Steeler

Both Republicans and Democrats buy constituent votes. And pay off industry supporters, and toss money into deep holes where campaign finance trolls live. And make promises about legislation that they don't intend to keep. And pass self-serving legislation in the middle of the night to avoid scrutiny. It's only in matters of scale and circumstance that the parties really differ on these points. Presently, IMO, the Republicans are the greater offenders in terms of runaway spending. That will likely change, but it's not a partisan thing.

__________________

AMosely

The parties have their own interests in mind, and try to incorporate their constituents if it suits them. Both parties buy constituent votes, and both tend to be irresponsible and sometimes wasteful with taxpayer money. Assuming that is a given, I'd rather have democrats spending on social programs than republicans spending on big business and defense spending. Even those can be twisted, with profiteering on social programs and business spending 'trickling down' to those who need the benefits - but in the end it's how the parties interpret the basic role of the government, and there are fundamental, unavoidable differences there.

Ferris Bueller

Heres a thought: perhaps for one year, we should put 25% of the national budget into education, and by that I mean a direct influx of cash to improving existing schools, building new ones, getting new textbooks, paying teachers better, hiring new teachers, etc. You know, things that would actually prove to benefit the educational system in the country. Hell, the "no child left behind" thing, which is and has been a colossal flop, cost 1.9 billion bucks on a national level, not counting the 300-500 million it costs each of the states to implement the tests. Imagine the payoffs in 20 years if we actually started cranking out smart people from our country's public education systems!

Then again, this is the exact thing the politicians wouldnt like, simply because a legion of intelligent, well informed voters would minimize the effect that spewing bull**** to the public has on garnering support to their meaningless causes.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

leejo

See I prefer the exact opposite. "Defense spending" likely includes research into alternative energy sources and uses, for example. It's what gave us the internet. It also secures the world's shipping lanes. I LOVE "Defense Spending".

I don't really know what you mean by republican spending on big business? It seems to me that you're doing what Switchcraft said - using "tax cuts" and "spending" interchangeably. In any case, big business creates more jobs and more wealth than all the world's social programs combined, so if we have to pick one or the other, I'll spend on big business, thanks.

Bernout

Personally I don't care who controls Congress as long as they get their spending under control. Unfortunately there isn't any big incentive for them to do so. Just like there isn't any incentive for them to stop giving raises to themselves.

There's a credit crisis all right and it doesn't only apply to individuals.

Bernout

__________________

|TG-MD6| TG Primer

MagnaCentipede

You don't need 25% of the national budget into education. I expect we could put a textbook for self-teaching of the appropriate "grade" level into the hands of every willing student with tax incentives alone.

__________________

AMosely

Of course you do. This is why so many wealthy Americans - especially those whose incomes are directly proportional to profit margins - support the republican party. Catering to the interests of the weathy will undoubtedly create more wealth - except that in a society like that, there is no authority left to support the public interest. Life becomes wonderful for some, and less wonderful for most. This is the growing condition in America today.

I must correct you on one point - DARPA didn't give anyone the Internet any more than Al Gore did. DARPA fast-tracked the concept of a packet-switched telecommunications network. Tim Berners-Lee and Bob Metcalf are probably as close as you can come to the answer of who or what gave you the Internet as it's known today. Yes there was funding from DARPA, but even more funding came out of (and through) Xerox PARC after ARPANET was detatched from the DoD in 1983. It's also worth pointing out that the US telecommunications industry (which carries a large portion the Internet) is generally accepted as one of the more successful models of government regulation.

A tax cut is spending if you look at it from the perspective of the population - you are cutting what at one time was 'their' money. You're also towing a political line here with big business creating more jobs, and therefore wealth, and wealth trickles down to everyone. That's a certain brand of economics - it is not simple fact. The debate over economic theory is beyond the scope of this thread, but it needs to be said on both of these subjects - tax cuts and the economics of wealth - that there are competing theories based on ones perspective.

xTYBALTx

Mosely - You know that you don't have to be rich to gain from corporate profits, right? Most if not all 401k and pension funds derive their returns directly from corporate profits - in fact, you yourself can sign up for Ameritrade and join in on the corporate profits gravy train. Your own income will be directly proportional to corporate profits in no time!

