For all of you Republicans who think that spending and taxes are too high...

[Morningstar]

I'd like to know how you would go about balancing the budget, while maintaining or cutting current tax rates?

Show me the numbers...

[Morningstar]

Here are some projections on the 2013 budget:

Total Projected Spending: $3.8 trillion

Major Spending Items

Defense: $901 billion
Social Security:$878 billion
Medicare: $530 billion
Welfare: $422 billion
Medicaid: $350 billion
Interest: $247 billion
Education: $136 billion
Transportation: $114 billion

[Morningstar]

Projected revenue is $2.9 trillion. So you'd need to cut $900 billion out, assuming that your revenue is unchanged.

[Morningstar]

If we assume that you'd never get the votes to decrease SS or Medicare, and that defense spending is static, plus add in the mandatory interest payments, We are already at $2.55 trillion...

That leaves only $350 billion of revenue left, to run the entirety of the rest of the federal government.

[patrickt]

So, you're saying it's too late. The liberals have already spent us into oblivion. I can believe that. But, with your penchant for numbers I'm sure you're aware, for example, that when capital gains tax rates have dropped the tax revenues have increased. When asked, four years ago, about raising the capital gains tax reducing tax revenues, President Obama said he didn't care. He would accept lower revenues if he could tax them higher. It was, according to Obama, about fairness.

So, Morningstar, how can you keep increasing spending, run a government without bothering with a budget, and use the tax system for a variety of things besides raising revenue? How can you add the laughably entitled "Affordable Health Care Act" to a system hat's already bankrupt and be proud? Bankruptcy seems to be a liberal specialty and a liberal goal.

You know, Morningstar, it's not like "those Republicans" have some bizarre fantasy about spending being too high. "Those Republicans" helped spending us into the mess we're in. I will admit that taxes are only too high for those who have to pay them. For a working man to have to pay 15% of his gross to FICA is criminal. For half the population to miss out on the joy of dealing with the IRS, and seeing what's in the future for health care, is insane. But, for the really bright who pay no taxes, it's just fine.

[garyo]

All the air headed liberals need to do is look at Europe, but that would make common sense and that is the problem.

[Morningstar]

All the air headed liberals need to do is look at Europe, but that would make common sense and that is the problem.

Brilliant post...

[Morningstar]

So, you're saying it's too late. The liberals have already spent us into oblivion. I can believe that. But, with your penchant for numbers I'm sure you're aware, for example, that when capital gains tax rates have dropped the tax revenues have increased. When asked, four years ago, about raising the capital gains tax reducing tax revenues, President Obama said he didn't care. He would accept lower revenues if he could tax them higher. It was, according to Obama, about fairness.

So, Morningstar, how can you keep increasing spending, run a government without bothering with a budget, and use the tax system for a variety of things besides raising revenue? How can you add the laughably entitled "Affordable Health Care Act" to a system hat's already bankrupt and be proud? Bankruptcy seems to be a liberal specialty and a liberal goal.

You know, Morningstar, it's not like "those Republicans" have some bizarre fantasy about spending being too high. "Those Republicans" helped spending us into the mess we're in. I will admit that taxes are only too high for those who have to pay them. For a working man to have to pay 15% of his gross to FICA is criminal. For half the population to miss out on the joy of dealing with the IRS, and seeing what's in the future for health care, is insane. But, for the really bright who pay no taxes, it's just fine.

Spending is too high. But I don't know if it is a trillion dollars a year too high, for what we demand.

Our best bet may be to cut $500 billion out of spending, and add $500 billion of revenue.

I simply don't see how you will get this budget balanced anytime soon, without tax increases.

Even the Ryan Budget doesn't balance the budget until the year 2040!!!

[Peter1469]

Look at the US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8: If a government spending program does not link to one of the enumerated powers cut it. Send that authority back to the states.

Cut the Department of Education. Return it to its original bureau status and limit its function to only assist state education departments with local plans and coordination between the states.

Defense: close most US bases overseas. Leave one logistical hub in Korea, one in Germany, and one in Kuwait. Cut manpower as these units come home (over time, not all at once). Turn the Army into an expeditionary force, like the USMC. Don't US military might to protect other nations' interests; only our interests. Don't play world cop; don't nation build. If we use force, we use massive force, be break things and kill people, accomplish the mission, and come home. Clean up is not our problem.

Pass a balanced budget amendment.

Reform entitlement programs so they won't fail.

Not an exhaustive list.

[Dakota Nights]

This is an issue where I have changed, and I do not support raising taxes anymore. When you cut taxes all round. It will cause more revenue, because more people will pay taxes. The only thing I agree with Romney on. However, I don't think we should cut the government, that would hurt the welfare of the nation.

[Morningstar]

Look at the US Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 8: If a government spending program does not link to one of the enumerated powers cut it. Send that authority back to the states.

Cut the Department of Education. Return it to its original bureau status and limit its function to only assist state education departments with local plans and coordination between the states.

Defense: close most US bases overseas. Leave one logistical hub in Korea, one in Germany, and one in Kuwait. Cut manpower as these units come home (over time, not all at once). Turn the Army into an expeditionary force, like the USMC. Don't US military might to protect other nations' interests; only our interests. Don't play world cop; don't nation build. If we use force, we use massive force, be break things and kill people, accomplish the mission, and come home. Clean up is not our problem.

Pass a balanced budget amendment.

Reform entitlement programs so they won't fail.

Not an exhaustive list.

No, that's not an exhaustive list.

I also don't think it balances the budget. And I am certain it isn't do-able.

Republican politicians have no interest in cutting defense, for instance.

[Morningstar]

When you cut taxes all round. It will cause more revenue, because more people will pay taxes.

Can you back up this assertion?

[Trinnity]

I've done this thing before....saying where's I'd cut. Not gonna do all that again. But a good start is to eliminate every dept that isn't Constitutionally authorized, and return the powers to the states that are their purview. We've GOT to deal with SSI, MC, et al or WE. ARE. DOOMED.

[Peter1469]

This is an issue where I have changed, and I do not support raising taxes anymore. When you cut taxes all round. It will cause more revenue, because more people will pay taxes. The only thing I agree with Romney on. However, I don't think we should cut the government, that would hurt the welfare of the nation.

Government spending can greatly hurt the nation. But just as a baseline, let's discuss deficit spending. ~$1.3T in deficit spending year after year is unsustainable and will be painful to roll back, or will crash the economy if they continue. Either way, it is harmful.

[Chris]

I'd like to know how you would go about balancing the budget, while maintaining or cutting current tax rates?

Show me the numbers...

Why should that be the goal? Why not starve the beast?

[Morningstar]

I've done this thing before....saying where's I'd cut. Not gonna do all that again. But a good start is to eliminate every dept that isn't Constitutionally authorized, and return the powers to the states that are their purview. We've GOT to deal with SSI, MC, et al or WE. ARE. DOOMED.

The whole "constitutionality authorized" idea is silly and pointless. Every last cent that we spend is "constitutional".

[Morningstar]

Why should that be the goal? Why not starve the beast?

Good luck with that plan...

[Peter1469]

No, that's not an exhaustive list.

I also don't think it balances the budget. And I am certain it isn't do-able.

Republican politicians have no interest in cutting defense, for instance.

My first point alone will cut federal government spending by over 50% if loosely interpreted- maybe 80% if strictly followed. Of course most of this spending would be shifted to the states and that will have to be addressed later.

I agree it isn't going to happen. I have said this on many forums several times. The US has too much debt.

~$16T: official debt
~$200T: the next 75 years of entitlement spending without changes
~$42T: private debt
~$220T: the low end of the derivative holdings of the top 5 US banks- worthless paper

This debt will be deleveraged one way or another.

1. A managed deleveraging where serious cuts are made in government spending; the deficit is eliminated; the debt slowly paid down. Inflation is a key.

