Those Who Prefer Heavy Government Spending

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 08, 2010 9:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI've said on here many times that we need a 25% across the board cut in Federal spending (including the military, excluding social security and medicare). That would be a fine start.

    Except, you fail to mention that the Republicans you support want to ELIMINATE Social Security and Medicare, or at best privatize it. Which would slash benefits but make huge profits for Republican Party donors. Nice deal.

    Now why did this funding problem suddenly happen? There were no vast increases in government expenditures under Obama compared to Bush. Aside from multi-trillion-dollar wars he inherited from Bush, which are less than Obama put into the economy to save it, and that are now returning profits.

    The problem is the economic melt-down that started during the Bush Administration. You don't have revenues flowing into the government when the economy tanks, thanks to Bush policies. If the States are hurting, it's because Bush & Republicans ruined the US economy. It happened during their watch, so don't slide the blame onto Obama.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 12:05 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.

    Perhaps you should concentrate on eliminating the deficit, which is a worthy goal, and not on decimating the economy.


    No one said to eliminate (which I assume you are implying with "demolish") the federal government as much as make sure it stops spending more money than it has coming in.





    So, you Repubs want the government to stop "spending more money than it has coming in" now?
    That's a change.
    Or should I say - a MAJOR FLIP-FLOP.
    You guys have been saying "deficits don't matter" for the past thirty years.
    And have been running up massive yearly budget deficits year after year after year whenever a Republican president has been in office.
    It's nice that you've decided to embrace the IDEA of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget (finally) - but your RECORD is one of massive deficit spending and growing the National Debt.

    So, can the hypocritical crap about the Repubs being more fiscally responsible.
    It's a total BS.


    The fact that both democrats and republicans engage in redistributive, fiscally irresponsible policies is not the issue (because we all know they both do it) -- it's that your entire line of thinking cannot be separated from the fact that you fundamentally embrace a system which requires high subsidization from taxpayers. You WANT constant government EXPANSION (not elimination or dis-involvement) which then requires more money that has to be gotten from somewhere.

    You look at a deficit and think: "it's because people aren't being taxed enough to pay for the shortfall".

    I look at it and say: "Many of the programs that require funding shouldn't exist to begin with, let alone expanded upon. And since the taxpayer money is disproportionately and unfairly benefiting the people who aren't paying, they should be able to keep that hard earned money. If the programs can't be supported with enough money then cut them out to fit the current budget and let private enterprise do the rest".

    The problem is that you can't simultaneously let people keep more of their money and yet keep the SAME amount of revenue coming into stupid programs that live to maintain. So of course the deficit will grow, because the money isn't coming in for all the bull-crap you're wanting to continue.

    It doesn't matter if democrats and republicans both engage in what you're taking issue to -- it is that your entire mentality is incompatible with the idea of not spending more than what is coming in.

    So blame the fiscally irresponsible republicans all you want, but it only makes you look worse because that type of behavior is what is inherent in the philosophy that you inseparably embrace by your political positions.

    It would be identical to a situation where you supported a candidate who believes, as a core principle, in deforestation and then criticizing the opponent who supposedly opposes deforestation for engaging in exactly that. It merely makes your supposed adversary look more aligned to the views that you unavoidably cherish.


    This is ridiculous. The three largest parts of federal spending are Medicare, SS and the military. Of those, Medicare and SS enjoy broad popular support and aren't going anywhere. Further, they both keep a majority of senior from living in poverty, so they're indispensable. The military however spends more than the next 25 largest countries combined and, yet, no Republican will ever let it be cut.

    Without the wars and the tax cuts for the wealthy, we would have no deficit and SS and Medicare would be fully funded. So the choice is keep the war machine running (which benefits multi-nationals and the rich) while cutting THEIR taxes, so that poor seniors can die in the street; OR, we can cut military spending and raise taxes slightly on those who can most afford it, and take care of those who helped build this great country. The latter is the patriotic, American thing to do and the other is corporate fascism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 2:47 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    TigerTim saidIt is remarkable here that the "conservatives" here are actually radical revolutionaries, who seem to want to demolish the Federal government.

    Perhaps you should concentrate on eliminating the deficit, which is a worthy goal, and not on decimating the economy.


    No one said to eliminate (which I assume you are implying with "demolish") the federal government as much as make sure it stops spending more money than it has coming in.





    So, you Repubs want the government to stop "spending more money than it has coming in" now?
    That's a change.
    Or should I say - a MAJOR FLIP-FLOP.
    You guys have been saying "deficits don't matter" for the past thirty years.
    And have been running up massive yearly budget deficits year after year after year whenever a Republican president has been in office.
    It's nice that you've decided to embrace the IDEA of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget (finally) - but your RECORD is one of massive deficit spending and growing the National Debt.

    So, can the hypocritical crap about the Repubs being more fiscally responsible.
    It's a total BS.


    The fact that both democrats and republicans engage in redistributive, fiscally irresponsible policies is not the issue (because we all know they both do it) -- it's that your entire line of thinking cannot be separated from the fact that you fundamentally embrace a system which requires high subsidization from taxpayers. You WANT constant government EXPANSION (not elimination or dis-involvement) which then requires more money that has to be gotten from somewhere.

    You look at a deficit and think: "it's because people aren't being taxed enough to pay for the shortfall".

    I look at it and say: "Many of the programs that require funding shouldn't exist to begin with, let alone expanded upon. And since the taxpayer money is disproportionately and unfairly benefiting the people who aren't paying, they should be able to keep that hard earned money. If the programs can't be supported with enough money then cut them out to fit the current budget and let private enterprise do the rest".

    The problem is that you can't simultaneously let people keep more of their money and yet keep the SAME amount of revenue coming into stupid programs that live to maintain. So of course the deficit will grow, because the money isn't coming in for all the bull-crap you're wanting to continue.

    It doesn't matter if democrats and republicans both engage in what you're taking issue to -- it is that your entire mentality is incompatible with the idea of not spending more than what is coming in.

    So blame the fiscally irresponsible republicans all you want, but it only makes you look worse because that type of behavior is what is inherent in the philosophy that you inseparably embrace by your political positions.

    It would be identical to a situation where you supported a candidate who believes, as a core principle, in deforestation and then criticizing the opponent who supposedly opposes deforestation for engaging in exactly that. It merely makes your supposed adversary look more aligned to the views that you unavoidably cherish.




    What a load of BS.
    You do NOT have the right to speak for me about what I believe or advocate.
    If your tiny pea brain had any rentention capabilities at all, you would recall previous comments I've posted that stated VERY clearly that I advocate BOTH cutting spending AND raising taxes.
    People who live in the real world, rather than the pro-right-wing Fox "News" fantasyland that you inhabit - know that the ONLY way to reduce and eliminate the National Debt is to raise taxes as well as cut spending.

    Feel free to post all the right-wing BS you believe that you want, but do NOT attempt to imitate your buddy SB and the liars on Fox by deliberately mischaracterizing what my beliefs are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 09, 2010 4:47 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Christian73 said
    This is ridiculous.


    No it's not.

    Christian73 said
    The three largest parts of federal spending are Medicare, SS and the military. Of those, Medicare and SS enjoy broad popular support and aren't going anywhere.


    OK, you go ahead and plan on living off of Social Security in 30 years. There won't be any!

    Christian73 said The military however spends more than the next 25 largest countries combined and, yet, no Republican will ever let it be cut.


    The Tea Party will. They're sick of picking up the defense bill for the rest of the free world. Time to start making the rest of the world pay for their own defense. (You and I agree on that!)

    Christian73 said
    Without the wars and the tax cuts for the wealthy, we would have no deficit and SS and Medicare would be fully funded.


    Yeah, a single gay man earning $200,000 a year is "wealthy" and a "millionaire" and a "billionaire" uh huh.... icon_rolleyes.gif

    Christian73 said
    Without the wars and the tax cuts for the wealthy, we would have no deficit and SS and Medicare would be fully funded.


    SS and Medicare have been raided for years by the Congress. All that's in the "trust fund" is a bunch of worthless I.O.U.s that will be even further ravaged by the coming hyper-inflation.


    The Tea Party is under full control of their corporate masters who are largely oil and gas corporations and foreign policy hawks. And they make up less than 20% of the public, and most of their celebrities (Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Jim Demint) are loathed by most of the country, so they'll be doing not much of anything. If they were really concerned with the deficit, they would not be supporting this legislation. And, if you think they're going to let anyone touch Medicare and SS, you're even crazier than most of them are. Remember the signs? "Keep your government hands off Social Security?" They will turn on any politician that tries to touch it. So now actual changes, just a continually bloated deficit with no plan to reduce it.