Political Discussion

[msm859]

I have been stressing this for a while and will give a better breakdown for those interested.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Look at the link. Now look at the "US Federal Tax Revenue" which is about 2.3 trillion.

Then look at the "Largest Budget items". Get a look at what we are currently paying out in SS/SSI, Medicare/Medicade, Interest on the debt and war annually. If we do the right thing and end the war it still won't matter with all of the other programs growing annually.

The point is (again I'm not defending the rich) there aren't enough rich to pay for this!!!! They aren't there! They don't exist!!!! Period!!!!

That can only mean we have to reduce these expenditures. Good luck with that.

Actually you need to understand macro economics better. The problem isn't that there is not enough "rich" to pay for this, it is there is not enough strong "middle class" to pay for this. The concentration of wealth in so few is going to bring this country down. Go play the game of Monopoly -- it ends when someone owns everything. Reducing expenditures alone will not solve the problem. We should first start with rescinding the Bush tax cuts and should probably actually go further and raise marginal tax rates at some of the real higher income levels along with confiscatory estate rates on the real high estates -- over $100 million. When people complain that 50% of the people don't pay income tax they get upset -- unfortunately at the wrong thing. We should be upset that so many people don't even make enough to be in a taxable bracket. Take an example the fight over the payroll tax holiday - you could give 160 million people an average of a $1,000 tax cut and pay for it with a 3% surcharge on income OVER $1 million -- it is an economic no brainer. Most other advanced countries have free or affordable higher education, in the US our kids our graduating from college with a mountain of debt that depresses our economy because they can't afford to buy things as their disposable income is going to pay off their student loans. By the way social security is not the problem. It has not added a dime to our debt and with a few tweaks could continue to have decades of solvency. Finally, as to our debt clock it should cause you concern because at some point we will reach critical mass and have some real problems -- and the only way I see out of it is hyper inflation -- but that is another story.

[chrisdfw]

-- and the only way I see out of it is hyper inflation -- but that is another story.

I found a statement in there I agree with.

Government spending is approaching 50% of GDP, it is a spending problem. There is no way the government should control half the economy. Both through spending and ridiculous regulations.

The income distribution problems in this country can be corrected by enforcing the property rights of shareholders and stop corporate executives from taking unreasonable salaries and stock options (that money belongs to shareholders, not the government or the public) unfortunately the default answer is higher taxes, which is not the answer.

There is no FREE higher education, we just have someone else pay for it. Why should I pay for someone else's education. Or food. Etc. We are spoiled in this country and most of western Europe. We spend our money on cell phones, air conditioning, cable tv, and complain that we need more food stamps, pell grants, section 8, social security, or health care.

What is the moral right to take money out of my paycheck to pay for someone else's healthcare? Because other countries do it?

[IamOld]

I'm sorry Chris but if I may be blunt...these are the talking points of the one percent. We aren't spoiled..rather we believe that society exists for the betterment of application..something that Jefferson Washington etc all believed in. No man is an island.
On a practical level someone else's education for example does benefit you...it contributesqto the general Wellness of society..or do you not want a good. Dr.
Remember that the us economy went south beginning with trickle down economics..

[chrisdfw]

I'm sorry Chris but if I may be blunt...these are the talking points of the one percent. We aren't spoiled..rather we believe that society exists for the betterment of application..something that Jefferson Washington etc all believed in. No man is an island.
On a practical level someone else's education for example does benefit you...it contributesqto the general Wellness of society..or do you not want a good. Dr.
Remember that the us economy went south beginning with trickle down economics..

My talking points aren't anyone's, I just choose not to ignore human nature, history, economics, and mathematics.

Our economy going south was directly caused by government intervention and the decoupling of risk and reward, not by the private sector. Big government and big business go together. The more big government we have the more wealth will be funneled through big corporations. Let me give an example.

