [/quote]
You forgot to mention that raising taxes is absolute suicide when you are in a recession.
The debt is increasing at a rapid rate because the revenues are not matching the expenditures. Obama has increased the actual expenditures very little (which is a fact republicans love to ignore), but has lowered the actual revenues that make up the budget in an effort to keep the money flowing and break free from the recession. To treat this like it is the Democrat way is absolutely absurd.
But you’ve gotta spin a narrative for why your guy lost, and this is just as easy as any of the others.
[quote]dsbearsfan wrote:
All your points are moot. You can take every dollar out of circulation and pay off the fed and we would still owe the fed money.
Watch the first 30 minutes or so of this and you’ll understand why debt doesn’t matter and we’re hosed unless we change our monetary system.
[quote]H factor wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Then that must be you too as you said he was not handling the debt properly. Welcome to the right wing. You’ll find over here that we take responsibility for what we do and we don’t blame others. Obam raised the debt more than Washington (as in George) to Reagan. Live with it
Responsibility for what you do? The last guy who was in charge of your side drastically cut taxes while drastically increasing spending. That sounds responsible.[/quote]
Can’t cut spending with the liberals in Congress. Or didn’t you know that it is Congress that spends the money? It’s okay I understand. Reagan too cut taxes and grew the economy by 20 milion jobs (by the way that would be 20 million more than obamawitz). Reagan sent a budget to Congress and they rejected any spending cuts. Get off the computer and do some reading junior…books they’re still good you know.
GW Bush grew the economy by adding 4 million jobs. And…that is 4 million more than Obama added. I guess when you can’t defend Obama you attack WHO?..GEORGE BUSH! It never ends and it is quite comical.
All your cheap talk yet you cannot deny that Obama raised the debt more than George Washington to Ronald Reagan!
And you also might try pointing out all of Obama’s wonderful accomplishments in four years. Go ahead I’ll wait. (Crickets chirping)
That’s right we’re past that one we both know he had none…oh well let’s give him four more years maybe he’ll do something right.
But…you would if you could. If you had even a tiny bit of light in that very dark hole you would reach in and hold it up for every one to see. But…there is none. He was a complete and total failure. But I do give him credit for manipulating the many ignorant youngsters. And handing large sums of money to unions and basically holding close his voting blocks. He’s a good politician I’ll give him that. But he sucks as a President.
Don’t want to admit that one do you?
You will…you will…it takes some people longer to catch on.
Are trying to say that Obama inherited a mess?
No problem I’ll give you that one.
Now, what did he do with it?
Oh yeah…MADE IT WORSE!
LOL
But he did go on Jon Stewart and look cool. So, yeah I could see giving him another term. Are you proud of your generation? What a bunch of mindless idiots.
Not so much mad as I am sad for America. We have a President who has made 8% unemployment the new normal.
-47 million people on food stamps
-100 million dependent on government
-16 trillion in debt
-A take over of 1/6th the economy called obamacare
He’s a walking catastrophe. I wouldn’t hire him to work in my company as there is nothing that he can actually do. What was he before he was President? Two years as a Senator and he was absent for most of the important votes. What was he before that? A law professor and before that? A “community organizer” (eye roll)
My gosh the man has never had a real job no wonder he doesn’t get it.
No actually most on this thread agree with me and are laughing at you. But I guess you don’t see that, the same way you don’t see that Obama is a train wreck. What color is it in your world junior?
It’s your kind of logic that shows your entire generation for what it is. Mindless texting, facebook little bots. Eh…I don’t want to be overly harsh some are bright just not you. Go kiss your picture of obama before you go to bed tonight and don’t get any jelly on the poster they are not making them anymore.
“Oh look the President is on Jay Leno…ooooo aaahhhhh he’s so cool lets vote for him”
Gee I wonder if ole Jay will ask him about Benghazi. We never had one of our diplomats RAPED MURDERED AND DRAGGED THROUGH THE STREETS BEFORE. Ah…that doesn’t matter what’s imortant was his reelection. And he sure knew how to do that correctly. Kudo’s the socialist on that one.
