How can you spend without taxing?

Now here is the question, politicians especially the Republicans don’t want to talk about. They hate to tax people but still they have their pet projects that they want to fund. They believe in the Small Government is good, but I don’t believe very few republicans want to remove Medicaid, Medicare or social security from the government payroll. They want to look strong on defense and want to hike the defense budget but don’t want to tax without which the revenue would not come to pay for it. The Democrats on the other hand want to keep on spending but since majority of the people hate to get taxed are in catch 22 position. The people want big government and they want the government to take the lead role in providing them services like I mentioned above but they don’t want to pay more taxes. Now what gives, where the revenue will come to spend it if not by taxes? We can keep on saying that we should reduce our spending but our biggest expenses are our entitlement which nobody wants to touch or even talk about it. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security has to be funded by tax payers and we are going deeper into debt just to keep up with the entitled (I did not mentioned defense because it is not an entitlement and can be adjusted accordingly). There will come a time (certainly not to late) that we will have to raise taxes to keep on spending money on these entitlements or drastically reduce their scope and reach otherwise we will definitely fall off a fiscal cliff like the Greeks.

Are Republicans ready to compromise?

After getting defeated in the Presidential elections, the Republicans are in a quandary. They had hoped that with all the discontent with the current administration and their big government policy and their number one target Obama care, they thought that they would win by a landslide or at least win the majority of electoral college. But to their surprise, they lost by a heavy margin and have yet to accept four more years of democratic rule. They don’t have the require votes in the senate and the House even with there majority will not be able to overturn so called Obama care. So will now they be able to compromise on some core issues facing the nation as a national poll shows that people want to have a bipartisan supported government so that things should be moving along and try to solve the nation's problems amicably. But as I said above, the Republican have not yet to come to terms with this victory and they will try to fight on every bill whether they like or not. You can see a glimpse of it with the fight over the Libyan Attack on our Ambassador and their confirmation of the next Secretary of state. And there is the fiscal cliff that people are all talking about and the fears and apprehensions of the public and businesses alike. Expect more of the same for the next four years as Republicans dug in to fight every battle with the Democrats. I don’t see much compromise happening on the horizon on key critical issues facing us.

On the lighter side-Movies-Men in Black 3 (2012)-Will Smith, Tommy lee Jones

Long time, no see. Continuing adventures of the secret agency maintaining control of the alien population on earth. This time Will Smith goes back in time to save his partner Jones from certain death at the hands of a criminal that Jones put behind bars on the moon. Great movie and effects. Highly Recommended

Death Penalty- Revenge or Justice?-2

Now the argument forwarded by the death penalty opponents are that it does not bring back the victim and it has been disproportionately applied towards the minorities (especially in America) or a wrong person can be put to death. For the second argument I have already mentioned in my previous post but for the first one is there anything called Justice in all of this. It should not be called revenge but it is Justice that if the victim does not deserve to die in the first place than the person committing the crime should not be given any mercy and must be given death penalty. Whether it is justice (to the victim's families) or Revenge (to some of the opponents) is best left to the hereafter. Other thing is that does not the victim family gets any right in this matter if they want somebody put to death (after the accuser or perpetrator has confessed to the crime) or spare him. It just seems like if you are putting somebody to death there is some sort of closure to victim's families whereas if he is in jail you are still traumatized by him/her being in jail enjoying life (in whatever form). Furthermore what would the opponents do in case of Hitler or the Norwegian massacre guy or the Columbine people or the Madrid bombings or Osama Bin Laden (OBL) what kind of punishment does Amnesty international (AI) or other human right groups recommend in these cases? How would they feel if their loved ones get killed in these massacres, how does the punishment be applied. Does not the punishment fit the crime be applied here and what about the victims, they did not asked to be killed so what is their crime. Why are human rights only for the perpetrators and why not for the victim?