kvkkc1....
Why the labeling and rhetoric?
The difference between "conservatives" and "liberals"
are how they spend money.
Reagan "conservatives" spent money on many weapons
systems that didn't work to create jobs in the
the jurisdictions of Congressman particularly those
with seniority.
"Liberals" spend money on on social entitlement programs
that don't impact the economy and create greater dependencies upon "big brother" while failing to
solve the problems that these programs are intended
to resolve. Many, if not most of these programs, make
matters worse.
I don't advocate this type of liberalism or
conservatism and find such labeling very simple minded.
The economy I described per my example trickled down
because of targeted government spending partnered with
private investment to maximize returns on
that investment to grow a local economy that
contributed directly to the environments in
which people live.
The government spending of Voo Doo economics
trickled down through jobs created by dispersing
many unneeded military pork spending through
districts that led to no direct noticible improvements
and many systems which didn't improve our
national defense.
.
Many "new" economy businesses were incubated
with tax relief and abatements that created jobs
and empowered those people by this relief
fueling job creation.
Many of these businesses received funds through greater
participation in markets by the expansion of
retirement vehicles made more accesible to people
of moderate means to encourage savings. People were
encouraged to participate through tax savings...ie
deductions and given flexibilty per some of these
programs to amass the capital for education and
home ownership.
This money trickled up to businesses
fueling the economy providing the capital for
expansion and creation of jobs.
Money trickles both ways.
It would be interesting to see where jobs were
created in the eighties, and it would be
also wonderful to rememder the deregulation of
the savings and loan industry and how this
loose money fueled the mirage of prosperity
where many projects that were suppose to trickle
down ultimately had to be bailed out with
more wasted tax dollars. Neil who?
I agree with privatization of many services like
garbage collection, but many services shouldn't
be privatized...especially the police.
Re: regulations, regulations were instigated
by transgressions. This isn't a scare tactic.
I agree there are some industries that
are regulated too much with asinine particulars,
but have you ever visited a chicken factory, or pig
farm ? After every E Coli break out, I just don't
think this is debate is as simple minded as all regulations
are bad, and no regulations are good...
There's a balance,. Extremism on both sides seems
to completely miss the point when and where and how
much regulation is necessary to insure our safety.
This has nothing to do with labels of liberalism.
Having done a lot of nursing care work, I'm sure glad
that government agencies have cited and shut down
a lot of the abuse I saw where elderly patients were
so neglected that they developed bed sores that
went down to their bones simply becuase these patients
weren't turned over.
Again it's to what degree...it isn't a polarity.
As for guns and cigarettes, again I find your
reductionism and presumptions a bit simplistic.
It seems as if you read from a script which is so constricted and narrow minded so as not to be concerned
with real solutions, but to be more concerned with polemic solipsisms.
Do guns kill people or do people kill people?
Is that the entire argument?
Do tools fix things or do people fix things?
Or do people with tools fix things?
Obviously the wrong people emboldened by their
access to and equipped with guns kill people.
But who are these "wrong" people?
Did the day trader who killed his family and fellow
traders in Atlanta have a record? Was he a "criminal"
before he went postal?
How many former lovers, husbands, girl friends
and stalkers became criminals because a gun
facilitated a tragic action.
Would the two boys in Colorado be so emboldened
if they didn't have guns? Would these two be so sick minded
if they hadn't been so desensitized by
gratuitously violent video games, movies and
television shows that glamorize this violence?
Where were their parents? Working?
Should existing guns laws be enforced? Of course.
But keeping guns out of the hands of criminals isn't as
easy as said and done because many people don't
become criminals until they get guns and are emboldened
by holding these pieces of steel in their hands.
Should people have the right to protect themselves?
Of course, especially women. But what happens when
that gun used for protection emboldens one to do something
stupid during road rage, or is accidently used
on your daughter when your daughter sneaks back
into your house at night after she broke her curfew.
How many fights escalate when people have concealed weapons?
When I fought, I fought with fists. Now some one
who loses it temporary may pull out a gun and shoot
you over a parking space.
I tutored a child for two years who used his
mother's boy friend's gun to shoot himself in the head.
Wasn't clear whether this was an accident or a suicide.
However, an interesting statistic is the rise in suicides
despite our "prosperitY". Suicides by gun fire
is the favorite means amongst males.
Again gun control IMO isn't a simple yes or no.
There are many reasonable and moderate ways
to increase responsible ownership, reduce access
to specific types of guns and for specific people,
while at the same time protecting one's right
to defend one's self.
Again, extemisism on either side and labeling
seems to entirely miss the point.
So in response to your question am I jealous?
I have to ask jealous of what?
Have a good night.
z
(spelling not checked)
btw.. I voted for Tom Ridge twice, and
would have voted for McCain, though I disagree
with him and believe a women's
should have the right to choose.
Everyone should say a prayer for Senator McCain
tonight because of the re-occurance of his cancer. |
