Americans are finally waking up, it's not insufficient taxes, it's excessive spending.

April 29th, 2011 4:25 pm Gallup: 73%-22% Majority Blames Deficit on Too Much Spending, Not Insufficient Taxes
Posted by Timothy Lee http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/9498/gallup-73-22-majority-blames-deficit-on-too-much-spending-not-insufficient-taxes/

This is great, considering all the spin in the media that the Pubs will be killing seniors and babies if we don't raise the debt ceiling.
Heres a novel concept, why not simply cut spending?

Nah, what in the Hell am I thinking, the Pubs just want to be loved by the masses, they'll capitulate...

I agree! CUT WASTEFUL GOVT SPENDING!!

Quote from: U_Kay on May 01, 2011, 07:26:23 PM
I agree! CUT WASTEFUL GOVT SPENDING!!

And there's the argument, most folks would say. One man's "waste" is always another man't treasure, and no happy medium is there to be found.

But I think that sticking the word "wasteful" in there defeats what ought to be our purpose as conservatives. The word serves both as a redundancy (all government spending is, by immutable nature and thus by definition, wasteful) and as a self-defeating and false argument, presenting the notion that there might be some other type of government spending, one that isn't wasteful, when there is not.

Government is just a large collection of people, and it has the same character flaws that people tend to have. Handing them our dollars by the trillions in return for, well, very little in terms of real value, has the exact result you'd expect -- they spend every nickel and then some, and come back for even more next time. Today the US population is about two times what it was in 1950, but our federal government spends ELEVEN times the money that it did then, and that's in inflation-adjusted dollars. What that means is that for every inflation-adjusted dollar our federal government spent per person in 1950, it now spends $5.50. If we were trained to think of government as a single commodity product, like gasoline for example, we'd have stopped buying it long ago! If gasoline had increased in cost at the same rate, we'd be forking over about $13/gallon right now.

I prefer a more holistic approach to cutting the federal government. A fair but strict interpretation of the US Constitution would yield a finding that about 90% of what our federal government does is illegal. Huge chunks of government exist outside any constitutional authorization, and those chunks should be carved off and discarded. I don't think we should cut the EPA's budget; I think we should eliminate the EPA completely, root and branch, RTF NOW. Same for the Departments of Education, Transportation, HHS, etc. -- eliminate entirely, root and branch, right the f*** NOW. Medicare and Medicaid -- freeze and privatize. Social Security -- freeze and privatize. Other departments like Treasury would survive, but in much-reduced form and missing certain parts (uh, buh-bye BATFE). Foreign aid? GONE. Agriculture subsidies? NOPE. Unemployment benefits? Cut 'em in half immediately. In my state, they can be as high as $475/week; it's not supposed to be pleasant to be unemployed. PBS/NPR/CPB? History. National Park Service? Outta here.

Many would say that I'm harsh or cruel. But it's not about that, or at least it has to stop being about that. People have to learn that government CANNOT EVER be compassionate or caring. Those are emotions exhibited by individual persons, not by a conglomeration like government.

It's about our survival as a nation. The eight most frightening words in the American lexicon should forever be, "I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

Oh goodness, T. Where do I begin? 

Yeah, you are tough and harsh.  :P 

Btw, what does BATFE mean?

Quote from: U_Kay on May 02, 2011, 08:48:49 AM
Oh goodness, T. Where do I begin? 

Yeah, you are tough and harsh.  :P 

Btw, what does BATFE mean?

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Sounds like a good name for a convenience store, eh?

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 08:52:08 AM
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Sounds like a good name for a convenience store, eh?

:))  Yeah, it does. 

I should have spent a lil time thinking about what the acronym could have meant.

Quote from: U_Kay on May 02, 2011, 11:13:35 AM

:))  Yeah, it does. 

I should have spent a lil time thinking about what the acronym could have meant.

Now here's a quiz question for you. Why are alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives lumped together under a single bureau? Fifty cents for the right answer....

(Hint: the bureau is an arm of the Department of the Treasury.)

(Another hint: Al Capone.)  ;)

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 11:46:25 AM
Now here's a quiz question for you. Why are alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives lumped together under a single bureau? Fifty cents for the right answer....

