|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 21, 2010 19:04:53 GMT -8
Yeah, and I about wanted to punch him in the face when he said that Californians were undertaxed when it came to property taxes. Like we aren't taxed enough already in several other areas that many states don't tax at all. And like our property values weren't two to three times of those other areas he was pointing out as examples (meaning our total tax dollars are equal to or higher than theirs). Buffett is totally cut off from reality. Having as much money as he has had for so long he doesn't know what it's like to be 40 and in the middle class - because he hasn't been in the middle class since he was in his 20's. I'll bet you could grow your business and hire another worker or two if you kept more of your money rather than paying it out in excessive taxes. And I'll bet mine would be a rounding difference compared to yours, so where does that fit me in when it comes to your view of conservatives? My lot in life was created by me. My mistakes were my mistakes. I'm not taking ANY public assistance from the government, even though I probably qualify for it. I'm not going to make anyone else pay for my bad judgment - even if I was only 19 at the time and didn't know jack. I see you do not want to answer my questions. Let me succinct. How is it that liberals have accomplished what we have when we lack motivation? Like most liberals, you totally missed my point.  When I talk motivation and incentives, I'm talking for EVERYONE. The average Joe, who isn't necessarily conservative or liberal - he's just looking to support his family. No, it's not. Liberals care deeply about people, but they forget an important old parable. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for life. It may be a cliche, but it's true. Giving people subsidies is the same as giving them that one fish. Giving them a stronger economy and the training/education needed to get jobs allows them to support themselves for life. Business is not bad. Business should not be punished for being successful. Taxing companies because they have a successful year is a form of punishment. For being good at what they do they get hit with higher tax rates. Businesses employ the people that the government lives off of, so raising their tax rates cuts into their profits, which diminishes the amount of money they can re-invest in their business for growth. Growth means new jobs, lack of growth means no new jobs. Sure, there absolutely should be some regulations to make sure that businesses operate ethically, but after that everyone should be responsible for themselves for the most part. Everyone should learn how to support themselves. It can be done. It has been done. The difference between liberals and conservatives is just in how we believe that people are best helped. Liberals don't believe in individuals ability to take care of themselves as much as conservatives do. Liberals believe that it's government's job to make sure people don't fail, where conservatives believe that failure begets future success, and without the possibility of failure people will not work (or try) as hard to succeed. Failure is a necessity. Fear of failure motivates people to work harder. Without the possibility of failure people don't have that motivation. People need to know that there are consequences for bad decisions. God knows I do. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 21, 2010 21:03:28 GMT -8
I see you do not want to answer my questions. Let me succinct. How is it that liberals have accomplished what we have when we lack motivation? Like most liberals, you totally missed my point. When I talk motivation and incentives, I'm talking for EVERYONE. The average Joe, who isn't necessarily conservative or liberal - he's just looking to support his family. No, it's not. Liberals care deeply about people, but they forget an important old parable. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for life. It may be a cliche, but it's true. Giving people subsidies is the same as giving them that one fish. Giving them a stronger economy and the training/education needed to get jobs allows them to support themselves for life. Business is not bad. Business should not be punished for being successful. Taxing companies because they have a successful year is a form of punishment. For being good at what they do they get hit with higher tax rates. Businesses employ the people that the government lives off of, so raising their tax rates cuts into their profits, which diminishes the amount of money they can re-invest in their business for growth. Growth means new jobs, lack of growth means no new jobs. Sure, there absolutely should be some regulations to make sure that businesses operate ethically, but after that everyone should be responsible for themselves for the most part. Everyone should learn how to support themselves. It can be done. It has been done. The difference between liberals and conservatives is just in how we believe that people are best helped. Liberals don't believe in individuals ability to take care of themselves as much as conservatives do. Liberals believe that it's government's job to make sure people don't fail, where conservatives believe that failure begets future success, and without the possibility of failure people will not work (or try) as hard to succeed. Failure is a necessity. Fear of failure motivates people to work harder. Without the possibility of failure people don't have that motivation. People need to know that there are consequences for bad decisions. God knows I do. Your fishing parable is the story of my friend, Keith. Yet, when I told that story you got angry. Liberals own businesses. I studied business in graduate school. I don't hate business. Warren Buffet does not either. Taxing is not punishment. That is just insane. I have had clients pay more than a million dollars in income taxes. They did not cry about the injustice of it all. They said, "Sure hope I make this much next year, being rich is great." Liberals don't want government to take care of everyone. We want government to protect everyone. Then we can take care of ourselves. Conservatives think government is to protect property and wealth. Fear of failure is not what motivates people. It is desire to be and do better for themselves. You have a very dark view of life. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 21, 2010 22:23:00 GMT -8
Like most liberals, you totally missed my point. When I talk motivation and incentives, I'm talking for EVERYONE. The average Joe, who isn't necessarily conservative or liberal - he's just looking to support his family. No, it's not. Liberals care deeply about people, but they forget an important old parable. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for life. It may be a cliche, but it's true. Giving people subsidies is the same as giving them that one fish. Giving them a stronger economy and the training/education needed to get jobs allows them to support themselves for life. Business is not bad. Business should not be punished for being successful. Taxing companies because they have a successful year is a form of punishment. For being good at what they do they get hit with higher tax rates. Businesses employ the people that the government lives off of, so raising their tax rates cuts into their profits, which diminishes the amount of money they can re-invest in their business for growth. Growth means new jobs, lack of growth means no new jobs. Sure, there absolutely should be some regulations to make sure that businesses operate ethically, but after that everyone should be responsible for themselves for the most part. Everyone should learn how to support themselves. It can be done. It has been done. The difference between liberals and conservatives is just in how we believe that people are best helped. Liberals don't believe in individuals ability to take care of themselves as much as conservatives do. Liberals believe that it's government's job to make sure people don't fail, where conservatives believe that failure begets future success, and without the possibility of failure people will not work (or try) as hard to succeed. Failure is a necessity. Fear of failure motivates people to work harder. Without the possibility of failure people don't have that motivation. People need to know that there are consequences for bad decisions. God knows I do. Your fishing parable is the story of my friend, Keith. Yet, when I told that story you got angry. Liberals own businesses. I studied business in graduate school. I don't hate business. Warren Buffet does not either. Taxing is not punishment. That is just insane. I have had clients pay more than a million dollars in income taxes. They did not cry about the injustice of it all. They said, "Sure hope I make this much next year, being rich is great." Liberals don't want government to take care of everyone. We want government to protect everyone. Then we can take care of ourselves. Conservatives think government is to protect property and wealth. Fear of failure is not what motivates people. It is desire to be and do better for themselves. You have a very dark view of life. And you have a totally unrealistic utopian view of life. And your view of Conservatives is extremely cynical and incorrect. Conservatives believe in the individual over the collective - except when the safety of the collective is at stake (law enforcement and national defense). Rugged individualism is the term that Rush Limbaugh has used, and it is appropriate. Do for yourself. Don't wait for others to do for you. Don't ask for handouts. We don't need a nanny state to take care of us - or protect us (look at all the nanny state crap that the liberals in Sacramento have passed over the last 10 years - it's incredibly insulting). We just need to make sure the government stays out of our way - and out of our wallets. Your idea that Liberalism isn't about government giveaways clashes with what Liberals in power have done over the last 70 years. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, for example, created a permanent underclass - the dependency class - that will never dig themselves out from under. Rather than making that problem better it made it worse. Maybe in your ideal world the Democrats would only set up regulations to protect us from corporate fraud and set up safety regulations to make sure our food and medications are safe, but in reality they are taxing and spending us into bankruptcy. California is insolvent, and is only getting worse thanks to the liberals in charge. That's reality. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 21, 2010 22:49:54 GMT -8
Liberals own businesses. I studied business in graduate school. I don't hate business. Warren Buffet does not either. Taxing is not punishment. That is just insane. So stealing money from people or businesses isn't punishment? It certainly isn't a reward... I've found that a lot of rich people are cut off from reality. Having a lot of money does that to you. When you don't have a lot of money, however, the 20% you give up in taxes is a VERY big deal, and it does seem like an awfully big injustice. I'm not crying about it - I'm pissed! Why? Because so much money is wasted in government on ridiculous stuff that the government has no business doing in the first place. And because the government is so damned wasteful - efficiency is not something our government is known for (at any level) - tax rates are far higher than they should be. My company is always looking to be more efficient, to find better ways of doing each individual task or procedure. If the government worked that way they could slash their budget(s) and greatly reduce taxes for everyone. They don't and they won't because there are too many people invested in the current wasteful system. And the liberals have had control of congress for most of the last 80 years when this system was built up. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Oct 22, 2010 4:05:52 GMT -8
Your fishing parable is the story of my friend, Keith. Yet, when I told that story you got angry. Liberals own businesses. I studied business in graduate school. I don't hate business. Warren Buffet does not either. Taxing is not punishment. That is just insane. I have had clients pay more than a million dollars in income taxes. They did not cry about the injustice of it all. They said, "Sure hope I make this much next year, being rich is great." Liberals don't want government to take care of everyone. We want government to protect everyone. Then we can take care of ourselves. Conservatives think government is to protect property and wealth. Fear of failure is not what motivates people. It is desire to be and do better for themselves. You have a very dark view of life. And you have a totally unrealistic utopian view of life. And your view of Conservatives is extremely cynical and incorrect. Conservatives believe in the individual over the collective - except when the safety of the collective is at stake (law enforcement and national defense). Rugged individualism is the term that Rush Limbaugh has used, and it is appropriate. Do for yourself. Don't wait for others to do for you. Don't ask for handouts. We don't need a nanny state to take care of us - or protect us (look at all the nanny state crap that the liberals in Sacramento have passed over the last 10 years - it's incredibly insulting). We just need to make sure the government stays out of our way - and out of our wallets. Your idea that Liberalism isn't about government giveaways clashes with what Liberals in power have done over the last 70 years. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, for example, created a permanent underclass - the dependency class - that will never dig themselves out from under. Rather than making that problem better it made it worse. Maybe in your ideal world the Democrats would only set up regulations to protect us from corporate fraud and set up safety regulations to make sure our food and medications are safe, but in reality they are taxing and spending us into bankruptcy. California is insolvent, and is only getting worse thanks to the liberals in charge. That's reality. Please explain how Limbaugh himself is a "rugged individualist? He seems soft and I couldn't see him surviving one night lost in the desert with little or no provisions. Other than drug use and marriage failures, what "rugged" difficult task has he gotten through? acknowledging he is good behind a mike..... but so are a lot of people. By the way, I am a soft, lean Left guy who has worked in wildlife filming in some of the most remote parts of the World. 90% of us hate Limbaugh.... but we do pretty well out there in sometimes life-threatening conditions. How are we less "rugged individualist" than Limbaugh...? |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 22, 2010 5:50:22 GMT -8
And you have a totally unrealistic utopian view of life. And your view of Conservatives is extremely cynical and incorrect. Conservatives believe in the individual over the collective - except when the safety of the collective is at stake (law enforcement and national defense). Rugged individualism is the term that Rush Limbaugh has used, and it is appropriate. Do for yourself. Don't wait for others to do for you. Don't ask for handouts. We don't need a nanny state to take care of us - or protect us (look at all the nanny state crap that the liberals in Sacramento have passed over the last 10 years - it's incredibly insulting). We just need to make sure the government stays out of our way - and out of our wallets. Your idea that Liberalism isn't about government giveaways clashes with what Liberals in power have done over the last 70 years. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, for example, created a permanent underclass - the dependency class - that will never dig themselves out from under. Rather than making that problem better it made it worse. Maybe in your ideal world the Democrats would only set up regulations to protect us from corporate fraud and set up safety regulations to make sure our food and medications are safe, but in reality they are taxing and spending us into bankruptcy. California is insolvent, and is only getting worse thanks to the liberals in charge. That's reality. Please explain how Limbaugh himself is a "rugged individualist? He seems soft and I couldn't see him surviving one night lost in the desert with little or no provisions. Other than drug use and marriage failures, what "rugged" difficult task has he gotten through? acknowledging he is good behind a mike..... but so are a lot of people. By the way, I am a soft, lean Left guy who has worked in wildlife filming in some of the most remote parts of the World. 90% of us hate Limbaugh.... but we do pretty well out there in sometimes life-threatening conditions. How are we less "rugged individualist" than Limbaugh...? Jeez - you're taking that tag WAAAAAAY too literally. Limbaugh only meant that as a, "Rugged individualist," you don't take handouts from the government and make it on your own. You find a way to get by financially, and you work hard to create your own success. He uses that term to describe anyone who is a self-made success (financially independent, not just rich) and never used government assistance to get ahead. Some others may use the term, "Self starter," but it's basically the same thing - people who do for themselves rather than waiting for others to help them. I like the term, "Rugged individualist," since there are so many people who do take government assistance when they really could find a way to get by on their own if they really wanted to. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 22, 2010 7:02:12 GMT -8
Your fishing parable is the story of my friend, Keith. Yet, when I told that story you got angry. Liberals own businesses. I studied business in graduate school. I don't hate business. Warren Buffet does not either. Taxing is not punishment. That is just insane. I have had clients pay more than a million dollars in income taxes. They did not cry about the injustice of it all. They said, "Sure hope I make this much next year, being rich is great." Liberals don't want government to take care of everyone. We want government to protect everyone. Then we can take care of ourselves. Conservatives think government is to protect property and wealth. Fear of failure is not what motivates people. It is desire to be and do better for themselves. You have a very dark view of life. And you have a totally unrealistic utopian view of life. And your view of Conservatives is extremely cynical and incorrect. Conservatives believe in the individual over the collective - except when the safety of the collective is at stake (law enforcement and national defense). Rugged individualism is the term that Rush Limbaugh has used, and it is appropriate. Do for yourself. Don't wait for others to do for you. Don't ask for handouts. We don't need a nanny state to take care of us - or protect us (look at all the nanny state crap that the liberals in Sacramento have passed over the last 10 years - it's incredibly insulting). We just need to make sure the government stays out of our way - and out of our wallets. Your idea that Liberalism isn't about government giveaways clashes with what Liberals in power have done over the last 70 years. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program, for example, created a permanent underclass - the dependency class - that will never dig themselves out from under. Rather than making that problem better it made it worse. Maybe in your ideal world the Democrats would only set up regulations to protect us from corporate fraud and set up safety regulations to make sure our food and medications are safe, but in reality they are taxing and spending us into bankruptcy. California is insolvent, and is only getting worse thanks to the liberals in charge. That's reality. Interesting. I think you have a dark Dickensonian view of life. Dog eat dog and let the devil take the hindmost. OK, fine. That is how many conservatives see the world. Too bad. The world can be a better place, but not with that attitude. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 22, 2010 7:19:22 GMT -8
Interesting. I think you have a dark Dickensonian view of life. Dog eat dog and let the devil take the hindmost. OK, fine. That is how many conservatives see the world. Too bad. The world can be a better place, but not with that attitude. So the world is a better place with the government stealing our money, wasting it in excessive middle management, wasting it with inefficient processes, and then giving some of it to people who have made bad decisions in life? The world would be a MUCH better place if everyone took responsibility for themselves and held themselves accountable for their actions rather than placing the blame for their own mistakes on others or on, "Society." You cannot deny that. That's not to say that you don't have safety net programs to help out those in financial trouble due to no fault of their own, but those safety net programs should only be considered for temporary emergency use, not for an ongoing way of life. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 30, 2010 18:33:43 GMT -8
I see you do not want to answer my questions. Let me succinct. How is it that liberals have accomplished what we have when we lack motivation? Like most liberals, you totally missed my point. When I talk motivation and incentives, I'm talking for EVERYONE. The average Joe, who isn't necessarily conservative or liberal - he's just looking to support his family. No, it's not. Liberals care deeply about people, but they forget an important old parable. If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for life. It may be a cliche, but it's true. Giving people subsidies is the same as giving them that one fish. Giving them a stronger economy and the training/education needed to get jobs allows them to support themselves for life. Business is not bad. Business should not be punished for being successful. Taxing companies because they have a successful year is a form of punishment. For being good at what they do they get hit with higher tax rates. Businesses employ the people that the government lives off of, so raising their tax rates cuts into their profits, which diminishes the amount of money they can re-invest in their business for growth. Growth means new jobs, lack of growth means no new jobs. Sure, there absolutely should be some regulations to make sure that businesses operate ethically, but after that everyone should be responsible for themselves for the most part. Everyone should learn how to support themselves. It can be done. It has been done. The difference between liberals and conservatives is just in how we believe that people are best helped. Liberals don't believe in individuals ability to take care of themselves as much as conservatives do. Liberals believe that it's government's job to make sure people don't fail, where conservatives believe that failure begets future success, and without the possibility of failure people will not work (or try) as hard to succeed. Failure is a necessity. Fear of failure motivates people to work harder. Without the possibility of failure people don't have that motivation. People need to know that there are consequences for bad decisions. God knows I do. Business is not bad. But, their interests do not necessarily coincide with the needs of the nation and must therefore be watched (in my opinion very carefully). Business does not exist to improve this country. That is not their purpose. They exist to make a profit, everything else, for them, is secondary. People need to be spanked (or worse) when they are non productive, right? Productivity is the only measure of human worth considering. OK, I promise to be productive. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 30, 2010 19:37:08 GMT -8
Business is not bad. But, their interests do not necessarily coincide with the needs of the nation and must therefore be watched (in my opinion very carefully). If they're not bad, and they ARE the economny (more or less), then why treat them like criminals and assume that they're out to do harm to people (or treat them like they are)? And by making a profit they can GROW and CREATE NEW JOBS, which improves the country and makes people's lives better. If someone is lazy and wants government handouts rather than working for a living then he/she doesn't deserve said handouts. I've known people like that. On the other hand, if somone loses their job due to downsizing because of a bad economy then they will have paid into the unemployment system and deserve short term help. The one thing that liberals often forget is charities. Republicans donate to charities at a much higher rate than Democrats do. Before all the social programs that FDR put in place were actually in place it was private charities that fed and housed unemployed/homeless people. They still do that work today. A lot of liberals don't like some of these charities because they are faith based, but those charities are usually more efficient with their money and do a better job than the government does. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 31, 2010 5:16:11 GMT -8
Business is not bad. But, their interests do not necessarily coincide with the needs of the nation and must therefore be watched (in my opinion very carefully). If they're not bad, and they ARE the economny (more or less), then why treat them like criminals and assume that they're out to do harm to people (or treat them like they are)? And by making a profit they can GROW and CREATE NEW JOBS, which improves the country and makes people's lives better. If someone is lazy and wants government handouts rather than working for a living then he/she doesn't deserve said handouts. I've known people like that. On the other hand, if somone loses their job due to downsizing because of a bad economy then they will have paid into the unemployment system and deserve short term help. The one thing that liberals often forget is charities. Republicans donate to charities at a much higher rate than Democrats do. Before all the social programs that FDR put in place were actually in place it was private charities that fed and housed unemployed/homeless people. They still do that work today. A lot of liberals don't like some of these charities because they are faith based, but those charities are usually more efficient with their money and do a better job than the government does. Business is not criminal in nature. I guess I have not made that clear. I am making a more complex point. Business may be the economy but their interest is not necessarily congruent with the interest of the people. If you can show that business best interest is the same as the citizens, please show it. Otherwise, business needs to be regulated. There is reasonable disagreement as to how much regulation they should get, but they need to be regulated. If you don't regulate them all sorts of bad things happen. And, don't let me forget to add that, businesses must pay their fair share because they benefit from the infrastructure so much. Businesses grow and create jobs, which they outsource at the first opportunity, attempt to hire the cheapest labor for, and create evermore difficult obstacles to get. Business needs to be regulated, because their interest is not necessarily congruent with the rest of us.Conservative debating points consistently lead one to believe that they believe that all unemployed , all under earning, and all economically unsuccessful people are lazy or somehow less worthy. That is the impression conservatives create and it is a major impediment to my understanding of conservative thought. Most people are not lazy. Most people who are unemployed desperately want a job and are angry when they don't. If that were not true, the Democrats majority would not be in danger, don't you think? As to short term help, just what is short term? How long does it take for someone to rebuild after a job loss, especially when the longer they are out of a job, the less likely those altruistic business people are likely to hire them? Charities are lovely, but they are not designed to provide the safety net necessary to provide consistent protection for people. They can also be selective as to who they help. When your fellow citizens need the most help, charities receive the fewest contributions. Historically, charities were the main support for the poor. For more information about how well charities support the poor without the government, I suggest that you read one of any number of good European and American history books. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Oct 31, 2010 8:34:00 GMT -8
