"Smaller government" advocates

[francoHFW]

Unemployment. No. Let's make jobs worth having.

Making a higher wage is an investment--not an entitlement like you want it to be. You want to invest in yourself? That's the best investment you can make. Your return is a better paying job than the average worker and much more secure employment future. You should have to pay for it if that's what you want.

Yup, every man for himself in Reaganist NEW BS GOP America. Except for megarich Pubs and their giant corps. Absolutely brainwashed, oblivious, and selfish. And how we're losing our middle class and the global competition. Idiocy.

What's more selfish? Somebody or some people wanting to keep more of their money that they earned, or somebody that didn't earn money and demand other people pay for their expenditures?

Selfish, deluded GOP a-holes. Who become the latter as soon as THEY get unlucky. Helping the unfortunate is called CIVILIZATION and SMART. Raygun made blaming the poor acceptable, it's a disgrace. The RWers' belief that they're lazy and stupid will get them a free ticket to hell. Allow training and make jobs worthwhile, dupe.

Looting Peter to pay Paul has nothing to do with civilization. It's robbery, pure and simple - the exact opposite of civilization.

As ALL the new wealth is now ALL going to the 1%, and for years now. Reaganism is the greedy idiot rich stealing from everyone else, duh dupe.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Making a higher wage is an investment--not an entitlement like you want it to be. You want to invest in yourself? That's the best investment you can make. Your return is a better paying job than the average worker and much more secure employment future. You should have to pay for it if that's what you want.

Yup, every man for himself in Reaganist NEW BS GOP America. Except for megarich Pubs and their giant corps. Absolutely brainwashed, oblivious, and selfish. And how we're losing our middle class and the global competition. Idiocy.

What's more selfish? Somebody or some people wanting to keep more of their money that they earned, or somebody that didn't earn money and demand other people pay for their expenditures?

Selfish, deluded GOP a-holes. Who become the latter as soon as THEY get unlucky. Helping the unfortunate is called CIVILIZATION and SMART. Raygun made blaming the poor acceptable, it's a disgrace. The RWers' belief that they're lazy and stupid will get them a free ticket to hell. Allow training and make jobs worthwhile, dupe.

Looting Peter to pay Paul has nothing to do with civilization. It's robbery, pure and simple - the exact opposite of civilization.

As ALL the new wealth is now ALL going to the 1%, and for years now. Reaganism is the greedy idiot rich stealing from everyone else, duh dupe.

Duh dupe. Wealth doesn't "go" anywhere. Wealth is created by individuals and industry. The only time it "goes" anywhere is when government takes it from them to give to somebody else.

 

[Londoner]

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government patent protection for its products.

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government military protection for its overseas oil fields, supply chains and shipping lanes.

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government infrastructure investment into things like satellite and aerospace technology (large corporations from Verizon to Boeing enjoy massive taxpayer subsidies).

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government to make the roads passable after a hurricane or flood (so that consumers and goods can be brought to market).

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government to insure bank deposits so consumers have the financial stability to spend more and buy more of the market's goods and services.

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government to provide law enforcement and legal protection so that market participants have the required faith in market transactions to risk their money. (Profit makers love the legal protection of private property and they love contract enforcement. Talk radio listeners can't even name what those protections are. They do not think for themselves).

The biggest advocate of small government in modern history is Ronald Reagan - yet he added triple the government workers of Carter, and almost double that of Clinton. These government workers were added mostly in defense, and they were not paid for. This is why Reagan left the nation with historic structural deficits.

Reagan's movement started with a promise of small government and fiscal responsibility, but it ended with Bush's domestic surveillance and the 2008 meltdown.

Don't believe anybody peddling small government. In my experience they are either lying or stupid or both.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government patent protection for its products.

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government military protection for its overseas oil fields, supply chains and shipping lanes.

The Free Government doesn't want small government, it wants big government infrastructure investment into things like satellite and aerospace technology (large corporations from Verizon to Boeing enjoy massive taxpayer subsidies).

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government to make the roads passable after a hurricane or flood (so that consumers and good scan be brought to market).

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government to insure bank deposits so consumers have the financial stability to spend more and buy the market's goods and services.

The Free Market doesn't want small government, it wants big government to provide law enforcement and legal protection so that market participants have the required faith in market transactions to risk their money. (Profit makers love the legal protection of private property and contract enforcement. Talk radio listeners can't even name what those protections are. They do not think for themselves).

The biggest advocate of small government in modern history is Ronald Reagan - yet he added triple the government workers of Carter, and almost double of Clinton. These government workers were added mostly in defense, and they were not paid for. This is why Reagan left the nation with historic structural deficits.

Reagan's movement started with a promise of small government and fiscal responsibility, but it ended with Bush's domestic surveillance and the 2008 meltdown.

Don't believe anybody peddling small government. In my experience they are either lying or stupid or both.

Exactly.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As ALL the new wealth is now ALL going to the 1%,

100% impossible of course. For Jobs to get $15 billion in wealth he had to make $200 billion in Iphone wealth available to the bottom 99%!! Econ 101 dear, just not in your GED course.

A liberal will always be 100% stupid!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Don't believe anybody peddling small government. In my experience they are either lying or stupid or both.

why would you say our Founders were stupid or lying for starting a country with the smallest govt in human history that became the greatest country in human history!!

See why we say the liberal will be 100% stupid?? Is any other conclusion possible??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The biggest advocate of small government in modern history is Ronald Reagan .

And the biggest advocates of small govt in history were our Founders. Now do you see why our liberals spied for Hitler and Stalin and even gave Stalin the bomb!!

 

[francoHFW]

Don't believe anybody peddling small government. In my experience they are either lying or stupid or both.

why would you say our Founders were stupid or lying for starting a country with the smallest govt in human history that became the greatest country in human history!!

See why we say the liberal will be 100% stupid?? Is any other conclusion possible??

ACTUALLY, bigger than any other gov't, duh. Think of all the elected officials, judges, etc etc you get with fair democracy vs monarchy duh. And no, not 100% of wealth goes to the 1%, just 99% or basically all, unless you're an ignorant hair splitter, dupe.

 

[FA_Q2]

As I recall The patriot Act allowed the govt to create a data base of billions of connected telephone numbers so that if you were ever implicated as a terrorist the FBI could then learn your associates and then listen in on your calls after securing permission from a FISA court. This is 1000% minor compared to what Census Bureau, IRS, credit card companies, health insurance companies, schools, etc know about you.

Actually all they did was listen in on phone calls of interest, but never knew who they were listening to.

They had computers comb through thousands of messages per minute. It worked like a search engine. It would only bring up transmissions that had key words in it; words terrorist organizations would use. Nobody has ever been prosecuted using the Patriot Act as far as I know of.

And that matters because?

Isnt the massive amount of power blatantly evident here not to mention that massive expansion of government involved is such?

If it's not affecting anybody, where is this power at?

The subject here is smaller government meaning smaller federal government. I don't know about you, but to me, big government is anything not listed in the US Constitution. The protection of this country is in the Constitution--Obama Care isn't.

The ability for the government to record and watch your every movement is not in the constitution.

The power is in the asinine amount of information that the government is keeping on virtually everyone. Have you ever seen "Enemy of the State." It is not a matter of it directly effecting you - it can do that without anyone ever even knowing. You think that something like the IRS scandal cannot happen with the surveillance state that we are setting up? It can and it will.

When there is evident damage such as the IRS case, then yes, we need to do something. But the fact is in order for one-half of our country to be intensely spied on, we would need the other half to be working for the government. There is no possible way for the government to read or listen to every transaction that takes place everyday in this country. It's impossible.

Fist of all, it is not impossible. Technology makes it very possible for computers to take care of that task with little problem at all. Second, listening to everyone's conversations is not necessary. Continuing the IRS analogy, they didn't need to use the IRS against everyone either - just a specific subset of people that are deemed to be 'enemies' of the current governmental administration.

Terrorism and the governmental abilities that fight it are not consigned to overseas threats. Napolitano declared returning vets a large terrorism threat in 2009:
Napolitano stands by controversial report - Washington Times
Again, what makes you think that these new governmental powers are not going to be utilized to spy on and dismantle dissenting voices to future administrations?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Actually all they did was listen in on phone calls of interest, but never knew who they were listening to.

They had computers comb through thousands of messages per minute. It worked like a search engine. It would only bring up transmissions that had key words in it; words terrorist organizations would use. Nobody has ever been prosecuted using the Patriot Act as far as I know of.

And that matters because?

