"Smaller government" advocates

[Conservative65]

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.

The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.

True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.

They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.

If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.

Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.

They're mentally ill, and criminal. I'm not even kidding. This is what happens when you open up the nut hatches and the prisons, and let people do whatever they want. You end up with a lot of really stupid, poorly educated, easily led, criminal thinking nutbars.

And that's not even the worst part. The worst part is they can vote.

The majority of them shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't be allowed to vote if you're on welfare, or if you're a felon, or if you've been diagnosed with a mental illness. That would neutralize every one of the progressive sad sacks who post here.

True, but the Democrats rely on ignorant voters. That's why people like Sanders and other Democrats across the country are trying to automatically register you as a voter once you turn 18 years old. Some are trying to extend it to people under the age of 18.

They are against Voter-ID because their voters are lazy. Sure, they will vote if it's convenient enough for them. But to go out and put some effort into voting? Forget about it. How are Democrats supposed to pull hobos from the train tracks and get them to obtain a Voter-ID? They won't be able to. Without an ID, they can simply pay them some cigarettes and drive them to the polls without question.

If it were up to me, you would have to take a simple test before you vote to determine if you know anything about politics or the issues. Nothing too hard. Questions like "what party does the Vice President belong to?" "Who is the Vice-President, who is the President?" "How many states do we have in our country?" "What party is in leadership of the US Congress?" Things like that.

Republicans would be thrilled, but Democrats would revolt.

I don't know if they would go even if "paid" with cigarettes and driven. In my State, some 165,000 people were identified as not having a valid ID when voter ID laws passed. The State offered a free ID AND a ride to get it. TWENTY-FIVE accepted.

That's because they don't need it for anything.

If they did, they'd be lined up and camped out.

 

[rightwinger]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Any third party would have to run from the middle drawing moderates from both sides

Running at an extreme only ensures the opposite side will win

 

[Contumacious]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Any third party would have to run from the middle drawing moderates from both sides

Running at an extreme only ensures the opposite side will win

EXCEPT THE LIBERTARIANS.


From our standpoint the government can ONLY protect your right to Life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness. We are NOT going to change our position in order to be "electable" or attract moderates.


.That was our position when we first became a political party in 1971 and that is our position in 2015.

That will be our position in the year 2525 , if man still alive..........


.

 

[rightwinger]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Any third party would have to run from the middle drawing moderates from both sides

Running at an extreme only ensures the opposite side will win

EXCEPT THE LIBERTARIANS.


From our standpoint the government can ONLY protect your right to Life, Liberty, property and to pursue happiness. We are NOT going to change our position in order to be "electable" or attract moderates.


.That was our position when we first became a political party in 1971 and that is our position in 2015.

That will be our position in the year 2525 , if man still alive..........


.

Libertarians are glorified Republicans, only crazier and less fun to be around

A Libertarian candidate will draw votes from the Republicans....see where the Pauls pull their votes?

 

[francoHFW]

now you got me going. I try to paste this one I copy from others........
View attachment 54324

You can see that in action from the Democrat party. they do nothing but class warfare, pitting us against each other. they practically have the media. look what they are doing even today with our universities turning them into little protesting camps. but you can't get that through peoples heads, they don't want to believe it's happening

Dupe^^. Pubs have won that war at this point DUH. Small gov't and family values my ass.

 

[francoHFW]

Muslims love Americans, but hate our gov't, especially the GOP, for getting into their business DUH. And their blind allegiance to Israel, who've ruined Palestinians for 70 years now. They'll be happier when their economies recover from the corrupt Booosh World Depression.

Gee, Democrats hate us and terrorists hate us. Hmmmmm.

Democrats pity the dupes, hate the lies and thievery of Pubs. ISIS would fall apart if there were JOBS. Thanks Boooshies...

 

[Oldstyle]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

I think you've underestimated the effect of forty years of entitlements, Frigid. It's not longer about what makes "sense" or even what's ultimately good for people! Once you give out entitlements it's almost impossible to stop giving them out. That holds true in Greece...just as it does here. Take away welfare and you'd have riots in the streets of our major cities. There are far too many people who view welfare handouts as their "right".

 

[francoHFW]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

I think you've underestimated the effect of forty years of entitlements, Frigid. It's not longer about what makes "sense" or even what's ultimately good for people! Once you give out entitlements it's almost impossible to stop giving them out. That holds true in Greece...just as it does here. Take away welfare and you'd have riots in the streets of our major cities. There are far too many people who view welfare handouts as their "right".

They would all love a good job. Not a Pub job that's not livable. Hater dupes! And thanks for the world depression, etc etc.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A smaller government means
-businesses can pollute our environment
-Buinesses can form massive monopolies
-Businesses can mistreat their workers---Pay shitty wags like in china or africa.
---These are seen clearly by history and currently in nations like China that allow capitalism to crap on the people!!!!!--------
-Hundreds of billions of dollars of investment gone from science, infrastructure and r&d won't boost local economies all over this nation.

