Gallup: Government Too Powerful

[rdean]

.

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.

.

Did you notice this part:

As the George W. Bush era continued, both Republicans and Democrats began to report higher levels of unease with the amount of power the federal government held. Between 2004 and 2007, the gap between the parties ranged from seven to 17 percentage points, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to say the government had too much power.

--------------------------------

Ahhh ha ha. They are saying it started with Bush. Well yea. He lied. He tricked this country into war. He buttfucked the poor and middle class. He was a terrible disaster.

So you're saying it was bad when Bush did it...but it's awesome when Obama does it.

To a delusional tard, that must be what I'm saying.

Here, let me try to help these weak minded conservatards understand. When Republicans take control of government, normal people become concerned and stop trusting government because of the conservatards dangerous and damaging policies. You can't put off that suspicion once you cultivate it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

[


Hey Joe,

Not to jump into your conversation, but I agree with you to a point. Corporations in America used to have three primary goals.

1. Make a Profit

2. Take care of employees (pay a living wage, decent benefits, consider them "family")

3. Be a positive member of the Community.


Joe, all of that started to go in the 1980's. Now they are fucking ruthless. The idea is to squeeze every penny out of the enterprise and funnel as much of that money to the top corporate directors and board members as they can...as quickly as they can. Maximizing shareholder value is given lip service...but the primary goal is to enrich the top corporate officers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

On the other hand, I hate the fucking Government, and see it as even more corrupt. I can choose to avoid doing business with a corporation. I do not buy Apple shit because they are scumbags. But the Government crawls up my asshole on almost everything, and I have to deal with them. So I guess you could say I am conflicted. But I do believe you have a valid point regarding the current state of Corporate America.

I think Government is a reflection of us. We want it to do all these things. We don't want to pay for it, and we don't want that OTHER guy getting his stuff.

The reality is the vast majority of us get more out of government than we pay in, if we had to acquire all those services from a private entity. Think Cigna is going to insure your health after you're 65?

Now, I think NEITHER party is willing to have the honest converstation of "How much government do we want and how much will it cost?" And we keep electing them.

Again, I agree most of your points. The fact most people are getting more out of the Government than they ever put in is a very bad thing. Maybe that's why we're going bankrupt?

Your situation is a bit different. You served in the Military. The G.I. Bill is probably the greatest Government Program in history. I grew up in a house financed through the G.I. Bill. It helped educate my father. In my opinion whatever benefits you have gotten as a result of serving in the military you deserve. I have no problem with ex-G.I.'s getting those benefits. The thing is...you earned them.

The able-bodied freeloaders who have never contributed a damn thing to our society. Fuck 'em. Let them starve. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is how I feel.

But ex-G.I.'s....all I can say is God Bless, and thank you for your service. Getting some assistance in buying a home or getting an education is a small price to pay.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Again, I agree most of your points. The fact most people are getting more out of the Government than they ever put in is a very bad thing. Maybe that's why we're going bankrupt?

Your situation is a bit different. You served in the Military. The G.I. Bill is probably the greatest Government Program in history. I grew up in a house financed through the G.I. Bill. It helped educate my father. In my opinion whatever benefits you have gotten as a result of serving in the military you deserve. I have no problem with ex-G.I.'s getting those benefits. The thing is...you earned them.

The able-bodied freeloaders who have never contributed a damn thing to our society. Fuck 'em. Let them starve. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is how I feel.

But ex-G.I.'s....all I can say is God Bless, and thank you for your service. Getting some assistance in buying a home or getting an education is a small price to pay.

I don't think the bad thing is that we are getting more out of the govenrment than we put in.

I think the bad thing is that various corporate schemes to dismantle the middle class have driven folks who would happily work for their keep to turn to government to make ends meet.

For instance, 40% of households using Food Stamps (SNAP) have at least one person in the family that has a job. They just don't have a job that pays enough to put food on the table. The same can be said of Medicare and Section 8 housing. They have jobs, they are working, they need a little boost to help them.

I also think that people generally see a difference between assistance to the very poor, which they are angry about (such as your avatar and name) and the nice, middle class entitlements that people have "paid in to" like Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Social Security.

Do I think there are some people who game the system? Yup.

I would also support a serious work requirement for long term assistance seekers who are otherwise able bodied.

But understand, we didn't get here because of government. Government got here because a few at the top got too greedy.

 

[daveman]

[


He's (Adam Lanza) a criminal. And of course, you excuse his behavior and blame his mother. And his gun.

Because, of course, his weapons acted on their own without any input from a human being.

Right?

I guess it's simply too much to expect that a progressive blame a criminal for his actions.

I don't excuse Adam Lanza's behavior. BUt I understand it.

He was pretty severely mentally ill. In fact, had he lived, he'd have probably gotten off on a diminished capacity plea.

The CRIME was that his mother, knowing he was dangerous, enabled his bad behavior. And so did the Gun Industry.

When you blame his mother and the gun industry, instead of him, yes, you are undeniably excusing his behavior.

 

[JoeB131]

[


He's (Adam Lanza) a criminal. And of course, you excuse his behavior and blame his mother. And his gun.

Because, of course, his weapons acted on their own without any input from a human being.

Right?

I guess it's simply too much to expect that a progressive blame a criminal for his actions.

I don't excuse Adam Lanza's behavior. BUt I understand it.

He was pretty severely mentally ill. In fact, had he lived, he'd have probably gotten off on a diminished capacity plea.

The CRIME was that his mother, knowing he was dangerous, enabled his bad behavior. And so did the Gun Industry.

When you blame his mother and the gun industry, instead of him, yes, you are undeniably excusing his behavior.

Legally, he wasn't responsible for his actions. He was seriously mentally ill.

What was his Mom's excuse? Or the Gun Industry looking at people like his Mom as a prime market?

You don't give a pyromanaic a can of gasoline, you don't give an alcoholic a bottle of Jack Daniels.

And you don't give a violent teen with anger management issues a fucking gun.

 

[daveman]

Did you notice this part:

As the George W. Bush era continued, both Republicans and Democrats began to report higher levels of unease with the amount of power the federal government held. Between 2004 and 2007, the gap between the parties ranged from seven to 17 percentage points, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to say the government had too much power.

--------------------------------

Ahhh ha ha. They are saying it started with Bush. Well yea. He lied. He tricked this country into war. He buttfucked the poor and middle class. He was a terrible disaster.

So you're saying it was bad when Bush did it...but it's awesome when Obama does it.

To a delusional tard, that must be what I'm saying.

That's exactly what you're saying. You refuse to condemn Obama when he does the exact same thing you condemn Bush for.

In your defense, though, I have to admit it's easier than thinking for yourself.

Here, let me try to help these weak minded conservatards understand. When Republicans take control of government, normal people become concerned and stop trusting government because of the conservatards dangerous and damaging policies. You can't put off that suspicion once you cultivate it.

So, people don't trust government because of Bush...even though Obama's been running the government for four years and 8 months now, accelerating Bush's spending, and continuing or increasing Bush's domestic surveillance programs.

Like I said...it's bad when Bush does it, and awesome when Obama does it.

Now please stop lying to yourself that you're not a flaming idiot.

 

[daveman]

I don't excuse Adam Lanza's behavior. BUt I understand it.

He was pretty severely mentally ill. In fact, had he lived, he'd have probably gotten off on a diminished capacity plea.

The CRIME was that his mother, knowing he was dangerous, enabled his bad behavior. And so did the Gun Industry.

When you blame his mother and the gun industry, instead of him, yes, you are undeniably excusing his behavior.

Legally, he wasn't responsible for his actions. He was seriously mentally ill.

What was his Mom's excuse? Or the Gun Industry looking at people like his Mom as a prime market?

You don't give a pyromanaic a can of gasoline, you don't give an alcoholic a bottle of Jack Daniels.

And you don't give a violent teen with anger management issues a fucking gun.

Who gave him a gun? His mother? Ummm, no, he murdered her and stole her guns.

Joe, don't go away mad. Just go away and be stupid somewhere else.

 

[JoeB131]

When you blame his mother and the gun industry, instead of him, yes, you are undeniably excusing his behavior.

Legally, he wasn't responsible for his actions. He was seriously mentally ill.

What was his Mom's excuse? Or the Gun Industry looking at people like his Mom as a prime market?

You don't give a pyromanaic a can of gasoline, you don't give an alcoholic a bottle of Jack Daniels.

And you don't give a violent teen with anger management issues a fucking gun.

Who gave him a gun? His mother? Ummm, no, he murdered her and stole her guns.

Joe, don't go away mad. Just go away and be stupid somewhere else.

You mean after she kept 12 of them in the house, took him to a shooting range to show him how to use them, let him play first person shooter games for hours on end...

Yeah, his mom was totally the victim here.

Oh, wait, no, she isn't. People aren't even counting her as a victim.

The victims are the children and teachers he killed.

