Do you favor smaller government?

[candycorn]

I always find it amusing, but at times also annoying, that so many posters here claim to favor small government ideals and then turn around and support authoritarian legislation and policies. So, for those of you who claim to favor smaller government, and have the courage to have that claim scrutinized, please vote yes in the poll for all to see. As for the rest of you, if you would be so kind, please dig up as many examples of posts by these yes voters (starting with me) that stand in contradiction to their alleged claim of favoring smaller government.

When the cons say they want "smaller government," they are talking about getting government off the back of Big Business - that's all. Fewer taxes, less restriction on corporations, "tort reform," etc. All of this type of "smaller government" gets done what the cons want to get done, which is to expand the scope of big money business at the expense of the individual.

Now - if we are talking about imposing religious view on others, or making sure that others adhere to the moral viewpoints of conservatives, then the bigger the government intrusion into the lives of others, the better. Want to invade some other country? No problem - no need for "smaller government" here. Military-Industrial Complex, step right up! Cracking down on crime? No problem at all with big government there. Give the police unfettered reign to do whatever it takes. Arrest 'em and jail 'em - no need for courts or trials even.

Hypocrites.

They want smaller governments;

Ones that can fit into your bedroom, get between you and the one you love, and in Rick Perry's case, make sure your 12 year old daughter gets a shot for cervical cancer.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

26-2

Lmfao

Must be rivers of lib tears pooling up somewhere

 

[Liability]

I always find it amusing, but at times also annoying, that so many posters here claim to favor small government ideals and then turn around and support authoritarian legislation and policies. So, for those of you who claim to favor smaller government, and have the courage to have that claim scrutinized, please vote yes in the poll for all to see. As for the rest of you, if you would be so kind, please dig up as many examples of posts by these yes voters (starting with me) that stand in contradiction to their alleged claim of favoring smaller government.

When the cons say they want "smaller government," they are talking about getting government off the back of Big Business - that's all. Fewer taxes, less restriction on corporations, "tort reform," etc. All of this type of "smaller government" gets done what the cons want to get done, which is to expand the scope of big money business at the expense of the individual.

Now - if we are talking about imposing religious view on others, or making sure that others adhere to the moral viewpoints of conservatives, then the bigger the government intrusion into the lives of others, the better. Want to invade some other country? No problem - no need for "smaller government" here. Military-Industrial Complex, step right up! Cracking down on crime? No problem at all with big government there. Give the police unfettered reign to do whatever it takes. Arrest 'em and jail 'em - no need for courts or trials even.

Hypocrites.

Wrong. When CONSERVATIVES talk about smaller government, they are generally talking about having government live within the bounds and limits set for it by the Constitution. And that would serve to get government off of the backs of business AND individuals to a large extent -- except to that degree explicitly permitted and authorized.

Nice effort at spin, George, but wrong.

 

[Antiderivative]

Wrong. When CONSERVATIVES talk about smaller government, they are generally talking about having government live within the bounds and limits set for it by the Constitution. And that would serve to get government off of the backs of business AND individuals to a large extent -- except to that degree explicitly permitted and authorized.

Nice effort at spin, George, but wrong.

The key word is "talk". Modern day cons are all "talk" about a smaller, but do the opposite when they gain power. When "action" time comes around, it is a different ball game.

Unfortunately, kooks like yourself lap that shit up all day. You are easily duped.

 

[Steelplate]

26-2

Lmfao

Must be rivers of lib tears pooling up somewhere

Oh yeah... I am sure that we are terrified of a poll on an internet message board where the ratio of Cons/libs is probably 10:1. Do you really think that this board is an accurate ratio of America? If so, I think you are sadly mistaken.... especially if the the further whittling away of the American Middle Class continues.

I'm telling you right here and now. If this stuff continues... 2012 will be your worst nightmare. People are not stupid.... they see which side has been holding back the recovery and growth of the economy.... they see which side has been fighting every piece of legislation tooth and nail.... they see which side is willing to throw the country in default to strangle the government so that our wealthy elite(corporations and banking) can have even MORE power to further dismantle the middle class to add more money to their coffers.

If, on the odd chance that you Shiites do end up taking over...I think we run the risk of revolution... believe me... I don't want to see it...not in my, or my children's lifetimes. But you can't keep marginalizing the vast majority of the country and keep bowing down to the few. It will right itself one way or the other.

 

[manifold]

26-2

Lmfao

Must be rivers of lib tears pooling up somewhere

Oh yeah... I am sure that we are terrified of a poll on an internet message board where the ratio of Cons/libs is probably 10:1. Do you really think that this board is an accurate ratio of America? If so, I think you are sadly mistaken.... especially if the the further whittling away of the American Middle Class continues.

I'm telling you right here and now. If this stuff continues... 2012 will be your worst nightmare. People are not stupid.... they see which side has been holding back the recovery and growth of the economy.... they see which side has been fighting every piece of legislation tooth and nail.... they see which side is willing to throw the country in default to strangle the government so that our wealthy elite(corporations and banking) can have even MORE power to further dismantle the middle class to add more money to their coffers.

If, on the odd chance that you Shiites do end up taking over...I think we run the risk of revolution... believe me... I don't want to see it...not in my, or my children's lifetimes. But you can't keep marginalizing the vast majority of the country and keep bowing down to the few. It will right itself one way or the other.

Lighten up Francis.

 

[Liability]

Wrong. When CONSERVATIVES talk about smaller government, they are generally talking about having government live within the bounds and limits set for it by the Constitution. And that would serve to get government off of the backs of business AND individuals to a large extent -- except to that degree explicitly permitted and authorized.

Nice effort at spin, George, but wrong.

The key word is "talk". Modern day cons are all "talk" about a smaller, but do the opposite when they gain power. When "action" time comes around, it is a different ball game.

Unfortunately, kooks like yourself lap that shit up all day. You are easily duped.

The word is talk. You do a lot of it yet manage to SAY nothing of any import.

Modern day conservatives do speak about smaller government, and that still translates into the fundamental desire to get our Federal Government to limits its behavior to those areas where their power is enumerated.

Modern day conservatives do not "do the opposite" when they gain power. They rarely gain power. The actual electoral battles have been between ultra liberal Democratics and mildly liberall Republicans. With damn few exceptions, there are almost no examples of Conservatives BEING in power.

When that time comes, though, we will see them NOT playing a different ball game than the one they preach.

What kooks like you say, purelyderivative, remains of zero value -- obviously.

 

[Antiderivative]

Modern day conservatives do not "do the opposite" when they gain power. They rarely gain power. The actual electoral battles have been between ultra liberal Democratics and mildly liberall Republicans. With damn few exceptions, there are almost no examples of Conservatives BEING in power.

Reagan, Bush, Bush II all exploded our debt and government. They are modern day conservatives. Hence, why I clarified with "modern".

These "mythical" conservatives that don't hold any power are just that--all myth. In fact, liberal conservatives like Nixon and Eisenhower were much more fiscally responsible, so your thesis has been blown out of the water, once again showing how fucking stupid you are.

 

[kaz]

Modern day conservatives do speak about smaller government, and that still translates into the fundamental desire to get our Federal Government to limits its behavior to those areas where their power is enumerated

Exactly. Well other then the Federal government telling us what we can put in our body, that's not in the Constitution. That and violating our privacy in the War on Drugs, wow, that's definitely not in the Constitution. But other then that, and undeclared foreign wars that aren't for defense of the United States they're definitely sticking to the Constitution. I mean sure, conservatives vote for earmarks, which is just armed robbery and not in the Constitution. But other then that, controlling what drugs we can put in our bodies and undeclared foreign wars not in the Constitution, they definitely follow the Constitution. That and overriding State rights and banning euthanasia in Oregon, sure, that's not in the Constitution.

But I'm with you, when the Constitution says what Conservatives want, they're all over it...

 

[kaz]

Modern day conservatives do not "do the opposite" when they gain power. They rarely gain power. The actual electoral battles have been between ultra liberal Democratics and mildly liberall Republicans. With damn few exceptions, there are almost no examples of Conservatives BEING in power.

Reagan, Bush, Bush II all exploded our debt and government. They are modern day conservatives. Hence, why I clarified with "modern".

These "mythical" conservatives that don't hold any power are just that--all myth. In fact, liberal conservatives like Nixon and Eisenhower were much more fiscally responsible, so your thesis has been blown out of the water, once again showing how fucking stupid you are.

Bush & Bush, yeah. But Tip O'Neill exploded the debt under Reagan. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant though, I hear you...

 

[Sallow]

You do realize that the big government being discussed is the federal government and that water is provided at the local government level don't you? Nice try, but no cigar.

I tried to point that out to them earlier. The leftist brain trust, all 12 IQ points of it, thought they were clever because the EPA has toxic chemical caps per the 1986 clean water act.

Trying to reason with forum leftists is like teaching French to crocodiles; they don't learn anything and they try to bite your head off.....

Naw..you were wrong.

Simple as that.

So is your bud.

 

[Sallow]

Modern day conservatives do not "do the opposite" when they gain power. They rarely gain power. The actual electoral battles have been between ultra liberal Democratics and mildly liberall Republicans. With damn few exceptions, there are almost no examples of Conservatives BEING in power.

Reagan, Bush, Bush II all exploded our debt and government. They are modern day conservatives. Hence, why I clarified with "modern".

These "mythical" conservatives that don't hold any power are just that--all myth. In fact, liberal conservatives like Nixon and Eisenhower were much more fiscally responsible, so your thesis has been blown out of the water, once again showing how fucking stupid you are.

Bush & Bush, yeah. But Tip O'Neill exploded the debt under Reagan. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant though, I hear you...

Reagan exploded debt under Reagan. He was building things like Orbital Nuclear Platforms. Spending tons of cash to do it. Then when the Soviet Union went bust..we spent tons of cash to prop up their economy.

Tip O'Neill was the rational guy in the room trying to get help paying the check.

 

[Antiderivative]

Bush & Bush, yeah. But Tip O'Neill exploded the debt under Reagan. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant though, I hear you...

The truth is that the President has a red pen and he should use it, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Plus, you are wrong. Congressional spending and Reagan's requests were roughly equal. However, from a governor who increased spending in California this shouldn't come as a surprise, but to many it does. Heck, some still refuse to face reality

Congress Did Not Cause Reagan's Debt

 

[kaz]

Reagan, Bush, Bush II all exploded our debt and government. They are modern day conservatives. Hence, why I clarified with "modern".

These "mythical" conservatives that don't hold any power are just that--all myth. In fact, liberal conservatives like Nixon and Eisenhower were much more fiscally responsible, so your thesis has been blown out of the water, once again showing how fucking stupid you are.

Bush & Bush, yeah. But Tip O'Neill exploded the debt under Reagan. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant though, I hear you...

Reagan exploded debt under Reagan. He was building things like Orbital Nuclear Platforms. Spending tons of cash to do it. Then when the Soviet Union went bust..we spent tons of cash to prop up their economy.

Tip O'Neill was the rational guy in the room trying to get help paying the check.

Liberal people are all around us, they see what they want to see, they don't know they are liberal...

The fact is under Reagan most of the spending increases were domestic. Tax revenues doubled under Reagan. Taxes weren't the problem, spending was. Spin all you want, the facts don't change.

 

[Sallow]

I'm certain it is, b/c it sounded familiar. I simply can't place the location.

But your seeming insistance that any support for any government is support for big government. And that's idiotic.

Only a few nuts would support no government or a one so small that we are unsafe.

we are in the red and government has a choke hold on us with vast levels of regulations.

Actually..no it isn't.

We take "big government" for granted.

The fact that you can open your tap, drink the water, and not get dysentery or worse represents years and years of struggle through this VERY DEBATE.

And why anyone would want to roll that back is beyond me.

Again, THAT isn't big government so quit being obtuse. Government exists for things like protection and infrastructure. It does not exist to provide welfare and entitlement programs. That is what is meant by big government. It is going beyond the constitutional boundaries to do things it was not intended to do......but you already know that.

Sure it is.

And find those darn constitutional clauses that restrict government from those darn "welfare and entitlement programs."

 

[kaz]

Bush & Bush, yeah. But Tip O'Neill exploded the debt under Reagan. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant though, I hear you...

The truth is that the President has a red pen and he should use it, but don't let the facts get in the of a good rant.

Plus, you are wrong. Congressional spending and Reagan's requests were roughly equal. However, from a governor who increased spending in California this shouldn't come as a surprise, but to many it does. Heck, some still refuse to face reality

You seriously look at one simple graph and jump to firm, specific, sweeping conclusions? Mental acuity isn't your strength, is it junior?

I don't know how old you are, but I remember Reagan well. His priority was bringing down the Soviet Union not Tip O'Neill. I know liberals have targeted bringing down the Reagan legacy because he eclipses all you accomplished, which is nothing, but re-writing history's not going to do it until the people who don't actually remember him are dead and buried. Then again, you will be then too. Take on a legacy you can win. HW drove me from the party, he's an easier target and you don't have to re-write history to do it.

 

[Sallow]

Bush & Bush, yeah. But Tip O'Neill exploded the debt under Reagan. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant though, I hear you...

Reagan exploded debt under Reagan. He was building things like Orbital Nuclear Platforms. Spending tons of cash to do it. Then when the Soviet Union went bust..we spent tons of cash to prop up their economy.

Tip O'Neill was the rational guy in the room trying to get help paying the check.

Liberal people are all around us, they see what they want to see, they don't know they are liberal...

The fact is under Reagan most of the spending increases were domestic. Tax revenues doubled under Reagan. Taxes weren't the problem, spending was. Spin all you want, the facts don't change.

What part of that didn't you get.

Reagan paid domestic companies to build exotic weapon systems that never ever got off the ground. And he spent LOTS AND LOTS of money to do that.

Along with propping up the newly formed Russian Republic.

Along with BAILING OUT both Financial Institutions..and Banks.

You guys forget so much stuff.

 

[Antiderivative]

Exposing the "Congress made Reagan Spend Myth"

Even Ford and Carter did a better job at cutting government. Their combined presidential terms account for an increase of 1.4%—compared with Reagan's 3%—in the government's take of "national income." And in nominal terms, there has been a 60% increase in government spending, thanks mainly to Reagan's requested budgets, which were only marginally smaller than the spending Congress voted.

The Free Market: The Sad Legacy of Ronald Reagan

See that kooks? Even Carter was better at cutting government than your beloved hero.....bwahahahahahaha.

 

[kaz]

Actually..no it isn't.

We take "big government" for granted.

The fact that you can open your tap, drink the water, and not get dysentery or worse represents years and years of struggle through this VERY DEBATE.

And why anyone would want to roll that back is beyond me.

Again, THAT isn't big government so quit being obtuse. Government exists for things like protection and infrastructure. It does not exist to provide welfare and entitlement programs. That is what is meant by big government. It is going beyond the constitutional boundaries to do things it was not intended to do......but you already know that.

Sure it is.

And find those darn constitutional clauses that restrict government from those darn "welfare and entitlement programs."

Wow, what failures the government schools are. You spend all this time on message boards arguing politics and you don't even understand the basics of how the Constitution works?

The Constitution does not say the Federal government can do anything that's not prohibited to it, it says the Federal government can only do that which it is authorized to do. That is called Constitutional Authority, now you can understand the phrase you kept hearing and didn't grasp. No one has to show you where welfare is prohibited. You have to show where it's granted. It's not, it's Prima Facie Unconstitutional. Wow, there's another term you're going to have to Google.

 

[candycorn]

Bush & Bush, yeah. But Tip O'Neill exploded the debt under Reagan. Never let the truth get in the way of a good rant though, I hear you...

Reagan exploded debt under Reagan. He was building things like Orbital Nuclear Platforms. Spending tons of cash to do it. Then when the Soviet Union went bust..we spent tons of cash to prop up their economy.

Tip O'Neill was the rational guy in the room trying to get help paying the check.

Liberal people are all around us, they see what they want to see, they don't know they are liberal...

The fact is under Reagan most of the spending increases were domestic. Tax revenues doubled under Reagan. Taxes weren't the problem, spending was. Spin all you want, the facts don't change.

Not true,

According to Colin Powell, he was at the DOD when the Reagan administration took office, he said that the chiefs of staff began submitting wish lists. Reagan had them move to "dream lists" rather quickly "They went from their wish lists to their dream lists"

What you're saying is simply not the case. I think the build up was worth it but in the context of this debate, your stance is on false footing.