« E.R.I.C. C.O.O.B.S. | Main | Games With Consequence »

September 13, 2006

Comments

Craig

The days of a smaller government party are long past, my friend.

Dave Budge

This, I assume, is your conservative post of the week. Although I think your logic is reasonably sound, I have a deep suspecion that you only wish to "shrink" the things you dislike - thereby leaving the availablity to "grow" other things. Healthcare, college funding, food programs, etc. come to mind. Perhaps I'm confusing you with someone else.

Not that any contrary thoughts make an endorsement for Conrad valid. That, however, is not my point. I question the sincerity of your "small government wish."

Please disabuse me of any such notion.

grannyinsanity

That bugged me when he would reference the amount of money spent and not the effectiveness of that spending.

The other things that were not brought up but should be in the future are CONSERVATION and PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

Those two things would save more money than we could load on an entire fleet of boats.

moorcat

Dave,

Once again you are confusing the discussion because you are asking to be enlightened by something that wasn't even said.

Wulfgar made a good point about the money, resources and graft that are wasted every year in our government. I have maintained for a couple of decades that the Federal Government has become a "Jobs Program" for those that can't get work elsewhere - and it is growing. That is what I took from Wulfgar's article too.

Supporting improving health care for Americans does not have to be "bigger government". It simply means that the Feds step in an figure out a way to ensure that ALL Americans have access to health insurance.

Let's use an example. If you were eliminate the useless "jobs" created by the Patriot Act, how much would the Federal Government save? Any idea? I gaurentee it is a hell of a lot more than what it would cost to put a little more funding into Medicare/Medicaid or re-enstate the tax break for college tuition. More importantly, the tax breaks would not create new jobs, because the IRS has plenty of employees, Thank you very much.

If you want to commment on what someone writes, please have the decency to actually address what is written, not your personal agenda. It confuses the discussion and leads to the kind of misconceptions and outright delusions seen on the right about the "War on Terror". You have your own blog for that...

Moorcat

Dave Budge

Oh, excuse me but I must have said

What he won't do is stop the spread of government into your life that you pay for. What Conrad wants is to buy you toys ... a skating rink, a ball field, a YMCA. What Conrad wants is for you to thank him for providing his services in borrowing your money. Conrad wants to expand the role and price that government plays in your life. Conrad wants you scared and greedy such that you agree to expand the role and price that government play in your life.

...

I don't need more government control, more government waste. I need less; and you aren't supporting that, are you?


Supporting improving health care is a bullshit term. Expanding programs is the expansion of governement. So mince what words you will but I'm not buying.

On top of that I was commenting on Rob's post of last week threating to blog on a "conservative" issue one a week.

So, no Moorcat, I don't think I was confusing the issue. I was addressing Rob in a thread that he began last week, not you.

But please do send me the entire blogging rule book so I can watch my etiquette.

grannyinsanity

Screw you Dave.

I do not understand your hostility to all of us unworthies being able to get healthcare.

The money argument does not cut it, that's been refuted so many times it's not funny. The government intrusion argument won't work if they are already scouring our every little molecule.

The quality argument does not work for anybody who does not get care.

So, what do you have against people being able to access something that is a pretty basic need?

Wulfgar

If anything, Dave, I might be relying too much on the wisdom that efficiency is the enemy of the ponderous. I do believe that our government can do more, with less, and apply effort in areas that matter vastly more than skating rinks and ball parks.

And for what it's worth, you will be terribly disappointed if you are expecting me to attempt ideological purity here. It's been my experience that holding to that, in practical circumstances, commonly leads directly to hypocrisy (especially as regards 'conservatism'). I do believe in having smaller government, with absolutely no implication that I hold to value "small government". Where that line gets drawn is obviously open to some debate.

There are some things I would definately love to "grow" in government, and health care provision for all is right at the top. The other programs you list, not so much. But there is no dictum that states that *has* to grow governmental intrusion or innefficiency. On a very personal level, I find that ensuring access to health care is far more of a national responsibility than making certain that our children is learning, or giving handouts to churches we then hope will give handouts to the poor, or giving enormous subsidies to already enormously profitable businesses in defense of growing infrastructure that needs no such defense.

I'm certain that if you wished to do so, we could argue well into the wee hours about whether my stance in this post is *really* conservative. But keep this in mind; I'm not writing these posts to fake being a conservative. I'm writing them because I truly believe myself to be more conservative than many who carry the banner undeservedly, most especially those precious faux-conservatives who support Conrad Burns for bringing in the pork. I reiterate that getting back to some basics is a good idea, and that's all my intent here implies.

Dave Budge

I will concede that your basic tenet here is more conservative than many self-proclaimed conservatives might embrace (of course that depends on one's definition of conservative - no?)

And really, I do appreciate your very reasoned response.

BTW, I had no illusions about your ideological conservatism. I have no illusion you're a conservative.