Now I do want accountability but I think small government just because is really stupid.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

I think you've underestimated the effect of forty years of entitlements, Frigid. It's not longer about what makes "sense" or even what's ultimately good for people! Once you give out entitlements it's almost impossible to stop giving them out. That holds true in Greece...just as it does here. Take away welfare and you'd have riots in the streets of our major cities. There are far too many people who view welfare handouts as their "right".

They would all love a good job. Not a Pub job that's not livable. Hater dupes! And thanks for the world depression, etc etc.

Republicans have always supported the shitty trade deals that have sent our jobs over sea's. There's nothing pro-work about these people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Any third party would have to run from the middle drawing moderates from both sides

Running at an extreme only ensures the opposite side will win

Yep, moderates want infrastructure, science, r&d, education and sane regulations...Moderates make up 35% of this nation! The thing is sane republicans and most democrats also want what moderates want!!!! Just that they have some issues that they agree with their extremes.

So really running as a extremist is a really bad way to win a election because 60%+ or more of this nation is already strongly disagreeing with you.

 

[rightwinger]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

Any third party would have to run from the middle drawing moderates from both sides

Running at an extreme only ensures the opposite side will win

Yep, moderates want infrastructure, science, r&d, education and sane regulations...Moderates make up 35% of this nation! The thing is sane republicans and most democrats also want what moderates want!!!! Just that they have some issues that they agree with their extremes.

So really running as a extremist is a really bad way to win a election because 60%+ or more of this nation is already strongly disagreeing with you.

Moderates right now are just marginalized by both sides. They are forced to choose which poison they prefer

If moderates abandon the Democrat or Republican labels and run on common sense fiscal reform with both tax and spending reforms...they could take control

Neither the extreme left or extreme right could beat them

 

[Flopper]

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 don't know of anyone who wouldn't like a smaller government as long as we don't cut national defense, food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, disability, environmental protection, disaster relieve, aid to education, college loans, or whatever services they depend on.

The reality is that a small government is not a real possibility. Every congressman knows it but many try to keep the dream alive to get re-elected. What we should be doing is focusing on making big government more efficient. Some years ago we seem to have given up on that idea.

 

[kaz]

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'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

I think you've underestimated the effect of forty years of entitlements, Frigid. It's not longer about what makes "sense" or even what's ultimately good for people! Once you give out entitlements it's almost impossible to stop giving them out. That holds true in Greece...just as it does here. Take away welfare and you'd have riots in the streets of our major cities. There are far too many people who view welfare handouts as their "right".

They would all love a good job. Not a Pub job that's not livable. Hater dupes! And thanks for the world depression, etc etc.

Republicans have always supported the shitty trade deals that have sent our jobs over sea's. There's nothing pro-work about these people.

Who's anti-work are you stupid as fuck protectionist cowards.

You tax business people to death, then you prevent us from cutting costs or having broader access to foreign markets. Thanks for the help, but fuck off.

Small government is the answer, big government is just big oppression

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Muslims love Americans, but hate our gov't, especially the GOP, for getting into their business DUH. And their blind allegiance to Israel, who've ruined Palestinians for 70 years now. They'll be happier when their economies recover from the corrupt Booosh World Depression.

Gee, Democrats hate us and terrorists hate us. Hmmmmm.

Democrats pity the dupes, hate the lies and thievery of Pubs. ISIS would fall apart if there were JOBS. Thanks Boooshies...

ISIS would fall apart if there were jobs? Where do you get that from? Oh yeah, those dopey Democrat leaders of yours.

Well I'm willing to help ISIS get those jobs. I say let's ship Obama over there and he can work his magic. I'm sure he'll make plenty of jobs over there for ISIS.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.

Though, if government funds science, it can influence it. The so-called "science" of Global Warming being a prime example.

Is it a prime example? Eight years of Bush in charge, six of those with a Republican Congress, and still global warming was an issue.

Do you think the English government was forcing gravity upon Isaac Newton, and that there were people who were mightily pissed off that someone invented gravity? "You bastard Newton, I was having fun floating around my garden the other day, and then this conspiracy came that invented gravity and I landed on the ground with a massive bump."

Name one government that benefits from promoting global warming..... and then tell me why they benefit.

Politicians (particularly Democrats) have been trying to get more and more control over the people. The only two vestiges left are energy and healthcare. Once government has total control over those two entities, they will have total control over the people.

Since they can't just take away our energy and healthcare, they will try to make us surrender it to them. That's how government benefits from global warming.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm amused by your ideas for welfare, Fridgid. You do know that if a Republican suggested people could only get Welfare if they first worked that he would be eviscerated by the Main Stream Media as being a hater of the poor?

What you suggest we already sort of have in place in Unemployment.

As for subsidies? I'm in favor of doing away with all of them. The government does an awful job at income redistribution.

I understand how things would look, but that's mainly because of the partisan game that's played. If you spend your whole time demonizing the poor, then you do something like that, people are just going to assume.

