Page 2 of 4
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:03 am
by callmeslick
first off, the 'vote at 10 precincts' thing is a proven crock of crap. Not one example of such happening ever. Second, if they wish to mail out non-photo voter IDs to all who apply by mail, at little or no cost, I am fine with having an ID requirement to vote. Because, that is how healthcare ID is handled........once again, nice try at a feeble derail. It is going to be so quiet once Obamacare goes into full effect and the world doesn't come to an end. Then, how will Mike Huckabee raise cash?? You do, no doubt, realize, Woody, that this whole 'defund the govt, get rid of Obamacare' thing is just a huge cash cow for certain folks, right?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:37 am
by Will Robinson
Slick pease stop making stuff up to support your claims.
Illegals use emergency rooms twice as much as non illegals.
The ACA won't have them buying insurance anytime soon since it is far from implemented, the fines for not having insurance under the ACA are way below the cost to buy coverage and will be that way for a long time and federal law dictates that if someone comes into the hospital they must be allowed to be treated.
ACA will have failed long before the effect you cite could ever take hold...
And by the way, as I had showed you before, Obama had to change the way a deportation is defined in order to get his numbers up. What was not counted under Bush, what they called a 'turnaround', is now counted as a deportation under Obama.
He hasn't reduced the number of illegals entering and he has reduced the number of arrested or detained illegals that ever see an ICE agent by dictating they shouldn't respond under many circumstances and his Justice Department has mandated illegals must be released after 30 minutes if ICE doesn't respond!
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 7:59 am
by Spidey
The clinic here at Aria has a nominal waiting time of 3 months for an appointment, if it’s an emergency…they direct you to the ER.
And there is no requirement to have insurance to use any clinics that I know of. I have used them more than once.
Clinics are not going to be the answer under the ACA, and finding a primary care provider (doctor) is a monumental task in itself. My doctor is quite a distance from my home, and I only have one because someone gave me a referral.
The last time I tried to find a doctor in the local area, was a complete failure.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 8:01 am
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:first off, the 'vote at 10 precincts' thing is a proven crock of crap. Not one example of such happening ever.
Try googling "Melowese Richardson" a Ohio poll worker who was convicted of voting twice and had 4 other vote frauds dropped in a plea bargain. She is now spending 4 years behind bars. So dream on slickster.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:05 am
by callmeslick
once again, NO EVIDENCE of ANYONE ever voting in 10 precincts. Further, repeated studies have shown that in NO ELECTION, ever, has the outcome been affected by voter fraud. The totals that have consistently come out are on the order of less than 0.1% of vote totals, at most. So, continue parrotting the fear-mongering drivel of the right, Woody. Thinking people know better.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:09 am
by callmeslick
Will Robinson wrote:Slick pease stop making stuff up to support your claims.
oh, stuff like this:
The ACA won't have them buying insurance anytime soon since it is far from implemented
it is largely implemented as of Jan 2014.
or this chestnut:
the fines for not having insurance under the ACA are way below the cost to buy coverage
really? For low income people? Not really.
and will be that way for a long time and federal law dictates that if someone comes into the hospital they must be allowed to be treated.
ACA will have failed long before the effect you cite could ever take hold...
actually this speaks to my whole point. The ACA will NOT fail, and that is exactly the source of panic from the GOP.
And by the way, as I had showed you before, Obama had to change the way a deportation is defined in order to get his numbers up. What was not counted under Bush, what they called a 'turnaround', is now counted as a deportation under Obama.
He hasn't reduced the number of illegals entering and he has reduced the number of arrested or detained illegals that ever see an ICE agent by dictating they shouldn't respond under many circumstances and his Justice Department has mandated illegals must be released after 30 minutes if ICE doesn't respond!
so, in another thread, Thorne's farmer friend in Michigan was simply blowing smoke up his butt about a sudden shortage of immigrant migrant labor?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:45 am
by CUDA
callmeslick wrote: Further, repeated studies have shown that in NO ELECTION, ever, has the outcome been affected by voter fraud.
