Want to cut taxes??

[shintao]

Just like I say about raising taxes, the first issue for our government is not to address revenue - but to address expenditures.
I am 110% confident that the Federal Budget could be dramatically improved without raising taxes by 1 red cent - if only either party would take an ounce of responsibility over how to SPEND the money.

Would you take responsibility for running the federal government?

All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

 

[shintao]

EMPIRES cost money.

A lot of money.

A house divided cannot stand, folks.

Here is the non-violent legal way to take back the government by accepting responsibility for your own actions. All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

 

[shintao]

Just to be clear here for the sake of the newest forum members checking in on things political................

Liberals on this board will be happy when and only when The Pentagon no longer exists!!! Why? Because their answer to evil in the world is to send finger sandwich platters and Cokes to all the bad guys, thus enabling us to spend zero $ on defense!!! In other owrds, lick the asses of our enemies enough and they'll come to embrace us!!!

Of course, over 2,000 years of recorded history tells us that is a prescription for getting your balls kicked in


Simply google "history" and "war" and do some reading..........the limpwristed ALWAYS, ALWAYS get decimated!!!! Its called human psychology.......observe almost any family at home and you'll see the same dynamic: the weak minded person is getting their balls kicked in!!!

And in 2 thousand years America has only suffered one Japanese weather balloon with a bomb attached to it.

 

[Avorysuds]

We have been doing things your way for a very long time. Things ain't looking so great, maybe you should let someone who knows what they are doing have a go at it eh?

Which way is that?

We have been relieving the rich of their tax burden for 30 years since Republican Reagan. Since that time, collective wealth has been redistributed fron the middle class to the upper 10% of Americans

Your way, you know giving more power and money to Government... You don't like the way it is spent if a Republican is in office but love how it's spent even if it is spent the same under a Democrat... I don't like how either of them spend.

I like how you bring up Reagan. It's a cool argument for liberals to point out Reagan and then point out how he was a Big Government Republican. Yeah we get it, Reagan was just another Big Government guy, and look where we are today. You blame Reagan for how bad things are but then want his programs 10 time over.

Harding, Coolidge… Shrink Government so that you can lower taxes… Don’t give tax credits while spending more than any president before them, like Obama. Obama is just the Rights version of McCain, try and appeal to everyone even if you have to lie about everything.

 

[Avorysuds]

dup

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I see a whole pile in that green part of the pie that isn't any of the feds' business to start with.

Housing? - Nope.
Health? - Nope.
Edumacation? - Nope.
Community Development? - Hardly.
Agriculture? - Nuh-uh.
Environment? - Not even.
Science and Energy? - Negative.

The Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Here we go with that stale old chestnut again.

Read up on your James Madison, then get back to us.

The great James Madison's interpretation of the Constitutional provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare is certainly a reasonable one given the ambiguity of the words being interpreted. However, keep in mind that there are other equally reasonable interpretations, including the prevailing view that great deference is to be judicially accorded Congress' decision that a spending program advances the general welfare.

 

[rightwinger]

The Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Here we go with that stale old chestnut again.

Read up on your James Madison, then get back to us.

The great James Madison's interpretation of the Constitutional provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare is certainly a reasonable one given the ambiguity of the words being interpreted. However, keep in mind that there are other equally reasonable interpretations, including the prevailing view that great deference is to be judicially accorded Congress' decision that a spending program advances the general welfare.

James Madison had no conception of what it takes to run a modern Democracy of 300 million people over a land mass of 3.7 million miles. He had no conception of what a Super Power is, what a worldwide communications network is, interstate transportation networks or satellite networks. He had no conception of what environmental protection is, no idea about what was required to educate a 21st century American. He believed Blacks, Indians and Women were incapable of making educated decisions to vote.

I would prefer a 21st century politician to make my decisions for me rather than an 18th century politician

 

[Avorysuds]

Here we go with that stale old chestnut again.

Read up on your James Madison, then get back to us.

The great James Madison's interpretation of the Constitutional provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare is certainly a reasonable one given the ambiguity of the words being interpreted. However, keep in mind that there are other equally reasonable interpretations, including the prevailing view that great deference is to be judicially accorded Congress' decision that a spending program advances the general welfare.

James Madison had no conception of what it takes to run a modern Democracy of 300 million people over a land mass of 3.7 million miles. He had no conception of what a Super Power is, what a worldwide communications network is, interstate transportation networks or satellite networks. He had no conception of what environmental protection is, no idea about what was required to educate a 21st century American. He believed Blacks, Indians and Women were incapable of making educated decisions to vote.

I would prefer a 21st century politician to make my decisions for me rather than an 18th century politician

But of course that is unless that politician has a R next to their name, hahaha. As I said, you are your worst enemy.

 

[jeffrockit]

Why should anyone want to cut the U.S. military budget? Because conservatives are squealing like stuck pigs on Brokenback Mountain to lower taxes,.........it's trendy. Secondly, it takes over half of the budget as the pie chart below explains.


One reason is that -- with $549 billion requested for basic military expenditures and another $159 billion requested for U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- the record $708 billion military spending called for by the Obama administration for fiscal 2011 will be nearly equivalent to the military spending of all other nations in the world combined. When it comes to military appropriations, the U.S. government already spends about seven times as much as China, thirteen times as much as Russia, and seventy-three times as much as Iran.

Is this really necessary? During the Cold War, the United States confronted far more dangerous and numerous military adversaries, including the Soviet Union. And the U.S. government certainly possessed an enormous and devastating military arsenal, as well as the armed forces that used it. But in those years, U.S. military spending accounted for only 26 percent of the world total. Today, as U.S. Congressman Barney Frank has observed, "we have fewer enemies and we're spending more money."

Where does this vast outlay of U.S. tax dollars -- the greatest military appropriations in U.S. history -- go? One place is to overseas U.S. military bases. According to Chalmers Johnson, a political scientist and former CIA consultant, as much as $250 billion per year is used to maintain some 865 U.S. military facilities in more than forty countries and overseas U.S. territories.

The money also goes to fund vast legions of private military contractors. A recent Pentagon report estimated that the Defense Department relies on 766,000 contractors at an annual cost of about $155 billion, and this figure does not include private intelligence organizations. A Washington Post study, which included all categories, estimated that the Defense Department employs 1.2 million private contractors.

How Much Is Enough? America's Runaway Military Spending | World | AlterNet

"So the following are facts, based on the government's own figures.

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)"

"The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion".
This link provides facts and figures to the costs' of the Iraq war to the costs of everything else in the budget.
American Thinker: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

 

[Oddball]

The Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Here we go with that stale old chestnut again.

Read up on your James Madison, then get back to us.

The great James Madison's interpretation of the Constitutional provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare is certainly a reasonable one given the ambiguity of the words being interpreted. However, keep in mind that there are other equally reasonable interpretations, including the prevailing view that great deference is to be judicially accorded Congress' decision that a spending program advances the general welfare.

Madison also got very specific about what he did and didn't mean by the term "general welfare", in Federalist #41.

By his own definitions (and he was the primary author of the Constitution), almost all of the crap on the green part of your pie chart are areas completely outside Madison's definition and intent of general welfare.

I'll take the authors definition over that of petty usurpers and plunderers any day of the week.

 

[Londoner]

"So the following are facts, based on the government's own figures.

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)"

"The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion".
This link provides facts and figures to the costs' of the Iraq war to the costs of everything else in the budget.
American Thinker: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

I remember when the CBO said the Bush tax cuts would explode the deficit.

There was tremendous pressure from the Bushies to alter the way the numbers were calculated. When the CBO rejected the voodoo, the Bushies discredited the institution. Funny how they all the sudden trust the CBO.

Regardless . . . we know the Dems are big spenders, but the GOP campaigns on fiscal responsibility -- it's their brand, their identity.

(We all know it's a hoax)

They preach fiscal restrain in the front of the house, while in the back of the house they spend considerably more than their Democratic predecessors (see Ronnie & W).

National Debt Chart: Republican vs. Democratic Presidents | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In the front of the house, they're fighting evil, in the back of the house they're selling weapons to Iran or flying the Bin Ladens out of the country or forming business partnerships with the Saudi Royals.

In the front of the house they protest the Stimulus, in the back of the house Republican governors are gobbling it up to keep their police forces and teachers working, and their states running.

In the front of the house they hammer the Libs for not allowing offshore drilling, in the back of the house... they fight off shore drilling tooth and nail. The Spokesman-Review.com - Bush prevents oil, gas drilling off Florida coast

Obama, they tell us, is responsible for everything that happens on his watch, but Bush isn't responsible for 9/11 (though he was warned) or the housing bubble or the Wall Street meltdown, which may have literally destroyed America long term.

They tell people to stop blaming Bush, but blaming Clinton and Carter is a cottage industry. The Republicans have been running against Jimmy Carter for 30 years (they never stop talking about him), but nobody can talk about what Bush and the Republicans did to a healthy country recently. Does anyone remember what was happening in 2008, at the end of the Bush years? Are you kidding me? These crooks took a surplus and proceeded to destroy a healthy country -- and they still haven't taken accountability for it. LISTEN: If you want to keep the Dems away from the purse strings, I'm with you. If you want to roll back ObamaCare, I'll help (I like my health insurance). But please don't let the GOP anywhere near the White House or Capital Hill. They are a fiscal cancer.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related]YouTube - Home Ownership and President Bush[/ame]

(wow, just wow)

 

[DiamondDave]

The Constitution grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

Here we go with that stale old chestnut again.

Read up on your James Madison, then get back to us.

The great James Madison's interpretation of the Constitutional provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare is certainly a reasonable one given the ambiguity of the words being interpreted. However, keep in mind that there are other equally reasonable interpretations, including the prevailing view that great deference is to be judicially accorded Congress' decision that a spending program advances the general welfare.

Another ignorant lefty who cannot understand the the general welfare of the united states as a whole, does not equate to individual welfare of individual citizens... please read up on what the term welfare meant to the founders as well

 

[rightwinger]

The great James Madison's interpretation of the Constitutional provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare is certainly a reasonable one given the ambiguity of the words being interpreted. However, keep in mind that there are other equally reasonable interpretations, including the prevailing view that great deference is to be judicially accorded Congress' decision that a spending program advances the general welfare.

James Madison had no conception of what it takes to run a modern Democracy of 300 million people over a land mass of 3.7 million miles. He had no conception of what a Super Power is, what a worldwide communications network is, interstate transportation networks or satellite networks. He had no conception of what environmental protection is, no idea about what was required to educate a 21st century American. He believed Blacks, Indians and Women were incapable of making educated decisions to vote.

I would prefer a 21st century politician to make my decisions for me rather than an 18th century politician

But of course that is unless that politician has a R next to their name, hahaha. As I said, you are your worst enemy.

I have never voted a straight ticket in my life

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War

You lie.

The Iraq War will cost us more than $3 trillion. The measures in the stimulus bill are nominally worth $787 billion.

 

[saveliberty]

I am for cutting everything on the list, but lets take out military spending first. A complete non-necessity item. Or you might like my idea to take the ability to fund legislation away from Congress & the President, and eliminate the IRS and federal taxes all together.

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution so good luck with eliminating that.

The idea of eliminating the IRS is a great idea but just remember that the last government person to move against large government entities was assassinated for it. No politician has the balls to do it and until the people march on DC with guns, pitchforks and torches it aint gonna' happen.

Not so, you can take back the American government the legal way. You just need the right tools. I propose a change in the way our government works, by making WE THE PEOPLE directly responsible for our own actions.



Read: All Volunteer Government Party (AVGP)

Anarchy reins in your world huh? Stick to the Constitution and fund only those things granted to the federal government. Those to the state, the state pays and so on. Defense is not half the federal budget.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Madison also got very specific about what he did and didn't mean by the term "general welfare", in Federalist #41.

That's nice. Now all you need to do is produce some evidence that the men who made the Constitution wanted it to be interpreted according to the meanings James Madison attached to the words contained in the instrument. Also, keep in mind that in 1788 there were well established common law rules of construction that applied to constitutions.

Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by Puffendorf,[26] which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon. Again; terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science. So in the act of settlement, where the crown of England is limited "to the princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being protestants," it becomes necessary to call in the assistance of lawyers, to ascertain the precise idea of the words "heirs of her body;" which in a legal sense comprize only certain of her lineal descendants.

--Blackstone​

 

[Avorysuds]

"So the following are facts, based on the government's own figures.

Obama's stimulus, passed in his first month in office, will cost more than the entire Iraq War -- more than $100 billion (15%) more.

Just the first two years of Obama's stimulus cost more than the entire cost of the Iraq War under President Bush, or six years of that war.

Iraq War spending accounted for just 3.2% of all federal spending while it lasted.

Iraq War spending was not even one quarter of what we spent on Medicare in the same time frame.

