"Government" is Not the Problem.

[AVG-JOE]

The answer is Appropriate Government...

And that starts with a fair and simple tax code. ​

 

[Desperado]

There is no place on earth where the government is not a problem, it is just a matter of how much of a problem it is

 

[Slade3200]

The guns in your house are there because you have permission to have them from the government.

You illustrate your ignorance of the Constitution. The guns in our houses are there because the Founding Fathers (not the government) put it in the Constitution so the government could not deny us that right.

The Constitution IS the government. The Founding Fathers are dead and buried and the only reason you and I can keep guns in our houses is that the current group of living humans who've sworn to uphold The Constitution are defending our rights and permitting us to keep them.

This isn't a "can't beat 'em, join 'em" situation... this is a "won't join 'em, leave" situation.

The Constitution is not the government. It's the law under which the government is required to operate. And many in the government don't like that, including and especially our POTUS but they have no choice. If the Constitution was the government, they would be able to change it at will..

You're right... If there was only a way to Amend the constitution then those greedy law breakers in the government would really have us by the balls. Think of the horrible things that they would add... wait a minute

 

[Slade3200]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

CUT SPENDING and the problem reduces itself...

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

 

[Slade3200]

The answer is Appropriate Government...

And that starts with a fair and simple tax code. ​

Yes, like little to nothing for poor, middle class and small business and the rest from the big dogs... That sounds fair to me

 

[Boss]

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

You're being a little over-dramatic but you're making a valid point. Whenever we get around to actually cutting our budget, no one wants to give up anything. It is easy to say you want to cut spending but that means you're going to have to do without things. Departments are going to have to be slashed, people are going to have to be sent home. Services are going to have to be curtailed or eliminated entirely.

Some things we spend money on are important and address major problems, and when we eliminate their funding, the problems roar back. It all has to be considered pragmatically and we all have to be mature enough to understand it's not going to be easy and everyone isn't going to be happy.

People on the right say "cut the entitlement programs" but do you want to go to the store and walk by the homeless single mother and her hungry kids in the parking lot? People on the left say "cut the defense budget" but do you want to turn entire military towns into ghost towns overnight? Others will say "cut the waste, fraud and abuse" and I'm all for that but the problem is... don't we already do that? If not, shouldn't we be? Do we really need a law to tell us to?

Here is the problem..... Governments, by their very nature, continue to grow bigger and gobble up more and more individual liberty. There is no way to prevent that, it is an inevitability. The best we can ever do is hope to control the growth of government. That's a problem as long as society continues to elect people on the basis of what they are going to do for them. Everybody, right, left or center, votes for people on the basis of what they promise to do... which is to grow government.

 

[Manonthestreet]

So your right to life is at the whim of the govt should they decide to revoke their "permission".......

Of course... Why the fuck do you think I choose to live under a government contract that I have a say-so in?

"Government", at least in the good ol' USA, is you, me and all the other Monkeys who choose to live under this particular contract.


Read your post as "So your right to life is at the whim of the govt should WE decide to revoke OUR "permission"....."


If you don't trust your fellow Americans, say so. Fearing the government is like fearing a gun. It's just a tool.

Case ya didnt know American experiment is based on distrust of govt....so yeah I dont trust a large swath of the general public who allow and parrot lies for power..............and check of the definition of inalienable.......you have a strange idea of what rights are

 

[S.J.]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

CUT SPENDING and the problem reduces itself...

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

Wrong. Fat can be cut without cutting the meat. Cut the fat and interests rates come down, unemployment comes down, and revenue goes up.

 

[Slade3200]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

CUT SPENDING and the problem reduces itself...

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

Wrong. Fat can be cut without cutting the meat. Cut the fat and interests rates come down, unemployment comes down, and revenue goes up.

It's a fine and dandy talking point. Just cut some fat. Again, that means jobs and investments get cut. While I agree we need to be much smarter and more efficient with our spending, there needs to be a very smart and deliberate plan, we can't just simply cut spending

 

[S.J.]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

CUT SPENDING and the problem reduces itself...

