Pay Go

1. 60

   Harvey Stelmanposted 15 years ago

   Well, there you go again. President wants pay go so we don't keep spending money. Stop saying Bush did it! Look in the mirror, and see what has happened to the defecit since you took office.
   
   If you don't know what this is, please read this. If the Government spends more money than it is supposed to, that money must be taken from an existing allotment a government program. The government may also rais your taxes.
   
   This is nothing new. The Democrat's are always for it, the Republican's always oppose it.
   
   The Kettle is calling the Pot black.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      chasingcarsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Oh really?  It seems to me that history will show that every time a Dem is in office, he leaves a surplus, but every time a GOP leaves office, say like in the last 8 years, we have a deficit to clean up.  You know the old joke, the worst job in the circus is cleaning up after the elephants.  Man up and take responsibility for sending this country into a downward spiral.   As to taxes, exactly how did you think we could get the deficit, the GOP deficit, under control without raising taxes?  B of A admonishes us not to quit our day job if we max out our credit cards.   We are in this mess now because Bush et al made money for their wealthy friends by waging two wars. ( Al Qaeda consists of about 100  dirty little scum.  Why are we wasting trillions to chase them around the globe}  Oh yeah, Bush's oil buddies and war hawks needed to make more money off of defense spending).  Incidentally, Bush bought his second election by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest  people in the world while running up the deficit.  He refused to pay as he went.  Reforms in place to prevent the banking meltdown were a result of your "fiscal conservatives."   Fiscal conservative, my ass.

      replyreport
   2. 68

      goldenpathposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, however, unfortuneately it seems to be increasingly comprimising on both sides of the aisle.  We are fast approaching a socialism form of government.  It has been said that a society's destiny of socialism and/or communism would not come all at once, but little by little until one day they are in the midst of it and are completely unaware of how they got there.  Pure deceit is how it comes about!  It is sad but our society's push toward apathy and "government entitlement" mentality is dangerous and supports not concept of self reliance or responsibility.  The ultimate goal of these initiatives is - dependence.  Dependence on any government creates the ultimate monster of communism and socialism.  It has been manifested many times before in like manner and eventually might just happen here in the United States and elsewhere.  Sad to see.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Deborah Sextonposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      OK so he is adding to the balance that was there before he got into office. Is he not suppose to spend anything?
      The problem existed a long time before he came along.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Harvey Stelmanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Deb,
         
         He is not forced to add anything. If he does add something, he can take away something. I had a Platform that reduces the debt year after year, and will put people to work. It also takes away foreign aid to countries that vote against us 70 or more % of the time, at the UN.
         
         Welfare is also killing the country. It was designed as a 2-3 year program. Train the people on it to work, as they work part time. Time up, that's it for the Welfare. No incentive to work breeds a consistancy. I had much more, but I an too ill to run.
         
         I was also NOT going to accept donations. If you were a supporter, volunteer. You never owe anything to anyone that way. It was to be an Internt campaign. I wrote a Hub on why I am not running. Some people wanted to volunteer. I posted it on a couple of other sites and I had representatives in 15 states, shocking!

         replyreport
2. 67

   MikeNVposted 15 years ago

   Surplus?  Why is the National Debt NEVER paid down?
   
   In 1980 it was LESS than 1 Billion.
   
   The National Debt is now over $12 Trillion.
   
   This is NOT a Party issue... both parties have increased the National Debt.
   
   A "surplus" is an imaginary number created as a Public Relations ploy.  It only applies to BUDGETS... not the actual accumulation of debt.
   
   Bush spent like crazy and Obama is spending even more.
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100214/ap_ … cit_crunch
   
   Short sighted people will look to blame one party or the other.  But the only real party is the Bankers who really run the system.
   
   Obama is Wall Streets best friend.  All he has done is reappoint the same people that Bush put into play.
   
   Both Rupublicans and Democrats work for the Bankers.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Harvey Stelmanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, Thanks for some reality.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      chasingcarsposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      You do know that the banking industry got its  bailout from the Bush administration?  Yeah?  Obama's people are trying to get banking reforms back in place but are stymied by the GOP party of no way.  Those restraints did come off during the Clinton administration, but "free to practice ususury trade" is a GOP issue.  Why do all of you fiscal conservatives complain about the bank bailout but resist the need to put a muzzle on those pigs? Personally, I think the best thing to have done with the banks is to loan them the money at 20% interest and slap fees and fines all over their sorry asses, but that's water under the bridge, and most of the  money has been paid back. We do better next time.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         A Texanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         How can a party that holds no power stymie the great wondrous Obama? I have said this before and will keep saying it, there was never a surplus if there was a debt!
         
         By the way, those 8 years that Clinton was president, Republicans were in control of Congress for 6 of them! They forced Clinton to balance the budget, not the other way around!

         replyreport
   3. 60

      Harvey Stelmanposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Mike,
      
      And the President works for Ben Bernanke (sp).

      replyreport