Do you favor smaller government?

[manifold]

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

If you mean 'federal' government then look no further than the 10th Amendment.

 

[Antiderivative]

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

What the fuck are you rambling about. I fully quoted your single sentence which doesn't constitute as a paragraph.

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.

Speaking about rewriting history, the Soviet Union was imploding on itself. Without the timely deaths of Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko, Gorbachev came into power and was much more receptive to talks with Reagan, giving people more power, attacking old ways, and opening up the Soviet to the West. Gorbachev's perestroika was passed partially in response to irresistible subversion of the western counterculture. Soviets were craving rock n roll and blue jeans. It was only a matter of time before the cold war ended and the Soviet Union either imploded on itself or reformed.

Reagan certainly played a role. However, kooks like to claim that he single-handily defeated communism. Ironically, many still live in fear from it.

 

[kaz]

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

I already addressed this

Along with propping up the newly formed Russian Republic

This was after Reagan left office

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

The S&L crisis was was after Reagan left office

You guys forget so much stuff.

And you remember so much stuff that didn't happen. I am under no illusion Reagan was perfect. We should not have gone into Lebanon. He should not have agreed to raise taxes even though Tip lied to him he'd cut 3 dollars in spending for each dollar of tax increase. And he should have fought Tip harder on domestic sending cuts. But you're not getting anywhere as long as you continue to sight "The Liberal Revisionist Version" of American History.

 

[kaz]

Speaking about rewriting history, the Soviet Union was imploding on itself. Without the timely deaths of Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko, Gorbachev came into power and was much more receptive to talks with Reagan, giving people more power, attacking old ways, and opening up the Soviet to the West.

Reagan certainly played a role. However, kooks like to claim that he single-handily defeated communism. Ironically, many still live in fear from it.

You say this like it contradicts what I said. I said his priority was fighting communism. Absolutely they were imploding. Reagan helped it along by increasing our Defense spending by 1% of our GDP. And again showing your dis-genuine liberal arguments, Obama's spending over 20% and you don't bat an eye while bemoaning Reagan's 1% increase. Since our economy was roughly 10x the Soviet economy that was 10% of theirs and was a huge shove to a teetering economy.

Then Reagan negotiated START. Carter "limited" growth in nuclear arsenals. Reagan negotiated a "reduction." Liberal appeasement always fails when it comes to negotiating good treaties. Peace through strength is the only peace that has ever worked.

 

[kaz]

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.

I see your point. Anecdotal stories are far more persuasive then facts and statistics...

 

[Ravi]

Not allowing gay marriage is also being for big government.

Actually, the issue is enforcing gay marriage, not "allowing" it. The Government cannot prevent private people from entering into private agreements. That doesn't mean the government is entitled to enforce them.

The fact that you are advocating that the government regulate homosexual relationships is increasing government involvement, not decreasing it.

Is it too much to simply expect people to actually think these things out before making silly claims?

Sorry, man. Giving a set of rights to two people while denying two other people the same rights is letting morality (i.e. big government in this case) decide.

Now if you made the case that government could force churches to marry gays, I'd agree with you.

 

[candycorn]

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.

I see your point. Anecdotal stories are far more persuasive then facts and statistics...

Just telling you what General Powell said.

This link bears out what General Powell saw and said:

United States History

 

[Ravi]

Apparently there is one big government program the righties don't like: the water system.

That is very amusing.

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.

No, I don't realize that at all. One, the OP made no such distinction. And, two, I've known the Op long enough to understand what he means even when he isn't spelling out the nuts and bolts to idiots such as yourself.

 

[Antiderivative]

You say this like it contradicts what I said. I said his priority was fighting communism. Absolutely they were imploding. Reagan helped it along by increasing our Defense spending by 1% of our GDP. And again showing your dis-genuine liberal arguments, Obama's spending over 20% and you don't bat an eye while bemoaning Reagan's 1% increase. Since our economy was roughly 10x the Soviet economy that was 10% of theirs and was a huge shove to a teetering economy.

I am disingenuous? That is laugh. Obama is a train wreck who I didn't vote for and I am not a modern day liberal. However, this epitomizes dichotomous conservative thinking: you are either with us or against us.

Why the fuck do you lie? My original post highlighted numerous ways to cut back spending and reign in government, you disingenuous asshole.

Reagan hardly sped it up with military spending. The Soviets were already imploding, partially do to Afghanistan and other factors.

I will give Reagan and Schultz for breaking rank with the more hawkish Conservatives who opposed diplomacy. Reagan did excel at that. Imagine if Bush/Cheney were in power during that time? We would either be dead or glowing.

Then Reagan negotiated START. Carter "limited" growth in nuclear arsenals. Reagan negotiated a "reduction." Liberal appeasement always fails when it comes to negotiating good treaties. Peace through strength is the only peace that has ever worked.

Whatever you say. Peace through diplomacy, trade, and leading by examples are much better ways to achieve peace than just funneling massive amounts of resources to big an empire, which we currently have and its not keeping us safe. There is a direct correlation with American presence and radicalism.

Remember skippy, we are supposed to be a humble republic that leads by example, not an overextending empire that policies world with a strong military.

Its been fun, but I got to go. I have better things to do that correct your lies, misconceptions, and hang out on this right wing fuck fest of a board.

 

[kaz]

Sorry, man. Giving a set of rights to two people while denying two other people the same rights is letting morality (i.e. big government in this case) decide

Government not marrying gays is "big government?" You're a trip. Everything the government doesn't do is big government, isn't it Ravi?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I believe he already offered the citation.

The CONSTITUTION.

Where in the Constitution – cite the Article, Section, Amendment, or case law in support.

Or are you imagining that it has to use the phrase "limited government" in order for it to clearly demand limits on government?

One needn’t ‘imagine’ anything. Merely asking conservatives to justify their advocacy of ‘small’ government per Constitutional case law: number of Federal employees, number of Federal agencies, budgets and revenue, etc. What is the legal foundation of their claim.

Or is it a philosophical ‘size’ with regard to government overreach, intrusion, and preemption conservatives are concerned about?

Frankly, conservatives have a poor track record with regard to individual liberties; they have, for he most part, supported laws that violated citizens’ civil rights and allowed government excess – on the state and local level. Brown, Hernandez, Cooper, Mapp, Gideon, Griswold, Loving, Roe, Plyler, Casey, and Lawrence are but a few of many, many Supreme Court cases where conservatives sought to uphold laws that violated privacy and due process rights, that allowed government to dictate to the people how to live their lives.

That's a states rights issue.

I fully support any state to have up to and including tyranny. I simply won't live there.

There is no such thing as ‘states’ rights,’ and consequently no ‘issues,’ Cooper v Aaron (1958). One does not forfeit his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence.

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.

Incorrect.

Laws passed by Congress, including welfare statutes, are entitled to a “presumption of constitutionality,” and will be invalidated only upon a “plain
showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.” United States v.
Morrison (2000), from Thomas More Law Center v. Obama (2011).

A prima facie case or lawsuit might be considered ‘open and shut,’ but a test of a law’s constitutionality must be determined only in Federal court.

 

[kaz]

I am disingenuous? That is laugh. Obama is a train wreck who I didn't vote for and I am not a modern day liberal. However, this epitomizes dichotomous conservative thinking: you are either with us or against us

I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. And I have a lot of disagreement with Reagan's policies. Here's an example of the shit you make up because it suits you.

Remember skippy, we are supposed to be a humble republic that leads by example, not an overextending empire that policies world with a strong military

I have said nothing regarding foreign excursions but that I'm against them. I am for defending the US. I did advocate a strong military and nothing more. You lecture me for what you do and I don't. Make shit up.

 

[Avatar4321]

Not allowing gay marriage is also being for big government.

Actually, the issue is enforcing gay marriage, not "allowing" it. The Government cannot prevent private people from entering into private agreements. That doesn't mean the government is entitled to enforce them.

The fact that you are advocating that the government regulate homosexual relationships is increasing government involvement, not decreasing it.

Is it too much to simply expect people to actually think these things out before making silly claims?

Sorry, man. Giving a set of rights to two people while denying two other people the same rights is letting morality (i.e. big government in this case) decide.

Now if you made the case that government could force churches to marry gays, I'd agree with you.

First, Government doesn't give anyone rights.

Second, People are free to associate with whomever they want in this nation. Nothing is stopping homosexual people from entering a relationship together and calling it whatever they choose to call it.

Third, giving the government power to regulate homosexual relationships is giving the government more power no matter how you try to pretend otherwise.

Conclusion, if you are for limiting government power, you would oppose government regulating and interfering in homosexual relationships.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Very true, and that's why it is impossible to trust them.

 

[Ravi]

Actually, the issue is enforcing gay marriage, not "allowing" it. The Government cannot prevent private people from entering into private agreements. That doesn't mean the government is entitled to enforce them.

The fact that you are advocating that the government regulate homosexual relationships is increasing government involvement, not decreasing it.

Is it too much to simply expect people to actually think these things out before making silly claims?

Sorry, man. Giving a set of rights to two people while denying two other people the same rights is letting morality (i.e. big government in this case) decide.

Now if you made the case that government could force churches to marry gays, I'd agree with you.

First, Government doesn't give anyone rights.

Second, People are free to associate with whomever they want in this nation. Nothing is stopping homosexual people from entering a relationship together and calling it whatever they choose to call it.

Third, giving the government power to regulate homosexual relationships is giving the government more power no matter how you try to pretend otherwise.

Conclusion, if you are for limiting government power, you would oppose government regulating and interfering in homosexual relationships.

Government isn't supposed to give people rights, but it does.

 

[Valerie]

Sorry, man. Giving a set of rights to two people while denying two other people the same rights is letting morality (i.e. big government in this case) decide

Government not marrying gays is "big government?" You're a trip. Everything the government doesn't do is big government, isn't it Ravi?

Marriage laws are statutes which constitutionally require equality for all citizens.


"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."



Politicians thinking they can petition voters against certain lifestyle choices, as if the majority rules, when it is really an issue of freedom and equality, IS indeed government overreach...

 

[boedicca]

Funny how some want the peoples power smaller and smaller.

You have to wonder what their aims are.

Some come right out and state their aims.

to shrink it to a size they can drown in the bath tub.

The bigger the government, the smaller the power/liberty of each individual.

Why do you want people turned into Big Government Serfs?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Funniest poll results I've seen on here by far.

 

[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.

Very true, and that's why it is impossible to trust them.

Nope. Not only NOT "very" true, but not true at all.

And it is impossible to trust libbies.

I heard our bumbling lying rodent of a President lying again in prime time and he turned my stomach. It's sad, but some imbeciles actually believe a lot of the absolutely rancid lies he told.

Not that Speaker Boehner was such an articulate spokesman for the opposition, but at least HE (unlike the scumbag President) didn't deliberately lie to the American people.

 

[shintao]

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.

Very true, and that's why it is impossible to trust them.

Nope. Not only NOT "very" true, but not true at all.

And it is impossible to trust libbies.

I heard our bumbling lying rodent of a President lying again in prime time and he turned my stomach. It's sad, but some imbeciles actually believe a lot of the absolutely rancid lies he told.

Not that Speaker Boehner was such an articulate spokesman for the opposition, but at least HE (unlike the scumbag President) didn't deliberately lie to the American people.

Ommisions are lies.