Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[Where_r_my_Keys]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

Tell me, in SPECIFIC TERMS: What are the inalterable criteria which determine one to be entitled to subsidies?

I can tell you fo a dam' fact, that simply being 'the least wealthy' is NOT EVEN CLOSE... .

 

[bripat9643]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

When are you going to find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget?

 

[bripat9643]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

When are you going to find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget?

I don't do homework assignments, moron.

I expect you to repeat this demand about 20 more times before you get tired of it, so expect to be ignored after this time.

 

[Darkwind]

The purpose of increasing taxes is?

Ah, to pay our bills.

And, what part of this is down a rat hole?

Well lets see. I can see 20% worth of cuts right off the bat...
Food & Agriculture
Transportation
International Affairs
Energy & Environment
Housing & Community
Education
Unemployment and Labor accounts for another 2%, so up to 22%..

Additional savings can be had through leaning out the Military...Say another 5%...up to 27%...

Social Security, Medicare can be moved off budget and placed in an untouchable lock box....that's another 7 - 8 %...up to 35% savings...

Government can be cut by at least 4%....so...total savings.....39% give or take a few basis points.

 

[bripat9643]

The purpose of increasing taxes is?

Ah, to pay our bills.

And, what part of this is down a rat hole?

Well lets see. I can see 20% worth of cuts right off the bat...
Food & Agriculture
Transportation
International Affairs
Energy & Environment
Housing & Community
Education
Unemployment and Labor accounts for another 2%, so up to 22%..

Additional savings can be had through leaning out the Military...Say another 5%...up to 27%...

Social Security, Medicare can be moved off budget and placed in an untouchable lock box....that's another 7 - 8 %...up to 35% savings...

Government can be cut by at least 4%....so...total savings.....39% give or take a few basis points.

Expect to be hectored incessantly about producing exact numbers.

However, the idea of putting SS into a lockbox is not feasible. What would the funds in this fund consist of? IF they were government securities, we'd be in exactly the same situation we are now. If they were stocks and bonds of private corporations, then SS would soon own all the major corporations in America and we would have defacto socialism.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

Tell me, in SPECIFIC TERMS: What are the inalterable criteria which determine one to be entitled to subsidies?

I can tell you fo a dam' fact, that simply being 'the least wealthy' is NOT EVEN CLOSE... .

Why not? We have been paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation; are you only now trying to circulate a "memo" claiming we have been wasting our tax monies on a boondoggle and generational form of theft?

 

[Darkwind]

The purpose of increasing taxes is?

Ah, to pay our bills.

And, what part of this is down a rat hole?

Well lets see. I can see 20% worth of cuts right off the bat...
Food & Agriculture
Transportation
International Affairs
Energy & Environment
Housing & Community
Education
Unemployment and Labor accounts for another 2%, so up to 22%..

Additional savings can be had through leaning out the Military...Say another 5%...up to 27%...

Social Security, Medicare can be moved off budget and placed in an untouchable lock box....that's another 7 - 8 %...up to 35% savings...

Government can be cut by at least 4%....so...total savings.....39% give or take a few basis points.

Expect to be hectored incessantly about producing exact numbers.

However, the idea of putting SS into a lockbox is not feasible. What would the funds in this fund consist of? IF they were government securities, we'd be in exactly the same situation we are now. If they were stocks and bonds of private corporations, then SS would soon own all the major corporations in America and we would have defacto socialism.

I would return it to what it originally was....the collected funds for social security and medicare would not go to the general budget, but be locked away with those programs...Untouchable by any politician or political party.

Quite simply, the governments revenue would be what they collect minus those two programs.

A leaning out of the military by modernizing programs and cracking down on fraud, waste & abuse would actually improve our military capability. We need to move into the 22nd century and put assets abroad, not people. We can project power without risking the blood of our biggest heroes and save them for really sticky issues....

All in all, the budget needs to be slashed, and slashed hard.

It is only after we prioritize our expenditures can we then tackle the issue of revenue.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

Hey, it's moral, right.

In any case, only the right complains about socialism, but only when it may benefit the least wealthy in our republic, especially under our form of Capitalism, regardless of the Socialism enumerated to us as our Constitution for our Body politic.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

When are you going to find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget?

We have a Commerce Clause; capitalism, is only useless to the right, apparently.

 

[bripat9643]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

Tell me, in SPECIFIC TERMS: What are the inalterable criteria which determine one to be entitled to subsidies?

I can tell you fo a dam' fact, that simply being 'the least wealthy' is NOT EVEN CLOSE... .

Why not? We have been paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation; are you only now trying to circulate a "memo" claiming we have been wasting our tax monies on a boondoggle and generational form of theft?

Right-wingers have been attacking the so-called "War on Poverty" since the day Johnson first mentioned it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Why not? We have been paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation; are you only now trying to circulate a "memo" claiming we have been wasting our tax monies on a boondoggle and generational form of theft?

Circulate a memo?

We need a memo to explain to someone that there is no potential means to reduce poverty by subsidizing people in poverty?

MEMO: IF YOU NEED A MEMO TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PAYING PEOPLE TO STAY IN POVERTY WILL NOT ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO GET OUT OF POVERTY... YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. ​

 

[bripat9643]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

When are you going to find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget?

We have a Commerce Clause; capitalism, is only useless to the right, apparently.

What does the commerce clause have to do with balancing the budget?

 

[danielpalos]

The purpose of increasing taxes is?

Ah, to pay our bills.

And, what part of this is down a rat hole?

Well lets see. I can see 20% worth of cuts right off the bat...
Food & Agriculture
Transportation
International Affairs
Energy & Environment
Housing & Community
Education
Unemployment and Labor accounts for another 2%, so up to 22%..

Additional savings can be had through leaning out the Military...Say another 5%...up to 27%...

Social Security, Medicare can be moved off budget and placed in an untouchable lock box....that's another 7 - 8 %...up to 35% savings...

Government can be cut by at least 4%....so...total savings.....39% give or take a few basis points.

I believe it should be even simpler than that, with our Commerce Clause. War is a Burden on Commerce, and should require wartime tax rates or be cut from the budget as a known waste of taxpayer monies, simply Because, our elected representatives could not justify a really really serious Tax relationship with the People.

 

[danielpalos]

Why not? We have been paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation; are you only now trying to circulate a "memo" claiming we have been wasting our tax monies on a boondoggle and generational form of theft?

Circulate a memo?

We need a memo to explain to someone that there is no potential means to reduce poverty by subsidizing people in poverty?

MEMO: IF YOU NEED A MEMO TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PAYING PEOPLE TO STAY IN POVERTY WILL NOT ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO GET OUT OF POVERTY... YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. ​

Dude, we are currently subsidizing War on the Peoples dime without wartime Tax rates. Are you on the right?

In any Case, it is about solving simple poverty through the moral goodness of bearing True witness instead of indulging the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws and being repugnant to a god, in that amoral manner.

 

[danielpalos]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

When are you going to find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget?

We have a Commerce Clause; capitalism, is only useless to the right, apparently.

What does the commerce clause have to do with balancing the budget?

Is Capitalism really only useless to the right; it Only takes money to make more money and balance a budget.

 

[bripat9643]

The purpose of increasing taxes is?

Ah, to pay our bills.

And, what part of this is down a rat hole?

Well lets see. I can see 20% worth of cuts right off the bat...
Food & Agriculture
Transportation
International Affairs
Energy & Environment
Housing & Community
Education
Unemployment and Labor accounts for another 2%, so up to 22%..

Additional savings can be had through leaning out the Military...Say another 5%...up to 27%...

Social Security, Medicare can be moved off budget and placed in an untouchable lock box....that's another 7 - 8 %...up to 35% savings...

Government can be cut by at least 4%....so...total savings.....39% give or take a few basis points.

I believe it should be even simpler than that, with our Commerce Clause. War is a Burden on Commerce, and should require wartime tax rates or be cut from the budget as a known waste of taxpayer monies, simply Because, our elected representatives could not justify a really really serious Tax relationship with the People.

The commerce clause does not require government to cut anything. The biggest burden on commerce is the government, so why doesn't the commerce clause require Congress to cut all the three letter government regulatory agencies?

You are a special kind of moron.

 

[Darkwind]

The purpose of increasing taxes is?

Ah, to pay our bills.

And, what part of this is down a rat hole?

Well lets see. I can see 20% worth of cuts right off the bat...
Food & Agriculture
Transportation
International Affairs
Energy & Environment
Housing & Community
Education
Unemployment and Labor accounts for another 2%, so up to 22%..

Additional savings can be had through leaning out the Military...Say another 5%...up to 27%...

Social Security, Medicare can be moved off budget and placed in an untouchable lock box....that's another 7 - 8 %...up to 35% savings...

Government can be cut by at least 4%....so...total savings.....39% give or take a few basis points.

I believe it should be even simpler than that, with our Commerce Clause. War is a Burden on Commerce, and should require wartime tax rates or be cut from the budget as a known waste of taxpayer monies, simply Because, our elected representatives could not justify a really really serious Tax relationship with the People.

I believe otherwise.

Protecting this country is the first and highest priority of our federal government. If expenditures for war climb so high as to merit an increase in taxes, the government must first reduce non-Constitutional spending to support the nations defense. Only should that prove to be ineffectual, should taxes then be raised.

In either case, a discussion on taxes and government revenue is quickly becoming a necessity for this country, however; We cannot have a serious discussion on taxes until we get our spending problems completely settled and out of the way. It is only after we know how much we must spend (and by must I mean the absolute minimum, no feel good spending designed to buy votes) can we determine how much we'll need.

We also need to outlaw baseline budgeting, and take the budget to a max of two years...One would be better.

 

[bripat9643]

When is the right going to control spending on our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; instead of complaining about simple social spending on the least wealthy?

So the Democrat attitude about spending is "stop me before I kill again?"

When are Democrats going to control spending? Do you think Republicans can control spending when Democrats are bound and determined to block any and all spending cuts?

When are you going to find the 500 billion needed to balance the budget?

We have a Commerce Clause; capitalism, is only useless to the right, apparently.

What does the commerce clause have to do with balancing the budget?

Is Capitalism really only useless to the right; it Only takes money to make more money and balance a budget.

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. How does cutting government agencies make capitalism useless?

 

[bripat9643]

Why not? We have been paying for a War on Poverty for around a generation; are you only now trying to circulate a "memo" claiming we have been wasting our tax monies on a boondoggle and generational form of theft?

Circulate a memo?

We need a memo to explain to someone that there is no potential means to reduce poverty by subsidizing people in poverty?

MEMO: IF YOU NEED A MEMO TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PAYING PEOPLE TO STAY IN POVERTY WILL NOT ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO GET OUT OF POVERTY... YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. ​

Dude, we are currently subsidizing War on the Peoples dime without wartime Tax rates. Are you on the right?

In any Case, it is about solving simple poverty through the moral goodness of bearing True witness instead of indulging the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws and being repugnant to a god, in that amoral manner.

I'm not aware of any official "wartime tax rate." Apparently you just make up stuff to justify whatever position you're taking.