Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Palin's Intellectual Bipolar Disorder
blog.mises.org — One the one hand, she assails Obama as favoring big government, more taxes, more control from Washington, and everyone goes nuts denouncing government. Then only a few sentences later, she is blasting Obama for not favoring war enough, for wanting to give people too many rights, for not wanting military victory over the entire planet. People cheer
populist- 38 diggs
- digg it
- sultanknish, on 09/04/2008, -3/+3How is that contradictory? We fought most of our wars without having big government.
- UltraMegaFilms, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Right, except for all those guns, tanks, planes, missiles, bombs, mass troop deployments, personnel benefits and health care, "oppressive" infrastructure removal, "democratic" infrastructure installation, etc...
We should bail on the war, then take half that money and put it into what I will call the "Republican Perpetual Bitch Fund." Then, every year, the liberals get more money to spend on things like education, public projects, and other "big government" items, and we pay off the republicans so they don't have to constantly whine about how much money they are losing to the institution that let them have it in the first place! - userperson, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2That's an iffy statement.
Government typically grows when it fights a war. Whether it has gotten "big" or not is another matter.
War is a lot of bother.
Government has to grow to manage all the activity, assuming they aren't spending billions upon billions already, Even so war is active when peace is not, it will still cost more.
If the people are lucky a government will contract after wars. If it does not, it's likely a sign there is "no looking back" as far as growth is concerned (WWII). That will be at the peoples' expense (in case that wasn't given).
- UltraMegaFilms, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Right, except for all those guns, tanks, planes, missiles, bombs, mass troop deployments, personnel benefits and health care, "oppressive" infrastructure removal, "democratic" infrastructure installation, etc...
- bernk1, on 09/04/2008, -1/+3There's no contradiction to anyone who thinks about it more than just superficiall. It is not the size of the government that matters. Big government can solve big social problems that individuals cannot (such as a national highway system). What government does is what matters. The point is - big government is not the issue. Intrusive government is. Perhaps it would be better to speak of intrusive government so that people are clear about that.
- userperson, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Big government can solve social problems? sure. Without creating more/greater problems? 'um ... skeptical.
Private roads do not exist -- got it. /s
When government takes money it is not intrusive -- understood. /s- bernk1, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1How about a governmental fire department?
- userperson, on 09/04/2008, -0/+1@bernk1
What about it?
If you don't allow government to take money to put out fires the world burns right? /s nifty.
- userperson, on 09/04/2008, -1/+2Big government can solve social problems? sure. Without creating more/greater problems? 'um ... skeptical.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is