Comments on: The State of the State Knowing Best

By: El_Gordo

El_Gordo — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 20:52:16 +0000

The Cheneys have long given the greater part of their income to charity. Of course it would be awkward for Obama to mention them, given that his team can´t compare in that regard and includes a tax cheat or two.

By: Brucelee

Brucelee — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:19:09 +0000

Hey, I am a big fan of volcanos. Now as a taxpayer, I would pay to move a very active volcano so that we can drop in dead center on Washington, DC. rathole that it is.

By: Brucelee

Brucelee — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 01:17:48 +0000

Jefferson saw this coming over 200 years ago. Too bad history is no longer taught in the schools.

By: Thebutlerdidit

Thebutlerdidit — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:16:28 +0000

Gary, that was a thing of beauty. Thanks for those words of wisdom.

By: Old_Tom

Old_Tom — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:40:18 +0000

As to the idea that "President Obama and his team are likely to be looking for work in 4 years."

There are only three things that matter in that regard, and Obama's speechmaking isn't one of them.

1) If we're out of Iraq and Afganistan;

2) If the DOW creeps back above 10K;

3) If we can avoid another terrorist attack inside our borders;

Obama gets re-elected.

That's a pretty low bar. We all knew he was a utopian socialist before the election; who is going to care about that now?

By: denise

denise — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:28:37 +0000

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." — Thomas Jefferson"

By: Gary Graham

Gary Graham — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:59:45 +0000

"Forcibly extracting money from producers and giving it to non-producers is not logical. Or moral. In fact, it blows." — Vulcan Ambassador Soval

By: AndrewPrice

AndrewPrice — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:07:34 +0000

LOL!! Nice comeback, I like that.

By: aharris

aharris — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:59:08 +0000

I've had to explain it over and over again. The difference between Obama's anecdotes and what he really wants to do is this: In every one of his anecdotes about being neghborly and sharing, the person in question makes the personal decision to share their stuff of their own volition. What Obama wants to do is have the government take everyone's stuff and share it for them whether they want it shared or not. In the case of his famous peanut butter sandwich lines, it's like his teacher took his sandwich from him to divide it between him and the kid who had none rather than BO making the personal choice to share.

I find it superhypocritical how the lefties are bashing Jindal for taking the name Bobby instead of using his given Indian name, and yet they jumped all over us for bringing up Hussein. There's even a string of them making fun of his given name on our local paper. It makes my blood boil.

By: nightfly

nightfly — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:43:25 +0000

Fair enough, although I still think that private charity is far preferable. The government has a poor track record on society-wide reform efforts. Unfortunately a government tends to attract people whose goal is nothing other than a sinecure; the best way to do that is to ensure that one never runs out of poor people to help. The programs wind up perpetuating the problem. The well-meaning who actually want to help are exploited by shucksters whose only desire is to see their own authority over others expanded – controlling the proceeds of our labor is quite an effective way of doing it, and always under the guise of charity

Private groups have their share, as you point out, but there are a couple of built-in protections: first, if they don't produce results they lose their funding (and jobs!); second, the law can punish them. But if those same people control the funding (through the power to tax) and the law (through the legislative process) we lose those protections. Everyone suffers that way.

Thanks for the conversation, Miles. It's a relief to disagree politely for a change.