"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government.

And let's come back to this statement. So, you say you aren't "necessarily in favor of bigger government." But some of the items on your list quoted below suggests otherwise. Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

The police.
The fire service
Healthcare
Infrastructure
Welfare (and not this isn't me saying we should just hand out cash, I believe people should have worked in order to be able to get welfare, perhaps five years before they can get any welfare at all)
Armed forces
Prisons
Helping trade (this doesn't include invading countries in order to have your companies take over, nor does it include using the World Bank to fuck over countries)
To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy
To make laws based around a system of Human Rights, ie, you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm other people
To provide education fit for the needs of the citizens
To do other things based around making society more cohesive and more a place where people can have opportunities and chances to do things.

1. The police have nothing to do with capitalism.
2. Neither does the "fire service."
3. Healthcare should be up to the individual, not a government.
4. Infrastructure, yes.
5. Seems fair enough.
6. And what do our armed forces have to do with "pure capitalism"?
7. Sure, why not?
8. What? Do you mean the Trans Pacific Deal? Yeah, that's a bit excessive. Gives too much leeway for corporations to control the trade themselves.
9. Why regulate capitalism? Capitalism, when done the right way, creates an atmosphere where everyone has an opportunity. Just because someone doesn't succeed in a capitalistic society doesn't mean we should regulate it.
10. That isn't "Human rights" that's simply making sure nobody is exposed to adversity.
11. That's all well and good, but when government controls education, you learn what they want you to learn, not what you want to learn.
12. Isn't that what we already have now?

I'm not sure why you said the police have nothing to do with capitalism. I was pointing out the roles the government should take. The police being one thing that should be run by government and not by a capitalist approach. The same goes for fire service and the armed forces.

However companies can make a lot of money out of the armed forces. Halliburton, BP, Exxon and so on. They're raking it in.

You say healthcare should be up to the individual, not the government. Fine, it's your opinion, I happen to disagree.

Why regulate capitalism? Did you not notice what happened in the late 1920s and early 1930s?

Did you not notice what happened with the banks in 2008/09???

Banks go bust and they take OUR MONEY with them. Fuck that shit.

You've gone through all my points, and I'm not sure what else to say, other than what I've already said. I believe the govt should be responsible for these sort of things.

 

[kaz]

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Iraq - Both
Afghanistan - Both
Iran -Republicans
Libya - Democrats
Syria - Democrats

I'm not seeing a clear pattern of one party over the other in there, Holmes. You both seem to like wars

You're not being honest here, either that or you simply have no clue what clamoring means.

And I didn't say Republicans or Democrats, I said conservatives or liberals.

Think.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

How does that change the answer?

That's your problem right there, you don't realize that words have meanings.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

Swish, not what I said, Holmes

 

[frigidweirdo]

You say it's up to the individual to better themselves. But it doesn't work. Sorry. It's been shown time and time and time again that the mass of the people won't better themselves UNLESS they have something like education behind them.

That's utter nonsense. If I throw a ball up in the air, I have to catch it. I don't need someone else to catch it for me. So, show me how "it's been shown time and time again." It's not the government's role to make me better, that's my job.

The Middle Classes and most of those higher are there because of the education the government provided.

Essentially you're saying what Obama said:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business—you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

I'm sorry. But that is a completely asinine line of reasoning.

Okay, I'll show you.

If a 4 year old kid throws the ball up in the air, whose job is it to catch it? Chances are the 4 year old won't be able to catch it, they just haven't learned to do that yet.

So it's the job of the parents to teach them to do this, right? What if the parents don't teach the kid?

There are two ways of looking at this. From the parents with kids point of view, or the kids with parents point of view. The latter shows that the kid is fucking screwed in life with your attitude.

Society needs people with skills. The skill set of a worker earning a decent wage is such that your average parents simply wouldn't have the time to do their job and teach their kids how to design a bridge, or fix an aircraft engine. A lot of this comes from kids going to school to learn stuff. Some kids get home schooling, they have parents with enough money not to need one of them to go to work, they have two adults, and they have one adult who is earning enough and the other who is educated enough to teach their kids.
Well what about kids who don't have a family like this? My parents both worked, and worked a lot. And they got enough money to have a clapped out car that broke down a lot.

Both of them had an education which wouldn't have been able to teach me everything I needed to know. So.....

With your view I'd have been screwed and destined to a life up the chimneys.

At the same time I have to put the work in. A teacher teaches, they don't learn for the kids. No amount of teaching will do that. So, I'm not saying people don't need to better themselves at all. I'm saying that in order to be able to better yourself you need a basis behind which you can do this. Education is a massive part of this.

Isaac Newton said that he was "standing on the shoulders of giants", he meant that what he had done would not have been done without all those who had gone before him. That is what science is. You can't learn science without learning from those who came before you.

Imagine a successful businessman in the US. No imagine the same person having been born in Mogadishu in Somalia and imagine how rich this businessman would be in Somalia compared to in the US.

Are you telling me that the same person would be as successful in Somalia as in the US? Really?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Then what do you believe the role of government to be? Bigger? Smaller? Somewhere in between? What responsibilities should it have?

From what I've seen in the few years I've been posting in this board, the liberals in particular criticize those who want a smaller government, and that they want the government to interfere in her ability to give birth or have an abortion; whereas, in the process, the liberal unwittingly advocates for government regulation of abortion and abortifacients, which lies in direct conflict with their want for government to "stay out of the bedroom."

No, I don't think liberals want smaller government either.

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government. I said I don't get many people who say they're in favor of smaller govt but clearly aren't.

My view on government would be that a government should make life better for people by doing certain things that are needed that wouldn't happen under pure capitalism.

The police.
The fire service
Healthcare
Infrastructure
Welfare (and not this isn't me saying we should just hand out cash, I believe people should have worked in order to be able to get welfare, perhaps five years before they can get any welfare at all)
Armed forces
Prisons
Helping trade (this doesn't include invading countries in order to have your companies take over, nor does it include using the World Bank to fuck over countries)
To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy
To make laws based around a system of Human Rights, ie, you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm other people
To provide education fit for the needs of the citizens
To do other things based around making society more cohesive and more a place where people can have opportunities and chances to do things.

There is a difference in governments. We have levels of government, but what the federal government is supposed to provide is listed in the US Constitution. Anything outside of that document should be handled by the various other governments such as state, county, city or town, only if they deem necessary and it's what the citizens overwhelmingly want.

Well, it doesn't matter if this is done on one level or several levels. Whether health is done at state level or federal level doesn't always matter much. I'm not just talking federal here.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The pursuit of happiness = small govt.
Liberty = small govt.
Life = defense.

Ban of gay marriage is disgusting, marijuana should be legal and we should be able to defend ourselves.

"and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic"
THEN you write this : Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people
Try consistency

Set ideologies are full of hypocrisy. Yes, the right favors big government. But only when it benefits them. The left favors big government; in any way they can get their hands on it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The pursuit of happiness = small govt.
Liberty = small govt.
Life = defense.

Ban of gay marriage is disgusting, marijuana should be legal and we should be able to defend ourselves.

"and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic"
THEN you write this : Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people
Try consistency

Set ideologies are full of hypocrisy. Yes, the right favors big government. But only when it benefits them. The left favors big government; in any way they can get their hands on it.

Try consistency.....


Hmm... I'm talking about people who advocate small govt but preach something else. They preach subsidies to big corporations and farmers. They don't advocate welfare to poor people. That's what I call FUCKING CONSISTENT. ie, I'm talking about one topic and not another.

 

[Rustic]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

The larger a government gets, the more it misbehaves...

 

[TNHarley]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The pursuit of happiness = small govt.
Liberty = small govt.
Life = defense.

Ban of gay marriage is disgusting, marijuana should be legal and we should be able to defend ourselves.

"and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic"
THEN you write this : Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people
Try consistency

Set ideologies are full of hypocrisy. Yes, the right favors big government. But only when it benefits them. The left favors big government; in any way they can get their hands on it.

Try consistency.....


Hmm... I'm talking about people who advocate small govt but preach something else. They preach subsidies to big corporations and farmers. They don't advocate welfare to poor people. That's what I call FUCKING CONSISTENT. ie, I'm talking about one topic and not another.

NEITHER side is consistent with their views. Like I said, set ideologies are full of hypocrisy.

 

[Programmer]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

330 million Americans and people want smaller or less government? We gonna get rid of citizens at the same time?

" Democracy and Optimum Population Size: 2500 years ago, Aristotle considered the best size for a city and concluded that a large increase in population would bring, "certain poverty on the citizenry, and poverty is the cause of sedition and evil." He considered that a city of over 100,000 people would exclude most citizens from a voice in government.

To get an idea of what the founders of the United States had in mind for our representative Democracy, at the low end, the Constitution says (Article 1, Section 2) that a Representative to the House should represent a minimum of 30,000 people. When the Constitution was written, the United States had a total population of around 2.5 million, and the Constitution allocated 65 Representatives to the 13 states. So each Representative of "the People's House" had about 38,500 constituents. Currently each Representative has 712,650 constituents. It's really a form of irony today to call it "the People's House" when only wealthy donors and paid lobbyists really have the ear of your "representatives." What we have now is not Democracy in the sense intended by the country's founders. "
Effects of Overpopulation on the Environment and Society | HowMany.org

The founders sought representation for a broader group of constituents' opinions. If you break our cities into 40k member constituencies, they'll overrepresent those interests significantly when assembled. I disagree that plurality was the goal of the founders or that there's anything magic about 30-40k constituent counts.

