if you're for small govt so much

[henryclay]

If you are talking about the prescription drug component of Medicare, I believe you have it confused with entitlements. The only entitlement involved is that a person on Social Security with Medicare for health insurance can now, (if they choose), also buy prescription drug insurance. It is an insurance policy that no one is forced to purchase and no one can purchase it unless they are already purchasing Medicare insurance coverage.

If you are discussing something else, please explain what it is.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

In all fairness, I've never seen any of the posters in here (of any and all political persuasions) restrain themselves to "just" criticizing "one" specific elected official or politican.

[Deleted]

if you're for small govt so much I am.

Why do you just bash Obama? President Obama is a Democrat. Democrats want the government to not only govern but to do everything for every body. That means a much bigger government sooner or later. Plus small governments interfere less with business & cost less. Any cost saving (if you believe that there will be one under the Obama administration - I don't) would be used up & surpassed by much larger social programs (which require government workers to administer anyway).

Both parties like to spend way to much money. The democrats like to spend it on social programs that never end & grow over time. That's why I will never in my life vote democrat.

[kent]

Both sides of the aisle are addicted to spending IMHO.

Why not take a small step and register as an independent to send a message we're ALL sick and tired of it.

Maybe that will force them into campaigning against one another and they will have to stick their necks out and go on record with a tangible platform.

My unimportant two cents....

[dancinmama]

Jun 5, 2011 13:42:25 GMT -5 @horatiolegrand said:

what have they cut? They proposed cutting medicare, but what else? They are hypocrites. Look at their thinking on military spending. Look at what they did with the dept of education. It is the same leadership now that doubled the size of that. The tea party wants smaller govt, and the GOP leadership pays some lip service to that. The republicans could propose some spending cuts that democrats would look bad rejecting but they wont do that because they dont want spending cuts. for instance the republicans could suggest cutting back spending on the military to levels of a few years ago. They could suggest sensible drug polices since we cant afford to lock up millions. They could push for an end to farm subsidies. They could suggest all kinds of spending cuts. The only ones they suggest are one they know will probably not pass.

I am all for ABOLISHING the Department of Education. Education is a state matter; not federal. This department has done NOTHING to improve the level of education in our country.

And on a side note, I really miss you talking about your pants or lack thereof.

[fairlycrazy23]

I actually try not to bash Obama directly but usually prefer to point to the Federal Government as a whole, the President has a lot of influence but ultimately it is the Congress that spends the money. The Republicans are almost as bad as the Democrats, but hopefully they understand that fiscal responsibility is driving a lot of voters now ( i have my doubts, they will use the tea party and others who are for smaller government to get into power then push social issues).

But it is the republicans that talk about small government and the hope is at some point there actions will match there rhetoric

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 5, 2011 14:50:29 GMT -5 dancinmama said:

I am all for ABOLISHING the Department of Education. Education is a state matter; not federal. This department has done NOTHING to improve the level of education in our country.

I agree, I think our level of education has dropped virtually every year since the Department of education was founded.

[pepper112765]

Republican/Democrat -- each are a side of the same coin.

[Deleted]

Horatio I'm curious why you think government size is the only criteria that we should use to pick a president? That's like saying if the economy is the only thing we care about we should vote for someone like Hitler. He did take over when GE economy was in shambles & "fix" it.

President Obama wants to do everything for the poor. Well by federal standards the poor makes up about 40% of our country. Trying to do everything (social programs, which are by the way Welfare, Obamacare & the like. They are the one's that take money from the haves & give it to the have nots. Wealth redistribution in other words which is the main building block of socialism or should I say main selling point.) for 40% of the population would require a HUGE government to oversee those programs.

Anyway I don't like President Obama for many many reason, not just because of his stance on the size of government, which I disagree with too. Oh & I wasn't comparing President Obama to Hitler. As leaders they aren't in the same league.

[floridayankee]

Jun 5, 2011 11:22:24 GMT -5 @horatiolegrand said:

You should all be supporting Gary Johnson, IMO. I bet all the mainstream republicans will toss him aside and mock him just like they did Ron Paul.

