Speak Out: Big Government vs. Small Government

Replies (79)

• Stnmsn8,

  Some people are fit to govern and some are not in my opinion. I watched government in one of it's smaller formats in a number of small organizations. Some men, and I say men because that was primarily what these organizations were made up of, could be elected to serve a term as President of the organization, do a good job and step back at the end of their term and become a good member again. Others simply could not become a "commoner" again and would most often quit attending meetings and you heard little of them afterwards. At least most of the organizations I belonged to had term limits on the positions of officers of the association.

  Maybe not a good analogy, but it seems that today our ever growing government is composed of people who considered themselves born to rule, and manage to create crises to make themselves needed , thereby growing the government. Very few seem to want to take their turn at the helm and then when it is over allow someone with new ideas to step to the plate.

  Big question.... how do we get rid of these egomaniacs and return to a smaller more representative of the people government?

  We also need to to stop politics from becoming the road to wealth. Some of our best Presidents in my opinion left the job with little more than they went in with. They did not sell the office of President for a profit after they term was over. There was a lot I did not like about Harry Truman, but there were a couple of things I did like. Among them his refusal to sell the office in spite of the face that he was a man of pretty modest means, and another, he could make a decision without taking a poll.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 12:25 PM

• Wheels,

  People fail to recognize there is a difference between ruling and governing. Governing requires the permission of those who are governed and is a temporary position/condition in which the welfare of the group holds precedence over those who are temporarily in charge. Ruling elevates an individual to a position of importance over those ruled.

  The individuals you mentioned were elected to represent a group of equal individuals but mistook that election to be an elevation of their personal status. We must always be careful not to stroke the egos of those we select to represent us. They already have enough people willing to tell them they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.

  When those who govern over us make use of their position to exempt themselves from the rules they establish for the rest of us we are already suffering under tyranny.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 1:42 PM

• Great thread, stn!

  "Big question.... how do we get rid of these egomaniacs and return to a smaller more representative of the people government?"

  Term limits?

  Campaign time limits?

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 1:57 PM

• Mom,

  It is up to us. Returning to smaller government requires an educated electorate who are aware of the checks and balances built into the system by our forefathers. They must be able to see through the smokescreen that politicians put up and willing to cast their votes according the welfare of the country rather than asking their representatives to 'bring the pork home'.

  Make it simpler for an individual to qualify to get on the ballot. Remove any party affiliation symbols from the ballot. Break the stranglehold that the two major political parties have on our electoral system. Make sure that all your children and grandchildren have a basic understanding of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence! I could go on and on......but I won't.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 2:08 PM

• The government answers to the people, if government gets to big it is completely reversed. I'm for a smaller, stream lined and more efficient government with less micro managing but a strong leadership.

  -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Wed, Jan 4, 2012, at 4:25 PM

• "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny"

  Thomas Jefferson

  -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Jan 5, 2012, at 10:27 AM

• "Big government and individual liberty are two ideas which are diametrically opposed."

  This is a concept that is often advocated by conservatives, but has little basis in common sense or reality.

  First and foremost the "problem" depends on the definition of "big government." The size of government as measured by personnel numbers has been reduced over the past twenty years from a high of 5.15 million in 1991 to a low of 4.13 million in 2000 to a current 4.44 million in 2010. The non-military numbers have been more consistent ranging from 2.70 million in 2000 to 2.84 million in 2010. Therefore government is not bigger from the standpoint actual numbers.

  During that same period from 1991 to 2010 the GDP has risen from $5.9 trillion to a high of about $14.5 trillion in 2010, or an increase of about 145%. In 1991 the government expenditures were about $ 1.32 trillion and in 2010 they were about $ 3.45 trillion, or an increase of 161%. In addition to the GDP increase, there has been a population increase, a recession with accompanying unemployment and recovery expenses, two foreign conflicts, and a variety of increased medical services for prescription drugs, and a relatively minor inflation increase. Therefore the higher government expenditures have valid reasons other than just growing for the sake of "bigger government."

  It would appear that the government is not simply growing solely for the purpose of curtailing individual liberty. Along that line it is highly questionable that size of government and individual liberty have any direct correlation at all.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  "...an individual must believe that government will spend money more wisely than the individual will."

  Obviously, all of the funds that the government comes from taxes and the spending is directed by both the legislative and executive branches of government. The amount of taxation is subject to variation based on income and tax exemptions, deductions, etc. The government expends funds for salaries, materials, equipment, and various transfers to individuals, businesses, countries, etc. The individual spends money on personal and family needs. So the outlays by government and the individual are totally different from the standpoint what funds are spent for.

  So to claim that the individual will spend money more "wisely" than government is a badly chosen argument. They are not comparable endeavors. Support for government of whatever size does not imply that people cannot be "trusted" to provide for their own needs. Likewise support for government does not make any manner of judgment on the "moral and ethical standards of the general public," and particularly does not condemn them as being "low." There are obviously a wide range of federal, state and local laws that that do establish and enforce standards and guidelines but these are essentially independent of "big/small government" issues.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  "...those who support small government must believe that the rights and liberties of the individual are pre-eminent. They must also believe that the individual will make the wisest use of his wealth..."

  Here again, there is a situation where the conclusions are both independent of and uncorroborated by the assertion that individuals can only make wise use of their wealth if they support "small' government. It is abundantly clear that some people use their money wisely and some do not. The only real issue in this "use of money" comparison is how much of an individual's income is taxed. The implication appears to be that all incremental increases in taxation will be used "unwisely" by the government.

  All government can and should "believe that the rights and liberties of the individual are pre-eminent" The fact that individuals are allowed to make their own choices on use of wealth is not in question. Having to pay taxes as part of citizenship should and will continue to be a normal expense of all Americans and is not contingent on the size of government.

  It is also unproven that any increase in taxation will automatically reveal that "individuals, or groups of individuals working together, can best meet the needs of the poor and work to overcome natural calamities." Likewise, an assumption that all of those supporting small government "believe that individuals have the ability to set high personal standards and discipline themselves" is a supposition that is somewhat suspect. A more probable circumstance is that there will always be some people that behave honorably and with restraint, while others do not, but principled and admirable behavior is certainly not completely reliant on the size of government they prefer.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  "... elite ruling class which has established higher moral and ethical standards and makes better decisions... and ... educated individuals who are aware of their own limitations/weaknesses, are willing and able to overcome them..."

  Neither small nor big government has any real control over the personal and ethical characteristics of the politicians or civilians that comprise the executives and staff that operate. The voters have initial say in who serves in public office, but after their installation there is less influence over their behavior in office. The obvious option that voters retain is the ability to vote people out of office. But while the functioning of government is under the general control of elected officials, the vast majority of government employees stay in place from one administration to the next.

  More significantly, it is any government (not big or only small) that "requires individuals who are willing to voluntarily place the needs of the public over their own" at all times, not just "when the need arises." In the same way, it is all government that "requires educated individuals who are aware of their own limitations/weaknesses, are willing and able to overcome them, and are willing regulate their own actions."

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  I disagree very strongly with contention that "big government and individual liberty are two ideas which are diametrically opposed." It is possible that there may have been somewhat greater "individual liberty" back a few centuries ago in an "idyllic" and pastoral age when government was significantly smaller, and the life span was about 40 years and the population density was about a tenth of what it is now.

  In recent decades, while government has grown due to a variety of reasons there has not been a significant or massive decrease in individual liberty. It seems as you can have both.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 1:24 PM

• Nothing like a bit of satire to end my posting session on! Thanks Common

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 1:31 PM

• "...wiped away 100 years of liberty..." and "...will take another 50 years of liberty..."

  Instead of measuring our "liberty" in years, try listing what real liberties you have lost.

  And please don't tell me that you actually believe the initial premise, that...

  "Big government and individual liberty are two ideas which are diametrically opposed. One can not have the one without giving up the other."

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 2:54 PM

• So it appears that you have no idea of what liberties you have "lost."

  If you think the current government is "big" there must be numerous liberties you have lost, since...

  "One can not have the one without giving up the other."

  I must be significantly more independent than some, as I am not worried that a "big bad wolf" in the form of government is coming after me.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 4:27 PM

• Just how big is big government and just how small is small government.

  Suppose it depends on your individual conception or definitions of either. Just wondering when one or the other crosses the line into the others territory.

  Anyone want to taackle the question?

  -- Posted by voyager on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 5:17 PM

• I must be significantly more independent than some, as I am not worried that a "big bad wolf" in the form of government is coming after me.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 4:27 PM

  SOME people care about paying 5 months of their income in taxes common. Some don't. I'd be one of those who is funding the "big government" that you enjoy. 5 months of your entire years income IMO is economic slavery. I am forced to pay this out of my hard labor.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 5:46 PM

• Good suggestions, stn ... (Jan 4, 2012, at 2:08 PM)

  In so many comments regarding 'government' and 'liberty' ... would like to suggest we entertain the idea of going back to, say, the 1940's or 1950's ... for those who don't believe we've lost/given up 'real liberties' ... whatever 'real' means to anyone.

  voyager: To me, 'big government' means intrusion into many aspects of our lives, perhaps in return for 'perks' we probably don't need anyway ... 'small government' means we take care of ourselves, and leave just a little actual 'governing' to ... the government. Does that even make sense? Don't know how else to say it in less than 300 words. ~sigh~

  Dug: Were you perhaps meaning ALL taxation? Thinking federal and state income tax, personal property taxes, sales taxes, SS & Medicare, etc.? Years ago I seemed to have time on my hands, and added all ours up ... yep, a huge chunk of income going to taxes of one sort or another.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 8:06 PM

• I know, Rick ... just filled the gas tank today ... GASP!

