"Smaller government" advocates

[kaz]

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

That is the way the one percent want it. Keep the workers unstable, in fear for their jobs. Fire those who dare to stand up for themselves.

of course the beauty of capitalism is that you have to provide the best possible jobs and products just to survive. A liberal will lack the IQ to understand even the basics that a child can understand. Liberals make no more sense that Nazi fascists monarchs and despots. They are merely the latest stupid, violent people in human history

Unrestrained capitalism leads to a breakdown of the working class

Unrestrained capitalism led to the wealthiest society the world has ever seen.

I doubt unrestrained capitalism has every existed.

I like when you people say you're smarter than Republicans because you aren't all black and white like they are while you take everything to an absolute extreme

 

[kaz]

Whose role is it to change that?

Good question
It used to be strong unions who fought for the workers. But with Republicans steadily degrading the influence of unions, it has become every man for himself......just like the one percent want

So, it seems like only the government has the power to stand up for workers

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

That is the way the one percent want it. Keep the workers unstable, in fear for their jobs. Fire those who dare to stand up for themselves.

you're in fear for your job because you have a bad attitude and suck at your job.

Good workers get treated well by their employers. We aren't actually stupid, that's why we ended up with the big pile, comrade big guy

 

[kaz]

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

That is the way the one percent want it. Keep the workers unstable, in fear for their jobs. Fire those who dare to stand up for themselves.

of course the beauty of capitalism is that you have to provide the best possible jobs and products just to survive. A liberal will lack the IQ to understand even the basics that a child can understand. Liberals make no more sense that Nazi fascists monarchs and despots. They are merely the latest stupid, violent people in human history

Unrestrained capitalism leads to a breakdown of the working class

The word Marxist bothers you why again Comrade big guy?

And again, the left taking every statement to the absolute extreme. Right big guy, we're anarchists. What a fucking moron. This is why you can't engage in an actual discussion of anything. For you there is black and there is white. Period. Pick

 

[kaz]

Whose role is it to change that?

Good question
It used to be strong unions who fought for the workers. But with Republicans steadily degrading the influence of unions, it has become every man for himself......just like the one percent want

So, it seems like only the government has the power to stand up for workers

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

For most of my life I've never worked for any unions and never experienced any of the problems you listed.

Ditto

 

[kaz]

Whose role is it to change that?

Good question
It used to be strong unions who fought for the workers. But with Republicans steadily degrading the influence of unions, it has become every man for himself......just like the one percent want

So, it seems like only the government has the power to stand up for workers

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

For most of my life I've never worked for any unions and never experienced any of the problems you listed.

Your day doesn't start with your attitude telling your employer that you hate them, does it?

 

[regent]

We had a small government then the framers made it much much larger with their Constitution.

 

[kaz]

Good question
It used to be strong unions who fought for the workers. But with Republicans steadily degrading the influence of unions, it has become every man for himself......just like the one percent want

So, it seems like only the government has the power to stand up for workers

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

For most of my life I've never working for any unions and never experienced any of the problems you listed.

Many people who never worked for a union still benefit from the rights that unions fought for. A 40 hour week, overtime, fair labor practices, a safe workplace
Often the threat of unions prompts an employer to offer as good or better benefits to keep them out

Let's assume that all good things come from unions.

Now, tell me a good thing that didn't come from a union...

Thanks, comrade big guy...

 

[kaz]

We had a small government then the framers made it much much larger with their Constitution.

which they said severely limited government...

 

[kaz]

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

That is the way the one percent want it. Keep the workers unstable, in fear for their jobs. Fire those who dare to stand up for themselves.

of course the beauty of capitalism is that you have to provide the best possible jobs and products just to survive. A liberal will lack the IQ to understand even the basics that a child can understand. Liberals make no more sense that Nazi fascists monarchs and despots. They are merely the latest stupid, violent people in human history

Unrestrained capitalism leads to a breakdown of the working class

Unrestrained capitalism led to the wealthiest society the world has ever seen.

True, but keep in mind they don't know what that means. They think we can have socialist government or no laws at all. We can have Marxism or fraud, assault, and other crimes are illegal. We have no police, no military and no courts.

They can only think in absolute extremes because of their great intelligence (LOL)

 

[Yarddog]

We had a small government then the framers made it much much larger with their Constitution.

I believe many people just don't want a central government who tries to control every aspect of our lives. The framers of the constitution didn't do that. Actually quite the opposite. They developed a system for division of power in order to counter a 'Big Central Government'

Arming the EPA with weapons and riot gear to enforce their draconian rules is not necessary. they can simply call in local law enforcement who are more familiar with residents. But this is what you get when you have a government that begins to believe they know best for everyone, when in fact they are becoming more detached from reality.