__________________
Current good song: Justice - Stress

leejo

That's a well-crafted, and totally incorrect argument. FWIW when I "became" a republican I had probably less than $5k in assets and no job. Maybe it's the act of embracing the tenets of personal integrity and responsibility that lead to the creation of wealth? Not thinking of other people's hard-earned money as "ours"? Rolling up my sleeves and fixing *my* problems for myself instead of bitching about how the man is keeping me down?

But yeah, I do alright today.

A DARPA grant did exactly what it's supposed to do - fast-track interesting and promising technologies. The fact that more investment flowed in once a proof-of-concept existed and after the detachment from DARPA is, again, to be expected. Once the bleeding-edge technology has been created in part with DARPA funds and the technology enters the private sector, I would expect investment to increase by a factor of 100. At least until people like you get grumpy at all the "fat cats" in the newly-created sector and take all the money back from them for your social programs.

With all due respect, and I did say with ALL due respect, You are just laughable here.

Who is this "you" of whom you speak? Keep me out of your totalitarian fantasies!

Elwenil

I'll give my final comments on this thread here. I honestly don't care who is spending what, as long as it's not money thrown away. If we spend it for war, medical, realistic science, that's fine, if we spend it on monkey research in another country or some pocket padding BS for the administration's buddies, I'm against it. Generally this is what I dislike about the Republican party, but I usually vote Republican since they are still the lesser of two evils.

On the thought of taxes, since these two issues are so closely related, I support a flat tax. I don't give a damn about if you make $12k a year or $12 million, we should all pay the same percentage of your income in taxes. That's the only fair thing to do and would certainly balance out a lot of the widening gaps between the lower, middle and upper financial classes. We pay the same percentage in sales tax, why should we not pay the same percentage in income taxes?

__________________
|TG|Elwenil

ScratchMonkey

Here's a thought: Let's put ZERO percent of the national budget into education and refund all that revenue back to the people to pay in their local and state taxes. I see no reason the Feds need to pull all that money to DC, pocket a bit, and then dribble it back to us with lots of strings attached.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

Some nice graphs:

http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/poster/

http://www.federalbudget.com/

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

__________________

Switchcraft

This is absolutely ridiculous.

1. You are not "cutting what at one time was 'their' money." You are changing the amount the government is going to take next time. That is not spending. It is not a "theory," it is a simple fact. If every year I stole two televisions, but one year I decided to only steal one, I did not spend a TV. Likewise, even if you could prove that reducing income taxes somehow ended up reducing the overall income for the government, that would not equal an "increase" in spending. If the government chose to spend the same amount after an income decrease as it did prior, that might equal an increase in debt, which is obviously not the same thing. Even if you lose your job, it's not like your rent changes. You might need to spend more than you are suddenly bringing in, but you don't say "Gosh, I'm spending more," you say "wow, I need to spend less.

2. The idea that "the debate over economic theory is beyond the scope" of a thread titled "fiscal responsibility" is silly. How could one hope to have an honest discussion of what fiscal responsibility means if one doesn't even understand basic economics? You have an obviously mistaken understanding of the meanings of basic fiscal terms. "Lower income" and "more spending" are radically different concepts, and yet you are certainly willing to misuse them in order to further your own theories. Telling people not to debate you when you make claims about how the system works is pretty obnoxious.

leejo

One small correction. What most people do in this situation is neither get a cheaper apartment nor cut spending on things like beer and games. Most people say what the government is saying now, and I paraphrase: "Dad! Help me!"

Most people postpone making any cuts in their spending or changes in their habits until every possible alternative to facing reality has been exhausted. But the first move is to seek a bailout.

Rincewind

It's a damn shame too.

__________________
~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~
No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett

<---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are.

Required Reading for all TG sandboxers