Once upon a time if someone wanted to build a new automobile they could reasonable do so. Not today, only the big automakers can afford to do so because they can afford to meet the regulations for crash testing and emission, as a consequence, instead of competition in the automobile sector we now have more and more wealth passing through the hands of gm and into the hands of their executives. The problem of wealth concentration is a problem created by big government. The same thing applies through every sector of our economy.

By bailing out bank the government decoupled risk and reward. People are supposed to take risks and either succeed or fail, but we don't allow GM, Chrysler, unions, banks to fail. The automakers were stupid, they deserved to fail, the banks were stupid and deserved to fail. Who encouraged the stupidity, the government. Especially in the financial sector the government has since the early 20th century has been separating risk and reward.

First, we protected depositors who put money in shaky banks, why research your bank when you know the FDIC will step in.
The inevitable result is that banks are encouraged to make risky bets, and depositors have no incentive to avoid those banks.
Then we bailed out AIG, Citi, etc, for what reason? the economy. Did we have a choice, maybe not, but it is the inevitable result
of policies that started almost a hundred years ago. Big government to the rescue of the problem it solved.

Increased government regulations means only large companies can afford to comply. I can't afford to create a new medication in my garage, no innovation from me, no way I can afford to meet the requirements of the FDA. I can;t afford to meet the crash test requirements, so I can't make a new car. I can't afford to create a new power plant because of emission regulations. So what happens... the big pharma has a monopoly, only large companies with money can afford to get into the game. RESULT, RICH get RICHER.

There is a fine balance between too little government and too much, too little and we have no enforcement of property rights, the strong trample the weak. too much and you destroy competition through regulation that is too expensive. The government has in effect created barriers to entry and the strong again trample the weak. We have tipped from the era of reasonable regulation to oppressive regulation that only big business can comply with.

Enforcement of the property rights is the answer to most of the problems. We need some regulation in favor of property rights, not opposed to them.

BTW, I like blunt. You can't hurt my feelings, I have studies economics extensively and thoughtfully formed my beliefs based on my observations, I am ok that others disagree with me.

[IamOld]

Chris, I agree with you 1000% that the banks shouldn't have been bailed out.

However, here is the historical fact - from FDR through Reagan (even WITH the Vietnam War AND the Oil Embargo of around 1973) there were no MASSIVE recessions, massive unemployment, OR significant bank faliures. Why? Because the economy was regulated, tariffs were relatively high on imports, and there was a tacit agreement that the highest of incomes should be taxed highly - thus preventing masses of cash from turning equitities investments into a gambling house.

Let's remember that until around 1980-81, the US was a net CREDITOR nation to the world.

When Reagan cut regulations, import tariffs, and taxes on the wealthy, we began to lose jobs, we began to have chronic unemployment, and the nation began a long march towards (as banca rotta would perhaps say) insolvency.

Banks screwed up because they were deregulated - the beast was unleashed by Reagan then Clinton and then Bush. And here we have one of the least regulated environments and lowest tax rate since the Great Depression...

THe reason why we have the FDIC is because you have to have confidence in the system and also because masses of innocent people lost everything before the FDIC in REGULARLY occurring bank panics in the US. THe assumption that people will avoid "bad" banks assumes the impossible - that everyone will have instant access to all possible perfect information - that is the fundamental problem with utopian free-marketers - that assumes that information is readily and freely and always available and understandable to all, and that all can act on that information immediately. That simply is not reality.

We had that in the 1920's, and the system crashed. We've had that off an on for the last 30 years and the system almost crashed (is crashing??)

My talking points aren't anyone's, I just choose not to ignore human nature, history, economics, and mathematics.

Our economy going south was directly caused by government intervention and the decoupling of risk and reward, not by the private sector. Big government and big business go together. The more big government we have the more wealth will be funneled through big corporations. Let me give an example.

Once upon a time if someone wanted to build a new automobile they could reasonable do so. Not today, only the big automakers can afford to do so because they can afford to meet the regulations for crash testing and emission, as a consequence, instead of competition in the automobile sector we now have more and more wealth passing through the hands of gm and into the hands of their executives. The problem of wealth concentration is a problem created by big government. The same thing applies through every sector of our economy.

