the argument is about the path...and whether that path will get us to that goal.

I saw a piece of Rand Paul's speech on Rachel or Chris the other night...he was saying some things I really thought were great goals.

But then he said what we needed to do to get there and I rejected his position. More tax cuts, more trickledown, less regulation, etc.

The problem we have in achieving these lofty goals is getting the vast populace to agree on what the goals really are and whether the path will really get us there or even farther into the swamp.

Couple examples: NSA spying -- yep, pretty nasty thing but NSA is subject to public policy. Private corporations aren't. I'm more worried about Verizon and Comcast than NSA. With NSA all we have to do is shine a light on it and reinforce the rules that are there. We can't even get into the private concerns because of "trade secrets".

End corporate welfare? -- Great idea. Define it. There's a piece on DU that talks about some new jobs training program. I think we'd be much better off applying that money to a new infrastructure project and let the jobs be a by-product of that project, not to mention the possibility for some technological breakthrus that would spawn a whole new industry. Kinda like the idea of broadband as a public utility (ala Rural Electrification) with infrastructure standards or a new electrical grid.