Politics

[MartyIrish]

Actually, you are just wrong here...not even close to being right.

American families pay less to the government now than they did from 1955 to 2005.

Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Yeah...for middle income families.

 

[MartyIrish]

To say that they won't be there when you retire is a big fat lie. Sorry. If we do nothing to fix Social Security when the trust runs out it would still be paying something like 80% of the promised benefits.

Having said that there are some really easy fixes to make SS viable long term but our cowardly congress (both sides) won't do it.

Who told you that? You realize that 10k baby boomers are retiring A DAY.

That, and we've increased the amount of non-retirees on SS (disability, immigrants,beneficiaries) to the largest in history and you can't possibly believe that the road we're on is going to last. I've worked in the SS relm for years.

SS is going to end up EXACTLY like pensions. They said the same thing about pensions "It'll never run out".....HA. Nearly every single state is underfunded...only a few are 80-100% funded.

While I agree some overblow it....it's insane to think that it'll last going at the rate we are if changes aren't made. It absolutely can run out.


And of course both sides are scared...nobody want's to be the guy that messes with SS. I agree there. Somebody needs to sack up and make changes.

 

[Wild Bill]

To say that they won't be there when you retire is a big fat lie. Sorry. If we do nothing to fix Social Security when the trust runs out it would still be paying something like 80% of the promised benefits.

Having said that there are some really easy fixes to make SS viable long term but our cowardly congress (both sides) won't do it.

Depends on your age. I'm 32. I'd be a fool to assume SS will be there to fund, or partially fund, my retirement.

My point still stands - if I invested that small percentage of my earnings over the next thirty years, I'd produce enough income to retire. Instead, I'll keep my fingers crossed that Congress can fix the problems they've created.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Some crucial assertions here that I don't get.

Hard working Americans are doing more than their share. The government needs to start cutting back and Project A isn't the US military. Not now, not in arguably the most dangerous time in our history.

I'm interested in hearing that argument. We're the most secure and dominant military force in the history of the world.

We have two oceans, a dominant navy, and a stockpile of nuclear weapons protecting us from any sort of invasion. The things that would have to happen for that status to change are inconceivable. The ability of a foreign army to show up in your city sometime soon is 0%. You can't do better than that.

We are the only country in the world with the logistical capabilities to project any sort of appreciable military power. The majority of countries with modern militaries (albeit inferior even when combined in comparison to our own), eg United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia are our allies.

Russia is a complete joke, and the country people point at as a possible threat, China, is our largest trading partner and has a whole host of internal issues to deal with before they really even enter the discussion of a challenge (call me when they move their military without the US allowing it). We have so thoroughly integrated the world economy that the chances of a world war are nonexistent, since no nation has more to gain via war--a war they'd lose anyway. And I'm pretty convinced that we have the ability to shoot down ICBMs if it ever came to that anyway...and it won't under any circumstance.

We have lunatics in the Middle East causing some trouble other there. We have an Iranian government whose own people want to be more pro-Western and open and only make gains due to our stupidity (see: Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria, Yemen).

Is that is somehow more dangerous than 1962, I'd like to hear it.

Do we need another Afghanistan and Iraq? No. Do we need big budgets cyber/ IT/ drones/ intel/ security? Hell yes. I'd start with EPA, Dept of Energy, Dept of Agriculture, Dept of Education, and Dept of Homeland Security. That's a start.

The greatest national security issue we face is to be so concerned about (nonexistent) military threats that we forget to build and maintain our own country.

Your assertion is that we have a spending problem, but that we also need to raise taxes. That's absurd. That will crush middle class families (even moreso than they have been under Obama), and will hurt small and mid size businesses.

You can tax the wealthy and corporations without taxing the middle class or small businesses.

I'm glad you can at least acknowlege that we're spending ourselves into oblivion. Now imagine a scenario where the government spends less, yet brings in more. How so?