2. An unmanaged deleveraging: politicians don’t have the will for #1, so they do nothing. The economy collapses.

3. A game changer (not relevant here).

My money is on #2.

[Peter1469]

Can you back up this assertion?

JFK did it. Reagan did it. Bush the Younger did it.

[Morningstar]

JFK did it. Reagan did it. Bush the Younger did it.

More people paid taxes? I thought the problem was that 47% aren't paying taxes?!?

[Peter1469]

More people paid taxes? I thought the problem was that 47% aren't paying taxes?!?

JFK, Reagan, and Bush the Younger are not in office today, in case you missed it.

[garyo]

Now that was a brilliant post. lol

[Morningstar]

JFK, Reagan, and Bush the Younger are not in office today, in case you missed it.

We're discussing his tax cuts.

Please, let's keep this conversation intelligent.

I'm not interested in dumbing it down for the "garyos" of the world....

[Chris]

Good luck with that plan...

So you have no argument, just a flippant reply? You're the one started the topic, I'd supposed you were sincere.

[GrassrootsConservative]

So you have no argument, just a flippant reply? You're the one started the topic, I'd supposed you were sincere.

You'd think eventually the posts from a bad poster would get better, but in this case... nope... Poor Morningstar.

[Morningstar]

So you have no argument, just a flippant reply? You're the one started the topic, I'd supposed you were sincere.

Starving the beast hasn't worked. When do you assume it will? When the debt is 300% of GDP?

500%?

1000%

When?!?

[Chris]

This is an issue where I have changed, and I do not support raising taxes anymore. When you cut taxes all round. It will cause more revenue, because more people will pay taxes. The only thing I agree with Romney on. However, I don't think we should cut the government, that would hurt the welfare of the nation.

I'm guessing you're referring to the Laffer Curve. What it says is that at some point raising taxes will result in higher revenues but at some further point raising taxes will result in lower revenues. It's a general politico-economic law as those points depend on many factors.

The Constitution speak of general welfare. Why do you support special interest social and corporate welfare?

[Morningstar]

You'd think eventually the posts from a bad poster would get better, but in this case... nope... Poor Morningstar.

A subjective criticism.

I find my posts to be quite interesting and insightful, obviously...

But then, I'm operating at a different level than, say, a Rush Limbaugh...

[Chris]

Starving the beast hasn't worked. When do you assume it will? When the debt is 300% of GDP?

500%?

1000%

When?!?

Please give us an example where government has starved itself.

[Morningstar]

Please give us an example where government has starved itself.

Do you know what starve the beast even is?!?

It is a philosophy of deficit spending in the belief that high national debt will eventually force spending cuts and an overall shrinking of government.

It is an utterly ludicrous gameplan.

[birddog]

You'd think eventually the posts from a bad poster would get better, but in this case... nope... Poor Morningstar.

Morningstar is still in the dark! :laugh:

[JohnAdams]

Projected revenue is $2.9 trillion. So you'd need to cut $900 billion out, assuming that your revenue is unchanged.

Fine we oust THE OBAMA and the rest of his tax and spend cronies from political office. Voila 900 billion in cuts have just been saved.

Because they're no longer doing things like flying full sized, armored, buses from city to city so THE OBAMA can claim he's taking a bus tour.

Because they're no longer doing things like spending tax payer funds, to fly a man from chicago to washington just to make them a pizza.

Really morningstar with all the amounts of waste the DNC has legislated into law, and this administration in particular has practiced.

It's as was said in yet another thread, wherein the left was once again taking absolutely hypocritical and self serving positions.

Pot meet the kettle, kettle meet the pot.

[Morningstar]

Morningstar is still in the dark! :laugh:

We generally find that those who attack posters instead of content are often not up to the challenge of contradicting said content in an intelligent manner.

It's not always true, but is a good rule of thumb...

[Morningstar]

Fine we oust THE OBAMA and the rest of his tax and spend cronies from political office. Voila 900 billion in cuts have just been saved.

