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?
