Forums | MacLife

mackerm wrote:

doc-robc wrote:

Here's a novel concept, how about only spending what the gov't actually takes from us in taxes? Some states have a balanced budget requirement in their constitution, why can't the feds do it too?

Why do you hate America?

I'm too dense to understand your sarcasm

Or a lot of other things either. I don't know about you, but at my house if we can't afford something we don't buy it.

sturner wrote:

Well, then maybe someone should have told Bush about that.

I hate to inform you but he turned a surplus into a deficeit in Texas as Gov. before he did the same in Washington. He doesn't understand the concept of budgets. After all, he's a poor, spoiled little rich boy who never had to worry about a buck.

He has had lots of help from his advisors, and Congress wasn't much good about reining him back either.

What makes you think I'm defending Bush? If you ask me, politicians are all a bunch of weasels. R's and D's alike.

They don't have even an inkling of what fiscal responsibility means. Their number one priority is to hang on to their jobs and power through any means necessary.

I must admit that state politicians in general don't seem as bad, at least in the states  I've lived in. Except for Illinois. They're even worse than the feds. Again R's and D's alike. And especially if they are from the northern 2/3 of the state.

Both parties are only as fiscally irresponsible as the voting public allows them to be...and sadly, they're allowed quite a bit.  Threat of recall is the only thing that could really keep them in line, but I haven't seen any use of that at all.

Who says what particular direction or political inclination a recall must go every time?   Maybe it's just me but I think a matter of recall would have to be on something more serious than petty witch hunts.  Even so, the less comfortable politicians are that they're keeping their jobs the better off we are, correct?

Last edited by Yellowfin (2007-09-26 2:30 pm)