Who's on the right VS who's on the left
- Thread starter medicineman
- Start date
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
The reason that I have to consider myself a Dem is more with regards to human rights. The fiscal differences between republican and dems are a joke, because there is almost no difference.
Historically the Dems have been the ones calling for reduction in military spending. And everytime they get shot down for 'not protecting the nation'.
Meanwhile Regan spent trillions on the cold war, but the republicans like to say that was what won the cold war. While other times they want to say that socialism failed and was why the Soviet Union failed. They both can be reasons, but really if they wouldn't have spent the same trillions on nukes they would have failed anyway. And we would not be stuck with over 3000 nukes that are 90% worthless (other 10% is a scare tactic).
You said:Yes, Han, of course I know what a balanced budget is...
What is MORE important is the GDP in relation to the budget, regardless of spending. Kapish?????
Taxes are what the government brings in. If the budget is balanced then the taxes will equal the spending. Unfortunantly that has not been the case except for Clinton.
So it is only under Clinton that a president has put out a budget that did not spend more than it brought in and was fiscally responsible. Regan, Bush 1, Bush 2 all spent spent spent, while cutting taxes (only to have to raise taxes later to make up for outspending what they were bringing in).
In GDP Government spending is the only thing that affects the number, not taxes GDP = C+I+G+(X-IM). C= consumption, I, actual capital investment (nothing to do with money), G= Government spending (not transfer of payments (SS)), X= Exports, IM is imports. It is counting (only once since it is only finished goods to not get inflated) the income of the nation. That is why we make $14.4 trillion a year as a country. Taxes are not in consumed (since you cannot spend them as they are gone) but what the government spends is based off of those taxes.
If taxes are lowered consumption goes up (more money), if taxes are increased it goes into government spending, so it doesn't changed GDP.
Taxes affect the money multiplier model.
Yeq= (1.0/(1.0-mpc(1.0-t)+im)) * [Co-mpc(To)+I+G+X-IMO]
C= Total income + .9 (GDP-T {taxes} on and on.
CrackerJax
New Member
So as a whole reducing the military is good? 
Naive.
Naive.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/22/business/22defense.htmlSo as a whole reducing the military is good?
Naive.
Yeah with projects like that it is good to do.
Notice how during the presidencies of the Dems the spending goes down.
No government has attacked us since pearl harbor, and we saw what happened to them. We are not going to win a war with terrorists, or small bands of people with aircraft carriers, and nukes. We don't need to spend near as much as we do.
But that does not mean we just stop all together. We still could take large steps to cutting the spending and still have more than enough firepower.
CrackerJax
New Member
Yes, the defense spending goes down with democrats.... it's one of the problems with them. We all agree there.
This is the knee jerk reaction to losing the Vietnam War for America. Guilt goes a long way, and every time the dem's get a chance to slash defense....they do. Doesn't seem to matter if they cut vital programs that later on would have served us well... no no...just as long as it LOOKS like they are for peace... even though the very projected weakness invites conflict later.
Yes, cutting the nations defenses down is an ADMIRABLE task!!!! Getting rid of our best fighter EVER is a great LEAP FORWARD!!!!
Lawdy........
This is the knee jerk reaction to losing the Vietnam War for America. Guilt goes a long way, and every time the dem's get a chance to slash defense....they do. Doesn't seem to matter if they cut vital programs that later on would have served us well... no no...just as long as it LOOKS like they are for peace... even though the very projected weakness invites conflict later.
Yes, cutting the nations defenses down is an ADMIRABLE task!!!! Getting rid of our best fighter EVER is a great LEAP FORWARD!!!!
Lawdy........
medicineman
New Member
Maybe if we quit trying to be the worlds policemen, (For protecting the interests of the corporations abroad), and just acted in the defense of our soverign soil, our actual country with borders, similar to what the rest of the world trys to do, we could eliminate about 90% of the rediculous defense budget and use that money to better our life here at home. We have plenty of defense mechanisms to defend our borders and strike out at any invaders at their roots, no need to keep boots on the ground in over 130 countries, this is total insanity.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Ok republican. You need to first realize that there has not been a 'cutting of a vital program' yet in any presidency.
Second you talk so tough about taxes = slavery and jump on a very large area that could save America a ton of money with still allowing for many benefits. Especially when no foreign nation is going to attack us, because we are so far away. And the things that we do have don't just disappear because we are not spending on more of them.
How can you call a jet that has NEVER SEEN COMBAT our best fighter ever?
Face it republican. You are just arguing to argue.
cbtwohundread
Well-Known Member
to be seperated when knowing the outcome of seoeration, which is always frustration.,.,i call the wrong side idiots because theres nothing RIGHT about them.,.,and i call the left wing party dunces because they LEFT unity,for vanity
Operation 420
Well-Known Member
I'm for the Humanity Party.
medicineman
New Member
Me too..................BTW, I think they would be for universal health care.
cbtwohundread
Well-Known Member
people power,.,.,.were the only truth and rite.,.,even my left hand is right,.,.,so i cant spite,.,only love and irie ites
ViRedd
New Member
I'm for the party that respects the rights of the individual.
The Warlord
Well-Known Member
CrackerJax
New Member
Don't worry, China is setting up the board for a run at our King. You won't have to worry in the future. We'll see whose military presence you prefer.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
I'm a Californian. Fifth generation. I'm for secession of the West Coast, and have been for over 40 years. Everyone can join us, except Utah, and Washington DC. The USA is doomed, as long as it allows wealth to be concentrated in a few hands with the help of Congress and the GOP.(Reagan, Bush, Bush tax cuts).
Wouldn't hurt to put all lawyers to good use as shark bait, while we're at it.
Wouldn't hurt to put all lawyers to good use as shark bait, while we're at it.
CrackerJax
New Member
Heh, you better leave the union AFTER you get a bail out.
veggiegardener
Well-Known Member
California's budget problems will end, the day we secede. Right now, we're paying about $60,000,000,000.00 more to the Feds than we receive in services. We've also got more than our share of missile silos! The Constitution is perfect, but those elected to uphold it are lawyers, mostly, which makes the system unworkable. They're trained to find loopholes, not to uphold the law.
JustAnotherFriedDay
Well-Known Member
You call anyone who has a desire to be free and to succeed in life and have a great family who all succeed in life a bunch of right wing extremists. That's not right wing extremism, that's simply the DESIRE the entire country was founded on.
It's a pretty natural human desire as well...med are you human? You can be honest, no one here would be surprised if you said no anyways.
Merry xmas
CrackerJax
New Member
Folks like med Man fall into jealousy quite easily.
Almost everyone who achieves in this country has done so by EARNING what they make.
Don't be jealous, just apply urself.
If or when U do, you will then realize ur greatest enemy today is ... the government.
Almost everyone who achieves in this country has done so by EARNING what they make.
Don't be jealous, just apply urself.
If or when U do, you will then realize ur greatest enemy today is ... the government.
America will never be as prosperous as it could. The republicans have done a great job convincing the middle class that it is the poor keeping them from advancing. As if your oh-so benevolent bosses wish they could give out raises or hire more members of the community but can't because they are stuck paying for some out of staters social services. The middle class is depressed as a direct result of republican tax policy favouring the wealthy top 1-2%. The richest of the rich have had their day in the sun and seen the top income tax rate go from 90% to 36%. Benifets and wages have been depressing not because there is less money to go around, but because the richest of the rich have so much they don't know what to do with it. Well, they know one thing, your not getting it and if a government tries to redistribute any more of it than they already do there is an army of subjugated lower and former middle class people (the republican rank and file) ready to fight for their rights to be pushed around by the rich.