Texas Governor Reaffirms States’ Rights Under 10th Amendment!!!!

[Lorizael]

If you don't scream, it isn't rape.

Er. No. If you fill out a form specifying which parts of your body you'd like penetrated and then sign and date it, it's not rape.

[DanS]

Where was this **** during the Bush years, eh?

I've been pissed off about government spending since the Clinton years (though I was less pissed off, because they kinda sorta balanced the budget [if you didn't look too hard at it]). But now, in a nasty recession, they're gonna flip out over unemployment benifits and the like?

Kiss my ass.

-Arrian

I think the impetus of this is the stimulus bill. Obama crammed through long-term changes to the structure of government spending. We will now be spending much more on a long-term basis. This deserves some protest, just as things like the prescription drug benefit deserved some protest on a smaller scale under Bush.

[The Mad Monk]

If you don't want to pay taxes, move someplace without a government. I hear Somalia's a libertarian paradise.

I don't have a problem with paying taxes. I have a problem with the government spending taxes I'll be paying twenty years from now.

[The Mad Monk]

Er. No. If you fill out a form specifying which parts of your body you'd like penetrated and then sign and date it, it's not rape.

"Now I want you to say, yes daddy give me more. I SAID BEG FOR IT *****"

[Ramo]

I think the impetus of this is the stimulus bill. Obama crammed through long-term changes to the structure of government spending. We will now be spending much more on a long-term basis. This deserves some protest, just as things like the prescription drug benefit deserved some protest on a smaller scale under Bush.

What long term spending in the stimulus do you specifically object to?

And Dan, do honestly believe that whatever long term changes that you might have specific objections to are a greater motivation for this protest than, say, unemployment insurance (it appears to be a requirement that every semi-plausible '12 nominee has to try to block this spending) or ignorant rage?

[Lorizael]

I don't have a problem with paying taxes. I have a problem with the government spending taxes I'll be paying twenty years from now.

If you don't have a problem with paying taxes generally, then at what point do you no longer consent to the process and it becomes theft?

[DirtyMartini]

Where was this **** during the Bush years, eh?

I've been pissed off about government spending since the Clinton years (though I was less pissed off, because they kinda sorta balanced the budget [if you didn't look too hard at it]). But now, in a nasty recession, they're gonna flip out over unemployment benifits and the like?

Kiss my ass.

-Arrian

As usual, Arrian has said exactly what I was thinking.

It's just sad really, more proof that nothing ever really changes AT ALL. All the BS sterotypes still gain traction (Republican = non intrusive, low tax, small government; Democrat = tax crazy, law crazy, socialist rights infringer)despite all the emprical evidence to the contrary.

[The Mad Monk]

I don't think there is a definable point, or if there is, we crossed a while ago. We waste so much money, everywhere. Now, we are spending so much money taxes won't cover it, borrowing won't cover it, and we have to print money to cover our checks. It needs to stop. Government needs to be pruned back.

[Ramo]

That's completely absurd. As a percentage of the GDP, our national debt is lower than most of the West.

[chequita guevara]

I don't have a problem with paying taxes. I have a problem with the government spending taxes I'll be paying twenty years from now.

Funny, I remember saying the same thing under Reagan.

Keep in mind that cutting taxes and increasing spending was a GOP invention under Reagan. No one ever gets punished for cutting taxes and increasing government spending until the bill comes due.

That said, I in no way approve of the hand out jobs for the capitalists who blew their wad of cash all over America's face.

[Arrian]

I don't think there is a definable point, or if there is, we crossed a while ago. We waste so much money, everywhere. Now, we are spending so much money taxes won't cover it, borrowing won't cover it, and we have to print money to cover our checks. It needs to stop. Government needs to be pruned back.

I too am worried about the national debt. If & when folks on the Right are willing to sit down with folks on the Left and talk reasonably about where cuts can be made, inclusive of the Right's favorites (military spending - including "discretionary" spending) as well as the Left's, then I'm interested. Then I'm in. That's why I rather like Ron Paul, despite vehemently disagreeing with him on a few matters.

What we need is long-term budgetary planning. We need to look 25 years ahead. The way government works now, we're fortunate if they look 4 years ahead.

-Arrian

[chequita guevara]

The government, like corporations, does not get rewarded in the "marketplace" for long term thinking. Furthermore, once a short sighted political party (the GOP) gets in office, they can and usually do, wreck any sort of long term plans.

Frankly, the only solution is a reboot.

[The Mad Monk]

That's completely absurd. As a percentage of the GDP, our national debt is lower than most of the West.

On the off chance you hadn't noticed, most of the West is in trouble, too.

I'll be happy to cut military spending, they can pick up the slack.

[Ramo]

They're not in trouble because of their national balance sheets. You see, the financial industry over the past decade ended up being a house of cards. At some point since last September, someone might have discussed this with you.

You're asserting that a debt/GDP ratio that is well within the norm of across the whole damn developed world over the past several decades (and in fact is on the low side) is somehow unsustainable. Right, dude.

[KrazyHorse]

That's completely absurd. As a percentage of the GDP, our national debt is lower than most of the West.

Here's a question for you:

why is it that when US sources quote Canadian "public debt" they include debt owed by provinces and municipalities, yet when they quote US "public debt" they include only national debt?