Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I would say both, Foxfyre, since they both are playing shell games in reference to their budget woes. They're both going to make massive cuts. And then Ca has a state income but yet Tx does not. I see Texas slashing into the 30B dollar budget of education. How's California going to solve their debt? I think both states can solve the issue without raising taxes. California can't even afford to raise taxes. It's one helluva conundrum.
I would say both, Foxfyre, since they both are playing shell games in reference to their budget woes. They're both going to make massive cuts. And then Ca has a state income but yet Tx does not. I see Texas slashing into the 30B dollar budget of education. How's California going to solve their debt? I think both states can solve the issue without raising taxes. California can't even afford to raise taxes. It's one helluva conundrum.
But in the interest of thinking differently about government, higher taxes to pay for government is the status quo. Texas seems to be taking a different tactic and it seems to be working. Businesses are fighting for places to locate in Texas. Too many job producing businesses have already bailed out of California and others are looking to follow suit.
So can you see no solution to the problems in government other than raising taxes?
Lobbyists should be shot on sight.
In the interest of thinking differently about government, the following appeared in one or more north Texas newspapers and has been circulating in emails lately.
It outlines a concept that prompted several to comment and urge me to start this thread.
I would be interested in everybody's opinion of it, but most particularly I would like to hear from the Left why any one of the suggestions would be a good or bad idea:
PUT ME IN CHARGE!!!
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville
And recently somebody added one more:
While you are on Govt subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Govt welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job or find other legal means of supporting yourself.
How do you put a positive note on sewer scum?
Lobbyists should be shot on sight.
No they shouldn't. I've been an unpaid lobbyist many times petitioning government for this or that cause, program, or entity. Without ability to sell your project to those issuing the funding, most would be left out of the process altogether.
A lobbyist is merely an agent making a formal petition to government and such petition is protected by the Constitution.
And some lobbyists do a LOT of valuable work gathering information and data so that the government doesn't have to spend their own resources to get that information. The problem is in lobbyist being able to solicit favors for their particular project or program by providing favors. Take away the ability for them to benefit by 'wining or dining' or whatever our elected leaders, and the problems associated with that go away.
Think differently about government and what we want it to be.
In the interest of thinking differently about government, the following appeared in one or more north Texas newspapers and has been circulating in emails lately.
It outlines a concept that prompted several to comment and urge me to start this thread.
I would be interested in everybody's opinion of it, but most particularly I would like to hear from the Left why any one of the suggestions would be a good or bad idea:
PUT ME IN CHARGE!!!
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine and document all tattoos and piercings. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, smoke or get tats and piercings, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your "home" will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a "government" job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the "common good."
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules.. Before you say that this would be "demeaning" and ruin their "self esteem," consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
Alfred W. Evans, Gatesville
And recently somebody added one more:
While you are on Govt subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Govt welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job or find other legal means of supporting yourself.
Lobbyists should be shot on sight.
No they shouldn't. I've been an unpaid lobbyist many times petitioning government for this or that cause, program, or entity. Without ability to sell your project to those issuing the funding, most would be left out of the process altogether.
A lobbyist is merely an agent making a formal petition to government and such petition is protected by the Constitution.
And some lobbyists do a LOT of valuable work gathering information and data so that the government doesn't have to spend their own resources to get that information. The problem is in lobbyist being able to solicit favors for their particular project or program by providing favors. Take away the ability for them to benefit by 'wining or dining' or whatever our elected leaders, and the problems associated with that go away.
Think differently about government and what we want it to be.
Lobbying, with "check book in hand," should be illegal. I have nothing against legal American citizens presenting their case or arguing for their cause to their elected official, but when the money comes out, that should be illegal. It's the same a bribe. When "money" starts swaying how a politician decides instead of the merits of the cause, then the system is broken. Unfortunately that's what we have now.
I would say both, Foxfyre, since they both are playing shell games in reference to their budget woes. They're both going to make massive cuts. And then Ca has a state income but yet Tx does not. I see Texas slashing into the 30B dollar budget of education. How's California going to solve their debt? I think both states can solve the issue without raising taxes. California can't even afford to raise taxes. It's one helluva conundrum.
But in the interest of thinking differently about government, higher taxes to pay for government is the status quo. Texas seems to be taking a different tactic and it seems to be working. Businesses are fighting for places to locate in Texas. Too many job producing businesses have already bailed out of California and others are looking to follow suit.