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.” ---- JFK in 1963

The tax rates in 1963 are comparable to today's? The Laffer Curve doesn't state that always lowering the rates is better, in fact it points out quite clearly that having the rates too low is as bad as having them too high.

 

[Buster Bluth]

ummmmm....no. Obama has carried the largest debt of all time( over 6 trillion) Bushy is second (around 5.8)

Context is key. The two wars and an economic implosion he inherited weren't exactly his doing.

 

[MartyIrish]

Depends on your age. I'm 32. I'd be a fool to assume SS will be there to fund, or partially fund, my retirement.

My point still stands - if I invested that small percentage of my earnings over the next thirty years, I'd produce enough income to retire. Instead, I'll keep my fingers crossed that Congress can fix the problems they've created.

Now that is absolutely true. We could do a whole lot better with our own retirements.

And for the record...SS was NEVER meant to be permanent. But government found out they could sell a huge portion of the voting block on a funded "retirement" account.

 

[MartyIrish]

Context is key. The two wars and an economic implosion he inherited weren't exactly his doing.

No, that's just what he's added.

I'm well aware of what he's inherited.

In fact, I undersold...Obama has added over 7 trillion. And some poor sap down the line is gonna eat the ACA as well

 

[Buster Bluth]

No, that's just what he's added.

I'm well aware of what he's inherited.

In fact, I undersold...Obama has added over 7 trillion. And some poor sap down the line is gonna eat the ACA as well

Huh?

If Obama inherits an economy with drastic drops in GDP and tax revenue...how is that Obama's fault?

I don't think anyone can look at this chart and say "yeah, that's Obama specifically."

Looks to me like the result of Wall Street tanking the economy.

The differences between now and the 1990s are Bush tax cuts, Bush wars, TARP, stimulus, and the recession. One of those is on Obama, the stimulus.

So what are you looking at that I don't see?

 

[MartyIrish]

Huh?

If Obama inherits an economy with drastic drops in GDP and tax revenue...how is that Obama's fault?

I don't think anyone can look at this chart and say "yeah, that's Obama specifically."

Looks to me like the result of Wall Street tanking the economy.

The differences between now and the 1990s are Bush tax cuts, Bush wars, TARP, stimulus, and the recession. One of those is on Obama, the stimulus.

So what are you looking at that I don't see?

Nobody is denying that Obama inherited the biggest defict in history...

Stimulus, 2010 tax cuts....

Obama’s Deficit Dodge

 

[pkt77242]

Who told you that? You realize that 10k baby boomers are retiring A DAY.

That, and we've increased the amount of non-retirees on SS (disability, immigrants,beneficiaries) to the largest in history and you can't possibly believe that the road we're on is going to last. I've worked in the SS relm for years.

SS is going to end up EXACTLY like pensions. They said the same thing about pensions "It'll never run out".....HA. Nearly every single state is underfunded...only a few are 80-100% funded.

While I agree some overblow it....it's insane to think that it'll last going at the rate we are if changes aren't made. It absolutely can run out.


And of course both sides are scared...nobody want's to be the guy that messes with SS. I agree there. Somebody needs to sack up and make changes.

How Accurate Is The Concern That Social Security Money Will One Day Run Out? - Forbes

The number is somewhere between 75-80% that it will be able to pay out after the trust fund runs out. I have looked at a few websites and the SSA trustee lists it at 78% with its current projection.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Yes JFK said that but it doesn't make it true. Sorry.

Seriously, you are so stuck to your ideology that you can't admit that cutting taxes has been part of the problem? That is like a family who took a lower paying job and increased their spending and then only blaming their increased spending for their money problems. Both are the reason that we got here, both are how we get out of it. To think otherwise is contrary to what most budget experts believe. Sorry.

Also it isn't so much Obama's policies that have hurt the middle class, it is what businesses have done. The average work has stagnant wages but the CEO's are getting raises faster than you can blink an eye. Look at how the US compares to the rest of the world.
CEO Compensation in the US Vs. the World | Chron.com



Do I think that CEOs deserve to be paid well? Yes. Do I think that their pay has gotten out of control? Hell Yes. The government doesn't control how much the employees get paid, the company does and the companies have spoken and said lets keep raising the salaries of the people at the top, and screw the average worker.

