BOTH, and I mean BOTH......

[gimmethesimplelife]

political parties spend way too much money. It does not matter if the GOP or the Dems are running the show, our elected officials spend too much money. Would not most of us here agree with that much?

It so happens that as a liberal I prefer the Democratic spending priorities/patterns over GOP military above all else spending, but still....too much money is being spent, no?

So here's my question, for both sides of the aisle: What do we do about this? Rob

[Tenngal]

I have no idea what to do about it but I am tired of the dog and pony show served to us by the politicians and media to serve as a distraction while we are being robbed blind and cannot even make a living in this country.

[bae]

So here's my question, for both sides of the aisle: What do we do about this? Rob

Burn the system to the ground and start over.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Burn the system to the ground and start over.There are times I would agree with you here, Bae.......this thought has crossed my mind before. Rob

[gimmethesimplelife]

I have no idea what to do about it but I am tired of the dog and pony show served to us by the politicians and media to serve as a distraction while we are being robbed blind and cannot even make a living in this country.I agree with you 100% Tenngal. Rob

[ToomuchStuff]

political parties spend way too much money. It does not matter if the GOP or the Dems are running the show, our elected officials spend too much money. Would not most of us here agree with that much?

It so happens that as a liberal I prefer the Democratic spending priorities/patterns over GOP military above all else spending, but still....too much money is being spent, no?

So here's my question, for both sides of the aisle: What do we do about this? Rob

Well, how do you mean?
By your first question, I think Alan would agree with you that in office, they spend money both in ways that we would not like and in totals we would not like. Now you and Alan may disagree on what (or even how much), but agree that too much of OUR, the taxpayers money, is spent. So both of you should agree that the less you have to pay in taxes the better. That is both a legal matter as well as a mater of avoiding (not evading) taxes.

But if your talking about campaign finance reform, well then your getting into the area's of free speech and telling people what they can do with their money, and I am guessing even you have a problem with that. (you must fund your local police department)

[Alan]

I guess you're talking about spending on the Federal level rather than State or Local, right? If so, it might help to remember that the only reason we have a Federal Government is to arbitrate disputes among the states, negotiate with other countries and provide a national defense. So, those should be the priorities, all additional assumed responsibilities were added in order to buy your vote, and you're expensive.

[LDAHL]

In fairness to the people we send to office, I think we give them some pretty inconsistent marching orders. We want spending on all kinds of goodies but we want somebody else to pay. We want government in charge of our health care but we don’t want government to tell us what kind of health care we can have. Some of want to be Western Europe, but we would chafe at the taxes and regimentation that would involve.

When people like Paul Ryan try speaking to us like adults, we bang our spoons on our high chairs and tell him how cruel and unfeeling he is.

I think there’s some truth to that line about getting the government we deserve.

[Gardenarian]

I don't know. Campaign finance reform never makes it out of committee. The inmates are ruling the asylum.

[ToomuchStuff]

I don't know. Campaign finance reform never makes it out of committee. The inmates are ruling the asylum.

It would pass in the same bill as line item veto, and eliminating congress from being exempt from the same rules as everyone else.
I think Vegas may be giving odds on that one.:idea:

[Williamsmith]

1.Welfare/warfare state
2. Weak Congress - no backbone ... leaches that do anything to stay in office
3. Congress doesn’t believe deficits matter
4. According to CNBC’s Rick Santelli the Feds spend $52,000/ second.
5. Cut foreign expenditures / military industrial complex expenditures that’s a good start.
6. Get rid of the Federal Reserve.

[Rogar]

I think term limits would solve a few of these. It seems like as soon as a politician is elected he's already planning his next campaign.

I could see a case being made for a few of the limits Alan has outlined. Let some of the responsibilities of the Federal government revert back to the states where a smaller organization is more easily managed and large bureaucracies are eliminated. Let the states who want good roads and bridges or good government assisted medical care have them and those who would rather have low taxes and fewer bennies have that. That could work out a lot of the big divisions in the country.

Give all tax payers a receipt showing exactly how much of their income tax dollars at all levels go where. No idea how to control military spending. Maybe ask Canada how that works.

None of that seems much more likely that burn down and start over.

edit to add, End subsidies to private sectors such as big ag and oil and allow prices to reach more of a free market value.

[iris lilies]

I don't know. Campaign finance reform never makes it out of committee. The inmates are ruling the asylum.
This jogged me to say: the campaign finance laws around here seem to be many and rigid.

So many local politicians get caught up in them, from our Alderman (she bought clothing with campaign money) to our governor (he used an unapproved list of people to contactt for fund raising) to an almost- Congressman (he sent out mailers that had wrong words printed, and he went to jail for lying about it *)and these are just the very few instances I can think of off the top of my head.

I dont know if these are state or national laws, but I honestly think the laws are there, well many are there anyway. Laws dont solve problems, ya’ll.

if we could legislate away pur problems, we would have done that.

*Jeff Smith was a rising star in our local Democratic Party scene and screwed in his campaign literature, lied about it to the FBI, and went to prison for the lying. He is so cute and sincere and charismatic that even I, Republican curmudgeon, followed him and am a Jeff groupie.

[LDAHL]

6. Get rid of the Federal Reserve.

What have you got against central banks?

[Gardenarian]

I think federal regulation of campaign finance would make enormous differences.

I wish we were like Great Britain, with no long term build up to campaigns, no adtvertising, people vote on the candidate's reputation, background, and political platform. If course they have troubled too, but they are not stuck with this busted 2 party system.

Campaign donations on a large scale are simply bribes.

[Williamsmith]

What have you got against central banks?. The federal reserve system is designed to maximize the creation of debt, is the single controller of world “wealth” and is so powerful that a simple statement regarding interest rate policy can send the markets tumbling. The federal reserve is doing the job that Congress is charged with. The federal government doesn’t print money, the federal reserve does and the the government borrows it and circulates it. Meantime, the bonds that the federal reserve creates gets auction to the highest bidders. Creating our debt to the rest of the world with interest that needs to be paid. Our economy can’t grow fast enough for the government to both run and service the debt.

Congress could instead creat debt free money with no central bank policy and no income tax. This would be a true free market economy.

[happystuff]

Shouldn't this be under politics instead of religion? Just asking....

[LDAHL]

. The federal reserve system is designed to maximize the creation of debt, is the single controller of world “wealth” and is so powerful that a simple statement regarding interest rate policy can send the markets tumbling. The federal reserve is doing the job that Congress is charged with. The federal government doesn’t print money, the federal reserve does and the the government borrows it and circulates it. Meantime, the bonds that the federal reserve creates gets auction to the highest bidders. Creating our debt to the rest of the world with interest that needs to be paid. Our economy can’t grow fast enough for the government to both run and service the debt.

Congress could instead creat debt free money with no central bank policy and no income tax. This would be a true free market economy.

What form would “debt free money” take? What would the government financing model look like post income tax?

[Williamsmith]

What form would “debt free money” take? What would the government financing model look like post income tax?

If you want a peek at what it would look like, just return to pre 1913 America. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is not acting in the interest of the American Economy because it is run by the big banks. The financial model is one where Congress takes back it’s mandate to issue and regulate money.

[LDAHL]

If you want a peek at what it would look like, just return to pre 1913 America. Before the creation of the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve is not acting in the interest of the American Economy because it is run by the big banks. The financial model is one where Congress takes back it’s mandate to issue and regulate money.

Personally, I think the Fed does a pretty decent job of regulating the money supply. I would certainly have concerns about subjecting it to the caprice of politicians. Some people talk about getting money out of politics. I worry about getting politics out of money. I absolutely wouldn’t want us to return to the chaotic period that preceded 1913.

It’s probably inevitable that a complex function like central banking would attract conspiracy theories. My favorite is that they killed JFK over an Executive Order relating to silver certificates. There also seem to be some who believe that the Rothschild family controls all the world’s central banks.

[ToomuchStuff]

Shouldn't this be under politics instead of religion? Just asking....


Politics are some peoples religion. (and of course they use the "belief in god" to grab demographics)