Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
Well Jim the truth is only the Democrats have ever done a balanced budget since Clinton . this is all smoke and mirrors keep believing the lies . like I said they only want to be fiscally responsible when the other parties in charge.
And of course you missed the point they don’t want to look for any money in the military budget . I said that was going to happen and presto not 2 days after the speaker was seated that’s the message from the GOP
They want to take it from Social Security Medicare and other programs that help all Americans That’s not even up for debate it’s a known fact
These clowns are not taking a Scalpel to balance the budget. Their going to use a chainsaw and a wood chipper and hostages to dismantle any form of what they see is social welfare in the country and replace it with nothing.
We know you’re excited like many other conservatives . Who’s only concern is that in the next 2 year they own the libs and feed every fantasy from hunters laptop to the federal government being weaponized against the American people.. it’s not a search of Truth
It’s all well choreographed play. They will drag out in till 2024 in hopes of influencing the election While claiming transparency…
The worst part is Jim we’ve all seen the movie before
|
"Well Jim the truth is only the Democrats have ever done a balanced budget since Clinton"
When, after Bill Clinton was president, did the democrats balance the federal budget?
Look, I have said many times I give the GOP a big fat F on this issue. When campaigning, republicans claim to want a balanced budget, then once elected, they fail to deliver.
But if you're trying to say that democrats are more fiscally responsible than republicans, I'm not sure Americans would buy it.
"They want to take it from Social Security Medicare "
SS and Medicare are rapidly going broke. It's very easy to say they shouldn't be cut. Tell me where the money comes from.
Democrats have never cut social security and medicare? Democrats have never raised the minimum age to get benefits, which is a cut?
WDMSO, due respect, but maybe you spent too much time in the public sector where you just expect the money will be always there because it's confiscated, and not enough time in the private sector, where you learn that there are limits to what you can spend, you can't spend more than there is. That's not an attempt at giving you the middle finger, it's just an observation based on your consistent comments that there's an endless supply of money.
The surplus in SS is running out. So either we raise taxes meaningfully, or we cut benefits. We've known this was coming for 40 years, and we've done nothing, because we elect people who are pretty and famous, not people who actually know how to solve problems.
SS can not continue as is for long, it's going to be bankrupt in about 14 years. Either we keep benefits where they are and enact big tax hikes to pay for it, or we reduce benefits to what can be funded. That's called "reality".
Both parties have chosen to ignore that reality, because they didn't want to speak unpopular truth.
If you're opposed to cutting benefits, that's a great bumper sticker. But it doesn't tell us how you'd pay for it.
How much debt are you comfortable with leaving to future generations? Is there any limit?
"The worst part is Jim we’ve all seen the movie before"
Yes we did. The Russia hoax investigation.
Social Security was designed to help people in the last years of their lives. It wasn't built to fund decades of greens fees for huge numbers of Baby Boomers. But cowardly politicians wanted those votes, so they chose not to reign it in.
It became a Ponzi Scheme, that's exactly what it is, and those all meet the same inevitable ending. This is why teachers unions cunningly got their teachers exempt from this awful trap.