We need government

[ScienceRocks]

Government hasn't grown at all when considered with the gdp of the United states. In fact for most of the past 60 years government has grown smaller by a good amount compared to the 1960's when we had over 3.5 million government workers compared to 2.8 million as of a few years ago.(This is information based on my political science book). Or another word for it per capita..

Government provides regulations protecting our water, food safety and air quality...FDA, EPA, etc. Do we dare join Mexico or central America that have far less regulations? We already see people bitching on this board about how you don't drink the fucking water in mexico and these people are inferior, but look at Flint Michigan and you will find the same thing. If we don't spend money on our infrastructure we will quickly be joining mexico.

Another example is, Do we dare stop investing in our children's education? Grants for college and so much more? Not if we wish to lead. Lastly, do we expect safe cars, train tracks and airline rides with little cost corner cutting? Of course,,This is exactly why I feel that republican policies are bad for America as I find it to be unacceptable to give up quality of life and leadership as a nation in order for some rich fucker to make a little more money.The same bastard that sells us out to the third world, brings in foreign workers and undermines small businesses here in America. This is the reality behind why we have lost our industry these passed 50 years and why Trump did have a point but turned out to be the snake that he was explaining to you.

You see government is a good part of the reason why we're a first world country and not living in filth..Another example of why we shouldn't weaken “some” regulations is China and India. Yes, you conservatives make fun of these people because of the pollution but the core reason for the pollution is they choose money over quality of life. It takes resources, workers in government and the williness to make slightly less profit overall in order to increase our standards as a nation. Do you shit in your own bed? That is what people that want to reduce government with a sew wish for us all.

Is there red tape we could do with out, yes, I believe there is and so I aint saying that I want a huge massive government...But, taking one side or the other in this debate doesn't make sense.

 

[bripat9643]

Government hasn't grown at all when considered with the gdp of the United states. In fact for most of the past 60 years government has grown smaller by a good amount compared to the 1960's when we had over 3.5 million government workers compared to 2.8 million as of a few years ago.(This is information based on my political science book). Or another word for it per capita..

Government provides regulations protecting our water, food safety and air quality...FDA, EPA, etc. Do we dare join Mexico or central America that have far less regulations? We already see people bitching on this board about how you don't drink the fucking water in mexico and these people are inferior, but look at Flint Michigan and you will find the same thing. If we don't spend money on our infrastructure we will quickly be joining mexico.

Another example is, Do we dare stop investing in our children's education? Grants for college and so much more? Not if we wish to lead. Lastly, do we expect safe cars, train tracks and airline rides with little cost corner cutting? Of course,,This is exactly why I feel that republican policies are bad for America as I find it to be unacceptable to give up quality of life and leadership as a nation in order for some rich fucker to make a little more money.The same bastard that sells us out to the third world, brings in foreign workers and undermines small businesses here in America. This is the reality behind why we have lost our industry these passed 50 years and why Trump did have a point but turned out to be the snake that he was explaining to you.

You see government is a good part of the reason why we're a first world country and not living in filth..Another example of why we shouldn't weaken “some” regulations is China and India. Yes, you conservatives make fun of these people because of the pollution but the core reason for the pollution is they choose money over quality of life. It takes resources, workers in government and the williness to make slight

e there is and so I aint saying that I want a huge massive government...But, taking one side or the other in this debate doesn't make sense.

You claim that government hasn't grown is obvious bullshit:

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The real solution to all the problems you believe government can solve is massive global population reduction. Earth has about 5 billion too many people. That reality is too fucking real and nobody wants to talk about it. Instead, they want to parade a bunch of useless infringements on liberty.

 

[Mac1958]

Some people knee-jerk away from any government involvement; they're the folks who take Reagan's simplistic, bumper sticker "government is the problem" speech line as seriously as if it were written in their freakin' Bible, clearly oblivious to the easily-recognizable societal dangers of structural inequality and the glaring examples of the destructive nature of under-regulation.

Others knee-jerk towards a government that is the automatic answer to our problems; they're the folks who exist in some emotional, romantic and completely naive "we are the government" fantasy world that ignores/forgives the inherent inefficiencies and opportunities for fraudulence within bureaucracies. To that end, they spend a great deal of effort attacking capitalism.

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to some of those services.

Yeah, that's complicated stuff. And it would require both ends of this issue to somehow escape their ideological cocoons, and that ain't happening any time soon. Government isn't a "yes or no" question.
.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to those services.

Completely agree with this.

One side is motivated by self interest in protecting wealthy donors who hate paying taxes. The other is motivated by maintaining perpetual voting blocks via long-term dependency on social services. Both sides hold substantial power in government. So, government is the problem.

We almost need a war to both thin the heard and reset the establishment so that the above-stated goal can work. Maybe the communist revolutionaries are on to something.

 

[Mousterian]

The Alt-Right, with the encouragement of our mentally-challenged President, is hell-bent on prosecuting a war against everyone who disagrees with them.
We may well see another Civil War (now that's an oxymoron, if ever there was one!), where those who would enslave the 'other' try, by force of arms, to rule America. And impose their 'superior' philosophy on the world.
It didn't end well in 1865, and even worse (for the enslavers) in 1945.
But they're so sure they are RIGHT, and eager to prove it by KILLING the soft opposition...

 

[Mac1958]

 

[LordBrownTrout]

D

Government hasn't grown at all when considered with the gdp of the United states. In fact for most of the past 60 years government has grown smaller by a good amount compared to the 1960's when we had over 3.5 million government workers compared to 2.8 million as of a few years ago.(This is information based on my political science book). Or another word for it per capita..

Government provides regulations protecting our water, food safety and air quality...FDA, EPA, etc. Do we dare join Mexico or central America that have far less regulations? We already see people bitching on this board about how you don't drink the fucking water in mexico and these people are inferior, but look at Flint Michigan and you will find the same thing. If we don't spend money on our infrastructure we will quickly be joining mexico.

Another example is, Do we dare stop investing in our children's education? Grants for college and so much more? Not if we wish to lead. Lastly, do we expect safe cars, train tracks and airline rides with little cost corner cutting? Of course,,This is exactly why I feel that republican policies are bad for America as I find it to be unacceptable to give up quality of life and leadership as a nation in order for some rich fucker to make a little more money.The same bastard that sells us out to the third world, brings in foreign workers and undermines small businesses here in America. This is the reality behind why we have lost our industry these passed 50 years and why Trump did have a point but turned out to be the snake that he was explaining to you.

You see government is a good part of the reason why we're a first world country and not living in filth..Another example of why we shouldn't weaken “some” regulations is China and India. Yes, you conservatives make fun of these people because of the pollution but the core reason for the pollution is they choose money over quality of life. It takes resources, workers in government and the williness to make slightly less profit overall in order to increase our standards as a nation. Do you shit in your own bed? That is what people that want to reduce government with a sew wish for us all.

Is there red tape we could do with out, yes, I believe there is and so I aint saying that I want a huge massive government...But, taking one side or the other in this debate doesn't make sense.

Both sides have screwed this country to hell.

 

[xband]

Government hasn't grown at all when considered with the gdp of the United states. In fact for most of the past 60 years government has grown smaller by a good amount compared to the 1960's when we had over 3.5 million government workers compared to 2.8 million as of a few years ago.(This is information based on my political science book). Or another word for it per capita..

Government provides regulations protecting our water, food safety and air quality...FDA, EPA, etc. Do we dare join Mexico or central America that have far less regulations? We already see people bitching on this board about how you don't drink the fucking water in mexico and these people are inferior, but look at Flint Michigan and you will find the same thing. If we don't spend money on our infrastructure we will quickly be joining mexico.

Another example is, Do we dare stop investing in our children's education? Grants for college and so much more? Not if we wish to lead. Lastly, do we expect safe cars, train tracks and airline rides with little cost corner cutting? Of course,,This is exactly why I feel that republican policies are bad for America as I find it to be unacceptable to give up quality of life and leadership as a nation in order for some rich fucker to make a little more money.The same bastard that sells us out to the third world, brings in foreign workers and undermines small businesses here in America. This is the reality behind why we have lost our industry these passed 50 years and why Trump did have a point but turned out to be the snake that he was explaining to you.

You see government is a good part of the reason why we're a first world country and not living in filth..Another example of why we shouldn't weaken “some” regulations is China and India. Yes, you conservatives make fun of these people because of the pollution but the core reason for the pollution is they choose money over quality of life. It takes resources, workers in government and the williness to make slightly less profit overall in order to increase our standards as a nation. Do you shit in your own bed? That is what people that want to reduce government with a sew wish for us all.

Is there red tape we could do with out, yes, I believe there is and so I aint saying that I want a huge massive government...But, taking one side or the other in this debate doesn't make sense.

Only a blithering idiot goes to college when there are books to read. Abraham Lincoln never went to college but he read books. Wasting money on student loans or free college for that matter is an exercise in futility.

 

[Norman]

Some people knee-jerk away from any government involvement; they're the folks who take Reagan's simplistic, bumper sticker "government is the problem" speech line as seriously as if it were written in their freakin' Bible, clearly oblivious to the easily-recognizable societal dangers of structural inequality and the glaring examples of the destructive nature of under-regulation.

Others knee-jerk towards a government that is the automatic answer to our problems; they're the folks who exist in some emotional, romantic and completely naive "we are the government" fantasy world that ignores/forgives the inherent inefficiencies and opportunities for fraudulence within bureaucracies. To that end, they spend a great deal of effort attacking capitalism.

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to some of those services.

Yeah, that's complicated stuff. And it would require both ends of this issue to somehow escape their ideological cocoons, and that ain't happening any time soon. Government isn't a "yes or no" question.
.

Beautiful argument...

No actually a statement...

No, actually beautifully laid out bullshit.

 

[Mac1958]

Some people knee-jerk away from any government involvement; they're the folks who take Reagan's simplistic, bumper sticker "government is the problem" speech line as seriously as if it were written in their freakin' Bible, clearly oblivious to the easily-recognizable societal dangers of structural inequality and the glaring examples of the destructive nature of under-regulation.

Others knee-jerk towards a government that is the automatic answer to our problems; they're the folks who exist in some emotional, romantic and completely naive "we are the government" fantasy world that ignores/forgives the inherent inefficiencies and opportunities for fraudulence within bureaucracies. To that end, they spend a great deal of effort attacking capitalism.

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to some of those services.

Yeah, that's complicated stuff. And it would require both ends of this issue to somehow escape their ideological cocoons, and that ain't happening any time soon. Government isn't a "yes or no" question.
.

Beautiful argument...

No actually a statement...

No, actually beautifully laid out bullshit.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Can you?
.

 

[Norman]

Some people knee-jerk away from any government involvement; they're the folks who take Reagan's simplistic, bumper sticker "government is the problem" speech line as seriously as if it were written in their freakin' Bible, clearly oblivious to the easily-recognizable societal dangers of structural inequality and the glaring examples of the destructive nature of under-regulation.

Others knee-jerk towards a government that is the automatic answer to our problems; they're the folks who exist in some emotional, romantic and completely naive "we are the government" fantasy world that ignores/forgives the inherent inefficiencies and opportunities for fraudulence within bureaucracies. To that end, they spend a great deal of effort attacking capitalism.

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to some of those services.

Yeah, that's complicated stuff. And it would require both ends of this issue to somehow escape their ideological cocoons, and that ain't happening any time soon. Government isn't a "yes or no" question.
.

Beautiful argument...

No actually a statement...

No, actually beautifully laid out bullshit.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Can you?
.

