republicans vote to increase need for borrowing and then say they will extend the cap of how much we borrow

Wait what?

They vote to extend tax cuts for everyone. This means the government will be spending the same amount but will have less money from us to do it, so they will borrow money to pay for things like social security, etc.

But they're also saying they will not allow the government to raise the amount we can borrow, not letting the federal deficit to get any higher.

I agree with not raising the possible deficit, but why would you cut taxes to get it done? That makes no sense. It seems like they're just throwing attractive looking things like "no mo taxes!" and "balance the budget!" at people to get the vote of the uninformed who know those two things don't go together.

Ducksaws wrote:
I agree with not raising the possible deficit, but why would you cut taxes to get it done? That makes no sense. It seems like they're just throwing attractive looking things like "no mo taxes!" and "balance the budget!" at people to get the vote of the uninformed who know those two things don't go together.

^There you go.

Reducing the deficit is pretty hard when you cut taxes, and wont even touch most of whats in the budget...

Maybe when the US starts bouncing checks we'll realize we can't afford to be spending billions teaching middle eastern countries how to "run" a good democracy.

Yeah it'll be really interesting when that actually starts happening.

Ducksaws wrote:Maybe when the US starts bouncing checks we'll realize we can't afford to be spending billions teaching middle eastern countries how to "run" a good democracy.

Yea, so let's just leave now! That'll work great.

I'm actually going to have to agree with you silly Republican-hating Democrats for once. Taxes=good right now. I'm all for higher taxes on the RICH during an economic downturn. That's why I'm angry at Washington state. There was an initiative called 1098, proposed by Bill Gates Sr., to raise taxes on those making more than $200,000 a year. It was a tiny amount too, like 5% on what they make past 200k. Still, all the CEO's in Washington State, who voted for Obama and were all WOOHOO TAXES! 2 years ago, shot it down cuz they're too f***ing greedy.

And not to sound like a whiny little kid man, but c'mon. Every topic I've seen you make here is "Republicans doing such and such what idiots" or "Republicans make yet another stupid decision." God damn. Why so much hate?

Yeah i cant decide wether or not Leaving Afghansitan now would be a good idea or not....

One part of me says "fuck it, let them do what they want over there and save us a few 100 billion dollars". The other part of me says that we really need to stay there to keep it from becoming a collapsed state, run by islamic extremists intent on eliminating the US and Israel. I mean, it worked in Iraq, things are doing alright there now.

I've made two political topics out of the plenty that I've made. I don't consider myself a democrat, but republicans piss me off more than democrats. They're also on the news spotlight because they won the elections, so there's more to complain about.

And yes, leaving now will work great. We're doing nothing but wasting money and american lives.

1: Al-Qaeda is still active with us over there in the first place (France has evacuated the Eiffel tower twice, germany has had major problems with al-qaeda recruiting their citizens and has barely caught the last couple of terrorists attacks, we just had a topic on SeC awhile ago about a failed bombing in some christmas square, etc etc etc).

2: We can't AFFORD this war anymore. Bottom line, we ran out of money for shit like this by the time Reagan was done, and we're approaching running out of imaginary money. 14.5 trillion in debt and we're spending the majority of our budget on forcing democracy on some middle eastern guys who don't appreciate the effort anyways.

3: We're pretty much counter productive, insurgents are actually coming from all over the surrounding areas into areas we're fighting in just to take a crack at us infidels in the name of getting us out of their home. We're attracting more violence just by being there.

4: If you want to look at it for the sake of human rights... since we don't have the money to fight for this war, we're borrowing funds from China. Borrowing funds for China to finance a war for human rights is akin to fucking for abstinence.

5: We could keep up plenty of pressure on Al-Qaeda by leaving behind special forces and taking out the more expensive large amounts of ground troops and equipment.

Ducksaws wrote:I've made two political topics out of the plenty that I've made. I don't consider myself a democrat, but republicans piss me off more than democrats. They're also on the news spotlight because they won the elections, so there's more to complain about.

And yes, leaving now will work great. We're doing nothing but wasting money and american lives.

1: Al-Qaeda is still active with us over there in the first place (France has evacuated the Eiffel tower twice, germany has had major problems with al-qaeda recruiting their citizens and has barely caught the last couple of terrorists attacks, we just had a topic on SeC awhile ago about a failed bombing in some christmas square, etc etc etc).

2: We can't AFFORD this war anymore. Bottom line, we ran out of money for shit like this by the time Reagan was done, and we're approaching running out of imaginary money. 14.5 trillion in debt and we're spending the majority of our budget on forcing democracy on some middle eastern guys who don't appreciate the effort anyways.

3: We're pretty much counter productive, insurgents are actually coming from all over the surrounding areas into areas we're fighting in just to take a crack at us infidels in the name of getting us out of their home. We're attracting more violence just by being there.