So can you see no solution to the problems in government other than raising taxes?
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Foxfyre. I'm against raising taxes at any level. I'm some type of paleo-conservative-libertarian hybrid. I agree that TX will solve their solution. Their budget is biennial. They'll fix it without raising taxes or whoever proposes such nonsense will get ousted.
Lobbyists should be shot on sight.
No they shouldn't. I've been an unpaid lobbyist many times petitioning government for this or that cause, program, or entity. Without ability to sell your project to those issuing the funding, most would be left out of the process altogether.
A lobbyist is merely an agent making a formal petition to government and such petition is protected by the Constitution.
And some lobbyists do a LOT of valuable work gathering information and data so that the government doesn't have to spend their own resources to get that information. The problem is in lobbyist being able to solicit favors for their particular project or program by providing favors. Take away the ability for them to benefit by 'wining or dining' or whatever our elected leaders, and the problems associated with that go away.
Think differently about government and what we want it to be.
Lobbying, with "check book in hand," should be illegal. I have nothing against legal American citizens presenting their case or arguing for their cause to their elected official, but when the money comes out, that should be illegal. It's the same a bribe. When "money" starts swaying how a politician decides instead of the merits of the cause, then the system is broken. Unfortunately that's what we have now.
No they shouldn't. I've been an unpaid lobbyist many times petitioning government for this or that cause, program, or entity. Without ability to sell your project to those issuing the funding, most would be left out of the process altogether.
A lobbyist is merely an agent making a formal petition to government and such petition is protected by the Constitution.
And some lobbyists do a LOT of valuable work gathering information and data so that the government doesn't have to spend their own resources to get that information. The problem is in lobbyist being able to solicit favors for their particular project or program by providing favors. Take away the ability for them to benefit by 'wining or dining' or whatever our elected leaders, and the problems associated with that go away.
Think differently about government and what we want it to be.
Lobbying, with "check book in hand," should be illegal. I have nothing against legal American citizens presenting their case or arguing for their cause to their elected official, but when the money comes out, that should be illegal. It's the same a bribe. When "money" starts swaying how a politician decides instead of the merits of the cause, then the system is broken. Unfortunately that's what we have now.
Yet the Supreme Court already has ruled that private contributions to candidates or causes of our choice are a form of speech and therefore Constitutionally protected. If I want to contribute to a cause my Congressman holds dear, that should be my right the same as if I held that cause dear myself.
But looking differently at government, if we reform the system so that my Congressman cannot use the people's treasury to reward me in any way for contributing to his cause, there is no problem. The most I might be able to 'buy' would be his ear or his time at lunch or some such. But he would be unable to use the people's money to show his appreciation.
And THAT's how you solve the problem.
~Ben FranklinIn these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
It will takes half a dozen election cycles to get spending under control and right the ship of state.
First and most important, you have to change the way political campaigns are financed. The recent ruling by the Supreme Court opens the door for huge political contributions from Corporations and special interest groups. We also need to limit the amount of money that can be spent on a campaigns and pass laws that return campaigning to town hall meetings and debates.So let's hear your ideas for doing it differently Flopper. How did you answer the poll?
And in answer to Sangha's question, you keep your Congressman from using the people's treasury to reward a person, entity, group, or whatever special interest by making it illegal to use the people's money for any form of charity. If the expenditure doesn't benefit everybody, rich, poor, middle class, equally, it is an illegal expenditure.
For those required government installations that have to be placed in various places, the states will work with the feds to see where they shall go. And they will be distributed across the country, based on the number of jobs they generate plus some other criteria, as equally as possible based on population. There will be no more of this 'you deliver the vote and you get the new military base' stuff.
There are millions of ways to cut the budget and make the government less costly too.
For instance, let's eliminate the redecorating allowance (many thousands of dollars) given to every new Senator and Congressman. The perfectly good expensive stuff used by his predecessor goes to a government warehouse where it will never ever again see the light of day, and all new stuff is bought. I say from now on the states will allocate whatever they think the Congressman should have or he can use his own money or he can use the stuff the previous Congressman used. That one small adjustment would save millions of the people's money.
We need a different way of looking at government.
No we need to go back to the old way of thinking about government.
We need to see government as George Washington did.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
Government is an odious entity, one that should be seen as a necessary evil to be tolerated for the greater good of protecting individual freedom.
