Ted Cruz, John Kasich join forces to stop Donald Trump

LetsGoBrandon · May 2, 2016

justabubba said:
what would you eliminate and how would you achieve reducing the size of government

Alot more then I have room to post on a talkboard. However I will give you a few examples. let's start with government itself. Let's stop giving politicians a separate taxpayer funded pension for every new office they hold. Just a pension for the highest office they held should suffice. Lets take away the franking privilige where they can send mass campaign mail through the postage system at the taxpayers expense. Let's stop funding studies on the sexual habits of the mediterranean fruit fly. Let's put an expiration date on welfare entitlemements for able bodied adults or at least make them work for those ebt cards. No able bodied adult should get a free ride for a lifetime. Let's get rid of the most ludicrous of congressional earmarks that are meant for little more then securing votes for a given bill from reluctant senators or representatives. One such earmark led to a 10 million dollar remodel of an old train station in my locale. It was said that it would become a major transportation hub. it only became a very expensive glorified city bus stop.

jpn · May 2, 2016

justabubba said:
what would you eliminate and how would you achieve reducing the size of government

Since we currently spend more on defense than the next eleven nations combined, seven of whom are close allies, I would say we could reduce military spending about ten percent, or about $60 billion. (Oh, and as a retired Navy Commander (Surface Warfare), I don't think I'm naïve about this subject).

However, I wouldn't do that right now, because our economy is still uneven. Although it's recovered much better than most other nations that suffered from the 2008 financial crisis, it's not firing on all cylinders. That's because of too much austerity. Right now we could borrow money at low, low, low interest rates and address our crumbling infrastructure while creating good jobs for tens of thousand of workers and boosting our economy generally. Slashing spending would be stupid.

Do you know that the number of federal employees (excluding the military) is lower now than at any time since 1966? Is that a good thing? Have you tried to call the IRS with a tax question?

So I'd say you're asking the wrong question.

justabubba · May 3, 2016

jpn said:
Since we currently spend more on defense than the next eleven nations combined, seven of whom are close allies, I would say we could reduce military spending about ten percent, or about $60 billion. (Oh, and as a retired Navy Commander (Surface Warfare), I don't think I'm naïve about this subject).

However, I wouldn't do that right now, because our economy is still uneven. Although it's recovered much better than most other nations that suffered from the 2008 financial crisis, it's not firing on all cylinders. That's because of too much austerity. Right now we could borrow money at low, low, low interest rates and address our crumbling infrastructure while creating good jobs for tens of thousand of workers and boosting our economy generally. Slashing spending would be stupid.

Do you know that the number of federal employees (excluding the military) is lower now than at any time since 1966? Is that a good thing? Have you tried to call the IRS with a tax question?

So I'd say you're asking the wrong question.

[emphasis added by bubba]

actually, i believe it is a very valid question to ask the person who insists we need smaller government

notice the other forum member who insisted government is too large suggested only superficial proposed cuts to federal expenditures
'small government' is but a mantra for many, who when asked, have no clue how to achieve a smaller government

LetsGoBrandon · May 3, 2016

jpn said:
Since we currently spend more on defense than the next eleven nations combined, seven of whom are close allies, I would say we could reduce military spending about ten percent, or about $60 billion. (Oh, and as a retired Navy Commander (Surface Warfare), I don't think I'm naïve about this subject).

However, I wouldn't do that right now, because our economy is still uneven. Although it's recovered much better than most other nations that suffered from the 2008 financial crisis, it's not firing on all cylinders. That's because of too much austerity. Right now we could borrow money at low, low, low interest rates and address our crumbling infrastructure while creating good jobs for tens of thousand of workers and boosting our economy generally. Slashing spending would be stupid.

Do you know that the number of federal employees (excluding the military) is lower now than at any time since 1966? Is that a good thing? Have you tried to call the IRS with a tax question?

So I'd say you're asking the wrong question.

We did reduce defense spending at about 10%.....remember the sequester?

LetsGoBrandon · May 3, 2016

disneydude said:
I can respect those who TRULY represent small government. That is NOT the Republican party today.

On that....I agree, at least as far as the republican establishment politicians go. The majority of them I would barely even call conservative. The exceptions are politicians like Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, etc. There are more true conservative republicans in the House of Representatives and their numbers are growing.

In fact, the Republican party today represents a larger and over-reaching government than Democrats do.

Simply not true. The democrats are the hard core big government types. The republicans are the moderates. A better way of putting it is Democrats are "liberal" and the establishment republicans are "liberal-lite"

The right-wing social agenda is the biggest big brother government out there.

Which right-wing big government social agenda would that be? Give me specifics.

True...that I am a hard core liberal and I do favor a large federal government...but I could support a Goldwater Conservative as long as they were a true Conservative and not someone who promotes the big brother huge government of the Republican right-wing social agenda.

You seem to be a bit more obsessed over social agenda. Ted Cruz is the closest there is to a Goldwater conservative today. What about Ted Cruz's social agenda do you not agree with?

danarhea · May 3, 2016

So how did that work out for you two guys? :mrgreen:

jpn · May 3, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
Simply not true. The democrats are the hard core big government types. The republicans are the moderates. A better way of putting it is Democrats are "liberal" and the establishment republicans are "liberal-lite"

The biggest difference is that Democrats propose spending plans and how to pay for them (Clinton, Obama). Republicans propose tax cuts and let the deficits explode (Reagan, Bush).

jpn · May 3, 2016

ObamacareFail said:
You seem to be a bit more obsessed over social agenda. Ted Cruz is the closest there is to a Goldwater conservative today. What about Ted Cruz's social agenda do you not agree with?

The conservative, supposedly "Christian" social agenda (abortion, gay-bashing, etc.) is what the Republican elites use to motivate the rabbit people, while the elites really only care about slashing taxes and regulations for themselves.

Southern Dad · May 4, 2016

jpn said:
The biggest difference is that Democrats propose spending plans and how to pay for them (Clinton, Obama). Republicans propose tax cuts and let the deficits explode (Reagan, Bush).

Interesting. The way the Democrats always want to pay for them is the same... "Tax the Rich!"

David_N · May 4, 2016

Southern Dad said:
Interesting. The way the Democrats always want to pay for them is the same... "Tax the Rich!"

Democrats don't even need to raise taxes to pay for what they want, the only reason we should ever raise taxes is to influence behavior, control inflation/reduce demand..

jpn · May 4, 2016

Southern Dad said:
Interesting. The way the Democrats always want to pay for them is the same... "Tax the Rich!"

As opposed to the GOP alternative: "let the deficits explode!"?

Which is the more fiscally responsible policy?

SocialD · May 4, 2016

jpn said:
The biggest difference is that Democrats propose spending plans and how to pay for them (Clinton, Obama). Republicans propose tax cuts and let the deficits explode (Reagan, Bush).

we could compare total deficit spending for 8 years of bush and 7.3 years of Obama and see .. even if we only account for straight dollars and not account for inflation... which deficit was higher.
Shall we?

David_N · May 5, 2016

SocialD said:
we could compare total deficit spending for 8 years of bush and 7.3 years of Obama and see .. even if we only account for straight dollars and not account for inflation... which deficit was higher.
Shall we?

Using straight dollars is a good way to deceive people who don't understand what they're talking about.

SocialD · May 5, 2016

David_N said:
Using straight dollars is a good way to deceive people who don't understand what they're talking about.

lol, let me rephrase that.. if we used dollars as they were that year ( straight dollars ) the deficit would be higher under Obama. If we used adjusted for inflation dollars, the deficit would be higher under Obama. it wouldn't matter.

LetsGoBrandon · May 5, 2016

jpn said:
The biggest difference is that Democrats propose spending plans and how to pay for them (Clinton, Obama). Republicans propose tax cuts and let the deficits explode (Reagan, Bush).

I'll correct those claims for you. Obama has already spent more then all previous presidents added together. The democrats have never cared about paying for spending plans. They just chant: "Make the rich pay more"....while behind the scenes, they make the middle class pay more.. As for the tax cuts, the last three across the board tax cuts, two by republican presidents, one by a democrat actually increased tax revenue. I would explain the math to you, however I suspect you would figuratively put your hands over your ears. I will point out to you that the exploding deficits come from politicians on both sides continuing to spend virtually a dollar and a half for every new dollar in tax revenue.

LetsGoBrandon · May 5, 2016

jpn said:
The conservative, supposedly "Christian" social agenda (abortion, gay-bashing, etc.) is what the Republican elites use to motivate the rabbit people, while the elites really only care about slashing taxes and regulations for themselves.

Give it a rest, Roe Vs Wade is not going away in your lifetime or mine. And while Cruz expresses his and for that matter my views on abortion, I have never heard him bashing gays.

Southern Dad · May 6, 2016

jpn said:
As opposed to the GOP alternative: "let the deficits explode!"?

Which is the more fiscally responsible policy?

Hold on, no one on the left wants to use those tax increases to pay down debt. Bernie Sanders wants to raise taxes all over the place but only to spend it on new programs. And you want to talk about exploding deficits... What is the current deficit? What was it when President Barack H Obama took office?

jpn · May 10, 2016

Southern Dad said:
Hold on, no one on the left wants to use those tax increases to pay down debt. Bernie Sanders wants to raise taxes all over the place but only to spend it on new programs. And you want to talk about exploding deficits... What is the current deficit? What was it when President Barack H Obama took office?

