The Trump Presidency

Oklahomahawk said:
But we all know that isn't our military's #1 goal, or at least their #1A. It should be, mind you, but it really isn't. Ask KBR if you don't believe me.
Click to expand...

But that is essentially the only purpose of the governemnt and therefore I don't consider the expansion of the military a leftist decision. I understand the argument of how big is too big but the deterrent it provides is essential to maintain our position in the world.
 
thethe said:
But that is essentially the only purpose of the governemnt and therefore I don't consider the expansion of the military a leftist decision. I understand the argument of how big is too big but the deterrent it provides is essential to maintain our position in the world.
Click to expand...

Again, what IS the stated purpose of the government, regardless of which ahole party is running it at any given moment, and what are they really doing? This is definitely one area IMO where looking at the big picture on the surface only and actually breaking down the numbers like an economist or accountant would could DEFINITELY give you two different answers. Just my opinion though.
 
Randy Lewis Smith
‏ @Randysmith1956
12h12 hours ago
Replying to @SenJeffMerkley


The police were called on a U.S. Senator for checking on the welfare of children in a detention center?

#AnotherReasonToFlipItBlue
 
Oklahomahawk said:
Again, what IS the stated purpose of the government, regardless of which ahole party is running it at any given moment, and what are they really doing? This is definitely one area IMO where looking at the big picture on the surface only and actually breaking down the numbers like an economist or accountant would could DEFINITELY give you two different answers. Just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

The original framework was such that the federal government protected the country from foreign invasion and infringement upon the rights granted in the bill of rights. Everything else is a state issue.
 
What percentage of US spending is dedicated to regulation ?
You know , food, drugs, air water, workplace saftey etc etc etc.
Or even banking regualtion to protect the general good from price fixing, stock manipulation predator lending etc

I 'll take the answer off line
 
57Brave said:
Randy Lewis Smith
‏ @Randysmith1956
12h12 hours ago
Replying to @SenJeffMerkley


The police were called on a U.S. Senator for checking on the welfare of children in a detention center?

#AnotherReasonToFlipItBlue
Click to expand...


seriously considering it for the first time in my life. I would have voted for Bernie. Still wouldn't vote for Hillary. She would have been 4-8 years of stalling on marijuana while the left would be too afraid to damage her politically by making a big deal out of it.
 
thethe said:
You didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

To answer that question, it's necessary to look broadly at what the government spends money on. If one can find areas that the government spends considerable money that are completely at odds with left principles, the answer is fairly obvious. Can you think of any?
 
Julio3000 said:
To answer that question, it's necessary to look broadly at what the government spends money on. If one can find areas that the government spends considerable money that are completely at odds with left principles, the answer is fairly obvious. Can you think of any?
Click to expand...

The Obama administration was one of tax increases and regulation. In what world can you construct an argument these aren't leftist principles?

The economic revival we are seeing after 6 years of stagnation is almost entirely due to the release of the pressure from the private sector. I have no clue what your profession is but I can tell you from personal experience that this is the best its been in 15 years to find a job.

I understand there was a heavy desire to regulate after the great recession but I believe it was used as a cover to implement more extremist goals and Americans suffered because of it.
 
thethe said:
The Obama administration was one of tax increases and regulation. In what world can you construct an argument these aren't leftist principles?

The economic revival we are seeing after 6 years of stagnation is almost entirely due to the release of the pressure from the private sector. I have no clue what your profession is but I can tell you from personal experience that this is the best its been in 15 years to find a job.

I understand there was a heavy desire to regulate after the great recession but I believe it was used as a cover to implement more extremist goals and Americans suffered because of it.
Click to expand...

What, specifically, were these more extremist goals?
 
thethe said:
Simple question. Is increased government size leftist in nature?
Click to expand...

I refer you to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, and John O'Sullivan's First Law.

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/osullivans-first-law-in-action.php
O’Sullivan’s First Law, named for John O’Sullivan, former editor of National Review, speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, and author of the fine book The President, The Pope, and the Prime Minister, goes as follows: Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time. Good example include such seemingly anodyne institutions like the League of Women Voters, PTAs, National Public Radio, most professional associations like the American Bar Association, the Pew Charitable Trust (which actually was intended to be explicitly conservative, and still got captured by the left), and so forth.
 
Jaw said:
I refer you to Dr. Jerry Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy, and John O'Sullivan's First Law.

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/osullivans-first-law-in-action.php
O’Sullivan’s First Law, named for John O’Sullivan, former editor of National Review, speechwriter for Margaret Thatcher, and author of the fine book The President, The Pope, and the Prime Minister, goes as follows: Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time. Good example include such seemingly anodyne institutions like the League of Women Voters, PTAs, National Public Radio, most professional associations like the American Bar Association, the Pew Charitable Trust (which actually was intended to be explicitly conservative, and still got captured by the left), and so forth.
Click to expand...

Tough to argue with this
 
thethe said:
The original framework was such that the federal government protected the country from foreign invasion and infringement upon the rights granted in the bill of rights. Everything else is a state issue.
Click to expand...

Original framework maybe, but you'd agree that is a hellofalongeffingway from where we are now, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top