But it's also how you get your message across, and mainly the politicians do it with advertising and making everyone play the partisan bullshit game.

If a third party were to do something, they might stand a chance of making sensible policies be the norm.

I think you've underestimated the effect of forty years of entitlements, Frigid. It's not longer about what makes "sense" or even what's ultimately good for people! Once you give out entitlements it's almost impossible to stop giving them out. That holds true in Greece...just as it does here. Take away welfare and you'd have riots in the streets of our major cities. There are far too many people who view welfare handouts as their "right".

They would all love a good job. Not a Pub job that's not livable. Hater dupes! And thanks for the world depression, etc etc.

Republicans have always supported the shitty trade deals that have sent our jobs over sea's. There's nothing pro-work about these people.

Who's anti-work are you stupid as fuck protectionist cowards.

You tax business people to death, then you prevent us from cutting costs or having broader access to foreign markets. Thanks for the help, but fuck off.

Small government is the answer, big government is just big oppression

^^ Totally conned by Pubs, who have NEVER done small gov't, just small
taxes on the megarich and giant corps. MORONS.

 

[francoHFW]

Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.

Though, if government funds science, it can influence it. The so-called "science" of Global Warming being a prime example.

Is it a prime example? Eight years of Bush in charge, six of those with a Republican Congress, and still global warming was an issue.

Do you think the English government was forcing gravity upon Isaac Newton, and that there were people who were mightily pissed off that someone invented gravity? "You bastard Newton, I was having fun floating around my garden the other day, and then this conspiracy came that invented gravity and I landed on the ground with a massive bump."

Name one government that benefits from promoting global warming..... and then tell me why they benefit.

Politicians (particularly Democrats) have been trying to get more and more control over the people. The only two vestiges left are energy and healthcare. Once government has total control over those two entities, they will have total control over the people.

Since they can't just take away our energy and healthcare, they will try to make us surrender it to them. That's how government benefits from global warming.

Setting up transparent competition between insurers and making fracking safer and more environmental, and helping alt energy to compete with China and the EU is not control, dupe, just intelligent. Ay caramba. All the New BS GOP has is big lie propaganda.

We need the richest and giant corps to pay their fair share, and help and tax cuts for the little guy and small business- DEMOCRAT POLICY, dupes.

 

[Contumacious]

Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.

Though, if government funds science, it can influence it. The so-called "science" of Global Warming being a prime example.

Is it a prime example? Eight years of Bush in charge, six of those with a Republican Congress, and still global warming was an issue.

Do you think the English government was forcing gravity upon Isaac Newton, and that there were people who were mightily pissed off that someone invented gravity? "You bastard Newton, I was having fun floating around my garden the other day, and then this conspiracy came that invented gravity and I landed on the ground with a massive bump."

Name one government that benefits from promoting global warming..... and then tell me why they benefit.

Politicians (particularly Democrats) have been trying to get more and more control over the people. The only two vestiges left are energy and healthcare. Once government has total control over those two entities, they will have total control over the people.

Since they can't just take away our energy and healthcare, they will try to make us surrender it to them. That's how government benefits from global warming.

Setting up transparent competition between insurers and making fracking safer and more environmental, and helping alt energy to compete with China and the EU is not control, dupe, just intelligent. Ay caramba. All the New BS GOP has is big lie propaganda.

We need the richest and giant corps to pay their fair share, and help and tax cuts for the little guy and small business- DEMOCRAT POLICY, dupes.

How does the US Constitution (1787) defines fair share?


It doesn't.


Now try the Communist Manifesto, how does i defines fair share?


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share

 

[francoHFW]

Science was improved on MASSIVELY by government help.

Though, if government funds science, it can influence it. The so-called "science" of Global Warming being a prime example.

Is it a prime example? Eight years of Bush in charge, six of those with a Republican Congress, and still global warming was an issue.

Do you think the English government was forcing gravity upon Isaac Newton, and that there were people who were mightily pissed off that someone invented gravity? "You bastard Newton, I was having fun floating around my garden the other day, and then this conspiracy came that invented gravity and I landed on the ground with a massive bump."

Name one government that benefits from promoting global warming..... and then tell me why they benefit.

Politicians (particularly Democrats) have been trying to get more and more control over the people. The only two vestiges left are energy and healthcare. Once government has total control over those two entities, they will have total control over the people.

Since they can't just take away our energy and healthcare, they will try to make us surrender it to them. That's how government benefits from global warming.

Setting up transparent competition between insurers and making fracking safer and more environmental, and helping alt energy to compete with China and the EU is not control, dupe, just intelligent. Ay caramba. All the New BS GOP has is big lie propaganda.

We need the richest and giant corps to pay their fair share, and help and tax cuts for the little guy and small business- DEMOCRAT POLICY, dupes.

How does the US Constitution (1787) defines fair share?


It doesn't.


Now try the Communist Manifesto, how does i defines fair share?


2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share

When ALL the new wealth goes to the 1% and many giant corps pay nothing, only morons think nothing's wrong.