Another great example is Barrak Obama pushing for a High Speed rail system from LA to Sacramento, because HE feels its about time we had one.

Hell, I live in California, and what we need is not a 68 Billion dollar rail system ( that will likey cost twice that estimate like every other government project) but rather some fucking reservoirs SO WE CAN HAVE SOME WATER. Of course we can't expect them to know this in Washington, which is why we have a state government...... but oh wait Jerry Brown is screwing that up.

I hope that rail system will somehow generate 68 billion dollars worth of revenue sometime soon to pay for it all, but I highly doubt it. I have to wonder how serious they are when they are going to be making 30 miles of underground tunnel right next to the San Andreas Fault! yeah great idea,! but again I wouldn't expect them to know this in washington.

So yes, there are certain aspects of 'Big Government" I'm not too fond of

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

If you bothered to actually look at where Libertarians draw the votes from you would realize that they draw from BOTH republicans and democrats. They even do so about equally. That is also why the republican whine that we elect democrats because we will not vote for their trash candidates is bullshit.

That's funny

Tell me another one

I know - reality does not matter to your asinine assertions. You stick with them anyway.

 

[FA_Q2]

the Patriot Act allowed government to listen in on your phone call to the pizza place, but that is wrong.

As I recall The patriot Act allowed the govt to create a data base of billions of connected telephone numbers so that if you were ever implicated as a terrorist the FBI could then learn your associates and then listen in on your calls after securing permission from a FISA court. This is 1000% minor compared to what Census Bureau, IRS, credit card companies, health insurance companies, schools, etc know about you.

Actually all they did was listen in on phone calls of interest, but never knew who they were listening to.

They had computers comb through thousands of messages per minute. It worked like a search engine. It would only bring up transmissions that had key words in it; words terrorist organizations would use. Nobody has ever been prosecuted using the Patriot Act as far as I know of.

And that matters because?

Isnt the massive amount of power blatantly evident here not to mention that massive expansion of government involved is such?

 

[FA_Q2]

The PATRIOT ACT.

can the liberal say how the patriot act decrease our individual liberty??

Yes.

Question: how has the Patriot Act ever effect you? How about anybody in your family? Your friends? Your coworkers or neighbors?

Who was affected by the Patriot Act that you know of?

Because waiting till after all your freedoms no longer exist is the time to act.
/sarcasm

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

the Patriot Act allowed government to listen in on your phone call to the pizza place, but that is wrong.

As I recall The patriot Act allowed the govt to create a data base of billions of connected telephone numbers so that if you were ever implicated as a terrorist the FBI could then learn your associates and then listen in on your calls after securing permission from a FISA court. This is 1000% minor compared to what Census Bureau, IRS, credit card companies, health insurance companies, schools, etc know about you.

Actually all they did was listen in on phone calls of interest, but never knew who they were listening to.

They had computers comb through thousands of messages per minute. It worked like a search engine. It would only bring up transmissions that had key words in it; words terrorist organizations would use. Nobody has ever been prosecuted using the Patriot Act as far as I know of.

And that matters because?

Isnt the massive amount of power blatantly evident here not to mention that massive expansion of government involved is such?

If it's not affecting anybody, where is this power at?

The subject here is smaller government meaning smaller federal government. I don't know about you, but to me, big government is anything not listed in the US Constitution. The protection of this country is in the Constitution--Obama Care isn't.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We had a small government then the framers made it much much larger with their Constitution.

I believe many people just don't want a central government who tries to control every aspect of our lives. The framers of the constitution didn't do that. Actually quite the opposite. They developed a system for division of power in order to counter a 'Big Central Government'

Arming the EPA with weapons and riot gear to enforce their draconian rules is not necessary. they can simply call in local law enforcement who are more familiar with residents. But this is what you get when you have a government that begins to believe they know best for everyone, when in fact they are becoming more detached from reality.

Another great example is Barrak Obama pushing for a High Speed rail system from LA to Sacramento, because HE feels its about time we had one.

Hell, I live in California, and what we need is not a 68 Billion dollar rail system ( that will likey cost twice that estimate like every other government project) but rather some fucking reservoirs SO WE CAN HAVE SOME WATER. Of course we can't expect them to know this in Washington, which is why we have a state government...... but oh wait Jerry Brown is screwing that up.

I hope that rail system will somehow generate 68 billion dollars worth of revenue sometime soon to pay for it all, but I highly doubt it. I have to wonder how serious they are when they are going to be making 30 miles of underground tunnel right next to the San Andreas Fault! yeah great idea,! but again I wouldn't expect them to know this in washington.

