2016 Presidential Campaign

[arkansasbob]

I have a theory that when a society is committed to the Rule of Law, the sheer number of laws -- and by extension, the size of govt -- will necessarily increase or decrease as a function of population.

I think this is manifested by the tendency of many small govt advocates to gravitate toward rural areas. (Fewer people => fewer laws => less govt)

I guess I don't share yalls skepticism of govt because, to me, it's simply a natural occurrence of a large, advanced, Rule of Law society. Yes, corruption sucks and resources are misallocated and priorities misplaced. Those are all areas calling for improvement.

But 'shrinking' govt cannot be a valid solution unless you want to 1) abandon the Rule of Law or 2) substantially reduce population.

i don't know about others that want to shrink the government, but my main motivation is not to reduce the number of laws. my main concern is the lack of sustainability economically. we are to the point that increasing taxes on the productive will decrease their productivity (and as a result, overall taxes collected). we can't tax our way out of this financial hole, so only two options remain:
1) continue plunging headlong into bankruptcy or
2) reduce government spending significantly.

[RougeDawg]

That may be what John Adams meant when he said,

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


The more immoral we become, the bigger the government becomes, and the bigger the government becomes the more corrupt the nation becomes.

Doesn't work well for a population of dumbasses either.

[Champ967]

so only two options remain:
1) continue plunging headlong into bankruptcy or
2) reduce government spending significantly.

You wanna cut Defense, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid?

Cuz just about everything else is chump change.

we are to the point that increasing taxes on the productive will decrease their productivity

I know that's axiomatic for many, but count me as a skeptic.

Even if true, it may be a chance we have to take.

[dawg80]

So, IF abortion is illegal (as it should be) and someone has an abortion, performs an abortion, conspires (pays for) to cause an abortion then ALL have participated in a crime.

So, YES the woman should be punished, right along with the doctor, and the father of that child if he willfully aided in the murder of that child. How can the woman NOT be punished!? You don't get to conspire to commit a crime and get off scott free. The world has gone nuts!

If abortion is made illegal...then having an abortion is a crime! Period.

[Bigdog13]

Maybe, but it seems even less likely to be passed.

At the end of the day, a LARGE portion of the country pays nothing and they would revolt if their sales taxes tripled over night.

It wouldn't. They get subsidies.

[Bigdog13]

You wanna cut Defense, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid?

Cuz just about everything else is chump change.

I know that's axiomatic for many, but count me as a skeptic.

Even if true, it may be a chance we have to take.

That's a myth. Those three are huge but everything else adds up. And we CAN cut defense.

Was reading a story the other day about how several generals said we didn't need a tank a congressman was trying to get funded. The generals basically said they had plenty and didn't need anymore. They had extras literally collecting dust. But guess what? The plant that builds them is in the congressman's district and he pushed and pushed. Labeled congressmen that were against it weak on defense and guess what? Even though the consensus was we didn't need these tanks the plant got awarded a new contract.

Another example, why do we send tanks and F16's to Egypt????? They burn our flag and we reward them with Fighter Planes. Cruz and Rand Paul voted against this, but my other Republican Senator, John Cornyn voted for it. People like Cornyn are exactly why conservatives become Libertarians and start sitting out elections. True fiscal conservatives are not welcome in the Republican party anymore.

You CAN cut defense spending and still be conservative and pro-military. Rand Paul was the only Republican that understood this.

(Obviously this entire post wasn't directed to you Champ. Mostly the first part.)

[JuBru]

Rand Paul should not be your standard barer for that.

[Woof!]

That's a myth. Those three are huge but everything else adds up. And we CAN cut defense.

Yep, if the DOD cut the amount they wasted in half, there would be enough money for them to buy everything on their wish list.

[Champ967]

That's a myth. Those three are huge but everything else adds up. And we CAN cut defense.

Myth is a strong word. But then I guess 'chump change' was also hyperbole.

My point remains that you cant have a serious conversation about a balanced budget without discussing the Big 3.

[Cool Hand Clyde]

Myth is a strong word. But then I guess 'chump change' was also hyperbole.

My point remains that you cant have a serious conversation about a balanced budget without discussing the Big 3.

Gotta pay off all those loans too. FYI, military spending isn't as much as most liberals claim especially as a percentage of GDP, which is how many would measure it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmcc.../#467eedcb4064

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/a...t-in-pictures/

[Woof!]

FYI, military spending isn't as much as most liberals claim especially as a percentage of GDP, which is how many would measure it.

Just one ship can cost $13 billion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...cular-debacle/

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Just one ship can cost $13 billion.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...cular-debacle/

That's about 10 seconds of democrat spending on wasteful, enabling, ridiculous and nonworking welfare, education, "green" projects and government regulation efforts.

[arkansasbob]

You wanna cut Defense, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid?

Cuz just about everything else is chump change.

yes, we should cut defense, and probably medicare/medicaid, too. but there is plenty more that can and should be cut.

I know that's axiomatic for many, but count me as a skeptic.

Even if true, it may be a chance we have to take.

it is absolutely true for folks that spend capital to make money. the one exception is the middle class folks that work for someone else. raising their taxes does not decrease their productivity, but it does reduce their consumption. they (we) are the biggest carrot for taxes, but they (we) also drive the economy. so either way, you are not going to significantly increase per capita tax revenues, at least not long-term.

[Woof!]

That's about 10 seconds of democrat spending on wasteful, enabling, ridiculous and nonworking welfare, education, "green" projects and government regulation efforts.

Just one example example, but as Champ967 said, just "chump change" for people who like corporate welfare and wasteful military spending.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Just one example example, but as Champ967 said, just "chump change" for people who like corporate welfare and wasteful military spending.

Now that is an ignorant statement.