Q. For Small Government Adherents

[kaz]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Eliminate unconstitutional programs and we're good. Social security, medicare, the department of education, HHS, agriculture, energy, HUD, labor. Slash defense by a third to a half and bring our troops back to US territory. Eliminate the Fed and stop government control over lending. Cut the budgets of the departments that remain by half. Eliminate all "refundable tax credits."

Then go to zero based budgeting to keep spending in check

 

[rightwinger]

Giving money to poor people in and of itself alleviates immediate needs but does little to assist with the underlying causes of poverty, chief among them, the lack of opportunities.

Providing low/no cost quality child care, classes to upgrade skills, and other "hand up" supports work but as long as the only jobs available are low wage service sector jobs, it won't do much good.

As for Republican policies which cost the U.S. jobs, let's start with giving tax breaks to corporations who shipped jobs offshore.

The U.S. is now outsourcing some aspects of defence contracts to China. There's a brain dead strategy if ever there was one.

What about min wage laws that price new workers out of the market? Any responsibility there or is that different somehow?

Yea...if I pay someone $7.50 an hour to sweep my floors, I would hire two guys at $3.75

 

[kaz]

Giving money to poor people in and of itself alleviates immediate needs but does little to assist with the underlying causes of poverty, chief among them, the lack of opportunities.

Providing low/no cost quality child care, classes to upgrade skills, and other "hand up" supports work but as long as the only jobs available are low wage service sector jobs, it won't do much good.

As for Republican policies which cost the U.S. jobs, let's start with giving tax breaks to corporations who shipped jobs offshore.

The U.S. is now outsourcing some aspects of defence contracts to China. There's a brain dead strategy if ever there was one.

What about min wage laws that price new workers out of the market? Any responsibility there or is that different somehow?

Yea...if I pay someone $7.50 an hour to sweep my floors, I would hire two guys at $3.75

You'd only get away with that because you flood the market with illegals willing to work for that ******* the low end American workers in the process. Though you've never hired anyone in your life.

 

[ScienceRocks]

These are the same people that blew trillions on nation building in Iraq but they ***** about building a bridge across one of our rivers or maintaining our freeways. They ***** about America's science insitutions that lead the world, but then would turn around and blame Obama for lagging behind anyone in the area. They ***** about any and all investments as boondoggoo's but what they don't understand is the reality that the vast majority of all infrastructure, science and r&d investment is publicly funded. These investments make life better and save peoples lives.

Small government, just to have a small government is stupid! We left it behind because we wanted to become a world power.

Sonny - when we became our own nation - we were the envy of the world. Now? We are the joke of the world.

Seems quite a few want to live here[/QUOTE]

Shit, people all over the world want to come to our PUBLIC universities, enjoy our clean air, water and food! Thank you government. Thank you police officers that use our tax dollars to protect us!!!

Only a complete idiot would want to go back to the wild west!

 

[bripat9643]

But the best way to promote the general welfare would be to allow an environment that makes it easier for citizens and charities to provide and more difficult for the government to do so

Actually, the best way is to do it where it is most efficient and effective

Hmmm, no, but government is hardly the most efficient or effective means. How much of the money devoted to poverty programs actually gets to the intended beneficiaries?

If a local family loses its breadwinner, local charities can help them
When a whole community loses its breadwinners, we need big government

Local charities are great, but they fall victim to the rise and fall of local Economies and the magnitude of help that is needed

When has an entire community lost its breadwinners? I realize reality is a foreign concept to you (since you think Big Business both controls the GOP and loathes the GOP).

When towns depend on a single industry and that industry collapses. When a natural disaster hits.
That is why we need the nationwide support that government can provide

If it affects a single town, then it isn't affecting the whole country, so that excuse for federal government program is shot out of the saddle.

Furthermore, insurance can be purchased to protect from such events. At least it could be if government didn't provide it for free.

 

[kaz]

I don't trust the private sector to hold the keys of our nations leadership in innovation! Not after what they did the past 40 years with outsourcing most of our industry...Not a good idea. Not only this they couldn't afford to even scratch the ******* paint in maintaining this nation

What does outsourcing operations have to do with R&D? And you don't trust Americans, you trust bureaucrats. LOL. You're a good little tool. Here's a ball, go fetch...

 

[kaz]

When towns depend on a single industry and that industry collapses. When a natural disaster hits.
That is why we need the nationwide support that government can provide

insurance can be purchased to protect from such events. At least it could be if government didn't provide it for free.

That's not expensive enough for RW. He likes driving a Yugo on a BMW budget. No one can spend so much and get so little for it as government. RW just figures he's not paying for it anyway, so he doesn't give a shit

 

[RandallFlagg]

How about accountable government that that works well? We need a strong police force, we need maintained infrastructure, we need good economic policies and lastly we need leadership.

