We hate when the government spends; except when it is on us!

United States
February 26, 2010 5:33pm CST
I was watching a business program a few days ago, and one of the guess brought up two great points. The first is that republicans are upset with government spending, but not one of them voted to cut spending on one of the most expensive government programs (97-0 to exclude Social Security in budget cuts). The other problem is that we have people like Sarah Palin complaining about government spending. But, while she was governor her state received over $2.00 in government funding for every dollar they received. So please explain to me who we can cut spending, if one of the largest expenses is off limits, and we have greedy states that want every dime the can get?
3 people like this
7 responses
• Canada
26 Feb 10
As I said before, we need to get rid of all of them and start fresh with new people. They vote themselves huge paychecks and huge pensions, with our money. They fly here and there with our money. They redecorate their offices with our money and then they want more. Im fed up of paying them. I want a brand new government, from bottom up. Thats our problem in my country and yours and mostly in all countries.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Feb 10
The only problem with that tactic is who will make sure that the new people aren't WORSE than the current? One of the things that makes me laugh are these republicans that are complaining about spending, and talking about kicking out all of the democrats. From 2004 to 2006 republicans controlled the entire government, and spent like drunken sailors, thus increasing the deficit. So should we just put those same idiots who helped cause our problem right back into office?
1 person likes this
• Canada
27 Feb 10
No, no, dont put anyone back, get NEW people. Ordinary people who might own small businesses and can run them with success. If they can run a small business and make a go of it, then they can run the government. Then you pick ordinary people again an have them keep an eye on what the government does. You change those people every month if you have to so they cant be corrupted. Like I said, Id throw everybody out. Past and present, who wants them back anyways. Here in Canada, we have a minority government, they keep going in election to try and become a majority but its not working. So our Prime Minister decided to close government for 2 months......heck, we're still paying them while they do sh*t!! Blow the whole place up, your white house, pentagon and our parliement. Why cant they work from regular offices instead of work in such luxury. Im getting angry again, its best I stop now
• Canada
27 Feb 10
Oh before you all think Im a terrorist or something like that. When I said "blow it all up" I meant get them out of there and use that space for something else that will MAKE money instead of SPEND it. Im off my milk box now !!
@matersfish (6311)
• United States
26 Feb 10
I'm probably misunderstanding your discussion. I don't know. Are you saying that, because so and so may have been okay with some things, they should now be okay with all things? Is that the size of it? I mean, anyone might be okay with, for example, paying 30% of their income for taxes. Heck, most people even get some of this back. But if it jumped up to 80%, are the people who were okay paying 30% not allowed to be against 80% because they were okay with 30%? It doesn't make much sense. There's a difference in spending, specifically, too. That's what numbers are for. $1,000,000,000,000 is more than $1,000,000,000, as an example. And just because someone was okay with $1,000,000,000 doesn't mean they will necessarily be okay with the $1,000,000,000,000. And if they are against the trillion, for example, someone citing that "Oh, but you were okay with the billion!" seems a bit picky times a thousasnd. But in the world where blowing smoke in someone's face is the "same" as pulling their fingernails out, I guess it holds water.
• United States
27 Feb 10
Mater, what I am trying to say is if you are upset about spending, but don't want to cut spending then what do you really support? The point I was trying to make is that the two states that receive the most from the government (Alaska, and Wyoming) are both controlled by republicans. If you want to stop spending, then you should start at home, and actually STOP SPENDING. While all of this talk of deficits has been going on, no one has banned the pork in Washington. So, it sounds like some are talking out of both sides of their mouth. By the way, California receives $.82 per dollar they send into the government. Now do you understand why it is much easier to balance a budget in Alaska, rather than California?
• United States
27 Feb 10
As far as California goes, or any individual state for that matter, "easier" or "harder" are relative things. There's infinite context to every state's situation. As far as politicians talking out of both sides of their mouths, of course they do. But again, there's a big difference in spending and uberspending. Money will always be spent in America. Money will always have to be spent. Unfortunately, we'll probably always be in debt, regardless of what happens. But to speak out against massive entitlement spending, trillions added to the debt, future generations of Americans paying for today's spending, etc, is an entirely separate part of the "spending" debate. Notice my comment is tossing any one person or any one party into the mix. That crap's irrelevant. To paraphrase President Obama, just to name-drop, bringing up "Republicans" and spending is a good talking point. But like I said, there's a difference in numbers. If someone's opposed to MASSIVE spending on a MASSIVE scale, I don't necessarily think it makes one a hypocrite to not keep fiscal guard over every penny spent -- because the criticism isn't about spending money in general; it's about MASSIVE SCALE SPENDING. It's about new spending sprees on top of new spending sprees while old ones have proven to be more wasteful than helpful. I don't really disagree with you. I just think there's much more context to it than simply to say "stop spending, period, if you're opposed to big spending." The "spending" part has become nothing but an attack word for both sides of the aisle. And we're not stupid. We all know full well what someone means when they talk about out of control spending. It's not about stopping the flow of money altogether. It's about reining in the twelve zero plans and the waste and the money that seems to line the wrong pockets. It's yet another wide ranging topic that has been shrunk down to a campaign slogan, basically, on both sides. So I don't disagree, but I can't fully agree, either.
• United States
27 Feb 10
"Notice my comment isN'T tossing any one person or any one party into the mix. That crap's irrelevant."
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
27 Feb 10
To the topic, you're largely right. I remember a quote by Grandpa Simpson regarding Social Security. Grandpa: The government. I didn’t earn it. I don’t need it. But, if they miss one payment I’m gonna raise hell! Now you should realize that Sarah Palin drastically reduced earmarks to her state cutting them from $350 million to $69 million in her final year. Her state got a lot for reasons that had ZERO to do with population. First, the state had significant value for its oil reserves and natural gas which meant that it was in the government's interests to spend a lot there. Second it's the single largest state in the nation. Regardless of population, that means transportation costs are high both because of distance and because many parts of Alaska can only be reached by air or by water. Third, Ted Stevens was in office forever and as you know, earmarks are given based on seniority rather than need.
• United States
27 Feb 10
Taskr, I agree with you when it comes to Social Security. The easiest way to lose your job in Washington is to talk about doing ANYTHING to Social Security. I was announced that there would be no cost of living increase, because the cost of living didn't increase, and people were all upset about money that they never had in the first place. I understand what you are saying about Sarah and Ted Stevens. Even with her cuts in earmarks, the state of Alaska still received over $2.00 for every dollar they spent in.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
27 Feb 10
Well also with Social Security, it goes to old people. We all know that old people are the most dependable voters in this country. You can piss off those kids that are 18-24 and get away with it. Piss off people over 60 and you're out. That also brings up the point that I mention often. Politicians don't care about us, they care about getting reelected. If what gets them reelected is good for us, it's just a lucky coincidence, it's not that they really care about serving their constituents.
@irisheyes (4373)
• United States
28 Feb 10
So true, everybody wants their piece of the pie but it's the other guy's piece that costs too much. A bridge to nowhere is okay but a new Bridge replacing a dangerous structure in Pennsylvania is only being built because we have a fairly high profile Democratic governor. lol
@irisheyes (4373)
• United States
28 Feb 10
PS: You can switch what I put here around depending upon your political persuasion...Still lol.
@miravu (100)
• United States
27 Feb 10
I wonder if the politicians, like Sarah Palin, who make more money than 99% of the population in their private lives would actually do something to back up their assertions besides complain, like forego a public paycheck or refuse social security benefits or engage in fundraising for the treasury instead of a campaign? What really strikes me as bizarre logic is this: some politicians complain about the current spending and then are against raising taxes on the rich. Don't spend to revitalize the economy and support the middle class, but if you do, don't tax the richest 2 percent to balance the books.
@Taskr36 (13925)
• United States
27 Feb 10
For your first question, there are a small number of politicians who would. Sarah Palin did a lot to cut the budget in Alaska including laying off the personal chef that governor's get, selling the luxury jet purchased by her predecessor, living at home instead of the governor's mansion. Jesse Ventura also chose to live at home when he was governor. John McCain has voted against a salary increase every year that he's been in the senate and the raises he does receive go straight to charity. His charitable donations are 27% of his annual income. "What really strikes me as bizarre logic is this: some politicians complain about the current spending and then are against raising taxes on the rich." That's because raising taxes just exacerbates the problem. If you want to cut spending than cut spending. You might want to avoid the liberal spin though. We have the most progressive taxation of any country on the planet. The top 1% richest people in this country are paying 40% of the federal taxes. The bottom 40% of earners are paying ZERO.
• United States
28 Feb 10
oh have you not figured this one out yet? NEITHER SIDE KNOWS OR CARES ABOUT FISCAL RESPONSIBILTY. THey only pay it lip service to get votes. What is really happening is that htey are fighting over who has control of the money and how it is spent. No one is asks the real question....should the money be spent at all. I am sick of both sides.
• United States
27 Feb 10
I KNOW what you mean... I have started two discussions on where people would cut the federal budget and have two responses to each, few specifics. All politics is local and people do not want to lose any local income. Sure, people may call for cuts in spending overseas, but not in Social Security or medicaid or infrastructure. Folks, these are the good old days, when the government is still spending money on stuff it will soon no longer be able to afford. We will still elect the incumbents more often than not, but we will have to support the people who tell us what we don't want to hear. Wish us luck. And pray.