Liberals Think We're Jerks For Wanting To Control Spending

[Staidhup]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

 

[Staidhup]

I think this clarifies the point.
U.S. National Debt Clock Real Time

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

Sorry, you haven't convinced me.

LOL. Like there was ever any chance of you having an open mind or being subject to persuasion by truthful facts and valid logic?

If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4?

MY "position" on what aspect of this entire conversation? But, cutting to the chase: I am quite sure that the SCOTUS took for itself the power of Judicial Review just as I am sure that it is a matter of implication rather than an explicit grant of authority. And it comes up with lots of non unanimous decisions because it is a body of human beings who view things through the filter of their own biases, prejudices, experiences, etc.

It's not at all clear why that makes the slightest difference here.


And by the way, unlike you, I already know what the the term "GENERAL WELFARE" meant when used in the PREAMBLE. I knew it without even having to look it up. But since you say you recognize that it is not a binding part of the Constitution, it makes it curious why you now attach such undue significance to it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

What is missing in this hackneyed post is what is always missing: What are the inherent cost deficits and what are the unintended consequences? It takes more than a bromide to solve problems, try for a little critical thinking.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

It isn't JUST that it is inexorable and inevitable.

It is that we already damn well KNOW it. It is a mathematical certainty, UNLESS we change course, that we will go stone cold bankrupt and even a 90% tax rate wouldn't solve anything since that would only shrink the pie, lower the government's receipts of our monies and make the problem bigger and the ultimate fail that much quicker to arrive. Therefore there is absolutely no moral or logical justification for failure to change the path we are on.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

What is missing in this hackneyed post is what is always missing: What are the inherent cost deficits and what are the unintended consequences? It takes more than a bromide to solve problems, try for a little critical thinking.

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

 

[Wry Catcher]

* * * *

Sorry, you haven't convinced me.

LOL. Like there was ever any chance of you having an open mind or being subject to persuasion by truthful facts and valid logic?

If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4?

MY "position" on what aspect of this entire conversation? But, cutting to the chase: I am quite sure that the SCOTUS took for itself the power of Judicial Review just as I am sure that it is a matter of implication rather than an explicit grant of authority. And it comes up with lots of non unanimous decisions because it is a body of human beings who view things through the filter of their own biases, prejudices, experiences, etc.

It's not at all clear why that makes the slightest difference here.


And by the way, unlike you, I already know what the the term "GENERAL WELFARE" meant when used in the PREAMBLE. I knew it without even having to look it up. But since you say you recognize that it is not a binding part of the Constitution, it makes it curious why you now attach such undue significance to it.

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:

Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

Sorry, you haven't convinced me.

LOL. Like there was ever any chance of you having an open mind or being subject to persuasion by truthful facts and valid logic?

If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4?

MY "position" on what aspect of this entire conversation? But, cutting to the chase: I am quite sure that the SCOTUS took for itself the power of Judicial Review just as I am sure that it is a matter of implication rather than an explicit grant of authority. And it comes up with lots of non unanimous decisions because it is a body of human beings who view things through the filter of their own biases, prejudices, experiences, etc.

It's not at all clear why that makes the slightest difference here.


And by the way, unlike you, I already know what the the term "GENERAL WELFARE" meant when used in the PREAMBLE. I knew it without even having to look it up. But since you say you recognize that it is not a binding part of the Constitution, it makes it curious why you now attach such undue significance to it.

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:

Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

Wait. Did you just write "to pay the debts?"

And "the General Welfare" means a lot of things, but it does NOT mean the 'Welfare Roles.' A GENERAL welfare necessarily applies to all, not just a chosen and select few. It might apply to roads and bridges and tunnels and it might apply to a Navy or an Air Force (the latter two going hand in hand with with providing for the common defense).

Take a look at:
CRS LII Annotated Constitution Article I

 

[danielpalos]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

It isn't the fault of the left, that even the right can't find Good capitalists who can make more money, with an official Mint at their disposal.

 

[danielpalos]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

What is missing in this hackneyed post is what is always missing: What are the inherent cost deficits and what are the unintended consequences? It takes more than a bromide to solve problems, try for a little critical thinking.

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

I believe we should merely solve for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

* * * *

Sorry, you haven't convinced me.

