Government Spending

mikepegg44

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

VINNY GOOMBA

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

I'm with you 100%. I can't see giving the Federal Government another dollar until they prove that they can spend it prudently-- and I don't see how anyone else can, either. Their track record is public, everyone in the world knows how much the federal government over-spends, and how it spends so much more than it can even possibly take in. Each time they borrow more money they piss off more of their creditors as it becomes blatantly obvious that none of their prior creditors' debt will be paid back anytime soon, or when it is paid back, it will be with increasingly worthless money.

he fact that every dollar created IS debt with interest attached doesn't help at all, as it makes all of the debt IMPOSSIBLE to pay back.

The best solution would be to abolish the Federal Reserve, or at least take away any powers they have to print money out of thin air. At that rate, the people would not be subject to taxation by inflation. There WOULD have to be direct taxation to pay for all of the services that government provides, and it would become infinitely more obvious to everyone how much the federal government actually costs them. At that point, people would have to demand that the size and scope of the federal government change if they want to have anything left in their paychecks at all.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

you make like it's all that simple...you act as if the "federal government" is a single person...it's a complex entity with so many layers...

I insist that we go back to higher levels because we have bills to pay...plain and simple...and those bills have been building for quite some time...they didn't just show up in Nov. 08....

Shared sacrifice, my friend...as I've said before, taxes are the cost of being a citizen...If you don't like it...you and others have choices...

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

you make like it's all that simple...you act as if the "federal government" is a single person...it's a complex entity with so many layers...

I insist that we go back to higher levels because we have bills to pay...plain and simple...and those bills have been building for quite some time...they didn't just show up in Nov. 08....

Shared sacrifice, my friend...as I've said before, taxes are the cost of being a citizen...If you don't like it...you and others have choices...

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

I understand what you are saying, but those people are the ones who forced us into a situation where we have bills to pay and they continue to spend like they don't care about paying them. That is what I don't understand...shared sacrifice sounds noble, and the government isn't about nobility. They cannot get it right...

and I didn't say no taxes, jesus, it is like if you are against taxes being RAISED you are against all taxes ever...I understand the need for taxes and I pay mine on time, my question is more about why don't we make them use the billions they already get to solve the problem instead of taking more from the people?

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

Mine just shut down in Minnesota, and surprisingly, the sun still rose in the east.

Smellyman

Unfortunately taking care of our own country is secondary to building more effective ways of killing people.

When the day comes we don't outspend the rest of the world combined in military and pull our bases all over the world then maybe we could reduce taxes and concentrate on the people and being better world citizens.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

you make like it's all that simple...you act as if the "federal government" is a single person...it's a complex entity with so many layers...

I insist that we go back to higher levels because we have bills to pay...plain and simple...and those bills have been building for quite some time...they didn't just show up in Nov. 08....

Shared sacrifice, my friend...as I've said before, taxes are the cost of being a citizen...If you don't like it...you and others have choices...

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

I understand what you are saying, but those people are the ones who forced us into a situation where we have bills to pay and they continue to spend like they don't care about paying them. That is what I don't understand...shared sacrifice sounds noble, and the government isn't about nobility. They cannot get it right...

and I didn't say no taxes, jesus, it is like if you are against taxes being RAISED you are against all taxes ever...I understand the need for taxes and I pay mine on time, my question is more about why don't we make them use the billions they already get to solve the problem instead of taking more from the people?

Often, Americans aren't about shared sacrifice, either. What are the odds of re-election for the congress person who raises taxes/cuts programs that cover a lot of people? You can make the argument that they are responding to constituents, too.

Godfather.

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

I mentioned on another thread that having an outside source do investigations on all government spending..
why not they do it to us (IRS)

Godfather.

Cosmo

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

...
Under normal cirmcumstances, this would work.
However, these are not normal circumstances we are currently facing. Because we have refused to increase taxes (revenue) on past debt, the debt has grown to monsterous proportions. In order to rectify the current situation, we have to BOTH, increase revenues (taxes) and cut spending in order to reduce our debt. Doing only one thing or the other will do nothing to resolve the problem except extend the date of the inevitable.
We SHOULD be looking for a long term solution that will reduce the debt.
After that, we can work on a mangable budget.
...
But, as long as we play political slap and tickle by letting our representatives use taxes and spending cuts as campaign slogans (ever notice how they criticise one or the other, but NEVER offer up a solution plan... I'm looking at you Ms. Palin and Bachmann), we will continue our decline as the economic super power.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

Mine just shut down in Minnesota, and surprisingly, the sun still rose in the east.

thanks for proving my point...

I'm pretty sure "essential" employees are working...

oh well... :eh:

inmytree

Godfather. wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

I mentioned on another thread that having an outside source do investigations on all government spending..
why not they do it to us (IRS)

Godfather.

how much will this cost...? who's going to pay for it...? who will do it...? who will oversee this action...?

serious questions...

