Americans Satisfied With the Lives They Lead

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Does this mean that bigger government can be good?

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does this mean that bigger government can be good?

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

I'll be a satisfied American if people like Gary would own up to that truth.

[GaryC 7]

Does this mean that bigger government can be good?

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

I'll be a satisfied American if people like Gary would own up to that truth.

Thats your truth, not mine. Smaller government is always better.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does this mean that bigger government can be good?

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

I'll be a satisfied American if people like Gary would own up to that truth.

Thats your truth, not mine. Smaller government is always better.

Not according to this article you posted.

[GaryC 7]

Does this mean that bigger government can be good?

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

I'll be a satisfied American if people like Gary would own up to that truth.

Thats your truth, not mine. Smaller government is always better.

Not according to this article you posted.

Show me where it says that big government has made these people happy. Your drawing a conclusion out of thin air.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Does this mean that bigger government can be good?

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

I'll be a satisfied American if people like Gary would own up to that truth.

Thats your truth, not mine. Smaller government is always better.

Not according to this article you posted.

Show me where it says that big government has made these people happy. Your drawing a conclusion out of thin air.

Tee hee...

Gary, if the logical conclusion of your post is that Americans are satisfied with their lives because of Bush's Domestic Policies then give credit where credit is due...

President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn’t cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.

Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush’s first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton’s last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush’s first term.

The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.

The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs. Bush signed every one of those bills during his first term. Even if Congress passes Bush’s new budget exactly as proposed, not a single cabinet-level agency will be smaller than when Bush assumed office.

Republicans could reform the budget rules that stack the deck in favor of more spending. Unfortunately, senior House Republicans are fighting the changes. The GOP establishment in Washington today has become a defender of big government.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750

Edited August 16, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven,

From the last paragraph of the article Gary posted:

When asked about the country, people do not feel things in the United States are going well as just 19 percent say things in the country are moving in the right direction.

If we're going to draw correlations, let's draw one from that.

[GaryC 7]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

I detect some back pedaling here.

When comparing their present situation with five years ago, over half (54%) of adults say their situation has improved while one-quarter (28%) say it has stayed about the same and 17 percent say it has gotten worse. The number of those who say their lives have improved is about the same as in 2005 (56%) and still up from 2003’s 49 percent.

Where do you suppose this greater satisfaction is coming from, given the context of time frame?

P.S. In any case, if you personally are satisfied with Bush's Domestic Policy then you are in effect endorsing Bigger Gov't.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

I detect some back pedaling here.

When comparing their present situation with five years ago, over half (54%) of adults say their situation has improved while one-quarter (28%) say it has stayed about the same and 17 percent say it has gotten worse. The number of those who say their lives have improved is about the same as in 2005 (56%) and still up from 2003’s 49 percent.

Where do you suppose this greater satisfaction is coming from, given the context of time frame?

P.S. In any case, if you personally are satisfied with Bush's Domestic Policy then you are in effect endorsing Bigger Gov't.

Those are your conclusions, not mine. About the only economic policy that Bush did that I agree with is the tax cuts. And that is also what has made a large part of our economic boom. The spending tends to drag it down. If we had the tax cuts with some spending cuts we would all be better off. As far as the spending goes reps and dems alike love to spend our money, I don't like any of it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

I detect some back pedaling here.

When comparing their present situation with five years ago, over half (54%) of adults say their situation has improved while one-quarter (28%) say it has stayed about the same and 17 percent say it has gotten worse. The number of those who say their lives have improved is about the same as in 2005 (56%) and still up from 2003’s 49 percent.

Where do you suppose this greater satisfaction is coming from, given the context of time frame?

P.S. In any case, if you personally are satisfied with Bush's Domestic Policy then you are in effect endorsing Bigger Gov't.

Those are your conclusions, not mine. About the only economic policy that Bush did that I agree with is the tax cuts. And that is also what has made a large part of our economic boom. The spending tends to drag it down. If we had the tax cuts with some spending cuts we would all be better off. As far as the spending goes reps and dems alike love to spend our money, I don't like any of it.

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

[GaryC 7]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

I detect some back pedaling here.

When comparing their present situation with five years ago, over half (54%) of adults say their situation has improved while one-quarter (28%) say it has stayed about the same and 17 percent say it has gotten worse. The number of those who say their lives have improved is about the same as in 2005 (56%) and still up from 2003’s 49 percent.