LOL. Like there was ever any chance of you having an open mind or being subject to persuasion by truthful facts and valid logic?

If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4?

MY "position" on what aspect of this entire conversation? But, cutting to the chase: I am quite sure that the SCOTUS took for itself the power of Judicial Review just as I am sure that it is a matter of implication rather than an explicit grant of authority. And it comes up with lots of non unanimous decisions because it is a body of human beings who view things through the filter of their own biases, prejudices, experiences, etc.

It's not at all clear why that makes the slightest difference here.


And by the way, unlike you, I already know what the the term "GENERAL WELFARE" meant when used in the PREAMBLE. I knew it without even having to look it up. But since you say you recognize that it is not a binding part of the Constitution, it makes it curious why you now attach such undue significance to it.

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:

Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

Wait. Did you just write "to pay the debts?"

And "the General Welfare" means a lot of things, but it does NOT mean the 'Welfare Roles.' A GENERAL welfare necessarily applies to all, not just a chosen and select few. It might apply to roads and bridges and tunnels and it might apply to a Navy or an Air Force (the latter two going hand in hand with with providing for the common defense).

Take a look at:
CRS LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Yes it does, if it provides for the general welfare.

 

[JoeNormal]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

 

[bripat9643]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

What is missing in this hackneyed post is what is always missing: What are the inherent cost deficits and what are the unintended consequences? It takes more than a bromide to solve problems, try for a little critical thinking.

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

I believe we should merely solve for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Socialism is a parasite on capitalism. The idea of it "bailing out" capitalism is as absurd as a teaching a lion to eat grass.

 

[bripat9643]

* * * *

Sorry, you haven't convinced me.

LOL. Like there was ever any chance of you having an open mind or being subject to persuasion by truthful facts and valid logic?

If you are so sure of your position, explain to all of us why so many decisions are 5-4?

MY "position" on what aspect of this entire conversation? But, cutting to the chase: I am quite sure that the SCOTUS took for itself the power of Judicial Review just as I am sure that it is a matter of implication rather than an explicit grant of authority. And it comes up with lots of non unanimous decisions because it is a body of human beings who view things through the filter of their own biases, prejudices, experiences, etc.

It's not at all clear why that makes the slightest difference here.


And by the way, unlike you, I already know what the the term "GENERAL WELFARE" meant when used in the PREAMBLE. I knew it without even having to look it up. But since you say you recognize that it is not a binding part of the Constitution, it makes it curious why you now attach such undue significance to it.

It's significance is not that is it in the preamble, and for the third time and last I will point out, the phrase is in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, to wit:

Article I, Section 8: Congressional Powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;...

Wait. Did you just write "to pay the debts?"

And "the General Welfare" means a lot of things, but it does NOT mean the 'Welfare Roles.' A GENERAL welfare necessarily applies to all, not just a chosen and select few. It might apply to roads and bridges and tunnels and it might apply to a Navy or an Air Force (the latter two going hand in hand with with providing for the common defense).

Take a look at:
CRS LII Annotated Constitution Article I

Yes it does, if it provides for the general welfare.

It doesn't. It provides for the welfare of some at the expense of others.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm more than happy to contribute to the general welfare - in addition to supporting my own family. Most decent people are.

You're also happy to support state-enforced involuntary servitude, which is another thing entirely.

Oh lookie, another simpleminded assessment of freedom. Society gives you way more freedom than it takes away. A man alone on an island might not have to pay those onerous taxes to provide others some kind of safety net but he has to fight the elements, fend off wild animals, scrape for food and water and a hundred other thingss we might take for granted. If he were to be offered a chance to get back to civilization, he jump at it if he were in his right mind.

Society is one thing, government is another. There's no requirement to provide sustenance for parasites just because you want to live in a society. One is not dependent on the other, as sleazy weasels like you would have us believe.

 

[danielpalos]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

What is missing in this hackneyed post is what is always missing: What are the inherent cost deficits and what are the unintended consequences? It takes more than a bromide to solve problems, try for a little critical thinking.

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

I believe we should merely solve for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Socialism is a parasite on capitalism. The idea of it "bailing out" capitalism is as absurd as a teaching a lion to eat grass.

