|
Post by kevin on May 22, 2007 21:25:15 GMT -5
Saw this statement by a poster on Google Groups today. My opinion? Valid, when you put yourselves into the shoes of the everyday uninformed American. Which will of course make up a large portion of the voting populace. Most of the public doesn't want a minimal government, especially since it would mean the end of popular programs like social security, Medicare, and public universities, and leave the nation's infrastructure in chaos. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 23, 2007 13:08:53 GMT -5
I agree. People say they want smaller government until you mess with their program or job. They aren't willing to sacrifice. So they really like it SUPERSIZED.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 23, 2007 13:15:06 GMT -5
Think about it. Americans like everything supersized. We are so into excess -- gluttony. So why are we not surprised they like big ass gov. too?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 23, 2007 21:20:16 GMT -5
Given the current political leadership in this country, one might ask if you prefer to be poisoned slowly (Republican) or quickly (Democrat).
The end result is you're still poisoned.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on May 24, 2007 9:46:06 GMT -5
Given the current political leadership in this country, one might ask if you prefer to be poisoned slowly (Republican) or quickly (Democrat). The end result is you're still poisoned. YOU CONSERVATIVE SHILL!!!!!!! LOL!!!! Dead on, W.O.M.I.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 24, 2007 10:41:28 GMT -5
WOMI,
If you agree we are being poisoned by the Reps., then why do you continue to defend practically everything they do? Why do you promote them?
And if your only answer is, "Well, it's better than the Dems.," don't bother responding.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 14:39:49 GMT -5
killer-
So unless I adopt the "a pox on both your houses" stance that you have, I'm not allowed to respond?
Homie don't play that.
That you refuse to acknowledge the fact- and it is a fact- that even Republicans at their very worst are far, far, FAR better than 99% of the Democrats at their best when it comes to reining in the size of government is more a reflection on the narrowness of your vision than a commentary on reality.
When is the last time a Democrat politician proposed a reduction in spending on any government program that did not involve the military or national security? Not "enacted" but merely "proposed".
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 24, 2007 14:43:44 GMT -5
Is your name Homie? How cute. Did it start out as Homer?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 15:25:27 GMT -5
I'll take "Slightly Obscure Pop Culture References" for $1000, Alex.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 24, 2007 16:36:23 GMT -5
WOMI wrote, "That you refuse to acknowledge the fact- and it is a fact- that even Republicans at their very worst are far, far, FAR better than 99% of the Democrats at their best when it comes to reining in the size of government is more a reflection on the narrowness of your vision than a commentary on reality. When is the last time a Democrat politician proposed a reduction in spending on any government program that did not involve the military or national security? Not "enacted" but merely "proposed. [/i] Hasn't this Republican administration (pres. and Congress) spent more and grew government more than previous ones -- and this does not include war costs --?
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 24, 2007 16:41:03 GMT -5
If you have 3 candidates for an office -- one Dem., one Rep., and one Independent -- which would you vote for under following circumstances: Dem. has embezzeled 2 million from company he used to work for, Rep. embezzeled 1.5 million, and Independent embezzeled none.
Would you, WOMI, vote for the Rep., just because he had taken less than the Dem.? Or would you say, both have done wrong so I'll pick neither. And instead vote for the Independent?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 18:43:46 GMT -5
Absolutely.
But then, while virtually all Conservatives are Republican, not all Republicans are Conservative.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 18:48:43 GMT -5
If you have 3 candidates for an office -- one Dem., one Rep., and one Independent -- which would you vote for under following circumstances: Dem. has embezzeled 2 million from company he used to work for, Rep. embezzeled 1.5 million, and Independent embezzeled none. Would you, WOMI, vote for the Rep., just because he had taken less than the Dem.? Or would you say, both have done wrong so I'll pick neither. And instead vote for the Independent? THAT is a great question, killer. Not to completely wimp out on you here but the answer is a definite "It Depends". If the Indie is a Socialist- not a Democrat ("socialist lite"...but getting closer all the time) but a real admitted Socialist (like Bernie Sanders in Vermont)- then yeah I'd hold my nose and vote for the Republican. Why? Simply- even if the Republican did embezzle $1.5 million, the damage that politician did to the country as a whole was negligible compared to the damage the Democrat or, worse, the Socialist would do if they got their agenda enacted. I'd be slighly more favorably disposed to vote for the Indie if the country were at peace. Libertarians, given their present platform of isolation, haven't demonstrated that they'd defend this country.
