Here are two examples of why conservatives do not want government to get any bigger, stronger, more efficient or more effective.
The first is from the UK and shows how government, in the name of helping others, wants to take away the rights people have over their own bodies. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GK0FARS1NQKNTQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/13/norgans113.xml.
The second is from what is becoming the People's Republic of California. It is very similar to the issue in the UK because, again, the California government wants to help others by reaching into people's homes and controlling their thermostats. See: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/11/america/calif.php
Of course, the thought of the government looking to the private sector is not even thought of. We can't let those greedy capitalists get rich even if they would provide the service that people need! Heaven forbid such a thing!
I really wonder how much more freedom people are willing to give up in order to "feel better" about certain issues?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 85
Let's not forget which party has been frantically stripping away civil liberties and shredding the constitution in the name of "security" since 9/11, shall we? Hell, you people have even signed on to support the illegal act of torturing prisoners. It's nothing short of laughable to see a "conservative" suddenly advocating for smaller government, after what you people have done.
or as my Democrat Family Studies friend says... It's called Therapy, Get Some!!!
or as my Democrat Family Studies friend says... It's called Therapy, Get Some!!! "
Way to ignore my points entirely. I guess you showed me.
I also agree that both parties have turned the Constitution upside down in other respects, particularly when it comes to transfer payments. Since the Constitution is a limiting document, if it is not an expressed power of federal government then it can't be done. Taking money from one citizen and giving it to another person or corporation is NOWHERE to be found and, thus, should not be done.
Where you make your mistake is equating what I just said with the protection of the country. Just after the the Constitution makes reference to the Congress being able to declare war, etc. it states:
"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
This is where the legality of the Patriot Act comes from. This was also done, to an even greater degree, during the Civil War.
The Founders were well versed on the principles of increased governmental power for the defense of the country. They knew all about a fellow named Cincinatus and had seen the application of that ideal with Washington after the Revolutionary War.
The key is that this power was only for the DURATION of the danger - not for all time. The problem with what I illustrated in the article and about the other dangers of an enlarged and too strong government is the power that is taken from individuals is the state's for the rest of time - or at least that's what liberals and those in government believe.
I no longer have any privacy at all. The government is listening in on every phone call, radio transmission, and watching every keyboard click on my computer, without any regard to the 4th amendment.
I have been disallowed from attending any public speech given by this president during his time in office, because I have views in dissent with his. I'm therefore cordoned into little cages, called "free speech zones." This is a blatant, direct violation of the 1st amendent.
Habeus Corpus has been eliminated, thereby allowing the permanent incarceration, without charges, of anyone that this administration sees fit to incarcerate. No right to legal representation exists, and no formal charges need ever be claimed.
As if this weren't a bad enough violation of civil rights, this president has also made the determination to violate international law, by torturing prisoners.
Additionally, he has stripped away the Posse Comitatus Act, laying the foundation for potential occupation by our own military.
The greatest legal minds in the country recognize the dangerous destruction of our constitution and civil liberties. Why don't you?
"That's why Conservatives allowed them to be kicked out of power in '06. "
Oh, so all of the sudden, in 2006, after supporting GOP bloating of the federal government for the previous 25 years, you decided to rise up and cast a vote of rejection? Get real. It wasn't conservatives that voted republicans out of office in 2006. It was democrats and independents.
"Taking money from one citizen and giving it to another person or corporation is NOWHERE to be found and, thus, should not be done."
Congress was granted the power to tax specifically within the constitution. Apparently, you haven't read the document.
"This is where the legality of the Patriot Act comes from. This was also done, to an even greater degree, during the Civil War."
The constitution does not allow for unconstitutional laws to become the law of the land. The Patriot Acts are a direct violation of constitutional laws and civil liberties granted within the constitution.
Btw, unconstitutional laws have temporarily appeared during numerous conflicts, not just the civil war. They have always been stripped away, however, after the conflict had passed. We are currently mired in a conflict with no end. In fact, this very dangerous white house has openly admitted that this "war on terra" (which is complete, utter bullshit, btw) could last "generations."
