some of the folks here are more to the right than you or me on many issues. they still seek a balance between central government control and anarchy/chaos. again, everyone seeks balance. the question is who is right about the balance point. again, saying you favor the proper balance is saying nothing. i reject the idea that we need to care about what is considered extreme or centrist or whatever in the current political climate. there have been times when your policies would have been considered very extreme. doesnt have any relation to how right or wrong they are. lets try to be independent thinkers are not be influenced by perceptions of extreme or whatever. lets be principled.
Incorrect. I want doctors to control American healthcare. I want the market to control prices. I want lawyers populations to be cut in half because malpractice lawsuits should be far, far less lucrative to the lawyers. I want The People (a moment of silence, please) to be accountable for their own self-destructive behavior and the unavoidable (but completely preventable) health consequences that follow. And I want the insurance companies to compete within reasonable guidelines. I did? I wanted unregulated, predatory lending? I don't remember desiring that. I do remember not wanting the government to encourage banks to lend money to people who could not afford the houses they were, in total denial of reality, trying to purchase. But that's not the same thing at all. Standard Red tactic #1 - distort, cherry pick, and accuse. I believe in taxes that reflect consumer's rights to choose; that pay for those services that only government can realistically provide. Services like roads and airways, law enforcement, national defense, and a modest/temporary/and very basic safety net to keep folks from actual starvation and destitution. The kind of situation where you're actually in danger of dying, not the kind where you can grow to 400 lbs, abuse your public housing for decades, and/or have an unlimited number of children on my nickel. I'm for food stamps, welfare checks, public housing, public schools, charity hospitals, college grants, jobs programs, work/study programs, and a long list of government action that is limited in scope and duration, comes with very specific strings, and is removed when it expires or is abused. Again - explain to me how I'm extreme. I want a government that protects personal liberty, defends my nation internally and externally, and raises those in dire straits up until they've had a reasonable chance at bettering their own circumstances. Doesn't sound all that extreme.
Another thought. I think America's great strength throughout its short history (including now, though it's threatened) has been individual liberty. True, actual individual liberty. America is great because of The Persons. Not because of The People. The People have no rights. But Each Person does. Individuals vote. Individuals create. Individuals prosper or suffer. This idolotry of The People is not American. It's not a part of the American dream, or the American way of life. It's communal. It has it's origins in philosophers that Red55 will roll his eyes and gnash his teeth at. When The People supplant The Person, America has lost it's love of liberty. The entire healthcare debate is important because it is a critical battle in this philosophical war of The People (collectivism) vs. The Person (individual liberty).
Interesting point, and the crux of the problem. Sadly the gulf seems to have widened. Maybe my generation will stop being zombies long enough to save this country? Well, one can hope...
my guess would be she's referring to passing it in the house. so the senate is obligated to debate it fully, as opposed to cherrypicking in the press.
