Island Dog Island Dog

You Can't Balance the Budget By Increasing Social Spending

▼

You Can't Balance the Budget By Increasing Social Spending

from JoeUser Forums

For years I have seen post after post from democrats and liberals complaining about the deficit, tax cuts, and pretty much everything else. Now some people here on JU claim that the only way to balance the federal budget is to decrease spending and raise taxes on businesses and successful Americans.

If balancing the budget is so important then why would you support someone like Hillary, or most of the democrat candidates? I'm not saying any of the republican candidates are much better as far as the economy, but at least the GOP candidates are not proposing massive increases in social programs and spending.

Let's take a few democrats for example:

Hillary: She has proposed giving every person born $5000 which conservative estimates would costs roughly $20 billion per year. She has also proposed the federal government matching retirement funds. Let's not forget the National Taxpayers Union reported Clinton proposed $170.8 billion in net expenditure hikes. The list goes on and on.

Edwards: Another democrat proposing government health care, even stating some Americans could face wage garnishments if they don't get coverage.

Obama: Another one who proposes government health care. Also $150 billion to combat "global warming".

These are just a few examples, but it's no secret on how democrats are wanting to spend federal dollars.  Increasing taxes on a certain class of Americans will not pay for all this social spending.  So once again, how can you claim balancing the budget is so important if you are willing support candidates that will increase social spending?

 


politics
12,226 views 44 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
all we have to do to balance the budget gene is get rid of the automatic inflation of all programs.


if a program needs to be raised then do so at that time. such as defense when we are in a war.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
For the most part welfare reform has eliminated most of the unneeded welfare and the help that we do provide is for those that NEED help
End of quote


On which planet is this true?  Go take a ride to any welfare office and tell me how many of the people coming out of there NEED help?  It's obvious gene you have no idea what is going on in the world.

As usual this all comes downs to you making excuses on why a certain class of people should pay for people who cant' take personal responsibiliy for themselves.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

They may pay more than they 'had to' because they desire a product too much, but no one is twisting the arm of the public to buy the goods and services that you seem to think are over-priced.

In the end, the only thing that the public is getting their arm twisted over is government services - they have no alternative whether they like it, use it or think it is over priced (always is).  Maybe we can tax the government higher since they definitely get paid the most, and sure as hell dont earn it.  Right Klink?

tax the government!

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007Those bogus salaries result in the public being OVER charged for what ever these companies provide the consumer!More bull-excrement. The public isn't over-charged for anything. They may pay more than they 'had to' because they desire a product too much, but no one is twisting the arm of the public to buy the goods and services that you seem to think are over-priced.


TYell that to anyone that buys gas or oil to heat their home. Teoo that to a father who takes his kid to a ball game. YES those rediculuous salaries do increase the pricesa of things and peoiple who bleed the public should pay higher taxes.

As usual the gutless people on this site refuse to address the issue that the Bush Tax Cuts was predicated on a LIE-- We had a Surplus that needed to be returned to the taxpayers. There was NO VALID REASON for the Bush Tax Cuts and they are in part along with his spending responsible for the $4 trillion Dollars Bush will add to the debt of our country. I hope you all enjoy helping pay about $200 Billion EVERY YEAR in the added interest Bush and his policies have caused!
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: terpfan1980Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007Those bogus salaries result in the public being OVER charged for what ever these companies provide the consumer!More bull-excrement. The public isn't over-charged for anything. They may pay more than they 'had to' because they desire a product too much, but no one is twisting the arm of the public to buy the goods and services that you seem to think are over-priced.


Tell that to anyone that buys gas or oil to heat their home. Tell that to a father who takes his kid to a ball game. YES those ridiculous salaries do increase the prices of things and people who bleed the public should pay higher taxes.

As usual the gutless people on this site refuse to address the issue that the Bush Tax Cuts was predicated on a LIE-- We had a Surplus that needed to be returned to the taxpayers. There was NO VALID REASON for the Bush Tax Cuts and they are in part along with his spending responsible for the $4 trillion Dollars Bush will add to the debt of our country. I hope you all enjoy helping pay about $200 Billion EVERY YEAR in the added interest Bush and his policies have caused!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Tell that to a father who takes his kid to a ball game.
End of quote


A ball game is not a necessity, and even if it was, there are folks like myself who've discovered the joys of the minor leagues. My "rights" do not include the "right" to see A-Rod play ball live!

As for heating, yes, that is a problem, but have you not heard of LIHEAP? The government is paying a lot of money to help families heat their home. And not just those on welfare, either.