4: If you want to look at it for the sake of human rights... since we don't have the money to fight for this war, we're borrowing funds from China. Borrowing funds for China to finance a war for human rights is akin to fucking for abstinence.

5: We could keep up plenty of pressure on Al-Qaeda by leaving behind special forces and taking out the more expensive large amounts of ground troops and equipment.

Just btw, not all terrorist attacks are led by Al Qaeda...I don't remember the Christmas one in Portland having anything to do with Al Qaeda. No, we can't really afford this war, but we can't really afford anything. Which is why I say we tax the rich I remember hearing somewhere that the wealthiest Americans could easily pay off the national debt and have plenty left over, although don't quote me on that because I don't remember the source. Counter Productive? Eh, a little bit. But point is, we went in, we messed up the country, we can't just walk out and say "Deal with it." We have to at least make some effort to stabilize the country as much as possible. As for human rights, I agree, although I would focus more on civilian casualties than borrowing money from China. As for keeping pressure on Al-Qaeda, I dunno. We're not in the military, we don't have the intelligence they do, I don't feel like we can make the assumption that leaving small groups of special forces would solve the problem.

The fact that not all terrorism is not conducted by al qaeda just reinforces my point. It doesn't matter who is doing it, the point is islamic influenced terrorism is alive and kicking whether we're over there or not.

We went in, we didn't mess up the country too badly unless you consider toppling a murdering dictator bad, and if we left there would be much less violence. And the point is we did try, we have failed, and frankly it's not at all in the interests of our country for us to be there for the sake of the pride of some politicians. I put the future of our country much further ahead of my concerns than anyone in the middle east.

Ducksaws wrote:The fact that not all terrorism is not conducted by al qaeda just reinforces my point. It doesn't matter who is doing it, the point is islamic influenced terrorism is alive and kicking whether we're over there or not.

We went in, we didn't mess up the country too badly unless you consider toppling a murdering dictator bad, and if we left there would be much less violence. And the point is we did try, we have failed, and frankly it's not at all in the interests of our country for us to be there for the sake of the pride of some politicians. I put the future of our country much further ahead of my concerns than anyone in the middle east.

Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? Because things are relatively stable in Iraq at the moment, besides the odd suicide bombing.

america has seemed to to best like a turtle (this isnt going to sound right)

we isolate till the clear cut fiight ensues and we can get a few countries on our side to finish the job right

we aren't making a big enough impact in afghanistan for it to be effective, worst case, they bomb us again but if we isolate they may be less likely to do that anyway.

they bomb us again and we can actually go to war agian, with support moderate land knowledge since we did it before, and country morale

america isnt self sufficient enough that should be our other focus, we should have the ability to say fuck of to any country because we dont need them

afghanistan seems like too much pussyfooting where we lose troops, media blows it two ifferent ways and you get democrats one way and republicans the other
come to think of it theres more thats wrong with this countr that just the war and debt. even the justice system is f'ed up, political parties will need to draw to a change/end if we want to see any progress. george washington one of the greatest guys in this country, says no political parties. it was like one of two things he asked of us, we didnt listen so we will fail. if im not wronf im pretty sure the other was neutrality so well there ya go!

Fact is to win to a Unconventional war you must do some really nasty shit. The West doesn't have to balls to get it done.

the west doesnt have the balls and if we did we wouldnt have the balls to go in front of the world and say we did.

such is a product of our media

Perhaps spending money on fighting instead of more productive things wasn't the way to go in the first place, man.

There needs to be some kind of Global...Defense.....Initiative to combat Terrorist with unconventional means.

i wonder what would happen if we yelled america, hit the accelerator and nuked afghanistan

1fnbighen wrote:i wonder what would happen if we yelled america, hit the accelerator and nuked afghanistan

It would be like Nuking Detroit....Both are so fucked anyway I doubt anybody would notice.

TheGM wrote:There needs to be some kind of Global...Defense.....Initiative to combat Terrorist with unconventional means.

hows that for unconventional means

1fnbighen wrote:

TheGM wrote:There needs to be some kind of Global...Defense.....Initiative to combat Terrorist with unconventional means.

hows that for unconventional means

, man.

Honestly, I feel like the U.S. has to go back to being somewhat isolationist, unless it's a matter of extreme importance. Keeping to ourselves gets less people angry with us.

Wacco wrote:Honestly, I feel like the U.S. has to go back to being somewhat isolationist, unless it's a matter of extreme importance. Keeping to ourselves gets less people angry with us.

And there are people who will say "Look how well that worked out last time!"

Fighting for people's freedom on the other side of the world, all the while passing 'patriotic' Patriot acts back home, man.

Something is seriously fucking wrong here...

TheGM wrote:

Wacco wrote:Honestly, I feel like the U.S. has to go back to being somewhat isolationist, unless it's a matter of extreme importance. Keeping to ourselves gets less people angry with us.

