Did you vote today?

Redd Neckerson wrote:

<quoted text>
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I wish you would stop

Typical nutsack liberal, not an ounce of originality between them.

LOL at you wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical nutsack liberal, not an ounce of originality between them.

Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I wish you would stop

LOL at you wrote:

<quoted text>
Reality Check wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. I wish you would stop

Talk to yourself much? Bet you laugh at your own jokes too.

I did not vote today neither did any of you. Shut this topic down along with your know it all mouths!!!

lol wrote:

I did not vote today neither did any of you. Shut this topic down along with your know it all mouths!!!

If you are a democrat you are stuffing ballot boxes for 2016

lol wrote:

I did not vote today neither did any of you. Shut this topic down along with your know it all mouths!!!

F.U.

Old Army wrote:

<quoted text>
F.U.

I'm willing to bet money. you are fat and have a ciggarette hanging off your lips right now. What is that drink in your hand? Scotch or pbr? When is the last time you got that toothpick wet?

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
"they were smart enough to know that would have been political suicide"
Indeed , they new very well that raising taxes on the working man who haves to spend his paycheck would be "damaging to the capitalistic freedom"
Democrats also know that unfunded (REPUBLICAN) tax cuts being paid for by money borrowed from CHINA is damaging to the capitalistic freedom the vast number of Americans enjoy.
However Boss, that was why,
Obama's proposal (WOULD HAVE) only ended the tax cuts for the rich, while extending them for everyone else.
Not quite as simple as you make it out to be, is it.
Killing the tax cuts for the rich is favored by 60% of the people this country.
The Tax for the wealthy stays intact, Congress continues to have the lowest approval rating in history.
AROUND 9%

Tax cuts don't need to be "paid for", they are not goods or services. The money doesn't belong to the government it belongs to the people. How does someone that leaves one job for another that pays less "pay" for the cut in pay? They find things in their life that can be cut out to fit into the new budget. Why do Democrats set the spending level first and then try to raise tax revenue to meet the demand of spending? It doesn't work that way on the individual level and it won't work that way on the federal government level. If Obama's proposal was so great then why did he not veto the tax cuts that his Congress passed (and you know it was HIS Congress)? You know why, you just don't want to admit it.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Tax cuts don't need to be "paid for", they are not goods or services. The money doesn't belong to the government it belongs to the people. How does someone that leaves one job for another that pays less "pay" for the cut in pay? They find things in their life that can be cut out to fit into the new budget. Why do Democrats set the spending level first and then try to raise tax revenue to meet the demand of spending? It doesn't work that way on the individual level and it won't work that way on the federal government level. If Obama's proposal was so great then why did he not veto the tax cuts that his Congress passed (and you know it was HIS Congress)? You know why, you just don't want to admit it.

LOL, I don't care a bit to "admit it", as a matter of fact in my last exchange with you, I did tell you why.


"Why do Democrats set the spending level first and then try to raise tax revenue"

" READ MY LIPS " , Democrats do mot have a exclusive on that action.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Tax cuts don't need to be "paid for", they are not goods or services. The money doesn't belong to the government it belongs to the people. How does someone that leaves one job for another that pays less "pay" for the cut in pay? They find things in their life that can be cut out to fit into the new budget. Why do Democrats set the spending level first and then try to raise tax revenue to meet the demand of spending? It doesn't work that way on the individual level and it won't work that way on the federal government level. If Obama's proposal was so great then why did he not veto the tax cuts that his Congress passed (and you know it was HIS Congress)? You know why, you just don't want to admit it.

If Obama's proposals were so great they'd get more support from DEMOCRATS. If they were so great he would have proposed them when democrats controlled the house. But, as usual, obama's proposals are mere political tactics meant to divert attention away from his failed policies, the near collapse of the economy that he has caused and to cause division among American citizens as opposed to actual productive legislation.

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
Just like the rest of liberal thinking, it sounds good in your head and on paper."
What is wrong with that, was it not a few hundred years ago that some "liberal thinking" gentlemen, reached the same conclusion and put their ideas in writing and called it the Constitution of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.........

About the only thing those "liberal thinking" gentlemen had in common with liberals of today was their willingness to exploit the black race. However, many of those so-called "liberal thinking" gentlemen realized they were wrong were as liberals of today continue that exploitation of underprivileged black Americans through the modern day slavery of welfare disgustingly under the guise of helping them.

