How to be a red state Governor. Cut taxes enough to create a budget shortfall and then steal the money later.

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
28,883
4,696
126
My thinking is that if the government is competent, the entire conservative "small government" ideology is proven false and people will want MORE government instead, not less.

Anecdotal example - I received the J&J vaccine through a state-run mass vaccination site. Almost as soon as the J&J booster became available, the state department of health called me to help me setup my booster appointment.

Way to go MD Dept of Health!
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,077
10,612
136
My thinking is that if the government is competent, the entire conservative "small government" ideology is proven false and people will want MORE government instead, not less.

Anecdotal example - I received the J&J vaccine through a state-run mass vaccination site. Almost as soon as the J&J booster became available, the state department of health called me to help me setup my booster appointment.

Way to go MD Dept of Health!
That’s really what the argument should be about, competent and efficient government vs incompetent and wasteful government.

A good policy is one that achieves what it sets out to accomplish. A bad policy is one that either doesn’t accomplish its goals, or makes the matter worse.

For example; if the problem that needs addressing is homelessness and the solution is to put fines and restrictions in place to stop homeless camps from being setup or to keep homeless from shitting on the sidewalk, or sleeping on public property. If the results of these fines/restrictions don’t make the homeless go away and costs X amount of dollars, then that’s bad policy.

Now if we take that same issue but instead create temporary housing and assistance programs and that reduces the amount of homeless camps, shitting on sidewalks, and sleeping on public property, but doesn’t reduce homelessness itself and costs X-Y amount of dollars then that’s good but inefficient policy. It may be cheaper but it didn’t solve the problem.

However, if we tackle that same issue but instead treat each homeless person as an individual and create a plan to help them as an individual and that results in zero homeless but it costs X+Y, then not only is that a good policy but it’s also an efficient one as the problem has been solved.

To put it another way, we could spend trillions of dollars fighting an enemy with a large army and military equipment or we can fight that same enemy for millions of dollars by spreading propaganda in their country and letting the enemy self implode. (Guess which one we typically prefer)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fenixgoon

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
58,157
6,324
126
That’s really what the argument should be about, competent and efficient government vs incompetent and wasteful government.

A good policy is one that achieves what it sets out to accomplish. A bad policy is one that either doesn’t accomplish its goals, or makes the matter worse.

For example; if the problem that needs addressing is homelessness and the solution is to put fines and restrictions in place to stop homeless camps from being setup or to keep homeless from shitting on the sidewalk, or sleeping on public property. If the results of these fines/restrictions don’t make the homeless go away and costs X amount of dollars, then that’s bad policy.

Now if we take that same issue but instead create temporary housing and assistance programs and that reduces the amount of homeless camps, shitting on sidewalks, and sleeping on public property, but doesn’t reduce homelessness itself and costs X-Y amount of dollars then that’s good but inefficient policy. It may be cheaper but it didn’t solve the problem.

However, if we tackle that same issue but instead treat each homeless person as an individual and create a plan to help them as an individual and that results in zero homeless but it costs X+Y, then not only is that a good policy but it’s also an efficient one as the problem has been solved.

To put it another way, we could spend trillions of dollars fighting an enemy with a large army and military equipment or we can fight that same enemy for millions of dollars by spreading propaganda in their country and letting the enemy self implode. (Guess which one we typically prefer)
What about the "Soylent Green solution" to homelessness?
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
6,974
6,070
136
Good.

Let Red States have the Red State Policies they vote for.

It's time to adopt full-on Federalism.

Let Red State governments use their Federal cash to prohibit abortion, outlaw mixed-race relations, mandate Christianity, etc,. etc.

If the people in those Red States want Blue State policies, then they're going to have to get off their fucking asses and vote for Democrats, or shut the fuck up and lean into it.

Far Leftie in a Red Purple State by the way. It's time that Democrats stop enabling Republicans in their efforts to destroy this country.
 

Lezunto

Member
Oct 24, 2020
168
87
61
No, I am not surprised at all.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS