"The same legislative idiocy could occur at the state level."
True, but it's monumentally easier to enact change at the state level than it is at the federal level. I'd liken to the difference between getting your neighborhood's HOA to change one of its policies, versus getting the state (or at least the county) to change one of their own. With the former, you have a much smaller group of much more like-minded people, since they all live in the same environment.
Just like with smog/MPG laws -- for someone who lives in downtown LA and sees/breathes that dirty air all day long, raising MPG minimums for carmakers makes much more sense than it does to someone who lives in Montana. I say let each state decide what MPG laws, if any, it wishes to apply to vehicles sold or registered within its boundaries.
"I will submit that taxes should be competitive and low enough cover our costs and make ample investments in the future"
I think the same. My problem is with the spending that the government is doing -- as you said, the budget is NEVER reduced. The federal government has been given (or has taken on) FAR too much responsibility and put its hands in FAR too many cookie jars, so to speak. It needs to be massively reduced in size, with almost all of its current programs and such handed over to the states to manage/eliminate as they please.
And yes, as you have probably guessed, I am a libertarian.
Sure thing....see the first chart in the Appendix, "National Debt For Selected Years". During Bush's control (2001-2008), the national debt increased from 57.6% to 69.6% of the GDP, which is an increase of 4.4 trillion dollars. During only two years of Obama's control (2009 and 2010), the debt increased all the way to 93.4% of the GDP, which is an increase of 3.5 trillion dollars.
Granted, the GDP went down which accounted for the debt percentage going so high, but going by dollars increase alone, Obama did in two years what Bush did in seven.
You really expect the Washington Post (of all places) to be able to accurately project how much the government would spend over 6+ years in the future?
Also, tax cuts do not equate to spending/costs. History has shown time and time again that lowering taxes increases government revenues by spurring economic growth.
He also "bailed out" a lot more companies that still ended up filing for bankruptcy protection -- even with all of the loans that have been paid back this far, there's nearly 250 billion dollars (by a very conservative estimate) that will never be returned.
Besides, filing for bankruptcy doesn't mean a company just goes belly up and disappears. It gives them a chance to "restructure" and continue operations with the vast majority of their workforce, which is definitely what would have happened to GM.
Much of the same thing, I wasn't a fan of Bush either.
But Obama has still racked up more national debt in one term than Bush did in two.
It's cheaper, by quite a few billion dollars, for us to pay him to screw around on the golfcourse than it is for us to pay him to screw around with the economy and government.
I'd rather him have taken every single day of his presidency off, over doing any of the "work" he's done thus far.
He's no more black than he is white; that's the nature of being 50% of each.
Rashida Jones (The Office, I Love You Man, etc) is equally half and half as well (black father, white mother), but are you going to call her black?
Here's a clip of Peterhansel hitting the biker.
That is fucked up, and he should be disqualified and banned from the rally for it.
Hahahaha....yeah, those doors aren't custom.
Buy the V8, then spend the difference on a new intake/exhaust/tune.....and two huge turbos. :)
Ummm....what? He says he wants to import/register/drive cars that are less than 25 years old, such as a diesel Land Rover. Chevrolet never made a diesel Corvette, and it's an American car, so what the hell does that have to do with import law?
So you expect a government that can't manage the money it gets right now, to effectively manage even MORE money better than a for-profit private company can?
I never said it was the program's fault, I said it was the government's fault. And, by proxy, our fault -- for allowing the government to progressively fuck it up more and more over so many decades. But no, the "solution" was just to pump more money into it and ignore the problem. That problem, which is the government itself (as you detailed), isn't going to be fixed anytime soon. But, the ONLY way to fix it is to stop giving it things to fuck up.
You don't keep throwing wood on a raging fire and hope it stops burning -- you need to stop feeding it until it's manageable, then control it. Translated: stop creating more government programs, end / drastically overhaul the problematic ones (which is most of them) as soon as possible, and THEN start from relative scratch.
That "cheap national health plan" is what gets you no help when you're old and need surgery, but the government decides it's not worth the cost to give you a preventive heart bypass at age 75. I don't want the government deciding who gets care and when, whether it be for me or anyone else.
The government fucked up Social Security all by itself, along with just about every other program it has. Giving it even MORE money and responsibility is about as smart as giving your investment manager/company more of your money when they already lost what you gave him to begin with. If they're fucking up with your money, why entrust them with more when you can just keep it to yourself so you know it won't be wasted?
Besides that being a gigantic problem, why should I have to bother 'getting money from the government' that they took from me already? Why can't I just have it to myself from the beginning?
How about everyone who wants government-funded healthcare be the only ones paying taxes for it, while everyone else who likes the current privatized system pays not a single cent into the government system? And then see what the average standard of living (from a medical standpoint) becomes for each group. As someone who would be in the second group, it would be pretty damn hilarious.
Since at the time I was a high school student with no job, I never had anything but stock wheels and stock-sized tires on it, but I like to think I got pretty good at sliding that thing sideways. I spun it only once, in the rain at about 20mph in a new neighborhood development that had paved roads but no houses yet....luckily didn't hit a curb.
Well yeah, hence saying only the first week :P
But personally I wouldn't be surprised if it took even longer to fully adapt to one.....you've got to overcome years/decades of driving conventional layouts.
A dogleg first gear? Who wouldn't have fun hitting the car behind him at every light for the first week? ;)
![[i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/xPLXk.jpg</p>){kind=link}