Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

(116,464 posts)

8. It would be

Thu May 9, 2013, 11:03 AM

May 2013

"Wouldn't it be more effective to reduce the size of government?"

...more effective to expand opportunites for students, increase Social Security benefits, negotiate drug prices and move toward single payer and cut defense and other outrages spending tied to the MIC

Elizabeth Warren: Students should get the same loan rate as big banks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022815060

Begich announces bill to keep Social Security solvent by lifting income cap (updated)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022795784

Obama budget is a disaster for drugmakers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022807040

Close Guantanamo and save $900,000 per prisoner
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022795161
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022814127

Reduce the defense budget a lot more
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022775653

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

16 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HELLO!!! Economists See Deficit Emphasis as Impeding Recovery [View all] spanone May 2013 OP

K & R !!! WillyT May 2013 #1

Message auto-removed Name removed May 2013 #2

Your point is that much of the spending we do have is the wrong kind ... surrealAmerican May 2013 #5

It would be ProSense May 2013 #8

"...their clashing approaches"?! woo me with science May 2013 #3

One party is threatening the recovery far more than the other is ProSense May 2013 #4

Krugman is wrong though hfojvt May 2013 #7

You have no idea what you're talking about. ProSense May 2013 #9

actually I do hfojvt May 2013 #10

Your post is nonsense ProSense May 2013 #11

so $81 billion for the richest 20% and less than $7 for the poorest hfojvt May 2013 #12

Well, ProSense May 2013 #13

are you old enough to know nonsense when you type it? hfojvt May 2013 #14

Wait ProSense May 2013 #16

ahem hfojvt May 2013 #6