Because they're no longer doing things like flying full sized, armored, buses from city to city so THE OBAMA can claim he's taking a bus tour.

Because they're no longer doing things like spending tax payer funds, to fly a man from chicago to washington just to make them a pizza.

Really morningstar with all the amounts of waste the DNC has legislated into law, and this administration in particular has practiced.

It's as was said in yet another thread, wherein the left was once again taking absolutely hypocritical and self serving positions.

Pot meet the kettle, kettle meet the pot.

What does Obama have to do with it?

I am assuming a Romney win, Republican control of the House, and maybe even the Senate.

[Chris]

Do you know what starve the beast even is?!?

It is a philosophy of deficit spending in the belief that high national debt will eventually force spending cuts and an overall shrinking of government.

It is an utterly ludicrous gameplan.

One, why must you try to make every discussion a personal pissing contest? Stick to the topic, opinions and ideas.

Two, your strawman definition of starve the beast is, I agree, "utterly ludicrous" and half-baked.

Three, starve the beast is about cutting taxes to limit government. As Milton Freidman famously put it: ""If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough.""


Starve the beast argues that reducing tax revenues is an effective strategy for reducing, or at least limiting, government expenditures. Specifically, proponents of starve the beast argue that low revenues, and the resulting deficits, will give elected officials the incentive to cut spending. While a number of conservative activists have frequently used starve the beast as a justification for tax reductions, this theory has received support from some economists. The most influential academic proponent of starve the beast is Milton Friedman. Friedman (2003) argued that, if taxes are cut, “the resulting deficits will be an effective restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.” Other leading economists who have voiced support for starve the beast include Harvard University’s Robert Barro (2001) who argued, “Tax cuts remove tax revenues from Washington and keep Congress from spending them.”

The first mention of starve the beast as it relates to the federal budget was in a 1985 Wall Street Journal article where an unnamed White House official felt that the Reagan administration had not done enough to cut spending: “We did not starve the beast,” the official said (Blustein 1985). However, the ideas behind starve the beast have had some currency in mainstream political discourse since the late 1970s. For instance, columnist George Will (1978) supported the enactment of the Kemp Roth tax reduction bill in 1978 because he thought “it would restrain the predictable growth of government that is financed by windfall revenues.” Similarly, during the 1980 presidential debates Ronald Reagan argued that tax reductions would stop spending growth saying, “If you’ve got a kid that’s extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker”
(Mallaby 2006).(emphasis mine)
@ Starve the Beast: A Further Examination (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n3/cj29n3-7.pdf) (.pdf)

[birddog]

We generally find that those who attack posters instead of content are often not up to the challenge of contradicting said content in an intelligent manner.

It's not always true, but is a good rule of thumb...

Some invite attack, and they rarely have a sense of humor.

[Chris]

We generally find that those who attack posters instead of content are often not up to the challenge of contradicting said content in an intelligent manner.

It's not always true, but is a good rule of thumb...

We'll keep this in mind when you do this.

[Morningstar]

One, why must you try to make every discussion a personal pissing contest? Stick to the topic, opinions and ideas.

Two, your strawman definition of starve the beast is, I agree, "utterly ludicrous" and half-baked.

Three, starve the beast is about cutting taxes to limit government. As Milton Freidman famously put it: ""If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough.""

(emphasis mine)
@ Starve the Beast: A Further Examination (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n3/cj29n3-7.pdf) (.pdf)

if taxes are cut, “the resulting deficits will be an effective restraint on the spending propensities of the executive branch and the legislature.”

[Morningstar]

“Tax cuts remove tax revenues from Washington and keep Congress from spending them.”

[Chris]

Now you're beginning to understand, morning, great! Starve the beast is about tax cuts to limit government.

"If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough."
~Freidman

[Morningstar]

One, why must you try to make every discussion a personal pissing contest? Stick to the topic, opinions and ideas.

Two, your strawman definition of starve the beast is, I agree, "utterly ludicrous" and half-baked.

Three, starve the beast is about cutting taxes to limit government. As Milton Freidman famously put it: ""If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough.""

(emphasis mine)
@ Starve the Beast: A Further Examination (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj29n3/cj29n3-7.pdf) (.pdf)

Starve the Beast is exactly what the fuck I just told you it is. And it doesn't work.

Any other questions?!?

[Morningstar]

Now you're beginning to understand, morning, great! Starve the beast is about tax cuts to limit government.

"If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough."

It's about deficits!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mainecoons]

And your proof for that is??

Other than your opinion, that is.

[Chris]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
~Alexander Fraser Tytler (?)

"Please, starve the beast, don't perpetuate the problem, don't fund the largesse, we need to cut taxes."
~Sarah Palin

[Morningstar]

And your proof for that is??

Other than your opinion, that is.

Proof of what? That it doesn't work?

Well, Starve the Beast has been implemented, on and off, since Reagan's first term. Has spending decreased? Has the federal government decreased in size and scope?

These are observable phenomena, my friend...

[Chris]

Proof of what? That it doesn't work?

Well, Starve the Beast has been implemented, on and off, since Reagan's first term. Has spending decreased? Has the federal government decreased in size and scope?

These are observable phenomena, my friend...

I asked for examples earlier, morning, you have provided none. If government has not been limited by tax cuts, then starve the beast has never been implemented. Why, because government will not starve itself, it will instead accept deficits in reaction.

[Mainecoons]

It is true that this beast is not being starved because it is being allowed to manufacture "food" by printing money and piling up debt. Clearly, that needs to be stopped too.

[Morningstar]

I asked for examples earlier, morning, you have provided none. If government has not been limited by tax cuts, then starve the beast has never been implemented. Why, because government will not starve itself, it will instead accept deficits in reaction.

The idea is that if you continue to grow the debt, eventually the government will be unable to find revenue, even from creditors, and will be forced to shrink.

It's an idiotic and unpatriotic policy. And it's not some hidden agenda, lol. We know all about it.

[Morningstar]

It is true that this beast is not being starved because it is being allowed to manufacture "food" by printing money and piling up debt. Clearly, that needs to be stopped too.

That's true, to a point. I don't understand how Friedman missed that...

[Chris]

The idea is that if you continue to grow the debt, eventually the government will be unable to find revenue, even from creditors, and will be forced to shrink.

It's an idiotic and unpatriotic policy. And it's not some hidden agenda, lol. We know all about it.

I already agreed with you that that is a ludicrous policy. But that is not starve the beast, it's feed the beast.

[Chris]

That's true, to a point. I don't understand how Friedman missed that...

He didn't, as demonstrated by his saying "If a tax cut increases government revenues, you haven't cut taxes enough." He's talking about starve the beast, you're talking about feed the beast.

[birddog]

Nothing posted in this thread has changed my mind that TAXES AND SPENDING ARE TOO HIGH!

[Morningstar]

Nothing posted in this thread has changed my mind that TAXES AND SPENDING ARE TOO HIGH!

It's not meant to, per se.

It's meant to challenge you intellectually. And create intelligent debate.

Because in order to significantly cut spending, you have to actually cut major programs, and I don't have the slightest idea where even a completely republican dominated government can actually pass a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts...

And furthermore, for those of you in favor of a balanced budget amendment? That would virtually guarantee tax increases, rather than spending cuts. So be careful what you wish for, eh?

[birddog]

It's not meant to, per se.

It's meant to challenge you intellectually. And create intelligent debate.

Because in order to significantly cut spending, you have to actually cut major programs, and I don't have the slightest idea where even a completely republican dominated government can actually pass a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts...

And furthermore, for those of you in favor of a balanced budget amendment? That would virtually guarantee tax increases, rather than spending cuts. So be careful what you wish for, eh?

Your hypothesis is wrong. Have you heard of stimulating the economy?