She falls under "Accomplice".

 

[Toro]

If you die at age 64 and you paid into SS all your life, nobody gets anything. What's your point?

I'm not even sure if that's correct, though I may be wrong.

It's not accurate- Surviving spouses can receive your benefits with SOcial Security.

It appears to be accurate

The Urban Institute, a non-partisan research institute in Washington, produces statistics on this topic annually. Institute researchers figured out what people turning 65 in various years have already "paid in" to the system and what can expect to "take out" after they reach age 65. ...

According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

As to survivorship benefits

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. ...

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.

PolitiFact | Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Did you notice this part:

As the George W. Bush era continued, both Republicans and Democrats began to report higher levels of unease with the amount of power the federal government held. Between 2004 and 2007, the gap between the parties ranged from seven to 17 percentage points, with Democrats more likely than Republicans to say the government had too much power.

--------------------------------

Ahhh ha ha. They are saying it started with Bush. Well yea. He lied. He tricked this country into war. He buttfucked the poor and middle class. He was a terrible disaster.

So you're saying it was bad when Bush did it...but it's awesome when Obama does it.

To a delusional tard, that must be what I'm saying.

Here, let me try to help these weak minded conservatards understand. When Republicans take control of government, normal people become concerned and stop trusting government because of the conservatards dangerous and damaging policies. You can't put off that suspicion once you cultivate it.

Everyone is concerned with the repercussions of inept policies that will follow when O leaves. What a travesty unfolding in the wh.

 

[Bluedog]

No surprise here. Both houses of Congress are elected by the same electorate. The state governments have no mechanism to prevent the national government from expanding. Originallty the states were supposed to be represented thru the Senate by allowing them to appoint them for six year terms. Between gridlock and corruption charges, the seventeenth amendment removed the only check Congress had internally, leaving the SC to decide where the line is to be drawn between state and Washington.

My two cents

 

[WelfareQueen]

[

Again, I agree most of your points. The fact most people are getting more out of the Government than they ever put in is a very bad thing. Maybe that's why we're going bankrupt?

Your situation is a bit different. You served in the Military. The G.I. Bill is probably the greatest Government Program in history. I grew up in a house financed through the G.I. Bill. It helped educate my father. In my opinion whatever benefits you have gotten as a result of serving in the military you deserve. I have no problem with ex-G.I.'s getting those benefits. The thing is...you earned them.

The able-bodied freeloaders who have never contributed a damn thing to our society. Fuck 'em. Let them starve. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but that is how I feel.

But ex-G.I.'s....all I can say is God Bless, and thank you for your service. Getting some assistance in buying a home or getting an education is a small price to pay.

I don't think the bad thing is that we are getting more out of the govenrment than we put in.

I think the bad thing is that various corporate schemes to dismantle the middle class have driven folks who would happily work for their keep to turn to government to make ends meet.

For instance, 40% of households using Food Stamps (SNAP) have at least one person in the family that has a job. They just don't have a job that pays enough to put food on the table. The same can be said of Medicare and Section 8 housing. They have jobs, they are working, they need a little boost to help them.

I also think that people generally see a difference between assistance to the very poor, which they are angry about (such as your avatar and name) and the nice, middle class entitlements that people have "paid in to" like Unemployment Insurance, Medicare and Social Security.

Do I think there are some people who game the system? Yup.

I would also support a serious work requirement for long term assistance seekers who are otherwise able bodied.

But understand, we didn't get here because of government. Government got here because a few at the top got too greedy.

Like Joe,

I agree with a lot of your points, but it is it is not purely black and white. Manufacturing jobs largely built America. Those jobs are basically gone. Those jobs are gone due to Corporate greed (your point) as well as failed Government policies (ex: trade agreements that do not advantage America, and screw over workers).

I do not do business with companies like Apple that have made hundreds of billions in the U.S. market...yet outsource almost all of their manufacturing jobs to China. Fuck the greedy bastards. But Government has a role as well. Both political parties are bought and paid for by Corporations. Most of the policies Government creates benefits those corporations....not the little guy.

The food Stamp Program is a joke, primarily because Obama eased eligibility requirements to get benefits. It's the first hit off the Government crack pipe to begin the process of fostering lifelong dependence. It is deeply cynical...and very wrong.

I guess I'm saying the problem is more complex than simple Republican/Democrat ideology. Corporate greed has hurt America, no question. Government's slavish bowing down to Wall Street and big Corporations is also a major problem. Both are hurting the average American.

