It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why FL Rep. is wrong about tax reform

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Actually what was petty was calling someone ignorant when they were 100% correct and not being able to admit your mistake when called on it, instead hiding behind the fact that me correcting you was off-topic. If you've got a problem tell a mod, or just be more careful what you post or you won't have to go down this spiral of embarrassment when you get corrected. Get your last word in so you can sleep tonight, I know your type can't move on without it. I'll let you "win" and won't reply to it.




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He provided a response: "Mandatory" spending isn't defined in the Constitution, therefore it is absolutely not written in stone.

Military spending is necessary, while "social" spending is not. As a Medicare/SS recipient, I have a vested interest in seeing these programs continue - but not at the expense of our great nation. I'm willing to give anything & everything to see this nation achieve greatness once again.

BTW, the United States is about self-sufficiency, not handouts and freebies. So called "entitlements" are a bastardization of this concept, and should be removed from the purview of the Federal Government. If someone can't get by on their own, there are plenty of charities and donors they can seek help from. Personally, I'd recommend ditching the iPhone and other amenities before even thinking about sucking money from my fellow citizens against their will. Regardless, an individual's financial situation isn't the problem of the People's Government. We permit Government to exist for the purpose of governing, not social reasons or other popular identity politics concepts.

Further, what I proposed was a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. In this case, zero cooperation from Democrats would be required as the laws would be simply challenged as unconstitutional. Since, after the amendment, they would be, removing the bloat from our budget would be a pretty simple task. If you kindly look at the 2016 election map (county/county, state/state), you will see the sea of red that would enable such a convention to be called and its subsequent ratification. Perhaps this will be something the President will undertake during his second term (since the left poses no credible challenge - it is now limited to coastal areas/has been infiltrated by "progressives," communists, anarchists and identity politics).

Perhaps you should reconsider which of us need to live up to the site's motto.
edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)

edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



new topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join