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

[JoeB131]

[

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

Horseshit. The Corporate Tax rate has been on the decline since the 1950's, and you guys still haven't provided the promised "Prosperity".

We need to stop giving those fuckers carrots and break out one big old stick.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

I'm not sure how you can really say that in the case of the Democrats, as in the last 34 years, they've only had all the levers of power for 4 of those (from 1992-94 and 2008-2010). Meanwhile Republicans have had all the levers of power for six years (2000-2006) and, yes, they really, really did manage to make everything worse, turning surpluses into deficits, peace into war and prosperity into recession.

these same guys will mischaracterize an environmental study for $10,000 as "Treadmills for Shrimp", but will have no problem with a $440,000,000 stealth fighter that can't fly in the rain and can't be used in combat because they are afraid of losing them.

 

[Judicial review]

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.

How much pot did you smoke before writing that post?

 

[Dad2three]

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

Got it, you choose to use Heritage Foundation 'facts instead of honesty. Heritage Foundation who stated Dubya's tax cuts would pay off the debt by 2010, lol


In 1904, half the population of New York City lived below the poverty line.

Half. Can you imagine? The poor were so numerous that they nearly outnumbered everyone else.

Today, less than 20 percent of New Yorkers live in poverty. That's still a serious problem, but it's a far cry from 50 percent.

Clearly, we did something right.

The Federal Government Didn t Lose the War on Poverty -- It Retreated Anthony W. Orlando



The New Republic points out, anti-poverty programs have had notable successes. Food stamps have reduced child poverty from 21 to 18 percent. Social Security and Medicare have reduced poverty among America's seniors from 65.3 percent in 1965 to 20 percent today. If your grandparents aren't hungry, sick and bankrupt, they probably have the federal government to thank.


Conservatives can't quite bring themselves to admit these successes. Tellingly, though, nobody's calling for children and old people to get off the government dole and get a job.

Poverty isn't the problem for the United States that it was when LBJ launched his War on Poverty and Great Society programs half-a-century ago. We worry more today about obesity than hunger among the poorest of our poor.


Did we lose the War on Poverty Red Blue America PennLive.com



The trouble is that the official poverty rate is a lousy indicator of people’s material well-being. It misses all that the poor get — their total consumption. It counts cash transfers from government but not non-cash transfers (food stamps, school lunches) and tax refunds under the EITC. Some income is underreported; also, the official poverty line overstates price increases and, therefore, understates purchasing power. Eliminating these defects, economists Bruce Meyer of the University of Chicago and James Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame built a consumption-based index that estimates the 2010 poverty rate at about 5 percent.

People at the bottom aren’t well-off, but they’re better off than they once were. Among the official poor, half have computers, 43 percent have central air conditioning and 36 percent have dishwashers, report Meyer and Sullivan. These advances are especially impressive because the massive immigration of unskilled Hispanic workers inflated the ranks of the poor. From 1990 to 2007, the entire increase in official poverty was among Hispanics.

Robert J. Samuelson How we won and lost the War on Poverty - The Washington Post


Fox News Declares The War On Poverty A Flop – So Let’s Make Life Harder For The Poor!

Fox News Declares The War On Poverty A Flop So Let s Make Life Harder For The Poor - NewsHounds

 

[Dad2three]

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...

Right-Wings Failed Attempt To Justify Iraq War With NY Times Chemical Weapons Report



NY Times: Chemical Weapons Discovery "Did Not Support The Government's Invasion Rationale." In the October 14 report, the Times was clear that the weapons found had all "been manufactured before 1991," and thus "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government's invasion rational"



Wash. Post Fact Checker: Any Attempt To Use New York Times Report To Vindicate Bush "Automatically Earns Four Pinocchios."
Iraq WMD Does the New York Times probe reflect what administration officials claimed - The Washington Post

 

[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

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

ANOTHER conservative not understanding the difference of tax rate versus the ACTUAL taxes paid, EFFECTIVE rates

Companies Desperately Fleeing Super-Low U.S. Tax Rates: Report
Companies Desperately Fleeing Super-Low U.S. Tax Rates Report


Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations





Bernie Sanders Is Right and the Tax Foundation Is Wrong: The U.S. Has Very Low Corporate Income Taxes


The truth is that, by any measure, U.S. corporate income taxes are very low. And as a share of the economy, they are much lower than are corporate income taxes in almost every other developed country.
Bernie Sanders Is Right and the Tax Foundation Is Wrong The U.S. Has Very Low Corporate Income Taxes CTJReports


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High


Feb 18, 2014 - For example, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also says that the U.S. corporate effective tax rate is low - about 13 percent

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/654957.pdf

 

[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

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

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High ThinkProgress



Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations

 

[Mac1958]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[Dad2three]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

 

[Mac1958]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

"In other words..."

You know you're going to get a straw man when a partisan ideologue begins with that one.



.

 

[Dad2three]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

"In other words..."

You know you're going to get a straw man when a partisan ideologue begins with that one.



.

Sorry Bubba, I responded to the strawman

 

[Mac1958]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

"In other words..."

You know you're going to get a straw man when a partisan ideologue begins with that one.



.

