Do you favor smaller government?

[Two Thumbs]

If you support any current candidate for president besides Ron Paul, you support big government.

Ron Paul has no problem with big government at the state level. You also forgot Gary Johnson.

That's a states rights issue.

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

 

[Sallow]

Charities and churches can help people from starving and we educated people better before the department of education was put into place.

But yes let's end a lot of those things, and I don't view having my brains taxed out and government spending us into oblivion as a "benefit" of big government.

I don't see how one could look at the federal budget with all the spending and view cops as a big government thing. We have a big government now whether it's reps or dems running things so don't worry, your side is winning and has been all 26 years of my life.

No they haven't. Ever. People are better educated now..in this country..then at any time in it's history.

Your being "taxed" into obilivion? Really? How old are you? Taxes are at their lowest point in some 40 years. And government is growing. Not in just the things you don't like..but in things you like.

"My side" is winning? Winning what? What's the prize? I wasn't aware there was one.

 

[Steelplate]

depends on the role...not the size. I prefer that our government protect it's citizens. As long as citizens are being productive, they should be able to live a life free from not having to worry about basic human necessities. That means either real family supporting wages, or government subsidies.

 

[Sallow]

You have police go there, arrest everyone who's fighting and let the court decide which individuals are guilty/innocent.

Then if the owner of the coal plant finds workers who will work for what the other laborers won't and do a good job, hire them, if he can't find such workers, work out a deal with them.

Nothing else is necessary.

Police? A court? Work out a "deal"?

Isn't that big government? And interferring with an internal business decision?

Having government is not big government

You're being idiotic

No I am not.

At the turn of the century..police were non existent or very small in number.

American History.

It's really very interesting. Crack open a book sometime.

The scenario I gave isn't out of the blue..it's cobbled from things that really happened.

 

[Liability]

If you support any current candidate for president besides Ron Paul, you support big government.

Ron Paul has no problem with big government at the state level. You also forgot Gary Johnson.

That's a states rights issue.

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

I don't go so far.

STATES may CERTAINLY experiment in ways that are not permissible for the Federal Government.

However, there are certain BASE RIGHTS held by all Americans with which the STATES are not authorized to interfere. When they do (or try to), I am content that the Federal Government is empowered under the Constitution to intercede.

 

[Modbert]

That's a states rights issue.

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

I don't. And therefore you support Big Government. Like I was saying earlier, the phrase big government does not just have to apply to the Federal Government.

 

[Si modo]

I don't think so. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Those states had unconstitutional laws. The fed stepped in.

It worked as designed.

And how long did it take for the Federal Government to be able to step in?

States had laws banning interracial marriage until the Supreme Court stepped in. There are a lot of people who see that kind of ruling on the part of the Courts as itself being unconstitutional.

Then if they do, they are wrong.

The fed also stepped into states laws by declaring criminalization of sodomy as unconstitutional.

It really does work. But following the law and the supreme law does take time.

 

[shintao]

That maybe so, yet Paul still does not go far enough, and doesn't suggest removing the spend thrifts from congress, taxing the rich or end corporate aid or foreign aid. He is a real ***** in the game, and a lame duck. Nadar had balls.

Actually Paul endorses all those goals. Nadar's a good guy too. He and Paul are on the same page more often than not.

Thanks for the heads up. I just have missed it I suppose.

 

[Liability]

That's a states rights issue.

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

I don't. And therefore you support Big Government. Like I was saying earlier, the phrase big government does not just have to apply to the Federal Government.

Actually, the concern with Big Government is prety much limited to the Federal Government.

It is the authority of the FEDERAL Government which was LIMITED by the Constitution.


The States were (and are) still sovereigns, however, even under the Federal umbrella; and the limits on THEIR authority are not (with some exceptions) found in the Federal Constitution.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Charities and churches can help people from starving and we educated people better before the department of education was put into place.

But yes let's end a lot of those things, and I don't view having my brains taxed out and government spending us into oblivion as a "benefit" of big government.

I don't see how one could look at the federal budget with all the spending and view cops as a big government thing. We have a big government now whether it's reps or dems running things so don't worry, your side is winning and has been all 26 years of my life.

No they haven't. Ever. People are better educated now..in this country..then at any time in it's history.

Your being "taxed" into obilivion? Really? How old are you? Taxes are at their lowest point in some 40 years. And government is growing. Not in just the things you don't like..but in things you like.

"My side" is winning? Winning what? What's the prize? I wasn't aware there was one.

Not saying you're wrong but I'll need a link to the education line.

I didn't say our taxes haven't been out of control that entire 40 years. I'm certain you and I would have a different view of what big taxes are.

How Much of Every Dollar Goes to Taxes? | eHow.com


5
Add together the amounts determined above to figure out how much of every one of your dollars goes to taxes. The National Bureau of Economic Research has released a study which determined that on average, 40% of American money goes to taxes each year.


Your side, the big government side is winning, and will win forever.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Police? A court? Work out a "deal"?

Isn't that big government? And interferring with an internal business decision?

Having government is not big government

You're being idiotic

No I am not.

At the turn of the century..police were non existent or very small in number.

