What's your explanation of this?

SeaBass wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:

SeaBass wrote:

othershoe1030 wrote:Well, I don't think I "go off" on you very often if ever so let's let that drop?

We just have different views of what the parties stand for a what their goals are. Special interests have too much power in both parties so it is hard for the ordinary citizen to have much meaningful effective input. Your list:
personal responsibility
smaller government
fiscal responsibility to not saddle our nations children with massive debt
free market capitalism
a strong national defense
constitutional defenders

Personal responsibility can also be read as 'you're on your own' which has its advantages but sounds to some of us like saying the government doesn't have a responsibility to create laws and infrastructure that benefit the economy and people as a whole, for example the highway system (federal, not state), and whatever input, tax support etc. the feds have in ports, banking, etc.
Smaller government, this sounds to my progressive ears like a recipe for disaster (see financial melt-down due largely to unregulated Wall Street) Those who have accumulated enough wealth to be in a position to invest and create more wealth don't need as much help outright from the feds as say a young student just graduating from college eager to make his/her place in the world unless he can (as Romney suggested) borrow money from his father. And of course many/most businesses would rather dump their toxic waste into the nearest river than to have the expense of conforming to environmental protection laws (very short sighted of them).

Fiscal responsibility is always a good goal for everyone when applied fairly across the budgetary landscape. Let's not forget the votes in congress that passed with lightning speed to lift the sequestration cutbacks for the air traffic controllers because it was inconvenient for them to have to be delayed leaving DC for the summer break.

Free market capitalism, doesn't exist so I don't know why that makes the list. I think having the strongest military on the planet sort of seals that deal. We are in excess in this regard although no one wants to be defenseless of course. And who is not a fan of the constitution?

Let me make this short.

It IS NOT the job of our government to insure we are fed, clothed, housed, have phones, have internet or have healthcare. It never was. It has ALWAYS been our jobs to provide those things for ourselves.

daddy gov can not baby sit us all and change our little diapers and wipe the slobber from our chins each time we cry. a system like that is doomed.

and free market capitalism should exist as it once did without gov interference. ie, bailouts, QE and interference in who gets a loan. etc etc etc

and no offense, but your puppets in the house right now have massacred the constitution. but I will be fair, the lousy bunch of repubs havnt had the back bone for a long time to stand up to what is going on for they themselves have learned the value of appeasing the hands out public over doing whats right for the country. in other words, we are in deep shit. I know youre not worried, because I bet in your mind all is needed is another program run by the gov....... 

Somehow you conflate government acting as a referee with cradle to grave snot wiping and that's not my vision. I would just like the little guy (most of us) to stand a snowballs chance in hell of being treated fairly in the economy. Every time the government bails out some high roller all the mom and pops who went under yell about how, gee, no one bailed us out.

The government should work for "we the people" and it now works more for "we the corporations" that's what I'm saying. I don't want a baby sitter I just want a more level playing field.

I don't like making blanket statements about bailouts because in some cases rescuing a company has so many positive consequences like the auto industry for example. Letting that go down the drain would have had a disastrous ripple effect throughout the economy. What really bugs me though is how Wall Street played all their complicated games to the point where no one could track down what was really going on and never yet has paid the price for it with no big wigs going to court much less prison. Too big to jail as they say.

You talk about level playing fields then you go on to explain why your fav bailout is good.

What do you mean by a level playing field for the little guy btw?

Do you assume that corporations are just born into the world BIG?

Id really appreciate it if you could expand what you mean by a level playing field for small guys. We may be getting to the meat of our differences after all.

othershoe1030 wrote:
Somehow you conflate government acting as a referee with cradle to grave snot wiping and that's not my vision. I would just like the little guy (most of us) to stand a snowballs chance in hell of being treated fairly in the economy. Every time the government bails out some high roller all the mom and pops who went under yell about how, gee, no one bailed us out.

The government should work for "we the people" and it now works more for "we the corporations" that's what I'm saying. I don't want a baby sitter I just want a more level playing field.

I don't like making blanket statements about bailouts because in some cases rescuing a company has so many positive consequences like the auto industry for example. Letting that go down the drain would have had a disastrous ripple effect throughout the economy. What really bugs me though is how Wall Street played all their complicated games to the point where no one could track down what was really going on and never yet has paid the price for it with no big wigs going to court much less prison. Too big to jail as they say.