Raise Taxes or Cut Waste?

[Wry Catcher]

Raise taxes on the rich, tax college savings, raise gasoline taxes, and cut social programs? Or, cut the enormous waste that we all know should be cut? Or, should we do a combination of both? If your answer is to cut waste, what are the most obvious areas of waste that you would cut? If your answer is to raise taxes, what taxes would you increase? Or, what new taxes would you add? If your answer is to raise taxes, where would you use the new revenue? If your answer is to cut waste, where would you use the savings?

Your question shows you are smarter than most of the bias small brains in politics. The only obvious answer is (or should be) cut unnecessary spending first. The problem is politicians try to cut the most important spending first, sometimes with help of the opposing PARTY.

Case in point. Should we cut welfare to the blind? Most Americans say NO, in the majority of parties. Yet we just did cut their food supply because we are unable (don't have the time to) distinguish the difference between welfare and welfare fraud.

I've often made posts about terrible government spending such as "America's Army the video game", yes, we fund video games. But Republicans always attack me with, that doesn't cost much, we are looking at the big picture.

So what we have is a mountain of poor spending and a society that only fixates on the spending to help people eat and have shelter.

Our War spending is more critical than our Welfare spending if you do the math on "UNNECESSARY".
Cost of National Security Counting How Much the U.S. Spends Per Hour
^Lockheed Martin and Halliburton love this though. They are swimming in green.

What never seems to be discussed or mentioned when the issue of spending cuts comes up is this: do the cuts have a cost benefit, or do they have a cost deficit?

Thinking in terms of our Federal System, if the H. of Rep. cuts TANF, the need does not disappear, and the burden falls to the State or local governments, most already stressed, a result of the ideology of the GOP that no taxes are necessary but for the few noted in Art. I, Sec 8 which benefit Lockheed Martin and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex.

We've tried voodoo economic theory since 1981 and the result is in. The rich get richer, and the poor remain stuck in a unique chaste system, and the middle class - the real engine of our economy - is chipped away by corporate greed and a Congress filled by millionaires.

If we spend too much, why hasn't Boehner passed a bill to cut the salary and benefits of the H. of Rep.? Leadership by real leaders starts at the top.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's cut the drug war, and see how that works, first.

 

[Kondor3]

Can't we cut taxes and raise waste?

 

[danielpalos]

only if you want to sacrifice the end to the means; contrary to the dictates of "plain reason and legal axioms".

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's cut the drug war, and see how that works, first.

The DOJ needs to reschedule MJ and allow each state to decide if it should be legal, decriminalized, regulated or remain illegal.

The money wasted enforcing MJ laws is foolish, a billion dollar + black market exists, which can be capped, taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco - two much more deadly drugs.

 

[Flash]

[


I disagree. Raising taxes to balance the budget is the responsible thing to do. Then we can have a serious discussion about how much government we really want. How much government we want to pay for. As it is, no one gets the bill (except maybe our grandchildren), so no one cares.

Are you willing to raise taxes almost a trillion a year in order to balance the budget? It is a little lower now but during most of President Moron's administration that is what the deficit has been running. You are talking about doubling the income tax if you are going to balance the budget. How much are you paying this year? You want it to be twice as much?

If you think it should be done then go head and send the IRS twice as much. They will take your money but leave me out of it. I pay too much already.

Maybe what you really want is for the money to be raised by taxation but you don't want your taxes to go up. You know, "tax the rich". Make somebody else pay. Anybody except yourself.

If we take an additional trillion a year out of the productive economy it will significantly hurt jobs in this country. It will most certainly decrease government revenue.

Besides, if the filthy ass government gets more money then it will just spend more money instead of using it to balance the budget. For instance, this idiot Obama is talking about giving all the illerates that make it through high school a "free" community college education. Who is going to pay for it? Are we going to raise taxes or go in debt?

You have it wrong. The responsible thing to do is to cut back spending to the level where income meets outflow.

 

[Flash]

^Lockheed Martin and Halliburton love this though. They are swimming in green.

If you don't like defense companies making money then don't vote for interventionist Presidents like Hussein Obama who fights wars and escalates wars.

I own some Lockheed Martin stock and it has damn well under Obama.

When Obama took office it was about $80 share. Now it is $190 a share.

 

[Flopper]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

 

[danielpalos]

Let's cut the drug war, and see how that works, first.

The DOJ needs to reschedule MJ and allow each state to decide if it should be legal, decriminalized, regulated or remain illegal.

The money wasted enforcing MJ laws is foolish, a billion dollar + black market exists, which can be capped, taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco - two much more deadly drugs.

I agree that we have a Commerce Clause while a prohibition clause or drug war clause, are nowhere to be found enumerated.

 

[Dad2three]

^Lockheed Martin and Halliburton love this though. They are swimming in green.

