So you say you want less government intrusion on your lives? That it's doing too much already? OK! Let's take another look at what that would mean. I know it's come up before, but there are a few angles that don't get as much of an exploration when the subject comes up.
If you support less government intrusion in your life no matter what it is, you want the following to return to daily life in the USA:
- Girls blocked from school sports because the money is being spent strictly on the boys
- Businesses, buses, and drinking fountains designated for usage based on race
- Women unable to find work in many sectors outside of nursing or secretarial
- People being barred from jobs or housing for being a member of the wrong religion
- Single women being refused apartment rentals due to marital status
- Married women being refused work because they might get pregnant
- Women and people of color being barred from colleges other than specially founded schools
- 12-hour, six-day work weeks in unsafe and unsanitary conditions
- Eight-year-olds working on factory machinery
All of those changed because of government intrusion into people's lives. If you still insist there's no way the government can make things better by stepping in and doing the work, please leave a comment below noting the color of the sky in your world.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 79
The inability to sell tainted food is costing BILLIONS in lost profits.
It's getting so corporations can't make a dishonest buck.
And of course, regulations might have saved us from the economic mess that we now have, the Wall Street bailouts and their greedy and fraudulent behavior, and perhaps we'd not have had this mess in the Gulf that we now have that is an environmental catastrophe. The list goes on...
If they want smaller govt. they can attempt to legitimately vote in people who will take away all their govt. services and leave them to clean up their own oil spills,monitor their own food safety etc etc. Do they also want a smaller govt. that does not spend a trillion dollars securing the Iraqi oil fields and causing the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands..... When they come in favor of a more efficiently run smaller govt military industrial complex maybe we can take thes protesters seriously. Lets get real most people want some govt regulation. History will judge the whole bail out wall street by Bush et al.
Our government did this. Both sides...democrat and republican presidents....and it SUCKS.
~M
Your bridge is not valid. There could be PLENTY of reductions in the size of government and there would still be just as many women playing sports... actually the size of government has nothing to do with the advocacy of women's rights nor child labor laws. The decrease of redundant offices, entitlements, and policy makers would not cause any of the issues you mentioned above to become true.
Decreasing the size of government would just result in spending what we made instead of putting it on the federal credit card. Just like you and I...eventually the minimum payments become too great and we have to declare bankruptcy.
I would still disagree with you. Product recalls are "more" not because the volume has increased but the public awareness/publicity as well as the quantity of product that is produced compared to 20 years ago. There are gazillions of products now... it comes with the territory.
Also, Bush cut some of the FDA but the recalls are not coming from food. You have your issues with spinach now and then...but that has always been. The product recalls have come from manufacturing which the FDA has nothing to do with and Bush didnt cause.... but I do appreciate the style you tried to pull that off with ;)
~M
Guess I'll continue to buy the clean non bacterial man-made chemical source of nitrogen. L O L!
The pig thing is not right...or at least not the only way because the Dept of Health says it is caused from cattle. I cant find anywhere that it says its from pigs...or anything about "factory farming"....
~M
Here is a comment from Johns Hopkins Magazine about E Coli in pigs.
Farmacology: Johns Hopkins researchers are investigating a troubling potential source of resistant pathogens: the American farm.
Kellogg Schwab, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Water and Health, refers to a typical pig farm manure lagoon that he sampled. "There were 10 million E. coli per liter [of sampled waste]. Ten million. And you have a hundred million liters in some of those pits. So you can have trillions of bacteria present, of which 89 percent are resistant to drugs. That's a massive amount that in a rain event can contaminate the environment."
The researcher concern here was antibiotic resistance but the mentioned "rain events" and other spills have occurred in several states leading to contamination of nearby fields.
Citizens Against Government Waste
Actually no it doesn't.
Just as in your post Robert, supporting smaller government doesn't mean that we want to vote out "all" of government services, in Brenda's article a smaller government will not likely bring about the things she has listed.
Both of your statements are just an exercise in hyperbole....at least I hope so...because if you are serious then some serious counseling is in order.
Who is referring to the TEA Party patriots using a derogatory sexual term?
"I don't have to mischaracterize anything"
Yes you do...what you reference are rare occurrences and you specifically seek them out and in most times without basis attribute them to TEA Party members to dismiss and demean them you do so in a hateful vitriolic manner which is a reflection of your character...or should I say lack thereof.
But so is the way of the left....No surprise!
I think the problem with the TP is that there doesnt seem to be a purpose for it other than being against anything Obama proposes, which is most likely why the party is seen as a big bunch of racists.
I have asked 5 people who are self proclaimed TP members what the agenda is.
One says they are trying to reform the republican.
One says they dont want any government (federal) intereference in their lives other than defense.
One says they dont want things like social security and medicare.
One says they just dont like that a black man is in office.
One says they are fighting against taxation. The federal income tax being unconstitutional.
And on and on.
The problem with the TP agenda is there doesnt seem to be one.
"I think the problem with the TP is",
Well I also thought the lefts rabid hatred for president Bush was illogical!
"One says they are trying to reform the republican."
They certainly need it!
As for the rest of them...What circles do you hang out in? Normal people don't think like that...I'm sure that those attitudes are present in the TEA Party but they are NOT the norm!
The first TEA Party I attended A gentleman was handing out his pre read versions of a news letter that proclaimed Bush did 9-11 and Clinton did this and this person did that.
This person does NOT represent the TEA Party! Nor do your examples!
Lori,
Have you attended a coffee party meeting yet? If so what were their main concerns?
What is the focus of the TP what is the objective specifically that they hope to accomplish and please dont say "smaller government" thats too general.
What is the mission statement?
Dan E. May 8, 2010, 4:47am EDT
Lori,
Mission statement;
To motivate people to become involved in our political process....To get people to vote!
Some TEA Party chapters have established educational resources to help people become more aware of the Constitution and its meaning. So one could describe the TEA Party as a Constitutionalists.
The TEA Party was born out of the disconnect between our representatives and we the people, the TEA Party wants to see our representatives to be more responsive to their constituents.
Gather doesn't consider it a violation of the TOS to call TEA Party Patriots by that particular degrading term.
rolls eyes.
Most political arguments lately do not take into consideration that we have 300M+ people in 50 states represented by 400+ representatives in D.C. and majority rules.
What I continue to hear from many less government advocates is I want it the way I want it, I want it now, I don't care about the rules, and I'm not being listened to.
I used to have teenagers that talked like that.
And, I agree, Louis, a big downfall for the rational is to accept they cannot deal with the irrational. I've recognized that in personal relationships but I've never had to deal with so much of it in politics before.
Once more;
Citizens against government waste! They report government waste and do so using plenty of data.
Government Waste Porker of the Year 2009 Goes to ..... Barney Frank...
"Chairmen Frank is without peer. He safeguarded their lavish franchises and fended off any attempts to establish GSE oversight even when it became clear that GSE executives had manipulated earnings statements, given themselves huge bonuses based on bogus numbers, and steered the companies into such a precarious condition that they threatened the entire financial system'"
.....no kidding!
Liberals are so far beyond reason it's scary. We know that Public Schools have feminized boys. Apartheid is over except for Democrats. The glass ceiling is now a myth. Only the Muslims are cut slack by LIBERALS. Get your wife pregnant and you can get family leave too. College entrance may be based on IQ not color! Only 12 hour days, many would celebrate! And finally kids at work, only if they are illegals!
Also, Apartheid is still not over--even in the U.S. (Maybe, from where you stand lookout, it appears to be over--but it is NOT!)
The glass ceiling still states that women make about 78% of salary, doing the same job that a man, doing the same job--makes. So the glass (class) ceiling is still very much in place, white boy.
The entire phrase, "Get your wife pregnant" is indicative of what you are. If you really thought about it, and lived the real life--you would both be pregnant. Please get back in touch with the new way of seeing "family."
You are so disconnected to the real world, that I may actually enjoy your posts--if I think of them as re-runs from the 60s....
Wilka
Everyone deserves a scapegoat don't they? L O L!
My point is simple, the women's movement elevated "girls" at the expense of "boy" in PUBLIC SCHOOLS!! Boys were judged and treated based on feminine standards not masculine standards! It's still a problem today in PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!
Can you post quotes of these people who were talking like they wanted everything gone except their pet projects?
"we have corporations receiving tax incentives to do it outright in Asia."
Really?
Based upon what Brenda? I don't like it that U.S. corporations have moved overseas to take advantage of cheap labor, but from what I have read U.S. corporation who establish manufacturing overseas pay better than the norm in the area and provide better working conditions.
"Activist judges"
Well we have had "activist judges" establish law in our country but you don't mind because some of the laws (rights) they established you think should be honest to goodness rights, and the fact that these judges ignored the constitution isn't important to you because what they established you think is good.
I'll post this even knowing it will be lost on you;
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine
You support the politicians and activist judges because they are doing what you think is good...but when you allow them to ignore the constitution in favor of what you want you also give them the power to take away from you what you want.
