random off-topic thread

[TheIncredibleRox]

BTW, why do you fear more federal control of health care, as if it can't be done? The VA and Medicare prove it CAN be done, and remarkably efficiently as well. Yes, costs are out of control

Remarkably efficient????!!!

Roxpert, going against such depth and breadth of economic knowledge by citing the VA and Medicare as your evidence is tantamount to rebutting The Hidden Game of Baseball by saying "traditional methods such as batting average and RBI are better; look what Brian Sabean has done with the Giants.... they still play baseball!"

[Roxpert]

Depending on how efficiency is measured, YES, Medicare is remarkably efficient. Maybe this long blog will help explain the idea....

The Health Care Blog: POLICY: Why Medicare is More Efficient Than Private Insurers By Maggie Mahar

I know there is disagreement on the subject, but it is indisputable that private healthcare is a highly ineffective system where 44 million Americans are concerned. That's because the system doesn't cover them.

As I wrote earlier, TIR, I don't wish to debate heathcare minutia. You either believe profits in heath care are antithetical to American values and government should create a more equitable and universal system, or you don't. Obviously, you don't, and we disagree. No surprise in that.

Frankly, I don't claim to be any sort of expert of the healthcare field. Somehow, I have the feeling you aren't either. In this case, neither of us has the "ammunition" to argue this intellectually the way we do baseball statistics. My argument is based on moral and ethical grounds, and the belief that the system is broken and cost-ineffective as it is today. You, I, and all of us need to decide though democratic dialogue what sort of a country we want to have in the future. Do we want a country that calls national security solely a "military and intelligence gathering" endeavor, and that's it? Or do we want a country that values every citizen's individual HEALTH security as part and partial of national security, when aggregated? I want the latter. You don't. My views are of a greater modern society than we have today, one that takes care of all its citizens as part of an expanded "national health security" program that is just as worthy of funding as our military industrial complex. National security means more to me than just avoiding invasions and attacks within our country from foreign armies and terrorists. It also means avoiding invasions of citizens' bodies by pathogens that lower the quality of life, worker productivity, and life expectancy. My expanded view is, indeed, a liberal definition of national security. But this is one great example of where liberals differ from conservatives.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Frankly, I don't claim to be any sort of expert of the healthcare field. Somehow, I have the feeling you aren't either. In this case, neither of us has the "ammunition" to argue this intellectually

None of us are retired four-star Generals, either; that doesn't keep us from talking of military or foreign policy matters.

This is something I have looked into, and much of my family is in the medical profession. My sister is a Senior Vaccines Rep for a Major Pharmaceutical company, my brother in law is a pediatrician (and on the Board of Directors for his hospital), my mother has spent her entire career as either a dental assistant or office manager in dental/oral surgery offices, and my Grandmother spent most of her career within the Ohio State U medical center. Does that make me a medical expert? No. But I'm allowed to have opinions about this stuff, and they're informed.

You, I, and all of us need to decide though democratic dialogue what sort of a country we want to have in the future.

Well, two sentances ago, you seemed to want to shut that down.

Do we want a country that calls national security solely a "military and intelligence gathering" endeavor, and that's it? Or do we want a country that values every citizen's individual HEALTH security as part and partial of national security, when aggregated? I want the latter. You don't.

And what about economic security?

My views are of a greater modern society than we have today, one that takes care of all its citizens as part of an expanded "national health security" program that is just as worthy of funding as our military industrial complex.

Oh, I see. You're right because you're a better person.

And another thing; where have I ever said that I'm not in favor of exploring more cost-efficient avenues within our military budget?

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Well, two sentances ago, you seemed to want to shut that down.

I don't want to shut anything down. Neither of us are experts on this subject, though we both think we are well-informed. As I wrote, it's a very complex subject, and I don't wish to get into minutia in this thread or debate healthcare. That's quite different from wanting to "shut that down" in some sort of an intolerant way.

And what about economic security?

And what about it? I already spoke of de-escalating defense spending and unnecessary wars, and reallocating funding into providing every citizen in this country health care coverage. That is called prioritization, not a sacrifice of economic security. Also, I'd tax the rich people a bit more to pay for this, which wouldn't affect more than 2% of taxpayers.

Oh, I see. You're right because you're a better person.

I'm disappointed in you, TIR. Nowhere in my post did I make this personal, yet your snark and sarcasm that I'm somehow justifying policy changes in this country by saying "I'm a better person" is something I'd expect from an immature 22 year-old, not from a smart, analytical young mind.

It's called VALUES, TIR. My liberal values are more in line with the tradition of making progress in America. Your conservative values do not advance progress. That's how I see it, and my opinions have NOTHING to do with who is the "better person". That's a ridiculous comment, and you know it.

[BigRapidsJackass]

As I've noted before, I am basically a libertarian. [No, I'm not a fool ... I won't support Ron Paul.]

That means that in every election I have to weigh two things:

Do I accept more meddling in what are matters that are properly outside the role of our government (the "social conservative" and military expansionist tendencies of the Republicans) in order to gain more economic freedom?

Or do I accept higher taxation and more government intervention in economic activity (the tendency of the Democrats) in order to avoid the Republican social conservatism and military interventionism?

Remedying our fiasco in Iraq has, for me, been clearly the most important issue. That was for two reasons: (1) the U.S. intervention has been, after all, a fiasco (even if "the surge" is making things better -- a proposition I don't accept, at least not yet -- there's still no clear path forward in Iraq); (2) the Democrats had, up till now, except Edwards, been pretty sensible about not proposing nonsense that would destroy the economy and further bloat the federal government.

Well, that was the case up till now. I just watched the Nevada Democratic debate. I've already eliminated Edwards from serious consideration, but I've tended to favor Obama over any of the Republicans. Again, that's because he's been the most up-front about getting us out of Iraq.

But tonight, we saw 3 candidates who never took Economics 101. Or if they did, they've decided their electorate hasn't and therefore can be fooled by nonsense.

Hillary harped on the "mortgage crisis." She actually suggested two preposterous solutions: "freezing" mortgage rates, and a moratorium on foreclosures. Both ideas destroy the contractual obligations between lender and borrower. And both would further exacerbate the "crisis" (a gross exaggeration; it's a "problem" at most) in mortgage lending. Yeah, if I'm a mortgage lender I'm really gonna want to originate more loans with a President in the White House threatening to force me to carry bad loans at a loss, with no remedy in sight. The mortgage market would dry up, the housing industry would collapse, and then we'd have ourselves a real crisis, not the phony one we're all talking about now.

Obama actually said that tax increases would help us avoid a recession. I'm not sure what economics text he's using; maybe he did his economics homework during one of those late-night sessions in between bong hits. It is rank nonsense.

So after watching this, I'm not so sure that the damage the Republicans are doing in Iraq and foreign relations (and their promises to meddle more in our personal lives) are worse than the damage the Democrats are promising to do to our economic lives.

Such is the life of the libertarian.

[Roxpert]

Jackass, the subprime/mortgage mess is not a "phony crisis" as you've suggested. It's a real slow-motion train wreck that has picked up speed lately. We are on the verge of recession (or in it), all started by the implosion of lending to consumers and businesses. The credit bubble has been followed by a credit freeze-up. This is the catalyst for what we are seeing now in the economy and stock market (the Nasdaq is already down over 10% year-to-date and we will have an ugly opening tomorrow).

Lots of greed, fraud, and avarice happened during this credit bubble, and it wasn't just a subprime mortgage issue. All levels of debt financing were fraught with reckless practices, which has seized up the credit markets at many levels, including corporate M&A. I have little doubt this results in a fairly major recession before it's over.

The political ramifications is that it will help the Democrats in 2008. Just two years ago, Bush was promoting the "ownership society", bragging about how home ownership was at record levels. Turns out it was due to reckless lending activity. Don't hear much about that anymore from the White House.

I'm not a big believer in "bailouts" or "Marshall plans" to save homeowners here. I think even homeowners bear some responsibility for buying more than they could afford. Hopefully, a few corporate heads will roll and jail sentences handed out, and maybe class action suits will be successful. In no way are the candidates offering helpful solutions, which carry real "moral hazzard" risk with them. However, GOP or Dem, if the crisis is painful enough, whoever is in power will pass fairly costly bailout programs. Count on it.

The free market isn't always free. The culture of corruption and greed/recklessness is an outgrowth of too many years of GOP control of our government and economy. Crony capitalism gone wild. Anyway, that's my take.

BTW Jackass, don't let the Dem candidates pandering to a Las Vegas crowd that is feeling the pain of foreclosures more than any other city's populace change your mind. It's called POLITICS. They know the hot-button issue in Vegas, and each were angling for an edge to win the Nevada primary. The foreign policy mess with this country is FAR more important an issue, and we need leadership that will work to restore our standing in the world, while cutting our profligate spending on the military industrial complex.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Newman, I've answered all of those for you; what my beliefs are regarding Iraq, my right to choose whether or not to serve at this time, and we've also had Vietnam discussions.

