Posted on 09/26/2005 10:50:22 AM PDT by jcb8199
Except that GWB seems to have an uncanny ability to pick routes that, in general, ARE WHAT WE WANT! Sure, it seems bad now--but look at the long run. Don't be so deadset against the idea that we must PLAY THE GAME to WIN the game. They've had it Their way for 60 years--we aren't going to get it our way in 3. We have to use their tools against them. Call it subterfuge, schadenfreude, whatever you want, but realize that in the end, it is OUR vision that the Fed is putting in place, not THEIRS. THEY have continually used the Fed to institute, as you put it, a socialist redistribution scheme. So now, we use their scheme to DEFEAT them--REMOVE the gov't dependency at its root, from the ground up.
I look at the Gulf Coast as that opportunity--rebuilding it from the ground up the way WE want things to run. But that ain't free. Now, if it is a perpetual giving scheme, where the Gulf Coast is dependent on the Fed from here till "the sun burns out," you have a point. But that is not what is happening...
I guess it boils down to this: Democrats use the expansion of the welfare/warfare state for evil. Republicans use the expansion of the welfare/warfare state for good. (Good, of course, being defined as "that which is done by Republicans.")
One of these days, I'm going to sell out, and buy an island,and start my own gubmnt. Then, I'll appoint an ambassador to the UN, and get some World Bank development money to build a resort... Hmmm, I may be onto something there! Hmmmmmmm......
Enough of this "we" BS buddy.
It's MY cash. How about letting me say how it's spent?
So, since it's happened, let's just lay down and die. Not fight. Not try to take it back. Good plan...
Hmmm, using immediate Fed response to relax or eliminate the programs that the Left has entrenched in the last 60 years is a bad idea... Having the Fed take a (temporarily) stronger role by, say, redefining who qualifies for welfare or gov't housing, something that, given its entrenched nature, WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED with the Left or in any other circumstance, is bad... Again, it's myopic to assume that the fact that the Fed is spending ALOT *right now* means it will never stop, and that the powers it takes *right now* are in the long run detrimental. I see this as opening doors--sure, the Fed is taking power...AWAY from the Left and their socialist ideals.
Poor state response = Fed steps in and gets the states to be more proactive. In the end, the States win as we have better plans and don't NEED to rely on the Fed later on.
Welfare/public housing = we know that it is perpetuated by the Left and their socialist programs, but the VICTIMS don't know that. So now the Fed can retool the whole system to REMOVE the dependency. People can use public assisstance for what it was originally intended--to get a hand up. With Fed $$$ comes Fed rules, so the State can no longer give the $$$ to Leftist programs to waste--it must be spent how WE want it spent.
I could go on and on. NONE of it would happen, however, if not for a TEMPORARY increase in Federal power. The Left wants it, so let's give'em what they want--FOR NOW; let's use their ideals AGAINST them. They will LOSE in the end, however. We have to play the game, b/c, as the article pointed out, the only way people will GET a smaller gov't is if they WANT it. The only way they will WANT it is if we show them how well it works. The only way we can show them how well it works is by DEFEATING the oppostion--namely, the Big Gov't and socialist programs side. The only way we can DEFEAT them is to PLAY THEIR GAME.
You have said how its spent, by electing people to represent you.
This is a doorway--the only way to cross to the other side is to play their game; but, once on the other side, WE make the rules. Yes, WE. Fine, it's your money, but under THEIR rules, YOU have no say in the matter. Now that we have the opportunity, their very ability to determine how YOU spend your money is diminished! They can't spend your money on social programs if the social programs DON'T EXIST. How can we get rid of the social programs if not this way? Realistically? How likely do you think it would be that Bush could retool social programs in the country if not thru Federal enforcement? It started on the Federal level, and must END on the Federal level--use the Fed against itself. Use the money and time to build programs that don't require or NEED Federal help. THEY have been rebuilding it in the reverse all along--rebuilding to ENSURE that the Fed is needed. Now, we have the opportunity to rebuild to destroy the "need" for the Fed! I think that is far more preferable than pissing and moaning about "encroachment on states' rights" and "MY money" nonsense. This is THE opportunity, and it MUST be seized! Play the game THEIR WAY, AGAINST THEM! How can the Left object to more Federal spending when that is all that they have pushed for for 60 years? They will LOSE, both in policy and with the public. Suddenly, the Left is the one calling for less spending--THEY become the ones that hate the poor, THEY become the ones that hate women. Then WE get to rebuild it the way WE want it...
Translation: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." Yes, people need to want smaller government. So why not make the case? Why not try convincing people that big government is a bad thing? Articles like this only make it more difficult to do that.
No, I elected people to leave me the he-(double l) alone.
Other people elected representatives to take my money and give it to them.
All your doing is just dreaming up better ways for the thief that just stole my money to squander it.
There is nothing outside of national defense, international trade, and interstate trade that the federal government can do better than the people.
You sound like a drug pusher. I'm not buying.
Except that as far as I can see Bush ISN'T spending all of that money and putting us deeper into debt to build alternative social programs that will begin to wean people off of government assistance. In fact, all I've seen is more 'the government will take care of it'. The federal governemnt will take care of your security, the federal government will make sure your kids are educated, the federal government will bail you out after a storm, the federal government will take care of you in your old age, the federal government will fund every little project in every little town. Where are these programs you seem to think they're spending all of this money on that will fix this? All I've seen is the federal government taking more and more responsibilty for taking care of things and making sure everyone has 'everything they need' and spending us into oblivion in the process.
