In a post discussing why spending, not revenue, is the problem:
Here is a good bipartisan idea: Congress should repeal any piece of legislation that was passed last year on party lines only. I can think of a few.
Simple and smart. And as for the objection that the president will simply veto them, fine. It will provide clarity for the next election.
Clarity? What a concept.
Do any of them want clarity (including the good guys???)
Both articles have good ideas. Spending is without the slightest doubt at all the primary problem. Notice how the media is trying to destroy anyone that wants to cut spending. How? Ironically by demanding clarity… “what specifically would you cut?”
The attack on spending has to be a coordinated attack. Pick a target. Focus on it. Get it done. Pick the next target.
I promise you once a target is chosen the media will try to defocus, “what about this spending?” We just need to agree it’s worth looking at as well, as soon as we’re done here… then just ignore the media and continue making cuts.
Getting their votes and vetoes on the record… but of course.
I heard some smug smooth thirtysomething Obamabot bastard on KPCC this morning talking about “our” “need” to “raise more revenue.” The distinction between he and an aristocrat in the court of Louid XIV talking about the “need” to “raise more revenue” out of those miserable peasants to fund the King’s latest war/palace/mistress is too fine for me to measure.
You know what, schmuck? It’s not your money. If you want some money, go out and earn some. Build something. Service someone’s need. Convince some Joe Ordinary to voluntarily shell out his hard-earned cash to you, in return for what you do.
I am so sick of these crypto Robin Hoods who brazenly talk about “our” need to steal money from some of us, to give to others of us, while paying his (Robin’s) handsome salary. Decimate these fools. That’s the only way I can think to have them crawl back under the rocks. I can’t believe how shameless they are about their armed robber ways these days. Blech.
Decimation’s not enough. That would leave 90% of them.
Decimation: to select by lot and kill every tenth man. I didn’t know this specific definition. I just thought it meant a almost complete annihilation. Apparently the Romans used it as a form of military discipline. I should have realized something like that from its Latin root.
You’re both right. Decimation is a good start but not nearly enough (even with the broader definition.) The whole idea of turning freemen into slaves by the theft of taxation needs to be completely rooted out and destroyed.
At the same time, services that the constitution outlines in the strictest sense must be understood and paid for. Government also needs to keep its promises to those it’s stolen from for decades while transitioning to better systems.
That’s why it’s perfectly reasonable (something the left thinks is a contradiction and loves to ridicule) for members of the TP to not want govt. to decimate services that citizens have been forcefully made to paid for like social security and medicare.
Regardless of the rest, getting rid of the thieving bastards that don’t understand whose money it is, is definitely a good start.
People who use “decimate” because they think it sounds more erudite than “devastate” ought to be annihilated.
I wonder how hungry these people would be for “revenue raising” if there was nothing taken out of paychecks for taxes and they had to pay the government everything they owed them the day before election day?
Well, I wonder how hungry these people would be for “revenue raising” if all those whose “revenue” was “raised” were allowed, after a period, to decide whether it had been well-spent — and were allowed to take whatever corrective consequence to the person of the “revenue raiser” seemed fit.
Oh dear, you promised me your healthcare bill would lower my costs, and it turns out not to. Bend over.
If I annihilate your devastate would that decimate your erudite?