Its the spending Stupid

[Antiderivative]

No need. You've been bitch-slapped and marginalized. Come back when you've got the facts on your side.

lol...lets cut Head Start programs to cut the debt.

 

[xsited1]

No need. You've been bitch-slapped and marginalized. Come back when you've got the facts on your side.

lol...lets cut Head Start programs to cut the debt.

Keep digging.

You may become the new USMB idiot.

 

[Antiderivative]

No need. You've been bitch-slapped and marginalized. Come back when you've got the facts on your side.

lol...lets cut Head Start programs to cut the debt.

Keep digging.

You may become the new USMB idiot.

I think we should shut down the Pentagon.

However, "fiscal conservative" disagree with me.

 

[mnbasketball]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

well if you don't want to take care of the people who need help, then yes we are spending to much. But what happens when you do this?
Yes we don't have to have so many people hired by the govt, but yes what happens when you have to stand in a line for two days to get what you want, or we have 1/3 the military we have now, what would happen to your wars. Yes we can cut back, but that also means going without or far less of things.

Yes we don't need to make sure businesses do the right things, we know they will, right.
Oil and coal companies will not pollute and will do the right things. And all those convicts that we have locked up, hell we could just let them go and they will behave.

The problem is we don't have enough people working and we don't collect enough tax revenue from those who are, that is a fact and it's all because of the greed of the rich and your not smart enough to see that idiots like you are a TOOL of the RICH.

 

[Londoner]

Exactly, if you don't have the money for 2 wars and the largest Medicare expansion in the country's history, than you can't spend that money. But that's not how Republicans act when they control the presidency and congress. They spend. They only care about reducing spending when they don't have the presidency. When they don't have the presidency, they use the purse strings to obstruct the democratic party. They also create massive, unaccountable, unaffordable Big Government Agencies like Homeland Security -- the budget of which we never hear about. Whenever they have the presidency, they spend twice as much as their Democratic predecessor. One of the Reason's for this is that they increase subsidies to transnationals who ship jobs overseas, and they pour insane amounts of money into Defense. They say government is NOT competent enough to run a laundromat, but then they give it the power to rebuild whole Arab nations. When they do stuff like this, they hide the money off budget in emergency spending measures. They don't want the public to see how much they're wasting on terrible policies. Then, it takes a Democratic president to put the wars back in the budget. This usually creates sticker shock, and it hurts the ability of Democratic Presidents to increase spending. But the country deserves to know what Republican spenders try to hide.

In conclusion. The only party worse than the Democrats when it comes to spending is the GOP. Whenever they get the presidency, they spend like drunken sailors. God helps us because they're coming back in 2012 -- and they're idiot base has never learned to question their spending. They are trapped in a FOX News bubble where the Reagan vs Carter debt, and the Bush vs Clinton debt is NEVER DISCUSSED.

(help)

 

[Mr Liberty]

The Democrats will never get it and it seems like most Republicans won't either. We're doomed.

They'll get it. Both sides will. When the spending causes an economic collapse. A depression so severe that starvation is an immediate threat to us all. Not the just Dems fault, not just the Repubs fault, but both of them. They will never stop spending.

The dollar will fail and that will put an end to it. I don't think the anything we can do to stop it. I think it is a done deal. It's too late.

No, if nothing is done, we don't have a depression. Inflation will erode the buying power of the dollar which could lead to hyperinflation. But don't be so pessimistic. We have a 15 trillion dollar debt but we also have a 15 trillion dollar economy. The deficit needs to to be brought down to the 1990's level, say 300 billion which is less than GDP growth. The Deficit Reduction Committee recommendation, the House's Paul Ryan plan, and I'm sure Obama's plan, TBA will do the deed. Remember the deficit can be reduced by spending cuts, which is happening, revenue increases due to the recover which is projected to last through at least 2014, and possible tax increase.

We have survived 2 world worlds, the cold war, a civil war, the great depression, and a defect at end WWII that was 100% of GDP, which is 10 times worst than our current deficit. I think any one selling America short will regret it.

I don't like to be pessimistic, But I see a stock market that's disconnected from main street. Other countries wanting to cease using the dollar as the worlds reserve currency. The Fed using 'quantitative easing' at an alarming rate. it is hard to be an optimist.
I do not see a will in Washington, Democrat or Republican, to make serious cuts. Everyone acts as if a recovery is assured. I don't think we are out of the woods yet. hyperinflation won't lead to a depression? Not necessarily, but it could.
Well, silver up another 24 cents. What the hell

 

[P F Tinmore]

lol...lets cut Head Start programs to cut the debt.

Keep digging.

You may become the new USMB idiot.

I think we should shut down the Pentagon.

However, "fiscal conservative" disagree with me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRqeJcuK-A&feature=related]YouTube - 2.3 TRillion $$ of the TAXPAYER's MONEY IS MISSING[/ame]

 

[xsited1]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

well if you don't want to take care of the people who need help, then yes we are spending to much. But what happens when you do this?
Yes we don't have to have so many people hired by the govt, but yes what happens when you have to stand in a line for two days to get what you want, or we have 1/3 the military we have now, what would happen to your wars. Yes we can cut back, but that also means going without or far less of things.

