PDA

View Full Version : Democrats & Republicans Hate......



road kill
04-21-2011, 03:28 PM
....deficits.

So.......why do we have one???


Just askin'........


RK

dixidawg
04-21-2011, 03:38 PM
Because the only difference between R's and D's is what they SAY.

They both DO the same things...spend your money to buy votes that keep them in office.

YardleyLabs
04-21-2011, 03:44 PM
....deficits.

So.......why do we have one???


Just askin'........


RK
Unfortunately, as always, the answer lies in the fine print. Republicans hate deficits but believe that cutting taxes is always justified regardless of financial impact (with many excuses and explanations) and that spending more on defense is simply necessary whatever the cost. In the back of their minds is the belief that any resulting financial crisis will simply improve the odds of eliminating spending for all those wimpy social safety net expenditures preferred by Dems. Therefore tax cuts and defense are always exempted from other efforts at fiscal control.

Democrats hate deficits but believe that there must be flexibility to ensure that the government meets its fundamental moral obligation to reduce poverty and provide a safety net for those in need. In addition, they feel that the government must "invest" in our national future with programs to improve education and worker competitiveness. In the back of their minds is the belief that taxes for the wealthiest few have already been cut much too much and that it is time to pt some of those taxes back in place. If spending on the "essentials" creates pressure that helps pass those taxes, then that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, both positions are simply stupid. The ONLY justification for incurring deficits or surpluses is to meet needs for temporary economic needs for stimulus or slowdown in economic growth. Those justifiable variations are always temporary and never justify permanent changes in spending or taxation. The only way to maintain balance over time is to balance the budget every year. If there is a war, then either shift the needed funds from other programs or increase taxes. If there is a perceived need for a tax cut, then make the offsetting cuts in spending as part of the same legislation. Never cut taxes or increase spending without immediately making compensating changes on the other side of the equation.

Buzz
04-21-2011, 03:45 PM
I predict that Franco will have a thing or two to contribute on this! :D

Both sides love to spend. They just have different spending priorities, and right now the constituencies on both sides are doing quite well!

Franco
04-21-2011, 04:15 PM
I predict that Franco will have a thing or two to contribute on this! :D

!

;-)

Deficits?

Because politicians are more worried about getting reelected(see pork/earmarks/entitlements) than doing what they know is right!

Franco
04-21-2011, 04:18 PM
Unfortunately, as always, the answer lies in the fine print. Republicans hate deficits but believe that cutting taxes is always justified regardless of financial impact (with many excuses and explanations) and that spending more on defense is simply necessary whatever the cost. In the back of their minds is the belief that any resulting financial crisis will simply improve the odds of eliminating spending for all those wimpy social safety net expenditures preferred by Dems. Therefore tax cuts and defense are always exempted from other efforts at fiscal control.

Democrats hate deficits but believe that there must be flexibility to ensure that the government meets its fundamental moral obligation to reduce poverty and provide a safety net for those in need. In addition, they feel that the government must "invest" in our national future with programs to improve education and worker competitiveness. In the back of their minds is the belief that taxes for the wealthiest few have already been cut much too much and that it is time to pt some of those taxes back in place. If spending on the "essentials" creates pressure that helps pass those taxes, then that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, both positions are simply stupid. The ONLY justification for incurring deficits or surpluses is to meet needs for temporary economic needs for stimulus or slowdown in economic growth. Those justifiable variations are always temporary and never justify permanent changes in spending or taxation. The only way to maintain balance over time is to balance the budget every year. If there is a war, then either shift the needed funds from other programs or increase taxes. If there is a perceived need for a tax cut, then make the offsetting cuts in spending as part of the same legislation. Never cut taxes or increase spending without immediately making compensating changes on the other side of the equation.

Jeff, the way I see it is the Dem's social programs have grown poverty, encouraged out of wedlock births for more welfare dough and has helped to keep the uneducated poor on the government plantation.

Just look at those that have learned the much needed vital lessons in life and have raised themselves by pulling themselves up by thier own bootstraps.

Government is very seldom the answer!

YardleyLabs
04-21-2011, 04:36 PM
Jeff, the way I see it is the Dem's social programs have grown poverty, encouraged out of wedlock births for more welfare dough and has helped to keep the uneducated poor on the government plantation.

