Nobody touches Military Spending. Anybody know why?
I always thought it had to do with the U.S. ability to acquire natural resources around the world, through intimidation or something of the sort.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
89% of the money made by the rich doesnt come from wages or salaries. I dont think it’s the people at the bottom who are getting a “free lunch”.[/quote]
Well, I’d propose dropping the corporate tax rate and raising the capital gains rate, but in any event, income from outside of wages and salaries isn’t the same as a “free lunch” - they are dividends from successful investments that are taxed to pay for a free lunch. There’s nothing free about buying stock that pays you dividends.
[/quote]
When you raise capital gains the government takes in less money because less investments are done.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton[/quote]
LBJ did it by allowing all the money that had been saved for social security to be spent. And Clinton’s was a result of the .com bubble.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton[/quote]
I believe both LBJ and Clinton had republican houses.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton[/quote]
I believe both LBJ and Clinton had republican houses.
[/quote]
You believe? 
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton[/quote]
I believe both LBJ and Clinton had republican houses.
[/quote]
You believe? :)[/quote]
If I recall correctly.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton[/quote]
I believe both LBJ and Clinton had republican houses.
[/quote]
You believe? :)[/quote]
If I recall correctly. :)[/quote]
How old were you in LBJ’S administration ?
It is scary what is going on, with the possible down grade of the US. And sadly, the rating agencies have a poor record of being behind the curve. They tend to continue giving positive reviews of companies, right up till their bankruptcy. For example:
http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/a-financial-atom-bomb-44241?FIELD9=2
From the article:
"Nearly a year ago, I publicly challenged S&P, Moodyâ??s and Fitch to downgrade the long-term debt of the United States government â?? to help protect investors and prod Washington to fix its finances. (Go to this page for the challenge, and here for the press release.)
In a moment, Iâ??ll show you why their failure to respond is ripping off investors, how itâ??s exposing millions to a financial atom bomb, and what you can do for immediate fallout protection.
But first, this question: Did S&P finally respond to my challenge last week when it â??downgradedâ?? U.S. debt to â??negativeâ???
To the casual observer, that might appear to be the case. But in reality, their action â?? much like recent steps by Washington to â??fixâ?? the deficit â?? was little more than smoke and mirrors.
Here are the facts:
S&P did NOT change, even by one tiny notch, its â??AAAâ?? rating for U.S. government debt. It merely changed its future â??outlookâ?? for the rating.
S&P did NOT have the courage to do whatâ??s right for investors and for the country today. It merely said it might do something a couple of years from now.
Worst of all, S&P has done nothing to change its practices that have caused so much pain for investors in recent years. As before, itâ??s typically quick to upgrade its best-paying clients, but often delays meaningful downgrades until itâ??s far too late.
Itâ??s the Greatest Financial Scandal of Our
Time, and the U.S. Governmentâ??s Triple-A
Rating Is the Most Scandalous of All.
In proportion to the size of its economy, the U.S. government has bigger deficits, more debt, plus bigger future liabilities to Medicare and Social Security than many countries receiving far lower ratings from S&P, Moodyâ??s and Fitch.
Compared to lower rated countries, the U.S. also has a greater reliance on foreign financing, a weaker currency, and far smaller international reserves.
The U.S. government is exposed to trillions of dollars in contingent liabilities from its intervention on behalf of financial institutions during the 2008-2009 debt crisis.
The U.S. Federal Reserve, as part of its response to the financial crisis, may be exposed to significant credit risk.
The U.S. economy is heavily indebted at all levels, despite recent deleveraging.
U.S. states and municipalities are experiencing severe economic distress and may require intervention from the federal government.
The U.S governmentâ??s finances could be adversely impacted by a rise in interest rates.
The U.S. dollar may not continue to enjoy reserve currency status and may continue to decline.
Improper payments by the federal government continue to increase despite the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002.
The U.S. government had failed its official audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for 14 years in a row, with 31 material weaknesses found in 24 government departments and agencies.
This is no secret. Nor am I citing original facts.
They are the same facts that have been written about extensively by Jim Grant, editor of the Interest Rate Observer, brought to light by the U.S. Government Accountability Office and widely publicized by its former chief, David Walker.