Reality Check wrote:

<quoted text>
Tax cuts don't need to be "paid for", they are not goods or services. The money doesn't belong to the government it belongs to the people. How does someone that leaves one job for another that pays less "pay" for the cut in pay? They find things in their life that can be cut out to fit into the new budget. Why do Democrats set the spending level first and then try to raise tax revenue to meet the demand of spending? It doesn't work that way on the individual level and it won't work that way on the federal government level. If Obama's proposal was so great then why did he not veto the tax cuts that his Congress passed (and you know it was HIS Congress)? You know why, you just don't want to admit it.

"Tax cuts don't need to be "paid for"

I would beg to differ.

At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:

June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”

May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.

November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.

March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.

September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
"Tax cuts don't need to be "paid for"
I would beg to differ.
At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:
June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

If you spend efficiently on things that work, tax cuts don't need to be paid for.
Interesting. Obama felt that those spending increases and debt ceiling increases were "unpatriotic." Considering his record breaking spending spree, it must have been because the debt ceiling increases weren't big enough...
I guess since republicans acted like liberals and overspent their revenues, that gives democrats an excuse to do the same just at a faster rate.
How's that promise from Obama to cut the deficit in half after his first term working out for you?
I'm sure you'll come up with some typical liberal "pass the buck" take no responsibility excuse for that one too...

Old Army wrote:

<quoted text>
F.U.

sounds like old boy hit the special high intensity training List. hua

Vote!

BARNEYII wrote:

<quoted text>
"Tax cuts don't need to be "paid for"
I would beg to differ.
At the beginning of the Bush presidency, the United States debt limit was $5.95 trillion. Despite promises that he would pay off the debt in 10 years, Bush increased the debt to $9.815 trillion by the end of his term, with plenty of help from four Republicans currently holding Congressional leadership positions: Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, and Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl. ThinkProgress compiled a breakdown of the five debt limit increases that took place during the Bush presidency and how the four Republican leaders voted:
June 2002: Congress approves a $450 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $6.4 trillion. McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor vote “yea”, Kyl votes “nay.”
May 2003: Congress approves a $900 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $7.384 trillion. All four approve.
November 2004: Congress approves an $800 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.1 trillion. All four approve.
March 2006: Congress approves a $781 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $8.965 trillion. All four approve.
September 2007: Congress approves an $850 billion increase, raising the debt limit to $9.815 trillion. All four approve.

Just look at the historical debt as a percentage to GDP. With the exception of the Kennedy/Johnson presidency, the percent of debt to GDP always goes up when the Democrats control both houses of congress and the presidency. With the exception of Bush (who I have already said was a terrible president) the debt as a percent of GDP always goes down. This is because the Democrats are irresponsibly spend happy and always put the tax payers in a bad spot where more revenue is needed to pay for exessive spending habits. This is the clearest indicator of who has the best and most responsible plan for our nation. The Democrats are the most unfriendly to the tax payers yet, with class warfare and other tactics, they blur the lines and fool people into believing that they are for the common citizen. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It's simple, if you like mountains of national debt, a weaker standing in the world, and less money in your pocket then vote for Democrat/Socialist. If you like less national debt, a stronger standing in the world, and more money in your pocket then vote Republican/Conservative. It's that simple. If you are thinking of not voting in an election then remember, not voting is actually voting for the incumbent which happens to be Obama this time around.

Vote Early Vote Often wrote:

<quoted text>
If you are a democrat you are stuffing ballot boxes for 2016

Hanging chad?

LOL at you wrote:

<quoted text>
Typical nutsack liberal, not an ounce of originality between them.

You're obviously a deep thinker, too bad they don't run that skit on Saturday Night Live anymore.

You could have been as big a hit as Andy Kaufman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Dang, I was up all night trying to find that post and had to call all 3 of my commie buddies before settling on that youtube video. I even missed putting the blocks to old Barney and he gets all PMS when that happens so I'll have to swallow his juice tonight 2.

Redd Neckerson wrote:

<quoted text>
Hanging chad?

Never could understand how one group of people can not future out how to push a pin through a card, but the other group could.