Just look at those that have learned the much needed vital lessons in life and have raised themselves by pulling themselves up by thier own bootstraps.

Government is very seldom the answer!
Franco,

I actually wasn't trying to argue the merits of either side's "justifications". Rather, I was arguing that there are NO valid justifications for ongoing budget deficits.

If something is worth doing, it is worth reallocating spending and taxation priorities to do it. If you aren't willing to make those adjustments immediately, then the tax cut or spending program you favor is obviously not that important. Public opinion polls are pretty consistent. The majority of the public wants lower taxes for themselves even if that means higher taxes for everyone else. They want "waste and fraud" reduced, but do not want to see major cuts in major benefit programs. What a surprise. I like free lunches also.

Franco
04-21-2011, 04:48 PM
Franco,

I actually wasn't trying to argue the merits of either side's "justifications". Rather, I was arguing that there are NO valid justifications for ongoing budget deficits.

If something is worth doing, it is worth reallocating spending and taxation priorities to do it. If you aren't willing to make those adjustments immediately, then the tax cut or spending program you favor is obviously not that important. Public opinion polls are pretty consistent. The majority of the public wants lower taxes for themselves even if that means higher taxes for everyone else. They want "waste and fraud" reduced, but do not want to see major cuts in major benefit programs. What a surprise. I like free lunches also.

Agreed!

Good to see you back at POTUS Place.

dback
04-21-2011, 05:06 PM
Good to see you back at POTUS Place.

+1.......now if we can just keep the old fart "somewheres" in the middle ;-)

TxHillHunter
04-21-2011, 05:18 PM
Unfortunately, as always, the answer lies in the fine print. Republicans hate deficits but believe that cutting taxes is always justified regardless of financial impact (with many excuses and explanations) and that spending more on defense is simply necessary whatever the cost. In the back of their minds is the belief that any resulting financial crisis will simply improve the odds of eliminating spending for all those wimpy social safety net expenditures preferred by Dems. Therefore tax cuts and defense are always exempted from other efforts at fiscal control.

Democrats hate deficits but believe that there must be flexibility to ensure that the government meets its fundamental moral obligation to reduce poverty and provide a safety net for those in need. In addition, they feel that the government must "invest" in our national future with programs to improve education and worker competitiveness. In the back of their minds is the belief that taxes for the wealthiest few have already been cut much too much and that it is time to pt some of those taxes back in place. If spending on the "essentials" creates pressure that helps pass those taxes, then that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, both positions are simply stupid. The ONLY justification for incurring deficits or surpluses is to meet needs for temporary economic needs for stimulus or slowdown in economic growth. Those justifiable variations are always temporary and never justify permanent changes in spending or taxation. The only way to maintain balance over time is to balance the budget every year. If there is a war, then either shift the needed funds from other programs or increase taxes. If there is a perceived need for a tax cut, then make the offsetting cuts in spending as part of the same legislation. Never cut taxes or increase spending without immediately making compensating changes on the other side of the equation.

Basically agree with you here.....at least that neither side of the aisle demonstrates fiscal responsibility. Another "novel" approach to your suggestion bolded is.....the one households have to use to stay solvent... put some money aside for those unexpected little things governments face from time to time. Of course that requires budget surpluses....and to be truly responsible, paying the DEBT off (or at least a plan to do so in a reasonable period of time) is the first step.

But the politics and special interests play both sides....to our detriment, and to the detriment of my children. Pissing me off pretty good these days.....I've written/spoken to my state and federal legislators more in the last 2 years than I have in my entire life. Wish I could say it does any good...so I'll keep voting incumbents out unless their ACTIONS match their rhetoric when it comes to DEBT reduction and Deficit control.

M&K's Retrievers
04-21-2011, 07:07 PM
Agreed!

Good to see you back at POTUS Place.

He must have been too busy with the new pup. Still haven't seen any pics yet.

YardleyLabs
04-21-2011, 07:52 PM
He must have been too busy with the new pup. Still haven't seen any pics yet.
Mostly too busy shooting young, skinny models:

http://jeffgoodwin.com/hitorimana/images/0555_0062387-Kristy.jpg

At five months, the puppy is still a giant, weighing in at close to 60 pounds of uncontrollable energy. I have a litter due in a few more days and I'm just wondering how many the pup will eat when I'm not looking.;-)