If you don't like defense companies making money then don't vote for interventionist Presidents like Hussein Obama who fights wars and escalates wars.

I own some Lockheed Martin stock and it has damn well under Obama.

When Obama took office it was about $80 share. Now it is $190 a share.

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 5% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

The REAL reason is conservatives/GOP signed the pledge that is more important to them than the US Constitutions, Norquists, "don't you dare get another penny in tax revenues to stop US from shrinking Gov't small enough to flush down the drain" pledge

 

[Sonny Clark]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

But, all things considered, it's the government that has created the situations that we're experiencing. The government has no one to blame except itself. It's only right that they fix their own mess. Why should the American taxpayers continue to bail them out?

 

[Dad2three]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

But, all things considered, it's the government that has created the situations that we're experiencing. The government has no one to blame except itself. It's only right that they fix their own mess. Why should the American taxpayers continue to bail them out?

Who do you think Gov't is?? Hint VOTERS who for 30+ years have thought you can just put stuff on the credit card and the magical fairy's will pay off debt down the road


Why do you think when St Ronnie cut taxes for the rich, he had to get more revenues, so he 'saved SS, by increasing taxes by $2+ trillion the past 30+ years, to hide his costs? NOW when the money train runs out, SS is BK? lol

 

[Sonny Clark]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

But, all things considered, it's the government that has created the situations that we're experiencing. The government has no one to blame except itself. It's only right that they fix their own mess. Why should the American taxpayers continue to bail them out?

Who do you think Gov't is?? Hint VOTERS who for 30+ years have thought you can just put stuff on the credit card and the magical fairy's will pay off debt down the road


Why do you think when St Ronnie cut taxes for the rich, he had to get more revenues, so he 'saved SS, by increasing taxes by $2+ trillion the past 30+ years, to hide his costs? NOW when the money train runs out, SS is BK? lol

You're preaching to the choir. I have been blaming stupid voters for many years now. What do I think government is? Good question. FYI --- Government is an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government, through voters, has gained tremendous power and authority. We, the American people, are, and have been, at the mercy of government for a very long time now. Stupid voters continue to elect and to re-elect professional politicians to run this once great nation, and expect a different result each election cycle. Go figure.

The U.S. government has sold us out for almost 60 years now, and they have no intentions to stop. And, as long as voters do as they have been doing, we have nowhere to go but to the bottom of the abyss of socioeconomic ruin.

 

[Flopper]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

But, all things considered, it's the government that has created the situations that we're experiencing. The government has no one to blame except itself. It's only right that they fix their own mess. Why should the American taxpayers continue to bail them out?

Government is a political construct. It creates nothing. It feels no blame. It is those that we elect that create the mess. If voters truly want change they can make it happen.

The idea that the people don't want the benefits and services government provides is absolutely not true. People more than ever want security. Job security is a thing of the past. One third of Americans are one paycheck away from being homeless with average credit card debt of $15,000, less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. It's no wonder, Americans strongly support the government safety nets, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and other social services.

When they dial 911, they expect help at their door. When struct down by a serious illness or accident they expect help and lots of it. When their child is diagnosed with learning disorders, they expect schools provide the help. And when economic tragedy hits, they expect basic necessities for their family. When a hurricane or tornado destroys their lives, they expect a helping hand from the government. When epidemics, and terrorists strike, they expect government protection. People want all this and more but just like the kid at the candy store, they want it all whether they can pay for it or not.

 

[candycorn]

I'm sorry, my post was directed at an adult only demographic. Parrots, like you, may be adults but you're far from mature. I would consider your concept the first time the H. of Rep. passes a bill cutting their salary and benefits.

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

But, all things considered, it's the government that has created the situations that we're experiencing. The government has no one to blame except itself. It's only right that they fix their own mess. Why should the American taxpayers continue to bail them out?

Government is a political construct. It creates nothing. It feels no blame. It is those that we elect that create the mess. If voters truly want change they can make it happen.

The idea that the people don't want the benefits and services government provides is absolutely not true. People more than ever want security. Job security is a thing of the past. One third of Americans are one paycheck away from being homeless with average credit card debt of $15,000, less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. It's no wonder, Americans strongly support the government safety nets, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and other social services.

When they dial 911, they expect help at their door. When struct down by a serious illness or accident they expect help and lots of it. When their child is diagnosed with learning disorders, they expect schools provide the help. And when economic tragedy hits, they expect basic necessities for their family. When a hurricane or tornado destroys their lives, they expect a helping hand from the government. When epidemics, and terrorists strike, they expect government protection. People want all this and more but just like the kid at the candy store, they want it all whether they can pay for it or not.

We get the government we deserve; always have; always will.

 

[Flash]

[

Government is a political construct. It creates nothing. It feels no blame. It is those that we elect that create the mess. If voters truly want change they can make it happen.