By bailing out bank the government decoupled risk and reward. People are supposed to take risks and either succeed or fail, but we don't allow GM, Chrysler, unions, banks to fail. The automakers were stupid, they deserved to fail, the banks were stupid and deserved to fail. Who encouraged the stupidity, the government. Especially in the financial sector the government has since the early 20th century has been separating risk and reward.

First, we protected depositors who put money in shaky banks, why research your bank when you know the FDIC will step in.
The inevitable result is that banks are encouraged to make risky bets, and depositors have no incentive to avoid those banks.
Then we bailed out AIG, Citi, etc, for what reason? the economy. Did we have a choice, maybe not, but it is the inevitable result
of policies that started almost a hundred years ago. Big government to the rescue of the problem it solved.

Increased government regulations means only large companies can afford to comply. I can't afford to create a new medication in my garage, no innovation from me, no way I can afford to meet the requirements of the FDA. I can;t afford to meet the crash test requirements, so I can't make a new car. I can't afford to create a new power plant because of emission regulations. So what happens... the big pharma has a monopoly, only large companies with money can afford to get into the game. RESULT, RICH get RICHER.

There is a fine balance between too little government and too much, too little and we have no enforcement of property rights, the strong trample the weak. too much and you destroy competition through regulation that is too expensive. The government has in effect created barriers to entry and the strong again trample the weak. We have tipped from the era of reasonable regulation to oppressive regulation that only big business can comply with.

Enforcement of the property rights is the answer to most of the problems. We need some regulation in favor of property rights, not opposed to them.

BTW, I like blunt. You can't hurt my feelings, I have studies economics extensively and thoughtfully formed my beliefs based on my observations, I am ok that others disagree with me.

[chrisdfw]

And here we have one of the least regulated environments and lowest tax rate since the Great Depression...

THe reason why we have the FDIC is because you have to have confidence in the system and also because masses of innocent people lost everything before the FDIC in REGULARLY occurring bank panics in the US. THe assumption that people will avoid "bad" banks assumes the impossible - that everyone will have instant access to all possible perfect information - that is the fundamental problem with utopian free-marketers - that assumes that information is readily and freely and always available and understandable to all, and that all can act on that information immediately. That simply is not reality.

We had that in the 1920's, and the system crashed. We've had that off an on for the last 30 years and the system almost crashed (is crashing??)

We need regulation, but not the kind we have, not the kind that acts as a barrier to entry for competition, one that enforces property rights, rewards the founders of companies, inventions, and not the management that vote themselves obscence salaries at the expense of shareholders.

We don't have a lightly regulated economy by any means, try to invent a new drug, car, power plant, engine, etc and you'll find out. Only big pharma can afford stage 3 clinical trials, only big auto companies can afford to crash test multiple examples of their product. We simply have anti-competitive, pro-government, pro-rich. We probably agree on the problem, we just agree on the solution. I am not willing to sacrifice more of the money I earn to pay for someone else's healthcare, I'd rather a system where we reward hard work and people buy their own. I want more equal income distribution, but more government is not the way to get there. Taking my money to give to someone else is just not the answer.

[msm859]

I am not willing to sacrifice more of the money I earn to pay for someone else's healthcare, I'd rather a system where we reward hard work and people buy their own. So would you be in favor of a tax on junk food, alcohol, tobacco and fast food to go into a fund to pay for health care that unhealthy lifestyles contribute to? Or are you really saying we should simply leave that uninsured person who was innocently riding his bike and got hit by a car who then took off, to die on the sidewalk?

I want more equal income distribution, but more government is not the way to get there. Sure it is. Raise the minimum wage so we don't have Walmarts making billions for a few people while 90% of their employees make below poverty income.

Taking my money to give to someone else is just not the answer.

It may be. If you are the heirs of Sam Walton, all of your income -- whether ordinary or "capital gains" should be taxed much higher than it is. Corporations should not be able to pay those excessive salaries without tax consequence. Hedge fund managers should pay taxes on their millions at ordinary rates - like other workers.

Over regulation is NOT the primary cause of our current problem, neither is spending. We have been on a trajectory since Ronald Reagan because of 3 specific things he did. 1 Started the belief in supply side economics, which as George senior properly coined is voodoo economics. 2. Started the belief that government is the problem and not the solution. and 3. Started the destruction of the unions with the lockout of the airline traffic controllers. Those 3 things changed the course of this country to the detriment. George W. put everything in hyperdrive with his further disastrous tax cuts and setting the tone for greed the last decade starting with staying out of what Enron was doing when they raped and pillaged California. He let it be known that under his administration greed full speed ahead would go unchecked.
The worst part about this is anyone who has in fact studied Economics can see this slow train wreck coming that could so easily be changed with minimum changes.

[IamOld]

MSM is correct - the EMPRICAL evidence over the last 10 years (30 even) shows what light regulation can do - thing is chris, YOU AND I!!!! are highly "regulated" but not the big "boys." Frankly I have no problem in my money paying for healthcare for others because that society cares - yes cares - about all of its citizens.

I do have a problem, frankly, my money supporting various adventures, bloated "contractors" etc....I think Eisenhower put it best in his "Cross of Iron" speech in 1953.

Ultimately, the question is will society be...a society, or will be like Lord of the Flies...and as I recall that didn't end well.

It may be. If you are the heirs of Sam Walton, all of your income -- whether ordinary or "capital gains" should be taxed much higher than it is. Corporations should not be able to pay those excessive salaries without tax consequence. Hedge fund managers should pay taxes on their millions at ordinary rates - like other workers.

Over regulation is NOT the primary cause of our current problem, neither is spending. We have been on a trajectory since Ronald Reagan because of 3 specific things he did. 1 Started the belief in supply side economics, which as George senior properly coined is voodoo economics. 2. Started the belief that government is the problem and not the solution. and 3. Started the destruction of the unions with the lockout of the airline traffic controllers. Those 3 things changed the course of this country to the detriment. George W. put everything in hyperdrive with his further disastrous tax cuts and setting the tone for greed the last decade starting with staying out of what Enron was doing when they raped and pillaged California. He let it be known that under his administration greed full speed ahead would go unchecked.
The worst part about this is anyone who has in fact studied Economics can see this slow train wreck coming that could so easily be changed with minimum changes.

[chrisdfw]

I can see that others have no problem taking money I earn to pay for other people's healthcare and food. If that is your belief system, I am not sure I can convince you otherwise. If you feel that people are entitled to have SOMEONE ELSE pay for their healthcare, college education, I am not sure there is any factual claim I can make that would convince you otherwise. How much money is it ok to take from one american to support another american? I am not talking about legitimate functions of government, I am talking about taking money from me, and giving it to someone else to buy food. If I came up to someone on the street and took their money and gave it to a poor child using the threat of force, I could be arrested, however if the government does it, somehow that is ok. Majority rule is pretty close to mob rule, and that is where we are headed. The tyrrany of the majority can be just as bad as that of any ruler. If we continue on this path, encouraging people not to work, subsidizing the poor, taking from the productive, where will it end?

Morally, i see taking money from one person to give to another as theft. Just because of majority vote, that doesn't change things much.

Of course, that is a separate issue from the destruction of America through the combination of big government and big corporation working together to shut out competition. (which is why we have a health care problem in this country, no competition, the government mandate of insurance and subsidizing health care will make it worse, either through additional costs or eventually a shortage)

I do agree that a minimum of changes can fix this train wreck, however, I know we won't agree on the changes. You can't create a prosperous country by discouraging thift, hard work, and ingenuity. You can't legislate a high enough minimum wage to make everyone prosperous, if we could why not mandate a $100 an hour minimum wage? Or $200. The fact is that we have a standard of living that might be impossible to support with the current economic output of the country. Sure we can shift around a few billion from the people who earned it (or stole it, in the case of government and corporate big wigs) but the problem is simply that we have lived beyond our means for too long and the government shifting money around can't necessarily fix that.