Yes we don't need to make sure businesses do the right things, we know they will, right.
Oil and coal companies will not pollute and will do the right things. And all those convicts that we have locked up, hell we could just let them go and they will behave.

The problem is we don't have enough people working and we don't collect enough tax revenue from those who are, that is a fact and it's all because of the greed of the rich and your not smart enough to see that idiots like you are a TOOL of the RICH.

So the greed of the rich is why we aren't collecting enough in taxes to pay for everything and, by extension, why were are running deficits.

I've gotta go to bed, but thanks for the laugh. That is one of the funniest things I've read today.

 

[Londoner]

The point of the postwar spending policies was to ensure that money didn't concentrate inside a wealthy aristocracy - but, rather, that it got invested into a thriving middle class. When the middle class has safety nets, health care, high wages, and affordable education, they have more money to spend. When they have more money to spend, the capitalist is forced to add jobs and innovate in order to capture that money. The Liberals ensured middle class demand by taxing mega-corporations who benefited immensely from Pentagon services (which protected their global supply chains). And let's not forget the massive subsides awarded to special interests (corporations); and finally: bailouts. Essentially, the GOP socialized the costs and risks of business... (and they called it freedom).

Before Reagan, there was a contract between corporations and the middle class. In exchange for all the government services and subsidies, corporations were taxed at a rate which ensured that the hard working middle class had sufficient wages, benefits, and programs in order to consume (i.e., drive the economy). This model worked incredibly during the postwar years - the golden era of capitalism when the tax rate was much higher and America had the best paid workers in the world. (Today's tax burden has shifted from corporations (who take advantage of loopholes) to middle class families who can't afford lawyers and lobbyists. The wealthy corporations who own government receive free subsidies in exchange for shipping American jobs to 3rd world sweat shops. But let's be clear: government spending on hard working families should be higher than other countries because we don't make our workers live in sweat shop ghettos. We give our workers a better deal. Indeed, American workers are the pride of the world. Reagan often spoke about how American workers live great lives, whereas Soviet workers live in misery. American workers had a great standard of living during the Cold War because the New Deal taxed the richest 1% in order to give them benefits and safety nets and cheap education - all of which translated into more consumption and upward mobility)

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Starting in the late 70s, capitalists decided to make an aggressive play for higher profits. So they poured money into the Republican party. They drained the party of the old Teddy Roosevelt Conservatives who valued hard working middle class families over mega-corporations. The Big Business-GOP invested unprecedented amounts of money into think tanks and mass media to mold American opinion. They convinced the country to unwind government's investment in the middle class. Reagan told us not to worry about consumer demand: the money would magically trickle down. The middle class would be fine. It's not like we're going to ship your jobs overseas and hand your health insurance to monopolies. Trust us. Freedom! Freedom!

Alas, when the money failed to trickle down, Reagan handed out Master Cards and Visas. People started to receive 3 credit card offers a week in the mail. America embarked on a 30 year adventure of debt fueled consumption (all to cover up the failed trickle down model).

Here is what the GOP doesn't understand. When the money doesn't trickle down, the middle class cannot consume. When the middle class cannot consume, the economy dies. During the postwar years, money was redistributed down to the masses so they could consume.

Reagan's father was saved by a government program. (it wasn't "spending"; it wasn't a hand out. it was an investment in the American people)

 

[P F Tinmore]

Londoner, good post.

We did not have real prosperity in the Clinton years. Newfound wealth in the investor class created investment bubbles. Credit was issued in lieu of wages to try to keep these bubbles inflated.

Of course that is a short sighted policy.

 

[auditor0007]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

Wrong! We have both a spending and a tax problem. We didn't even take in 14% of GDP in tax revenue last year. That is the lowest amount in the last sixty years. On the flipside, the federal government is eating up around 25% of GDP. In that same time frame, the average has been around 20%.

So it is more than obvious that we have two problems, too much spending, and not enough revenues. The problem on the revenue side is an easy fix. Raise taxes. And there is every justification to do so as we now have the lowest tax rates since before the Great Depression.

 

[auditor0007]

True! At least with the Democrats you know they're going to tax and spend you to death. With the Republicans, who knows?

Taxes are an all time low. What fantasy world are you living in?

Amazing; someone here who actually has a full functioning brain.

 

[Londoner]

If we spent the same price on health care per person as any one of the 35 countries with a longer life expectancy, the deficits would turn into surpluses in 5 years. However, we pay more than twice per person because Washington is owned by health insurance monopolies.

By protecting monopolies, the GOP is creating a structure of wasteful spending that benefits a narrow group of "administrative" parasites who sit between doctor and patient. We have the most inefficient delivery system of all the advanced nations. Our costs have exploded as our coverage decreases. The system has been rigged by special interests, which spend billions in lobbying.

Problem is: those same special interests pay into the Republican message machine. They have convinced a generation of conservatives that anything Government does to bust up the health care monopoly is "socialism".

If America restored market principals in health insurance; if they made it competitive by unwinding the pernicious influence of special interests, than the government and the middle class would not be bankrupt. There would be no need to spend so much on medicare. If middle class health costs were as low as other advanced nations, they would have more money to consume. If they had sufficient money to consume, we would not see such terrible job loss.

But the middle class can't consume, because their money is fed into a government protected monopoly. The Republican Voters on this board have been fooled into believing the current system is a free market. They don't understand what billions of dollars in lobbying buys. Our spending problems would be cut in half if the government didn't help corporations fleece the middle class.

 

[auditor0007]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

We do have a spending problem, and taxes are too high. Here is the sticky part, are you ready...

The things that I would cut are different than the things you would cut. I would start with all foreign aid of any kind. Then I move to all business sudsidies of any kind. Then I would get rid of all tax breaks of any kind. Then I would move to get rid of redundancy in the government like the ATF, EPA, and others. I'm sure your list of cuts will look much different.

Taxes are too high? Federal income tax rates are the lowest in 60 years.

BTW If you think taxes are too high, cutting out tax breaks will only make them higher.

Yay, another one with a full functioning brain. Now we are getting somewhere. I hate to have to keep pointing out the stupidity of those who state that taxes are too high and we need to cut them more when they are at the lowest levels in the past 60 years. It just astounds me that people believe this shit when the facts are there in black and white.

 

[P F Tinmore]

If we spent the same price on health care per person as any one of the 35 countries with a longer life expectancy, the deficits would turn into surpluses in 5 years. However, we pay more than twice per person because Washington is owned by health insurance monopolies.

By protecting monopolies, the GOP is creating a structure of wasteful spending that benefits a narrow group of "administrative" parasites who sit between doctor and patient. We have the most inefficient delivery system of all the advanced nations. Our costs have exploded as our coverage decreases. The system has been rigged by special interests, which spend billions in lobbying.

Problem is: those same special interests pay into the Republican message machine. They have convinced a generation of conservatives that anything Government does to bust up the health care monopoly is "socialism".

If America restored market principals in health insurance; if they made it competitive by unwinding the pernicious influence of special interests, than the government and the middle class would not be bankrupt. There would be no need to spend so much on medicare. If middle class health costs were as low as other advanced nations, they would have more money to consume. If they had sufficient money to consume, we would not see such terrible job loss.

But the middle class can't consume, because their money is fed into a government protected monopoly. The Republican Voters on this board have been fooled into believing the current system is a free market. They don't understand what billions of dollars in lobbying buys. Our spending problems would be cut in half if the government didn't help corporations fleece the middle class.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOB0f3I1AXk]YouTube - Health Care[/ame]

 

[auditor0007]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

We're taxed less than we were in the 90's, the 80's, the 70's, the 60's, the 50's.

Maybe you should be reasonable and consider the possibility that BOTH spending and tax cutting have gone too far.

You can't expect unreasonable people to be reasonable even when the facts are staring them in the face.

 

[auditor0007]

How many times do we need to say this? We don't have a Tax Problem we're already taxed more then enough we have a Spending Problem. How is that so many don't understand this?

The Democrats will never get it and it seems like most Republicans won't either. We're doomed.

They'll get it. Both sides will. When the spending causes an economic collapse. A depression so severe that starvation is an immediate threat to us all. Not the just Dems fault, not just the Repubs fault, but both of them. They will never stop spending.

The dollar will fail and that will put an end to it. I don't think the anything we can do to stop it. I think it is a done deal. It's too late.

You may be right if you continue to spew the nonsense that we don't need to raise taxes and can fix everything by just cutting spending. We haven't had tax rates this low since before the Great Depression, and look where it has gotten us. We've been cutting taxes since the 80's under Reagan. Does that mean spending is not also part of the problem? Absolutely not. We also have a spending problem. But you right wing nutcases can't get it through your thick skulls that the problem is more than just too much spending.

Let's put it this way; you want to cut spending to get us to a balanced budget without any tax increases? Cut Medicare and SS completely. Not surprisingly, a number of you probably would support that.

 

[auditor0007]

It is actually the spending AND the lack of revenue. The 90's policies worked... well enough that Greenspan worried that our debt would go down too fast. that crazy Objectivist...

The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.

 

[auditor0007]

Would you care to prove that somehow???

Why?

No need. You've been bitch-slapped and marginalized. Come back when you've got the facts on your side.

The facts are there in black and white. No bitch-slapping happening there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It is actually the spending AND the lack of revenue. The 90's policies worked... well enough that Greenspan worried that our debt would go down too fast. that crazy Objectivist...

The 90's policies did work, and they would work now, but for one thing. We would still be facing a shortfall due to the massive increases in military spending, as well as large increases in Medicare and SS spending. Bringing back tax rates similar to the 90's along with restructuring SS and Medicare, and reducing military spending would get us back where we need to be, a balanced budget or close to one.

The problem with restructuring SS and Medicare, or any other social program is that the costs would not just go away. They would merely be shifted to other areas of the economy probably at higher costs.