One thing I will say for him. He's willing to make a new mistake rather than the same old ones. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6164293594303936.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1& His efforts to trim government ended up boosting his image. He sold thousands of state-owned cars and cut the state work force to levels not seen since the 1970s. In a region awash in government red ink, he turned an inherited $600 million deficit into a $370 million surplus the next year. He has rebuilt the state's reserve funds, which now top $800 million. Nor does Mr. Daniels hesitate to lavish praise, when he feels like it, on the Democratic administration. "What I want in education is almost completely aligned with what President Obama wants," Mr. Daniels says, noting the administration's support for charter schools and merit-based pay for teachers. He talks more often with Obama Education Secretary Arne Duncan, he says, "than with any cabinet secretary during my entire time in the Bush White House."
I like Gov. Daniels. He wants to put social issues away and focus on fiscal issues. I hope he runs, because then the GOP will have a substantive debate about the scope and size of government.
He looks too much like puti-poot. joking aside, I agree with maxie. If GOP has a chance of moving into the 21st century, they must drop the social issues for now. I don't agree with "lowest public employee rate" stuff, but killing debt might be more important right now.
Honestly (and again, I'm a bit biased), but the "social issues" aren't generally about the social side, but the financial side. For instance, though I disagree with abortion I recognize it's a law and wouldn't begrudge someone who wanted to get one. However, I don't want my tax dollars funding clinics or paying for that woman to have one. IMO that's a private issue, not a state-sponsored one. Heck, you can even impose a law if you'd like that the father's responsible for paying half of it (like alimony or child support) if you're worried about women not getting care. For DOMA, it's about wondering why people who choose to live an alternative lifestyle want the rights that come with marriage. No one is saying that a woman can't live with a woman, or a man with a man, and certainly no one is legislating what goes on in those bedrooms. It seems that the problem comes from people living the alternative lifestyle wanting some of the "1100 rights and protections conferred on marriage, including Social Security benefits, veterans' benefits, health insurance, Medicaid, hospital visitation, estate taxes, retirement savings, pensions, family leave, and immigration law." Again, this is a financial issue, not a social one. If you'd like to "even the playing field", remove or reduce some of those protections and rights. But I don't think 51% of the country (or their legislative representation) would go for that.
Daniels was W's budget director. Ran up some nice deficits. On one hand, he certainly knows the budget. On the other... the deficits.
I think you might be kidding yourself here, Brian. Ask how much money abortions really cost, and then consider the effort expended by the anti-abortion crowd. Is it proportionate? barfo
No one chooses to be gay, can you please take your heads out of your asses on this topic. Thank you, cheers.
That would depend on one's moral point of view. I think abortion is murder. Therefore, I don't consider the cost to save human lives. Human life, to me, is too precious. To others, it's not.
That is a shame... because I think they have shown that unwanted pregnancies generate a lot higher rate of kids that end up prison... and the cost of housing them for years in prison is a lot less than if would have been to help fund the abortion. Strickly speaking dollars and cents.
"Strickly speaking dollars and sense", so would state-mandated sterilization. But that's not really someplace I want the government to go.
Unfortunately, lefties don't want their dollars spent on X things, and righties don't want their dollars spent on Y things. I'd be happy to spend on neither.
Whether someone wants to spend their dollars funding an abortion clinic or protesting one isn't my concern. As I said in another thread, I don't think the gov't should be spending on "abstinence campaigns" either, and that's something I actually believe in.
That's where I'm going with this. There are some things that the government is chartered to do that the people can't. Everything else is luxury. When there's money to spend, I don't necessarily care that the, government is giving to charity in multiple forms. When there isn't money to spend, those luxuries shouldn't be expended.
Sure. If you think it is murder, then naturally, a vigorous campaign against it makes sense, if you have nothing better to do with your time. Brian, however, implied that the opposition stemmed from financial considerations rather than moral, and that was the point I was addressing. barfo
I thought you were taking the position that people oppose abortion for financial reasons. Your opposition to abortion may well be financial, but I don't think that's true of most people who are anti-abortion. barfo
So, what percentage of the budget goes for abortions? I don't know but I think it must be pretty damn tiny. So why not talk about farm subsidies? Or those new warplanes? Or something that would actually make a difference you could observe without a microscope? barfo
You wonder why people want benefits that other people have? That really doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve. Pretty sure hospital visitation is not a financial issue. The others arguably all have both financial and social elements. I will barfo
