Just some friends talking
http://txdigest.com/txdigest/
jellowrestling wrote:Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.
jellowrestling wrote:jellowrestling wrote:Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.
I guess that was a thread-killer.
jellowrestling wrote:Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.
mayhem wrote:I think that's right and it needs to be taken seriously -- for all that will come of it.
But there's a different angle that also should be taken seriously. There is no set of
things 'that most people think are worthy enough.' Not saying there isn't a kind of
consensus, but that it is unworkable to ask all 'the people' what they/we feel
good about enough to fund. Thoroughly unworkable.
So what can we do?
So (we'll start this sort with 'so') Let's send a bunch of people to some convenient
site and let them sort through the priorities of the American people and then to
sort thru all the ideas that garnered the most positive responses.
Let's pay those people a per diem related to the progress they make in a reasonable
amount of time.
If they succeed, great. If they come in with mixed results, we'll dock them. If
they can't agree on anything much, let's send them bus fare to come home while
we find someone else to serve in their place. But ... how do we decide if they
are successful?
Then let's allus work on being happy with what they've been able to
accomplish.
Anybody see a flaw in that?
O ... that's right. That's what we're supposed to be doing, right?
Kinda?
"Supposed to ...?"
Sigh.jellowrestling wrote:Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.
mayhem wrote:I think that's right and it needs to be taken seriously -- for all that will come of it.
But there's a different angle that also should be taken seriously. There is no set of
things 'that most people think are worthy enough.' Not saying there isn't a kind of
consensus, but that it is unworkable to ask all 'the people' what they/we feel
good about enough to fund. Thoroughly unworkable.
So what can we do?
So (we'll start this sort with 'so') Let's send a bunch of people to some convenient
site and let them sort through the priorities of the American people and then to
sort thru all the ideas that garnered the most positive responses.
Let's pay those people a per diem related to the progress they make in a reasonable
amount of time.
If they succeed, great. If they come in with mixed results, we'll dock them. If
they can't agree on anything much, let's send them bus fare to come home while
we find someone else to serve in their place. But ... how do we decide if they
are successful?
Then let's allus work on being happy with what they've been able to
accomplish.
Anybody see a flaw in that?
O ... that's right. That's what we're supposed to be doing, right?
Kinda?
"Supposed to ...?"
Sigh.jellowrestling wrote:Liberals are too dense to understand that there are a handful of things that most people think are worthy enough of their money to send it voluntarily. Education is #1. Most of the crap that government spends money on, most people would never in a million years voluntarily let loose of their money for.
planosteve wrote:The purpose of govt. is to provide what people need and can't provide efficiently for themselves. ie: Police, fire protection, basic education, etc. Not what they just happen to want. Taking people's money for taxes and then deciding how to spend it is asinine, wasteful and immoral.
planosteve wrote:It's called Limited Govt. Failure to limit govt. always ends in disaster as govt. becomes more and more oppressive. The biggest mistakes were letting the govt. convert gold and silver receipts to fiat money, factionalized banking and the FED which Wilson sold as "banking reform" HA! So, we will pay the price at some point and it will be heavy. Solving the problem by electing different people doesn't work. I think anyone can see that. The limits have to be built into the system which is now completely broken.
PS I'm playing nice. I would appreciate a thoughtful answer. I don't know what
I could do with some extra snide at the moment.
planosteve wrote:It's called Limited Govt. Failure to limit govt. always ends in disaster as govt. becomes more and more oppressive. The biggest mistakes were letting the govt. convert gold and silver receipts to fiat money, factionalized banking and the FED which Wilson sold as "banking reform" HA! So, we will pay the price at some point and it will be heavy. Solving the problem by electing different people doesn't work. I think anyone can see that. The limits have to be built into the system which is now completely broken.
planosteve wrote:PS I'm playing nice. I would appreciate a thoughtful answer. I don't know what
I could do with some extra snide at the moment.
I'd give you one if I knew what the question was. Do you want to try again? I expect you are not a supporter of the gold standard. But, the fiat money standard has left us 18 trillion in debt and still increasing. At some point the system will collapse and I have yet to hear of anyone with a plan to prevent that.
GFB wrote:With our 18 Trillion dollar economy..a 500 Billion dollar deficit is thoroughly manageable ad infinitum.
As the economy grows larger..so can the deficit.
I don't like that it does..but it can.
Obama is the only President that put this ratio totally out of whack..having presided over 4 years of Trillion dollar plus deficits.
GFB wrote:With our 18 Trillion dollar economy..a 500 Billion dollar deficit is thoroughly manageable ad infinitum.
As the economy grows larger..so can the deficit.
I don't like that it does..but it can.
Obama is the only President that put this ratio totally out of whack..having presided over 4 years of Trillion dollar plus deficits.
jellowrestling wrote:planosteve wrote:It's called Limited Govt. Failure to limit govt. always ends in disaster as govt. becomes more and more oppressive. The biggest mistakes were letting the govt. convert gold and silver receipts to fiat money, factionalized banking and the FED which Wilson sold as "banking reform" HA! So, we will pay the price at some point and it will be heavy. Solving the problem by electing different people doesn't work. I think anyone can see that. The limits have to be built into the system which is now completely broken.
Limits were built into the system. "Progressives" ignore them.