As a result of Tuesday's presidential election, several reports are coming in of voter fraud by the Democratic Party, particularly in key states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida where in St. Lucie County, the unofficial vote count showed 175,554 registered voters but 247,713 vote cards were cast coming to 141.10% .
At one particular polling place in the same county, they recorded 158.85% voter turnout which turned out to be the highest in the county.
I'm sure that kind of voter turnout didn't affect the election in anyway. there is just no possible way that a turnout 100% higher then a normal turnout could affect an election is there?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Sep 23, 2013 9:55 am
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:once again, NO EVIDENCE of ANYONE ever voting in 10 precincts. Further, repeated studies have shown that in NO ELECTION, ever, has the outcome been affected by voter fraud. The totals that have consistently come out are on the order of less than 0.1% of vote totals, at most. So, continue parrotting the fear-mongering drivel of the right, Woody. Thinking people know better.
Oh stop trying to be so literal, but then I guess any port in a storm. I said "was able" not that they did. In the case of the person I mentioned, she was accused of voting 6 times so I guess she could of been "able" to vote 10 times if she wanted to. And by Cudas example I'd say she was not the only one to vote multiple times. Sometimes Slick, you're just too easy a mark.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 7:01 pm
by Spidey
Well, was watching a NewsHour segment tonight about the Massachusetts health care law, where 98% or so of the people in the state now have insurance…and guess what…
Many are still using the ER as their primary care provider…
Imagine that.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:01 pm
by Sergeant Thorne
callmeslick wrote:And by the way, as I had showed you before, Obama had to change the way a deportation is defined in order to get his numbers up. What was not counted under Bush, what they called a 'turnaround', is now counted as a deportation under Obama.
He hasn't reduced the number of illegals entering and he has reduced the number of arrested or detained illegals that ever see an ICE agent by dictating they shouldn't respond under many circumstances and his Justice Department has mandated illegals must be released after 30 minutes if ICE doesn't respond!
so, in another thread, Thorne's farmer friend in Michigan was simply blowing smoke up his butt about a sudden shortage of immigrant migrant labor?
Well, technically her comments didn't indicate deportation, just a restriction on movement. For all we know the government may have specifically clamped-down on migrant farm labor... not enough info.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:51 pm
by callmeslick
10% drop in a month. These are National numbers of overall party favorablility. These are, for those who don't follow closely, trainwreck numbers:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/repub ... d-low.aspx
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:13 pm
by Top Gun
If the GOP wants to drive this country to single-party rule, I can't imagine a more effective way they could have chosen.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:16 pm
by callmeslick
Top Gun wrote:If the GOP wants to drive this country to single-party rule, I can't imagine a more effective way they could have chosen.
that's been my fear. They are well on their way to being a regional party after 2014, as it looks like virtually every GOP congressman in eastern PA, NJ, and NY is is serious trouble. Many in VA and the midwest are going to be in for a real fight despite districts drawn to 'ensure' re-election, after this debacle sinks in completely.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:40 pm
by callmeslick
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/m ... 98137.html
and meanwhile, Charles Krautheimer(sp?) is hitting the conservative airways savaging Lee and his bosom-buddy Ted Cruz as having led the party troops into the Little Bighorn and then riding off to have lunch.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:00 pm
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/m ... 98137.html
and meanwhile, Charles Krautheimer(sp?) is hitting the conservative airways savaging Lee and his bosom-buddy Ted Cruz as having led the party troops into the Little Bighorn and then riding off to have lunch.
So Senator Reids comment about not wanting to help a child with cancer is somehow lofty and
"BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?
REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless."
Notice how Reid tries to deflect the question by demeaning the person who asked the question. Another example of Alinsky tactics.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:20 pm
by CUDA
Democratic leaders who run the District of Columbia are rapidly losing patience with their Democratic colleagues in Congress and the White House, lashing out at them over the partial government shutdown and questioning their overall strategy.
