Not a budget deficit - a taxes deficit!

[1KielsonDrive]

I'm not bailing out anyone. Remember, the bailouts were the work of neocons and Democrats and the Bush tax cut for the rich was extended by President Obama. Perhaps you should understand that if money is leant to the IMF, then it is no longer available to lend to Americans and that with the US over $14T [[a big number to a lot of non-Democrats) in debt, the US government has to borrow and tap this money from other sources. To the extent it is borrowed and tapped from Americans, it leaves our economy for a period of time. Perhaps you could share the time frame and interest rate because I haven't seen them.

I already pointed out that some of the IMF money has been spent on swank hotel suites and pricey lawyers. You are right. We do get some crumbs from the table.

"Our proposal to increase U.S. participation in the NAB by up to $100 billion as part of an overall increase of $500 billion was warmly endorsed by the G-20 Leaders." -President Barack Obama in a letter of request to Rep. Boehner

"Warmly endorsed" I love that part.

So, at least you are willing to admit that it wasn't just NO!Bama that bailed out and exempted the richest in our world from taxes leading to a tax deficit? I think we're making progress here, albeit fleeting and illusory.

[oladub]

Yes, this is what Barack Obama does. He sits around with The Giant Checkbook sayiing, "Oh gee, I think I'll cut a check for $100 billion to my friends at the IMF. Just because." Because he knows it pisses you off. Well, that and he doesn't give two shits what the economy looks like. It's all just a big pile of play money to him, and he spends it arbitrarily and with reckless abandon. Why? Because he can, that's why.

It's not like we're bailing out your billionaire buddies again with more arbitrary and unnecessary tax cuts. By the way--has the trickle made it to you yet???

Now go get pissed about something that matters.

Actually, two checks for $100,000,000,000 = $200,000,000,000 borrowed from US taxpayers and removed from our economy to bolster the IMF. You presume that the IMF will spend it in ways which will be better for the US economy than the Americans it was borrowed and tapped from. If it works so good, maybe we should lend the IMF even more money. So, are you going on record as suggesting that we should raise taxes to provide more money for the IMF among other things? That is the premise of this thread.

[ghettopalmetto]

So, are you going on record as suggesting that we should raise taxes to provide more money for the IMF among other things? That is the premise of this thread.

That's funny. I thought the premise of this thread was your rampant hypocrisy RE: the manufactured "need" to balance the budget while preserving tax cuts for billionaires in a time of record low federal revenues as a percentage of GDP.

But you were saying something about the IMF???

[oladub]

That's funny. I thought the premise of this thread was your rampant hypocrisy RE: the manufactured "need" to balance the budget while preserving tax cuts for billionaires in a time of record low federal revenues as a percentage of GDP.

But you were saying something about the IMF???

In your post #13 you asked if I had any questions. I responded by asking two question in post #17 which you never answered. I responded,

"Can I ask two questions?

Last year, President Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress, gave the IMF $100,000,000,000. This year another round for the IMF, in the same amount, is being requested and some Republicans are on board. Do you think this should be paid for with 'personal' or 'corporate' taxes? Consider that the IMF is very good to it's employees. The IMF just promised $250,000 of severance pay to Dominique Strauss–Kahn. Is this one of the reasons there is a need for plugging the 'taxes deficit" with higher taxes?

That, by way of example , is where the IMF came into the conversation.

I can understand your need for stepping up and being an Obama apologist. Last week you had to defend his tapping of federal pensions and before that we learned that he was bombing Libya for the general welfare or something. But just go back to my original questions .
1) Do you think this should be paid for with 'personal' or 'corporate' taxes?
2) Is [[filling the coffers of the IMF) one of the reasons there is a need for plugging the 'taxes deficit" with higher taxes?

I would guess that of you wanted to shower billionaires with our tax money, sending $100,000,000,000 a year to international bankers would go a long way toward that end.

[ghettopalmetto]

In your post #13 you asked if I had any questions. I responded by asking two question in post #17 which you never answered. I responded,

"Can I ask two questions?

Last year, President Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress, gave the IMF $100,000,000,000. This year another round for the IMF, in the same amount, is being requested and some Republicans are on board. Do you think this should be paid for with 'personal' or 'corporate' taxes? Consider that the IMF is very good to it's employees. The IMF just promised $250,000 of severance pay to Dominique Strauss–Kahn. Is this one of the reasons there is a need for plugging the 'taxes deficit" with higher taxes?

That, by way of example , is where the IMF came into the conversation.

I can understand your need for stepping up and being an Obama apologist. Last week you had to defend his tapping of federal pensions and before that we learned that he was bombing Libya for the general welfare or something. But just go back to my original questions .
1) Do you think this should be paid for with 'personal' or 'corporate' taxes?
2) Is [[filling the coffers of the IMF) one of the reasons there is a need for plugging the 'taxes deficit" with higher taxes?

I would guess that of you wanted to shower billionaires with our tax money, sending $100,000,000,000 a year to international bankers would go a long way toward that end.

I'm by no means an Obama apologist. I just think you're worried about the complete wrong shit.

[maxx]

Finally, we need to end the practice of paying large corporate farming operations not to grow crops, as well as their subsities.

That's only part of the ag subsidies. Paying farmers to not grow a crop is supposed to keep the price of that crop stable instead of wildly going up and down in the "free" market and driving farmers out of business.