TheRealMafoo said:
That said, 90% of the money we spend on military I would end. I would end both wars. I would also end farmers subsidies. I would end federally funded education. I would end Social Security, I would end Welfare, I would end military buildup. If there is a need for military research (and in some areas, there is), I would continue to fund it. If there is no military need for NASA, I would end it. I would aslo submit to repeal the 16th amendment (federal income tax). I would put our money back on some standard, so a dollar has real value. I would remove 95% of all the laws the federal government has made. I would remove laws that make drugs illegal, gives tax breaks to people who have kids, tax breaks to home ownership (this is where the federal government should collect it's money). The Constitution was a document designed to limit what the federal government could put there hands in. Today, they tell you what you can eat, what you can drive, what you can wear, what your allowed to live in, what kind of medical care you must have, and something about every faset of your life. This is not what the federal government was put in place to do. The things I want to change, 120 years ago, was the way things were. It's not crazy talk. Over the last 100 years the US Federal government has used its power to take control over everything. Do you think we are better off for it? I sure as hell don't |
Thank you, I appreciate the response and informed political view. I find it hard to disagree with many of your suggestions as I am employed in the private sector and have no stake as a public worker.
Do I like taxes? No, but I realize they are the cost for living in a society such as the USA or any industrialized nation. That being said, when USA today shows Federal bureaucrats averaging $70k/year in income and state workers $50k/year in income, while the private sector in total only averages $40k/year in income per worker, then something is seriously wrong.
Sure, the Government can print currency, but the Government does not attach value to that currency. The value of currency is created by wealth creation. Wealth creation only occurs in the private sector where individuals and companies put out products other people want. The Government does not create wealth, instead it provides the framework (infrastructure, defense, public health, and a social safety net) to allow the wealth creation, which would occcur anyways and access into the consumption system for those otherwise without a safety net who would be left out.
Deficits and public sector compensation, benefits and pensions are primary factors in driving the Tea Party movement. I find it hard to disagree from these angles, but once you get the kooks talking about doing away with the separation of church and state, then I start to wonder if the media is right in the Tea Party movement being another fountain for the Christian Right?