|
Wow - that’s awesome. Someone should show this to Hillary... well, I guess any politician these days should see it. A common sense approach to what it costs to ’grow’ the government and who pays it. |
| |
Written By:
meagain
URL:
http://
|
|
Interesting. I have a book called "Star-Spangled Men: America’s Ten Worst Presidents" and Calvin Coolidge is included. Of course, part of the critique leveled at him in that book (an otherwise partisanship-free enjoyable and informative book) is that he is bad because he was a "do-nothing" president. That’s the kind of unidentified bias history books need to be careful of. The question to be asked after an assertion that he was "do-nothing" is, what is it you wanted him to do? Whether the proposed action is good or bad is a better factor to consider than the mere fact of inaction. |
| |
Written By:
Linus
URL:
http://
|
Sadly, the amount that Republicans and Democrats want to spend is no different, only what they want to spend it on changes.
I was listening to someone earlier this week talking about how all of the lobbyists in Washington are peddling the same old single industry perk tax breaks as economic stimulus packages.
I know a lot of liberals who agree that we should cut down the size and cost of government, and they want to do it by cutting the defense budget to 1 tenth it’s current size. They argue that we managed to meet the challenge of WW1 and WW2 without having a large defense infrastructure, we built it up as needed.
I know the hawks have many good arguments against this, but they are just that, arguments, and liberals have their own arguments for why the social policies should be bigger, not smaller.
In the end, we don’t compromise by spending less on both, we end up compromising by spending more on both, and interest groups and corporations try to work in their own special deals, while the rest of us unrepresented rabble continue to complain, and pay the bill for all of it.
Imagine for a moment that special interest money could be removed from government without violating the First Amendment, and the only voice that mattered to our so-called representatives was our actual votes.
Would the madness stop?
I don’t know, but I would like to see a government where the money to get votes was not more important than the votes themselves.
I don’t care if we spend money on social programs, nor do I care if we spend money on defense, but I do care that we have no semblence of foresight into the impact of the decisions we make today on economic stability of the nation our children will inherit.
Here’s a question though, is there anything you support that you are willing to give up?
|
| |
Written By:
Captin Sarcastic
URL:
http://
|
Here’s a question though, is there anything you support that you are willing to give up? Need a bit more context - for example I have limited support for short term additional stimulus rebates in the current (this week) package - I’ll get like $1500 - I’d give that up in a heartbeat if they’d take Jumbo mortgages back out of the new FHA (etc.) federal support.
It’s scary that the Gov. will insure my savings to only 100K but will insure a deadbeat loan to 700K...
There are lots of things I support I’m willing to give up as long as it’s not unilateral - take away NIH Diabetes research money that I support but also take everyone elses - so are there things I support that I’d give up - yes as long as it’s not unilateral. |
| |
Written By:
BIllS
URL:
http://bills-opinions.blogspot.com
|
