Greg nails these scumbags here. I love it. TAKE IT TO 'EM GREGG !! REPRESENT THE PEOPLE... The Obamanauts think the law is just for "the little people". BUCK OFAMA !!!
Gregg! You are so ignorant!!! You don't go around acuse people not following the law. Why is this guy so ignorant when other people around him said he's wrong!!!!
@PharmDuy look at you, what are you doing? you obviously dont agree with gregg but how can you justify that? you cant, you resorted to telling him NOT to accuse people of following the law. well thats how a fucking country is fixed you idiot if we didnt do that slavery wouldnt have ended
Orszag talks as though his lips are wrapped around a helium ballon. Orszag does not understand the law and Gregg made him suck eggs. Basically Orszag admitted that they were going to violate the law and do whatever they wanted to do. When he was proven wrong he looked like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar.
I was told by several elder businesspeople before this even passed that the money would never get returned toward the deficit and would get siphoned off to purchase votes for upcoming election... People have to wake up and learn from the past because it's happening right before your eyes.
What the Obama admin is basically saying is: We'll do what we want in spite of what the law says because we're going to change the laws to coincide with our will and actions. Orszag the progressive is just as full of himself as the other children in charge who change the definitions, rules, and rationale to abide with their actions, not the other way around.
Any politician or admin who does this - Republican or Democrat - should always be called out and confronted.
They're not saying that. They are asking congress to change the law so that they can do it. If congress doesn't pass a bill allowing them to use the TARP funds, then they can't do so.
As much as Gregg is trying to create a campaign commercial accusing the administration of breaking the law, the fact remains, they are asking for congress to do so, they're not just using the TARP money as they see fit.
@shalcall actually, to get the context of gregg's comments we should play more of the discussion rather than the conveniently edited clip on CNN. the point was that TARP was to be used for a specific limited purpose, and then to be repayed into the general fund - NOT for then using again as though it's available money. it's borrowed. that's the problem with this type of slush fund thinking the admin is practicing. cease the attacks on the private sector and the economy will recover.
I've seen the whole context. I watch CSPAN more than is probably healthy. But I like politics. The fact is, Orzag is promoting the administration's idea. They cannot, under law, carry out that idea without congress's approval. The admin. has admitted that much over and over, especially through Gibbs during interviews.
What Gregg is doing here is completely disingenuous, because he must know that Obama has asked congress for permission and they haven't yet passed a bill on it.
Yes, I agree... Orszag is promoting the admin's agenda/idea.
However, Gregg isn't being disingenuous here.. he's trying to make the point that this is NOT what was to occur w/TARP money that was repaid and why pushing this agenda/idea is wrong - knowing that if this proposal goes to congress w/a majority of free-wheeling spenders it will probably pass. Against the will of the people and the purpose of TARP, and incurring more debt.
Pushing for to use the money as loans (not handouts) to small businesses so they can stay afloat is wrong? Right now those businesses, good ones, can't get small loans because the banks are holding on to money in order to make there balance sheets look strong. They are not loaning money to small businesses, the engine of our economy.
Try to address that situation is wrong? Remember, they admin is asking to LOAN the money, not give it away.
Well, that is a different discussion other than the point of this video clip, what Orszag was pushing for, what Gregg's objection was, and what the purpose of TARP was and how it was to be repayed and then remain in the gen fund to pay down the debt. If congress wants to appropriate new funds to assist businesses, that should be a completely separate issue/legislation - not just a transition of TARP funds.
There are far better ways to help small businesses than to resort to this loan disguise.
It's not a loan disguise. The reason the administration is trying this tactic (using TARP funds) is an attempt to keep down the 2010 budget. The TARP money was allocated already. If you create new legislation, as opposed to amending the existing legislation, that money will then have to be counted as new spending increasing the stated deficit.
Moreover, new legislation takes a lot longer to get through congress than amending existing legislation.
I label it a disguise because not all of the details have been revealed, but we do know from those that have that very few businesses would qualify for the loans. This less than honest tactic has already been seen in the poor use of stimulus funds - directed largely to public spending that didn't create a large swath of jobs or stimulate the economy, but were rather more of a special interest payback/support & gov't support move. Infrastructure & real incentives would have performed much better.
In addition, any loans by the gov to small businesses at this point only further the debt, will not necessarily be paid back, and only would possibly help a very few number of small businesses according to the requirements. This was addressed in some detail on PBS Newshour, when Judy Woodruff interviewed Bill Rys of the National Federation of Independent Small Businesses (Wed, Feb 3 airing).
Well, I have to watch that PBS Newshour episode, so I can't comment on what Rys said.
I do disagree with you about the stimulus funds. About a third of it was tax cuts, and you're right, I'd rather those tax cuts had been replaced by more direct spending on infrastructure improvement, but I don't think you can find a governor that didn't save the jobs of many firefighters and cops because of that funding. I don't call that special interest payback.
The tax cuts did nothing to sustainably stimulate the economy, neither did the cash for clunkers program, & the number of state firefighters & cops who jobs were saved - while important and valid - has been overexaggerated, while much of the spending was wasteful on unnecessary and irrelevant projects and was not accounted for accurately on the gov's own 'transparency site'. See the Mercatus Ctr for Analysis' report on the stimulus.
In terms of stimulating the economy, I'd follow the methods that have worked before - IPI has a great paper on this (What's the Most Potent Way to Stimulate the Economy). MoneyChimp also explains this in easy to understand terms. Production, not consumer spending, will grow sustainable economic stimulation.
Of course, these methods won't necessarily allow this administration to push forward its agenda, so it's unlikely they'll embrace many/any of them.
Well, there no need to argue further, because we could get into a year's long argument on whether production or consumer spending is the best way to recover from a recession. I personally believe increased consumer spending will result in a more stable and sustained recovery.
However, I admit that there are valid theoretical arguments for stimulating the supply side of the equation.
@shalcall So you are going to loan already loaned money again? How is this money going to ever get paid back? My generation is going to be stuck with paying for this bullshit.
Let me ask you something. Are you paying back the massive debt we accumulated during the great depression? What about during the 80's under Reagan? If conservatives were really worried about our debt they would have rallied against the Bush tax cuts (the largest in history) and instead used that surplus to pay down our debt.
That didn't happen. Why? Because despite your hyperbole, our debt is not that bad (we've had much worse), and will probably not be an issue 20 years down the road.
You tell those incompetent commies what is right. This is not chicago and chicago style politics aren't healthy in washington despite what Obama has done to bring them here. Keep fighting for the little guy and do what so many are afraid and thats call these communists out!
Can you imagine that this guy almost went to work for the BO administration - what a mistake that would have been. We need you Sen. Gregg - keep on keeping on.
Sen. Gregg, you are one of the few who is SPEAKING for the PEOPLE of this country, and we soooo appreciate it! You stand up for the law and the constitution, and these idiots want to ignore it. You go Senator!!
Gregg is? Greggs only interest is making him and his buddies in big Pharma, big Oil, big Banking, and big Insurance wealthier. The guy whose whose really SPEAKING for the PEOPLE is Sen. Bernie Sanders who blasted Gregg right after this.
Sanders did NOT blast Gregg after this. He made an attempt to take up for this little pipsqueek nerd and he got slapped right back down by Gregg. Gregg is doing exactly what needs to be done. Go after these incompetent liberals with everything you've got and ignore the rules setup by libs to handicap Repubs. Sanders is a self proclaimed Marxist and you admiring him speaks volumes about yourself.
Well Sanders DID blast Gregg. The clip is at Sanders' youtube site, he told Gregg to stop lecturing him about deficits when it was Gregg who voted for two unpaid for wars and an unpaid for tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
And who would've guessed that a Conservative would use a scare-tactic LIE. Sanders is NOT a self-proclaimed Marxist, who told ya that? Beck or Limbaugh?
He's a self avowed socialist, ie. Marxist. He voted for stimulus, healthcare and any other commie boondoggle he can get his mitts on. Gregg was right. The law is the law and these punks are trying to skirt it by attempt to change the subject and lecture on how the law is created. Until the law is amended, these crooks need to obey it.
Have you ever read Karl Marx? 'Cause I don't think you should say the world Marxism 'til you know what it is. Bernie Sanders isn't anymore a Democratic Socialist than Thomas Paine. It was Paine who first proposed general minimum incomes and social security, and went so far to propose in 'Agrarian Justice' the property tax plan to pay for the needs of the poor.
I know more about Marx than you'll admit what you are. Sanders is a socialist, plain and simple. I know he's your hero, but he's just as far left as Obama. Paine did some good things but he was a bit of a scoundrel, too. Franklin warned him about his tirade against Christians and he nearly authored himself into oblivion. I don't worship any man so don't attempt to attach a personality to my beliefs. It won't work.
Nothing wrong with tax cuts for the rich. I never got a job from a bum. You're a liar with all your Marxist BS. Go worship your hero BO. He's going down in flames by his own matches.