Okay, let's hold on. Sanders and Clinton both propose tax hikes (huge increases by Sanders for huge new programs, and small increases by Clinton for small new programs). In both instances they are far more fiscally responsible because they propose a means of paying for new programs. Contrast that with the massive, deficit-exploding tax cuts proposed by Trump with no concurrent spending cuts. Which is the more irresponsible?

As for the deficits, we've finally reduced it to pre-recession levels. But we should take advantage of low interest rates now and invest in America, not continue with the idiotic austerity mania which is seriously reducing the nation's future potential. Here's a hint for you: austerity doesn't help the middle class. Why not get smart?

Southern Dad · May 10, 2016

jpn said:
Okay, let's hold on. Sanders and Clinton both propose tax hikes (huge increases by Sanders for huge new programs, and small increases by Clinton for small new programs). In both instances they are far more fiscally responsible because they propose a means of paying for new programs. Contrast that with the massive, deficit-exploding tax cuts proposed by Trump with no concurrent spending cuts. Which is the more irresponsible?

As for the deficits, we've finally reduced it to pre-recession levels. But we should take advantage of low interest rates now and invest in America, not continue with the idiotic austerity mania which is seriously reducing the nation's future potential. Here's a hint for you: austerity doesn't help the middle class. Why not get smart?

Here is the part that you miss. Both of your champions, Sanders and Clinton want to raise taxes so that they can spend more money.

jpn · May 10, 2016

Southern Dad said:
Here is the part that you miss. Both of your champions, Sanders and Clinton want to raise taxes so that they can spend more money.

Here's the part you miss: using tax revenues to solve problems is a good thing. That concept blows your mind, I know. But try to expand your horizons just a bit.

In contrast, your champions want to slash taxes on the rich, deficits be damned.

Democratic Party priorities:

Republican Party priorities:

Southern Dad · May 13, 2016

jpn said:
Here's the part you miss: using tax revenues to solve problems is a good thing. That concept blows your mind, I know. But try to expand your horizons just a bit.

In contrast, your champions want to slash taxes on the rich, deficits be damned.

Democratic Party priorities:

Republican Party priorities:

Those are pretty pictures. Of course, show the chart of the national debt... Oh damn.

jpn · May 13, 2016

Southern Dad said:
Those are pretty pictures. Of course, show the chart of the national debt... Oh damn.

Are you for real? Your point seems to be that you are concerned about the debt. And exactly what would the Trump tax plan do to the debt?

6a00d8341c4eab53ef01b8d16fe192970c-640wi

If you were truly concerned about the debt (and rational), you wouldn't be a Republican.

Southern Dad · May 14, 2016

jpn said:
Are you for real? Your point seems to be that you are concerned about the debt. And exactly what would the Trump tax plan do to the debt?

If you were truly concerned about the debt (and rational), you wouldn't be a Republican.

The debt is but one issue. Just one. There are many issues. Every time the Democrats want to start a program, they reach for my wallet. Hillary has promised to be four more years of Obama. What has happened with the national debt under Obama?

jpn · May 16, 2016

Southern Dad said:
The debt is but one issue. Just one. There are many issues. Every time the Democrats want to start a program, they reach for my wallet. Hillary has promised to be four more years of Obama. What has happened with the national debt under Obama?

It went up. When was the last time it went down? Why did it go down? Who was in charge of the White House, the House of Reps and the Senate when the laws that began transforming the yearly deficits into surpluses were passed? Why were the deficits so large to begin with? Gee, you must have been a really enthusiastic Democrat back then, right? Because you're SO concerned about the budget, right? But then what happened in 2001? Awe, gee, all that good progress went to hell in a handbasket. Why was that?

If you were seriously concerned about the nation's fiscal health, and actually knowledgeable, you wouldn't vote Republican. Yes it's true, Democrats believe in an essential role in government. We also believe in paying for government. Cleaning up Bush's wars is expensive. You do that with taxes. Republicans talk a lot about restraining government, but what they really believe in is slashing taxes and to hell with the budget. Or haven't you been paying attention since, oh, say, 1981 or so?

Ted Cruz, John Kasich join forces to stop Donald Trump

LetsGoBrandon

jpn

Retired Navy Commander

justabubba

long standing member

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot

jpn

Retired Navy Commander

jpn

Retired Navy Commander

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate

David_N

jpn

Retired Navy Commander

SocialD

David_N

SocialD

LetsGoBrandon

LetsGoBrandon

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate

jpn

Retired Navy Commander

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate

jpn

Retired Navy Commander

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate

jpn

Retired Navy Commander

Southern Dad

Presidential Candidate

jpn

Retired Navy Commander