(June 20, 2014 at 11:25 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 10:49 am)Heywood Wrote: No bailouts, No stimulus, no new entitlements. I want cuts...cuts...cuts.

How do you feel about:

* Cutting defense spending at least by half?
* Ending all corporate welfare, including oil subsidies?
* Ending indirect subsidies for religion by taxing churches?
* Ending the war on drugs?
* Raising taxes on the top 1% to the pre-Reagan levels?
* Ending indirect subsidies for corporate labor costs by taxing any corporation whose full-time employees must rely on food stamps to survive so the government can recoup the cost of said food stamps plus administrative costs? (Alternatively, raise the minimum wage so that all full time employees will rise above the eligibility line)?

Once all these cuts are implemented, then we can talk about education and food stamps.

Not taxing something is not a subsidy. Churches are not being subsidized by tax payers. Churches are not forced to subsidize the government.

This forum receives donations just like a church. Do I feel this forum should subsidize the US government? No. The people who donated to the forum have already been forced to subsidize the government just like the people who donate to Churches and that should be enough.

(June 20, 2014 at 11:25 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 10:49 am)Heywood Wrote: No bailouts, No stimulus, no new entitlements. I want cuts...cuts...cuts.

How do you feel about:

* Cutting defense spending at least by half?
* Ending all corporate welfare, including oil subsidies?
* Ending indirect subsidies for religion by taxing churches?
* Ending the war on drugs?
* Raising taxes on the top 1% to the pre-Reagan levels?
* Ending indirect subsidies for corporate labor costs by taxing any corporation whose full-time employees must rely on food stamps to survive so the government can recoup the cost of said food stamps plus administrative costs? (Alternatively, raise the minimum wage so that all full time employees will rise above the eligibility line)?

Once all these cuts are implemented, then we can talk about education and food stamps.

And speaking of education, food stamps, etc., federal cuts to these areas will do nothing but add further stress to states' budgets. This shit won't magically take care of itself, and the revenue will have to come from somewhere. Given the poverty levels and educational outcomes in some of the reddest states, and given conservatives' reluctance to raise taxes anywhere, the Tea Party ploy (it hardly rises to the level of strategy) will only hurt many of their own.

Then again, these are people who don't believe in the efficacy of government programs and are doing their very best to demonstrate just that.

By the way, I'm no stereotypical tax-and-spend liberal. My tendency is toward fiscal restraint whenever possible. But if the Tea Party types aren't even willing to entertain the cuts DP listed above, they simply aren't to be taken seriously. Fuck their posturing.

(June 20, 2014 at 9:45 am)Jaysyn Wrote: If McDaniel couldn't answer that question while Davis was there, why would you think he's going to answer it after he leaves?

I was being a bit sarcastic. Instead of asking Davis to leave, I think that elderly crowd should have turned to McDaniel and expressed interest in just how he planned to cut spending, making clear that they wanted more than just platitudes, seeing as how they might be depending on some of that spending for medical care.

(June 20, 2014 at 10:49 am)Heywood Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 10:02 am)popeyespappy Wrote: Simply voting no to appropriation bills is not an acceptable answer. Some level of government spending is necessary to the continued existence of this country. If the answer is continued excessive funding of the military at the expense of the late life healthcare the retires he was talking to then hopefully the retirees tarred and feathered his ass.

Its not acceptable to you...so don't vote for the guy. Others might find it acceptable. In the upcoming presidential election I would vote for the guy(or gal) who promises not to do anything except curb current government spending and torpedo new government spending. No bailouts, No stimulus, no new entitlements. I want cuts...cuts...cuts. If the candidate talks about "reaching across the aisle to get the people's work done"....that will make me a little skiddish.

It isn't acceptable to me because I have already paid into the social security and medicare systems to the tune of $500,000 including employer contributions. It's my money not my employer's because it was part of their costs of hiring me to provide services to them. So the government is sitting on about $500K of my money that I gave them in return for a promise for them to provide me with both an income and medical care when I hit a certain age. Plus I have at least another ten years to pay into the system. If you vote for someone that wants to reduce or cancel my benefits then you are voting to steal from me.

(June 20, 2014 at 11:59 am)popeyespappy Wrote:

(June 20, 2014 at 10:49 am)Heywood Wrote: Its not acceptable to you...so don't vote for the guy. Others might find it acceptable. In the upcoming presidential election I would vote for the guy(or gal) who promises not to do anything except curb current government spending and torpedo new government spending. No bailouts, No stimulus, no new entitlements. I want cuts...cuts...cuts. If the candidate talks about "reaching across the aisle to get the people's work done"....that will make me a little skiddish.

It isn't acceptable to me because I have already paid into the social security and medicare systems to the tune of $500,000 including employer contributions. It's my money not my employer's because it was part of their costs of hiring me to provide services to them. So the government is sitting on about $500K of my money that I gave them in return for a promise for them to provide me with both an income and medical care when I hit a certain age. Plus I have at least another ten years to pay into the system. If you vote for someone that wants to reduce or cancel my benefits then you are voting to steal from me.

If you were to die today what happens to that $500,000? Do each of your heirs get to divide it up? Can you control how that $500,000 is spent? I'm sorry bro.....but that $500,000 is not your money anymore. The government took it away from you.....and spent it on other people. All that money you paid into social security....you would have been better off if the government forced you to buy government bonds instead. That way it still would have been your money but it would have been just as safe as social security.

Voting for someone who wants to reduce or cancel your benefits is voting for someone who promises to try to stop the government from raping future generations the way they've raped you.

You might not find that acceptable....but others do.

---

(June 20, 2014 at 11:48 am)Crossless1 Wrote: And speaking of education, food stamps, etc., federal cuts to these areas will do nothing but add further stress to states' budgets. This shit won't magically take care of itself, and the revenue will have to come from somewhere. Given the poverty levels and educational outcomes in some of the reddest states, and given conservatives' reluctance to raise taxes anywhere, the Tea Party ploy (it hardly rises to the level of strategy) will only hurt many of their own.

Then again, these are people who don't believe in the efficacy of government programs and are doing their very best to demonstrate just that.

By the way, I'm no stereotypical tax-and-spend liberal. My tendency is toward fiscal restraint whenever possible. But if the Tea Party types aren't even willing to entertain the cuts DP listed above, they simply aren't to be taken seriously. Fuck their posturing.

In FY2013 the government collected 2.7 trillion dollars. That should be more than enough for the government to maintain a decent society.

(June 20, 2014 at 11:38 am)Heywood Wrote: Not taxing something is not a subsidy.

On the contrary, when you exempt one person from paying dues, the others who do pay dues are giving the exempted person an indirect subsidy.

That's what I meant by "indirect".

My business (which produces real products) pays property taxes each year. Churches (or businesses that sell fake products to the credulous) pay no property taxes. Why should my business indirectly subsidize theirs?

Quote:This forum receives donations just like a church.

I'm sure it's neither a non-profit organization nor does it own property that could otherwise be taxed.

Speaking of subsidies, some corporations are paying starvation wages and their full time employees make up the difference by getting food stamps from the government. If it were not for food stamps, these corporations couldn't get away with paying so low. Workers will not work full time just to starve anyway. There is a "natural minimum wage" in that respect. However, food stamps allows Wal-Mart et al to pay less than that minimum. Hence, my tax dollars subsidize their labor costs.

You glossed over all the other points. Are you in favor of cutting defense in half or ending corporate subsidies? Can we tax the top 1% at the pre-Reagan levels? Can we end the war on drugs now? Or do you just want to cut programs that liberals favor?

(June 20, 2014 at 12:09 pm)Heywood Wrote: In FY2013 the government collected 2.7 trillion dollars. That should be more than enough for the government to maintain a decent society.

I don't disagree. So, now that we're in agreement, where shall we make spending cuts?

How about our bloated military budget?

(June 20, 2014 at 11:48 am)Crossless1 Wrote: But if the Tea Party types aren't even willing to entertain the cuts DP listed above, they simply aren't to be taken seriously. Fuck their posturing.

Thank you. We spend more than the next four nations combined-and-then-doubled on defense. There's no reason for it.

As long as the Pentagon gets to keep this bloated Cold War budget...
As long as oil companies get their subsidy...
As long as we maintain the wasteful War on Drugs...
As long as the rich get to keep their tax cuts which are proven to be neither stimulative nor self-sustaining...
As long as church property remains untaxed...

Then the poor and middle class do not owe ONE... DAMN... DIME... in austerity cuts.

Not!
one!
dime!

(June 20, 2014 at 1:10 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: We spend more than the next four nations combined-and-then-doubled on defense. There's no reason for it.

As long as the Pentagon gets to keep this bloated Cold War budget...

Speaking of, lest we forget... The Soviets spend themselves into oblivion during the cold war - this was one direct cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Why we seem hell bent to follow them is beyond me.

Quote:Well from the exchange it seems McDaniel wants to curb government spending.

Except for defense and corporate welfare, you shithead. Grow up Woodie. You've fallen for a big steaming turd.