And by your stimulus and tax cuts for the rich comments I can see you dont understand economics either. The whole point of the stimulus was to provide jobs, those people end up spending money into the PRIVATE sector, with the increase of demand businesses can start to hire more workers. But if you simply give a tax cut to the business owner he has no reason to hire more people, theres NO demand! So go worship Hannity & Palin, I'll keep reading Jefferson, Madison & Paine.
Where's the jobs then? 4 million lost ON OBAMA'S WATCH. Stimulus was nothing but a payback for his campaign. No business has ever gotten a tax hike and hired employees. Your understanding of the economy is based in the Communist Manifesto. I run my own biz and know how things work. Oh, but you're 21 and know everything. Your Marxist professors have failed you.
BTW, Jefferson was full of contradictions just like Paine. Problem with you is, you worship personalities. They'll fail you every time.
Interesting comments actually, you assume too much though. #1, Sanders IS further left than Obama, Obama SO FAR has sold out to big insurance and big pharma already. Obama never put single-payer Medicare for All on the table, Sanders introduced that to the senate, but couldn't get the votes because the insurance lobby. #2, its not worship, its learning, and you can learn alot from these men. Paine would respond "Better fare hard with good men, than feast it with bad"
I'll give you all of that, but what Obama did on healthcare was deceptive. He claimed there would be no one getting between you and your doctor and then capitulated that people had "snuck" it in the bill further killing his credibility. He knew all along what was going on, but when he got called out on it, he had to come clean and tried to throw them under the bus like he usually does.
Yes jobs have been lost, but its about the pace of job loss. Compared the rate we were losing jobs it was an improvement. And actually yes, business had to pay much higher taxes in the '40s, '50s, & '60s. The corporate tax rate was 50%, compared to the effective 5%(yes statutory is 35%, but thats how many loopholes there are). So why was that the greatest economic boom in US history? My understanding of the economy is based off of the economy we had from the '40s-'60s, not one boom & bust.
It wasn't the greatest economic boom. The greatest peacetime boom was during Reagan when the highest tax rate went from 70 to 28% and revenues doubled in 8 years. It's not even arguable. I don't believe in progressive tax code. It should be a flat rate and EVERYONE should have to pay. Too many people in the country have a vote with no stake, just benefits. It's unconstitutional. I'm not a lefty and we're not going to agree. Govt has too much power and control. You're a big govt guy.
Statistically you're wrong, went from 70% - 50%, wasnt 28% til '88. Secondly that tax cut and that boom was fueled by more DEBT than every President before him combined. Before Reagan took office we were the greatest CREDITOR nation in the world, when he left, the greatest DEBTOR nation in the world. He then followed that with the greatest tax increase on working people in history to pay for that debt.
28% in 88 was still under Reagan. Debt was fueled by a Liberal Congress. Dude, your "facts" are so wrong it's pathetic. Reagan inherited a greater recession from Carter than Obama keeps whining about the one he got. You weren't even alive then and you have no idea what you're talking about. You need to read some things other than what your professors tell you and the Daily Kos. Put away the Political Compass and open your eyes. Buh bye.
#1 you gave credit to the 28% tax rate for the boom, it was a 50% tax rate. #2 He inherited a recession, not debt. Facts arent wrong, theyre facts. He tripled the national debt because they didn't pay for that tax cut, they tried to by taxing the working class, but still couldnt come close. And whats the Daily Kos? And Im not sure what you mean by open your eyes im just trying to put the facts out there. But I guess 'time makes more converts than reason' . I give up.
Deficits were ran up, but it wasn't for the reasons you assume. Not all debt is bad debt. Some things are investments. Roosevelt ran up a debt in WWII. Was that bad? In the 80's, we defeated Soviet Russia, lowered taxes, created 3 million jobs, stocks rose 575% creating the surpluses in the 90's. All that inheriting 12% inflation and 21% interest rates. The only way he could do all this was agree to the Dems spending. Dude, you'll never convert me. Nobody ever spent their way into prosperity.
Good points. The difference is Roosevelts debt was easily paid for because he invested in workers who became taxpayers. Reagans accumulated an insurmountable amount of debt that he planned to pay for by raising taxes on middle & low income earners and cutting programs that helped them. But like I said, Reagan didn't pay for it, FDR did. Reagan created 3 million 'would you like fries with that jobs'? It was the first decade in over 150 years real wages did not increase.
We can argue this all night. It's not gonna make a diff. Like I said, Dems wouldn't curb their spending in the 80's or ever. FDR pulled the biggest ponzi scheme in the world with Social Security and we've never recovered from his Raw Deal. Still paying for it. Point is, no socialist programs work. They fail every time they're tried. That's why I'm Conservative first. Not Republican. I attach myself to no personalities. They must adhere to what I believe. There's failures on both sides.
