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.
What bothers me about the whole thing is how Republicans act like hypocrites on it. They keep saying we need to cut, cut, cut and balance, balance, balance. You would think that if they really want that, they will take any/all cuts available. We have had multiple chances to cut defense and the military and they keep voting to put those off and want to eliminate the cuts completely.
give us an example of one other cut, other than defense (which btw is the same as military) that the Republicans have not been willing to cut?
Your premise makes no sense. You make cuts AFTER looking each program and deciding if borrowing to pay for it is the worth it. Unlike many of the agencies of the gov't Defense IS in the CONSTITUTION.
This a couple of years old but, still the idea is the same.
The Department of Energy was instituted on 8/04/1977 TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL.
Hey, pretty efficient, huh???
AND, NOW, IT'S 2010 -- 33 YEARS LATER -- AND THE BUDGET FOR THIS "NECESSARY" DEPARTMENT IS AT $24.2 BILLION A YEAR. IT HAS 16,000 FEDERAL EMPLOYEES AND APPROXIMATELY 100,000 CONTRACT EMPLOYEES, AND LOOK AT THE JOB IT HAS DONE! THIS IS WHERE YOU SLAP YOUR FOREHEAD AND SAY, "WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?"
A little over 33 years ago, 30% of our oil consumption was foreign imports. Today 70% of our oil consumption is foreign imports.
Ah, yes -- the good old Federal bureaucracy!!
NOW, WE HAVE TURNED THE BANKING SYSTEM, HEALTH CARE, AND THE AUTO INDUSTRY OVER TO THE SAME GOVERNMENT?
The Department’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 budget request is $29.5 billion, an 11.8 percent or $3.1 billion increase from FY 2010
current appropriation levels.
** The D.O.E. was not instituted totally for that purpose, it has a broader mission. The one you list, less foreign dependence, is exactly the one the republican base, Big Oil, hates. The more dependence, the better.
** Multinational Big Oil is doing just fine thank you. As a rightie, you want laissez faire lack of "government interference" in their affairs, no? You complain about imported oil, yet Big Oil is multinational, so what do you expect? You think there should be "domestic" oil - Then who will it be? You want controls? By whom?
** Wall Street banks are the republican base, and repub deregulation allowed them to grow, gamble, and tank the economy. This article spells out the drawbacks of deregulation and the excesses it led to. History News Network
Still it's a no-brainer that banks should not be allowed to run wild - the essence of Repubanomics.
You rail against oppressive government interference, yet you seem to think it is not doing enough.
More people working generates more tax revenue. That is the only way out of it. Maybe Obama's job council has some new ideas? Oh wait they were disbanded after not meeting for six months. Where are the jobs?? Regulated away.
Lower tax rates has never, ever, proven to generate more jobs.
For instance, until this last year, we had the lowest tax rate in history, yet unemployment was high.
Low taxes do not equate to more jobs. This is called Voodoo economics, and it didn't work in the 80's, didn't work under Bush II, and it hasn't worked under President Obama.
"What the GOP says that doesn't make sense is that they want to lower tax revenue,"
Absolutely WRONG. Revenues are INCREASED when taxes are LOWERED. Look at history. Kennedy, Reagan and yes your hated W. Bush.
No it didn't. Reagan raised taxes, Kennedy raised taxes and this was during the height of the cold war, when we were spending massive amounts of money on military. Oh yeah, Johnson raided the Social Security trust fund to keep spending, and Bush created an economic downturn with his.
So no, Voodoo economics doesn't work. Lowering tax rates hasn't proven to create more tax revenue. This is a GOP lie. And I'm not saying Democrats plan of increasing taxes does better. Decreasing business burdens of regulations helps, but tax decreases don't.
Most (if not all) states are required to balance their budget each year. If the states can do it why can't the fed? Also I would much rather they get the debt paid off in 2 or 3 years and establish measures to keep it paid off annually as the states do. It might put us in a recession for a few years but it's not like we haven't been in one for the past 10 already. We can endure and overcome as a nation and will be better off after the debts are paid and money is put back in the coffers to be loaned out to other nations for interest rather than our own gov. borrowing it and charging the taxpayers more money to pay interest on our own money. If they are not going to utilize our natural resources (timber, oil, minerals, etc.) from our national forest lands to earn revenue then we have to repay the debts, save money to establish a reserve that can be loaned to raise revenue through interest. The system we are using now, it is like fighting a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
Look it up, when was the last time there was a BALANCED BUDGET?
