PDA

View Full Version : Question for Republicans: Spending, Debt, and Deficit



Green Arrow
03-23-2015, 11:02 PM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

Mac-7
03-23-2015, 11:10 PM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

I would rather spend the money on national defense than give it to lazy bums on welfare.

Because money not spent today means future American soldiers will die unnecessarily because of inadequate weapons.

But spending cuts are necessary and that means across the board not just in one area.

However not every republican agrees with me about this.

TheDictator
03-23-2015, 11:11 PM
Our economy will not matter much if we are occupied by another country. I know the Democratic Party would love for us to be under the control of some communist country.

Green Arrow
03-23-2015, 11:14 PM
Our economy will not matter much if we are occupied by another country. I know the Democratic Party would love for us to be under the control of some communist country.

You didn't answer the question.

TheDictator
03-23-2015, 11:21 PM
Actually I do not see a big crisis in the budget, both sides are going to do a lot of double talk before it is said and done.

Howey
03-23-2015, 11:22 PM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?
They'll rape the elderly medicare benefits just for a new weapons system for the neocons.

Howey
03-23-2015, 11:23 PM
I would rather spend the money on national defense than give it to lazy bums on welfare.

Because money not spent today means future American soldiers will die unnecessarily because of inadequate weapons.

But spending cuts are necessary and that means across the board not just in one area.

However not every republican agrees with me about this.

Sez the guy on Medicare...

Bob
03-24-2015, 12:36 AM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

Looks as if the Obama team got it's way. What do you think?

Bob
03-24-2015, 12:43 AM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

Put another way, given the Democrats claim they want money spent on the economy, such as bridges, why have they asked for 40 billion dollars be spent on defense?

Green Arrow
03-24-2015, 12:44 AM
Put another way, given the Democrats claim they want money spent on the economy, such as bridges, why have they asked for 40 billion dollars be spent on defense?

How about you start by answering my question.

Bob
03-24-2015, 01:04 AM
How about you start by answering my question.

Does that mean you plan to reply to mine?

iustitia
03-24-2015, 01:30 AM
Because Republicans are hypocrites and nationalists, just like Democrats.

metheron
03-24-2015, 01:39 AM
There is no defense for the increased spending on either side. They both lie, cheat and steal and then folks like us come on here and defend their sorry ways and cheerlead for them to win. Even if it just means us losing.

There isn't a person in power in DC that is looking out for the good of the country. That is looking out for you or I or our kids future. Hell they really aren't even acting like they are looking out for us anymore.

They don't have to, we don't require it. Shame on us. Both parties are alike in so many of the worst aspects and yet we turn a blind eye to 'our' party. We are getting exactly what we deserve.

Cigar
03-24-2015, 07:05 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI

zelmo1234
03-24-2015, 07:10 AM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

Because the establishment Republicans are fucking liars. They could care less about cutting spending they just want to get elected.

zelmo1234
03-24-2015, 07:14 AM
They'll rape the elderly medicare benefits just for a new weapons system for the neocons.

Oh! Really, you mean like this?

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150202/NEWS/302029967/obamas-2016-budget-cuts-medicare-but-eliminates-sequestration

Add to that the 700 billion that was already cut by the ACA and then tell me which party wants to cut back on the Seniors.

So when you can tell me why these were good cuts, then we can talk about the evil republicans.

Cigar
03-24-2015, 07:15 AM
Because the establishment Republicans are $#@!ing liars. They could care less about cutting spending they just want to get elected.

They have no problem with Spending when it come to Starting Trillion Dollar Wars ... off the Books

zelmo1234
03-24-2015, 07:19 AM
They have no problem with Spending when it come to Starting Trillion Dollar Wars ... off the Books

Well then congress should not have approved it

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150202/NEWS/302029967/obamas-2016-budget-cuts-medicare-but-eliminates-sequestration

And I see that you did not touch your parties attack on Medicare

Captain Obvious
03-24-2015, 07:21 AM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

I've not been a Republican for years (recovering Republican) but I'll answer your question anyway.

It's called "hypocrisy".

Same reason they can say "fuck you middle class" and sit back watching it dwindle while allowing/offering generous tax benefits to the ultra wealthy.

How anyone can lack the conscious to vote for these criminals is beyond me.

Captain Obvious
03-24-2015, 07:23 AM
Cigar is determined to jackass this thread up, which is a shame.

Too many threads on this forum get wasted to the jackasses.

Cigar
03-24-2015, 07:25 AM
Cigar is determined to jackass this thread up, which is a shame.

Too many threads on this forum get wasted to the jackasses.

What's wrong Cap ... no pictures of Cry Babies from you ... :laugh: Don't like now ... do you? :grin:

http://www.thebiblechristian.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ImaCryingBaby.jpg

Captain Obvious
03-24-2015, 07:27 AM
This is probably why we can't retain enough quality members.

Just my opinion for what it's worth.

Reason10
03-24-2015, 07:29 AM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

Apples and oranges.

Obama has tried to expand the economy with WELFARE TO THE RICH, (billions of subsidies to green energy companies that then went belly up.) As a result, over 93 MILLION are out of work. That's not an expansion of the economy by ANY stretch of the imagination.

