SnakeRiverLib

I would be remiss without calling this one out. The bull in the china shop has done much to curtail regulations.  No one can question that.  Considering that he has to fight not only an entrenched bureaucracy, but also a Congress that never met a regulation it didn't like, he has done remarkably well.  This one is bipartisan.  And it has to stop.  Congress passes "frameworks", themselves hundreds or thousands of pages, and hands them off to the Deep State, or Swamp, where it takes those hundreds or thousands of pages and turns them into thousands or tens of thousands of pages. There is no accountability in the Deep State, they are permanent civil service, impervious to politics, or even job performance for that matter.  Guess where else there is no accountability?  Congress.  That is right, Congress can point their fingers at the Deep State and be aghast at what was spawned. In other words, there is no accountability, except at the Oval office. President Truman had

First, a word. I would not attack members of Congress, or any politician because of religion, race, or other individual personal characteristic, for two reasons.  One, I couldn't care less what their status is, so long as they understand they swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.  Second, people whose argument is so weak they have to hide behind their victimhood and imagined attacks on it, have no business in Congress.  But, as others throw the race, gender, or other card, I guess that is to be expected.  When the Democrats can't pass a resolution condemning Rep. Omar (D-MN) for her slurs of Israel, which is how it began, by the time it was modified, Rep. Omar (the person that was to be admonished with this resolution) ended up voting for some watered down version condemning hate, or something. But.  When one previously worked for Hamas, like Omar, (their US PR firm, CAIR and is still raising money for them), we need to be very careful about their motives.  More th

What is wrong with the producers owning the means of production?  What is wrong with providing a generous safety net for those "unwilling to work" as Occasional Cortex said?  What is wrong with any of this? So, we can have a debate about the welfare state, or social safety net or whatever you want to call it.  Countries that are falsely accused of being socialist, such as the Scandinavian nations, are not really socialist at all.  In fact, those nations frequently score higher on the Freedom Index than the US.  But aren't they socialist?  No.  They do have a very generous welfare state, which is being threatened by refugees that are partaking but not contributing.  But what are the differences?  What do those nations have that the US doesn't?  They have universal health care They have generous housing benefits They have free tuition at state universities.  Is there anything that they don't have that the US does? You betcha. No minimum wage No oppressive