Isnt the massive amount of power blatantly evident here not to mention that massive expansion of government involved is such?

If it's not affecting anybody, where is this power at?

The subject here is smaller government meaning smaller federal government. I don't know about you, but to me, big government is anything not listed in the US Constitution. The protection of this country is in the Constitution--Obama Care isn't.

The ability for the government to record and watch your every movement is not in the constitution.

The power is in the asinine amount of information that the government is keeping on virtually everyone. Have you ever seen "Enemy of the State." It is not a matter of it directly effecting you - it can do that without anyone ever even knowing. You think that something like the IRS scandal cannot happen with the surveillance state that we are setting up? It can and it will.

When there is evident damage such as the IRS case, then yes, we need to do something. But the fact is in order for one-half of our country to be intensely spied on, we would need the other half to be working for the government. There is no possible way for the government to read or listen to every transaction that takes place everyday in this country. It's impossible.

Fist of all, it is not impossible. Technology makes it very possible for computers to take care of that task with little problem at all. Second, listening to everyone's conversations is not necessary. Continuing the IRS analogy, they didn't need to use the IRS against everyone either - just a specific subset of people that are deemed to be 'enemies' of the current governmental administration.

Terrorism and the governmental abilities that fight it are not consigned to overseas threats. Napolitano declared returning vets a large terrorism threat in 2009:
Napolitano stands by controversial report - Washington Times
Again, what makes you think that these new governmental powers are not going to be utilized to spy on and dismantle dissenting voices to future administrations?

I would worry more had this been going on about 30 years ago. Today, with so many news agencies and people looking to make money (such as ex government workers) it's almost impossible to accomplish something like that. Hell, even Nixon got caught.

A couple of years after 911 I had a tenant of Arab descent. He would tell us about how he would get hassled at the airport all the time. I asked him how he felt about it, and he told me that we have American solders fighting overseas and homeland agents trying to protect us here. He said "If getting patted down and having my luggage gone through is the least I can do for our solders and country, then it's the least I can do."

I kind of have the same attitude. If somebody wants to listen to me talk to my 81 year old mother, then by all means, enjoy yourself because I'm not When I had my landline phone, I could hear clicks and a slight reduction of volume when me and my father would discuss politics and current issues. It only lasted a few seconds, but I had plenty of suspicions of what was going on.

If we want to make this work, everybody has to do their part. The government doesn't need to be fighting terrorists and American citizens all at the same time. If there is something I can contribute or offer to protect a solder or help avoid a potential terrorist attack here at home, I'm willing to do it.

 

[Londoner]

Don't believe anybody peddling small government. In my experience they are either lying or stupid or both.

why would you say our Founders were stupid or lying for starting a country with the smallest govt in human history that became the greatest country in human history!!

See why we say the liberal will be 100% stupid?? Is any other conclusion possible??

I'm in conversation with the Republican Party, who claims to represent the Founders but who have made government far bigger and more intrusive than the Left (in my lifetime).

Using national security issues to create the Constitution-raping Patriot Act (to spy on the American people) was not intended by the Founders. Reagan secretly selling weapons to Iran, and dumping billions into Israel & the Saudis was not intended by the Founders either. Creating the War on Drugs (in 1982) - a vast federal bureaucracy that usurps the power of the states - was not intended by the Founders. Using the taxpayer's money to pay for the military protection of the oil fields of private corporations (in Iraq) was not intended by the Founders. Sir, you don't speak for the Founders. You speak for a party that has raped the Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't believe anybody peddling small government. In my experience they are either lying or stupid or both.

why would you say our Founders were stupid or lying for starting a country with the smallest govt in human history that became the greatest country in human history!!

See why we say the liberal will be 100% stupid?? Is any other conclusion possible??

I'm in conversation with the Republican Party, who claims to represent the Founders but who have made government far bigger and more intrusive than the Left (in my lifetime).

Using national security issues to create the Constitution-raping Patriot Act (to spy on the American people) was not intended by the Founders. Reagan secretly selling weapons to Iran, and dumping billions into Israel & the Saudis was not intended by the Founders either. Creating the War on Drugs (in 1982) - a vast federal bureaucracy that usurps the power of the states - was not intended by the Founders. Using the taxpayer's money to pay for the military protection of the oil fields of private corporations (in Iraq) was not intended by the Founders. Sir, you don't speak for the Founders. You speak for a party that has raped the Constitution.

