Voter Fraud In Ohio

Slingin Sammy 33

Keep in mind the Congress is controlled by Dems and they're as much to blame as the Bush admin for the last few years of spending recklessness.

How about we freeze spending at current levels, pass a balanced budget ammendment, review and cut unnecessary/wasteful government programs, pass some sort of privitazation of a portion of SS, raise the age for maximum SS benefits for those under 45 up to 75 or whatever the curent life expectancy is. Any surplus goes to paying down the national debt. Interest on the national debt is 8.5% of our national budget.

SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Unemployment are over 50% of the budget. These programs have to brought under control now or we're looking at MASSIVE tax increases by 2030. I'm sure this isn't what FDR intended when these programs were put in place.

Image:Fy2009spendingbycategory2.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

Beemnseven

That was one of the very few things Bush did that I liked. Unfortunately, it went nowhere. That's because Matty unfortunately is right -- we are going to get more government and apparently the people want it. If we really wanted less gov't then the people would have loudly supported Bush's attempt to privatize a portion of SS.

One more large item in your list of spending cuts -- how about we stop forking over $10 billion a month for Iraq?

Slingin Sammy 33

IMO we should've taken a more Reagan-esque approach, subvert Saddam with special ops and fund rebels/Kurds, but we had to do something. Saddam was intent on rebuilding his nuclear program and US forces found enough Sarin there to kill over 500K people. Not to mention him thumbing his nose at numerous UN Resolutions. Although the Bush Admin was certainly the catalyst here, there was heavy bi-partisan support for going into Iraq. The Bush Admin certainly did not act unilaterally internally or externally in Iraq. Another modification I would've made would be Iraq funding more of its own reconstruction rather than us footing the bill.

Hindsight is 20/20 though, and we are where we are. We MUST finish the job and stabilize Iraq or we'll be looking at a far worse situation 10-15 years from now if we walk away with the job 60-70% done.

__________________
...[If] an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything]....you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

JWsleep

Actually, I'm one of those weirdos who's ok with them raising my taxes now, if it's part of a good program.

Look, either my argument is a good one or it isn't. I claim that the rich can bear the burden of a higher tax rate better than the middle class or the poor. Further, I claimed that effective progressive taxation is better for the economy than the trickle-down alternative. Finally, I claimed that the rich have benefited more from living in this society--its infrastructure, its institutions, its government, etc.--so it's reasonable to ask them to pay more. If this argument works, it works even if I'm rich.

For the record, I learned to think this way from my grandfather, a tax lawyer and law professor. He was rich and happily paid higher taxes. He liked Justice Brandise's dicutm: with my taxes I buy civilization.

No one but my grandfather, as far as I know, likes paying taxes. But we can see that it might be a necessary thing to do, even if we don't like it. The alternative is worse, or so I claim.

__________________
Hail from Houston!

Mattyk

I'm not against paying more either if it's for the better good of society in general.

__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop

firstdown

When Goverment can cut its waistful spending and our tax dollars are put to good use I would only then give a tax increase consideration. The problem is if they did that we would not have a need for a tax increase.

Hog1

Exactly
The most fundamental element in quality leadership is the ability to "lead by example". As stated, when that happens, I could take an increase more seriously. Until that time........Washington is WAY fat....with your $$$$$$

__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
Win! Always win!
By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds...
by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice...
but always win--Edward Teach

Beemnseven

I'm fine with a flat rate of taxation of equal percentage among everyone to perform the legitimate functions of government.

But I don't believe the function of government is to take from those who've worked hard and made better decisions and give it to those who didn't.

firstdown

Come on Beem don't you know thats how they buy peoples votes. When rep. lower taxes it for everyone when the dems lowers taxes they play the rich against poor game.

Beemnseven

Yep, I know. When the people realize that they can start voting themselves goodies out of the federal treasury, that's when nations begin to fall apart.

Hog1

Greetings, welcome to Socialism comrade.
We need to get this $$ leveling thing correct...........Big Brother knows best

__________________
Goodbye Sean..........Vaya Con Dios
thankyou Joe.......
Win! Always win!
By fair means or foul, by soft words and hard deeds...
by treachery, by cunning, by malpractice...
but always win--Edward Teach

FRPLG

For those who would gladly pay more taxes if the gov't wanted them to why aren't you sending in a little extra every April 15th?

What is finally "enough"? If we keep electing people who promise to do things for us if only we give them more money when do we finally reach the point where the gov't simply does everything for us? We just go to work and hand all our money over to them to do with as it pleases. It is the logical path of this line of thought. Who gets to decide where that line is? Do we trust them to finally draw it?

JWsleep

It's got to be part of a good program. I don't like giving them my money. It's just that at times I think it's needed to have good government.

I think SS is a good thing. I think having a strong defense is a good thing. I think the GI bill is a good thing. I think having clean water, safe drugs and food, good homeland security, etc. is a good thing. So I am willing to part with some of my hard earned money to get those things. How do you propose to provide those things if not by way of the gov't?

The issue is about good programs. We need proper oversight. We need transparency in our government. We need reasonable controls on special interest. We need smart people in decision making positions.

Conservatives since Reagan have talked a big game about cutting government. But despite control of the presidency from 80-92 and from 2000-2008, what have we seen? Bigger govt. More corruption. Same old, same old. So I do not believe Mr. Maverick and his Alaskan side-kick are going to do any different.

Now maybe you support Barr. He may really intend to do something. Trouble is he isn't going to win.

My feeling is that the dems at least have some people that understand that gov't isn't going anywhere and the trick is to make it work better. The repub strategy is to run it into the ground until we have to kill it (this is called the "wither on the vine" strategy--see Newt Gingrich). All we get is a gov't that does not work--no smaller, just worse. I don't think the dems are a magic bullet here--just the lesser of 2 evils. That's the way things go in politics, usually (it's either the turd or the douche bag, I'm afraid...)

__________________
Hail from Houston!