The Goat Pen

I know that the military complex gets billions of dollars per year ...


Ah, soooo more waste, be it military, the Volt, Solyndra, et al....is the answer.

well, apparently all gov't spending is a waste to some pinheads who'd rather spend their tax money on upsizing their flat screens

[youtube]XcFDF87-SdQ[/youtube]

concealed gun laws...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/us/mo ... tml?ref=us

Saint wrote:well, apparently all gov't spending is a waste to some pinheads who'd rather spend their tax money on upsizing their flat screens

the basic difference is that in federal spending, regulation and law enforcement you have no say

at the state and local level you have a choice and the ability to enact change.

that is the heart of this matter - too many people tolerate the federal government creating mandates and spending money for the entire country at the request of a well connected few.

take something as simple as the plastic grocery bags. San Francisco and some other California cities are in the process of either outlawing them or imposing fees on their usage. That's fine because if enough people in San Francisco objected to it, they'd throw out the city council, but apparently that law is necessary in the eyes of the batshit crazy people that live there.

But if you couldn't get that law changed, you'd at least have the choice to move to a place like Clanton , Alabama where they allow toxic waste to be dumped in school playgrounds.

But if the federal government decided we all had to give up plastic bags just because some batshit crazy people in San Francisco had enough money to buy off some politicians (most likely batshit pulp and paper industry executives) then we'd all have to live by that law.

Which is what we see in something as simple as light bulbs and as complex as immigration and abortion.

The craziness of the immigration highlights just how power corrupt our federal government is. We have laws they refuse to enforce and when the states attempt to do so, they sue the states and withdraw support that is intended to keep their legal residents safe.

The problem with federal spending is that they have no credibility left in determining the best way to spend our money, and when the federal government enters into a free market domain in an attempt to help those in need, we all suffer as result of them artificially inflating the market spending.

For example, if our federal government decided to to dump money into to the pockets of people for the sole purpose of buying a flat screen TV, the free market would in turn and react by pushing the price of flat screen TV up by 100 to 500% whereas now, the free market has continually driven the price of flat screen TV's down.

your state and local gov't much be vastly different from the way it is around here. your last sentence perfectly describes our local city and county govt

I went back and added much more to my post but the point is, even if you can't change the state and local government, you have many to choose from that are controlled by like minded citizens who control the community standards of which they live - until the federal government tells them which light bulbs to buy , what speed limit they should drive or what health care plan they have to support.

I equate federal spending and federal control within the same framework. Its all about power over the nation as a whole.

the basic difference is that in federal spending, regulation and law enforcement you have no say

Totally disagree. Politicians respond to their local constituencies, most (who care to vote) of who like what the local congressman does. When they complain about congress, it's usually about what other people's representatives are doing, not their own. (Reminds me of the woman in North Carolina complaining that we should have term limits to stop Ted Kennedy but ignoring the fact that Jesse Helms had been in the Senate almost as long).

Most people want what the govt gives them, just not what the govt gives others. The no credibility is about what the govt does for others.

I agree, spacer. the federal gov't is really no different from the state and local gov'ts when it overreaches its usefulness. About 10 years or so ago in our town, the city council decided to enact a ban on indoor furniture on porches. I think local gov't is the worse because they often can sit around and think of shit like that to make more rules to follow. plus, in our case, they not only collect taxes but provide utilities, water and trash & recycling and started a fiber optic cable/internet provider (Greenlight) to compete against TWC. and our power bills are among the highest in the state.

I recognize all the problems with federal gov't but it's not like I trust the local gang any more because I know them. in fact, given some of these folks, it's reason to distrust them.

grover norquist disagrees

try getting a levy passed for the local school board as opposed to getting a tax increase on the wealthy.

at least in DC, there are attempts to hide the graft whereas in this town, it's done openly and unapologetically

The last tax increase for the wealthy was almost 19 years ago

The best way to do it is to get a spot on the DOT board. That's the best way to make money through government in NC, and that's saying something.

Saint wrote:at least in DC, there are attempts to hide the graft whereas in this town, it's done openly and unapologetically

ST Wooten wouldn't disagree

Owlman wrote:The last tax increase for the wealthy was almost 19 years ago

exactly, and locally I've had 4 tax increases in the last 11 years.

now I'm not saying a tax increase is a good thing or is needed but polls show that the public accepts the need for a revenue increase and believe taxing the wealthiest citizens is the best approach.

the federal government does not represent the will of the people.

It represents the will of the SuperPAC

eCat wrote:

Owlman wrote:The last tax increase for the wealthy was almost 19 years ago

exactly, and locally I've had 4 tax increases in the last 11 years.

now I'm not saying a tax increase is a good thing or is needed but polls show that the public accepts the need for a revenue increase and believe taxing the wealthiest citizens is the best approach.

the federal government does not represent the will of the people.

The fundamentally "Not Me, Them" mindset. Deep down, people know that you have to bite the bullet and sacrifice to fix a mess but they usually want the other person to be the one to do the sacrificing. Now, while I'm not arguing that we don't need to reanalyze how and how much we tax "the wealthy", it comes across as extremely disingenuous when your basic Tom, Dick, Harry, Sue, Jane and Ann support such a thing on one hand but then start changing their tune when they suddenly become "the wealthy" or if that sacrifice means including more of Middle America (that is, people like them).

Politicians cater to that mindset. The Repubs tend to cater to "The Wealthy" while the Dems tend to cater to your basic Tom, Dick, Harry, Sue, Jane and Ann. Neither group has the balls to tell their constituents the painful truth and to act accordingly. Why? To hold office and be ineffective is still more appetizing than being right and yet back in the private sector.

So I guess I'm arguing your first line, E. I think the federal gov't represents the will of the people who elected them. That is, they cater to them. Problem is, sometimes you get just what you want, even if you've forgotten that that's what you asked for.

.05 of the population donates about 95% of the campaign contributions to politicians

that in the nutshell is who the politicians serve

look at what Obama promised to get elected and what he delivered.

Scorecard of Obama's promises vs reality

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... /obameter/

I'm not sure how that stacks up against other Presidents and it's an interesting compilation as many items stall in the Legislative process (which is due to DEM and GOP controlled Congresses).

So, if you total up the 508 promises:

• 1/3 have been kept outright.
  40% have been kept or resulted in a compromise
  and 75% have been kept, compromised or are still in the works
  11% have been straight broken
  13% have been stalled

Well, he did invent a Cancer-Gun, so he's got that going for him.