Why is the left so willing to cut military spending but nothing else?
Return to Board  •  Menu  •  Bottom  Page 2 of 3  
Message
re: Why is the left so willing to cut military spending but nothing else?
Posted by GregMaddux on 3/17 at 11:26 am to Zed
quote:

The left wants government to help people.


I hate this brand of thinking. No. They don't. They want to be perceived that was, sure.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Zed on 3/17 at 11:30 am to GregMaddux
quote:

I hate this brand of thinking. No. They don't. They want to be perceived that was, sure.
I think most on the left genuinely want the government to help people. Maybe some democratic politicians have other motives, but they're scum.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by VOR on 3/17 at 11:36 am to Champagne
quote:

So, I suppose that you support the Democrats because their social policy agenda is more agreeable, largely because it is unencumbered by Rightist Religionists?


Partially, but also because the far right wing of that party troubles me more, slightly, than the far left of the Dems (primarily because, in spite of some of the histrionics on this board, they have less power to frick things up, imo)

quote:

And, in your opinion, where will unleashed and unrestrained FedGov activism and spending lead us? Many will tell you that it will lead us to Utopia. What say you?


First of all, I think this is an example of the histrionics I mentioned earlier. We are not becoming a Marxist state and "Federal Government activism" is restrained, although not as much as you may desire.

In my opinion, spending has to be reduced, contained, whatever, plus revenues, however you achieve it, must reflect reality. Medicare and Social Security are the big ticket items that will have to be dealt with someday. In all honesty, much of the rest is chickenfeed over the long haul. And the current debt, much of it resulting from our adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, has to be reduced.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by CollegeFBRules on 3/17 at 11:40 am to Anfield Road
quote:

To be fair, unless you didn't vote or voted 3rd party, this applies to most people on this board.


That's a fact. If you voted for Romney but are accusing "liberals" of increasing spending, you're living in a glass house.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Champagne on 3/17 at 2:27 pm to VOR
quote:

"Federal Government activism" is restrained


Thanks for the clarification. It makes sense to me.

There are two points that you make that might be in contravention of each other. First, you state that FedGov activism "is restrained."

On the other hand, you state without equivocation that spending, and the debt, must be reduced.

If, as you say, FedGov activism is restrained and under control, how is it that spending and debt are out of control?

How can FedGov be restrained and under control, but, at the same time, spending and increasing debt in an unrestrained and out of control manner?

By FedGov "activism", I mean that a FedGov that exercises authority and functions far beyond what the Framers bequeathed to us in the Constitution.




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by VOR on 3/17 at 4:31 pm to Champagne
quote:

How can FedGov be restrained and under control, but, at the same time, spending and increasing debt in an unrestrained and out of control manner?


There are a lot of aspects to the Federal Government. At the moment, we have budgetary issues, although the debt isn't an immediate crisis. And by restrained, I mean that the government is limited in its intrusion into our lives in spite of the doomsday crap I read around here. Spending in not the only issue.

quote:

By FedGov "activism", I mean that a FedGov that exercises authority and functions far beyond what the Framers bequeathed to us in the Constitution.


Reasonable minds can disagree.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by NC_Tigah on 3/17 at 4:49 pm to VOR
quote:

although the debt isn't an immediate crisis
Let's think about that for a minute. Suppose our cost of debt service (interest on the debt) were to increase to 3%. Keep in mind too, QE will unwind at some point. Certainly 3% is a rate well within historic norms, and something that could easily happen before Obama leaves office.

Do you have any idea how that little change would effect the budget?

Any idea as to how that change in interest rate would impact underclass constituencies?

I'd take long pause before blowing off the very critical nature of our debt level.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Champagne on 3/17 at 5:22 pm to VOR
quote:

we have budgetary issues


I'm sure that you voted for Obama both times, and, I'm sure that you have faith in him and his party that they will, in good faith, soon pass a budget and solve our "budgetary issues."

Thank you and, good day.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by RogerTheShrubber on 3/17 at 5:24 pm to Zed
quote:

The left wants government to help people


Some people, at the expense of others.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by VOR on 3/17 at 9:07 pm to Champagne
quote:

I'm sure that you voted for Obama both times, and, I'm sure that you have faith in him and his party that they will, in good faith, soon pass a budget and solve our "budgetary issues."

Thank you and, good day.


Angry mofo's up in this bitch. Someone is gonna stroke out eventually.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Patrick O Rly on 3/17 at 9:08 pm to MrCarton
quote:

We should make massive cuts to military, which has plenty of "entitlement" programs and superfluous bull shite.

That being said, the military should not be the only program that gets diced.





Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by boosiebadazz on 3/17 at 9:09 pm to VOR
fellow 'liberal', i have a confession to make: i actually did not vote for obama either time.

phew, it feels good to get that off my chest



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SlowFlowPro on 3/17 at 9:11 pm to VOR
quote:

I mean that the government is limited in its intrusion into our lives in spite of the doomsday crap I read around here.

i really don't know. the obamacare ruling really did grant the feds essentially unlimited powers, as long as it's a tax/spend program



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Interception on 3/17 at 9:11 pm to GregMaddux
It's a negotiation.

Why does the right refuse to cut military spending?



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by VOR on 3/17 at 9:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:

I'd take long pause before blowing off the very critical nature of our debt level.


The size of the debt is what it is. I commend you to the following:

LINK

LINK /

LINK /

Again, not saying we should ignore it. But there are other priorities that if dealt with properly will likely go a long way to resolving the debt problem.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Interception on 3/17 at 9:21 pm to Anfield Road
quote:

To be fair, unless you didn't vote or voted 3rd party, this applies to most people on this board.


Romney wanted 2 Trillion more in military spending

If you voted for Romney then you are supporting this plan



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by SlowFlowPro on 3/17 at 9:24 pm to VOR
quote:

Lack of aggregate demand or, to put it simply, insufficient consumption and investment is the disease. Debt has been simply an abused sovereign and private market antidote to sustain it.



quote:

but today we need to address our jobs problem.


how do we increase demand when we keep taking money out of the economy through higher taxation?

unless government understands markets/demand better than, the market, this can't work


and this part from the forbes article:

quote:

Our national debt will continue to edge up, but interest payments, the actual piece of the debt that affects the budget, will continue to be de minimis and thus we can continue to roll over maturing debt and keep these payments well below the danger zone. Eventually, interest rates will rise and we will have to address the debt problem




Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by NC_Tigah on 3/17 at 9:30 pm to VOR
quote:

LINK1
You do understand that BillGross has a dog in this fight, right?
quote:

LINK2 /
The Government does not create private sector jobs. Private industry does. The government can depower the private sector economic engine though. For example, if a government impacted its domestic industry with the highest corporate taxes in the world, that would certainly reduce economic productivity. If the government taxed investment in corporations at a higher rate than the highest income tax rate, that might slow things too. Of course no government would be stupid enough to implement those type policies.
quote:

LINK 3/
"If we extend the Bush tax cuts, we have very big deficit problems over the next ten years and the next twenty-five years. If we let them expire, there is no ten-year problem. That’s the same as in my earlier post, and I don’t think that’s controversial to anyone who understands the numbers."

This is a case of the author living perfectly up to his name . . . Kwak.
quote:

But there are other priorities that if dealt with properly will likely go a long way to resolving the debt problem.

You didn't address listed concerns.



This post was edited on 3/17 at 9:31 pm

Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by VOR on 3/17 at 9:37 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:

You didn't address listed concerns.


Not my job, dude.



Reply  •  Back to Top
Posted by Champagne on 3/17 at 11:53 pm to VOR
quote:

Angry mofo's up in this bitch. Someone is gonna stroke out eventually.


That's a complete non sequitur.

I was going to leave our discussion alone and end it with my best wishes to you, but, you insist on trying to characterize me as angry. In your earlier response, you insinuate that I was engaging in "histrionics".

I have no idea why you feel the need to label me today. I was merely asking you to clarify some things, and, you were good enough to do so.

I find your posts interesting, but, unpersuasive. You have faith that FedGov will always keep itself in check. You have faith that Obama and the Democrat Party are the best team to help the USA again prosper and become stronger.

What exactly has FedGov done to show that it will keep itself in check, once the hard-coded Constitutional restraints on FedGov authority and function no longer apply?

What exactly has Obama and the Democrats DONE, as in DEEDS (not words), to demonstrate that they are going to pass a budget and solve our "budgetary issues"?

Faith. All we have is faith, because there's certainly no EVIDENCE that would lead us to these conclusions.

I'm glad that you are so faithful. I wish that I could be.



Reply  •  Back to Top  •  Refresh
Return to Board
Jump to Page   

           Page 2 of 3           

 

 Message Boards
 Tiger Rant
 Recruiting Board
 SEC Rant
 Saints Talk
 Pelicans Talk
 More Sports Board
 Soccer Board
 O-T Lounge
 Tech Board
 Outdoor Board
 Movie/TV Board
 Music Board
 Political Talk
 Money Talk
 Fark Board
 Gaming Board
 Fantasy Sports
 Food and Drink Board
 Ticket Exchange
 Help Board
 

 Other Options
 >> Search
 

 SECRant.com Links
 SEC Rant
 SEC Recruiting
 SEC Tickets
 Off-Topic Board
 

 Geaux.com Dining Guide
 New Orleans
 Baton Rouge
 

 Site Features (Full Version)
 Home Page
 LSU Football Schedule
 LSU News/TD News Wire
 Pick'em Home Page
 
Back to top
Sign In 
View in: Desktop
Copyright ©2014 TigerDroppings.com.