In this economy, we can't all continue to just serve each other. That leads to a nation of Wal Mart "Associates" and latte makers at Starbucks. We need to start making shit again. I don't see either political party putting pressure of Corporate America to make that happen. The solution is both Government and Corporate America.

 

[rdean]

So you're saying it was bad when Bush did it...but it's awesome when Obama does it.

To a delusional tard, that must be what I'm saying.

That's exactly what you're saying. You refuse to condemn Obama when he does the exact same thing you condemn Bush for.

In your defense, though, I have to admit it's easier than thinking for yourself.

Here, let me try to help these weak minded conservatards understand. When Republicans take control of government, normal people become concerned and stop trusting government because of the conservatards dangerous and damaging policies. You can't put off that suspicion once you cultivate it.

So, people don't trust government because of Bush...even though Obama's been running the government for four years and 8 months now, accelerating Bush's spending, and continuing or increasing Bush's domestic surveillance programs.

Like I said...it's bad when Bush does it, and awesome when Obama does it.

Now please stop lying to yourself that you're not a flaming idiot.

How could he be accelerating Bush's spending when Republicans hold the purse strings? Oh, wait, that's right. Republicans cut poor Americans from food stamps but give millions in subsidies to farm holders.

How Republicans Justify Cutting Food Stamps While Boosting Farm Subsidies

Republicans who got farm subsidies targeted

(just one example) Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) has received a total of $3.5 million in farm subsidies, according to numbers tracked by the lobbying firm Environmental Working Group. The company points out that according to his congressional filings, his net worth is between $204,995 and $1.1 million. And 22 percent of the residents of Fincher’s home county receive food stamps.

---------------------------------------------

For Republicans on the USMB to support this inequity, they must surely kneel at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard. And they have to the nerve to complain we don't attack Obama the way we "attack" them. Well, Obama's not evil for wanting Americans to eat and have health care. They don't get it.

 

[WelfareQueen]

To a delusional tard, that must be what I'm saying.

That's exactly what you're saying. You refuse to condemn Obama when he does the exact same thing you condemn Bush for.

In your defense, though, I have to admit it's easier than thinking for yourself.

Here, let me try to help these weak minded conservatards understand. When Republicans take control of government, normal people become concerned and stop trusting government because of the conservatards dangerous and damaging policies. You can't put off that suspicion once you cultivate it.

So, people don't trust government because of Bush...even though Obama's been running the government for four years and 8 months now, accelerating Bush's spending, and continuing or increasing Bush's domestic surveillance programs.

Like I said...it's bad when Bush does it, and awesome when Obama does it.

Now please stop lying to yourself that you're not a flaming idiot.

How could he be accelerating Bush's spending when Republicans hold the purse strings? Oh, wait, that's right. Republicans cut poor Americans from food stamps but give millions in subsidies to farm holders.

How Republicans Justify Cutting Food Stamps While Boosting Farm Subsidies

Republicans who got farm subsidies targeted

(just one example) Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) has received a total of $3.5 million in farm subsidies, according to numbers tracked by the lobbying firm Environmental Working Group. The company points out that according to his congressional filings, his net worth is between $204,995 and $1.1 million. And 22 percent of the residents of Fincher’s home county receive food stamps.

---------------------------------------------

For Republicans on the USMB to support this inequity, they must surely kneel at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard. And they have to the nerve to complain we don't attack Obama the way we "attack" them. Well, Obama's not evil for wanting Americans to eat and have health care. They don't get it.

Yeah, only Republicans have ever voted for farm subsidies. Tom Harkin (D) of Iowa was the king of farm subsidies for decades as the chair of the Senate Agricultural Committee. Only in the last few months has he changed his tune (probably because he is leaving the Senate).

There is no need to always be a political hack. At least try to become aware of the basic facts. Here is a link to just a few of Harkins' subsidy bullshit.

Tom Harkin - News

 

[WelfareQueen]

Oh, and one other thing...

You have a little blurb about Obama being demonized because all he wants is for American's to eat and have health care. That's sweet. I'd like each American to have a million dollars in the bank as well. Who is going to pay for it? Obama?

The Government has zero obligation to feed people or provide health care. That is not in the Constitution. My expectation is that people feed themselves and get their own healthcare. Who is being more unreasonable?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Oh, and one other thing...

You have a little blurb about Obama being demonized because all he wants is for American's to eat and have health care. That's sweet. I'd like each American to have a million dollars in the bank as well. Who is going to pay for it? Obama?

The Government has zero obligation to feed people or provide health care. That is not in the Constitution. My expectation is that people feed themselves and get their own healthcare. Who is being more unreasonable?

Of course you are, starqueesha.

 

[daveman]

Legally, he wasn't responsible for his actions. He was seriously mentally ill.

What was his Mom's excuse? Or the Gun Industry looking at people like his Mom as a prime market?

You don't give a pyromanaic a can of gasoline, you don't give an alcoholic a bottle of Jack Daniels.

And you don't give a violent teen with anger management issues a fucking gun.

Who gave him a gun? His mother? Ummm, no, he murdered her and stole her guns.

Joe, don't go away mad. Just go away and be stupid somewhere else.

You mean after she kept 12 of them in the house, took him to a shooting range to show him how to use them, let him play first person shooter games for hours on end...

Yeah, his mom was totally the victim here.

Oh, wait, no, she isn't. People aren't even counting her as a victim.

The victims are the children and teachers he killed.

She falls under "Accomplice".

Again...you excuse the criminal.

Why do you love criminals? Do you have a boyfriend in prison?

 

[daveman]

To a delusional tard, that must be what I'm saying.

That's exactly what you're saying. You refuse to condemn Obama when he does the exact same thing you condemn Bush for.

In your defense, though, I have to admit it's easier than thinking for yourself.

Here, let me try to help these weak minded conservatards understand. When Republicans take control of government, normal people become concerned and stop trusting government because of the conservatards dangerous and damaging policies. You can't put off that suspicion once you cultivate it.

So, people don't trust government because of Bush...even though Obama's been running the government for four years and 8 months now, accelerating Bush's spending, and continuing or increasing Bush's domestic surveillance programs.

Like I said...it's bad when Bush does it, and awesome when Obama does it.

Now please stop lying to yourself that you're not a flaming idiot.

How could he be accelerating Bush's spending when Republicans hold the purse strings? Oh, wait, that's right. Republicans cut poor Americans from food stamps but give millions in subsidies to farm holders.

How Republicans Justify Cutting Food Stamps While Boosting Farm Subsidies

Republicans who got farm subsidies targeted

(just one example) Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) has received a total of $3.5 million in farm subsidies, according to numbers tracked by the lobbying firm Environmental Working Group. The company points out that according to his congressional filings, his net worth is between $204,995 and $1.1 million. And 22 percent of the residents of Fincher’s home county receive food stamps.

---------------------------------------------

For Republicans on the USMB to support this inequity, they must surely kneel at the alter of the Church of the Heartless Bastard. And they have to the nerve to complain we don't attack Obama the way we "attack" them. Well, Obama's not evil for wanting Americans to eat and have health care. They don't get it.

If you'd asked me, instead of letting your hateful bigotry do your thinking for you (Hint: It's not any better at it than you are), you'd have found I don't support farm subsidies.

And since you don't, either, I'm pleased to find out you oppose ethanol mandates, too.

Right? Or are you once again going to reveal yourself as a flaming hypocrite?

 

[JoeB131]

Who gave him a gun? His mother? Ummm, no, he murdered her and stole her guns.

Joe, don't go away mad. Just go away and be stupid somewhere else.

You mean after she kept 12 of them in the house, took him to a shooting range to show him how to use them, let him play first person shooter games for hours on end...

Yeah, his mom was totally the victim here.

Oh, wait, no, she isn't. People aren't even counting her as a victim.

The victims are the children and teachers he killed.

She falls under "Accomplice".

Again...you excuse the criminal.

Why do you love criminals? Do you have a boyfriend in prison?

No, I just don't think that having 2 million prisoners and 8 million on probation or parole is particularly good for anyone but the companies getting rich on prisons.

Adam Lanza needed to be hospitalized.

Instead, he was allowed access to guns, trained on a range and desensitized with video-games.

 

[Erand7899]

So that was the best you had, that the party that can't decide if it's an "Gift from God" rape or a "Legitimate" rape wants to stop rape victims from getting abortions, and you wonder why the ladies are a tad upset about that?

There are dingbats in both parties, and they do not represent anyone but themselves. Your attempts to tar millions of people with the dumbass statements of two or three people indicates that your logic circuits are either defective or not in use.

When some of you liberal/socialists learn that we have various levels of government, and that we expect different outcomes from those levels, then you might have a valid argument about the size of government. When conservatives speak of government being too big and too intrusive, they are normally speaking of the federal government.

Since liberal/socialists cannot make an argument against a smaller federal government, they desire to lump all government together and argue the merits of state and local governments.