What do you think that means for our constitution? If our constitutional rights are stripped away for 50-75 years, who will remember what they were? In effect, the America that was created for us to care for will be gone forever.
"The key is that this power was only for the DURATION of the danger - not for all time."
My point exactly. We are in an endless "war," by definition of those very leaders in Washington who have brought it upon us.
"have no problem with our tax dollars (preferably the majority of our hard-earned salaries) fund whatever our government wants, no questions asked."
WTF are you talking about? I've NEVER supported the gutting of our national treasury, to hand trillions of dollars of wealth to the corporate oligarchs, in the form of a massive, fraudulent military industrial complex. I've NEVER supported handing billions upon billions of dollars over to war and oil profiteers, or to insurance companies and pharmaceuticals.
Ironically, these are the very entities that YOU people cannot wait to shovel trainloads of cash towards. A health care system that costs less, covers everybody, and doesn't kill people? Nope. Not a penny for that. Makes too much sense. But, trillions for endless, needless wars of agression, and shameless corporate profiteering? Yep! Bring us more of that!
You people are delusional. You have no guiding principles or values, so you flounder about with absurdities and contradictions like this. It's no wonder at all that your party is in complete collapse.
"Clark,
Do you ever give yourself the creeps? "
What kind of statement is this? Is this supposed to encourage intelligent, thoughtful discussion? WTF is wrong with you people?
What did your original post have to do with the article Dale posted? I mean besides being an automatic reaction to the title.
Did you happen to take a look at the links before you posted your first post?
What is wrong with us is you!
you are inflammatory and irrational, your sole purpose here in Gather is to attack President Bush! and to advance your conspiracy notions.
We real Americans know that we have a system at work here and there are plenty of people who are just as concerned as you about our freedoms using that system to make sure our freedoms are NOT erroded.
The courts have ruled on some of the patriot act, some has been set aside and some has been upheld.
But our system is probably not good enough for you, you will continue to flail your arms about and shake your fists in your hate for the President.
It is a good thing that people are scrutinizing the patriot act to make sure it is not violating the people's rights, but if the people choose to give up certain rights there is not much that can be done about that.
This is your justification for supporting the shredding of the constitution by your boy? Remarkable.
For your information, since you apparently failed to read my previous comments, I have acknowledged that there have been numerous affronts to the constitution during times of conflict. I also pointed out that the difference today is that this administration has openly claimed that there is no known end to this bogus "war on terra." In other words, they are proudly admitting to all who pay attention that there will be no restoration of the constitution at any foreseeable time.
"What did your original post have to do with the article Dale posted?"
It was to illustrate to him that, if he wishes to see a smaller federal government, he would be wise to stop electing republicans into power.
"Did you happen to take a look at the links before you posted your first post?"
Yes.
"What is wrong with us is you!
you are inflammatory and irrational, your sole purpose here in Gather is to attack President Bush! and to advance your conspiracy notions."
Once again, the "right" shows its utter contempt for dissenting points of view. You all would be living in Nirvana if only everybody would agree with everything that you believe. That is NOT America. America was founded on dissent. If you can't handle it, you're living in the wrong country. I hear that China is very strongly opposed to it. I think it'd be perfect for you.
"We real Americans"
You "real Americans" who despise dissent and attempt to squelch any free speech that runs counter to your beliefs. Tell me, which part of the "real constitution" do you find that to be an American ideal?
"using that system to make sure our freedoms are NOT erroded. "
How can you say this, when we KNOW that our freedoms HAVE been eroded?
"The courts have ruled on some of the patriot act, some has been set aside and some has been upheld."
The courts have also ruled that Bush's domestic spying program is illegal. Do you see that coming to a halt?
"you will continue to flail your arms about and shake your fists in your hate for the President."
God, this is weak. This is getting as old as the "yeah, but Clinton..." bullshit. It's nothing but a cheap, pathetic attempt to marginalize someone that you disagree with, because it's easier than attempting to converse, in order to understand that person's point of view. Again, in your world, dissent is to be abhored and fought against. Only when every living person in the country agrees with everything that you believe will you feel that you live in "perfection." Sorry. America is not a perfect place. People are allowed to have differing opinions. At least for now.