Iraq War spending was not even 15% of the total deficit spending in that time frame. The cumulative deficit, 2003-2010, would have been four-point-something trillion dollars with or without the Iraq War.

The Iraq War accounts for less than 8% of the federal debt held by the public at the end of 2010 ($9.031 trillion).

During Bush's Iraq years, 2003-2008, the federal government spent more on education that it did on the Iraq War. (State and local governments spent about ten times more.)"

"The sum of all the deficits from 2003 through 2010 is $4.73 trillion. Subtract the entire Iraq War cost and you still have a sum of $4.02 trillion".
This link provides facts and figures to the costs' of the Iraq war to the costs of everything else in the budget.
American Thinker: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not

I remember when the CBO said the Bush tax cuts would explode the deficit.

There was tremendous pressure from the Bushies to alter the way the numbers were calculated. When the CBO rejected the voodoo, the Bushies discredited the institution. Funny how they all the sudden trust the CBO.

Regardless . . . we know the Dems are big spenders, but the GOP campaigns on fiscal responsibility -- it's their brand, their identity.

(We all know it's a hoax)

They preach fiscal restrain in the front of the house, while in the back of the house they spend considerably more than their Democratic predecessors (see Ronnie & W).

National Debt Chart: Republican vs. Democratic Presidents | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

In the front of the house, they're fighting evil, in the back of the house they're selling weapons to Iran or flying the Bin Ladens out of the country or forming business partnerships with the Saudi Royals.

In the front of the house they protest the Stimulus, in the back of the house Republican governors are gobbling it up to keep their police forces and teachers working, and their states running.

In the front of the house they hammer the Libs for not allowing offshore drilling, in the back of the house... they fight off shore drilling tooth and nail. The Spokesman-Review.com - Bush prevents oil, gas drilling off Florida coast

Obama, they tell us, is responsible for everything that happens on his watch, but Bush isn't responsible for 9/11 (though he was warned) or the housing bubble or the Wall Street meltdown, which may have literally destroyed America long term.

They tell people to stop blaming Bush, but blaming Clinton and Carter is a cottage industry. The Republicans have been running against Jimmy Carter for 30 years (they never stop talking about him), but nobody can talk about what Bush and the Republicans did to a healthy country recently. Does anyone remember what was happening in 2008, at the end of the Bush years? Are you kidding me? These crooks took a surplus and proceeded to destroy a healthy country -- and they still haven't taken accountability for it. LISTEN: If you want to keep the Dems away from the purse strings, I'm with you. If you want to roll back ObamaCare, I'll help (I like my health insurance). But please don't let the GOP anywhere near the White House or Capital Hill. They are a fiscal cancer.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=related]YouTube - Home Ownership and President Bush[/ame]

(wow, just wow)

Oh you got us, one of the most hated presidents in history from both sides, right and left...


Can you tell us what we already know about just how bad Bush made things with his policies? I mean it works as such an awesome denfece for you guys when Obama does much of the same things...

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Here we go with that stale old chestnut again.

Read up on your James Madison, then get back to us.

The great James Madison's interpretation of the Constitutional provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare is certainly a reasonable one given the ambiguity of the words being interpreted. However, keep in mind that there are other equally reasonable interpretations, including the prevailing view that great deference is to be judicially accorded Congress' decision that a spending program advances the general welfare.

Another ignorant lefty who cannot understand the the general welfare of the united states as a whole, does not equate to individual welfare of individual citizens... please read up on what the term welfare meant to the founders as well

Congress has an indefinite power to provide for the general welfare.

--William Grayson; at the Virginia Ratification Convention in 1788; on the meaning of the provision that grants Congress power to provide for the general welfare. William Grayson (1736 – 12 March 1790) was a soldier, lawyer, and statesman from Virginia. He was one of the first two U.S. Senators from Virginia.

​

 

[DiamondDave]

Again, moron... try and understand the difference between what you are deeming as "the general welfare" and the meaning behind the original writing of the founders that stated "provide for the general welfare of the United States."... the extra words and context mean a lot... there was never any intention for the government to take care of your personal wants, needs, and responsibilities for you

If you really want those things taken care of for you, you can join the others who receive that benefit... as wards of the state

Oh... and also try and understand the enumerated powers (notice there was no mention of indefinite nor limitless power in the Constitution)

 

[saveliberty]

General Welfare is not the same thing as Dollar General.