What reasonable person could argue with that?
Now, how do you implement some kind of corrective maneuver? Surely not by electing another spend and charge it to unborn Americans Republican. Jim
Nope, that is a bad idea. It is also bad to be seduced into thinking the government must grow further in order for us to prosper (ie - charity). In order to recover, we must reduce the scope and span of control of the federal government, piece by piece. It doesn't mean it will not regulate (ie - the impartial referee), it cannot favor. It will mean that we have to examine everything the federal government does, figure out if it is worth what it costs, look at alternatives in private enterprise, state, or local governments. It is hard to imagine there are alternatives, but there are. It will mean we'll have to look as hard at things we think are good as things we think are bad. We cannot abdicate our liberty to allow the government to unconstitutionally do charity because we find it to be a good thing, then try to draw a line when they unconstitutionally enter our electronic homes because the majority that day thinks its a good thing to detect terrorists. The line must be pure, and it is spelled out in our COTUS if we will observe and respect it.
We are an innovative people. If tax dollars are routed to enrich the rich (and that really won't stop with higher taxation or with either party in the WH), you eliminate the function, repackage it and send the function and dollars back to the states (ie - closer to the people), or something in between. That can be done if we will. We can find local or private ways to do charity, methods that will likely better at detecting those needing a leg up and those wanting to be held up forever.
We will not move closer to this utopia (edland) this election, unfortunately, because neither of the candidates or parties held up by the media as our choices see a problem with this control, power, and money, and are able to sell it to the masses by promising to take care of us . . .