>>I am registered as unenrolled. And I vote differently, depending on the person running. Usually for a lesser of two evils <g>. Generally I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would probably put myself in the libertarian camp if they had a chance of winning <g>.
>>
>>This seems like an oxymoron to me. All those social programs take an awful lot of money to run <s>
>
>Agreed in parts. But fits with the concept of checks and balances
>(except for the latter and the budget, making the first a cheque).
>Half seriously: if you look at previous states, problems will arise when the external threat is eliminated,
>the plebs grows in numbers and are pacified instead of given real work or sent off to slaughter and rape a bit.
>Oligarchs not getting a more than fair cut from the war loot and preying among small farmers added to unrest
>
>From that POV argueing for economic hard-line views coupled with direct monetary subsidy for the poor
>is a bad recipe IMO. The good part of the german attempt to weather the financial crisis was
>that money was used to keep people working even under the danger of not letting some biz fail early
>if their trouble stemmed not because from financial crisis but othermore internal reasons -
>their prolonged survival dampens the recovery later.

The Nobel Peace Prize goes to .... the European Union? That seems like a head scratcher to me. Any insight?