16 Tons in Debt…

Gotta check out things over at Iowahawk!

😀

  1. John
    April 17th, 2011 at 10:04 | #1

    Speaking as a conservative, I’m concerned how our desire to cut taxes will help us to pay off this debt.

  2. April 18th, 2011 at 13:24 | #2

    Thanks, Steven.
    The video does a nice job of making the debt more understandable. Even so, I think it is beyond the comprehension of the vast majority of us. This problem is huge and it is not going away. If we leave resolution of it in the hands of people in Washington, D.C., I am afraid nothing will be done except more smoke and mirrors. I have a plan that I proposed on my blog (http://ttoes.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/how-to-cut-the-budget/) that would seem overly drastic to any politician but which is only the entry level of what needs to be accomplished.
    I hope we can put aside partisan politics and deal with this situation but I don’t hold out much hope with the present leadership inside the beltway.

    Tom

  3. Jeff
    April 19th, 2011 at 06:41 | #3

    There is no leadership inside the beltway. I’m almost certain there are not even men (or women) in the legislature or the White House anymore. They are products. They have been vetted by the parties, focus group tested right down to their shoelaces, and have their words written for them by professional con-artists. There is no room left in these pre-packaged vote magnets for principles, ethics, or moral stands. The political parties as they stand right now are little more than company names which follow re-branding trends to attract more customers.

    This budget will never be balanced because focus groups steer political advertising in the direction of most voters – and most voters are too stupid or too lazy to accept the challenge of individual liberties which so often translate to individual initiative.

    As of late I’ve found myself saddened over how few Americans appear to be left in America.

    An American would know – you spend the money collected in revenues on services intended to protect the citizenry and their rights. Any other spending is charity and charity is not the purview of government. And the definition of “protect” is not as malleable as politicians would like to believe. You do not spend money or promise services that exceed the collected revenue. Period.

  4. April 19th, 2011 at 08:41 | #4

    @John Depends on whose plan you read. For example, the Ryan “Roadmap” reduces taxes on the upper income brackets while taking away most of the loopholes used by the uber wealthy to avoid taxes. Doing this actually results in a net revenue increase from the wealthy. If you’re talking about the mindless chanting at some of the rallies, I would agree ~ simply lowering taxes won’t do the trick… the MASSIVE spending must be addressed. For Obama to claim that his budget will save 1.5 trillion over the next decade is meaningless when his current budget is 1.6 trillion in the red for a single year. Raising taxes and the mindlessly small cuts so far just won’t get the job done.

  5. April 19th, 2011 at 08:49 | #5

    @tom Vail I liked that post Tom. I agree that many Americans really don’t quite get the severity of the budget problems. I’m not very optimistic about the parties actually setting aside partisan squabbles and tackling the problem head on. I think some of the “new kids” from this last round of elections are being out played by a huge machine they don’t quite understand. I’m pretty certain I’d be lost during the first year just trying to learn the system in order to not get outplayed! There is another Iowahawk entry that rocks, and Bill Whittle gave it some video pizzazz! Think I’ll throw that one up too, it’s awesome.

  6. April 19th, 2011 at 08:57 | #6

    @Jeff Most excellent rant! And the most meaningful part of that rant, to me, is the last paragraph! Something my father, grandfather, and I’m almost certain, my great-grandfather understood. Charity does belong in the community. A simple bit of research demonstrates that as government intrudes on charitable work, the governed themselves become less charitable. We are still the most charitable nation in the world, and of the liberal democracies, our European cousins are some of the least charitable. Why? Straight from a German gal’s mouth, “because the government is responsible for the poor and needy.” No, no they’re not. “…charity is not the purview of government.” Well said.

  7. April 19th, 2011 at 14:19 | #7

    Funny. I was working on a blog post that Jeff just made superfluous. I was going to say that my parents drilled into me that Charity begins at home and that you never accept charity until ALL other avenues have been exhausted. I was then going to point out that between government charity and people who don’t save for retirement, we have created half of our national budget. Then Jeff went and made it simple, “…charity is not the purview of government.”
    I may still finish that post but if I do I will rob Jeff’s line.

    Tom

  1. No trackbacks yet.

%d bloggers like this: