Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The big issue is people refuse to cut the stupid pet projects because it looks bad no matter how craptastic the program is.
So we keep the same entitlement programs and then add new pet ones.
We don't need to raise taxes, we don't need to cut back our own budgets, we need to spend less as a government. We need to quit buying votes with other peoples money, we need to state that the government is not a nanny state and if you don't work, plan, and save you are going to starve or hope for private charity.
The republicans were put in place in 1994 to start doing that, and they blew it. Now there really isn't a choice beyond whos new pet projects you like the best.
|
The "math" in my posts here, totally counter the points in your post. IMO, they are nothing but a variation of Reagan's divisive, misleading, "welfare queen", propaganda.
The government that you accuse of "coddling" the poor, the lazy....is actually spending, without accounting for it as part of the deficits, more than $150 billion per year in surplus SSI payments that are supposed to go into the SSI trust fund.
By far, the largest measure of wasted spending goes to farm subsidies to agribusiness, and to the defense industry, as a direct result of the "one party" "K Street" lobbying conglomerate. That is what has changed, in addition to the budget busting tax cuts passed into law since 2001.
Your predictable tactic of "demonizing" the "poor and the lazy", is an attempt to divert attention from what we know....from your own fellow "conservatives":
<center><img src="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/images/11362187.gif"></center>
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg1924.cfm
A Primer on Lobbyists, Earmarks, and Congressional Reform
by Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D.
Backgrounder #1924
April 27, 2006
....Turning Pennies into Dollars. As the number of earmarks has escalated, there has been a similar increase in the number of lobbyists registered with the House and Senate, indicating their intentions to pursue clients’ interests with the Appropriations Committees. According to a Knight-Ridder article on lobbying, 1,865 lobbyists were registered with Congress in 2000 to pursue appropriations issues, but by 2004, the number is estimated to have increased to 3,523 lobbyists, an increase of 89 peromgcent in four years.[13] Even if Mr. Abramoff’s activities were an aberration or a “not widespread” practice, 3,522 other lobbyists would still be registered to pursue earmarks for paying clients.
|
It is a fact that Tom Delay cut off access to lobbying firms that employed democrats as lobbyists. Partisans who make reliable points to support their arguments are...partisan. Partisans who post propaganda are propagandists.