Another View of Newt Gingrich

[Catatonic]

The point is simple. Everyone is paying taxes and helping to fund the nation. It is simply a matter of who needs to pay more to balance the books. The 99% or the 1%. Doesn't matter if you are done on this, the issue for the nation remains.

I think if you are to look at it that way the 99% should pay more. They seem to be skating under our current policy. Of course I believe everyone should pay less but in the context of what our nation was supposed to be(a place where people were treated equal) and framed like your question was the 99% should pay much more. You can never balance the books under our current system by demanding more from just 1% of our population.

I think you both missed/skirted the obvious problem ... the crux of the problem is spending by the Government.

 

[bbsam]

I think you both missed/skirted the obvious problem ... the crux of the problem is spending by the Government.

government employees and contractors pay taxes and spend money in the community as well as anyone, no?

 

[moreluck]

government employees and contractors pay taxes and spend money in the community as well as anyone, no?

Yes they do, but do they need to make more money than god?

 

[Catatonic]

government employees and contractors pay taxes and spend money in the community as well as anyone, no?

One thing I missed in the original post is that it is "National" government.
So with that clarification.

All expenditures by the National Government are taxes.
I do believe the National Government does good by spending our money for Infrastructure that benefits society.
There are not many of these - interstate highway system, NASA, ... I can't think of any more but I'm sure there are a couple of things.
The other thing the National Government "could" spend money on that makes sense and that is protection of out National borders and interests. Most of the wars are not good investments is the reason for "could".

Everything else should be left to the other forms of our Federal government structure such as States and Local government.

People should be able to make choices - if you want the State Government to take your money and in turn provide all kinds of services, then you can choose to live in Massachusetts. If you want to keep your money and have the State Government provide very few services, then move to Texas. As long as US citizens have the right to migrate from one state to another, there will begin to be a tendency for the states to provide only those services that they need or want.

If a state is "out-of-line" they will lose their population and therefore their tax base.

To me, this is one of the great injustices of the strong, centralized national government providing or controlling most of the services. There is no pretense of a market system in place.

 

[Catatonic]

Yes they do, but do they need to make more money than god?

God transcends the need or want for money ... that is for the lowly, imperfect humans to squabble about.

 

[moreluck]

God transcends the need or want for money ... that is for the lowly, imperfect humans to squabble about.

You'll notice I didn't put a big 'G' on god because it refers more to people like Buffett, Trump, Oprah and other gods of richness.

 

[av8torntn]

I think you both missed/skirted the obvious problem ... the crux of the problem is spending by the Government.

Of course spending has always been the problem when it comes to debt. That was not the way he framed it. I would prefer everyone was treated equal if we had to pay taxes and everyone pay the same amount. I've always though that would be the only sure way to limit the scope of a federal government.

Of course the only way to go into debt is to spend more than you take in. I do not think any serious person thinks that the reason for our national debt is a lack of taxes. I say this and I fully understand there are plenty of sheeple on here that disagree. Somehow I take in far less than the federal government does and yet I have no debt. If there were an actual relationship between debt and income this would not be possible.

 

[wkmac]

I would prefer everyone was treated equal if we had to pay taxes and everyone pay the same amount. I've always though that would be the only sure way to limit the scope of a federal government.

Even that can be skewed and unfair. Why not cost price each gov't service, like each serving in a cafeteria has an individual cost. Each one of us goes down the gov't cafeteria line, selects the services we want from gov't and at the end of the line we pay the tax burden to cover the cost of that gov't program. Just like a cafeteria line where you want the salad, mac & cheese and roast beef but don't want the cabbage and fried chicken, you only pay for the salad, mac & cheese and roast beef. Eating lite? Salad only? You only pay salad only. Fasting? Money stays in the pocket but then the risk is on you regardless of the outcome if things go wrong.

People who want a nanny state can have it, people who want minimal state can have that and people who want no state can have that too! Everybody get's what they want, what's wrong with that? Panarchy if you will.


Another benefit for those who choose gov't services would be better and more effective service because the service will have to man up in order to keep existing customers and hopefully convince others to become customers. Bad or ineffective service and taxpayers will make other choices in the TAXeteria line. And any debt created to benefit a gov't service, only those customers at the time the debt was created are liable to the debt service. Future customers or non-customers are not saddle with or responsible for any debt created.

 

[wkmac]

[SIZE=-1]You maybe should think twice when even Jack Abramoff thinks you’re beneath contempt. Not that Newt Gingrich cares.
Abramoff, America’s favorite convicted influence peddler, told NBC’s David Gregory that presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Gingrich is one of those “people who came to Washington, who had public service, and they cash in on it. They use their public service and access to make money.”
Newt, he continued, is “engaged in the exact kind of corruption that America disdains. The very things that anger the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street movement and everybody who is not in a movement and watches Washington and says why are these guys getting all this money, why do they go become so rich, why do they have these advantages?”
Why indeed? Granted, Abramoff’s in the middle of his promotion tour of confession and attempted redemption, a pot obscenely eager to call his kettle and former mentor black — especially if it sells books. But Casino Jack does have a point.
Gingrich personifies everything rotten about the ATM machine we call Washington: the merchandising of favors and votes; the conversion of past incumbency into insider information, making your contacts and the ability to play the system available to the highest bidder; the archetypal revolving door between government service and shilling for corporate America........