Of all of the adjectives I would use to describe this nation, "uncaring" is not one of them.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
As for heating, yes, that is a problem, but have you not heard of LIHEAP? The government is paying a lot of money to help families heat their home. And not just those on welfare, either.
End of quote


Yes that takes care of the problem-- What is you answer for $3.00 plus gas?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Of all of the adjectives I would use to describe this nation, "uncaring" is not one of them.
End of quote


It is what I would use for Bush and the Conservatives!
Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
What is you answer for $3.00 plus gas?
End of quote


There's a secret, little known way to conserve gas called carpooling. I'm surprised the government hasn't encouraged it.

Oh wait, they have. Yet again, you swing and miss.

It's ironic that you, who encourage sound socialist practices, do not encourage the spirit of cooperation, which should be at the heart of any successful socialist endeavour.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top

There's a secret, little known way to conserve gas called carpooling. I'm surprised the government hasn't encouraged it.

Itis part of the bigger conspiracy called .........Conservation!  Which is being pushed by Global Warming Advocates (Remember al gore)?  I find it very funny when those who yell loudest about global warming then yell about high gas prices.  Why would any global warming chicken little be using gas in the first place?????

Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which is being pushed by Global Warming Advocates (Remember al gore)?
End of quote


Hell, I push conservation, and nobody's accused me of being a GW advocate! Conservation ain't just for liberals, it's good old horse sense.

Gene: We do agree that the heating costs present a crisis. But our country has been through crises before without reverting to a socialist state, and I believe we have the fortitude to do it again!

Our cars are MUCH more efficient than those of the Depression era, and they survived. We have even radically improved efficiency over the late 70's. While I'm not thrilled with the government MANDATED 35 MPG standard by whichever year it is, I think it's heading in the right direction rather than the wrong one, so I won't squeal TOO loudly.

I am just not looking forward to NASCAR 2.0 -- hybrid edition!
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top
There was NO VALID REASON for the Bush Tax Cuts
End of quote


Yes there was, and it has been shown to you countless times.  The tax cuts were to stimulate the economy out of the Clinton recession, which it did.  Your attitude towards people who are successful in life are disturbing.
Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

Gene,

Let me see if I got your response to my comment right... because the government is so bad at balancing a budget, that they're incapable of scaling back services to live within the means of their income (basically saying they're incompetent at managing money) that they should abandon the idea of fiscal responsibility and just ask for more money?

This is an absolutely idiotic attitude.  It's like giving a drug user more drugs because they didn't do a good job at getting clean.  Or paying someone money because they couldn't hold down a job flipping burgers.

This is a blatantly obvious example of the government living beyond its means!  Take it down to essential services, cut out the layers upon layers of red tape.  Stop all the frilly extra stuff.  Defense, trade, foreign policy and interstate regulation... that's what the federal government is for.  All this other stuff is the equivalent of a guy making minimum wage and going out to buy a $2,000 high def television and associated cable service.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

You delude yourself if you believe anyone is worth the salaries top sports figures and top executives receive. Those bogus salaries result in the public being OVER charged for what ever these companies provide the consumer!
End of quote

I do not make judgments on how much people are paid. The payee is paid what the payer thinks they are worth.

In addition, the public does not have to purchase the product or service that is being provided. 

But your statement definitely helps provide insight into the mind of a socialist.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

TYell that to anyone that buys gas or oil to heat their home. Teoo that to a father who takes his kid to a ball game. YES those rediculuous salaries do increase the pricesa of things and peoiple who bleed the public should pay higher taxes.
End of quote

So now going to a ball game is a god given right? 

You have things backwards (as usual). Companies charge as much as they possibly can for their products and services. In turn, those who produce those products and services receive a portion of the revenue in the form of salary and other compensation.

 

Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

I hope you all enjoy helping pay about $200 Billion EVERY YEAR in the added interest Bush and his policies have caused!
End of quote

As opposed to your suggestion which would have me pay even more...

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let me see if I got your response to my comment right... because the government is so bad at balancing a budget, that they're incapable of scaling back services to live within the means of their income (basically saying they're incompetent at managing money) that they should abandon the idea of fiscal responsibility and just ask for more money?
End of quote


As I have said before, the government is the biggest waste machine ever. Why would anyone think giving them more money is a good idea?

The real problem with people like gene is they are never happy with anything, and something is never enough.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is an absolutely idiotic attitude. It's like giving a drug user more drugs because they didn't do a good job at getting clean.

That is actually not far off from some liberal circles.  They do want to give the addicts clean places to shoot up and clean needles.  And while I have not heard of it hear (I dont live in SF), that is what is being done in some European countries (government regulated drugs).

Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top

One of the reasons why I don't take that much pride in being somewhat wealthy is because I don't think there's anything I do that's particular spectactular. It's just that so many people are just so stupid with money that they merely  make me look good by comparison. 

Some of Gene's philosophies are simply startling in their lack of basic common sense.