NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
Lame (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a right-wing Republican. I am NOT in favor of handouts to corporations -- in fact, I am far less in favor of corporate favoritism than the Democrats in Washington are! -- and my interest in top-down economics is quite simply to provide for higher employment and wages in the long run.
He says the reason we are
Re:Lame (Score:1)
He says the reason we are against social spending is to make people more desperate; in fact, I am against *federal* social spending because it is *unconstitutional*...
I think that the federal gov't stuffs a lot of what it does into the commerce clause... and most of it would (or should, IMHO) be found to be unconstitutional *if*tested*.
I do wonder tho, how this is *different* from other kinds of spending that are shoved down our throats via the commerce clause?
I think the bigger issue (at least for me) is that the *process* used to decide which programs fly... and which sink... doesn't seem "fair". (If it ever could...).
It seems to me that the law changes (or is re-interpreted) to suit the whims of the controlling party. Things like putting Martha Stewart in jail and letting Ken Lay help establish White House policy (as a somewhat current example) only make this (mis?)perception stronger.
And, for the record... I think both sides are guilty of the crime.
I think that many of the laws people protest so much would actually be agreeable (to the protesters) if they felt that they actually had a say in its passage.
In theory, they do... but I would bet many feel that they don't.
That's probably why they say perception is a bitch.
Reply to This
Parent
Re:Lame (Score:2)