Not bashing, just wondering. (Political)

[SeaCat]

I received this link in an E-Mail from a friend. After reading it I was left wondering if there wasn't some other way he could get the money he so desperatly needs?
Budget Cuts

Cat

 

[BlackShanglan]

Undoubtedly there is, but in this Bush seems to be trying to return to a traditional tenet of conservative political ideology: reduction of the functions of the federal government. If you weight this together with his tax cuts, one possible interpretation is that he's trying to reduce the role of the federal government both in receiving and in disbursing funds.

Shanglan

 

[minsue]

If you weight this together with his tax cuts, one possible interpretation is that he's trying to reduce the role of the federal government both in receiving and in disbursing funds.

Shanglan

If not for the fact that he spends like a sailor on shore leave, I'd agree with you.

 

[brightlyiburn]

I don't really understand the point of giving rich people breaks on their taxes. It doesn't help us poor folks any.

 

[BlackShanglan]

If not for the fact that he spends like a sailor on shore leave, I'd agree with you.

*grin*

Agreed. I was trying to be tactful with the "one possible interpretation."

He's taking a lot of flak from within his own party about that spending issue. I assume that these cuts are designed both to pay for the tax cuts and to appease critics within his own party.

Brightly, I can never make up my mind on the whole tax cuts issue. Generally speaking, any evenly applied tax cut will largely benefit the wealthy. This is because, if I'm remembering my figures correctly, the top 15-20% of earners pay 80% of personal taxes. Therefore, if you cut taxes in an across-the-board way where everyone pays, say, 10% less, the top earners will be the biggest beneficiaries because they were paying the most to start with.

Personally, I would rather see them raise the cutoff on people not paying taxes at all. I think that those people at the bottom of the range are the ones who would most benefit, and at the same time it would cost less. The fact that this never seems to occur to Republicans is one of the things that makes me question the sincerity of their "less government" commitment.

Shanglan

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

We need to make sacrifices to fund the War on Terror and to prevent terrorist attacks. (implied reasoning of Bush cabinet based on repeated statements)

"First-responders and local law enforcement are key to the prevention of terrorism and winning the War on Terror" (he has stated this many times)

So how does the slashing of the local law enforcement and first-responder budget fit into all that?

Oh wait.

Politics.

Right.

And people wonder why I have no respect for these duplicitous lying bottom-feeding ratfucking gerrymandering graft-raping evil-commiting shitheads. And that's a bipartisan condemnation.

 

[amicus]

"...And people wonder why I have no respect for these duplicitous lying bottom-feeding ratfucking gerrymandering graft-raping evil-commiting shitheads...."

That musta felt good, Luc...talking about Liberals are you?

smiles


amicus...

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

"...And people wonder why I have no respect for these duplicitous lying bottom-feeding ratfucking gerrymandering graft-raping evil-commiting shitheads...."

That musta felt good, Luc...talking about Liberals are you?

smiles


amicus...

Nope Democrats and Republicans. People who run for public office in general.

Liberals are a completely different group of people who sit at home and go "if we be really peaceful and nice, people will notice our values too".

 

[Colleen Thomas]

NIMBY.


That really sums it up. No one you ask will say cuts in spending aren't needed. No two people you ask will agree on where to ake the cuts.

I would hazard a guess that some here would slash defense spending in a heart beat to fund enviornmental initiatives more fully. Some would gut NASA, in order to give money to developing nations. A few would favor gutting entitlements to pay for more crime prevention.

Everyone wants to see cuts, but the maxim of not in my backyard, applies fully. The truth is, no cut will be universally approved of, because everytime you make a cut, some group looses out. When you add the pork barrel provisions that select politicians will fight doggedly for, you enter a whole new realm of partisan bickering.

Everyone disagrees on how our money should be spent. No two people would craft the same budget if given the power. There is only so much pie and everyone who is getting a piece fights zealously to keep their chunk as big as they can.

 

[rgraham666]

Bush is trying to bring back the Golden Age of the 19th Century.

And it was a Golden Age for the very wealthy. the rest of us kinda took it up the ass.

I'm looking forward to the day we can't use our beaches because of the cow carcasses washed up on them. It will be cheaper than going to a butcher.