(Hint: the bureau is an arm of the Department of the Treasury.)

(Another hint: Al Capone.)  ;)

to get excise taxes??  :-\

Quote from: U_Kay on May 02, 2011, 12:21:45 PM

to get excise taxes??  :-\

Very good! (Lemme know where to send the quarters.) The federal government has NO authority under the Constitution to stick its big ugly nose into the alcohol business, the tobacco business, the firearms business, or the explosives business. BUT it has the limited authority to tax these things to the extent that they are imported, exported, or traded between states. THAT is why the BATFE is part of the Treasury Department. THAT is how the feds nailed Al Capone -- on taxes, not on the multitude of murders he performed/ordered/paid for.

Now we can move on to why and how you think I'm such a tough guy when it comes to downsizing the federal government...  :P :P :P

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 01:00:55 PM
Very good! (Lemme know where to send the quarters.) The federal government has NO authority under the Constitution to stick its big ugly nose into the alcohol business, the tobacco business, the firearms business, or the explosives business. BUT it has the limited authority to tax these things to the extent that they are imported, exported, or traded between states. THAT is why the BATFE is part of the Treasury Department. THAT is how the feds nailed Al Capone -- on taxes, not on the multitude of murders he performed/ordered/paid for.

Now we can move on to why and how you think I'm such a tough guy when it comes to downsizing the federal government...  :P :P :P

:o  I won?  :o  Really? Uhh... If you hadnt mentioned the BAFE was a branch of the Treasury Dept., I wouldnt have guessed this answer, T. I am admitting it!  :-[

Know what? Buy yourself a treat from me with my 50 cents.  :P 

:))  I wonder what that treat will be!


a bubble gum or a peppermint?

*************************

How are you so tough when it comes to downsizing the gov? Surely you are joshing with me, eh? I think that post of yours speaks for itself. You and Paul Ryan want to starve the old people and little children and special needs people, huh? That's what Reid, Pelosi, Obama and their followers would accuse, right?  :D

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 08:36:00 AM
And there's the argument, most folks would say. One man's "waste" is always another man't treasure, and no happy medium is there to be found.

But I think that sticking the word "wasteful" in there defeats what ought to be our purpose as conservatives. The word serves both as a redundancy (all government spending is, by immutable nature and thus by definition, wasteful) and as a self-defeating and false argument, presenting the notion that there might be some other type of government spending, one that isn't wasteful, when there is not.

Government is just a large collection of people, and it has the same character flaws that people tend to have. Handing them our dollars by the trillions in return for, well, very little in terms of real value, has the exact result you'd expect -- they spend every nickel and then some, and come back for even more next time. Today the US population is about two times what it was in 1950, but our federal government spends ELEVEN times the money that it did then, and that's in inflation-adjusted dollars. What that means is that for every inflation-adjusted dollar our federal government spent per person in 1950, it now spends $5.50. If we were trained to think of government as a single commodity product, like gasoline for example, we'd have stopped buying it long ago! If gasoline had increased in cost at the same rate, we'd be forking over about $13/gallon right now.

I prefer a more holistic approach to cutting the federal government. A fair but strict interpretation of the US Constitution would yield a finding that about 90% of what our federal government does is illegal. Huge chunks of government exist outside any constitutional authorization, and those chunks should be carved off and discarded. I don't think we should cut the EPA's budget; I think we should eliminate the EPA completely, root and branch, RTF NOW. Same for the Departments of Education, Transportation, HHS, etc. -- eliminate entirely, root and branch, right the f*** NOW. Medicare and Medicaid -- freeze and privatize. Social Security -- freeze and privatize. Other departments like Treasury would survive, but in much-reduced form and missing certain parts (uh, buh-bye BATFE). Foreign aid? GONE. Agriculture subsidies? NOPE. Unemployment benefits? Cut 'em in half immediately. In my state, they can be as high as $475/week; it's not supposed to be pleasant to be unemployed. PBS/NPR/CPB? History. National Park Service? Outta here.

Many would say that I'm harsh or cruel. But it's not about that, or at least it has to stop being about that. People have to learn that government CANNOT EVER be compassionate or caring. Those are emotions exhibited by individual persons, not by a conglomeration like government.