So yes, there are certain aspects of 'Big Government" I'm not too fond of

They tried to push that nonsense here in Ohio. At the time, we had a Democrat Governor who welcomed the idea of a slow rail system. When a Republican took over (John Kasich) he told Obama to go pound a salt bag; we don't need a stupid rail system.

After reading about the disaster of your rail system in California, we were so glad we didn't reelect the Democrat Governor. We were already 8 billion in the hole when his first term was up. The rail system would have sunk us further.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good question
It used to be strong unions who fought for the workers. But with Republicans steadily degrading the influence of unions, it has become every man for himself......just like the one percent want

So, it seems like only the government has the power to stand up for workers

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

For most of my life I've never worked for any unions and never experienced any of the problems you listed.

Your day doesn't start with your attitude telling your employer that you hate them, does it?

LOL, you can't do that without a union. I have union story after union story to tell but don't have enough room to tell them all. But what the hell, maybe just one:

When I was a teen back in the 70's I was in a rock band. The other guitarist was older than me and worked at the steel mills. I knew he worked on the trains, but never knew what he did.

One day he stopped over while I was on summer vacation and asked if I wanted to take a ride with him to work so he could pickup his paycheck. I've never been inside the mills before, so I tagged along. On the way there, I finally asked what he did exactly.

He told me that he was a union fireman. Confused, I asked what a fireman did? He said his job was to shovel coal into the engine so that it could run. Confused again, I asked "They don't use coal fired engines anymore, do they?" To that he replied, "No they don't, but the union says you have to have a fireman on every train."

They used to pay this guy to ride around on trains all day and do virtually nothing. When the plant closed down, they were screaming that it was big greedy corporations that were responsible.

 

[rightwinger]

Many people who never worked for a union still benefit from the rights that unions fought for. A 40 hour week, overtime, fair labor practices, a safe workplace

Thanks. Now QUIT living in the 50's

Unions are needed more today than at any time in the last 30 years.

Companies are making big profits, executive pay is through the roof, productivity is among the highest in the world

Yet, employee pay and benefits are dropping. What is needed is a strong union to demand a bigger slice of the pie for those who bake it

 

[Flash]

[


Crazy? Why? Because I see people being hypocritical, it makes ME crazy?

You want the govt to do the necessary things like defense? Is defense things like invading Iraq? That wasn't defense, that was attack. Yet many who support smaller govt supported the invasion of Iraq.

Do you want it to provide entitlements to, say, Amazon? Texas gives Amazon $277 million a year. It hands out $19 billion a year to companies. You like them apples?

No welfare? So if someone loses their job, they're fucked?

So you'd let the entire economy go like the Great Depression then?

Protected classes? You mean, you don't want human rights? But then you talk about curtailing liberties, but you've just said you don't like it when they protect the liberties of gay people etc.

Hmm.

You missed the part where I said no welfare for foreign countries and that includes interventionism and fighting other people's wars for them.

Our military should be used to defend the US like guarding the friggin Mexican border and not guarding a foreign border 6K miles away. Remember that Obama has been at war every day of his administration and that he fought the war in Iraq for three years and called it a success and now he is back bombing and sending in ground troops so you Libtrads that elected Obama own a piece of that shit pie. Even Hillary Clinton voted for the invasion and most of you Moon Bats will vote for her for President next year so don't give me any of theat hippy peacenik bullshit.

No welfare means no welfare and that includes unemployment. You need to take personal responsibility for your own welfare and not expect other people to pay your bills for you. Using the government to get money that you did not earn is thievery and it is wrong.

I don't want the government giving anybody any money and that includes Amazon or Solyndra or a Ferguson welfare queen or an Idaho potato farmer.

Libtards are very selective about "human rights" when most of them justify killing children on demand for the sake of convenience. Criminal laws are fine because it is equal to all but the fucking government creating protected classes is wrong no matter how you look at it.

If the government would stay away from interfering with business it would do just fine. It is the government that creates recessions and depressions through interference.

The government is the problem. We have a bloated out of control debt ridden oppressive government and that is why poverty is increasing, family income decreasing, welfare rolls increasing and the debt is astronomical.

If we don't get back to restoring fiscal responsibility and do away with this corrupt bloated welfare state we can expect for poverty to increase even more than it already has.

I missed bits out simply because I replying to every little detail is often just not worth it. I posted what I deemed the most important parts.

Welfare for other countries includes invading Iraq? Hmmm... okay. I'd suggest when you write things that you be a little less vague about things, but I'm not going to get pedantic on this.

Did you support the Iraq War in 2003? Did you support troops in Afghanistan?

"You Libtards"??? Do you know me? I don't support the Democrats.