Here's the loophole:
...the ability to defer and often never pay taxes on foreign-earned profits. The result: foreign profits of U.S. companies end up taxed at a lower rate than their U.S. income, creating an incentive to invest overseas in factories. The jobs are where the factories are.
And here's how it works
The tax code is written in a way that allows companies not to pay the full 35% U.S. corporate tax rate on foreign income when that money remains invested overseas.
Backing up a step, here's how it works before the loophole: A company earns $100 million abroad in Lowtaxistan where the corporate tax rate is 20%. The foreign subsidiary pays that money to the U.S. parent. The parent then pays $35 million to the U.S. government and takes a credit for the 20% (or
$20 million) payment to the Lowtaxistan government. So the net to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service is $15 million.
But here's how it works with the loophole: The U.S. subsidiary simply keeps the money offshore and certifies to its accountants that the money is invested overseas. It never remits the money to the parent and so never pays the $15 million extra to Uncle Sam.
The buzzword for people in the know in big corporations is "unrepatriated earnings" i.e. money you make off shore that doesn't come home to the US. Apparently, its getting to be more and more prevelent.
These are called "unrepatriated earnings" and they are increasingly commonplace. ...
What we know is that the amount of unrepatriated foreign earnings is growing substantially. The non-partisan Congressional Research Service in a report last year said it had increased to $639 billion in 2002 from $403 billion in 1999....
Source document: http://techpolicy.typepad.com/tpp/2004/03/tax_breaks_for_.html
From 2004, dude.
Wilka: Watching the jobs, in her own company, FLY over to India and Malaysia...
Bring it on, boy-o.
W
Really. And it is pretty damned sad. Your repug Texan did this...May he be charged with crimes against the American People.
Wilka
No, it took a repub to do that. AND no, BOTH party leaders are NOT responsible. Blame CAN "get us somewhere" here. It can keep us from electing another George III.
He should (still) be convicted for crimes against both his "fellow Americans," AND crimes against the constitution.
Bush will go down in history as an ethical and honorable man who lived by his convictions. He never had anything to do with the Chicago Mafia or George Soros. He tried his best to put protections at the border that the Democrats stalled and prohibited. You do not know your facts, you just keep spitting out the Democrats talking points.
What crimes? The Iraq war? Over 60 Democrasts can be seen on video saying "Iraq...weapons of mass destruction" Shall we try all of them as well?
Hey, by the way, how is that war in Iraq? or the one in Afghanistan? Or the war on terror? What's your lates talking point on all of those?
Wow! Thanks Kathy....But what you posted really doesn't have anything to do with what I posted, I imagine that in your fervor to rebut what you thought I was saying you didn't completely read my post.
Oh and about those corporate taxes.....Where do those corporations get the money to pay those taxes?
From the same place the get the money to pay salaries and buy material to build more product to sell and buy office supplies and pay dividends to share holders.....From you and me when we buy their product or services, so a corporate tax is really just another tax on you and me.
So if you think that corporations are not paying their fair share you might as well just sit down write the government a check and send it in cause when they raise taxes on corps. or close those loopholes your the one whose gonna be paying it.
BTW,
In my post I was taking exception to Brenda's claim that corporations are employing "slave labor" when they locate overseas.
However, Ex President Geo Bush will perhaps go down in TEXAS history as an ethical and honorable man--once TX rewrites the history books, as it is threatening to do.
Nora - NAFTA applies to Canada, US, & Mexico, hence the "North American" portion of the acronym. It's not about business outsourced "overseas" to poor nations with cheap labor.
I ran across an article a couple weeks ago it dealt with the funding cuts and possible privitization of NASA. Seems that the smaller government person that posted it was outraged about what Obama was doing. So I pointed out to her that if she did indeed want smaller government and less spending than she should be in support of this.
And then I asked what she would be OK with spending less on. Funny thing is she never answered. They want less spending but dont want any programs cut. They want a smaller government but still have the government protect their water, consumer rights, and every protection they enjoy today.
Then you have these same people who want to abide by the original constitution...the one that didnt give women or minorities the right to vote.
~M
and it was. It has no foundation of truth or logic. Didnt anyone take debate?
~M
screw em. They deserve it....right David? lol.
Infections are no big deal...until you have one and need meds huh? Easy to throw rocks without thinking David.
~M
You make the uninformed assumption that in order to have jobs we need corporations. This logic is inherently flawed. Historically, the corporation is a relatively new invention, with "jobs" existing for along time before its creation.
