"Smaller government" advocates

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

That would be the far right you moron.

You really are a clueless dork.

 

[rightwinger]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

in this case it is Government. we could be lowering our tax burden.

We have the lowest tax burden in generations. It mostly benefits the one percent who only accumulate a larger percentage of wealth




.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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?

First of all, thanks for not posting another Billy000 stupidass fail thread where you assume that your position is 100% ironclad locked down correct. I've referenced him so he can see what a rational thread start looks like.

So, let's start with what do you mean by "smaller government" ?

Smaller in terms of reach ?

Smaller in terms of the amount of tax money they spend ?

Smaller in terms of employees and payroll ?

Next, I would ask..."Which government" ?

Can you want a smaller federal government but actually want a larger munciple government where you live (as defined somehow like I described above) ?

I think that is possible because that is me.

I want a smaller federal government in terms of dollars/employees/scope.

I do want a larger county and city government.

I want health care determined and run at the state level (I don't want Obamacare or any other federal program....except for a few consistent things I believe should be in place).

I think on the net I would get a smaller tax bill if I got what I think is ideal.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

in this case it is Government. we could be lowering our tax burden.

We have the lowest tax burden in generations. It mostly benefits the one percent who only accumulate a larger percentage of wealth

What do you mean by tax burden ?

State ?
Federal ?
S.S./Medicare ?

 

[danielpalos]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

in this case it is Government. we could be lowering our tax burden.

We have the lowest tax burden in generations. It mostly benefits the one percent who only accumulate a larger percentage of wealth




.

More specifically, we should have more efficient government that simply costs less. In my opinion, a true welfare-State does not need to tax the incomes of real persons. Only a warfare-State must do that due to the inefficiency created.

 

[danielpalos]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

in this case it is Government. we could be lowering our tax burden.

We have the lowest tax burden in generations. It mostly benefits the one percent who only accumulate a larger percentage of wealth

What do you mean by tax burden ?

State ?
Federal ?
S.S./Medicare ?

i am referring to direct taxes on income.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'Small government' as perceived by conservatives and libertarians is a myth, a delusional anachronism, the manifestation of the reactionary right frightened by change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty, and their desire to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

in this case it is Government. we could be lowering our tax burden.

We have the lowest tax burden in generations. It mostly benefits the one percent who only accumulate a larger percentage of wealth

What do you mean by tax burden ?

State ?
Federal ?
S.S./Medicare ?

i am referring to direct taxes on income.

I can then see how tax reforms only help the 1%....they pay a lot of it.

It certainly won't help the 50% at the bottom who drive on roads, send kids to school, benefit from the military and don't pay a dime.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

'Small government' as perceived by conservatives and libertarians is a myth, a delusional anachronism, the manifestation of the reactionary right frightened by change, diversity, and expressions of individual liberty, and their desire to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

You wouldn't know a conservative or a liberal if they bit you on your oversised ass.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

The Clintons are beasts?

 

[rightwinger]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

The Clintons are beasts?

The Clinton's are willing to raise their own taxes

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

The Clintons are beasts?

The Clntons are willing to raise their own taxes

Wh would they do that? If they want to pay more in taxes, all they have to do is not list their write-offs. Problem solved.

 

[kaz]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

The Clintons are beasts?

The Clntons are willing to raise their own taxes

but not give money on their own

 

[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 am for accountable and sane government. WE do need to give out subsidies for innovation, science and education. That is generally a good idea for our society.

Government was the main driver behind the paving of our highways, the internet, the great dams and the shipping "post" trade routes. So government has had a long history of funding investments in societies. South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britian on down the list have had a huge amount of investments into their societies.

I doubt our nation would be better off doing away with such. In fact I think we'd be far worse off.

History proves that it is a balance.....We need government but we also must always keep it inline.

The problem with loserterianism is it is a movement based on ignoring all the shit we have learned about capitalism.The truth is we will never grow our middle class with it as a few people will own the market without regulations.

Want to become a central American hell hole??? Nothing gets us there faster then loserterianism.

 

[rightwinger]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

The Clintons are beasts?

The Clntons are willing to raise their own taxes

Wh would they do that? If they want to pay more in taxes, all they have to do is not list their write-offs. Problem solved.

How profound..

And those who want war can enlist themselves
Those who want schools can pay for them themselves

Society does not work like that

 

[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 am for accountable and sane government. WE do need to give out subsidies for innovation, science and education. That is generally a good idea for our society.

Government was the main driver behind the paving of our highways, the internet, the great dams and the shipping "post" trade routes. So government has had a long history of funding investments in societies. South Korea, Japan, Germany, Britian on down the list have had a huge amount of investments into their societies.

I doubt our nation would be better off doing away with such. In fact I think we'd be far worse off.

History proves that it is a balance.....We need government but we also must always keep it inline.

The problem with loserterianism is it is a movement based on ignoring all the shit we have learned about capitalism.The truth is we will never grow our middle class with it as a few people will own the market without regulations.

Want to become a central American hell hole??? Nothing gets us there faster then loserterianism.

Government put the pow in your pants and the sugar in your honey. They put the juice in your job and the wool in your welfare.

Whatever, Holmes, socialists are clueless

 

[ScienceRocks]

Small government lets industry dump anything they want into our air or water

Hat's off to you rightwinger, anyone that can formulate an entire belief system based on nothing more than bumper sticker slogans and the latest fad at the tattoo parlor is truly a wonder to behold, well done.
.

Republicans have advocated abolishment of the EPA

Something they have been fighting for over thirty years......small government

What's funny is it was the republicans that established the EPA. There was a time when the republicans were a party that wanted to improve this country.


Today they wouldn't give a damn if all of our rivers had nuclear waste in them and our air looked like china's. They're truly evil and deranged freaks.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Small government lets industry dump anything they want into our air or water

Hat's off to you rightwinger, anyone that can formulate an entire belief system based on nothing more than bumper sticker slogans and the latest fad at the tattoo parlor is truly a wonder to behold, well done.
.

Republicans have advocated abolishment of the EPA

Something they have been fighting for over thirty years......small government

What's funny is it was the republicans that established the EPA. There was a time when the republicans were a party that wanted to improve this country.


Today they wouldn't give a damn if all of our rivers had nuclear waste in them and our air looked like china's. They're truly evil and deranged freaks.

I am not a fan of the GOP.

I also think our federal EPA sucks.

What is funny is that you think that if the federal EPA were abolished, that there would be no oversight. Most, if not all, states have a state run EPA.

You are one narrow minded moron.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It should not be about "starving the beast" but about lowering our tax burden through simplification of Government.

The "beast" is the one percent

The Clintons are beasts?

The Clntons are willing to raise their own taxes

Wh would they do that? If they want to pay more in taxes, all they have to do is not list their write-offs. Problem solved.

How profound..

And those who want war can enlist themselves
Those who want schools can pay for them themselves

Society does not work like that

They don't believe in civilization. Taking their ideas to the extreme would mean that you'd have to pay for every inch of road you'd drive on and someone else would have to pay you to drive on your road.

Thankfully, here in the real world in civilization we pay taxes so we can all drive on that road. Same for education and extreme weather warning.

This is how insane loserterianism is.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Gee did you just think this up all by yourself?
dunce.