Bush made mistakes and the Rs werre too complicit with spending, but our economy amd stockmarket took a dive in the Fall of 08 when it became obvious to investors that Obama would be elected. Certainly there are other factors, but Obama was the key.

Investors are sitting on trillions. As soon as Romney is elected, they will loosen up. So growing the economy will minimize the need for huge cuts, and revenues will greatly increase for the government so actually the budget could be balanced. However, we have to curtail wherever possible unnessary spending.

[Morningstar]

Investors are sitting on trillions. As soon as Romney is elected, they will loosen up. So growing the economy will minimize the need for huge cuts, and revenues will greatly increase for the government so actually the budget could be balanced. However, we have to curtail wherever possible unnessary spending.

That's a much wiser position than the usual "spending problem" arguments. We have a revenue problem, and increased economic activity will alleviate much of it.

Good show!

[Peter1469]

It's not meant to, per se.

It's meant to challenge you intellectually. And create intelligent debate.

Because in order to significantly cut spending, you have to actually cut major programs, and I don't have the slightest idea where even a completely republican dominated government can actually pass a trillion dollars worth of spending cuts...

And furthermore, for those of you in favor of a balanced budget amendment? That would virtually guarantee tax increases, rather than spending cuts. So be careful what you wish for, eh?

At first. And at the next election the tax increasers will be voted out of office in favor of tax and spending cutters. See how that works.

[Morningstar]

At first. And at the next election the tax increasers will be voted out of office in favor of tax and spending cutters. See how that works.

It could go that way, yes.

[bladimz]

As for "Starving the Beast"... who suffers the most as a result of huge cuts? I believe that the lower (working) middle class and those who are impoverished will feel it the most. A large portion of the cuts will be made in the welfare budget if the conservatives have anything to say about it. I have a problem with that. If we are to grow this economy, we need to grow it from the middle out, not the top down. And that's been my stance for years. It's not something i just heard someone else say.

No one has yet to address the fact that without the influence of outside interests and their meddling in legislative affairs, our financial priorities would be more in line with the needs of the general american public. God, we need to get a hold of those greedy bastards and rip their blood-stained hands from the people's government. How can our congress serve them and us at the same time?

(Just a note about Reagan here: the man did raise taxes (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/04/barack-obama/ronald-reagan-understood-make-deal-he-would-have-p/):)

We should start by noting that if you remember Reagan as a tax cutter, your memory is good. Reagan supported cutting taxes and talked about it frequently. Under his watch, marginal tax rates decreased from top rates of 70 percent in 1981 to 28 percent in 1988.

But Reagan also signed off on numerous tax increases, especially when it looked as if the previous tax cuts were driving overall tax revenues below expectations.

The largest increase was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, or TEFRA. It didn’t increase the top income tax rate, but it did increase tax revenues by tightening various rules. In 1983, he signed off on legislation to keep the Social Security program funded by raising payroll taxes and taxing Social Security benefits for some higher earners.

Reagan also signed laws that modestly increased taxes or tax revenues in 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

To measure the overall impact of tax changes, economists prefer to look at tax revenues as a percentage of the overall economy, which is Gross Domestic Product, or GDP. Under Reagan, overall tax revenues were 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981. That number dropped during Reagan’s first term but increased slightly during his second. In 1988, his last year in office, tax revenues were 18.2 percent of GDP, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
When, during the republican nominees stood on stage and raised their hand when asked if they would not accept the infamous "10 to 1" deal, I was blown away. It told me all i needed to know about them and the GOP's agenda.

[Chris]

As for "Starving the Beast"... who suffers the most as a result of huge cuts? I believe that the lower (working) middle class and those who are impoverished will feel it the most. A large portion of the cuts will be made in the welfare budget if the conservatives have anything to say about it. I have a problem with that. If we are to grow this economy, we need to grow it from the middle out, not the top down. And that's been my stance for years. It's not something i just heard someone else say.

No one has yet to address the fact that without the influence of outside interests and their meddling in legislative affairs, our financial priorities would be more in line with the needs of the general american public. God, we need to get a hold of those greedy bastards and rip their blood-stained hands from the people's government. How can our congress serve them and us at the same time?

(Just a note about Reagan here: the man did raise taxes (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/04/barack-obama/ronald-reagan-understood-make-deal-he-would-have-p/):)

When, during the republican nominees stood on stage and raised their hand when asked if they would not accept the infamous "10 to 1" deal, I was blown away. It told me all i needed to know about them and the GOP's agenda.




As for "Starving the Beast"... who suffers the most as a result of huge cuts?

We all will we do nothing to limit government and the government bubble bursts. Government is not too big to fail.


No one has yet to address the fact that without the influence of outside interests and their meddling in legislative affairs, our financial priorities would be more in line with the needs of the general american public. God, we need to get a hold of those greedy bastards and rip their blood-stained hands from the people's government. How can our congress serve them and us at the same time?

I thought I raised the issue of the special interests of social and corporate welfare as not being aligned with constitutional general welfare. If I didn't, I do now! :-)

[JohnAdams]

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
~Alexander Fraser Tytler (?)

"Please, starve the beast, don't perpetuate the problem, don't fund the largesse, we need to cut taxes."
~Sarah Palin

Good thing we don't have a democracy but rather a Republic now isn't it.

[JohnAdams]

We all will we do nothing to limit government and the government bubble bursts. Government is not too big to fail.



I thought I raised the issue of the special interests of social and corporate welfare as not being aligned with constitutional general welfare. If I didn't, I do now! :-)

IF Gm and Bank of America are, you can bet the same who said those companies are too big to fail, will be telling us all how Government is.

[JohnAdams]

That's a much wiser position than the usual "spending problem" arguments. We have a revenue problem, and increased economic activity will alleviate much of it.

Good show!



Given that if we taxed every person alive in the country today, (not just citizens, but non citizens as well) and not just the so called "rich" but every man woman and child, 100 percent, meaning that the government takes every last red cent they make.

We still would not have the "revenue" to begin to pay off the mere interest on the debt we have already incurred let alone the "principal".

Clearly the problem is not a "revenue problem" but rather a spending problem.

Really one has to be just this shy of brain dead not to see that a government with a penchant for spending money that not only is not collected as taxation, but which simply put, does not even exist, is a problem.

[RtWngaFraud]

Bad idea to elect a billionaire outsourcer then, isn't it?

[Morningstar]

Given that if we taxed every person alive in the country today, (not just citizens, but non citizens as well) and not just the so called "rich" but every man woman and child, 100 percent, meaning that the government takes every last red cent they make.

We still would not have the "revenue" to begin to pay off the mere interest on the debt we have already incurred let alone the "principal".

Clearly the problem is not a "revenue problem" but rather a spending problem.

Really one has to be just this shy of brain dead not to see that a government with a penchant for spending money that not only is not collected as taxation, but which simply put, does not even exist, is a problem.
Uhm, honeypie? None of that is true.

You silly bastard.

[Captain Obvious]

Bad idea to elect a billionaire outsourcer then, isn't it?

Or just keep the job killah in office.

If he ruins the job market, that inadvertently will solve the outsourcing issue.

[birddog]

Bad idea to elect a billionaire outsourcer then, isn't it?

You must be talking about Soros. You could not be talking about Romney since he's not a billionaire and you would be exposing your ignorance again! Well, exposing your ignorance is a habit though. Hmmm

[Chris]

Good thing we don't have a democracy but rather a Republic now isn't it.

Well, as Franlin said, "A Republic, if you can keep it," and keep it I'm afraid we have not.

[Taxcutter]

Just getting rid of all the spending increases brought in by the Pelosi/Reid/Obama junta gets you more than halfway there.

[bladimz]

A "10 to 1" no-go consensus within the GOP party = party agenda above national interests. Absolutely wrong. <Tip of the hat and a big thanks to Grover.>