Why Not Try the Small Government Solution?

[Black_Label]

Something like 40,000 new laws go into effect each year.

I really don't know how you unsail that ship.

Vote Obama out. His EPA and other agencies created most of 'em, Romney can undo much of it if he gets elected.

Thanks for the laugh of the day!

 

[The T]

Something like 40,000 new laws go into effect each year.

I really don't know how you unsail that ship.

it has to come from the people demanding a total LAW review to rescind/modify law that is no longer appropo.

That kind of review would keep Congress busy for the next 100 years.

I's be totally in favour of it.

Poke large HOLES in the sails.

 

[The T]

Something like 40,000 new laws go into effect each year.

I really don't know how you unsail that ship.

Vote Obama out. His EPA and other agencies created most of 'em, Romney can undo much of it if he gets elected.

Thanks for the laugh of the day!

What's laughable of EPA unfettered policy that results in losses of jobs assmunch?

*I* see ZERO funny about it.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Cal Thomas writes this today, I think the idea is worthy of consideration. One of the things Sweden did to make themselves more financially solvent was to privatize what they could and cut back on what they couldn't.

That's what ol' Cal said, huh??

Whatta great job o' paraphrasing.....

....on your part!!!!

 

[Truthmatters]

what you call small government has been tried.

the people decided they needed more government.


that is how the founders designed the system.

Err... constitution says otherwise

nope you are not the final arbitor of the constitutions definitions.

the scotus is

 

[Truthmatters]

History of the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


that was what the founders planned

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You start on that path by attacking areas for which there is LARGE left-right agreement.

One is corporate subsidies which ought to be slashed and a small fraction of that turned back into R&D funding -- not candy for products that are already mature and on the market.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!

.

.

​

 

[The T]

what you call small government has been tried.

the people decided they needed more government.


that is how the founders designed the system.

Err... constitution says otherwise

nope you are not the final arbitor of the constitutions definitions.

the scotus is

Really? Is this YOUR final answer?

You DO know there is a way around the SCOTUS don't you?

The SCOTUS does not hold FIANL authority.

The Constitution however does.

The Dog in your avie just left a wetspot. YOU might need to check it dweeb.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

There is almost nothing that the government does that can't be done better and cheaper by the private sector.

Lemme guess.....

....that's what They say......

.....right??

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNBctwAsu48]PBS NOW | Credit and Credibility part 1 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Mad Scientist]

Something like 40,000 new laws go into effect each year.

I really don't know how you unsail that ship.

Vote Obama out. His EPA and other agencies created most of 'em, Romney can undo much of it if he gets elected.

Thanks for the laugh of the day!

Some people TRUELY BELIEVE that Mitt Romney is gonna' ride to the rescue. Sad isn't it?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

what you call small government has been tried.

the people decided they needed more government.


that is how the founders designed the system.

Err... constitution says otherwise

Gee......so many details.

 

[DiamondDave]

what you call small government has been tried.

the people decided they needed more government.


that is how the founders designed the system.

Err... constitution says otherwise

nope you are not the final arbitor of the constitutions definitions.

the scotus is

The language of the constitution is not hard to understand... it is quite easy as a matter of fact

And if you think that the SC is beyond political play for power, you are sadly mistaken... and as shown over history, they have (just like other politicians and political offices) over-reached their bounds

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The immediate advantage of selecting cuts in COMMON acceptable areas would serve as a stimulus for more widespread adoption..

The problem with dogmatic adherence to the principle of REVOLUTIONARY reform is obvious when you look at the demands of Ron Paul, Stossel and the Libertarian movement in general. I think you need to DEMONSTRATE that the direction is the correct one before you fire up the chainsaw.

Nobody would miss the Dept of Education or MOST of the Dept of Commerce. And in fact -- the rewards would probably come quickly and obviously.

Probably???

 

[DiamondDave]

what you call small government has been tried.

the people decided they needed more government.


that is how the founders designed the system.

Err... constitution says otherwise

Gee......so many details.

The amendment process is clearly laid out in the constitution if government is to gain more powers.... the government was and is not set up for majority rule or 'want of the people'... the constitution clearly and concisely lays out powers and what government can do... and beyond that, that if the government does not have the power, who indeed does....

The government does not simply get to decide that it needs more of itself

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Something like 40,000 new laws go into effect each year.

You sound like one o' those Broward County math-majors.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Vote Obama out. His EPA and other agencies created most of 'em, Romney can undo much of it if he gets elected.

Thanks for the laugh of the day!

Some people TRUELY BELIEVE that Mitt Romney is gonna' ride to the rescue. Sad isn't it?

We've just gotta keep reminding them it's.....

....1996; all-OVER-again!!!!!!

. . .


. .


. . . . . .


​

 

[DiamondDave]

Deflect, troll.. deflect

 

[naturegirl]

Err... constitution says otherwise

Gee......so many details.

The amendment process is clearly laid out in the constitution if government is to gain more powers.... the government was and is not set up for majority rule or 'want of the people'... the constitution clearly and concisely lays out powers and what government can do... and beyond that, that if the government does not have the power, who indeed does....

The government does not simply get to decide that it needs more of itself

Exactly!! The people didn't grow the government, government grew the government and it's still growing. It's so far out of it's skin now, it's gonna need to be grafted off the skin of the people.

The founding fathers never intended the government to be the answer.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

All Thomas Jefferson quotes, TMs favorite founding father.

 

[The T]

Err... constitution says otherwise

nope you are not the final arbitor of the constitutions definitions.

the scotus is

The language of the constitution is not hard to understand... it is quite easy as a matter of fact

And if you think that the SC is beyond political play for power, you are sadly mistaken... and as shown over history, they have (just like other politicians and political offices) over-reached their bounds

So are the Federalists, 'Bro...TdM has no interest. Jefferson would laugh TdM into obscurity.

 

[flacaltenn]

You start on that path by attacking areas for which there is LARGE left-right agreement.

One is corporate subsidies which ought to be slashed and a small fraction of that turned back into R&D funding -- not candy for products that are already mature and on the market.

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!

.

.

​

Dammit Man.. You proved my point that EVERYONE agrees on this -- but you ruined my cred by agreeing to it...