They are similar to the points made in recent warnings by the International Monetary Fund, the Congressional Budget Office, the European Central Bank, the presidentâ??s deficit commission, and even the Big Three Rating agencies themselves.
And yet, the U.S. government STILL gets a AAA rating from all three?
And all the while, other countries, which do NOT have these problems, get far lower grades?
This Doesnâ??t Even Pass a Simple Smell Test.
It Reeks of Egregious Conflicts of Interest."
Liked Mark Steyn’s article this weekend. Thought the last couple paragraphs about the impact this can have on the US dollar and our way of life troubling.
THE ROAD TO HELL
"What will America look like without the dollar as global currency? My old boss Conrad Black recently characterized what’s happened over the past half-century as a synchronized group devaluation by Western currencies. That’s a useful way of looking at it. What obscured it was the dollar’s global role. When the dollar’s role is ended, the reality of a comatose “superpower” living off a fifth of a billion in borrowed dollars every single hour of the day is harder to obscure.
In the absence of responsible American leadership, the most important decisions about your future will be made by foreigners for whom fatuous jingles about “shared values” have less resonance. If you don’t want the certainty of a poorer, more decrepit, more diseased, more violent America, you need to demand your politicians act now â?? or there won’t be a 2023."
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]666Rich wrote:
The Ryan budget sucks. The obama budget sucks more. The Rand Paul budget is about the only credible thing I have seen.
I am AMAZED, that no politician, nor main stream media has the fucking balls to announce what ending our 2.5 foreign wars would save, along with the security subsidization we put on the rest of the world via our imperial hegemony.
Taxation is structured the way it is to create a divisive class warfare in which incentives directly correlate to a politicians success. You have net payers and net gainers. The net payers generally tend to be the middle class…or charade of a middle class as we know it.[/quote]
The way taxation is viewed is fundamentally viewed by the mainstream right and left is fundamentally flawed.
It’s not about a “fair” tax-rate, or income equality/redistribution, or some bunk theory about what type of government spending will magically create wealth (and yes, both mainstream parties/ideologies advocate this myth in one form or another).
It’s about establishing the proper scope of government, and then taxing at an adequate level to pay for it. It’s really that simple.
Is if the (federal) government’s job to do “x”?
If yes, then taxes must be at a rate to support the 100% of the spending on “x”.
It’s deceptively simple, yet almost impossible to get people to really think those terms: should the government be doing this? If yes, how much revenue needs to be raised to support it? Tax at that level.[/quote]
This is the conversation I would like to have. Without establishing the scope of government, the going tax rate is completely arbitrary.
Definitely in scope: infrastructure, defense (EDIT: real defense, as in defending this country; not “the best defense is a good offense” defense), education, financial regulation, law enforcement/corrections, production regulation (FDA, etc), environmental regulation, tax collection
I might have missed some things, but the rest, I believe, is up for debate.
[quote]optheta wrote:
Nobody touches Military Spending. Anybody know why?
I always thought it had to do with the U.S. ability to acquire natural resources around the world, through intimidation or something of the sort.[/quote]
The DoD generates revenue by selling off old equipment, the defense industry employs countless workers, and it’s really just an overly politicized issue at this point in time and wanting to significantly lower the spending will just end up with you being labeled unpatriotic and someone “letting the terrorists win”.
[quote]orion wrote:
I am starting to believe that I will have to write a small essay on tax evasion, you guys are going to need it badly. [/quote]
Please and thank you, in advance.
The U.S. government needs to really get their ass in gear and do something about the massive accumulating debt. China is buying more and more of this debt up. After living in China for the past 8 months I can surely say, that although I am not a huge fan of the United States, I would MUCH rather have them as the world superpower compared to China. China is a pretty awful place in general.
While , i agree we need to do something about debt , let’s not forget about everyone that had something to do with this , going back to Ronald Reagan, I know all the so called conservatives think that means killing Obamacare IMO in doesn’t
the concept of Insurance was never intended for profit .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While , i agree we need to do something about debt , let’s not forget about everyone that had something to do with this , going back to Ronald Reagan, I know all the so called conservatives think that means killing Obamacare IMO in doesn’t
the concept of Insurance was never intended for profit .[/quote]
You can look up public insurance companies and see they are not making an obscene amount of profit after all of their expenses are taken into account.