Quit attacking me personally; it makes you look desperate and weak.

Romney wins Michigan. The Republican field is wide open. These are interesting times. The Dow drops 277 points yesterday. Bush is asking his boss, the King of Saudi Arabia (who he borrows money from as well as from Communist China, to pay for his war, and to prop up our economy) to lower gas prices.

Last night I watched a tape I had from Tom Brokaw's History show about the year 1968. The Vietnam War. Assassinations of political and social leaders. A divided country. What a time to be alive and a college student. I was 18 then. I knew enough that I didn't want to be cannon fodder and die for nothing in the jungles of Vietnam. Luckily my draft number was 159 and high enough to save me. Those times affected my whole life. I became disillusioned and alienated. It woke me up to politics which I previously could care less about.

Incredible, I'm wise enough to know that you will never change your mind. You are a hard core Conservative extremist. Roxpert knows this as well but he enjoys the intellectual exercise you two are conducting. That's fine.

32% of Americans support Bush in the latest poll. The majority of Americans don't. America was sick and tired of the Vietnam War, as that droned on, with no end in sight, as well. If you don't study history (like Bush didn't) you will be doomed to repeat it. The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan. Watch Charlie Wilson's War. Bush is now sending 3,200 more Marines there. What for?

The Republicans are a dying party. The "Free Market" doesn't have a solution for everything. Sometimes government has to step in. "WE THE PEOPLE" are the government. Ronald Reagan said the 9 most scary words you could hear are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." Got a big laugh back then. Ask the Katrina victims about that mindset now. Ask yourself what corporations are going to do about the pine beetle infestation that are destroying Colorado's forests as I type. Ask what the free market solution is to the HGH problem in MLB. Should government step in? Huge corporations love the increased attendance in baseball. They could care less about steroids or hgh or health problems or continuity of records.

Empathy. I think this is something that Conservatives are lacking. Do they ever talk about how many Iraqis have been killed in this war? How many Vietnamese were killed in that war? You never hear it from your side, Incredible.

I appear desperate and weak according to you? Please. I'm not trying to win an argument with you, win debaters points. I'm trying to see if you have a heart. Trying to see if you can feel as well as think, see the big picture, care about someone other than yourself or YOUR pocketbook. I'm approaching you from a different angle than Roxpert is, that's all. And I do care about you. We have an internet relationship going on now for years. You love baseball. Hey, we have something in common!

Maybe something I'll say will strike a chord with you, or with someone else who is just lurking and not participating. Probably not. Usually in an argument people get defensive. The mind closes. Heels dig in. Human nature. Usually, in message boards it then deteriorates into sniping, name calling, and so forth. Sigh...

[BigRapidsJackass]

Roxpert, when I say the subprime mortgage mess is a "phony crisis," I don't mean it's a phony issue, or that it's not something to which the government (and the candidates) shouldn't be paying attention.

My problem is with the all-too-easy labeling of every problem as a "crisis." It seems to me that this problem is typical of the economic/credit cycle. Lending standards became way too loose from about '00 - '06. It wasn't really a problem caused by government, although you can argue that Greenspan's monetary policy played some role, and (again) that the "moral hazard" argument plays here, since to some extent mortgage lenders relied on the protection of federal guarantees and federal intervention in the mortgage lending sector; after all, that's what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are all about.

So it's a "crisis" if you think that a completely predictable economic event that happens roughly every 7-14 years (macro economists used to think the business cycle was carved in stone at 7 years, but that certainly seems to have changed) is always a "crisis." Or if you think that the completely predictable event of a devastating hurricane hitting a major population center every 20-50 years is "unprecedented." Or if you think that an isolated -- albeit horrific -- terrorist attack on America signals the beginning of some kind of new age or a millenial conflict.

There's one thing we can be sure of: a crisis mentality drives poor policy decisions. To get away from the current Administration's global war on terror crisis mentality and ill-advised policy decisions, I must now accept the other sides unwarranted crisis mentality regarding a normal economic cycle.

As I said, such is the life of the libertarian.

[Roxpert]

Again, Jackass, I reject your notion that the bursting of this credit bubble and the impact on the mortgage/real estate market is a "normal" cyclical thing we see every 7 to 14 years. This is a unique situation that dwarfs the S&L implosion of 18 years ago. No "Resolution Trust Corp." will resolve this mess.