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 24, 2007 18:51:20 GMT -5
That you refuse to acknowledge the fact- and it is a fact- that even Republicans at their very worst are far, far, FAR better than 99% of the Democrats at their best when it comes to reining in the size of government is more a reflection on the narrowness of your vision than a commentary on reality.
Since you agree that the Republicans have spent more, do you take back the above statement? Will you admit you were wrong?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 24, 2007 19:34:17 GMT -5
killer-
Nope because I wasn't wrong.
When Republicans try to federalize 15%-20% of the national economy in one fell swoop- as Hillarycare would have done- THEN the two partys will be the same.
Until, I stand by my statement that, while Republicans might be bad on spending, Democrats are far, FAR worse.
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 25, 2007 7:06:38 GMT -5
Yes-
The GI Bill, TVA, Highway system, public education, increased fire and police protection, social security, Medicare.....all expansion of the role of government and pretty darn good for Americans.
As opposed to the REICH-WINGERS that want to privatize everything. They privatized the entire service sector of the military. Now you have people over in Iraq making great money working in the cafeterias, doing security and the troops are over their loooking at these folks and making no where near what they are making---No wonder its demoralizing to them.
As citizens of the government, we invest in our country with our taxes. I am glad there is a public health department (en expansion of government) to tell me when a eating establishment is not up to code. I wouldn't want to rely on the "Free Market" and word of mouth about which place had two people drop dead because they weren't up to code.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 25, 2007 10:38:12 GMT -5
rich-
GI Bill is a legit example of the government working. TVA too. Highway building perhaps though less so.
But public education? It's been an unmitigated disaster. Our high school graduates know less now than eighth graders did 50 years ago. But the 'educators' in the government schools make sure they feeel real good about being ignorant. Yet we're spending more per student than almost every other civilized nation in the world. Few pay so much for so little. School choice and vouchers will provide the necessary fix (private sector)
Fire and police protection are the responsibilities, to the greatest extent, of local government. Local government will always be better than the Federal government in dealing with local issues. We're talking about what the >Federal government< does better than private industry though.
Medicare- it doesn't fail completely, so I guess one could say that it 'works'...although the care at such hospitals is little more than basic (private sector does better though admittedly at a cost- why not allow people to form their own groups and buy their own health insurance policies at group rates and have the Feds given them tax breaks to help pay for it- private sector fix!)
Social Security is dying. It won't be around for my retirement in its present form. Simply math tells us that it's going to go totally broke within the next 20-30 years.
There are two schools of thought as to how to solve the situation:
Democrats want to increase taxes. Now THERE'S a surprise....
Republicans want to partially privatize it- giving back people more of their OWN MONEY. What a concept, eh? (private sector) And Bush was pilloried for even daring to suggest a change. Democrats who, under Clinton, had warned us that SS was going to become insolvent soon and that this was a "crisis" (and advocating raising taxes to solve it) suddenly, under Bush, did a complete about-face and claimed that there was no crisis at all.
With the exception of the GI Bill (Fed program that works) and police/fire (not a Federal responsibility), all the otehr programs you mention could be better handled by the private sector.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on May 26, 2007 5:46:04 GMT -5
Hmm....check that about TVA being an example of "...the government working..."
only a government agency could continue operating with a 26 billion dollar debt and no accountability for it...
like social security, TVA has outlived its viability as a "good" government program...
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 26, 2007 10:35:58 GMT -5
I bet you enjoy that electricity. The south would still be in the dark ages if not for the TVA. Privatizing everything doesn't put the money back in the hands of the people, it puts it in the hands of their buddies like Haliburton and Blackwater. I would argue that public education gave the US one of the great leaps forward, and is a democratic right and essential if you believe the premise that Jefferson held that the population is intelligent enough to govern their own lives. It gave the US one of the best educated workforces in the world. Problems.....you bet....I have ZERO problem paying taqxes to make sure the next generation gets a free education no matter what their family socio-economic status. Private companies like Exxon (Valdez),Enron,Arthur Anderson,Healthsouth(Scrushy),Haliburton? ? These are the jokers you put your faith in....Big business often puts MONEY before People!
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 26, 2007 10:58:00 GMT -5
We have had a period in the US before bigger government-the Age of the Robber Barons
Children working in factories (child labor laws), unsafe working conditions (labor unions and OSHA), "company towns", poor houses (where the old used to go before social security), poor farms
Big Business withour regulation by government will use humans as a commodity and maximize profits at teh expense of worker's health.....Look at the labor issues in China.
|
|
|
Post by deovindice on May 27, 2007 9:41:41 GMT -5
killer- WOMI--Respectfully, tyranny from the right is only slightly better than tyranny from the left in that the resulting body count is a bit lower. Bush is one of the most anti-Constitution presidents in history. When is the last time a Republican bought off the public with a hand-job about building a fence on the border and then refusing to fund it at the behest of their special-interest handlers? This past year. When is the last time a Republican proposed amnesty for illegal alien invaders at the bidding of their corporate bosses? How about this past week.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 18:34:02 GMT -5
deo-
I've come to expect that I have to correct solomon, lawman and others on a regular basis, but I didn't think you'd fall prety to such a rote and false statement.
Maybe you've noticed....George W. Bush is >>NOT<< a Conservative.
That being the case, please do not go down the same path the aforementioned folks do and try to tie anything and everything Bush does to Conservatives. Republicans, you're on far better ground.
Had it not been for true Conservatives on the Right, do you really think that a border fence would have been even proposed, much less passed into law?
That it made it into law at all should be considered a testimony to Conservatism and credit given to us. That it might not make it into law, well, that's a result of timidity on a bipartisan basis.
Where is the Left's John Cornyn? Duncan Hunter? Tom Tancredo?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 18:40:11 GMT -5
rich-
An interesting study came to light a while back.
In the study, test scores of students around the world were compared at 4th, 8th and 12th grade levels and the expenditure of tax monies at these various levels around the world were also compared.
American students' test scores were near the top in the 4th grade, below average by 8th and at the bottom by the 12th.
American student's per student spending was at its lowest in 4th grade, slightly above average by the 8th and at the top by the 12th.
"Never has so little been done with so much"- the US Public School Education motto.
With regretfully few exceptions, the US public school system is a complete failure- in fact, about the only program that has been a greater failure has bee Johnson's "Great Society" transfer of some $5 TRILLION dollars from the achievers to the parasites with absolutely NO corresponding decrease in poverty. We would have been better off writing everyone a check for $50,000 back in 1964.
And we're not even getting into other areas of failure, such as liberal indoctrination of kids, teacher incompetence, administrative incompetence and the like.
|
|
|
Post by lawman on May 28, 2007 18:46:36 GMT -5
deo- I've come to expect that I have to correct solomon, lawman and others on a regular basis, but I didn't think you'd fall prety to such a rote and false statement. Maybe you've noticed....George W. Bush is >>NOT<< a Conservative. That being the case, please do not go down the same path the aforementioned folks do and try to tie anything and everything Bush does to Conservatives. Republicans, you're on far better ground. Had it not been for true Conservatives on the Right, do you really think that a border fence would have been even proposed, much less passed into law? That it made it into law at all should be considered a testimony to Conservatism and credit given to us. That it might not make it into law, well, that's a result of timidity on a bipartisan basis. Where is the Left's John Cornyn? Duncan Hunter? Tom Tancredo? You're a 'legend in your 'own' mind,' W.O.M.I.!! You seldom correctly correct anyone.....haha, you just 'think' you do! BTW, you just stated...''I didn't think you'd fall prety''.....prety, what is that?
