The Difference Between 1993 and 2009 [View article]
You ignore two basic principles.
First, the #1 goal of government (any government) is to stay in power and maintain the status quo.
Second, the #2 goal of government is to GROW.
Cut federal spending from 3 Billion to 2 Billion? That's like saying we could avoid rush hour traffic if we all sprouted wings and flew ourselves where we wanted to go rather than driving.
The first thing we need to do is to change the constitution so that (a) each administration is for six years with NO reelection. This would mean that an administration would be focused on GOVERNING rather than getting REELECTED. Second, we need to adopt the British concept of being able to vote out an administration if we as a populace believe the current administration is no longer effective in managing our government as opposed to waiting four more years to vote that administration out when the next election rolls around. If we had to ability to have a "no confidence vote" in this nation, George W and his team would have been run out of office long ago and the expensive war and other fiscal policies that are driving us deeper into debt would have been stopped.
If the current system isn't working, why continue to dig a hole? It's time to go to a new system.
-
You ignore two basic principles.
Oct 13 10:40 am
|Rating:
0
0
All Comments by 2snazzy »The Difference Between 1993 and 2009 [View article]
First, the #1 goal of government (any government) is to stay in power and maintain the status quo.
Second, the #2 goal of government is to GROW.
Cut federal spending from 3 Billion to 2 Billion? That's like saying we could avoid rush hour traffic if we all sprouted wings and flew ourselves where we wanted to go rather than driving.
The first thing we need to do is to change the constitution so that (a) each administration is for six years with NO reelection. This would mean that an administration would be focused on GOVERNING rather than getting REELECTED. Second, we need to adopt the British concept of being able to vote out an administration if we as a populace believe the current administration is no longer effective in managing our government as opposed to waiting four more years to vote that administration out when the next election rolls around. If we had to ability to have a "no confidence vote" in this nation, George W and his team would have been run out of office long ago and the expensive war and other fiscal policies that are driving us deeper into debt would have been stopped.
If the current system isn't working, why continue to dig a hole? It's time to go to a new system.