Maybe the most honest TP article yet

#26
#26
Gramps said:
That is the numbers you are demanding... Now let's get UTGibbs to put out some numbers and bam, the compromise is somewhere in the middle..

Agree?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Sure. With divided gov't, I am willing to accept a compromise that allows gov't to grow at something less than the rate of inflation.
 
#27
#27
double edged sword for me. Growing gov't = more corruption. However, less restriction = more corruption also, imo. What do we do?
 
#28
#28
lawgator1 said:
This is one hundred percent true.

Its just that the TP is so well organized and funded by big corporations and the wealthy,
Click to expand...
Proof please. Actually the left is more funded by the "well organized" and wealthy than the TP. Soros and Buffett come to mind immediately. The millions or maybe billions coming out of Hollywood too.

who are using and abusing them to generate and protect their wealth, that the right side of the ledger is getting all of the attention.
Click to expand...
Unless you are talking about negative attention... I am not sure what you are talking about regarding the TP. They have been villified by the MSM since the moment they became impossible to ignore.
Because the left side of the ledger stands up for the poor and the middle class and is far less organized and has no financed constituency, they don't get nearly the attention that the TP does.
Click to expand...

That is a ridiculous statement. The Wisconsin teacher strike was treated very favorably by the MSM and got much more attention than the actual numbers deserved. The war protests against Bush were miniscule compared to the TP rallies but they got coverage that was almost completely positive from the press. The recent WS protests have been marked by property illegal activities yet the press has yet to condemn them or villify them like they did the TP.

The left doesn't stand up for the poor unless you think subsidizing bad behavior is helpful. They certainly DO NOT stand up for the middle class in any way, shape, or form.
 
#29
#29
KiffinKiller said:
double edged sword for me. Growing gov't = more corruption. However, less restriction = more corruption also, imo. What do we do?
Click to expand...

I am not proposing less restriction as in "law". I am suggesting that gov't be the referee and not a player. Gov't should enforce rules equally. It should not decide winners and loser. It should not "level the playing field" by subsidizing one party with money confiscated from another. It certainly should not create tax law and regulation that protects favored companies from domestic competition.

I am a little radical on some issues (you probably noticed) but not because I do not have the same goals as most caring people. I want the environment protected. IMO, the best way to do that is establishing LAW not giving bureaucrats a blank page to write ever evolving rules on. So my "ideal" solution would be to establish limits on emissions by law then enforce the law strictly. If the volumes of regulations were discarded... "cap and trade" would actually be a good means for doing this. Give companies an allowance based on factors like sales $, tons of material used, man hours, etc. Let them sell/buy overages.

I think there ought to be strict rules for the financial and banking sectors. I believe especially that anti-trust and monopoly laws should be enforced to minimize the risks of a company that is "too big to fail". Those companies exist primarily because gov't regulation creates entry barriers to smaller, more nimble, more innovative companies.

On social programs, subsidizing bad or irresponsible behavior will not work. Those bad choices as we are now seeing have a cumulative effect that eventually hurts our society and economy as a whole. The left "feels" it is being kind or benevolent by rescuing people from the consequences of bad choices. What they are doing is assuring that those bad choices will be repeated and multiplied.

My opinion is the gov't needs to return to its Constitutional bounds not simply because it taxes too much, intrudes too much, or spends too much... but because in the absolute pragmatic sense... big gov't does not, never has, and never will work.
 
#30
#30
sjt18 said:
Sure. With divided gov't, I am willing to accept a compromise that allows gov't to grow at something less than the rate of inflation.
Click to expand...

We need divided government or this nation is up the creek. Bush 2 with the GOP in control was a train wreck. They were just as bad as Obama and the Dems being in control. We need divided government with senators and congressmen willing to compromise for the betterment of the country
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#31
#31
Gramps said:
We need divided government or this nation is up the creek. Bush 2 with the GOP in control was a train wreck. They were just as bad as Obama and the Dems being in control. We need divided government with senators and congressmen willing to compromise for the betterment of the country
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

This. but it will still be a situation where our govt is the 'smartest of the retards'.
 
