Arizona's New Immigration Law

[joethiesmanfan]

Taxes are a reality. Even Jesus said give Ceasar what's Ceasar's. I think it is cynical to boost up gullible people with the intoxicating idea of no taxes. There is a finite sum of money and it must be spread to the benefit of society, or we learn lesson of history (i.e. Mari antoinette etc etc). Having said that we are taxed too much though.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Taxes are a reality. Even Jesus said give Ceasar what's Ceasar's. I think it is cynical to boost up gullible people with the intoxicating idea of no taxes. There is a finite sum of money and it must be spread to the benefit of society, or we learn lesson of history (i.e. Mari antoinette etc etc). Having said that we are taxed too much though.

WHO has said no taxes? The discussion would be what is appropriate government spending, and then you set taxes, levies, tariffs, and other fees to meet that. When the government yearly takes more than 50% of some of it's citizens earnings, I would say that has gone a bit overboard.

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

WHO has said no taxes? The discussion would be what is appropriate government spending, and then you set taxes, levies, tariffs, and other fees to meet that. When the government yearly takes more than 50% of some of it's citizens earnings, I would say that has gone a bit overboard.

agree.... but the out-of-control defense spending needs to be in that discussion.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

agree.... but the out-of-control defense spending needs to be in that discussion.

Absolutely! I have gone on "good" rants about that. Just as I don't believe that anyone should be taxed over 50% of their assets by their government, there is also no way one government's "defense" spending should be even close to the rest of the world's combined, let alone more than all but the next closest one or two countries.

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Absolutely! I have gone on "good" rants about that. Just as I don't believe that anyone should be taxed over 50% of their assets by their government, there is also no way one government's "defense" spending should be even close to the rest of the world's combined, let alone more than all but the next closest one or two countries.

and yet discussion about reducing it is off limits. sadly, it's political dynamite cuz the Dems are so scared of being painted as "soft on defense" and they're too spineless to respond to that criticism. they'd rather just run around going rah rah rah about it cuz they think being centrists and acting like republicans is good for winning elections cuz they take their liberal-left base for granted cuz, well, sadly they can.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Taxes are a reality. Even Jesus said give Ceasar what's Ceasar's. I think it is cynical to boost up gullible people with the intoxicating idea of no taxes. There is a finite sum of money and it must be spread to the benefit of society, or we learn lesson of history (i.e. Mari antoinette etc etc). Having said that we are taxed too much though.

I and most people don't have any problems with paying any fair tax its the FUCKING WAIST and evrything else that goes on that we have a problem with. Don't ask me to send more money if your waisting what I have already sent. When they clean waist, ear marks, etc.. then talk to me about paying more in taxes. Thats not asking for much. Would you keep donating to a charity if you knew they waist 30 to 40 % of what you donated?

[Rainy Parade]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Its not that hard. I and most people don't have any problems with paying any fair tax its the FUCKING WAIST and evrything else that goes on that we have a problem. Don't ask me to send more money if your waisting what I have already sent. When they clean waist, ear marks, etc.. then talk to me about paying more in taxes. Thats not asking for much. Would you keep donating to a charity if you knew they waist 30 to 40 % of what you donated?

i think we can all agree on this.

the gray areas is that some "ear mark" might be something great for a local community and might give someone a new job. (that said, there's plenty of bridges to nowhere and golden toilet seats that are just waste)



cut the defense budget way back.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

i think we can all agree on this.

the gray areas is that some "ear mark" might be something great for a local community and might give someone a new job. (that said, there's plenty of bridges to nowhere and golden toilet seats that are just waste)



cut the defense budget way back.

I don't have a problem with cutting deffense but as long as its done smart and does not jeopardize our safty. Having a strong military is what has gievn you the freedom to walk this land and I personally want to keep that freedom. With that said there is a ton of waist in defense spending and that could be a great place to start.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I don't have a problem with cutting deffense but as long as its done smart and does not jeopardize our safty. Having a strong military is what has gievn you the freedom to walk this land and I personally want to keep that freedom. With that said there is a ton of waist in defense spending and that could be a great place to start.

Really you should become an author, your way with words just beautiful.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Rainy Parade

cut the defense budget way back.

There's a lot more to the defense budget than Procurement (primarily weapons systems) and Research & Dev. These two areas are only 32% of the defense budget. The remainder is operations, maintenance, personnel, construction and family housing. Don't forget the military provides jobs for a great many people.

I agree defense spending needs to be looked at, just like any other gov't program, to eliminate waste and unnecessary spending. But unless we get SS/Medicare figured out (approx 40% of fed budget) and reduce the national debt (interest is over 5% of fed budget) we aren't going to get our financial house in good order.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

There's a lot more to the defense budget than Procurement (primarily weapons systems) and Research & Dev. These two areas are only 32% of the defense budget. The remainder is operations, maintenance, personnel, construction and family housing. Don't forget the military provides jobs for a great many people.

I agree defense spending needs to be looked at, just like any other gov't program, to eliminate waste and unnecessary spending. But unless we get SS/Medicare figured out (approx 40% of fed budget) and reduce the national debt (interest is over 5% of fed budget) we aren't going to get our financial house in good order.

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

Because they are uncaring.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by joethiesmanfan

Because they are uncaring.

and thus the proletariat has spoken

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Personnel costs are huge in the military, and this is my biggest problem. If we define our military responsibilities as world policemen our budget probably is not gonna be reduced a lot. But if we define the scope in terms of national defense, you could go to an extremely reduced Army/Marine (boots on the ground are not needed if we are not extending our reach) with a heavy reserve component. I doubt many US citizens would not pick up arms if a Mexican or Canadien force attempted a land invasion of the US. Air Force and Navy and Space Defense forces are vital to our national defense, and thus can't really be touched, although in this area procurement should be put on a 3 year moratorium, only maintaining on going equipment, no new products or gizmos (except satellites cuz I need my MTV). We have a commanding lead in nearly every fighting system and production capacity to meet any threat in the next 3 years.

BUT as Rainy said, this part can't happen without Obama getting blasted as being soft, any more then Republicans can cut social programs without being blasted as being uncaring.

The US public needs a re-invention of understanding government's role, but most politicians, mainstream media, and internet blogging, lives and dies off the Republican/Democratic framework

No problem with reducing our "boots on the ground" count, but it would have to be done gradually through attrition not involuntary separations. A lot more could be done "behind the scenes" with special forces and intel services, but our politicans don't have the stomach for that either.

Can't put a moratorium on procurement, production on major weapons systems can't be started and stopped on a dime. You also don't cut R&D, many developments from military R & D have gone on to have application in the civilian sector.

That being said, if a 5% cut (and I mean cut, not less of an increase) across the board to all gov't agencies/programs was implemented and spending levels kept constant until our national debt was at least halved and a balanced budget ammendment put in place, I'm on board.

[joethiesmanfan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

No problem with reducing our "boots on the ground" count, but it would have to be done gradually through attrition not involuntary separations. A lot more could be done "behind the scenes" with special forces and intel services, but our politicans don't have the stomach for that either.

Can't put a moratorium on procurement, production on major weapons systems can't be started and stopped on a dime. You also don't cut R&D, many developments from military R & D have gone on to have application in the civilian sector.

That being said, if a 5% cut (and I mean cut, not less of an increase) across the board to all gov't agencies/programs was implemented and spending levels kept constant until our national debt was at least halved and a balanced budget ammendment put in place, I'm on board.

Makes too much sense to come from the corporate structue of any entity, especially the gubmint.