We Have a "Paying For It Problem"

[conamer]

Ohhh my gosh, we don't have a spending(borrowing) problem.

Testy Interview: Dem. Rep. Refuses to Say We Have a ‘Spending Problem’ — We Have a ‘Paying-For Problem’ | Video | TheBlaze.com

"Well, we spent(borrowed) a lot of money when George Bush was President of the United States."

She said," Are we promising too much?" He said, "Yeah, and if we don't pay, we shouldn't buy(borrow money)."

"Well, how is that different from a spending problem?

We don't have the money.

"Well then we have a spending problem. I can't believe I am even trying to explain this."-Rush Limbaugh

 

[EdwinWillers]

Unbelievable.

 

[GoodGuy32]

Unsustainable and foolish.

 

[Grizzly]

A paying-for problem means she wants to have more money (in taxes) to pay for things Americans have voted for. She thinks the problem in revenue, not spending. Which doesn't surprise me.

 

[GoodGuy32]

A paying-for problem means she wants to have more money (in taxes) to pay for things Americans have voted for. She thinks the problem in revenue, not spending. Which doesn't surprise me.

Did Americans vote for trillion dollar deficits? Did we educate Americans what a trillion dollars means?

Americans can vote for free foot massages, but that is just a fake canard of life in the real world.

 

[Grizzly]

Did Americans vote for trillion dollar deficits? Did we educate Americans what a trillion dollars means?

Americans can vote for free foot massages, but that is just a fake canard of life in the real world.

In essence, yes we did. We voted for stuff, and we voted not to pay for it. Or that's what happened when we voted for our representatives.

 

[Bubbahotep]

And the dem party put this moron in a position of leadership. That should you everything you need to know about the state of the dem party. Ran by, and consisting of fiscal fools.

 

[variant]

In essence, yes we did. We voted for stuff, and we voted not to pay for it. Or that's what happened when we voted for our representatives.

Most people don't have as much problem with government spending when you name the specific programs and measures that cost the most. What they don't like is paying for it.

Imagine that, people like the government to do things but would rather not pay for it.

It would be highly irresponsible for the leaders of the country to give them that option I think.

 

[conamer]

I see Rome in this, the very thing our founders learned not to do. Our downfall comes from within.

 

[EdwinWillers]

In essence, yes we did. We voted for stuff, and we voted not to pay for it. Or that's what happened when we voted for our representatives.

It's called a representative republic. In our case, Democrats tend to vote for all manner of entitlements and hand-outs and the attendant exorbitant taxes to pay for them (which they only use to spend on more entitlements and handouts) while Republicans tend to vote for less government spending and taxation. Sad thing is, once the Democrats spend all the money they can then turn around and whine "but we voted for it" and "but we spent it" and "...so we need to be 'responsible' folk and now pay for it" as if the problem were solely Republicans' fault.

 

[Billnew]

They see it as a if we could tax the "rich" what we believe they should pay, then we wouldn't have to run trillions in debt.

What should the rich pay? More, until they are no longer rich.

In reality, the rich couldn't pay enough to cover the spending.

 

[EdwinWillers]

They see it as a if we could tax the "rich" what we believe they should pay, then we wouldn't have to run trillions in debt.

What should the rich pay? More, until they are no longer rich.

In reality, the rich couldn't pay enough to cover the spending.

Correct. I mean taking everything from the rich would fund what - 6 months of government? And of course, they know that - which means it's not about the "rich" at all, except to use them as an excuse to give their minions another object on which to focus their envy, greed, and hate - which, if you think about it, is all the Democrat message is.

And ironically, the Democrat party proper could care less about their minions, really. They just use them as a vehicle to obtaining more power, which is the real story in Washington - he who controls the strings of the purse has the most power. More money into the federal coffers means more power. That's the bottom line.

 

[MachZer0]

Correct. I mean taking everything from the rich would fund what - 6 months of government? And of course, they know that - which means it's not about the "rich" at all, except to use them as an excuse to give their minions another object on which to focus their envy, greed, and hate - which, if you think about it, is all the Democrat message is.

And ironically, the Democrat party proper could care less about their minions, really. They just use them as a vehicle to obtaining more power, which is the real story in Washington - he who controls the strings of the purse has the most power. More money into the federal coffers means more power. That's the bottom line.

Isn't that the very definition of class warfare?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

We've had a "paying for it" problem here occasionally. Know what we did? STOPPED SPENDING until we could afford it.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Isn't that the very definition of class warfare?

Yeah, but I felt it necessary it be explained, again - iykwim.

We've had a "paying for it" problem here occasionally. Know what we did? STOPPED SPENDING until we could afford it.

Caution, common sense is in direct opposition to the state line.

 

[Hetta]

I always find the fact that the spending problem is the fault of the current President, who has been in office for 4 years hilarious. Seriously? Clinton was the last president to balance the books. Remind me what happened after that? I mean, who was in power after him and failed to continue to balance the books?

 

[EdwinWillers]

I always find the fact that the spending problem is the fault of the current President, who has been in office for 4 years hilarious. Seriously? Clinton was the last president to balance the books. Remind me what happened after that? I mean, who was in power after him and failed to continue to balance the books?

You really ought to take a gander at the OP before posting silly stuff like this. The Democrat Party's premise is that we don't have a spending problem, we have a "paying for it problem." In other words, the Democrats are blaming the Republicans for not allowing them to spend more money.

Notwithstanding that little tidbit, you might also want to take a gander at the Democrat party platform w/r to spending, borrowing, and taxing. You might find the truth there a tad awkward as well.

...jus sayin...

 

[Belk]

It's called a representative republic. In our case, Democrats tend to vote for all manner of entitlements and hand-outs and the attendant exorbitant taxes to pay for them (which they only use to spend on more entitlements and handouts) while Republicans tend to vote for less government spending and taxation. Sad thing is, once the Democrats spend all the money they can then turn around and whine "but we voted for it" and "but we spent it" and "...so we need to be 'responsible' folk and now pay for it" as if the problem were solely Republicans' fault.

Since when? I have yet to see a republican administration vote for less spending.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I always find the fact that the spending problem is the fault of the current President, who has been in office for 4 years hilarious. Seriously? Clinton was the last president to balance the books. Remind me what happened after that? I mean, who was in power after him and failed to continue to balance the books?

The trade deficit, which is the real problem, exploded during the Clinton (the Outsourcer-in-Chief) years.

Domestic spending isn't the problem, per se. It's printing or borrowing money that has disappeared into the global economy: "The Dollars That Will Never Return." (Queue the Kingston Trio.)

 

[kermit]

Most people don't have as much problem with government spending when you name the specific programs and measures that cost the most. What they don't like is paying for it.

Imagine that, people like the government to do things but would rather not pay for it.

It would be highly irresponsible for the leaders of the country to give them that option I think.

Ever notice that whenever Reps say they want to cut spending they are very vague and leave it up to others to say exactly what to cut. The reason is simple, if they know that even their most hardcore conservative constituents will get mad at cuts that affect them, but if they lob it across the aisle they can maintain their ideology without taking a hit for the specifics.

So when the person in the OP says we have "paying for it problem" she is 100% correct. Reps don't want to the pay for the government they helped to build and yet they are also unwilling to take the steps nessesary to reduce the cost of government.

The best part is that when a Rep does actually take a stand they criticize Dems when they try to enact their ideas like when Obama proposed the very level of Medicare cuts that Paul Ryan introduced in his budget.