Here in OK Republicans can do no wrong. It's sad to see that mindset. I have a resentment toward taxes because the people budgeting are doing such a poor job. It isn't that I don't understand we...
At some point I would hope that Republican voters will push back against the continuous runaway spending of the GOP whenever they take control of Washington, but I think it's been pretty clear all along that GOP voters and leadership only apply those standards to the Democrats.
Here in OK Republicans can do no wrong. It's sad to see that mindset.
I have a resentment toward taxes because the people budgeting are doing such a poor job. It isn't that I don't understand we need to fund things, but the budgets are garbage. Especially here in OK on the state level. They got all of this money from casinos at one point and the money was supposed to go into all of these things, but that money vanished... I am usually opposed to higher taxes because I know they won't be put to the best use.. But I'd pay a little more if they'd budget smartly.
The thing with Trump's spending is a large part of the American people won't let him just say, "This was a bad idea and we aren't going to do it." Even people who agree it is a bad idea. They will just use it as a way to attack and say, See he isn't fulfilling promises! Even after agreeing that what he promised was a bad idea.
Unrelated, but what's with the blue dot? On the front page, it appears before the discussion title, and on the discussion page it appears before the link URL.
Unrelated, but what's with the blue dot? On the front page, it appears before the discussion title, and on the discussion page it appears before the link URL.
You only rail against the opposing party, never your own. When, in the last 30 years, has a Republican president done this? Republicans want to reduce the income of the government and cut spending...
Where all the tea party activists and other Republicans who railed against Obama for 8 years over the Federal deficit and budget?
You only rail against the opposing party, never your own.
This was supposed to be our time to finally tighten our belts, put our fiscal house in order, and pass budgets as part of regular order.
When, in the last 30 years, has a Republican president done this?
Republicans want to reduce the income of the government and cut spending to programs that don't receive a very large share of the budget anyways. Democrats want to increase the income of the government and expand the smaller programs.
In the end all that usually happens is that both parties typically increase the deficit, just through different means.
At some point I would hope that Republican voters will push back against the continuous runaway spending of the GOP
If you're a Democrat, are you slamming the Democratic party for expanding more than the budget allows? Both parties typically rack up the deficit. The Republicans just tend to do it faster, and in a way that benefits the rich rather than the middle class and poor.
Me, personally, I guess I don't care about deficits much at the Federal level, since money doesn't mean the same thing to the federal government as it means to you and me, or even state and local...
Me, personally, I guess I don't care about deficits much at the Federal level, since money doesn't mean the same thing to the federal government as it means to you and me, or even state and local governments.
That said, I wish the deficits were expanding for the kinds of thing the democrats (sometimes) stand for: taking care of regular folks and folks who can't take care of themselves, and protecting the environment. Instead, the tax cuts greatly benefit those who need them the least, especially in a couple years when the "middle class" bracket cuts expire (but the upper bracket cuts persist forever).
Instead, we have a massive military budget, larger than the pentagon even asks for, funding bs like the f35, and Appalachian folks dying of fentanyl overdoses in epidemic numbers.
Completely agreed. Our military is bigger than the combined military of the next 5 biggest militaries. We can stand to cut back a lot. The problem is, because its so big, that's a lot of jobs we'd...
Completely agreed. Our military is bigger than the combined military of the next 5 biggest militaries. We can stand to cut back a lot. The problem is, because its so big, that's a lot of jobs we'd be losing. People holding these jobs right now can vote, and are going to vote for people who preserve their livelihood. This is completely understandable. If we ever plan on reducing military spending, we need to have a solid plan to keep these individuals employed (or create new jobs for them), and I have no idea how that might look.
The most credible proposal I've run across is a federal jobs guarantee, which is increasingly popular among the progressive wing of the Democrats. The way I look at it, the military plus the...
we need to have a solid plan to keep these individuals employed (or create new jobs for them), and I have no idea how that might look.
The most credible proposal I've run across is a federal jobs guarantee, which is increasingly popular among the progressive wing of the Democrats.
The way I look at it, the military plus the defense contracting industry is already a huge federal jobs program. I'm in favor of decoupling it from the military, not ending the jobs program entirely.
While this helps, and is absolutely necessary, someone currently making $20/hr or more (including benefits) is going to look at this and prefer the status quo. It's a hard sell. I like the middle...
While this helps, and is absolutely necessary, someone currently making $20/hr or more (including benefits) is going to look at this and prefer the status quo. It's a hard sell. I like the middle ground that this is trying to find, and I suppose the hope is that they can pull enough centrist voters to the platform and slowly erode the defense spending. But I don't see it happening anytime soon with politics so polarized in the senate and house.
Here in OK Republicans can do no wrong. It's sad to see that mindset.
I have a resentment toward taxes because the people budgeting are doing such a poor job. It isn't that I don't understand we need to fund things, but the budgets are garbage. Especially here in OK on the state level. They got all of this money from casinos at one point and the money was supposed to go into all of these things, but that money vanished... I am usually opposed to higher taxes because I know they won't be put to the best use.. But I'd pay a little more if they'd budget smartly.
The thing with Trump's spending is a large part of the American people won't let him just say, "This was a bad idea and we aren't going to do it." Even people who agree it is a bad idea. They will just use it as a way to attack and say, See he isn't fulfilling promises! Even after agreeing that what he promised was a bad idea.
I'd be so relieved I wouldn't care. The wall isn't going to happen anyway.
Unrelated, but what's with the blue dot? On the front page, it appears before the discussion title, and on the discussion page it appears before the link URL.
Oh, so it is. Who thought that was distinctive?
You only rail against the opposing party, never your own.
When, in the last 30 years, has a Republican president done this?
Republicans want to reduce the income of the government and cut spending to programs that don't receive a very large share of the budget anyways. Democrats want to increase the income of the government and expand the smaller programs.
In the end all that usually happens is that both parties typically increase the deficit, just through different means.
If you're a Democrat, are you slamming the Democratic party for expanding more than the budget allows? Both parties typically rack up the deficit. The Republicans just tend to do it faster, and in a way that benefits the rich rather than the middle class and poor.
Me, personally, I guess I don't care about deficits much at the Federal level, since money doesn't mean the same thing to the federal government as it means to you and me, or even state and local governments.
That said, I wish the deficits were expanding for the kinds of thing the democrats (sometimes) stand for: taking care of regular folks and folks who can't take care of themselves, and protecting the environment. Instead, the tax cuts greatly benefit those who need them the least, especially in a couple years when the "middle class" bracket cuts expire (but the upper bracket cuts persist forever).
Instead, we have a massive military budget, larger than the pentagon even asks for, funding bs like the f35, and Appalachian folks dying of fentanyl overdoses in epidemic numbers.
Completely agreed. Our military is bigger than the combined military of the next 5 biggest militaries. We can stand to cut back a lot. The problem is, because its so big, that's a lot of jobs we'd be losing. People holding these jobs right now can vote, and are going to vote for people who preserve their livelihood. This is completely understandable. If we ever plan on reducing military spending, we need to have a solid plan to keep these individuals employed (or create new jobs for them), and I have no idea how that might look.
The most credible proposal I've run across is a federal jobs guarantee, which is increasingly popular among the progressive wing of the Democrats.
The way I look at it, the military plus the defense contracting industry is already a huge federal jobs program. I'm in favor of decoupling it from the military, not ending the jobs program entirely.
While this helps, and is absolutely necessary, someone currently making $20/hr or more (including benefits) is going to look at this and prefer the status quo. It's a hard sell. I like the middle ground that this is trying to find, and I suppose the hope is that they can pull enough centrist voters to the platform and slowly erode the defense spending. But I don't see it happening anytime soon with politics so polarized in the senate and house.
I would be 100% on board with that