No matter what I say, you are up in arms about defending the democrats massive spending, you run your mouth it was all bushes fault, and bill Clinton is a fiscal god. I still see absolutely no answer on how to defeat the 211 trillion dollar deficit, you lack even an inclining of detail.
Obama's proposed budget reduces discretionary spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. For every dollar in revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year (ending Bush tax cuts) and from closing corporate loopholes, Obama's proposed budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year. Including legislation from 2011, Obama's policies trim the deficit by around $5 trillion. Much of that is getting rid of the Bush tax cuts. Those are pretty specific numbers, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Paul Ryan had a great plan, but no one is giving it a shot
Paul Ryan's plan destroys Medicare as we know it and will later cause seniors to pay thousands more a year for health care. It also raises taxes on the middle class and decreases taxes substantially on the very rich. Finally, the TPS projects that the changes in Medicare, Social Security, tax increases on the middle class, etc. probably won't offset the tax cuts for the rich and the debt will continue to increase. So no, Paul Ryan's plan is not viable.
He had no major plans to reduce balance the budget, he cut a little here and a little there. We had a balanced budget thanks to the republicans in congress, not because of what Clinton did. Even the uber liberal news paper SFGATE agrees states it was the republican's plan that paved the way to a balanced budget
Actually, no. The major reason for the balanced budget was the increased revenue from tax increases on the rich. Because these tax increases did not get a single Republican vote, it is fair to say that the balanced budget was due to Clinton and the Democrats.
What actually reduced the deficit was Clinton's budget passed with Democrat majorities. There was a Balanced Budget Act in 1997 that was bipartisan, but it really just cut spending and siphoned the savings to other things (capital gains tax cuts, etc). In fact, it contributed slightly more to the debt.
The new Clinton budget replaces the formal one he submitted in February that called for continued $200 billion deficits. The new plan adopts the keystone GOP goal of a balanced budget, but postpones the 2002 target date by three years
This is a misinterpretation of the data:
1993 - deficit $255 Billion
1994 - deficit $203 Billion
1995 - deficit $164 Billion
1996 - deficit $108 Billion
1997 - deficit $22 Billion
1998 - SURPLUS $69 Billion
1999 - SURPLUS $124 Billion
2000 - SURPLUS $236 Billion
As you can see, the deficit was steadily decreasing thanks to Clinton's tax increases on the rich. The only thing the Republicans had anything to do with was the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and it actually did nothing to lessen the deficit. While it decreased spending, it only moved money around to offset tax cuts included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
Liberals who want to "spread the wealth around" will never help this great country in the long run, you only make things worse.
I can't respond to that unless you're more specific.
YES, wars cost money, but it doesn't help when you tack on amendments to defense bills
The fact that the spending bill was attached to the defense bill is not relevant in terms of war costs. Things are attached to defense bills all the time. A budget that dictated how things would be spent in the coming year was going to be attached to the defense bill regardless of who was doing it or what money was going to be spent on.
The fact that Bush massively increased spending on things like the wars and decreased revenue with massive tax cuts was the worst thing anyone could do to the debt. Democrats were very much against that. It is obvious that the Democrats are the ones who are fiscally responsible, not the Republicans. Likewise, the bill you are referring to increased spending by about $16 billion. I agree with you that spending did not need to be increased, but consider both that $16 billion is insignificant compared to the major causes of our deficit (Bush tax cuts, for one) and that Obama actually proposed spending cuts that were not implemented in that particular spending amendment.
The point about the housing market is, I know you didn't say that but it's the mindset I was getting at, WE TRIED TO WARN THE NATION, but no one gave a shit until it happened.
This is an unsubstantiated claim. Even if one's interpretation of the video is correct, it is dated 2003. If Republicans knew what was to come, Bush and the Republican majorities chose to do nothing about it. Democrats had no power during that time. If you want to argue that your interpretation of the video is accurate, the Republicans are responsible for the housing crisis. However, I still say that it is neither party's fault.
@#5, I was just stating the obvious fact, it cost's just as much now as it did then, even bin laden said that there was a war in iraq between the terrorist and the united states, Do I like the way our soldiers had to fight with hands tied behind them? No, but it's a larger scale, we do not know everything, we are not high level operatives in the cia, and we do not have the right to call these things, if you are going to help someone out, great! It helps if we actually know WHAT THE MISSION IS! When is the last time that the mission in Afghanistan was stated? We are just "over yonder" We do not have an explicit idea what the mission is, and it looks like we are getting out even earlier now, so you can't blame the war much longer.
It has been confirmed that the reasons for the Iraq War in the first place were lies. Likewise, the increased spending combined with the decreased revenue put us in the debt situation we're in now. You talk about World War II like there's some kind of parallel, but there isn't. Even ignoring that World War II was unavoidable, steps (taxes, bonds, etc) were taken to at least help reduce the debt incurred from World War II. The Iraq War was unnecessary, unpopular, based on lies, and unpaid for.
I probably know more about carl marx than you ever did, fun fact! The lazy bastard refused to work, and let his child starve to death, because he didn't want to work. Horrible human being, horrible indeed! Communism is mass unionism, we have a mass union problem in our country right now... sound familiar? We need more union busting!
To say you know more about Carl Marx than I do is a bold and unsubstantiated claim. I made that comment that you might not know what communism is because you compared the stimulus (something that helped the economy and was the biggest tax break for the middle class in history) to communism. The stimulus is something that metaphorically jump-started the economy. That's the opposite of communism. Unless you're against tax breaks, for starters, and think they're communism, I was fair in my assessment that you weren't entirely sure what you were talking about.
As for your view on labor unions... what? Could you explain how that's relevant to any part of our discussion? I might honestly have missed your point. Regardless, labor unions allow the ability to collectively bargain, make sure workers and being treated fairly, etc. Labor unions are very much a civil rights issues, as evidenced by the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was highly supportive of labor unions. Some conservatives like to argue that labor unions contribute massively to, for example, state debt. However, the busting of labor unions all over the states by Republicans has not helped the budget in any of those states. On the contrary, most of these Republican-controlled states are just cutting taxes for the rich and not balancing their budgets. Sound familiar? It should.
As for all this talk about English as an official language in the United States, it seems like a silly debate. I honestly understand peoples' fears that they won't be able to understand something that's going on because the business is being conducted in a language other in English, however racist those fears might be. But I'm a linguist, and one needs to keep in mind that languages are in a constant state of change. What we define as English now might not be English tomorrow. And where do we draw the line? Do we make it so official business conducted in the capitals cannot be conducted in, for example, AAVE? There are two vowel shifts happening in America, and some linguists believe that different parts of the United States won't, verbally, be mutually intelligible in the future. Are we going to make laws specifying what kind of English should be spoken then? It's my opinion that vaguely defining English as an official language is just tying our hands behind our backs in the future.