Yup. Except for Social Security and the New Deal was all paid for with next to no accumulation of debt until the '80s. This was actually Grover Norquists plan, and he admits it!! To starve the government of funds so we could get rid of these public programs, for the simple reason that they dont believe in them! They were paid for over a span of 30 years easily though. So they DO WORK, but they can also be torn apart if you know how, and the Republicans know how.
It's not his fault. He's been indoctrinated by professors. But he's also 21 and he knows everything LOL! Through the course of his life, he'll either wise up eventually, depending on if he ever gets a REAL job, or he'll become more and more brainwashed concreting his beliefs. He's nothing new. The problem is, he doesn't know the Constitution nor does it matter. His agenda comes first just like EVERY progressive. Shred the Constitution. Marxism comes first.
There you go again. SS was put in the General Fund by Johnson in the 60's so they could fudge the numbers. A broken clock is right twice a day. It DOESN'T work. It's bankrupt. It's the biggest ponzi scheme perpetrated on mankind and it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Same thing with unions. They had these contracts for decades with their outlandish benefits. It's finally catching up to them and the automakers are broke. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money. Progressives suck. Nice try.
once again darkknight. Social Security generated 2 trillion dollars between 1984 and 2007. But guess who stole out of it to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy? Yes thats right. He cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, then raised the FICA tax to pay for the deficit. Thats why its currently bankrupt. And this isnt about socialism its about freedom and liberty, social security is a concept that our founding fathers supported. You businessmen know everything though, keep listening to Beck.
You just blew any credibility you had left with that one. Yeah, the founding fathers dreamed up SS. What a hoot. But, you go on and ignore the fact Johnson put it in the general fund to cook the books. SS has never generated a dime. It's a bloated, lazy pig. Your professors have done you a disservice. Like Obama, the Constitution is an obstacle to you. I'm done with your silly ass.
'When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin
The arrogance and rudeness of Conservatives never ceases to amaze me. Those numbers are factually accurate, SS generated 2 tril between '84 & '07, but Reagan & Bush used that to finance their tax cuts for the wealthy, if thats not socialism, I dont know what is. Its funny how Conservatives always bash education, youre education is propoganda from FOX news, liberals get their education from books.
As far as the Constitution goes.. It was supported by the Federalists, those that wanted a strong government, to help protect us from the tyranny of the majority. The bill of rights was then added to protect us from too strong of government. You may say the Constiution is an obstacle to me, but I'll say Freedom & Liberty are obstacles for you. And yes, it was Thomas Paine who thought of a Social Security like program, and many agreed we should provide for the elderly.
One more thing on jobs lost. 2008 - 3 million jobs lost, 2009 - 4 million. I don't see how that's an improvement. Dems have been in control since 2007. And I don't like Bush either.
And just for the record I'm not currently a big fan of Obama, considering he's still further to the RIGHT than Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who taxed the rich at 91%. Obamas a Marxist for letting it expire and go back to 39%.
When I listen to the ObamaNation Gang who are fabricating as they go...
and I consider what is in this video: Phelps Says Russia `Doesn't Belong' Among BRIC Economies /watch?v=120VczYZUU8
Somebody needs to propose a radically different path for this country before it is too late.
ObamaNation is an empty suit going through the motions of "being the 'first of his kind'," but what we need really is another Reagan or JOHN Kennedy who will lead us upward.
Greg nails these scumbags here. I love it. TAKE IT TO 'EM GREGG !! REPRESENT THE PEOPLE... The Obamanauts think the law is just for "the little people". BUCK OFAMA !!!
jamo387 2 years ago
Gregg! You are so ignorant!!! You don't go around acuse people not following the law. Why is this guy so ignorant when other people around him said he's wrong!!!!
PharmDuy 2 years ago
@PharmDuy look at you, what are you doing? you obviously dont agree with gregg but how can you justify that? you cant, you resorted to telling him NOT to accuse people of following the law. well thats how a fucking country is fixed you idiot if we didnt do that slavery wouldnt have ended
omghai2u 2 years ago
Orszag talks as though his lips are wrapped around a helium ballon. Orszag does not understand the law and Gregg made him suck eggs. Basically Orszag admitted that they were going to violate the law and do whatever they wanted to do. When he was proven wrong he looked like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar.
dkkght46 2 years ago
I was told by several elder businesspeople before this even passed that the money would never get returned toward the deficit and would get siphoned off to purchase votes for upcoming election... People have to wake up and learn from the past because it's happening right before your eyes.
duddleytheman 2 years ago
We need another war.