It's about our survival as a nation. The eight most frightening words in the American lexicon should forever be, "I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

Seems a tad over the top and unrealistic.  The Cuyahoga River fires, especially the one in 1969, were part of the reason the EPA was created.  It seems the private sector factories along the river didn't really care about the environment all that much.  I know we had it first and our kids and grandkids should probably be responsible for getting their own environment, but absent that, the general welfare section of the constitution would seem to allow for some government intervention in protecting the environment.  And I know there are two schools of thought on that, Madison's being one and Hamilton's the other, with Hamilton's being more broadly constructed.  But it was Hamilton's school of thought that Washington and Adams followed, and they weren't exactly libs. 

And do you not think publicly funded education makes the US a better place?  Sure some changes might need to be made to the federal Dept. of Education, but abolishment?  And abolishing the EPA?  Those seem like cures that are worse than the disease, sort of like cutting your head off so you'll quit smoking. 

It's too bad we can't have an "It's a Wonderful Life" chance with this and the so called "fair tax."  It would be really, really nice to have an alternate reality where there was no EPA, no Dept. of Education, nothing that did not exist in 1787, in short, and where there was a "fair tax" just to see what it looked like.  I bet it would be mighty ugly.  And I bet a lot of people who thought they would love it would not love it at all. 

Quote from: doughboy on May 02, 2011, 08:08:48 PM
Seems a tad over the top and unrealistic.  The Cuyahoga River fires, especially the one in 1969, were part of the reason the EPA was created.  It seems the private sector factories along the river didn't really care about the environment all that much.  I know we had it first and our kids and grandkids should probably be responsible for getting their own environment, but absent that, the general welfare section of the constitution would seem to allow for some government intervention in protecting the environment.  And I know there are two schools of thought on that, Madison's being one and Hamilton's the other, with Hamilton's being more broadly constructed.  But it was Hamilton's school of thought that Washington and Adams followed, and they weren't exactly libs. 

And do you not think publicly funded education makes the US a better place?  Sure some changes might need to be made to the federal Dept. of Education, but abolishment?  And abolishing the EPA?  Those seem like cures that are worse than the disease, sort of like cutting your head off so you'll quit smoking. 

It's too bad we can't have an "It's a Wonderful Life" chance with this and the so called "fair tax."  It would be really, really nice to have an alternate reality where there was no EPA, no Dept. of Education, nothing that did not exist in 1787, in short, and where there was a "fair tax" just to see what it looked like.  I bet it would be mighty ugly.  And I bet a lot of people who thought they would love it would not love it at all. 

I'm impressed! Someone who thinks the government does a fine job on just about everything! That someone is you, Doughboy.

Btw, would you answer a couple of personal Qs?
1) How old are you?
2) Do you collect a check, whether it is paycheck or welfare, etc... from the govt or what?

Your faith in our govt is fascinating. Perhaps that is a little over the top, but the only thing I view the government as doing right would be in the branch of defense dept. (And sometimes the govt is too wasteful in that dept too!)

Any way, you sure dont have to answer my two Qs.

Last but not least, I have found our forum to be more interesting since you have come along. Thx for your difference of opinion.

1. 21
2. Not really, which does make me sympathetic to the 'libertarian' stance on welfare. Admittedly I am coming from a rather bitter point of view as I know lots of students who receive weekly financial help from the government but I do not. That makes me a little mad. I do receive a student card which lets me travel on public transport at student/concession prices. This would save me around 5-7 $ a week. Thanks taxpayers !

As for government spending I see most if not everyone has not mentioned the military. That sucks trillions of dollars out of the government.

Hey, Red. I was asking the two questions to Doughboy.  ;)

You ahead of most your age if you are more in line with the Libertarian Party.  ;D

The reason I posed those Q's is generally there are two types of Democrats (lovers of big government). One is the young person who is still in school, college, etc... That person has paid enough taxes to snap out of their liberal lala fantasy land taught to him/her by his/her teachers and or family and or friends. The other type of Democrat is usually one who receives some sort of govt check whether it is a paycheck or food stamps, or someone in a union. (The unions faired pretty well after Obama took the WH so they got some nice perks. EX: GM bailout)