Small government doesn't make any sense unless you want to become a back water like Haiti.

Well, gee. Great idea. When do you expect to get that "accountable" government? "Strong Police Force"? Have you seen a police department lately? They look like Infantry companies.

Small government makes PERFECT sense if you give the individual states the power that was intended in the first place. Again, read the 9th and the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

Haiti is "back water" - as you put it - because there is a dictatorship. Hard to call it anything else when you only have ONE party to vote for. Oh, wait - in essence, that's all we have in the United States....

Well, we have a lot of violent criminals in this country...So yes, we need a strong police force. For most of our history we had a accountable government that worked well...One example is the government during the 40's, 50's and 60's! Also, a small government would allow the corporations to destroy this country and pay workers as slaves....It wouldn't make one ounce of sense as we couldn't fund the kind of innovations to compete near the top. period, end of story.

We couldn't afford to warn communities of severe weather, hurricanes or tornadoes,
We couldn't afford to educate all of our children!
We couldn't afford to allow everyone rich or poor to drive on our roads or bridges. It would cost a shit load to be able to drive on anything without government!
We couldn't afford the cdc that protects us and makes us ready in the event of disease...And we couldn't afford to lead in any science.

Yeah, small government is so wise. Stupid is more like it. You don't have a clue about the constitution so you better read up!

Haiti is a poor shit hole with piss poor leadership that don't see the value in education, infrastructure and providing stability.

Good Lord! Where do I begin? So, you want the police force to be "stronger"? They currently are outfitted by the US government with MRAAPS, M4s, Grenade Launchers and the like. Do you actually WANT a tyrant to control us? Next - the government in the 40s, 50s, and 60's was a Quarter the size it is now. I know - I was around then. Small government would allow "big business to destroy this country"!?!?!?! What the hell do you think they have done with HUGE government!?!?!?!

We couldn't afford to warn communities of severe weather, hurricanes or tornadoes, Bullshit - it happens everyday at the state level.
We couldn't afford to educate all of our children! Bullshit it happens and happened for 200 years at the state level WITHOUT Teachers unions.
We couldn't afford to allow everyone rich or poor to drive on our roads or bridges. It would cost a shit load to be able to drive on anything without government! Bullshit, the states build roads.
We couldn't afford the cdc that protects us and makes us ready in the event of disease...And we couldn't afford to lead in any science. I get it, you are a Science geek. How the hell did Copernicus do ANYTHING without a government paving the way for him? Jesus.


Sonny, I can tell you more about the Constitution than those pointy headed clowns who DIDN'T teach you a damn thing ever could.

 

[Iceweasel]

Left wingers don't remember the long painfully slow recovery with all the government growth and spending. Arguing military size is one thing but the government does much more than that.

Governments that aren't spending trillions of borrowed money on war, have money to spend on their people and their infrastructure. Governments which haven't spent the last 10+ years at war, are balancing their budgets.

Countries which put people ahead of corporations, have healthier economies.

Your corporations and oligarchs are awash in cash. They've never had more money than they do now and yet it's not enough. The people have no savings and few investments. Americans are mortgaged to the hilt and their credit cards are maxed out and that's not enough for the right.

You encourage people to go deeply in debt to get a college degree but saddling the next generation with student loans it will take the next 20 years to repay means they won't be able to buy homes or other consumer goods to keep the economy moving.

Everyday working people need jobs. Shipping manufacturing overseas helped corporations bottom lines in the short run but is killing the economy in the long term.

We spend much more on social spending than war, that shoots your argument down. As far as how much war could or should go on can be debated but the fact that you can't see anything but military spending says a lot.

My corporations? I suppose it's my military too? I encouraged students to go into debt? Your head is stuffed so far up your ass you can only see a single enemy with everything else filtered out.

Americans voted with their pocketbooks, if they preferred to pay more for US goods factories wouldn't have moved off shores. You must have a toggle switch for a brain.

 

[Iceweasel]

Giving money to poor people in and of itself alleviates immediate needs but does little to assist with the underlying causes of poverty, chief among them, the lack of opportunities.

Providing low/no cost quality child care, classes to upgrade skills, and other "hand up" supports work but as long as the only jobs available are low wage service sector jobs, it won't do much good.

As for Republican policies which cost the U.S. jobs, let's start with giving tax breaks to corporations who shipped jobs offshore.

The U.S. is now outsourcing some aspects of defence contracts to China. There's a brain dead strategy if ever there was one.

Nonsense. Poor people come here barely speaking the language and do OK. some do well, some very well. Obviously your on/off switch brain can't process the bullshit you already believe.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

Ah, so she lied. Well, color me shocked.

