Will the Stupid Party Agree to Higher Taxes and More Wasteful Spending? (and a beezzer apology)

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by beezzer

 

It's like they are the farm league on the state level and local level is college level lol. Politics being a career has helped foster this bs too. Like I said they have been crooked for along time only recently have lots of people been really noticing.

The point is, people are noticing.
The "usual suspects" (ardent followers of a political ideology) aren't following the way they (me) used to.

It doesn't take years to pass a law, enact legislation, eliminate a bill or a law. The only reason why any pol drags their feet is that they want the status quo.

Do any of you really expect the SuperCongress to do any real budget cutting? I did not.Both sides have no intentions of cutting anything especially with only a year left before the 2012 election it's posturing time and most people will eat the partisan bs up.

reply to post by beezzer

Please realize we have in place a 2-headed 1-party system.

The amount of spending under Bush was crazy. They raised the debt ceiling, doubled the national debt and bailed out the bankers.

In order to appear "conservative", the Democrats have to outdo their partners in crime so spending under Obama went INSANE.



Enough. Really enough. We need someone who will cut real spending. Someone who was screaming about the deficit back in 1987 when it was $220 billion and understands the dangers of debt, interest, printing money and inflation.

reply to post by The Old American


I am familiar with the US constitution but I don't take a funamentalist view of it. It is an important document but its not so different from the bible. How? Well, as I'm sure you know there are Christians that take every word of the bible literally and any deviation from it is a sin.

The problem is when real life gets in the way of the absolutist position (on any subject). When the constitution was drawn up the founding fathers had no idea how the US political system would develop. They had no idea that the Houses of Congress could be so paralysed on some issues that either legislation won't get passed at all (or it will be so watered down to be ineffective), or the country and its economy could be brought down by politicians and partisan bickering. We have all seen this.

The fact is that if you take an absolutist position the constitution and bill of rights have been broken again and again. And they will continue to be broken by all politicians. If you, I or anybody else were in power we would also break them - it is due to the inadequacies of the US political system.

So I don't buy this 'if only we were to follow the constitution to the letter' viewpoint. Under the current system it will NEVER happen and those that subscribe to the view are dreamers. I deal in reality, not dreams.

reply to post by beezzer


But must we always be grouped into two viewpoints? I don't see government as the answer or the cause of our socio-economic problems.

Politicians, their policies and big business sadly are a product of something called the human condition. They all serve their own interest before the interest of others. At this point you could say that business exists to serve its own interest which is normal but politicians are supposed to serve the public interest which is true. But my reply would be that in a society where self interest (or profit, even greed) is considered most important, its completely normal that politicians would behave in the same way.

Under the current system I don't see how its possible to change this state of affairs. I know having read a number of posts that you support a free market system, but the principle underpinning that system is the profit motive. In my opinion nothing would change apart from perhaps that politicians would be even more in the pockets of business.

end all the corporate welfare is the only "new tax" that would make sense to me, otherwise the governments are getting more money than necessary.
also individual deductions on mortgages, etc should be dollar amount limited.
from oil companies to pig farmers, to research and development(much corporate scamming).

the waste in government programs is staggering at all levels.
from military porc, disability, transportation, HUD, education.
i don't know if anything government does is still honest.
the pharmaceutical companies are fleecing America, yet is left out of the health care debate.

but the unfunded no child left behind, the huge pharmaceutical giveaway in prescription medicare were republican programs.

and the Bush tax cuts have led to huge fraud.
how many billions paid for children who don't exist or should not qualify?

so there is little choice when dealing with voting for sanity.

at the local level, i'll vote for either party as long as i have reason to consider the candidate a real person and not just another ideological idiot.

at the State or Federal level voting is difficult, usually the least scary of the two.

reply to post by beezzer


Beezer, it is becoming a lost hope to to trust or believe in anything from the Republican Party. It is sad.
I only hope that Ron Paul gets the go ahead.
To the Rep party I give you this, in regards to raising taxes.....

Originally posted by sheepslayer247

reply to post by sweetliberty

 

The more the people spend, the more we pay taxes. The more we're taxed, the less we spend.

That is true on a state level that has a sales tax, but how does the federal government gets its funding with no national sales tax?

Either we have to have an income tax to fund the Feds, or we have to enact a national sales tax.