American History.

It's really very interesting. Crack open a book sometime.

The scenario I gave isn't out of the blue..it's cobbled from things that really happened.

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.

 

[Modbert]

Then if they do, they are wrong.

The fed also stepped into states laws by declaring criminalization of sodomy as unconstitutional.

It really does work. But following the law and the supreme law does take time.

Two Thumbs is a perfect example of what I was just talking about. Someone who goes as far as supporting tyranny for the states.

Like I said before, there are plenty of people who see laws like declaring criminalization of sodomy as unconstitutional being unconstitutional itself.

Plessy vs. Ferguson was a 7-1 vote when it passed. It didn't become popular enough to overturn it until 60 years later. The states not only made their own laws but until 1913 they also sent senators who were elected by state legislators. And as we all know, the House is always careful about what it does because the people are soon up for re-election.

And who either votes to allow or not allow a certain member into the Supreme Court? Congress.

What I'm essentially saying is that states can be just as oppressive and "big government" as their federal counterpart, but some people tend to ignore that when the argument of what is "smaller government" comes up.

 

[Sallow]

depends on the role...not the size. I prefer that our government protect it's citizens. As long as citizens are being productive, they should be able to live a life free from not having to worry about basic human necessities. That means either real family supporting wages, or government subsidies.

Here's the funny thing. Of late, Conservatives have had a very hostile attitude toward labor. Well if what they are looking for..is that everyone turn 'consultant' and form guilds where prices for services are agreed upon by everyone in the guild..you are looking at a very different labor force. And one that might actually wind up cost more in the long run. We've set up a system that keeps labor relatively cheap, while at the same time, not condemning to a life of squalor. Things might change dramatically if that changes.

 

[rdean]

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.

Under Obama the size of government has shrunk by 500,000.

Funny, here is a guy that runs two companies and thinks Republican Policies are disasterous.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tion-has-been-our-own-federal-government.html

 

[Sallow]

Having government is not big government

You're being idiotic

No I am not.

At the turn of the century..police were non existent or very small in number.

American History.

It's really very interesting. Crack open a book sometime.

The scenario I gave isn't out of the blue..it's cobbled from things that really happened.

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.

 

[Si modo]

Then if they do, they are wrong.

The fed also stepped into states laws by declaring criminalization of sodomy as unconstitutional.

It really does work. But following the law and the supreme law does take time.

Two Thumbs is a perfect example of what I was just talking about. Someone who goes as far as supporting tyranny for the states.

Like I said before, there are plenty of people who see laws like declaring criminalization of sodomy as unconstitutional being unconstitutional itself.

Plessy vs. Ferguson was a 7-1 vote when it passed. It didn't become popular enough to overturn it until 60 years later. The states not only made their own laws but until 1913 they also sent senators who were elected by state legislators. And as we all know, the House is always careful about what it does because the people are soon up for re-election.

And who either votes to allow or not allow a certain member into the Supreme Court? Congress.

What I'm essentially saying is that states can be just as oppressive and "big government" as their federal counterpart, but some people tend to ignore that when the argument of what is "smaller government" comes up.

Yes, they can be just as oppressive. And, our system has a check in place for when that happens.

Life isn't perfect so shit happens. That's why our system is designed with so many checks and balances. It's better to check when needed than to oppress from the start with authoritarian rule.

 

[Dr.Drock]

No I am not.

At the turn of the century..police were non existent or very small in number.

American History.

It's really very interesting. Crack open a book sometime.

The scenario I gave isn't out of the blue..it's cobbled from things that really happened.

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.

Private companies can't provide clean water?


I'd rather get a bottle of Dasani than a bottle of government water.

 

[Modbert]

Yes, they can be just as oppressive. And, our system has a check in place for when that happens.

Life isn't perfect so shit happens. That's why our system is designed with so many checks and balances. It's better to check when needed than to oppress from the start with authoritarian rule.

Again, the definition of "when needed" varies from person to person. Two Thumbs and yourself clearly have a different idea of when needed. I'm sure yourself and I have a different idea of when needed.

What ends up deciding "when needed" it seems most of the time is the majority. And what ends up happening is that the rights of the minority end up getting lost frequently. This has happened in our history and it is only with time that these mistakes have been changed.

Just a thought.

 

[Modbert]

Private companies can't provide clean water?


I'd rather get a bottle of Dasani than a bottle of government water.

Do you support private prisons?

 

[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.

Under Obama the size of government has shrunk by 500,000.

Funny, here is a guy that runs two companies and thinks Republican Policies are disasterous.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...tion-has-been-our-own-federal-government.html

The "size" of government has instead increased under the Obama Administration:

Has America's government shrunk? - CSMonitor.com

And in addition to the increase in Federal spending (gee, what a shock), the TRUTH is that there has been an increase in the Federal WORKFORCE under President Obama, too. That's NOT a decrease. It's an INCREASE.

The phony figure of 500,000 fewer "government" jobs is (a) wrong in and of itself (it's more like 400,000) and (b) actually the figure for ALL government (Fed., State and local), not just Federal (which has increased).

Here's The TRUTH About The Growing Federal Workforce Under Obama