Americans Satisfied With the Lives They Lead

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

I detect some back pedaling here.

When comparing their present situation with five years ago, over half (54%) of adults say their situation has improved while one-quarter (28%) say it has stayed about the same and 17 percent say it has gotten worse. The number of those who say their lives have improved is about the same as in 2005 (56%) and still up from 2003’s 49 percent.

Where do you suppose this greater satisfaction is coming from, given the context of time frame?

P.S. In any case, if you personally are satisfied with Bush's Domestic Policy then you are in effect endorsing Bigger Gov't.

Those are your conclusions, not mine. About the only economic policy that Bush did that I agree with is the tax cuts. And that is also what has made a large part of our economic boom. The spending tends to drag it down. If we had the tax cuts with some spending cuts we would all be better off. As far as the spending goes reps and dems alike love to spend our money, I don't like any of it.

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

You don't comprehend very well do you? I will say it again slowly. I liked Bush's tax cuts but that is about it. Both reps and dems are addicted to spending our money. I think our current good times are because of the tax cuts but I think it would be even better if they also cut the spending. I have and still do advocate a clean sweep. Get everyone out and send in a new crop of real conservitives. A group that will cut taxes even more and do some real reduction in government spending. Clear enough?

I'll ask you again...

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

In other words, what do you think about the Cato Institute's claim of Bush being the biggest spender of all presidents since LBJ?

I DON'T CARE! I WANT THEM ALL OUT!!!!!!

Come on, Gary...say it. Bush is not the great President that you once thought he was. Say it and I'll leave you in peace.

[Jason-Sasha 1]

I'm as conservative as possible and even I no longer agree with our dimwitted poor l'il Bush. Though, i do hope he's replaced by someone conservative and republican.

[GaryC 7]

Come on, Gary...say it. Bush is not the great President that you once thought he was. Say it and I'll leave you in peace.

For some reason you seem to think I have been worshiping at the feet of Bush. I haven't. Bush has done 3 things that I really like.

1. Kicked Saddam out of Iraq

2. Taken the war on terror to the terrorists. (that includes the homeland security measures)

3. Cut taxes. (this is why we have a good economy)

Other than that Bush and most of the reps in congress are no better than liberals.

I want all in congress to get voted out and a brand new crop of real conservitives voted in. I also want a real conservitive president in the white house.

Now stop trying to do a "I told you so". I ain't going for it.

Edited August 16, 2007 by GaryC

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

The devil is in the details. What can the government do better than the private sector?

Offhand - public transport. Privatisation and deregulation of track maintenance in the UK rail network resulted in several train crashes, a number deaths and the subsequent discovery via public inquiry that the private contractors employed to maintain the railways were cutting corners to save costs and the transport infrastructure was breaking down as a result. Government ended up cancelling railtrack's contract and awarding it to a company that doesn't rely upon (or allow itself to be influenced by) share capital.

Privatisation is ok - so long as the government maintains some sort of regulatory framework to protect the public interest.

[GaryC 7]

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

The devil is in the details. What can the government do better than the private sector?

Offhand - public transport. Privatisation and deregulation of track maintenance in the UK rail network resulted in several train crashes, a number deaths and the subsequent discovery via public inquiry that the private contractors employed to maintain the railways were cutting corners to save costs and the transport infrastructure was breaking down as a result. Government ended up cancelling railtrack's contract and awarding it to a company that doesn't rely upon (or allow itself to be influenced by) share capital.

Privatisation is ok - so long as the government maintains some sort of regulatory framework to protect the public interest.

I have to go along with that. Infrastucture is something that the government should do.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

The devil is in the details. What can the government do better than the private sector?

Offhand - public transport. Privatisation and deregulation of track maintenance in the UK rail network resulted in several train crashes, a number deaths and the subsequent discovery via public inquiry that the private contractors employed to maintain the railways were cutting corners to save costs and the transport infrastructure was breaking down as a result. Government ended up cancelling railtrack's contract and awarding it to a company that doesn't rely upon (or allow itself to be influenced by) share capital.

Privatisation is ok - so long as the government maintains some sort of regulatory framework to protect the public interest.

I have to go along with that. Infrastucture is something that the government should do.

I believe the feds are resposible for the money. It's the states responsibility to actually inspect and maintain the infrastuture.

[Peikko 1,575]

Kicking Sadam out of Iraq has really proved a great move. If America (and Britain) get a say in who should be ruling all the other countries in the world, well there are a lot of vicious dictators out there but I don't see there being a huge rush to go out and pick a fight with them all.

As for taking the war to the 'terrorists', honestly, I can't believe anyone really believes that particular piece of propoganda.

Lowering taxes? Low taxes are not the be all and end all of life in a society. Taxes are a necessary 'evil' amd should reflect actual government spending. Flat rate taxes/low rates for high earners unfairly hit those who are on lower incomes. Taxes should at least somewhat reflect earnings proportionally. At least, up to a point.

Of course, all those on lower incomes are deliberately hindering their own progress and don't deserve help from those who have more, right?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Kicking Sadam out of Iraq has really proved a great move. If America (and Britain) get a say in who should be ruling all the other countries in the world, well there are a lot of vicious dictators out there but I don't see there being a huge rush to go out and pick a fight with them all.

As for taking the war to the 'terrorists', honestly, I can't believe anyone really believes that particular piece of propoganda.

Lowering taxes? Low taxes are not the be all and end all of life in a society. Taxes are a necessary 'evil' amd should reflect actual government spending. Flat rate taxes/low rates for high earners unfairly hit those who are on lower incomes. Taxes should at least somewhat reflect earnings proportionally. At least, up to a point.

Of course, all those on lower incomes are deliberately hindering their own progress and don't deserve help from those who have more, right?

Being critical is easy, Idea's? I'm listening.

[GaryC 7]

Kicking Sadam out of Iraq has really proved a great move. If America (and Britain) get a say in who should be ruling all the other countries in the world, well there are a lot of vicious dictators out there but I don't see there being a huge rush to go out and pick a fight with them all.

As for taking the war to the 'terrorists', honestly, I can't believe anyone really believes that particular piece of propoganda.

Lowering taxes? Low taxes are not the be all and end all of life in a society. Taxes are a necessary 'evil' amd should reflect actual government spending. Flat rate taxes/low rates for high earners unfairly hit those who are on lower incomes. Taxes should at least somewhat reflect earnings proportionally. At least, up to a point.

Of course, all those on lower incomes are deliberately hindering their own progress and don't deserve help from those who have more, right?

Hence the different sides of politics. What I think is right is your definition of wrong.

Edited August 16, 2007 by GaryC

[Peikko 1,575]

LOL, possibly.

However, I am not on the side of the Dems either, that's for sure . To be blunt, I don't believe in any of the political parties. Most politics is about power and money and not about the good of the citizens of particular countries, sadly.

I am looking for a party that would like to make the production of food, power (as in heat/light/fuel for transportation) and the provision of health care based on human need, not human greed. I don't think I am likely to find that any time soon.