| Political Talk |
| Return to Board • Menu • Bottom |  Page 2 of 3  |
| Message |
re: Why is the left so willing to cut military spending but nothing else?quote: I hate this brand of thinking. No. They don't. They want to be perceived that was, sure. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: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 |
quote: 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: 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 |
quote: 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 |
quote: 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 |
quote: 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: Reasonable minds can disagree. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: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 |
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. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Some people, at the expense of others. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Angry mofo's up in this bitch. Someone is gonna stroke out eventually. Reply • Back to Top |
quote: 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 |
quote: 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 |
| It's a negotiation. Why does the right refuse to cut military spending? Reply • Back to Top |
quote: 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 |
quote: Romney wanted 2 Trillion more in military spending If you voted for Romney then you are supporting this plan Reply • Back to Top |
quote: quote: 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:  Reply • Back to Top |
quote:You do understand that BillGross has a dog in this fight, right? quote: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:"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:You didn't address listed concerns. This post was edited on 3/17 at 9:31 pm Reply • Back to Top |
quote: Not my job, dude.  Reply • Back to Top |
quote: 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 | ||
 Page 2 of 3  | ||
on 3/17 at 11:26 am to 
on 3/17 at 11:30 am to 
on 3/17 at 11:36 am to 
on 3/17 at 9:11 pm to