We have a serious spending problem - and it can't be disputed

[Dan Daly]

How much money did we spend on Republican war mongering and the military industrial complex?

You mean how much have both statist, interventionist parties spent on war mongering and the military industrial complex? Way too fking much.

60% OF Dems in Congress voted against Dubya's war of choice

that 40% of dems are useful idiots is nothing to be proud of.

 

[Dan Daly]

3 Trillion in a 18 trillion dollar economy? That is hardly excessive. Even adding in State and Municipal spending, the US spends less as a percentage of GDP than most industrialized democracies.

If government spending is more than 10% of GDP, government is too big and is spending too much. Additionally, outside of MAJOR national emergencies, if government needs to borrow to spend, it is spending too much.

I don't expect fans of big government to agree.

OPINION from a Klown who would've been a Torry, a confederate, an isolationists during both WW's, fighting the things that created the worlds largest middle cl;ass, like Teddy's trust busting, labor laws, union rights, civil rights, SOCIAL SECURITY, etc

CONS ARE NEVER ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY!

says our own Baghdad Bob!

Tell us, what color is the sky when looking at it via your plexiglass belly button?

I get it, better to personally attack someone that just to TRY to prove me wrong?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

Says the sweet, gentle, polite soul who replies with words like Klown, Torry (nice spelling), CONS, etc. Yep, Baghdad Bob fits you better and better.

 

[Dan Daly]

Typical partisan party horsepucky...rail on about what the other party did in the past, ignore what your own party is doing in the present

I see the partisan party blinders also impact your memory. I'd tell you to pull your head out of your ass, but being from Chicago, the view wouldn't change much.

In 1998, I was one of the Republican Assholes screaming for his impeachment. Yes, yes, I really, truly thought that the worst thing was a President lying about a blowjob, and i said "Subornation of Perjury" like that was a real thing.

And then we got Bush. We got two wars and two recessions that pretty much wiped most of us out. We watched a major city get wiped off the map because his giant new agency that handled disasters didn't know what to do. We earned the contempt of the whole world by starting a war over weapons that didn't exist.

Gee, I look at the bad old days when the worst thing I had to worry about was a President lying about a blow job.

In 1998 I was in elected office...as an independent...and I would have called you a moron for wanting to impeach the President. Clinton's blow job was the least of his crimes. That you don't know that is why you have your head up your ass.

Both Bushes, Clinton and Obama should be swinging from a rope.

And Ronnie who traded weapons for hostages (WITH TERRORISTS) and lied about it?

Him too, as well as Carter, Ford, Nixon and Johnson. I'll give Kennedy a pass, cuz I thought Jackie was hawt.

 

[Dad2three]

3 Trillion in a 18 trillion dollar economy? That is hardly excessive. Even adding in State and Municipal spending, the US spends less as a percentage of GDP than most industrialized democracies.

If government spending is more than 10% of GDP, government is too big and is spending too much. Additionally, outside of MAJOR national emergencies, if government needs to borrow to spend, it is spending too much.

I don't expect fans of big government to agree.

OPINION from a Klown who would've been a Torry, a confederate, an isolationists during both WW's, fighting the things that created the worlds largest middle cl;ass, like Teddy's trust busting, labor laws, union rights, civil rights, SOCIAL SECURITY, etc

CONS ARE NEVER ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY!

says our own Baghdad Bob!

Tell us, what color is the sky when looking at it via your plexiglass belly button?

I get it, better to personally attack someone that just to TRY to prove me wrong?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

Says the sweet, gentle, polite soul who replies with words like Klown, Torry (nice spelling), CONS, etc. Yep, Baghdad Bob fits you better and better.

So, again, NO YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE TIMES CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF A POLICY

 

[P@triot]

If government spending is more than 10% of GDP, government is too big and is spending too much. Additionally, outside of MAJOR national emergencies, if government needs to borrow to spend, it is spending too much.

I don't expect fans of big government to agree.

OPINION from a Klown who would've been a Torry, a confederate, an isolationists during both WW's, fighting the things that created the worlds largest middle cl;ass, like Teddy's trust busting, labor laws, union rights, civil rights, SOCIAL SECURITY, etc

CONS ARE NEVER ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY!

says our own Baghdad Bob!

Tell us, what color is the sky when looking at it via your plexiglass belly button?

