Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-01-2013, 06:41 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,951,723 times
Reputation: 5661

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I did, because the GOP are not culpable. The Democrats increased spending by more than a trillion dollars in 2009, without increasing the budget (because there was no budget), all without the assistance of the GOP. Democrats have always had an irresponsible spending problem, which is why we had 40 years of deficit spending when Democrats controlled the House from 1955 to 1994.

The ONLY time there has ever been a budget surplus in the last 100 years is when the GOP controlled the House. The first time was from 1947 to 1949, and the last time was from 1998 to 2000.
Actually, the 2009 budget was Bush's, as noted on the chart.



In fact, two weeks before Obama’s inauguration, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil....2009.0406.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2013, 06:50 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,054,479 times
Reputation: 10270
They won't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 06:57 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,054,479 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
Actually, the 2009 budget was Bush's, as noted on the chart.



In fact, two weeks before Obama’s inauguration, the Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.2 trillion deficit for the 2009 fiscal year.

Source: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil....2009.0406.pdf
Okay. That's one year. We're now out of Iraq....where's the savings?

While Bush was no conservative when it came to spending, he NEVER had a TRILLION DOLLAR deficit.

The difference was that the Bush economic policies promoted growth and in fact produced more revenue to the government.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 07:21 AM
 
Location: Long Island, NY
19,792 posts, read 13,951,723 times
Reputation: 5661
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale View Post
Okay. That's one year. We're now out of Iraq....where's the savings?

While Bush was no conservative when it came to spending, he NEVER had a TRILLION DOLLAR deficit.

The difference was that the Bush economic policies promoted growth and in fact produced more revenue to the government.
The thread title is, " Liberals: Feel Free To Explain Why You Don't Think We Have A Spending Problem." Do you know how many times I alone have answered that question? Here are a few:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/22975246-post44.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/23486017-post16.html

Why Didn't Obama Raise Taxes In First 2 Years?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/27104480-post7.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/26229093-post27.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/25767541-post17.html

All of these answers point to one conclusion, the economy drives the deficit, first by reducing revenues and then by automatic safety net programs, like unemployment insurance, that kick in when unemployment is high.

The solution is not to slash spending and depress the economy further. That increases unemployment and makes it harder to reach revenue goals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 07:49 AM
 
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,458,803 times
Reputation: 6670
Of course we have a ''spending'' problem... we continue to feed an overweight glutton of a military (the largest on earth), plus we keep giving away huge tax breaks to the wealthiest (who BTW, need it the least)! Oh, and it ain't helping either that we keep spending $24 billion a year on Big Oil subsidies (that are still making record profits), and we give $3 billion a year in ''foreign aid'' to prosperous ''allies'' like Israel (who plant spies here and dis our President)!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 5,356,109 times
Reputation: 1626
We DO HAVE a spending problem, a big one. However, this problem was not created by Social Security and emergency aid to those in need. Health Care is a BIG part of our spending problem, and the solution is a one payer insurance system. . . .which has been rejected by conservatives. Unfunded wars are another big problem. . . .conservatives seem to have no problem with that, and would prefer to make sure that the poorest of Americans pay for them, first, with their lives in battle, and then, with whatever financial resourses they might have. An Unhealthy Economy, with Enormous profits at the top and less than living wages for workers is also a big part of our economic problems, along with moving production offshore to avoid labor costs! Another "conservative" model!
In order to FIX the problem, we need to address the causes of the problem. . . .rather than "blaming" those with the least to give.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 07:59 AM
 
Location: southern california
61,288 posts, read 87,431,754 times
Reputation: 55562
the notion that gop is on top of its spending or that excess spending is a dem thing is simplly not true excessive spending is an american compulsion. gop might have austerity in its platform but is spending just as heavy as dem. neither party proposes a balanced budget.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,544,683 times
Reputation: 24780
Lightbulb Liberals: Feel Free To Explain Why You Don't Think We Have A Spending Problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC View Post
Rarely do we ever hear Liberals call for logical and reasonable spending cuts. This blatant and obvious silence lends to the assumption that they must think that we merely have a revenue problem.

So the question begs: Why don't liberals think the USA has a spending problem in light of mounting debts and deficits, and in consideration of falling birth rates, falling labor participation rates, increasing poverty rates, increasing reliance on government handouts, and all the other sordid statistics proving that we are on the path to financial destruction?

Why is it always about revenues and hardly ever about spending?

Do tell!
Conservos: Feel free to explain why you gripe about deficits (largely of your making) but refuse to take any action on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 08:09 AM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,054,479 times
Reputation: 10270
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
The thread title is, " Liberals: Feel Free To Explain Why You Don't Think We Have A Spending Problem." Do you know how many times I alone have answered that question? Here are a few:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/22975246-post44.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/23486017-post16.html

Why Didn't Obama Raise Taxes In First 2 Years?

http://www.city-data.com/forum/27104480-post7.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/26229093-post27.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/25767541-post17.html

All of these answers point to one conclusion, the economy drives the deficit, first by reducing revenues and then by automatic safety net programs, like unemployment insurance, that kick in when unemployment is high.

The solution is not to slash spending and depress the economy further. That increases unemployment and makes it harder to reach revenue goals.
How does government spending bring in revenue? Now, I understand investing. You borrow money in order to invest in something that will bring a return. How does government spending bring a return?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2013, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,495,743 times
Reputation: 27720
Government doesn't make money. It's not a for profit business.
Government redistributes money, taking a cut to pay themselves.
You give money to government, they take a cut for themselves and then redistribute the rest in their programs and there's a lot there that leaves the country or goes to other private entities.

What really fuels the economy is Americans dealing with other Americans; no middleman taking cuts and the money circulates here. The less we have to spend is that much less we circulate among ourselves.

None of us would be sending money to Egypt to keep their armies up to date.
None of us would be donating money for research studies about cow farts or prostitute drinking problems in China.

And if government actually had to live within their budgets they wouldn't spend $1 million dollars to ship two $.19 washers from SC to another base in TX.
Pentagon Paid $998,798 to Ship Two 19-Cent Washers (Update3) - Bloomberg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:49 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top