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 28, 2007 19:41:12 GMT -5
law-
"Keyboard fleas" don'cha know.
I type poorly even at my regular (slow) speed; trying to type faster just makes it worse.
You folks could help out a bit: stop posting so much incorrect and deliberately misleading stuff and I could return to my purfect typing record....
|
|
|
Post by richbrout on May 29, 2007 7:45:39 GMT -5
As a fromer teacher I couldn't disagree with you more. Many students in the US lack motivation.
Its hard to motivate a kid to work hard so life will get better when they are drving a BMW to school, wearing designer clothes, playing their 400$ XBOX 360 when they get home from the gym and tanning bed. The biggest problem in public education is lack of motivation in students, education isw not valued like it is in many other countries and to a certain extent we are victims of the American dream. The highest numers of valedictorians for any ethnic group are the Vietnamese. Many came here and had to learn english and had little economic resourses and yet applied themselves and excelled. You get out of education what you put into it. A majority of my parents. I never met. Our society doesn't value education like it used to and thats the biggest problem.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 8:54:01 GMT -5
As a fromer teacher I couldn't disagree with you more. Many students in the US lack motivation... ...get home from the gym Hey, see they are motivated ;D. Believe me, it takes alot of motivation to work out .
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 9:10:56 GMT -5
rich-
The biggest impediment to education is the lack of discipline in the classrooms. Teachers aren't allowed to do anything, really, to enforce discipline in their classrooms for fear of lawsuits from outraged parents. Unless and until teachers are given some mechanism by which they can restore order in their classrooms without fear of frivilous repercussions, the sorry state of public education won't have a chance to improve.
As for motivation...I think I'd have to agree with you there. Kids today- including my own, sad to say- are SPOILED. There's no work ethic- certainly not like the ones my parents had. Technology has made the educational system absurdly easy for kids. In that sense, we are victims of our own success as a country.
|
|
|
Post by billt on May 29, 2007 9:39:07 GMT -5
technology has made it easy?
hardly true on any level, yes techonology has allowed students to NOT LEARN and get by but people that didnt "learn" actually do NOT have an education either.
technology cant make the process of learning any easier, it still takes the person doing the learning to pay attention and do the work, technology agains lessens the work to find the answer BUT the child has NOT LEARNED.
that is why we have many college grads today, and some right on this board, that dont know basic 8th grade science, that cant do math, and honestly cant form a logical argument to support their silly nonsense.
womi IF your children dont value education and work ethic that is YOUR failure as a parent!
mine are grown hard working productive members of society that do value education!
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 29, 2007 10:02:53 GMT -5
bill-
In reverse order:
My daughter is ten. No need for her to have developed a grown-up's work ethic yet- thankfully.
Yes technology has made the educational process- what I was refering to- far, far, FAR easier.
I remember having to spend whole Saturdays at the local (about 4 miles away) library doing research for a report I had to turn in Monday. Remember the Dewey Decimal System?
Well, all I'd have to do now is use my home computer connected to the internet toGoogle whatever the topic happens to be and I have potentially MILLIONS of sources of information within a few seconds.
Do you deny the process is easier?
Ok...let's go on to the classes taught now versus, oh, 75 years ago.
I found one of my father's report cards from high school dated 1942. He was a sophomore that year.
Latin. Calculus. Advanced composition. Literature. Biology.
And those were REQUIRED classes- not "Advanced Placement".
When I was in high school in the late 70s- early 80s, those were optional classes but most were still available. But we had four or five remedial (6th grade!) English classes!
Now I wonder if they're available at all. If they are, I know damn well they aren't mainstream curricula.
So now it's been made much easier (thru technology) for the kids to learn less (poor curricula).
Progress? Not so much.
|
|