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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2941)	11/19/2007 2:30:44 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<Maybe, maybe not.>>> We can go on like this forever and not get anywhere. The real difference between us is about limited or limiting government. Believe it or not, I too believe in limited government. I don't think you can give government a blank check. If you do, I am positive that government will abuse it. I believe you automatically (except for initiatives in war) vote to get government out of our lives. Whereas, I believe there is a role for government. If I could crudely quantify it, on a scale of 1 to 100, I would limit government to no more than a 20 in involvement in our lives. Even at that level they screw up a lot, but that doesn't mean we stop trying. We have to elect leaders who are serious and believe in governing and are dedicated to "form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare," etc. Beyond that, they have to just get out of the way. This, I believe is an ongoing process. Some of the people and organizations that we have discussions about on this thread, I most often agree with are the New York Times, Paul Krugman, Jeffery Sachs, etc. But for some on this thread, you would think they were communists or have a socialist agenda. I very much disagree with this view.