RNC

[hippifried]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!

Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

[PapaGrande]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!

Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

You are right, and thats why I don't trust them and criticized them one page back on this thread. But on the other side you have a party that brags about how much more government spending they are going to bring us. So if you actual want to reduce government spending what do you do?

Believe it or not many people vote Republican for the hope of reduced government and taxes, and security issues, and couldn't give a rats ass about all their attempts to legislate morality. So from their point of view, the hope of small government is better than the promise of larger government.

Personally I've come to realize that there are very few in the GOP that really believe in the core idea of a small Federal government, they might want a slightly smaller government than the Democrats, but they still believe in large government. Other people I know don't like the GOP but will continue to vote for them because they perceive them as the party that will fuck them over the least. IMO a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Many of you here seem to have some flaws in your critical thinking skillz as criticizing Democrats != praising Republicans.

[Stoked]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!

Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

You are right, and thats why I don't trust them and criticized them one page back on this thread. But on the other side you have a party that brags about how much more government spending they are going to bring us. So if you actual want to reduce government spending what do you do?

Believe it or not many people vote Republican for the hope of reduced government and taxes, and security issues, and couldn't give a rats ass about all their attempts to legislate morality. So from their point of view, the hope of small government is better than the promise of larger government.

Personally I've come to realize that there are very few in the GOP that really believe in the core idea of a small Federal government, they might want a slightly smaller government than the Democrats, but they still believe in large government. Other people I know don't like the GOP but will continue to vote for them because they perceive them as the party that will fuck them over the least. IMO a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Many of you here seem to have some flaws in your critical thinking skillz as criticizing Democrats != praising Republicans.

The reason Bush's approval rating is so low is because he has alienated his base by increasing government spending.

[trish]

The reason Bush's approval rating is so low is because he has alienated his base...

The base is too small to account for such a small rating. He has a tiny rating because he's a fuck up who fuck up again and again. The only idiots remaining on his side are those who are too stubborn to admit they were wrong about him even when they know it.

[Stoked]

The reason Bush's approval rating is so low is because he has alienated his base...

The base is too small to account for such a small rating. He has a tiny rating because he's a fuck up who fuck up again and again. The only idiots remaining on his side are those who are too stubborn to admit they were wrong about him even when they know it.

Its just shocking how little critical thinking you do, in every post you make.

[yodajazz]

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

So you were okay with Reagan increasing the size of government here in California as governor, and then as POTUS when he increased the size of the federal government?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

...
...
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a politician isn't doing his job if he is trying to reduce government.

I’m just arguing in a very general sense. I’m not even saying that government should not be reduced.

I think that most people would say that the government’s job is to protect them, and to provide for the general welfare. I would define general welfare, as things like promoting economic growth and communication, supporting scientific advancements, and efficiency, etc. In fact I challenge you to think of any government agency that is not trying to do one of those two general categories.

Smaller government means taking away from one of those two categories. Somebody has to give up some protection, or be left more to fend for themselves. Some government investments have paid off handsomely to the American public. The interstate highway system is an often cited example. Many government programs actually save society more in the long run. By help to prevent negative things like crime or promoting healthful activities, or help to strengthen families.

So someone could argue that if a politician’s whose primary goal is cut government is missing on the primary function of government. But I even heard Obama say in an interview that some government services would have to be cut in order to fund programs of the future. He said that some tough choices would have to be made. So despite many claims to the contrary Obama has spoken about reducing the size of some government programming. (Which would be for the sake of financial management). But I believe he would list his primary duty as to protect and promote.

I say that we could save a lot of money in the area of the Defense budget. They cannot even account for a lot of money they spend, in the trillions.

[Stoked]

Politicians are the foundation of government, interesting theory. So let me ask you again, you don't consider a politician successful unless they increase the size of government?

Both sides pander and spread FUD. I can look objectively at the GOP and Dems and see the faults in the rhetoric from each, something you seem incapable of doing.

So you were okay with Reagan increasing the size of government here in California as governor, and then as POTUS when he increased the size of the federal government?

I'm just looking for consistency here.

...
...
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how a politician isn't doing his job if he is trying to reduce government.

I’m just arguing in a very general sense. I’m not even saying that government should not be reduced.

I think that most people would say that the government’s job is to protect them, and to provide for the general welfare. I would define general welfare, as things like promoting economic growth and communication, supporting scientific advancements, and efficiency, etc. In fact I challenge you to think of any government agency that is not trying to do one of those two general categories.

Smaller government means taking away from one of those two categories. Somebody has to give up some protection, or be left more to fend for themselves. Some government investments have paid off handsomely to the American public. The interstate highway system is an often cited example. Many government programs actually save society more in the long run. By help to prevent negative things like crime or promoting healthful activities, or help to strengthen families.

So someone could argue that if a politician’s whose primary goal is cut government is missing on the primary function of government. But I even heard Obama say in an interview that some government services would have to be cut in order to fund programs of the future. He said that some tough choices would have to be made. So despite many claims to the contrary Obama has spoken about reducing the size of some government programming. (Which would be for the sake of financial management). But I believe he would list his primary duty as to protect and promote.

I say that we could save a lot of money in the area of the Defense budget. They cannot even account for a lot of money they spend, in the trillions.

I'm thinking cut the entire military budget. That way when we have 9/11 happening all over the country, you will be happy to report we didnt offend, kill or otherwise insult anyones feelings.

[francisfkudrow]

In virtually every field of human endeavor, those considered best in the field are a) good in that field and b) promote, like and have an interest in the field they're in. Not so in American politics. The best politicians are considered those that despise necessary and effective government and those that are not very good at creating an effective government. (What better way to prove that government is the problem than by making the government ineffective?)

You wouldn't want a heart surgeon who despised working on hearts and questioned the need for a healthy heart, would you?

But yet we let people govern that hate effective and necessary government. (I keep saying "effective" and "necessary" because conservatives still love unnecessary, undesirable, and ineffective forms of government such as laws against abortion, gay marriage, etc.) Basically everywhere you want government; protecting the environment, protecting the little guy from big corporations, etc., the GOP is absent, and everywhere where you don't want government (your bedroom) there they are. Defense is of course the one exception; something that is necessary that they like spending money on, but this is the exception that proves the rule.

To look at it another way, if you governed your own household the way the Republicans govern our country, no repairs would ever be done on the house, the only yard work that would be done is that which can be done by the kids without costing anything, and virtually nothing would be spent on those kids' education, but every waking moment of those kids' lives would be monitored for signs of immoral behavior and you'd always be ready to attack one of your neighbors.

Lousy way to run a household or a country if you ask me.

[hippifried]

So your benchmark for a good politician is one who creates more government, awesome!

Well apparently, that's what republicans must use as their benchmark, because every time they get even a little bit of power, that's what happens. It's one thing to talk a bunch of smaller government, but expecting folks to continue believing a proven lie is insulting.

You are right, and thats why I don't trust them and criticized them one page back on this thread. But on the other side you have a party that brags about how much more government spending they are going to bring us. So if you actual want to reduce government spending what do you do?

Believe it or not many people vote Republican for the hope of reduced government and taxes, and security issues, and couldn't give a rats ass about all their attempts to legislate morality. So from their point of view, the hope of small government is better than the promise of larger government.

Personally I've come to realize that there are very few in the GOP that really believe in the core idea of a small Federal government, they might want a slightly smaller government than the Democrats, but they still believe in large government. Other people I know don't like the GOP but will continue to vote for them because they perceive them as the party that will fuck them over the least. IMO a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.

Many of you here seem to have some flaws in your critical thinking skillz as criticizing Democrats != praising Republicans.

Well those have been the perceptions for a while now. I'm not so sure they still are. What makes it different now is that the country has seen first hand the result of republican policy. Prior to 2001, they'd only controlled either the Whitehouse or the Congress. The Supreme court has been controlled by republican appointees since Eisenhower. When President Bush (43) took office, they had complete control of the entire federal government for the first time in a very long time. They were like kids in a candy store & there' was nobody from their own party trying to stop the madness. Now my grandchildren are in debt & so are everybody else's. The size of the government has balooned like never before. Despite the rhetoric & the lies about agendas & motivations that always come with the silly season attacks, the public is paying attention & nobody has promised to increase spending.

[yodajazz]

I'm thinking cut the entire military budget. That way when we have 9/11 happening all over the country, you will be happy to report we didnt offend, kill or otherwise insult anyones feelings.

Very immature response brother Stoked. People like you complain about goverment money being spent, but refuse to even look at the highest expenditure of goverment, war related items. What to you say about the cost effectiveness of the Iraq war? What are the benefits gained vs the costs?

The United States and the Soviet Union faced off for many in a military stand off. The major thing that brought the Soviet Union was economics. They could not provide consumer goods to keep people satisfied. People rebelled against a system that could not provide them with thier daily needs. I remember when it was said that toliet paper was not available in large parts of their country. Many say it was because they invested too much in the military.

Your goverment manipulates you, by using fear, into giving them a blank check with no oversight as to how it is spent. Even Donald Rumsfeld once said that the Dept of Defense could not account for 2.5 trillion dollars of spending (Sept 10, 2001). I heard it coming from his mouth, on a YouTube video. You cry about your money going to 'undeserving' people, yet you are not even asking for an accounting of who spends the majority of your money.

I remember reading in my daily news paper, about a year ago that 18(?) million dollars of weapons were unaccounted for in Iraq. We are talking about a war zone. Did those weapons fall into 'enemy' hands?
That is inexcusable, yet I never heard anything else about it. And what about the overcharging for contractors services that was discovered?

I believe that you are an intelligent person brother Stoked. I'm saying that you should be looking at a bigger picture, based upon reality, not fear. It's not about politics, it's a matter of cost effectiveness.

So I'll repeat my question, and ask you about the cost effectiveness of the war in Iraq? Then down the road we can put other items through the same proceedure, brother.