Why we fear Bam big gov't

[Peikko 1,575]

Baloney to you. It's not a party issue. Current polls show that 68% of Americans want to throw all the bums out. This is not about the parties and how they govern, but about how the people want to be governed, and that is where the struggle for big government vs. smaller government is rooted.

Throwing the bums out and replacing with what? No one has provided any kind of answer to that question, not even a bad one.

You miss alot.

I'm sure I do, but at least I am not wedded to any specific ideology that demands I throw the toys out of the pram without providing some new toys to replace them with.

[Ali G. 37]

Your premise that we have had zero government is wrong. Governments intervention in the US has not yielded the strongest economies.

Compared to any other first world country you certainly do. The zero government intervention only worked in the past because everyone else was struggling. Naturally, when others are down, anything would have worked. Furthermore, it erroneously made the approach look like it was the best means to success. In 2010 when everyone else is building in strength and momentum, it's the US that is hurting the most because of this abandoning of America and Americans. This has nothing to do with welfare, redistribution of wealth or giving people something for nothing. Not only is the zero government model not delivering the goods, but it's finally showing its true colors. It's demonstrating why only second and particularly third world countries use it.

At a time when many other first world countries and developing countries are heavily investing in their country, in their people and in their future; repubs want to cut back more. Want to turn this country into a Mexico, where a handful of people are mega rich and the rest of the country is dirt poor. I see the results of low taxes and zero government around me, it's certainly nothing to write home about - quite embarrassing actually. My fellow Conservatives downunder used the private sector to invest in their country, the results speak for themselves. Just finished reading another article today regarding their unprecedented success in the worst financial crisis since the depression. Yet, you still advocate we should go down the zero everything repub strategy, which like the libertarian strategy, has failed to deliver the goods in any other country - evidently including the US.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There must be a lot of differences, but he would know better than I. I never believed anything Barry says. I still don't.

What is different from what Obama promised with health care reform in his campaign and the bill that just passed that Michael Goodwin is upset about again?

Sorry, this post makes no sense. It describes no reality I'm familar with.

Compared to any other first world country you certainly do. The zero government intervention only worked in the past because everyone else was struggling. Naturally, when others are down, anything would have worked. Furthermore, it erroneously made the approach look like it was the best means to success. In 2010 when everyone else is building in strength and momentum, it's the US that is hurting the most because of this abandoning of America and Americans. This has nothing to do with welfare, redistribution of wealth or giving people something for nothing. Not only is the zero government model not delivering the goods, but it's finally showing its true colors. It's demonstrating why only second and particularly third world countries use it.

At a time when many other first world countries and developing countries are heavily investing in their country, in their people and in their future; repubs want to cut back more. Want to turn this country into a Mexico, where a handful of people are mega rich and the rest of the country is dirt poor. I see the results of low taxes and zero government around me, it's certainly nothing to write home about - quite embarrassing actually. My fellow Conservatives downunder used the private sector to invest in their country, the results speak for themselves. Just finished reading another article today regarding their unprecedented success in the worst financial crisis since the depression. Yet, you still advocate we should go down the zero everything repub strategy, which like the libertarian strategy, has failed to deliver the goods in any other country - evidently including the US.

[Niels Bohr 72]

99% of the people don't read the bill and rely on the news station to spoon feed it to them. However, whatever is inside the bowl of those news station may never be seen by those who eat what they bring out to the table.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I couldn't believe early this morning, on MSNBC. Mike Barnes and Al Hunt, were complaining how the Republicans didn't do enough to stop Pelosi, et al, with all the 462 billion in new taxes "they" would have to start paying. Poor Joe is over in corner going, "#######?"

[Ali G. 37]

Sorry, this post makes no sense. It describes no reality I'm familar with.

The reality is quite simply to grasp.

Proactive Government involvement = high quality of life = progress = well oiled machine for growth.

Zero government = second and third world = few people controlling the majority of wealth period.

One approach delivers equitable access to opportunity, affluence and a extremely high quality of life.

The other allows a few key families to control the majority of a nation's wealth; with a poor quality of life for most.

One approach ensures those who work hard are remunerated accordingly for their work.

The other ensures only those people with the right surname and connections make it.

One approach ensures that those most qualified, the best and brightest, acquire an education.

The other ensures those with the deepest pockets acquire an education.

One approach ensures that when people are down and out on their luck, they have a safety net (insurance), to get back on their feet.

The other ensures, you work for a low paying job, end up in the slumps and hopefully die.

One approach ensures that no individual or corporation fucks their country and its people over for a profit or dividend - for self-gain.

The other encourages such behavior and calls it capitalism.

I am sure someone of your caliber grasps exactly what I am saying.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I've noticed the lack of high-fiving on the liberal nets. Maybe they actually read the bill.

I couldn't believe early this morning, on MSNBC. Mike Barnes and Al Hunt, were complaining how the Republicans didn't do enough to stop Pelosi, et al, with all the 462 billion in new taxes "they" would have to start paying. Poor Joe is over in corner going, "#######?"

[Ali G. 37]

Not to mention:

One approach ensures the nation's infrastructure is on par (or better) than their next competitor.