The good part is you have to live with the destruction that a second Obama term will bring. I have no idea what you do for a living or even if you work, but I’ve already made my money. I can hunker down lay off some people and watch the destruction from my picture window. And I will be thinking…welp they got what they wanted I hope they like it.
Prediction 20 trillion in debt by 2016.
A smaller less important America.
Congrats bam bam you said you’d “Fundamentally Change America” and you are doing it!
You forgot to mention that raising taxes is absolute suicide when you are in a recession.[/quote]
Then why is obama threatening to do it in the midst of the single worst recovery in history. Oh wait…that’s right it was just class warfare to win an election. I agree he probably will extend the Bush tax cuts. Gee…Bush is so bad and obama so wonderful why would he want to extend FOR THE SECOND TIME the Bush tax cuts? I guess those cuts were a pretty good idea.
Psst…I think I know the answer here. It’s called obama not creating any new private sector jobs. Did you know that Bush created 4 million jobs during his term in office. Ah…doesn’t matter Obama is just inherently better. He’s oh so cool that’s all that matters.
Spin a narrative? Are you even paying attention? Never mind I know the answer to that. Romney lost because Obama is a better politician and did super cool things like go on all the late night talk shows and impressed the 18-24 crowd. He gave unions more power whenever he could (See GM deal) and scared single women…remember “the republicans war on women” Brilliant! He also called Romney a murderer and a tax cheat. We all know why Obama won.
And YOU know WHY he had to do it that way.
He had no record to run on.
And if I’m wrong you can list all the many wonderful things that Obama did in his first term.
Make this a reality and I’ll no longer push for loan subsidies.[/quote]
Problem is, continuing down this path just accelerates us further into yet another asset bubble, one that is ready to pop as we speak. The over-subsidization of education is a mirror image of the over-subsidization of housing, and we can expect to see the same results (and we already are).
Higher education should be a goal, but not a mindless one - there are tons of people in college who are borrowing extravagant amounts and have no need to be there. Higher education is not something anyone earns anymore - it’s something that people borrow for and then sleepwalk through, and as a result, the value of a college education is going down.
But, bigger picture arguments about higher education aside, higher subsidization has us on the edge of an asset bubble, one that we should be protecting ourselved against. It’s bad policy - it’s feel-good policy, but it’s bad policy.
[quote]Dear Hu,
We already have your money and we are going to keep it, so you don’t have to lend us shit anymore. We will happily have our shitty plastic toys made in your other shitty little asian satellites. Then when we establish diplomatic relations with them we will borrow trillions from them and then tell them to fuck themselves.
We will try to ensure that you are heavily invested in those countries as well, so that we can fuck you twice.
As far as our purity, a sewer is pure to you, so compared to you we are pure as the fresh driven snow.
Then we are going to stand in front of the UN and tell them to fuck themselves.
We like the Japanese way better anyway. They make quality cars and have sushi. Their chicks are hotter too. You eat rat and make complete crap.
I am thankful we can have this meaningful dialog.
Regards,
King Obama (mother fucker!)[/quote]
Your most venerable majesty King Obama of America,
I humbly agree with everything you so eloquently said, especially your fair assessment of japanese women.
That’s why i hope you won’t mind if we have already bought all of them while you were busy borrowing money from our sattelite and buying indian ipads.
I’m sure you will understand that, just like you, i have graying middle and upper classes to satisfy.
By, the way, I heard Europe planned to export its ugly infertile feminists, and i promise we will let you seize this great opportunity without interfering.
Kind regards and best of luck
Hu.[/quote]
Dear Hu,
I am so glad to hear we are on the same page. I think taking the $12,000,000,000,000 out of your economy will certainly go help reduce the population and hence solve your issues in that respect.
