Executive Action

[Hootsma]

Well said Shrek!! You did a better job than I did on it and I thank you for your input.

Another way to get rid of a bunch of the lobbyist is with a flat tax or fair tax. A lot of these guys are in there trying to gain favors for tax advantages for the organizations they represent. If we get rid of all the tax nonsense and simplify and finalize the code, there jobs would naturally go away.

 

[LaHunter]

Hootsma, great posts throughout this entire thread.

Thank You

 

[Brandon Pattison]

I refuse to read airlocksniffer's posts any longer. I can turn on 10 different news channels and hear the same things he says. These are the same channels controlled by the puppet masters that control the purse strings that are in control of the masses. Thanks for your posts, Hootsma! I appreciate both sides, I really do (even you, airlocksniffer). But I've had enough. I have a lot of liberal friends and I don't get it. I'm too old to change my ways. I cannot argue with reason, be it subjective or not.

 

[jmden]

I agree, super inefficient, layered bureaucracy. But corruption is the biggest issue. If we had a big government that wasn't so bought and paid for by corporations and lobbyists, it would be much better that what we have now. If we had a smaller government that was just as corrupt as we have now, it would be no different. Politicians would still be beholden to their donors.

Corruption is an issue for sure, but not the biggest one. Not everything comes down to this, airlock. That's an easy, big target so I understand it's broad appeal, but the issue(s) run much deeper than that. We will always have corruption (human/sinful nature) and it must always be fought.

The biggest issue with 'big government' is the thinking of way too many that government can solve most problems (dems/socialists--same thing) and even politicians on the Republican side (will NOT call most of them conservative) who simply do not seem to be able to stand on the concept of limited government and are certainly not able to thoroughly understand and/or articulate it's concepts to the masses who have already been brainwashed and indoctrinated by a leftist public school system and leftist controlled media anyway!

That a pretty nasty combination when leftist propaganda has constant free media coverage and the vast majority of the folks listening to it already agree with it because that's what they've been taught through most of public education. In other words, they are making decisions with limited, one-sided information. This combination is almost impossible to overcome and it will literally be a miracle at this point if it is overcome. Conservatism is way behind the eight ball for these reasons.

20 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT! Yeah, big government is working out great. Who's going to pay that? As government grows, there's less people actually producing to pay that government and government is reaching out to take care of more and more people, who then have less reason to work/produce and pay taxes. That's just one of many destructive aspects of liberalism/socialism . Doesn't take a rocket science to see where that is headed.

You need to get out of the airlock, airlock. From what I have seen, you seem to be nearly perfectly in the box this culture has constructed for you. A good culture soldier, but of course, you think independently. You're a clearly a smart guy, but brainwashed and don't know it and/or won't admit the possibility. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing. Very unfortunate. Your intelligence could be used so much better in other ways.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Can you point to any stances that he's flip flopped on?

A quick Google search gave me these:

http://www.libertyconservatives.com/ted-cruz-flip-flops-marijuana/

https://randpaul.com/ted-cruz-flip-flops-on-support-of-chief-justice-john-roberts

I know, they're politicians, unfortunately that's what they do. Don't assume Senator Cruz is vastly different than any other slimy politician, Obama and Clinton included. I don't think these two links are massive flip flops but they do give some insight into the character of Senator Cruz. I don't see much there.

I'm having a hard time figuring you out. You try to make a point by insinuating people on here are socialists for enjoying public land and then say your not really a socialist and then you criticize a guy like Ted Cruz for filing an amendment which would prohibit the government from owning more than 50% of the land within one state. Right now, the government owns 20% of the land in this nation which includes over 50% of the states of Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada and Utah. I've seen the contentious threads on here about the return of federal lands back to the states and I can definitely see the pitfalls associated with that. However, limiting the government to less than 50% ownership of any one state seems reasonable. If not, then what percentage is reasonable?

I don't think we should just have some arbitrary percentage. Sure, Alaska has a ton of public land. Most is state owned land. Nevada has a lot of BLM land (the stuff nobody wanted to homestead). I think we both enjoy the use of our public lands and would not like to see the model of Texas or Europe. The North American Conservation Model is unique in the world and one of the best parts about living in this country. We are truly the envy of the world in this regard.

http://www.rmef.org/Conservation/HuntingIsConservation/NorthAmericanWildlifeConservationModel.aspx

As far as the LCWF, he not against this expenditure, he wants to reform it. He wants the money in the program to be available to the large backlog of existing projects on currently owned federal lands so that they can take care of what they already own before they buy more. Does that seem unreasonable. That makes a lot of sense to me.

