ADVERTISEMENT

Steyer in

moe

All-American
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
31,453
5,938
708
Fayetteville, WV
Tom Steyer, billionaire pushing to impeach Trump, changes mind and decides to run for president
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/09/tom...es-mind-and-decides-to-run-for-president.html

giphy.gif
 
He's seen where others stand so maybe he can use that. If he's not Medicare for All he sets himself apart a bit and he may have low baggage though being a white male might be a liability.
 
He's seen where others stand so maybe he can use that. If he's not Medicare for All he sets himself apart a bit and he may have low baggage though being a white male might be a liability.

Not really when 4 of the top 6 candidates are white males, including the top two.
 
Fair enough. I don't think that stays accurate for long.

Warren and Harris are splitting a lot of the same support. One might pass Sanders up, but I don't think both can.

Biden has a high floor and I don't think hes going to take another shot like in the first debate. He was trying to coast and got tagged.
 
Sucks if you were hoping he'd donate some $$$$$$ to your election fund
 
Imo Sanders has no chance and I think Biden's lead will diminish or worse.

Sanders won't win and I dont think anybody will overtake Biden while Harris, Sanders, and Warren all remain in the race.
 
It’s amazing to me that this is an acceptable thing in the party of inclusion and acceptance. God, I hope you fvcking crazies don’t gain back power anytime soon.
Well of course, you still imagine them as a majority, I mean, America doesn't resemble your party anymore, keep looking backward, I bet if ya dropped the racist BS you could attract some diversity to the pale stale male club of Mitch and Donnie.
 
He's seen where others stand so maybe he can use that. If he's not Medicare for All he sets himself apart a bit and he may have low baggage though being a white male might be a liability.

Yep, you nailed it.
 
It’s amazing to me that this is an acceptable thing in the party of inclusion and acceptance. God, I hope you fvcking crazies don’t gain back power anytime soon.

Not only that they refuse to acknolwedge their agenda of higher deficit spending, huge government regulations, abortion on demand, "climate change", open borders, and free stuff paid for by progressive taxation.

Yet they all support every single item on that list.
 
Not only that they refuse to acknolwedge their agenda of higher deficit spending, huge government regulations, abortion on demand, "climate change", open borders, and free stuff paid for by progressive taxation.

Yet they all support every single item on that list.
Saying that the left is the party of higher deficit spending is a poor argument given that the economy has continued to improve over the last few years, yet the deficits have increased since 2017. I would argue that neither party is the party of lower deficits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WVUCOOPER
Saying that the left is the party of higher deficit spending is a poor argument given that the economy has continued to improve over the last few years, yet the deficits have increased since 2017. I would argue that neither party is the party of lower deficits.

Last part of your post is 100% correct. However only one party opposes present and past attempts to reign in discretionary spending, since neither party has the stones to tackle entitlement spending. (the true drivers of our deficits)

Who would you guess is the party that consistently opposes cuts in discretionary spending or proposals eliminating funding for scores of discretionary spending programs?
 
Last part of your post is 100% correct. However only one party opposes present and past attempts to reign in discretionary spending, since neither party has the stones to tackle entitlement spending. (the true drivers of our deficits)

Who would you guess is the party that consistently opposes cuts in discretionary spending or proposals eliminating funding for scores of discretionary spending programs?
The 2020 Discretionary Budget Request (excludes entitlements, this is all discretionary) is $1.426 trillion. Of that, you have $989 billion that is either DoD or other agency support for DoD. So cutting everything else, including everything in other agencies that doesn't support DoD, you save $437 billion. That's out of a projected budget deficit of $1.1 trillion, so we are only running deficits in the high $600 billion mark in a booming economy, and we are back to 2013 deficit numbers. Good old 2013.
 
The 2020 Discretionary Budget Request (excludes entitlements, this is all discretionary) is $1.426 trillion. Of that, you have $989 billion that is either DoD or other agency support for DoD. So cutting everything else, including everything in other agencies that doesn't support DoD, you save $437 billion. That's out of a projected budget deficit of $1.1 trillion, so we are only running deficits in the high $600 billion mark in a booming economy, and we are back to 2013 deficit numbers. Good old 2013.

Entitlements are killing the budget and will prevent us from every balancing it.

Meanwhile the top Dem candidates are out promising more in entitlements. :grimace:
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb
Entitlements are killing the budget and will prevent us from every balancing it.

Meanwhile the top Dem candidates are out promising more in entitlements. :grimace:
So our choices are a guy who is spending way beyond our means right now, and people who plan to spend way beyond our means if elected. Like I started out, neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility.
 
So our choices are a guy who is spending way beyond our means right now, and people who plan to spend way beyond our means if elected. Like I started out, neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility.

Nope. Neither has the testicular fortitude to do what needs to be done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb
The 2020 Discretionary Budget Request (excludes entitlements, this is all discretionary) is $1.426 trillion. Of that, you have $989 billion that is either DoD or other agency support for DoD. So cutting everything else, including everything in other agencies that doesn't support DoD, you save $437 billion. That's out of a projected budget deficit of $1.1 trillion, so we are only running deficits in the high $600 billion mark in a booming economy, and we are back to 2013 deficit numbers. Good old 2013.

Here's a list of proposed discretionary spending reductions in FY '19 (current budget)

Who supported these cuts? Who opposed these proposed cuts?
(Which party?)


Agriculture Department

The Trump administration is seeking to cut the Department of Agriculture’s discretionary budget by $3.5 billion, or 15 percent, while also slashing by $17 billion the funds available to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps). The budget would also reduce federal crop insurance subsidies and cut spending for conservation programs and foreign food aid.

Key proposed changes:

—Reduces funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by $17.2 billion in 2019 and $213.5 billion over the next 10 years.

—Limits eligibility in the crop insurance program and caps premium subsidies.

—Cuts the $136 million in funding for conservation programs.

—Eliminates the Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program.

—Discontinues the $166 million Food for Progress aid program.

Commerce Department

The Commerce Department can look forward to a 6 percent increase in budget authority under the president’s request. More money would be available for planning and staffing for the 2020 census as well as trade enforcement efforts by the International Trade Administration. The new budget also includes $878 million to continue operating the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s polar weather satellites and continue development of follow-on spacecraft, thus “reducing the risk of a devastating gap in coverage.”

Key proposed changes:

—Saves $300 million by eliminating the Economic Development Administration, which the administration says duplicates programs at the departments of agriculture and transportation.

—Saves $125 million by erasing the federal contribution to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program, which funds state consulting services for small- and medium-sized companies.

—Boosts spending on preparations for the 2020 census to $3.8 billion, a $2.3 billion increase.

—Adds a modest $3 million to trade enforcement efforts.

Defense Department

The Pentagon’s 2019 budget is a 14 percent increase over 2017 and seeks to refit the military for potential conflicts against major powers, such as China and Russia. The budget sets aside more money for just about everything. The extra spending will allow the military to add 16,400 troops.

Key proposed changes:

—Adds $24 billion to modernize the nuclear infrastructure.

—To deal with the growing threat from a nuclear-armed North Korea, the budget sets aside money to add 20 ground-based missile interceptors in Alaska, increasing the number to 64.

—-

Education Department

The Trump administration is seeking to cut more than $3 billion from the Education Department while investing $1.6 billion to support private school vouchers and other school choice programs.

Key proposed changes:

—Cuts several discretionary grant programs, including the D.C. tuition aid program.

—Pell grants would be expanded so they could be used for short-term academic and certificate programs, reflecting the administration’s emphasis on career training over four-year colleges and universities.

Energy Department

The Trump administration is seeking $30.7 billion for the Energy Department, a 2 percent increase from fiscal year 2017. But the administration wants to add money for overseeing the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile and slash spending elsewhere, including science and renewable research.

Key proposed changes:

—Slashes 66 percent of the budget for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which studies advanced transportation, wind and solar energy.

—Eliminates the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, a program popular in Congress.

—Cuts the department’s loan guarantee programs, although the existing portfolio would be maintained.

—Terminates construction of a mixed-oxide nuclear fuel fabrication facility in South Carolina that has the support of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

—A 17.5 percent boost for the department’s National Nuclear Security Administration, which makes up nearly half the department’s budget.

—The administration is also seeking to sell electric transmission assets of federally-owned utilities in the northwestern United States.

Department of Health and Human Services

The budget would add funding to HHS, the government’s largest domestic agency. The administration is seeking to draw attention to heightened funding to combat opioid addiction, as well as its first steps toward trying to slow prescription drug spending for older Americans on Medicare. The budget also anticipates profound changes to social safety-net programs. It calls on Congress to transform Medicaid from an entitlement system, in which the federal government pays states a portion of the costs for everyone who qualifies, into a system of capped federal payments that frees states from federal eligibility and benefits rules. And it would put a new emphasis on working in order for poor people to be able to receive various types of federal assistance.