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

Wrong. Fat can be cut without cutting the meat. Cut the fat and interests rates come down, unemployment comes down, and revenue goes up.

It's a fine and dandy talking point. Just cut some fat. Again, that means jobs and investments get cut. While I agree we need to be much smarter and more efficient with our spending, there needs to be a very smart and deliberate plan, we can't just simply cut spending

No, it doesn't. It means unnecessary spending gets cut, which means the deficit comes down a little, which means there is more money available for business start-ups, which means more jobs are created (real jobs, not government jobs). Do you know the difference between real jobs and government jobs and why we need more "real jobs" and less "government jobs"?

 

[Slade3200]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

CUT SPENDING and the problem reduces itself...

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

Wrong. Fat can be cut without cutting the meat. Cut the fat and interests rates come down, unemployment comes down, and revenue goes up.

It's a fine and dandy talking point. Just cut some fat. Again, that means jobs and investments get cut. While I agree we need to be much smarter and more efficient with our spending, there needs to be a very smart and deliberate plan, we can't just simply cut spending

No, it doesn't. It means unnecessary spending gets cut, which means the deficit comes down a little, which means there is more money available for business start-ups, which means more jobs are created (real jobs, not government jobs). Do you know the difference between real jobs and government jobs and why we need more "real jobs" and less "government jobs"?

I agree, we can start by cutting 7 million dollar Benghazi reports

 

[S.J.]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

CUT SPENDING and the problem reduces itself...

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

Wrong. Fat can be cut without cutting the meat. Cut the fat and interests rates come down, unemployment comes down, and revenue goes up.

It's a fine and dandy talking point. Just cut some fat. Again, that means jobs and investments get cut. While I agree we need to be much smarter and more efficient with our spending, there needs to be a very smart and deliberate plan, we can't just simply cut spending

No, it doesn't. It means unnecessary spending gets cut, which means the deficit comes down a little, which means there is more money available for business start-ups, which means more jobs are created (real jobs, not government jobs). Do you know the difference between real jobs and government jobs and why we need more "real jobs" and less "government jobs"?

I agree, we can start by cutting 7 million dollar Benghazi reports

Gee, how did I know you would throw out a straw man at this point? What's wrong, can't answer my question?

 

[Slade3200]

Cut spending and our unemployment spikes, our military weakens, and our infrastructure crumbles... Think the problem needs a little more thought than simply "cut spending"

Wrong. Fat can be cut without cutting the meat. Cut the fat and interests rates come down, unemployment comes down, and revenue goes up.

It's a fine and dandy talking point. Just cut some fat. Again, that means jobs and investments get cut. While I agree we need to be much smarter and more efficient with our spending, there needs to be a very smart and deliberate plan, we can't just simply cut spending

No, it doesn't. It means unnecessary spending gets cut, which means the deficit comes down a little, which means there is more money available for business start-ups, which means more jobs are created (real jobs, not government jobs). Do you know the difference between real jobs and government jobs and why we need more "real jobs" and less "government jobs"?

I agree, we can start by cutting 7 million dollar Benghazi reports

Gee, how did I know you would throw out a straw man at this point? What's wrong, can't answer my question?

I absolutely support private sector jobs over government jobs.

 

[S.J.]

Wrong. Fat can be cut without cutting the meat. Cut the fat and interests rates come down, unemployment comes down, and revenue goes up.

It's a fine and dandy talking point. Just cut some fat. Again, that means jobs and investments get cut. While I agree we need to be much smarter and more efficient with our spending, there needs to be a very smart and deliberate plan, we can't just simply cut spending

No, it doesn't. It means unnecessary spending gets cut, which means the deficit comes down a little, which means there is more money available for business start-ups, which means more jobs are created (real jobs, not government jobs). Do you know the difference between real jobs and government jobs and why we need more "real jobs" and less "government jobs"?

I agree, we can start by cutting 7 million dollar Benghazi reports

Gee, how did I know you would throw out a straw man at this point? What's wrong, can't answer my question?

I absolutely support private sector jobs over government jobs.

Then you should be agreeing with me and wanting to cut waste from our government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What do you fail to understand, the government didn't write the Constitution, it was created by the Constitution, written by the STATES.

Funny statement... But I believe you are mistaken. The constitution was written and enacted by the powers at be. The ones who controlled the military, the ones who governed the territory and people. It only became law of the land because these people who governed... Aka the government, made it so

I sorry you are so ignorant of history, at that time the States ruled their own territory and ran their own militias, they had a pretty loose confederation at the time, but each State was sovereign and still are with the exception of the limited powers they ceded to the feds. Why do you think the States can change the Constitution at will with no involvement from the feds?

I get it, was still written by the governing powers.

Not a central government. You DON'T get it.

I do get it... It was a government made up of the states and they expanded to a central government... Either way the ones that control and govern are the people made the laws. Brilliant document they created btw. Why are we even arguing over this?

Because the idiot you’re arguing with is functioning under the wrongheaded notion that the states have ‘more power’ than the Federal government, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And don’t bother citing Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, like most on the right he’ll ignore it and remain willfully ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING is THE PROBLEM

CUT SPENDING and the problem reduces itself...

Nonsense.

Childish, simplistic tripe.

 

[Slade3200]

It's a fine and dandy talking point. Just cut some fat. Again, that means jobs and investments get cut. While I agree we need to be much smarter and more efficient with our spending, there needs to be a very smart and deliberate plan, we can't just simply cut spending

No, it doesn't. It means unnecessary spending gets cut, which means the deficit comes down a little, which means there is more money available for business start-ups, which means more jobs are created (real jobs, not government jobs). Do you know the difference between real jobs and government jobs and why we need more "real jobs" and less "government jobs"?

I agree, we can start by cutting 7 million dollar Benghazi reports

Gee, how did I know you would throw out a straw man at this point? What's wrong, can't answer my question?

I absolutely support private sector jobs over government jobs.

Then you should be agreeing with me and wanting to cut waste from our government.

I do agree. I'll even click on the check mark for you

 

[Billy000]

The guns in your house are there because you have permission to have them from the government.

​

You illustrate your ignorance of the Constitution. The guns in our houses are there because the Founding Fathers (not the government) put it in the Constitution so the government could not deny us that right.

So the founding fathers weren't government?

 

[OKTexas]

Funny statement... But I believe you are mistaken. The constitution was written and enacted by the powers at be. The ones who controlled the military, the ones who governed the territory and people. It only became law of the land because these people who governed... Aka the government, made it so

I sorry you are so ignorant of history, at that time the States ruled their own territory and ran their own militias, they had a pretty loose confederation at the time, but each State was sovereign and still are with the exception of the limited powers they ceded to the feds. Why do you think the States can change the Constitution at will with no involvement from the feds?

I get it, was still written by the governing powers.

Not a central government. You DON'T get it.

I do get it... It was a government made up of the states and they expanded to a central government... Either way the ones that control and govern are the people made the laws. Brilliant document they created btw. Why are we even arguing over this?

Because the idiot you’re arguing with is functioning under the wrongheaded notion that the states have ‘more power’ than the Federal government, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And don’t bother citing Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, like most on the right he’ll ignore it and remain willfully ignorant.

No, it's article 5 that proves you wrong, it gives the States the power to change or abolish the federal government at will, without any federal involvement, the States having such power says they are the sovereigns, not the feds.

 

[OKTexas]

The guns in your house are there because you have permission to have them from the government.

​

You illustrate your ignorance of the Constitution. The guns in our houses are there because the Founding Fathers (not the government) put it in the Constitution so the government could not deny us that right.

So the founding fathers weren't government?

No they weren't, they were representatives of the States that got together to propose a federation, they wrote the proposed Constitution for that federation, it was the States that adopted it, with a demand for amendments.