Login Register Sign up for the GRM e-newsletter

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Why I hate the government « 1 2 3 4 »
  • oldsaw

    Nov. 8, 2009 10:36 a.m. oldsaw HalfDork

    alfadriver wrote:

    tuna55 wrote:

    Not only can you not vote out everyone corrupt in the government, but the incidence of a small, out-of-nowhere company taking on the big dogs is much higher than the same thing in politics.

    I am starting to see why you and I don't agree in other posts now. Greed over money is easy to understand, to fight, and to fix. Politicians don't care too much about money, they care about power. Power is hugely different. You can't wrestle it out of their hands when they have it, and power enables them to brainwash people into thinking that they are the good guys, and they're "here to help" against those nasty (insert popular big business here).

    ??? We have periodic elections. If the news does its job, we find out who is corrupt, and they are voted out. That's the point of the voting.

    Your problem is that you think the other reps are corrupt, and not the ones you vote for, which is flawed.

    Money = power. Simple as that.

    Not all politicians or govenment workers are so dedicated toward power- many are actually trying to look out for the common person, the environment, etc- I know a lot of govenment workers personally, they are all in it to help the country, not in the intrest of making power and scewing the general public.

    You see the small part of corruption, and assume that it represents the entire govenment. Just like you see the small amount of people on welfare and govenment assistance who are taking advantage of it and ignoring the ones who have no short term alterntative.

    I'm so sick of hearing the "govenment is useless" mantra, it makes me sick. Especially since the most recent movement started under Regan/Bush, which was also the largest expanse of govenment in most of history. What I'm starting to see is that there's bills passed to start a program, and then there's an effort to underfund that exact progam so that it looks usless, and then it can be labled as ineffective government.

    Look at the roads, great system of large highways that stretch all over the country. And then funding has been slowly bleed dry so that roads and bridges are not properly maintained. Then bridges have to be closed, sometimes too late, and "government" gets blamed for not doing their job, when, in fact, the legislature didn't fund it. There's this endless fascination with lower lower taxes which totally ignores the maintenece that it takes to keep a country running- schools, roads, bridges, sewers, air, water, etc.

    BTW, you still have not cited where welfare is unconistutional, whereas I posted where it is.

    Eric

    Eric, you make some very valid points here.

    However, I would suggest that reduced funding (for projects above and beyond infrastructure maintenance) is based on the expansion and addition of more and more government programs. Even when tax revenues were at their highest historical levels (under W's tenure and attributed to his tax cuts), the money couldn't cover the budget.

    Yes, the "great" expansion started with Reagan, but it has continued unabated regardless of what party has been power. Now we have an unprecedented level in government expansion. Even with large tax increases (that necessarily) will be forced on ALL taxpayers, the country cannot pay for federal excess.

    Like you said, if the news media does its' job we find out who is corrupt and they are voted out.

    Too bad it didn't do that before someone was elected in.

  • tuna55

    Nov. 8, 2009 11:54 a.m. tuna55 Reader

    Eric, I did comment of the welfare clause a ways back, but I am in too much of a hurry to go and quote it.

    I will scream it from the tops of the mountains: The government is basically useless!

    The legislature, that failed to maintain the roads, as you say, is part of the government!

    You're wrong on you're money = power argument, but it's tough to prove me right. It's a greed of the most insidious kind, the greed over controlling peoples lives. That is what I rebel against. I like running my own life. This includes spending my own money. All of these programs cost money - all of them are funded by taxation. You have to pay taxes, you don't have a choice, you don't have to shop at Wal Mart.

    The news media hasn't done it's job in 20 years. Now that the AP is into 'activist journalism' all bets are off.

    Now we have two parties, who have conspired against the American people to maintain the two party system, who basically own and operate the media by pandering to special interests (which means, not our interests). You chose between socialism or socialism "lite" because that policy grants the people already in power the most control over your life, and strips you of the most freedoms possible, for now. We have a noble class, a government class. The worst part is that these guys and gals historically aren't very smart, very honest, very clever, or really outstanding in any way (not my opinion, many studies have been done) and these guys, based on their tremendous greed for power, have taken over while we fight over Republican vs Democrat.

  • alfadriver

    Nov. 9, 2009 6:55 a.m. alfadriver HalfDork

    tuna55 wrote:

    Eric, I did comment of the welfare clause a ways back, but I am in too much of a hurry to go and quote it.

    I will scream it from the tops of the mountains: The government is basically useless!

    True, you commented on the clause, stating that you and other people don't agree with it. But those opinions don't make it unconsitutional. You don't state how welfare is unconsitutional. OTOH, the court opinion consistently sides with it being legal.

    If you think govenment is basically useless, then why live here? I'm sure there are places where it is better. Your nevers will be more calmed, etc.

    You think money doesn't equal power? Have you been to Wall Street recently? I'm talking Enron greed, not walmart greed. Standard Oil greed, US Steel Greed- both before being broken up.

    But hey, we are all entitled to our opinions. Some are just more right than others.

    Eric

  • alfadriver

    Nov. 9, 2009 7:02 a.m. alfadriver HalfDork

    oldsaw wrote:

    Yes, the "great" expansion started with Reagan, but it has continued unabated regardless of what party has been power. Now we have an unprecedented level in government expansion. Even with large tax increases (that necessarily) will be forced on ALL taxpayers, the country cannot pay for federal excess.

    Like you said, if the news media does its' job we find out who is corrupt and they are voted out.

    Too bad it didn't do that before someone was elected in.

    My point about the Regan/Bush era wasn't the start of the great expansion, but the co-incidal start of the "big government it bad" movement. So you have an administration who is trying to convince you that govenment is bad, all the while expanding it at a rate never seen in the past. And then using it's failures as examples of how bad govenment is. Not good. (note- neither Regan or Bush ever sent Congress a ballanced budget, no matter what they said in public about spending).

    And what irks me about Bush II was his original stance on a ballanced budget and small government- he did exactly what his father and mentor did- submit deficit spending and pretend to offset that by lower taxes. Even with an increase of revenue- it was never ballanced.

    If govenment is bad, then reduce spending and cut programs. Don't do the opposite of what you are trying to convince me of.

    Eric

  • tuna55

    Nov. 9, 2009 7:18 a.m. tuna55 Reader

    Eric, I won't make arguments on behalf of George W Bush, as that was the last time I will ever vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. I am not privy to much of Reagan's time, but I do know that he did increase the deficit substantially.

    What I was saying about the clause you quoted is the majority of those who actually signed the document have spoken out against reading it as you have. I apologize, as I never seem to have enough time to write this all properly, but I am, of course, in a hurry again.

    After Reagan, no President or Congress has ever tried to convince the public that big government was bad.

    Money does not equal power. There is power that goes along with money, sure, but that's usually fine, and not the crazy power hungry elite class politicians that don't really care for money, even make fun of those that have money, and insist that we should live with less (Al Gore, for instance) all the while building power for themselves. Orwell wrote about this much more eloquently in Animal Farm, it's a quick read, and could do a better job of explaining my position, since I am no literary genius. I'll send my copy to you for free if you want.

    As far as "why live here", it's because as bad as our government is, it's pretty much the least intrusive government in the world. That and I understand what the framers did, and would be extremely happy with the country as they laid it out.

  • FindlaySpeedMan

    Nov. 9, 2009 1:32 p.m. FindlaySpeedMan New Reader

    Snowdoggie said:

    Bloody well right!!!!

    God save the Queen!!!!!!!

    Supertraaaaamp!!!!!

  • oldsaw

    Nov. 9, 2009 2:22 p.m. oldsaw HalfDork

    alfadriver wrote:

    But hey, we are all entitled to our opinions. Some are just more LEFT than others.

    Eric

    Fixed that for ya.

« 1 2 3 4 »  

You'll need to log in to post.