Key proposed changes:

—Cuts funding of the subsidies that help more than four in five people with ACA marketplace health plans afford insurance premiums.

—“New investments” to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in an initiative begun under the Obama administration called the Global Health Security Agenda to strengthen countries’ abilities to respond to infectious disease outbreaks, whether naturally occurring, accidental or deliberate.

—Adds $5 billion over the next five years to combat the opioid epidemic, a fraction of what experts say is needed. (The money is part of $10 billion in government funding for substance abuse and mental health requested in the budget.)

—Adds $1 billion in new resources for fiscal 2019, up from $500 million in each of the last two years.

Department of Homeland Security

The Trump administration’s budget seeks additional funds to catch, detain and deport immigrants living in the country illegally. DHS would get $47.5 billion in discretionary funding, a 12 percent increase.

Key proposed changes:

—Sets aside $1.6 billion for construction of 65 miles of border wall in South Texas.

—Adds $782 million to hire and support 2,750 additional law enforcement officers and agents at U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

—Adds $2.8 billion to increase immigration detention to 52,000 beds per day.

—Adds $71 million for new technology at Transportation Security Admin.

—Adds $2.2 billion for Secret Service to hire 450 special agents, officers and professional staff.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Trump’s proposed budget for the 2019 fiscal year includes a 14 percent cut to HUD, amounting to $6.8 billion below the agency’s current $48 billion spending.

Key proposed changes:

—Reduces Section 8 federal housing subsidies

—Eliminates the $1.9 billion fund for public housing capital repairs

—Like last year, zeroes out community development block grants, which play a key role in disaster recovery, as well as grants to states and local governments to increase homeownership for the lowest-income Americans, and funding for neighborhood redevelopment.

—The administration plans to unveil legislation to institute work requirements for Americans receiving housing subsidies, on a broad scale.


Interior Department

With the public parks and lands system struggling with $12 billion in deferred maintenance – half of which applies to deteriorating roads – the administration’s budget proposes a new “Public Lands Infrastructure Fund” that would total $152 million in fiscal 2019 and grow significantly in subsequent years. By fiscal 2023, it would be $764 million. Overall the department would receive $2 billion less than it did in 2017.

Key proposed changes:
—Slashes $33 million, or 92 percent, of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which supports land acquisition and restoration efforts using federal revenue from oil and gas drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf.

—Takes 50 percent of energy leasing receipts that exceed fiscal 2018 budget projections and are not allocated for other programs and divert those to the infrastructure projects. With Interior trying to expand energy development on federal lands and waters, the document notes, “this initiative has the potential to generate up to $18 billion over 10 years for parks and other public lands infrastructure.”

Justice Department

The Justice Department’s $28 billion budget proposal, which is roughly the same as last year’s budget, reflects Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s priorities to fight the opioid crisis and crack down on illegal immigration. The budget transfers the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ responsibilities for alcohol and tobacco enforcement to the Treasury Department. About $2.175 billion would come from the administration’s infrastructure budget for a new FBI headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Key proposed changes:

—Eliminates the Community Relations Service, a “peacemaker” office created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to help ease conflicts and tensions in communities facing conflicts over race, gender, religion and other factors. Duties of the office, which is not an investigative or prosecutorial unit, will be merged with the Civil Rights Division, which does investigate crimes. Jobs will be eliminated when the office is moved.

—The Bureau of Prisons will close two regional offices and close two stand-alone minimum security prison camps for a savings of more than $122 million.

—Allots an additional $295 million to fighting the opioid epidemic.

—Adds $65.9 million for immigration enforcement and border security.


Labor Department

The Trump administration has proposed slashing the Labor Department’s funding by 10 percent to $10.9 billion. The Labor Department seeks to pull money out of programs it deems “duplicative, unnecessary, unproven, or ineffective,” the proposal said. Over the last year, Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta has pushed to expand apprenticeships, a form of worker retraining he has identified as particularly effective, and roll back efforts he finds wasteful. The Labor Department’s tentative budget showed deep cuts to a variety of worker training and emergency aid programs. The Labor Department didn’t specify which specific programs would face the most trimming.

Key proposed changes:

—Cut funding for National Dislocated Worker Grants – support for those who lose their jobs in natural disasters or factory closures – from $219.5 million in 2017 to $51 million in 2019.

—Shrink funding for Adult Employment and Training Activities, which serve veterans, Native Americans and young people who have dropped out of high school, by nearly half, from $810 million in 2017 to $490.3 million in 2019.

—Raise funding for apprenticeships more than double, from $95 million to $200 million.




State Department, USAID and Treasury International Program

The Trump administration is seeking to again make deep cuts at the State Department, although Congress largely ignored a similar attempt last year. The administration says spending for the department and the Agency for International Development is focused on protecting security, promoting American economic competitiveness and leadership, and providing accountability to taxpayers.



Transportation Department

The White House is seeking to reduce funding for Amtrak’s long-distance services, saying states should share in those costs. Cuts would be made in the Essential Air Service program, which is meant to make sure small communities have access to air service. The changes would focus on areas where there are “high per passenger subsidies” and communities near certain airports.

Key proposed changes:

—Eliminate TIGER grants, a major discretionary program. The competitive grants fund a variety of road, rail and transit efforts.

—“Wind down” a major source of transit funding, the Capital Investment Grants program, limiting it to those projects that already have funding agreements in place.

—The White House is also re-upping its proposal to shift the nation’s air traffic control system out of government hands.



Treasury Department

The budget proposal would drop the Treasury Department’s budget by around $400 million, just a 3 percent decrease. But in a major change, it would transfer the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s responsibilities for alcohol and tobacco enforcement from Justice to Treasury. The proposal would also cut some funding to Office of Financial Research, created after the financial crisis to help federal agencies manage risk.



Department of Veterans Affairs

The Trump administration is proposing a major funding increase for the troubled U.S. Department of Veterans Affair. The funding includes a boost to suicide prevention but in some cases cuts cost of living bumps to disabled veterans living on benefits.

Key proposed changes:

—Add $8.6 billion for mental health services, 6 percent above 2018, to support standardized suicide screening and risk assessments and expand options for post-traumatic stress disorder treatment.

—Provide emergent mental health services to certain former service members with other than honorable administrative discharges.

—Provide $381 million to programs “to reduce over-reliance on opioids for pain management.”



Environmental Protection Agency

Under the proposed plan, several dozen EPA programs would be eliminated altogether. But a few programs would be expanded, and the White House is no longer seeking to eliminate the Energy Star program (though it would be funded entirely through fees.)

Key proposed changes:

—Eliminate funding for state radon-detection programs, assistance to fund water system improvements along the U.S.-Mexico border and partnerships to monitor and restore water quality in the Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound and other large water bodies.

—Add $397 million in funding to bolster investment in wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.

—The Superfund cleanup program, a priority of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, would no longer be slashed.



NASA

The Trump administration proposed a $19.9 billion budget for NASA, a small increase over the current spending plan. The budget would fund development of its Space Launch System rocket and James Webb Telescope. But it calls for an end of funding for the International Space Station after 2024, and privatizing the orbiting laboratory.

Key proposed changes:

—Terminates the $100 million Office of Education

—Cuts development of the WFIRST telescope.

—Adds $54.2 million to help develop manufacturing technologies in space.



Small Business Administration

The Trump administration is seeking to cut the Small Business Administration’s budget by 5.9 percent, reducing the agency’s federal funding by 25 percent while the agency uses unspecified new fees and unspent funding from previous years to cover the difference.

Key proposed changes:

—Despite the funding reductions, the agency does not plan to roll back any of its small business loan guarantees.

—The agency is considering increasing the fees it charges to back small business loans larger than $1 million, something that could deter lenders from offering small business loans.



Numbers from the Office of Management and Budget. Totals may not add up because of rounding. Unlike other departments, the Justice’s addendum included “offsets removed,” which complicates the analysis. The $28 billion proposed 2019 budget estimate was provided by the agency. Also, The Department of Homeland Security was established in 2002. Its budget numbers before that time represent the funding for the then-independent agencies that now make up the department.

total proposed discretionary cuts for 2020
3-12-19bud.png
 
you have $989 billion that is either DoD or other agency support for DoD. So cutting everything else, including everything in other agencies that doesn't support DoD, you save $437 billion.

The deficits include entitlement spending. You can't separate out DoD related spending from the rest of the budget regarding deficits. Most of the deficits are direct result of forced borrowing to cover mandated spending through entitlements. If we funded strictly the discretionary budget with current services revenues, we'd be running a surplus!