1) Who are these "budget experts" and what have they done to demonstrate their expertise? If they're near the beltway, I don't trust them. Those clowns haven't passed a budget in years.

2) You're right, US companies have control of what to pay employees. They found after 2008/2009 that they could get away with paying people lower wages because millions were desperate just to have a job. I think now the pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction.

The federal government's policies impact businesses and the citizens. The rising cost of living/ food/ etc cannot be blamed on businesses.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Some crucial assertions here that I don't get.



I'm interested in hearing that argument. We're the most secure and dominant military force in the history of the world.

We have two oceans, a dominant navy, and a stockpile of nuclear weapons protecting us from any sort of invasion. The things that would have to happen for that status to change are inconceivable. The ability of a foreign army to show up in your city sometime soon is 0%. You can't do better than that.

We are the only country in the world with the logistical capabilities to project any sort of appreciable military power. The majority of countries with modern militaries (albeit inferior even when combined in comparison to our own), eg United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia are our allies.

Russia is a complete joke, and the country people point at as a possible threat, China, is our largest trading partner and has a whole host of internal issues to deal with before they really even enter the discussion of a challenge (call me when they move their military without the US allowing it). We have so thoroughly integrated the world economy that the chances of a world war are nonexistent, since no nation has more to gain via war--a war they'd lose anyway. And I'm pretty convinced that we have the ability to shoot down ICBMs if it ever came to that anyway...and it won't under any circumstance.

We have lunatics in the Middle East causing some trouble other there. We have an Iranian government whose own people want to be more pro-Western and open and only make gains due to our stupidity (see: Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria, Yemen).

Is that is somehow more dangerous than 1962, I'd like to hear it.



The greatest national security issue we face is to be so concerned about (nonexistent) military threats that we forget to build and maintain our own country.



You can tax the wealthy and corporations without taxing the middle class or small businesses.



The tax rates in 1963 are comparable to today's? The Laffer Curve doesn't state that always lowering the rates is better, in fact it points out quite clearly that having the rates too low is as bad as having them too high.

1) Sure, we have the most dominant military in history. No argument there. Did it stop the bombing of the WTC in 93? Did it stop the jihadis from bombing US embassies? Did it prevent the bombing of the USS Cole? 9/11? Fort Hood? Boston bombing? Spain? London? Home grown terrorists like the guy they arrested in Ohio last week? Don't forget about those friendly drug cartels south of our border,too. The US no longer has to fear a particular nation like we did in 1942 or 1962. We have to worry every day about a global movement, and it only takes a small number of them to do A LOT of damage as we have seen.

2) Nonexistent military threats? Not sure if you understand the new war we're fighting. It isn't one side lines up here, other side lines up there, and meet in the middle anymore. Technology, intelligence, special forces teams, and drones have and will spearhead this war.

3) We're already taxing the wealthy (they pay about 80% of our federal taxes) and we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. What else do you wanna do?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Actually, you are just wrong here...not even close to being right.

American families pay less to the government now than they did from 1955 to 2005.

Federal Income Taxes on Middle-Income Families Remain Near Historic Lows — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

American families may pay less to the government now than they have in the past, but that doesn't mean the percentages I listed are inaccurate. I can show you a paycheck of mine with commission: normal paychecks about 30% goes to the gov, and with commission it goes up to about 40%. And yes I am middle class. So what am I wrong about?

 

[palinurus]

I love how the people who want taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn are insane but those favoring increasing deficit spending are the good guys.

Anyway, the problem with these "deals" offered on spending vs taxes are many, one being that, oftentimes, "cuts" aren't really cuts, they're reductions in future spendings. So you are trading a real tax for money that isn't even certain to be spent.

