Talk about brain washing

[rayg]

I just went on my cell phone and pulled up news sites, these were what came up automatic.
Newsweek
politics
CNN
CNBC
NPR
LA Times
Politico
The Week
The Washington Post

All very liberal leaning sites and not a single conservative site listed. I had to manually enter Fox News onto the list so it could be included so I could at least get another political perspective opinion. As I do read all of them. But it is very obvious the political direction of the cell phone company. Ray

[Clark Howard]

Are we surprised by this revelation? The gov pays the cell providers monthly for each free cellphone given to the dem clients without charge to the user. What? You PAY for your cell service? Ha, just an accident of birth.

[Sandpebble]

Are we surprised by this revelation? The gov pays the cell providers monthly for each free cellphone given to the dem clients without charge to the user. What? You PAY for your cell service? Ha, just an accident of birth.

Well Clark ... just saying .... but we just went through 2 1/2 years of a President bragging he'll end everything Obama ever did . Two of those years he held the House and the Senate.

Then why is it that only " Dem " clients get a free phone... ?.... or in fact anyone ?

is he failing ???

[togor]

I think Clark is just talking sh*t. As for Trump, he's hardly a victim. He picks fights with the press to keep his bloc in line. Peaceful times are lousy for discipline in the ranks. If there isn't a quarrel, make one.

[Vern Humphrey]

Do you get the impression there are people here who are not only brainwashed, but spin-dried?

[S.A. Boggs]

Do you get the impression there are people here who are not only brainwashed, but spin-dried?

It's possible, it's possible!
Sam

[togor]

Do you get the impression there are people here who are not only brainwashed, but spin-dried?

I do! But I read all of the posts so I know. You don't, so you don't.

But one example: the Trump Tax cuts were going to turbocharge economic growth and actually reduce the budget deficit! You remember that one, sir? It's you, one hundred times over. Supply siders are as brainwashed as they get.

[lyman]

I do! But I read all of the posts so I know. You don't, so you don't.

But one example: the Trump Tax cuts were going to turbocharge economic growth and actually reduce the budget deficit! You remember that one, sir? It's you, one hundred times over. Supply siders are as brainwashed as they get.

as long as congress can find a way to spend money, we will never chip away that deficit,

that would be both sides of congress

[S.A. Boggs]

as long as congress can find a way to spend money, we will never chip away that deficit,

that would be both sides of congress

Personally my family needs more money to complete our remodeling with the same amount that is coming in. We have cut out everything that we can cut to divert funds to other needs, it is working. Pelosi needs to understand that one cannot burn the candle at both ends or have it meet in the middle. With more people working does this justify expanding the welfare system? If people can provide for self shouldn't the program be retracting and less money spent there? Does the military really need all of these weapon systems? Does the United States really needs to "police" all of the world? Do we need to send a battle group into an area where a sub could do? I understand the significance of showing the color is this really needed now? People know what the United States is capable of doing and will do it, can't it be done at a lower cost? Why should we fight the next conflict with obsolete tactics?
Sam

[Vern Humphrey]

The Balanced Budget Amendment

1. If the Federal debt is higher at the end of the calendar year than it was at the beginning of the calendar year, or the United States shall default on its obligations, the budget is not balanced.

2. If the budget is not balanced, Congress shall take a temporary twenty percent pay cut for five years. This money, and all other public money due to members of Congress, plus twenty percent of all other income, from any source, public or private, shall be placed in an interest-bearing account. If the budget is balanced at the end of the fifth year, the money with interest shall be returned to the members of Congress. If the budget is not balanced, the money shall be forfeited to the Treasury, and the cuts and taxes on Congress shall be permanent. For the next five years there shall be a further twenty percent cut under the same rules. This process shall continue until the budget is balanced.

3. The power to tax is exclusively reserved to the people, and no tax or other revenue-enhancing measure shall be created, and no existing tax or other revenue-enhancing measure shall be increased except by a vote of the majority of the people at a regularly scheduled Federal election.

4. The highest rate of the income tax will not be more than twenty times the lowest rate, and if there is any level of income not taxed, or for which the taxes are rebated under any pretext, the lowest rate will be deemed to be zero, and no one will pay income tax.

5. In time of war or grave emergency, the people may suspend the requirement for a balanced budget by majority vote in a Federal election, but no such suspension shall be in effect for more than two years.

[togor]

as long as congress can find a way to spend money, we will never chip away that deficit,

that would be both sides of congress

Not true. For much of our history, before we invented all of this fancy finance, the budget had to be balanced. Of course back then people lived without electricity either, and got by. But there is electricity now, and sophisticated finance with fiat money, and so no one worth taking seriously proposes living without either, as dispensing with both would result in a steep drop in the standard of living. That said, the supply siders deliberately reduce inflows, pointing to the Laffer curve as their justification for it. The Laffer curve is an argument based on incremental analysis, and all of the data says that we're on the wrong side of that curve. The supply side argument amounts to: If you lean forward or backward enough, you can make believe that an uphill step is actually downhill, or vice versa. It is every bit as stupid as it sounds. And yet brainwashed supply siders stick to it come what may. Hey Vernon opened the door on this, by personalizing the issue to forum members. I say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[S.A. Boggs]

Then why throw stones Togor???
Sam

[togor]

Then why throw stones Togor???
Sam

Boggs it's called return fire. Exactly what you would do.

[S.A. Boggs]

Boggs it's called return fire. Exactly what you would do.

It depends on their "logic" or degree of M.I.
Sam

[lyman]

Not true. For much of our history, before we invented all of this fancy finance, the budget had to be balanced. Of course back then people lived without electricity either, and got by. But there is electricity now, and sophisticated finance with fiat money, and so no one worth taking seriously proposes living without either, as dispensing with both would result in a steep drop in the standard of living. That said, the supply siders deliberately reduce inflows, pointing to the Laffer curve as their justification for it. The Laffer curve is an argument based on incremental analysis, and all of the data says that we're on the wrong side of that curve. The supply side argument amounts to: If you lean forward or backward enough, you can make believe that an uphill step is actually downhill, or vice versa. It is every bit as stupid as it sounds. And yet brainwashed supply siders stick to it come what may. Hey Vernon opened the door on this, by personalizing the issue to forum members. I say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

that was then,


this is now,