Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."
- Thread starter NAOS
- Start date
I have a very good friend that invented thermoplastic (part of a team that did, that is) and he started a company that lines the highways of America with thermoplastic .. replacing paint. The plastic is more expensive but lasts 5x longer than paint. His company exploded. However, within a couple years of doing several interstates/highways, he got more orders for the same roadways .. and he knew they didn't need it for another 4 to 5 years, at least. He asked the reason and was told that the state or agencies will lose funding if they fall short of their alloted budget for improvements. They said, "just do it anyway." We're talking tens of millions of dollars ... for nothing, at all.
That is not a conservative/liberal thing, btw. Both are equally guilty. I'm talking about, we the people, demanding a much better government. There HAS to be a way of stopping all the nonsense.
This is my stance, I simply lack the intestinal fortitude to argue tax rates and such while ignoring the bigger problem.
That is not a conservative/liberal thing, btw. Both are equally guilty. I'm talking about, we the people, demanding a much better government. There HAS to be a way of stopping all the nonsense.
This is my stance, I simply lack the intestinal fortitude to argue tax rates and such while ignoring the bigger problem.
At this point, the wheels come off if noone steps in to increase MxV. Money has gotten to Karl Marx's financial shenanigans point where capital is destroying the market instead of contributing to it. The draw of capitalism is increasing living standards for all while protecting democracy. We have to pause and ask what's wrong when neither is happening & our entire ideology is shattered.
We can learn from Canada about financial regulation and from Japan about extreme & widespread wealth hording. The rightist notion that everyone should be a ultra-rich saver with independent wealth and the leftist notion that everyone deserves to retire and live off the young is a recipe for nothing short of tragedy. But that just my unhumble opinion (sorry for not learning it in college, PuKeAM).
I didn't go to college. Did I misunderstand another post? Haha, sobriety is making me senile.
Fantastic response.
Don't call me out like that, it's just rude.
OK, first and foremost NAOS seems to have created this thread based on a quip I made in the another thread about not spending money you don't have or quit spending more than you make or something to that effect. He and a couple others took it to mean that I advocate a stop on all excess spending immediately. Of course that's ludicrous and would be disastrous.
This. And the question, to which a surprising number have clung to, is poorly couched and one I cannot take seriously .. for reasons I've stated above.
Oh good .. I thought you said fat pudge, at first glance.
OK, but just for the thrill of it. . . . I'll condense the Universe into some rudimentary symbols if all you lefties agree not to give those symbols diabolical meanings not anything to do with what I meant. partisanship, like war, has casualties. Usually truth or understanding fall first.
I don't think I'm really a conservative. I'm a liberal with an understanding of what the word meant before the stupids forgot its classical root meaning. Before megalomaniacal Statists decided they must make the masses conform to their superior managerial objectives. . . . and co-opted a once-useful term and made it the exact opposite of everything decent, while shrilly declaring in pure doublespeak Orwellian tones that they are the definers and exemplars of everything noble, and started telling those who don't agree they can't do business in their cities.
And dammit, I really ought to do a corresponding takedown of conservatives who are pretty much exactly the same thing as the "liberals" they deplore, because they can't see themselves for the Statists they are.
Human beings don't really need much government. It's nice to have a castle wall of some kind where you can protect the things you value from the great unwashed hordes who simply don't value things as you do. But somehow during the Renaissance/Enlightenment it became apparent to some that castles were just too small, and government could at least try to do some "good" things on a larger scale. So government is generally meant to be a convenience, if not a luxury, that people can employ to do what they think it can. The problem becomes, however, a question of "whose government" it is.
If the government is the tool of some super elite totalitarian megalomanical morons who have no respect for human rights, I say we don't need that government. It's time to take back the government, and make it serve us. I am going to vote against the Obama/Romney players because they don't understand or give a damn about me. I am going to want the Fed to stop printing money and passing it around to their friends. I am going to want our House of Representatives to shut the money pipes that feed the government that doesn't give a damn about me.
So we have a Statist-dedicated public education system that effectively trains "workers" for the elites, and government regulators who act as a sort of thuggery enforcement racket to keep the cartelists from having to worry about actual competittion, with all the federal regulators operating revolving door worker exchanges between regulators and cartelists, and always doing their worst to make sure little Joe American doesn't have a chance to survive outside of their "system". I say stop paying for that kind of "education" that breeds us into wage slaves.
So we have Plantation Mangers running a gazillion welfare/safety-net doles to keep the restive masses glued to daytime TV, Hollywood culture, and sporting events that can be passively endured by couch potatos, with plenty of chips and beer. And a gazillion government "Resource Management" agencies to keep them off the land where they could grow some tomatos, or make something out of the rocks and woods and soil, just so the cartelists can have all they need to corner their markets. Our lives have been reduced to inconsequential menial servitudes either of doing what we are told, for a pittance, or doing nothing at all, . . . for a handful of scratch.
Nope, we don't need any of that. Time to bust the racket and just start the game all over.
Let's start with the idea that maybe the government can try to do the stuff that benefits us. With the money we're happy to give it, whatever the definition of "money" may be.
I guess I haven't escaped being a "Statist" myself, yet. It's just my preferred "State" is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Which brings up our fundamental problem.
I have seen the Problem, and it is Us.
Though there was a lot of fluff (which I enjoyed, actually), I liked it. Especially the bolded .. pretty much what I said, crudely, several posts back.
I heard he's a bit ... quirky, too.
Why don't you do it? It's a dumb question anyway .. right up your alley.
so you ARE in favor of the government spending money it doesn't have, exactly the opposite of what you recommended in the other thread. "simple" you said.
I honestly stopped reading that last thread, I scanned who posted in it and skipped most of it after a while. Could be why I failed to answer the question.
If any of you posters out there that went on a mission ever ran into Jehovah's Witnesses that "wanted to talk to you" and had that experience, that's what this "conversation" turned into to me. Instead of arguing with know it all jerks and turning into one myself, I decided it's better not to bang heads with people that are more interested in an argument than a conversation.
If the thread and the question is not naos being an Angler, I don't know what is.
