It’s David Crockett. not Daniel Boone.

Here’s a link.

Seriously… Just do it.

The Obama administration, which rewarded the United Auto Workers by giving it considerable control over two companies

LOL. Half of nuttin’, is still nuttin’!

tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 7:41 PM

Again, all over the place. You are correct with regard to vouchers – you have kids, you educate them.

The fact that many parents are not fit to be parents is not the fault of those who do the right thing. If a vast majority of people are convinced, through plebiscite, that all kids must be educated, regardless of cost, then they own the cost, and should willingly pony up. Has there ever been such a plebiscite?

Also, if govt were to do its job properly, taxes would be low enough that there would be no excuse for a working person to not look after his/her own costs in life.

Non-working people only have the right to hope for charity – a dirty word these days.

The problem is the incumbents get reelected.

The government is in denial and so are the citizens. That state is a train wreck.

No, but allowing parents freedom of choice in choosing the best schools and teachers for their children would be a start. Vouchers would be a good way to facilitate that.

TheMightyMonarch on May 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM

Whoa, you are all over the place. If it is not the responsibility of the government to educate the population, why provide vouchers? Just not tax people so much, and let them decide to pay for a private school to home school their own kids. But we know that many parents would be derelict in the duties to educate their children. To promote the general welfare, we know the government should see to it that kids are educated. You are just offering a different means to that ends. So, your answer is yes, but through vouchers not through public schools. But then we also need regulations to make sure parents are using the vouchers or properly home schooling. Either ay the government will be up the parents but to make sure the kid is getting schooling…

Legalize counterfeiting

Love it

Okay, what does it mean to “maintain the conditions necessary…

It means that government should ensure economic freedom, so that the private sector has the maximum ability to provide for general welfare as it sees fit. That means collecting no more taxes than is absolutely necessary and required under constitutional guidelines.

Does that mean ensuring an educated populace to maintain an effective work force?

No, but allowing parents freedom of choice in choosing the best schools and teachers for their children would be a start. Vouchers would be a good way to facilitate that.

Does it mean early intervention with special needs kids if it means they will become productive members of society as oppose to wards of the State?

How about keeping tax rates so low that the private sector can afford take up charitable responsibilities for such persons? Private charities must answer to their contributors, but rarely are politicians made to do so.

Are the only legitimate government purposes to provide you with cheap gas, guns and ammo?

I don’t expect the government to pay for any of those things. I expect them to protect free trade and defend us from outside threats. Anything beyond that is at best a luxury, at worst an outright theft of capital.

Best wishes for your current and future happiness

Sorry I don’t know how I manage to do that crazy symbol at the end. Unintended, best wishes are real.

Best wishes for your current and future happiness. \

My kids will help pay for me. Who is going to help pay for you? Yep, my kids…

tommylotto on May 22, 2009 at 1:24 PM

Dream on!!!

HornetSting on May 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM

Of course, CA could not do that even if it wanted to. It is the federal government’s responsibility to enforce immigration law. And the federal government’s failure to do its job, secure the border, and deport the illegals has cost CA approximately 10 billion a year (by common estimates). That extra burden on the state caused by the fed’s immigration policies, plus the fact that CA has always been a donor state tax-wise (meaning it pays much more in taxes to the federal government than it gets in federal spending), are two powerful justification for a CA bailout.

That and the fact that we only get two Senators — the same number as Vermont!

1. Post immigration officers in front of welfare offices.
2. Post immigration officers in front of Home Depot.
3. Post immigration officers in front of ER’s.
4. Post immigration officers in front of Walmarts.
5. Post immigration officers in front of convenience stores, around quiting time.

Enforce the law and make your OWN bailout!

The central problem is always the entitlement — not other people’s matrimonial and procreational choices.

Gee, except for the obvious illegality of drug dealing, I see your point…

True. While robbing fellow Americans – via the government – to pay for a problem caused by your personal choice (in this case having a child) is immoral, it isn’t illegal.

Arnie would have to be fired, the unions would be given a 55% stake, and the editors at the San Diego Times-Union would have to go.

This argument is the nearly the exact same one that many dealers of illegal wares use to soothe their conscience: ‘Somebody’s going to make that money…why shouldn’t it be me.’

Dark-Star on May 22, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Gee, except for the obvious illegality of drug dealing, I see your point… Actually, it is more like the liberal in favor of higher taxes taking advantage of a tax cut.

On the other hand, he tells us that he doesn’t support the program and would vote to get rid of it if he could.

tommylotto’s getting schizoid.

Nancy, Diane and Babs just don’t have that “swagga”. Maybe if one of them looked like Rihanna or Beyonce, he would go down that road. Could BO be a racist?