[IamOld]

My friend, you are angry at the wrong people - you are angry at your fellow worker, fellow "peasant." WE are not the cause of the problem - not me, not you.

Now to take your argument - if you want public schools where everyone CAN attend that have to take everyone, yes, that's not free; if you want a fire department who puts out all fires, yes, you that's not free. If you get into an accident, you want the cops and firefighters, EMT's etc to show up right? That's not free.

If you want whether forecasts, that's not free.

You want medical research? Most of that is federally funded.

So yes, I do believe that it is a function of government, ultimately, to assure a decent society. As did Thomas Paine, and indeed Jefferson, and even Washington. Thomas Paine, one of the greatest American patriots believed and argued for the welfare state. In his work Agrarian Justice 1797 - Paine argued that the gov't should create a special fund for public assistance to the poor FROM...TAXING HIGH INHERITANCES (among other things). So yes, I am proud to try to walk in the footsteps of such men.


Now in my state the MAXIMUM unemployment is a bit over $300/week - in my area of my state that isn't enough to die on...

I can see that others have no problem taking money I earn to pay for other people's healthcare and food. If that is your belief system, I am not sure I can convince you otherwise. If you feel that people are entitled to have SOMEONE ELSE pay for their healthcare, college education, I am not sure there is any factual claim I can make that would convince you otherwise. How much money is it ok to take from one american to support another american? I am not talking about legitimate functions of government, I am talking about taking money from me, and giving it to someone else to buy food. If I came up to someone on the street and took their money and gave it to a poor child using the threat of force, I could be arrested, however if the government does it, somehow that is ok. Majority rule is pretty close to mob rule, and that is where we are headed. The tyrrany of the majority can be just as bad as that of any ruler. If we continue on this path, encouraging people not to work, subsidizing the poor, taking from the productive, where will it end?

Morally, i see taking money from one person to give to another as theft. Just because of majority vote, that doesn't change things much.

Of course, that is a separate issue from the destruction of America through the combination of big government and big corporation working together to shut out competition. (which is why we have a health care problem in this country, no competition, the government mandate of insurance and subsidizing health care will make it worse, either through additional costs or eventually a shortage)

I do agree that a minimum of changes can fix this train wreck, however, I know we won't agree on the changes. You can't create a prosperous country by discouraging thift, hard work, and ingenuity. You can't legislate a high enough minimum wage to make everyone prosperous, if we could why not mandate a $100 an hour minimum wage? Or $200. The fact is that we have a standard of living that might be impossible to support with the current economic output of the country. Sure we can shift around a few billion from the people who earned it (or stole it, in the case of government and corporate big wigs) but the problem is simply that we have lived beyond our means for too long and the government shifting money around can't necessarily fix that.

[chrisdfw]

My friend, you are angry at the wrong people - you are angry at your fellow worker, fellow "peasant." WE are not the cause of the problem - not me, not you.

Now to take your argument - if you want public schools where everyone CAN attend that have to take everyone, yes, that's not free; if you want a fire department who puts out all fires, yes, you that's not free. If you get into an accident, you want the cops and firefighters, EMT's etc to show up right? That's not free.

If you want whether forecasts, that's not free.

You want medical research? Most of that is federally funded.

So yes, I do believe that it is a function of government, ultimately, to assure a decent society. As did Thomas Paine, and indeed Jefferson, and even Washington. Thomas Paine, one of the greatest American patriots believed and argued for the welfare state. In his work Agrarian Justice 1797 - Paine argued that the gov't should create a special fund for public assistance to the poor FROM...TAXING HIGH INHERITANCES (among other things). So yes, I am proud to try to walk in the footsteps of such men.


Now in my state the MAXIMUM unemployment is a bit over $300/week - in my area of my state that isn't enough to die on...

