On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 10:36:33AM -0800, Paul Johnson wrote: > Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > > > Of course, it can also be viewed as big research project, in which case > > there were some successes. > > I'll grant you that much, as a research project it was moderately > successful. Though I think you'd have a hard time arguing that it's > primary motivation was research. > True. But if you recall some of the discussion debian-devel (or was it -project?) regarding the Dunc Tank "experiment", there were lots of interesting points of view on what constituted a successful experiment. I guess lots of that could be extended to encompass a "research project."
> > In what way? "By the people, for the people" is a political statement. > > As in "the people form the government and have a say in it". It is not > > an economic statement. Remember, the founding fathers initially came up > > with the Articles of Confederation because of how much they feared a > > strong central government. The size of our government has been going > > the wrong direction for a long time. > > In size and authority, yes, but unfortunately not in ability to serve it's > public, which really should be the litmus test of a government's success > overall. Kennedy had it backwards (at least for the first world): Ask not > what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you. > Except that it probably would not be so bad if the government had gotten bigger and *more* efficient. Of course, it has been getting bigger and *less* efficient. So, if the government can efficiently serve the people while still protecting their liberties, then we have a win-win. The founders realized that a strong (or big, depending on who you ask) federal government was incapable of both. As far as Kennedy, don't forget that he grew up in the Post-WWI era, was a young man during the depression and served in WWII. He knew what it meant to make a personal sacrifice for the good of others. I am guessing that as he saw it, America was starting to forget that. > > But you said in another post that you supported the Democratic > > Socialists and want national (read: socialized) healhcare. I would > > think that you would be itching to send extra money to the federal > > government to help them get to that goal. > > I don't see any reason why this can't be a state issue. > Point taken. Though, the vast majority of people thing federal and not state when discussing socialized healthcare. > > You know, since a bigger government is necessary for socialized > > healthcare. > > Take it out of the military. They can afford it. > You are really funny. Don't forget that Clinton and Gore cut our military forces to the bone and then proceeded to deploy them on more operations than something like the previous eight presidents combined. Our Navy is at less than 300 warships. Our Army is having to give up most of its heavy equipment and go with light and medium stuff (because of reduced airlift and sealift support). Our Air Force is cutting something like 40,000 people in the next few years to be able to afford a new generation of fighter aircraft. I would hardly say that they can afford it. > > Of course, spending money at higher levels will *always* be more > > wasteful. This is why a *smaller* government is better. Push spending > > down to lower levels, where the amounts are smaller, oversight is better > > and waste is smaller. > > And I don't disagree. But look at the federal budget breakdown and look at > the kind of money we flush down the toilet to maintain Cold War military > spending levels. The Soviet Union is dead: We can stop fighting them > already. > Well, there are two things here. First, military spending is at the level where it is now because it is *necessary*. Regardless of your view on the Iraq war, there are bad guys out there. I would *much* rather that our military be properly equipped to go and fight them on their turf than that we wait until they get here. Not just that, but the US is arguably one of the most prosperous nations in the world. I think that it is right for us to render humanitarian aid to other nations when we can. This is generally done through deployments of the military (Somalia, Honduras, Indonesia, etc). Second, if you look at how badly Clinton neglected the military, you will see that it is necessary to spend *more* than we are spending now to get it back up to snuff. Think of a house that falls into disrepair over a decade. It will cost *lots* of money to get it back to its previous condition. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sanchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
