Considering that we spend over 50% of the federal budget on the military and military related expenditures, shouldn't we cut that FIRST and then try save on domestic programs?
I don't know about anyone else, but it seems like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have not exactly improved our standard of living (or that of most Iraqis and Afghans).
I'd also like to see some accountability for medicaid and medicare programs, especially when it comes to the purchase of medical equipment and prescription drugs. Seems like the biggest customer in the world for these items (the Federal Government) is getting really lousy deals. I particular, oxygen and oxygen equipment which is RENTED rather then purchased. This raises the price dramatically.
Raise taxes. Tax churches. Tax the wealthy. End loopholes for corporations. End the oil depletion allowance. End tax breaks for agri-businesses. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cut the military budget. Allow Americans to buy drugs from the cheapest source. Limit campaign spending. End the electoral college system: One person, one vote. Tax lobbyists.
It is hard to understand the resentment by these people against increasing taxes. From what I read here, hardly any of them have a high enough income to be affected anyway. They are not going to become wealthy in the next few years, and most of them will become even more dependent on SS and Medicare.
What they should be concerned about is how SS and medicare funds are being managed. these are not entitlements as the conservatives would have you believe. They are insurance programs and congress has mismanaged them. The money that should have been invested in treasuries and high grade equities has been looted to pay for those same conservatives pet programs which also buy them votes. The Bush tax cuts drained much of the reserves and the invasion and occupation of Iraq has taken even more.
Keep in mind that the Bush administration did not want to raise taxes so they sold debt to finance this fiasco. Now these same conservatives and their followers are complaining about the administrations spending, spending that they themselves voted for, and also for that smaller government which cut back on the regulatory agencies that monitored the banks and brokers.
OK folks, vote in your Tea Potty reps and stop collecting that money.
One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending. Of course with so few people who are disenfranchised not voting, one can see what direction this is going.
Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.
Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.
“It’s hard to beat up on the government when they’ve been so good to you,” a tea-party supporter finally recently said. “I’ve never really thought about it, I guess.”