Mark T

This is not a small government party - I could have disabused you of that notion in 1980. These people want government, love government, so long as government takes care of their pet projects - military contractors have no problem with the size of our government. Pharmaceuticals have no problems with a government that subsidies them and protects them from competition. Big gubbmint is a throw-away line - the ones that are giving it to us are complaining about it.

Deficits are nice - because of very effective propaganda, military spending is off the table, tax cuts have swollen the deficit and will nto be rescinded, so we have but one place to cut - programs that benefit ordinary people. I think they call that drowning teh baby in the bathwater? Starving the beast?

Government could do a much better job with health care than the private sector, by the way. Ask any industrialized country.

I like George Carlin's line that the whole purpose of airport security is to make white people feel safe when they fly.

Dave Budge

Hey Granny, you're puttin' words in my mouth. I did not make an argument about health care above. Read the sentence carefully. I was talking about the "term" not about "supporting improving healthcare."

Maybe a little less coffee?

Oh, I like that you see me as hostile - evidenced by your rejoinder "Screw you Dave!" I can't think of a better way to win an argument - even one that didn't exist.

Eric Coobs

Conrad is in a tough position here, as is any politician from Montana because we get back much more federal revenue than what we pay in and our state cannot survive without it.

So as far as Conrad & Max are concerned they really have no choice but to keep voting for spending bills.

Jon Tester will say anything to get elected, but don't think he'd actually do anything different.

Wulfgar
... from Montana because we get back much more federal revenue than what we pay in and our state cannot survive without it.

Wrong. Montana will continue just fine without skate rinks and ball parks. You think you're correct? Prove your claim. Or bite me; your choice, of course.

So as far as Conrad & Max are concerned they really have no choice but to keep voting for spending bills.

Yeah, yeah they do. This is a representative democracy, right? They are free to make the choices that they think best for those of us who voted them to represent our interests, not buy us with the high-priced choices you would have, Eric. That was the very point of this post, but you obviously missed the obvious, didn't you, Eric? Quit being so obtuse.

Jon Tester will say anything to get elected, but don't think he'd actually do anything different.

Why not? Do you have a reason, or are you a blowhard? Pretty obviously the latter, don't you think? I do.

And here's the very point you so willfully miss about this exercise:

You've just argued that we should vote for Conrad, knowing that he hurts us in the long run, because the unknown candidate might do the same. Wow. What a tool you are, Eric. I know, as I've shown quite clearly, that Conrad Burns will screw me for his own gain. You posit that Jon Tester will do the same ... no proof or reason offered. Now tell me, Eric, why should I support a certain assrape over the possibility that I won't get one? I won't. No rational person would. Now what would that say about you?

But I'm so glad you offered your opinion. Oh, Sugar, that's so nice.

grannyinsanity

Excuse me there Dave, I thought that you were hostile when you said this

"you only wish to "shrink" the things you dislike - thereby leaving the availablity to "grow" other things. Healthcare, college funding, food programs, etc. come to mind. Perhaps I'm confusing you with someone else."

maybe I was wrong there and you aren't hostile about healthcare, college funding, food programs and other things that help people but then I don't understand what you were trying to say unless you were calling Wulfgar a hippocrite. I didn't think you would do that.

What were you saying there anyway?

Eric Coobs

What you're conveniently overlooking is that everything Senator Burns has done is GOOD FOR MONTANA.

And yes, Tester is a typical liberal politician, who absolutely will not tell you where he really stands on issues. He will tell you whatever his handlers tell him to say, to try to get elected.

You know, for somebody living off of federal handouts over in Bozeman you run your mouth kind of reckless, don't you?

Wulfgar

Eric, tyou continue to babble and ignore the point of the very post you babble in response to. Is it any wonder I think you're just a tool?

And your ignorance is showing again. I don't live off the federal dime.

Dave Budge

Granny, I wasn't being hostile at all but, rather, trying to get to the point that Wulfgar's "conservative" meme only went as far as the issued he cared about - as opposed to a more generally conservative outlook. I wasn't calling him a hypocrite either inasmuch as I know that he is not a conservative. Rob answered that question adaquatly - and respectfully I might add.

My opinions on those subjects are irrelevant to my post. Furthermore, although I am generally against the expansion of those programs, your "hostility" toward me demonstrates the ideological pathology that anyone who disagrees with you on policy issues is judged as "hostile."
It is possible, and in this case true, that one can dislike something without being "hostile" to it.

Reasonable people can disagree and your vitriol does little to advance your argument. But hey, go on telling people get screwed - someone might find it charming.

Justin

Yep, more conservative than a lot of Republicans, if they only knew LOL. I don't know whether to laugh, or applaud, but I do know that I'm behind you 100% on that post Wulfgar. If politcal parties would all get back to a little more of what's good for the country, and a little less of just trying to win "the game" and give their campaign contributors a good return on their investments, we'd all be a lot better off.

Dave, a very solidly self proclaimed Democrat said he was in favor of smaller government, and you question him about it? Be careful there, we don't want him to change his mind! If all Democrats were more like Wulfgar, I might be able to lose my distaste for partisan politics. Just one more reason why I love this blog. ;)

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad