Works for me.WashPo said:
Doubtful, but at least it opens the debate. Shows a little bit of the spine that I wish he'd had for the past 2.5 years...
You aren't an economists obviously. The majority have been saying the same thing for a decade now...
I'm for bigger government and less taxes.
Seriously? We've already decided on the size of government that we want, the only debate is whether we pay for it (Obama) or throw it all on a credit card and wait for the next guy to deal with it (Bush).
That's why I moved to Oregon, no sales tax. If I quit my job, I won't have income tax. F those greedy bastards.
Yeah, seriously. Government is far too large and far too invasive, IMO.
Oh, a flat taxer too. This is awesome.
Ok, I'll bite. What government services (other than a paycheck) are you receiving that you'd be willing to give up?
I receive NO government services.
I knew I shouldn't have posted in this thread!
You may not receive any directly...but you benefit indirectly from many.I receive NO government services.
Oh, it achieves a TON! Massive wealth redistribution from the middle class to the very, very, very, very rich. Poor get subsidies to offset it, the rich get a MASSIVE tax cut, and the middle class... well, they get screwed.
Why because you're afraid of the truth.........or critical thinking?I knew I shouldn't have posted in this thread!
Apples and oranges. That could be said of anyone. And from what I see, we are talking federal here...not state or local.
Not at all. I have always challenged anyone to sell me on their position. But I ONLY listen to arguments that are objective with verifiable facts and figures. Quite honestly, I think BOTH sides are extreme views that I can't buy into completely.
this.
So, and I ask this in all seriousness, do you agree that the current system is broken? And if so, what solution would you propose?
You don't drive on roads?I receive NO government services.
Yeah, I see your point. I inferred from your question whether I received any direct support. Obviously, I benefit from those programs as does everyone. So why do we need BIGGER government to provide those things.
There is interaction and spectrum of efficiency across all levels. And state or local, left or right, they can compete with federal in that spectrum and win:
Ah, you're military?
10 years AF, 13 years Army reserve special ops, 17 years AF civilian. Daughter active duty, Brother retiring after 26 next month. I could go on.
So glad you served so I didn't have to. Oh wait... Never mind, I forgot I served. Thanks anyway.
I would have done it anyway! Loved every minute of it and still am!
Then why did you bring up a philosophical question in convenient soundbite rhetoric?
Where? And if I did, then my bad. And for that matter, this whole thread is "convenient soundbit rhetoric".
Right cheer
You are new (and older than me) so I will cut you slack, but just search any of Dante's posts in the Politics Forum. As a community (RM with the exception of $tinkle
) there has been a consensus on this topic and DOZENS of solutions have been proposed. If you have the time, do some reading. There is some really well thought out and really good stuff. And I promise you, the "liberal" flag waving is minimal if that is what you are opposed to.
yeah, I realized afterwards that "bigger" was not a good descriptor of what I was trying to say. A better word would be "limited".
Here's some facts. Revenue (taxes) are the lowest they have been in 60 years. Notice that spending is up too, but keep in mind we're in two wars as well.
I agree wholeheartedly! On that note, I don't think government spending in the form of "stimulus" or whatever term they want to use is the answer. Honestly, I don't know the answer....
No but that's mostly because I live in California
You know the often repeated idea that world war 2 brought us out of the lingerings of the depression? What do you think that was? Going into war doesn't stimulate the economy. The government spending that went into funding that endeavor is what kicked things into gear. That's a stimulus.
Backing out again eh?
Nope, not backing out at all. Just restating my original point. You and I seem to be more in agreement than not....just like your point above about the "left" being "straight up fvcking retarded".Backing out again eh?
It only hurts both sides if you don't understand the conflict. Neither is perfect but one side is just straight up fvcking retarded, and has zero interest in actually helping the economy outside of a very select segment of the population. You asked the questions, at least try to understand the answers you've received, regardless of whether or not this particular piece of legislation passes or not.
Yup.