Second, tax increases are usually permanent; spending cuts need to be negotiated every year, in a vote-by-vote negotiation on each cut (because that's how spending is managed, year-by-year, vote-by-vote). And the deals to cut spending are (supposedly) cuts in spending over a period of years. The party delivering the spending cuts votes (in this case Democrat leadership) needs to keep its votes together over, not just a number of votes, but over a number of years. Even if they intend to be honest brokers, they are promising something they can't really promise.

In the meantime, any decrease in the traded-for tax increase, also needs to be voted on, too; but those who won't agree (now) to vote for the (last- year-promised) spending cut, also won't agree to cut the (last- year-voted-on-and-now-in-place) tax increase.

So it's a ratchet, working against the spending cut and in favor of the tax increase. Republicans own their share of the blame for the debt and deficit, but it isn't because they won't give in to Democrat demagoguery on refusing spending deals.

 

[Buster Bluth]

1) Sure, we have the most dominant military in history. No argument there. Did it stop the bombing of the WTC in 93? Did it stop the jihadis from bombing US embassies? Did it prevent the bombing of the USS Cole? 9/11? Fort Hood? Boston bombing? Spain? London? Home grown terrorists like the guy they arrested in Ohio last week? Don't forget about those friendly drug cartels south of our border,too. The US no longer has to fear a particular nation like we did in 1942 or 1962. We have to worry every day about a global movement, and it only takes a small number of them to do A LOT of damage as we have seen.

I worry more about the overreaction from people and governments than the impacts of an attack. None of what you mentioned could be considered an existential threat to this nation, and yet the last time Al-Qaeda succeeded in their attack we so overreacted that we invaded Iraq and created a surveillance state. I am legitimately terrified of what we'd do to ourselves after the next one. And there will be a next one, because regardless of how large we grow the military-industrial complex it cannot give people the protection it claims.

2) Nonexistent military threats? Not sure if you understand the new war we're fighting. It isn't one side lines up here, other side lines up there, and meet in the middle anymore. Technology, intelligence, special forces teams, and drones have and will spearhead this war.

So the billions of dollars we're spending on conventional forces (looking at you, F-35) could be cut then?

Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need | Military.com

3) We're already taxing the wealthy (they pay about 80% of our federal taxes) and we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. What else do you wanna do?

What about the highest effective corporate tax rate?

Considering that the rich are getting richer, and doing so at a fastest pace in American history, I'm not losing sleep over the idea of millionaires and billionaires paying more. I'm not saying I favor any and all tax increases, but I certainly don't feel bad for the 1%.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I love how the people who want taxpayers to keep more of the money they earn are insane but those favoring increasing deficit spending are the good guys.

That's a silly way of phrasing it. I don't think closing corporate loopholes so that they actually contribute to the upkeep of the country is a bad thing. When General Electric pays $0 in taxes, there's a problem.

I don't a progressive tax on capital gains, so the billionaires of the country don't get to sidestep income taxes the rest of us pay, is a crazy idea.

Second, tax increases are usually permanent;

Such as?

 

[pkt77242]

American families may pay less to the government now than they have in the past, but that doesn't mean the percentages I listed are inaccurate. I can show you a paycheck of mine with commission: normal paychecks about 30% goes to the gov, and with commission it goes up to about 40%. And yes I am middle class. So what am I wrong about?

Probably the fact that you get a bunch back when you do your taxes. If you are truly middle class and you are paying 30% you should fire you accountant/cpa or whoever does your taxes.

 

[pkt77242]

1) Who are these "budget experts" and what have they done to demonstrate their expertise? If they're near the beltway, I don't trust them. Those clowns haven't passed a budget in years.

2) You're right, US companies have control of what to pay employees. They found after 2008/2009 that they could get away with paying people lower wages because millions were desperate just to have a job. I think now the pendulum is starting to swing in the other direction.

The federal government's policies impact businesses and the citizens. The rising cost of living/ food/ etc cannot be blamed on businesses.