The deficits are driven by entitlements, and our inability to cover those costs with current services revenues.
 
Last edited:
So our choices are a guy who is spending way beyond our means right now, and people who plan to spend way beyond our means if elected. Like I started out, neither party is the party of fiscal responsibility.

False dichotomy. Our "choice" is to reduce Government spending in all programs and elect representatives with the courage to do so, or continue electing politicians who's only goal is to grow the Government and force us to pay for their reckless and in most cases unnecessary deficit spending.

You are correct neither party is serious about reducing deficit spending, but as I asked you only one party consistently opposes any efforts to reduce Government spending (except slashing the Military). That's the only Federal spending one party has no qualms either reducing or eliminating.

Who is that party?

You don't have to answer me...I know why you won't.
 
The deficits include entitlement spending. You can't separate out DoD spending form the rest of the budget regarding deficits. Most of the deficits are direct result of forced borrowing to cover mandated spending through entitlements. If we funded strictly the discretionary budget with current services revenues, we'd be running a surplus!

The deficits are driven by entitlements, and our inability to cover those costs with current services revenues.
Good gravy. YOU brought up cuts to discretionary spending saying that no one was going to cut entitlements. I was simply pointing out that discretionary spending, which includes DoD, being entirely slashed of all but DoD and DoD support spending doesn't help our current situation a whole lot. Your first response was about percentage cuts to different agencies - agencies with small budgets to begin with. The percentages make the cuts look huge, but a 31% cut to the EPA pays for that drone that got shot down, maybe a couple of months of salary for the guy who was flying it remotely. Your listed cuts were in the single-digit billion dollar range at most. The deficit is a trillion dollars this year - or real close to it. That like giving up a pack of gum each month in order to pay your mortgage.
 
False dichotomy. Our "choice" is to reduce Government spending in all programs and elect representatives with the courage to do so, or continue electing politicians who's only goal is to grow the Government and force us to pay for their reckless and in most cases unnecessary deficit spending.

You are correct neither party is serious about reducing deficit spending, but as I asked you only one party consistently opposes any efforts to reduce Government spending (except slashing the Military). That's the only Federal spending one party has no qualms either reducing or eliminating.

Who is that party?

You don't have to answer me...I know why you won't.
I didn't answer because it doesn't matter. The GOP was full of deficit hawks for 8 years, then that all changed suddenly. I wonder why. With the cuts you listed, we might as well pee in the ocean to raise the tide. You took entitlements out of the equation. I think that we can all agree that entitlements are unlikely to be cut significantly. That impacts a large group of people who show up to vote religiously.
 
Good gravy. YOU brought up cuts to discretionary spending saying that no one was going to cut entitlements. I was simply pointing out that discretionary spending, which includes DoD, being entirely slashed of all but DoD and DoD support spending doesn't help our current situation a whole lot. Your first response was about percentage cuts to different agencies - agencies with small budgets to begin with. The percentages make the cuts look huge, but a 31% cut to the EPA pays for that drone that got shot down, maybe a couple of months of salary for the guy who was flying it remotely. Your listed cuts were in the single-digit billion dollar range at most. The deficit is a trillion dollars this year - or real close to it. That like giving up a pack of gum each month in order to pay your mortgage.

All you had to do Mule was answer my simple question of which party opposes cuts (large or small...they're actually rates of reduction in spending increases) in discretionary spending. Everything else YOU brought into the discussion was either an attempt to avoid a simple answer to that question, or an attempt to say there is no difference between what each party proposes as spending cuts.

If it was the former: an attempt to avoid a simple answer, you succeeded.

If it was the latter: an attempt to say there is no difference between what each party proposes as spending cuts, you failed to show there is no difference between the parties and what they propose to cut. The Democrats proposed less significant cuts to discretionary spending than they opposed, (which was most of it) and as was mentioned neither party is in any way serious about reforming entitlements which as was also mentioned are the true drivers of our deficits.
 
Last edited:
I didn't answer because it doesn't matter. The GOP was full of deficit hawks for 8 years, then that all changed suddenly. I wonder why. With the cuts you listed, we might as well pee in the ocean to raise the tide. You took entitlements out of the equation. I think that we can all agree that entitlements are unlikely to be cut significantly. That impacts a large group of people who show up to vote religiously.

