The spend spend spend Republican Party

[superstition]

In the nation's first-ever $3 trillion budget...

 

Bush's 2009 spending plan sent to Congress on Monday will project huge budget deficits, around $400 billion for this year and next and more than double the 2007 deficit of $163 billion. But even those estimates could prove too low given the rapidly weakening economy and the total costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which Bush does not include in his request for the budget year beginning Oct. 1.

 

Defense spending is projected to rise by about 7 percent to $515 billion and homeland security money by almost 11 percent, with a big gain for border security.

 

Bush plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid by almost $200 billion over five years. The administration is seeking to increase spending on the State Children's Health Insurance Program by $19.7 billion over the next five years. That request is midway between the $5 billion increase requested by Bush last year and the $35 billion increase in bills passed by Congress but vetoed by Bush in October and December. Bush seeks to eliminate 47 other education programs and boost spending in some areas such as Title I grants.

 

Democrats attacked the plan as a continuation of failed policies that have seen the national debt explode under Bush; projected surpluses of $5.6 trillion wiped out; and huge deficits take their place, reflecting weaker revenues from the 2001 recession, the terrorism fight, and, Democrats contend, Bush's costly $1.3 trillion first-term tax cuts.

 

"This administration is going to hand the next president a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said Sunday in an interview with The Associated Press. "This is a budget that sticks it to the middle class, comforts the wealthy and has a set of priorities that are not the priorities of the American people."

 

Bush is claiming the budget will be balanced, by 2012. Democrats say Bush's budget is built on flawed math. Beyond 2009, the budget plan does not include any money to keep the alternative minimum tax, which was aimed at the wealthy, from ensnaring millions of middle-income people. It also includes only $70 billion to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2009, just a fraction of the $200 billion they are expected to cost this year.

 

Deficits in the range of $400 billion would be very close to the all-time high imbalance, in dollar terms, of $413 billion set in 2004 during Bush's first term. Many private economists are forecasting that the deficits this year and next will surpass the 2004 record in large part because they believe the country is heading into a recession.

 

The $3 trillion Bush's proposes spending in 2009 would be the first time that milestone has been reached. Bush also presided over the first budget to hit $2 trillion, in 2002. It took the government nearly 200 years to reach the first $1 trillion budget, which occurred in 1987 during the Reagan administration.

 

link

 

Can we finally put to rest the myth that the Republican Party represents "fiscal conservatism"? After all, the party's great diety, Ronald Reagan, was the first to hit 1 trillion. He also ballooned the debt.

[marliwahoo]

The GOP, my party, has failed here. To say anything less is to defend failure. Until the end of the Reagan administration we held the high ground. The previous democratic administration, before Reagan (Carter) was an economic disaster - the worst since the depression. Reagan got the economy turned around, the cold war ended and (after time) the deficit spending slowed way down. Clinton did well in not fouling up an economy that had rebounded before he took office - though he should get some credit -as well as a GOP congress.

 

The Bush administration and this congress (and the last several GOP congresses) have not practiced what it has preached on spending. They have not practiced conservatism - they have caved into the spend, spend, spend addiction of liberalism. Every problem has a big , expensive government solution. Real conservatives believe that people can solve their own problems far more wisely than government. We don't believe government is the solution, we believe it is the problem. Let the people keep THEIR money and solve their own problems. This is why the GOP is divided right now. They are not practicing those beliefs.

 

Quote Ronald Reagan, 64' GOP convention: "If no one among us is capable of solving our own problems, who then is capable of solving problems for us ?"

The answer of course is the elite (liberals) Liberals believe that we are all too stupid to solve our own problems.

[apowerr]

The only modern candidate that is a true 'conservative' is Ron Paul. Romney and Mccain are Neo-conservatives who appeal to the religious-right. I cannot stand how the neo-cons support our imperialistic actions in Iraq and suggest that we may be there for '100 years'. If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, and then decides not to run as a third party candidate I'll be supporting Obama. He had the foresight in 2002 to vote against authorizing military force in Iraq (as did Ron Paul). He is the most down to earth mainstream candidate, and is a break from the current archaic groups that control the Democratic and Republican parties.

[superstition]

Until the end of the Reagan administration we held the high ground. The previous democratic administration, before Reagan (Carter) was an economic disaster - the worst since the depression. Reagan got the economy turned around, the cold war ended and (after time) the deficit spending slowed way down. Clinton did well in not fouling up an economy that had rebounded before he took office - though he should get some credit

Reagan ballooned the debt and was the one who first hit 1 trillion. Bush is simply a more aggressive version, most likely because he had a GOP Congress to go along.

[marliwahoo]

Reagan cut taxes and tax revenue doubled. Congress spent too much.

 

 

 

 

Reagan ballooned the debt and was the one who first hit 1 trillion. Bush is simply a more aggressive version, most likely because he had a GOP Congress to go along.

[superstition]

Reagan cut taxes and tax revenue doubled. Congress spent too much.

As far as I know, Reagan spent a huge amount on the military industrial complex ("defense"), which caused the debt to balloon, in conjunction with his tax cuts for the rich.

 

What does that sound like?

 

Exactly what Bush has done, only this time with a GOP Congress for the most part.

 

Democrats have been derided as "tax and spend", but the GOP is "don't tax (the rich) and spend more".

[Paranoid Marvin]

The only modern candidate that is a true 'conservative' is Ron Paul. Romney and Mccain are Neo-conservatives who appeal to the religious-right. I cannot stand how the neo-cons support our imperialistic actions in Iraq and suggest that we may be there for '100 years'. If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, and then decides not to run as a third party candidate I'll be supporting Obama. He had the foresight in 2002 to vote against authorizing military force in Iraq (as did Ron Paul). He is the most down to earth mainstream candidate, and is a break from the current archaic groups that control the Democratic and Republican parties.

 

The Republican party is charging you conservative wages and spending liberal amounts in the wrong places.

 

The USA has no real left wing parties, which is really what you need. A party that will tax you the correct amount and spend it on things you need like a universal healthcare system (it's the 21st century, no 1820 anymore!) and a renewable energy system.

[dark4181]

do you people have ANY idea how much more tax the rich pay than the rest of us? the percentage is exponentially greater. the wealthiest 1% of the people in this nation pay almost 67% of the tax, and all you do is whine whine whine

 

and let's not forget that obama wants to give away $100 billion of our tax dollars to "help impoverished nations" ..yea, forget about the impoverished right here at home, let's help people half way across the world... oh, and then he wants to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.. along with drivers licenses and all this other {censored}

 

oh, and universal health care ISN'T needed. I certainly don't want the government in control of my health. they can't even get my mail to me right

[killbot1000]

do you people have ANY idea how much more tax the rich pay than the rest of us? the percentage is exponentially greater. the wealthiest 1% of the people in this nation pay almost 67% of the tax, and all you do is whine whine whine

 

and let's not forget that obama wants to give away $100 billion of our tax dollars to "help impoverished nations" ..yea, forget about the impoverished right here at home, let's help people half way across the world... oh, and then he wants to give amnesty to illegal immigrants.. along with drivers licenses and all this other {censored}

 

oh, and universal health care ISN'T needed. I certainly don't want the government in control of my health. they can't even get my mail to me right

 

Do you have ANY idea that you live within a society?

 

I love America, I was born here, I've grown up here, I love this country, but we have one enormous problem in this country, it has led to every subsequent problem that we have had since, and that has been individualism. I am not talking about individual freedoms, I feel we should have as many rights as possible as a people, but the main problem with our society is that it revolves around getting as much money for ones self as possible, with no regard to the society as a whole.

 

In a society where we all take care of eachother and we all look out for eachother, keeping ones own money is a very good thing, because we end up putting it where it needs to go. It really does take a village to raise a child (to quote somebody...). The problem is that we in America don't care about somebody else's child, we only care about our own, and we want to keep all our own money and only put it into our children, our family, our friends...ME ME ME ME ME!

 

In this kind of individualistic, self serving, materialistic culture we MUST enforce kindness...through programs like universal healthcare (because hospitals don't treat people for free, they are trying to make money), social security (because children wont take care of their old and ailing parents), affirmative action (because the established white base doesn't want their power taken away), unemployment (because friends and family don't help other friends and family who have landed on hard times), Public education (because communities refuse to come together as a whole and get education moving). The list goes on and on and on.

 

if conservatives really want the government to stop taking money from the people, what they really should do is start to take care of themselves in these basic areas, care for their parents, reform their education systems within their communities, manage a way to get everybody treated for health issues, etc etc. Thats how you get the government off your back, by ACTUALLY doing it yourself.

 

When it comes to your comment about rich people paying 67% of their money in taxes, I would like to see where you got that figure, because from how I understand it, there are actually caps on most taxes, meaning that after you make a certain amount of money, you don't have to pay any more taxes.

 

Also, if a millionaire gets to keep 33% of their money, I will not feel even the least bit bad that they are taxed 67% on it, they can afford it. If I was rich I would GLADLY pay most of my earnings in taxes, as human beings in a society we have a shared social responsibility to every person in our society, those of us who are well off are obligated to help those who are not, otherwise we cease to be a fair, even handed society, and end up in a place where the rich get all the money and all the power, and the other 95% of the population gets left with nothing. Thats not the kind of future I want to live in, and I hope its not the kind of future you want to live in either.

 

When it comes to the republican party, I have no idea why they are touting fiscal conservatism, since reagan all I see from the republicans is tax cuts for the rich, out of control spending, and no social programs. Its not the kind of country I want to live in.

[dark4181]

Do you have ANY idea that you live within a society?

 

I love America, I was born here, I've grown up here, I love this country, but we have one enormous problem in this country, it has led to every subsequent problem that we have had since, and that has been individualism. I am not talking about individual freedoms, I feel we should have as many rights as possible as a people, but the main problem with our society is that it revolves around getting as much money for ones self as possible, with no regard to the society as a whole.

 

That's capitalism. it's flawed, but it's better than many alternatives. personally, i'd welcome a return to feudalism, but that will never happen. as a great man once said "he who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

 

In a society where we all take care of each other and we all look out for each other, keeping ones own money is a very good thing, because we end up putting it where it needs to go. It really does take a village to raise a child (to quote somebody...). The problem is that we in America don't care about somebody else's child, we only care about our own, and we want to keep all our own money and only put it into our children, our family, our friends...ME ME ME ME ME!

 

people SHOULD take care of themselves first, it's call SELF-RELIANCE. it's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. if every parent truly cared about their own child, as you say, then there would be no need at all for us to look out for someone else's child, because said child would already be taken care of. but what we have so much of today is children born out of wedlock, or just with do-nothing welfare draining parents, that these children are forced to leech from the system because the witless sap that spawned them have no self-reliance, no personal responsibility, and therefore cannot care for a child. this is laziness, pure and simple

 

In this kind of individualistic, self serving, materialistic culture we MUST enforce kindness...through programs like universal healthcare (because hospitals don't treat people for free, they are trying to make money), social security (because children wont take care of their old and ailing parents), affirmative action (because the established white base doesn't want their power taken away), unemployment (because friends and family don't help other friends and family who have landed on hard times), Public education (because communities refuse to come together as a whole and get education moving). The list goes on and on and on.

 

"give them an inch and they'll take a mile" there's a word for that. "incrementalism" i.e.- through many small steps you change the way things work. but it isn't always a good thing. kindness is fine in it's own right, but too much makes us weak and vulnerable. it creates feelings of entitlement. what i fail to see is why someone that lives by leeching from the system somehow deserves my tax dollars? why does this worthless person deserve the money that i worked for, sweated for, sometimes bled for, quite honestly, to support their laziness? and if you'll look around, i think you'd find that emergency rooms do treat people for "free" .. the problem is that later, the taxpayers get the bill.... social security has already failed, because people are relying on the system, when they should have SAVED MONEY for the 45 working years they had before retirement, when instead they spent and borrowed themselves right into their financial grave.. and as for affirmative action, bah.. yet more people that feel like they're entitled to something more than i am, which i have earned, honestly. some uneducated whelp with half of my qualifications picked above me simply because i lack melanin in my skin cells. ridiculous.. and education? the government, along with the teachers union and the parents are responsible for the disaster that is our education. the government for it's idiotic regulations, the union for it's idiotic tenure based pay grade, and parents for being unable to exert any discipline over their children. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