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2015/10/pro-morning-energy-wolff-210568

Haven't read Senator Cruz's book but it sounds like he is up for selling all non-parks federal land to pay off the national debt. Not sure how he can be supportive of reauthorization of LWCF but for selling off federal land. The Texas model isn't one we should strive for.

I guess I'm just surprised that you've made up your mind on him based on these two issues that are so far down on the list of Americans concerns. Your never going to find a candidate that agrees with you on 100% of the issues. But, if you can find some common ground on the really big issues then you've got something. I'm sorry, but these aren't really big issues.

Yeah, these are some of the biggest issues to me. As Randy Newberg puts it, I'm for the party of hunting. You will also find that enhanced background checks are also down the list of most Americans concerns, which what this post is all about. We certainly have covered a lot of ground in this post. The only way I'll find a candidate with whom I agree with on 100% of the issues is if my twin brother runs for president. Don't think that will happen though. As I've stated, I'm not steadfast Obama, Trump, Clinton, Cruz or Sanders. I'm sure there is at least one thing I can agree with from all of these men and women. We vote for whom we think will do the best job, knowing they will not do a perfect job. Just people after all.

But, you have to admit that it's pretty hypocritical of you to criticize him and list this as a reason not to vote for him, when you voted for Obama with a much worse record. While we're at it, should we compare and contrast the amount of time spent not doing their jobs and tax payer money wasted by these two guys on vacationing?

My intention was not to imply that only Senator Cruz misses votes. But he sure misses a lot. Obama too. We pay for these people to do their jobs. I hold the left and right equally accountable in this.

'Canadian anchor-baby' is another one of your strawman arguments. An anchor baby is a baby born on US soil to an illegal immigrant. His mother is an American citizen which makes him an American citizen regardless of his place of birth, exactly like Obama, even if he was born in Kenya (which I do not believe nor care). And, it is being applied to Cruz if you would pay any attention or bothered to take a look. This should cover all the major news networks:

Sorry, the tongue and cheek doesn't come well through the forum. Should have included a smiley. Just had to make sure you weren't a birther as you do make some good points.

Your right, this is probably the best course of action because I've laid out reasoned, rational, factually supported arguments which clearly demonstrated the hypocrisy in some of your views and you've rebutted almost none of them and yet your still insisting on what seems like a very close minded, uniformed point of view (which, as a free American, your entitled to...for now). That's about all I can do. Good luck!

I could say the same about you but I won't. You are passionate about this, that is evident. As am I. It's too damn bad that most Americans only care about what pops up on their Facebook feed and don't actually look into left and right talking points and just drink the Fox News or MSNBC kool-aid. You may think that I'm a far left whacko but I was raised to ask questions and not put blind faith in anything. While we may not see eye to eye politically, I'd bet we have a lot in common. Good luck to you as well with hunting, politics and whatever else you come across. I'd be happy to have a beer with you if ever chasing critters in Montana. Not sure I'll be making it down south any time soon though.

 

[jmez]

For the record, the republican party is no more interested in small/limited government than the democrats. Nor are they interested in controlling spending.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Corruption is an issue for sure, but not the biggest one. Not everything comes down to this, airlock. That's an easy, big target so I understand it's broad appeal, but the issue(s) run much deeper than that. We will always have corruption (human/sinful nature) and it must always be fought.

The biggest issue with 'big government' is the thinking of way too many that government can solve most problems (dems/socialists--same thing) and even politicians on the Republican side (will NOT call most of them conservative) who simply do not seem to be able to stand on the concept of limited government and are certainly not able to thoroughly understand and/or articulate it's concepts to the masses who have already been brainwashed and indoctrinated by a leftist public school system and leftist controlled media anyway!

I'd be perfectly happy with a more efficient (smaller), less corrupt government. I have not said big government is the answer. Assume about me what you will.

20 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT! Yeah, big government is working out great. Who's going to pay that? As government grows, there's less people actually producing to pay that government and government is reaching out to take care of more and more people, who then have less reason to work/produce and pay taxes. That's just one of many destructive aspects of liberalism/socialism . Doesn't take a rocket science to see where that is headed.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancol...rong-if-you-want-to-reduce-the-national-debt/

Admittedly I don't have a masters degree in economics but interesting none the less.

You need to get out of the airlock, airlock. From what I have seen, you seem to be nearly perfectly in the box this culture has constructed for you. A good culture soldier, but of course, you think independently. You're a clearly a smart guy, but brainwashed and don't know it and/or won't admit the possibility. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I'm seeing. Very unfortunate. Your intelligence could be used so much better in other ways.

When you point a finger at someone there are 4 pointing back at you (well, 3 and thumb). Funny thing about brainwashing, you wouldn't know it either I guess. I try to treat people with respect, golden rule and stuff like that. I think I'm carving out a fine place on this earth and I hope to leave it better for my kids. I think we all want that. I really do wish at some point we could all step back and take a deep breath and listen to each other and talk and work toward solutions to the problems we face that we can all live with.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I refuse to read airlocksniffer's posts any longer. I can turn on 10 different news channels and hear the same things he says. These are the same channels controlled by the puppet masters that control the purse strings that are in control of the masses. Thanks for your posts, Hootsma! I appreciate both sides, I really do (even you, airlocksniffer). But I've had enough. I have a lot of liberal friends and I don't get it. I'm too old to change my ways. I cannot argue with reason, be it subjective or not.

Good. You don't seem to care about any other viewpoint other than your own so I'd be wasting your time. Remember, the puppet masters are liberal and conservative. I would suggest turning off your tv altogether. Doesn't mean we can't be friends though.

 

[jmden]

I'd be perfectly happy with a more efficient (smaller), less corrupt government. I have not said big government is the answer. Assume about me what you will.




http://www.forbes.com/sites/stancol...rong-if-you-want-to-reduce-the-national-debt/

Admittedly I don't have a masters degree in economics but interesting none the less.

When you point a finger at someone there are 4 pointing back at you (well, 3 and thumb). Funny thing about brainwashing, you wouldn't know it either I guess. I try to treat people with respect, golden rule and stuff like that. I think I'm carving out a fine place on this earth and I hope to leave it better for my kids. I think we all want that. I really do wish at some point we could all step back and take a deep breath and listen to each other and talk and work toward solutions to the problems we face that we can all live with.

Certainly haven't seen you defend limited government. Don't think it's much of an assumption to see where you stand.

Spent many years drinking the same koolaid, airlock. Most of us do, in public schools and hearing the liberal media most of our lives. Chose a different route when I had an opportunity to see both sides more clearly. Many don't have that opportunity. Liberalism makes sure of that.

Freedom means we will always have disagreements. There will always be bias. Gotta figure out what the best bias to be biased by is.

Do you honestly think we are better off with 20 trillion in debt than if we didn't have any? How much of the federal budget just goes to paying the minimum payment on that debt? What could that money be used for or how much less tax could the feds be charging you and me? That's not right in so many ways. How can you defend that?

Wishful thinking (another liberal hallmark) rarely solve problems in the real world.

 

[Hootsma]

A quick Google search gave me these:

http://www.libertyconservatives.com/ted-cruz-flip-flops-marijuana/

https://randpaul.com/ted-cruz-flip-flops-on-support-of-chief-justice-john-roberts

Your joking, right!? Did you even get past the headlines and read the articles? This seems to be a pretty consistent trend with you and your talking points. So allow me to break it down for you.

The basic premise of the first link is that Cruz said he believes Obama is wrong for not enforcing the federal drug laws in states like Colorado and Washington where recreational marijuana are legal. Then, recently, in an meeting with some activists from Liberty Iowa (a group founded to support Ron Paul's 2012 campaign), he said to them that he never said those things about federal drug law enforcement and that it's a states choice.

My problem with this article is this (emphasis added):
"...one interesting moment occurred when Cruz appeared to flip flop on his stance that President Obama must enforce marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington."
Well, did he or didn't he? Which is it? It's interesting that they have embedded several videos of him making his statements about disagreeing with Obama on this subject, yet don't include a single quote of exactly what he said in this meeting regarding this nor any context for how it was said to prove that he flip flopped. The other problem I have with this article is I've never heard of Rocco Lucente nor Liberty Conservatives Magazine. Have you?

So, did he flip flop? I don't know because this article doesn't give me enough information to make a decision. I'm not like a lot of folks and just blindly follow and believe what they're told because they saw it on the internets.