SouthsideBuddy 2 years ago
Hurray for Judd Greg!! TARP money isn't a piggy bank. It's OUR MONEY!!
irishmaryoh 2 years ago 2
What the Obama admin is basically saying is: We'll do what we want in spite of what the law says because we're going to change the laws to coincide with our will and actions. Orszag the progressive is just as full of himself as the other children in charge who change the definitions, rules, and rationale to abide with their actions, not the other way around.
Any politician or admin who does this - Republican or Democrat - should always be called out and confronted.
brothermoon 2 years ago
They're not saying that. They are asking congress to change the law so that they can do it. If congress doesn't pass a bill allowing them to use the TARP funds, then they can't do so.
As much as Gregg is trying to create a campaign commercial accusing the administration of breaking the law, the fact remains, they are asking for congress to do so, they're not just using the TARP money as they see fit.
shalcall 2 years ago
@shalcall actually, to get the context of gregg's comments we should play more of the discussion rather than the conveniently edited clip on CNN. the point was that TARP was to be used for a specific limited purpose, and then to be repayed into the general fund - NOT for then using again as though it's available money. it's borrowed. that's the problem with this type of slush fund thinking the admin is practicing. cease the attacks on the private sector and the economy will recover.
brothermoon 2 years ago
I've seen the whole context. I watch CSPAN more than is probably healthy. But I like politics. The fact is, Orzag is promoting the administration's idea. They cannot, under law, carry out that idea without congress's approval. The admin. has admitted that much over and over, especially through Gibbs during interviews.
What Gregg is doing here is completely disingenuous, because he must know that Obama has asked congress for permission and they haven't yet passed a bill on it.
shalcall 2 years ago
Yes, I agree... Orszag is promoting the admin's agenda/idea.
However, Gregg isn't being disingenuous here.. he's trying to make the point that this is NOT what was to occur w/TARP money that was repaid and why pushing this agenda/idea is wrong - knowing that if this proposal goes to congress w/a majority of free-wheeling spenders it will probably pass. Against the will of the people and the purpose of TARP, and incurring more debt.
brothermoon 2 years ago
Pushing for to use the money as loans (not handouts) to small businesses so they can stay afloat is wrong? Right now those businesses, good ones, can't get small loans because the banks are holding on to money in order to make there balance sheets look strong. They are not loaning money to small businesses, the engine of our economy.
Try to address that situation is wrong? Remember, they admin is asking to LOAN the money, not give it away.
shalcall 2 years ago
Well, that is a different discussion other than the point of this video clip, what Orszag was pushing for, what Gregg's objection was, and what the purpose of TARP was and how it was to be repayed and then remain in the gen fund to pay down the debt. If congress wants to appropriate new funds to assist businesses, that should be a completely separate issue/legislation - not just a transition of TARP funds.
There are far better ways to help small businesses than to resort to this loan disguise.
brothermoon 2 years ago
It's not a loan disguise. The reason the administration is trying this tactic (using TARP funds) is an attempt to keep down the 2010 budget. The TARP money was allocated already. If you create new legislation, as opposed to amending the existing legislation, that money will then have to be counted as new spending increasing the stated deficit.
Moreover, new legislation takes a lot longer to get through congress than amending existing legislation.
shalcall 2 years ago
I label it a disguise because not all of the details have been revealed, but we do know from those that have that very few businesses would qualify for the loans. This less than honest tactic has already been seen in the poor use of stimulus funds - directed largely to public spending that didn't create a large swath of jobs or stimulate the economy, but were rather more of a special interest payback/support & gov't support move. Infrastructure & real incentives would have performed much better.
brothermoon 2 years ago
In addition, any loans by the gov to small businesses at this point only further the debt, will not necessarily be paid back, and only would possibly help a very few number of small businesses according to the requirements. This was addressed in some detail on PBS Newshour, when Judy Woodruff interviewed Bill Rys of the National Federation of Independent Small Businesses (Wed, Feb 3 airing).
brothermoon 2 years ago
Well, I have to watch that PBS Newshour episode, so I can't comment on what Rys said.
I do disagree with you about the stimulus funds. About a third of it was tax cuts, and you're right, I'd rather those tax cuts had been replaced by more direct spending on infrastructure improvement, but I don't think you can find a governor that didn't save the jobs of many firefighters and cops because of that funding. I don't call that special interest payback.
