Can't govern if U don't believe in Government

[sealybobo]

ThomHartmann.com - "You Can't Govern if You Don't Believe in Government"

Reagan $200 Billion Deficit

HW Bush $300 Billion Deficit

Clinton $200 Billion SURPLUS

GW Bush $482 Billion Deficit

It was Reagan who began the deliberate and intentional destruction of the United States of America when he famously cracked (and then incessantly repeated): "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

Reagan, like George W. Bush after him, failed to understand that when people come together into community, and then into nationhood, that they organize themselves to protect themselves from predators, both human and corporate, both domestic and foreign. This form of organization is called government.

But the Reagan/Bush ideologues don't "believe" in government, in anything other than a military and police capacity. Government should punish, they agree, but it should never nurture, protect, or defend individuals. Nurturing and protecting, they suggest, is the more appropriate role of religious institutions, private charities, families, and - perhaps most important - corporations.

Let the corporations handle your old-age pension. Let the corporations decide how much protection we and our environment need from their toxics. Let the corporations decide what we're paid. Let the corporations decide what doctor we can see, when, and for what purpose.

 

[DiamondDave]

wow

More copy/paste from a left-wing loony site... what a shock

NOT

The "surplus" myth has been debunked over and over again

 

[jillian]

If you hate horses, you shouldn't run a stable.

If you hate kids, you shouldn't run a school.

If you hate government, you shouldn't be in government.

Respond to that, perhaps?

P.S. The only ones who try to disparage Clinton's surplus are right wing loony sites. So there ya go.

 

[sealybobo]

wow

More copy/paste from a left-wing loony site... what a shock

NOT

The "surplus" myth has been debunked over and over again

Dave, it is very simple. Forget about whether you call it a surplus or not. Why do you avoid the fact that Clinton was PLUS 200 and Bush is NEGATIVE 400. That's a difference of $600 billion dollars.

Fine, Clinton didn't have a surplus. But he still did better than the other three guys. Agreed?

 

[Abelian Sea]

If you hate horses, you shouldn't run a stable.

If you hate kids, you shouldn't run a school.

If you hate government, you shouldn't be in government.

That third seems to break the pattern. Horses and kids are the "subjects" of stables and schools, so shouldn't the third read,

"If you hate citizens, you shouldn't be in government."

?

I mean, what if someone hates stables but loves horses? Could they do a good job working at or running a stable, perhaps seeing the stable as a necessary evil? (assuming they had the basic competence to do well) It seems to me that it would depend on whether their love of horses outwieghed their hate of the stable to the point that they keep the horses' best interests their true priority.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

A SWING AND A MISS!

Government has a role...but a very LIMITED role. That role is to provide a civil society free of force or fraud thus enabling free people to live their lives unhindered by crime and violence. That is why conservatives favor law enforcement and strong military and--to a less talked about sense--the establishment of "weights and measures" enumerated in the Constitution and nothing else NOT so enumerated.

Conservatives believe that when government is used to provide for every facet of life, i.e. healthcare, education, welfare, retirement it becomes disasterous because:

A) people become dependent upon the program amking them unable/unwilling to provide for themselves thus adding burdens to the government rather than relieving burdens on society.

B) government is inherently unresponsive. Failed programs never die, they just grow as the solution is always touted as more funding. Reform is slow because it has to trickle up from the grassroots. What hope is there for a failed school system in Colorado if the electorally weighted New York has no desire to change the system?

C) those who administer the programs become addicted to it. If unemployment were ever reduced to acceptable limits the bureaucrats at the unemployment office would be unemployed. It is why so many bureaucracies are change and performance adverse.

D) big government programs try to mash 300 million indiviual lives into one-size-fits-all solutions. The foundres never said we couldn't have healthcare etc they just said it would be smarter and freer to constrain such things to the individual states. 50 working laboratories learning from each other's successes and mistakes.

E) whatever facet of your life you cede to the government you suffer a corresponding lack of personal freedom. Take public education: so many progressives despise homeschooling because they see "white trash fundies" teaching creationism. Try flipping the script; what if the fundies insinuated themselves into the public education system and displaced the progressivist NEA? Would you still support a system that holds children captive to the ideological bent of whoever happens to be running that system on a given day? Try buying you own health insurance in Massachussetts or homeschooling your children. You are heavily penalized through taxes thus forcing you to accept reduced freedom by remaining on the public system.

 

[jillian]

That third seems to break the pattern. Horses and kids are the "subjects" of stables and schools, so shouldn't the third read,

"If you hate citizens, you shouldn't be in government."

?

I mean, what if someone hates stables but loves horses? Could they do a good job working at or running a stable, perhaps seeing the stable as a necessary evil? (assuming they had the basic competence to do well) It seems to me that it would depend on whether their love of horses outwieghed their hate of the stable to the point that they keep the horses' best interests their true priority.

Fair enough. lol... a bit literal, but ok.

How about...

If you hate stables, you shouldn't be a stablekeeper.

If you hate schools, you shouldn't run one.

If you hate government, you shouldn't run government.

 

[ignatov]

Republicans want corporations to be completely unregulated. So they tell us that government doesn't work and when they get elected they work as hard as they can to PROVE it doesn't work.

I wouldn't turn my car over to a mechanic who thought internal combustion engines don't work.

 

[jillian]

Republicans want corporations to be completely unregulated. So they tell us that government doesn't work and when they get elected they work as hard as they can to PROVE it doesn't work.

I wouldn't turn my car over to a mechanic who thought internal combustion engines don't work.

better example than mine. thanks.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dave, it is very simple. Forget about whether you call it a surplus or not. Why do you avoid the fact that Clinton was PLUS 200 and Bush is NEGATIVE 400. That's a difference of $600 billion dollars.

Fine, Clinton didn't have a surplus. But he still did better than the other three guys. Agreed?

He had debt increase EVERY year he was in office... the "surplus" is a liberal myth... there was NO FUCKING PLUS... please look at the actual numbers and ALL of the numbers associated with the budget and debt

I also saw the spending he cut in things like the military while keeping welfare handouts.... I also remember waiting 2 months for a paycheck because of his military budget cuts

He did not do "better"... he pandered to the "gimme gimme gimme, because I am lazy" handout takers and went against the things that the government is support to pay for and run