The Libs are at it again!

jpete wrote:And I didn't ask about the a$$holes in D.C. I'm asking about you. Do YOU think it's a good idea to incur more debt when you are drowning in debt.

I already answered you above.

Devil505 wrote:I'll have to defer to the economic experts of both the Republican (under Bush & Paulson) & Democratic (under Obama)

I'm no economist & the whole subject has always caused m to just nod off.
(I'm much better at coal related questions!)

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:And I didn't ask about the *censored* in D.C. I'm asking about you. Do YOU think it's a good idea to incur more debt when you are drowning in debt.

I already answered you above.

Devil505 wrote:I'll have to defer to the economic experts of both the Republican (under Bush & Paulson) & Democratic (under Obama)

I'm no economist & the whole subject has always caused m to just nod off.
(I'm much better at coal related questions!)

No, no, no. You don't get off that easy. You come in here like a wrecking ball when you want to bash "R"'s so don't give me that crap.

Take a guess. Is adding debt on top of debt, when you have no visible means of income to pay it off, a good idea?

BHO is your guy. Defend him.

jpete wrote:No, no, no. You don't get off that easy. You come in here like a wrecking ball when you want to bash "R"'s so don't give me that crap.

Take a guess. Is adding debt on top of debt, when you have no visible means of income to pay it off, a good idea?

I guess you really want an answer to that question from me, so here is my "Hand fired coal stove expert" answer:
I guess if you are buried in high interest credit card debt & can't keep up with even the monthly minimum payments, & you have a chance to secure a longer term, lower interest loan to pay off all your credit cards, (which you intend to pay off in good faith).......Then YES......I can see where incurring more debt would be advantageous over bankruptcy.

Happy Now?

Devil505 wrote:

jpete wrote:No, no, no. You don't get off that easy. You come in here like a wrecking ball when you want to bash "R"'s so don't give me that crap.

Take a guess. Is adding debt on top of debt, when you have no visible means of income to pay it off, a good idea?

I guess you really want an answer to that question from me, so here is my "Hand fired coal stove expert" answer:
I guess if you are buried in high interest credit card debt & can't keep up with even the monthly minimum payments, & you have a chance to secure a longer term, lower interest loan, (which you intend to pay off in good faith).......Then YES......I can see where incurring more debt would be advantageous over bankruptcy.

Happy Now?

Wow, you really ought to go work down in GitMo. You can torture an argument like no one else!

If in fact we were paying down debt with the longer term loan, I'd agree with you. I have done it myself in my personal life. Fairly successfully I might add. The only part I messed up on was being a "good" American and went out and incurred a whole bunch more debt!

But BHO is ignoring the current debt. He's even said it's not important. He's taking a big new loan and spending it on things we already(allegedly) paid for. Like roads and schools. What happened to my fuel and property taxes? Who can I prosecute for stealing my money and not using it for what it was supposed to go to?

jpete wrote:If in fact we were paying down debt with the longer term loan, I'd agree with you.

OK...Then how about if I am incurring more debt to take a course which will lead to a new career which will triple my earnings potential?

I think I just gave you two reasonable answers to your question:

jpete wrote:Take a guess. Is adding debt on top of debt, when you have no visible means of income to pay it off, a good idea?

Now you are demanding an answer you will agree with??

Devil505 wrote:OK...Then how about if I am incurring more debt to take a course which will lead to a new career which will triple my earnings potential?

And how is that miracle going to occur?

I already paid my fuel taxes to build/maintain the roads. And I already paid my property taxes to pay for the schools. Now you want me to take another loan to pay for them AGAIN?!

How does that generate income?

The government doesn't generate wealth, it destroys it. Only producing "things" generates wealth and as far as I know, there is damn little in BHO's doing anything about manufacturing.

I'm not looking for an answer I can agree with, I'm trying to pull you into the light!

jpete wrote:I'm not looking for an answer I can agree with, I'm trying to pull you into the light!

I'm not falling for that trick!!...Anyone who's seen horror/ghost movies knows.....Don't go toward the light!

The jig is up Devil. Everyone clearly sees that you are just arguing for arguments sake. I have to thank you however for spurring me to read up on economics to better understand the better posts made by mikeandgerry and jpete. Historically, it is not even up for argument who has bankrupted this country. I did not realize that the Supreme court ruled FDR's New Deal crap unconstitutional at every turn but he "outlived" them and nominated liberals to get his way. The people allowed it to happen because of the Great Depression as they were focused on surviving and he was making big promises. Interesting parallel to. He was Harvard educated and was called the Savior! And he spent like a drunken sailor. Lets hope it does not take a world war to turn things around like the last time.

Kevin

KLook wrote:Lets hope it does not take a world war to turn things around like the last time.

That's for sure!!!!!!!

IS history repeating itself with a vengeance. Remember this "Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord, I will repay. They're in power again and learned absolutely nothing but how to blame shift to get what they want by intimidation. But thats socialism isn't it ?
Here's a little dirty secret,

BARACK OBAMA WILL SEEK TO RATIFY DANGEROUS UNITED NATIONS TREATY (Friday Church News Notes, February 13, 2009, http://www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - The following is excerpted from “United Nations’ Threat: No More Parental Rights,” WorldNetDaily, Feb. 5, 2009: “A United Nations human rights treaty that could prohibit children from being spanked or homeschooled, ban youngsters from facing the death penalty and forbid parents from deciding their families' religion is on America's doorstep, a legal expert warns. Michael Farris of Purcellville, Va., is president of ParentalRights.org, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association and chancellor of Patrick Henry College. He told WND that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, or CRC, every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest. ‘It's definitely on our doorstep,’ he said. ‘The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it. If they can put all of their left-wing socialist policies into treaty form, we're stuck with it even if they lose the next election.’ The 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 193 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power. Countries that ratify the treaty are bound to it by international law. Although signed by Madeleine Albright, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., on Feb. 16, 1995, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents. ... According to the Parental Rights website, the substance of the CRC dictates the following: Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children. ... Children would have the ability to choose their own religion. ... Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure. Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance. ... Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent. ... At a Walden University presidential debate last October, Obama indicated he may take action. ‘It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land,’ Obama said. ‘I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights.’ Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification. The process requires a two-thirds vote.”

Here's the change





Bill S

Think we're going to get all we can out of this one, closing.