How would you stimulate the economy?
shalcall 2 years ago
The tax cuts did nothing to sustainably stimulate the economy, neither did the cash for clunkers program, & the number of state firefighters & cops who jobs were saved - while important and valid - has been overexaggerated, while much of the spending was wasteful on unnecessary and irrelevant projects and was not accounted for accurately on the gov's own 'transparency site'. See the Mercatus Ctr for Analysis' report on the stimulus.
brothermoon 2 years ago
In terms of stimulating the economy, I'd follow the methods that have worked before - IPI has a great paper on this (What's the Most Potent Way to Stimulate the Economy). MoneyChimp also explains this in easy to understand terms. Production, not consumer spending, will grow sustainable economic stimulation.
Of course, these methods won't necessarily allow this administration to push forward its agenda, so it's unlikely they'll embrace many/any of them.
brothermoon 2 years ago
Well, there no need to argue further, because we could get into a year's long argument on whether production or consumer spending is the best way to recover from a recession. I personally believe increased consumer spending will result in a more stable and sustained recovery.
However, I admit that there are valid theoretical arguments for stimulating the supply side of the equation.
shalcall 2 years ago
@shalcall So you are going to loan already loaned money again? How is this money going to ever get paid back? My generation is going to be stuck with paying for this bullshit.
fabulous4137 2 years ago
Let me ask you something. Are you paying back the massive debt we accumulated during the great depression? What about during the 80's under Reagan? If conservatives were really worried about our debt they would have rallied against the Bush tax cuts (the largest in history) and instead used that surplus to pay down our debt.
That didn't happen. Why? Because despite your hyperbole, our debt is not that bad (we've had much worse), and will probably not be an issue 20 years down the road.
shalcall 2 years ago
You tell those incompetent commies what is right. This is not chicago and chicago style politics aren't healthy in washington despite what Obama has done to bring them here. Keep fighting for the little guy and do what so many are afraid and thats call these communists out!
Oberst1488 2 years ago
Can you imagine that this guy almost went to work for the BO administration - what a mistake that would have been. We need you Sen. Gregg - keep on keeping on.
Suzzel 2 years ago 2
Sen. Gregg, you are one of the few who is SPEAKING for the PEOPLE of this country, and we soooo appreciate it! You stand up for the law and the constitution, and these idiots want to ignore it. You go Senator!!
WakingDead17 2 years ago 4
Gregg is? Greggs only interest is making him and his buddies in big Pharma, big Oil, big Banking, and big Insurance wealthier. The guy whose whose really SPEAKING for the PEOPLE is Sen. Bernie Sanders who blasted Gregg right after this.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
Sanders did NOT blast Gregg after this. He made an attempt to take up for this little pipsqueek nerd and he got slapped right back down by Gregg. Gregg is doing exactly what needs to be done. Go after these incompetent liberals with everything you've got and ignore the rules setup by libs to handicap Repubs. Sanders is a self proclaimed Marxist and you admiring him speaks volumes about yourself.
darkknight91 2 years ago 2
Well Sanders DID blast Gregg. The clip is at Sanders' youtube site, he told Gregg to stop lecturing him about deficits when it was Gregg who voted for two unpaid for wars and an unpaid for tax cut for the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
And who would've guessed that a Conservative would use a scare-tactic LIE. Sanders is NOT a self-proclaimed Marxist, who told ya that? Beck or Limbaugh?
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
He's a self avowed socialist, ie. Marxist. He voted for stimulus, healthcare and any other commie boondoggle he can get his mitts on. Gregg was right. The law is the law and these punks are trying to skirt it by attempt to change the subject and lecture on how the law is created. Until the law is amended, these crooks need to obey it.
darkknight91 2 years ago
Have you ever read Karl Marx? 'Cause I don't think you should say the world Marxism 'til you know what it is. Bernie Sanders isn't anymore a Democratic Socialist than Thomas Paine. It was Paine who first proposed general minimum incomes and social security, and went so far to propose in 'Agrarian Justice' the property tax plan to pay for the needs of the poor.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
I know more about Marx than you'll admit what you are. Sanders is a socialist, plain and simple. I know he's your hero, but he's just as far left as Obama. Paine did some good things but he was a bit of a scoundrel, too. Franklin warned him about his tirade against Christians and he nearly authored himself into oblivion. I don't worship any man so don't attempt to attach a personality to my beliefs. It won't work.
darkknight91 2 years ago
Nothing wrong with tax cuts for the rich. I never got a job from a bum. You're a liar with all your Marxist BS. Go worship your hero BO. He's going down in flames by his own matches.
darkknight91 2 years ago
And by your stimulus and tax cuts for the rich comments I can see you dont understand economics either. The whole point of the stimulus was to provide jobs, those people end up spending money into the PRIVATE sector, with the increase of demand businesses can start to hire more workers. But if you simply give a tax cut to the business owner he has no reason to hire more people, theres NO demand! So go worship Hannity & Palin, I'll keep reading Jefferson, Madison & Paine.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
Where's the jobs then? 4 million lost ON OBAMA'S WATCH. Stimulus was nothing but a payback for his campaign. No business has ever gotten a tax hike and hired employees. Your understanding of the economy is based in the Communist Manifesto. I run my own biz and know how things work. Oh, but you're 21 and know everything. Your Marxist professors have failed you.
