Why do democrats think that the purpose of government is to go into debt?

Yes, that is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats prefer to spend money on the American people, Republicans on war. The Democrat money goes to social programs, the Republican money goes to wars and the wealthy. This has become so obvious in the last century that I don't even think Republicans try to hide their priorities anymore.
 
Yes, that is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats prefer to spend money on the American people, Republicans on war. The Democrat money goes to social programs, the Republican money goes to wars and the wealthy. This has become so obvious in the last century that I don't even think Republicans try to hide their priorities anymore.

total bullshit. But let me humor you on the war spending thingy. Who do you think get most of the money that is spent on defense? Do you know?

The answer is blue collar american workers------who do you think builds ships, planes, tanks, ammo, uniforms, boots, rations, trucks, and all the other stuff required to support our military? Money spent on defense goes directly into american pockets and is recycled in the american economy.

Taxes, half of the country pays no income taxes---HALF. The bush tax cuts cut taxes for everyone that pays taxes, not just the rich.

Will you dem/libtardians ever stop lying?
 
Yes, that is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats prefer to spend money on the American people, Republicans on war. The Democrat money goes to social programs, the Republican money goes to wars and the wealthy. This has become so obvious in the last century that I don't even think Republicans try to hide their priorities anymore.

Yet defense is mandated in the constitution and redistributing American's wealth is not. Go figure.
 
Yes, that is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats prefer to spend money on the American people, Republicans on war. The Democrat money goes to social programs, the Republican money goes to wars and the wealthy. This has become so obvious in the last century that I don't even think Republicans try to hide their priorities anymore.

The constitution directly charges the federal government with national defense.. it does not charge the federal government with taking care of individual wants and needs of citizens.. and this has been shown time and time and time again

Funny how you want to spend on American citizens.. when it is confiscated from others... not when it has to come from you directly

And the misinformation of the conservative want to 'give to the wealthy'.. another typical lie of the winger left... keeping more of what you earn is not GIVING... it is NOT TAKING... and as state. there is ZERO reason why ANY citizen should be paying close to 50% of their income in total taxation... ZERO
 
Yes, that is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats prefer to spend money on the American people, Republicans on war. The Democrat money goes to social programs, the Republican money goes to wars and the wealthy. This has become so obvious in the last century that I don't even think Republicans try to hide their priorities anymore.

Yet defense is mandated in the constitution and redistributing American's wealth is not. Go figure.

All nations have a system for redistributing the wealth, as does the United States.
 
Our history seems to be one of Republicans getting into office, giving tax breaks and other things to the wealthy, and soon the nation faces another recession/depression Democrats are then elected to straighten out the economy and when all is shippy-shape the Republicans get elected again and the whole pattern is repeated. The question is how does this happen? What are the magic words the Republicans use to get reelected? Do we feel guilty not giving Republicans their turn at running the nation, do new generations come along and believe the Republican promises. And one tactic Republicans use is that the Democrats didn't cure the economy quicker after Republican recession/depression. Is it the Republican promises that everyone will become rich as their candidates i.e. Romney if we elect them?
Of course one tactic has been to change names and events, i.e. Truman becomes a Republican, and Hoover a Democrat; Republicans pay off our debt and Democrats borrow.
As to our debt, that debt has been paid off only once in our history and that by a Democratic president.

Former Republican President Dwight Eisenhower balanced 3 Federal budgets and budget surpluses during his eight tenure as President from 1952-1960. Duly note that the US Congress apace with the President controls National Debt and deficit spending. Republicans controlled congress when former President Bill Clinton passed 4 consecutive Federal balanced budgets and surpluses. The government is spending more than revenues and neither Democrats or Republicans are addressing that fact. Not a single dime of expenditure spending is being reduced by either party in Congress. We need actual spending cuts such as eliminating entire budgets and significant reductions in others but that's only 1/2 of the equation. We also need tax increases to not only balance the budget but to create a surplus to pay off the national debt. The National Debt (Public Debt) and resultant tax obligations being imposed on our children is simply unsustainable. If, for example, interest rates soar to the early 1980's rate the entire general taxation of the United States. It's going to happen and our children won't be able to afford it and the entire United States is going to go bankrupt
 
Last edited:
point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

That's a corollary of their belief that government exists to loot your neighbor's property and income.

