Log in
Register
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
News
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Features
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Gibson raided
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 35738" data-attributes="member: 126"><p>Re: Gibson raided</p><p></p><p></p><p>One of the necessary functions of government is protecting property rights (there is no incentive to work hard and earn money, if we can't keep it). Next is to provide rule of law so we can compete fairly and not be cheated, or taken advantage of, by bullies in the marketplace. If government maintains this simple infrastructure of business and free markets, entrepreneurs will do the rest.</p><p></p><p>But all too often government in the name of trying to help, ends up promoting misguided industrial policy, where they pick winners and losers based on their wishful thinking (green jobs) and poor business judgement. Who did they really help by lending money to a start up solar cell company so they could build a showcase factory in Northern California? It didn't keep them in business when their technology was not competitive. It may help some lucky landlord who buys that barely used factory for a fraction of the build cost. Maybe the government should keep that one building and keep putting their hand picked winners in there, one after another. All of the government borrowing and lending to their selected peeps, displaces that capital from more deserving businesses who would have to work harder to get it, but if they couldn't maybe they didn't really deserve it. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't think those views are held by the majority, while we have been a little bit socialist for decades. The entitlement expectations are more recent and promoted by interest groups because it serves their interest. </p><p></p><p>Our form of government is a representative democratic republic, which means legislators don't, or shouldn't, simply respond to the whims of public opinion. They are not supposed to represent, our knee jerk reaction to the topic du jour, but investigate and deliberate, over what is best for us. If it was a simple democracy we could just decide these issues a la american idol telephone votes. </p><p></p><p>Opinions vary, but the cameras in congress invite a little too much playing to the camera lens for the folks watching back home (IMO), and not much thoughtful deliberation. I wouldn't mind returning to the earlier system where senators were appointed by the state legislatures, and just as easily recalled if they don't represent the states interests adequately. I wouldn't mind longer terms for the house of representative, where it seems they never get out of campaign mode, while 4 years isn't long enough either, apparently. </p><p></p><p>If you follow the ebb and flow of government you will notice that the House is the more volatile "populist" or more easily inflamed branch of the legislature while the senate is slower to react and hopefully more deliberative body. The two year term in the house also makes it more responsive to changes in the country's mood, as we noticed last year. </p><p></p><p>I may be a fool, but I remain optimistic that the silent majority has been paying more attention lately and is getting more than a little fed up with the shenanigans coming out of DC. The silent majority will speak softly and carry a big vote... Most don't blather in the internet like me, they just silently fume... and then vote where it counts. </p><p> </p><p>JR</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 35738, member: 126"] Re: Gibson raided One of the necessary functions of government is protecting property rights (there is no incentive to work hard and earn money, if we can't keep it). Next is to provide rule of law so we can compete fairly and not be cheated, or taken advantage of, by bullies in the marketplace. If government maintains this simple infrastructure of business and free markets, entrepreneurs will do the rest. But all too often government in the name of trying to help, ends up promoting misguided industrial policy, where they pick winners and losers based on their wishful thinking (green jobs) and poor business judgement. Who did they really help by lending money to a start up solar cell company so they could build a showcase factory in Northern California? It didn't keep them in business when their technology was not competitive. It may help some lucky landlord who buys that barely used factory for a fraction of the build cost. Maybe the government should keep that one building and keep putting their hand picked winners in there, one after another. All of the government borrowing and lending to their selected peeps, displaces that capital from more deserving businesses who would have to work harder to get it, but if they couldn't maybe they didn't really deserve it. I don't think those views are held by the majority, while we have been a little bit socialist for decades. The entitlement expectations are more recent and promoted by interest groups because it serves their interest. Our form of government is a representative democratic republic, which means legislators don't, or shouldn't, simply respond to the whims of public opinion. They are not supposed to represent, our knee jerk reaction to the topic du jour, but investigate and deliberate, over what is best for us. If it was a simple democracy we could just decide these issues a la american idol telephone votes. Opinions vary, but the cameras in congress invite a little too much playing to the camera lens for the folks watching back home (IMO), and not much thoughtful deliberation. I wouldn't mind returning to the earlier system where senators were appointed by the state legislatures, and just as easily recalled if they don't represent the states interests adequately. I wouldn't mind longer terms for the house of representative, where it seems they never get out of campaign mode, while 4 years isn't long enough either, apparently. If you follow the ebb and flow of government you will notice that the House is the more volatile "populist" or more easily inflamed branch of the legislature while the senate is slower to react and hopefully more deliberative body. The two year term in the house also makes it more responsive to changes in the country's mood, as we noticed last year. I may be a fool, but I remain optimistic that the silent majority has been paying more attention lately and is getting more than a little fed up with the shenanigans coming out of DC. The silent majority will speak softly and carry a big vote... Most don't blather in the internet like me, they just silently fume... and then vote where it counts. JR [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Off Topic
The Basement
Gibson raided
Top
Bottom
Sign-up
or
log in
to join the discussion today!