We welcome the ugly infertile feminists from Europe. We have already started the visa process. See, in America we fix things, we shave these bitches up, throw some fake tits on them and release them to the public. We have a large population of exceedingly stupid people, who will fuck anything and who have no business procreating. And a good dicking will humble any uppity self righteous feminist. They are only feminists because they are to ugly to fuck, but we can fix that. Under my new health care plat form, free tits for everybody!
This solves problems for both of us.
In 'merica we call this a ‘win-win’.
Thanks so much for understanding. We are going to send you some good old fashion American rats. Our rats, like our population are fat and could feed many. So we figure as a consolation gift, we can help put food on your table.
We are sending them with our good mutual friend Nancy Pelosi. The rats seem very fond of her pervasive and penetrating cooter-oder which we haven’t managed to control. She is drawing buzzards to the capitol building and we feel it best that she take a break. Please feel free to bed her down, hell put a rat in her. She’s into that kind of shit.
[quote]pat wrote:
I have the solution. We tell China to go fuck themselves and be done. That should knock out about 2/3rds of the debt. Seriously what are they going to do?
We’ll just tell them the difference has long been made up with their artificial devaluing of the yuan.
I will even pen the letter, it goes like this:
Dear Hu,
I know you think we owe you $12,000,000,000,000 or some such shit. Since you guys are a bunch of communistic, pig headed, human rights violating, currency cheating cock suckers, we have made a decision on how best to handle the debt situation.
Go fuck yourself. Take every yuan you think we owe you, and shove that imaginary bullshit strait up your ass. You ain’t getting shit and there is nothing you can do about it.
We don’t need your shitty plastic toys and we can make ipads anywhere. Apple sucks anyway, android is better, so you can shove Apple strait up your cornhole too.
I hope this does not hurt our diplomatic relationship, but if it does, we don’t give a fuck. We think your a bunch of piece of shit tyrants who would feed your citizens the worms off of dogshit if you thought you could get away with it.
Kind Regards,
Obama
If he did that, I might eek out some respect for the man…[/quote]
This was the boost I needed today, a good laugh, after I read a poll that 46% of Californians say they want to leave now. [/quote]
Make this a reality and I’ll no longer push for loan subsidies.[/quote]
Problem is, continuing down this path just accelerates us further into yet another asset bubble, one that is ready to pop as we speak. The over-subsidization of education is a mirror image of the over-subsidization of housing, and we can expect to see the same results (and we already are).
Higher education should be a goal, but not a mindless one - there are tons of people in college who are borrowing extravagant amounts and have no need to be there. Higher education is not something anyone earns anymore - it’s something that people borrow for and then sleepwalk through, and as a result, the value of a college education is going down.
But, bigger picture arguments about higher education aside, higher subsidization has us on the edge of an asset bubble, one that we should be protecting ourselved against. It’s bad policy - it’s feel-good policy, but it’s bad policy.
[/quote]
I agree on one level–kids sinking into $75k worth of debt to double major in Art History and Russian Poetry, for example.
But I contend that the smart and responsible application of loan subsidies is a good thing, both in a feel-good sense (which doesn’t matter) and in a very real economic sense.
Subsidizing education especially the notion out there today to make subsidies focus on SMET (Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology) is not the answer either as it will increase the amount of those degrees in the market leading to a saturation. A saturated supply of engineers is worthless if the market cannot incorporate them all. In turn all the current engineers will have less leverage to negotiate salaries and instead make less. India is saturating the American market with accountants and software engineers already.
There was a saturation of Phd’s in physics after Sputnik and a lot of them could not find jobs at universities. Let people study what they want. No subsidies based on what you study.
You forgot to mention that raising taxes is absolute suicide when you are in a recession.[/quote]
Then why is obama threatening to do it in the midst of the single worst recovery in history. Oh wait…that’s right it was just class warfare to win an election. I agree he probably will extend the Bush tax cuts. Gee…Bush is so bad and obama so wonderful why would he want to extend FOR THE SECOND TIME the Bush tax cuts? I guess those cuts were a pretty good idea.
Psst…I think I know the answer here. It’s called obama not creating any new private sector jobs. Did you know that Bush created 4 million jobs during his term in office. Ah…doesn’t matter Obama is just inherently better. He’s oh so cool that’s all that matters.
Spin a narrative? Are you even paying attention? Never mind I know the answer to that. Romney lost because Obama is a better politician and did super cool things like go on all the late night talk shows and impressed the 18-24 crowd. He gave unions more power whenever he could (See GM deal) and scared single women…remember “the republicans war on women” Brilliant! He also called Romney a murderer and a tax cheat. We all know why Obama won.
And YOU know WHY he had to do it that way.
He had no record to run on.
And if I’m wrong you can list all the many wonderful things that Obama did in his first term.
Go ahead…DO IT! [/quote]
LOL I feel like I’m reading my 12 year old niece’s facebook posts whenever you post your long-wided, rhetorical question filled diatribes Zeb. That would be fine if you weren’t in your mid 40’s.
I notice you completely ignored my statement about how Obama has raised the actual expenditures very little (less than the previous 4 presidents actually, dating back to Reagan…gasp)…but like I said, it is a fact that Republicans love to ignore, and you certainly proved me right LOL
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Subsidizing education especially the notion out there today to make subsidies focus on SMET (Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology) is not the answer either as it will increase the amount of those degrees in the market leading to a saturation. A saturated supply of engineers is worthless if the market cannot incorporate them all. In turn all the current engineers will have less leverage to negotiate salaries and instead make less. India is saturating the American market with accountants and software engineers already.
There was a saturation of Phd’s in physics after Sputnik and a lot of them could not find jobs at universities. Let people study what they want. No subsidies based on what you study.[/quote]
Where is the line at which the market is saturated and new degree-holders do not add or reap benefit? Have we crossed it or are we nearing it? While I don’t believe you’re wrong, this argument should be substantiated if it’s to be taken seriously.
To substantiate the counterargument I will reiterate that whether or not you think the market is nearing saturation, college degrees add about a million dollars to their holders’ lifetime salaries on average and they have an absolutely enormous protective effect during recession.
If the government should be providing any kind of help, it should be a priority to provide it to the ambitious. It’s hard to argue against a little debt relief for people who otherwise can’t afford the ridiculous cost of higher education when we give food and housing to people who don’t and probably never will work.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Subsidizing education especially the notion out there today to make subsidies focus on SMET (Science, Math, Engineering, and Technology) is not the answer either as it will increase the amount of those degrees in the market leading to a saturation. A saturated supply of engineers is worthless if the market cannot incorporate them all. In turn all the current engineers will have less leverage to negotiate salaries and instead make less. India is saturating the American market with accountants and software engineers already.
There was a saturation of Phd’s in physics after Sputnik and a lot of them could not find jobs at universities. Let people study what they want. No subsidies based on what you study.[/quote]
I understand what you’re saying, but you don’t just go from 100 to 0 mph. At least I don’t think so. I could see phasing down visa’s for the above while matching the subsidization of SMET majors to compensate. And, not just SMET. It’s not like we want an absence of degrees in the arts, humanities, and social sciences though, either. But they should be reduced (relative to SMET/STEM), targeting top prospective students in those areas. Yeah, eventually, maybe we could move away from subsidies entirely, but that shouldn’t be part of the conversation at all for a good long while. That’s the kind of talk that will completely shut down the audience you need to convince.
And it needs to happen alongside making a High School degree an accomplishment again. Plus, alternatives for entering career fields. If that High School diploma actually means something, and employers know it, they’ll train them in the craft, the skills, the trade, the market, the business, or whatever. And if that happens most of our students, as in my article above, might very well tell us to shove our subsidies and loans. Heck, they’d rather go learn a paid skill set, making some money doing it, while avoiding a sizable debt.