"It is a good thing that people are scrutinizing the patriot act to make sure it is not violating the people's rights, but if the people choose to give up certain rights there is not much that can be done about that. "
This seems rather contradictory. After laying a groundwork in support of the violations of our freedoms, you simply state that nothing can be done about it. Well, I disagree. I'm TRYING to do something about it, by railing against it. I REFUSE to simply walk away from this matter, and forget that America was ever a place of freedom and liberty. It infuriates me that so many already have done so, in exchange for a false sense of security. Franklin had something to say to such people. Those who would willingly surrender personal liberties in exchange for a false sense of security deserve neither.
We are still in an "endless war" that Truman threw us into in 1951, does Korea ring a bell to you? "
And what civil liberties were stripped away as a result? Your point is what, exactly?
"And JFK threw us into the mire of Vietnam, LBJ escalated it, Nixon got us out. "
Check your facts. Our involvement in Vietnam began before JFK came along, LBJ lied us into extensive involvement there, and congress stripped away funding for it eventually, forcing Nixon to withdraw.
And again, your point is what, exactly? Do you ever actually have a point?
Another pointless comment. This isn't about partisanship. It's about civil liberties. What about that don't you get?
"You are the one who brought up the "endless war". "
The point is that this endless war has resulted in a stripping away of our personal freedoms. The "endless war in Korea" (which was neither, btw) did not.
You seem to be attempting to rationalize our loss of freedoms by comparing a completely bogus "war on terra," which our so-called leaders have publicly proclaimed will last at least 50 years with other mindless, illegal military adventures by this country over previous decades. There is no comparison.
For starters, we are not fighting an enemy, we are fighting a tactic. This is an absurd notion, but that doesn't stop some from gleefully surrendering their freedoms for the errant, fraudulent cause.
Secondly, there was no previous conflict that this nation embarked upon that was seen as entirely open-ended, and therefore, the constitutional abuses that occured during the conflicts were never assumed to be permanent, and in fact, were not so.
Hate and anger is all you have! Your railing on about percieved injustices do nothing, it is not effective at doing anything but allowing you to rant and rave and express your hatered for the President and his administration.
Every body in this thread knows this.
If you were really interested in getting something done you wouldn't be visiting articles like this and carrying on.
We all know you think there are injustices going on we already know that you hate the President you are not going to convince any of us to join you in your hate.
If you were really interested in accomplishing something you would not be here but rather writing letters to your representatives and supporting organizations that can effect the change you claim you want.
You just want to argue with people who see things differently than you.
You are welcome to your dissent and to voice your point of view, it is your inability to accept others points of views different to yours that makes your posts so disagreeable.
-- Doris "Granny D." Haddock
As for the Constitution, duh, it gives the government the power to tax - but it does not give the power to transfer money from one individual to another. You need to realize that the document is a LIMITING document and not an empowering one.
"It was to illustrate to him that, if he wishes to see a smaller federal government, he would be wise to stop electing republicans into power."
It's not, necessarily, electing Repubs - it's about electing Conservatives into power. W is not a Conservative in a lot of areas - particularly in regards to government expansion. Huckabee is cut from similar cloth. What is needed is a person who understands that what makes this country great is the people and not government programs.
Look, if you have some other folks out there who are for limited government and not part of the Conservative movement, I'd love to hear about them.
California may control your thermostat in an emergency !! No way, I want a black out instead. Does anybody remember the blackouts and brownouts that plagued California? What's wrong with you people? Electricity on my terms or non at all?
Last year I took my nephew to his state required Hunter safety course so he could get his hunting license.
The instructor told us about the dozens of hunting fatalities a year prior to the GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN HUNTING. I am happy to report that there was not one hunting fatality last year.
No Chinese government regulations in the lead painted toys or tainted dog food China sent us. Can anyone imagine what life would be like without any Government regulations? A conservative paradise.