No one is interested in finding an "equilibrium", they are interested in getting votes, and in free shit. The government has grown from 5% of the economy to about 40%. Did I miss the debate? 40%.... did even slaves pay that much tax?

Meanwhile if you look at the budget items, most of it seems to go towards ponzi scheme founded retirement schemes and military. It's not very complicated to figure out how stupid that is, and how such an arrangement could only be the result of no debate, discussion or anything of the sort.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know anyone who thinks we do not need governemnt

The question is how much government do we really need?

 

[Mac1958]

Some people knee-jerk away from any government involvement; they're the folks who take Reagan's simplistic, bumper sticker "government is the problem" speech line as seriously as if it were written in their freakin' Bible, clearly oblivious to the easily-recognizable societal dangers of structural inequality and the glaring examples of the destructive nature of under-regulation.

Others knee-jerk towards a government that is the automatic answer to our problems; they're the folks who exist in some emotional, romantic and completely naive "we are the government" fantasy world that ignores/forgives the inherent inefficiencies and opportunities for fraudulence within bureaucracies. To that end, they spend a great deal of effort attacking capitalism.

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to some of those services.

Yeah, that's complicated stuff. And it would require both ends of this issue to somehow escape their ideological cocoons, and that ain't happening any time soon. Government isn't a "yes or no" question.
.

Beautiful argument...

No actually a statement...

No, actually beautifully laid out bullshit.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Can you?
.

No one is interested in finding an "equilibrium", they are interested in getting votes, and in free shit. The government has grown from 5% of the economy to about 40%. Did I miss the debate? 40%.... did even slaves pay that much tax?

Perhaps no one you personally know would like to find an equilibrium, but I'm confident a majority of Americans think it would be pretty important.
.

 

[Norman]

Some people knee-jerk away from any government involvement; they're the folks who take Reagan's simplistic, bumper sticker "government is the problem" speech line as seriously as if it were written in their freakin' Bible, clearly oblivious to the easily-recognizable societal dangers of structural inequality and the glaring examples of the destructive nature of under-regulation.

Others knee-jerk towards a government that is the automatic answer to our problems; they're the folks who exist in some emotional, romantic and completely naive "we are the government" fantasy world that ignores/forgives the inherent inefficiencies and opportunities for fraudulence within bureaucracies. To that end, they spend a great deal of effort attacking capitalism.

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to some of those services.

Yeah, that's complicated stuff. And it would require both ends of this issue to somehow escape their ideological cocoons, and that ain't happening any time soon. Government isn't a "yes or no" question.
.

Beautiful argument...

No actually a statement...

No, actually beautifully laid out bullshit.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Can you?
.

No one is interested in finding an "equilibrium", they are interested in getting votes, and in free shit. The government has grown from 5% of the economy to about 40%. Did I miss the debate? 40%.... did even slaves pay that much tax?

Perhaps no one you personally know would like to find an equilibrium, but I'm confident a majority of Americans think it would be pretty important.
.

Many are interested in using the equilibrium argument to justify their whims of the day. You see, based on that argument you can argue anything and everything. Of one thing I am certain, if they really are interested in finding the equilibrium, then they have failed. Although, the baby boomer generation, to the best of their effort, miraculously managed to find the "have maximal free shit" and "have others pay for it" equilibrium for themselves. Now what could explain that...

 

[xband]

Some people knee-jerk away from any government involvement; they're the folks who take Reagan's simplistic, bumper sticker "government is the problem" speech line as seriously as if it were written in their freakin' Bible, clearly oblivious to the easily-recognizable societal dangers of structural inequality and the glaring examples of the destructive nature of under-regulation.

Others knee-jerk towards a government that is the automatic answer to our problems; they're the folks who exist in some emotional, romantic and completely naive "we are the government" fantasy world that ignores/forgives the inherent inefficiencies and opportunities for fraudulence within bureaucracies. To that end, they spend a great deal of effort attacking capitalism.