BTW, Jefferson was full of contradictions just like Paine. Problem with you is, you worship personalities. They'll fail you every time.
darkknight91 2 years ago
Interesting comments actually, you assume too much though. #1, Sanders IS further left than Obama, Obama SO FAR has sold out to big insurance and big pharma already. Obama never put single-payer Medicare for All on the table, Sanders introduced that to the senate, but couldn't get the votes because the insurance lobby. #2, its not worship, its learning, and you can learn alot from these men. Paine would respond "Better fare hard with good men, than feast it with bad"
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
I'll give you all of that, but what Obama did on healthcare was deceptive. He claimed there would be no one getting between you and your doctor and then capitulated that people had "snuck" it in the bill further killing his credibility. He knew all along what was going on, but when he got called out on it, he had to come clean and tried to throw them under the bus like he usually does.
darkknight91 2 years ago
Yes jobs have been lost, but its about the pace of job loss. Compared the rate we were losing jobs it was an improvement. And actually yes, business had to pay much higher taxes in the '40s, '50s, & '60s. The corporate tax rate was 50%, compared to the effective 5%(yes statutory is 35%, but thats how many loopholes there are). So why was that the greatest economic boom in US history? My understanding of the economy is based off of the economy we had from the '40s-'60s, not one boom & bust.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
It wasn't the greatest economic boom. The greatest peacetime boom was during Reagan when the highest tax rate went from 70 to 28% and revenues doubled in 8 years. It's not even arguable. I don't believe in progressive tax code. It should be a flat rate and EVERYONE should have to pay. Too many people in the country have a vote with no stake, just benefits. It's unconstitutional. I'm not a lefty and we're not going to agree. Govt has too much power and control. You're a big govt guy.
darkknight91 2 years ago 2
Statistically you're wrong, went from 70% - 50%, wasnt 28% til '88. Secondly that tax cut and that boom was fueled by more DEBT than every President before him combined. Before Reagan took office we were the greatest CREDITOR nation in the world, when he left, the greatest DEBTOR nation in the world. He then followed that with the greatest tax increase on working people in history to pay for that debt.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
28% in 88 was still under Reagan. Debt was fueled by a Liberal Congress. Dude, your "facts" are so wrong it's pathetic. Reagan inherited a greater recession from Carter than Obama keeps whining about the one he got. You weren't even alive then and you have no idea what you're talking about. You need to read some things other than what your professors tell you and the Daily Kos. Put away the Political Compass and open your eyes. Buh bye.
darkknight91 2 years ago 3
#1 you gave credit to the 28% tax rate for the boom, it was a 50% tax rate. #2 He inherited a recession, not debt. Facts arent wrong, theyre facts. He tripled the national debt because they didn't pay for that tax cut, they tried to by taxing the working class, but still couldnt come close. And whats the Daily Kos? And Im not sure what you mean by open your eyes im just trying to put the facts out there. But I guess 'time makes more converts than reason' . I give up.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
Deficits were ran up, but it wasn't for the reasons you assume. Not all debt is bad debt. Some things are investments. Roosevelt ran up a debt in WWII. Was that bad? In the 80's, we defeated Soviet Russia, lowered taxes, created 3 million jobs, stocks rose 575% creating the surpluses in the 90's. All that inheriting 12% inflation and 21% interest rates. The only way he could do all this was agree to the Dems spending. Dude, you'll never convert me. Nobody ever spent their way into prosperity.
darkknight91 2 years ago 2
Good points. The difference is Roosevelts debt was easily paid for because he invested in workers who became taxpayers. Reagans accumulated an insurmountable amount of debt that he planned to pay for by raising taxes on middle & low income earners and cutting programs that helped them. But like I said, Reagan didn't pay for it, FDR did. Reagan created 3 million 'would you like fries with that jobs'? It was the first decade in over 150 years real wages did not increase.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
We can argue this all night. It's not gonna make a diff. Like I said, Dems wouldn't curb their spending in the 80's or ever. FDR pulled the biggest ponzi scheme in the world with Social Security and we've never recovered from his Raw Deal. Still paying for it. Point is, no socialist programs work. They fail every time they're tried. That's why I'm Conservative first. Not Republican. I attach myself to no personalities. They must adhere to what I believe. There's failures on both sides.