 

[cantdog]

Well, we all know what to do about it.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Surely you're not suggesting we scrap the 500 billion dollar and totally useless anti-ballistic missile program? They've already started to deploy it, even though it doesn't work at all.

What the repubs are doing is known as "Starving the Beast", a strategy that was cooked up during the Reagan era to reduce the size of government not by law, but by running out of money to fund it.

There are those who say that the deficit and tax cuts serve a dual purpose: not only do they benefit the politically connected, but they starve the goivernment of funds and thereby reduce its size by financial fiat. That's why both GWB and Reagan pretended to decry the deficit but did nothing to really try and fix it. They want it.

As for taxes, I heard an expert on the radio saying that when you cut through all the BS, the fundamental law of taxation is that you tax heaviest those with the least amount of political power, which is generally the middle and lower class. It's as simple as that.

---dr.M.

 

[brightlyiburn]

This is known as "Starving the Beast", a strategy that was cooked up during the Reagan era to reduce the size of government not by law, but by running out of money to fund it.

There are those who say that the deficit and tax cuts serve a dual purpose: not only do they benefit the politically connected, but they starve the goivernment of funds and thereby reduce its size by financial fiat. That's why both GWB and Reagan pretended to decry the deficit but did nothing to really try and fix it. They want it.
---dr.M.

The government isn't starving. The rest of us are. There's a serious flaw that logic.

 

[BlackShanglan]

"...And people wonder why I have no respect for these duplicitous lying bottom-feeding ratfucking gerrymandering graft-raping evil-commiting shitheads...."

That musta felt good, Luc...talking about Liberals are you?

smiles


amicus...

For reasons I can't quite comprehend ... it's nice to see you back, amicus.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Surely you're not suggesting we scrap the 500 billion dollar and totally useless anti-ballistic missile program? They've already started to deploy it, even though it doesn't work at all.

What the repubs are doing is known as "Starving the Beast", a strategy that was cooked up during the Reagan era to reduce the size of government not by law, but by running out of money to fund it.

There are those who say that the deficit and tax cuts serve a dual purpose: not only do they benefit the politically connected, but they starve the goivernment of funds and thereby reduce its size by financial fiat. That's why both GWB and Reagan pretended to decry the deficit but did nothing to really try and fix it. They want it.

As for taxes, I heard an expert on the radio saying that when you cut through all the BS, the fundamental law of taxation is that you tax heaviest those with the least amount of political power, which is generally the middle and lower class. It's as simple as that.

---dr.M.

Agreed with Dr. M. Roughly, that's what I was aiming at in my post as well.

Mind you, the lower and middle classes only have the least political power because they choose not to identify and vote their interests. There are in fact more of us than them; the problem is that we continue to elect them. How very silly of us.

Shanglan

 

[Blackie Malone]

I guess cutting the pensions of congressmen, senators and reps is out.
Making them pay for their own health care isn't an option either.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Anything's an option if we run and elect someone who wants to do it.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Anything's an option if we run and elect someone who wants to do it.

Yep. And it's not like anyone, especially a politicdian, would lie to us to get our vote or anything, so the problem's solved already.

Sorry to be negative, but let's face it, the problem with politics is that it's politics. Lies and manipulations. It's the rule and law in the political world. Always will be, no matter who we run and elect.

Democrat and Republican; liberal or conservative; the problem has always been that they're politicians first.

That's my rant. Sorry to interrupt. Continue.

Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

No, I actually agree entirely. But I think that the problem is still largely a failure of will, education, and commitment. Yes, politicians can lie - and we can throw them out in the next election when they do. But we don't.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm sorry, but we get the government we deserve.

If our politicians lie to us and we still vote for them, it's not their fault, it's ours.

And being a politician is more a guarantee a person is a scumbag than being a businessman guarantees hard nosed honesty.

We've also got to remember we wouldn't vote for a good person. A good person probably wouldn't be telegenic enough, wouldn't speak in easily digestible sound bites, wouldn't make us feel good. That's because too often we're not voting for representatives but leaders. A representative would be as flawed as we are. A leader is a bulwark against a dark scary world we don't understand. He'll clasp us to his warm bosom and tell us "There, there. It will be all right."

In the battle between wisdom and mythology, mythology usually wins.

 

[Kassiana]

In other words, people are stupid.

