Democrats versus Republicans - Page 258

PBzeer · #**2571** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

What you seem to fail to recognize sck5, is any sense of proportion. There are areas where federal involvement is proper, and taxes to fund those areas is not a problem. Especially, some form of a flat tax, or at the very least, a tax code without ANY loopholes. As it is not the role of government to either encourage, nor discourage lawful activity. Which is what the current, convoluted, code does. In other words, taxes should be at the minimum level to fund those functions, which are within the proper role of the federal government.

There is no constitutional basis for the federal government to be in the entitlement business. Any assistance given by the federal government, whether to individuals, groups, corporations, or lower government levels, should be of a limited and close-ended nature. For instance, if you want to live in Florida, don't expect my tax money to fund your rebuilding costs everytime a hurricane flattens it. You are free to live where ever you choose, if you want to live in a high risk area, then you assume the risk, not the public treasury.

I am unaware of any endeavor where federal involvement does not lead to higher costs and less efficiency. The ethanol fiasco comes readily to mind. As well as the soaring rise of college tuition, which is based not on real world factors such as costs or inflation, but instead are inked to the amount of government assistance provided.

You speak of the burden on future generations, while blithely ignoring that every attempt to fix the biggest burden they face, which is funding the entitlement programs liberals so revere , has been met with a resounding NO.

You decry the lack of attention to infrastructure, without condemnation of the divertment of funds for such projects going to things such as bike trails and public transit. Which are nothing more than attempts to influence behavior, which is not a government function.

An ever growing government got us in the mess we are in. More government won't solve nor fix anything, only make it worse.

cardiacpaul · #**2572** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

"so chuck, because you once saw a welfare mom buy cheetos you are going to defund the roads, the ports, the aids to navigation, the schools, the research, the development and all the other stuff that USED to make us the richest and fastest growing country in the world?"

whos drinkin' the kool-aid now? please try to rectify the cranial-rectal inversion that you're suffering from.
The waste and abuse is rife across all states.
I'm not against buying food for moms, the poor, the less fortunate. Not at all.
Alas however, theres a knat in the air.
A person is allowed to buy beverages (not adult)... up to "x" number of fluid oz's. Fine. Well, instead of frozen concentrate, I SEE purchased 4 "vitamin waters", at 1.99 each. Instead of hamburger @ 1.99 a lb, I SEE purchased top sirloin @ 5.99 a lb. DAILY
As far as "dismantling" the system goes, one needs to go no further than building lighted basketball courts in the middle of crack hoods, The police have stated that it makes it much easier for the dealers to see their clients coming.

The reaches you'll go to from moms buying cheetos to defunding the repair of bridges is so far out there it renders your statements moot.

PBzeer · #**2573** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

Can someone explain to me, the purpose for having primary elections, when all the candidates do is say one thing to get the nomination, and then change course for the general election. This year, with Obama's now almost daily reversals of position from the primaries, it's even more of a stark contrast than usual. Where once, candidates stood on principle, they now stand on polls. Their message, not, here's what I believe, vote for me, but rather, what do you want me to believe to get you to vote for me?.

erps · #**2574** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

Unfortunately, if any candidate speaks honestly, he's gonna piss-off half the people. It would be nice to get a fair answer to which one will do the least damage though.

I heard Dr. Phil recommend to a young lady on his show the other day, "don't listen to what they say, watch what they do." That was Phil's advice to her for finding another boyfriend.

PBzeer · #**2575** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

Ray - it's more of a lament, disguised as a rhetorical question, than an answerable question. The answer is basically in the need to ask the question.

chucklesR · #**2576** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

Soon you will all come to the revelation I had many years ago. Voting for any of these idiots only increases their ego and makes you party to the idiocy, stop voting and the center eventually takes over. It's not a good course of action, but the center does the least damage; and it requires zero effort and money on your part.

erps · #**2577** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

High School kids have to pass a test to graduate. We ought to have candidates take some sort of a test battery that shows whether they're smart, ethical and their political philosophy. Post the results and vote the one you think has the best scores to run the country. Some how limit the amount of money it takes to campaign so these guys don't have to sell their soul.

sck5 · #**2578** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

"In other words, taxes should be at the minimum level to fund those functions, which are within the proper role of the federal government"

Agreed. But if you read the right wing rhetoric on this thread and elsewhere it is hard to avoid the conclusion that they are against ALL taxes.

"I am unaware of any endeavor where federal involvement does not lead to higher costs and less efficiency."

Nonsense. Dont you fly on planes? I like having federally funded air traffic controllers. Dont you drive on roads? I think the feds did a good job with the interstate system (though it is now falling apart from lack of funds to maintain it) Dont you like having a military? Dont you like having a Center for Disease Control to deal with epidemics? And the list goes on. You really shouldnt make such blanket statements. The truth is that the government does some things well (in fact they wont get done without a government) and others not. We can all agree that the govt. lost sight of this in the 60's and 70's but a lot of that crap is dismantled now.

"You decry the lack of attention to infrastructure, without condemnation of the divertment of funds for such projects going to things such as bike trails and public transit."

Come now. If you like it when the govt builds roads for YOU how is it consistent for them NOT to give an equal boost to mass transit for the people who dont drive cars. In fact, it is a good thing for the country as it saves oil and therefore decreases the need to invade Middle Eastern countries. (and lets be honest, if there werent oil there who would give a rats ass what they were doing?)

sck5 · #**2579** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

PB

You are right about primaries. But I ask you (and truly sometimes wonder at the answer myself) if the smoke filled back rooms that used to decide the nominee were better.

sck5 · #**2580** (**permalink**) 06-27-2008

"High School kids have to pass a test to graduate. We ought to have candidates take some sort of a test battery that shows whether they're smart"

Hahahahahahhahahahahha. Hey did you vote for BUSH? I hope not, with a suggestion like this!!!