darkknight91 2 years ago
Yup. Except for Social Security and the New Deal was all paid for with next to no accumulation of debt until the '80s. This was actually Grover Norquists plan, and he admits it!! To starve the government of funds so we could get rid of these public programs, for the simple reason that they dont believe in them! They were paid for over a span of 30 years easily though. So they DO WORK, but they can also be torn apart if you know how, and the Republicans know how.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
Back to sleep. Your spin is so full of lies it isn't worth responding to.
NotEasilyRegimented 2 years ago
It's not his fault. He's been indoctrinated by professors. But he's also 21 and he knows everything LOL! Through the course of his life, he'll either wise up eventually, depending on if he ever gets a REAL job, or he'll become more and more brainwashed concreting his beliefs. He's nothing new. The problem is, he doesn't know the Constitution nor does it matter. His agenda comes first just like EVERY progressive. Shred the Constitution. Marxism comes first.
darkknight91 2 years ago
well not easilyregimented, all ive told you are facts, so yeah i bet that is hard to respond to
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
There you go again. SS was put in the General Fund by Johnson in the 60's so they could fudge the numbers. A broken clock is right twice a day. It DOESN'T work. It's bankrupt. It's the biggest ponzi scheme perpetrated on mankind and it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Same thing with unions. They had these contracts for decades with their outlandish benefits. It's finally catching up to them and the automakers are broke. Socialism works until you run out of other people's money. Progressives suck. Nice try.
darkknight91 2 years ago
once again darkknight. Social Security generated 2 trillion dollars between 1984 and 2007. But guess who stole out of it to pay for his tax cuts for the wealthy? Yes thats right. He cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans, then raised the FICA tax to pay for the deficit. Thats why its currently bankrupt. And this isnt about socialism its about freedom and liberty, social security is a concept that our founding fathers supported. You businessmen know everything though, keep listening to Beck.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
You just blew any credibility you had left with that one. Yeah, the founding fathers dreamed up SS. What a hoot. But, you go on and ignore the fact Johnson put it in the general fund to cook the books. SS has never generated a dime. It's a bloated, lazy pig. Your professors have done you a disservice. Like Obama, the Constitution is an obstacle to you. I'm done with your silly ass.
'When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin
darkknight91 2 years ago
The arrogance and rudeness of Conservatives never ceases to amaze me. Those numbers are factually accurate, SS generated 2 tril between '84 & '07, but Reagan & Bush used that to finance their tax cuts for the wealthy, if thats not socialism, I dont know what is. Its funny how Conservatives always bash education, youre education is propoganda from FOX news, liberals get their education from books.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
As far as the Constitution goes.. It was supported by the Federalists, those that wanted a strong government, to help protect us from the tyranny of the majority. The bill of rights was then added to protect us from too strong of government. You may say the Constiution is an obstacle to me, but I'll say Freedom & Liberty are obstacles for you. And yes, it was Thomas Paine who thought of a Social Security like program, and many agreed we should provide for the elderly.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
I know I can't convert you, not trying to, but I'm enjoying the debate.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
Since you like Jefferson, here's some for you:
It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes.
My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.
Never spend your money before you have earned it.
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.
darkknight91 2 years ago
One more thing on jobs lost. 2008 - 3 million jobs lost, 2009 - 4 million. I don't see how that's an improvement. Dems have been in control since 2007. And I don't like Bush either.
darkknight91 2 years ago 2
And just for the record I'm not currently a big fan of Obama, considering he's still further to the RIGHT than Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who taxed the rich at 91%. Obamas a Marxist for letting it expire and go back to 39%.
GoldenSlumbers04 2 years ago
LOL!!! Say no more.
darkknight91 2 years ago
When I listen to the ObamaNation Gang who are fabricating as they go...
and I consider what is in this video: Phelps Says Russia `Doesn't Belong' Among BRIC Economies /watch?v=120VczYZUU8
Somebody needs to propose a radically different path for this country before it is too late.
ObamaNation is an empty suit going through the motions of "being the 'first of his kind'," but what we need really is another Reagan or JOHN Kennedy who will lead us upward.
adamitshelanu 2 years ago 3
Go get em Judd!
HollyTNUSA 2 years ago 4
Oh wow.. *In your Face* moment.
texas224 2 years ago 3