DeletedUser
if he was, nothing would get done and we'd all be ruined, unfortunately. well, I guess obama could throw out an executive order.....but that would create a whole lot of problems in and of itself.
DeletedUser
Well the future looks very gloomy when you guys describe it like that. 
Looks like republicans don't even need to win the presidential election,all they need
is control of one house and they will keep dictating the major policies of Washington.
Looks like republicans don't even need to win the presidential election,all they need
is control of one house and they will keep dictating the major policies of Washington.
DeletedUser
this whole thing boils down to leverage. obama wants to keep the issues of the debt ceiling and reducing the deficit separate and deal with them one at a time, but the republicans want their precious leverage and will play around with the economy.......i think it would be clear who should win the elections, but then again, there are those tea party idiots running around.....
DeletedUser19202
It's all one big two headed snake. I'm a democratic republican myself.
DeletedUser
Roseanne Barr announced her intentions to run for Presidential Office in 2012 under her own party, which she calls, Green Tea Party
I wonder if she is serious. I'd love to see her platform, and what kind of support she could muster up.
.........
our gov't needs to work FOR the people en masse (AKA the 95% who control 5% of the wealth, the working class, the backbone), not the rich few who can buy influence, And teh corporations who have personhood rights (dunno if i called it by the correct term).
and we cant just blame everything on which ever president is in office at any given period of time. We have 3 branches of gov't. I will have to look it up but I think the number is about 465 people who make the laws and set budgets etc etc, not just the 1 president. And we the people are in essence the real problem by not being responsible and making sure our ELECTED leaders are working for US in OUR interest.
things are starting to remind me of 18th century France...and we all know what happened there....
I wonder if she is serious. I'd love to see her platform, and what kind of support she could muster up.
.........
our gov't needs to work FOR the people en masse (AKA the 95% who control 5% of the wealth, the working class, the backbone), not the rich few who can buy influence, And teh corporations who have personhood rights (dunno if i called it by the correct term).
and we cant just blame everything on which ever president is in office at any given period of time. We have 3 branches of gov't. I will have to look it up but I think the number is about 465 people who make the laws and set budgets etc etc, not just the 1 president. And we the people are in essence the real problem by not being responsible and making sure our ELECTED leaders are working for US in OUR interest.
things are starting to remind me of 18th century France...and we all know what happened there....
DeletedUser
let me guess.....the french revolution?
DeletedUser
nope, worse --- croissants!
DeletedUser
To put things into perspective:
I'd personally like to see a few politicians asking to cut back on charity donations to other "families" and use that money to take care of our own (and maybe pay off and tear up a few of those credit cards).
I'd personally like to see a few politicians asking to cut back on charity donations to other "families" and use that money to take care of our own (and maybe pay off and tear up a few of those credit cards).
DeletedUser
those charity donations are, like, $5, relatively speaking.....
DeletedUser
Approximately 1% of the budget. In this case, it would be about $750. I just don't see how it makes sense for us to borrow money to send to someone else, and take money from citizens here to repay it. I would much rather see that reduced than education and assistance for children, elderly and disabled, which is what most of the politicians tend to push for. It wouldn't come close to balancing the budget, but it's one area that I think should be considered.
DeletedUser
1% is a drop in the bucket. Something more significant would be, for example, cutting 75% from the defense budget. I mean, they're throwing away $2B jets, it's ridiculous.
DeletedUser
Agreed, the real waste is in defense. Or, more accurately, the military-industrial complex cash-cow. Bush blew it way out of proportion during his 8 years, and it was already too big before he came into office.
DeletedUser
Why don't we give up and just can the entire military? That's what you guys want since all your "feel good" "morally upright" social programs are untouchable. Isn't it awful to think that someone might live with a little less government help! That's awful ain't it! Well boo hoo hoo. Defense spending and Social Programs should recieve cuts,not just one or the other since both are neccessary. It's important to remember with military spending that the US is a large influential nation in a violent world. It would be nice to know that we could take on another country without killing off 50% of the boys in uniform in the process. Remember it's expensive to mantain the systems that keep folks alive as a civiian and as a soldier. Deprive too much money from either and the casualties could quickly become indigestible.
DeletedUser22575
We spend billions yearly on foreign aid. If we made some cuts to that and used the money to take care of the needy here in the US no child would go to bed hungry at night, no child or the poor would need for medical care.
America first, starving people and health care for others else where second.
DeletedUser
lafitte, would you be satisfied if I said both things should be reformed? Just because I didn't mention social programs doesn't mean I don't advocate cuts in them too.
DeletedUser
isnt alot of the foreign aid we send out in the form of vouchers? like yeah we will give you X amount of money to buy your people food, but we are going to give you a voucher that you can buy that food with so long as you buy it from an american company? so doesnt that help keep american companies afloat so maybe isnt quite feesable to stop ALL the foreign aid?
DeletedUser
But remember no matter where the dollar goes the ones we can't pay for still add to the debt whether it's a dollar or a trillion.
DeletedUser
You're not demonstrating any knowledge of how the budget works and what it comprises. First, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are classified as mandatory, because the citizens pay into these programs. They're essentially retirement and catastrophic injury insurance programs managed by the U.S. government. They are not entitlements, despite so many Republicans liking to call them such. As well, the only reason they're in jeopardy is because Republicans have been taking money out of these programs to spend it elsewhere, which they are not legally allowed to do. Because of this, the interest that should have accrued, to ensure these programs remain viable, is simply not occurring and they are now looking at insufficient funds within the next 30 years. Finally, any changes to these programs would be deemed a breach of contract and you can bet there will be a class-action lawsuit (which will cost the U.S. Government more than what they think they might have saved by putting senior citizens and disabled people on the streets). Increased expenses are as a result of anticipated population growth. What was not anticipated was Republicans emptying the Social Security/Medical/Medicaid coffers to feed their pet projects.
In sharp contrast, the Defense budget has more than doubled since 1998, resulting in a $2 trillion surge in U.S. Defense spending. <click here> And for what?!? To chase a small band of terrorists that were trying to destabilize the U.S. economy!?! Irony that is...
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Time flies.....and I'm still voting for Obama