[quote]John S. wrote:
When you raise capital gains the government takes in less money because less investments are done.[/quote]
Not necessarily - when you have a corresponding reduction in the corporate tax rate (which I suggested), you attract more business to your shores, and thus, more investment in productive enterprises.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
When you raise capital gains the government takes in less money because less investments are done.[/quote]
Not necessarily - when you have a corresponding reduction in the corporate tax rate (which I suggested), you attract more business to your shores, and thus, more investment in productive enterprises.
[/quote]
And what happens if/when China responds with lower/eliminating their corperate tax rate?
Wouldn’t it be better to eliminate both and the income tax and do usery taxes like those on Gas for our roads? Put like a 5% sales tax on food and clothing use that for defence, things like that.
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton[/quote]
LBJ did it by allowing all the money that had been saved for social security to be spent. And Clinton’s was a result of the .com bubble.[/quote]
I agree, but we had a Republican ion power during the Real estate bubble and still went further in debt. The point was that the DEms are pro tax , but are just as guilty as the Republicans on spending. Dems =tax and spend and the Republicans= Barrow and Spend
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
While , i agree we need to do something about debt , let’s not forget about everyone that had something to do with this , going back to Ronald Reagan, I know all the so called conservatives think that means killing Obamacare IMO in doesn’t
the concept of Insurance was never intended for profit .[/quote]
You can look up public insurance companies and see they are not making an obscene amount of profit after all of their expenses are taken into account. [/quote]
They should not be making any profit , The problem is the Banks , Insurance companies and investment companies have all blurred their lines .
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am curious with all the anti social program people, do you think if you kill the programs we will cease to have poor people to deal with ? What will we do with the poor ? Even now with all the programs , we still have a lot of poverty
If you want to balance the budget, go after big wastes of money , Military and the war on drugs[/quote]
You know what, I will agree with you on both cuts. However that isn’t going to balance us out, nor is it going to cut the debt! We have gone too far in debt to be able to say such things. Right now, if you are really truly serious about balancing the budget and getting our country out of debt we need to cut everything. No exceptions, no dicking around. That doesn’t mean we have to KILL all social programs, although there are some I really think we can and should do without (i also liked orion’s list in his earlier post) but it Does mean we have to cut down funding and scope to the ones that remain.
As I said earlier, everyone has their sacred cows they don’t want touched and they are all on the exempt list. And nothing will get done. Again.
I never said we wouldn’t have to suffer a lot and sacrifice. We have gone much too far past the point where relatively painless fixes will right things. Now we have to man up and take the hit. And if Obama were ever in any way shape or form serious about balancing the budget he would never have passed the abominations in healthcare. We. Don’t. Have. The. Money!
It is not about being “anti social program”. It is about cold hard reality.[/quote]
I personally could understand cutting social programs , but the standard operating procedure
Of the Republicans is to cut social programs and ignore everything else. I would not hold my breath for that kind of cuts , you still have the Dems PRO SOCIAL and the Reps PRO MILITARY AND CONTRACTORS[/quote]
Oh I’m not holding my breath for anything even resembling a real, viable solution to our debt problem. Nobody has the balls. Rand Paul is the only one who came up with anything even remotely like a real solution and his plan is not executable because nobody is willing to take the political heat to do it. Incidentally, he is a republican who proposed cutting military.
One might also say that standard operating procedure for democrats is to not cut anything, spend more and tax more. Or cut “discretionary spending” which is such a small chunk of the budget it is really only a political grandstand move. It amounts to pissing on the real problem. [/quote]
The comments about the Democrats being tax and spend , I do think they are for tax but the spend part is what the Republicans want you to believe , the last two Presidents to balance the budget were Democrats , LBJ and Clinton[/quote]
LBJ did it by allowing all the money that had been saved for social security to be spent. And Clinton’s was a result of the .com bubble.[/quote]
I agree, but we had a Republican ion power during the Real estate bubble and still went further in debt. The point was that the DEms are pro tax , but are just as guilty as the Republicans on spending. Dems =tax and spend and the Republicans= Barrow and Spend :)[/quote]
Actually, Dems = tax, borrow and spend. Much worse than just borrow and spend.