Also, you claim about business leaving the country because "The union demands fueled the fire for the mass exodus," is mostly inaccurate. The major reason behind international capital is the predatory ethic of the business sector. The profit-motive assures us that if a corporation can make a product cheaper, such as moving its production to a country in which; the workforce is more submissive in regards to demanding worker's rights; or there are looser environmental protection laws, it will. This is regardless of the impact on the social, economic, environmental, or political atmosphere of either the place it is leaving, or its new destination. Unions, or, the act of increasing a workforce's bargaining power, does play a part. However, do not fall under the illusion that an overwhelming majority of corporations give a shit about their workforce, they don't. If they did, they would be less concerned about loosing out on a little profit by allowing workers to unionize to ensure that they, and their families, receive a decent wage, work hours, benefits, pension and so on. But this runs completely counter to a corporations' primary objective, and that is to maximize, for the most part short term, profits. Countless times we have been shown either by the products they make, or they way in which they treat their workforce, or the way in which they manipulate our political systems, that corporations don't care about you unless they can figure out a way for you to generate the maximum amount of profits for them. Perhaps what we should start asking ourselves is, what would a large-scale business look like that is not run by a corporation? Can we create democratic workplaces? Can we create a business sector that cares about the long-term interests of its' workforce? I think we can, and we can start by not juxtaposing a society's need for jobs with a need for corporations.
Smart government means spending less on some things (e.g., the Pentagon is begging Congress not to force them to spend money on things they don't want) and spending more on other things (e.g., development of renewable energy technology). It also means stopping giving ridiculous "incentive" subsidies to corporations making $45 Billion annual profits when they are just using those subsidies to line the CEO/Board pockets. That money could either be saved or used for areas that need incentives.
17% Medicare
8% Medicaid
22% Social Security
14% Interest
15% Defense
23% Other (yes, I know it adds up to 99% - their numbers, not mine)
The first three are entitlement programs that can't really be cut, plus interest is an unavoidable obligation. That leaves Defense and Other. Cutting Defense is portrayed as un-American, so that leaves "Other"
So what part of "Other" should be smaller? Homeland Security? Food & Drug? Education? Federal Parks? Infrastructure? Energy?
The mantra is always "Pork! Cut the pork!" Even if every excessive program was cut from "Other", it would be a fraction of a fraction of our government's budget. I'm still waiting to hear that they're willing to give up their Obama tax cut, their Social Security and Medicare.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/budget.cfm
Citizens Against Government Waste
Pretty specific I'd say!
At least you went and looked, of course a bit more exploration will unlock the standard that they use to determine what they consider wasteful.
I have been present here on your thread discounting much of the "information" that you assume are facts.
So Sorry.
Cut the pork in unneccesary museums, 1 flight airports, ridiculous "studies" cut everything not necessary for life support and safety.
WHEN there is money, then those ridiculous items can go up for consideration, with FULL transparency instead of sneaking all that waste into truly necessary bills.
We have to clean up Washington and we have to start now! It's your tax money!
So even if every last dollar of the earmarks so often railed against by conservative lobbyists were removed from the budget, it would reduce expenditures by less than 0.5%. We could save more if every government contractor bought one less latte a day on the government dollar.
That said, the biggest ticket item in the lobbyists' pork list is $465 million for the secondary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, which Defense Secretary Gates says the Pentagon doesn't even want.
Furthermore, the lobbyist pork list notes that "earmark/pork" spending has gone down under the Obama administration. Specifically,
The number of projects declined by 10.2 percent, from 10,160 in fiscal year 2009 to 9,129 in fiscal year 2010, while the total tax dollars spent to fund them decreased by 15.5 percent, from $19.6 billion to $16.5 billion.
So it seems that the Obama administration is already working to reduce spending.
Though again, "earmarks" amount to less than 0.5% of the total annual budget.
So Joan, you are absolutely correct that we have to revisit the big items if we are going to have any impact on the budget. That and incentivize new renewable and sustainable energy technologies and stop giving subsidies to old energy technologies even when the companies are making record profits. By doing so we reduce costs, enhance future competitiveness, and protect national security.
Or we can just whine about less than 0.5% of the budget that are "earmarks."
Never before have so few controlled so much of the US economy. It's time to shakedown the rich. We could call it "Restore America Tax" -- a onetime 73% tax on the richest 1%, and on those corporations that brought us to the brink of financial ruin.
I say this as a business owner. Our corporate tax rate is 35% since our earnings are in the $335,000 - $10,000,000 range. The top corporate tax bracket (those companies making over $18,333,333) is .... wait for it .... 35%!
The TEA Party people protesting their imaginary tax increases and scaring congress into not broaching the subject, and making unelectable anyone who would consider tax increases, are doing the fat cats' bidding and jeopardizing sensible and truly fair tax policy.