Re: REALLY OT: News Flash
Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 03:48:56PM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote:
>> I'm not really convinced that's the case. Glasnost allowed the average
>> Soviet to find out the full horror of their regime's history. The
>> collective shock, awe and outrage of the Soviet population easily and
>> singlehandedly caused the implosion of the Soviet Union. Star Wars was a
>> comical waste of resources.
> Of course, it can also be viewed as big research project, in which case
> there were some successes.
I'll grant you that much, as a research project it was moderately
successful. Though I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it's
primary motivation was research.
>> Well, "By the people, for the people" does imply a socialist ideal to
>> begin with. Otherwise it's "by the people, against the people," and why
>> would anybody create *that* mess for a form of government?
> In what way? "By the people, for the people" is a political statement.
> As in "the people form the government and have a say in it". It is not
> an economic statement. Remember, the founding fathers initially came up
> with the Articles of Confederation because of how much they feared a
> strong central government. The size of our government has been going
> the wrong direction for a long time.
In size and authority, yes, but unfortunately not in ability to serve it's
public, which really should be the litmus test of a government's success
overall. Kennedy had it backwards (at least for the first world): Ask not
what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.
>> I don't have an issue paying state and county tax. But when my largest
>> tax bill is federal and I see it squandered and none of it come back to
>> state or even my region, I really start to wonder what's the point. Why
>> not make income tax something states pay out of their revenue instead of
>> taxing the people directly? The states are a little better prepared to
>> defend it's citizens against unfair taxation for one thing...
> But you said in another post that you supported the Democratic
> Socialists and want national (read: socialized) healhcare. I would
> think that you would be itching to send extra money to the federal
> government to help them get to that goal.
I don't see any reason why this can't be a state issue.
> You know, since a bigger government is necessary for socialized
Take it out of the military. They can afford it.
> Of course, spending money at higher levels will *always* be more
> wasteful. This is why a *smaller* government is better. Push spending
> down to lower levels, where the amounts are smaller, oversight is better
> and waste is smaller.
And I don't disagree. But look at the federal budget breakdown and look at
the kind of money we flush down the toilet to maintain Cold War military
spending levels. The Soviet Union is dead: We can stop fighting them