joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls
He does make some good points about eliminating federal agencies though. We didn't have a department of energy before Carter created it, and instead of making us energy independent they have done exactly the opposite.
The guy doesn't make good points, he makes points that he believes will make conservatives vote for him. In other words, using your egos, thoughts, and political philosophy like a $3 whore. And you seem to eat up every crumb that hits the floor like a good, obedient and mindless serf. You want to blame the Department of Energy for not making us energy independent, why dont you blame the folks that have tried to 'keep the status quote' for years: The Oil Industry (and within the last 20 years, the GOP). How did the Bush family make its millions?
quote:
ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls
Why do we need a Department of Education. Doesn't each state have their own state dept of education? How about Dept. of Transportation and so on and so on. It's absurd and unconstitutional that the federal gov. has taken over control of these programs when the 10th amendment specifically forbids it.
Why do we need a Department of Education? So that GOP members looking to get elected have something to shove in your face as 'waste' and hope you dont hold them to the same level of accountibility and responsibility as both you and they blame Democrats for, year after year. Why dont you take the time, go to the library, and EDUCATE yourself on the question.
The Department of Transportation is a whole different dog altogether. Given your lack of knowledge on the Department of Education (ironically?), I'm not surprised you dont understand why we have this department. Why should anyone answer your question when you clearly have not taken the time to educate yourself first?
Likewise, nowhere in the US Constitution does it state either department could be created as the situation arose. How about the 'Department of Homeland Security'? Its an agency created by the GOP (you know, the guys supposively against 'big goverment'?), but its not listed in the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers (unlike you apparently) understood that as the nation grew and changed, things would have to grow and change with it. They had no way of knowing what would happen 230+ years let alone 23 years. Can you predict (with perfect accuracy) the events and situation this nation will be in once 230 years have pasted? No? Than it stands to reason that as technology and culture progresses, we will have to grapple with ethical and I dare say it, moral questions in the future.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls
People are going to have to accept that we can't afford an all powerful federal government and social security, medicare, and medicaid. Personally I choose Social Security, medicare, and medicaid & gov. employees can fend for themselves just like the rest of us.
I hate to break it to you, but our goverment is not 'all powerful'. If that were the case, Mr. Obama would have gotten his health care law pass without any revisions (and it would be easily ten times better than the AAC of 2010). If the US Goverment was 'all powerful' there would be no illegal aliens crossing the border, nor crime, nor problems. Since all those things happen, its best to say the goverment, while impressively large, is not all powerful.
When ever I hear someone argue 'smaller goverment', they usually have no intellectual leg to 'stand on' when asked exactly what that means in definative terms (most give a 'cut/paste' from some site because they lack the brain capacity to think for themselves). Is that to make the goverment less able to protect citizens from threats 'foreign, domestic and beyond planet Earth'? Or to help reign in the 'Conservative Nanny State' quicker (what, did you really think the Liberals had a monopoly on the concept?).
You seem to hate paying for goverment employees, and not private sector employees. Do you even realize that budget cuts directly affect private sector employees in far greater numbers than goverment employees? In fact, those that have jobs indirectly through the goverment (you know, the one's 'down stream' of the first two groups), will not even know they lost their job due to budget cuts. Its rather amusing to have a conservative argue for budget cuts, only to lose their job six to nine months down the road, and never understanding his job was directly linked to those budget spendings. You are actually arguing to INCREASE unemployment...DURING....a RECESSION....while the unemployment rate is already.....HIGH. Does that sound intelligent or wise to you?
|
This has got to be a joke.... - .gif){kind=avatar}
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread