| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
February 15th 05, 05:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: wrote: Mike Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: bb wrote: Michael Coslo wrote: snippage Fact is, an awful lot of people NEED some fiscal restraint. Otherwise they make stupid choices and become a drain on society. It is how it is. It is why people on welfare buy lottery tickets when they should be buying food or paying their rent. It is why people think they can make risky investments, and somehow retire to make more money than when they were working. There's also the fact that investment information isn't always on the up and up. Despite all the regulations, we still have messes like Enron. Even if those responsible for the Enron debacle go to jail for a while, it won't bring back the money investors lost. Y'know what's funny? The same folks who say we don't need restraint when investing life savings are the same ones who want to restrain stem cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, and a bunch of other things. Correct. Social engineering and attempts to force their philosophy on others. Liberals. ?? The folks who want restraints on stem cell research, recreational chemicals (except tobacco and alchohol), contraception, etc., call themselves "conservatives". Yup, they call themselves conservatives. But in the brave new "you are with us, or you are agin' us". party, conservatives support spending money at unprecedented burn rates that are not supported by intake, they support major increases in government power, and other things that we used to be told that liberals want to inflict on us. Except that the "liberals" were pushing tax-and-spend, not borrow-and-spend. Lots of true conservatives feel the same. But what is a "true conservative"? Or a "true liberal", for that matter? Most definitions I see are way too simplified. For example, I've seen it written that a conservative wants to control/regulate the individual and decontrol/deregulate the organizations (govt., business, etc.), and a liberal wants to control/regulate the organizations and decontrol/deregulate the individual. Under that definition, the current administration is conservative! But another definition says the conservative wants small, hands-off, pay-as-you-go government (usually defined by spending), and the liberal wants big, hands-on, borrow-tax-spend activist/social engineering government. Under *that* definition, the current administration is liberal! Yet another definition says conservatives want to keep things as they are, and liberals want to run around changing things. You decide what that one is. A web search can turn them up. The plain and simple fact is that any government action is "social engineering and attempt[ing] to force their philosophy on others". By definition. For example, there are tax deductions for home mortgage interest. Such deductions make home ownership more affordable for millions of people, and are in effect a subsidy supporting home ownership vs. renting. Now - is that liberal or conservative policy? How many self-described "conservatives" would support dumping the home mortgage interest deduction? Correct. That's a great way to lose power quickly. Unfortunately the Pubs have a track record of doing just that. Too bad. But they didn't lose power in 2004. Nor in 1984 or 1988. The same folks who criticized others for "tax and spend" are now deep into "borrow and spend". Seems to me that it's more responsible to pay-as-you-go than to borrow and let future generations pay for it. Absolutely. All deficit spending is eventually paid for. Or defaulted on. Under extraordinary conditions, deficit spending *may* be the only way to survive. But under those conditions, people are usually required to ante up their share of the money to help. Today, people don't want to help with their share of funding. I think they would *if* they felt they were getting something for their money. Look at what happened during WW2. Government deficit spending went to unimagined levels. It was largely paid for by people buying bonds and paying higher taxes. (Bonds are, of course, deficit spending). Of course if that war was lost, financial policy didn't matter much. But there was another side: Unemployment vanished! Production soared to incredible levels, and nobody had to worry about losing money if they could do the job. There wasn't much for civilians to spend their money on, because a lot of things were either rationed or unavailable. Buying bonds wasn't just a duty, it was also a form of tax-deferred saving. And there were paybacks after the war ended. Unlike the way WW1 vets were treated during the Great Depression, WW2 produced the GI Bill, which revolutionized the middle class in the USA. Agencies like the FHA and projects like the interstate highway system not only created jobs, they completely changed the way people lived. Not just veterans, either. Now - were the GI Bill and all those postwar agencies "liberal" or "conservative"? If all the Pubs can do is continue to blame the Dems for every problem on the face of the planet, then it means that they are *weak*, because they can't do anything about the Democrats even when they are in power. Funny how things work! 8^) Exactly! Well said, Mike. Thanks, Jim. It's also interesting to note that some people are insulted if you call them "liberals", even though their behavior and viewpoints are exactly that. And some people claim the title "conservative" yet behave in a very different way. Indeed. Didya ever ever notice how angry some folk get when confronted with the truth? You mean like Len? He's a textbook example! I still hold to the left to right spectrum as a continuum, not a bar. It is a circle, with extreme left and right being virtually indistinguishable from each other. In some ways, I agree. Deviation too far from the center is bad, bad, bad. The key is the center. But how is the center defined? But learning is soooo hard. Witness the new Democratic party chairman. What were they thinking??? Dr. Dean is an honorable person. But he is just too far to the left for my taste. No, he's just what the Dems need. Here's why: 1) By making him chairman, they pretty much guarantee he won't run for P or VP in 2008, yet his followers will stay around. 2) He's *not* an inside-the-beltway politician. That's important - notice how many presidents since LBJ have come from state governor positions. He's enough of an outsider to shake/wake the Dems up. 3) He's outspoken enough to talk straight and short, rather than "using too many big words" like Algore and Kerry and Dukakis. 4) He *is* an honorable person, and a smart one. You may not agree with him, but you can respect him. Is the state that elected Dean composed mostly of "liberals" or "conservatives"? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| ARRL Propose New License Class & Code-Free HF Access | Antenna | |||
| FCC Amateur Radio Enforcement Letters for the Period Ending May 1, 2004 | General | |||
| First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
| First BPL License Awarded - | Boatanchors | |||
Threaded Mode