The District already is dealing with lost tourism revenue, as some would-be visitors change vacation plans, knowing that D.C.'s top attractions like the Smithsonian museums are closed. But unlike other cities, Washington, D.C., also is not allowed to spend locally raised funds during the partial shutdown -- due to its unique status as federal district. City leaders have campaigned to have that restriction lifted, but so far only the Republican-led House has voted to allow it.
The impasse has D.C. Democrats suddenly on the side of Republicans, and publicly challenging Democrats.
The tension came to a head on Wednesday, when D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray crashed a Senate Democrats' press conference on Capitol Hill. Gray was attending a nearby rally when he marched over to the Senate Democrats' event, in turn getting into a confrontation of sorts with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid.
Reid was caught on camera telling Gray: "I'm on your side. Don't screw it up."
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:15 pm
by callmeslick
woodchip wrote:callmeslick wrote:http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/m ... 98137.html
and meanwhile, Charles Krautheimer(sp?) is hitting the conservative airways savaging Lee and his bosom-buddy Ted Cruz as having led the party troops into the Little Bighorn and then riding off to have lunch.
So Senator Reids comment about not wanting to help a child with cancer is somehow lofty and
"BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?
REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. To have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless."
Notice how Reid tries to deflect the question by demeaning the person who asked the question. Another example of Alinsky tactics.
more lies(see other screed). Reid doesn't say he doesn't think children with cancer ought to be helped, he is pointing out that EVERYONE needs the government to return to functionality, and that you cannot cherry pick what flavor-of-the-day to fund. To think otherwise shows absolutely no grasp of the design of our government.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:39 pm
by Will Robinson
callmeslick wrote:....you cannot cherry pick what flavor-of-the-day to fund. To think otherwise shows absolutely no grasp of the design of our government.
What is the difference between Cruz et al trying to selectively fund parts of the budget leaving the one law unfunded and Obama selectively delaying the implementation of the law?
Does Obama not commit the same offense you are citing there?
I think one difference is that Cruz/ the House has the authority to not fund Obamacare if they choose to not do so, where Obama might not have the authority to stop parts of the law he doesn't want to go into effect....
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:08 pm
by callmeslick
Will Robinson wrote:What is the difference between Cruz et al trying to selectively fund parts of the budget leaving the one law unfunded and Obama selectively delaying the implementation of the law?
because the former is a cynical duck out of the mess they made of their constitutional duty, the second was fine tuning of a law, within the rights of the President, in response to the business community.
Does Obama not commit the same offense you are citing there?
no
I think one difference is that Cruz/ the House has the authority to not fund Obamacare if they choose to not do so, where Obama might not have the authority to stop parts of the law he doesn't want to go into effect....
and it appears that you need to go re-take Civics.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:14 pm
by Will Robinson
callmeslick wrote:Will Robinson wrote:What is the difference between Cruz et al trying to selectively fund parts of the budget leaving the one law unfunded and Obama selectively delaying the implementation of the law?
because the former is a cynical duck out of the mess they made of their constitutional duty, the second was fine tuning of a law, within the rights of the President, in response to the business community.
What a bunch of spin!
You don't think those rationalizations can't be switched around depending on nothing more than the political leanings of the person spinning the explanation?
callmeslick wrote:Will Robinson wrote:I think one difference is that Cruz/ the House has the authority to not fund Obamacare if they choose to not do so, where Obama might not have the authority to stop parts of the law he doesn't want to go into effect....
and it appears that you need to go re-take Civics.
Well clue me in.
Are you saying not voting to fund things is overstepping authority? If so why the shut down? Why doesn't the authority that mandates funding in spite of the Houses failure to vote not kick in?
And what authority did Obama use to delay the implementation of the ACA mandate for business to buy coverage? Maybe he has some but I can't find any explanation.
