Pelosi et al are shameless

[Underverse]

Defense budget cuts aren't the problem. Accountability for spending, or lack there of, is the actual problem. You can "cut" money everywhere but that doesn't mean it's going to "fix" things. It will probably make these worse.

When you increase taxes on a company they don't fix the budget; they generally keep the same shitty practices but cut the pay and benefits to the little guy (average worker.)

Though I was half joking, that makes sense. Thanks

[Spectral]

Why are the wars, authorized by a majority blue Congress, "Bush's wars"? Especially after Obama escalated in Afghanistan?


Both parties are responsible for the wars.

Well, no. The majority of House Democrats voted against the war in Afghanistan. More to the point, Presidents almost always receive the credit or blame for wars as they're obliged to end them anytime they like. Congress can control the funding, but the President doesn't have to engage in a war.

---------- Post added 2013-02-10 at 07:36 PM ----------

How did two comments without substance debunk a real problem?

You credit yourself far too much in thinking that your positions are hard to knock down.

[cutterx2202]

The simple reality is that the way forward is to 1> increase taxes, and 2> cut military spending massively. Like 80% or so.

In short, they're paying pretty much exactly their fair share. Probably less than they should be, by any rational account, since the system isn't designed to be zero-sum; there's a lot of Americans who pay little to no income tax due to not making enough money, and charging them income tax would cause undue hardship. This means that the people making up the difference aren't the wealthy, who're just paying their share given the wealth inequality, it's the middle class.

Increase taxes? Already done. Did I mention WHERE the cuts should happen? Nope, they just need to happen on a large scale. What's left as far as options is only cutting. He tried spending our way out (impossible to work) and it didn't work. He's already tried taxing our way out. What's left is what should have been the first reaction- cuts.

Also, the only true use of "Fair share" would be a flat tax. What we have now is by definition an unfair tax. The rich are already paying MORE than "their fair share," which borders on unconstitutional, but we've put up with it thus far since it started.

As far as other comments go in this thread, I really don't care what anyone has to say if it's not some version of "cutting." It has to happen, and I really am not going to entertain arguments otherwise because it's irrational, illogical, and reckless. You can have your own thoughts on where cutting should happen, but I should hope that we can at least agree that spending needs to stop and cutting needs to start.

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 12:40 AM ----------

Reported OP for trolling as I suggest everyone else does. I mean why should these threads be open if OP can't even look up the facts.

Way to waste your own and the moderator's time. I suggest you take high-school level personal finance class. I thought that was required in the states now for graduating high school? We are in debt. We are in debt so far that no reasonable amount of revenue increase could get us out. The only other option is to decrease expenses, ie: cut the red budget. We're in the red.

[Lockon Stratos]

When will people stop looking at this as a left vs right issue? It doesn't matter who is in the White House or Congress...Just look at who Clinton, Bush and Obama have had in charge of the Treasury and the Fed...All Goldman Sachs executives. Our politicians serve a higher power, and it ain't us lol.

[Endus]

Also, the only true use of "Fair share" would be a flat tax. What we have now is by definition an unfair tax. The rich are already paying MORE than "their fair share," which borders on unconstitutional, but we've put up with it thus far since it started.

No, as the numbers I already cited show, the rich only pay their fair share, which given that we have many people who don't pay their fair share due to hardship, means the burden is carried by someone other than the 1%.

Nor should a fair tax exist. A 'fair' tax isn't equitable; it only works if you're okay with taking money from people who can't afford enough food, because doing so is "fair" to those with five mansions. Nobody but the wealthy want a "fair" tax, and they only want it because it's advantageous to them. This is why almost every tax system in the civilized world is run according to equitable guidelines. "Equitable" doesn't mean "fair". It deliberately adjusts the scale to account for context. "Fairness" is overrated.


I've yet to meet anyone who makes less than $250k/year who both understands what a "fair tax" means and supports it. Because the entire concept is designed to screw the middle class, for the benefit of the wealthy.

[Sunseeker]

Okay, lets cut spending.

Which mother of two do you want to fire? Whose father would you like to put out of a job? How many solders would you like to cut?

