I haven't advocated big-government extremism nor have I advocated no-government extremism. I advocate adequate government. Period.
What is the right amount of government? What are the indicators that will allow us to determine whe have reached that point? Please be specific.
The problem is you argue for something that you refuse to define. It's painfully obvious when I see that in every thread you argue that there needs to be a bi-partisan, moderate point of view and blah blah blah yet you can never even come up with an opinion of what moderate is. You just spout buzzwords.... You may well be the moderate you claim, but if that is so, do you even know why you are one? Your points can be easily construed as liberal leaning. You seem to be either a fake, or the victim of your own lack of decisiveness.
he said "adequate". dont you know what adequate means? adequate is just enough, but not too much, dude. geez pay attention fanatico, the dude is for adequate government! and right now i think that means whatever barack says. ouch red, now even this guy is onto you. the principles are what helps a man determine where the balance point is, dude. again, we all want a proper balance. none of us here want communism or fascism, total government control. and none of us want a free-for all ungoverned anarchy. most of us would argue that the balance is currently swaying too far to government control. so we want the balance point to be more towards personal freedom. but the difference between us and you is that we dont choose some arbitrary point based on current polling data and claim it as the right balance. the current adminstration is too liberal, too extreme. but because they are elected and some people are for it, you figure that must be a moderate position. i feel like if it were germany in 1933 and hitler were rising to power, and some people wanted him to be even more powerful and others hated him, you would favor giving him a chance. and that would make sense, given the political climate in germany at the time. this is the problem when you allow yourself to be bullied by current whims.
I think some of us here advocate big govt is already upon us. So can we get back to adequate the other way?
I saw a "reported" 100+ people on television yelling & screaming (and using megaphones) to support health care reform yesterday. What I didn't hear fom the media or elected officials was comments like un-American, Nazis, or trouble makers. Glad to see the media is reporting this story in an equitable manner.
The balance point changes from issue to issue, obviously. There are always variables that must be identified and both positive and negative effects to be considered. In the case of war fighting, it is generally felt that governments handle this better than private armies. In the case of soda pop distribution, it is generally felt that private industry handles this best. Many issues, such as medicare with government administration and private service providers, have significant components of each. Health care need to be debated to find that balance point. In this fashion, the real issues (why is a plan designed to cost less still cost so much?) from the phony issues (mandatory "death" panels). Can private cooperatives achieve much of what government insurance would do by providing group rates to individuals? How can pre-existing condition exclusions be eliminated. Our representatives need to argue all of this out, as we do. The good thing about finding a balance point is that it doesn't have to stay there forever. If a particular plan works out well or fails to achieve, we can always readjust the fulcrum to maintain the balance between government and industry.
