Rising revenue ups pressure on GOP to undo budget cuts

[Wiseacre]

So you are a con who hates our constitution?

I'm an ultra-conservative. Much closer to being an Authoritarian than what most Americans currently look at as a Conservative.

Authoritiarian? I thought most conservatives were for limited gov't, like me.

I don't hate the Constitution. I do think its authors were incredibly naive about the limitations of the average citizen both mentally and (more importantly) morally. They were also completely ridiculous to believe that any system which lays out the Rights and Privileges for a group (citizens) does not also need to lay out in exquisite detail the RESPONSIBILITIES and DUTIES of that group as well. I would be much more a fan of the Constitution as agreed to in 1787 than the one we operate under today.

Times and needs change for a country, I'm thinking your problem is with the interpretation of the Constitution rather than the law itself.

Whoa, just read your latest post. Disregard what I said.

 

[Anachronism]

Authoritiarian? I thought most conservatives were for limited gov't, like me.

Many are. Even the version of Authoritarianism that I follow believes that there are many things the government should not be involved in. However, I do believe that the Government DOES need to be involved in many things because it is the only entity capable of making them work in the modern age.

Times and needs change for a country, I'm thinking your problem is with the interpretation of the Constitution rather than the law itself.

Assuming you're right and my understanding of the original intent of the Founders and the document they created; then TM was correct and I have no use for the Constitution at all and never have.

 

[Wiseacre]

Authoritiarian? I thought most conservatives were for limited gov't, like me.

Many are. Even the version of Authoritarianism that I follow believes that there are many things the government should not be involved in. However, I do believe that the Government DOES need to be involved in many things because it is the only entity capable of making them work in the modern age.

Times and needs change for a country, I'm thinking your problem is with the interpretation of the Constitution rather than the law itself.

Assuming you're right and my understanding of the original intent of the Founders and the document they created; then TM was correct and I have no use for the Constitution at all and never have.

Authoritarianistic gov'ts are into total control of everything, are they not?

 

[mudwhistle]

The reason the massive debt is stifling the economy is because everyone in business knows that debt has to be paid off.

They are anticipating higher taxes as long as the Dems are in power. Sure spending cuts will cause hardship, but eventually we'll have a booming economy again if we start now. The Dems don't want that. They want higher taxes.

As long as Obama is in the White House our prospects are dismal. This is the first generation in 70 years that has felt like things won't get any better, possibly worse. After all of that bogus Hope & Change bullshit, we've all come to the realization that Obama was just full of crap and this country is in real trouble.

 

[Anachronism]

Authoritarianistic gov'ts are into total control of everything, are they not?

The concept of an Authoritarian govermnent is that they have essentially unlimited control of everything inside their power. Now, what I've always suggested is that there are many things that the Government should hold that sort of power over; but that there is a way for a certain level of freedom to exist inside that system....

1. By limiting the number of things the Government is given power over. For example suggesting that the definition of a moral society IS a Governmental responsibility but that the emissions levels of a motor vehicle are nor.

2. By only allowing the government to provide "limits" or "boundaries" for certain other issues, and so long as the citizenry stays within those boundaries they're free to make their own decisions.

For example.... Making pretty much any form of sexual expression that is consentual, and between adults to be legal SO LONG AS IT IS KEPT IN PRIVATE. The moment it becomes non-consentual or public in any way, even heterosexual acts would be illegal; but so long as the limits were maintained, gay, straight, BDSM, etc... would all be totally legal.

 

[Wiseacre]

Authoritarianistic gov'ts are into total control of everything, are they not?

The concept of an Authoritarian govermnent is that they have essentially unlimited control of everything inside their power. Now, what I've always suggested is that there are many things that the Government should hold that sort of power over; but that there is a way for a certain level of freedom to exist inside that system....

1. By limiting the number of things the Government is given power over. For example suggesting that the definition of a moral society IS a Governmental responsibility but that the emissions levels of a motor vehicle are nor.

2. By only allowing the government to provide "limits" or "boundaries" for certain other issues, and so long as the citizenry stays within those boundaries they're free to make their own decisions.

For example.... Making pretty much any form of sexual expression that is consentual, and between adults to be legal SO LONG AS IT IS KEPT IN PRIVATE. The moment it becomes non-consentual or public in any way, even heterosexual acts would be illegal; but so long as the limits were maintained, gay, straight, BDSM, etc... would all be totally legal.

Knowing human nature, are you not a little concerned that those in positions of authority in such a gov't will usurp more control over things they cannot control yet? No sageguards against sliding into totalitarianism?

We've seen in this country almost since it's inception a gradual shift in power from the individual to the state, as more and more rights are either limited or outright taken. Seems as though it would be even worse in the situation you describe.

 

[Anachronism]

Knowing human nature, are you not a little concerned that those in positions of authority in such a gov't will usurp more control over things they cannot control yet? No sageguards against sliding into totalitarianism?

That's why the setup for this system is again Constitutional, but without the ability to be interpreted or amended. Plain, simple, straight-forward English. No fancy sentence structure or big words. KISS.

We've seen in this country almost since it's inception a gradual shift in power from the individual to the state, as more and more rights are either limited or outright taken. Seems as though it would be even worse in the situation you describe.

The problem is that as time has gone on the Public has lost its ability to maintain the morals and values necessary to provide the Foundation for the type of Government originally considered by the Founders. Without that Foundation the entire system is falling in around our ears. If the citizenry cannot maintain those things by themselves, they need to be forced to, in order for the system to continue to function.

 

[Bass v 2.0]

So lemme get this straight.

Budget is cut. After budget is cut, revenue is expected to rise. So now we want to go back to the way the budget was?

Wouldn't that then mean that we would need to cut the budget?

The cuts had nothing to do with the rise in revenue, learn to read. The rise in revenue doesn't justify the amount of cuts the Republitards want so are they doing it for fiscal reasons or ideological reasons?