Who stands for what?

[vegas giants]

What on Earth does that have to do with you wanting to spend 60 trillion dollars and force the country into bankruptcy?

Bankruptcy? Like canada, australia, germany, japan....etc.


They did it....but we can't.


You must think Americans are stupid

 

[calamity]

That's the trouble with you right wing extremists.....you just want the rich to have all the money and the rest of us to go into medical bankruptcy

Let's face it. We knew who they were on the day they began saying "Torture is good."

After that, there is no reason not to call the Right Wingers Nazis.

 

[Moderate Right]

Bankruptcy? Like canada, australia, germany, japan....etc.


They did it....but we can't.


You must think Americans are stupid

LOL. It is so funny how you guys think you can just add 60 trillion dollars onto the debt and no worries. Then you complain because I said Democrats want to add 100 -200 trillion dollars onto the debt. You wouldn't care about that either, as long as it was "well spent". So why did you even bother denying it in the first place?

 

[vegas giants]

LOL. It is so funny how you guys think you can just add 60 trillion dollars onto the debt and no worries. Then you complain because I said Democrats want to add 100 -200 trillion dollars onto the debt. You wouldn't care about that either, as long as it was "well spent". So why did you even bother denying it in the first place?

How do you not know this stuff pays for itself?


Why hasnt all those other countries declared bankruptcy?


Americans are not stupid

 

[ataraxia]

As regards to the size of the Federal Government- the Republicans # say# they stand for limited Govt, but they never back that up.


The Democrats are at least honest. They stand for either BIG govt. Double BIG Govt or triple BIG Govt.


what next?????

Not really. Like anything in life, what you do depends on the circumstances. Sometimes you gotta step in aggressively. And sometimes you gotta know when to back off. It's like driving. It's like raising a kid. It's like work. And lots of other things. It takes an open eye and an open mind to what is happening around you. It takes information and education, judgment, deliberation and compromise, etc...

The only people who lose are the ones simple-minded enough to think a simple easy formula is the answer to everything.

"I am not for big government. I am not for small government. I am for smart government."
-Barack Obama

 

[bluesmoke]

The dems are on record of wanting to spend tens of trillions of dollars, probably over one hundred trillion dollars in 10 years. They have admitted to this. No matter how bad Republicans are, they aren't going to spend 100 trillion dollars in 10 years.

If there is a record, then I'm sure it can be shown. I doubt you can, though. You're not big on using facts/data to back up your false/dishonest claims that can't be refuted or countered with outweighing evidence of fact. Push your lies all you want. You can't back them up.

 

[SCrider]

The key is to keep the economy going and turn tax recipients into tax payers. The private sector approach is to keep the pressure on China to play fair or go home. That will only happen with the right leadership.

Everyone has to learn that every dollar of tax revenue comes from the private sector. 75% of our country does not understand that.

Interesting take on this, since it was the private sector that took their business to China in the first place

 

[chuckiechan]

Interesting take on this, since it was the private sector that took their business to China in the first place

That is the difference leadership makes. Now the national policy effort is to disengage from China entirely.

 

[Moderate Right]

If there is a record, then I'm sure it can be shown. I doubt you can, though. You're not big on using facts/data to back up your false/dishonest claims that can't be refuted or countered with outweighing evidence of fact. Push your lies all you want. You can't back them up.

Oh please. Most of the major candidates have all put forth their plans, which add up to tens of trillions of dollars.

 

[SCrider]

That is the difference leadership makes. Now the national policy effort is to disengage from China entirely.

Really?

 

[bluesmoke]

Oh please. Most of the major candidates have all put forth their plans, which add up to tens of trillions of dollars.

Typical MR. You can't back up what you say with facts. Try. You can't. You just make unfounded claims. Lies, if you can't back them up. Falsehoods. Your words, w/o evidence of fact, are worthless.

 

[Moderate Right]

Typical MR. You can't back up what you say with facts. Try. You can't. You just make unfounded claims. Lies, if you can't back them up. Falsehoods. Your words, w/o evidence of fact, are worthless.

Oh please. Most of the major candidates have all put forth their plans, which add up to tens of trillions of dollars.

 

[Mr Person]

Thread: Who stands for what?

[...]

Trump stands for corruption, criminality, and the pissing-upon of every last virtue.