I get it, better to personally attack someone that just to TRY to prove me wrong?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

Says the sweet, gentle, polite soul who replies with words like Klown, Torry (nice spelling), CONS, etc. Yep, Baghdad Bob fits you better and better.

So, again, NO YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE TIMES CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF A POLICY

Except that conservatives have been on the correct side of every policy in U.S. history.

In the 1930's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Social Security. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1930's, Social Security is on course to be bankrupt (and both party's leaders have admitted as much on many occasions - specifically during primaries). Like all unconstitutional government actions, it's been a spectacular failure which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

In the 1960's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Medicare & Medicaid. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1960's, Medicare & Medicaid are bankrupting America (none other than Barack Obama himself is on record stating this emphatically over and over as his reason for the need for "Obamacare"). It too has been a spectacular failure (as all things Dumbocrat are) which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

Then there is Obamacare. Once again, Republican's desperately tried to prevent Obamacare. And once again, the Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned, Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. In addition, it has caused previously insured people to lose their healthcare coverage. Worse still, it has caused people to lose their jobs and caused business owners to close their doors. And lets not even get into the fact that it cost the federal government $1.5 billion to build the website for it (that's right - a simple $10,000 website with an Oracle or SQL database and a web-based .Net front-end has actually cost the incompetent Obama Administration $1.5 billion to build).

Of course, we still have the "War on Poverty" (over $2 trillion spent and we have more poverty today than before we started thanks to Dumbocrats), taxes, regulation, energy production, national security, and guns to cover. In each case, the Dumbocrats failing miserably with bumbling, ignorant, ideological policies and history proving that conservatives were on the right side of the issue with the correct policies.

 

[P@triot]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Nothing like ignoring the fact that as a percentage of GDP, revenues are still significantly lower than they have been for the vast majority of the past 60 years.

Nothing like ignoring facts for propaganda. $3 trillion. It's absolutely unfathomable and completely outrageous. I could easily run the federal government off of $1 trillion while paying down the national debt at the same time.

Weird there is NO state or nation to EVER try the libertarian garbage at ANYTIME successfully right?

$1.5+ trillion on SS (keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty) and Medicare in 2013. $1 trillion huh? lol

Wingnutter

First of all, I adamantly oppose the unhinged libertarian ideology. The fact that you scream "libertarian" and "wingnutter" when faced with facts that are inconvenient for you and in direct conflict with your blind ideology speaks volumes.

Second, and much more importantly, the U.S. went from a fledgling colony to the world's premier super power over approximately 130 years through pure, unadulterated conservatism. We did not see the cancer known as liberalism/progressivism until roughly the early 1900's. And the only reason the U.S. has been able to withstand the ignorant liberal "spread the wealth" marxism/communism that completely collapsed other nations such as Cambodia, Vietnam, and the former U.S.S.R. is because we still manage to inject healthy doses of conservative policy (such as the Reagan tax cuts, the Reagan de-regulations, the Bush tax cuts, etc.). But sadly, all of that ignorant liberal policy has us $17 trillion in debt and climbing so I'm not sure how much longer we can hold on.

The facts are indisputable. A staggering $3 trillion in revenues to the federal government - the highest ever. And still the Obama Administration ran up half a trillion in debt. As always, history proves that the left's entire ideology is a failed ideology. Game. Set. Match. You lose junior.

 

[Dad2three]

OPINION from a Klown who would've been a Torry, a confederate, an isolationists during both WW's, fighting the things that created the worlds largest middle cl;ass, like Teddy's trust busting, labor laws, union rights, civil rights, SOCIAL SECURITY, etc

CONS ARE NEVER ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY!

says our own Baghdad Bob!

Tell us, what color is the sky when looking at it via your plexiglass belly button?

I get it, better to personally attack someone that just to TRY to prove me wrong?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

Says the sweet, gentle, polite soul who replies with words like Klown, Torry (nice spelling), CONS, etc. Yep, Baghdad Bob fits you better and better.

So, again, NO YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE TIMES CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF A POLICY

Except that conservatives have been on the correct side of every policy in U.S. history.