The idea that the people don't want the benefits and services government provides is absolutely not true. People more than ever want security. Job security is a thing of the past. One third of Americans are one paycheck away from being homeless with average credit card debt of $15,000, less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. It's no wonder, Americans strongly support the government safety nets, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and other social services.

When they dial 911, they expect help at their door. When struct down by a serious illness or accident they expect help and lots of it. When their child is diagnosed with learning disorders, they expect schools provide the help. And when economic tragedy hits, they expect basic necessities for their family. When a hurricane or tornado destroys their lives, they expect a helping hand from the government. When epidemics, and terrorists strike, they expect government protection. People want all this and more but just like the kid at the candy store, they want it all whether they can pay for it or not.

Of course people want free stuff. They want things and they want other people to pay for it. That concept is called greed.

For instance, some shitheads don't want to spend their own money for healthcare (instead they spend money on pot and Colt 45 Malt Liquor) but when they get sick they want other pay their healthcare bills for them. That is called sorry ass greed. They think they are entitled to healthcare simply because they are alive and it is not their responsibility to pay for it.

Some people are so sorry and greedy that they go to the polls and elect corrupt and incompetent turdbrains like Hussein Obama because Hussein promises them more free stuff. Despicable greed.

Meanwhile the filthy ass out of control federal government spends almost $4 trillion a year and about a trillion of that is borrowed money and the cumulative debt is over $18 trillion.

 

[Dad2three]

[

Government is a political construct. It creates nothing. It feels no blame. It is those that we elect that create the mess. If voters truly want change they can make it happen.

The idea that the people don't want the benefits and services government provides is absolutely not true. People more than ever want security. Job security is a thing of the past. One third of Americans are one paycheck away from being homeless with average credit card debt of $15,000, less than a $1,000 saved for retirement. It's no wonder, Americans strongly support the government safety nets, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, unemployment, and other social services.

When they dial 911, they expect help at their door. When struct down by a serious illness or accident they expect help and lots of it. When their child is diagnosed with learning disorders, they expect schools provide the help. And when economic tragedy hits, they expect basic necessities for their family. When a hurricane or tornado destroys their lives, they expect a helping hand from the government. When epidemics, and terrorists strike, they expect government protection. People want all this and more but just like the kid at the candy store, they want it all whether they can pay for it or not.

Of course people want free stuff. They want things and they want other people to pay for it. That concept is called greed.

For instance, some shitheads don't want to spend their own money for healthcare (instead they spend money on pot and Colt 45 Malt Liquor) but when they get sick they want other pay their healthcare bills for them. That is called sorry ass greed. They think they are entitled to healthcare simply because they are alive and it is not their responsibility to pay for it.

Some people are so sorry and greedy that they go to the polls and elect corrupt and incompetent turdbrains like Hussein Obama because Hussein promises them more free stuff. Despicable greed.

Meanwhile the filthy ass out of control federal government spends almost $4 trillion a year and about a trillion of that is borrowed money and the cumulative debt is over $18 trillion.

How about Ronnie cutting taxes for the rich AND at the same time increasing SS taxes to "save SS"", which added $2+ trillion to the debt, as it masked the revenue shortfall? Greed? Free stuff? lol

 

[Flash]

[




How about Ronnie cutting taxes for the rich AND at the same time increasing SS taxes to "save SS"", which added $2+ trillion to the debt, as it masked the revenue shortfall? Greed? Free stuff? lol

Cutting taxes is always a good thing but you must be confused about Ronald Reagan. Although Reagan adjusted the unfair progressive income tax brackets a little bit he also increased total taxation during his administration. He also grew the size of government, increased debt and continued with the welfare state. He didn't even bother to do away with the Community Reinvestment Act, which almost destroyed our economy in 2007. He was not as much of a conservative as many of my brothers and sisters on my Right think he was. He continued to allow the greedy shitheads in our country to live high on the hog.

If the Democrats, who loved stuff like that, were intellectually and morally honest they would embraced Reagan as one of their own. Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Bush were all progressives. They were better than the Democrats but that is not saying much because the Democrats set such a low bar.

Big government is big greed and a lot of people suck on that teat. For instance, conservative farmers in the Midwest will tell you that they hate welfare but they love their government farm price supports. That is why we need to stop using the government to take money from those that earned it and giving it to the people that didn't earn it. No more welfare, subsidies, bailouts or entitlements. That is the right thing to do. It is destroying our country.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You didn't answer my question. How about cutting spending, a lot? If you want to be fiscally responsible then cutting spending is the right thing to do, not increase an already high tax burden.

It ain't rocket science.

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

But, all things considered, it's the government that has created the situations that we're experiencing. The government has no one to blame except itself. It's only right that they fix their own mess. Why should the American taxpayers continue to bail them out?

Who do you think Gov't is?? Hint VOTERS who for 30+ years have thought you can just put stuff on the credit card and the magical fairy's will pay off debt down the road


Why do you think when St Ronnie cut taxes for the rich, he had to get more revenues, so he 'saved SS, by increasing taxes by $2+ trillion the past 30+ years, to hide his costs? NOW when the money train runs out, SS is BK? lol

You're preaching to the choir. I have been blaming stupid voters for many years now. What do I think government is? Good question. FYI --- Government is an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government, through voters, has gained tremendous power and authority. We, the American people, are, and have been, at the mercy of government for a very long time now. Stupid voters continue to elect and to re-elect professional politicians to run this once great nation, and expect a different result each election cycle. Go figure.

The U.S. government has sold us out for almost 60 years now, and they have no intentions to stop. And, as long as voters do as they have been doing, we have nowhere to go but to the bottom of the abyss of socioeconomic ruin.

A lot of words, above, but very little substance.

Let's start with this: The role of government is to govern. Officials elected to govern are not to step aside and simply collect a salary.

The role of the voter is to elect those capable of governing to uphold these truths, which Jefferson determined to be self-evident:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Elected officials today are given money for their reelection, something five members of the Supreme Court have twice sanctioned and defined as freedom of speech. Four members of the same court understand this decision was horrible and an affront to every person who has every believed that the United States is a democracy. We now live in a Plutocracy and can expect the rich to get richer and the rest of us to work to increase their wealth. A fact supported by the current iteration of the Republican Party.

The very wealthy have done quite well, those of us not rich fight among our selves, allowing the rich to sit back and laugh as fools defend the rich at the expense of themselves, and those they are told to hate (that is, the working poor and the middle classes).

 

[Sonny Clark]

YES ---- I agree

There are really two separated but related issues; the financial stability of the United States and the size of government.

The stability issue was a major concern 5 or 6 years ago when we were running record high deficits but that is not the case today. Since 2009 deficits have been falling yearly from 1,559 billion to 1,404, 1,367, 1,134, 691, 492. If we choose to run a surplus we can certainly do so by cutting spending and raising taxes by just 5%.

The real issue today is the size of government which is mostly an ideological issue. However, there is a practical side of the issue. What changes can really be made? With half the households in the US receiving some form of government support, any significant cut is extremely unlikely. Healthcare and Welfare are 35% of the total federal government spending. Defense spending, 22% has been falling every year for 5 years and that certainly can't continue unless the US radically changes it's foreign policy. Government pensions, 25% being paid to government and military retirees are political untouchable. Transportation, 7%, mostly spend on maintenance is an area more likely to increase than decrease. Education, 3%, most cuts here would increase state expenses by more than 3%. The remainder, 8% is spread over many areas with little savings to be gained and big political confrontations. At best, I doubt more than 3 or 4% could be cut even if Republicans controlled government for a number of years.

But, all things considered, it's the government that has created the situations that we're experiencing. The government has no one to blame except itself. It's only right that they fix their own mess. Why should the American taxpayers continue to bail them out?

Who do you think Gov't is?? Hint VOTERS who for 30+ years have thought you can just put stuff on the credit card and the magical fairy's will pay off debt down the road


Why do you think when St Ronnie cut taxes for the rich, he had to get more revenues, so he 'saved SS, by increasing taxes by $2+ trillion the past 30+ years, to hide his costs? NOW when the money train runs out, SS is BK? lol

You're preaching to the choir. I have been blaming stupid voters for many years now. What do I think government is? Good question. FYI --- Government is an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government, through voters, has gained tremendous power and authority. We, the American people, are, and have been, at the mercy of government for a very long time now. Stupid voters continue to elect and to re-elect professional politicians to run this once great nation, and expect a different result each election cycle. Go figure.

The U.S. government has sold us out for almost 60 years now, and they have no intentions to stop. And, as long as voters do as they have been doing, we have nowhere to go but to the bottom of the abyss of socioeconomic ruin.

A lot of words, above, but very little substance.

Let's start with this: The role of government is to govern. Officials elected to govern are not to step aside and simply collect a salary.

The role of the voter is to elect those capable of governing to uphold these truths, which Jefferson determined to be self-evident:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Elected officials today are given money for their reelection, something five members of the Supreme Court have twice sanctioned and defined as freedom of speech. Four members of the same court understand this decision was horrible and an affront to every person who has every believed that the United States is a democracy. We now live in a Plutocracy and can expect the rich to get richer and the rest of us to work to increase their wealth. A fact supported by the current iteration of the Republican Party.

The very wealthy have done quite well, those of us not rich fight among our selves, allowing the rich to sit back and laugh as fools defend the rich at the expense of themselves, and those they are told to hate (that is, the working poor and the middle classes).

A lot of words, very little substance.