#32
#32
Gramps, you make the mistake of believing that the division is Dem vs Rep. The establishment GOP that had power while Bush was Prez shares its ideals about gov't with the Dems. They believe in big gov't, "good gov't",.... they just differ with Dems on how to use that power. The establishment GOP and Dems are the two main wings of the Progressive movement.

The '94 revolution and the few months following were the closest thing we've seen to "constitutional conservatives" being in control for about 100 years. Even with a Dem in the WH, it produced welfare reform and spending/regulatory restraint... and two balanced budgets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
Gramps said:
We need divided government or this nation is up the creek. Bush 2 with the GOP in control was a train wreck. They were just as bad as Obama and the Dems being in control. We need divided government with senators and congressmen willing to compromise for the betterment of the country
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

What makes you think compromise will better the country? If you and I were trapped in a cabin during a blizzard and I wanted to try for a lodge with food and warmth 5 miles away and you wanted to stay put... would a compromise of going half way be "better"?

If liberalism/statism/progressivism is to work (contrary to all historical experience) then its leaders must be able to implement their program completely. Giving them part of it will not work.

If freedom and limited gov't is to work then we have to move in the direction of de-centralizing power and de-constructing big gov't.

I composite or "compromise" of conflicting, mutually exclusive ideals will not make anything better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
it doesn't matter if they're divided or not. Until we have officials in place that care more about the American people than their own job security we'll never get ahead.
 
#35
#35
utvolpj said:
it doesn't matter if they're divided or not. Until we have officials in place that care more about the American people than their own job security we'll never get ahead.
Click to expand...

The likelihood of that is inversely proportionate to the size of gov't and the level to which political/economic power has been centralized.
 
#36
#36
sjt18 said:
Gramps, you make the mistake of believing that the division is Dem vs Rep. The establishment GOP that had power while Bush was Prez shares its ideals about gov't with the Dems. They believe in big gov't, "good gov't",.... they just differ with Dems on how to use that power. The establishment GOP and Dems are the two main wings of the Progressive movement.

The '94 revolution and the few months following were the closest thing we've seen to "constitutional conservatives" being in control for about 100 years. Even with a Dem in the WH, it produced welfare reform and spending/regulatory restraint... and two balanced budgets.
Click to expand...

The '94 group is exactly what I am talking about. They were conservative and compromised with the Clinton WH and got some good things done.
The group in Washington now have this "my way or the highway mentality" they are getting nothing done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#37
#37
Gramps said:
The '94 group is exactly what I am talking about. They were conservative and compromised with the Clinton WH and got some good things done.
The group in Washington now have this "my way or the highway mentality" they are getting nothing done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And why is it bad if Washington is "not getting things done'? Seems to me, the more they have their hands on the trigger the more the taxpayers get screwed one way or the other.
 
#38
#38
Gramps said:
The '94 group is exactly what I am talking about. They were conservative and compromised with the Clinton WH and got some good things done.
The group in Washington now have this "my way or the highway mentality" they are getting nothing done.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

They didn't compromise with Clinton. He was in shock following that mid-term. They rolled over him for short while. Clinton saw the popularity of what they road to town on and co-opted the "language". Before '94, Clinton was about national healthcare. After '94, Clinton was about "the era of big gov't is over". He gets credit for being politically savvy but make no mistake... he gave in early on.

Only later did "gridlock" set in when he demagogued the GOP for "shutting the gov't down". They wanted to make real cuts to include reducing or eliminating whole federal agencies/depts/programs. He wouldn't go along but instead turned a propaganda machine loose on them. Sound familiar?

The good thing is that gridlock actually prevented change which the markets liked as opposed to gov't/regulatory growth.

The GOP was in the right but took a PR beating by the MSM and Clinton "war room". Gingrich was soon put out over personal issues. The Revolution lost its momentum. The establishment reasserted itself... and headed into the '00's.

The progress that you've labeled compromise... wasn't. The GOP Revolutionaries came to town with a very popular set of promises called the "Contract with America"... It took time for the left and establishment to re-group. Once they did... progress and "compromise" ceased.
 
Last edited:
#39
#39
theFallGuy said:
And why is it bad if Washington is "not getting things done'? Seems to me, the more they have their hands on the trigger the more the taxpayers get screwed one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Fail
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top