"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

[


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.

But then many people who are in the Republican Party supported the war, probably still do, and are still for smaller govt, supposedly.

Your point about govt taking money from businesses that earned the money I find a little strange.

Firstly, the govt provides certain services that, if left private, probably wouldn't happen as well. Like infrastructure. Any company in the US which makes money, uses the infrastructure in order to move goods, communicate and so on. Some of this is govt infrastructure, and they should pay for this.
Also they provide education. An educated workforce is something to be desired. People will move their factories or other places of work to places where there is an educated enough workforce. The govt pays for it, the businesses benefit from it, shouldn't they pay for this? They're benefiting?

Imagine a business in Somalia, and imagine how much money it's going to make. It's never going to be as much as in the US, so the businesses in the US should be paying for those services they're getting.

In Russia in the 1990s, businesses would often have to pay around 30 or 40% of their profits to mafias just to keep themselves safe. In the US companies don't pay this much.

What about the police, the fire service, all of that stuff that supports their business? Why shouldn't they pay for it?

As for welfare, like in the case unemployment benefits. You say you should pay your own way. I agree. You work, you pay taxes, part of these taxes go to pay for unemployment benefits if you need them. If you take unemployment benefits it's not just free handouts. In most cases people have PAID for this money as government run insurance. This is something that would be difficult to do if it were private, and it'd cost you more. So many people see it as beneficial. The problem comes when people take too much, and there should be things to stop that, in many countries there are.

Yes, the economy was doing well in the 1920s. So why did it collapse? In Germany it collapsed because the US recalled loans, plunging the booming German economy into massive problems. Wouldn't have happened had proper govt controlled checks and balances been placed on the economy. There's a reason it's never been that bad since. Have a guess why.....

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian's report has not much to do with this. Why the recession happened in the first place is more important than whether FDR made it take longer or not. To be honest, this was a new era of politics and most people didn't understand what was happening. People understand a lot better now, simply because people like these two spend a lot of time analyzing what has happened in the past.

You have a picture of Obama with "worthless", yet Obama's presidency has gotten the US out of recession in a much quicker time that FDR, ad Reagan, etc.

 

[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.

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

In fairness, I am not saying "workers" are dumb and lazy, I'm saying you are. I have a business full of good employees. I own a business with three product lines, and I do management consulting on the side. I've been in Europe for 4 of the last six months. I'm here now. They run the business for me, and do a great job. They don't need your beloved big government, not at all. They don't suck as employees and they care about the company they work for. That's what gets us all ahead.

 

[rightwinger]

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

In fairness, I am not saying "workers" are dumb and lazy, I'm saying you are. I have a business full of good employees. I own a business with three product lines, and I do management consulting on the side. I've been in Europe for 4 of the last six months. I'm here now. They run the business for me, and do a great job. They don't need your beloved big government, not at all. They don't suck as employees and they care about the company they work for. That's what gets us all ahead.

Nice story but.......How does that compensate for the 30 year trend of lower wages and benefits even during times of rising corporate profit?

 

[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.

But then many people who are in the Republican Party supported the war, probably still do, and are still for smaller govt, supposedly.

Your point about govt taking money from businesses that earned the money I find a little strange.

Firstly, the govt provides certain services that, if left private, probably wouldn't happen as well. Like infrastructure. Any company in the US which makes money, uses the infrastructure in order to move goods, communicate and so on. Some of this is govt infrastructure, and they should pay for this.
Also they provide education. An educated workforce is something to be desired. People will move their factories or other places of work to places where there is an educated enough workforce. The govt pays for it, the businesses benefit from it, shouldn't they pay for this? They're benefiting?

Imagine a business in Somalia, and imagine how much money it's going to make. It's never going to be as much as in the US, so the businesses in the US should be paying for those services they're getting.

In Russia in the 1990s, businesses would often have to pay around 30 or 40% of their profits to mafias just to keep themselves safe. In the US companies don't pay this much.

What about the police, the fire service, all of that stuff that supports their business? Why shouldn't they pay for it?

As for welfare, like in the case unemployment benefits. You say you should pay your own way. I agree. You work, you pay taxes, part of these taxes go to pay for unemployment benefits if you need them. If you take unemployment benefits it's not just free handouts. In most cases people have PAID for this money as government run insurance. This is something that would be difficult to do if it were private, and it'd cost you more. So many people see it as beneficial. The problem comes when people take too much, and there should be things to stop that, in many countries there are.

Yes, the economy was doing well in the 1920s. So why did it collapse? In Germany it collapsed because the US recalled loans, plunging the booming German economy into massive problems. Wouldn't have happened had proper govt controlled checks and balances been placed on the economy. There's a reason it's never been that bad since. Have a guess why.....

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian's report has not much to do with this. Why the recession happened in the first place is more important than whether FDR made it take longer or not. To be honest, this was a new era of politics and most people didn't understand what was happening. People understand a lot better now, simply because people like these two spend a lot of time analyzing what has happened in the past.

You have a picture of Obama with "worthless", yet Obama's presidency has gotten the US out of recession in a much quicker time that FDR, ad Reagan, etc.

The worthless piece of shit Obama along with Barney Queerboy, Nancy Peloksi and that idiot Harry Reid was part of that 2006 elected Democrat Congress that created the problem that cause the recession and we really haven't recovered yet. Who would have ever thunk that using the force of the filthy ass oppressive government to cause lenders to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that never had the means or the inclination to pay back would cause a disaster?

The rest of the world got over the Depression in short order. it was government interference by dumbass Liberals like that moron FDR that caused it to be brutal in the US.

Nobody has any problem with the government providing the needed minimal services like defense, police, courts etc that allows individuals and businesses to prosper. Roads are built by a fuel user fee and that is reasonable. Most communities would like to pool their resources to provide for education although it gets out of hand with Federal interference and pressure groups like the greedy unions influencing the expenditures.

What we have a big problem with is when the filthy ass government gets into the business of politicians (elected by special interest groups) using the power of government to take money from those that earned it and giving it way to the people that didn't earn it. That is thievery that even the farmer in Davy Crockett's rural Tennessee understood. You did read the link, didn't you?

The problem that we have is that this weak Constitutional Republican does not protect individual rights against government abuse and thievery. The majority (which is usually only a plurality) should not have the right to steal from the minority.

You should be responsible to pay your bills and I should be responsible to pay mine. You should not have the right to use a piece of shit like Obama to steal what you are too sorry to provide for yourself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[


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.

But then many people who are in the Republican Party supported the war, probably still do, and are still for smaller govt, supposedly.

Your point about govt taking money from businesses that earned the money I find a little strange.

Firstly, the govt provides certain services that, if left private, probably wouldn't happen as well. Like infrastructure. Any company in the US which makes money, uses the infrastructure in order to move goods, communicate and so on. Some of this is govt infrastructure, and they should pay for this.
Also they provide education. An educated workforce is something to be desired. People will move their factories or other places of work to places where there is an educated enough workforce. The govt pays for it, the businesses benefit from it, shouldn't they pay for this? They're benefiting?

Imagine a business in Somalia, and imagine how much money it's going to make. It's never going to be as much as in the US, so the businesses in the US should be paying for those services they're getting.

In Russia in the 1990s, businesses would often have to pay around 30 or 40% of their profits to mafias just to keep themselves safe. In the US companies don't pay this much.

What about the police, the fire service, all of that stuff that supports their business? Why shouldn't they pay for it?

As for welfare, like in the case unemployment benefits. You say you should pay your own way. I agree. You work, you pay taxes, part of these taxes go to pay for unemployment benefits if you need them. If you take unemployment benefits it's not just free handouts. In most cases people have PAID for this money as government run insurance. This is something that would be difficult to do if it were private, and it'd cost you more. So many people see it as beneficial. The problem comes when people take too much, and there should be things to stop that, in many countries there are.

Yes, the economy was doing well in the 1920s. So why did it collapse? In Germany it collapsed because the US recalled loans, plunging the booming German economy into massive problems. Wouldn't have happened had proper govt controlled checks and balances been placed on the economy. There's a reason it's never been that bad since. Have a guess why.....

Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian's report has not much to do with this. Why the recession happened in the first place is more important than whether FDR made it take longer or not. To be honest, this was a new era of politics and most people didn't understand what was happening. People understand a lot better now, simply because people like these two spend a lot of time analyzing what has happened in the past.

You have a picture of Obama with "worthless", yet Obama's presidency has gotten the US out of recession in a much quicker time that FDR, ad Reagan, etc.

The worthless piece of shit Obama along with Barney Queerboy, Nancy Peloksi and that idiot Harry Reid was part of that 2006 elected Democrat Congress that created the problem that cause the recession and we really haven't recovered yet. Who would have ever thunk that using the force of the filthy ass oppressive government to cause lenders to give credit (for social justice reasons) to people that never had the means or the inclination to pay back would cause a disaster?

The rest of the world got over the Depression in short order. it was government interference by dumbass Liberals like that moron FDR that caused it to be brutal in the US.

Nobody has any problem with the government providing the needed minimal services like defense, police, courts etc that allows individuals and businesses to prosper. Roads are built by a fuel user fee and that is reasonable. Most communities would like to pool their resources to provide for education although it gets out of hand with Federal interference and pressure groups like the greedy unions influencing the expenditures.

What we have a big problem with is when the filthy ass government gets into the business of politicians (elected by special interest groups) using the power of government to take money from those that earned it and giving it way to the people that didn't earn it. That is thievery that even the farmer in Davy Crockett's rural Tennessee understood. You did read the link, didn't you?

The problem that we have is that this weak Constitutional Republican does not protect individual rights against government abuse and thievery. The majority (which is usually only a plurality) should not have the right to steal from the minority.

You should be responsible to pay your bills and I should be responsible to pay mine. You should not have the right to use a piece of shit like Obama to steal what you are too sorry to provide for yourself.

You think Congress caused the recession in 2006? But you didn't explain how. Then you didn't respond to my posts, but went off on a rant saying the same stuff you said before, without backing any of it up. I really can't respond to this ranting nonsense.

 

[dcraelin]

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 can agree largely except on banning same-sex marriage. Whatever you think of that issue, allowing it expands government, from the local level where more people have to get the licenses, to the expanded government benefits to the newly"married" couples.

 

[Flash]

[


You think Congress caused the recession in 2006? But you didn't explain how. Then you didn't respond to my posts, but went off on a rant saying the same stuff you said before, without backing any of it up. I really can't respond to this ranting nonsense.

We didn't have the recession until that filthy ass Democrat Congress took over. It is bad enough with the Republicans but we always get disaster when the Democrats get power. Barney Queerboy and the other Democrat idiots did nothing to stop the CRA from destroying the lending market and they had the power to do so.

Barney Queerboy was the center of power being Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and he was scandalized for getting bribes and kickbacks from Fannie and Freddie Mae. He was warned that we were heading for a disaster and he and the other Democrats in charge did nothing to stop it.

The economy was doing OK under Bush (even with the trillion dollar hit cause by 911) until the Democrats took over. His rinky dink tax cut, even though it should have been more, saved the economy.

Bush deserves blame for not having the courage to put an end to the CRA when he had the opportunity to do so. He certainly knew it was going to be a disaster but the Democrats were the ones driving that trainwreak.

 

[paulitician]

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

as I recall it allowed them to create a data base of billions of connected telephone numbers so that if you were ever implicated as a terrorist the FBI could 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 Bureaus, IRS, credit card companies, health insurance companies, etc know.

Thanks a lot 'Small Government' Republicans. You expanded the size and scope of Government beyond anyone's worst expectations. Homeland Security, Patriot Act, NDAA, and massive NSA spying. Thanks again guys.

What were the Republicans supposed to do? After 911, the first complaint by the left was how our Republican government left us unprotected; how they used OUR cell phones; how they used OUR e-mail for communications; how some of these jokers were known to be in terrorist organizations.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You guys have conributed heavily to the rapid massive expansion of the size of our Government. You're just as bad, if not worse than Communists/Progressives.

So we have terrorists coming over our border, getting on airplanes, killing thousands of Americans, and your libertarian position is to do nothing? Maybe that's why we'll never see a Libertarian President in our lifetime.

There is a piece I would like you to read, it's called the US Constitution. The founders charged our leaders with the protection of our country. It's their duty to protect us from enemies within or outside of our borders.

Maybe our founders were big government people too.......at least by your standards.

Maybe your Government should stop starting wars all over the world? That would be a good start to really securing our country. And i've always supported securing our border. I supported it when it wasn't fashionable for you Johnny-Come-Latelys to. You 'Small Government Republicans' opposed it for years. You couldn't get enough of your Slave Labor.

So, you really wanna secure our country? End the Permanant War and secure our border. We don't need Big Brother taking our rights away in the name of 'Security.' Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at what our Government is doing.

 

[paulitician]

as I recall it allowed them to create a data base of billions of connected telephone numbers so that if you were ever implicated as a terrorist the FBI could 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 Bureaus, IRS, credit card companies, health insurance companies, etc know.

