Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.
The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.
How do you want it to go? Please include at least some basic reason for your choice that is more than an insult toward another person or group.
The basic crisis seems to be summarized in this article in Forbes today:
(emphasis mine)
California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife?
By JOEL KOTKIN
In the future, historians may likely mark the 2010 midterm elections as the end of the California era and the beginning of the Texas one. In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.
California has drifted far away from the place that John Gunther described in 1946 as the most spectacular and most diversified American state so ripe, golden. Instead of a role model, California has become a cautionary tale of mismanagement of what by all rights should be the countrys most prosperous big state. Its poverty rate is at least two points above the national average; its unemployment rate nearly three points above the national average. On Friday Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was forced yet again to call an emergency session in order to deal with the states enormous budget problems.
This state of crisis is likely to become the norm for the Golden State. In contrast to other hard-hit states like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Nevada, which all opted for pro-business, fiscally responsible candidates, California voters decisively handed virtually total power to a motley coalition of Democratic-machine politicians, public employee unions, green activists and rent-seeking special interests.
In the new year, the once and again Gov. Jerry Brown, who has some conservative fiscal instincts, will be hard-pressed to convince Democratic legislators who get much of their funding from public-sector unions to trim spending. Perhaps more troubling, Browns own extremism on climate change policybacked by rent-seeking Silicon Valley investors with big bets on renewable fuelsvirtually assures a further tightening of a regulatory regime that will slow an economic recovery in every industry from manufacturing and agriculture to home-building.
Texas trajectory, however, looks quite the opposite. California was recently ranked by Chief Executive magazine as having the worst business climate in the nation, while Texas was considered the best. Both Democrats and Republicans in the Lone State State generally embrace the gospel of economic growth and limited public sector expenditure. . . . .
MORE HERE:
California Suggests Suicide; Texas Asks: Can I Lend You a Knife? - Joel Kotkin - New Geographer - Forbes
I would embrace that goal also, but it is too late. The entitlement programs and greedy politicians seeking only power and control, have come a long way and there is no turning back. America is a multiracial and divided country now, with many people looking out only for themselves. It is what entitlement programs breed-- government dependence rather than personal accountability.
I hope the efforts of the new 112th Congress, can at least advance it's goal by staying true to all promises made, even though there will be division amongst the best. That is only natural.
A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
Come on, there's a gazillion threads to bash Republicans or Democrats or President Bush or President Obama. That's the old way of thinking about government.
Let's pretend we have a brand new day to start making things better. We won't do that by trashing the other side. Bashing others may make us feel better but it doesn't do a thing to make anything better. We need a whole new way of thinking about government.
Get creative. Inventive. Let's come up with something that will prevent mistakes of the past or start undoing harm that has been done.
Is everybody so dependent on government that they don't dare embrace a concept of no federal government charity that would take most of the graft and corruption out of the mix? Why is everybody walking on eggshells re that one here?
Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
The whole new way of thinking should flat be that the government is not our mommy and daddy. They are not the teet to suck off of your entire life. At some point everyone must leave the nest and rely on yourself.
Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
The whole new way of thinking should flat be that the government is not our mommy and daddy. They are not the teet to suck off of your entire life. At some point everyone must leave the nest and rely on yourself.
And in answer to Sangha's question, you keep your Congressman from using the people's treasury to reward a person, entity, group, or whatever special interest by making it illegal to use the people's money for any form of charity. If the expenditure doesn't benefit everybody, rich, poor, middle class, equally, it is an illegal expenditure.
For those required government installations that have to be placed in various places, the states will work with the feds to see where they shall go. And they will be distributed across the country, based on the number of jobs they generate plus some other criteria, as equally as possible based on population. There will be no more of this 'you deliver the vote and you get the new military base' stuff.
Come on, there's a gazillion threads to bash Republicans or Democrats or President Bush or President Obama. That's the old way of thinking about government.
Let's pretend we have a brand new day to start making things better. We won't do that by trashing the other side. Bashing others may make us feel better but it doesn't do a thing to make anything better. We need a whole new way of thinking about government.
Get creative. Inventive. Let's come up with something that will prevent mistakes of the past or start undoing harm that has been done.
Is everybody so dependent on government that they don't dare embrace a concept of no federal government charity that would take most of the graft and corruption out of the mix? Why is everybody walking on eggshells re that one here?
America has become a nation of spoiled children. Spoiled kids expect their parents to give them complete freedom while getting all their needs and desires met. It would be nice to blame the government for all our troubles, but we have allowed them to put us where we are.
Not helping your neighbor directly, shifting responsibility to others and failing to pay our true fair share of the costs have landed us where we are. I for one, am not willing to make our kids and grandchildren pay for our mess.
It would be nice to blame the government for all our troubles, but we have allowed them to put us where we are.