Why do I believe that this is a unique crisis? Let me tick off some reasons....

- Housing prices are declining nationwide for the first time in decades.
- The securitization of bad loans was levered through massive derivatives.
- Unlike the tech bubble implosion of 2000, the consumer is retrenching.
- Banks and financial institutions have sacrificed reserves for recklessness.

We have had a mulit-trillion dollar "Ponzi scheme" run rampant around the world over the past 7 years, which bailed us out of the last recession. Who's to blame?

- Greenspan's Fed, which encouraged adjustable mortgages when rates were very low, knowing they would raise Fed Funds from 1% to 5.25%.

- Loan originators who failed to underwrite loans since they resold them almost the instant they were closed.

- Appraisers who were over-inflating the value of housing collateral.

- Wall St. firms and their investment bankers who created structured investment vehicles containing these bad loans.

- Rating agencies (Moody's, S&P), who handed out AAA ratings to these bundled junk vehicles.

- Hedge funds that bought these securities, often on margin or with use of derivatives to enhance returns, and "carveout" incentive fees.

- Banks and formerly conservative institutions that did end-runs around normal reserve levels of safety to foment this speculative bubble.

And it's not just real estate and subprime mortgages where this craziness manifested itself. The private equity bubble created mountains of LBO's of multi-billion dollar companies, using "OPM" (other people's money) invested in the private equity funds such as Blackstone, Providence Equity, KKR, etc. When Blackstone went public a year ago, that should have been the tipoff that the top was near.

Unlike past cyclical downturns, this credit bubble has created a house of cards in the form of large and exotic leveraged vehicles. People don't know what they don't know. This has huge potential to create more than a "garden variety" recession, as leverage hasn't been used like this since the roaring 20's, which later gave rise to the Securities Act of 1934 and the SEC. That orgy of recklessness, caused by 10 to 1 leverage on stock investments, led to the Great Depression. Don't think it can't happen again. Not predicting it will (depressions are rare economic events, not unlike that 100-year storm), but we are in a financial bind in this country and getting increasingly OWNED by foreign sovereign wealth funds and countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc. Our dollar is in the tank for a reason.

Jackass, there is nothing "normal" about what is really going on right now.

[BigRapidsJackass]

Roxpert, interesting comments.

But let me explain. By calling something "normal" or "cyclical," I don't mean to say "the macro economy operates in this way regardless of individual or governmental action." Not at all. That would lead us to some of the wacky theories that find some kind of underlying rhythm or pattern to economic cycles that exists independent of human agency. (Remember that "Great Depression of 1990" book or whatever it was called? That's an example of what both of us are dismissing here.)

Rather, I'm talking about the very human-created business/credit cycles:

Credit cycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sadly, it is "normal" because human behavior hasn't really changed over hundreds of years since the emergence of the modern commercial economy.

In retrospect, we can see where we might've gone wrong. But isn't that always the case? Although there were certainly individual villains in the S&L crisis, one thing has always stuck with me. I was working in DC at the time, and I went to see a talk by William Seidman (anyone remember him?). He had just been appointed the head of the new Resolution Trust Corporation, created to oversee the fallout from the S&L crisis.

His point of his talk was simple. We got in this mess through a combination of: (1) Government guarantees to S&L depositors (the FSLIC, which was the S&L equivalent to the FDIC); (2) that were not coupled with stringent Government oversight of the lending practices of those same institutions. The risk of loss was on the Government. The potential gain was captured by the private S&L owners. The classic moral hazard. And the classic result.

And yes, there were individual villains, primarily those S&L owners who lobbied the government to ensure that there would not be proper oversight or that lending practices were not reined in. Again: to a large degree, government intervention in private economic activity led to a failure to properly weigh business risk, which led to the collapse of this sector of the economy. In 1990, new housing starts dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million. The most overheated markets (So. Cal.) saw the biggest drop, and they plunged into a deep regional recession (which was a fairly mild recession on the national scale). People always think today's crisis is the worst crisis. A nearly 50% drop in new housing starts was a pretty big deal. This subprime-generated mess may turn out to be worse, but it certainly isn't worse right now. And it may never be worse.