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]“Three former Republican congressional staffers told me that Gingrich was calling around Capitol Hill and visiting Republican congressmen in 2003 in an effort to convince conservatives to support a bill expanding Medicare to include prescription-drug subsidies. Conservatives were understandably wary about expanding a Lyndon Johnson-created entitlement that had historically blown way past official budget estimates. Drug makers, on the other hand, were positively giddy about securing a new pipeline of government cash to pad their already breathtaking profit margins.”[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]

Newt, The Ultimate Beltway Swindler

Anybody but Obama you say? I wonder if Obama has been truly honest with us about who his real mentor has been!

 

[804brown]

Of course spending has always been the problem when it comes to debt. That was not the way he framed it. I would prefer everyone was treated equal if we had to pay taxes and everyone pay the same amount. I've always though that would be the only sure way to limit the scope of a federal government.

Of course the only way to go into debt is to spend more than you take in. I do not think any serious person thinks that the reason for our national debt is a lack of taxes. I say this and I fully understand there are plenty of sheeple on here that disagree. Somehow I take in far less than the federal government does and yet I have no debt. If there were an actual relationship between debt and income this would not be possible.

It is not just spending. It is what and who is taxed and at what rate. We had low deficits and high spending in the 40s, 50s and 60s but he had high tax rates on the wealthy ( 70-90%) during that time also. "Limited " government does not mean low tax rates. To me limited govt means less intrusion on ones personal life: abortion, marriage equality, drugs, etc. I doesnt mean safety rules and regulations should be left to any free market!! ANy decent govt should regulate how food is grown and sold; how products like childrens toys are made; how much polution factories can spew, etc.

Remember up until 2001, our govt was projected to pay down the national debt by 2015. That meant keeping the highest tax rate at 39.6% (which bush and the repubs did not do); it meant paying for all expenditures like wars (which bush and the repubs did not do); it meant paying for prescription drugs program (which again bush and co didnt do). People like grover norquist want govt shrunk to the point where it can be "drowned in a bathtub"!! Govt so weak that it cannot stand up to huge corporations and protect us from their wrath!!

Government is NOT the problem. Government controlled by a rapacious oligarchy is!!

 

[tourists24]

Government is NOT the problem. Government controlled by a rapacious oligarchy is!!

You are partially right there.... If the federal government stayed specifically into its constitutional role only, that would eliminate a huge chunk of waste. Things have become backwards over a long period of time. Things should be governed more at the local levels and less at the top. That would be a good start

 

[wkmac]

Government is NOT the problem. Government controlled by a rapacious oligarchy is!!

One does not exist without the other and visa versa thus all things being equal.

 

[moreluck]

One does not exist without the other and visa versa thus all things being Equal....find the Sweet'n'low!!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

One does not exist without the other and visa versa thus all things being Equal....find the Sweet'n'low!!

Quality vs. Quantity

 

[moreluck]

Quality vs. Quantity

Show me a woman who doesn't talk and I'll show you a mute! Sorry, but wkmac brings out the 'silly' in me. You, however, are like an old school marm. Thankyou Miss Crabapple !

 

[Catatonic]

You are partially right there.... If the federal government stayed specifically into its constitutional role only, that would eliminate a huge chunk of waste. Things have become backwards over a long period of time. Things should be governed more at the local levels and less at the top. That would be a good start

And you highlight one of the longest on-going lies in the USA.

I always call it the National government and not the Federal government.
The early US Federalized government was the National, State and to some extent Local governments taken as a whole and the governments role should be performed at the lowest/closest level to the people. Generally, this meant that states had the most rights.

The ploy was that Alexander Hamilton and the other real anti-Federalists took the name Federalists to confuse the issue. They used this confusion to get many anti-Federalist concepts included in the Constitution so the National government would have more power than it was meant to have.

 

[wkmac]

And you highlight one of the longest on-going lies in the USA.

I always call it the National government and not the Federal government.
The early US Federalized government was the National, State and to some extent Local governments taken as a whole and the governments role should be performed at the lowest/closest level to the people. Generally, this meant that states had the most rights.

The ploy was that Alexander Hamilton and the other real anti-Federalists took the name Federalists to confuse the issue. They used this confusion to get many anti-Federalist concepts included in the Constitution so the National government would have more power than it was meant to have.

While the other anti-anti-federalists opposed the constitution to begin with. As I've said before, Aaron Burr was about 20 years too late!

 

[UpstateNYUPSer(Ret)]

Show me a woman who doesn't talk and I'll show you a mute! Sorry, but wkmac brings out the 'silly' in me. You, however, are like an old school marm. Thankyou Miss Crabapple !

There are times when the best way to add to a conversation is to not say anything at all, especially when our grasp of the topic on hand is limited at best.

 

[Catatonic]

While the other anti-anti-federalists opposed the constitution to begin with. As I've said before, Aaron Burr was about 20 years too late!

I remember someone saying that and thought "Oh so true".

Makes sense it was you.

We are still suffering 200 years later from Hamilton's handiwork.

 

[moreluck]

There are times when the best way to add to a conversation is to not say anything at all, especially when our grasp of the topic on hand is limited at best.

Your's is limited because you see 'single'. I see statements like a prism sometimes....2,3,4 or more different ways....that's why I always do crosswords in ink. You can't take clues just one way. The best way to add is say nothing....that's like not voting to make a change. There are many posts I read that I just go to the next one......mostly in the day to day UPS stuff. But if you think I won't give my opinion, you are going to be so disappointed.
A woman doesn't like to be told to be quiet and let the MAN talk...............good luck dating!!