Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Placing constraints on Congressional spending

Posted on 4/28/22 at 1:14 pm
Posted by Thundercles
Mars
Member since Sep 2010
5131 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 1:14 pm
In my life I might pay a million bucks in federal income tax. The IRS is going to harass me for my entire existence to pay it. Then without even blinking the government will send tens of billions to a country no one gives a shite about. Why the frick should I ever pay taxes.

Is the only way to stop this through a convention of the states? I know Congress will never vote to limit their own spending. So do we need to get 34 states together and put in a rule that Congress must lower the deficit by 5% every year and stop sending money overseas for kickbacks?
Posted by David_DJS
Member since Aug 2005
18064 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 1:34 pm to
quote:

Is the only way to stop this through a convention of the states?

I've raised the prospect of a COS in these threads a dozen times and always find the resistance from the Right curious. It seems as though loads of conservatives are afraid of having to win a COS while they hoard ammo for a civil war that will never happen.
Posted by LSUSkip
Central, LA
Member since Jul 2012
17633 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 1:37 pm to
work a 1099 and expense everything you can.

ETA: a convention of states is the only peaceful answer. Looked it up, and it looks like one may happen. More then the requisite 34 have either passed a resolution, have passed in one chamber or have active legislation in this year. Only 9 have no participation. Mostly the usual suspects.
This post was edited on 4/28/22 at 1:51 pm
Posted by squid_hunt
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2021
11272 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 1:37 pm to
Have kids. Stop paying taxes.
Posted by saints5021
Louisiana
Member since Jul 2010
17519 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 1:51 pm to
I believe anything spent on foreign aid should be approved each year by a majority of the state legislatures. That money comes from our taxes and I think congress should have to explain to the states why they have shite arse roads and bridges while Ukraine gets another 33 billion.
Posted by Lawyered
The Sip
Member since Oct 2016
29529 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 1:56 pm to
I agree with you..

And It’s why I hate them blowing 300-400 billion here or there in these bullshite bills they pass at 2:30 am on a Saturday morning that are just laundered money and nobody gets anything out of .


Posted by LSUSkip
Central, LA
Member since Jul 2012
17633 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 2:02 pm to
Right, that's 66 Mississippi River bridges they're giving away.

I could not be in congress or the senate, I'd vote no on every spending bill, and don't even ask me about raising taxes.
This post was edited on 4/28/22 at 2:04 pm
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124249 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 2:07 pm to
quote:

Placing constraints on Congressional spending
Balanced Budget Amendment.
Posted by CarRamrod
Spurbury, VT
Member since Dec 2006
57484 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 2:16 pm to
quote:

ore then the requisite 34 have either passed a resolution, have passed in one chamber or have active legislation in this year. Only 9 have no participation.
links?
Posted by ds_engineer
South Mississippi
Member since Dec 2014
386 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 2:21 pm to
I see no way the corruption ends with simple legislation such as a balanced budget amendment. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, it has reached all aspects of government at this point. I doubt we will ever be able to vote ourselves out of this corrupt system.

Voting in Trump or Desantes in 2024 will just restart impeachment hearings and riots as we have seen. A convention of the states is likely the most peaceful solution.
Posted by Thundercles
Mars
Member since Sep 2010
5131 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 3:02 pm to
quote:

I believe anything spent on foreign aid should be approved each year by a majority of the state legislatures. That money comes from our taxes and I think congress should have to explain to the states why they have shite arse roads and bridges while Ukraine gets another 33 billion.


This is a legit point
Posted by LSUSkip
Central, LA
Member since Jul 2012
17633 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 6:46 pm to
Posted by cadillacattack
the ATL
Member since May 2020
4499 posts
Posted on 4/28/22 at 6:50 pm to

quote:

White House Refuses to Define Success in Ukraine, But Want U.S. Taxpayers to Donate $33 Billion More Toward it April 28, 2022 | sundance | 27 Comments Yes, this actually happened today. During her press briefing Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the White House doesn’t want to “define what success in Ukraine looks like,” but demands U.S. taxpayers to give them another $33 billion toward it. A few moments later Psaki admits the money will be spent subsidizing not only Ukraine, but NATO allies who are suffering the results of inflation. Psaki stated the Biden demand for more money “is not all for Ukraine, it’s also for some of our Eastern European partners and others to help support them during this time as well.” Wait, now we are paying to subsidize the economy of EU countries while our own economy is contracting? Seriously, the scale of this hubris is blood boiling. First, they cannot tell us what success consists of, but give us money anyway. The first segment to watch happens at 18:15 of the video, WATCH (prompted):


LINK
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram