Most people believe the size of "government" is too large, and government spending must be reduced. unless of course it affects them. i.e.
1. Oil company exec's want to reign in runaway government spending unless it adversely affects their big fat government subsidy payments.
2. Construction workers want government spending cut, except when it may cost them their jobs due to highway or other infastructure funds being cut.
3. Military contractors want government spending cut, except when it affects their lucrative defense contracts.
4. Farmers want government spending cut except when it affects their farm subsidies.
5. Law enforcement officials want government spending cut, except when a cutoff in federal money might cost them their jobs.
6. Veterans want government spending cut, except when it may reduce their benefits.
And the list goes on and on. Everyone wants government spending cut, as long as it does not adversely affect them. Is it possible we have seen the enemy...and it is us??😲
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by bill718I agree. The government should not be giving certain people special breaks. Everyone should be under the same rules.
Most people believe the size of "government" is too large, and government spending must be reduced. unless of course it affects them. i.e.
1. Oil company exec's want to reign in runaway government spending unless it adversely affects their big fat government subsidy payments.
2. Construction workers want government spending cut, except when it may cost ...[text shortened]... ut, as long as it does not affect them. Is it possible we have seen the enemy...and it is us??😲
Glad to see you agree with me. Repeal Obamacare America!
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by bill718Do you want government spending cut?
Most people believe the size of "government" is too large, and government spending must be reduced. unless of course it affects them. i.e.
1. Oil company exec's want to reign in runaway government spending unless it adversely affects their big fat government subsidy payments.
2. Construction workers want government spending cut, except when it may cost ...[text shortened]... ut, as long as it does not affect them. Is it possible we have seen the enemy...and it is us??😲
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by bill718Had the government stayed small to begin with we wouldn't have people wanting to reduce spending except for our own interests. Stop social programs and have family look out for one another. Get government out of funding private companies. Stop bailouts. I would be willing to give up social security if that meant we have a fundamental change in society and a much much more limited federal government. How about you?
Most people believe the size of "government" is too large, and government spending must be reduced. unless of course it affects them. i.e.
1. Oil company exec's want to reign in runaway government spending unless it adversely affects their big fat government subsidy payments.
2. Construction workers want government spending cut, except when it may cost ...[text shortened]... g as it does not adversely affect them. Is it possible we have seen the enemy...and it is us??😲
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by joe beyserOne great way of reducing the size of the government is to get it out of the business of social engineering.
Had the government stayed small to begin with we wouldn't have people wanting to reduce spending except for our own interests. Stop social programs and have family look out for one another. Get government out of funding private companies. Stop bailouts. I would be willing to give up social security if that meant we have a fundamental change in society and a much much more limited federal government. How about you?
In the case of the United States, that would be easy to do if we'd simply follow the rules set out by the Constitution.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by EladarGetting government out of social engineering would be social engineering that would require taking over the government. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
One great way of reducing the size of the government is to get it out of the business of social engineering.
In the case of the United States, that would be easy to do if we'd simply follow the rules set out by the Constitution.
26 Sep 13
Originally posted by JS357Letting people live in a free society and make their own decisions is in no way social engineering.
Getting government out of social engineering would be social engineering that would require taking over the government. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
In other words, you are wrong. But why should I be surprised that you can't see the truth, you are a liberal.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
26 Sep 13
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarYou aren't thinking realistically about this. Imagine yourself having the power to establish the kind of society you think we should have. Where would you start? Whatever your answer is, that would be step one in a program of social engineering. I think we are already so far away from your ideal world that we can't get there at all, but the only way it would even be possible would take tons of social engineering.
Letting people live in a free society and make their own decisions is in no way social engineering.
In other words, you are wrong. But why should I be surprised that you can't see the truth, you are a liberal.
PS They are tearing down our old bay bridge. Engineers are planning how to do it.
27 Sep 13
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718It is like the credit crisis.
Most people believe the size of "government" is too large, and government spending must be reduced. unless of course it affects them. i.e.
1. Oil company exec's want to reign in runaway government spending unless it adversely affects their big fat government subsidy payments.
2. Construction workers want government spending cut, except when it may cost ...[text shortened]... g as it does not adversely affect them. Is it possible we have seen the enemy...and it is us??😲
Before the credit crisis, mortgage companies were putting people in homes they could not afford to boost sales, so both consumers and those in the mortgage industry were happy. Then those in government were bragging to the American people about all time high home ownership statistics so the politicians were happy, especially since the poor were helped to have homes they could not afford. Those in Wall Street were happy because they were repackaging these bad mortgages into incomprehensible investments that not even Warren Buffett could figure them out, thus boosting sales.
It seemed everyone was happy....till the bubble burst. And so it goes with the federal Leviathan known as the US federal government.
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by JS357Progressives have been doing this for generations.
You aren't thinking realistically about this. Imagine yourself having the power to establish the kind of society you think we should have. Where would you start? Whatever your answer is, that would be step one in a program of social engineering. I think we are already so far away from your ideal world that we can't get there at all, but the only way it would e ...[text shortened]... ngineering.
PS They are tearing down our old bay bridge. Engineers are planning how to do it.
During FDR's reign of terror people had to be convinced to embrace social security because they simply felt that they did not need it. However, today the public thinks that their very existence depends on such programs.
Over a century of continuous social engineering with the aid of public education and state run media, the US public has been transformed. Kids now have been indoctrinated enough to control them and not afforded basic critical thinking ability to tell the difference.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
27 Sep 13
Originally posted by whodeyMy point is that any major change in the social system from its current state will require social engineering, even if the mechanism of change is demolition and a free for all.
Progressives have been doing this for generations.
During FDR's reign of terror people had to be convinced to embrace social security because they simply felt that they did not need it. However, today the public thinks that their very existence depends on such programs.
Over a century of continuous social engineering with the aid of public education an ...[text shortened]... enough to control them and not afforded basic critical thinking ability to tell the difference.