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 8:47 PM

• Dug, Unless you are single-without dependents and have your home paid for (or rent) I'm going to have to call bull ~cough~ on that statement. You might have that much withheld, but I seriously doubt Uncle Sam keeps that much of your check, if he does, you need to do some very serious financial planning.

  -- Posted by Me'Lange on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 5:52 PM

  The tax foundation said that the average worker had to work until April 15th in 2011 to pay all the taxes required. Then they can begin to earn there own. Pretty simple concept. I'm not average so I pay more. 5 months of economic slavery with no choice. And that isn't enough for Common. How about you Me'Lange? Want more of my money???

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 10:18 PM

• Easy, Fuel tax is per gallon so higher priced fuel doesn't mean higher tax.

  Big government vs small government, I think, is a discussion about the size and power of federal government.

  Many of the liberties lost are those of representation in decision making when federal implements rules through agencies instead of states enacting laws.

  Farmers may soon be facing dust regulations and need DOT numbers on trucks to haul grain from field to bins if they cross even a state road. Search warrants are nearly without probable cause restrictions and charities chosen by the federal government are financed by taking from the fruits of our labor.

  Federalize to proffesionalize was just the start of a gradual nationalizing of air transportation as public saftey demands and rules will force the privately owned airlines to accept government money that allows government control.

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 11:11 PM

• Me'lange, If I manage with the help of beans and rice and Ramen Noodles to have my house paid for, does that mean the government is justified in taking more of my earnings with tax?

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 6, 2012, at 11:16 PM

• Easy, Each gallon has about 35 cents tax. That's not 35%.

  If it cost $10 a gallon it would still have 35 cents tax on each gallon. 10 gallons would still be taxed $3.50.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 12:50 AM

• "5 months of economic slavery with no choice."

  You are apparently accepting all of the benefits, privileges, advantages, safety, security, rights, etc. of being a citizen of our country. How much do you think this is worth and how much should you be paying? One month, zero, 4 months...?

  As for there being no choice, there is not a wall around the country, you can leave anytime. Possibly Somalia, I hear they have no taxes, they don't require health insurance (although it's highly recommended.) Or move to Canada or Mexico, I'm sure you'll be much happier.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 7:00 AM

• "...half a year's work..."

  Now it is up to six months from the previous five. Same question, how many months do you think you should work to pay taxes?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 11:08 AM

• If it cost $10 a gallon it would still have 35 cents tax on each gallon. 10 gallons would still be taxed $3.50.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 12:50 AM

  Old John,

  $10 per gallon... now that is a scarey thought. You all may be rid of me for good if it goes to that. I won't be able to afford to drive home.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 11:28 AM

• If it cost $10 a gallon it would still have 35 cents tax on each gallon. 10 gallons would still be taxed $3.50.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 12:50 AM

  Old John,

  $10 per gallon... now that is a scarey thought. You all may be rid of me for good if it goes to that. I won't be able to afford to drive home.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 11:28 AM

• Now it is up to six months from the previous five. Same question, how many months do you think you should work to pay taxes?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 11:08 AM

  Common,

  If the correct number is 5 months... then 2 1/2 months should be enough for starters. Then we could work on cutting Washington in half again.

  There is no need in letting Washington be the purchasing agent for our goods and services. They are too sloppy and inefficient at it.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 11:32 AM

• 2 months is plenty to work to pay taxes.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 11:32 AM

• Wheels, Don't worry, if gas gets that expensive the county transit autorities will become federal transportaion and a $100,000 28 passenger van will arrive diven by a driver that was making $8/hr now unionized and making $25/hr. You'll be strip searched by the HLS rep making $39/hr but they will bring you back. You can go along for the ride but the bus route will be determined by upper management. :)

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 12:58 PM

• Seems to me the gas tax is more fair than the abominable income tax.

  The consumer pays a set tax per galloon purchased, not on the cost of the gallons purchased.

  Simple. What could be fairer? That should keep the bookkeeping simple and direct to the point. The consider the "progressivew" income tax with all the exemptions and special deductionhs. It has become an accounting nightmare and the crookedest game in town. Anybody care to defend it as being"fair?"

  -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 1:04 PM

• Voyager, A lot of them have been kicking around the idea of taxing folks for the miles driven. As cars get smaller and we are all driving go-carts or electically propelled plastic milk crates, less will be collected by taxing each gallon of fuel.

  If you own one of the 12 privately purchased Volts, expect someone to want to put a tax meter on the outlet you plug it into. :)

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 1:12 PM

• You are apparently accepting all of the benefits, privileges, advantages, safety, security, rights, etc. of being a citizen of our country. How much do you think this is worth and how much should you be paying? One month, zero, 4 months...?

  As for there being no choice, there is not a wall around the country, you can leave anytime. I'm sure you'll be much happier.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 7:00 AM

  First, unlike you, I don't receive all of the so-called "benefits" of this country. Never taken a dime of unemployment, social security, welfare, EIC, WIC, Section 8 housing, Food Stamps, Medicare or Medicaid. Again, with your extreme views, I never said I shouldn't pay taxes. Maybe a month's worth of income? Not nearly 5 months.

  And as for "being much happier" - nothing could make me more happy than for you and your entitlement bunch to move to Mexico or Canada. Would improve the lot for the half of the country paying the other half's free ride.

  And as for my "rights" as a citizen - according to the constitution the rights I have are God given. Not granted or modifiable by any government. Including the right to earn and keep my income.

  One question for you - what in God's name is a poor soul like you going to do if Obama loses? You are so dependent on him and the 5 months of my income it must be absolutely frightening to imagine making it on your own. I feel for you!

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 2:00 PM

• And as for my "rights" as a citizen - according to the constitution the rights I have are God given.

  CORRECTION - rights are granted by our CREATOR or :

  "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 2:15 PM

• Wheels, Don't worry, if gas gets that expensive the county transit autorities will become federal transportaion and a $100,000 28 passenger van will arrive diven by a driver that was making $8/hr now unionized and making $25/hr. You'll be strip searched by the HLS rep making $39/hr but they will bring you back. You can go along for the ride but the bus route will be determined by upper management. :)

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 12:58 PM

  Old John,

  You better get off that cockleburr juice you been drinking. You are giving Washington ideas I don't think I am ready for. ☺ ☻ ☺ ☻

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 2:40 PM

• How to raise the debt limit.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Li0no7O9zmE

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 3:29 PM

• Is that the stuff that dyes a person's tongue blue ?

  -- Posted by Easy Money on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 2:47 PM

  Don't know, never tried it. Ask Old John!

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 3:30 PM

• Easy - a table of fuel taxes, by state - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States

  If fuel prices increase, one's driving distance per tank will remain the same, however, one's cost to fill-up and related fuel cost-per-mile will increase.

  Tax-wise, it doesn't matter if the sale price of gasoline is $1 per gallon, or $10 per gallon - either way, 35.7 cents of that gallon's sale price will be fuel tax, making the effective tax rate 55.5% at $1 per gallon, or 3.7% at $10 per gallon.

  Missouri has one of the lowest gas taxes in the nation - IIRC, the national average is about 48 cents as compared to 35.7 in Missouri. So, suggest a big target painted on for any revenue increases, although met with plenty of resistance.

  -- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 6:36 PM

• Easy, Wheels, The cockleburr juice made in D.C. has a tendency to stick in one's craw. My tounge ain't blue but my eyes see red sometimes. :)

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 6:47 PM

• Figure the smaller the government, the fewer minds dedicated to figuring out ways to spend money and then looking for ways to get it. :-)

  -- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 6:58 PM

• To take last things first... You can rest assured that the outcome of this year's presidential election will have absolutely no effect what I do or how I live. Basically the question itself is ridiculous; along with speculation as to how all of the Speak Out anti-Obama fanatics will survive under a second term for President Obama. They are the ones that continuously whine about how the country will fall into a socialist/Marxist purgatory if this happens. In actuality, the country will survive in fine order, no matter who wins the 2012 election. The economy will recover in time. The Republicans have no magic bullet that will hurry the recovery.

  There is possibly some lack of understanding by some, on what the benefits and privileges of being an American. Some people appear to be mislead in supposing that all of these privileges of citizen are only monetary ones.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

  With respect to "the right to earn and keep my income."

  "...my "rights" as a citizen ... the rights I have are God given. Including the right to earn and keep my income."

  To simplify this statement... God given rights include the right to keep income.

