TexasCHLforum.com

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: What do you mean "we" paleface?
I did not spend that money.
I live within my means.
When the spigot runs dry and the gibs-me-dat orcs go on a rampage they can go collect from the ones that promised it to them.
Anygunanywhere

I didn't spend it either. I'll wager that we're both responsible for electing someone that helped spend it. Democrat or Republican, it spend-pandering seems to be the basis of our political system. It's just that the Republicans are usually less prolific about it.

Some amount of it was spent on national "defense" - meaning foreign wars. That wasn't your decision or mine, but just because we weren't asked doesn't absolve us of the responsibility to pay for it.

I understand the frustration, but saying "I didn't spend it" doesn't change the reality of our national debt.

I'm all for tea-party lower taxes, no spending, cleaning up the government... However, I know the difference between continued rhetoric (which means business as usual post-election) and someone who might shake something up. A real radical would admit to the cold reality of our situation and provide a plan for us to get out of it... Which might mean MORE taxes short term if accompanied by some pretty hard legislation around spending rules going forward.

Anyone who says they can decrease the debt by decreasing taxes and making up the difference via clean up of government waste and "smaller government" - they're selling the same thing that's been sold for the last 40+ years. That's how we got here.

It's got to be really easy as a politician to vote for a bill that provides constituents benefits and is popular. They don't have to be paid for today and the reality of getting those benefits paid will usually fall on future political leaders (and later generations of taxable constituents)....