Liberals, Which is more important, feeding our hungry, or cutting our national deficit?

Question

Because clinton cut funding to social programs in order to achieve his "surplus". (not to mention raised taxes).

So I don't understand why some of you still cry about the deficit after Bush put money back into those programs.

And now he is announcing deficit reduction ahead of schedule, while lowering taxes, and funding those programs.

Answer 1

Question, why did you delete one of your questions not soon after I answered? Were you that afraid of challenging what I said? Or do you consider yourself above that, but low enough to continue to attack Liberals simply for being Liberals?

I feel about as much love, let alone respect, for someone who hates people not like him as I do Hitler or "Bloody" Mary Tudor.

God save you.

Answer 2

The deficit numbers mask the broader problem, which is that the government is using so much in surplus Social Security taxes that it eventually must repay. When that is added to the official deficit numbers, the country had an additional $550 billion in debt last year. "It's amazing how word games have been used to hide from the American people how serious our fiscal situation really is. All of the happy talk is just that." He did not cut the amounts that Bush has and he did not raise taxes on the average American. Oh and feeding the hungry is more important to me!

Answer 3

I honestly don't think most Americans have any problems with Bush's fiscal policy. I think the frustration over no end in sight of this terrorist crap is the basis of all the discontent.
In the upcoming elections, it's not the conservative or liberal voters who are coming to determine the direction the political landscape will go. It's the swing vote or the moderates who will determine the elections outcome.
Everybody here keeps arguing between liberal and conservative. Neither of you are ever going to convince the other you're right and they're wrong.
It really would be nice, speaking as a moderate, to hear the opposing sides start stating your cases without bashing each other. Reading some of the posting here makes a person think that neither Republicans nor Democrats have enough brains to even run the country.

Answer 4

Are you talking about this:
In August of 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers, while cutting taxes on 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90 percent of small businesses.[7] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, and the implementation of spending restraints.

President Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people.[22]

The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever

The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993

Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).[18

Answer 5

Clinton raised taxes at a time when the middle-class was not already suffering. What we need now is for EVEN MORE money to be pumped into these social programs. Then if people can get back on their feet, we will vote on whether or not to raise taxes.

Answer 6

The one bill passed that Clinton and his administration point to as their pride and joy and the thing they claim that helped the economic boom during his term was a bill raising taxes. That in turn helped cause a large part of the recession that Bush inherited with the bursting of the tech bubble. The Bush tax cuts have been shown to be one of the main reasons why the American economy survived so well following 9/11 and the other natural disasters.

Answer 7

More than one sentence.... You made it a little confusing. Maybe you could rephrase, maybe write it in crayon or better yet... How about little drawings.

Sometimes it doesn't matter what you say or how you say it, some will twist it and believe you just said Kim il started bombing Tokyo which will cause us to raise taxes because our trade deficit will begin to deincrease.

I really don't think it's a liberal mind set. Rather, it's the pin-head that believes everything Pelosi says.

Answer 8

they don't look to be in basic terms entitlements, yet a Ponzi scheme. What we are paying in now is going to those that are already retired. Maddoff sounds like a Boy Scout next to the SS and Medicare courses. getting rid of them could be a extensive extensive extensive help. And sure, this comes from somebody eating PBJ sandwiches, yet i comprehend a handout when I see one and that i'll deal with devoid of.

Answer 9

I am no liberal, but I think cutting ALL farm subsidies, getting mining and timber co.'s to pay MARKET price instead of a pittance for what they do on federal land, and stopping wasting money on HELPING terrorists woud be a goot start to free resources.

What to do with them, I leave to others to suggest.


(Why do you ask liberals?

As a conservative, are you in favor of running a deficit, keeping people hungry, or both?

I am a ferocious conservative, I'd happily hang jaywalkers if it wasn't forbiden by laws and my faith, yet I am not a moron.)

Answer 10

Feedind the hungry.