In the 1930's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Social Security. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1930's, Social Security is on course to be bankrupt (and both party's leaders have admitted as much on many occasions - specifically during primaries). Like all unconstitutional government actions, it's been a spectacular failure which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

In the 1960's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Medicare & Medicaid. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1960's, Medicare & Medicaid are bankrupting America (none other than Barack Obama himself is on record stating this emphatically over and over as his reason for the need for "Obamacare"). It too has been a spectacular failure (as all things Dumbocrat are) which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

Then there is Obamacare. Once again, Republican's desperately tried to prevent Obamacare. And once again, the Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned, Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. In addition, it has caused previously insured people to lose their healthcare coverage. Worse still, it has caused people to lose their jobs and caused business owners to close their doors. And lets not even get into the fact that it cost the federal government $1.5 billion to build the website for it (that's right - a simple $10,000 website with an Oracle or SQL database and a web-based .Net front-end has actually cost the incompetent Obama Administration $1.5 billion to build).

Of course, we still have the "War on Poverty" (over $2 trillion spent and we have more poverty today than before we started thanks to Dumbocrats), taxes, regulation, energy production, national security, and guns to cover. In each case, the Dumbocrats failing miserably with bumbling, ignorant, ideological policies and history proving that conservatives were on the right side of the issue with the correct policies.

OK, You are fukkking delusional. SS keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, it isn't going BK, even IF nothing is done, it still can pay 80% of the promised amounts, like ir has DOZENS of times, it will be fixed

FAILURE? lol

Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacares are 'failures' too? lol


Sorry, your myth on having more poverty today than before the Dems chose to fight it is the usual right wing crap


To say: “we fought the war on poverty and lost” is to reveal your contempt for facts.


Safety net programs cut the poverty rate nearly in half in 2013, our analysis of Census data released today finds, lifting 39 million people — including more than 8 million children — out of poverty. The data highlight the effectiveness of cash assistance such as Social Security, non-cash benefits such as rent subsidies and SNAP (formerly food stamps), and tax credits for working families like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). They also rebut claims, based on poverty statistics that omit non-cash and tax-based safety net programs, that these programs do little to reduce poverty.

They do indeed. The we-lost-the-war ideologues typically depend on the Census measure that leaves out precisely the anti-poverty measures we’ve ramped up in recent decades. Back in the pre-war-on-poverty early 1960s, the official rate stood at around 20%; now it’s around 15%. So even by the inadequate official metric, there’s been a decline in the rate. And ftr, such sweeping comparisons over so many years ignore so many changing dynamics in economics, families, and policies that they’re not very meaningful anyway.


That said, if you made the correct comparison–one that includes the anti-poverty measures left out of the official measure–you’d find that poverty fell from 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

To say 8220 we fought the war on poverty and lost 8221 is to reveal your contempt for facts. Jared Bernstein On the Economy

 

[Dad2three]

OPINION from a Klown who would've been a Torry, a confederate, an isolationists during both WW's, fighting the things that created the worlds largest middle cl;ass, like Teddy's trust busting, labor laws, union rights, civil rights, SOCIAL SECURITY, etc

CONS ARE NEVER ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF HISTORY!

says our own Baghdad Bob!

Tell us, what color is the sky when looking at it via your plexiglass belly button?

I get it, better to personally attack someone that just to TRY to prove me wrong?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

Says the sweet, gentle, polite soul who replies with words like Klown, Torry (nice spelling), CONS, etc. Yep, Baghdad Bob fits you better and better.

So, again, NO YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE TIMES CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF A POLICY

Except that conservatives have been on the correct side of every policy in U.S. history.

In the 1930's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Social Security. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1930's, Social Security is on course to be bankrupt (and both party's leaders have admitted as much on many occasions - specifically during primaries). Like all unconstitutional government actions, it's been a spectacular failure which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

In the 1960's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Medicare & Medicaid. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1960's, Medicare & Medicaid are bankrupting America (none other than Barack Obama himself is on record stating this emphatically over and over as his reason for the need for "Obamacare"). It too has been a spectacular failure (as all things Dumbocrat are) which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

Then there is Obamacare. Once again, Republican's desperately tried to prevent Obamacare. And once again, the Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned, Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. In addition, it has caused previously insured people to lose their healthcare coverage. Worse still, it has caused people to lose their jobs and caused business owners to close their doors. And lets not even get into the fact that it cost the federal government $1.5 billion to build the website for it (that's right - a simple $10,000 website with an Oracle or SQL database and a web-based .Net front-end has actually cost the incompetent Obama Administration $1.5 billion to build).

