A MUST WATCH from last night's debate! WOW..excellent illustration of Obama loose-headedness!

Here is some more fuel to use in demonstrating opposition to Obama’s non-answers on what government expenses he would give up.

While he refused to name anything in “the range of things that are probably going to have o be delayed”, nothing;

among the things that he says government must not decrease spending on, were:

“Energy independence from Middle East oil in ten years” -

Even though there is no energy, technology, infrastructure or engineering proof, study or guideline that such a time-line is even achievable. “Ten years” is nothing but a political ploy, where Obama and everyone else that uses it hopes that in 11 years, 12 years, 15 years, 20 years, 25 years everyone will forget the “ten years” promise they used to get elected on. And, when you hear the details of his energy plan it is nothing but government “investment” - spending, not savings.

He makes the Marxist assumption that government will “assure” the development of the things that “energy independence from Middle East oil” requires. We know, from recent history, that all that means is government corruption in who gets taxpayer subsidies and electoral corruption in those who are subsidized returning enough of their subsidies into the political campaigns of those who authorized them.

“Fix our health care system”. This is one of the two biggest scams that always come from the Liberals. They constantly say “the cost” to the individual or the family is horrible, but they really don’t question that cost, what has made it what it is and how to lower it. To them the “cost” is assumed and all their solutions are some form of transferring the cost to “the government”, i.e. the taxpayers.

Now if “health care costs” are bad now, bad for the taxpayers, then how the hell will they be better when those costs are simply transferred to the government - the taxpayers. It is a scam. Its only purpose is not “cost savings”, for anyone, but simply more government. More government simply means more political fighting over the costs and benefits of government. It does nothing to bring down costs or empower the family or the individual to take more control over their own lives.

“Education” - Health care and education have the distinction in our economy of the following attributes, in comparison to all other industries and sectors in the economy:

1. Greatest amount of local, state and federal regulation.
2. Greatest amount of regulatory mandates on its mission.
3. Greatest amount of taxpayer subsidy, local, state and federal.
4. And, no surprise, cost increases on a per unit (student/patient) or per capita basis that are 1,000s of % greater, adjusted for inflation, than every other segment of the economy over the past forty years.
5. And, no surprise again, particularly in education, most people view the product produced as lower in quality, year by year.

The myth is that “the federal government” can improve education. The history of education in this country clearly demonstrates that in neither cost or academic achievement is their anything to applaud about “federal support” for education, that, in the primary academic sense alone was not achievable without federal dollars.

Some will say - “but our local school district ‘needs’ the federal dollars, or we have to raise our property taxes. That is a lie composed of half-truths. Teachers unions make local education cost more than it should; local taxpayers can place legal limits on compensation for anyone working in government. If people fought for lower federal and state taxes, local revenue issues, which have greater accountability, would find more local revenue available (left in the city/town/village not sent to state and federal government).

“Infrastructure” - Again, this is an area that requires that the federal government QUIT becoming the “infrastructure” master of first resort; that federal taxes be lowered in recognition of that; and states start doing the infrastructure job they are supposed to do, instead of all the social engineering they are doing. With local taxpayers footing most all of the bill they just might make the state and local governments more accountable for what infrastructure projects actually get funded.

There will always be a few “infrastructure” needs that could be of national importance. What the liberals do is skew that thought into the idea that if it is something that “ought to be done”, anywhere in the nation, it is, by default of FEDERAL importance. It’s not. Lower federal taxes. Keep more money in the states and let states and their state taxpayers take care of most state “infrastructure” needs.

“Broadband lines that reach into rural communities”. - Again, this sounds nice but achieving it is not a “federal” issue and in most regards is not a government issue. And, if one feels government must intervene here, it is still a state matter and not a federal one.

“Electricity Grid” - This does not require federal money or handouts as Obama’s sense of government “investment” wants us to believe. It requires regulatory changes, easing of some regulations, and legal assistance at the state level to use the good offices of the state to directly, at taxpayer’s expense, defend energy companies against “environmental” suits - making such nuisance suits expensive for the environmental wackos. Every dime of that expense will come back in lower energy costs as projects get done sooner and at less expense.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.