That's what it seems to boil down to.

I hang out with a lot of people who actually think through their choices, and I think it erroneously influences me so that I expect everyone I meet to do so as well.

Want people to vote against their own economic interests? Wave the "moral values" and "gay marriage" flags!

Want them to forget how you condemned someone of the opposite political party for cheating on his wife (let's face it, this fits most current politicians, who are male) and then were found to have kept a mistress for years? Accuse him of eating babies for breakfast!

People really are stupid.

I wish education in the States was actually about teaching kids how to think. I know, it'd be even more poorly financed if it was, but I still wish it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

In the battle between wisdom and mythology, mythology usually wins.

Most trenchant.


William Raspberry has some interesting comments on "starving the best" in a recent column:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50122-2005Jan30.html


Shanglan

 

[Colleen Thomas]

In other words, people are stupid.

That's what it seems to boil down to.

I hang out with a lot of people who actually think through their choices, and I think it erroneously influences me so that I expect everyone I meet to do so as well.

Want people to vote against their own economic interests? Wave the "moral values" and "gay marriage" flags!

Want them to forget how you condemned someone of the opposite political party for cheating on his wife (let's face it, this fits most current politicians, who are male) and then were found to have kept a mistress for years? Accuse him of eating babies for breakfast!

People really are stupid.

I wish education in the States was actually about teaching kids how to think. I know, it'd be even more poorly financed if it was, but I still wish it.

I don't think "people are stupid" explains anything. You are pasing a value judgement on voters, and since they don't vote the way you think they should, that makes them stupid?

People will vote the way they think is going to help them most. The idea behind your vote is, at it's core, an enlightened self-interest. That the degree of enlightenment and self interest varries from voter to voter cannot be denied. Still, a person votes the way they do because they see more of what they want represented by one candidate or party.

If, for example, I am an avid hunter and outdoorsman, I vote republican. That isn't stupid, it's a very sane and reasoned position. The democrats actively strive to limit and eventually prohibit private ownership of guns. There are people who vote democrat, primarily because they intend to do this. How can you say one or the other of these people is stupid if that is the issue they see most affecting their life?

Then too, our hypothetical hunter will vote for shylock sam, no matter what his transgressions, if he is devoted to keeping guns in private hands. Especially if his opponent is anti-gun.

That's one small issue, and to you, it might even seem a negligible issue, but if to a voter it's the prime issue, then his vote may well seem outrageously irresponsible to you. This country is rife with similar "wedge" issues. Both parties try to take advantag of wedge voters, that's why you see planks for or against gun control, abortion, etc. in party platforms.

People will vote against their self interests often, that's because neither party represents all of their interests. A value judgement has to be made on which set, represented by which candidate or party, is more important.

Personal background, ethics, religious beliefs and experience influence the vote far more than idealists would like to admit. Over the past few years, the GOP has done a much better job of playing to these interests than the democrats have. What's more, they have done a fantastic job of backing the Dems into a corner and making them stand up for things. That's one of the prime disadvantages the party has, it's base is far more heterogenous than the GOP's.

I would urge you, and everyone else, who simply slaps the stupid tag on those who don't vote the way they want them to, to examine things more objectively. There are stupid people in this world and they do vote, but by and large, it isn't stupidity that drives people to vote one way or antoher. It is, a simple assessment of personal goals that will cause someone to flip the lever one way or another.

When people brand anyone who didn't vote the way they wanted as stupid, IMHO, they are showing their own stupidity, closemindedness and lack of objectivity. I saw a great deal of it after this election, from people who should know better. In less than two years, the very people they so casually branded as stupid will be the ones they are trying to woe to gain advantage in congress at the mid terms. And in four years, they will be scrambling to unsay those things as they hope to wrest the whitehouse from the GOP.

-Colly

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I don't really understand the point of giving rich people breaks on their taxes. It doesn't help us poor folks any.

Had W ever known what it was like to be a working-class citizen then he might give a shit about those who are not as fortunate and pampered as he is. I've often wondered how a pampered little man like him made it into a governor's seat and then the president's seat, and then I remember that he's an oil company boy with plenty of old money backing him up. He wasn't enough man to get into the White House, he was just rich enough to get into the White House. Naturally he's going to give the benies to the people who are the most like him.