Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DOUG H who wrote (98417)	12/2/2000 2:09:41 PM
From: TH	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Doug, Fair enough. I really do understand what you are referring to when you state, " I don't hold that "every man for himself" in it's purest sense can address some of the societal problems we have". I am a Republican, and I understand that it has appeared that "societal problems" do not appear to be a core of charter. I am not convinced this is completely accurate and contribute much of the reason for this popular opinion to two things. The first being the left bias of the media and the second a general opposition to spending on social programs by the Republicans. As a Republican I want to help people that need help. IMO, there is no unwillingness by the Republicans to address important social issues. The problem is that what issues are "important" and which are "optional" is a matter of great debate. To make it short, I think a focus on what is important and should supported vs. what we would like, would yield a much higher level of support, and relief, by the Congress. Unfortunately, years of efforts to increase spending by Democrats in countless areas considered optional by Republicans has created a general distrust of most programs sponsored by the Democrats. This is too bad, as I think the pie is large and those that need a piece should get one. People who need pie should be provided it, people who can earn pie should earn it. The is great debate over who needs and who can earn. It is a huge problem and one that I cannot address in one post. In the end, the people who really need help would be best served if the Democrats could represent that groups interest and offer ideas that promote lasting change. One last thing, Republicans hold a little different take on this "every man for himself" position. I look at it this way, every man chips in his fair share. His fair share does not mean that my effort, after a certain point of contribution, continues to support the needs of those who elect not to expend effort. In other words, a certain part of my effort is willing shared for the good of all, but if I am expected to continue to provide support when I elected to extend my effort, then I will have issue with that requested additional support. We should discuss this some more at some point. HAGO TH