rms
Active Member
let alone the fact that US prosperity is largely based on interest and we funded every damn country after hahaha
A politicized Saint Nicholas is a grim taskmaster.
I feel like this is some kind of "coming out" for me. Most of my friends are pretty far left, and I'm going to lose a lot of respect from those friends by taking this position.
I feel like this is some kind of "coming out" for me. Most of my friends are pretty far left, and I'm going to lose a lot of respect from those friends by taking this position. I'm not the type to push people away over political disagreements, but I feel a need to speak my mind and at least let people know where I stand.
Republicans are and always have been all bark when it comes to the deficit. Their base likes it and a few of the Austrian School knuckle-draggers sincerely believe it. But they never follow through with it when they're in power, and, more often than not, they choose to explode the deficit instead.
I'd love for someone to convince me I'm wrong here, and I welcome any left-leaning UMers to try (though I won't reply till tomorrow as it's my bedtime). I want help bullet-proofing a position like this, because I'll inevitably have people in my life calling me out on it over and over for the foreseeable future.
So there you have it. A party that brags about theoretically supporting $6,454,000 million in spending cuts balks at actually cutting $16 million. Earlier this year, the same party replaced its hard-fought discretionary-spending caps with a spending blowout that will likely cost $1.5 trillion over the decade. And then on Thursday, House Republicans voted to continue spending $20 billion annually on welfare for large agribusinesses. No net cuts at all.
Total cost: $42.5 trillion in new proposals over the next decade, on top of the $12.4 trillion baseline deficit.
To put this in perspective, Washington is currently projected to collect $44 trillion in revenues over the next decade. And the Republican tax cut, decried universally by Democrats as irresponsible (and by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi as “Armageddon”) will cost less than $2 trillion over the decade.
The 30-year projected tab for these programs is even more staggering: new proposals costing $218 trillion, on top of an $84 trillion baseline deficit driven by Social Security, Medicare, and the resulting interest costs.
I'm interested in this purported overlap between the "financially draining strategies" and the "discriminatory strategies". Increasing the military budget and blocking transpersons is all that is coming to mind, and there isn't any direct connection there.