"Club For Growth" Launches Attack Ads Against...

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Inflation and high interest rates stiffle your spending too. But if you vote for politicians who spend like drunken sailors, at least pay the taxes that come with it instead of passing them on to your kids. You have a vote, they don't. They are getting taxation without representation.

OR you if you don't force the gov't to curb it's spending you are also forcing higher taxes on your kids...taxation without representation.

What??? If you raise taxes enough to balance the budget, you are not passing anything on to your kids. The only "taxation without representation" is people who pay income tax but cannot vote -- e.g., kids, felons, illegal immigrants -- and that's still true even if you do curb spending.

Increasing taxes is like putting a band-aid on compound fracture. If the band-aid is big enough or you put enough of them on, it might stop the bleeding but it doesn't fix the problem that is causing the bleeding and every time you move the bleeding repeats until the person admits that they have a broken bone.

Sorry, that's backwards. Increasing the deficit is the band-aid. It masks the problem. It lets politicians deliver bread and circuses today while passing the bill on to our children. Raising taxes to eliminate the deficit reveals the problem, showing us how much the governement is spending. If we collectively agree the government spends too much, we will start electing candidates who actually cut spending. As long as we keep re-relecting the drunken sailors draining the treasury, we are accepting that our taxes are acceptable.

The hitch is that we have a lot of greedy and/or ignorant people in this country who want it all. They demand low taxes, but they also demand the government continue to provide the services they value, e.g., that new shopping mall, a military base we don't need, or any of the other hundreds of monuments to pork tacked on to every bill. When forced to make a choice, these people usually volunteer to cut the other guy's services. When not forced to choose, they're happy to add the bill to the federal debt. They can't see tomorrow. They don't accept that they have to pay it back with interest. All they care about is today. They're maxing out our TaxsterCard just like they'be maxed out thier own credit card. Sooner or later, you have to pay the piper.

It is more responsible to keep taxes high enough to balance the budget. Masking the problem with deficit spending only encourages more spending. Unfortunately, this requires leaders with the backbone to tell voters they cannot have it all. Given your average ignorant, self-indulgent American, that's political suicide. Given our average self-indulgent politicians, it's moot anyway since true leaders are an endangered species. In short, we are getting exactly the government we deserve.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think I've went over that before. Until you take away the politicians credit card and have them come to you for money to spend, they won't curb spending. It's common sense. But continue waiting for politicians to cut spending by themselves.

I think you missed where the "problem" lies. The problem doesn't stem from the politicians perse - it stems from US. We tell them we want them to do this and that for us - so they spend spend spend - trying to "fix" the things we want. Well, this is what I want to do - "force the gov't to curb it's spending" which I think you might have skipped over. The only way to change their habits is to quit telling them to spend. They need to be sent the message that throwing money at problems isn't the best way to "fix" things. I don't see why people keep yapping about this issue without trying to solve the problem -which is spending. There wouldn't be a need for increased taxes if we solved the spending problems. Or don't we have a spending problem?

Masking the spending problem with tax increases doesn't solve it.

But the problem is that our attitude about what the gov't is and is supposed to do needs fixing first. I made a comment about this a while back but I'll repeat it again. I've heard alot of "what are you going to do for me?" type questions asked to the candidates. These sorts of question are the basis of our problems. Our gov't isn't supposed to address everyone's individual problems or even certain social problems for that matter. The gov'ts purpose is to provide security and order, maintain freedom and protect liberties, and to provide a structure for commerce - it isn't supposed to be an authoritative body that sees to our everyday lives - we as individuals are charged with that responsibility.
Remember - WE are supposed to be the gov't - not the gov't being us. get it? It's along the lines of "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" type things. This attitude of "what are you going to do for me" is what is the problem. People thinking that our gov't needs to provide everything for them is what is the problem. People thinking that our gov't is responsible for their everyday issues is what is the problem. Our attitude sucks - we need to start taking responsibility for our own damn lives instead of always looking to the gov't to fix it - otherwise sooner or later we won't have a choice in the matter. People here keep yapping about how intrusive and powerful our gov't is...yet they don't understand that we've been asking for it and allowed them to.

People need to change their attitude about what our gov't is and what responsibilities it bears. Until then - we will have both spending and taxation problems.