I would like the government to follow more in the view of Madison, than the others. But not the government in general, just the federal government. You see, If a municipality, or even a state (or any entitiy without the power to go deeply in debt) wants to have social programs, that is what I see as a local right. The power to regulate interstate commerce is has become so deeply twisted that the government wants to regulate non-commerce (prohibit an individual from NOT buying health insurance?). You see if california plunges itself off a cliff with its bloated social programs, that would be a lesson that Texas and Kansas can choose to follow or not to follow. But the way it is now, the federal government is in danger of driving the whole country off a cliff.

I do get a little angry when someone feels they have the right to take money out of my paycheck and give it to anyone (I am not talking about building a bridge here, I am talking about taking money I could spend on food and giving it to someone else for food) but it a rich banker or a welfare recipient. I try to let it go, but when I see a 7000 monthly gap between my gross and net, it bothers me, not in amount, but in I know its being taken from me and given to someone else, not all of it, but enough that it bothers me. Even more it bothers me that we aren't even paying for stuff, but sticking future generations with it, and nobody cares. As long as old people and poor people and bank of america get their money now, its all rosy.

I have a problem with the way the country is heading. I have a problem paying taxes to fund bonuses for wall street executives (yes and even to fund food stamps). So much of what our federal government does is not to regulate interstate commerce or provide for the common defense, or any legitimate function, but rather to give handouts to individual americans paid for by other americans.

There are solutions, free market solutions that return power to local governments where politicians still answer (at least a little) to their constituents, but we don't seem to be headed that direction, our answer seems to be more handouts, more welfare, more subsidies to rich corporations, more food stamps, more job killing regulation. Corporations and government get big together. Small businesses suffer, workers suffer, jobs go overseas. The government and corporations have conspired together to send jobs overseas, don't let the talk of the democrats fool anyone.

Make no mistake, I am no fan of republicans either, they answer to the special interests like the democrats, the other side of the same coin if you ask me. I only lean republican because they don't seem quite as eager to rape my paycheck. Although if you ask me, I'd prefer all of them get their hands out of my pocket.

There are no small government politicians out there as best I can tell. Just the pro-big business, pro-welfare state crowd, and they argue over the degree. George Bush created the largest new entitlement in years with the medicare prescription drug plan, conservative? Maybe the new definition.

My rants are probably just frustration that I don't see any options in the political arena, to
1. Stop borrowing money
2. Stop handouts
3. Reduce regulation that acts as a barrier to competition
4. Increase regulation to protect and defend property rights (especially the right of shareholders to object to unreasonable compensation of corporate managers, I don't like the ridiculous pay of CEOs, not because its not fair or some bullshit, but because the money belongs to shareholders)
5. Stop paying to defend the world, either make Europe pay for their own defense or come home, same for Asia, Africa, etc
6. Return power to state and even better local government where there is just a little accountability (especially in Chicago)
7. Level the playing field in international trade (reducing regulation can help, but to sell here you have to meet our environmental, safety, and other regulations)
There just is no such political movement, all I see is more people wanting me to pay for their stuff, be it medications, food, housing, or damn wall street bonus.

[IamOld]

If we "return" power to state/local gov'ts we don't have a UNITED States - period.

Also, CA v TX - the $$ problems of CA state government are the product of right wing financed referenda, that hobbled government. However, whether it's employment, GDP, teen pregnancy, HS grad rates, CA beats TX hands down-on every measure.

Now, you're talking about people taking $$ out of your paycheck - so since you live in TX, would it be ok with you if TX state gov't suddenly needs to either jack up the sales tax you all pay OR institute an income tax to cover the $$ now not coming from a smaller fed gov't?

I frankly feel...violated why I struggle and pay tax until and beyond where it hurts to pay for a massively bloated military-industrial complex.

Now we agree - there is zero need for the massive US presence in Europe...BUT think about it...what would happen if all those people need to come back into the civilian economy?

I would like the government to follow more in the view of Madison, than the others. But not the government in general, just the federal government. You see, If a municipality, or even a state (or any entitiy without the power to go deeply in debt) wants to have social programs, that is what I see as a local right. The power to regulate interstate commerce is has become so deeply twisted that the government wants to regulate non-commerce (prohibit an individual from NOT buying health insurance?). You see if california plunges itself off a cliff with its bloated social programs, that would be a lesson that Texas and Kansas can choose to follow or not to follow. But the way it is now, the federal government is in danger of driving the whole country off a cliff.

I do get a little angry when someone feels they have the right to take money out of my paycheck and give it to anyone (I am not talking about building a bridge here, I am talking about taking money I could spend on food and giving it to someone else for food) but it a rich banker or a welfare recipient. I try to let it go, but when I see a 7000 monthly gap between my gross and net, it bothers me, not in amount, but in I know its being taken from me and given to someone else, not all of it, but enough that it bothers me. Even more it bothers me that we aren't even paying for stuff, but sticking future generations with it, and nobody cares. As long as old people and poor people and bank of america get their money now, its all rosy.

I have a problem with the way the country is heading. I have a problem paying taxes to fund bonuses for wall street executives (yes and even to fund food stamps). So much of what our federal government does is not to regulate interstate commerce or provide for the common defense, or any legitimate function, but rather to give handouts to individual americans paid for by other americans.

There are solutions, free market solutions that return power to local governments where politicians still answer (at least a little) to their constituents, but we don't seem to be headed that direction, our answer seems to be more handouts, more welfare, more subsidies to rich corporations, more food stamps, more job killing regulation. Corporations and government get big together. Small businesses suffer, workers suffer, jobs go overseas. The government and corporations have conspired together to send jobs overseas, don't let the talk of the democrats fool anyone.

Make no mistake, I am no fan of republicans either, they answer to the special interests like the democrats, the other side of the same coin if you ask me. I only lean republican because they don't seem quite as eager to rape my paycheck. Although if you ask me, I'd prefer all of them get their hands out of my pocket.

There are no small government politicians out there as best I can tell. Just the pro-big business, pro-welfare state crowd, and they argue over the degree. George Bush created the largest new entitlement in years with the medicare prescription drug plan, conservative? Maybe the new definition.

My rants are probably just frustration that I don't see any options in the political arena, to
1. Stop borrowing money
2. Stop handouts
3. Reduce regulation that acts as a barrier to competition
4. Increase regulation to protect and defend property rights (especially the right of shareholders to object to unreasonable compensation of corporate managers, I don't like the ridiculous pay of CEOs, not because its not fair or some bullshit, but because the money belongs to shareholders)
5. Stop paying to defend the world, either make Europe pay for their own defense or come home, same for Asia, Africa, etc
6. Return power to state and even better local government where there is just a little accountability (especially in Chicago)
7. Level the playing field in international trade (reducing regulation can help, but to sell here you have to meet our environmental, safety, and other regulations)
There just is no such political movement, all I see is more people wanting me to pay for their stuff, be it medications, food, housing, or damn wall street bonus.

[msm859]

Your focus is too much on the micro effects of government to you personally. No one wants to pay taxes, but to live in a civilized society we have to. The real question is what is the "right" amount. I would suggest the tax "rates" we had under Clinton were the right amount. They gave us the balance of enough revenue to balance the budget and not too high to stifle the economy. The social programs you complain about are not even on the radar of what our current problem is. It is the decimation of the middle class -- because they are the true job creators and the backbone of our economy. The increasing concentration of wealth in a few and the corporate takeover of the government is the problem. As to you leaning Republican because you feel your paycheck is "safer" - it isn't. The ONLY ones the Republicans care about is the top 1/10 of the top 1%. Unless you are in there, your economic interest are not served by the Republicans. They are bent on destroying the middle class which will destroy this country. Mitt Romney does not want to disclose his tax returns because (among other reasons) everyone will see what a low tax rate he pays vs the rate the middle class pays, since I have no doubt most of his income is from capital gains. The worst part is he thinks he pays too much and wants to eliminate the capital gains tax and inheritance tax, so he and his kind will be able to dominate the country while everyone else struggles to survive. Today 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 150 million people. If this trend continues it will only be a question of when we start are own French Revolution.