Well, only after they get on their worn-out knee's and beg

The Fed's should be given an allotment for highways and structural repairs but..... oh wait, they already do. Every time I fill my tank.

Seriously, this is all insane. We're divvying the monthly taxes brought in by consumers towards entitlements that should never be left up to the Federal Govt to fund. The taxes currently brought in from the consumers should be (for now) what the Fed's work with.
Our dollar is currently worth .60 cents or less. We keep borrowing from foreign lands and we play make-believe and pull astronomical sums of money from thin air. Actually, we're spending our children and grand children's money.

If that was you or me bringing in and spending money like that, we'd see a term of 100 years in prison.

We American's are generous with our money... if the ptb would stop taking so much from us, we'd gladly spend it and there would be more than enough tax money pouring into the government.

It's easy to spend other people's money (herein lies the problem). TPTB aren't as careless with their own money.

For a start, we should cut at least half of the income the politicians and Judges make, continue this until the income equals minimum wage.

Next. It should be mandatory to pay-in-full when purchasing anything.
Next.... nevermind, I just fixed the wasteful spending.

reply to post by beezzer


The Tea Party will be watching.. You know that group which made a lot of noise, failed and didnt do anything they promised..

reply to post by marg6043


Too true, Marg.

The true irony is the one's doing the rioting in this future situation, are the one's who couldn't be bothered to get off their collective butts and help fix it before it became too late.

This attitude of "I got mine, so everything is fine." attitude is going to be the death of us all.

As whaaa said earlier, this is why local, and state politics are so very important. The attitudes of the politicians in Washington DC are, at least to a degree, influenced by the local folks who help put them in office. It's also why staying involved once your guy, or gal, is in office is so vitally important.

Don't trust them to do the job. MAKE THEM DO THE JOB!! Trusting politicians to do the job is what brought us to this sorry state.

reply to post by beezzer


I don't think cutie patootie, ol' blue eyes, has done anything for the party except to make it them look worse than they already do.

John Boehner communicates very poorly with the people and the msm. This is one of a few pertinent reasons there's so much confusion. Many people don't have the time to unravel the disinformation spewing from the left.

Boehner and Obama both should resign and play with each other on the golf course.

Originally posted by freethinker123[W]hat is the nature of the obsession with smaller government?

A lot stems with the desire to be able to self-governance. Since the inception, debate and adoption of the United States Constitution, there has been an on going battle between just how much power the Federal Government should garner.

The idea of American Federalism, born from the Constitutional convention and further explained in various Federalist Papers, explains the desire to disseminate and dilute as much political power to the lowest levels of society. At the very top, we a strictly limited and concise Federal government, granted specific enumerated powers. At the lowest levels (States and municipalities) we have a far greater latitude.

While the battle over stronger States vs. stronger Federal governments has been ongoing, the pendulum had swung heavily in favor of an extremely strong and politically powerful Federal government (nearing the likings of a National government) since the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries. Consolidation of power during that time has been an ongoing onslaught against the numerous State governments, effectively bringing a pseudo-central planning form of government that barely looks like Federalism.

As Old American replied to you about the Constitution -- he did so (and I am making a huge assumption here, so hopefully he corrects me if I am wrong) because typically advocates of a smaller Federal government wish to see that government operate within the constraints and restrictions they are bound to by the Law of the Land.

Typically advocates for a small limited Federal government (and even small limited State governments) is that the People themselves are quite capable of governing themselves. Smaller government, meaning less intrusiveness in the daily lives of its citizens means less spending and less need to have the insane tax-codes we have.

One of the largest calls for smaller government is to bring back powers that have been liberally utilized by the Federal Government when they have no authority to do such. Though most of those have been due to interpretations of various clauses; such as the Commerce clause.

Limited/smaller government advocates see the clause as to ensure that States do not take advantage of other States. Whereas currently the Federal Government sees it as an all-inclusive power grab to regulate everything from health insurance to regulating local meat prices.

A vast majority of smaller government advocates understand the necessary "evil" of having a government structure. But we also see that such structure should be severely limited and contained to specific powers. We understand the need for taxation, but as the size of the Federal Government grows, so does the need for more and more money from not only its citizens but anyone conducting business within the United States.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by beezzer

 

The Tea Party will be watching.. You know that group which made a lot of noise, failed and didnt do anything they promised..

They did exactly as they promised.