  There have been untold numbers of Deluded Uninformed Gullible claims, statements, proclamations, avowals, and accounts that have crossed these pages, but this one really sets the bar of "laughablility" to an extremely high level.

  To argue that God says you have a right to all of your income is somewhat bizarre. Even the Bible (Matthew 22:21.) enlightened the Jews by stating "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's... "

  With all due respect to religions, I am quite sure that God does not decide who pays taxes and who does not.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 8:29 PM

• "Deluded Uninformed Gullible claims, statements, proclamations, avowals, and accounts..."

  You forgot "left wing, Obama can do no wrong" spin masters. :)

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 8:37 PM

• With all due respect to religions, I am quite sure that God does not decide who pays taxes and who does not.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 8:29 PM

  I think I've finally been able to pin your problem down - reading comprehension. That's it. Read this statement I posted above, to you:

  "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

  First, it's a "Creator" that endows us with unalienable Rights. IF your creator is the God of Abraham and IF you are Christian and not Jewish or Muslim then your bible quote from Matthew works. Also - news flash - Caeser has been dead for quite a while. Not sure what you're trying to prove with that. And finally you continue to prove out your liberal stripes - true charity comes from the hear common, not the government. So if you want to be a Christian focus on helping those less fortunate YOURSELF, and not by taxing others to do it for you. Get it? Another entitlement classic from an Obama worshipper.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 11:53 PM

• With all due respect to religions, I am quite sure that God does not decide who pays taxes and who does not.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jan 7, 2012, at 8:29 PM

  Only you said he did. When I have a "right" then I can choose to do what I want. You want to remove those rights and force us to pay 4-5 months of our hard-earned income so you can collect on the alphabet soup of government handout programs. Because I have the right it means I can choose to exercise it or not. See how that works?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 10:06 AM

• Please be reminded that I am ignorant of the Christian tenet and faith , but isn't the term tithe associated with this ?

  -- Posted by Easy Money on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 10:12 AM

  Tithe is associated with giving to the church - not to the government.

  I posted the "endowed by their Creator" so that would apply to whatever created you? And that's why common's Matthew quote is wrong. He's trying to apply a Christian bible quote to government intentions. Wrong.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 10:26 AM

• "Only you said he did."

  Actually, I said He didn't...

  - - - - - - - - -

  "...I have a "right" then I can choose to do what I want. You want to remove those rights and force us to pay 4-5 months...

  You are wrong again. I have no intent, desire nor authority to remove your "rights." However, that does not mean that you have the "right" to refuse to pay taxes. The Constitution spells it out clearly...

  AMENDMENT XVI

  Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

  Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16.

  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 4:29 PM

• However, that does not mean that you have the "right" to refuse to pay taxes.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 4:29 PM

  Not paying taxes seems to work well with you and many other Obama supporters. Seems like they don't have to pay and actually get earned-income tax credits even though they didn't pay taxes to begin with.

  Want to rephrase that statement about "refuse to pay taxes" ? You do have the right to refuse to pay taxes. Just don't get a job, sit on your bum, fill out some forms, have several kids, and MOST IMPORTANTLY vote for Obama.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 5:17 PM

• The entire tax code needs to be completely reformed where everybody pays the same tax no matter whether your rich, middle class or poor everyody pays the same rate. The government needs to get out of the refund business one consumption tax for all, this would stop the tax cheaters, people receiving refunds that have not worked at all for the year and major corporations receiving huge tax refunds. National Sales Tax everybody pays including the criminals and 20 million illegals that is in the country.

  -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 6:39 PM

• swamp -

  sounds good to me!

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 7:06 PM

• "Not paying taxes seems to work well with you..."

  More raving that boils down to Deluded Uninformed Gibberish...

  Where in the world would you get the idea that I don't pay taxes. For your information I have always paid all taxes and now pay income, personal property, sales, gas, and real estate taxes among others.

  You really need to get a grip on your flights of fancy.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 8:12 PM

• common - your lib stripes are showing. You begin to lose an argument and just like spaniard you resort to name calling? Deluded? Must have struck a nerve with you.

  Like it or not, your man Obama and his supporters want more big government. You support Obamacare - the largest increase in federal spending in decades. You support Obama wanting to raise taxes on Americans. You support Obama with his Solyndra loan losses (which you were totally wrong about), his GM buyout and losses (which you were totally wrong about) and his stimulus which was going to keep unemployment below 8% (which Obama and you were totally wrong about). Now THAT is delusional. Look it up!

  YOU said Solyndra wouldn't cost taxpayers. Wrong. YOU said the government didn't own GM shares. Wrong. Your credibility is waning.

  Didn't say you didn't pay taxes, I said you were fine with people not paying them. I said I was tired of paying for your social experiments and your only response is to push for more of it. The simple fact is I don't owe you or Obama another dime. Get it? 5 months of my income isn't enough for you? Another Obama supporter that is "entitled" to something that isn't theirs.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 8:23 PM

• "Like it or not, your man Obama and his supporters want more big government. You support Obamacare - the largest increase in federal spending in decades.

  -- Posted by Dug on Sun, Jan 8, 2012, at 8:23 PM

  Dug,

  This is where you are right...And Wrong.

  The problem is that its not just Obama. All politicians are the same.

  For instance it amazes me the people who are very crticial of obama's government healthcare are so quick to embrace Romney.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:34 AM

• lumbrg - welcome back from the abyss.

  I was/have been very critical of Bush/democrat congress in his last few years and his liberal spending.

  Is there a libertarian out there - somewhere - that can espouse the views of the movement as well as Ron Paul and be a little less off-the-wall with their comments? Paul, to me, is right about a number of things including individual rights/freedom, the federal reserve and sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. I disagree with him on Afghanistan - believe our nose needed to be there. We need to aggressively fight al Qaeda where ever. And anyone else that would train, support and finance attacks against us.

  Some of his comments are a little crazy though. If you don't mind saying - if the election comes down to Obama and Romney how would you vote? Or not at all?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 11:55 AM

• I think only a very young person would believe that our liberty has not been eaten away and that government has not become more and more intrusive. They would have nothing to which they could make a comparison.

  Anyone who pays taxes who wants others to pay more must make either money they feel they don't deserve or they don't make enough and are envious of those who do. In the first instance, there are always charities to which they can contribute or which they can start. In the second, I can only say, envy a wise man does not make.

  -- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 2:26 PM

• While I have not read the whole thread (tl;dr), this is what I have to say in response to the OP.

  A lot of what you said, in application with American politics, depends on what view you are trying to take. For example, I am a liberal, and when I say liberal I mean it in the truest sense of the word. I believe in personal freedom to the highest degree and the opposite end, I believe that there should be some forms of control on businesses to keep dangerous or unfair practices from occurring. That is what it means to be liberal. What it means to be Conservative, in it's strictest definition, is to control in a sense the liberties of the people while allowing a totally free market. Libertarian is to allow freedom for both businesses and the people. Finally there is Authoritarian, in which both the people and the economy are being controlled.

  Republicans often are against big government, but from a liberal view it is ironic for a group that often voices opinions that seem to restrict civil liberties. So, when I think big government I think of the Conservative/Republican view. It is obvious, however, that a group that values economic freedom for businesses, etc. would view my stance on politics as big government because I would impose restrictions on said businesses. (Though, to justify my views I would say that restrictions are needed to keep bigger corporations from taking advantage of their workers like what happened during the Guilded Age and prior to the Great Depression.)

  I suppose in the end that the libertarian viewpoint would be the truest form of small government. However, based on what little I have read in regards to the libertarian viewpoint, it seems that a of what they are calling for was established at one point in American history in a little document called the Articles of Confederation... and I think we all know how that turned out.

  Ha, and in regards to authoritarianism, I think no one here would be in support of that! Or at least I hope!

  -- Posted by pandunn on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 2:54 PM

• Summing up my last post, "I'M LEARNING POLITICAL SCIENCE, ALLOW ME TO FORCE MY KNOWLEDGE UPON YOU! TAKE IT, TAKE IT LIKE A (wo)MAN!"

  -- Posted by pandunn on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 3:05 PM

• pandunn - interesting comments. Couple of points.

  In my opinion, everyone and every political party wants limits on freedom and liberty. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, Republicans, Democrats, etc. etc. They all want to limit personal freedom and liberty. The difference, IMO, is to what degree.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 3:47 PM

• Easy Money

  I'm glad you are so nice. Thank you for being respectful to me. Also, I'm being completely sarcastic. What I mean is that it was unnecessary to be so rude.

  On that note, if you haven't noticed by the politicians in the news, politics has become a career here in the United States. Perhaps you believe that politicians, at least on the Congress level, should not be paid?

  I certainly hope that your comment was not stated in the tone that I read it in.

  -- Posted by pandunn on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 4:16 PM

• Dug

  I completely agree with you--every form of political party or political viewpoint has sort of control or limit, whether it is in regards to business or civil liberties. I think in many ways, there are a lot of people who refuse to see this, especially when it comes to heated election time.

  -- Posted by pandunn on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 4:21 PM

• Easy Money

  After rereading your post, I've come to decide that I did read it in the wrong tone, for which I apologize if I did.

  As far as I know, politics became a career as soon as politicians began making enough money to support themselves without taking up other jobs. I actually disagree with congressmen making a living wage on their jobs--I think that the English have it correct in that they should not be paid and instead have a separate job/jobs in which they make their income.

  -- Posted by pandunn on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 4:24 PM

• "I think only a very young person would believe that our liberty has not been eaten away...."

  There's no fool like an old fool.

  pandunn, ""I'M LEARNING POLITICAL..." Better to be learning than than blindly accepting. Keep us posted on your opinions vs the opinions of your professors. That will make good discussion IMO.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 4:40 PM

• Old John, trust me in that what I learn I apply to my own opinions.

  -- Posted by pandunn on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 4:54 PM

• Easy, When it costs more to get a job than what it pays something is awry.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 5:16 PM

• "I think only a very young person would believe that our liberty has not been eaten away and that government has not become more and more intrusive." Do they still teach Civics classes as a requirement in high school? Or American History?

  Doesn't matter much, probably, since sometimes those lessons were, naturally, geared to making our government look ... um ... angelic?

  That was super, Old J.!

  Don't know why, but I was under the impression that our representatives (excluding, of course, the president) were not meant to be full-time employees, with large staffs, large office complexes, larger than average incomes, and better 'perks' (retirement and health care) than the people they were elected to serve. But then, it's been a long, long time since high school and learning Contstitution, etc.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 8:34 PM

• Gmom, If I remember what I've read right, several presidents before Lincoln were not full time as they had other things to attend to. There was a time when congress complained about having to endure the expense of lodging and travel to represent the citizens that sent them to the new federal capitol in D.C. They sought reimbursement first from the states and then realized they could write and pass their remedy within their power on a federal level.

  Maybe someone can tell me when the trend started, that being when senators and representives became career politicians.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:17 PM

• I don't know about your civics classes, but, in our school, they seldom addressed current events as much as they did the running of a government, the making of its laws, and what a citizens rights and responsibilities were. We couldn't find a teacher who would tell us how she/he voted or to which party he/she belonged. The standard answer when asked, was a smile and "That's why they call it a secret vote."

  At one time I remember a current events news letter, but I don't think we followed it too closely.

  We old fools were taught that it was the responsiblity of our elected officials to represent us, to fight for perks for their districts, and to be honest in their dealings. We heard about graft, we weren't taught about it.

  It has only been in the last few decades that we have had it crammed down our throats.

  -- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:30 PM

• http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

  *During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin considered proposing that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Other Founding Fathers, however, decided otherwise.

  *From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving an annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.

  -- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:39 PM

• Just an observation. That $3,000 in 1855 if converted to gold would be worth over $203,000 today.

  -- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:46 PM

• InReply, Actually I don't remember our civics or social study teachers teaching much more than the ultimate boredem. I was slow to grow up and have just in the last 30 years found learning how ignorant I've been to be so much fun. :)

  Funny though how even during my ultimate ignorance my general gut feelings about a lot of issues still seem to pan out.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:52 PM

• Old John, it was studying the Constitution that finally made one of my teachers acknowledge I was in the classroom. She asked me why I hadn't been that alive throughout the rest of the year. I told her it was because it was the first time she had done anything interesting.

  Hers was a face to behold.

  -- Posted by InReply on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 10:56 PM

• Great comments all in a row, Old J. & Reply ... And the last one hilarious!

  Anyway, how come congress & president have term limits but senate doesn't?

  I'd like to see time limits on campaigning ... say no more than six months? And would love it if our campaigning employees, including the president, had their pay 'docked' while they're doing it, AND of course think a president should have to pay for Air Force One, etc., when being used primarily for campaigning ... and heck, might even like the idea of limiting how much they can spend, to make the playing field more even maybe ... I'm the kind of nut who reads how much is contributed to candidates and thinks, "Gee, too bad that money can't go toward paying some of our debts."

  Think I'm getting senile though ...

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 1:49 AM

• gurusmom

  I completely agree with you in regards to campaign limits. I would also, personally, like to see limits reinstated on how much companies can donate to a campaign.

  In regards to how our Congress came to be able to raise their salaries so frequently, I regret that I don't know. One of the unfortunate consequences, I suppose, of focusing my studies in regards to history on the events from World War II and onward.

  I don't recall if I stated it before (and I'm too lazy to go searching for it) but I do think that we should have it so that our politicians--particularly our congressmen/women--not receive pay for their work. I like the English in that they don't pay those in Parliament, that those who are representatives in the government are representatives not because of money but because they actually care about their country. I think that there are a lot of people within our own government would do care about where our country is heading. But I think that there are also people who are in it to get the media attention and the money.

  But maybe I'm just cynical in that regard.

  -- Posted by pandunn on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 10:59 AM

• gurusmom, are you sure that congressmen have term limits? Wasn't that thrown out by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional?

  -- Posted by InReply on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 11:12 AM

• I have always felt that States should not only elect their Senators and Representatives but should determine their pay and that senators should be paid by the state as a whole and representatives by the district which they represent according to the ability and wishes of the electing body.

  It would tend to make them more accountable to their constituents.

  -- Posted by InReply on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 11:21 AM

• I heard at one time or another the idea of paying our representatives was a way to deter them from using their power to enrich themselves on the back of the taxpayer. Sort of like, "If we pay them a small fee up front, they will be less likely to steal a larger amount later." We see how that has worked out haven't we.

  -- Posted by Joe Dirte on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 11:25 AM

• I've always thought any lobbying should be restricted to within the elected officials districts.

  Making the offices nonsalaried would have no impact on federal races, power and opportunity to profit is the main motive of most national polititions, methinks.

  Some I think run a campaign not looking to win office but to win campaign funds. There are too many ways to dissipate those left over funds into a circle of self serving cash IMO.

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 11:26 AM

• Easy Money

  Are you thinking of the 27th amendment? It prevents laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until the beginning of the next session of Congress.

  -- Posted by pandunn on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 1:38 PM

• Making the offices nonsalaried would have no impact on federal races, power and opportunity to profit is the main motive of most national polititions, methinks.

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 11:26 A

  I wasn't saying to make the offices unsalaried, but to make the salaries the responsibility of the district or state which the representative or senator represents. Letting the representatives work together to determine their salaries makes them more able to overpay themselves and to pass the burden to people who have no interest in their particular ideology.

  -- Posted by InReply on Fri, Jan 13, 2012, at 11:02 PM

• If I recall it correctly ... Senate members used to have to vote whether to give themselves pay raises. Of course, their voting for raises might not look too good when they were campaigning, so ... they changed the rules. Now (as I understood it) they get the raises UNLESS they vote against it. Guess that just sounds better: "I didn't vote to get myself a raise," and even some "Well, I wasn't there for the vote."

  Reply, I thought congress had term limits ... but obviously I was wrong; for some reason that was the idea I got last election.

  One of the reasons for politicians' pay scales that was mentioned years ago was that ... gee, it costs so much to be one.

  -- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Jan 14, 2012, at 1:29 AM

• lumbrg - welcome back from the abyss.

  I was/have been very critical of Bush/democrat congress in his last few years and his liberal spending.

  Is there a libertarian out there - somewhere - that can espouse the views of the movement as well as Ron Paul and be a little less off-the-wall with their comments? Paul, to me, is right about a number of things including individual rights/freedom, the federal reserve and sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. I disagree with him on Afghanistan - believe our nose needed to be there. We need to aggressively fight al Qaeda where ever. And anyone else that would train, support and finance attacks against us.

  Some of his comments are a little crazy though. If you don't mind saying - if the election comes down to Obama and Romney how would you vote? Or not at all?

  -- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jan 12, 2012, at 11:55 AM

  Good points.

  I really hope it doesn't come down to Obama/Romney, as I really don't think there will be much difference.

  That said, I will vote Romney. Not becasue I am pro Romney, but rather anti-Obama. Obama had his opportunity, and he wasted it. I would rather vote one guy out to give another guy a chance.

  Now of course we have a long way to go. The onlyway I see myself chaning my mind is if Romney wins the election and turns into a Carl Rove/religous movement than a fiscal conservative movement. But I don't see that happening. That strategy (successfull one) was really used to attack a popular and prosperous democratic white house. The next republican candidate will not have to go that route.

  -- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 4:22 PM

• http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/07/doorbell.php

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Jan 17, 2012, at 8:42 PM

• Rick, Have you heard this? "Solyndra received over half-a-billion dollars in taxpayer loans -- that they then LOST when they filed for bankruptcy -- they now want permission to give another half-million dollars to top employees"

  According to a Washington Times article, bonuses range from $10-50,000 each for about two dozen employees all making 6 figure salaries.

  You reckon the bankruptcy court go along with that?

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 9:28 AM

• Solyndra.....

  Shhhhh! Obama would like that to go away,

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 9:32 AM

• So let me get this straight. WIth Obama we have

  HOPE, HAMP and HARP?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jan 18, 2012, at 10:21 AM