[chrisdfw]

Your focus is too much on the micro effects of government to you personally. No one wants to pay taxes, but to live in a civilized society we have to. The real question is what is the "right" amount. I would suggest the tax "rates" we had under Clinton were the right amount. They gave us the balance of enough revenue to balance the budget and not too high to stifle the economy. The social programs you complain about are not even on the radar of what our current problem is. It is the decimation of the middle class -- because they are the true job creators and the backbone of our economy. The increasing concentration of wealth in a few and the corporate takeover of the government is the problem. As to you leaning Republican because you feel your paycheck is "safer" - it isn't. The ONLY ones the Republicans care about is the top 1/10 of the top 1%. Unless you are in there, your economic interest are not served by the Republicans. They are bent on destroying the middle class which will destroy this country. Mitt Romney does not want to disclose his tax returns because (among other reasons) everyone will see what a low tax rate he pays vs the rate the middle class pays, since I have no doubt most of his income is from capital gains. The worst part is he thinks he pays too much and wants to eliminate the capital gains tax and inheritance tax, so he and his kind will be able to dominate the country while everyone else struggles to survive. Today 400 families have more wealth than the bottom 150 million people. If this trend continues it will only be a question of when we start are own French Revolution.

I don't feel the only question is the right amount, what the money is being spent on makes a big difference to me. I don't want to pay to protect france, to fund health care for other people, to pay for section 8 housing, or bonuses for wall street executives.

The real financial problem can be traced to social programs, namely, medicare and medicaid. They are growing at a unsustainable rate and the projected liabilities will dwarf everything if we don't stop it. But there is a bigger issue that just the financial and that is whether the government should be taking money from one citizen to give a handout to another.

And I agree about the corporate takeover of government. But I don't think the answer is to give more power to the government (the ones under the thumb of the corporations?), to me the answer is smaller government. If the government had less power, the corporations wouldn't be able to benefit so much. The more power the government gets the more money will be funneled into giant corporations that can afford to meet the regulatory burden. For example, the beloved democrats (it seems here that is the part of choice) put in a new burdensome requirement for 1099s on small business in the health care bill. Walmart has an army of accountants to meet the requirement, it is small businesses that would suffer. There is example after example of regulations that burden small businesses and people who want to get into business, that cause no problem for citibank, exxon and the like. The more regulations we have, the more we stifle competition and benefit the ones that already have the money (like those 400 families).

I see the same problems you see, I just see different solutions. Preferably ones that don't involve taking more money out of my pocket to give to someone else.

Many of the high earners are corporate CEOs who invented nothing, but managed to have the right pedigree to get the board friends to give them a ridiculous salary and obscene stock option grants, even backdating them. To me the solution is not to tax these guys at a higher rate, but rather to stop these clowns from stealing the money from the stockholders (the real victims here) in the first place. Sensible regulation should enforce the property right of the shareholders, and require actual approval of the stockholder for these pay packages (not these proxy vote and board approval jokes). But we won't see that, not from the politicians (any of them), the only thing I see is the government suggesting higher taxes to get their hands on the money, which does nothing to return it to the rightful owner, rather just shifts more money and power to government. (owned by corporations, remember) I think we need to fix the problem and prevent the obscene theft of shareholder property, not just try to tax it.

I think the founders had it right when they set the government up with the power to apportion tax among the states. We went way off course when we allowed the income tax. Once the federal government got that power and its hands on that money, the balance of power shifted, and now corporations have bought that power. Most people think the answer is to give the corporate owned government even more money. I don't think that is the answer.

[banca rotta]

It seems Kelly Clarkson is supporting Ron Paul.

A note to the "Ditto Head, Fair and Balanced Fox News followers" when you google search this info Fox news is stating that she lost fans because of this endorsement while CNN or the "Clinton News Network" stated she gained support for this.

Personally I will agree with the CNN gang since we all know Fox is carrying Romney's water because they still support the Party over the USA.