Opting out

[Ragnus]

It's pronounced Bay-ner. Not really close to boner at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxxSIX3fmmo

[archibaldcrane]

I guess it also said by today's standards. IIRC wasn't he originally republican during that time, because you know, they actually used to be progressive up until the 50's or 60's.

No, it simply asked what party he was a part of, nothing to do with today's standards. My point is that FDR, as a Democrat, was a big factor in crafting the identity of even modern day Democrats.

Lincoln on the other hand has little to do with modern day Republicanism.

[Callisto]

The only reason I knew the Lincoln one is because I'm from IL

[Correction]

The only reason I knew the Lincoln one is because I'm from IL

I remember Lincoln's party by remembering my high school history lessons about the "Solid South."

[hey]

Democrats could also believe that the GOP is actually for massive government subsidies and foreign wars and thus actually more supportive of the size of the federal government.

But it was clearly about what they pretend to want, not what they actually want.

[Kazen]

13/13 that poll is a joke lol. OH NOEZ THE DEMOCRAT SCORED 13.

[Sepukku]

But it was clearly about what they pretend to want, not what they actually want.

LOL my favorite was Newt:

"I want small government and less taxes, but I'm going to build a colony on the Moon."

[Indeed]

I think it would be an incredibly interesting experiment. People spend a lot of time complaining about the mismanagement of tax dollars. It'd be interesting to me to see what private companies and services might emerge to fill in the gaps, and if we would truly be able to direct our money to fix or fund things in a more efficient manner.

[Psion]

I think it would be an incredibly interesting experiment. People spend a lot of time complaining about the mismanagement of tax dollars. It'd be interesting to me to see what private companies and services might emerge to fill in the gaps, and if we would truly be able to direct our money to fix or fund things in a more efficient manner.

no. NO. please dear god, do not let this happen. Companies are opportunists. If they can find a loophole to take millions or billions of dollars from something and get away with it, they will. Will they spend their money more efficiently than the government? probably. will we see ANY of that savings? hell no, they'll jack up prices on things like private firefighters or police and claim its due to "rising costs" or some such bullshit, and yet when costs go down you won't EVER see any of those savings passed on. They'll just keep the old pricing because they can get away with it.

Seriously, i'd much rather have the government, horrible with their efficienct spending as they are, than private companies running certain services.

Hell, a lot of the mismanaged spending comes from our military budget. its way overblown, and the government keeps wasting tax dollars on programs that don't even have proof they work, for fraudulent products. The government pretty much just gives a blank check to companies instead of getting the best bang for their buck.

I honestly wish they'd just cut the military budget in half at least, maybe it would force them to rethink the way they spend their money. Send the rest of that money to much needed programs that benefit our society, or invest it in science projects that benefit america as a whole. Maybe pay for a cure for obesity? Actually put some real funding into nuclear fusion? Invest more money into stem cell research and the many ways it could help us, like the most current research finding ways to grow organs from scratch? There's much better ways to spend our money than on our overinflated military.

I mean, sure, there's probably just as much inefficient spending in things like medicare as in our military. but at least medicare is beneficial to our society, whereas deciding to declare war on a new country every year doesn't. When a country like china spends only 150-200 billion dollars a year on their military despite being three times our population, while we spend anywhere from 700billion+ a year, and does just fine with their national security, something is very wrong.

[Greatguardian]

I think it would be an incredibly interesting experiment. People spend a lot of time complaining about the mismanagement of tax dollars. It'd be interesting to me to see what private companies and services might emerge to fill in the gaps, and if we would truly be able to direct our money to fix or fund things in a more efficient manner.

Businesses have no social obligations. Placing a private entity in a position where they are responsible for the safety and/or well-being of the public is stupid.

Businesses exist for one reason: to make money. They do not exist to provide a service. They simply provide services when that is the most expedient way to make money. If they make more money by not providing a service, or by providing subpar service, they will do so. That's your efficiency right there.

[Ragnus]

Cutting the defense budget to at least pre-9/11 levels would be nice, but the DoHS would pull some secret strings to make it not happen.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

If you want to increase efficiency with respect to tax dollars, just eliminate income withholdings. The psychological effect of having to write a check for X% of their income every year would make citizens a lot more attentive.

[Demosthenes11]

If you want to increase efficiency with respect to tax dollars, just eliminate income withholdings. The psychological effect of having to write a check for X% of their income every year would make citizens a lot more attentive.

I thought you want to reduce the size of government?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I thought you want to reduce the size of government?

How would this not contribute to that?

[hey]

I thought you want to reduce the size of government?

No, he's a republican.

[Demosthenes11]

think about it

what happens when you increase bureaucracy

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

think about it

what happens when you increase bureaucracy

How does eliminating income tax witholdings increase bureauracracy?

[hey]

How does eliminating income tax witholdings increase bureauracracy?

Because you then have to chase down the people who don't pay it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Because you then have to chase down the people who don't pay it.

With the people that already do that?

[hey]

With the people that already do that?

No, you're going to need a lot more than that.