The other approach ensures people pay minimal tax.

One approach invests in their people and their nation's future. Anyone business savvy would understand the notion of investment.

The other approach assumes that it's the farms days, furthermore, everything should be left to the private sector. For example, if comcast does not deem I need faster data speeds, then surely there is no need for faster speeds.

One approach ensures I had 30 plus broadband providers to choose from.

The other ensures I have only one period.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Where you and I differ is that I believe there are more options than either zero government or a proactive one. The problem is, in a society that demands creativity, self-sufficiency and intiative to succeed, you will have the haves and the have nots. It is fair to offer and equality of opportunity, but what Obama and his sychophants expect, as well, is an equality of outcome. That simply won't happen unless they dumb all of us down to dependency, which is what they are trying to do.

The reality is quite simply to grasp.

Proactive Government involvement = high quality of life = progress = well oiled machine for growth.

Zero government = second and third world = few people controlling the majority of wealth period.

One approach delivers equitable access to opportunity, affluence and a extremely high quality of life.

The other allows a few key families to control the majority of a nation's wealth; with a poor quality of life for most.

One approach ensures those who work hard are remunerated accordingly for their work.

The other ensures only those people with the right surname and connections make it.

One approach ensures that those most qualified, the best and brightest, acquire an education.

The other ensures those with the deepest pockets acquire an education.

One approach ensures that when people are down and out on their luck, they have a safety net (insurance), to get back on their feet.

The other ensures, you work for a low paying job, end up in the slumps and hopefully die.

One approach ensures that no individual or corporation fucks their country and its people over for a profit or dividend - for self-gain.

The other encourages such behavior and calls it capitalism.

I am sure someone of your caliber grasps exactly what I am saying.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Not to mention:

One approach ensures the nation's infrastructure is on par (or better) than their next competitor.

The other approach ensures people pay minimal tax.

One approach invests in their people and their nation's future. Anyone business savvy would understand the notion of investment.

The other approach assumes that it's the farms days, furthermore, everything should be left to the private sector. For example, if comcast does not deem I need faster data speeds, then surely there is no need for faster speeds.

One approach ensures I had 30 plus broadband providers to choose from.

The other ensures I have only one period.

Crazy to think that there are Americans out there who put far more trust in private corporations than their own government.

[Ali G. 37]

Where you and I differ is that I believe there are more options than either zero government or a proactive one. The problem is, in a society that demands creativity, self-sufficiency and intiative to succeed, you will have the haves and the have nots. It is fair to offer and equality of opportunity, but what Obama and his sychophants expect, as well, is an equality of outcome. That simply won't happen unless they dumb all of us down to dependency, which is what they are trying to do.

Various groups with certain indoctrinated beliefs here do seem to confuse proactive government for communism or socialism and are notorious for looking within (ethnocentric) and ignoring the success of others. Furthermore, seem to confuse a nation's military might and large GDP for individual success. What's ironic about that mentality is that Repubs are all for the individual, yet refuse to acknowledge or accept the actual affluence - both financial and quality of life wise - of individuals abroad? In particular people in countries using systems, approaches and with ideologies that are diametrically opposite to that of what they are screaming from the top of their lungs for.

Some of the greatest pharmaceutical breakthroughs now come from abroad. A glance at a large number of scientists and engineers in the US alone illustrates that many are from abroad. Therefore, is it no worthy for America to analyze why these folks are doing well? Why is it so hard to fathom or accept that dems may want to learn and emulate those doing something better than America? Like their health care systems.

Sofiyya I wasn't born yesterday, various people hated on Obama the month prior to him entering office, so why would this change now? Likewise, I dislike yank liberals, which subconsciously means no matter what good they do, I won't like them nor recognize it. Furthermore, any time they #### up, I will be on them like a hawk. It's the same thing for them as they ignore any positives and focus on any negative of religion and claim it to be the destruction of humanity yada yada yada.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Ali G. 37]

Crazy to think that there are Americans out there who put far more trust in private corporations than their own government.

It's lunacy actually.

Who in their right mind distrusts the government they have the power to vote in over a private board? A board whose sole purpose is to generate dividends for their shareholders - pretty much at any cost.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

It's lunacy actually.

Who in their right mind distrusts the government they have the power to vote in over a private board? A board whose sole purpose is to generate dividends for their shareholders - pretty much at any cost.

Problem is the Republicans are so far up the backside of the corporations they are blinded to see what would the best for the American people.

[Ali G. 37]

Problem is the Republicans are so far up the backside of the corporations they are blinded to see what would the best for the American people.

Well it was interesting to see not one Repub have a health care story yet Dem house members have many of their own, including some personal experiences. Someone is clearly lying here and has their pockets lined. Even funnier was members from 'get er dooone' states and towns stating the system is just the best in the world. Who knows.. Maybe their ignorance leads them to believe they falsely do have the best. After all, many of these members seem to be oblivious to the condition of their state or its plight.

[luckytxn 2,264]

It is good to see that there is no change and the health care industries huge money they gave to the Socialists paid off.