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

you make like it's all that simple...you act as if the "federal government" is a single person...it's a complex entity with so many layers...

I insist that we go back to higher levels because we have bills to pay...plain and simple...and those bills have been building for quite some time...they didn't just show up in Nov. 08....

Shared sacrifice, my friend...as I've said before, taxes are the cost of being a citizen...If you don't like it...you and others have choices...

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

I understand what you are saying, but those people are the ones who forced us into a situation where we have bills to pay and they continue to spend like they don't care about paying them. That is what I don't understand...shared sacrifice sounds noble, and the government isn't about nobility. They cannot get it right...

and I didn't say no taxes, jesus, it is like if you are against taxes being RAISED you are against all taxes ever...I understand the need for taxes and I pay mine on time, my question is more about why don't we make them use the billions they already get to solve the problem instead of taking more from the people?

so you would agree to a raise in taxes...? for who...?

you say "They cannot get it right"...that's such a broad statement it's almost meaningless....

Godfather.

inmytree wrote:

Godfather. wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

I mentioned on another thread that having an outside source do investigations on all government spending..
why not they do it to us (IRS)

Godfather.

how much will this cost...? who's going to pay for it...? who will do it...? who will oversee this action...?

serious questions...

a combined effort thru all states, state elections and ...state tax's :? sorry but it will be worth it.

Godfather.

inmytree

Godfather. wrote:

a combined effort thru all states, state elections and ...state tax's :? sorry but it will be worth it.

Godfather.

how much...? will you be raising state sales taxes to pay for this effort...?

what do you mean by "state elections"...?

who will oversee this "combined effort thru all states"....?

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

Mine just shut down in Minnesota, and surprisingly, the sun still rose in the east.

thanks for proving my point...

I'm pretty sure "essential" employees are working...

oh well... :eh:

actually it proves mine...the government "essential services" are working...what does that say about the others?

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

you make like it's all that simple...you act as if the "federal government" is a single person...it's a complex entity with so many layers...

I insist that we go back to higher levels because we have bills to pay...plain and simple...and those bills have been building for quite some time...they didn't just show up in Nov. 08....

Shared sacrifice, my friend...as I've said before, taxes are the cost of being a citizen...If you don't like it...you and others have choices...

I think folks take out Government for granted...and find it to be an easy scapegoat...

I understand what you are saying, but those people are the ones who forced us into a situation where we have bills to pay and they continue to spend like they don't care about paying them. That is what I don't understand...shared sacrifice sounds noble, and the government isn't about nobility. They cannot get it right...

and I didn't say no taxes, jesus, it is like if you are against taxes being RAISED you are against all taxes ever...I understand the need for taxes and I pay mine on time, my question is more about why don't we make them use the billions they already get to solve the problem instead of taking more from the people?

so you would agree to a raise in taxes...? for who...?

you say "They cannot get it right"...that's such a broad statement it's almost meaningless....

they being the house, senate, and executive branch of the government. By get it right I mean, keep the federal government from causing more trouble than they solve by simply managing their spending properly.
You think this is a typical GOP rant and it isn't. It is like you are deliberately answering a different question...what is 2+2? your answer... orange... Orange is a great answer to a different question...your question would be something like what are a citizens responsibilities, and coupling with that, what are the essential services a government must provide its people? Mine is...why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?
And no, I wouldn't agree to a raise in taxes. I would say first why don't we remove the 18,000 pages of tax loop holes that are created to allow individuals the ability to get out of paying their "fair" share if they have a good enough accountant. That raises revenue, without raising taxes. If you must give them more, why not simply enforce what is on the books rather than creating new tax brackets for people to get out of paying.

mikepegg44

Cosmo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

...
Under normal cirmcumstances, this would work.
However, these are not normal circumstances we are currently facing. Because we have refused to increase taxes (revenue) on past debt, the debt has grown to monsterous proportions. In order to rectify the current situation, we have to BOTH, increase revenues (taxes) and cut spending in order to reduce our debt. Doing only one thing or the other will do nothing to resolve the problem except extend the date of the inevitable.
We SHOULD be looking for a long term solution that will reduce the debt.
After that, we can work on a mangable budget.
...
But, as long as we play political slap and tickle by letting our representatives use taxes and spending cuts as campaign slogans (ever notice how they criticise one or the other, but NEVER offer up a solution plan... I'm looking at you Ms. Palin and Bachmann), we will continue our decline as the economic super power.

you can increase revenue without changing the tax bracket. namely by getting rid of the ability to get out of paying taxes through creative accounting.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

they being the house, senate, and executive branch of the government. By get it right I mean, keep the federal government from causing more trouble than they solve by simply managing their spending properly.
You think this is a typical GOP rant and it isn't. It is like you are deliberately answering a different question...what is 2+2? your answer... orange... Orange is a great answer to a different question...your question would be something like what are a citizens responsibilities, and coupling with that, what are the essential services a government must provide its people? Mine is...why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?
And no, I wouldn't agree to a raise in taxes. I would say first why don't we remove the 18,000 pages of tax loop holes that are created to allow individuals the ability to get out of paying their "fair" share if they have a good enough accountant. That raises revenue, without raising taxes. If you must give them more, why not simply enforce what is on the books rather than creating new tax brackets for people to get out of paying.

"why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?...."

this is your opinion in the form of a question...anyway, my answer is blue...no seriously...I think you're framing the question based on your own bias...which is fine, but the only right answer is the one you already have in your head...

as for part of your answer that I put in bold...I fully agree....

however, I do still believe taxes need to go back to Clinton era levels...

mikepegg44

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

they being the house, senate, and executive branch of the government. By get it right I mean, keep the federal government from causing more trouble than they solve by simply managing their spending properly.
You think this is a typical GOP rant and it isn't. It is like you are deliberately answering a different question...what is 2+2? your answer... orange... Orange is a great answer to a different question...your question would be something like what are a citizens responsibilities, and coupling with that, what are the essential services a government must provide its people? Mine is...why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?
And no, I wouldn't agree to a raise in taxes. I would say first why don't we remove the 18,000 pages of tax loop holes that are created to allow individuals the ability to get out of paying their "fair" share if they have a good enough accountant. That raises revenue, without raising taxes. If you must give them more, why not simply enforce what is on the books rather than creating new tax brackets for people to get out of paying.

"why raise taxes when they have proven to be irresponsible with what they are already given?...."

this is your opinion in the form of a question...anyway, my answer is blue...no seriously...I think you're framing the question based on your own bias...which is fine, but the only right answer is the one you already have in your head...

as for part of your answer that I put in bold...I fully agree....

however, I do still believe taxes need to go back to Clinton era levels...

lol, sorry, from now on 2+2 is blue

I am framing a question as the one that is in my head...that is the one I ask myself...so I guess there is bias in the question, how should I have framed it so it wasn't showing a bias?
"why raise taxes?" that is rather broad and doesn't get to the idea that I am wondering about. If we all disagree with large portions of the budget...and the legislature(all, not red or blue alone) is continually irresponsible with the funds they are given, why is the solution to give them more of people's money?

I understand the unique nature of the situation, but I look at it like a drug addict...the government is a wicked crack addict who spends money like a middle of the road salesmen at a strip club...eventually the public needs to say enough, you have enough...

Cosmo

mikepegg44 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Let me ask you guys something...if we all are against some form of government spending, whether it be welfare, warfare or anything in between...why can we not all agree on making sure that the federal government gets as little money as possible to screw up? Why do people insist on wanting to take taxes back to higher levels?

...
Under normal cirmcumstances, this would work.
However, these are not normal circumstances we are currently facing. Because we have refused to increase taxes (revenue) on past debt, the debt has grown to monsterous proportions. In order to rectify the current situation, we have to BOTH, increase revenues (taxes) and cut spending in order to reduce our debt. Doing only one thing or the other will do nothing to resolve the problem except extend the date of the inevitable.
We SHOULD be looking for a long term solution that will reduce the debt.
After that, we can work on a mangable budget.
...
But, as long as we play political slap and tickle by letting our representatives use taxes and spending cuts as campaign slogans (ever notice how they criticise one or the other, but NEVER offer up a solution plan... I'm looking at you Ms. Palin and Bachmann), we will continue our decline as the economic super power.

you can increase revenue without changing the tax bracket. namely by getting rid of the ability to get out of paying taxes through creative accounting.

...
Any guesses who benefits most from 'creative accounting'?
Here's a hint: It isn't all of us a-holes in the 'Income below the $250,000.00 a year' crowd.

inmytree

mikepegg44 wrote:

lol, sorry, from now on 2+2 is blue

I am framing a question as the one that is in my head...that is the one I ask myself...so I guess there is bias in the question, how should I have framed it so it wasn't showing a bias?
"why raise taxes?" that is rather broad and doesn't get to the idea that I am wondering about. If we all disagree with large portions of the budget...and the legislature(all, not red or blue alone) is continually irresponsible with the funds they are given, why is the solution to give them more of people's money?

I understand the unique nature of the situation, but I look at it like a drug addict...the government is a wicked crack addict who spends money like a middle of the road salesmen at a strip club...eventually the public needs to say enough, you have enough...

I feel like were doing the Abbot and Costello bit "who's on first"...(for the uninformed, google it, I bet it's on the youtube)

my answer to "why raise taxes" is because we have bills to pay....it's that simple...

sorry...but it's true...

you keep saying the gov't is "irresponsible with the funds they are given"...sure, fine...that's your opinion...fact of business, that gov't structure has been in place for a couple years now, maybe a couple hundred... at it's worked...

Is it perfect...nope...nothing is...but it's what we have and for me, I think it works fairly well...