John Stossel, in http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves. So government must do it for them. More often than
not, the result is a ham-handed, bumbling, one-size-fits-all approach that
leaves the intended beneficiaries worse off. Of course, this resulting
failure is never blamed on the political approach - on the contrary, failure
is taken to mean the government solution was not extravagant enough."


The entire column is worth reading.

--
The Tea Party that counts is November 2, 2010

On 10/28/09 10:47 AM, Lu Powell wrote:
John Stossel, in
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3 makes a
convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't
do things for themselves. So government must do it for them. More often
than not, the result is a ham-handed, bumbling, one-size-fits-all
approach that leaves the intended beneficiaries worse off. Of course,
this resulting failure is never blamed on the political approach - on
the contrary, failure is taken to mean the government solution was not
extravagant enough."


The entire column is worth reading.



Loonytarian nonsense.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:47:10 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

John Stossel, in http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves

You need to spend some on history if you believe this bull****. The
federal government has a central role in making our lives safe through
regulation.

All you silly asses like to paint it as nanny state, when it's really
infrastructure to help make our society work.

Stossel is a self-important putz.

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:47:10 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

John Stossel, in http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves

You need to spend some on history if you believe this bull****. The
federal government has a central role in making our lives safe through
regulation.

All you silly asses like to paint it as nanny state, when it's really
infrastructure to help make our society work.

Stossel is a self-important putz.


I can't believe a former policeman like Lu Powell would follow that line of
thinking.
Weren't the early police forces more like private security firms? Only a
fool would thing we'd be better off putting such things as policing, fire
protection, schooling etc all back into private hands.

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:47:10 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

John Stossel, in http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't
do
things for themselves

You need to spend some on history if you believe this bull****. The
federal government has a central role in making our lives safe through
regulation.

All you silly asses like to paint it as nanny state, when it's really
infrastructure to help make our society work.

Stossel is a self-important putz.


I can't believe a former policeman like Lu Powell would follow that line
of thinking.
Weren't the early police forces more like private security firms? Only a
fool would thing we'd be better off putting such things as policing, fire
protection, schooling etc all back into private hands.



There you go, attacking the messenger. Obviously you didn't read the entire
piece. Nobody is advocating private police forces. Early police forces were
not private firms. You need to study history more and liberal mindspeak
less.

On 10/28/09 11:43 AM, Don White wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:47:10 -0400, "Lu
wrote:

John Stossel, in http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves

You need to spend some on history if you believe this bull****. The
federal government has a central role in making our lives safe through
regulation.

All you silly asses like to paint it as nanny state, when it's really
infrastructure to help make our society work.

Stossel is a self-important putz.


I can't believe a former policeman like Lu Powell would follow that line of
thinking.
Weren't the early police forces more like private security firms? Only a
fool would thing we'd be better off putting such things as policing, fire
protection, schooling etc all back into private hands.



Lu-ser is down there with justhatealoogy in the intelligence category.

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:43:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

Only a
fool would thing we'd be better off putting such things as policing, fire
protection, schooling etc all back into private hands.

All of those things are done by local government with local control
for the most part.

Big difference.

At the core of many of these discussions is the question of "what is
the proper role of the federal government?" That question is way too
important to be decided by politicians and government employees.
It's also way too important to be decided in a boating news group.

On Oct 28, 10:47*am, "Lu Powell" wrote:
John Stossel, inhttp://www.jewishworldreview.com/1009/stossel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do
things for themselves. So government must do it for them. More often than
not, the result is a ham-handed, bumbling, one-size-fits-all approach that
leaves the intended beneficiaries worse off. Of course, this resulting
failure is never blamed on the political approach - on the contrary, failure
is taken to mean the government solution was not extravagant enough."

The entire column is worth reading.

--
The Tea Party that counts is November 2, 2010

Let's take a look at infrastructure. Let's take one small aspect of
it, our interstate highways. What if they were all built and ran by
private entities? They could charge you whatever they wanted! I
completely understand supply and demand, BUT, as a country we are a
wide flung society that needs those very roads for commerce. Now let's
say that our airline industries safety entities (FAA, etc) were
privately ran. Want to fly into a U.S. airport? Well, we'll charge the
living hell out of you until you either stop coming here, or fail. It
goes on and on.

"Lu Powell" wrote in message
...

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"jps" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:47:10 -0400, "Lu Powell"
wrote:

John Stossel, in
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/100...sel102809.php3
makes a convincing argument for government to butt out:

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't
do
things for themselves

You need to spend some on history if you believe this bull****. The
federal government has a central role in making our lives safe through
regulation.

All you silly asses like to paint it as nanny state, when it's really
infrastructure to help make our society work.

Stossel is a self-important putz.


I can't believe a former policeman like Lu Powell would follow that line
of thinking.
Weren't the early police forces more like private security firms? Only a
fool would thing we'd be better off putting such things as policing, fire
protection, schooling etc all back into private hands.



There you go, attacking the messenger. Obviously you didn't read the
entire piece. Nobody is advocating private police forces. Early police
forces were not private firms. You need to study history more and liberal
mindspeak less.

Don't need private police forces when we have a private army on hand...
Blackwater.

Pseudo Christians to boot.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:59:09 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:43:24 -0300, "Don White"
wrote:

Only a
fool would thing we'd be better off putting such things as policing, fire
protection, schooling etc all back into private hands.

All of those things are done by local government with local control
for the most part.

Big difference.

At the core of many of these discussions is the question of "what is
the proper role of the federal government?" That question is way too
important to be decided by politicians and government employees.
It's also way too important to be decided in a boating news group.

Boaters are voters.