CkG


Edit - Sorry Bow - you are wrong. Increasing taxes now is just as much "taxation w/o representation" as forcing it on our kids w/o increasing it now. Keeping taxation high still passes the same problems down to our kids. We need to address SPENDING. Sure we could keep increasing taxes every time people decide the gov't should provide this or that...but what if our kids don't want that? Why are they forced to keep paying for things from previous generations? Yes I don't like the idea of deficit spending You'd be a fool if you thought it was cool, but it is needed at times. Do I wan't the debt to be paid by my kids and grandkids? Hell no, but I don't want to keep passing the spending problem down either which is the cause of the debt. We need to take care of the spending problem NOW - not just make it look better because we aren't borrowing for it. Excessive and wasteful spending are still problems even if you keep raising taxes to pay for every single new one.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Inflation and high interest rates stiffle your spending too. But if you vote for politicians who spend like drunken sailors, at least pay the taxes that come with it instead of passing them on to your kids. You have a vote, they don't. They are getting taxation without representation.

OR you if you don't force the gov't to curb it's spending you are also forcing higher taxes on your kids...taxation without representation.

What??? If you raise taxes enough to balance the budget, you are not passing anything on to your kids. The only "taxation without representation" is people who pay income tax but cannot vote -- e.g., kids, felons, illegal immigrants -- and that's still true even if you do curb spending.

Increasing taxes is like putting a band-aid on compound fracture. If the band-aid is big enough or you put enough of them on, it might stop the bleeding but it doesn't fix the problem that is causing the bleeding and every time you move the bleeding repeats until the person admits that they have a broken bone.

Sorry, that's backwards. Increasing the deficit is the band-aid. It masks the problem. It lets politicians deliver bread and circuses today while passing the bill on to our children. Raising taxes to eliminate the deficit reveals the problem, showing us how much the governement is spending. If we collectively agree the government spends too much, we will start electing candidates who actually cut spending. As long as we keep re-relecting the drunken sailors draining the treasury, we are accepting that our taxes are acceptable.

The hitch is that we have a lot of greedy and/or ignorant people in this country who want it all. They demand low taxes, but they also demand the government continue to provide the services they value, e.g., that new shopping mall, a military base we don't need, or any of the other hundreds of monuments to pork tacked on to every bill. When forced to make a choice, these people usually volunteer to cut the other guy's services. When not forced to choose, they're happy to add the bill to the federal debt. They can't see tomorrow. They don't accept that they have to pay it back with interest. All they care about is today. They're maxing out our TaxsterCard just like they'be maxed out thier own credit card. Sooner or later, you have to pay the piper.

It is more responsible to keep taxes high enough to balance the budget. Masking the problem with deficit spending only encourages more spending. Unfortunately, this requires leaders with the backbone to tell voters they cannot have it all. Given your average ignorant, self-indulgent American, that's political suicide. Given our average self-indulgent politicians, it's moot anyway since true leaders are an endangered species. In short, we are getting exactly the government we deserve.

Do you feel that the folks in DC are currently capable of increasing taxes and still not spend more than they take in.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Edit - Sorry Bow - you are wrong.

Naturally

Increasing taxes now is just as much "taxation w/o representation" as forcing it on our kids w/o increasing it now.

No, it certainly isn't the same. As I said -- and you missed ... again -- when the voters decide taxes are too high, when they decide they want spending cut, they can vote for candidates who will cut spending. If our children don't like the government's spending, they can vote to change it ... EXCEPT FOR DEBT. Inherited debt is the one thing they cannot vote to change, unless of course they're willing to let the U.S. default on it.

Keeping taxation high still passes the same problems down to our kids. We need to address SPENDING.

Duh. Of course we need to address spending. The problem is, we aren't. Plain and simple, we aren't doing it, and there's little push to do so as long as we can keep borrowing from our children to give us bread and circuses today. That is the whole point.

Only by balancing the budget are we forced to confront government spending. We either live with taxes as-is, or we demand spending cuts. By running such a huge deficit, the Republican Congress and Republican President are shirking their fiscal responsibilities, passing the problem on to future taxpayers. It not only delays the inevitable, it makes it much, much worse because now we have all this interest we must pay. It forces government spending even higher than before.

This is a simple, mathematical inevitability, and anyone who has a credit card should understand it. If you indulge today, you get less tomorrow. If you are responsible today, you get more tomorrow. You keep more of your money for you when you aren't paying interest to someone else. It's as simple as that. A budget deficit means we will pay interest, period. Paying interest means we either pay more to get the same level of services or pay just as much, yet get less in return.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Do you feel that the folks in DC are currently capable of increasing taxes and still not spend more than they take in.

Sorry, the question doesn't make sense. They are already spending more than they take in. I have seen no indication whatsoever that the current Congress & President have payed any attention at all to revenue. If they support it, they pass it and add the bill to the deficit. If they oppose it, they cut it. It doesn't matter whether there is a significant cost or not. This is why we have billions in corporate hand-outs but tried to save a few million by reducing the number of Air Marshalls (to offer only one example).

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Edit - Sorry Bow - you are wrong.

Naturally

Increasing taxes now is just as much "taxation w/o representation" as forcing it on our kids w/o increasing it now.

No, it certainly isn't the same. As I said -- and you missed ... again -- when the voters decide taxes are too high, when they decide they want spending cut, they can vote for candidates who will cut spending. If our children don't like the government's spending, they can vote to change it ... EXCEPT FOR DEBT. Inherited debt is the one thing they cannot vote to change, unless of course they're willing to let the U.S. default on it.

Keeping taxation high still passes the same problems down to our kids. We need to address SPENDING.

Duh. Of course we need to address spending. The problem is, we aren't. Plain and simple, we aren't doing it, and there's little push to do so as long as we can keep borrowing from our children to give us bread and circuses today. That is the whole point.

Only by balancing the budget are we forced to confront government spending. We either live with taxes as-is, or we demand spending cuts. By running such a huge deficit, the Republican Congress and Republican President are shirking their fiscal responsibilities, passing the problem on to future taxpayers. It not only delays the inevitable, it makes it much, much worse because now we have all this interest we must pay. It forces government spending even higher than before.

This is a simple, mathematical inevitability, and anyone who has a credit card should understand it. If you indulge today, you get less tomorrow. If you are responsible today, you get more tomorrow. You keep more of your money for you when you aren't paying interest to someone else. It's as simple as that. A budget deficit means we will pay interest, period. Paying interest means we either pay more to get the same level of services or pay just as much, yet get less in return.

When was the last time any entitlement was cut or gotten rid of? or for that matter ANY gov't expenditure cut or gotten rid of? Yes I understand passing debt on is damaging - hell - it's been passed onto MY generation by "the greatest generation". But I also understand that without addressing the problem of spending NOW - it won't be addressed in the future. I don't care if we had to increase taxes if we truly NEEDED it after addressing the spending problems. You see - passing on HUGE budgets and expenditures is just as bad IMO. I don't want a gov't that this big passed down to our kids and grandkids - just as I didn't like them passed down to me. If you think they shouldn't have to deal with passed down debt -then why should they also be passed down huge budgets?
I think you failed to read the part before my edit Bowfinger I don't want to wait for my kids or grandkids to "fix" the over-spending problem - I want to fix it now. It's simple mathematics really - if we lower expenditures NOW - our kids won't have to worry about being over-burdened -either by debt OR huge budgets. get it? You only seem to be looking and the effects(debt handed down) of the problem's effect(deficits), where as I am looking at the problems behind it all(over-spending).

Balancing the budget doesn't force us to address spending if you constantly raise taxes to keep paying for it. Why do we have to wait until the tax burden is too high? Is it not already too high? 2.2TRILLION dollars! IMO - yes. Why do we need 2.2TRILLION dollars for our gov't to run? Why does our gov't have to be the solution to all of out problems? Why don't people take responsibility for their own lives instead of always looking to the gov't? Why don't people ask themselves why we "need" all this gov't? People here are constantly saying that the gov't is too big and controlling - yet they don't question how or why it has gotten this way, nor do they look to find ways to reduce such things.

So yes, Bowfinger, there is a push to cut spending - it's what I am doing and there are many like me who wish to do so. We just need people willing to take office and lead the fight to do it. WE can make it the issue it should be, but unfortunately there are too many "what are you going to do for me" type questions being thrown at our current crop of politicians. I dove into this in my previous post but we can go over it again if you wish. The basic premise though it is that our gov't has become more than it needs to be - because people seem to think that it(gov't) can somehow solve all our ills. WE as Americans need to take responsibility for our own lives instead of constantly looking to big brother for help, because all they can do is spend more and more money trying to "fix" your supposed ill.

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

You know, all this boring talk about taxes, and no one bothered to make the obvious joke about the "Club For Growth" and penis enlargement? What a buncha herbs...