That second link is absolutely unequivocally not a flip flop. The premise of that link is that he originally loved and respected Chief Justice John Roberts, so much so, that he looked up to him as a role model and hero. And now he's bashing him and thinks he should step down. Have you been living under a rock or just not paying any attention? Did you see what Roberts did regarding the SC Obamacare ruling? I think everyone in this country 'flip flopped' on Roberts after that. The liberals who didn't like his conservative rulings love him now and the conservatives who liked him feel totally betrayed. There was something going on behind the scenes on that one and Roberts cashed in his principles and belief system and completely folded. If you had bothered to read past the headlines, they even gave a quote explaining his pivot point:

“Cruz no longer wants to imitate Roberts. Ever since Roberts wrote an opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act, Cruz has been slamming the chief justice, and mused Saturday on imagining a Supreme Court without him.”—WP, 9/12/15

New and devastating information came to light that made him change his mind and your criticizing him for that and labeling him a flip flopper?! I guess if a person lacks critical thinking skills, then changing their mind based on new information would be pretty difficult to understand and/or accept.

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-energy/2015/10/pro-morning-energy-wolff-210568

Haven't read Senator Cruz's book but it sounds like...

Maybe you should in order to know exactly what he says so you can develop a more informed opinion because that link gives no quotes or context from his book. And, it's politico!

The Texas model isn't one we should strive for.

That's the second time you've mentioned this and this too is another one of your red herrings. Yes, Cruz is a Texas senator, however the 'Texas model' was well established long before Cruz came to office and he had no influence on it. So, what's your point?!

Yeah, these are some of the biggest issues to me. As Randy Newberg puts it, I'm for the party of hunting.

Hunting is very important to me too. But, that issue doesn't even come close to the issues of national dept, national security/foreign policy, 2nd amendment, government corruption (in no particular order)....
Just because he wants to limit the government in both physical size and reach and reform LWCF doesn't mean he is anti-hunting.

You will also find that enhanced background checks are also down the list of most Americans concerns, which what this post is all about.

Yes, the thread is originally about Obama's EA on background checks, but you can't have a legitimate and thorough discussion about that without the broader context of the second amendment. However, I disagree with you because I think the populace thinks this is a huge topic of discussion and debate (much, much larger than hunting) and will be part of the decision making process for a lot of Americans in the next election.

 

[airlocksniffer]

No more linking for me. Doesn't matter what you or I link to. I'm not going to show you a link that will instantly change your mind. The internet is funny that way, who knows if half the shit we read on here is remotely true. Don't read Politico so can't say if it's 'left' or 'right' but I gather it's 'left'. Oh well.

Rather than throwing up a bunch of stats and links, humor me one last time. Many folks in this country thing the problem we have in this country is big government. Sure!! Big, inefficient, corrupt government is definitely a problem. Those same folks say the answer is limited government. Perhaps that is the answer!! How do we make the government more limited? Therein lies the pickle. Some say "You need to cut entitlements". Could also be true. For example, Social Security. Not going to post any links but what I understand is that the program itself can't be sustained in it's current form. Baby boomers, etc. Too many people requesting payouts, not enough money to remain solvent. I understand that. Those baby boomers were a frisky bunch. Perhaps we should have had a massive family planning program after WW2 but, alas, hindsight is 20/20. What do we do? "Cut Social Security!!" Okay but how? Do you have SS contributions? Willing to give those up? My 96 year old grandmother depends on those to live. She also depends on Medicare. Do we just say "Sorry gram, your really old anyway and even though your late husband contributed the money from his paychecks to Social Security, we can't pay you anymore."? I'm sorry but if the answer is "screw 'em, let them starve", I can't accept that.

What all of us have done on this thread in the last few days have perfectly demonstrated what the current state of our country is. 2 sides. No compromise. No attempt at even looking for common ground. My way or the highway. Look at Congress. Same thing (both sides of the aisle). I think you know what the approval rating of Congress is right now. Maybe, just maybe, citizens of this country can start working together for solutions rather than spending all of their time fighting and bickering. As I've said ad nauseum here, I'm not the far left with my fingers in my ears saying "La la la, can't here you!". If you think that, I can guarantee you will be sorely disappointed.

The answer is not simply "Limited government". It's also not "unlimited government". Those are gross oversimplifications. The answer lies somewhere in between. But we are never going to get there with a hard line in the sand, to the detriment of all of us.

 

[5MilesBack]

Do you have SS contributions? Willing to give those up? My 96 year old grandmother depends on those to live. She also depends on Medicare. Do we just say "Sorry gram, your really old anyway and even though your late husband contributed the money from his paychecks to Social Security, we can't pay you anymore."? I'm sorry but if the answer is "screw 'em, let them starve", I can't accept that.

What did people do before Social Security? Generation after generation survived without it. If I would have been able to "opt out" of it when I first starting working years ago........I would have. I would also be OK with giving me a one time payout of what I've put in with added interest for those years as well.

I'm an independent sort of guy, as many conservatives are. I don't need or want the government to "protect me". I'll take care of myself as I can.....provided they'd stop taking away or infringing on my rights to do that. A lot of people blindly rely on the police to "protect" them, or think that if something goes wrong......all will be well because we have a police force. The police force is not going to protect anyone any more than the government is going to protect them.

If I had my choice I'd go back to the days before insurance as well. Every person is responsible for themselves and their own. I don't see it as the responsibility of the government to "take care of everybody". But apparently, most Americans these days need taken care of. That's why sheep need shepherds and sheep dogs.

 

[Kevin Dill]

The other night my wife heard a noise and startled awake. Before I could say anything she was sitting upright in bed with her Glock in hand. Turns out some goofball in a truck drove down our long rural driveway and stopped near the house. I don't think he got out of the truck...just turned around and left. My wife sighed and put her sidearm back in the nightstand...apologizing for waking me up...

Me: "Don't sweat it. You're just a little paranoid with all the crime and drugs in the area".

Her: "Don't call me paranoid....I need to keep this gun".

 

[Shrek]

Most people believe the police are there to protect and serve the public. That's pure propaganda. They do protect and serve but it isn't the people. They are law enforcement officers and they protect and serve the state.

 

[jmden]

No more linking for me. Doesn't matter what you or I link to. I'm not going to show you a link that will instantly change your mind. The internet is funny that way, who knows if half the shit we read on here is remotely true. Don't read Politico so can't say if it's 'left' or 'right' but I gather it's 'left'. Oh well.

Rather than throwing up a bunch of stats and links, humor me one last time. Many folks in this country thing the problem we have in this country is big government. Sure!! Big, inefficient, corrupt government is definitely a problem. Those same folks say the answer is limited government. Perhaps that is the answer!! How do we make the government more limited? Therein lies the pickle. Some say "You need to cut entitlements". Could also be true. For example, Social Security. Not going to post any links but what I understand is that the program itself can't be sustained in it's current form. Baby boomers, etc. Too many people requesting payouts, not enough money to remain solvent. I understand that. Those baby boomers were a frisky bunch. Perhaps we should have had a massive family planning program after WW2 but, alas, hindsight is 20/20. What do we do? "Cut Social Security!!" Okay but how? Do you have SS contributions? Willing to give those up? My 96 year old grandmother depends on those to live. She also depends on Medicare. Do we just say "Sorry gram, your really old anyway and even though your late husband contributed the money from his paychecks to Social Security, we can't pay you anymore."? I'm sorry but if the answer is "screw 'em, let them starve", I can't accept that.

What all of us have done on this thread in the last few days have perfectly demonstrated what the current state of our country is. 2 sides. No compromise. No attempt at even looking for common ground. My way or the highway. Look at Congress. Same thing (both sides of the aisle). I think you know what the approval rating of Congress is right now. Maybe, just maybe, citizens of this country can start working together for solutions rather than spending all of their time fighting and bickering. As I've said ad nauseum here, I'm not the far left with my fingers in my ears saying "La la la, can't here you!". If you think that, I can guarantee you will be sorely disappointed.

The answer is not simply "Limited government". It's also not "unlimited government". Those are gross oversimplifications. The answer lies somewhere in between. But we are never going to get there with a hard line in the sand, to the detriment of all of us.

SS has been funded, but robbed over the years to pay for stuff in the rest of the budget because of the national debt and big government!

You say you're not the left, but I don't recall seeing much that says otherwise. Perhaps you don't know right from left? You seem to say one thing but actually think and do another. Seems inconsistent.

If the answer isn't unlimited government, then the answer has to be limited government.