So people tend to see 2 ways to avoid these problems from happening again:

1. The Democrat solution: the problem wasn't too much government involvement; it was too little. The government should've cracked down on renegade lenders before it was too late and the taxpayers were left to pay the bill for the collapse. We'll stop this from happening again by tightening government-imposed lending/capital standards.

2. The (old-style/libertarian) Republican solution: the problem was too much government involvement. We'll stop this from happening again by eliminating the moral hazard created by government guarantees.

The first solution is naive. It assumes that we can elect pure and honest government officials who have the foresight to ensure the longterm stability of the economy, even if that means accepting occasional periods of job loss or economic retraction. Hasn't ever happened; never will. If the Fed (in theory insulated from political pressures) hadn't loosened credit to such a great degree to avoid a recession in the early Bush years, the current mortgage lending "crisis" probably would've been averted. And the dollar would obviously be stronger. But the Fed didn't. It acted like it was part of the political branches. And no one should be surprised by this.

The second solution may be impracticable. Really, will the people ever elect officials who propose getting rid of popular programs that are aimed at such things as increasing home ownership? Will homeowners (at least 2/3 of Americans, who have far greater income/wealth overall than renters) ever vote for someone who wants to eliminate the home mortgage interest deduction event though that deduction distorts the housing market? I guess I'd have to say, "pretty damn unlikely."

But I'll choose impractical over naive any day.

[TheIncredibleRox]

Nowhere in my post did I make this personal, yet your snark and sarcasm that I'm somehow justifying policy changes in this country by saying "I'm a better person" is something I'd expect from an immature 22 year-old, not from a smart, analytical young mind.

It's called VALUES, TIR. My liberal values are more in line with the tradition of making progress in America. Your conservative values do not advance progress.

You just did it again.

Saying 'my values advance progress and yours don't' isn't a substantive argument in the slightest; it's an emotional argument/appeal based on the notion that "I want whats good and you want whats bad, ergo I'm right."

It's silly.

Have you ever stopped to realize someone might evaluate/prioritize progress differently than yourself, and be right?

America was sick and tired of the Vietnam War, as that droned on, with no end in sight, as well. If you don't study history (like Bush didn't) you will be doomed to repeat it. The Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan. Watch Charlie Wilson's War.

Ughhhh. You're comparing Iraq to Vietnam, and America's war in Afghanistan to the USSR's, and telling ME to study history. By watching a freaking CINEMA, no less!

Trying to see if you can feel as well as think, see the big picture, care about someone other than yourself or YOUR pocketbook. I'm approaching you from a different angle than Roxpert is, that's all.

You liberals are so self-righteous!!! You think smaller government is an idea I advocate so I have to pay lower taxes?? I barely pay taxes at my age and current bracket! Smaller government is a policy I advocate as being in the best interests of all Americans. Has it ever occured to you that we have substantive policy disagreements on how to make America better as opposed to "we're good and Republicans are evil!" Unbelievable!

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

You just did it again.

Saying 'my values advance progress and yours don't' isn't a substantive argument in the slightest; it's an emotional argument/appeal based on the notion that "I want whats good and you want whats bad, ergo I'm right."

It's silly.

Have you ever stopped to realize someone might evaluate/prioritize progress differently than yourself, and be right?

Where have I written "ergo I'm right"? Why are you so defensive and need to claim I'm declaring victory or saying I'm being right, or that liberals are "self-righteous"? It should be obvious to you that both of our opinions are strongly held, yet they are OPINIONS.

Sure, I think liberal values are right for America, and that conservative values are wrong. That's much different from saying, "ergo I'm right".

I've gone into great depth on this thread as to what policies I think are best for America: Standing up to the military industrial complex, avoiding stupid policies like invading and occupying foreign countries that never posed a threat to us, taking care of the health of all our citizens, getting crony capitalism and corruption out of our government, restoring our nation's standing in the world, and so forth. These are my beliefs, my values. Never have I claimed that because I have these values, I am right. Dare I say that you think you have the right political views, and I think I have the right political views? That's far different from either of us saying that, ergo, we ARE right. This should be patently obvious.

(No political philosophy has "sole possession of the truth", or all the answers to a world of complex problems. We each have elements that answer questions and solve problems. I wrote just that many weeks ago.)

You conservatives stand for less, far less. Less taxing, less spending, less government, less regulatory control over the private sector......except for one thing; you think we should have MORE intervention with our military imposing our will around the world. Liberals and moderates disagree with you.

