I love a good rant, especially when it's right. I flipped it over to MSNBC this morning and within 3 seconds I heard Russia Russia Russia. Then I flipped it over to CNN and they were making excuses why it's a bad idea to end wars in the Middle East. Strange times. I think they don't like Russians now because they're not socialists anymore. As for being war hawks, I guess they get as much or more kickbacks than the neocons.
No, the responsible thing to do is to steal assets from other countries, such as with Libya and now Venezuela. I mean, what else do we have that $700 billion military for?
What do you propose be done with excess FICA contributions and the $161B is the OMB official deficit number. Even if we go with your made up one the Democrats never even came close. So back to which party has at least the better record?
I'm with you on cutting spending but you're crazy if you claim that trump's hands are tied. It is not a fact that trump has no control. He could push it as a platform position. He could shut down the government if he doesn't get a balanced budget. He could propose plans to reign in spending. But no. That would require trump do more than speak out of his a**hole. Instead we get bullshit government closures over a GD STUPID WALL!
Honestly, the party/ies who reduced the debt to GDP by 10% in the 90's. By 10%......TEN PERCENT and since Trump entered the Oval Office, the debt to GDP has been reduced by (.1%), POINT ONE PERCENT, thus, by an irrelevant percentage compared to the 90's, however, only the partisan sickos will keep chanting "Trump lowered the Debt to GDP".
This is wrong. I don't want 1 cent from anyone. I only want to keep what I've already earned. The fact is that the government needs a budget. We can argue about what makes something a worthwhile expenditure but not that we need to raise some money. If we can agree on that, I propose that the rich provide almost all of that money.
The point was that Trump's and Congress's hands are tied by the LW-Democrat hegemony in MSM, not by any law. I thought that was quite clear from the post you quoted. Just look at the MSM howling shitstorm when Turtle vaguely mentioned the necessity of some kind of future social program reform to reduce spending. The threads here and throughout the vomit pit of the Complex MSM and LW sewer pipe were numerous and instantaneous, doesn't matter that they were lies. "MCCONNELL TAKING AWAY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE!!" Only an abject moron of a GOP POTUS or Congress with a death wish would attempt meaningful budget cuts in that environment. The LW Democrat gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM DID THAT, created that toxic spew of lies in which reasonable policy changes and spending cuts can't even be discussed.
Yes Gingrich and Kaisch and a Republican congress which actually produced surpluses A reduction no less but GDP and government debt are not intrinsically tied together. And as I said I am all for electing more CONSERVATIVE Republicans to get back the fiscal management of the Republicans 1996 - 2007. You're certainly not going to find them on the Democrat side. Debt to GDP https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp And again What do you propose be done with excess FICA contributions and the $161B is the OMB official deficit number. What would be your plan?
Wrong again as I posted in many other threads but you refuse to discuss it so don't waste my time here.
They no longer talk. They spend like drunken sailors as do the dims. People like Rand Paul are ridiculed.
Bush and the Republicans cuts tax rates and revenues exploded hitting a record 15% increase and with their spending restraint lowered the deficit to a paltry $161B heading to surplus again. You can argue all you want about other policy but the fiscal record is clear and indisputable. And yes troops were pulled out and the Democrats went on a spending spree and two years later the deficit was $1,400B a multiple of almost 9x. And we got nothing for it. I'm not a Republican and challenging someone's honesty for lack of rebuttal will get your post deleted. Try refuting what I actually post.
Your statement, above, is riddled with lies. Supplemental spending bills are not "off the books" and on-budget/off-budget spending increases the debt in exactly the same way.
What you have is a position of convenience. You are proposing theft and condoning irresponsibility. As you are pointing your finger at those who have more than you, keep in mind that allowing irresponsibility will eventually lead to fingers pointing at you. Globally, you are in the top percentage of wealth. I propose that everything you make over $10K is taxed at 90%. Pay up!
Quote: "Yes Gingrich and Kaisch and a Republican congress which actually produced surpluses" AND Yes, in the 90's, FICA excess contributions were huge, well above $100 billion, in today's dollar, well above $150 billion, AND TODAY, excess contributions have vanished. Clinton also raised the fuel tax, and the top tax rate, thus, WE THE PEOPLE balanced Clinton's budgets.
Clinton increased tax rates and revenue growth SLOWED. While Gingrich and Kaisch lowered tax rates and capital gains and income tax revenues soared and hit double digit increases. It wasn't FICA contributions. And again what do you want done with excess FICA contributions?
nope.....................https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296
Nope those were Democrat budgets as I have educated you on for years. And the last 4 years of Clinton's terms were Republican budgets. CONGRESS controls the budgets not the President, basic civics. Total folly to look at ONLY who was President as if they were kings and controlled the entire government. From your cite George W. Bush: Added $5.849 trillion, a 101 percent increase from the $5.8 trillion debt at the end of Clinton's last budget, FY 2001. FY 2009 - $1.632 trillion. This was Bush's deficit without the impact of the Economic Stimulus Act. FY 2008 - $1.017 trillion. Nope, Pelosi and Reid budgets and 2009 signed by Obama with HIS $800B Economic Stimulus. "In FY2009, Congress did not complete work by September 30, 2008. President Bush did sign some appropriations bills and a continuing resolution to keep the government running into President Obama’s first term, yet a Democrat controlled Congress purposely held off on the big spending portions of the appropriations bills until Obama took office. They did so for the purposes of jacking up spending. President Obama signed the final FY2009 spending bills on March 11, 2009. The Democrats purposely held off on the appropriations process because they hoped they could come into 2009 with a new Democrat-friendly Congress and a President who would sign bloated spending bills. Remember, President Obama was in the Senate when these bills were crafted and he was part of this process to craft bloated spending bills. CQ reported that “in delaying the nine remaining bills until 2009, Democrats gambled that they would come out of the November 2008 elections with bigger majorities in both chambers and a Democrat in the White House who would support more funding for domestic programs.” And they did. The Truth about President Obama's Skyrocketing Spending "Unlike last year, when Bush forced Democrats to accept lower spending figures, this year could prove more difficult for the president. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1, less than four months before he leaves office. "He doesn't have us over a barrel this year, because either a President Clinton or a President Obama will have to deal with us next year," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We are not going to be held hostage to the unreasonableness of this president." Much of the president's plan has little chance of passage, lawmakers and budget experts say. Nearly $200 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings need congressional approval, which Democrats are unlikely to provide. "Dead on arrival," vowed Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-03-bush-budget_N.htm
nope. none of those budgets were passed with a veto proof majority. the president has the final say in that instance. And, as you were shown, republicans outspend and increase the debt by orders of magnitude more than democrats.
Nope they were Democrat budgets as I proved to you. 2008 was a negotiated budget with Bush wanting less spending and the Democrats more spending as I proved in my cite. Budgets don't belong to Presidents no matter the Congressional makeup. But do explain how Bush could have vetoed the Democrats 2009 budget.