Where do you suppose this greater satisfaction is coming from, given the context of time frame?

P.S. In any case, if you personally are satisfied with Bush's Domestic Policy then you are in effect endorsing Bigger Gov't.

Those are your conclusions, not mine. About the only economic policy that Bush did that I agree with is the tax cuts. And that is also what has made a large part of our economic boom. The spending tends to drag it down. If we had the tax cuts with some spending cuts we would all be better off. As far as the spending goes reps and dems alike love to spend our money, I don't like any of it.

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

You don't comprehend very well do you? I will say it again slowly. I liked Bush's tax cuts but that is about it. Both reps and dems are addicted to spending our money. I think our current good times are because of the tax cuts but I think it would be even better if they also cut the spending. I have and still do advocate a clean sweep. Get everyone out and send in a new crop of real conservitives. A group that will cut taxes even more and do some real reduction in government spending. Clear enough?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

The whole "big government is bad" argument is predicated upon the assumption that the government is corrupt and inefficient and that the private sector can do everything better.

Obviously, there are areas in which that isn't true. The more transparent and efficient government can get, the less that argument will hold water.

The devil is in the details. What can the government do better than the private sector?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

I detect some back pedaling here.

When comparing their present situation with five years ago, over half (54%) of adults say their situation has improved while one-quarter (28%) say it has stayed about the same and 17 percent say it has gotten worse. The number of those who say their lives have improved is about the same as in 2005 (56%) and still up from 2003’s 49 percent.

Where do you suppose this greater satisfaction is coming from, given the context of time frame?

P.S. In any case, if you personally are satisfied with Bush's Domestic Policy then you are in effect endorsing Bigger Gov't.

Those are your conclusions, not mine. About the only economic policy that Bush did that I agree with is the tax cuts. And that is also what has made a large part of our economic boom. The spending tends to drag it down. If we had the tax cuts with some spending cuts we would all be better off. As far as the spending goes reps and dems alike love to spend our money, I don't like any of it.

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

You don't comprehend very well do you? I will say it again slowly. I liked Bush's tax cuts but that is about it. Both reps and dems are addicted to spending our money. I think our current good times are because of the tax cuts but I think it would be even better if they also cut the spending. I have and still do advocate a clean sweep. Get everyone out and send in a new crop of real conservitives. A group that will cut taxes even more and do some real reduction in government spending. Clear enough?

I'll ask you again...

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

In other words, what do you think about the Cato Institute's claim of Bush being the biggest spender of all presidents since LBJ?

Edited August 16, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

I didn't mention Bush at all. The story didn't mention Bush at all. It says what it says, people are satisfied with their lives. If anything I would say they are happy in spite of a big government.

I detect some back pedaling here.

When comparing their present situation with five years ago, over half (54%) of adults say their situation has improved while one-quarter (28%) say it has stayed about the same and 17 percent say it has gotten worse. The number of those who say their lives have improved is about the same as in 2005 (56%) and still up from 2003’s 49 percent.

Where do you suppose this greater satisfaction is coming from, given the context of time frame?

P.S. In any case, if you personally are satisfied with Bush's Domestic Policy then you are in effect endorsing Bigger Gov't.

Those are your conclusions, not mine. About the only economic policy that Bush did that I agree with is the tax cuts. And that is also what has made a large part of our economic boom. The spending tends to drag it down. If we had the tax cuts with some spending cuts we would all be better off. As far as the spending goes reps and dems alike love to spend our money, I don't like any of it.

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

You don't comprehend very well do you? I will say it again slowly. I liked Bush's tax cuts but that is about it. Both reps and dems are addicted to spending our money. I think our current good times are because of the tax cuts but I think it would be even better if they also cut the spending. I have and still do advocate a clean sweep. Get everyone out and send in a new crop of real conservitives. A group that will cut taxes even more and do some real reduction in government spending. Clear enough?

I'll ask you again...

So you think that the Cato Institute has it in for Bush, or are they just confused about who's responsible for all the spending?

In other words, what do you think about the Cato Institute's claim of Bush being the biggest spender of all presidents since LBJ?

I DON'T CARE! I WANT THEM ALL OUT!!!!!!