No it isn't. It merely requires a clue and a Cause. Socialism bails out capitalism all the time. Simply having a public sector is a form of socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

The liberal mindset remains fixated on increased spending coupled with increased taxation. Unfortunately uncontrolled growth in government spending tilted the scales toward financial insolvency years ago. Projected unfunded liabilities are expanding at a greater rate than GDP. The current and projected increase in government spending far out weighs any realistic increase in taxation. The deficit will continue to grow, the national debt will eventually become untenable, which eventually means there will be not be sufficient tax revenue to not only pay the interest on the national debt or maintain entitlements. So will austerity measures work in the US? Didn't in Greece. But heck lets go for a 80-90% tax rate and see this country grind to a halt. The exodus of wealth would be unimaginable. Then again you could just expropriate all the wealth and see what that brings you.

What is missing in this hackneyed post is what is always missing: What are the inherent cost deficits and what are the unintended consequences? It takes more than a bromide to solve problems, try for a little critical thinking.

Offer a remedy that is not a typical liberal bromide, then. You talk some nice smack, but you seem unable and/or unwilling to apply your thinking to yourself and to your political ideology in general.

I believe we should merely solve for the inefficiency of Capitalism's, Natural Rate of Unemployment, by using socialism to bailout capitalism, like usual.

Socialism is a parasite on capitalism. The idea of it "bailing out" capitalism is as absurd as a teaching a lion to eat grass.

No it isn't. It merely requires a clue and a Cause. Socialism bails out capitalism all the time. Simply having a public sector is a form of socialism.

It doesn't "bail out" capitalism. It sucks off capitalism.

 

[zeke]

It doesn't "bail out" capitalism. It sucks off capitalism.

Hey dude, are you smart enough to remember the almost banking collapse? You know, the one that happened when that other guy was President?

That "bail out" of the to big to fail banks? You remember that? Look it up . This is not a democrat lie. It really happened.

And one of the biggest socialist programs in a long time bailed those to big to fail capitalist companies out of the situation they put themselves in. TARP was what this socialist program was called. Look it up. It really happened.

Yea, those capitalists you love so much with their "privatize the gain and socialize the risks" sure wouldn't use a socialist bail out. Until they needed a bail out. Then they had to trouble being socialists.

 

[bripat9643]

It doesn't "bail out" capitalism. It sucks off capitalism.

Hey dude, are you smart enough to remember the almost banking collapse? You know, the one that happened when that other guy was President?

That "bail out" of the to big to fail banks? You remember that? Look it up . This is not a democrat lie. It really happened.

And one of the biggest socialist programs in a long time bailed those to big to fail capitalist companies out of the situation they put themselves in. TARP was what this socialist program was called. Look it up. It really happened.

Yea, those capitalists you love so much with their "privatize the gain and socialize the risks" sure wouldn't use a socialist bail out. Until they needed a bail out. Then they had to trouble being socialists.

Government caused the financial panic, so it's absurd to claim socialism saved the banks. Furthermore, only servile socialist toadies supported the bank bail out. Under genuine capitalism there's no such thing as "too big to fail." Anyone who believes in "privatizing the gain and socializing the risk" is not a capitalist. He's a fascist. By propping up those banks all the government did is enshrine incompetence and failure into perpetuity.

Furthermore, all the money for the TARP bailout came from the capitalist economy. Government doesn't produce anything, so it's absurd to claim that the government bailed out the banks. The taxpayers bailed out the banks - and by that I mean people who work for private companies. Government employees don't really pay taxes.

 

[zeke]

. Under genuine capitalism there's no such thing as "too big to fail." Anyone who believes in "privatizing the gain and socializing the risk" is not a capitalist.

Well no shit. Today's bankers are not capitalists. Cause they all believe they are to big to fail. Shoot the motherfuckers is what I say. But I liked the qualifier you put in; genuine capitalist. Where you find those? China?

Government doesn't produce anything, so it's absurd to claim that the government bailed out the banks. The taxpayers bailed out the banks - and by that I mean people who work for private companies.

. The taxpayers haven't bailed anyone out directly The government bailed out the banks with borrowed money. And the taxpayers will pay the debt from the borrowing to bail out the banks with taxes collected by the government. The banks were bailed out by the government.

Or did you send 5$ to the banker of your choice to "bail" them out? How nice.