Gallup: Government Too Powerful

[Mac1958]

.

Well, this is a nice way to start the day:

Americans' Belief That Gov't Is Too Powerful at Record Level

It's now 60 to 32.

We're clearly moving towards the more centralized bureaucracy that the Left covets, but it's nice to see that the narcissistic thugs and liars in D.C. have not yet taken over the American psyche.

.

 

[JoeB131]

And these will be the same people who will complain when a disaster hits, and the government doesn't respond fast enough.

 

[Mac1958]

And these will be the same people who will complain when a disaster hits, and the government doesn't respond fast enough.

I'm not aware of anyone complaining when the Feds step in on a disaster. I'd think that would be one of its fundamental responsibilities.

Link?

.

 

[JoeB131]

You missed the whole Katrina thing when all those Red State types were all bitching that FEMA didn't respond fast enough.

Ayn Rand would be crying that they weren't "Self-reliant" enough to get themselves out of that mess.

Here's the real problem. As much as Wingnuts complain about government being "too big" or "too powerful", they never, ever, ever call for cutting a program that benefits themselves.

They want to cut the OTHER guy's program.

Cut those lazy welfare people's foodstamps, but I'd better get my extention of unemployment benefits!

 

[Mac1958]

You missed the whole Katrina thing when all those Red State types were all bitching that FEMA didn't respond fast enough.

Ayn Rand would be crying that they weren't "Self-reliant" enough to get themselves out of that mess.

Here's the real problem. As much as Wingnuts complain about government being "too big" or "too powerful", they never, ever, ever call for cutting a program that benefits themselves.

They want to cut the OTHER guy's program.

Cut those lazy welfare people's foodstamps, but I'd better get my extention of unemployment benefits!

As I mentioned, we're clearly moving toward a stronger centralized bureaucracy, as we slowly add the goodies, piece by piece. So I definitely can't argue there. But also as I mentioned, it's nice to see that we're not (yet) at a full sprint.

.

 

[JoeB131]

You missed the whole Katrina thing when all those Red State types were all bitching that FEMA didn't respond fast enough.

Ayn Rand would be crying that they weren't "Self-reliant" enough to get themselves out of that mess.

Here's the real problem. As much as Wingnuts complain about government being "too big" or "too powerful", they never, ever, ever call for cutting a program that benefits themselves.

They want to cut the OTHER guy's program.

Cut those lazy welfare people's foodstamps, but I'd better get my extention of unemployment benefits!

As I mentioned, we're clearly moving toward a stronger centralized bureaucracy, as we slowly add the goodies, piece by piece. So I definitely can't argue there. But also as I mentioned, it's nice to see that we're not (yet) at a full sprint.

.

I'll take it more seriously when people actually start refusing government benefits.

But shit. Even Ayn Rand took Medicare and Social Security after she got the Lung Cancer (because she thought government warnings about tobacco were a government plot to control her life.)

I'll take actions over touchy feely polls.

 

[Old Rocks]

Simple fact, as people increase there numbers, and we live in a more densley populated nation, there has to be more rules. That means more government. A crude demonstration, if 40 people live on the banks of a 400 mile long river, and they urinate in the river, who cares? But if 4 million people live along that river, and do that, you now have a 400 mile long sewer.

Yes, in many ways we have less freedom now than when I was a child in the '40's and '50's. But, by definition, your freedom only extends to where the next persons toes begin. And when the distance between those toes continue to decrease, so will freedom.

 

[Old Rocks]

You missed the whole Katrina thing when all those Red State types were all bitching that FEMA didn't respond fast enough.

Ayn Rand would be crying that they weren't "Self-reliant" enough to get themselves out of that mess.

Here's the real problem. As much as Wingnuts complain about government being "too big" or "too powerful", they never, ever, ever call for cutting a program that benefits themselves.

They want to cut the OTHER guy's program.

Cut those lazy welfare people's foodstamps, but I'd better get my extention of unemployment benefits!

Like the people that voted to stop aid to the people affected by Sandy, but were screaming for aid when disasters hit their states. Some real stinking hypocrites there.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

You missed the whole Katrina thing when all those Red State types were all bitching that FEMA didn't respond fast enough.

Ayn Rand would be crying that they weren't "Self-reliant" enough to get themselves out of that mess.

Here's the real problem. As much as Wingnuts complain about government being "too big" or "too powerful", they never, ever, ever call for cutting a program that benefits themselves.

They want to cut the OTHER guy's program.

Cut those lazy welfare people's foodstamps, but I'd better get my extention of unemployment benefits!

As I mentioned, we're clearly moving toward a stronger centralized bureaucracy, as we slowly add the goodies, piece by piece. So I definitely can't argue there. But also as I mentioned, it's nice to see that we're not (yet) at a full sprint.

.

I'll take it more seriously when people actually start refusing government benefits.

But shit. Even Ayn Rand took Medicare and Social Security after she got the Lung Cancer (because she thought government warnings about tobacco were a government plot to control her life.)

I'll take actions over touchy feely polls.

We pay into SS. Thats each individuals money that the govt confiscates for thirty forty years and then allows a pittance back.

