Why can't government live within our means?

[langenc]

I once had a bumper sticker:

FEDERAL AID HELL

IT'S MY MONEY..


I traded the car and as the new one was being prepped in the garage the door opened and in came the trade--the bumper sticker was gone. Obviously the dealers policy to remove but that fast?? or did an employee want the sticker. I cant imagine getting off in anything but shreds.

 

[Hallucinator]

Miboso: because the corporate CEO's run the government and we don't really matter much. They do what they want with our money. Political process in this country is GONE. How many of you actually think your vote means anything?

 

[685cmj]

"Why can't government live within our means?"

Because "we" are the government and "we" are always looking for another handout or entitlement.

 

[xd9fan]

taxcuts are the current GOP's way to spend more. Bye bye Reagan

 

[homefires]

Here is one! If every dollar given as foreign aid, or other free bees was spent on We The People, No one would be in want! Charity starts at home.

 

[homefires]

taxes

Here is one! If every dollar given as foreign aid, or other free bees was spent on We The People, No one would be in want! Charity starts at home.

The Dems like control. Old school dems are good folks, the replacements act like a bunch of socialist . If you could see all of the hidden taxes there are other then the income, and sales taxes , you would freq out!


People vote for the cash cow! If they get money or services free by voting for brand X politition. Brand X gets the vote. The ones receiving the money don't care where it comes from.

 

[elrod]

George Wallace said "There ain't a dimes worth the Democrats and the Republicans." I believe it was 1994 when the GOP, in its "contract with America", promised to work to eliminate the Dept. of Education. Less than 15 years later the same Republicans have quadrupled the size of that office, primarily because of "no child left behind". All any of them want to do is to buy enough votes to get themselves re-elected. Now people, when the majority of the voters decide that they want to be supported by the government, and can be, if they vote correctly, we are in a HEAP of trouble! No matter how strongly the minority objects, the elected officals (at least the majority of them) don't really care how they feel. It will take some revolutionary ideas to change this, over a long, long time. Just MHO.

 

[Eghad]

The government cant live within our means because you keep sending the same parties back to DC year in and year out. Their job is to spend your money so they can get re-elected. People like Ron Paul who believe in fiscal responsibility is called a nutbag and said to be unelectable.

 

[Yellowfin]

I have no problem with fiscal responsibility. Why I think Ron Paul is an unelectable nutcase is because he wants to abdicate our position as the world superpower. Cutting a lot of the wasteful spending at home--abolishing SS, the so called "War on Poverty" and Medicaid for one--would easily solve the budget problems because we spend much more on government handouts and charities than we do on defense. Getting rid of much of the regulation and vote farming needs to be a priority. Heck, even getting rid of a lot of the money spent on elections would help a lot. We waste so much money on campaign funding it's more than the GDP of some countries. Getting into public office should not be that desirable of a job to want to go to those lengths to get it.

 

[Eghad]

The military that won in Iraq and Afghanistan was done under Clinton with a balanced budget! Mr. Paul has stated that be believes in being able to defend this country. Wasteful spending doesnt equal with military readiness. Just because Mr. Paul believes that we shouldnt be in Iraq doesnt mean that hes going to cut the military drastically to leave us defenseless.

Please explain how that equates to dethroning the U.S. as a Superpower. How does that make Mr. Paul a nutcase????

 

[Unregistered]

Why I think Ron Paul is an unelectable nutcase is because he wants to abdicate our position as the world superpower

I don't think he has ever suggested abdicating our position as a super power. He simply advocates a more meek, humble foreign policy where we avoid un-Constitutional wars.

 

[JuanCarlos]

I don't think he has ever suggested abdicating our position as a super power. He simply advocates a more meek, humble foreign policy where we avoid un-Constitutional wars.

One thing to note: the kind of military necessary to project power across the globe, and to ensure a speedy defeat against any other nation's military (or even any two combined) on short notice, is entirely different from the kind of military necessary to occupy a nation of 25 million people indefinitely.

I don't see how being able to conduct nation-building operations with a hostile populace is absolutely necessary to be a superpower.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. Doesn't make this argument less absurd.

 

[publius42]

We can't become the government of every place in the world where some nutcase might develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.

And we can't keep pretending that anything and everything is a federal matter. Decentralization of authority is in order. Too much has been ceded to the national government, particularly under that pesky commerce clause, and it has left us without a balance of powers and sent us groveling to Washington to change policies and send us back some of our money.