if conservatives really want the government to stop taking money from the people, what they really should do is start to take care of themselves in these basic areas, care for their parents, reform their education systems within their communities, manage a way to get everybody treated for health issues, etc etc. Thats how you get the government off your back, by ACTUALLY doing it yourself.

 

i totally agree with this, the problem with it is that people today believe that they're entitled to fairness. they think the government is supposed to provide their every need... which is, of course, complete nonsense

 

When it comes to your comment about rich people paying 67% of their money in taxes, I would like to see where you got that figure, because from how I understand it, there are actually caps on most taxes, meaning that after you make a certain amount of money, you don't have to pay any more taxes.

 

the information is readily available from the irs. just look at the tax tables..

 

If taxable income is over--________But not over--__________The tax is:

$0__________________________$7,825____________10% of the amount over $0

$7,825______________________$31,850___________$782.50 plus 15% of the amount over 7,825

$31,850_____________________$77,100___________$4,386.25 plus 25% of the amount over 31,850

$77,100____________________$160,850__________$15,698.75 plus 28% of the amount over 77,100

$160,850___________________$349,700__________$39,148.75 plus 33% of the amount over 160,850

$349,700___________________no limit___________$101,469.25 plus 35% of the amount over 349,700

 

As you can see, the person that makes $350,000 or more pays $101,469 just for that $350k. For every dollar more, they pay $0.35 of EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR. For comparison, I made ~$43k last year, and paid almost $9,000 in taxes. Even if most people make less than $350k a year, the wealthy that make more still pay a far greater amount of the tax.

 

Also, if a millionaire gets to keep 33% of their money, I will not feel even the least bit bad that they are taxed 67% on it, they can afford it. If I was rich I would GLADLY pay most of my earnings in taxes, as human beings in a society we have a shared social responsibility to every person in our society, those of us who are well off are obligated to help those who are not, otherwise we cease to be a fair, even handed society, and end up in a place where the rich get all the money and all the power, and the other 95% of the population gets left with nothing. Thats not the kind of future I want to live in, and I hope its not the kind of future you want to live in either.

 

Why should a millionaire give up so much of their money? Haven't they earned it? Or are you punishing them for being successful? Are you not then rewarding the leeches for failure? Look at Bill Gates, started from nothing and now the richest man in the world. Did he not earn that? And now, isn't he the chairman of nearly 36 charitable foundations? Having money does enable people to give more readily, why would you punish someone for having money? And why would you reward someone for being lazy?

 

When it comes to the republican party, I have no idea why they are touting fiscal conservatism, since reagan all I see from the republicans is tax cuts for the rich, out of control spending, and no social programs. Its not the kind of country I want to live in.

 

I'll say it again, the rich are taxed more than anyone, why shouldn't they deserve a break from time to time? If you (or whoever) wants more money, then take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, grow some SELF-RELIANCE, and go out and earn it HONESTLY! And after that, if you want to give it all away, then it's your money to give, and you don't need the government to tell you who to give it to!

[killbot1000]

I'll say it again, the rich are taxed more than anyone, why shouldn't they deserve a break from time to time? If you (or whoever) wants more money, then take some PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, grow some SELF-RELIANCE, and go out and earn it HONESTLY! And after that, if you want to give it all away, then it's your money to give, and you don't need the government to tell you who to give it to!

 

You seem to think that simple state of being rich makes somebody a hard working, good, self-reliant human being, and this thought would be wrong, rich people are just like regular people, some are lazy, some are kind, some are hard working, and some leech. They are no different than regular people. They really dont deserve a break any more than the average person does.

 

You seem to think that all poor people are leeches on society, taking welfare checks, etc. This is simply not true, most poor people work for a living, I've seen it, I have lots of friends who grew up in poor families, they are literally having to deal with a system that has left them behind. There are programs, assistance, etc for them thats for sure but most poor people don't know about these programs, they are extremely concerned with getting through the next month by paying the bills and buying food. When one is working full time and is having problems buying food and paying the bills rich people DO NOT DESERVE A TAX BREAK.

 

You said youd like to go back to feudalism, I guess that would make sense with your outlook on the world because in feudal times rich people didnt have to pay taxes at all, and the extremely poor serfs had to pay all the taxes, societies literally stepped on the backs of the poor. The only reason why Europe's standard of living has gone up so much since then is because the poor took control of the government, and ended up helping everybody!

 

Seriously...if rich people just made sure that their citizens were taken care of and that everybody had a decent life (middle-class) they could literally pocket the rest of the money for themselves and almost NOBODY would complain. Rich people also dont realize that if they paid people as much as they could in their companies that they would have 100x more people buying their {censored}. But I guess credit takes care of that for them...temporarily...

[apowerr]

I'm not going to take a stance here but I will say a few things. First, not all rich people are greedy or anything like that, and the vast majority of them are indeed hardworking (not that anyone said that they weren't, just saying). However, there is still a significant amount of dynasty families that have had two or three generations of successful parents, and now they are set for life. When you have anything >1billion, its not that hard to maintain a steady source of income with smart investing etc. No matter how you shake it, being born into centuries of money just really isn't fair. Mind you, life isn't fair and I have no idea how to fairly tax and deal with these dynasty families.

 

Second, most poor people, if given a decent opportunity could be just as successful as anyone else. There are still some people that lack ambition and would be poor no matter what chances they are given. Again, I'm not trying to get involved in the debate, those are just my two cents on the rich and poor.

[Numberzz]

Also, if a millionaire gets to keep 33% of their money, I will not feel even the least bit bad that they are taxed 67% on it, they can afford it. If I was rich I would GLADLY pay most of my earnings in taxes, as human beings in a society we have a shared social responsibility to every person in our society, those of us who are well off are obligated to help those who are not, otherwise we cease to be a fair, even handed society, and end up in a place where the rich get all the money and all the power, and the other 95% of the population gets left with nothing. Thats not the kind of future I want to live in, and I hope its not the kind of future you want to live in either.

That is called a communism. Rich people are already taxed enough, I don't see why the people who have been successful all their lives and worked as hard as they possibly can should pay for all the people who are so lazy that they can't even get a job and keep it.

 

Here's an example: someone works in an office and does nothing all day, and gets paid $40,00 a year. Maybe like 20% of that would go to taxes. So he's left with $32,000. Now there is a man who works 12 hour days and helps people buy houses. This man makes $250,000 a year. This man pays 45% of his money to the federal government and %10 to the state government. That means that he gets $112,500.

 

Maybe they shouldn't be given a break but the taxes shouldn't be raised. If you want everything to be equal go live in {censored} China.

 

EDIT

Seriously...if rich people just made sure that their citizens were taken care of and that everybody had a decent life (middle-class) they could literally pocket the rest of the money for themselves and almost NOBODY would complain. Rich people also dont realize that if they paid people as much as they could in their companies that they would have 100x more people buying their {censored}. But I guess credit takes care of that for them...temporarily...

What are you talking about? "Their citizens?" Rich people aren't above poor people. And why do you think that all rich people own companies or something?

[killbot1000]

What are you talking about? "Their citizens?" Rich people aren't above poor people. And why do you think that all rich people own companies or something?

I meant to say "their fellow citizens". sorry for the confusion.But to bring a point up anyway, when it comes to making policy, rich people are above poor people, in fact they are above regular people, if a rich person wants something passed, its most likely going to be passed. Thats the exact problem I am trying to address, I am trying to say that rich people are above regular people, but that they SHOULDN'T be.I am for the people, thats the kind of guy I am...somehow on this forum I have been misinterpreted as being many things and supporting many views of which I never stated in any kind of way, I must be doing a horrible job at illustrating my point.

That is called a communism. Rich people are already taxed enough, I don't see why the people who have been successful all their lives and worked as hard as they possibly can should pay for all the people who are so lazy that they can't even get a job and keep it. Here's an example: someone works in an office and does nothing all day, and gets paid $40,00 a year. Maybe like 20% of that would go to taxes. So he's left with $32,000. Now there is a man who works 12 hour days and helps people buy houses. This man makes $250,000 a year. This man pays 45% of his money to the federal government and %10 to the state government. That means that he gets $112,500.Maybe they shouldn't be given a break but the taxes shouldn't be raised. If you want everything to be equal go live in {censored} China.

I think you are mistaken on a couple of things. I think its perfectly acceptable to be rich, I never said it wasn't, all I am saying is that the richer you get, the harder it should be to GET RICHER, and if you start to get poor it should be harder and harder to get poorer. Try to keep everybody happy and healthy, but don't regulate it to the point where everybody is equal...because were not.Also, you make the assumption that all rich people are hard working people which is simply not true, and you neglect people who work their asses off while only making 40,000 dollars a year. You bring up one strength to your argument and bring up one negative of the opposing argument to prove your point, a textbook misleading comment.I pose for you different example (using your words) to throw a wrench in your argument:"Here's an example: someone works in an office and works 14 hours a day, never quite being able to get their work done fairly, and gets paid $40,00 a year. Maybe like 20% of that would go to taxes. So he's left with $32,000. Now there is a man who works 4 hour days and helps..nobody, they got 16 million dollars when their rich mother passed away. This man makes $250,000 a year off of investments. This man pays 45% of his money to the federal government and %10 to the state government. That means that he gets $112,500."is that fair?The point is, that rich people are just like poor people, lazy ones, hard working ones, kind caring ones, etc.Don't call me a communist just because I think that everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed as a human being and to work toward their full potential. Thats not communism, its called being a decent human being.

[capt_cope]

Son of a dog, firefox crashed. You're plain old wrong though. I'm too lazy to re-type the paragraphs now, but mull this over:

 

 

If you choose not to accept personal responsibility, how can you help others to shoulder theirs? What is more individualistic than asking "where's my piece of everyone's pie"

 

 

 

See sharing is nice, but for a pot-luck to work, everyone has to bring something to the table. And when you make it harder to make money than it is to take money, well, people are going to just take it. If you were told that you'd get paid $1000 a week to do nothing, or $1100 a week to put in 60 hours of hard work, which are you going to choose? What choice will the majority of people make? Who's going to keep giving their money to you when noone is making any?

[Numberzz]

I meant to say "their fellow citizens". sorry for the confusion.But to bring a point up anyway, when it comes to making policy, rich people are above poor people, in fact they are above regular people, if a rich person wants something passed, its most likely going to be passed. Thats the exact problem I am trying to address, I am trying to say that rich people are above regular people, but that they SHOULDN'T be.I am for the people, thats the kind of guy I am...somehow on this forum I have been misinterpreted as being many things and supporting many views of which I never stated in any kind of way, I must be doing a horrible job at illustrating my point.I think you are mistaken on a couple of things. I think its perfectly acceptable to be rich, I never said it wasn't, all I am saying is that the richer you get, the harder it should be to GET RICHER, and if you start to get poor it should be harder and harder to get poorer. Try to keep everybody happy and healthy, but don't regulate it to the point where everybody is equal...because were not.Also, you make the assumption that all rich people are hard working people which is simply not true, and you neglect people who work their asses off while only making 40,000 dollars a year. You bring up one strength to your argument and bring up one negative of the opposing argument to prove your point, a textbook misleading comment.I pose for you different example (using your words) to throw a wrench in your argument:"Here's an example: someone works in an office and works 14 hours a day, never quite being able to get their work done fairly, and gets paid $40,00 a year. Maybe like 20% of that would go to taxes. So he's left with $32,000. Now there is a man who works 4 hour days and helps..nobody, they got 16 million dollars when their rich mother passed away. This man makes $250,000 a year off of investments. This man pays 45% of his money to the federal government and %10 to the state government. That means that he gets $112,500."is that fair?The point is, that rich people are just like poor people, lazy ones, hard working ones, kind caring ones, etc.Don't call me a communist just because I think that everybody should have an equal opportunity to succeed as a human being and to work toward their full potential. Thats not communism, its called being a decent human being.

