Tea Party "dying on the wrong hill"?

[377OHMS]

Quote from Ricter:

Are you griefing? Many decent nations are spending a lot more than that.

Ok, you won't answer. Not answering doesn't conceal your position.

I'll go ahead and extrapolate, you clearly *do* think it is appropriate for 25% of the productivity of this country to be controlled by the federal government.

Furthermore that means you do support the "nanny state" similar to what is going on in the UK.

Do you consider yourself to be a socialist? Another simple question. Gonna dodge that one too?

 

[Max E.]

Quote from Ricter:

That statement is a giveaway that your mind is already made up. Made up by who? By what data?

My mind is made up by reality, we will have over 20 trillion of debt by the end of this decade, if interest rates went to 20% we would have to spend as much on servicing the debt as we do on the entire federal budget, 4 trillion dollars.

 

[seneca_roman]

IMO, the current debate is not about debt but rather what is the proper role of government in society.

Dems and Obama want to move more towards a Euro nanny state, and the "Tea Party" wants to move towards a "less is better" approach. The debt and deficits are the chosen tool for this debate.

Seneca

 

[Ricter]

Quote from 377OHMS:

Ok, you won't answer. Not answering doesn't conceal your position.

Oh, I was going to answer, but first I wanted to give you the data that might help you make sense of my position, particularly my lack of worry.

Edit: Re the socialist question. You must have missed it, but I've admitted in several threads that I'm a commie.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

You didn't read the article, did you?

No I did not, I stopped at "The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt".

That's like saying the sky isn't blue, what would have been the point?

What is it with you and your aversion to spending less and pretending the national debt isn't a problem?

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

No I did not, I stopped at "The U.S. Is Not Drowning In Debt".

That's like saying the sky isn't blue, what would have been the point?

What is it with you and your aversion to spending less and pretending the national debt isn't a problem?

I said the article was an interesting perspective.

If you saw an article that said "the sky isn't blue", you really wouldn't look at why the author is making such a claim? You don't appear to be too busy for checking things.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

I said the article was an interesting perspective.

Oh I understand. You think any dope who promotes massive government intervention and or spending is "interesting".

If you saw an article that said "the sky isn't blue", you really wouldn't look at why the author is making such a claim?

What for? I already know he's full of shit.

 

[Max E.]

Commentary from Charlie Sheen provvides an "interesting perspective" but only in the sense that it it interesting to read the ramblings of someone who is crazy.

Quote from Ricter:

I said the article was an interesting perspective.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Lucrum:

What for? I already know he's full of shit.

You think you know, as I told Max, you've already got your mind made up regardless of what you see.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

You think you know, as I told Max, you've already got your mind made up regardless of what you see.

Odd, I was thinking the same of you. So you're going to argue the sky is not blue so to speak?

If I shoot myself in the foot I don't need someone else giving me an "interesting perspective" telling me how it doesn't hurt as much as I know for a fact it does. Anyone claiming $14 + trillion isn't a problem is delusional inept or both.