You do this all the time, So don't go calling people sad when you flop just as much. I posted a graph just for the hell of it, not to change subject. The fact of the matter is that the congress spends the money. How have I changed that. GOP Policies have been overwhelmingly in control since the 1980's and clinton was the move to the right to get back some power.

You claim to be fair then use Koch brother funded organizations to prove your points.

One being the heritage foundation. You only see dollars and not human well being.

Thats the difference between you and I. You only see profits for today, not the workers conditions, health care and home life. Thats the difference of the right, GREED!!! You don't want to pay for the Public schools, roads, water ways, police, firefighters, Massive defense to protect your business. You think it's all you and no one else. That's bullsh-t. I run a business, I also pay more than you would to my employee's and I don't forget how I got there. I didn't do it on my own, no one did.

So good for you, you lack empathy.

I never said democrates didn't vote for it but it was a republican congress. your problem is you think I'm a team player like you. So anything the republicans do, you stick  behind. I'm not like that and actually agree with the green party more than not. You seem to fall in line just like everyone on the right. You don't question, you take orders.

Well, that was a completely pointless off topic rant.  So... good show on that.

I mean, for one, the majority of the Bush era tax cuts went to the "not rich".

The difference between you and I is... I really don't have a political side I play for.

 I totally want to pay for shcools, roads, water ways, police, firefighters and defense. 

Though however not massive defense as that seems excessive... we could really afford to close down a lot of our military bases and military aid. 

While roads I think should be almost completely state funded.  More and more of our roadway burden is shifting on the federal budget and that leads to congressmen making every road deal they can think of just to get money to their state, even if it's completely worthess infrastructure like the many "roads to nowhere."

Schools.  Should be federally funded... but by done by private groups who have laws supporting full transperancy and who do student entrance by lottery if choice exceeds capacity.  Therefore better schools will keep going on and gain in prominence with their better teaching measures proving successful, and poor ones will be replaced.

Public schools should only be used as a "baseline" for areas where private schools can't really succeed, like rural montana and such.

As for the graphs i use... the difference is... i look into their methods.   As for why it might sway right wing... it's because well... economics are a rightwing dominated profession.  Right wing people just tend to be methodologically better at statistics.   It's like complaining that I cited a liberal for Sociology.  Sociology is predominantly liberal. 

I mean heck, your graph is supporting the bailout of wallstreet.  Which, usually people try and stick on to the right.  (Despite the voting record being the opposite) when in reality, the banks should of been allowed to fail, and the Tarp funds used to either strengthen banks who did the right thing, or directly help the people most effected by the problem.  

Oh, and as to what i would pay my employees.  I think i'd pay them pretty well.  I mean i have the job I have now mostly because I don't care about money.  Give me a couple million dollars and i'd stretch that out for life more or less.

To me, after setting up an ensured retirement, 50,000 a year would probably end up excessive based on my tastes.  I generally expect i'd set up some sort of profit sharing program after that... or just give the rest to charity.

Of course, that's what I would do.  I don't believe in forcing everybody to think and act in the same way as myself.

Typical liberal argument, spout lies about a person's motives (which you can't possibly know) and crazy, false, accusations about not wanting to pay Police, Firefighters, Teachers, etc. in spite of the fact that NOBODY has suggested any of that nonsense.

I would call myself a conservative libertarian, and I know a lot of people you would describe as on the 'right', and none of what you say about such people is even close to true, none of it. Of course we recognize the need for teachers, schools, roads, firefighters, police (many of those are paid for at least in part by more efficient local governments). Of course we think everybody should have access to affordable health care (though we differ on how to do that), of course we believe people should be treated and paid fairly (most of us have jobs too). Also, don't ignore the fact that conservatives are generally far more generous with their own money than the so-called 'compassionate' liberals. A big difference there is, we're generous with our own money, you want to be 'generous' with other people's money then somehow think you're better than us for it. Get off your high horse and stop spouting a bunch of insulting nonsense about people you clearly know nothing about. foolishness like this is the exact reason it's impossible to have a genuine policy discussion, it very quickly becomes personal when you feel like you might be losing an argument.

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

EDIT: Another point. I go to a church filled with 'evil, greedy' republicans in a fairly affluent area. There are about 1500 members, and they are one of the most compassionate, generous bunch of people you'd ever meet. We have a ministry that helps struggling local families with bills, assistance for single mothers, provides food to needy families, job & career assistance, counseling, and much more. We've even recently planted an orchard on the property to grow healthy fruits with the express purpose of giving it away to families that can't afford healthy produce. On top of that, we fund orphanages in 3rd world countries (many of which members of the church helped build), go on routine medical missions to poor countries (paid for out of our own pockets)... the list goes on and on. What have you and your circle of liberal friends done recently to show your empathy? I have no problem with you having different political opinions, but your mindless rant about lack of empathy wreaks of desperation and ignorance.

well in many debates we have had you don't support these idea's. So there is a lot  more common ground between you and I, than I originally thought. Yes I did go off on a rant, just as you did. Also I think you are not being realistic. Conservatives are not good with numbers. I'm sorry but that is just a joke. There are good and bad on both sides but to say there better with number is just not true. Conservatives Usaully lack education and back mythology. You got your wall st banker group on the republican side and the bat sh-t crazy I want to control womans productive organs, Yet I call myself a conservative. I'm guessing you fall in with the wall st types. So why do you agree with so much of the Tea Party?

OP, Just give up. There is no point trying to argue politics in this forum. I tried a while back, but people have their minds pretty well set when it comes to how they view the political landscape. If you want to discuss politics, do it with like minded individuals because there is so much information out there right now that like Nate Silver said, "There is a lot of static out there." Its hard finding the correct information. Those that think that they're right, are viewing it through their point of view (their experiences, & bias, myself included). No one here is an expert and has every angle covered. Each of us gets their information from a third party. Save yourself a heart attack and just discuss it with your real friends. Trying to change people over the internet is like trying to have a meaningful conversation through texting/instant messaging; it doesn't work.

Republicans have been blaming public workers, going after social programs, schools and the works and then wanting to keep tax's low for the rich. Well all that sh-t I mentioned above cost money, you don't just get it for free. So whats the reason. GREED AT THE TOP.

Republican is the party of the employer, CEO, The Rich and religious fanatics. How has this passed you people by.

Conservative believe in fairy tales and give their money to  church's that are already rich as f-ck. So you make it possible for mythology to continue. I would even go as far to say the money is feel bad money or a bribe to get into heaven. Cause with all the money church's recieve they could cure world hunger and a few disease's while there at it.

I give money directly to the source, not a middle man that is selling you lies from the pulpit. I don't need to buy my way into heaven.

Oh using the world liberal means nothing and shows you watch and listen to right wing nutz. The word conservative and liberal mean nothing. As I'm a better conservative when it comes to a womans body then conservatives are. Everyone is a conservative and a liberal and the fact that Frank Luntz words come out of your mouth is great.

welcome to the guy that gives all of you on the right all your 2 word talking points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Moderated,

-Mr Khan

No I do.  I just note how some of these things theoretically could succeed, i just wouldn't want them to.

When it comes to economics... i'll put it this way.  John Manyard Keynes is touted as the big left wing economist of note.   If he were alive today he would be shouting at Obama that you can't raise taxes on anybody while the economy is so weak.   Essentially the current Obama proposal isn't based on any economic theory, not even the most left wing economic theory.  It's not based on any economics at all, but instead based on a sense of fairness, bad economic consequences be damned. 

As preivously stated, I would of allowed the banks to have failed, not exactly mainstream economic  matieral.  Or at the very least required regional breakups in return for the bailout funds.  I tend to think Modern economists focus too much on big numbers like Keynes famous Aggregate demand formula and forget that economies are made up of people... and that people change generationally.   Meaning that every crisis is going to be different, because every consumer group is different.  As such, the safest way to ride out downturns is to ride them out naturally with a modest increase in spending so that we can make sure that nobody is starving in the streets.  (but at a payout lower then unemployment, imagine a middle step between unemployment and welfare.)

In general, I think that an ideal kind of government looks a lot like New Zealands with a little more personal freedom mixed in... with an icelandic attidue of... if a bank fails, let it fail.

The problem is, you need to tear down, before you build up.  The US has so much worthless and wrongheaded regulations that rise the cost of compliance for companies and that's why you end up with massive too big to fail insitutions.

This is why the five US banks that held assets equal to 43% of the country's GDP now hold 56%.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-16/obama-bid-to-end-too-big-to-fail-undercut-as-banks-grow.html

The US does have a huge deficit problem, and deficits in general can only be solved via spending cuts, as tax raises time and time again have shown an increase in spending to go along with them, even when done for budget saving purposes.

A correct path would be to cut government spending practically everywhere, eliminate whole areas if need be, while essentially writing the countries regulations over from a blank slate.  Then watch the real economy grow.

Followed by a consolidation of welfare programs (as right now they are so split up the overhead is ridiculious) and work from there. 

In general, I would support libretarians (not regular conservatives for various social reasons) to gain control of the government for a good 8 years or so, to take down everything, then would hope they would be replaced for new more sane regulations, laws, and policies.   (Though i think i'd keep the negative income tax.  It seems far more efficent then what we do now.)

Like I said, people like you prevent real discussion, not to mention you are just spouting talking points yourself, points that are so devoid of reality and full of political BS that it's really just pathetic. You're behaving like a judgemental, hate-filled, nasty person, I'm not even going to waste my time with you anymore.

Reagan was a big part of allowing the banks to get to big, he stopped enforcing the sherman Anti-trust act. Also tax's have to go up. All the loopholes are mainly there for the rich to access, not the poor. People that sit by the pool collecting checks like paris hilton while only paying 15% tax's on investments is not right. 

I completely agree our defense is out of control, as the pentagon is not auditable.  Some estaments put the defense including the pentagon close to a trillion dollars a year.

I would not tare down what we got, I think there needs to be rules of who can work for what and where. For instance, if you work for GE, you can't go regulate for GE. I think the biggest way to have a effect is also to do campaign finance reform.

Cut the defense budget and have public funded campaign finance, Put a cap on it and People/corporations only allowed to give $250 or less. This will make the politicians work for the people, not there corporate funders. Which we have a massive problem on both sides.

SS has not contributed, so no need to cut that. SS is already paid for and all you would have to do is raise the SS cap to 250,000 or higher to make it solvent.

Medicare part D that doesn't allow us to barter for drug costs,  is costing us  billions of dollars a year.

Yes we should have put bankers in jail just like Iceland. I don't have issue with the bailout as much as there was no strings attached to it. Like Splitting up the banks and more regulations. Which I know we disagree.

Iceland also raised tax's and cut costs. I agree that we have a spending problem. I think mainly in the defence budget. Thats what i would gut. Sorry But we only need so much.

If we do these things we should be good.

Top 3 outlays:

Social Security - $778.5 Billion

Defense - $716.3 Billion

Income Security - $579.6 Billion

Cutting 100% of Defense funding wouldn't even be able to reduce the deficit to $0. That's how outragious our spending is.

What is alarming to me is that Income Tax wasn't around until 1913. How did the government manage to run itself without the absurd amount of revenue from income tax?

Answer: It didn't spend recklessly as if we had an infinite supply of money.