"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
to the contrary, the limits to the government are spelled out in the
constitution.
Our connection to the Constitution is now tenuous at best. I wish your
statement, in practice, was correct though. The present Republican Justice
Department is leaning very strongly toward removing Consitutional
protections. This is not so much judgement on merits but observation.
Maximize wealth at top isn't the Republican thing. Republicans want
people to retain more of their earnings. That is, money
doesn't belong to the government
The present administration has been spending like a drunken sailor.
Deficits are way up. A tiny tax cut does not show they want people to
retain more of their earnings, the ONLY way to do that is to cut government
and spending, not increase it! This administration puts the Republicans at
the top of the list of expansion of government.
Or you could be saying that this administration, although Republican by
name, are not acting as such? I am unclear as to your meaning.
And "maximize wealth at top" trickle down
Not exactly, but pretty darn close. What do you see as the difference?
if you want to claim Conservative rhetoric above, then add
Liberal rhetoric with hypocritical execution to the democrats
I think you are saying the Democrats speak more "liberal" than they are.
Perhaps, you may be right, thinking about it I can think of some examples of
that.
Economics - More spread of wealth. Unclear how to execute this
properly, very mixed record.
unclear by "more spread of wealth" and wouldn't "take from haves and
give to have-nots" be more accurate?
No, not exactly. I am more thinking about opportunity. To say "take from
haves and give to have-nots" is both assuming that one group rightfully owns
something, which is a separate debate, and that the advocates want a forced
redistribution, which I do not believe. What I meant to get across is that
this group endeavors to spread opportunity to others than the biggest
players.
How about the other areas? Any comments on those?
|