" Everything Americans produce in a year amounts to $16 Trillion. Now for the first time in America's history we owe our creditors that same amount. We need a conservative president and we need him now.
The Republican's voting in the primaries don't think so. The Tea Party has fallen asleep. The Democrats have convinced a majority that we can tax the rich to balance the budget. The bridge is out, and the train isn't slowing down. This will end when the government defaults. Then, those on welfare, SSI & Medicare will fall off a cliff, as will all the government retirees.
In what way would the conservative plan of "cut taxes" and "destroy the economy" reduce the debt? Maybe if they were proposing tax increases and spending cuts you might be able to make that argument. If we want to reduce the debt, the only sensible approach is to limit the growth of federal spending and raise taxes substantially. Otherwise the spending cuts will just cut revenues too.
Though to be fair, that's a bit like someone making $120,000 a year having a $120,000 mortgage. Not only is he not going to be able to pay that debt off in a year, it's not structured such that it requires him to do so. No one president will "turn things around" and make a substantial impact on the debt. It requires structural adjustment; adjustment that, in large part, accepts that the heady days of criminally low tax rates are over. Solving the debt will take decades, not years.
Actually it is like a parent that makes $150K a year, giving their kid an allowance of 2.5K a year. And, the kid is spending $4K a year, and has racked up $150K in credit card bills, and the credit card interest is still at the teaser rate. At some point, they can't get more credit cards, so they can't spend more than their allowance after they pay the credit card bills. Then the teaser rate goes away, instead of $300 a year, the credit card bill is $900. While they spent $4K, they now only have $1.6K. All those grey haired friends they provided party supplies for, are going to make sure they get theirs. But, they will be OK, all they have to do it tap their rich friends, until the rich friends stop being friends.
Party affiliation doesn't seem to have any relationship at all. Presidents from both parties have grown government and spending for as long as I can remember. Don't forget - the second highest rate of borrowing happened from just the last president. As long as politicians believe their power base depends on spending money instead of dealing with the common good, it will simply get worse and worse and worse. They believe spending money buys votes and, apparently it does. That's our fault.
No...we have and have had for decades now a big government president and congress. Here are the ten pillars of communism: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. So far we have implemented number 2, working on 3(inheritance tax is gradual), 5 and 10. It could be argued a couple more as well depending on your take on govt housing and welfare. Sounds to me like we are almost halfway there as it is. /debate
Drivel. You are talking about state capitalism developed under foreign attack where the working class is a minority. You poor buggers really ARE brainwashed, aren't you? Socialism means control by the working majority and whatever economic or political system seems to them suitable - which certainly won't include rule by lying thieves as at present.
Number 10 is a benefit, not a drawback. There are still plenty of religious and private schools to attend, but just like they would be with or without public schools, they cost money to attend which prohibits them as an option for a lot of people.
Obviously not quite what I meant. Families are going to be paying taxes regardless of whether they have a child in school so, yes, they do "pay" for public schools, but if they wanted to send their children to a private school, they have to pay again.
Do you really think there is no harm done to a person who has to pay twice? Do you really think that a person is really *freely* choosing between private and public, even though he has to pay twice if he chooses for private?
Of course they are freely choosing. Public school is available to everyone regardless of income, race, sex, nationality, etc etc. I have 3 kids, and my wife and I have chosen to send them to our local public school(where I myself attended). If I wanted to send them to a private school, I'd be doing that instead. Either way, it's my choice. People always have to pay taxes, and sometimes that tax money goes to things you don't like, or may not necessarily use. If it makes you feel better, just pretend your tax money only went to things you like. There's no way to prove it didn't anyway. The fact that some public schools aren't up to par is the fault of their administrators, their state congressmen/women and the Federal government. If a school doesn't have enough money for textbooks but a profitable company keeps getting a tax break, there has been massive failure across multiple levels.
You are right, if a company gets tax breaks, there has been failure, someone who is not getting the same tax breaks is going to have to bribe someone to get it, adding costs to printing other books. The military industry agrees with you when you say that tax money is always well spent. Furthermore, the fact that we have a good supply of basic goods has made it harder to see how taxes/ inflation affects the common citizen, since they won't die due to that, but their freedom to choose is clearly affected by taxation, lets consider the hypothetical situation you only have money for either one, you are forced to put all that money into the public option, leaving you * no real option * (when you have money for both, your ability to choose to buy something else will be affected). If a thug did that to you, you would feel cheated, if a man in a suit does that to you, it is "social justice"?
I think it's just part and parcel with living in an organized society. We've come to expect certain things, with a grain of salt of course as some will always perform better than others. Our schools will teach our children, the police will maintain the law, the fire department comes when your house is on fire, the ambulance comes and takes you to the hospital when you're hurt, the military will protect us from foreign enemies. Everyone always forgets it's well within the power of the electorate to overthrow the government if they really saw fit, but only a small fraction do. You can say that's for a variety of reasons including the media and the welfare dependency state, but I have a feeling it's more because most people want moderation and balance. They don't want to be to the extreme of either position, or any position. People always pass around the statistics that supposedly say this country is predominantly conservative. I have a feeling those numbers are misleading. This is just my opinion, but I think most people who identify themselves as conservatives on those polls aren't necessarily saying they believe in conservative(as a political ideology) principles. I think for a lot of people, the term conservative brings up pictures of family, children, and wholesome heartwarming images like that. The term liberal I think is more slanted towards a college student, probably a pot smoker, or a hippy(though if you ask some segments of the internet, a liberal is no less than a nine-headed monster, smashing and stomping it's way across America Godzilla style while eating children and peeing on churches). I think in terms of pure ideology, the country is a lot more moderate, maybe even left leaning, though it's worth noting there are several areas and one person can be conservative about one and liberal about the other.