Here, I'll help you righties.
Fact check:
What party was in control of Congress in 1998?
What president vetoed the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995 two times before finally signing it (then takes credit for it?
Why All the Balanced Budget Rhetoric Constantly from the GOP?
Simple politics, is all. It's deflection.
The Pubs went into 2001 with control of all 3 branches of the fed govt and a balanced budget.
Almost immediately they threw the country into record deficits with tax cuts and two miserably mismanaged wars. Top that off with the worst financial crisis (deregulation) in several generations.
Fortunately for the GOP, the other party took office in 2009, giving them the opportunity to act like it's the new guy's fault.
Judging by all the wingnuttery on this forum, their followers have swallowed it whole.
I am in favor of cutting the budget. I am in favor of both reducing spending gradually and increasing some taxes gradually.
What makes me think the GOP is full of nutcases is when I hear people like Marco Rubio constantly holler about "balancing the budget". Balancing the budget, right now, would require a combination of a trillion dollars in budget cuts and tax hikes. If that were done immediately, 99 out of 100 economists will tell you a simple truth. It will throw this country back into the recession that we are struggling to climb out of. In fact, unemployment would probably increase to 15% according to the index its currently measured on.
Cutting all that government spending would greatly reduce demand for goods and services and the private sector is in no shape to make up what government would instantly stop purchasing. The only net result that could flow from that would be record numbers of firms going out of business and a record number of unemployment claims.
I don't dispute the essential truth that--over time--spending has to be cut and that borrowing by government is a problem. But it can't be done over night and anyone who think it can be without a near catastrophic effect on the economy, doesn't know what he/she is talking about.
Rubio only shows his ignorance and utter partisanship by saying the President ought to do this. I wouldn't vote for this clown to be dogcatcher.
You are on the titanic you either send warning to the passengers or sink
Lower tax rates has never, ever, proven to generate more jobs.
For instance, until this last year, we had the lowest tax rate in history, yet unemployment was high.
Low taxes do not equate to more jobs. This is called Voodoo economics, and it didn't work in the 80's, didn't work under Bush II, and it hasn't worked under President Obama.
High tax rates never created a private specter job
Most (if not all) states are required to balance their budget each year. If the states can do it why can't the fed? Also I would much rather they get the debt paid off in 2 or 3 years and establish measures to keep it paid off annually as the states do. It might put us in a recession for a few years but it's not like we haven't been in one for the past 10 already. We can endure and overcome as a nation and will be better off after the debts are paid and money is put back in the coffers to be loaned out to other nations for interest rather than our own gov. borrowing it and charging the taxpayers more money to pay interest on our own money. If they are not going to utilize our natural resources (timber, oil, minerals, etc.) from our national forest lands to earn revenue then we have to repay the debts, save money to establish a reserve that can be loaned to raise revenue through interest. The system we are using now, it is like fighting a fire by pouring gasoline on it.
A balanced budget amendment doesn't work for the federal government because, there are unprecedented times, when the federal government needs to spend beyond its means. It would actually hurt our credit rating to force a balanced budget on the federal government every year.
Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't balance the budget, we should. But remember, our founding fathers, Jefferson and Adams were out trying to increase the national debt after 1776.
There would have to be wording in a balanced budget amendment to allow them to bend the rules in emergency situations, and as is always the case, Washington will manufacture its own emergency situation to use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet
Fact check:
What party was in control of Congress in 1998?
What president vetoed the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995 two times before finally signing it (then takes credit for it?
Because he wanted more tax increases in the bill. This is give and take, genius. It takes three to tango in Washington, House, Senate, and White House. Checks and Balances. The white house was checking what the congress was sending it, and requiring more balance. So yeah, he may have vetoed it two times, it doesn't mean Clinton wasn't seeking a balanced budget.
Maybe you should rewatch Clintons state of the Union addresses?
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.
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.
Why All the Balanced Budget Rhetoric Constantly from the GOP?