 

[Rich2018]

...the Democrats are at least honest. They stand for either BIG govt. Double BIG Govt or triple BIG Govt.

No the Republicans are dishonest, they say they want to help ordinary people but they dump on us and give tax breaks only to their rich buddies.

We need bigger government to tackle the problems of inequality and poverty in the USA.

Only the Democrats promise that.

 

[KLATTU]

No the Republicans are dishonest, they say they want to help ordinary people but they dump on us and give tax breaks only to their rich buddies.

We need bigger government to tackle the problems of inequality and poverty in the USA.

Only the Democrats promise that.

yes that do. Except big government has bee the Dem's solution to poverty since LBJ. The results haven't been so great have they?

AS I've brilliantly stated before,DEms are good at redistributing wealth but not at creating it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No the Republicans are dishonest, they say they want to help ordinary people but they dump on us and give tax breaks only to their rich buddies.

We need bigger government to tackle the problems of inequality and poverty in the USA.

Only the Democrats promise that.

You can't fix poverty (the inability of a household to earn enough by working to support that household) by using "safety net" income redistribution programs. You can remove the need for that household to earn more income by engaging in productive work, but that simply amounts to vote buying.

 

[ttwtt78640]

yes that do. Except big government has bee the Dem's solution to poverty since LBJ. The results haven't been so great have they?

AS I've brilliantly stated before,DEms are good at redistributing wealth but not at creating it.

The results have been to maintain a national poverty rate of between 12% and 15% at considerable cost by using "safety net" income redistribution programs.

 

[bluesmoke]

Oh please. Most of the major candidates have all put forth their plans, which add up to tens of trillions of dollars.

I guess “tens of trillions” add up to the “100-200 trillion” you said the Dems would add to the debt. Your claim is unfounded. The burden of proof is on you, and you provide no evidence that Dems will add what you say. Most of these programs use tax revenues to pay instead of the systems that are currently used, the current system having been proved cost inefficient. The real “Oh please” part is the fact that Republicans have historically increased the debt by a higher % than the Dems. So, the evidence is against your claim, for which you provide no evidence, anyway.

 

[Moderate Right]

I guess “tens of trillions” add up to the “100-200 trillion” you said the Dems would add to the debt. Your claim is unfounded. The burden of proof is on you, and you provide no evidence that Dems will add what you say. Most of these programs use tax revenues to pay instead of the systems that are currently used, the current system having been proved cost inefficient. The real “Oh please” part is the fact that Republicans have historically increased the debt by a higher % than the Dems. So, the evidence is against your claim, for which you provide no evidence, anyway.

I said just about every Democrat has put forth spending proposals into the tens of trillions of dollars. Do you deny this? Hell, now Bernie's come out with a free child care plan on top of all of the other tens of trillions of dollars he has already proposed. The Green New Deal itself comes with a price tag of 93 trillion dollars and these people have said that that is only just the beginning of their climate/socialist plan.

 

[bluesmoke]

I said just about every Democrat has put forth spending proposals into the tens of trillions of dollars. Do you deny this? Hell, now Bernie's come out with a free child care plan on top of all of the other tens of trillions of dollars he has already proposed. The Green New Deal itself comes with a price tag of 93 trillion dollars and these people have said that that is only just the beginning of their climate/socialist plan.

My bet is you don’t even know what the Green New Deal does because you barf-up that totally false $93T figure as if it were accurate.

The number is an estimate from the American Action Forum, the sister organization of the American Action Network, a conservative nonprofit that has spent tens of millions of dollars supporting Republicans in general elections.

In a brief analysis, the AAF estimated costs for Green New Deal goals of clean energy, high-speed rail, a job guarantee, health care, green housing and food security. Economic benefits of any kind ARE NOT FACTORED IN.

The group produced a range of figures that run from $51 trillion to $93 trillion for outlay between 2020 and 2029. Obviously, they liked the 93T figure the best.

You should research to learn more about your own claim. You’re the one that is supposed to provide evidence to support what you say, not for others to disprove. Your claim, w/o evidence, is unfounded.

BTW, every president, of any party, ends up putting forth a plan that over time costs “Tens of trillions of dollars” in the form of what’s called a “budget”.

