Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
I'm pleased you're unconcerned that an Obama presidency will put us on a slippery slope to French, leftist UK, German, USSR or PRC ethos. That you have given this some thought, and such would be unacceptable to you, says something good about you. I hope you're right.
|
What amazes me is the youthful naivete which accompanies the DDDs of the world, who believe we should look to history when it supports their view of the world, but ignore it when we remind them of failed experiments elsewhere.
There is no risk DDD in moving to the left, no economic risk, no social risk, because we are American and we can combat the perils of this position. Any social change causes harm, but the question is on balance is the harm caused less than the "good" achieved. Proponents of increasing socialism in our economy ignore this discussion, as they seem to assume all government intervention is good and proper.
For example, proponents of Obama's new healthcare organization ignore the harm created by the DHHS and how much it had harmed our health care system, but they march naively ahead, let's have another huge government bureaucracy.
No poster has addressed this issue. Why?
Proponents of increasing our reliance upon goverment to solve social and economic issues seem to take the easy, lazy approach, "make another program, that will fix everything," instead of a way to stimulate natural market forces, provide checks and balances against monopolies and anti-competitive forces and to encourage financial transparency, while increasing liquidity and capital into financial markets. Why no nuance?