Rude - - - how do you find it convenient to slip in your views on abortion here?
My daughter in San Francisco is outraged by this electricity control in California. They have been proposing this for years, but it never seemed to have legs. Schwarzeneger (sp) is quite a piece of work, I understand.
Since you like government regulations so much, I assume you would enjoy living in North Korea? Didn't think so.
But the life that organ saves at the expense of YOUR BODY/RIGHTS? Of course you see no difference.
If you DON'T like government control, I assume you and your family would enjoy living in Iraq? Didn't think so.
You don't understand, obviously, that it doesn't stop there. When the government starts getting the idea that it can accumulate power without being reigned in, then it will just keep going. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely (in humans).
As far as living in Iraq goes - nice try on a comeback, but it just doesn't fit. Why don't you try again.
They are taking the (maybe) organ transplant and electricity shortfall and trying to tie it to the end of the world. Whatever it takes to invade Iraq or get what THEY want in the name of FREEDOM.
Thank you U.S. Agriculture Department, Food Safety Division.
Read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" To see how life was like before the meddling of the US government.
Imagine rat feces in your meat products. No sir, I trust the Government more than big business. The rest of y'all can eat rat feces if you prefer.
Rude - trying to equate war and abortion is another apples and oranges argument. You just won't accept the fact that abortion is the killing of the most innocent human life in the most vile way for mostly selfish reasons.
As far as the Battle in Iraq being unnecessary, I reject that opinion as being near sighted and ill-informed.
What a silly statement. As if the government has ever produced anything. As if the government is responsible for America being the great country it is. As if, somehow, when someone is in government they are automatically smarter and more worthy than anyone else.
Our government is great when it sticks to what the Constitution says it should. It gets in the way when it reaches beyond those powers.
So to imply that my agreement with the government in this situation is because of blind faith is wrong.
It is really fairly easy to turn the question back to you since you are not a Conservative. Why do you trust government to do all the things you want it to do and not trust it when it tells you about the war in Iraq?
I found a really interesting take on an alternative way of running things: http://metagovernment.org/
In a nutshell, it is based on transparency... a meritocracy where singular 'leaders' are discouraged. Pls read it before comparing it to Utopian Communism etc.
Hate and anger is all you have! "
Hey, way to marginalize! That way, you don't have to actually discuss anything that I've said! Brilliant tactic! Unfortunately, every single mindless troll of your ilk has been doing this for years, so I'm sort of onto it by now. Care to try again?
"If you were really interested in accomplishing something you would not be here but rather writing letters to your representatives and supporting organizations that can effect the change you claim you want"
And, what is it that makes you think that I don't already, and haven 't been doing this for years? Rather presumtuous of you, wouldn't you say?
:Vickie - the problem with the quote you gave is that Granny D is a liberal who wants government to have more and more power."
The problem with your statement is that it is REPUBLICANS who've massively abused the power of the federal government. Do you live in a cave?
"The fact that this last Congress has done little more than subpeona members of the Bush administration shows that it came in with no mandate. "
Oh, ok. Apparently, you're blissfully unaware of the staggering number of investigations that congress has ongoing, with regard to this criminal administration, and apparently, you're also blissfully unaware that this criminal administration has refused to comply with congress at every turn, thereby, once again, obstructing justice in order to avoid accountability. That is NOT a sign of lawfulness. If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be violating the demands of congress.
"As for the Constitution, duh, it gives the government the power to tax - but it does not give the power to transfer money from one individual to another"
What happens when my tax dollars go to fight your illegal wars? Duh.
"Look, if you have some other folks out there who are for limited government and not part of the Conservative movement"
The only president that has shrunk the size of the federal government in the past 30 years was a democrat.
"Never could understand how abortion was bad but unnecessary war along with death and maiming is good."
That's the beauty of rightwing moral relatavism. There's no need for rational progression of congruent thoughts. All that's required is an understanding that the fetus is all that matter. Real, breathing, human life is irrelavant, and can, and SHOULD be murdered at every opportunity. Only fetal tissue that cannot live outside the womb is worthy of defense.
Hey Superman I don't try to marginalize you, you do that to yourself all by your little ole lonesome.
"you don't have to actually discuss anything that I've said!"
You haven't said anything, you've ranted and raved and argued and insulted which is a bigger tell about you than all the words you post.
"And, what is it that makes you think that I don't already, and haven 't been doing this for years?"
If you were doing these things you wouldn't have posted your response in the form of a question.
You've probably filled out some of those highly ineffective online petitions or surveys, but your main purpose is to fuss and fret and carry on and OMG if you actually accomplished something, actually got something done then you would have as much to fuss over of fret about or carry on about!
Your quite the wordsmith, it's just like many your words don't say anything.
We don't find anything wrong with dissenting points of view, Superman. However, there is something intrinsically wrong with having to put up with someone who thinks he is better than everyone else on the planet and who can't make his point without attacking everyone who disagrees with him. It seems YOU are the one who has "utter contempt for dissenting points of view".
"It's nothing but a cheap, pathetic attempt to marginalize someone that you disagree with, because it's easier than attempting to converse, in order to understand that person's point of view."
I don't see you making any effort to understand anyone's point of view that differs with your own.
Let me put it to you in a way you might be able to understand:
If the government's budget is $1.662 billion in one year (1995) and then $1.673 billion (96) then $1.684 billion (97) then $1.721 billion (98) then $1.746 billion (99) then $1.789 billion (00)...then government is getting larger and not smaller.
Unfortunately for all of us, the conservative Repub leaders in congress who were there in the 90s were mostly gone when W came into office. As I said earlier, when it comes to the budget, W is not a conservative and these two elements gave us the large increases in non-defense spending (with the Dems egging things on all the way).
"He is the only one in the last 25 years who has actually reduced the size of government."
Superman has inplyed it but you at least named him, can you provide more specifices to this shrinking of govetnment by President Clinton.
Because I think I can show where he had nothing to do the the actual reduction.
An unamed kid in a house of an American citizen...not the greatest moment for our country. But if more stories like the ones I linked to in my article come to pass for the US then we'll be seeing more and more photos like this - if we're allowed to.
Okay from the Brookings Institute. Hardly a liberal institution.
http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2003/0905politics_light.aspx
Even as Democrats and federal employee unions battle the Bush Administration's proposal to put thousands of federal jobs up for competition with the private sector, the government's largely-hidden workforce created through contracts and grants has reached its highest level since before the end of the Cold War. According to new estimates generated on behalf of the Brookings Institution's Center for Public Service, federal contracts and grants generated just over 8 million jobs in 2002, up from just under 7 million in 1999, and 7.5 million in 1990.
When these "off-budget" jobs created by contracts and grants jobs are added to the "on-budget" headcount composed of civil service, uniformed military personnel, and postal service jobs, the "true size" of the federal workforce stood at 12.1 million in October, 2002 up from 11 million in October 1999. The 2002 true size of government is still smaller than it was at the end of the Cold War in 1990, but is only smaller because of a nearly a reduction of nearly 1 million civil service and uniformed military jobs over the 1990s, almost all of which were cut at the Departments of Defense and Energy, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
From the Federal Government Employment and Payroll Data: URL: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/apesfed.html
1992 - Total employees not including off-budget jobs. = 3,046,873
2000 - Total employees not including off-budget jobs. = 2,899,363
Total government employment went DOWN during Clinton. However, now we are outsourcing quite a bit of the government.
Insults, well a little better than your previous tirade but still no contribution of any importance.
But you keep trying maybe you'll stumble into actually saying something of consequence.
You haven't even made a reasonable resemblance of trying to say anything of consequence yet.
You let us know when you do, so we will be able to tell the attempt. (we will let you know if you have been successful)
http://zzpat.tripod.com/graphs.htm
"If the government's budget is $1.662 billion in one year (1995) and then $1.673 billion (96) then $1.684 billion (97) then $1.721 billion (98) then $1.746 billion (99) then $1.789 billion (00)...then government is getting larger and not smaller."
No, it's not. You don't understand how budgets for long term programs operate. For one thing, you're simply ignoring the massive amount of interest on the massive republican debt. For another, you're completely ignoring inflation and increased population. The economy, population, and inflation are all dynamic effectors.
And, as has already been pointed out, if one truly favors smaller government, the LAST party that he should be voting into power is the GOP.
So could it be that Reagan inherited a very poor economy from Carter and Clinton inherited a relatively good one as a result of Reagans fiscal programs?
BTW do you have any comparisons between President Clinton and President Bush (H) or Bush (W)
How could Carter have inherited a good economy as a result of Regan's policies when Regan followed Carter in office?
As far as the energy issue goes, if the energy business wasn't so regulated, would be able to bring enough energy to the people with no need for government to reach into people's homes and control their thermostats (or water heaters, etc.). From drilling, to refining, to distribution, the energy industry is not allowed to blink without regulators questioning their moves and motives. Talk about inefficient.
You make some fatal assumptions in your reply.
First, you assume that the budget has to go up when population increases. Where's that written? What law of the universe are you quoting? There's absolutely no reason why the budget for any government agency or the government itself cannot decrease in absolute terms.
"But, but, but, what about reduced services?"
Yeah, there may be that, probably will be. But considering the redundancy, contradictions, and unnecessary programs (studying the sex life of a fruit fly for example) that exist in vast quantities throughout government, you could make a good argument that cutting the fat would preserve essential services.
You also say that inflation should be factored in - and you're right and then you're wrong. Keeping the dollars set for a constant dollar - in this case year 2000 dollars (which negates the effects of inflation) - the budget still went up during Billy Boy's years. Go here for the Statistical abstract for the US: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0455.pdf.
And anyone, with even a passing knowledge of economics, knows that the economy lags some 4-5 yrs. behind programs initiated.
So, Clinton did inherit from Bush who inherited from Reagan.
As for this President, I too am shocked at his total disregard for fiscal conservativism. It's been my only real disappointment in him.
May I remind you that for each year in which the GOP has grown government under W, the Dems have proposed FAR MORE spending. In addition, it was the Dems who brought us Medicare,,Medicaid,Social Security,AFDC,Food Stamps,The War on Poverty, etc, etc, etc. All these entitlements that keep getting bigger and bigger - solving nothing and keeping people dependent on the government.
Of course, the dirty little secret is that the Dems in particular and some Repubs want people dependent on government - it gives them the control and power they so desire.
BTW - the spending on all these entitlements and social programs (not authorized in the Constitution) combined dwarf the defense budget (which is authorized).
So why don't you, now, tell me who will actually vote for reducing the size of government?
How could Carter have inherited a good economy as a result of Regan's policies when Regan followed Carter in office?"
James,
Read don't just scan.
;-)
The economy rebounded from the misery of the Carter years in the 80s and with only a slight downturn in 91 continued through 2000. If you have different data, I'd be very interested to see it.
If conservatives understood government they would not have an irrational fear of it and would know how to make it work well. They do not.
Thanks!
You also didn't read my comment above when I said:
"May I remind you that for each year in which the GOP has grown government under W, the Dems have proposed FAR MORE spending. In addition, it was the Dems who brought us Medicare,,Medicaid,Social Security,AFDC,Food Stamps,The War on Poverty, etc, etc, etc. All these entitlements that keep getting bigger and bigger - solving nothing and keeping people dependent on the government."
While W and the non-conservative GOP leaders (since 2000) have their share of the blame, excluding all the Dems from this conversation is intellectually dishonest.
\\\\Medicare,,Medicaid,Social Security,AFDC,Food Stamps,The War on Poverty, etc, etc, etc.////
Yes, thank God! While some of these programs may need revision, particularly, the war on poverty, the principle behind all of them was good and proper. Social Security and Medicare have been a real boon to the nation and continue to be so! The welfare programs, while distressing that there is that much need, are what separate us from and uncivilized nation!