Without Defense, there is no country, no security, no safety, no freedom. $40 billion is chicken feed, compared to the TRILLIONS of deficit dollars spent in expanding the WELFARE STATE.

Obamacare is an EXPLOSION of the deficit. It has to GO. It has cost the taxpayers, cost jobs and jacked up the price of health care.

Obama's economic policies are as WRONG today as when they were first tried by Jimmy Carter.

zelmo1234
03-24-2015, 07:29 AM
This is probably why we can't retain enough quality members.

Just my opinion for what it's worth.

All you have to do is post facts and Cigar will run away like the panty waist that he is!

Like all liberals he hates those facts.

Cigar
03-24-2015, 07:35 AM
Well then congress should not have approved it

http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150202/NEWS/302029967/obamas-2016-budget-cuts-medicare-but-eliminates-sequestration

And I see that you did not touch your parties attack on Medicare

:rollseyes: Oh God ... Here we go again ...

Let's just pretend those Congressional and UN Security Counsel Meetings never happened.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRe81wncYy55B_6Ca0NnjpwYF3i55ufz 2GcDiu5tKAHBO-JJsUc

Cigar
03-24-2015, 07:39 AM
Apples and oranges.

Obama has tried to expand the economy with WELFARE TO THE RICH, (billions of subsidies to green energy companies that then went belly up.) As a result, over 93 MILLION are out of work. That's not an expansion of the economy by ANY stretch of the imagination.

Without Defense, there is no country, no security, no safety, no freedom. $40 billion is chicken feed, compared to the TRILLIONS of deficit dollars spent in expanding the WELFARE STATE.

Obamacare is an EXPLOSION of the deficit. It has to GO. It has cost the taxpayers, cost jobs and jacked up the price of health care.

Obama's economic policies are as WRONG today as when they were first tried by Jimmy Carter.



Here you go Captain Obvious ... everything is back to Normal Now ... Enjoy :biglaugh:

Peter1469
03-24-2015, 08:32 AM
Social Security didn't have anything to do with the deficit back then. It was not until the late 1990s that Congress began to raid the lock box like rampaging Visigoths. Now government adds SS to the General Treasury and promises to pay the Fund back from the General Treasury. So today SS does affect the deficit.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihUoRD4pYzI

PolWatch
03-24-2015, 08:46 AM
It started before the late 90's:

'The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
<snip>
Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example. The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs. If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/#sthash.dp85V0fc.dpuf
See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/#sthash.dp85V0fc.dpuf

Common
03-24-2015, 08:49 AM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

GA they cant answer that question reasonably, just like they cant answer the more specific question of, how can they fight and vote for continued million dollar subsidies to rich corporations that have no competition and then vote against a raise in the minimum wage or vote to lower food stamps.

Bob
03-24-2015, 02:30 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Green Arrow http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1012174#post1012174)
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?


GA they cant answer that question reasonably, just like they cant answer the more specific question of, how can they fight and vote for continued million dollar subsidies to rich corporations that have no competition and then vote against a raise in the minimum wage or vote to lower food stamps.

I explained that to Green Arrow Common. PS, I still want your report on the republican presidents you voted for and why you voted for them.

To give GA the answer one more time, when the President keeps begging for more cash for the military, the republicans have two choices. Deny him funds or support him in this one thing.

They chose to try to save us all a lot of money in many areas and leave cash for the presidents agenda.

Today on CSPAN they fight where the Democrats persist in fighting that they want more spending plus higher taxes. (Fight on Capitol hill)

Republicans are fighting the good fight for us and I believe they will win.

Howey
03-24-2015, 02:38 PM
I voted for George Sr.

Common
03-24-2015, 02:40 PM
I explained that to @Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868) @Common (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=659). PS, I still want your report on the republican presidents you voted for and why you voted for them.

To give GA the answer one more time, when the President keeps begging for more cash for the military, the republicans have two choices. Deny him funds or support him in this one thing.

They chose to try to save us all a lot of money in many areas and leave cash for the presidents agenda.

Today on CSPAN they fight where the Democrats persist in fighting that they want more spending plus higher taxes. (Fight on Capitol hill)

Republicans are fighting the good fight for us and I believe they will win.

I dont report to you bob unless youve been promoted to asst chief

Green Arrow
03-24-2015, 02:40 PM
I only got to vote in one Presidential election so far, and I voted Republican in the primary. My candidate didn't win, and the candidate that did win was one I couldn't support.

I would have voted McCain in 2008 though.