Of course, we still have the "War on Poverty" (over $2 trillion spent and we have more poverty today than before we started thanks to Dumbocrats), taxes, regulation, energy production, national security, and guns to cover. In each case, the Dumbocrats failing miserably with bumbling, ignorant, ideological policies and history proving that conservatives were on the right side of the issue with the correct policies.

ONE nation in the developed world without Gov't SS program? UHC system? lol

I know, labor laws and union rights will strangle the American economy, said 90 years ago by conservatives

 

[Dad2three]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Nothing like ignoring the fact that as a percentage of GDP, revenues are still significantly lower than they have been for the vast majority of the past 60 years.

Nothing like ignoring facts for propaganda. $3 trillion. It's absolutely unfathomable and completely outrageous. I could easily run the federal government off of $1 trillion while paying down the national debt at the same time.

Weird there is NO state or nation to EVER try the libertarian garbage at ANYTIME successfully right?

$1.5+ trillion on SS (keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty) and Medicare in 2013. $1 trillion huh? lol

Wingnutter

First of all, I adamantly oppose the unhinged libertarian ideology. The fact that you scream "libertarian" and "wingnutter" when faced with facts that are inconvenient for you and in direct conflict with your blind ideology speaks volumes.

Second, and much more importantly, the U.S. went from a fledgling colony to the world's premier super power over approximately 130 years through pure, unadulterated conservatism. We did not see the cancer known as liberalism/progressivism until roughly the early 1900's. And the only reason the U.S. has been able to withstand the ignorant liberal "spread the wealth" marxism/communism that completely collapsed other nations such as Cambodia, Vietnam, and the former U.S.S.R. is because we still manage to inject healthy doses of conservative policy (such as the Reagan tax cuts, the Reagan de-regulations, the Bush tax cuts, etc.). But sadly, all of that ignorant liberal policy has us $17 trillion in debt and climbing so I'm not sure how much longer we can hold on.

The facts are indisputable. A staggering $3 trillion in revenues to the federal government - the highest ever. And still the Obama Administration ran up half a trillion in debt. As always, history proves that the left's entire ideology is a failed ideology. Game. Set. Match. You lose junior.

Weird, you think the Founders were conservatives? The most radical liberals of their times who gave US a strong Fed Constitution over the conservatives choice, the Articles of Confederation, which we used, and failed, for 13 years?

Reagan tax cuts? Ogh right where he cut taxes for the rich but increased it on the avg guy.


Reagan dereg? REALLY? LINK?


Dubya tax cuts? Oh right, cutting 25% of revenues WHILE he ramp up spending, in conservative world, is 'success'

WINGNUTTER!

REAGAN TRIPLED THE DEBT AS HE REDUCED REVENUES (EVEN THOUGH AFTER HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, HE INCREASED REVENUES 11 TIMES)


BOTH BUSH'S DOUBLED THE DEBT

 

[AntiParty]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Because some people think war is free
The Cost of War in Iraq

 

[P@triot]

says our own Baghdad Bob!

Tell us, what color is the sky when looking at it via your plexiglass belly button?

I get it, better to personally attack someone that just to TRY to prove me wrong?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on in the US? lol

Says the sweet, gentle, polite soul who replies with words like Klown, Torry (nice spelling), CONS, etc. Yep, Baghdad Bob fits you better and better.

So, again, NO YOU CAN'T PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE TIMES CONSERVATIVES HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE CORRECT SIDE OF A POLICY

Except that conservatives have been on the correct side of every policy in U.S. history.

In the 1930's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Social Security. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1930's, Social Security is on course to be bankrupt (and both party's leaders have admitted as much on many occasions - specifically during primaries). Like all unconstitutional government actions, it's been a spectacular failure which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

In the 1960's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Medicare & Medicaid. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1960's, Medicare & Medicaid are bankrupting America (none other than Barack Obama himself is on record stating this emphatically over and over as his reason for the need for "Obamacare"). It too has been a spectacular failure (as all things Dumbocrat are) which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

Then there is Obamacare. Once again, Republican's desperately tried to prevent Obamacare. And once again, the Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned, Obamacare has caused healthcare costs to skyrocket. In addition, it has caused previously insured people to lose their healthcare coverage. Worse still, it has caused people to lose their jobs and caused business owners to close their doors. And lets not even get into the fact that it cost the federal government $1.5 billion to build the website for it (that's right - a simple $10,000 website with an Oracle or SQL database and a web-based .Net front-end has actually cost the incompetent Obama Administration $1.5 billion to build).

Of course, we still have the "War on Poverty" (over $2 trillion spent and we have more poverty today than before we started thanks to Dumbocrats), taxes, regulation, energy production, national security, and guns to cover. In each case, the Dumbocrats failing miserably with bumbling, ignorant, ideological policies and history proving that conservatives were on the right side of the issue with the correct policies.

OK, You are fukkking delusional. SS keeps nearly half of seniors out of poverty, it isn't going BK, even IF nothing is done, it still can pay 80% of the promised amounts, like ir has DOZENS of times, it will be fixed

FAILURE? lol

Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacares are 'failures' too? lol


Sorry, your myth on having more poverty today than before the Dems chose to fight it is the usual right wing crap


To say: “we fought the war on poverty and lost” is to reveal your contempt for facts.


Safety net programs cut the poverty rate nearly in half in 2013, our analysis of Census data released today finds, lifting 39 million people — including more than 8 million children — out of poverty. The data highlight the effectiveness of cash assistance such as Social Security, non-cash benefits such as rent subsidies and SNAP (formerly food stamps), and tax credits for working families like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). They also rebut claims, based on poverty statistics that omit non-cash and tax-based safety net programs, that these programs do little to reduce poverty.

They do indeed. The we-lost-the-war ideologues typically depend on the Census measure that leaves out precisely the anti-poverty measures we’ve ramped up in recent decades. Back in the pre-war-on-poverty early 1960s, the official rate stood at around 20%; now it’s around 15%. So even by the inadequate official metric, there’s been a decline in the rate. And ftr, such sweeping comparisons over so many years ignore so many changing dynamics in economics, families, and policies that they’re not very meaningful anyway.

That said, if you made the correct comparison–one that includes the anti-poverty measures left out of the official measure–you’d find that poverty fell from 26% in 1967 to 16% in 2012.

To say 8220 we fought the war on poverty and lost 8221 is to reveal your contempt for facts. Jared Bernstein On the Economy

Again, you ignore data for the opinion of radical ideologues. There are more people in poverty today than before the "war on poverty" began. That is an indisputable fact. Now, obviously we have a vastly larger population than in the 1960's so that plays a part. But even if you ignore the population and instead look at percentages, the failure is still staggering: When the "war on poverty" began - the poverty rate was 17.4%. Today, after. $22 trillion, it stands at 15%. So liberals had to spend $22 trillion to make a measly and laughable 2% improvement. That has to be the worst ROI in world history (no wonder it took the Obama Administration over $1.5 billion to build a frick'n website).

This week, the U.S. Census Bureau is scheduled to release its annual poverty report. The report will be notable because this year marks the 50th anniversary of the launch of President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. In his January 1964 State of the Union address, Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.”[1]

Since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs (in constant 2012 dollars). Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution. Despite this mountain of spending, progress against poverty, at least as measured by the government, has been minimal.

How the War on Poverty Was Lost

War on Poverty After 50 Years Conditions of the Poor in America

 

[Star]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

Nothing like ignoring the fact that as a percentage of GDP, revenues are still significantly lower than they have been for the vast majority of the past 60 years.

Nothing like ignoring facts for propaganda. $3 trillion. It's absolutely unfathomable and completely outrageous. I could easily run the federal government off of $1 trillion while paying down the national debt at the same time.

Weird there is NO state or nation to EVER try the libertarian garbage at ANYTIME successfully right?

$1.5+ trillion on SS (keeps almost half of seniors out of poverty) and Medicare in 2013. $1 trillion huh? lol

Wingnutter

First of all, I adamantly oppose the unhinged libertarian ideology. The fact that you scream "libertarian" and "wingnutter" when faced with facts that are inconvenient for you and in direct conflict with your blind ideology speaks volumes.

Second, and much more importantly, the U.S. went from a fledgling colony to the world's premier super power over approximately 130 years through pure, unadulterated conservatism. We did not see the cancer known as liberalism/progressivism until roughly the early 1900's. And the only reason the U.S. has been able to withstand the ignorant liberal "spread the wealth" marxism/communism that completely collapsed other nations such as Cambodia, Vietnam, and the former U.S.S.R. is because we still manage to inject healthy doses of conservative policy (such as the Reagan tax cuts, the Reagan de-regulations, the Bush tax cuts, etc.). But sadly, all of that ignorant liberal policy has us $17 trillion in debt and climbing so I'm not sure how much longer we can hold on.

The facts are indisputable. A staggering $3 trillion in revenues to the federal government - the highest ever. And still the Obama Administration ran up half a trillion in debt. As always, history proves that the left's entire ideology is a failed ideology. Game. Set. Match. You lose junior.

Lose?
Losers lose...

and...?

 

[2aguy]

The politicians do not have a spending problem...they spend our money easily and often...

 

[2aguy]

How many lives were lost and how much money spent on the conservatives war on false premises again?

Oh, you mean the false premise of weapons of mass destruction....you know...the ones that were actually found...as reported last week in the New York times....

catch up...the democrat false narrative has collapsed...

 

[JoeB131]

Except that conservatives have been on the correct side of every policy in U.S. history.

In the 1930's the Republican's desperately tried to prevent Social Security. The Dumbocrats rammed the unconstitutional legislation down the throats of the American people anyway. Today, just as the Republicans had warned back in the 1930's, Social Security is on course to be bankrupt (and both party's leaders have admitted as much on many occasions - specifically during primaries). Like all unconstitutional government actions, it's been a spectacular failure which has incentivized people not to work and produce.

Yeah, fuck them old people. If they can't produce, let the FUCKERS starve.

You wonder why you wingnuts are all seen as assholes, right?

 

[Rozman]

I'm sure there is one thing Liberals and Conservatives can agree on...
We do have a spending problem

Conservatives feel we spend too much
Liberals feel we don't spend enough.

 

[jillian]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

the only "spending problem" we have is military spending. you can't keep cutting taxes and run wars. you need to raise revenue. corporations if corporations paid their share of taxes instead of getting a pass, poof... no spending problem. i'd suggest that we stop our permanent state of war, but you wouldn't want that and would whine, like most right-wingers, that we are being "weak".

the alternative is raise revenue to pay for things.

 

[Rozman]

For the first time in U.S. history, revenues to the federal government hit $3 trillion in a single year (2014). And yet our failed liberal government still ran up half a trillion in deficit spending. We do not have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem. And it cannot be disputed.

Furthermore, it is not even remotely possible to burn through $3 trillion unless you're actively trying to collapse a nation/economy. It's an astronomical amount of money that cannot be spent unless you throw it away intentionally - like spending over $300k to give bunnies Swedish massages 4x's a day (you can't make this stuff up folks - just click here).

Federal Tax Revenue Surpasses 3 Trillion for First Time Ever

the only "spending problem" we have is military spending. you can't keep cutting taxes and run wars. you need to raise revenue. corporations if corporations paid their share of taxes instead of getting a pass, poof... no spending problem. i'd suggest that we stop our permanent state of war, but you wouldn't want that and would whine, like most right-wingers, that we are being "weak".

the alternative is raise revenue to pay for things.

if corporations paid their share of taxes instead of getting a pass, poof..


U.S. Corporate Tax Rates Are the Highest in the Developed World

 

[JoeB131]

I'm sure there is one thing Liberals and Conservatives can agree on...
We do have a spending problem

Conservatives feel we spend too much
Liberals feel we don't spend enough.

I would think that most liberals think that what we have in an income inequality problem. The government wouldn't have to spend as much as it does if the wealth were fairly distributed to start with.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm sure there is one thing Liberals and Conservatives can agree on...
We do have a spending problem

Conservatives feel we spend too much
Liberals feel we don't spend enough.

Yeah, pretty much.

Seems to me - crazy talk coming up here - that one thing each side could agree on is that we want to make government as efficient as possible. Are there enough systemic mechanisms in place to keep waste down and fraud to a minimum, for example. I have no doubt we could improve there, but both parties are too busy screaming at each other.

It's all about equilibrium. Spending enough so that proper safety nets are in place without addicting people to them, and so that the overall quality of life of our populace is appropriate for the dynamic nature of our economy. Taxing enough to fund the above, yet not so much as to create a net drag on that same dynamic economy.

There is a constant electoral swing between parties, and I think the electorate is trying to tell them something: You guys haven't found that equilibrium yet, and whenever either of you have too much power on your own, you just make it worse.

.