Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

1. 79

   LiamBeanposted 12 years ago

   This country does in fact have a serious deficit problem. But the reality is that the deficit was caused by two wars - unpaid for. It was caused by huge tax breaks for the wealthiest people in this country. It was cause by a recession as result of greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall Street. And if those are the causes of the deficit, I will be damned if we're going to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children and the poor. That's Wrong! - Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Senate Budget Committee 11-19-2011

   replyreport
   1. 60

      steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Bernie is absolutely correct.....what is your question ?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Why would you assume that I had a question?

         replyreport
   2. 62

      Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The deficit isn't JUST the warfare. All those food stamps and college educations cost money as well
      
      A Depression can't be caused by "greed". Until you can show me some sort of "greed measurement" that can quantitatively show that greed suddenly spiked in 2007-9, then this argument is flawed.
      
      I fail to see how tax breaks lead to crashes. Can you spell that out for me?
      
      ... good sound byte, but it's full of flaws.

      replyreport
      1. 79

         LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         The cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are currently over one trillion two hundred ninety six billion dollars.
         
         The cost of food stamps is currently seventy four billion dollars. I'm not sure why you are including the cost of college education. This is always paid back by factors of ten or better.
         
         To put this into perspective the cost of food stamps represents not quite six percent of the total cost of these two wars.
         
         In short it's a very lopsided comparison, but you run with it if you wish. I'll be here to put some hard facts on your spin.
         
         As to "I fail to see where tax breaks lead to crashes," where exactly did Bernie Sanders say that? He is saying the poor and elderly should not be faced with paying back these expenses when they can little afford to. In fact I'd go so far as saying saddling the poor and elderly with this debt will ensure that it is never paid back.
         
         I am always highly amused when an opponent brings a false argument to the table when cold hard facts will not support their views.

         replyreport
         1. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Price of federal welfare:
            http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/wel … rt_40.html
            $600-800 billion / year.
            
            Price of warfare/defense:
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b … n_for_2012
            $800-900 Billion / year.
            
            Translation: Welfare and warfare are bleeding us dry. Quit acting like it's just warfare.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               but at least "federal welfare" has a positive human benefit...

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  no it really doesn't.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Let's all have another glass of Kool-Aid ...

                     replyreport
      2. 77

         lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         8 years of tax breaks to rich people (2003-2011) and laizze-faire gvt-- 2000-2008:
         
         CRASH!
         
         Proof is in the living of it. What else do we need?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            logic,commonsenseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I seem to remember that Obama signed an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
            When are you guys going to hold Obama responsible for his policies?  He's been in office 3 years, time for him to grow up and quit blaming Bush.
            During Bush's term there were at most 28 million people on food stamps.  So far during Obama's reign, over 47 million.  Course he loves it, makes more dependent on him and government.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Another false argument.
               
               Obama signed a bill that was passed by the Senate. He has a choice; sign it (like it or not) or veto it and watch it pass anyway.
               
               Don't you guys get tired of telling half-truths? I guess not!
               

               replyreport
         2. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            LAISSEZ FAIRE GOVERNMENT!?
            
            BE YE DAFT?!

            replyreport
            1. 62

               Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               REALLY?!?!?! YOU THINK THE US HAS A LAISSEZ-FAIRE ECONOMY?!?!
               
               ACH DU LIEBER GOTT!!

               replyreport
               1. 77

                  lovemychrisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Yes, most definately under all the Republicans, and Bush most recent. They look the other way..*wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge* to big business and big banks.
                  
                  Cheney's energy policy: OUR energy policy, decided by him and his oil cronies in a small room.
                  BP oil spill, Crash of the economy...lights on, but no one home.
                  
                  Who was that guy...Markopolis! HE can tell you all about it!

                  replyreport
      3. 60

         steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Two wars off the books ... blew out the deficit.  Social spending at least has a positive effect....Decry the "welfare state" all you want but ..bottom line -- people are helped.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Lest we forget. The right loves to characterize social security as a form of welfare too. Funny thing about that though; I've been paying into that for close to thirty years. I don't know of any form of welfare that requires advance payments of up to thirty years before use. Most other types of plans like that are called retirement savings.

            replyreport
         2. 62

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Social spending doesn't have a benefit.
            
            To think so is to think that theft is a good thing.

            replyreport
            1. 79

               LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               So you are saying that keeping old people and the very young alive has no benefit. Got it!

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry to break the news, but doing all of that costs a LOT of money. I know that we all love each other, and I would hate to have to make such a decision for one of my own family members...
                  
                  ... but pawning off the expenses onto the public is the EXACT SAME THING as a Corporate bailout. The individual (company or loved one) gets the benefit (living / profit), and the society takes the hit.
                  
                  You can't be anti-bailout and pro-welfare at the same time.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     LiamBeanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I gather from your statement "...but doing all of that costs a LOT of money. I know that we all love each other..." that you love money more than people.
                     
                     It's just paper man! It isn't even represented by something physical (gold) anymore. All it gets you is the ability to purchase objects that wear out, become obsolete, or cost even more money to maintain.
                     
                     People have more value because of their potential and their ability to look out for you when objects wont.

                     replyreport
            2. 60

               steveamyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Please take the Ayn Rand Objectivist stuff and get real...

               replyreport
               1. 62

                  Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I'm extremely sorry to have to be the one to inform you of this. It's a terrible shame that you have not been told this earlier.
                  
                  but...
                  
                  Economic laws still exist. I know liberals can't understand this, but it's very important.
                  
                  If government forces money from X into Y, then Y's prices have to go up, and the quality of X has to go down. In fact, because this reshuffling of resources causes a boom, Y's quality has to go down as well. Then people think they deserve Y (after all, they've been getting it at an artificially cheap price for about a century).
                  
                  Welfare has a damning effect on the economy. So does warfare.
                  Both are bailouts.
                  
                  I'm VERY sorry that Economics exists.

                  replyreport
2. 77

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   Because he didn't want to sign them then, and he wants to get rid of them now. In case you forget: Those tax cuts were a ploy by the R's to allow the continuation of unemployment insurance. Couldn't get one without the other: Compromise.
   
   And I blame 30+ years of pols...because they practiced Trickle Down and Laizze-Faire. It's R policies that are the problem.
   
   And if you want, I can get a graph that shows there were more peeps on food stamps with Bush than Obama....and no one ever called him the Food Stamp President...geee, I wonder why?
   
   You don't know WHAT Obama loves, unless and until he tells you. So please stop putting motives on to a person you don't know.

   replyreport
3. 60

   steveamyposted 12 years ago

   In the spirit of full disclosure ... I voted for Bernie last time and would again if I still lived in Vermont....If only..............

   replyreport
4. 93

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   I think Bernie should run for POTUS!

   replyreport