And that's why the left starting calling the S & P downgrade a "Tea Party downgrade" and the argument was over the debt ceiling.

They stuck to their fiscal guns, which is why they got elected, and it got them in trouble. Not because they were wrong, but because they were right. The downgrade was coming LONG before the Tea Party had made any political inroads. And today the result of years of bad policy between George W. Bush and Barack Obama is being blamed on the Tea Party, even though their policy really IS the opposite of those who run such a profligate government today.

Originally posted by ShogunAssassins
reply to post by beezzer

 

The Tea Party will be watching.. You know that group which made a lot of noise, failed and didnt do anything they promised..

Wht makes you think we're done? Simply because we go about our lives without making issues everyday does not mean we aren't out there.

Real change takes time. It's not some microwave burrito that you can zap and expect between commercials.

reply to post by sweetliberty
They should all resign. I am totally in favour of a complete sweep. Even those that said they were Tea Party, (for me, it was the Patriot Act) who voted status quo.

I know we can't honestly do something like that overnight, but starting in 2012, it's going to be, "incumbents out, new folks in" each and every darned election cycle.

Boehner? Toss the bum! Reid? Pelosi? History!

With the exception of Obama's administration, most previous democratic administrations have spent half or a third of what republican administrations spend. Yet I see the same tired arguement MYTH that somehow the republicans are for "small government".

No the democrats are for small government and for some accountability. The white house financial records of at least the last 50 years prove this. Please do not ask me for a link because finding it normally takes me about 20 minutes. You see the conspiracy to cover-up this inconvenient fact is really vast and painstaking. The PTB no longer leave anything to chance.

Are the democrats our savior? Hell no! No mainstream party can be. Both answer to the elite one way or another.

Higher taxes at this point of the game are necessary, BUT and this is huge...where will that money go??? More corporate welfare? More wars? Will it go to help social welfare systems? Will it go to pay interest on our $15 trillion defecit spending? I am ALL for fair redistribution of wealth at least as far as the super wealthy go, but the billionares and trillionares who have been hoarding their money for decades(if not centuries) in offshore and undisclosed bank accounts stand to lose nothing. I seriously doubt that money will ever be made public again in order to achieve effective redistribution. Most of the money ever issued is sitting idely aka PARKED! So the government wants to tax the hell out of the millionares who made their money honestly but let the parasites get away their past crimes.

Even I do NOT support higher taxes for the above reasons. Either cut down on unnecessary spending and go after OLD MONEY or leave the baby-boomers alone. The babyboomers serve as useful idiots for real money bag PTB who can bribe any damm person they feel like. Politics has evolved into a joke since reagen and thatcher came to the scene and allowed leveraged buyouts and near total deregulation of the markets.

Voting for a republican is like voting for hell and voting for a democrat is like voting for pergatory!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


If you could provide sources and proof that democrats are for smaller government, I'd be willing to take a look.

Taxes. There is no need to raise taxes. Unless you want to continue spending and allowing government to "rule" over the system.

Cut programs.

All programs.

Stop spending and we may find a solution.

Change can and will only occur once we all grow a spine and kick out every last Republican, Conservative, Tea Party, Libretarian, Democrat and Independent out of office and replace them with a new political party called "The American Party"

The new political team! The USA!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Time to end the corruption, show every last one of them the door.

The following will not be cut and that is just that :
Social Security, Head Start, Pell Grants, business and personal grants, retirement and assisted living items, Government pensions, Housing and Urban Development funding, Dept Of Transportation highway funding, infrastructure funding pertaining to maintenance and upkeep of Govt buildings, regulatory agency funding, military pay, pension and healthcare, Federal Govt employee pay, pension and healthcare.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

If you could provide sources and proof that democrats are for smaller government, I'd be willing to take a look.

Short on factual history books over there? No access to the internet?

Taxes. There is no need to raise taxes. Unless you want to continue spending and allowing government to "rule" over the system.

War is a fantastic reason to raise taxes.

reply to post by beezzer


Well, Beezzer, you're about as "independent" as a siamese twin. You always have been, and you're not going to fool anyone. But hey, I appreciate the almost-effort you kind of went through.

You don't solve a debt unless you're making money to feed it. My only question is who the Republicans are talking about taxing - if their dent-headed point man Cain is any indication, their tax plan is an 80% tax cut at the top and a 30% tax increase at the bottom.