A question for Democrats that I've had for a long time

[jamil]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Democrat's explanation on the issue.

Why are Democrats so in favor of spending when it comes to other people's money? Isn't that essentially what "tax the rich" does? If it's someone else's money, it's pretty easy to spend, right? Is that it?

Also part of that question is, do you think there is a limit to the national debt that you would consider that we can't go beyond? And if there is a limit, would you consider cutting spending on social programs or do you think we can just eliminate defense altogether to cover "social justice"?

Or do you think we just need to keep raising taxes to cover whatever you want to spend? Is there a limit to the taxes you're willing to make people who aren't you, pay?

And it's not that all Republicans are all that great at frugality. But really, a few now hated Republicans are the only people in Congress that advocate that we truly reign in spending.

Your president says we don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. Can you really justify that statement?

 

[SSGSAD]

It is all about POWER, and CONTROL .....

 

[winchester]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Democrat's explanation on the issue.

Why are Democrats so in favor of spending when it comes to other people's money? Isn't that essentially what "tax the rich" does? If it's someone else's money, it's pretty easy to spend, right? Is that it?

Also part of that question is, do you think there is a limit to the national debt that you would consider that we can't go beyond? And if there is a limit, would you consider cutting spending on social programs or do you think we can just eliminate defense altogether to cover "social justice"?

Or do you think we just need to keep raising taxes to cover whatever you want to spend? Is there a limit to the taxes you're willing to make people who aren't you, pay?

And it's not that all Republicans are all that great at frugality. But really, a few now hated Republicans are the only people in Congress that advocate that we truly reign in spending.

Your president says we don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. Can you really justify that statement?

you must be a racist!!! ( in my chris matthews voice)

 

[jamil]

you must be a racist!!! ( in my chris matthews voice)

Ooh, that sounds painful. Don't you need to be kicked in the groin to successfully imitate that voice?

 

[rockhopper46038]

I see what you did there, jamil

 

[Bennettjh]

I see what you did there, jamil

Me too!

 

[TheRude1]

It is all about POWER, and CONTROL .....

Amen brother !

you must be a racist!!! ( in my chris matthews voice)

You forgot Bigot !

And for the thread, You really think that question could be answered with a comomonsensical coherant statement ?

Well put/ask

 

[jamil]

The other thread notwithstanding, I've wondered about THIS question for a long time.

 

[indyjohn]

you must be a racist!!! ( in my chris matthews voice)

 

[churchmouse]

Let me start by saying that I'm not trying to start anything. I just want to hear a Democrat's explanation on the issue.

Why are Democrats so in favor of spending when it comes to other people's money? Isn't that essentially what "tax the rich" does? If it's someone else's money, it's pretty easy to spend, right? Is that it?

Also part of that question is, do you think there is a limit to the national debt that you would consider that we can't go beyond? And if there is a limit, would you consider cutting spending on social programs or do you think we can just eliminate defense altogether to cover "social justice"?

Or do you think we just need to keep raising taxes to cover whatever you want to spend? Is there a limit to the taxes you're willing to make people who aren't you, pay?

And it's not that all Republicans are all that great at frugality. But really, a few now hated Republicans are the only people in Congress that advocate that we truly reign in spending.

Your president says we don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. Can you really justify that statement?

Of course barry will justify it.....

 

[Tombs]

Most people who support the modern democratic party have a mental condition now known to be "Cognitive Dissonance."

"Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along." Cognitive Dissonance Theory - Simply Psychology

You see this in their politics frequently.

The ACA was a prime example of this. They(The Left) wanted to socialize medicine, giving everyone free healthcare. What resulted? A fine for not turning to the nearest mega-corp and paying them a monthly ransom. This is exactly the opposite of what they claim to have been in support of, but yet they still remain in a panic of trying to rationalize and support it.

Gun control is yet another prime example. They had their chance to get nearly everything they wanted in 1994. It had the inverse effect on crime that they desired, yet they attempt to push for more gun control every single year.

I would begin to argue that some are experiencing a degree of Schizophrenia. They have fabricated a world in their minds and are unable to come to terms with reality.
The sad fact of the matter is that some concepts of the left are not that bad, but the left in this country is much further from implementing them than our right is.

The reason you see such harsh class warfare with them has little to do with their party. It's a matter of spite and victimization they're experiencing of their own making. They believe anyone who isn't eating out of a dumpster has somehow wronged them, and that it is their duty to bust that individual down to eating out of the dumpster as well.

Neither party caters to the middle class anymore, and both of them are in full support of increased military spending/loss of personal liberty. It's just that one side is honest about its intentions, while the other side plays their followers along.

 

[Shadow8088]

Your president says we don't have a spending problem. We have a revenue problem. Can you really justify that statement?

Econ 101... if you spend X and take in Y it MUST be ≥ Z
otherwise you either have to raise Y, lower X, or both. (Generally BOTH does quite well)

EVERYone in politics has their hand in the cookie jar. EVERYone has their own little pet projects that they like to add as riders to bills... Welcome to the current incarnation of the US Government.

 

[ljk]

It is all about POWER, and CONTROL .....

well, to extent that train of thought: Power through superior purchasing power(of votes).

 

[Tombs]

well, to extent that train of thought: Power through superior purchasing power(of votes).

Which could be fixed quite simply by returning the voting powers back to where they originally came from.

People who owned land.

Hard to buy a vote when it requires giving people land to even make them eligible to vote. But it is quite easy to buy a vote when the welfare class is allowed to vote, simply promise them more income.

 

[jamil]

Econ 101... if you spend X and take in Y it MUST be ≥ Z
otherwise you either have to raise Y, lower X, or both. (Generally BOTH does quite well)

EVERYone in politics has their hand in the cookie jar. EVERYone has their own little pet projects that they like to add as riders to bills... Welcome to the current incarnation of the US Government.

Stating useless truisms avoids the question. Do you agree with the president? Should we spend more and just crank up the tax rates to cover it?

 

[RockofStrength]

Econ 101... if you spend X and take in Y it MUST be ≥ Z
otherwise you either have to raise Y, lower X, or both. (Generally BOTH does quite well)

EVERYone in politics has their hand in the cookie jar. EVERYone has their own little pet projects that they like to add as riders to bills... Welcome to [STRIKE]the current incarnation of the US[/STRIKE] Government.

Had to fix that...

 

[88GT]

Which could be fixed quite simply by returning the voting powers back to where they originally came from.

People who owned land.

Hard to buy a vote when it requires giving people land to even make them eligible to vote. But it is quite easy to buy a vote when the welfare class is allowed to vote, simply promise them more income.

I have repeated this often. But in truth, it's no longer as simple as that. The point of owning land to be required to vote had more to do with the fact that landowners were the ones who paid the taxes than actually owning the land. Today, there are a lot of people who don't own but still are counted in the tax-paying group by virtue of their employment status. The modern version of that would be to prohibit the franchise to those who receive non-wage/non-retirement benefits (IOW, handouts) from the federal government.

The other alternative is to restore the choice of Senators to the States.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Forbid the franchise to anyone receiving govt handouts at any level, federal/state/local, and return election of Senators to the state legislatures.

 

[Shadow8088]

Stating useless truisms avoids the question. Do you agree with the president? Should we spend more and just crank up the tax rates to cover it?

the answer was in there... even put it in parentheses...

 

[jimmythang]

If you give a democrat a buck in revenue he/she might spend $1.45. If you give a Republican a buck in in revenue he/she might spend $1.25.