Do you favor smaller government?

[Ravi]

Anyone that supports the death penalty is not for smaller government.

I oppose the death penalty, but I'm not getting your reasoning on that one. Punishing criminals is big government? Explain. Even libertarians support having a penal system.

I said nothing about punishment.

Giving the government the power to decide who lives and dies is big government.

 

[Ravi]

Um...pee tests to NOT pay people welfare checks is MORE government?

Yep.

You're too funny. Hey, lazy drug ass, you're NOT getting a check of my money because I'm for BIG government!

I can't help it if you're stupid.

 

[Jarhead]

Anyone that supports the death penalty is not for smaller government.

The fderal government is involved in the death penalty?

 

[Ravi]

Anyone that supports the death penalty is not for smaller government.

The fderal government is involved in the death penalty?

States are also capable of being "big government."

 

[Truthmatters]

Funny how some want the peoples power smaller and smaller.

The gov't is not the people. Do you think your voice matters in Washington compared to McDonnell Douglas and Goldman Sachs?

Yes it was designed to be the peoples power.

That is why letting corporations have "voices" is insane.

 

[Ravi]

Not allowing gay marriage is also being for big government.

 

[Truthmatters]

No.

Not unless we shrink the population and the size of the country.

I assume this question is referring to the size of the federal government...and I am all for a smaller federal government.

The size of the federal government should vary based on the amount of states...not on the size of the popultaion

Do you know what a representative is?

 

[Kuros]

Anyone that supports the death penalty is not for smaller government.

The fderal government is involved in the death penalty?

Yes, actually, the Federal gov't judicial system may enforce the death penalty.

But there shouldn't be any Federal criminal statutes. At least none that would apply outside of DC and the territories.

 

[Ravi]

If you oppose a woman's right to choose, you are for big government.

 

[Kuros]

Funny how some want the peoples power smaller and smaller.

The gov't is not the people. Do you think your voice matters in Washington compared to McDonnell Douglas and Goldman Sachs?

Yes it was designed to be the peoples power.

That is why letting corporations have "voices" is insane.

Corporate capture of the Federal gov't predates Citizens United. Halliburton's business dropped off years before that decision. Even if you bar corporate speech, those who profit from the corporations, individuals, will speak for them.

 

[Truthmatters]

Yes it does and citizens united just amps up the purchase of our government out from under neath us.


It is what the right has been battleing for for decades.

They want the peoples power gone so the wealthy can be kings again

 

[auditor0007]

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.

Some just want smaller government because they don't want to pay for anything that doesn't directly benefit them. Most people though, at least want efficient government. The real question is how efficient is our government. In many areas, it is very efficient. In others, not so much. Despite the argument to the contrary by conservatives, Medicare is very efficient, especially when compared to private health insurance. The Post Office is fairly efficient despite losing money. However, we know there is massive waste in many programs. The military comes to mind when I think of wasteful spending. Not that spending on the military is wasteful, but we all have heard the stories of waste in the military budget with proven examples. We also have a number of programs that seem to overlap each other. That is not efficient.

So for me, it's not a matter of bigger or smaller government, it's a matter of efficient government. In many cases, I think programs could be run at the local level rather than through the federal government. Case in point is education. Do we really need a Dept of Education? How many billions are spent and what is the return? Why not let each state handle their own education issues? They are already set up to do so, so why send money to Washington to spend on education, then see a large percentage of it be wasted, just to basically return the unwasted money back to the states anyway?

 

[Two Thumbs]

I'm for smaller.


Actually, I'm for better, and since there are so many Redundant Dept of Redundancies, smaller will make it better and more efficient.

Shrink it down so it can be drowned in a bathtub is hyperbole.

 

[Stashman]

The gov't is not the people. Do you think your voice matters in Washington compared to McDonnell Douglas and Goldman Sachs?

Yes it was designed to be the peoples power.

That is why letting corporations have "voices" is insane.

Corporate capture of the Federal gov't predates Citizens United. Halliburton's business dropped off years before that decision. Even if you bar corporate speech, those who profit from the corporations, individuals, will speak for them.

Cooperation's should have a voice because business is a big part of our economy. However, they should not have any right to contribute to campaigns directly as we are seeing today. The outcome of the vote should never come down to who out pays the politicians. That's the way it is today, and that's one of the reasons we are in this mess today.

 

[Kuros]

Yes it was designed to be the peoples power.

That is why letting corporations have "voices" is insane.

Corporate capture of the Federal gov't predates Citizens United. Halliburton's business dropped off years before that decision. Even if you bar corporate speech, those who profit from the corporations, individuals, will speak for them.

Cooperation's should have a voice because business is a big part of our economy. However, they should not have any right to contribute to campaigns directly as we are seeing today. The outcome of the vote should never come down to who out pays the politicians. That's the way it is today, and that's one of the reasons we are in this mess today.

It doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter. You guys gather up the support for the Constitutional amendment barring corporate campaign funding, and I'll support it. But the corporations will still have a voice. Goldman Sachs will still short our entire country when it profits them. McDonnell Douglas will still sell us more aircraft than we should ever need. GE will pay very little in taxes (except maybe to China), and the oil companies will get massive tax breaks.

 

[kaz]

Anyone that supports the death penalty is not for smaller government.

I oppose the death penalty, but I'm not getting your reasoning on that one. Punishing criminals is big government? Explain. Even libertarians support having a penal system.

I said nothing about punishment.

Giving the government the power to decide who lives and dies is big government.

Government runs our penal system, something even libertarians support. Our choices are anarchy or big government. Gotcha.

 

[Jarhead]

If you oppose a woman's right to choose, you are for big government.

I am pro choice....but for those that oppose it...it does not mean larger government if abortions were illegal.
The same state agency that enforces any laws, would enforce that one....and it would not require any more people to do so.

So you are being silly with your little "if you oppose, you are for big government" crap.

I look forward to the day that you actually engage in a debate...

 

[kaz]

Yep.

You're too funny. Hey, lazy drug ass, you're NOT getting a check of my money because I'm for BIG government!

I can't help it if you're stupid.

I want any excuse to cut welfare checks and you say that's big government, cutting welfare checks, and "I" am stupid?

I'm for ending the wars in the middle east and bringing our troops home, that's big government too, isn't it bimbo?

 

[DiamondDave]

Smaller in size, scope, and spending.. but the powers it constitutionally have, should be very strong indeed in those constitutionally mandated areas

 

[Ravi]

If you oppose a woman's right to choose, you are for big government.

I am pro choice....but for those that oppose it...it does not mean larger government if abortions were illegal.
The same state agency that enforces any laws, would enforce that one....and it would not require any more people to do so.

So you are being silly with your little "if you oppose, you are for big government" crap.

I look forward to the day that you actually engage in a debate...

I look forward to the day when you can actually grasp a concept. Big Government being the one in question, today.