 

[jmez]

What do we do? "Cut Social Security!!" Okay but how? Do you have SS contributions? Willing to give those up? My 96 year old grandmother depends on those to live. She also depends on Medicare. Do we just say "Sorry gram, your really old anyway and even though your late husband contributed the money from his paychecks to Social Security, we can't pay you anymore."? I'm sorry but if the answer is "screw 'em, let them starve", I can't accept that.

I have income tax contributions just like everyone else that pays in. Can you define for me exactly what a SS payment is? It is nothing more than a name for another tax. There is no SS fund. Those monies are not earmarked for some grand retirement plan, this giant 401K that everyone is paying into and will draw out of. It is $$ in vs $$ out. There is no fund.

I'm 45, I've been paying the SS tax for many years. I have no doubt that I will not receive that money back when I'm in my 60's. You will not see any of yours either.

 

[jmden]

Talk about deception and saying one thing and doing another...

Obama to gun owners: If you like your gun, you can keep it.

Sound familiar? Nothing to see here. Move along,..move along. Right? Right. Obama has no notion to infringe the 2nd, right?

Man, we need to get the brainwashed, easily fooled heads out of the sand!

 

[Jason Snyder]

Most people believe the police are there to protect and serve the public. That's pure propaganda. They do protect and serve but it isn't the people. They are law enforcement officers and they protect and serve the state.

If you are making a blanket statement with that, you are wrong. Pure and simple.

 

[Hootsma]

No more linking for me. Doesn't matter what you or I link to. I'm not going to show you a link that will instantly change your mind.

It's very easy to win an argument with me. All you have to do is use reason, facts and logic (strictly opinion items, like my favorite color, not with standing). Present me with links that contain more than just hearsay and I'll listen.

The internet is funny that way, who knows if half the shit we read on here is remotely true. Don't read Politico so can't say if it's 'left' or 'right' but I gather it's 'left'. Oh well.

Don't you get it yet? How many times do I have to say it? That's why I need to know exactly what he said, with quotes and context. I've learned a long time ago that you can't believe everything you hear, read or see without some major evidence to back it up. Those links, without any quotes or context, are hearsay and I treat them as such. I promise you, you give me a link to an article with quotes that gives me enough context or a video that does the same and I will stand down and rethink my positions on Cruz, the 2nd amendment, the Constitution or any other topic of debate (just like I did with John Roberts). That's the important part of critical thinking and responsibility. I came to these positions through research, listening to others view points, debating and careful consideration. That's what responsibility and critical thinking are all about.

Rather than throwing up a bunch of stats and links, humor me one last time. Many folks in this country thing the problem we have in this country is big government. Sure!! Big, inefficient, corrupt government is definitely a problem. Those same folks say the answer is limited government. Perhaps that is the answer!! How do we make the government more limited? Therein lies the pickle.

Not to sound like a broken record, but...Don't you get it yet? How many times do I have to say it? I guess at least one more, so let me refresh your memory:

Please don't mistake me for thinking our government is perfect. It was as close to perfect as you can get when the original Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified. But, human nature is human nature and those documents have been trampled on, perverted and distorted over the last couple of centuries. I too see the corruption and graft in politics and it disgusts me as well. But, I think it can be fixed if we return to the original documents and allow freedom (and responsibility) to flourish.

I find it ironical that you complain about the government being corrupt and greedy and immoral (which I totally agree with you), yet your political leanings are towards larger and larger government. How is feeding the beast going to solve the problem. If we went back to the basics of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, repealed the 17th amendment and added a term limits amendment for our senators and congressmen, it would shrink the government drastically and severely limit it's ability for corruption and greed.

Another way to get rid of a bunch of the lobbyist is with a flat tax or fair tax. A lot of these guys are in there trying to gain favors for tax advantages for the organizations they represent. If we get rid of all the tax nonsense and simplify and finalize the code, there jobs would naturally go away.

I would also add the following:
Pass a balance budget amendment
Tort Reform

Abolish the IRS, Fed, Department of Education, EPA, Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Federal Unions...
There is a whole host of other departments that need to go that I could list, but it would be redundant because they would naturally have to go away if we followed the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That's the whole point of those documents, is to limit the size and scope of the federal government. However, the true entitlements like Social Security and Medicare, where people have actually paid into them, need to be deconstructed in a responsible and moral fashion so as not to leave all the granny's twisting in the wind.

