Tettsuo;1059807583]You're arguing a strawman. I'm not supporting larger government. I'm in support of a functional government. To have a function government, we need to fund it. That's it. There's no more to it than that. I agree we have fat to trim. I'm definitely pro-cost cutting but I'm not for starving the beast as it was that so-called beast that enable the rich to become so. Cutting that makes it harder for those seeking wealth to get there.
In order to define the amount of revenue the govt. needs you first need to define the role of the govt. Here are the line item expenses and the amount spent in 2010. What would you elliminate?
Expenses
Defense 696.1
International Affairs 45.2
Gen. Science, Space 30.9
Energy 11.5
Natural resources/env 41,6
Agriculture 23.2
Commerce -82.9
Transportation 92.5
Community Dev 24.9
Education/Train/Social 125.1
Health 369.0
Medicare 451.6
Income Security 624.0
Social Security 706.7
Veterans Benefits 108.4
Justice 55.2
General Govt. 18.1
Net Interest 196.9
So start here and eliminate the duplicate expenses paid at the state level. Further tell me what an increase in Federal Taxes does to state tax revenue?
Asking for them to pay their fair share isn't an attack.
Still waiting for a definition of fair share? Do you think millions of Americans not paying any FIT is their fair share? If you are going to use fair share then use the term fairly.
Democrats don't spend more. Did you not get my point the first time? Republicans presidents have historically been the budget busters, not Democrats. Do you disagree with that fact?
There is no excuse for what Obama has done, he had total control of the Govt. in 2009 and 2010 so what did he do to spending? Democrats controlled the purse strings from 2007-2011 and what did they do with spending? The 2009 budget was Democrat supported and passed.
And increased the budget deficit which is the beginning of our current debt problem. He achieved your so-called success by selling our future and the future of our children. If you don't consider a problem, why are you upset with Obama and concerned about the debt now?
In order to understand the Reagan deficits you need to understand the economic conditions and control of Congress during the Reagan years. I don't think anyone can justify 4 trillion added to the debt in 3 years by complaining about a 1.7 trillion debt in 8 years.
1.4 trillion of borrowed money. You're okay with that? If so, you can't be a hypocrite and complain about Obama deficit spending.
No, I am not ok with 1.4 trillion in borrowed money, why did Obama expand the role in Afghanistan and what do we have to show for it? 1.4 trillion is 140 billion a year. This years deficit will be 1.3 trillion or more so what would a reduction of 140 billion do?
We all need to contribute to our country equally if possible. If the poor do not have the means I'll give them a pass as they can't afford it. Millionaries and billionaries have no excuse for not equally contributing to America's success.
Still wating for someone, anyone that supports Obama to explain "fair share?" is it fair share for 47% of income earners to pay NOTHING? Is it fair share for promoting class warfare?
I'm not comparing anything. Just pointing out what I find important against what I do not find important.
That isn't what your post stated, anytime you talk about SS and Medicare along with other budget items you are comparing the two.
This is just your way of putting your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and going "lalalalalala!" to avoid hearing (reading) the truth. I get it.
Seems that is what liberals are doing with everything Obama says, ignoring the consequences of the rhetoric and the lies being promoted. You have yet to refute anything I posted. What I have posted is verifiable facts, what Obama has spouted if verifiable bull****.