FDXLAG

What do you want to bet the federal government will spend more real dollars in 2015 than in 2014 than in 2013 than in 2012.

Busboy

We all will. If we can get another 3%.

JamesNoBrakes

Well, here's the problem. Two ideologies, in some respects very similar, and in others very different.

1. Increase military spending, oil subsidies, general defense research and grants, maybe nasa, border patrol, etc. Make broad cuts to many services and programs. To pay for this, "close some loopholes" and bet on economic prosperity (otherwise the numbers don't work out).

2. Keep military and other programs at current levels, increase spending for infrastructure, education, and some other things. Make broad cuts to many services and programs. End bush era tax cuts. Increase tax rates on top income earners. Bet on current growth levels and make the math work out with the tax increases and cuts to net the right numbers.

Would the cut-taxes-and-hope for economic prosperity work? Maybe. Maybe is about the best we can do with so many conflicting ways to interpret results over the years and tax brackets. Do companies hire more workers, or do they buy more machines that can do the do the work of more people? Or if taxed at a higher rate, do they "find a way" through ingenuity and hard work to bring themselves back up and make even more money? You can argue this all day long, but in the end there are several pieces of evidence that can go either way.

Both of these ideologies are "increase government spending in some areas, and cut programs in others". The difference is that one seeks to recoup more money in taxes, the other doesn't and "hopes" the money will be there from increased revenue.

The reason you don't get it is that you're bombarded with the information about people on food stamps, programs, and so on, and you think that's why people voted the way they did. Maybe for a small percentage that is true, but I guarantee by and large, it's not. That's a cop-out to allow you to keep thinking the ideology of "well they are lazy and don't work".

Wasn't there another thread on this board where someone was ticked off that a family was buying name-brand ketchup or something with food stamps? I mean seriously? I doubt their lifestyle is good enough to want to switch and you'd never want to take their place in 100 yrs. That's the kind of attitudes that seem prevalent, and I can't fathom why there's so much hate for that. It's not like they are driving around in bmws, flying first class (if ever flying), living in luxury suites, etc.

JamesNoBrakes

kinda like the "projected revenue" based on "faster economic recovery" that was going to be used to spend money on programs like defense? I think that's one of the biggest issues with the romney plan, it wasn't using real money to fund it. It was using projected money. Politicians do this all the time, so it's not by party, just that this time the amount far exceeded anything else being discussed.



I'd agree with you 100%. I think the best we can hope for is that the rate of increase slows. If that could happen, then we might get somewhere. Inflation and cost of living all make the dollar amounts rise from year to year, also the "charge-card" aspect of the wars we fought affected that for many of the previous years, so I wouldn't doubt that they'll spend more real dollars. Politicians have a way of making it sound like we are "cutting" programs when we freeze the amount from year to year, and that we are "increasing them" when we move to the next fiscal year and the slightly higher projected cost, all to suit their flavor at the moment. Sometimes these are accurate statements, sometimes not.

Flightnurse

Why are they anti-value voters? Many of my non-christan freinds have a value system similar to mine. If we tout liberty and freedom we most accept that others may have different ideas than ourselves. A few can not dictate the values of a society. Free will is our gift.
Within christianity we have many denominations with many different ideas. Taking the stand that my way is the only right way and my values are the only right values pushes many people away.

I am a person of faith and I do not fear our government, I embrace it. Just the fact that we can have these discussions is an example of the freedom we can enjoy.

HIFLYR

The reason you don't get it is that you're bombarded with the information about people on food stamps, programs, and so on, and you think that's why people voted the way they did. Maybe for a small percentage that is true, but I guarantee by and large, it's not. That's a cop-out to allow you to keep thinking the ideology of "well they are lazy and don't work".

I do not believe your guarantee if it is true why are there generations on welfare and assisted living? In my town some guy fathered 25 kids to different women and will not pay child support who do think is paying for all of this.

How about we means test anyone receiving welfare, assisted living or any other "free" government program for those who are either Illegals or scamming the system then come to me for more tax money.

How about one option you left out stop all unnecessary spending and see what that gives us it is usually the first thing someone does when times are hard.

JamesNoBrakes

So you would have the kids put down?

jungle

Both sides are in a carnival so far from fiscal reality they may as well be on another planet. This is because few have looked at the actual numbers.

Debt 16 trillion plus, unfunded liabilities around 200 trillion: odds of this working-Zero.

All of this is, to use the trite cliche-just working out the seating arrangement on the Titanic.

It makes for a nice fantasy though.

HIFLYR

Do not out words in my mouth. I am simply showing that what you say is a small problem is a much bigger one. How about this you can have one kid while on government assistance and then if you have any additional kids your payments do not go up. How many other peoples children should we have to pay for.

JamesNoBrakes

I wrote out a nice long reply to that, but I decided to delete it. I agree there should be incentives against having 25 kids or whatever, no question.

My question is, what if they have one kid, assistance, sh*t happens (could be for a variety of reasons, in some cases taking/adopting from an abusive family member, as is the case with one of my friends, but I disgress) and they have a 2nd one. If the money doesn't go up to support that 2nd kid, what happens to it?

It also kind of sounds like having kids is something only the rich are allowed to do? I also don't disagree that it should be based on your economic ability to support them, but just you try to take away the middle-classes deductions for having kids, haha. (but see, I support both of those things).