Terminating welfare would be a huge start.

 

Now there's a novel idea! Allow faith based organizations to help those who are truly in need.:thumb:

Allow for privatization of SS. SS should never have been passed in 1935. It is a prime example of why government should stay out of our personal lives. You may call it borrowing, but there never has been a seperate fund for SS. It is a pay as you go system. Once again this is an example of why we should not have big government programs that are not delegated. The government, no matter who is in charge, will take the money and spend it.

 

To change the program from the current one to the new one will not be easy and may take 50-75 yrs to change over. The promises to the baby-boomers and older must be kept. The new program will not take over until the baby-boomers are gone.

 

Ditto.:thumb: The less government interference we have into our personal lives the better in my very humble opinion. :thumb:

Raising the income tax rate on the middle class WILL NOT strengthen the economy nor will the taxes be enough to put the budget in the BLACK. This country runs on the economy provided by the middle class. Not on the backs of those on welfare or still in school or on the backs of the wealthiest. The fact that ClintBama vote this way and to maintain earmarks show you they are out for themselves and anyone the government is supporting. They want us to carry the burden of the taxes. I feel the Fair Tax is the best plan for all "AMERICANS"

 

The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.

 

The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 1025) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.

 

The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.

 

The FairTax:

 

• Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
  
• Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
  
• Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
  
• Allows American products to compete fairly
  
• Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
  
• Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
  
• Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
  
• Abolishes the IRS (which is a jobs program for CPA's and Tax Lawyers)
  

 

With the Fair Tax those that fly under the radar not paying taxes would have to pay their fair share. There are no loopoles and no one is exempt. Illegals would pay their fair share as well, every time they buy gas, food, clothing or any other new product.

"The House passed its $3 trillion budget plan by a 212-207 vote. It would provide generous increases to domestic programs but bring the government's ledger back into the black, but only by letting all of Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010 as scheduled."

 

You want a balanced budget you need revenue. The Bushies have blown the budget surplus straight to heck and the Dems are trying to bring it back into the black. Plus we have a war to pay for.

 

Not really in the BLACK, the US Government has spent more than it has taken in every year since 1969. Even when spending has been close to revenue the service on the current debt has offset any savings.

Social Security was one of the best programs ever conceived. It was brought about at a time that elderly folks were having to stand in soup lines and it was an insurance policy that all Americans had. There was a separate fun for SS but it has been ravaged to pay for other things (more weapons, wars, etc.) and in an effort to deplete SS to the point that privitization could be forced upon the public. In 2000 we had a budged surplus that Al Gore proposed putting into SS but he was laughed at for his "lock box" idea. Change could be made rather quickly by simply raising the cap on SS. Do this and possibly take some of the cash going to Iraq and put it into SS and it's pretty solvent.

 

Your statement is exactly what I refer to as what is constitutional and what is made-up to look as constitutional. The military is a Delegated power and SS is not. Even if we are out of Iraq or never went in, the idea of SS not is a Delegated power.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Interstate Highways, Postal Service to name a few.

I wouldn't call SS, Medicare, and Medicaid proven programs. And the postal service is self supportive.

If you think Medicare is a proven program then you obviously have never worked in the health care industry.

 

There are so many hoops to jump through you feel like a circus performer and they don't even reimburse enough to cover costs.

Now there's a novel idea! Allow faith based organizations to help those who are truly in need.:thumb:

 

If the faith based organizations were doing it, there would not be a need for the government to step in.

 

Unfortunately our faith based institutions are more concerned with keeping their organizations doctrinally pure and not helping the poor of this and other countries (read Baptist Home for Children).

Ditto.:thumb: The less government interference we have into our personal lives the better in my very humble opinion. :thumb:

 

So there should not be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or the state shouldn't require that women get ultrasounds before an abortion. I agree with you whole heartedly.

Terminating welfare would be a huge start.

 

We have discussed before the small percentage of the federal budget that goes to programs like WIC etc., so eliminating it would not even be a start, much less a huge one.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, The Interstate Highways, Postal Service to name a few.

 

You gave me some perfect examples. The postal service runs at a 2 billion dollar loss annually. Yet we have UPS, DHL, FedEx that manage to turn a profit. I like the current highway system. I can earn a better rate than the 1.4% that the government is earning on social security dollars. Heck you could privatize it and give only the option of investing in US government bonds and do 100% better than the 1.4% that the government is earning on those tax dollars. Social Security is a joke, and as far as I am concerned, if I was given the option of allowing the government to keep close to the 65K in taxes that I have already paid into the system for the last 17 years and allow me to completely opt out of it right now and instead let me take that 6% of my income I pay and the 6% of income that my employer pays and invest that money on my own. I have prioritized my life and dollars to pay for health insurance. Yes that cost has increased, but it is something that I deem a necessary priority worth paying for, instead of spending those dollars on a more expensive car or a nicer vacation. So medicaid and medicare are unecessary to me. The only thing proven about those you listed, is that they are proven to be run extremely inefficiently by the government and the fewer of my tax dollars that go to that ineffectiveness the better IMO.

So there should not be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage or the state shouldn't require that women get ultrasounds before an abortion. I agree with you whole heartedly.

 

I said the less government the better. However, in these two instances I would go with having a ban and the requirement for parental notification and ultrasounds. Of course, you knew I would say this.

If the faith based organizations were doing it, there would not be a need for the government to step in.

 

Unfortunately our faith based institutions are more concerned with keeping their organizations doctrinally pure and not helping the poor of this and other countries (read Baptist Home for Children).

 

Doctrine is important. I don't blame them for wanting to keep it pure but I don't see how that would affect them giving assistance to those who truly needed it. . . . not just those looking for a handout. Our church has helped many truly needy people. However, we never give them cash, if they say they need food we provide them with food, if they need a utility bill paid, we pay it. If they just want cash and won't take the offer for us to handle it . . . that is a tell tell sign they wanted to use it for "other" things than what they mentioned.

If the faith based organizations were doing it, there would not be a need for the government to step in.

 

Unfortunately our faith based institutions are more concerned with keeping their organizations doctrinally pure and not helping the poor of this and other countries (read Baptist Home for Children).

 

Until the Great Depression local government and churches did take care of most of the problems. But the Depression created too great a crisis for them to handle. The feds stepped in, but failed to get out after the Depression was over. And created a huge government giveaway that no one wanted to get rid of.

 

As far as help goes my church turns down no one. We just try to make sure they are in need and as mentioned in another quote "no cash" is handed out for the same reason as he stated.

Until the Great Depression local government and churches did take care of most of the problems. But the Depression created too great a crisis for them to handle. The feds stepped in, but failed to get out after the Depression was over. And created a huge government giveaway that no one wanted to get rid of.

 

As far as help goes my church turns down no one. We just try to make sure they are in need and as mentioned in another quote "no cash" is handed out for the same reason as he stated.

 

You guys think that the 5 or 10 people you help a month or a week puts an end to poverty. You have got to be kidding me. Maybe if you give them a job or job training you may begin to make a dent, but paying a heating bill or purchasing groceries really has no impact on systemic poverty.