I’m willing to bet my entire income, for the remainder of my life, that Obama will not do away with elections. Any takers?

You might be glad nobody took you up on that some day.

Given obamas past, no.

I’m willing to bet my entire income, for the remainder of my life, that Obama will not do away with elections. Any takers?

that’s a bit extreme, don’t you think?

Given obamas past, no.

For exactly which candidate do you think those voters will cast a ballot? The one who tells them, “Things are tough, suck it up!” or, “You poor thing, have some government $$$”???

If that logic held, fiscal conservatives would never be elected to office, except in times of prosperity. I’m not sure if the historical record indicates that (I doubt that it does).

sooner or later the Marxists in government will do away with elections.

that’s a bit extreme, don’t you think?

Socky:
Do you believe that poster might merely/actually be lgm, our buffoon relief-supplier, with a new, secret identity?

I do not have another identity… and I resent that you might even remotely think that.

The government will likely want to spend more than it needs to

That I agree with. Only it should be government will spend more than it has.

If the government continues to spend after it is no longer justified, then it’s up to the voters to put better politicians in office.

It isn’t justified now, and sooner or later the Marxists in government will do away with elections.

it’s up to the voters to put better politicians in office.

For exactly which candidate do you think those voters will cast a ballot? The one who tells them, “Things are tough, suck it up!” or, “You poor thing, have some government $$$”???

Senator Barry Goldwater in 1958:

This bill and the foregoing remarks of the majority remind me of an old Arabian proverb: “If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow.” If adopted, the legislation will mark the inception of aid, supervision, and ultimately control of education in this country by the federal authorities.[1]

The liberal controlled government is on quick time march towards controlling every single human in this country.

Let’s just say what you said is true. Why should the government stop at $10 – why not spend $1000. Then the economy will benefit by $100,000.

The idea is that the gov’t only steps in when the markets are failing (which arguably is the case here). They should not spend the $1,000 if that money would be better spent by private companies. Of course, this is more difficult in practice than in theory. The government will likely want to spend more than it needs to (and that’s when voters need to act).

IF, however, (and it’s a big if) this is a situation where the private markets are failing, the stimulus package might be justified. If the government continues to spend after it is no longer justified, then it’s up to the voters to put better politicians in office.

I think the problem is that private enterprise won’t do the necessary spending because they’re too worried about the economic outlook.

bluesoc: The problem is, businesses have to pay taxes, SS, FICA, unemployment, etc, etc. The morass of taxes is what weighs heavily on every business.

On top of that, Congress is continually changing our tax code making long-term planning difficult at best — for businesses and individual investors.

You want to see investment go up in this country? Give us the Fair Tax and then stand back!

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main

10:27 am, pamter said:

Totally agree – though I’m not 73 ….