Will the Stupid Party Agree to Higher Taxes and More Wasteful Spending? (and a beezzer apology)

This thread is both an apology and a notice to the republicans.

First the apology. While I am an independent, I often side with republicans because findinga democrat that supports smaller government would probably be harder than having a sunday brunch with Bigfoot. This latest offal, though, out of DC has me apologising to each and every member here with whom I have argued in the past concerning the differences between the political parties.
I guess republicans are just as spineless as democrats when it comes to raising taxes.

I’m baffled by stupid Republicans (sorry to be redundant). Some GOPers have agreed to put taxes on the table. Not surprisingly, Democrats are praising them for this preemptive surrender, patting these Republicans on the head for being good little lapdogs. The Democrats are also high-fiving each other since they openly admit that tricking Republicans into a tax hike has been their top political goal, but that’s an issue for another day. . . . .

. . . Some are now suggesting that instead of addressing the real problems our nation faces — by reducing government spending — the supercommittee should recommend tax increases to meet its deficit reduction targets. Tax increases are what politicians always do when they are not willing to govern—that is, to cut and reform government spending. The problem, of course, is that tax hikes crowd out and displace spending reform. …Advocates of…raising taxes…have put forward several unserious arguments. First, they say, “let’s compromise.” Let’s be balanced, they insist, and promise to cut some spending and raise some taxes. Having pushed spending way up, they now want to pretend this spending is normal or, at least, inevitable. It isn’t. …Why should anyone be asked to pay more taxes just so Washington can continue to overspend? …What’s more, there are good reasons to be wary – we’ve been down this road before. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan was promised three dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax hikes. The tax hikes were real. But spending — in real dollar terms — went up, not down.

biggovernment.com...

Now the second part.
If the republicans, choose to raise taxes, be warned. To chose to NOT SPEND and instead raise taxes will garner no spport and you'll be just as vulnerable next elect cycle to get the boot.

The Tea Party will be watching. The American people will be watching.

This will not end well.

Get a spine, or get out. This tripe is expected from the democrats. If you, the republican party, wishes to emmulate the DNC, then expect the same scorn and scrutiny.

Beezer could you explain to me and those that are not sure - what is the nature of the obsession with smaller government? Its something that I see you talk about all the time so could you explain why it is the most important issue to you.

For example in my opinion the most important issues include economic growth, full employment, the stamping out of corruption at all levels. If those three things are achieved I believe that society will improve for all of us.

Now I understand the populist thing with smaller government. Nobody likes government, nobody likes politicians but its my understanding that when you say smaller government, it actually means cutting state spending right?

Anyway I feel duty bound to write something on the topic you raised. I don't see much difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. I believe that the fact that both parties are ineffective, overly partisan and quite similar caused the rise of the Tea Party and has increased the popularity of OWS.

Ya see Beez, this is why I am a CONSERVATIVE, not a republican.

Republicans are spineless morons who think they can pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by pointing the blame to the democrats for things they are doing as well.

It's pathetic. With that said, as a conservative who favors cuts in government spending, I do NOT take things off the table. EVERYTHING needs to be cut or we're in for a seriously bumpy ride off a cliff, through a portal, and straight into Mordor.

Defense spending can be cut. We have billions going to contractors for things that could be done by soldiers like me. Plenty of MOS's have been axed over the last ten years because those jobs have been sent to outside sources, and it winds up costing us billions more than it would to pay a soldier to do the same job.

Social Security needs an overhaul if we are to see it functioning withing the next ten years. I believe that people should be paying into personalized accounts that accrue 3-5% interest per year. Not a giant pool of money that congress can steal from like they did during the Clinton years. With an opt out feature.

Medicare/Health and human Services has created a black hole of money. The managed care system is directly responsible for the HYPERINFLATION we see in the medical industry, and adding another HC scheme on top of it(Obamacare) makes absolutely no sense at all. Let the states deal with their HC needs as they have different demographics and economic output.


Unemployment, welfare, and other mandatory spending MUST be reduced. The waste fraud and abuse in these programs both on the government side and the recipient side are staggering.

Corporate welfare must be cut as well. no more bailouts, loan programs, loan guarantees, or any other scheme that allows corporations to fleece the tax payer.

Bottom line. It should ALL be on the table. All of it.

Taxes need a complete overhaul as well. A flattening of the tax code MUST take place. For two reasons. 1, to keep revenues steady and continuous. Flattening out the tax code would also INCREASE revenues for the function of government even if the rate is brought down. And 2, so that this class warfare BS comes to a screeching halt.

Originally posted by projectvxn
Ya see Beez, this is why I am a CONSERVATIVE, not a republican.

Exactly!