The problem is that you are just looking for something to confirm what you already believe.

Really, you are saying that the government is responsible for living costs and food costs rising but that business cannot be blamed. They both bear some blame for living costs but that is both of them. Does the government sometimes deserve blame for food costs, yes. Does it deserve all of the blame and businesses none? Actually food costs are mostly rising due to things that neither the government nor business have a say in, things like droughts (which led to cows being slaughtered early as there wasn't enough food to go around), rising population, so more people to feed, storms right before harvest (freezes) etc. You are right, we should write our congressmen and tell him to change the weather.

The whole attitude of blaming the government for everything that is bad is first off destructive and second off extremely misplaced. Do you ever blame businesses for anything?

Look the government does some things well, and somethings not so well. They can sometimes do things that make your life more difficult but I think that the problem is that we take the good things that the government does and we ignore them or discount them.

Edited: I should be nicer Leppy, I generally like you I just fundamentally disagree with you.

 

[Wild Bill]

That's a silly way of phrasing it. I don't think closing corporate loopholes so that they actually contribute to the upkeep of the country is a bad thing. When General Electric pays $0 in taxes, there's a problem.

I don't a progressive tax on capital gains, so the billionaires of the country don't get to sidestep income taxes the rest of us pay, is a crazy idea.

The capital gains tax provides an incentive for anyone willing to invest and produce, it's not just the billionaires. People should pay lower rates to incentivize thoughtful behavior.

Keep in mind that I'm investing taxed dollars to produce gains that are taxed at the cap gain rate. I'm not sidestepping anything, I'm actually using taxed money to create another profit (and layer of tax). Reinvesting cap gains is an exception but the original dollar was still taxed at a normal rate (assuming it was reported). And if you're in a position to continually reinvest cap gains, then I'd be willing to bet all I have you're producing something society needs and a quite a few jobs too.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I worry more about the overreaction from people and governments than the impacts of an attack. None of what you mentioned could be considered an existential threat to this nation, and yet the last time Al-Qaeda succeeded in their attack we so overreacted that we invaded Iraq and created a surveillance state. I am legitimately terrified of what we'd do to ourselves after the next one. And there will be a next one, because regardless of how large we grow the military-industrial complex it cannot give people the protection it claims.



So the billions of dollars we're spending on conventional forces (looking at you, F-35) could be cut then?

Pentagon Tells Congress to Stop Buying Equipment it Doesn't Need | Military.com



What about the highest effective corporate tax rate?

Considering that the rich are getting richer, and doing so at a fastest pace in American history, I'm not losing sleep over the idea of millionaires and billionaires paying more. I'm not saying I favor any and all tax increases, but I certainly don't feel bad for the 1%.

1) If you're more worried about people "overreacting" from a terrorist attack on American soil, I don't know what else to tell you. The Red Army or China isn't going to show up on the eastern seaboard any time in the next century. Any Islamic nutjob screaming "alluha akbar" can jump on a train in NYC or LA and kill hundreds of people tomorrow.

2) I'm sure there can be some cuts to our huge military, but I know neither you nor I have the knowledge or experience to determine where or how much.

3) I don't feel bad for the 1% at all. Not the least. But before we start raising taxes on business and middle class Americans (where all the money is), let's look inward first.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Probably the fact that you get a bunch back when you do your taxes. If you are truly middle class and you are paying 30% you should fire you accountant/cpa or whoever does your taxes.

We all get some money back, sure, but it's outrageous that middle class Americans can say goodbye to 30% of their labor.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

The problem is that you are just looking for something to confirm what you already believe.

Really, you are saying that the government is responsible for living costs and food costs rising but that business cannot be blamed. They both bear some blame for living costs but that is both of them. Does the government sometimes deserve blame for food costs, yes. Does it deserve all of the blame and businesses none? Actually food costs are mostly rising due to things that neither the government nor business have a say in, things like droughts (which led to cows being slaughtered early as there wasn't enough food to go around), rising population, so more people to feed, storms right before harvest (freezes) etc. You are right, we should write our congressmen and tell him to change the weather.

