Democrats propose "transaction tax" on financial transactions. (Poll)

[bripat9643]

don't support then adding to the debt. I did NOT vote for those who will do that. You did.

If you voted for some 3Rd party loser because he wants to legalize dangerous drugs or balance the budget without telling you how thats your problem

i think trump will borrow and spend less than biden which makes the choice very easy for me

The lesser of two evils is still evil. You are complaining that the other guy is going to run up 10 billion in debt while your guy runs up 8 billion. A waste of an argument.

Biden is running up $5 trillion in debt.

 

[Mac-7]

The term "national food security" is a hoax.

Most countries take it seriously

But politics and mission creep has taken the Dept of Ag far beyond what is sensible

 

[bripat9643]

I absolutely support this and I'm open to where we spend it.

Why am I not surprised that you support pure idiocy?

Paying for things is idiocy? Quite the opposite.

Giving the government a blank check is idiocy.

 

[bripat9643]

The term "national food security" is a hoax.

Most countries take it seriously

But politics and mission creep has taken the Dept of Ag far beyond what is sensible

No they don't. It's an excuse for doling out swag to farmers.

 

[dblack]

No. Government already interferes with financial transactions more than it should. We need to go in the other direction.

 

[Darkwind]

we once again have Trumpsters pretending to be fiscally responsible and attacking others.

What trumpsters wanted was an end to the lockouts

but if you did that democrats would not have an excuse to continue your massive borrow and spend pork barrel policies

8 trillion in spending that wasn't paid for under Trump.

Why didn't Nancy do something......

It's not her thing. She has no desire to address the debt. Why do you think she does?

Cause that's her job......

Her job is to raise campaign donations. That's the only reason she has her position.

But again, how do you expect Nancy and the Dems to do what Trump and the Republicans refused to do? They don't run on the debt.

Sorry,,.,,,the GOP and Trump attempted numerous times to cut spending...blocked by the dems, and called every name under the book by their propagandist for doing so..."grandma killers," claiming htey wanted people to die of hunger etc.

The largest driver of debt, is the entitlement programs, such as medicare and medicaid...and the left blocks any attempt by the GOP to address it.

Please, stop. No one could have blocked his first two years and he could have vetoed anything. He supported things like billions in bail outs that led to the debt.

But thanks for proving my beliefs for me.

Of course they could....and did...it's called a Filibuster. For example...the Farm Bill....the GOP simply added work requirements for SNAP....the Dems blocked it, and literally threatened to shut down the entire Ag Department over it. The GOP was faced with shutting down the Dept of Ag, or caving to the extortion by the Dems.

What would be the downside of shutting down the Department of Agriculture?

A lot....the Department of Ag, runs for example the food inspection...which helps ensure that food produced and sold on the market meats some basic standards for consumption. In addition, the run, clean, and maintain the national forest, which are a great resource not just for leisure, but natural resources, such as timber....as well as enforce federal laws on those lands.

So, how is any that a Federal responsibility and not the responsibility of the States?

 

[Darkwind]

I absolutely support this and I'm open to where we spend it.

Why am I not surprised that you support pure idiocy?

Paying for things is idiocy? Quite the opposite.

Again, it is NOT the paying-for thing but the things we are paying for.

Paying for things is great when there is a legitimate need for a thing.

So far, I've not seen much that would be considered "legitimate" in the Federal Budget.

 

[Darkwind]

we once again have Trumpsters pretending to be fiscally responsible and attacking others.

What trumpsters wanted was an end to the lockouts

but if you did that democrats would not have an excuse to continue your massive borrow and spend pork barrel policies

8 trillion in spending that wasn't paid for under Trump.

Why didn't Nancy do something......

It's not her thing. She has no desire to address the debt. Why do you think she does?

Cause that's her job......

Her job is to raise campaign donations. That's the only reason she has her position.

But again, how do you expect Nancy and the Dems to do what Trump and the Republicans refused to do? They don't run on the debt.

Sorry,,.,,,the GOP and Trump attempted numerous times to cut spending...blocked by the dems, and called every name under the book by their propagandist for doing so..."grandma killers," claiming htey wanted people to die of hunger etc.

The largest driver of debt, is the entitlement programs, such as medicare and medicaid...and the left blocks any attempt by the GOP to address it.

Please, stop. No one could have blocked his first two years and he could have vetoed anything. He supported things like billions in bail outs that led to the debt.

But thanks for proving my beliefs for me.

Of course they could....and did...it's called a Filibuster. For example...the Farm Bill....the GOP simply added work requirements for SNAP....the Dems blocked it, and literally threatened to shut down the entire Ag Department over it. The GOP was faced with shutting down the Dept of Ag, or caving to the extortion by the Dems.

Shut it down. That's what is being suggested by major cuts anyway. What better way to cut the budget?

I agree. In the cited example, the GOP should have had the intestinal fortitude to shut it down.

 

[Mac-7]

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Jill Stien is evil too

but she’s so marginal that nobody will notice

 

[pknopp]

we once again have Trumpsters pretending to be fiscally responsible and attacking others.

What trumpsters wanted was an end to the lockouts

but if you did that democrats would not have an excuse to continue your massive borrow and spend pork barrel policies

8 trillion in spending that wasn't paid for under Trump.

Why didn't Nancy do something......

It's not her thing. She has no desire to address the debt. Why do you think she does?

Cause that's her job......

Her job is to raise campaign donations. That's the only reason she has her position.

But again, how do you expect Nancy and the Dems to do what Trump and the Republicans refused to do? They don't run on the debt.

House sets the budget ..end of story but it's easier to play stupid word games.

Republicans had the House and Senate under Trump. They added debt. It still has to pass the Senate and the President still has to sign off on it. Trump signed off on $8 trillion in debt in 4 years.

Who have you voted for?

Last time Jorgenson. Before that Stein. Before that Vermin Supreme. Before that Bob Barr.

You are against spending and you voted for Stein? Lol, I think you just lost any credibility.

At least we know he isn't a Dimwinger.............he is a full-blown Socialist.

I'm the one that supports the government giving billions of taxpayers money to corporations? No, that's you.

 

[BS Filter]

I agree

Right now the super wealthy are only taxed on their income. They are clever enough not to claim income. We cannot touch their wealth.
A small fee on transactions (like a sales tax) will open up their wealth to taxation

Greedy people.

 

[pknopp]

I absolutely support this and I'm open to where we spend it.

Why am I not surprised that you support pure idiocy?

Paying for things is idiocy? Quite the opposite.

Again, it is NOT the paying-for thing but the things we are paying for.

Paying for things is great when there is a legitimate need for a thing.

So far, I've not seen much that would be considered "legitimate" in the Federal Budget.

I said I supported this tax and if it's used to address the debt, great. I'll vote for that.

Paying for our debt is a valid expense.

 

[Mac-7]

I’m the one that supports the government giving billions of taxpayers money to corporations? No, that's you.

Being a frog at fartherest edge of the swamp you are completely immaterial to the political process

I think you are a lib who just doesnt want go admit it

 

[pknopp]

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Jill Stien is evil too

but she’s so marginal that nobody will notice

She actually stood up for her beliefs. Even if I disagree with someone I respect that far more than those who lie to you.

 

[pknopp]

I’m the one that supports the government giving billions of taxpayers money to corporations? No, that's you.

Being a frog at fartherest edge of the swamp you are completely immaterial to the political process

I think you are a lib who just doesnt want go admit it

You are just lashing out because you are so full of crap.

I support a lot of things considered "liberal". Like ending the war on drugs.

I don't pretend otherwise.

 

[wamose]

Who knows if that would be a good thing. And who knows if that tax wouldn't be expanded down the road? The annoying part for me is that Democrat solutions always seem to involve raising taxes and spending more. Just one time I'd love to see the House suggest some major bureaucracy cuts.

 

[Blues Man]

The term "national food security" is a hoax.

Most countries take it seriously

But politics and mission creep has taken the Dept of Ag far beyond what is sensible

We have the fattest country on the planet I don't think anyone is food insecure

 

[Mac-7]

She actually stood up for her beliefs. Even if I disagree with someone I respect that far more than those who lie to you.

She was accused of colluding with the russians during the 2016 campaign

you must hate her

 

[Mac-7]

We have the fattest country on the planet I don't think anyone is food insecure

Did I say we were?

but food security is still the primary purpose for the Dept of Ag

 

[bripat9643]

We have the fattest country on the planet I don't think anyone is food insecure

Did I say we were?

but food security is still the primary purpose for the Dept of Ag

In other words, it's pointless.