You wanted to "flesh out the issues for fun" in your post a couple weeks ago to see how liberals and conservatives differ. I attempted to oblige you in that exercise. Then, after all that, you get all defensive and claim that I'm taking that tact of claiming to be "the better person" or that I have declared that "ergo I'm right".

What a bunch of nonsense, TIR. Learn from our discussions about what makes liberals tick versus conservatives, if you like. But, never, NEVER claim something that isn't there. You just make yourself look weak and defensive, something that I think you yourself claimed Newman was doing with his attacks. Get it?

[TheIncredibleRox]

Where have I written "ergo I'm right"? Why are you so defensive and need to claim I'm declaring victory or saying I'm being right, or that liberals are "self-righteous"? It should be obvious to you that both of our opinions are strongly held, yet they are OPINIONS.

Yes, but your evidence for your opinions has been "my positions help this country, yours don't." That's a complete non-sequitir of nonsense.

As you originally said, "It's called VALUES, TIR. My liberal values are more in line with the tradition of making progress in America. Your conservative values do not advance progress."

You're doing exactly what I said you are doing; claiming to be the moral high ground by virtue of not being conservative. That's just plain nonsense.

You wanted to "flesh out the issues for fun" in your post a couple weeks ago to see how liberals and conservatives differ. I attempted to oblige you in that exercise.

That was a completely different subject (a political theory question) long since past. If you look back, it was you and Newman who brought up Healthcare, and I rebutted you. Simple as that. During the course of your arguments, I pointed out you seemed to be basing them more on emotion than fact by claiming some non-existant moral ground.

Whats the fit about?

[Roxpert]

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

Yes, but your evidence for your opinions has been "my positions help this country, yours don't." That's a complete non-sequitir of nonsense.

As you originally said, "It's called VALUES, TIR. My liberal values are more in line with the tradition of making progress in America. Your conservative values do not advance progress."

I don't know where I'm inaccurate at all in saying that liberal values lead to progress in America. The Clean Air Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Securities Act of 1934, Social Security, Medicare.....etc. etc. ALL were initiatives undertaken by liberals in America. Tell me, TIR, what programs or acts have led to social equality, social justice, or quality-of-life progress in America that were proposed by conservatives?

Conservatives do nothing, NOTHING, to help America via governmental action. They solely wish to rely on the free market, except in matters of national defense and foreign policy.

If it were up to modern conservatives like Grover Norquist, one of the most influential modern conservatives of our time, we'd practically have no government. He said, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Grover Norquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, when it comes to progress in America by government programs, the liberals are the champions and the conservatives are the obstructionists. Perhaps I should have used that qualifier, "by government programs", to describe how liberal values are in keeping with the tradition of progress in America. From that standpoint, I do believe liberal values are more helpful to common Americans and their common challenges than conservative values.

Simple as that. Quit personalizing this and twisting this into some sort of claim that this is equivalent to me saying "I'm a better person than you are". I didn't appreciate it, and that's why I had a fit.

[TheIncredibleRox]

So conservatives are bad for America, and liberals are good. That's a second rate, 3rd-grade, emotional argument that holds no water.

The most simple argument I could put forth is that Conservatives' overriding achievement concerning domestic government during their history has been saving their citizens from it, as the Constitution intended.

Which is, after all, what America is about; not some huge, monolithic Federal government telling you how much you're allowed to earn, not some huge, monolithic Federal government telling you where your child has to go to school, not some huge, monolithic Federal government telling your University it has to set a specific budget for women's athletics, not some huge, monolithic Federal government telling you how much of your hard-earned wealth they're going to transfer to others under penalty of law, not some huge, monolithic Federal government telling you what types of vehicles you are and aren't allowed to drive, not some huge, monolithic Federal government making sure you stay healthy, not some huge, monolithic Federal government investing your hard-earned money for you (and doing a crappy job), not some huge, monolithic Federal government telling you who you must hire and what they must be payed and taxed, not some huge, monolithic Federal government telling you where and how you're allowed to spend/donate/contribute your funds and where you're not, etc etc etc.

I regard that as no small achievement, and I wish it to continue.

We are a nation founded on the innate empowerment of the individual, and the right for that individual to thrive or not thrive on consequence of his character, intelligence, and drive.

We are not a nation founded on the notion that 'if you don't have this, or if you didn't earn that, Big Daddy Fed will give it to you.' (Especially not at the expense of his other citizens).

The zenith of social progress occurs at a state when individuals are most free to achieve without hinderance, not at a state when everybody is given everything by the Fed's taking from others.