And there are people who will say "Look how well that worked out last time!"

It served us pretty well from 1776-1916 or whenever we entered WWI.

Wacco wrote:

TheGM wrote:

Wacco wrote:Honestly, I feel like the U.S. has to go back to being somewhat isolationist, unless it's a matter of extreme importance. Keeping to ourselves gets less people angry with us.

And there are people who will say "Look how well that worked out last time!"

It served us pretty well from 1776-1916 or whenever we entered WWI.

bingo

1fnbighen wrote:

Wacco wrote:

TheGM wrote:

Wacco wrote:Honestly, I feel like the U.S. has to go back to being somewhat isolationist, unless it's a matter of extreme importance. Keeping to ourselves gets less people angry with us.

And there are people who will say "Look how well that worked out last time!"

It served us pretty well from 1776-1916 or whenever we entered WWI.

bingo

Scramble, man.

And it's arguable that "Vietnam Syndrome," which was the U.S. taking isolationist policies right after Vietnam, worked reasonably well. Of course, we went into an other foreign conflict in like 15 years, but those weren't a terrible 15 years.

Wacco wrote:

TheGM wrote:

Wacco wrote:Honestly, I feel like the U.S. has to go back to being somewhat isolationist, unless it's a matter of extreme importance. Keeping to ourselves gets less people angry with us.

And there are people who will say "Look how well that worked out last time!"

It served us pretty well from 1776-1916 or whenever we entered WWI.

I wound't call that isolationist. Seeing as we fought 3 major wars against various nations, Annexed others, and started civil wars to serve our own means....Yeah thats really keeping our nose out of other people's buisness.

TheGM wrote:

Wacco wrote:

TheGM wrote:

Wacco wrote:Honestly, I feel like the U.S. has to go back to being somewhat isolationist, unless it's a matter of extreme importance. Keeping to ourselves gets less people angry with us.

And there are people who will say "Look how well that worked out last time!"

It served us pretty well from 1776-1916 or whenever we entered WWI.

I wound't call that isolationist. Seeing as we fought 3 major wars against various nations, Annexed others, and started civil wars to serve our own means....Yeah thats really keeping our nose out of other people's buisness.

True. It's as isolationist as we've ever come though haha.

No the most isolantionist we got was right after WW1. The Republican held senate votes down the ratifaction of the treaty to join The League of Nations(something the U.S.A. helped make) becuase it was the Brain Child of Democrat Woodrow Wilison.
Claiming to support a return to minding our own business(that never ever happen in the previous 130 years).

This ends up knocking half the teeth out of the League and we all know what happened next.

American isolationism=staying in America. Which includes south america. The monroe doctrine was pretty much "Alright, US in charge here because everyone else on this island is a third world country, so stay out". except canada.

Our biggest economic boom was after WW2, where basically we just profited from getting returns on war loans from Europe and selling them stuff to rebuild. Realistically another world war is not going to happen again.

I hate to say it, but our country is going to be in the gutter as long as we try to compete with China and Indiana when we have all these labor unions and equality laws. Those are good for the average person, but our country can't compete with those countries' massive under payed workforces.

In order for us to be an economic superpower, we'd have to fuck the lower class, like China and Indiana do, and like other prosperous western countries did back when industrialism was first emerging.

Is it worth it? I don't think so, but I think we can find a reasonable middle ground between trying to make blue collar workers into middle class and trying to make them into slaves.

Fuck the lower class? The lower class has already had a thorough pounding, man...

True, but the main difference between succesful modern economies and western economies (which are mostly failing and in debt) is that the lower blue collar class is not protected at all.

China is actually going through some reforms for worker's rights now though. they started their industrial age in the 80's, so basically they're a time capsule of western nations.

Either way, "worker' rights", seem like a big illusion to me, man.

The lower class in being covered in shit, their rights are just a facade when it comes to big corporations, man.

"We'll just buy off some politicians in key places, calling it campaign contributions, break a couple of laws and worst case scenario, pay a hefty fine, still minimal on comparison to the money that will have been made in the process."

Ehh I don't think we should be using China or "Indiana" as a model on how to run our economy. They might be doing better at the moment economically but our labor laws make life much better for the vast majority, rather than their lack of labor laws which just make life better for a small minority.

soo..... arent they voting on wether or not to actually increase the limit today?

why even have a limit if youve broken it like 100 times...

Chewy wrote:Ehh I don't think we should be using China or "Indiana" as a model on how to run our economy. They might be doing better at the moment economically but our labor laws make life much better for the vast majority, rather than their lack of labor laws which just make life better for a small minority.

I'm not saying we should, but they're indisputably doing better economically than us. The sacrifice we pay for better benefits for the working class is an economy that can't really compete.