Bob
03-24-2015, 04:03 PM
It started before the late 90's:

'The 1983 legislation was sold to the public, and to the Congress, as a long-term fix for Social Security. The payroll tax hike was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for 30 years, which would be set aside to cover the increased cost of paying benefits when the boomers retired.
<snip>
Reagan’s scare tactics worked. Congress passed the Social Security Amendments of 1983, which included a hefty increase in the payroll tax rate. The tax increase was designed to generate large Social Security surpluses for the next 30 years. The public was led to believe that the surplus money would be saved and invested in marketable U.S. Treasury Bonds, which could later be resold to raise cash with which to pay benefits to the boomers. But that didn’t happen. The money was all deposited directly into the general fund and used for non-Social Security purposes. Reagan spent every dime of the surplus Social Security revenue, which came in during his presidency, on general government operations. His successor, George H.W. Bush, used the surplus money as a giant slush fund, and both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush looted and spent all of the Social Security surplus revenue that flowed in during their presidencies. So we can’t blame the whole problem on Reagan. Reagan was the one who figured out a way to use Social Security money as general revenue, and his successors just followed his example. The $2.7 trillion, which is alleged to be in the trust fund, was all spent for wars, tax cuts for the rich, and other government programs. If the money is repaid at some point in the future, we could say is was just “borrowed.” But no arrangements have been made to repay the money, and nobody in government is suggesting that the money should be repaid. So, if it is never repaid, the money will definitely have been stolen.

- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/#sthash.dp85V0fc.dpuf
See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/#sthash.dp85V0fc.dpuf

Well, that is what you get from a site that despises Reagan.

Now, read Reagan's books. He put all of this into his books.

When I went to that site, it reeks of disgust for Reagan.

I showed the letter Reagan wrote the congress asking them to solve the problem. Now we are told he fooled the congress. Sure, grown men got fooled. I see. ha ha

Bob
03-24-2015, 04:05 PM
I only got to vote in one Presidential election so far, and I voted Republican in the primary. My candidate didn't win, and the candidate that did win was one I couldn't support.

I would have voted McCain in 2008 though.

I can't get Common to explain his point to us though I try the sugar approach.

My first president to vote for was Kennedy. Then I was in his army.

Bob
03-24-2015, 04:06 PM
I voted for George Sr.

Interesting. What was the attraction?

Mac-7
03-24-2015, 04:40 PM
How about you start by answering my question.

I already did.

What happened to you?

Mini Me
03-24-2015, 07:10 PM
They'll rape the elderly medicare benefits just for a new weapons system for the neocons.

You Betcha!

The Paul Ryan budget will destroy the safety net, and put millions on the streets, dumpster diving!

But I will be worm food by then.

Mini Me
03-24-2015, 07:17 PM
Because the establishment Republicans are fucking liars. They could care less about cutting spending they just want to get elected.

Hurrah for Zelmo!

This is the first time I have ever seen you write anything against Rethuglicans!

Maybe there is hope for you, after all.

zelmo1234
03-24-2015, 07:21 PM
GA they cant answer that question reasonably, just like they cant answer the more specific question of, how can they fight and vote for continued million dollar subsidies to rich corporations that have no competition and then vote against a raise in the minimum wage or vote to lower food stamps.

So what are the top 5 subsidies that you would end, I think that you can get a lot of support from me

Bob
03-24-2015, 07:34 PM
GA they cant answer that question reasonably, just like they cant answer the more specific question of, how can they fight and vote for continued million dollar subsidies to rich corporations that have no competition and then vote against a raise in the minimum wage or vote to lower food stamps.

I recall vividly Carter handing out cash to rich corporations, but for the life of me I can't find proof to back up your claims.

Help us all out. We want to know what cash you claims the Treasury sends to corporations.

Thanks .
By the way, can you name the political party that handed it out and just when it took place?

Watch this superb discussion were a man argues for the minimum wage raise but the woman is against.

The audience votes. She wins.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?320449-7/panel-discussion-minimum-wage

Mini Me
03-24-2015, 07:55 PM
Well, that is what you get from a site that despises Reagan.

Now, read Reagan's books. He put all of this into his books.

When I went to that site, it reeks of disgust for Reagan.

I showed the letter Reagan wrote the congress asking them to solve the problem. Now we are told he fooled the congress. Sure, grown men got fooled. I see. ha ha

Bob, you keep reading these self agrandizing auto biographies which NEVER show the author in a bad light. They are whitewashes!

Your Rethuglicans can never do any wrong!

Bob
03-24-2015, 07:57 PM
Bob, you keep reading these self agrandizing auto biographies which NEVER show the author in a bad light. They are whitewashes!

Your Rethuglicans can never do any wrong!

It that was true, it would be a very good criticism.

Try Reagan by the Schrober team.

donttread
03-24-2015, 08:08 PM
How can Republicans claim they want to cut/slash spending and that it is a dire necessity to do so in order to right our economic ship, and criticize Democrats for their belief that more spending will help the economy, and then turn around and support spending an extra $40 billion in defense spending?

Because the only difference between the two is rhetoric. Both parties spend and tax, make war and encroch on rights. None of the mainstream Donkephants has the slightest intention of spending less than they take in.

Peter1469
03-24-2015, 08:12 PM
Because the only difference between the two is rhetoric. Both parties spend and tax, make war and encroch on rights. None of the mainstream Donkephants has the slightest intention of spending less than they take in.

Less than they take in? More like a half trillion or more per year than they take in!

Bob
03-24-2015, 08:15 PM
Because the only difference between the two is rhetoric. Both parties spend and tax, make war and encroch on rights. None of the mainstream Donkephants has the slightest intention of spending less than they take in.

Stay home, do drugs. Fixed your problem.