- Joined
- Aug 20, 2014
- Messages
- 2,932
- Reaction score
- 657
- Location
- Shady Dale, Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The funnier part is that the Democrats told us deficits do not matter but now they matter. Interesting.
The historical record isn't on your side. Clinton raised taxes and both the economy and revenue grew. Bush cut taxes and revenue shrank with no dramatic change in GDP growth. Obama raised taxes and GDP grew the same as before the tax-increases and revenue increased too.
They have done just as much as the Reps, during their control of the seat, and out of that control. Besides if you don't know that the national dept/deficit is something that is completely grounded in reality at this point. Though I really don't care how much ol Obama increased our Debt, because at this point its an inconsequential number. Every president we have is going to just build more debt due to how broken the system is in its current form.
He raised our debt by over 8 Trillion and while he kept blaming Bush for the nations deficit, that guy was only responsible for the first year of Obama's term. The rest was on Berry's shoulders, and no one else.
Every party has used the deficit to get a one up on the other. Its like school yard bragging rights, or to be more associated to hazing tactics then that.
The funnier part is that the Democrats told us deficits do not matter but now they matter. Interesting.
There isn't one Republican President, since the 1960s who didn't add to the deficit. It's pathetic. But as soon as another Party gets into office, the Conservative-controlled media, immediately starts blaming them. The Great American Lie!
Whats the alternative?
This is Congress's problem. They overspend more than 2 trillion every year. We collect 2 in taxes and spend 4. I'm all for starving the beast with tax cuts and force congress to start making meaningful spending reforms. Don't even waste your breath talking to me about tax cuts being irresponsible when you cry like a stuck pig when any kind of spending reform is suggested.
I agreeStarving the beast is the lie, falsehood, myth, propaganda that republicans tell about tax cuts. We have seen what happens - spending isn't cut, there is no starving of the beast.
Seems to me the path to fiscal responsibility is very, very simple - just require that all spending be paid for with taxes. That's how you starve the beast, not handing out huge baskets of tasty unfunded tax cuts on the front end to a relative handful of big donors, then HOPING Congress does the right thing and cuts spending later that will affect 10s of millions of citizens. It's like serving a child a huge bowl of ice cream with 4 donuts before dinner then hoping he'll eat his meat and vegetables later.
In this case the path for the GOP is obvious. If they want $trillions in tax cuts, require Congress to find the $trillions in spending cuts to offset those tax cuts AND more $trillions in spending cuts to offset the already predicted deficits. Condition the tax cuts on the spending cuts in the same bill, and if the GOP is actually fiscally responsible and actually believes in smaller government, we'll see spending shrink.
Your right we don't always get our way and have to tolerate things that others want. That is why I'm bothered by politicians who pick and choose which laws they will or will not enforce.
Trust me when I tell you nobody on the right is under the illusion that the GOP leadership are deficit hawks. They saw that betrayal under bush and turned their back on the party. That is how the DNC captured a suoermajority congress. When we saw what a disaster that was we started to primary out members of the GOP and gave trump the WH. The wing is a party in reform.
Yeah he is another big spender. I knew it when I voted for him but the thing is, they all are. There's nobody to vote for, ever if spending is your concern.It's bizarre that a deficit hawk would ever vote for Trump. He promised $12 trillion in tax cuts, not to cut a penny from Medicare, Medicaid or SS, and to increase military spending. The man didn't even really pretend to care about deficits, although he did promise to balance the budget, with all those tax cuts and spending increases, which is impossible, of course.
Yeah he is another big spender. I knew it when I voted for him but the thing is, they all are. There's nobody to vote for, ever if spending is your concern.
I will say this though you can balance the budget with tax cuts in theory. If you can get the economy to grow enough the tax revenues will cover the spending. Problem is that the amount of growth is unrealistic.
That's because few of them truly are deficit hawks.It's bizarre that a deficit hawk would ever vote for Trump.
Raising taxes doesnt work either. You end up slowing growth which results in a marginal increase in revenue. The proven way to balance the budget is to do nothing. That worked in the 90s, and almost in the 00s before the recession. It even worked under Obama. In all cases, the rate of spending growth slowed down allowing the economy to catch up. Military spending isnt even the problem. We take in more than enough revenue to pay for the military (700bn). The real problem is the 2.5 trillion in social programs which have doubled while military spending has decreased.
Social Security- 900bn
Healthcare - 1.2 trillion
Welfare - 300bn
O, I asked you what you see that makes you think dems are “deficit hawks” when not in power. You provided no example. you simply reiterated your "both sides do it" narrative but I'm still not seeing what you're seeing. Let me expand on one of the examples I mentioned above. Republicans and democrats voted for Bush’s 2008 stimulus. In 2009, republicans did not vote for President Obama’s stimulus. Only flaming lying hypocrisy explains that.
But I agree the system is broken but until you hold republicans accountable for being flaming lying hypocrites about deficits, nothing is going to change. And that starts with you acknowledging that deficits go up under republicans and down under democrats.
And fyi, Bush is responsible for the massive trillion dollar deficits President Obama inherited. Revenue collapsed 700 billion from pre-recession estimates in 2009 alone. You could have eliminated the entire discretionary budget and still not balanced the budget. But only republicans talk about balancing budgets and only when a democrat is in office.
...?
You know it went up under Obama's term right? So the whole "it goes down because of Democrats" thing is not correct in the least.
mmmmm, so again, you're not posting any examples of democrats being "deficit hawks" when not in power but instead want to argue a point I made, mmmmm. Well first deficits did go down under President Obama. Bush's last budget deficit was 1.4 trillion and 9.8% of GDP. What year did President Obama have higher than that? I don't know what you thought you saw but it seems to be like when you saw democrats being "deficit hawks" when not in power. Speaking of which, that's what we were discussing. Now hopefully you can address that issue.
When one major argument from conservatives about democrats is determined to be motivated by partisanship, it makes you question the integrity of all their arguments.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And what about tax cuts that didn't produce enough growth and do add to the deficit, look at happened with Kansas recently:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltwa...ut-experiment-crashes-and-burns/#1108a05a5508
And 700 billon dolllars is a ton of money, you can't deny that military spending is a big part of the federal budget:
https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/
Saying you want to reduce the debt and leave military spending untouched is akin to saying you want to lose weight, but you want to eat an entire chocolate cake every night, it doesn't work.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
Alright, first of all..
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293
Just to get that out of the way.
The problem here is that you don't understand "why" both of these parties are in general deficit Hawks. Or how I like to call it, just looking at the money. They have both kept an eye on one another's spending since before Kennedy, and will continue to do so till after a vast majority of us are dead. Its two political parties that frankly care more about the bottom line then we care about our families.
Just because you don't see them doing it out in the open, does not mean they don't do it to one another either. Political runners on the campaign trail, would butt heads about it between their own party members. Its not hard to summarize that this is something that just happens. Its basically as guaranteed to happen as it is to see rain in April.
They monitor each others spending habits before the election campaign gets underway in most cases.
Each side monitors one another, its a given.
Of course national defense is a big part of the budget. Its a high priority and one of the actual required functions of the federal govt.
But I never said anything about leaving Military untouched. I simply pointed out that it pales in comparison to social spending. As for Kansas, same problem. Too much spending. Guest column: Reckless spending caused Kansas budget crisis | The Kansas City Star
All govts have the same problem. They collect as much tax as they can, and then spend whatever they want regardless of what they have. It should be the opposite, spend only whats neccesary, and collect the minimum needed to fund it, and return everything else to the people.
Haven't you noticed? Deficits are only bad when the president is a Democrat.
“It’s a great talking point when you have an administration that’s Democrat-led. It’s a little different now that Republicans have both houses and the administration.”
-Mark Walker (R-NC), Chairman of Republican Study Committee of the House of Representatives
There's nobody to vote for, ever if spending is your concern.
Shrinking gov is my concernIf deficits are your concern, you could vote democrat. And shouldnt deficits be your real concern? wait, are you just trying to frame the discussion so you can justify your continued support of republicans?
Oh O, I'm saddened by your post. You continue to deny that President Obama reduced the deficit and you simply reiterate your "both sides do it" narrative. Lets focus on the original discussion. The reason you cant find an example and have to again assure me "both sides do it" is because there is no example. And what makes your continued belief truly sad is I've given you an example that disproves your narrative. So not only do you cling to a narrative you cant back up, you ignore the facts I've posted. Dems and republicans voted for Bush's 2008 stimulus. Dems didn't suddenly become deficit hawks. Dems put America first. Republicans didn't vote for President Obama's stimulus. they put their political agenda ahead of America. Now, republicans had proven throughout President Obama's presidency that they were not concerned about the deficit and only trying to undermine the recovery. Republicans literally saying “weeeeeeeeeeeeee, we’re in charge, lets run up the deficit” proves it even to you.
But O, even if you cling to your narrative which I've disproven, it still makes republicans flaming lying hypocrites about deficits. Again, both sides do it is just your way of trying to not hold them accountable. I think you don't hold them accountable because you'd have to admit they were purposely trying to sabotage the economy.