You have to admit, some of Ron Paul's ideas can be quite "out there"....but the more I research Gary Johnson, the more I like him. Being registered as an indy, I do not get a say so in the primaries. I really hope he survives them because I'd likely vote for him for POTUS.

[Deleted]

Jun 5, 2011 13:15:00 GMT -5 kent said:

Both sides of the aisle are addicted to spending IMHO.

Why not take a small step and register as an independent to send a message we're ALL sick and tired of it.

Maybe that will force them into campaigning against one another and they will have to stick their necks out and go on record with a tangible platform.

My unimportant two cents....

We have to cut on BOTH sides of the aisle

Farm subsidies, healthcare, bailouts, welfare, defense department, giveaway programs

They both have their pet programs....and some have got to go

[safeharbor37]

...programs like Homeland security that makes you take off your shoes to get on an airplane? Wait that's not a social program so that kind of big govt is okay, right?

Homeland Security may be intrusive, but it is not an example of "big government" any more than than is border security or national defense.

So I understand why you blame Obama for health care. But what does that have to do with all the big govt that republicans pushed through? One does not negate the other. I am not saying, nor do I believe, that democrats are better at not spending. I asking what is the difference. Other then that republicans are such hyprocrites about it.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans in regard to "big government" is that Democrats are in favor of increasing government size and power while Republicans favor "big government only when they feel the people are demanding it [they do it to buy votes].
The real villains are the people. A current politician cannot get elected in most districts if he/she proposes ending or reducing wasteful Federal Programs. This is true for local officials. Governors, for example, who refuse Federal largess are immediately attacked by constituents who are addicted to Federal "aid." Some politicians do buck the trend, but they are the exception and even they can't get by with suggesting the ending of Federal "aid."
Most conservatives are not so much interested in "small government" as they are in a small Federal Government with more power vested in State and local hands. Libertarians tend to propose limited government at all levels, but even they are more concerned with the power of the Federal Government. Liberals, on the other hand [Democrats as a rule] actually like not only "bigger"government, but more centralized [Federal} government.

[workpublic]

i'm just as mad at obama for extending homeland security as i was with bush for starting it. ,

there are still some posters who don't get the fact that both parties are the same(against the common citizen/for special interests). they just argue for their "conference" in the same league. IMHO both are wrong.

the dems are in the white house now, so the dems get the criticism

[workpublic]

What big govt thing do you want?

border security.

[Deleted]

Any thing and everything that the federal govt should do can be and should be done with a view to small govt. If you think, (and I do) that one of the main purposes of the govt is to defend the nation, that can be done using small govt principals. We dont need to be nation building in Africa to defend our country. Libya did not attack us. If you want to defend the reason we are in Libya, then we should also be in Syria and Yemen fighting those tyrants.

I dont know what big govt you want the Republicans to be doing. Maybe telling people who can and cannot get married. That is not what govt should be doing. Marriage should be between a man and a woman and God. Get govt out of it. If two men want to marry then it should be between two men and God. If God doesnt approve let Him sort it out. Marriage historically is regulated by church and the married couple.

What big govt thing do you want?

I give up on this Horatio. You've just confused the heck out of me. You want me to explain what I want big government & why I want to attack Libia. Those are both Democrat agenda items. I'm going away now. I would suggest that you Wikipedia social programs. It will explain (I'm sure) what they are, who wants them, etc. That way you can get first hand info from someone not on this board.

[fairlycrazy23]

We should be aggressive in defending our interests, and this will require military power, however, having said that it would be far more efficient and beneficial to the United States to make sure our interests didn't require projecting our military power far outside our borders.
If we could would actually produce the majority of our own resources (primarily energy) a LOT of problems would go away.

Not only would we not have to use resources to protect foreign oil fields and transport routes, we could create millions of jobs and keep all that oil money here.

Social programs are not the ONLY big government thing, but they will soon dwarf all o there programs

[fairlycrazy23]

Big Government in action

The U.S. Department of Education issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife's defaulted student loans.
www.news10.net/news/article/141072/2/Dept-of-Education-breaks-down-Stockton-mans-door

[cme1201]

Beautiful, just one more example of federal overreach, Why the department of education has a police service with-in itself and yet requires that the police force place a resource office in every school in our state seems they could do it themselves and allow police to I don't know monitor crime.