So come on, you seem yo claim to have knowledge I don't....so share it!
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 6:22 pm
by callmeslick
The House did not have the authority to 'defund' anything past some small implementation funding, the whole thing is mostly tied into 'essential' HHS spending, which continues despite shutdown. Obama has broad authority, under the wording of the law, around implementation, to delay, as he did, the business mandate, in the interest of the economy.
Speaking of the interest of the economy, this GOP clusterfuck is well on the way to killing off a LOT of economic progress, from the simple nonpayments to certain employees, loss of tourism, and most of all economic uncertainty which affects lending and retail activity in the key Holiday season. No talk from the party which fights 'job killing' Democratic bills on this brilliant plan, that I've heard yet.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 7:05 pm
by vision
Anecdote: A friend of mine does mostly work for the government. We was in the middle of a job when they shut down the base he was at. By doing this, it effectively doubled the money he was going to make and the government would have to shell out to complete the work. However, he has no idea when the job be completed or when he will get paid and will struggle a while until things get back on track. Highlights of this story: economic uncertainty, loss of government funds, good for some private business who happen to be in the right place at the right time, but not good for anyone overall.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:04 pm
by Will Robinson
callmeslick wrote:The House did not have the authority to 'defund' anything past some small implementation funding, the whole thing is mostly tied into 'essential' HHS spending, which continues despite shutdown.
You said Cruz and the republicans have a "constitutional duty" that they have ducked. What duty is that specifically?
callmeslick wrote:Obama has broad authority, under the wording of the law, around implementation, to delay, as he did, the business mandate, in the interest of the economy. ...
Where is that written? Can you link it?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:20 am
by callmeslick
Will Robinson wrote:callmeslick wrote:The House did not have the authority to 'defund' anything past some small implementation funding, the whole thing is mostly tied into 'essential' HHS spending, which continues despite shutdown.
You said Cruz and the republicans have a "constitutional duty" that they have ducked. What duty is that specifically?
to permit the paying of outstanding debts. See Amendment 14.
callmeslick wrote:Obama has broad authority, under the wording of the law, around implementation, to delay, as he did, the business mandate, in the interest of the economy. ...
Where is that written? Can you link it?[/quote]
would have to link to entire text of ACA. Lord knows I couldn't quote you page number, etc.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:24 am
by woodchip
vision wrote:Anecdote: A friend of mine does mostly work for the government. We was in the middle of a job when they shut down the base he was at. By doing this, it effectively doubled the money he was going to make and the government would have to shell out to complete the work. However, he has no idea when the job be completed or when he will get paid and will struggle a while until things get back on track. Highlights of this story: economic uncertainty, loss of government funds, good for some private business who happen to be in the right place at the right time, but not good for anyone overall.
Then you and your friend should be writing letters to Obama and tell him to stop being a stiff necked Dwarf and compromise.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 5:32 am
by callmeslick
Compromise on WHAT? Keeping the nation's liquidity? Keeping the nation open? Those ought NEVER be negotiable, EVER, and to do what has been done to seek 'compromise'(aka, please cave and give me what I cannot win legitimately), is essentially treason. Think this crap won't potentially hurt EVERY American for a generation, if not for the rest of history?
http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_news/ ... world?lite
and, when the rest of the world goes along with them, we are in trouble. You see, the problem all along isn't as simple as 'the deficit' or 'the debt'. We have had, for a while now, the luxury of being able to borrow at close to cost, due to our sterling reputation for stable government and reliable payback. The Tea Party Traitors have essentially ruined that already. So, once again, the party of the People crushes the future of the People, possibly forever. Why, again?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:34 am
by woodchip
Aw slickster, you do realize the house offered a 6 month extension for the debt ceiling and Reid turned it down. I guess keeping the nation running isn't really all that important to the Dems after all.
Oh and you do realize we still have over 200 billion coming in every month and the cost to service the debt is 30 billion. Gee I wonder why all the scare tactics.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 6:52 am
by callmeslick
woodchip wrote:Aw slickster, you do realize the house offered a 6 month extension for the debt ceiling and Reid turned it down.
oh, they did? Care to link to those details? Speaking of deals, how come the house rejected the deal between Boehner and Reid back in July?
Oh and you do realize we still have over 200 billion coming in every month and the cost to service the debt is 30 billion. Gee I wonder why all the scare tactics.
you better go check your facts again, before I do it for you. You fail to account for the need to roll over debt with new debt to do so. Also, you fail to note that we use the bulk of that 200 billion for little useless things like: paying the military, paying senior citizens' medical bills, paying for benefits for the disabled, maintaining food, water, transportation safety,etc,etc,etc, It is tragic that it took this debacle for most Americans to realize all the benefits of a robust central government, and even more so that you can still be so stupid as to try and deny it. Are you really suggesting that we just shut down the entire Federal government permanently? If so, you are another traitor, and I suggested the legal recourse for that crime elsewhere.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:14 am
by callmeslick
by the way, Reid's proposal to McConnell seems reasonable enough. I would prefer that we make it longer term, so as to completely break this cycle of holding the nation, the economy and the citizenry hostage every few months, but, here it is:(from a WSJ subscriber article):
"That pointed to a possible compromise that sources familiar with Senate budget talks said that Mr. Reid floated to Mr. McConnell on Sunday: Continue spending at current levels until mid-December, set up a mechanism for negotiating over the across-the-board cuts and other budget matters for the rest of the year, and extend the debt limit for about six months. It wasn't immediately clear what Mr. McConnell's response was."
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:35 am
by Will Robinson
callmeslick wrote:Will Robinson wrote:callmeslick wrote:The House did not have the authority to 'defund' anything past some small implementation funding, the whole thing is mostly tied into 'essential' HHS spending, which continues despite shutdown.
You said Cruz and the republicans have a "constitutional duty" that they have ducked. What duty is that specifically?
to permit the paying of outstanding debts. See Amendment 14.
I just did. It isn't in there.
I think you are confusing issues. The debt ceiling argument and the 14th comes into play there.
I don't see anything in the 14th that says Congress has a duty to vote for the all encompassing Bill.
Since they are passing Bills that fund the particulars, and there is enough in the general fund to pay any contractors that have any unpaid invoices for work done toward the ACA so far, there is no condition of US Debt going unpaid for now.
Since the Senate won't pass those individual Bills it is the Senate that is keeping those debts from being funded...
So 'technically' (a condition the current administration builds all sorts of tenuous endeavors on, from spying on the worlds communications to continuing hostilities in foreign countries against its own teams legal advice)...technically...there is nothing your interpretation of the 14th applies to support your contention that the House has failed to live up to its duty.
And that is how the game is being played by the House
callmeslick wrote:Will Robinson wrote:callmeslick wrote:Obama has broad authority, under the wording of the law, around implementation, to delay, as he did, the business mandate, in the interest of the economy. ...
Where is that written? Can you link it?
would have to link to entire text of ACA. Lord knows I couldn't quote you page number, etc.
I don't believe you. I think he arbitrarily and capriciously suspended the business mandate for political reasons and he has so much as admitted he has no authority to do so in a recent interview. When pressed he didn't cite certain sections of the ACA law that gives him the authority, he implied he had some constitutional knowledge greater than members of Congress. ergo; he knows it is in dispute...as he knows he is being sued by a number of people for his actions. So I seriously doubt the ACA contains authority for him to unilaterally delay sections of the law.
And that is Obama playing the game. However he doesn't even need a technicality because he has the power of the media to stifle the examination of his moves in playing the game.
I think you just declared the authority is in the law and you have no idea if there is anything in there that you can use to support your claim. Like you often do.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 8:41 am
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:woodchip wrote:Aw slickster, you do realize the house offered a 6 month extension for the debt ceiling and Reid turned it down.
oh, they did? Care to link to those details? Speaking of deals, how come the house rejected the deal between Boehner and Reid back in July?
"Two efforts to move the ball forward stalled in the Senate Saturday. First, Democratic leaders rejected a compromise plan by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).
After a plan from House Republicans was rejected by Obama Friday, Collins tried to advance a compromise that would have lifted the debt limit through January, and extended spending until March."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/1 ... 89740.html
callmeslick wrote:Oh and you do realize we still have over 200 billion coming in every month and the cost to service the debt is 30 billion. Gee I wonder why all the scare tactics.
you better go check your facts again, before I do it for you. You fail to account for the need to roll over debt with new debt to do so. Also, you fail to note that we use the bulk of that 200 billion for little useless things like: paying the military, paying senior citizens' medical bills, paying for benefits for the disabled, maintaining food, water, transportation safety,etc,etc,etc, It is tragic that it took this debacle for most Americans to realize all the benefits of a robust central government, and even more so that you can still be so stupid as to try and deny it. Are you really suggesting that we just shut down the entire Federal government permanently? If so, you are another traitor, and I suggested the legal recourse for that crime elsewhere.
Ah, another doom and gloom strategy by our favorite DNC operative. How about instead we shut down the war on drugs program, the EPA, Obama and Michelle's multi million dollar vacations, subsidies and loans to green energy companies, weapons research, portions of the NSA, portions of the Dept. of Homeland security and reign in duplication of services. All before you touch SS and Medicare.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:33 am
by callmeslick
that would account for about 3 days of revenue, Woody.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:32 pm
by callmeslick
Here's a better breakdown of the issue than I have been able to convey, provided by an economist from the Wall Street Jounal I heard today:
To pay debts in a timely fashion, after the ceiling is reached, you would have to immediately(or over a very short time) eliminate around 1/3 of ALL government spending. This would, in turn, put the brakes on the domestic economy, if the fear of same hadn't already done so. Since the incoming revenues are in large part tied directly to the health of the economy(part of why we had to do deficit spending to get out of deep recession), the income flow would drop steadily, necessitating either cuts to ESSENTIAL items of national security or the like or selectively not paying bills for services rendered. Either will kill the economy altogether, which ultimately would lead to a default, and even if you wished to second guess the blunder and restore the borrowing limits, it would be too late, as the borrowing costs would be exhorbitant and the economy couldn't recover to deal with the added debt service costs.
Any questions now about how bad this would be, or is it back to 'Slick is just peddling doom for the DNC' or some such drivel?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:41 pm
by flip
What would have to happen to start decreasing numbers?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:24 pm
by callmeslick
flip wrote:What would have to happen to start decreasing numbers?
which numbers are you referring to, Flip?
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:38 pm
by woodchip
callmeslick wrote:that would account for about 3 days of revenue, Woody.
what I listed are only SOME of the ways to tighten the belt. I'm sure there are plenty more. Oh and the elimination of duplication of services amounts to about 100 billion a year. That alone is more than 3 days worth.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:41 pm
by callmeslick
your changes wouldn't be able to take place overnight or without Congressional approval, so once again, a fantasy. Read the description of the chain of events that virtually EVERY economist spells out. Tell me how you avoid that set of dominoes falling in WoodyWorld.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:43 pm
by woodchip
In woody's world you set priorities. In this case debt gets serviced first.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:46 pm
by callmeslick
woodchip wrote:In woody's world you set priorities. In this case debt gets serviced first.
....and, the economy collapses, whereupon you can no longer service the debt, either. Nice plan. Glad you aren't in charge.
Re: How to render one's party obsolete:
Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 3:52 pm
by woodchip
Right, taking out 30 bill of a 200 + billion a month income is going to collapse the economy. Which come to think of it, is what the federal govt uses to keep the govt going. Stop scaring people slick.