If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
...and a revenue problem, and an employment problem, and an aging population problem, and a greed problem. Focusing on only one of the causes of our faltering economy will not provide the expected results. Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Good luck with that.
Insanity is repeating the same action time and again and expecting a different result. For example: expecting government to efficiently solve problems.
I do not share your pessimism, your comparrison, or your lack of faith in our form of government. However, I do not expect the Tea Party to solve problems; I expect them to make huge problems out of big ones, and if your analogy of insanity is applied to the number of times the Tea Party has attempted to repeal ObamaCare, then I will consider that a valid observation.
Besides, I heard a news report today that California, under Governor Brown, has a balanced budget because they RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING. Imagine that. A fair and balanced approach to fiscal responsibility.
The Liberal says: "Government sucks. We need more government."
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need to keep all the government we have."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of some."
We alternate between the first two because there's no pork in the last two.
I don't see any common ground, because I don't accept these statements or conclusions as being accurate.
If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
...and a revenue problem, and an employment problem, and an aging population problem, and a greed problem. Focusing on only one of the causes of our faltering economy will not provide the expected results. Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Good luck with that.
Insanity is repeating the same action time and again and expecting a different result. For example: expecting government to efficiently solve problems.
I do not share your pessimism, your comparrison, or your lack of faith in our form of government. However, I do not expect the Tea Party to solve problems; I expect them to make huge problems out of big ones, and if your analogy of insanity is applied to the number of times the Tea Party has attempted to repeal ObamaCare, then I will consider that a valid observation.
Besides, I heard a news report today that California, under Governor Brown, has a balanced budget because they RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING. Imagine that. A fair and balanced approach to fiscal responsibility.
The Liberal says: "Government sucks. We need more government."
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need to keep all the government we have."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of some."
We alternate between the first two because there's no pork in the last two.
I don't see any common ground, because I don't accept these statements or conclusions as being accurate.
Which bit do yopu find innacurate?
Is it the part where government sucks?
Is it the part where the Liberal wants more?
Is it the part where the Conservative can't let go?
Is it the part where the nihilist says I want none of it?
Is it the part where the Libertarian says get it off my back?
Is it the part where the process is driven by pork?
... or is this your stumbling block:
"The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain."
If you go back and adopt Clinton's tax structure, you also need to roll back government spending to the levels that he had. We have a spending problem.
...and a revenue problem, and an employment problem, and an aging population problem, and a greed problem. Focusing on only one of the causes of our faltering economy will not provide the expected results. Congress men and women must behave like rational adults instead of beligerent radio talk show shock jocks. They were elected to solve big problems, not make them worse.
Good luck with that.
Insanity is repeating the same action time and again and expecting a different result. For example: expecting government to efficiently solve problems.
I do not share your pessimism, your comparrison, or your lack of faith in our form of government. However, I do not expect the Tea Party to solve problems; I expect them to make huge problems out of big ones, and if your analogy of insanity is applied to the number of times the Tea Party has attempted to repeal ObamaCare, then I will consider that a valid observation.
Besides, I heard a news report today that California, under Governor Brown, has a balanced budget because they RAISED TAXES and CUT SPENDING. Imagine that. A fair and balanced approach to fiscal responsibility.
The Liberal says: "Government sucks. We need more government."
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need to keep all the government we have."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of some."
We alternate between the first two because there's no pork in the last two.
I don't see any common ground, because I don't accept these statements or conclusions as being accurate.
Which bit do yopu find innacurate?
Is it the part where government sucks?
Is it the part where the Liberal wants more?
Is it the part where the Conservative can't let go?
Is it the part where the nihilist says I want none of it?
Is it the part where the Libertarian says get it off my back?
Is it the part where the process is driven by pork?
... or is this your stumbling block:
"The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain."
Ludwig von Mises
1881-1973
Austrian economist
None of the above. You are free to stand on your soapbox and bang your drum all you want to, but don't expect me to dance to your tune, or humor your views. I see no common ground.
The Liberal says: "Government sucks. We need more government."
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need to keep all the government we have."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of some."
We alternate between the first two because there's no pork in the last two.
For a simplistic statement, I like this a lot. But I think it's a little too general. I'd revise it to:
The Liberal says: "Government sucks. We need more government to protect the well-being of the needy and keep business from destroying the country."
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need more government to protect our national security and less government to interfere with letting individuals and businesses solve our economic and social problems."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of all the regulations that keep me from doing what I want--but create more to allow me to do what I want."
No value judgement implied or intended for any of these.
We just need more laws and regulations that will fix everything.
So will snide comments without suggestions or solutions;)
Ok here is a suggestion..... lets make a law that says it is illegal to steal guns and then use them to shoot people. Oh wait...........maybe a law like that wouldnt prevent anything. Nevermind
Comments
Is it the part where government sucks?
Is it the part where the Liberal wants more?
Is it the part where the Conservative can't let go?
Is it the part where the nihilist says I want none of it?
Is it the part where the Libertarian says get it off my back?
Is it the part where the process is driven by pork?
... or is this your stumbling block:
"The dogma that the State or the Government is the embodiment of all that is good and beneficial and that the individuals are wretched underlings, exclusively intent upon inflicting harm upon one another and badly in need of a guardian, is almost unchallenged. It is taboo to question it in the slightest way. He who proclaims the godliness of the State and the infallibility of its priests, the bureaucrats, is considered as an impartial student of the social sciences. All those raising objections are branded as biased and narrow-minded. The supporters of the new religion of statolatry are no less fanatical and intolerant than were the Mohammedan conquerors of Africa and Spain."
Ludwig von Mises
1881-1973
Austrian economist
The Liberal says: "Government sucks. We need more government to protect the well-being of the needy and keep business from destroying the country."
The Conservative says: "Government sucks. We need more government to protect our national security and less government to interfere with letting individuals and businesses solve our economic and social problems."
The Nihilist says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of it all."
The Libertarian says: "Government sucks. Let's get rid of all the regulations that keep me from doing what I want--but create more to allow me to do what I want."
No value judgement implied or intended for any of these.