 

[National Socialist]

As this kind of government yes. As a pro white government it wouldn't be like this. Less meddling in other nations if any at all,no foreign aid,no stupid gun laws...etc.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

It's like money. The more you have, the more you need.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

They disguise actual human sacrifice as a means to an end.

 

[JoeB131]

As I mentioned, we're clearly moving toward a stronger centralized bureaucracy, as we slowly add the goodies, piece by piece. So I definitely can't argue there. But also as I mentioned, it's nice to see that we're not (yet) at a full sprint.

.

I'll take it more seriously when people actually start refusing government benefits.

But shit. Even Ayn Rand took Medicare and Social Security after she got the Lung Cancer (because she thought government warnings about tobacco were a government plot to control her life.)

I'll take actions over touchy feely polls.

We pay into SS. Thats each individuals money that the govt confiscates for thirty forty years and then allows a pittance back.

If you retire at 65 and live to be 72, you get everything you paid into SS back.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'll take it more seriously when people actually start refusing government benefits.

But shit. Even Ayn Rand took Medicare and Social Security after she got the Lung Cancer (because she thought government warnings about tobacco were a government plot to control her life.)

I'll take actions over touchy feely polls.

We pay into SS. Thats each individuals money that the govt confiscates for thirty forty years and then allows a pittance back.

If you retire at 65 and live to be 72, you get everything you paid into SS back.

Oh, sure. There is no such thing as inflation.....

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Term-limits would go a long way.

 

[martybegan]

Simple fact, as people increase there numbers, and we live in a more densley populated nation, there has to be more rules. That means more government. A crude demonstration, if 40 people live on the banks of a 400 mile long river, and they urinate in the river, who cares? But if 4 million people live along that river, and do that, you now have a 400 mile long sewer.

Yes, in many ways we have less freedom now than when I was a child in the '40's and '50's. But, by definition, your freedom only extends to where the next persons toes begin. And when the distance between those toes continue to decrease, so will freedom.

Then apply those rules locally in the cities and areas where they are needed.

Dont go and apply them federally to everyone, when everyone doesnt need them.

And keep away from my 32 oz diet big gulp, dammit.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Simple fact, as people increase there numbers, and we live in a more densley populated nation, there has to be more rules. That means more government. A crude demonstration, if 40 people live on the banks of a 400 mile long river, and they urinate in the river, who cares? But if 4 million people live along that river, and do that, you now have a 400 mile long sewer.

Yes, in many ways we have less freedom now than when I was a child in the '40's and '50's. But, by definition, your freedom only extends to where the next persons toes begin. And when the distance between those toes continue to decrease, so will freedom.

What a giant load of shit. But it's not surprising coming from Rocksie.

The extension of freedom doesn't require arbitrarily set rules in order to maintain your precious river. Just admit you like the idea of being ruled over cradle to grave and in every action that central planners can dream up. Because that's really what you're saying. At least you didn't come right out and say you choose perceived safety over liberty, even if that's what you mean.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Simple fact, as people increase there numbers, and we live in a more densley populated nation, there has to be more rules. That means more government. A crude demonstration, if 40 people live on the banks of a 400 mile long river, and they urinate in the river, who cares? But if 4 million people live along that river, and do that, you now have a 400 mile long sewer.

Yes, in many ways we have less freedom now than when I was a child in the '40's and '50's. But, by definition, your freedom only extends to where the next persons toes begin. And when the distance between those toes continue to decrease, so will freedom.

Then apply those rules locally in the cities and areas where they are needed.

Dont go and apply them federally to everyone, when everyone doesnt need them.

And keep away from my 32 oz diet big gulp, dammit.

They wanted to change the packaging on cigarette boxes but failed.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Simple fact, as people increase there numbers, and we live in a more densley populated nation, there has to be more rules. That means more government. A crude demonstration, if 40 people live on the banks of a 400 mile long river, and they urinate in the river, who cares? But if 4 million people live along that river, and do that, you now have a 400 mile long sewer.

Yes, in many ways we have less freedom now than when I was a child in the '40's and '50's. But, by definition, your freedom only extends to where the next persons toes begin. And when the distance between those toes continue to decrease, so will freedom.

Then apply those rules locally in the cities and areas where they are needed.

Dont go and apply them federally to everyone, when everyone doesnt need them.

And keep away from my 32 oz diet big gulp, dammit.

No way. Rocksie like a blanket solution for everyone. Things like me paying taxes for school systems i dont use, etc...thats the type of stuff LOLberals are made of.

 

[NLT]

You missed the whole Katrina thing when all those Red State types were all bitching that FEMA didn't respond fast enough.

Ayn Rand would be crying that they weren't "Self-reliant" enough to get themselves out of that mess.

Here's the real problem. As much as Wingnuts complain about government being "too big" or "too powerful", they never, ever, ever call for cutting a program that benefits themselves.

They want to cut the OTHER guy's program.

Cut those lazy welfare people's foodstamps, but I'd better get my extention of unemployment benefits!

You mean the mayor of New Orleans and the Gov. Of LA. Both liberal Democrats. not to mention the people of New Orleans which are majority liberal democrats.