Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Progressives not only don't care about checks and balances, they absolutely see them as an impediment to good governance. As Woodrow Wilson said in his essay WHAT IS PROGRESS:
"The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of "checks and balances. The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing . . . It is modified by its environment, necessitated by its tasks, shaped to its functions by the sheer pressure of life. No living thing can have its organs soffset against each other as checks and live. They have managed to create a more unitary, centralized, form of government over the years from Wilson, especially FDR, LBJ, and now Obama, with all the lesser progressives of both parties in between.
|
I also look at things through the lens of common sense. And as a result, one of my convictions is that you can't spend more than there is. Spence works in finance (I'm told), so he must also know this. Yet he pretends not to believe that when a Democrat endorses spending more than there is. And that's what I don't get.
Detbuch, this particular argument isn't about political ideology...it's about 5th grade arithmetic. If a kid's lemonade stand has to borrow 20 years' of revenue to make one years' worth of lemonade, then a child knows you don't open up the stand.
It's. That. Simple.
Senator #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin of Illinois is the #2 ranking Democrat in the senate. This week, he said we don't need to address Social Security in these fiscal talks, since Social Security isn't adding to our deficit.
And my side loses to these people. Sen Durbin practically runs un-opposed. He says things this stupid, and he gets re-elected again and again.
Threaded Mode