Thanks a lot 'Small Government' Republicans. You expanded the size and scope of Government beyond anyone's worst expectations. Homeland Security, Patriot Act, NDAA, and massive NSA spying. Thanks again guys.

What were the Republicans supposed to do? After 911, the first complaint by the left was how our Republican government left us unprotected; how they used OUR cell phones; how they used OUR e-mail for communications; how some of these jokers were known to be in terrorist organizations.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You guys have conributed heavily to the rapid massive expansion of the size of our Government. You're just as bad, if not worse than Communists/Progressives.

So we have terrorists coming over our border, getting on airplanes, killing thousands of Americans, and your libertarian position is to do nothing? Maybe that's why we'll never see a Libertarian President in our lifetime.

There is a piece I would like you to read, it's called the US Constitution. The founders charged our leaders with the protection of our country. It's their duty to protect us from enemies within or outside of our borders.

Maybe our founders were big government people too.......at least by your standards.

Libertarians CAN be nuts.

I'm not a Libertarian. But Libertarians are the only genuine 'Small/Less Government folks left. Most Republicans are liars and hypocrites on the issue.

 

[danielpalos]

Solving for simple poverty and capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is simplifying government and lowering our tax burden in a market friendly manner.

 

[Avorysuds]

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 do... Otherwise we end up in a never ending recession due to progressive policy.

I don't believe liberals actually want "smarter" Government. They just want to elect Dems and then compliment themselves because no one else will.

 

[danielpalos]

to some on the left; it is about using Socialism to bailout Capitalism like usual; but in a market friendly manner.

 

[leftwinger]

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.

Right on. This train is nothing but glorified Amtrak. They already have $90 round trip flights all day long every day. Now they expect you to drive 1 hour and park at Train station (fee), ride stop ride stop ride stop..........4 hours later you arrive where you could have been in 1 hour by existing plane.

And they don't have water and they could have been preparing for up coming El Nion weather cycle.

note: some say this train is to "break up" large central farmers land sites.......more control.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Right on. This train is nothing but glorified Amtrak. They already have $90 round trip flights all day long every day. Now they expect you to drive 1 hour and park at Train station (fee), ride stop ride stop ride stop..........4 hours later you arrive where you could have been in 1 hour by existing plane.

And they don't have water and they could have been preparing for up coming El Nion weather cycle.

note: some say this train is to "break up" large central farmers land sites.......more control.

i believe we should merely upgrade existing railroads to be capable of 100mph, minimum if not maglev capable.

 

[leftwinger]

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

I can't disagree with all of that but not sure what to do about it? Have you seen how hard they work in Korea? I have. USA has to compete with that.

If the GOVT was sucking up 25% of economy those dollars could flow to workers? I can't say I enjoy hearing Carly Fiorina paid 25mil exit package for mess up Lucent or whatever. I am not smart enough to know any solution off top of my head.

If I had employees and freedoms I know I would want the best and keep the best and pay as much as possible.

 

[leftwinger]

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.

I went to company in Ohio once. I had carried 50lb box across country. At the door i had to wait one hour for Union to show up and carry it to the bench.

 

[Flash]

[

I went to company in Ohio once. I had carried 50lb box across country. At the door i had to wait one hour for Union to show up and carry it to the bench.

Thank goodness Florida is a right to work state. If I have a choice (I don't always do) I never chose anything made by unions or provided by unions. I would never allow a union worker to show up to my house to do work and I would never take work to a union shop to be done.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no reason why upgraded railroad infrastructure could not carry both freight and passenger services.

 

[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.

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

In fairness, I am not saying "workers" are dumb and lazy, I'm saying you are. I have a business full of good employees. I own a business with three product lines, and I do management consulting on the side. I've been in Europe for 4 of the last six months. I'm here now. They run the business for me, and do a great job. They don't need your beloved big government, not at all. They don't suck as employees and they care about the company they work for. That's what gets us all ahead.

Nice story but.......How does that compensate for the 30 year trend of lower wages and benefits even during times of rising corporate profit?

your 30 year wage stagnation is a result of 30 years of you sucking at your job and not giving a shit about your employer

 

[kaz]

There is no reason why upgraded railroad infrastructure could not carry both freight and passenger services.

But can you blow your nose with a hammer? Can you blow a toothpick with a hairdryer?