 

[Stephanie]

That has never been the governments main duty

Social Programs do more for our citizens than the military does

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

If looking out for fellow Americans is your view of socialism/fascism......maybe it is not so bad

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

Well yeah, they want to care for others, so long as it's with OTHER peoples money that is being FORCED out of them by this tiny weeny Guberment we have now

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

The larger a government gets, the more it misbehaves...

Not necessarily. Misbehaving seems to be about what politicians can get away with. Perhaps the larger the govt the more they can get away with stuff, but not necessarily. Some small govts are bad, and some bigger govts less bad.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The pursuit of happiness = small govt.
Liberty = small govt.
Life = defense.

Ban of gay marriage is disgusting, marijuana should be legal and we should be able to defend ourselves.

"and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic"
THEN you write this : Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people
Try consistency

Set ideologies are full of hypocrisy. Yes, the right favors big government. But only when it benefits them. The left favors big government; in any way they can get their hands on it.

Try consistency.....


Hmm... I'm talking about people who advocate small govt but preach something else. They preach subsidies to big corporations and farmers. They don't advocate welfare to poor people. That's what I call FUCKING CONSISTENT. ie, I'm talking about one topic and not another.

NEITHER side is consistent with their views. Like I said, set ideologies are full of hypocrisy.

Yes, I know. I'm not disagreeing with you about this. However I am being consistent.

 

[Conservative65]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

No one is clamoring for war.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're an imbecile. Social programs didn't exist before FDR, so how can you say that protecting citizens was not the government's main duty?

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

If looking out for fellow Americans is your view of socialism/fascism......maybe it is not so bad

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

Well yeah, they want to care for others, so long as it's with OTHER peoples money that is being FORCED out of them by this tiny weeny Guberment we have now

But then the people who hate taxes being forced out of them for this, seem to have no problem with money being forced out of them to pay big business, or to pay for wars.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

No one is clamoring for war.

Er... actually they are. John McCain for one. Well only if it's against an OPEC country though.

 

[rightwinger]

What is smaller government?

Less spending on the poor?
Less government enforcement of environmental, labor and financial laws?
No standards for education?

 

[danielpalos]

This is inaccurate. Instead, the GOP has some of these issues because of factions that comprise it. Fiscal conservatives are defined by this smaller government thing. They're just one shrinking voice amid people who want theocratic policy or big spend foreign politics.

Honestly I don't think fiscal conservatism is a "shrinking" voice within circles of those that control the GOP, I think it's a completely dead one. The only difference between what the GOP wants and what the Democrats want is the specific configuration of massive central government. IMHO all the talk about "shrinking government" and "cutting spending" that comes out of the GOP is nothing more than bread and circuses to placate the rank and file membership.

As far as "big spend foreign politics" goes both major parties are parties of War, I think it's quite possible that we've now entered an era of war without end where Americans that are alive today will never again see a day where their country is at peace no matter which party is in power. The river of blood and treasure being funneled into raining destruction down on other parts of the globe now stretches as far as the eye can see and Washington has become so good at hiding the realities of War from the eyes of the average citizen and creating new dragons to slay that I cannot see how it will be stopped any time soon.

Seriously though, who are the people clamoring for war, liberals or conservatives?

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

No one is clamoring for war.

who wants to bomb whom?

 

[Stephanie]

Yes, the good ole days before FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself

A libertarian dream

Yep, the good ol' days AFTER FDR
Rampant poverty, dust bowls, soup lines, massive migrations looking for work. Every man for himself, gargantuan welfare/warfare police state


A socialist/fascist dream.


.

If looking out for fellow Americans is your view of socialism/fascism......maybe it is not so bad

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

Well yeah, they want to care for others, so long as it's with OTHER peoples money that is being FORCED out of them by this tiny weeny Guberment we have now

But then the people who hate taxes being forced out of them for this, seem to have no problem with money being forced out of them to pay big business, or to pay for wars.

good grief, the Federal Government was only to be here to run our Military and protect us from all enemies . they were NEVER intended to be anyone's NANNY.
WE ALL HAVE STATE governments to be your nanny if that's what you want...
if all the people who felt like you Contacted their elected ass you could get some of the things changed that you have a beef with. But you don't want a smaller government. so this is pointless

 

[dblack]

who wants to bomb whom?

 

[danielpalos]

What is smaller government?

Less spending on the poor?
Less government enforcement of environmental, labor and financial laws?
No standards for education?

an end to the drug war simply to be Faithful to our Commerce Clause with social morals for free.