These are not skill-less people receiving handouts. These are qualified and trained folks who work a job to support their families. How many more unemployed do you want to make? How many more doing-just-fine folks would you like to place on the government dole? How much do you want the American economy to shink?

When it comes down to it, "cutting spending" means cutting someone's pay, with no guarantee that they'll be able to make up or adjust to the difference, or find a replacement job, especially in this shitty market. And the more people who are doing-just-fine that you put out of work, the worse the economy is going to get, which just puts in a good old death spiral of more people losing work and the economy shrinking.

Oh, I know that government spending needs to be cut. I'm just not real sure the best way to go about it yet. Slash and burn won't help anyone.

[Kalis]

Cut spending on Defence, $900bn p.a. is somewhat excessive; and when you compare it to the alternatives, e.g. healthcare, education, transportation, welfare, pensions, it's the most unnecessary.

[Bosen]

The majority of U.S. Government officials are looking out for themselves. You can try and blame things on "Far Left wing nuts" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the whole machine is a broken mess.

[theredviola]

Okay... well, I didn't take high school finance. I admittedly know just enough about finances to do my taxes, so could you explain to me why taxing the rich won't help pull us out of debt? Because it seems to me that if the rich pay more taxes (on top of further cuts somewhere in the budget), there's more money for the government to have towards paying off the national debt. And what parts of the budget do you suggest we cut spending from?

I'm honestly asking. I'm not trolling. No one has ever spelled things out in lamens terms. I've only heard "tax the rich!" and "no, don't tax the rich! it'll hurt 'merica!"

Edit: And for the record, I think all politicians are crooked... some just more crooked than others.

[jahasafrat]

I agree that the U.S. federal government needs to get their spending under control.

...and other far left wing nuts like her...

You weaken your argument when you use the same tired old rhetoric as your beloved Fox News. Both Democratic and Republican politicians are currently useless, but at least the left's positions aren't built on policies of exclusion and intolerance.

[Deadvolcanoes]

. . . *shakes head.

Instead of shaking your head, why don't you tell me why I'm wrong? Then we can engage in a meaningful discussion, and maybe you can even change my mind. I'm completely open to.that possibility.

[Spectral]

Instead of shaking your head, why don't you tell me why I'm wrong? Then we can engage in a meaningful discussion, and maybe you can even change my mind. I'm completely open to.that possibility.

Of course you are, but he's made it clear that he's not:

As far as other comments go in this thread, I really don't care what anyone has to say if it's not some version of "cutting."

Looking at comments like this

Seeing as you're both already on ignore, I'm not even going to look into what you wrote, but I think it's safe to say

and his signature, I think it's fair to say that cutter's engaging in epistemic closure.

[Endus]

Okay... well, I didn't take high school finance. I admittedly know just enough about finances to do my taxes, so could you explain to me why taxing the rich won't help pull us out of debt? Because it seems to me that if the rich pay more taxes (on top of further cuts somewhere in the budget), there's more money for the government to have towards paying off the national debt.

The general arguments are;

1> "But they're job creators!" Except they aren't. If a wealthy person makes more money, he doesn't use that money to create more jobs. That's why wealth inequality has been growing steadily for decades; the wealthy are keeping their money, not reinvesting it in ways that will stimulate growth.

2> "It won't solve the budget problem 100% and therefore it's useless and please ignore that I don't apply this same logic to literally anything I myself propose!" Nuff said.

3> "But it's my money, and I earned it!" No, it's not "your money" if the government increases taxation. It's the government's money. That's why it's illegal to cheat on your taxes. Nor did you earn it all by yourself; the context within which you earned it is supported by that government. This was the "you didn't build that" speech that Obama's been misinterpreted on; everyone relies on roads and bridges and police/military protection and so on, and all that stuff costs taxpayer funds. The wealthy tend to benefit more than the poor, since if you run a multimillion dollar corporation manufacturing whozits, you're using the roads a LOT more than the average taxpayer, to ship those whozits to buyers. The wealthy SHOULD pay more, because they BENEFIT more. See, again, growing wealth inequality.


It's all malarkey, but the wealthy are the ones with the money to pay for lobbyists and propagandists to try and stack the deck in their favor.