Some say "You need to cut entitlements". Could also be true. For example, Social Security. Not going to post any links but what I understand is that the program itself can't be sustained in it's current form. Baby boomers, etc. Too many people requesting payouts, not enough money to remain solvent. I understand that. Those baby boomers were a frisky bunch. Perhaps we should have had a massive family planning program after WW2 but, alas, hindsight is 20/20. What do we do? "Cut Social Security!!" Okay but how?

My 96 year old grandmother depends on those to live. She also depends on Medicare. Do we just say "Sorry gram, your really old anyway and even though your late husband contributed the money from his paychecks to Social Security, we can't pay you anymore."? I'm sorry but if the answer is "screw 'em, let them starve", I can't accept that.

That is something that needs to be discussed and debated and bill/s proposed with a structured method to do it. But, since it's a 3rd rail political item, no one wants to touch it or address it in any meaningful way. I definitely agree with you that we can't take the attitude of 'screw 'em, let them starve' because they paid into it, are depending on it and deserve to get it back. But, I can tell you, if we do nothing about this issue and the bigger issue of our national dept, then it will be taken care of for us through the complete collapse of our government and economy. And then the answer will be 'we're screwed and we're gonna starve'. So, we have a choice, either fix it ourselves and endure the bit of pain that comes with it, or ignore it till it collapses and endure the severe pain, trauma and even death that will inevitably come with it.

I'd like to see the amortized metrics of cutting off the eligibility and requirement to pay into it for every baby born after today, guaranteeing it for those who have already paid into it and offering a tax break for those you are willing to walk away from what they've paid into it. How many billions of dollars have we unconstitutionally given to failed companies like Solyndra, Sun Power, First Solar... that could have gone to fund SS?

Do you have SS contributions? Willing to give those up?

Absolutely, in a heart beat!!! Unlike a lot of Americans, I haven't been relying on the federal government to take care of me when it's time to retire because I've seen the insolvency of Social Security a long time ago and decided to personally do something about it (there's that responsibility thing again). We've been saving on our own to provide for us for that time and would much prefer the government to leave my paycheck alone in that regards. I'm much more savvy when it comes to saving and investing than any bureaucratic, bloated government could ever be.

I'd like to think that a lot of Americans would be willing to give up the the monies they have paid into SS in exchange for a percentage reduction in their flat tax / fair tax bill for a period of time that will make it fair and equitable. But, I'm not sure about that because no ones willing to talk about it.

Perhaps we should have had a massive family planning program after WW2 but, alas, hindsight is 20/20.

'There you go again' (sorry Reagan, I couldn't help it) with your big government ideals. And you wonder why we 'assume' you are a big government guy? The federal government wasn't meant to be and isn't suppose to be the answer to everyone's problems. It's functions/restrictions were clearly laid out in the Constitution and further explained in the 'Federalist Papers'.

What all of us have done on this thread in the last few days have perfectly demonstrated what the current state of our country is. 2 sides. No compromise. No attempt at even looking for common ground. My way or the highway. Look at Congress. Same thing (both sides of the aisle). I think you know what the approval rating of Congress is right now. Maybe, just maybe, citizens of this country can start working together for solutions rather than spending all of their time fighting and bickering. As I've said ad nauseum here, I'm not the far left with my fingers in my ears saying "La la la, can't here you!". If you think that, I can guarantee you will be sorely disappointed.

This is suppose to be a nation bound by laws and the Constitution. If we can't agree on that, then your right, there will be no compromise. Every argument I have made has been based on the Constitution and it's original intent. If we can't agree on following the laws and the founding documents of this country, then what is point to even discuss it?

The answer is not simply "Limited government". It's also not "unlimited government". Those are gross oversimplifications. The answer lies somewhere in between. But we are never going to get there with a hard line in the sand, to the detriment of all of us.

The answer is right there in front of us for everyone to see and examine. It even has a name. It's called the Constitution.

As I've said ad nauseum here, I'm not the far left with my fingers in my ears saying "La la la, can't here you!". If you think that, I can guarantee you will be sorely disappointed.

No need continue the back and forth as you aren't going to change my mind or vice versa.

I don't know about you, but these two statements seem contradictory and hypocritical to me. I've presented you with reason, logic and facts to back up my points of view. You've rebutted very little and offered ideas and viewpoints mostly based on emotion and generally devoid of reason, logic and facts. I don't know what else I can do?

 

[jmez]

I'm not planning on getting any of my SS back so it wouldn't bother me to forfeit mine.

Your grandmother is currently getting mine and yours. We would get ours from out children. There is no fund.