I'm in conversation with the Republican Party,

The entire party? Wow!
Any other imaginary conversations you'd like to tell us about?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

[

Using national security issues to create the Constitution-raping Patriot Act (to spy on the American people) was not intended by the Founders..

100% stupid!! National defense is in Constitution. Isis could kill millions of us so we obviously have to defend ourselves any way possible!! Disrupting their plots through Patriot Act functions is better than nuking them.

Do you have the IQ to understand?

 

[Londoner]

100% stupid!! National defense is in Constitution. Isis could kill millions of us so we obviously have to defend ourselves any way possible!! Disrupting their plots through Patriot Act functions is better than nuking them.

The Constitution stipulates the rules the executive must follow when acting. This means Reagan can' t sell weapons to Iran (behind the backs of the American People & Congress). And it means Bush can't illegally tap the phones of American citizens (which is why the deeply conservative Ashcroft pulled the plug on Bush).

Partisans protect dear leader, even when he violates the Constitution. Defenders of the Constitution hold both parties accountable. They defend the Constitution when it isn't convenient. Translation: you are no defender of national security, and you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power, even when said power claims to be acting on behalf of national security.

(Wow, just wow)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power.

Dear, The Patriot Act is Constitutional and can save millions of American lives. Privacy is much more threatened by schools, insurance companies, credit card companies, IRS, PC's, cell phones, etc. Think before you write.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power.

Dear, The Patriot Act is Constitutional and can save millions of American lives. Privacy is much more threatened by schools, insurance companies, credit card companies, IRS, PC's, cell phones, etc. Think before you write.

Pity you fail to take your own advise.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Pity you fail to take your own advise.

what??????????????????

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

100% stupid!! National defense is in Constitution. Isis could kill millions of us so we obviously have to defend ourselves any way possible!! Disrupting their plots through Patriot Act functions is better than nuking them.

The Constitution stipulates the rules the executive must follow when acting. This means Reagan can' t sell weapons to Iran (behind the backs of the American People & Congress). And it means Bush can't illegally tap the phones of American citizens (which is why the deeply conservative Ashcroft pulled the plug on Bush).

Partisans protect dear leader, even when he violates the Constitution. Defenders of the Constitution hold both parties accountable. They defend the Constitution when it isn't convenient. Translation: you are no defender of national security, and you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power, even when said power claims to be acting on behalf of national security.

(Wow, just wow)

I don't know anyplace in the Constitution that prohibits wire tapping, especially when the sound waves that are intercepted are all around us no matter where you are at. Now if you're referring to the Fourth Amendment, our founders didn't want the government forcing entry into your home, tearing up the floor boards of your daughters bedroom looking for evidence against the state.

Intercepting sound wavs is spying, and spying is as old as the country itself.

Now if Reagan called his actions Fast and Furious, I bet you would have no problem with Iran Contra.

 

[FA_Q2]

100% stupid!! National defense is in Constitution. Isis could kill millions of us so we obviously have to defend ourselves any way possible!! Disrupting their plots through Patriot Act functions is better than nuking them.

The Constitution stipulates the rules the executive must follow when acting. This means Reagan can' t sell weapons to Iran (behind the backs of the American People & Congress). And it means Bush can't illegally tap the phones of American citizens (which is why the deeply conservative Ashcroft pulled the plug on Bush).

Partisans protect dear leader, even when he violates the Constitution. Defenders of the Constitution hold both parties accountable. They defend the Constitution when it isn't convenient. Translation: you are no defender of national security, and you are not defending National Security when you ignore the limitations the Constitution places on executive power, even when said power claims to be acting on behalf of national security.

(Wow, just wow)

That is excruciatingly one sided. The left has done just as much to ensure the government is all over you as the right has. It is also interesting that you point out something like the PA - a bill that had a sunset built in.

Care to look at the votes and timing on the second time the PA was placed into law?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The left has done just as much to ensure the government is all over you as the right has.

absurd and stupid!!
Republicans voted 97 times against Obamacare, most sign the Pledge, have introduced 30 Balanced Budget Amendments all of which were killed by the left, and are responsible for debt ceiling debates, shutdowns, etc. while Sanders and Clinton for example are openly for bigger and bigger govt and brag about it!!

There is no comparison!!