 

When you say something along the lines of "you assume all rich people are hard working," you are also making the assumption that all poor people are hard working. An example? A study done in Santa Cruz showed that over 70% of the homeless that live in Santa Cruz are college-educated, but are just to lazy to work. If you find a rich man that is very hard-working, it is unfair to make him pay for the people that don't want to work.

 

In your last sentence, you say "Thats not communism, its called being a decent human being." Well, the government forcing people to pay more isn't being a human being, donating money to the poor is what's called being a decent human being.

[killbot1000]

donating money to the poor is what's called being a decent human being.

 

Thats what I was trying to say.

 

I dont think anybody is getting the base point of what im really trying to say.

 

Our society isnt about the welfare of its citizens, it IS NOT ABOUT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT SOCIETY.

 

That is the big problem.

 

I accept personal responsibility, believe me, I understand the point you guys are coming from, many people I know don't take responsibility for anything.

 

But our society SHOULD be about the welfare of all citizens, not some, even if at the end of the day, it doesn't pan out, its ok, as long as thats what ones goal is. If a society's goal is simply personal wealth and personal advancement at the expense of everybody else, well I'm sorry but thats {censored}ed up.

[Synaesthesia]

and let's not forget that obama wants to give away $100 billion of our tax dollars to "help impoverished nations"

He's just pushing for the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP which would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Not so much if your budget is 3 trillion. That's 0.007 of the budget.

[dark4181]

^the point is, why should we fix another nation before we fix our own?

[killbot1000]

^the point is, why should we fix another nation before we fix our own?

 

Billions of dollars doesn't fix a nation and it doesn't always help either.

 

But here's the thing you don't understand yet. We have a global economy, the US economy is intimately tied with the rest of the world, if our country tanked, the rest of the world suffers, if the UK tanks, we suffer, etc. For better or for worse, we ARE in a global economy. With this premise in mind, we MUST help other countries. The reasoning behind this is that by helping to build up these other countries, we are helping to build up our own. This is not only a political build up, but an economic one as well, the more countries that we can bring into the fold of the global economy, the more countries will actually end up buying our $hit, helping them as well as us. Unless we exploit these countries with our businesses (no regulation, go in there and do whatever you want, just make us some money), this helps the entire world, including our own country here at home.

 

We have to quit being short-sided, or we will be left behind as a nation, much like Russia after the cold war.

[hot hatch]

Reagan cut taxes and tax revenue doubled. Congress spent too much.

Reagan also cut some pretty important services like those for the mentally ill. That's why the homeless population exploded in the 80s when a bunch of institutions lost funding and got shut down. Couple that with his hard-on for military spending on star wars programs and Reagan wasn't so great at being fiscally conservative either

 

I'm not really conservative or liberal when it comes to fiscal policy. I don't mind spending extra on taxes if that money is used properly. Unfortunately right now we have the worst of everything, with high spending that's not really going to useful programs.

[JonTheSavage]

This is why I don't pay income tax. I don't like my money stolen, and given to a bufoon that won't work, that doesn't need it.

[killbot1000]

Reagan also cut some pretty important services like those for the mentally ill. That's why the homeless population exploded in the 80s when a bunch of institutions lost funding and got shut down. Couple that with his hard-on for military spending on star wars programs and Reagan wasn't so great at being fiscally conservative either

 

I'm not really conservative or liberal when it comes to fiscal policy. I don't mind spending extra on taxes if that money is used properly. Unfortunately right now we have the worst of everything, with high spending that's not really going to useful programs.

 

I agree 100%