The Democrats and the Republicans are the problem. Many Democrats voted for the Iraq war because they're unprincipled politicians, they want to be popular, so they vote the way they see public opinion, public opinion that was made by the media doing the bidding of the govt who is doing the bidding of big money, which controls the media anyway.

However Obama's been at war because war was made by Bush. Are you defending Bush here? Are you defending the Republicans and their political machine which is owned by big money?

Your no welfare opinion is just plain wrong. It is a necessity of the modern system. People get laid off work, lose their job, sometimes for no fault of their own. Why should they be punished when the people who are playing the game aren't losing out, except for their own incompetency?

Welfare can be beneficial, and it can be bad. This is the problem, you've seen a system which doesn't really work well. However it benefits a lot of people who are out of work for a few months.

They don't lose their homes (to rich banks who would benefit, and to property speculators and so on who would benefit), they don't lose their ability to find another job (because they have no home), it allows continuity within society, keeps things together.

I'm not "most of" Liberals, I'm not answering for them. Just as the OP was about MOST people who support smaller govt being hypocritical. I didn't say ALL people who support smaller govt want bigger govt in certain areas.

Govt stayed away from interfering in business in the 1920s, how'd that work out?
The problem is a certain amount of regulation is needed to stop monopolies and bad practices which would happen far more without govt restrictions.

The govt is a problem, I agree. Mainly because people vote in politicians who are doing the bidding of big business, rather than working for the people who elected them.
The people are the problem too, they don't THINK.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq when it happen and that kind of interventionism (and other things like fiscal irresponsibility) is what caused me to leave the Republican Party over a decade ago.

To me whenever we go out and fight other people's wars for them it is a form of welfare. The pretense for the invasion was to prevent "weapons of mass destruction" because Saddam was going to hurt other countries. I really think the reason we invaded was because of the pressure of Israel and Saudi Arabia to protect their asses from Saddam and that is military welfare.

The government needs to stay out of the business of taking money from somebody that earned it and giving it away to somebody that didn't earn it. To me that is thievery. Not only is it fiscally irresponsible to create a bloated welfare state like we have but it is morally reprehensible.

You need to responsible for your own well being and not depend upon somebody else to pay your bills for you. Neither should the government force you to pay for somebody else's bills. You may be a generous person (like the Bible tells you to be) and help some one out in need but it is wrong for the government to force you to pay.

One of the best explanation of why the government should not be in the welfare business was written by (of all people) Congressman Davy Crockett. He found out that he could not justify to his constituency in Tennessee whey he should vote to give their money away to people living in Georgetown DC. It is a little bit lengthy but well worth reading.

Not Yours to Give: Davy Crockett and Welfare

Not Yours to Give: Davy Crockett and Welfare

Every American citizen has a moral and spiritual obligation to see that no neighbor, no person, child or adult, suffers for the lack of necessities while he has the slightest surplus in his own name. But neither does man have the right to use government and the law, in the name of charity, to force the unwilling to do that which he would not do if the choice were his.


The economy did well in the 1920s. It was the roaring 20s and the economy grew tremendously and many American benefited from that growth. The Depression was an adjustment and would have corrected itself in the US in a short time (like it did in the rest of the world) but government interference made it last longer than it should have been.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

After scrutinizing Roosevelt's record for four years, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian conclude in a new study that New Deal policies signed into law 71 years ago thwarted economic recovery for seven long years.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

 

[rightwinger]

Good question
It used to be strong unions who fought for the workers. But with Republicans steadily degrading the influence of unions, it has become every man for himself......just like the one percent want

So, it seems like only the government has the power to stand up for workers

The only thing that has been reduced is the artificial power given by government to workers. Workers are as free or more than ever to unite and negotiate on actual market power

Actually, Republican laws like right to work ( right to get paid less) erode the power of workers to negotiate. Throw in attacks on collective bargaining and you have workers right where the wealthy need them....hungry and desperate

'Right to work' is the 'right' to get paid less, the 'right' to be denied full-time employment, the 'right' to be deny benefits, and the 'right' to lose your job for any reason through no fault of your own.

With so many 'rights' it's impossible for many Americans to find a full-time job or make a living wage.

That is the way the one percent want it. Keep the workers unstable, in fear for their jobs. Fire those who dare to stand up for themselves.

you're in fear for your job because you have a bad attitude and suck at your job.

Good workers get treated well by their employers. We aren't actually stupid, that's why we ended up with the big pile, comrade big guy

Unfortunately, wage and benefit statistics vs company profits do not support that

Workers as a whole are treated worse than they were 30 years ago. It is not because they are dumb and lazy

 

[bripat9643]

We had a small government then the framers made it much much larger with their Constitution.

Yeah, right, they made it 1/100th of the size it is now.

Who do you think you're fooling?