- This topic has 12 voices and 265 replies.
-
Posts
-
No the President sends a budget request to the House, the House actually writes the budget. That is why you end up getting things like worthless defense programs that the DoD does not want but that are made in districts all over the country, think Joint Strike Fighter or the army Future Combat System. Pundits are fond of talking about how Congress controls the purse strings.My issue is I don?t want to pin the tail on Democrats or Republicans; I think both parties should be tarred with the same brush. The problem with D.C. is the culture of spend until your eyes bleed and then get new eyes so you can spend more. It is simple budgeting. I am not talking about debt to GDP ratio but about deficits. in plain language and to your neighbor it is called living beyond your means and it is what this country has done for over 60 years. Yes, the Federal government spends a lot of money and yes a certain amount of debt is justified, but 60 years of growing debt and only a few years of surplus? Additionally in the surplus years we did not even pay down the debt we had, it was seen as an excuse to spend more.The problem is spending, not entitlements. Entitlements are fine, IF we can afford them. Right now we can?t and it certainly looks as if we never could. We are reaching a crisis point where the whole house of cards is going to come tumbling down around our ears. Talking about helping people is academic when the dollars to do the helping are essentially pulled out of thin air. My fear is that we are facing a global replay of Weimar Germany in the 20's if US spending is not reigned in indeed, perhaps global spending.The Tea Party seems to be mainly about fiscal responsibility. There are other issues but fiscal responsibility is the core issue.
No the President sends a budget request to the House, the House actually writes the budget.
The President submits a budget to Congress, which then passes legislation to actually appropriate and authorize funds to be spent. Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/indiv/usgd/budget.html - The US Government Documents section at the Columbia University library. They have links to all those past budgets submitted by previous presidents I mentioned earlier. Yes, both parties tend to overspend, but the Republicans have a documented history of being the biggest spenders. If fiscal responsibility is indeed the central issue for the Tea Party, neither major party is really a good fit. But the GOP isn't the lesser of two evils with respect to that issue. The Tea Party candidates all seem to be social conservatives, whether that is a proclaimed position of the party or not. I think that is what makes the GOP more compatible.
If fiscal responsibility is indeed the central issue for the Tea Party, neither major party is really a good fit. But the GOP isn't the lesser of two evils with respect to that issue.
That is kind of the point I have been trying to make all along in my advocacy for the Tea Party to try and form a 3rd party. The key to why they have not in my opinion is perceived electability and most conservatives, whether fiscal or social tend to view Democrats/liberals as at least partially mentally ill.The Republicans may indeed have spent more; it is the entitlement programs that really burn people up though. There just seems something inherently wrong to most conservatives with governmental redistribution of wealth and that is what entitlement programs in actuality are. That is also the point I tried to make earlier about charity vs government programs. Charity is voluntary taxation to fund entitlement programs is involuntary charity on the part of taxpayers.You may disagree with me here and you are free to do so. However, I don?t see how you can logically make the point that it is somehow the duty of the taxpayer to support others. I just can?t see it. Basic fairness has nothing to with it. Fair is not getting something for nothing and that is what the recipients of entitlement aid are getting. As a taxpayer I may be getting something for those dollars; at least those getting entitlements are not as restless. I just do not think I am getting value for dollar out of them.
If fiscal responsibility is indeed the central issue for the Tea Party, neither major party is really a good fit. But the GOP isn't the lesser of two evils with respect to that issue.
That is kind of the point I have been trying to make all along in my advocacy for the Tea Party to try and form a 3rd party. The key to why they have not in my opinion is perceived electability and most conservatives, whether fiscal or social tend to view Democrats/liberals as at least partially mentally ill.The Republicans may indeed have spent more; it is the entitlement programs that really burn people up though. There just seems something inherently wrong to most conservatives with governmental redistribution of wealth and that is what entitlement programs in actuality are. That is also the point I tried to make earlier about charity vs government programs. Charity is voluntary taxation to fund entitlement programs is involuntary charity on the part of taxpayers.You may disagree with me here and you are free to do so. However, I don?t see how you can logically make the point that it is somehow the duty of the taxpayer to support others. I just can?t see it. Basic fairness has nothing to with it. Fair is not getting something for nothing and that is what the recipients of entitlement aid are getting. As a taxpayer I may be getting something for those dollars; at least those getting entitlements are not as restless. I just do not think I am getting value for dollar out of them.
I cannot make a case for supporting others without bringing in morality. But we have separation of church and state, so even though the Bible and most other religious texts advocate it, it can't be made law just because religions tell us it is the right thing to do. Certainly immoral acts that kill or injure others should be illegal, as should the taking of another's property. So the debate is at what point we stop legislating morality, not whether or not we do.I have admitted before that bleeding heart liberals have poor survival skills. Putting your own needs above those of others is natural, even healthy. If you won't eat until all the hungry are fed then you will surely starve. But putting your prosperity completely above the needs of others is another matter. All we are asking is that it not be completely above - once you earn past a certain amount, then share some of what you make with those less fortunate. You can still prosper. Voluntary charity doesn't work, especially when the wealth gets too concentrated. It helps, but it just doesn't go far enough. If we stopped government sponsored aid programs, children will starve and/or die of exposure living in the streets. Most liberals harbor some suspicion that conservatives are okay with that, but don't like to admit it.
once you earn past a certain amount, then share some of what you make with those less fortunate.
They already do. It's called "providing jobs"
once you earn past a certain amount, then share some of what you make with those less fortunate.
They already do. It's called "providing jobs"
Assuming that is correct (and it isn't in all cases; I make substantially above the median and employ no one), I have a couple of questions for you...What about those who can't work?What about hose who won't work?
What about those who can't work?
Elderly, disable, etc. Provide for them. I support welfare for people like this
What about those who won't work?
Oh well. Then I guess they won't eat either. (but that's not the case, because a substantial amount of my paycheck supports lazy bums like these)What about welfare mothers with 5 kids and 5 different fathers, none of whom pay child support? Why can't we teach them morality and personal responsible instead of encouraging this behavior by supplying food stamps and welfare checks? As for "providing jobs" that doesn't necessarily mean ONLY hiring them. All the restaurants, stores, carpenters, car dealers, boat dealers, etc. that the "rich" frequently buy from are provided jobs. If you tax them (the rich), then they will cut back on their extravagances thereby creating less jobs in the food, manufacturing, etc. industries.
One problem is there is no absolute delineation between the “can't work” crowd and the “won't work” bunch. Make it too restrictive and some people who deserve help get shut out. Make it too liberal (yes, I do believe there is such a thing 🙂 and sadly admit that is the current state) and you have people taking advantage instead of working.Another problem is that innocent kids will pay the price for their parents laziness, whether it is actual or perceived. I am not comfortable with that.I understand the theory that jobs will get created if wage earners take home more money, but it hasn't really panned out in practice. Even in the best of times, some people will be out of work. Depending on 100% employment of the work force is unrealistic.
Of course it's not 100%, but it's as close to perfect as humans can get. That's just life and sometimes life isn't fair.Making welfare so easy to get is a huge problem. Where's the incentive? There isn't any, and that's the problem right there. I bet if it was restricted, a lot of these lazy people would all of sudden miraculously find this lost incentive in order to feed their children. And if they are too lazy too work...well, why aren't they too lazy to have more kids? There's no such thing as too restrictive when it comes to welfare. If you're healthy and capable of even the most menial job, then you have to work. Most of these people would rather get free money (well, not really free, it has to come from somehwere....like my paycheck) then have to work for the same amount of money at McDonald's.
Of course it's not 100%, but it's as close to perfect as humans can get. That's just life and sometimes life isn't fair.
Is it really as close as we can get? Applying economic theory that hasn't panned out?I understand there are some people who just refuse to participate and do their share. I believe they are referred to as "the least of these".According to the texts that Christian conservatives claim to believe, only one perfect being has walked the Earth and he foretold a grim fate for those amassing wealth while others went hungry.
Free market capitalism has panned out, and been relatively sucessful, since the beginning of recorded history. It's not a theory, it's how the world has been working since the Greeks and perhaps before. Sparta practiced a form of socialism/communism, Athens practiced capitalism. Which one of the two amassed more wealth?
Free market capitalism has panned out, and been relatively sucessful, since the beginning of recorded history. It's not a theory, it's how the world has been working since the Greeks and perhaps before. Sparta practiced a form of socialism/communism, Athens practiced capitalism. Which one of the two amassed more wealth?
I am using a different standard for success, I guess. That is yet another thing that makes the debate difficult. Yes, many people get rich. I don't suggest abandoning free enterprise. People who work harder should make more and be able to afford more things. But the part that hasn't panned out is that not taking a portion of their wages to provide for those in need has never resulted in a big upswell in the economy that provides adequate employment for everyone. Those who can't work have never all had their needs fully met by private charities. Many are helped, but we can do better. I think we should, but not everyone agrees.
I am using a different standard for success, I guess. That is yet another thing that makes the debate difficult. Yes, many people get rich. I don't suggest abandoning free enterprise. People who work harder should make more and be able to afford more things.
That is the hard part, who gets to define how successful is successful enough? And yes, at least to an extent you are suggesting that we abandon free-enterprise system. It sounds like you are advocating something along the lines of the Social State they have in Europe. Us free market types think the market should decide who gets ow much while socialists think the proletariat or government, if you will, should decide that. It actually an unbridgeable difference when you get right down to it. It is not so much a moral argument in my eyes as a case of the have-nots having a serious case of sour grapes with envy thrown in. If I remember my catechism right Envy is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. It is really sad that the have-nots would rather take from others than work hard and be successful on their own merits. It is the reverse of the medieval concept of estates or classes in society.
Scout I think the free-enterprise system is all but dead. The world economy is being increasingly focused in on a corporate fascist model with a pinch of pinko socialism thrown in…even in the USofA. I think we are all moving closer to China's model than the old American model. Globalism, interdependence, and environmental politics are driving the bus now and they have little to do with Adam Smith.
Scout I think the free-enterprise system is all but dead. The world economy is being increasingly focused in on a corporate fascist model with a pinch of pinko socialism thrown in...even in the USofA. I think we are all moving closer to China's model than the old American model. Globalism, interdependence, and environmental politics are driving the bus now and they have little to do with Adam Smith.
Spoken like a true pessimist. I refuse to believe that, especially since I hope to utilize the system to get rich once my days of military service are over. If the Socialists remain in charge I cant do that. The dead hand at work there huh?AND the quote/trusim of the day:
Excited to see a bunch of Democrats kicked out in November, but then I remember they?re just getting replaced with Republicans.
