I've just finished reading a somber column on politics. Essentially, it says that more people seem to feel that having less government and less costly governmental programs is more desirable than having more and better health care? The Republicans lock onto the first part, because that's what they believe; the Democrats seize the second, because that's what they believe.
What the hell do you do when you believe both? That less government would be a good thing? That more and better health care would be a good thing?
Oh, and that you can't jump halfway across a river?
7 comments:
Let's see...less government until the financial institutions become crooked, the car and cigarette companies hide life threatening information, our schools pass children without teaching them anything, our taxes are less but so are our wages and safety in living...less government...they still don't tell me where they are going to cut the budget in REAL dollars!
You don't want me to tell you what I think about that, T. Then again, I suspect you know.
I like the idea of 'government, until...' But how to execute it? (The idea, not the venal ones. That comes, um, later.)
Kidding. Sort of.
The Phantom Zone. That's what we need.
You can only jump halfway across a river if you're a really good swimmer. I can swim, but I'm not a strong enough swimmer to chance it (especially if it's a monster of a governmental river).
I like the concept of the Phantom Zone... :)
Nice extension of the analogy, G. I like that.
I just get so damned tired of these people. You want to just tell the damned grownups to come and take charge. If I have to see John Boehner looking like he's sucking on a lemon one more time....
Maybe this isn't a solvable problem. (Or would that be giving in to the legislative terrorists?)
Go for the bigger government. Thats what they are all angling for anyway!!!
Regardless of the rhetoric.
Not sure about that. But some things can only be done by a big government. Or at least orchestrated by one.
Post a Comment