Question About Operation of Small Government

I thought it deserved mentioning.

I assign responsibility equally to both the Republican and the Democrat politicians, neither of which I support fully. Just who would you think I might receive any payment from for my posts?

 

The fundamentalists played a pivotal role in electing Bush, hoping for a Constitutional amendment on marriage and prayer in schools, among other promises to which he alluded.

.

 

Obviously no one blames them self, problems are always caused by others.

 

The same people anonymously bankrolling the TeaBaggers, the ones you so vehemently defend, the ones who keep our balls in a vise, you know, Corporate America.

.

 

Please provide a list of the Corporate funders of the Tea Party, and the amounts they have/are providing. Or do you just assume such to be a fact without any evidence at all?

 

You know good and well the Supreme Court has ruled that Non Profits do not have to reveal the identities of their donors, but you can start with Dick Army and Karl Rove who seem to be coordinating the assault on any candidate who does not support their agenda.

You can, however trace the donations to campaign funds from K-Street, and all they have done is expand into the non-profits where they do not have to identity themselves.

.

 

I believe Karl Rove recently showed his non support for a Tea party candidate, yet you claim him to be a supporter and funder?
So the correct answer is you don't know for certain, but suspect.
Do you know the agenda of the Tea party? And if so what exactly do you disagree with?

 

no one is stealing my money, i don't have anything to steal

they say one needs a long spoon to sup with the devil - i prefer no spoon, no supping

others try to work more within the system that is feeding off them, i feel for them

it's not really about me, but you wouldn't understand that, as it does seem to be all about you

 

this is what bothers me, about this and every recent administration:

that's just the bit that shows up on the preview, reading the full story is a bit of a chore on dialup

'national security advisor' is not a post i particularly understand, but even a dumb hippie like me wonders why a financial lobbyist has been tapped

it's not about taxes, not about spending - with a small hands-off government this guy would stay home, true

but that's because he wouldn't need to go to washington, he and his kind would be doing just as well if not better

 

I have little to lose and even less to gain. So you're telling me its about everyone else but you?

 

Therefore large, hands-on government is preferable?

 

oh, it's possible that government services might, especially if i live considerably longer, provide some measure of comfort

at the present, and for the foreseeable future, avoidance is my policy

but all around me are people who depend on them - from farmers to the disabled

 

yes, actually

they just need to shift the focus from those who pay their advertising bills to those who actually voted for them

 

So you see it to be the duty of government to make the determination of who has the resources available to provide for those it determines to be in need, and once there are no longer any who have excess resources, who then provides for those in need?

National debt 10/10/2010 1200 - $13,625,231,748,165.32
National debt 10/10/2009 1200 - $11,903,993,277,347.05
One Year increase $1,721,238,470,818.27
That's over $5700 per person of additional debt created in one year above the taxes collected. Wait until the unfunded liabilities come due and begin to be added. Can the wealthiest 1%, 5%, or even 50% of the population cover this debt? Not important, I guess.

 

So the solution is quite simple after all?

 

and how much of that money has actually gone anywhere that it's really needed?

apart from corporate executives who need bugattis . . .

 

yes

and once the advertising is gone, people might be able to start voting intelligently

the spectacle of medicare recipients protesting against government health care shows how screwed up our minds are at the present

and then, perhaps, the united states will catch up with the first world - canada, sweden, etc.

what do you think they're gonna vote for once the blinders are off? tax cuts for millionaires?

 

Are you trying to confuse me? Obama's president, and Democrats control both houses, isn't this the change that would make everything right, or left to be more precise?

 

FInding the right level of government for Amerikans is impossible unless we decide which ideal we prefer: a free enterprise society with a solid but limited safety net, or a cradle-to-grave, redistributive welfare state.
Most Amerikans believe in assisting those temporarily down on their luck and those who cannot help themselves, as well as a public-private system of pensions for a secure retirement. But a clear majority believes that income redistribution and government care should be the exception and not the rule.

I also think that many amerikans believe that bigger governments raise the possibilities for corruption; more corruption may in turn raise the support for redistributive policies that intend to correct the inequality and injustice generated by corruption

sunday thoughts,
jack
Smaller gov,t seems to work in europe ,but they have an awfully high tax burden-

now my head hurts- later:coffee:

 

now i thought you and i were in agreement on the near-lack of difference between the two parties

you seeing that slight shift to the 'right' preferable to its reverse

at this point the democrats seem satisfied with stopping the dismantling of pre-existing programs

and i guess that's the best that can be hoped for . . .