Come on, there's a gazillion threads to bash Republicans or Democrats or President Bush or President Obama. That's the old way of thinking about government.
Let's pretend we have a brand new day to start making things better. We won't do that by trashing the other side. Bashing others may make us feel better but it doesn't do a thing to make anything better. We need a whole new way of thinking about government.
Get creative. Inventive. Let's come up with something that will prevent mistakes of the past or start undoing harm that has been done.
Is everybody so dependent on government that they don't dare embrace a concept of no federal government charity that would take most of the graft and corruption out of the mix? Why is everybody walking on eggshells re that one here?
OK.
A new way of thinking about government is to think about a government in which political parties are illegal and prosecuted with RICO statutes.
And political contributions are considered bribes. Not one thin dime.
That much would change everything.
The problem is where do you establish the safety net that you refer to.Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
The whole new way of thinking should flat be that the government is not our mommy and daddy. They are not the teet to suck off of your entire life. At some point everyone must leave the nest and rely on yourself.
That's an excellent start. . .BUT. . .a whole new way of thinking about government has to factor in human nature. There are people who are not natural self starters. Teachers know them in the classroom; supervisors know them in the workplace, volunteer organizations know them even among volunteers. They get it done but not without a boot in the butt every now and then for inspiration. They are tickled to death when they are relieved of a responsibiity.
The temptation to exploit those people who would be more than happy for somebody to do their responsibilities for them is too much for elected leaders who could benefit from that. That's why I think government charity is so often corrupting for both government and the recipients of the charity.
So I think the core concept has to be laws that make it impossible for the federal government to exploit and make dependents of the citizens. I might possibly be willing to relent to allow a basic safety net that provides the barest of necessities of life. Go back to that list in Texas. People can live on rice and beans. If they want steak, get a job, etc. . . .
But make it illegal for any government official to tell anybody, vote for me and I'll see to it that we provide you with money, food, shelter, clothing, healthcare etc.
The problem is where do you establish the safety net that you refer to.
Over 20,000 single parents who can't work because they can't afford child care
A million illiterate adults who can't quality for a job that pays enough to support themselves or their family
150,000 servilely retarded who will never be able to earn a living
Tens of thousands of kids of an alcoholically and drug addict parents who can't or choose not to work
100,00 kids living in foster care
Then there are 53 million on Medicaid about 1/3 children.
The vast majority of these people will not find jobs if they loose government assistance because those jobs do not exist even for the qualified which these people are not.
Syrenn notes that the federal government is following the California model and both have us headed straight for the bankruptcy cliff.
So that alone should provide impetus to come up with a whole new way of thinking about government.
Loose Cannon complains of a too intrusive, too over reaching controlling government. But wouldn't elected leaders that could no longer buy votes but would rather be dependent on doing a good job and a positive legacy to make it all worthwhile be more responsive to what the people felt? A whole new way of thinking about government is to restore the public servant to elected positions and get rid of the career politician.
Flopper looks at the same litany of campaign finance reform, a balanced budget, and revisions to the Constitution. But I think these are the OLD way of thinking about government. As are AquaAthena's accurate but predictable views about entitlements.
But what if the federal government was prohibited from dispensing any charity or favors from the public treasury. What if there was nothing they could gain other than contempt if they overspent the budget? What if the law required the federal government to slowly and incrementally begin reversing the entitlements just as they have accrued, and transfer them to the state governments where they have belonged all the time? What if we just focused on original intent of the Founders re the Constitution and our leaders pledged to be faithful to that?
Take the ability to dispense special favors to anybody out of the equation and reinstate original intent, and all the other is taken care of.
In my opinion that is a whole new way of thinking about government.
The whole new way of thinking should flat be that the government is not our mommy and daddy. They are not the teet to suck off of your entire life. At some point everyone must leave the nest and rely on yourself.
True. If people were more responsible we would have a lot less social problems. But until we discover how to make that happen we have to deal with the problems. Unfortunately ignoring the problems do not make them go away.The problem is where do you establish the safety net that you refer to.
Over 20,000 single parents who can't work because they can't afford child care
A million illiterate adults who can't quality for a job that pays enough to support themselves or their family
150,000 servilely retarded who will never be able to earn a living
Tens of thousands of kids of an alcoholically and drug addict parents who can't or choose not to work
100,00 kids living in foster care
Then there are 53 million on Medicaid about 1/3 children.
The vast majority of these people will not find jobs if they loose government assistance because those jobs do not exist even for the qualified which these people are not.
Maybe, just maybe, you should consider your child before you bring them into the world without you having a job or stable marriage. Maybe you should have learned to read when it was offered to you free of charge. Maybe, if their were more consequences for these things, people would be more motivated to make sure they were employed and contributing to society.
