Alternative to the Nanny State

We're not headed for a nanny state. We're headed for a jack-boot storm trooper state.

Banking -
free of government oversight... results in the bundling and sale of worthless instruments to overseas governments and subsequent crash of world economies.

When government forces banks to lend money to people who can't pay it back, it causes the house of cards to collapse.

MEN ARE EVIL when left to their own devices.

Isn't government made up of men?

Libertarianism has been wholly discredited in the last couple years... yet the GOPERS keep thumping that government is the problem and not the solution to greed and the destruction of the middle class.

Government is the solution? Could it be that the destruction of the middle class has more to do with families having to have two breadwinners to...

Tomorrow Obama goes to address the Congress with the express intention of getting them to pass some form of his Hell Care Bill.

He has expended all of his credibility with the public and 80% of us in this country do not want the government to be in control of our medical records. It gives the government the ability to hold the power of life and death over us to control those records. Anyone with a brain knows that if you give power to a maniac, he will use it against you.

Its like putting a loaded gun in a crib with a one year old. We all know what he's gonna do with it.

Rather than put the gun in the crib with Obama, I say we send him back with something to suck on, such as a pacifier and a change of diapers,...

And, did you see Sen. Max Baucus, who said that the Senate's bill will not have a "Public Option"? Further, he stated, once again, that there are not enough vote to pass a "Public Option" in the Sentate.

I didn't watch the television this morning. I have been dealing with fire inspectors and insurance adjustors. Besides, why do I care about Sen. Grassley? I have told you that he will not vote for a "Public Option" and that he is for some insurance reform.

So, so, sorry.

is that they hate that other people have more money than they do.
They are motivated by envy and hate.
They want to control other people's lives.

So, the fact that the free market works is irrelevant to them.

Where do they find so many "Idiots". Keynes said; "The Government was to Serve as an Engine". Do you have a car? The engine moves the car with its power, after the Battery, Alternator, transmission , etc. have done their job. I will not discuss economics because you have already proven, you are deficient in that area... SORRY!

Nathan asks: "Will it help some people keep their jobs? - - Only until the government money that created the jobs runs out. Government is not a permanent source of employment for the private sector.

An administration may order the rebuilding of infrastructure or the construction of "affordable housing" but as soon as those projects are completed, these workers will be right back where they were. Government funded programs prolong recessions in the end, because they take money from the private sector, which can create permanent jobs, and channel that money into temporary "make work" programs that cannot stand on their own and do not create any wealth.

Of course the free market will find some way to accomodate people who have hit upon hard times. But the way they do so is by developing a tolerance for high levels of poverty and poor health. The days that Tabor pines for when charity was left to the free market was a day when poverty was much higher than today. It was a day when access to health care was much lower than today.

One of the benefits of poverty is the scope that it gives to individuals to perform charitable acts. But this is not a benefit that outweights the fact that poverty is a miserable state to be in. It still seems like a better idea for the government to help the poor than to leave them poor to give the rich and middle class more scope for personal charity.

Senator Grassley looked great this morning on NBC. You never did tell me how you felt about the Senator and his supporting Health Care Reform. We will have a bill by September 29, 2009. Did you see that crowd at the picnic? That "Pyrrhic Victory" may prove very costly in the end. When you go to Vegas, don't play every hand, tell the others!

Government has many levels (Federal, State, County, and City). Each of which can play a role, or not, in social policy. It should be clear, even to a liberal like you, that the government is bankrupting the country with its social policies. Is that not clear?

Because it isn't working very well there are some legitimate questions that we ought to ask and answer before charging further down this path.
1. Why is government involved in social policy anyway? Is that not the function of society to take care of social needs?
2. If the government is involved, why is social policy an issue for the Federal Government and not other levels of government? After all one it is a reasonable proposition that meeting social needs is...

The "nanny".

Yuh all gotta have your little mantra to spew.

Having fun kiddies?

"social policy has another purpose, looking out for people in need."

Social policy's purpose has become garnering votes to keep politicians in office for perpetuity.

"Let business do what business does well, and let government do what government does well"

What government does well is waste other people's money.

History tells us that Barry is on a Fool's Errand. If his mission is to take over the economy (seems reasonable) he will find that it can't be centrally managed AND that an underground economy will spring up.

Eventually (it will take time), the underground economy and people yearning to be free will somehow, someway replace the flawed government. Adam Smith documents this well in "The Wealth of Nations".

Obama doesn't understand this if his goal is to take over the economy. It can work for a time; it can't work for all time.

Liberty remains the best policy for governing a nation.

Hungry beasts? HA!

I have survived every hurricane and never taken a cent from the government.

My house sustained over $300,000 damage on Friday afternoon. Did you see me on television crying? Did you read about it in the newspaper and hear me whining about my woeful state?

No. I am personally responsible for my children and myself. I carry hefty insurance policies. I pay the premiums. I do not need some government agency to tell me what I should be doing. I do not need the government to take money from someone else and redistribute it to me. I am not a thief. Evidently, you are.

Take your nanny state and shove it.

You didn't tell us about you and your friends, shooting at Black Children and their families. Many people tried to cross the bridge in an effort to evade the storm. But, the "Racist" did not want their community's complexion to be colored.

.....It is you MR. TABOR who fails to understand ...OBAMA and his cohorts know exactly what they are doing ...THEIR GOAL IS TO TAKE OVER CONTROL OF THE ECONOMY AND TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR POWER IN WASHINGTON ...

.....COLOSSUS

Since you are from Illinois, I am going to assume that you are from Chicago. Chicago has several universities, many fine museums, a symphony orchestra, hospitals, two zoos, etc.

How are these funded? What part of their funding is the government dollar? Very little. New building are built on campuses by very generous donors. Symphonies are not funded by subscribers but philanthropists. Read wealthy people who are generous with their money.

Most liberals who want redistribution of wealth fail to realize that it is never the answer.

Obama and his cohorts don't fail to understand anything. They know exactly what they're doing and what the outcome will be if they succeed.

What is the link between the Van Jones resignation, Richard Nixon, the creation of the EPA and the fate of Obama's Green Revolution?

Click my name for the answer.

Didn't he say earlier this year that small business was going to lead us out of recession and he then said that it was the government's job to do so because the problems were too big for business? Which is it? Answer: His Lordship Barack I is the answer, I forgot. How foolish of me not to remember.

The fox would be better off letting the chicken live to eat the eggs produced...but since the fox only cares about eating today...He kills the chicken...Marxist do the same thing ...they destroy the ability of the producers of goods and services to make a profit.....extract what's left of the wealth for themselves..leaving economic disaster in their wake...China, Russia, Vietnam, Cuba, Zimbabwe..where ever the commie's pitch their tent..misery, death and destruction follow..! Rob<>Santee

in Mississippi proceeding at a much more rapid pace than is the one in LA?

Also, is it not true that the actual eye made landfall in MS (Im too lazy to look)? The point of the question being that there was more damage along the cost in MS than in LA.

It seems to me that the more self reliant the people are the better and faster the recovery. If so then Lilly's favored solution is am impediment to recovery.

I am from La. and survived both Katrina and Rita. It is called personnel responsibility. The people were told to evacuate but many refused. Many people in my area were rescued by volunteers. They didn't wait for the government to make rescue plans. They just went out and got the job done. Another thing you probably didn't hear about is that a convoy of school buses were sent to N.O. to rescue the people at the Superdome. Too bad they never arrived because they were turned around by the incompetent governor.

The philosopher Adam Smith, who in the 1770s created the principles of economics we use today, wrote about the proper use of taxation as one means of controlling government. Every citizen should seek to abolish the IRS and tax with a Fair Tax. The following updated principles (http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=6495) are a good starting point. I pasted them below for convenience.

* Every person should pay in proportion to the revenue that he or she enjoys as a result of the protection government provides. This means neither a "head tax" nor a graduated tax, but a flat tax.
* Taxes should be predictable, not arbitrary. Each person should know with certainty exactly how much he or she will pay given a certain...

Obama is redistributing the wealth to his chosen people, which is one of the greatest wealth killers imaginable.

I fail to understand why liberals are trying to defend Obama's indefensible presidency. Can it be they can't bring themselves to admit a mistake?

Hey, I made a mistake and voted for McCain. We all make them.