Business is not criminal in nature. I guess I have not made that clear. No, you made that clear, but you also made it clear that you do not trust business and do not like business. Your inclination is to assume that business will do harm to the country to get ahead. That isn't necessarily true. Some may look out for their own interests even if that hurts the country, but most others won't. But it doesn't need to be (congruent to the needs of the people). Businesses are in business to make money and grow. They have a RIGHT to do so. To stifle that stifles the entire economy. They have just as much of a right to exist and have freedoms as individuals do. If they don't they'll just close up shop and move elsewhere altogether - and then the needs of the people will never be met. I agree with all of the above - just like individuals need to be regulated by laws to keep the country from falling into anarchy. But the regulations should not be so stifling that businesses' growth is harmed. When regulations become that burdonsome then a lot of companies will just move to another country altogether. My brother lost his job that way. (The company is now entirely based in Mexico becuase California regulations got so oppressive.) Actually, because it's more difficult logistically to have work done in other countries most companies would PREFER to be able to keep all their operations in one location. Government regulations and tax rates often make that difficult. Look at California - we've lost hundreds of businesses over the last couple of years due to the expense of doing business in the state. It's far more expensive to run operations in California than in Nevada or Arizona, for example. Only an idiot would stay here if they could do their business in those states. Liberals in Sacramento don't get that. By the way, I have no problem with HUGE tax penalties for companies outsourcing jobs to other countries. Conversely, I also support big tax CUTS for companies who add jobs inside the U.S. You know what? I have worked with a lot of lazy people, who do a half assed job at work. That mindset is infectious. I've seen others get angry that their co-workers are not doing as much work as they are, but still get paid the same - so the slacking spreads outward from the slackers. I don't think that those slackers (the lazy people) work their asses off to get new jobs once they are fired or laid off. If they can't work hard when they have a job, they won't know how to do it once they're unemployed. And if they get unemployment benefits? Then they're getting paid not to work, and that's just fine with them. How many people are like that? Who knows? I don't. I just know it's too many. No, I don't think so. I think right now it's the people who are working but are afraid of losing their jobs that are the ones that are angry with the Democrats. It's the people who can't get a raise or have had to take pay cuts that are angry with the Democrats. Many of the people who are getting by with their unemployment benefits aren't angry with the Democrats at all - it's the Democrats who got them extended benefits! They fall into the dependency class (taking government assistance), and many of them will never get off as they'll take food stamps (Cal Fresh, now), etc, once they get jobs, and they'll be beholden to the Democrats as the Republicans try to limit programs like that to those who truly cannot provide for themselves. I've been unemployed twice due to layoffs. Both times it took me two months to find a new job. The first time was smack dab in the middle of the early 90's recession. I busted my ass making getting a job my job. A lot of people do that and still can't get a job - I get that. But there are also a lot of people who DON'T do that, and aren't trying all that hard. What do we do with them? I have no problem helping those who are truly in need, but the best way to help them is to create an economy that grows faster and creates more new jobs quicker than when businesses are overregulated. Look at the charitable works during the Depression. They kept millions of people alive. They received enough in donations to do so. The same would happen now if taxes were lowered considerably and people (and businesses) had more money to donate. Can charities do everything to provide a full and complete safety net? No, of course not. But they could do more than they are able to do now. Necessity is the mother of invention, and when necessary during the Depression charities stepped up big time. Social Security was botched from the beginning. Setting it up as a Ponzi scheme was stupid. Had they set people up with their own private accounts we wouldn't be in the funding crisis we're in today. Government screws things up more often than not. There is waste, there is mismanagement, and there are people (congressmen, senators) setting programs up in areas that they know nothing about.There is an important role for government, but conservatives just believe that government has gone FAR outside of that role and is WASTING money in that middle management. Private companies are far more efficient and could do the same things for far less money. Why not hold the government to those standards? And if the government is unable to meet those standards then shouldn't those functions be given to companies or organizations who have the expertise to do those functions efficiently? |
|