...

Not.

That 37 ranking is from 2000.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WHO's methods have been questionable at best. They did another one in 2010, same problem.

 

[bripat9643]

Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

Ah, so she lied. Well, color me shocked.

...

Not.

That 37 ranking is from 2000.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WHO's methods have been questionable at best.

The WHO is a communist U.N. propaganda organ, and nothing more.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You are dishonest, and so stuck in an ideological box, you cannot or will not think critically.

Oh, so is that why you decided to reject all of the suggestions you asked for in your OP? You wanted ways to shrink the government did you not? You asked for them and decided to reject them all out of hand. Please, continue proving my case.

You seem to be the one stuck in an "ideological box." You are about as closed minded as they come. Your attempts at open-mindedness are laughable, as this thread demonstrates.

Example, your comment on the line-item veto is both ignorant - Congress can override and reinstate an item blue-lined - and void of any critical thinking.

Interesting, so why did you propose that the President be given line item veto power in the first place, then? Given the lack of chemistry in Congress, there will never be an instance where they can successfully reinstate any of the provisions struck by the President. Your thinking here is that the President can use the line item veto without facing any opposition from Congress. What happens if the president isn't a Democrat?

Example, you want others to believe CU & McCutcheon v. FEC protected free speech - that is beyond foolish.

It did. Would you like me telling you whom you can give your money to and when? What if I told you that you weren't allowed to donate to X or Y? And, conversely, what if you were allowed to donate to X or Y? What if then you were told you could only donate so much money to one or the other?

You wouldn't like that one bit would you?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

Ah, so she lied. Well, color me shocked.

...

Not.

That 37 ranking is from 2000.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WHO's methods have been questionable at best. They did another one in 2010, same problem.

Name a nation that doesn't use the government to make sure its population isn't raging with pandemics. You can't and won't...We'll likely entire the third world if you fuckers have your way.

You have no plan besides run away from responsibility.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

Ah, so she lied. Well, color me shocked.

...

Not.

That 37 ranking is from 2000.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WHO's methods have been questionable at best.

The WHO is a communist U.N. propaganda organ, and nothing more.

One that has saved hundreds of millions of people and have stopped diseases that could of killed untold numbers. Of course, you anti-government people wouldn't understand. lol...Dumb ****. yeah, its communist because it works together with all the nations and our resources to stop killer diseases.

You loserterians really are a bunch of amish with guns.

 

[bripat9643]

Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

Ah, so she lied. Well, color me shocked.

...

Not.

That 37 ranking is from 2000.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WHO's methods have been questionable at best.

The WHO is a communist U.N. propaganda organ, and nothing more.

One that has saved hundreds of millions of people and have stopped diseases that could of killed untold numbers. Of course, you anti-government people wouldn't understand. lol...Dumb ****. yeah, its communist because it works together with all the nations and our resources to stop killer diseases.

You loserterians really are a bunch of amish with guns.

What diseases are those?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

Ah, so she lied. Well, color me shocked.

...

Not.

That 37 ranking is from 2000.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WHO's methods have been questionable at best. They did another one in 2010, same problem.

Name a nation that doesn't use the government take make sure its population isn't raging with pandemics. You can't and won't...We'll likely entire the third world if you fuckers have your way.

You have no plan besides run away from responsibility.

Come again? Your point is lost within a plethora of grammatical errors.

 

[dblack]

You loserterians really are a bunch of amish with guns.

Heh, I kinda like that!

 

[TemplarKormac]

You loserterians really are a bunch of amish with guns

And you are what amounts to a fake scientist wearing a lab coat two sizes too big. "Science, R&D, Technology, Infrastructure."

You spout that all the time. Now, elaborate. How do you do all of that while shrinking the size of government and minimizing costs, Matthew?

 

[Dragonlady]

Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much.

Oh this bashing the rich thing gets pretty old after a while. There are 192 countries in the world, so 37th is top third. Yet you make it as if it is third world. But hey, we have Obamacare, right? That's a plan only the rich can afford.

It's ranked by the WHO as 37th. Of course, a big factor in their ranking has to do with how socialist it is. That ranking is totally meaningless, in other words. If you rank it based on outcomes for given medical conditions, the USA is ranked 1st, and by a long shot.

Ah, so she lied. Well, color me shocked.

...

Not.

That 37 ranking is from 2000.

World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

WHO's methods have been questionable at best. They did another one in 2010, same problem.

Well try this one from 2013.

New Health Rankings Of 17 Nations U.S. Is Dead Last - The Atlantic

They eliminated the poorest nations that beat you last time.

No matter what study you use, the only area where US healthcare ranks No. 1 is cost.