 

[Ikari]

The two major parties (d/r) differ in that one is for a bigger federal government while the other is for a huge federal government - meaning that "bipartisan compromise" results in a much bigger federal government. Vote early and vote often, but keep your expectations real.

I think they're both for "as big as we can get away with" government, though I do think there is a little difference in some areas of what they want to grow. I think things like military interventionism is desired by both, along with Big Brother style government. But I think the GOP is a bit more interested in invasive forms of government and the DNC a bit more interested in social program forms of government.

But in the end, I don't think either would stop once the government got to a certain size. I think that they would both keep growing the government, its power, its reach as long as they can. So bigger vs. huge? I think they'd both like infinity government if they could manage it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think they're both for "as big as we can get away with" government, though I do think there is a little difference in some areas of what they want to grow. I think things like military interventionism is desired by both, along with Big Brother style government. But I think the GOP is a bit more interested in invasive forms of government and the DNC a bit more interested in social program forms of government.

But in the end, I don't think either would stop once the government got to a certain size. I think that they would both keep growing the government, its power, its reach as long as they can. So bigger vs. huge? I think they'd both like infinity government if they could manage it.

That limit is based on the ability to maintain a sufficient (federal government) tax base. The more that becomes "free" (with the federal government acting as the single payer) then the less which remains of their tax base.

 

[Moderate Right]

My bet is you don’t even know what the Green New Deal does because you barf-up that totally false $93T figure as if it were accurate.

The number is an estimate from the American Action Forum, the sister organization of the American Action Network, a conservative nonprofit that has spent tens of millions of dollars supporting Republicans in general elections.

In a brief analysis, the AAF estimated costs for Green New Deal goals of clean energy, high-speed rail, a job guarantee, health care, green housing and food security. Economic benefits of any kind ARE NOT FACTORED IN.

The group produced a range of figures that run from $51 trillion to $93 trillion for outlay between 2020 and 2029. Obviously, they liked the 93T figure the best.

You should research to learn more about your own claim. You’re the one that is supposed to provide evidence to support what you say, not for others to disprove. Your claim, w/o evidence, is unfounded.

BTW, every president, of any party, ends up putting forth a plan that over time costs “Tens of trillions of dollars” in the form of what’s called a “budget”.

Bernie's proposals total around 60 trillion dollars in NEW spending, on top of what the government already spends. Here's a link from friendly CNN, not Fox News.

Bernie Sanders' agenda: Its cost -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record - CNNPolitics

 

[bluesmoke]

Bernie's proposals total around 60 trillion dollars in NEW spending, on top of what the government already spends. Here's a link from friendly CNN, not Fox News.

Bernie Sanders' agenda: Its cost -- possibly $60 trillion -- would set a peacetime US record - CNNPolitics

Just in terms of a rather limited cost-benefit analysis, the $60M plan would be partially paid for by a $23M increase in revenue from increase tax rates on higher income individuals, corps and Wall Street. That leaves $37M to be paid. Of that $60M is $34M in healthcare to be paid by the govt that previously was not and was instead paid through insurance premiums. So, instead of paying insurance premiums, we would be paying through taxes. It is likely tax payments would be less for those at lower incomes than the insurance premiums they paid before. However, as with Medicare, health payments would be lower than under private insurance as has been proved in the many countries that have universal healthcare, or some form thereof.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t see the offsetting costs I mentioned above calculated in the article “analysis” to come to a bottom-line real cost to the avg American. Or, maybe you can edify.

 

[Moderate Right]

Just in terms of a rather limited cost-benefit analysis, the $60M plan would be partially paid for by a $23M increase in revenue from increase tax rates on higher income individuals, corps and Wall Street. That leaves $37M to be paid. Of that $60M is $34M in healthcare to be paid by the govt that previously was not and was instead paid through insurance premiums. So, instead of paying insurance premiums, we would be paying through taxes. It is likely tax payments would be less for those at lower incomes than the insurance premiums they paid before. However, as with Medicare, health payments would be lower than under private insurance as has been proved in the many countries that have universal healthcare, or some form thereof.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I didn’t see the offsetting costs I mentioned above calculated in the article “analysis” to come to a bottom-line real cost to the avg American. Or, maybe you can edify.

Bernie doesn't even know himself how this would all work out. He just wants a blank check and we'll figure it all out later.