The whole attitude of blaming the government for everything that is bad is first off destructive and second off extremely misplaced. Do you ever blame businesses for anything?

Look the government does some things well, and somethings not so well. They can sometimes do things that make your life more difficult but I think that the problem is that we take the good things that the government does and we ignore them or discount them.

Edited: I should be nicer Leppy, I generally like you I just fundamentally disagree with you.

1) You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote.

2) I have the attitude that our country was formed because we wanted a small, limited government. Government does very little well (hello, post office) and therefore believe it should not be involved in most matters. That's damn near libertarian.

 

[pkt77242]

1) If you're more worried about people "overreacting" from a terrorist attack on American soil, I don't know what else to tell you. The Red Army or China isn't going to show up on the eastern seaboard any time in the next century. Any Islamic nutjob screaming "alluha akbar" can jump on a train in NYC or LA and kill hundreds of people tomorrow.

2) I'm sure there can be some cuts to our huge military, but I know neither you nor I have the knowledge or experience to determine where or how much.

3) I don't feel bad for the 1% at all. Not the least. But before we start raising taxes on business and middle class Americans (where all the money is), let's look inward first.

What now? I think you need to explain that better or what you meant. I think it is more true to say that businesses and the rich is where all the money is at, middle class Americans are definitely not where the money is at.

 

[DonnieNarco]

I worry more about the overreaction from people and governments than the impacts of an attack. None of what you mentioned could be considered an existential threat to this nation, and yet the last time Al-Qaeda succeeded in their attack we so overreacted that we invaded Iraq and created a surveillance state. I am legitimately terrified of what we'd do to ourselves after the next one. And there will be a next one, because regardless of how large we grow the military-industrial complex it cannot give people the protection it claims.

On this topic, I always think about this.

Just Asking - The Atlantic

Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?2 In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?

In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?

Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?

In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, PATRIOT Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?

 

[pkt77242]

1) You either didn't read or didn't understand what I wrote.

2) I have the attitude that our country was formed because we wanted a small, limited government. Government does very little well (hello, post office) and therefore believe it should not be involved in most matters. That's damn near libertarian.

Seriously, after I took it nice on you in the last post?

One the post office was amazing for hundreds of years. People who shit on it now are showing very little knowledge of history (literally the Post office was great for close to 200 years, and has sucked for 20). Do I think that things need to be done to fix the post office, yes but those things keep getting blocked (Getting rid of Saturday delivery, and only delivering to rural areas a few days a week as well as closing some more rural post offices) by congress because politicians generally suck.

I love the principal of small government, reality isn't so great in a modern society. Tell me one country out there that has a small government and is successful? The truth is it worked well in the time and place of our founding due to the lack of communication options, the bad experience we had with the British Monarchy, and a few other reasons (such as knowing where you get your food from and pollution not being as bad as now).

People say things like lets get rid of the EPA. They say things like consumers will just buying from polluters. The problem with that is that the common person probably won't know who is polluting or not, or if they don it won't be till a long time after the fact. Know a days since we get food from all over, who is going to inspect your meat, or who when people start getting sick from food is going to investigate it and find out where it is coming from and force a recall of it? Who is going to verify that the drugs that you are taking are safe? Do you really trust the drug companies?

The idea of small government is great and but I think the reality is that it doesn't work well with how large the US has become. I do favor taking some power away from the government and I for reducing spending to help somewhat balance the budget (I was a huge fan of the 4-1 spending cuts to tax increase and if my arm was twisted I would probably be willing to go 5-1). People want to transfer a lot of the powers to state governments which while I can understand that, is in some way just as bad if not worse. It will create difficulties for businesses and individuals when they move across state lines and face even more vastly different rules and regulations then currently do (yes some states regulate more than others but it would get even worse with giving more powers to the states).

