I don't know which to disbelieve more, your complete lack of understanding of economic fundamentals or your utter faith in technology that has not yet come of age.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a a technophile as well, but you can't combine real technological process with socialistic systems. It may work for a while, but eventually the system collapses under economic strain. Examples include every socialist nation ever.

Yes, I know that there are socialist nations right now that have or have had some unique technological achievements, but in time they will fail, just like all the others.


While it may be true that the country supports the stimulus package, and some of the bailouts, that is to be expected. Everyone wants "free" stuff, especially when times are difficult. But they always fail to realize the price they, and the nation, will ultimately pay. Case-in-point; Social Security, along with a host of other "New Deal" programs. The country didn't particularly benefit from them at the time, and the nation payed a tremendous bill in the long run.

Your'e operating under the assumption that alternative energy will help. It might, in point of fact, but only if it is more economical than what we have now. Until then, it is just a drain on resources. Do you really think that energy companies are too stupid to know an efficient energy source when they see one? Companies stay in business by using one or both of two methods. Being efficient, or manipulating the government system. Whatever method they choose, they have to remain profitable. If they don't they either (a) go bankrupt or close, or (b) fall back on government support.

By now, it should be quite clear that many companies have opted to bypass the mechanics of supply and demand, and have curried government favor to ensure their continued success. Whether it is in the form of subsidies (which we have many of, just check the Federal budget registry) or tariffs that hamper the competition (check the same) or via lobbying, companies that curry the favor of the state almost always win out. Companies are always efficient, they always seek the best means to profit, so why would you give the horribly inefficient Federal government the right to determine those means?

In your support of Democratic Party initiatives, you are actually slowing progress down. The Federal government has no Constitutional right to issue bailouts, and they have no Constitutional right to promote most of the programs they do.
Would you trust a monopolistic company to handle your life? Of course not. So why would you trust a monopolistic Federal Government to do the same? Why would you give anyone the right to choose for you? Why would the people in that organization function any more efficiently than those in a private organization, who are competing for jobs, wages, and position? Surely you can't be so naive as to believe that so many people would do their best out of "patriotic duty", and a visit to your local DMV or Social Security office should convince you of that.

The Deomcrats' socialistic system removes incentive from those under it.
IMO, those that choose such a system are those that want things done, but aren't willing to put forth the effort themselves, and they are preyed upon by people who exploit that desire, espite their consistent inability to deliver the prmised results.

The Republican (not so much in it's current form) system, seeks to force individuals to take responsibility for their own destinies, and take care of themselves. This encourages competition, which in turn encourages efficiency, in every sector of market and government.

We had a Civil War over this once, you know. Between people who wanted to tell everyone else what to do and people that wanted to make their own choices. Guess which side was which.

All I ask is that you step down from your high horse for just a momnent, and assume that it may be possible that not everyone that doesn't think like you is an idiot.
Is it, perhaps, possible that you don't know the right answer for everyone? Is there a chance that you aren't the smartest person on the face of the planet; One that can make a socialist society work, for once?

Maybe you should consider the idea of letting others profit or suffer from their own decisions, instead of telling them how to think.


I apologize for any rudeness that might have been conveyed, but please understand that I feel as strongly about these kinds of issues as you do, and forgive my inability to express them in a totally inoccuous fashion.

"The country"? You speak for all of us? Or even most of us? I don't recall anyone asking me. I'm not a great lover of Federally-supported welfare, of any kind or on any level.

While I dislike name-calling, especially of the "I'm right" political kind, I also dislike using "the country", i.e. me, as an example, from either side.

If you read the polls, the country also is not in favor of this bill.

-S

Whoooops! :yeah:

How dare you question authority you don't need to know otherwise they would have told you., did you ever think of that? No I suppose not. Just sit back and think positively all is well. Sheesh you must be republican if you think beyond what you are told, so sit down and shut-up you have nothing to fear.



.

:haha: :|\\

So true...

:D couldn't help it.

Makes absolutely no sense how anyone can promote this 'stimulus' when neither they nor the politicians have a clue what the heck they just voted on. Just toe the party line and don't think or, heaven forbid, question it.

SHEEP vote the party.

Another thing anyone ever notice with government nothing is ever solved but only perpetuated? Sides chosen, people divided, anyone know why that is?

Well, one must understand these little pet projects have been sitting on their desks for the past two years. Most of the dems know what is in the bill because each got their earmark for the earmark they have been working on for a long time. Does this much spending on these projects seem like the right idea when you are conducting a war? Do we really need to know what a field mouse is doing in his habitat just outside San Fransico when men are fighting on the other side of the world? The republicans did not think so and these little pet projects sat until the authors of these hair brained projects could get approval. Now we what it is like when adults act like children in a candy store. They just smile and sign away billions of dollars with glee. Really, were is there a stimulus in this bill? Ok, 8 billion dollars to build a super train for Las Vegas to San Francisco. Total Reid project here. It will be no less than 5 years to make studies of what animal will be affect by the rail and what communities will have to go so to lay the rail, yadda, yadda. There is no immediate stimulus to this project much like the others. However, Reid got his little pet project that will transport more people to Vegas thus dumping more money into his state. It is all very simple, they are simply taking care of their state and making some brownie points in the next election. Washington is still Washington. Everyone will work with everyone as long as you agree with the ruling party. There is no HOPE for CHANGE. Now go support a lobbyist, Barry did not get rid of them either:88)

Yeah, I've noticed it, and it drives me absolutely nuts. That's what happens when you invest too much power in a governing body.

Of course, we have a Constitution that was intended to prevent that, but the state has proven once again that it can manufacture ways around restrictions placed upon it, and this is no exception. Some of the boldest and most successful coups of democracy(and other types of government) in history were achieved by the exact same means we are looking at now; emergency legislation. I honestly don't believe that the Dems are trying to overthrow democracy (representative, in our case), but that is what they are doing. Add in a small dose of thinking that you know what is best for people and a little destruction of the currency and you've got a recipe for a full-fledged socialist state.

Of course, the legislative branch is radically divided on many issues because there is a power struggle going on. It's such common sense that it is hardly worth mentioning. Some legislators are, of course, corrupt, some are trying to earn votes from their district, and some, most, I think, really believe that they are helping, all historical evidence to the contrary.
I am filled with joy when I see them fighting, debating, and deadlocked, because that's the only time they aren't getting anything done, which translates into a few more precious moments of freedom before they legislate some of it away.

There are a lot of people who think that the only solution is to not give them any power to fight over. Take it away, as permanently as possible using Constitutional law and an ideology of individual liberty. I am one of them. If it were up to me, I'd include an amendment that restricts the Federal budget to a miniscule percentage of GNP and requires that the Government maintain profitability at all times. That would limit their power rather effectively, IMO, until they find a way around it.

The Founders tried to build a government that would have greaty difficulty in destroying the liberty that they fought to create, and they succeeded, for about 75 years, until the Civil War, when military might crushed states' rights. IMO, what we need is a groundswell of popular political activity that will sweep away the entrenched party system, and force our representatives to legislate themselves right back into Constitutional parameters, and then nail the lid on them extra-tight with a budget amendment. That should keep them in check for at least the better part of a century.
Problem is, I don't see that happening, because they offer free stuff to stupid people who don't read history books or understand economics. It's going to have to get really, really, bad before those people realize that they have been duped into selling their freedom for false promises. Maybe even "Soviet Union" bad, if they are cooked slowly enough.

That's my five dollars (two cents, adjusted for state-created inflation)

In fairness we have to recognize that both sides have their pet projects and that both sides have pushed legislation through so quickly that it precludes a careful review.

Not saying it is right, for I believe it is not the right way to run a representative government. But to imply that only one side does this is also not right.

Neither party has clean hands. :down:

My party does:DL

There's a huge difference. Yes, both parties have dirty hands but never before in US history has such a large bill been passed ... almost EXCLUSIVELY by ONE party.

No one's saying that just one side does things like this. However, I think it would be flawed to not recognize that one side has a greater propensity for ramrodding expensive legislation.

I challenge anyone to find a bill even HALF this large that was pushed through with only Republican support during the early Bush years.

Bear in mind some of the "New Deal" legislation. None was exclusive that I am aware of, but it was pretty one-sided. Guess which side?