More Government Or Less Government?

Alot of discussion on the size/role of the Federal Government..........how do you vote on this issue?

Gee. I wonder how I voted.

Alot of discussion on the size/role of the Federal Government..........how do you vote on this issue? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Where is the "Another worthless poll question that has slanted, leading, over simplified answers that in no way really address the issue they pretend to" button?

Where is the "Another worthless poll question that has slanted, leading, over simplified answers that in no way really address the issue they pretend to" button? Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

I totally agree- not even worth the effort to vote- it's obvious how the "pollster" wants people to vote

Whinning of a loser; start your own counter poll; I doubt you can manipulate the responses to change the results. But you won't; you are the type who just feels good spewing about it.

Typical whiny brats; you don't like the results so you cry foul and won't play.

Neither. More intelligent government. Lower Pentagon budget, no agricultural subsidies, shore up Social Security, Mrdicare, and Medicaid. Get the government out of the bedroom and women's reproductive choices. limited regulation of the economy only where it's necessary -- the financial system, product and worker safety, the environment, etc.

So the thousands of more bureaucrats required to implement/manage Obamacare and Dodd/Frank isn't your idea of good govenment?

Neither. More intelligent government. Lower Pentagon budget, no agricultural subsidies, shore up Social Security, Mrdicare, and Medicaid. Get the government out of the bedroom and women's reproductive choices. limited regulation of the economy only where it's necessary -- the financial system, product and worker safety, the environment, etc. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Alot of discussion on the size/role of the Federal Government..........how do you vote on this issue? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The Constitution addresses this. The first three Articles of the US Constitution dictate the scope of the three branches. The government that we have now in no way even comes CLOSE to resembling the mandated design. For example Congress is only allowed to spend money on 18 different things, called enumerated powers. We spend money on tens of thousands of federal programs, none of which are actually permitted under the Constitution if you take it literally. If something is such a great idea, then write an amendment, if 2/3 of the Congress agrees along with 3/4 of the States...then it's the undisputed law of the land. The 50%+1 method of government just ensures the leeches keep draining the productive. We are not in a democracy, we are in a representative republic...actually a union of 50 representative republics -- as each State is the equivalent of a nation.


If the people want "free" health care...they can do what Romneycare did...but don't ask the people of Texas to pay for it.


Pare down the Federal government to the Constitutionally prescribed levels...let the STATES decide which programs their people want...and let that state fund it appropriately through taxation on their citizens. Social Security, can be run by individual states, offered or not offered and at varying levels. If one state is overly generous...then they may find people migrating from other states...and they may have to adjust accordingly. Other states may offer fewer handouts, and fewer taxes and companies might open new business there....it's competition between the States...and the citizens of that State decide what that is to be. The only restriction...is that the States must have a republican form of government. (as in set up like a Republic, not a dictatorship, etc.)

+1

+2

+3

+4...

I would also strenghten laws that allow citizens to sue corporations and business for fraud, ripoffs, and other such things; take the power to regulate away from the bureacrats in Washington and return it to the individual citizens (the current system just reeks of special treatment).....Corporations don't fear Washington regulators; but they DO fear a son-of-a-bitch lawyer with a good case. No caps, little controls on litigation.


Where is the bigger government crowd?

+5

So the thousands of more bureaucrats required to implement/manage Obamacare and Dodd/Frank isn't your idea of good govenment? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I opposed the health care reform bill. I found it preferable only to the current system, but much preferred a single payer system like every other democracy in the world has.

And Dodd-Frank is way too weak. It doesn't do enough about too big to fail financial institutions. It only places them under marginally stronger regulations. Too big to fail is too big to exist. And the regulations on the financial sector, a sector that is peculiarly apt to market failure for well documented reasons needs to be subject to strong regulation such as we had before the reform of Glass-Stegal.

As for the number of employees needed to regulate in those two fields, experience both here and abroad tell us that it is much more efficient that the market. Medicare and Medicaid are run in a much more efficient manner than private insurance because nothing is devoted to avoiding coverage, underwriting to avoid insuring high risk groups, claims handling to avoid payment, and advertising. Nor am I aware of any excessive bureaucracy that is needed to keep retail banks out of the investing business and investment banks out of the retail banking business. But whatever regulatory costs there may be are certainly less expensive than the costs that we have incurred in the Lesser Depression.

Whinning of a loser; start your own counter poll; I doubt you can manipulate the responses to change the results. But you won't; you are the type who just feels good spewing about it.

Typical whiny brats; you don't like the results so you cry foul and won't play. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Thanks for reminding me what a loser I am. What with the polls here and the GOP field of contenders, I was feeling pretty good about myself. Maybe if I rise to your challenge I can reestablish my semi-shattered (sha, sha, shattered) self-esteem.
That's it. Besting whirlaway at his own fake poll game. Only by being manipulated while trying to manipulate others who may have been manipulated while seeking to manipulate the very powers that be do I stand a chance at living down the fact that I let whirlaway suck my dick.

Has whirlaway ever sucked a bigger dick than mine?

1. Yes. How arrogant to think your dick is of any special size.

2. No. Everyone knows you have the biggest dick in central TX

3. Who cares? Like you are something special because whirlaway sucked your dick. Join the Texans, the former Oilers, the Rockets, every parking valet at the Derek Hotel, the Astros, the Dynamos, every single restaurant worker on Westheimer, 57.884% of all Chronicle readers, etc. etc.