Some of you won't agree with this and I can appreciate that we have different views, but I see too many people demonizing government. I find it ironic and funny that the South generally votes Republican when that party wants to cut services and spending that the South disproportionately benefits from.

On a slightly different subject my favorite poll is the one showing that 70% of Americans want to cut spending yet we can't even get 50% of Americans to agree on one area to cut. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/americans-want-to-cut-spending-they-just-dont-know-what-to-cut/?_r=0

 

[DonnieNarco]

Kansas taxes $47M less than expected in January, complicating already strained budget picture | Fox Business

Here's Kansas governor Brownback's trickle-down economics experiment failing greatly.

 

[DonnieNarco]

Jeb Bush is a hypocrite about marijuana, Rand Paul says - CBS News

Embarrassing for Jeb. Not a libertarian at all, but Rand Paul has said a lot of the right things and called out the right people. I appreciate the way he's shaking up the status quo in the Republican Party and hopefully gives them better social policies.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

What now? I think you need to explain that better or what you meant. I think it is more true to say that businesses and the rich is where all the money is at, middle class Americans are definitely not where the money is at.

Nope. Saul Alinsky had it right. Obama knows what he's doing. The middle class is where the money is.

If you confiscated the incomes of every American who earns a million dollars or more, it would only pay 1/36 of our national debt. The money is still in the middle class.

Original point: the rich already pay 80% of our federal taxes, businesses (aside from GE, thanks obama), pay the highest taxes in the WORLD, and the middle class is throwing up 30% of what they earn to the feds.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Seriously, after I took it nice on you in the last post?

One the post office was amazing for hundreds of years. People who shit on it now are showing very little knowledge of history (literally the Post office was great for close to 200 years, and has sucked for 20). Do I think that things need to be done to fix the post office, yes but those things keep getting blocked (Getting rid of Saturday delivery, and only delivering to rural areas a few days a week as well as closing some more rural post offices) by congress because politicians generally suck.

I love the principal of small government, reality isn't so great in a modern society. Tell me one country out there that has a small government and is successful? The truth is it worked well in the time and place of our founding due to the lack of communication options, the bad experience we had with the British Monarchy, and a few other reasons (such as knowing where you get your food from and pollution not being as bad as now).

People say things like lets get rid of the EPA. They say things like consumers will just buying from polluters. The problem with that is that the common person probably won't know who is polluting or not, or if they don it won't be till a long time after the fact. Know a days since we get food from all over, who is going to inspect your meat, or who when people start getting sick from food is going to investigate it and find out where it is coming from and force a recall of it? Who is going to verify that the drugs that you are taking are safe? Do you really trust the drug companies?

The idea of small government is great and but I think the reality is that it doesn't work well with how large the US has become. I do favor taking some power away from the government and I for reducing spending to help somewhat balance the budget (I was a huge fan of the 4-1 spending cuts to tax increase and if my arm was twisted I would probably be willing to go 5-1). People want to transfer a lot of the powers to state governments which while I can understand that, is in some way just as bad if not worse. It will create difficulties for businesses and individuals when they move across state lines and face even more vastly different rules and regulations then currently do (yes some states regulate more than others but it would get even worse with giving more powers to the states).

Some of you won't agree with this and I can appreciate that we have different views, but I see too many people demonizing government. I find it ironic and funny that the South generally votes Republican when that party wants to cut services and spending that the South disproportionately benefits from.

On a slightly different subject my favorite poll is the one showing that 70% of Americans want to cut spending yet we can't even get 50% of Americans to agree on one area to cut. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/americans-want-to-cut-spending-they-just-dont-know-what-to-cut/?_r=0

Keyboard diarreah. Tell me one country with a huge government that has centralized power, controls everything, and is successful.

China?
North Korea?
Russia?
Greece?
Italy?
Spain?
France?
UK?
Ireland?
Cuba?
Venezuela?

Big government fails over and over, yet here we are in past decades using the same formula and saying, "we can do it better." What a joke.

 

[DonnieNarco]

The Scandanavian countries.