Kraft t makes a good point

[Nebrfarmr]

And once again, Kraft-T has put his own meaning, on what I had said.

Read my first post.  In what I consider to be plain English, I pointed out, that I belive in helping people in need, but what I am against is welfare (and programs like it) becoming a multi-generational way of life, instead of a hand up.  Somehow, he read what I wrote, but took it to mean I wanted everyone on Welfare to look like a Jew in a Nazi Concentration camp.  I said no such thing, he put those words in my mouth, which were never there, and never meant to be.  You will notice no comment about my specifics where I said the government could cut spending such as Chinese hookers, and spending public money doing ketchup viscocity testing, so Heinz doesn't have to (how many guesses do we get which Congressman got THAT put in there).  Yet, when I mention cutting smaller government, suddenly it means poor people being starved to death, instead of less money to Chinese hookers, or a multimillion dollar corporation.  Why is that?

[Nebrfarmr]

Nope, any regulation of Captialism, by the words of the Constitution, is left up to the States.  The Constitution clearly states, that the powers not specifically granted to the Federal government by the Constitution, is to be given to the States, and individuals.  Since it is 'not mentioned' the Federal government should have no say in the matter, either way.

[Nebrfarmr]

My biggest complaints of the far left, are that they want to regulate every aspect of everything, but it seems that when someone is caught red-handed, instead of punishing them severely, they give them a slap on the wrist, and write a bunch more regulations that the rest of us have to live with.  Next on the list, would be the way they are always wanting to 'spread the wealth around' but go to great lengths, to be sure it is OTHER people's wealth.

On the other hand, die hard conservatives seem dead set against tax reform (but when you get right down to it, the Libs seem to give as many breaks to special interests as anyone) but aren't doing enough to cut spending, to control the budget.  I guess one could argue that GWB wasn't really 'conservative' in that respect, but he is as close to a conservative a President we had in my memory.  My other gripe would be cutting regulations willy-nilly, allowing for to much chicanery.  While Libs seem to want to add a bunch of regulations without thinking through the unintended consequences, the Cons seem to cut reguations without thinking through the unintended consequences.  However, from experience, simple, clear-cut rules are better than long, complex ones.

There, that is 2 gripes for each side, just to keep things 'even'.

[rawhide]

that's the only way they know how to argue

[Nebrfarmr]

Read it, and liked it.  I'd say I agree with most of what that guy said. 
Now, does that make me Liberal, or Conservative.

[BA Deere]

That is an excellent example of how liberals twist facts, I must admit the Republicans have done a poor job of defending themselves.  About people starving and poor, it was never this bad under Reagan, Bush#41 and Bush#43 but the libs screamed holy hell.  Under 0bama, I can`t ever remember the country in tougher shape.   If Democratism is the answer then by God there should be a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.  The same can be said of "Republicans want everthing deregulated" that`s a God damned lie.  Republicans want sensible regulation. Case in point the global warming hoax, see how the Dems are all over it?  I will tell you flat out Nebrfrmr that Republicans are just the lesser evil, put your Trust in God, but as far as "man made rules" Republicans are the best that we can do.  We are living in historic timeswe will see the "wheat seperated from the tares", read the Bible and it is very obvious that 0bama and the Dems are tares.  Republicans are the "wheat" albeit low protein feed wheat

[Red Steele]

Good thread and posts.

Enjoyed the blog by Mr. Hall and he is right on the money on most of his comments.

You hit the bullseye, too, when you said that most liberals want to be generous with other people's money, not their own.

Not every liberal is a hypocrite that way, there are a couple of sincere well meaning ones that post on here, but they seem to be out gunned by the ones that just look at what they and their families get in benefits, whether it is social security payments, subsidized medicare, a parent on public assistance, a child on welfare or earned income credits, or all of the above, and know that they are riding in the cart , not pulling the cart.

I think we reached the tipping point with the election of Barry Hussein Zero where the sides are clearly drawn on the left at least. Someone that speaks for the average hard working citizen would win 2012 in a landside, if such a person was in the race. I always thought that we needed more legislators like Chuck Hagel, is he the real deal?

[kraft-t]

Oh my ! That is really oppressive to require anyone to to changee their cell phone tactics in the interest of public safety. Is that a;ll you got?

[Nebrfarmr]

I agree on the point that anymore, we are stuck with the lesser of two evils.

Just looking around the country, I see that the States that seem to have the most 'progressive' ideas, are the ones in the worst shape.  If high taxes, high regulation, high minimum wage, and lots of government programs lead to prosperity, California should be the State with the biggest surpluses. 

On the other hand, total lack of regulation leads to chaos and corruption, and I can see where a certain amount of oversight is necessary.  However, just from personal experience, the simpler you can get something, so that is still works, the better off you usually are.