Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If government is smaller they spend less money. Larger government requires more money to function. Huge programs like the medicare prescription drug plan and Obamcare enlarge government and enlarge the deficit.
You are falling into the trap the left often falls into. They accuse conservatives of favoring NO government. Smaller government doesn't equal No government. Of course there is a minimum amount of money that is required to maintain police, fire, national defense etc.
I would happly give up SS, Medicare etc. as long as the corresponding taxes went away. I think i can make much better investment decisions than the government and I think I am perfectly capable of chosing a health plan on my own.
Just because government is "smaller" doesn't mean income taxes will go down.
Would you as happily cut military spending for illegal, useless wars as you would happily allow seniors to sleep in the streets with no health care?
Look at states like Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, South Carolina, North Carolina and Alabama from the 1964 presidential election and beyond. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 most of these states have voted solidly Republican in almost every presidential election with the exception of 1976, 1992, and 1996. What was different about those elections? The Democrats running i.e. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were Southerners. Even then not all the states I mentioned swung Democratic. That's an example of the historical factors that I discussed earlier.
True, but populist presidents aside, the South still sent Democratic senators and representatives to Congress until the 90s. Alabama and Mississippi still have Democratic majorities at the state level, continuing a 100+ year streak. South Carolina was the same until 1996. Georgia flipped somewhere in there, Arkansas still has blue in it, most of their Congressional delegation is still Democrat. West Virginia went Republican in 2008 yet is still extremely blue.
Just because government is "smaller" doesn't mean income taxes will go down.
Would you as happily cut military spending for illegal, useless wars as you would happily allow seniors to sleep in the streets with no health care?
Are you suggesting that we can continue to spend money with no effect on taxes? That ain't the way world works. If you buy things ya gotta pay for em.
Sure I would cut defense spending, I am not sure what illegality you are referring to, I must have missed the trial. LOL, are you suggesting that any cuts to entitlements will result in seniors sleeping in the street with no health care? Quite a moderate view!
Last edited by shorebaby; 10-05-2010 at 05:21 PM..
Are you suggesting that we can continue to spend money with no effect on taxes? That ain't the way world works. If you buy things ya gotta pay for em.
Sure I would cut defense spending, I am not sure what illegality you are referring to, I must have missed the trial. LOL, are you suggesting that any cuts to entitlements will result in seniors sleeping in the street with no health care? Quite a moderate view!
I'm going to hop in here and point out the major difference between defense spending and social security: Defense spending is taxed and spent, pure and simple. Social Security is taxed while you work and then given back when you retire. There is a major difference between massive government spending on war which is a complete loss of treasure for the taxpayers, and massive government spending in the form of payed-for entitlement checks which go back into the hands of Americans.
If Republicans wish to cut back on Social Security benefits for those of us who have been paying into SS but are nowhere near retirement age, they can go ahead and pay me back the money that I will not receive in the future. It's a forced retirement account, and now the spend-to-the-sky Republicans (who are NOT fiscal conservatives) are leading the charge to cut back on payments for future generations because they can't control their current spending habits. Democrats would probably go along with them if polls didn't show 80% of the population doesn't want any cuts made to SS for any reason.
The illegality DifferentDrum is referring to is obviously Iraq, an unprovoked war on a nation that did not attack us and did not have the ability to do so. Illegal is a difficult description to peg on a war, I think a more accurate term for Iraq is Useless or Big Fat Lie.
Let's all agree that cutting spending everywhere and removing all tax-cuts in the immediate future is the only way we're going to pay down the debt.
Simple. By funding Yellowstone with federal dollars, it maintains the park's status as one of the greatest tourist destinations in the world. Everyone who visits Yellowstone has to eat somewhere, sleep somewhere and fill their car with gas. Many of them also buy souvenirs. These things cost money, and all of these things are taxed. The taxes on these goods and services generate revenue for the state of Wyoming, which Wyoming uses to pay for services that benefit the residents of Wyoming.
And the federal government sells passes to the park and rents campground sites and cabins among other things to make money which are not included in the OP's numbers as taxes paid by the residents of WY. So we count 100% of the money used to run the park as federal benefits paid to WY residents but none of the revenue generated by the Park Service as revenue received from WY residents?
Sure does throw off the numbers when we are considering a state with the population density of WY.
Everyone seems to have missed the point that Federal spending in Blue States is assumed to be going to individual welfare and Federal spending in Red States is going to honest hard working agricultural and petroleum monopolies and banks. Supporting individuals needing help is considered unworthy but subsidizing prosperous farms and industries is a good use of surplus tax money from the Blue States to the deserving Red States.
I consider the fact that little New Hampshire, as conservative, but apparently not neo-conservative, as you can get, cannot afford to maintain its own State park system but still sends $1.78 to the Federal Government for each $1.00 it receives in Federal spending. New Mexico, of similar population and vastly larger size, receives about $2.00 per $1.00. I wonder what the New Hampshire Congressional delegation is doing wrong. Get off your collective arses folks and get us some more pork.
It makes you wonder why progressive urbanites in places like Seattle and Boston don't raise more of a ruckus over so much of their money going to support corporate fat cats in places like Mississippi and Alabama.
You'd think they'd want to cut spending in those areas but all I ever hear is spending must be increased and we must borrow money to make it happen.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed
Since when do facts mean anything to a right winger? Like, NEVER!!!!!!!!
Last edited by Yac; 01-15-2014 at 07:24 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
as if they never get any
...this post is Pot> Kettle> Black to GOP
Now who relies on big government and benefits from the nanny state?