The borrowing will end when government implodes and our civilization collapses. That's how it has ever been. It's a shame people are too stupid to learn from the past.
 
Yes, that is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats prefer to spend money on the American people, Republicans on war. The Democrat money goes to social programs, the Republican money goes to wars and the wealthy. This has become so obvious in the last century that I don't even think Republicans try to hide their priorities anymore.

Yet defense is mandated in the constitution and redistributing American's wealth is not. Go figure.

All nations have a system for redistributing the wealth, as does the United States.

So does every thief.
 
OP- Considering that about 80% of the debt before Obama was caused by Reagan and W, and 80% of Obama's debt is direct spending to avert ANOTHER Pub Great World Depression:

MORE TOTAL PUBCRAPPE, for hater dupes ONLY...
 
OP- Considering that about 80% of the debt before Obama was caused by Reagan and W, and 80% of Obama's debt is direct spending to avert ANOTHER Pub Great World Depression:

MORE TOTAL PUBCRAPPE, for hater dupes ONLY...

are you totally insane?

national debt when Bush 43 left office = 9T

national debt today after 5 years of obama = 17T

Your ignorant claim that obama's debt belongs to Bush is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.

Budget bills passed under obama = 0

annual deficit under obama = 1T.

your hero has been a massive fiscal failure. Sorry, but you can't lay that on anyone but him. :eusa_whistle:
 
point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

I have never seen a straw man that matched the colossus of Rhodes in magnitude, before now.
 
point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

I have never seen a straw man that matched the colossus of Rhodes in magnitude, before now.

then lets hear your answers: how much debt is too much? when will the govt stop spending more than it takes in? How and when will the national debt be paid off? Is it good that our debt goes up by 1 trillion every year?

strawman? nope, legitimate questions that no liberal can ever answer.
 
Yes, that is one of the differences between Republicans and Democrats, Democrats prefer to spend money on the American people, Republicans on war. The Democrat money goes to social programs, the Republican money goes to wars and the wealthy. This has become so obvious in the last century that I don't even think Republicans try to hide their priorities anymore.

Yet defense is mandated in the constitution and redistributing American's wealth is not. Go figure.

All nations have a system for redistributing the wealth, as does the United States.

I never said we didn't have a system to do it. I said it isn't constitutional. Apples and oranges. And for good measure, if everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you?
 
OP- Considering that about 80% of the debt before Obama was caused by Reagan and W, and 80% of Obama's debt is direct spending to avert ANOTHER Pub Great World Depression:

MORE TOTAL PUBCRAPPE, for hater dupes ONLY...

I was going to warn you that if you keep $emot-jerkit.gif you'll go insane, but apparently it's too late. :eusa_whistle:
 
OP- Considering that about 80% of the debt before Obama was caused by Reagan and W, and 80% of Obama's debt is direct spending to avert ANOTHER Pub Great World Depression:

MORE TOTAL PUBCRAPPE, for hater dupes ONLY...

are you totally insane?

national debt when Bush 43 left office = 9T

national debt today after 5 years of obama = 17T

Your ignorant claim that obama's debt belongs to Bush is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.

Budget bills passed under obama = 0

annual deficit under obama = 1T.

your hero has been a massive fiscal failure. Sorry, but you can't lay that on anyone but him. :eusa_whistle:

Try some facts, superdupe:

National debt up $6 trillion since Obama took office - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/.../national-debt-up-$6-trillion-since-obama-took-office/ - Cached
Mar 1, 2013 ... During the eight-year presidency of George W. Bush, the debt soared ... On
January 20, 2009, the day Mr. Obama took office, the debt stood at ...

The deficit is now down to 600 billion, tho it's estimated paying welfare, food stamps, and UE to Bush's victims still costs 400 billion/year. Thanks for 5 years of mindless obstruction, dupes...
 
point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.


BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.


But it sure would make them feel better about themselves....:cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top