I'm pretty sick of this two party monopoly we have and to be honest, its just two sides of the same damn apple.

Why we cant cut taxes and spending is beyond me.

reply to post by beezzer


*pats your cute furry head*

Beezzer, I hear you! The Republican Party is weak. Their masters know how to get to them
I heard the R's are keeping the focus on the priority entitlements such as Social Security and the like.
They're claiming the tax hike (by any other name, means someone's head is up their rear!) is honed in on those priority entitlements. Talk is cheap.

Peace.

Conservative Constitutionalist

I don't think political parties are even relevant in today's America other than putting on a nice spectacle every four years.

Both sides are controlled by the greed and corruption of a global corporate network and the good of the nation doesn't even enter into the picture. How can you combat something so vast that it is essentially invisible?

That is why my efforts are confined to local politics and elections.

Republicans "raise taxes" what the hell they know better they owe us and apology for calling themselves "conservative".

Worthless Cut spending you won't have to raise taxes the only purpose raising taxes does is to pop up already bad spending habits.

Get a clue "washington Republicans" get your heads out of your collective arses.

reply to post by beezzer


Republicans and conservatives have had a long record of raising taxes when the need arises. Just like the weak-sauce Democrats. Hell, even Reagan raised taxes.

But I think we need to realize that taxes are neccesary in an intelligent modern society. While it is ideal to keep taxes as low as possible, we also must realize that there are times that we must pool our resources to do things as a collective unit.

For example: police, roads, dams, bridges, public energy co-ops and many other projects.

So I hope we can agree that taxes need to be low, but they are required for the good of the society in which we live.

ETA: Star for you Beezer. Just because you stuck to your principles, instead of blindly following the herd.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


The more the people spend, the more we pay taxes. The more we're taxed, the less we spend.
The public workers and projects would bloat if there was more freedom

reply to post by sheepslayer247



Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment,and then we can talk................................

Congress?

Well just look at their approval rating.

Their time will come and they will be voted out. Ridiculous.

reply to post by projectvxn


Actually, flat tax policies are not good for America.

It helps perpetuate income disparity because even if the tax is a small percentage of income, the lower incomes are much more drasticlly effected. It may sound fair on the surface, but effects the poor more than anyone.

Also, a flat tax policy is completely dependant on an ever-growing number of workers and tax contributors to keep the cash flow steady. If you have a large portion of your population drop out of the workforce (baby-boomers) then you need an equal amount of people to take their place, or tax incomes drop. Thereby forcing the government to either cut services, or enact an emergency tax on the population. Either way, it will not work.

reply to post by sweetliberty

The more the people spend, the more we pay taxes. The more we're taxed, the less we spend.

That is true on a state level that has a sales tax, but how does the federal government gets its funding with no national sales tax?

Either we have to have an income tax to fund the Feds, or we have to enact a national sales tax.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


I said we need to FLATTEN OUT Taxes. I used to be for a "flat tax" until I got the details of it.

Flattening out the tax structure in this country is something we desperately need. The tax code is 70,000 pages. Something new is added to it yearly, and usually a lot of text involved. It's complexity FUELS income inequality because the middle class doesn't have the resources to dig through it and find the loopholes that the rich do. It is the middle class that gets nailed with the bulk of the payments. The poor pay very little in taxes but what they do pay is not comparable to what they receive in tax credits and other state provided benefits.

www.taxfoundation.org...

Scroll down to table "Table 1 Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2009"

But I agree with you, creating regression in the tax structure is not a good idea. But not reducing it's complexity is what will create further income disparity.

reply to post by projectvxn


Sorry if I misunderstood. I think we actually agree on this issue then.

Originally posted by freethinker123
Beezer could you explain to me and those that are not sure - what is the nature of the obsession with smaller government? Its something that I see you talk about all the time so could you explain why it is the most important issue to you.

For example in my opinion the most important issues include economic growth, full employment, the stamping out of corruption at all levels. If those three things are achieved I believe that society will improve for all of us.

Now I understand the populist thing with smaller government. Nobody likes government, nobody likes politicians but its my understanding that when you say smaller government, it actually means cutting state spending right?

Anyway I feel duty bound to write something on the topic you raised. I don't see much difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. I believe that the fact that both parties are ineffective, overly partisan and quite similar caused the rise of the Tea Party and has increased the popularity of OWS.

I'm not being snarky here when I say "read the Constitution". Read all of it, from the first word, "We", to the last word of the 27th Amendment, "intervened." It should only take a few minutes to read. When you're finished, you will have learned the entire scope of what our government is legally allowed to do.

Anything else they do that hasn't been enumerated in the Constitution is against the highest law of the land. This is why you hear so much about States' rights, because the 10th Amendment says that anything not in the Constitution is to be governed by the states or the citizenry, but not the federal government.

/TOA

I'm with Whaaa on this....

For years I have been pointing out - probably too forcefully, that as far as I'm concerned; there are no differences between the people representing EITHER party. In essence they are one.

Many of you hold dearly to extremely reasonable ideals and theories of governance; yet it appears not to include the recognition that you're disagreements are intensely influenced not by the ideologies, but how they are 'represented' - and how they present their strategies couched around that representation.

You may disagree, but I suggest that the net effect of the presence of representatives from EITHER party, has no long-term qualitative influence on the outcome for our people.

I understand the unpalatable idea that the 'substrate' (so to speak) of influences within each party are more aligned to each other, than the parties are to the actual national interests. But it's effect is nevertheless palpable.

There is an element of 'society' that are monopolizing access to the political machinery, and are systematically availing themselves of something which I believe is not rightfully theirs to posses exclusively. The wealth they are compensating themselves with, is not technically theirs to seize. Yet they do.... almost all of them do.

All the rest is theater, I'm afraid. It's a sort of public role-playing game.... but this is no time for games where the rule-makers are 'trusted to play fairly' .... especially when the stakes are the continuity of our community, the well being of our posterity, and the singular weapon we yet, as a people, remain armed with.... sovereignty; personal and otherwise. Sovereignty is the measure by which you may find your ideal candidates. The fiscal financial garbage is theater, the decisions have been made "for" us long ago..... Diplomatic and foreign affairs are almost entirely about commerce....., Our "human resources" (as they refer to us) issues are so clearly dys-managed as to beg the question; "are they doing these things on purpose?"

As you well know, the monetary policy is the purview of the banking cartel (a true monopoly) and ostensibly, fiscal policy is (emphasizing quotes) "We the People's". I submit then, why is it that EVERY action either political body proposes is for the benefit of the nearly entirely non-American banking cartel? We've come to the point of being told - as irrevocable fact - that "it takes a businessman to run a country....." - businesses are fascist constructs, and rightfully so - as the personal sovereignty of the owner is respected. A nation is not a person, nor are her leaders, "the nation," but that is not how they "sell" their actions.

I say actions, because the words they sell should all be labelled with a disclaimer: "for entertainment value only."

All this is not meant to distract from the OP's lucid point. When your mind recognized the incongruity between word and deed; you need to speak up. Keep up the great work.

You got it all wrong, they only want to raise them for regular people

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by freethinker123
Beezer could you explain to me and those that are not sure - what is the nature of the obsession with smaller government? Its something that I see you talk about all the time so could you explain why it is the most important issue to you.

For example in my opinion the most important issues include economic growth, full employment, the stamping out of corruption at all levels. If those three things are achieved I believe that society will improve for all of us.

Now I understand the populist thing with smaller government. Nobody likes government, nobody likes politicians but its my understanding that when you say smaller government, it actually means cutting state spending right?

Anyway I feel duty bound to write something on the topic you raised. I don't see much difference between Republicans and Democrats these days. I believe that the fact that both parties are ineffective, overly partisan and quite similar caused the rise of the Tea Party and has increased the popularity of OWS.

I'm not being snarky here when I say "read the Constitution". Read all of it, from the first word, "We", to the last word of the 27th Amendment, "intervened." It should only take a few minutes to read. When you're finished, you will have learned the entire scope of what our government is legally allowed to do.

Anything else they do that hasn't been enumerated in the Constitution is against the highest law of the land. This is why you hear so much about States' rights, because the 10th Amendment says that anything not in the Constitution is to be governed by the states or the citizenry, but not the federal government.

/TOA

Old American, I agree with almost everything I see you posting. Here you are spot on.

As for taxing, I know it is necessary to provide certain government services. I agree that the federal government should ONLY be taxing us minimally in order to provide the things that the Constitution says the federal government should be providing. ALL ELSE should be state and local.

The United States was never designed to be run completely from the federal level.

So I am LIVID about the fact that my family is being taxed more and more, and so much of the spending is wasteful. Not only do I not think the federal government should be doing many of the things it is currently doing, the government is doing these things wastefully. I work for a school system. If we have money left in certain accounts we have to "spend it" by a certain date or it is "gone". That certainly doesn't encourage frugal spending.

It's neat because just a few weeks ago democrats were proposing more spending cuts than the republicans proposed with lower tax revenue than previous offers.

Report: Democrats’ Super Committee Proposal Is Far To The Right Of All Other ‘Bipartisan’ Compromises

One wonders why Democrats continue to bend over backwards to GOP demands and accept reactionary policies when Republicans don’t even appreciate the effort, dismissing the plan as “outrageously absurd” and a “non-starter.”

Funny how that works.