It is a problem (entitlements) neither party has the courage to tackle, and because of it we will go bankrupt or renege on all of the promises we've made which we can no longer pay for.

The long term solution is entitlement reform. The short term solution is continue cutting discretionary spending where it is unneeded, growing the economy, and then hopefully passing some sort of fiscal restraint in the form of a balanced budget or at least a budget that by Law spends no more than we take in.
 
All you had to do Mule was answer my simple question of which party opposes cuts (large or small...they're actually rates of reduction in spending increases) in discretionary spending. Everything else YOU brought into the discussion was either an attempt to avoid a simple answer to that question, or an attempt to say there is no difference between what each party proposes as spending cuts.

If it was the former: an attempt to avoid a simple answer, you succeeded.

If it was the latter: an attempt to say there is no difference between what each party proposes as spending cuts, you failed to show there is no difference between the parties and what they propose to cut. The Democrats proposed less significant cuts to discretionary spending than they opposed, (which was most of it) and as was mentioned neither party is in any way serious about reforming entitlements which as was also mentioned are the true drivers of our deficits.
Do you scrutinize gum purchases in order to stay within your budget? Those percentages were the percentage cut (or increase) to each agency's prior budgets. It's misleading to rank those in that way. The EPA gets a 31% cut. That off the proposed $8.8 billion budget for 2019. Homeland gets a 15% increase, and that's based off its over $50 billion 2019 budget figure. So the Homeland increase is $800 million more than the EPA cut. The percentages don't tell you that. It's a graphic designed to deceive. I'm not saying that you are being deceptive, only that the graphic doesn't compare apples to apples. It also says zilch about DoD, the biggest chunk of discretionary funding. If you go through the proposed changes, I'll bet that you're lucky to break even on spending levels from the 2019 proposal, and that's before you address DoD. So tell me, who is for cutting spending? I still hold my ground that no one is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WVUCOOPER
I didn't answer because it doesn't matter.

OK, then why vote? If it "doesn't matter" what's everyone getting so upset about?

We ran up more debt during the 8 years of Obama's Presidency than in all the rest of our nation's history combined!

If we were going to be upset about deficit spending now, why didn't anyone except the Republicans care back then? All of a sudden these deficits are going to destroy us? Where were the deficit cutting Democrats during the run up?

If it's terrible to be engaged in all of this deficit spending, why oppose any attempts now to reign it in? You have to start somewhere right? Budgets proposing only cuts in the rates of increase were pronounced "dead on arrival" by Democrats during Trump's first two years in Office. Why?

If entitlements are an acknowledged problem driving our deficits, why is it whenever plans to reform them are proposed or suggested by leaders in one party (Republican) the other party (Democrat) uses it like a sledge hammer to tell voters they're (Republicans) trying to "starve Grandma" or "take Grandpa's medications away"? Is that how we solve this problem?

The tax cuts didn't matter.... is that why Democrats want them all back and even want them raised in some cases to 90% on the highest incomes? Why? To cut spending and and pay down the debt? No! To give away more entitlements! Republicans are engaged in reckless deficit spending? What are Democrats doing about it? Proposing any cuts or attempts to balance the budget? No! Let's pay for everyone's Health care and College education. [eyeroll]

You're right Mule, it doesn't matter. We'll keep spending money we don't have until we don't have anymore to spend. Oh, pardon me...we're already doing that.

But it doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
So tell me, who is for cutting spending? I still hold my ground that no one is.

Yes Sir, you are correct. However it is disingenuous to suggest there is no difference in either the recognition of the problem, or efforts to solve it. There are no serious proposals to tackle entitlements, but there is a difference depending on who's looking at the problem.

Republicans generally favor elimination of these wasteful programs or serious reforms that gradually privatize them and allow them to be less dependent on Government funding. Democrats by-and-large oppose those efforts, and instead favor massive or increased Government funding for these programs (and even expanding them), usually by taxing upper incomes at higher rates.

On discretionary funding, in most programs Republicans favor significant reductions or in some cases elimination of these often useless or at best wasteful programs. Democrats in general favor significant increases in both the levels of spending, and expansion of these programs, again primarily through increases in taxes on upper income earners.

Generally I think it's fair to say that Republicans favor far less Government spending and lower taxes in their attempts to reduce or eliminate deficit spending, and Democrats favor far greater Government spending and higher taxes particularly on upper incomes to expand Government regardless of what that does to our deficits.

Am I right or wrong Mule?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT