quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

because remember to the comrades desi, more government is good.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, it's an expenditures exceeding revenue problem.
On my planet, we call it "math."

And, what does your math say about revenues? Did they go up after the tax breaks?
And, yes, when expenditures exceed revenues, that's a problem. Why is it the only part of the equation anyone is serious about changing is the revenues? What that says is that they are perfectly okay with the level of spending. I disagree wholeheartedly. We have almost doubled expenditures since 2000. How can that be acceptable?!?

You're making shit up. I didn't say anything of the sort.
YOU said it was one side of the equation only -- expenditures.

I didn't make any shit up. Where did I say you said anything? Sounds like you're making this a tad bit personal.

And, the problem is on one side. It's the side no one in Washington seriously talks about: expenditures. Revenues are near or at record levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

because remember to the comrades desi, more government is good.

"making shit up"

Democrats Want Big Government Crony Socialism

Why do Democrats want big government?

The Democrats Want To 'Invest' Big In Big Government

Republicans vs. Democrats Views on Government Size

Democrats Answer to the Midterms: We Need a Bigger Government

the party of smaller government

After the Fiscal Cliff: What do Democrats Want? [hint: bigger government]

Do Democrats Favor Big Government? [hint: the answer is "yes"]

Why are Democrats Afraid of Limited Government

Government is Good - Why We Need More, Not Less, Government [pro democratic party]

should I go on??

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

yes I think I will comrades:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Seventy-two percent of Americans say big government is a greater threat to the U.S. in the future than is big business or big labor, a record high in the nearly 50-year history of this question."

quote:



Republicans Especially Likely to See Big Government as Threat

Even though Americans have always viewed big government as the greatest threat, the degree to which they do so has varied. In recent decades, since the start of the Clinton administration, perceptions of big government as a threat have varied depending on the party of the president. Since Barack Obama took office in 2009, an average of 64% of Americans have named big government as the greatest threat. That is up from an average 56% during George W. Bush's administration from 2001-2008, but similar to the 65% average from 1993-2000 during the Clinton administration.

This pattern is largely driven by Republicans, who generally are more likely to be concerned about the size and power of government, and this concern is amplified when a Democrat is president. Democrats are more likely to see government as a threat when a Republican is in office; however, they tend to see government as less threatening than Republicans do, and their concern about big government topped out at 62% in 2005 under Bush.



Each party group currently rates big government as the greatest threat to the country, including a record-high 92% of Republicans and 71% of independents, as well as 56% of Democrats. Democrats are most likely of the partisan groups to name big business as the biggest threat, at 36%; relatively few Republicans, 4%, view big business as the most threatening…

In the future, Americans likely will continue to view big government as the greatest threat of the three, partly because of Republicans' reluctance to rely on government to solve problems…

http://news.gallup.com/poll/166535/record-high-say-big-government-greatest-threat.aspx

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

We do need to cut spending. We can't afford to finance another war anytime soon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The GOP borrow and spend plan doesn't help either.

Any independent analysis will tell you resolving structural deficit/debt means ALL of:

- raise taxes
- cut expenses
- cut military spending
- adjust SS
- adjust Medicaid/care

There is NO dem or rep calling for that -- it's all partisan pieces, and blaming the other party when it doesn't work, even though it never could have worked.

It will continue as long as:

- politicians are irresponsible
- voters are gullible and short-sighted
- people like you are blindly partisan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Only here are people ridiculous enough to argue with deficit = revenue - expenditures.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, it's an expenditures exceeding revenue problem.
On my planet, we call it "math."

And, what does your math say about revenues? Did they go up after the tax breaks?
And, yes, when expenditures exceed revenues, that's a problem. Why is it the only part of the equation anyone is serious about changing is the revenues? What that says is that they are perfectly okay with the level of spending. I disagree wholeheartedly. We have almost doubled expenditures since 2000. How can that be acceptable?!?

Obviously, revenues is not the only part of the problem. But repubs in congress must think we don't need what revenues govt. gets now. So let's CUT revenues. [sic]

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
because remember to the comrades desi, more government is good.

"making shit up"
...
should I go on??

You can go on all you want but Reagan ended two terms with 7.2% of the population working for the govt.
Obama ended two terms with 6.9%. So just what was that again about dems wanting big govt. ?
HERE

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
The GOP borrow and spend plan doesn't help either.
Any independent analysis will tell you resolving structural deficit/debt means ALL of:
- raise taxes
- cut expenses
- cut military spending
- adjust SS
- adjust Medicaid/care
There is NO dem or rep calling for that -- it's all partisan pieces, and blaming the other party when it doesn't work, even though it never could have worked.
It will continue as long as:
- politicians are irresponsible
- voters are gullible and short-sighted
- people like you are blindly partisan

Well except the elephant in the room is the outlandish subsidies to fossil fuels, big agric. and big wall street banks to mention just a few. Those are the 'sacred cows' of repub policy.
Ya'know...the other welfare state.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I think it's time to take your grumpy meds again.
Jesus Christ man.

Expenditures or Revenues or both would change the bottom line. That doesn't seem to be in debate. Except when it is. Except that no one said that. Except it's only expenditures. Except no one said that either.
Go argue with the mirror for a while.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, it's an expenditures exceeding revenue problem.
On my planet, we call it "math."

And, what does your math say about revenues? Did they go up after the tax breaks?
And, yes, when expenditures exceed revenues, that's a problem. Why is it the only part of the equation anyone is serious about changing is the revenues? What that says is that they are perfectly okay with the level of spending. I disagree wholeheartedly. We have almost doubled expenditures since 2000. How can that be acceptable?!?

Obviously, revenues is not the only part of the problem. But repubs in congress must think we don't need what revenues govt. gets now. So let's CUT revenues. [sic]

It's the only part of the problem that those who have any power seriously want to talk about, though. The GOP idea that cutting tax rates will result in greater revenues isn't necessarily wrong (revenues have increased since the Bush Tax Cuts). Based on that assumption being correct, the GOP is talking about increasing revenues, but not really talking about cutting expenditures. The Democrats, on the other hand, really only talk about raising tax rates (under the assumption that doing so would result in increased revenues). The Democrats talk about expanding expenditures in some areas while reducing them in other areas. The Democrats demonized Bush for his ridiculous expenditure increases , but did so, not because of how much he increased spending, but because of what he increased spending for (they griped about war spending, stating that it would have been better spent on infrastructure; which is an acknowledgment that increased spending isn't bad - that the deficits weren't really what they were opposed to - as long as it's spending on what they think is right/good).

Even the "draconian spending cuts" of sequestration weren't really spending cuts, but reductions in future spending increases. Both parties want to cut spending on things they disagree with and increase it on things they agree with. Neither party wants to cut
actual spending levels.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
No, it's an expenditures exceeding revenue problem.
On my planet, we call it "math."

And, what does your math say about revenues? Did they go up after the tax breaks?
And, yes, when expenditures exceed revenues, that's a problem. Why is it the only part of the equation anyone is serious about changing is the revenues? What that says is that they are perfectly okay with the level of spending. I disagree wholeheartedly. We have almost doubled expenditures since 2000. How can that be acceptable?!?

Obviously, revenues is not the only part of the problem. But repubs in congress must think we don't need what revenues govt. gets now. So let's CUT revenues. [sic]

It's the only part of the problem that those who have any power seriously want to talk about, though. The GOP idea that cutting tax rates will result in greater revenues isn't necessarily wrong (revenues have increased since the Bush Tax Cuts). Based on that assumption being correct, the GOP is talking about increasing revenues, but not really talking about cutting expenditures. The Democrats, on the other hand, really only talk about raising tax rates (under the assumption that doing so would result in increased revenues). The Democrats talk about expanding expenditures in some areas while reducing them in other areas. The Democrats demonized Bush for his ridiculous expenditure increases , but did so, not because of how much he increased spending, but because of what he increased spending for (they griped about war spending, stating that it would have been better spent on infrastructure; which is an acknowledgment that increased spending isn't bad - that the deficits weren't really what they were opposed to - as long as it's spending on what they think is right/good).
Even the "draconian spending cuts" of sequestration weren't really spending cuts, but reductions in future spending increases. Both parties want to cut spending on things they disagree with and increase it on things they agree with. Neither party wants to cut
actual spending levels.

First, revenues decreased from Bush I until Clinton raised taxes (without a single repub vote in the senate) Then Bush II put in temporary tax cuts [sic] and revenues immediately went down and that surplus began to disappear. then we went into deficit.When Obama tried to raise taxes in 2010, the house and senate ignored him and threatened to shut the govt. down. Then because this was creating trillion yearly deficits we had a very small tax increase but no repub sacred cows suffered at all, while the social safety net took a hit.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

You can go on all you want but Reagan ended two terms with 7.2% of the population working for the govt.

Obama ended two terms with 6.9%. So just what was that again about dems wanting big govt. ?

HERE

quote:

This decline is largely a result of the financial crisis. With revenue in shorter supply, state governments which have a mandate to balance their budgets, cut staff.

quote:

The dictionary definition of greed is “having or showing an intense and selfish desire for something, especially wealth or power.” Many Democrats mistakenly believe that Republicans are greedy. Nonetheless, there is truth in numbers and statistics which show that Democrats are substantially more greedy than Republicans...

Generosity is willfully giving to others. Supporting a system that forces people to give their hard earned money to those who do not work as hard is not generous at all. It is greedy. When it comes to generosity, Democrats love to pretend they are more compassionate than Republicans. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk. Actions speak louder than words. Studies show that, on average, conservatives give 30% more of their income to charity than liberals. While Democrats assert that they want to help the poor, statistics show that they are less likely to do so. When it comes to volunteer work, people in Republican states donate more time than those in Democratic states. Republicans are also 18% more likely to donate blood. In fact, if liberals and moderates donated as much blood as conservatives, the blood supply in America would increase by 45%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

You can go on all you want but Reagan ended two terms with 7.2% of the population working for the govt.

Obama ended two terms with 6.9%. So just what was that again about dems wanting big govt. ?

HERE

talking with liberals is maddening.

as if those two numbers are statistically or even meaningfully different?

or more importantly, as if the % of the population working for the government is the only, or even the most important measure of the size of government.

as a general rule, at least in our lifetime, spending increases under all presidents but since you used Reagan and Obama, here is something more relevant:

for Obama in 2015, the federal expenditure per capita was close to $12,000. for Reagan, during most of his years, it was under $9,000.

https://www.mercatus.org/publication/rise-capita-federal-spending

I call that BIGGER GOVERNMENT and that's consistent with desi' point---the %'s are statistically equal, but because there are tens of millions more people in the country between Reagan and Obama, there were ~400,000 more government workers.

whats more, your forbes link only has Obama for 2012 and the authors reference how his smaller numbers were a result of the financial crisis:

quote:

This decline is largely a result of the financial crisis. With revenue in shorter supply, state governments which have a mandate to balance their budgets, cut staff.

so the forbes article has to do with federal, state and local governments---the latter two of which muddle the first and pretty much have nothing to do with the party of the president.