Sorry Bubba, I responded to the strawman

To what straw man were you responding...Bubba?

Evidently you don't know what the term means, but give it a shot anyway.

.

 

[Dad2three]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

"In other words..."

You know you're going to get a straw man when a partisan ideologue begins with that one.



.

Sorry Bubba, I responded to the strawman

To what straw man were you responding...Bubba?

Evidently you don't know what the term means, but give it a shot anyway.

.

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

"In other words..."

You know you're going to get a straw man when a partisan ideologue begins with that one.



.

Sorry Bubba, I responded to the strawman

To what straw man were you responding...Bubba?

Evidently you don't know what the term means, but give it a shot anyway.

.

See post 148

 

[auditor0007]

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.

I'm just curious as to why conservatives didn't scream bloody murder when Reagan was seeing revenues significantly higher than we have today. Revenues as a percentage of GDP ran almost 13% more during Reagan's eight years in office than during the past six years under Obama. You cons are so full of shit because you bitch about the stupidest shit not even knowing what you are talking about. Reagan was the great conservative but he presided over an administration that saw substantially higher revenues and just slightly lower outlays. Under Reagan, average yearly outlays were 21.75 percent of GDP. Under Obama, outlays have been 22.5% of GDP, and Obama is dealing with an aging population and increased spending on SS and Medicare. Again, it is so simple to see that you have no clue what you are talking about.

BTW, Defense spending, along with SS and Medicare come to almost $2 trillion. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I'm just curious as to why conservatives didn't scream bloody murder when Reagan was seeing revenues significantly higher than we have today. Revenues as a percentage of GDP ran almost 13% more during Reagan's eight years in office than during the past six years under Obama. You cons are so full of shit because you bitch about the stupidest shit not even knowing what you are talking about. Reagan was the great conservative but he presided over an administration that saw substantially higher revenues and just slightly lower outlays. Under Reagan, average yearly outlays were 21.75 percent of GDP. Under Obama, outlays have been 22.5% of GDP, and Obama is dealing with an aging population and increased spending on SS and Medicare. Again, it is so simple to see that you have no clue what you are talking about.

BTW, Defense spending, along with SS and Medicare come to almost $2 trillion. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

As Reagan always saiid, Congress controls spending. The Dems controlled Congress in those days.
You're full of shit. As usual.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

"In other words..."

You know you're going to get a straw man when a partisan ideologue begins with that one.



.

Sorry Bubba, I responded to the strawman

To what straw man were you responding...Bubba?

Evidently you don't know what the term means, but give it a shot anyway.

.

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

In other words you prefer right wing OPINIONS instead of actual FACTS backed by credible cites. Got it

"In other words..."

You know you're going to get a straw man when a partisan ideologue begins with that one.



.

Sorry Bubba, I responded to the strawman

To what straw man were you responding...Bubba?

Evidently you don't know what the term means, but give it a shot anyway.

.

See post 148

Not within a mile of being a straw man.

You were called on your dishonesty, and you don't like it.

Too bad. Be honest. Use your own thoughts. Or not. I don't expect honesty from partisan ideologues.

.

 

[KissMy]

Obama is the first president since Carter to reduce the size of government. He has reduced government spending & employment. Republicans are chomping at the but to end sequestration when they take the senate so they can increase spending.

 

[zeke]

.

This board would be significantly more interesting if posters would put more effort into presenting their ideas and opinions with brevity and clarity, and without cutting and pasting the ideas and opinions of others (or, just those who agree with them) to make a point.

Y'know?

.

This board would be significantly more interesting IF some educated right winger would try and dispute with factual evidence the information posted by Dad23.

Maybe you could take that task on Mac. By using fact instead of your opinions. Facts are what they are. Opinions are like.........well everybody's got an opinion. Some are not so good, some are ok some stink like shit.

But a fact is a fact. Matter of fact, there needs to be more "fact" based discussion and a whole lot less of "opinion" discussion.

If people want this site to be significantly more interesting.

 

[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.

I'm just curious as to why conservatives didn't scream bloody murder when Reagan was seeing revenues significantly higher than we have today. Revenues as a percentage of GDP ran almost 13% more during Reagan's eight years in office than during the past six years under Obama. You cons are so full of shit because you bitch about the stupidest shit not even knowing what you are talking about. Reagan was the great conservative but he presided over an administration that saw substantially higher revenues and just slightly lower outlays. Under Reagan, average yearly outlays were 21.75 percent of GDP. Under Obama, outlays have been 22.5% of GDP, and Obama is dealing with an aging population and increased spending on SS and Medicare. Again, it is so simple to see that you have no clue what you are talking about.

BTW, Defense spending, along with SS and Medicare come to almost $2 trillion. Again, you have no clue what you are talking about.

Defense spending is $550 billion per year. Absolutely nothing. It's the Dumbocrat Social Security program and the Dumbocrat Medicare program which cost the other $1.5 trillion. Oops...looks like you at the one who has no clue what he is talking about. And since both of those are unconstitutional (the federal government simply had no authority to take money from people for social programs - period), it once again illustrates the failures of liberal policy and liberal ideology.

Would you like to try again junior?