[theredviola]

Of course you are, but he's made it clear that he's not:



Looking at comments like this



and his signature, I think it's fair to say that cutter's engaging in epistemic closure.

Which is a shame. Because I, much like other posters have said on this forum (but not specifically in this thread) have said -- engage me in meaningful debate with evidence in attempt to sway my position.

Name calling, stereo typing, and saying "do your own research" or "you should have learned this in grade school" don't help sway our minds because we take it as an insult. Plus, it doesn't not help their (in this case, OP's) position because their arguments seem to be baseless and made rather immaturely.

Edit: Thanks Endus. I kinda though that point 1 was it, but I was unaware that the "you didn't build it" part of Obama's speech was such a big point of contention. Again, it's such a shame because I know there are many people like I who are actually open minded but we get labeled as "godless liberals" and therefore pigeonholed by conservatives in this country :S

[Rukentuts]

Which is a shame. Because I, much like other posters have said on this forum (but not specifically in this thread) have said -- engage me in meaningful debate with evidence in attempt to sway my position.

Name calling, stereo typing, and saying "do your own research" or "you should have learned this in grade school" don't help sway our minds because we take it as an insult. Plus, it doesn't not help their (in this case, OP's) position because their arguments seem to be baseless and made rather immaturely.

The OP doing the equivalent of plugging his/her ears (see their signature) only further weakens any point they make.

[lockedout]

No, that's really not true at all. We're not talking about a household budget here. The rules are different. Our current debt is completely controllable and its not even that bad. I know 16 trillion looks like a big number to all the freshmen republicans, but they really need to stop freaking out.

You're right the privately owned federal reserve will just make them print more money.

[Orbitus]

Increase taxes? Already done. Did I mention WHERE the cuts should happen? Nope, they just need to happen on a large scale. What's left as far as options is only cutting. He tried spending our way out (impossible to work) and it didn't work. He's already tried taxing our way out. What's left is what should have been the first reaction- cuts.

Also, the only true use of "Fair share" would be a flat tax. What we have now is by definition an unfair tax. The rich are already paying MORE than "their fair share," which borders on unconstitutional, but we've put up with it thus far since it started.

As far as other comments go in this thread, I really don't care what anyone has to say if it's not some version of "cutting." It has to happen, and I really am not going to entertain arguments otherwise because it's irrational, illogical, and reckless. You can have your own thoughts on where cutting should happen, but I should hope that we can at least agree that spending needs to stop and cutting needs to start.

---------- Post added 2013-02-11 at 12:40 AM ----------



Way to waste your own and the moderator's time. I suggest you take high-school level personal finance class. I thought that was required in the states now for graduating high school? We are in debt. We are in debt so far that no reasonable amount of revenue increase could get us out. The only other option is to decrease expenses, ie: cut the red budget. We're in the red.

I think you should take your own signature to heart. You think you are overly important. Yet you seem to say the stupidest things. You were even told by a mod about how the government works and who owns what part of debt.

[Adam Jensen]

I agree that the U.S. federal government needs to get their spending under control.


You weaken your argument when you use the same tired old rhetoric as your beloved Fox News. Both Democratic and Republican politicians are currently useless, but at least the left's positions aren't built on policies of exclusion and intolerance.

When people use terms like "far left" to describe democrats, I just zone them out and stop listening.

[theredviola]

When people use terms like "far left" to describe democrats, I just zone them out and stop listening.

I know just enough about politics to be dangerous and of that knowledge I do know that today's democrats are more conservative than Regan during his administration.

[Deadvolcanoes]

Of course you are, but he's made it clear that he's not.

Of course...I'm merely fishing for some type of response other than *notsurewhattosay...insert shakeshead...Maybe if he's forced to do a little work he'll realize we don't have to CUT SPENDING NOW MAJORRLLY as quick as possible!

If all else fails I'll just get put on ignore.

---------- Post added 2013-02-10 at 08:57 PM ----------

You're right the privately owned federal reserve will just make them print more money.

Sure. In fact, let's just print 16 trillion right now and pay off the debt so everyone can stop crying about it.

I'm not actually being serious, but yeah, we can always print more money when we need to. And no, it doesn't always result in inflation.