Is John Edwards a complete retard?

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tax revenues will never be high enough to accomodate the spending needs of Democrats.



[/ QUOTE ]Why did you single out Democrats in making this statement?

[/ QUOTE ]Well, good point. Republicans have just been going right along with them for the most part. I blame Democrats for driving the massive overspending. And I blame Republicans for not putting a dent in it when they had the chance.

Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand. And Republicans have caved for political reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never realized that the Bush era was actually characterized by the lilly livered Republicans caving in to the demands of the Democrats, even as they controlled Congress...

[/ QUOTE ]

One of Bush's biggest blunders was to give the Dems what they wanted early on with the hopes of winning them over. Prescription Drug Bill, No Child Left Behind, etc...

But in any case, I've seen some Republicans who want to cut spending. I've never seen a Democrat that did.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
...[no one] would claim that Republicans have coerced Democrats into spending more on the social programs that compose most of the federal budget.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to say that this doesn't sufficiently explain how you reached your previous conclusions.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...[no one] would claim that Republicans have coerced Democrats into spending more on the social programs that compose most of the federal budget.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to say that this doesn't sufficiently explain how you reached your previous conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood then, which conclusions are you referring to?

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
One of Bush's biggest blunders was to give the Dems what they wanted early on with the hopes of winning them over. Prescription Drug Bill, No Child Left Behind, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]
This is ridiculous. If you're talking about the "Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act," Democrats voted against it 189-16 in the House and 35-11 in the Senate. How can you say that this was "what Democrats wanted"?

[ QUOTE ]
But in any case, I've seen some Republicans who want to cut spending. I've never seen a Democrat that did.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, a ridiculous statement. It may be true that you have have never seen a Democrat that wanted to cut spending, but I assure you they exist.

[bdk3clash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...[no one] would claim that Republicans have coerced Democrats into spending more on the social programs that compose most of the federal budget.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to say that this doesn't sufficiently explain how you reached your previous conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood then, which conclusions are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]
Specifically, these:
[ QUOTE ]
Republicans have just been going right along with [Democrats] for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I blame Democrats for driving the massive overspending.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Republicans have caved [to Democrats on spending] for political reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the last part of your sentence: "unless you are unaware of the above or unaware of the deficit." I'm not disagreeing about the first part.


[/ QUOTE ]

In mentioning the deficit I was not arguing one way or the other for taxes or cuts in spending. I was merely mentioning it because the existence of the deficit alone, regardless of what you think of taxes, should remove any "wonder" why "anyone" would think taxes should be raised.

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the "needs" of the rich have something to do with it? Only for propaganda purposes. There is no substance to such an absurd idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is, but probably not if you're a libertarian

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
It may be true that you have have never seen a Democrat that wanted to cut spending, but I assure you they exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahahahah. Did you read that? They want to cut spending on boondoggles A, B and C so that their personal boondoggles X, Y and Z can be more adequately funded.

[ QUOTE ]
they reiterated a commitment not to cut off funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
significant new domestic spending, such as closing a much-criticized gap in the new Medicare prescription-drug benefit

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising taxes would certainly be an option

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
They have promised to halve interest rates for federal student loans, which would cost as much as $60 billion over five years. They want more money for border and port security, first responders and the National Guard. They say health programs for children and veterans need more cash to avoid dropping thousands of people from their rolls. And they want to extend some of the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire in 2010, including an expanded child credit, a reduction in the so-called marriage penalty and the new 10 percent tax bracket.

[/ QUOTE ]

Balancing the budget != cut spending

Increasing spending by less than the other guy wants to != cut spending (well, not to most people, though this certainly qualifies in Newspeak).

[bdk3clash]

I wasn't trying to argue whether Democrats (in general) want to "cut spending" or not, just that TomCollins's statement "I've never seen a Democrat that [wanted to cut spending]" was ridiculous.

The Washington Post article refers to Democrats' "plans to plug some of the most difficult holes in the current fiscal year by stripping funds for lawmakers' pet projects, known as earmarks, from the bills." I think this counts at "cutting spending."

If TomCollins specifically meant something else by "cutting spending" he should clarify and we can go from there.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...[no one] would claim that Republicans have coerced Democrats into spending more on the social programs that compose most of the federal budget.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's fair to say that this doesn't sufficiently explain how you reached your previous conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe I misunderstood then, which conclusions are you referring to?

[/ QUOTE ]
Specifically, these:
[ QUOTE ]
Republicans have just been going right along with [Democrats] for the most part.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I blame Democrats for driving the massive overspending.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...Republicans have caved [to Democrats on spending] for political reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe explaining this one, "Most of the total federal budget is composed of spending that Democrats vehemently demand." will cover the rest.



I think it's clear that a majority of the federal budget is composed of social programs that Democrats demand. Do I need to be more specific? Are you disputing that Democrats demand this spending (and more)? Do I not hear Democrats brag about how they had to "fight" for these programs for decades, facing stiff opposition from Republicans?

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the last part of your sentence: "unless you are unaware of the above or unaware of the deficit." I'm not disagreeing about the first part.


[/ QUOTE ]

In mentioning the deficit I was not arguing one way or the other for taxes or cuts in spending. I was merely mentioning it because the existence of the deficit alone, regardless of what you think of taxes, should remove any "wonder" why "anyone" would think taxes should be raised.

[/ QUOTE ]
It doesn't. The deficit could be eliminated very easily while cutting tax rates. And without cutting spending either, for that matter. Just limiting spending increases to the rate of inflation, or a little above, would eliminate the deficit in no time.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, the "needs" of the rich have something to do with it? Only for propaganda purposes. There is no substance to such an absurd idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is, but probably not if you're a libertarian

[/ QUOTE ]
I am. So it is irrelevent. I just think it's pretty convenient that everytime a politician even remotely represents my interests instead of acting against my interests, it's claimed that it's because of the "needs of the rich".

So is it even possible for me to be represented at all in government without you claiming that they're "for the rich"? (Without my changing my views on taxes, of course.)