Excellent point, Hana.

_________________

But that's the thing. The people I see pushing the idea of "small government" aren't saying at all reducing the Federal government; they're saying reducing the government. Overwatch, service, anything that they think can be cut they'll try.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Eh. Never noticed much about State governments, really. They're basically just the same thing, only specific to the state.

_________________

People love the idea of cutting the government in the abstract.

Once you get to specifics though, people tend to favor keeping whatever program/benefit you're talking about.

So really, it's like you say you hate being fat, but you love cupcakes, cookies and candy, so you don't want to swear off of them.

And this boils down to the simple reply of: people are idiots. A frightening number of citizens of the US have NO EFFING CLUE how the government works in the first place. Supidity rages, even on network news channels (which is why I only watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report for my news anymore).

The Fed could reduce much of the debt by phasing out the social programs such as medicaid and SSI and letting the STATES handle those. Privatize the space programs and other "extraneous" programs and let the Federal budget be only military and government costs (speaking of which, those could be cut down by reducing some of the government salaries, such as Senatorial salaries. Why the hell do they need $174,000 a year when my family of 3 can subsist on $17,000 gross a year? Bullshit.). Let the states handle their shit, man. That's what this country was supposed to be.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

Eh, I'm iffy on that. Frankly, the states will just do whatever they want with it. All the time they manipulate their programs in favor of the states ruling party. Helll, some states would probably be lucky to get social services if the Tea Party had their way.

We can only privatize the space industry so much. Pretty much everyone agrees deep space exploration will continue to rely on the Government to, well, happen.

We all know politicians get too much money. Everyone does, but it's a tad hard to change. Besides, how could they possibly need so much from us with how much they get from bribes lobbying campaign donations.

_________________

I think the low orbit operations especially developing the shuttle replacement could be done by private industry, I think deep space exploration needs to be run by the federal government and in particular needs to be multinational and stop the individual national competition.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

Yeah, that's what everyone says.

_________________

Bitchin'! That actually doesn't sound half bad.

Yeah, I know, right? They keep telling rich people to pay their fair share, and then they go ahead and raise their own salaries. Can you say "pretentious?"

Hell yes.

_________________

I'm ill equipped for debates such as these, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. Teacher's unions aren't the problem, some of the worst educated states have the weakest teachers unions, as someone who lived in marlboro and has seen manhattan, NJ and NY aren't that bad despite all the jokes, (just stay the fuck away from camden and whatnot), and didn't the articles of confederation prove that stronger centralized government was better?

Besides, all the cool stuff happens in NY, anyway.

_________________
One time when I was high, I thought I was in an ambulance dying. Turns out I was just eating sherbert.
-stufflikehearts-

When it comes to the Articles, what it showed is that you need to have a balance between strong central government, and federalism. It had an overtly weak central government, and that made it impossible for the rather small US to operate as a country at all. Central government has its needs.

Way I see it is this...

Federal deals with school funding (based off population by state), school policy by state.
Military be cut so that our expenditures are 20-30% of the total world military budget(currently we're at 42.8%)
Welfare needs to be revamped and relooked at
Taxes need to be rebalanced in favor of the middle and lower classes

_________________
Escape will make me God.

"They keep telling rich people to pay their fair share"
What?

Rich people do need to pay their fair share. They pay the lowest taxes in the entirety of the US.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

He's saying it like that's actually what's coming from Congress though.

You can debate economic theory all you want, but that's simply not the tone of Congress, or even the Senate.

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp





On a note related to absurdly high salaries....NFL.




Really? Seriously?

Just give them free healthcare for life and cap their salaries at a quarter-mil a year TOPS. Use the rest of that money to donate to charities or something. Ugh.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

That parable's wrong, just for the sake that it simplifies it to such stupid levels.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Well, I pay NO taxes. I, in fact, get money from the Feds.

Actually, I do pay taxes when I work, just to make sure that I will have no tax burden. I've never owed money, and since I had my daughter, I have received WAY more than I ever paid in. Like...Paid in $300, got back $5000 kind of no taxes.

I do think that their taxation rate should be a little higher, perhaps...but I'm also a commie bastard that thinks we should have a flat percentage tax rate and less Federal moneysucking programs.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

That acts like they all eat the same amount, and as a result implicitly equates them to having the same standard of living, which is not the case.

The total amount they pay may be a lot but that has nothing to do with their rates. A small percentage of a big number can result in a number much bigger than that of a higher percentage of a smaller number, provided the big number is large enough, which it certainly given the soaring income inequality over the past three decades.

But sure, you've received more than you've put in. Currently, that is. Would you not say that government assistance has helped you to stay afloat, and that you may possibly be able to build a better, brighter future for yourself as a result? If one day you start to make a lot of money, and as a result, end up paying more to the government than you get from it, then these "subsidies" by the government are actually an investment that has paid off in spades for the government, and consequently, the taxpayers.

I already give time, money, and objects to charity in equal or larger amounts/worth than the government has given to me.

I do appreciate the current availability of assistance programs. They're not horrific, evil things. However, in their current forms, I feel that they have crippled this country.

I was just trying to illustrate a point. That point being that rich people do not pay the "lowest" amount of taxes. Facts are facts, even if they're not pleasing.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

Okay fine. They pay the lowest percentage of their income either way. That man may be paying $59, but he has around $59,000 in current gross wealth, while the others would have significantly less.

_________________
Escape will make me God.

Still untrue.

My tax burden is $0. 0 times anything is always 0. Ignoring that anyone ever gets any extra money back from tax returns, 0% is lower than 0.01%.

_________________

Official Forum Mom

How would you say that they have crippled the country? I could understand some reforms being necessary but to say it is crippling the country is pretty extreme and I wonder what would provoke you to use such terminology.

Hana, that doesn't mean that they don't pay lower effective tax rates than a lot of people. DC is right for a sizable portion of the population, though it's his fault for making such sweeping statements, which is also why I am interested in your use of the word "crippling".

Example:

Social Security + Baby Boomer Generation Retiring = ZOMG!DEEEEEEEEEEEBT!

The number of retirees drawing (or about to draw) on Social Security retirement benefits (and Medicare benefits) is going to (if it hasn't already) way eclipse the number of individuals working and paying into SSI. There's not enough money to go around, and Big Brother Federal Gov't has made promises to the Baby Boomers (and everyone else who is living longer and drawing more off of SSI than was originally anticipated) that are no longer [going to be] fulfilled by the workforce, so it has to borrows money to pay what it owes its citizens.

Maybe this wouldn't be such a big problem in and of itself, but we also have a metric TON of other government assistance programs that use Federal moneys. Too many holes and not enough cash to plug them with. 'Tis a problem with no nice solution.

(Be forgiving if I make no sense. It's way past bedtime)

_________________

Official Forum Mom

That aspect of Social Security was to be completely expected though.

While living longer is a disturbance that may not have been originally expected, it is one that will also pay off later. Logically, it would follow that if a boom of young people were paying into Social Security, it would have a surplus, as it once did. That wave would inevitably age however, at which point the program would have a deficit. Naturally it follows that that wave must eventually die, at which point the program will begin to stabilize again. One issue though is that the government dived into the program's funds during surpluses when they shouldn't have. The baby boomers aren't going to be drawing on Social Security forever. The whole thing was a completely cyclical process that resolves itself. It is only a problem because politicians were greedy and used it for other things. The program itself is sound when viewed in the long run, because on the face of it, it is not government spending. It is money people have paid into the system receiving that money back at a point in the future when they may no longer be able to work. In effect, it is a government mandated retirement nest, because most people neglect to adequately create a retirement fund when left to their own devices, so this provides, at the least, a very basic level of safety.

The only things that need to be addressed about the Social Security system is raising the age of qualification continuously as people live longer, healthier years, and making sure the government doesn't raid the fund for other purposes, so that the inevitable surpluses can be made to cover the inevitable deficits. So it isn't actually the program's fault that Social Security is part of the exorbitant debt the country has.

Greedy politicians and bureaucrats looked at the surpluses and thought it was just free money, when really, this is exactly the time that money should've been saved for, as was its intent.

It's so late and i giggled while thinking of a bunch of people despairing and yelling "these old people just wont die what the fuck" bahahaha

_________________

Patt-Ytto Productions | Dickwaffles