The goal should be, obviously, finding a proper equilibrium between a government active and efficient enough to not place too much of a burden on the dynamic nature of effort and competition, providing the services and safety nets required of an advanced civilization, while minimizing the likelihood of long term and inter-generational addiction to some of those services.

Yeah, that's complicated stuff. And it would require both ends of this issue to somehow escape their ideological cocoons, and that ain't happening any time soon. Government isn't a "yes or no" question.
.

Beautiful argument...

No actually a statement...

No, actually beautifully laid out bullshit.

Perhaps you could be more specific.

Can you?
.

No one is interested in finding an "equilibrium", they are interested in getting votes, and in free shit. The government has grown from 5% of the economy to about 40%. Did I miss the debate? 40%.... did even slaves pay that much tax?

Perhaps no one you personally know would like to find an equilibrium, but I'm confident a majority of Americans think it would be pretty important.
.

Many are interested in using the equilibrium argument to justify their whims of the day. You see, based on that argument you can argue anything and everything. Of one thing I am certain, if they really are interested in finding the equilibrium, then they have failed. Although, the baby boomer generation, to the best of their effort, miraculously managed to find the "have maximal free shit" and "have others pay for it" equilibrium for themselves. Now what could explain that...

Baby Boomers got it all and what could explain that? Manifest Destiny

 

[fncceo]

We need government

No. YOU need government. The rest of us are doing just fine, thank you.

 

[Kosh]

Government hasn't grown at all when considered with the gdp of the United states. In fact for most of the past 60 years government has grown smaller by a good amount compared to the 1960's when we had over 3.5 million government workers compared to 2.8 million as of a few years ago.(This is information based on my political science book). Or another word for it per capita..

Government provides regulations protecting our water, food safety and air quality...FDA, EPA, etc. Do we dare join Mexico or central America that have far less regulations? We already see people bitching on this board about how you don't drink the fucking water in mexico and these people are inferior, but look at Flint Michigan and you will find the same thing. If we don't spend money on our infrastructure we will quickly be joining mexico.

Another example is, Do we dare stop investing in our children's education? Grants for college and so much more? Not if we wish to lead. Lastly, do we expect safe cars, train tracks and airline rides with little cost corner cutting? Of course,,This is exactly why I feel that republican policies are bad for America as I find it to be unacceptable to give up quality of life and leadership as a nation in order for some rich fucker to make a little more money.The same bastard that sells us out to the third world, brings in foreign workers and undermines small businesses here in America. This is the reality behind why we have lost our industry these passed 50 years and why Trump did have a point but turned out to be the snake that he was explaining to you.

You see government is a good part of the reason why we're a first world country and not living in filth..Another example of why we shouldn't weaken “some” regulations is China and India. Yes, you conservatives make fun of these people because of the pollution but the core reason for the pollution is they choose money over quality of life. It takes resources, workers in government and the williness to make slightly less profit overall in order to increase our standards as a nation. Do you shit in your own bed? That is what people that want to reduce government with a sew wish for us all.

Is there red tape we could do with out, yes, I believe there is and so I aint saying that I want a huge massive government...But, taking one side or the other in this debate doesn't make sense.

Get the far left religion out of everything, government, science, etc. Then we as the human race can grow up.

You see, too much government is bad, to much far left religious policies are bad.

You see the far left thinks that everyone not far left wants zero government, which is a falsehood pushed by their debunked religious narratives.

 

[Norman]

We need government

No. YOU need government. The rest of us are doing just fine, thank you.

Specifically he needs our money. To him government is merely a synonym for stolen money from us.

 

[fncceo]

We need government

No. YOU need government. The rest of us are doing just fine, thank you.

Specifically he needs our money. To him government is merely a synonym for stolen money from us.

It's more than money. Only government can make him a protected class, grant him privileges, and validate his life choices.
Without that, he'd have to survive (or not) in society on his own merits.