"The U.S. government borrows it back. Note carefully that our consumers now have the stuff, and our government has the cash. Is this a good deal, or what?"
ummmmmmmmmmmmmm........that would be
No.
WHO winds up paying the INTEREST on this debt?
"Our children are not going to have to pay it back. Institutions are not individuals"
Hooooooookkkkkkkaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy?
What will the tax rate be for a kid (now 10 years old).....when he's 35?
Convince them how? "We are going to take away this program on which you've relied for 40 years to show you how you can do it on your own." Yeah, great plan. That'll fly as well as a brick. How about we say, "Here, here's what you need to get back on your feet. Now that you are back on your feet, use these resources to STAY on your feet, as this program has a life of 6 months." Then, when the time's up, the program ends and they are still standing. DEMONSTRATE how it will work, don't just make wholesome promises--platitudes don't pay the bills. SHOW them how they don't need to rely on the Gov't forever.
We have no better opportunity to institute the "ownership society" than right now. How can the guy that makes $5.15 enter the ownership society if he can't even pay his rent (based on the gov't handout mindset)? We SHOW him how, by helping him TEMPORARILY, OUR way.
Making trite little comments like "why not try convincing people that big government is a bad thing" does no good, as to him, it ISN'T a bad thing. Maybe even use this as an opportunity to SHOW him what gov't dependency means, so he will try even HARDER to get out from under it. But if he has no REASON to try, why SHOULD he? Under *their* system, he keeps getting handouts. Under our system, he gets a hand up and then he is on his own, like the rest of us.
But how can we institute the best way (i.e. the Conservative way) if we don't play their game? People, in general, are not well-educated nor informed, nor do they like to think for themselves, which is why Liberalism is such a fit for so many of them. We must use that tool to our advantage, and play it their way. People have been brainwashed into thinking that the Fed has all the answers, and will, therefore, RUN from any attempt to diminish Fed influence. We have to play the game their way while subtly changing the rules that, eventually, will lead to the demise of the idea that the Fed has all the answers.
But again, we cannot accomplish it the way we've been trying. We've been trying to point out that big gov't is bad for 225+ years, and look what its gotten us: NEA (Arts and Education), HUD, welfare, SocSec, etc. So how about playing it THEIR way for a change, and using their programs against them? Use their ideals to defeat their ideals.
"You must become the beast to defeat the beast" rings particularly true to me in this respect. In "Silence of the Lambs" we are shown how you have to think like a psycopath to catch one. So why shouldn't we have to think and play like a socialist to defeat a socialist? It has to be on THEIR level, since they have had it their way for 60 years...
Since we now have the opportunity, it will (hopefully) be a 23% consumption tax...
Right--who are those who elected people to take your money? And how do you suppose we remedy that?
Spouting tired mantras about "smaller gov't" are worthless if you have no way of PROVING that you are right. And, in this system, the only way to PROVE you are right is by playing according to the rules set before you--you must ADAPT. Since *they* are in charge, and have been for 60 years, we must play by their rules, which includes Federal power. Once we have firmly established the programs the way we want them, however, they will meet their demise. For 60 years, *they* have been building programs that are self-sustaining, and thus they cement the idea that the programs are a necessity. If we, however, seize this opportunity, we can rebuild the programs to actually work, and to put themselves out of business. Since the programs are already in place, we must play by their rules with regards to money; but, we can make our own rules as to what is DONE with that money. The programs will disappear once they are run OUR way, as people will no longer "need" them--the participants will be self-sustaining, not the programs.
This is the realm in which we are operating, so we must adapt accordingly. Proselytizing about the joys of a small gov't are empty to the guy who makes $5.15 and can't pay his rent--the programs he is relying on now are tooled in a way that he will have to keep relying on them. If we re-tool them, so the program is still "there for him," but with modified requirements, he will not "need" the program for long, and will experience the independence we know all are capable of. BUT NONE OF IT HAPPENS WITHOUT THE PROGRAM.
I can't say it enough--use the game against them. We should stop being a participant in the game and WIN the game. They have been in control too long--its time to use the game against them!
Except that 'WE' have been in total charge for 6 years and there has been NO movement to make government smaller or change those programs or even to make new programs aimed at making people self-sufficient. All of the spending the government has been doing is just more of the SOS.
So six months is the magic number? How do you justify that? Aren't you still taking away a program on which they've relied for 40 years? If people have been living off the labor of others for 40 years, do you honestly believe you can change their worldview in 6 months?
What you are essentially saying is that people can't make it without government. You and the socialists both believe that government is the answer. You also have no regard for the Constitution or the concept of limited government.
Good post. I actually agree. If you can't beat them, join them. Until a majority of the nation wants less spending, its not gonna happen.
Nearly everyone on FR is for small federal government, and I am too. But that is not gonna happen for years even with a steady conservative agenda. We do have to limit the expansion of federal rights at the expense of states rights, but the Feds can spend plenty without expanding their reach.
Regardless of who spends the money, it goes right into the economy and drives it. I hope eventually we owe China trillions of dollars. Then we can tell them to suck eggs or we won't repay a dime of it. Other nations have done exactly the same to us for years. Turnabout is fair play. Besides limiting their expenditures, it gives us great leverage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.