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

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?

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

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 !!

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?

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.

"Notice my comment isN'T tossing any one person or any one party into the mix. That crap's irrelevant."

PS: You can switch what I put here around depending upon your political persuasion...Still lol.

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.

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.

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.