Dawg wrote:Name a couple of government agencies that come under budget. Right, stupid question, private business doesn't have to do that. its crazy talk..pffft budget.
Medicare has come under projected budget 3 or the past 5 years, despite rising health care costs(they budgeted correctly), IIRC. Education and Interior haven't busted their budgets in years.
Ok, name a couple of government agencies that work efficiently. And why the states cant do a better job.
The overhead for administration of Medicaid and Medicare are substantially lower than similar insurance programs in the private sector. The problem with divvying things up, state by state is that creating a social safety net for the whole nation that is fair means making all states pretty much equivalent. Oh, and that speaks to the whole 'regulation of interstate commerce thing'
The constitution is NOT an evolving document. I will figuratively take up arms if need to be prevent the Fed from running my state.
the hell it isn't. It was designed to be extremely changeable via amendment. And, why? Because where the nation started from, you had 13 states, only 5 or 6 populated heavily at all. To think that everything is going to run the same way in a post-industrial economy, in a nation of 50 states, most far more populous than any of the original 13 were is ludicrous. And, what the hell is 'figurative' taking-up of arms?
those "folks" in 1790 prayed, meditated and were centuries ahead of their time. The created a document that would be literally timeless. Those rights, those rules were so simplistic, and so unarguable as to work for 200 years, so why now, why does it need to suddenly changed to suit some current administration when that didn't need to get changed during other massively threatening times?
no one, at least not me, is suggesting 'changing the basic rights and freedoms'. I am suggesting that a large, diverse, heavily populated nation needs more federal governance, and probably a bit less state governance to work efficiently. And, that doesn't require dismantling the Constitution.
slick I wont play this game with you. This is the gleeful thing you do that folks still talk about years later, many forum splits down the road. The archtypical liberal.
Name anyone (sound mentally) that wantsto pay more taxes?
Name a few conservatives who WANT to continue a 6 trillion deficit like you mentioned.
I need another vacation from your lunacy.
hypocrite, thy name is Dawg. All you can do is blow smoke out your ass. If you cannot tell me or anyone else here what you would reduce or how, and refuse to concede the need to raise taxes to pay for what we do spend, you're just talking bullshit. Take a break all you want. When you return you will still be a blowhard whiner without a plan, or a clue. At least, I give Ruggie credit for a couple things in this sort of debate:
1. he does bring suggestions for cuts, albeit tiny ones to the table. At least he tries.
2. He makes a valid point about waste causing higher budgets when things are evened up. Running a responsible, balanced budget WILL require vigilance and a different sort of political leadership. I disagree with him that this is a valid reason for NOT balancing the budget.
You, on the other hand, Dawg, just like to whine about liberals without a single valid suggestion of how things ought to run. Not one. Sorry dude, but it doesn't fly.
To ignernt fer Texas....