Originally Posted by JWsleep
It's got to be part of a good program. I don't like giving them my money. It's just that at times I think it's needed to have good government.
I think SS is a good thing. I think having a strong defense is a good thing. I think the GI bill is a good thing. I think having clean water, safe drugs and food, good homeland security, etc. is a good thing. So I am willing to part with some of my hard earned money to get those things. How do you propose to provide those things if not by way of the gov't?
The issue is about good programs. We need proper oversight. We need transparency in our government. We need reasonable controls on special interest. We need smart people in decision making positions.
Conservatives since Reagan have talked a big game about cutting government. But despite control of the presidency from 80-92 and from 2000-2008, what have we seen? Bigger govt. More corruption. Same old, same old. So I do not believe Mr. Maverick and his Alaskan side-kick are going to do any different.
Now maybe you support Barr. He may really intend to do something. Trouble is he isn't going to win.
My feeling is that the dems at least have some people that understand that gov't isn't going anywhere and the trick is to make it work better. The repub strategy is to run it into the ground until we have to kill it (this is called the "wither on the vine" strategy--see Newt Gingrich). All we get is a gov't that does not work--no smaller, just worse. I don't think the dems are a magic bullet here--just the lesser of 2 evils. That's the way things go in politics, usually (it's either the turd or the douche bag, I'm afraid...)
Sorry money does not equal good goverment. I'd say too much money makes for bad goverment and thats been our problem in the past. Spend, Spend, Spend. You also talk about killing goverment and mention Newt. Well congress spends the money and people point to the 90's and bill Clinton but remember Newt had control of the spending.