General discussion

Raising taxes! Bigger government!

Whoa boy. Hope the ink didn't dry up in Bush's veto pen Wink

Discussion is locked
Reply to: Raising taxes! Bigger government!
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Raising taxes! Bigger government!
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
Where did you think the money for the War on Terror, and the

aftermath of Katrina was going to come from? I said it years ago, you can't cut taxes and run a war in two separate countries while trying to protect yourself from lunatics armed potentially with weapons from Pakistan or the former Soviet empire without it actually costing money? Unless you want the US economy to tank entirely. How long is China going to continue funding the US National Debt? How long is the US going to live like a credit card junkie spend-spend-spending itself into third world status.

It used to be that Republicans believed in fiscal responsibility, in the ability of the government to pay its way from revenues received. Deficits were anathema. Now apparently all of that has changed and the only thing deemed anathema is taxation, neither on individuals nor for corporations. I don't know of a country in the world that has ever had that system in the last 200 years. There have always been import duties (a tax), luxury taxes, or fees for services from the government or other institutions that offered what are now government services.

To repeat my mantra here: No other industrialized country tries to maintain the fictions that the Right and the current US government maintains, that you can run a nation of 300 million without any visible means of support. No taxes, No duties, nothing at all. To attempt to roll back the fiscal and governmental clock to 1776, or 1800 or whatever is tantamount to adopting the philosophy of Pol Pot: Progress is evil, Cities are cesspits of modernism, only the peasants (farmers and rural folk) are to be trusted, eliminate the educated, the adults, and the city dwellers and build a new society from scratch, free of the contamination of the 20th Century. Say hello to the Americans Rouge.

Does this mean we will see Sendero Luminoso Nuevo (The New Shining Path) guerillas in the streets, fighting for a more primitive society in America, or is it to be a country run by the agenda of the Business community that you desire. 99% ruled by the 1%, a true oligarchy, where individuals count only in their relation to their employers.

Perhaps Kidpeat was being accurate when he objected to my calling the United States a Democracy rather than a Republic. Perhaps what we have been seeing from so many Republicans is the desire to eliminate democracy from the process, to diminish or eliminate the influence of the people from the running of the country so that it can be ordered for "those who know best". The businessmen, the CEO's of corporations without oversight, without regulation.

In case you didn't notice in your devotional reading of Adam Smith, he never once mentions the impact of change or industrialization or mechanization on the work force, and the need to ensure safety. He also didn't mention corruption. In fact his brilliant essay published in 1776 was solely devoted to his discovery of the concept of "the Invisible Hand" or his personal variation on "The Law of Unintended Consequences", an enormously valuable concept, but not one that can be maintained in isolation from the craftiness and criminality that is part of the human condition.

That's what government is supposed to do, to oversee and regulate forces and institutions which exist external to the process of Democracy, to pass laws for the benefit of the majority (i.e. working people) and the minority (i.e. those without a voice, ethnic and religious minorities indeed minorities of all kinds, but not big business which has its own paid voices, many of the Congressmen), to maintain law and order even when it is the little guy against the powerful or the corporate. If the Founding Fathers objected to being run by Britain, think how they'd object to being run by the unelected of Halliburton, of the drug conglomerates, of the Health Management Organizations, of the institutionalization of the powerful over the powerless, the subjugation and marginalization of "The Moved and the Shaken", and particularly of the de-industrialization of the United States for the benefit of shareholders who constitute less than 25% of the American people.

Hmm. Nice polemic, think I'll keep it.


- Collapse -
We already HAVE bigger government!

This is the rhetoric that kills me... Bush never ran a "conservative" style government in the traditional sense.

? He and his administration doubled the national debt. Spending went through the roof!

? When creating new bureaucracy wasn't increasing the size of the government fast enough, he contracted out.

? The federal government is more intrusive in our lives than ever before.


? He cut taxes

Bush should have used hi veto powers long ago... instead he used it to rewrite laws to his own purpose, side stepping the legislative mandate when it suited his purpose.

I don't have high hopes for the democrats... but I have little illusions about what Bush has done for our country so far, either.

- Collapse -
When Chuck Schumer gets done paying for..

my health care, mortgage, kids' tuition, etc. you'll be pining for the days of Bush's "small" government.

Seriously a big part of why the Republicans lost the election is that the Administration was not acting like conservatives. Ironically what we got, temporarily I hope, is lefty socialist leaders and conservative Democrats in Congress who will have NO say over what happens as we careen down the abyss.

Way to think things through, electorate.

- Collapse -
I don't understand what you said here.
"...what we got... is lefty socialist leaders and conservative Democrats in Congress who will have NO say over what happens as we careen down the abyss."

Huh? You lost me here.... the elected congress and senate will have NO say over what happens as the country falls apart? Did you mean to say they will be the cause of why the country is disintegrating?
- Collapse -
What I'm saying is that...

Many of the Democrats that were elected to Congress will have no power because the Democratic leadership, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Rangel, Leahy, etc. that will hold committee chairmanships, etc., are way far to the left of what the people voted for.

The country did not suddenly turn liberal overnight. They remain largely conservative. They voted for conservatives, but what they are getting instead is...

I hope the mistake will be understood and fixed in the next election, but have little hope.

- Collapse -
(NT) Thanks for the clarification
- Collapse -
O.K., then...

O.K., then, specifically what spending do you think should be cut? Or as Howard Jarvis would say, whose ox get's gored?

- Collapse -
You tell me J.

You are the one who is always "wondering" and asking "what ifs' "

You raise the issue of NOLA as if it will be the defining issue of democratic success... what is that all about?

I tend to agree with the election analysts who said the election was ultimately decided upon the present republicans' appearance of corruption more than anything else. I have no illusions that the dems are any better.

As far as debt and spending goes... the truth of the matter is we have 2 choices concerning government debt... you spend less or you earn more. A combination of the 2 is traditional except Bush turned the model upside down.

He earned a little bit more... and he spent a whole lot more!

Of course it would be inappropriate to mention the changes to the tax codes that encourage investing overseas, moving business outside our borders, and banking outside of the US. It's kind of like that commercial for Las Vegas except it goes "What money is made overseas, stays overseas". Hey, it aint taxable until it's brought back into the country right? So why invest back in these good old United States? What should be cut? How about government subsidies to business that have moved the bulk of their operations outside our borders?

CNET Forums