Skip to main content

View Diary: GOP pledge reduces deficit less than Obama's budget (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's the 2000 plan all over again (7+ / 0-)

    We offer a plan to stop out-of-control spending and reduce the size of the government

     

    Hmmm...it's exactly the same plan they offered in 2000.  How did that turn out?  

    What we need are national ads paid for by Dems showing the statements then and now and what the GOP actually did.  Remind voters.  

    This election is like going into a job interview with a resume that only says how much the other candidates suck.

    by Celtic Pugilist on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 06:31:11 AM PDT

    •  Well, ok, it all depends on the preconceived (0+ / 0-)

      notions.

      If one equates "to govern" with "to have power," and power, to be felt, has to hurt (it does--benevolent persons are never perceived as powerful), then if follows logically that government is essentially abusive.  Indeed, the "deprivation of rights under cover of law" (DADT, "stop loss" legal killing) is irrefutable evidence.  That this
      "deprivation of rights under cover of law" is going forward under the principle of consent ("the consent of the governed") merely means that "deprivation under cover of law," albeit not as onerous as the original (legal slavery), has gained new life and new legitimacy with the argument that the victim agreeing to be abused makes the abuse OK.

      What seems to have happened is that the error in "involuntary servitude" is supposed to have arisen from the "involuntary" part, while servitude is fine.  So, if people can be persuaded to subordinate themselves, the resulting abuse is a moral good.  Self-abnegation is a virtue.  The Catholic hierarchy has long told us so.

      On the other hand, if you are convinced that government is inherently abusive, then it makes sense to reduce its power as much as possible.  But, that's where a new error creeps in -- the notion that power is directly related to the quantity of money and that, if money is restricted, the power to perpetrate abuse will be less.  There's no evidence to support that.  Restricting the supply of money does disrupt the economy and disrupting the economy increases the likelihood of deprivation.  So, in effect, those who want to restrict the supply of money are helping the deprivators.

      The Constitution is not a menu for an exclusive diner.

      by hannah on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:03:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hannah, was this reply to something else? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happymisanthropy

        I think you might have meant this reply for some other/somebody else's comment.

        This election is like going into a job interview with a resume that only says how much the other candidates suck.

        by Celtic Pugilist on Fri Oct 01, 2010 at 08:46:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (128)
  • Community (64)
  • Elections (24)
  • Environment (23)
  • Media (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Culture (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Science (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Rescued (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site