spaceguy said:
Screamapillar said:
Flanneryaug said:
There is plenty of room to cut, the problem is that what needs to be cut is what each side cares about the most. We have ended one war and the other will be over next year, defense spending should be dropping massively, but Republicans don't want to cut it. The Social Security and Medicare age should also be raised, because people are living longer, but Democrats don't want to cut that. The only solution is for them to make deals that hurts both sides, like the recent sequester.
|
See... NOW we're getting somewhere. Finally someone who can look at the situation objectively, and not come from a biased viewpoint where you're looking at things from the angle of your political party affiliation or blind love of individual politicians for no apparent reason.
|
Medicare didn't cause the debt. Deregulation of banks, two wars on credit card and tax breaks to rich did. The Fed Gave the Banks 26 trillion dollars. The rich only pay SS on pay up to 115,000 dollars after they don't pay in, They should. Also SS is not part of the buget. It is solvent until 2030 and if rich pay after 115,000 it won't ever have a problem. The problem is 1/4 of corporations paid no tax's 2012. Loop holes that only server the rich. The pay at the bottom is a joke and the top has made record profits. So what should be cut the defense that is 3 times it's size since 2001 or take money from the poor that pay into SS their whole life. IT'S THEIR MONEY. THATS WHY REPUBLICANS WANT IT SO BAD BECAUSE THERE IS TRILLION IN THE SS TRUST FUND. Republicans haven't balanced a buget in 50 years. Dems have. Republican had a hand in all of the financial disasters. So tell me why should we cut the poor and people's money that we owe them.
|
First off...there isn't any money in the "Social Security Trust fund".
You can tell this, because Obama said the first thing that would go if we hit the debt ceiling was payments to people owed social security.
If there was money to be paid there....
Secondly, according to your own previous views, it was the republicans who last balanced a budget. Underneath Clinton.
Thirdly, you can't really blame Iraq and Afganistan for the GFC if your advocating stimulus based Neokeynsian economics... this is the kind of thing that shows the difference between studying economics and holding a more liberal view, and just political hackery where you claim everything you don't like is bad for every single thing ever and never holds any positive thing ever.
Afgahnistan and Iraq were huge government spending vehciles, which should of boosted the economy according to neokeynsian economics. Note how they are the last lot that believed WW2 got us out of the last world war. Basically any reason you can blame Iraq and Afgahnistan for causing the GFC are reasons you would use AGAINST stimulus based economics.
