C
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Did Americans vote for trillion dollar deficits? Did we educate Americans what a trillion dollars means?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 said: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.
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.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.
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.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.
Isn't that the very definition of class warfare?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.
Yeah, but I felt it necessary it be explained, again - iykwim.Isn't that the very definition of class warfare?
Caution, common sense is in direct opposition to the state line.We've had a "paying for it" problem here occasionally. Know what we did? STOPPED SPENDING until we could afford it.
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.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?
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.
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?
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?