Question for the teabaggers out there...

gimmesometruth27

ok, so yesterday obama approved disaster funding from the federal budget for 5 counties that were flooded in georgia. is that socialism??

to me it is funny that these people, especially in cobb county (which is the reddest county in a very red state) are against public health care and pretty much anything that obama has proposed, but now they are begging for federal aid. how do you reconcile that?

http://www.examiner.com/a-2235179~Obama ... nties.html

catefrances

a government has a duty of care to ALL of its citizens not just the ones that agree with its policies. these particular people clearly see no hypocrisy in their asking for aid in the face of natural disaster. they see universal health care and such as an entirely different thing from government handouts in their situation and ones like it. hmm

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

a government has a duty of care to ALL of its citizens not just the ones that agree with its policies. these particular people clearly see no hypocrisy in their asking for aid in the face of natural disaster. they see universal health care and such as an entirely different thing from government handouts in their situation and ones like it. hmm

but isn't that the definition of "big government"? i thought from what i read on here it is not the government's responsibility to help the people. i am really confused....

paying for people's health insurance = not ok

giving people shitty fema trailers and spam to eat and helping rebuild their community = ok?

either way it is government handouts...i think these teabaggers can not have it both ways.

situations like these floods is why we pay taxes in the first place. they don't want to pay them but they sure want the aid when they need it....

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

catefrances wrote:

a government has a duty of care to ALL of its citizens not just the ones that agree with its policies. these particular people clearly see no hypocrisy in their asking for aid in the face of natural disaster. they see universal health care and such as an entirely different thing from government handouts in their situation and ones like it. hmm

but isn't that the definition of "big government"? i thought from what i read on here it is not the government's responsibility to help the people. i am really confused....

paying for people's health insurance = not ok

giving people shitty fema trailers and spam to eat and helping rebuild their community = ok?

either way it is government handouts...i think these teabaggers can not have it both ways.

situations like these floods is why we pay taxes in the first place. they don't want to pay them but they sure want the aid when they need it....

well you didnt hear from me that it isnt a governments responibility to look after ALL the people.

im interested to hear from others what exactly they think a governments responibility is.

gimmesometruth27

i guess nobody has any insight into this topic. its a shame because those on the right have had so much to say about spending and big government and "socialism" the last few months. i was hoping someone could share their opinions on this topic. yes obama giving the money was the right thing to do, but government health care or a public option is the right thing to do for all of the same reasons....

NMyTree

Teabaggers....hehehehe........what name to call themselves....heheheh....do they even know? I mean...know what "teabagging " is?

hehehe...too funny

gimmesometruth27

NMyTree wrote:

Teabaggers....hehehehe........what name to call themselves....heheheh....do they even know? I mean...know what "teabagging " is?

hehehe...too funny

lol....

NMyTree

I couldn't help it, I've beem laughing about that for months

Prince Of Dorkness

I directed a movie last week called "Tickle Torture Teabag."

Nothing to do with the thread, I just thought it was funny.

gimmesometruth27

guys, can we please not derail this thread any more? i want to hear from the teabaggers. it is a legitimate thread and i have legitimate concerns....

catefrances

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

guys, can we please not derail this thread any more? i want to hear from the teabaggers. it is a legitimate thread and i have legitimate concerns....

and what exactly are your legitimate concerns??? ... do you think that using a derogatory term will help stimulate civil debate with your percieved opponents?? or are you hoping instead to ruffle a few feathers??

gimmesometruth27

catefrances wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

guys, can we please not derail this thread any more? i want to hear from the teabaggers. it is a legitimate thread and i have legitimate concerns....

and what exactly are your legitimate concerns??? ... do you think that using a derogatory term will help stimulate civil debate with your percieved opponents?? or are you hoping instead to ruffle a few feathers??

read the original post.

i want a serious discussion. is it socialism or not? and why? and how can they reconcile accepting those handouts when other handouts and public option health care are no-nos...i just want to get an idea of what people that support the 9/12 protests think. these are the same people that had the teabag protests earlier on, hence the term "teabaggers"...i would think its not derogatory when it is used in the televised, radio, and print media.

it seems to me that when the hand outs directly affect them or meet their needs then they are ok, but when they go to other people it is some sort of grevious sin by the government. to me it is complete hypocracy. they put their wallets away when it is time to pay taxes yet they hold their open palms out when they are the ones needing help.

if you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion than please do not derail it any more than it already is....

g under p

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

ok, so yesterday obama approved disaster funding from the federal budget for 5 counties that were flooded in georgia. is that socialism??

to me it is funny that these people, especially in cobb county (which is the reddest county in a very red state) are against public health care and pretty much anything that obama has proposed, but now they are begging for federal aid. how do you reconcile that?

http://www.examiner.com/a-2235179~Obama ... nties.html

I gather these folks from Cobb County prefer the government to be used when they need it but not the government giving the appearance it's preying/using them. Sort like of like, use as needed when it comes to government help. Beggars can't be choosy, I gather if the socialist Obama was giving handouts personally they take it in a heartbeat.

Peace

Prince Of Dorkness

Look.. The teabaggers don't even understand why they were all in Wasington last week. Or.. two weeks ago.

whenever it was.

They're the ones shouting "get your government hands off my medicare" and screaming about "socialism is bad" while they're taking public transit on their way to the city-run park.

Don't ask people a question if they've demonstrated that they don't have even the loosest grip on the issue.

They're the ones who wanted to revoke the citizenship of the Dixie Chicks for making some flip joke about where George Bush lived because they were "criticizing the president on foreign soil" but after sarah Palin gave some meandering speech criticizing the president at lengths in Asia last week, half of them are donating to her PAC.

Tea baggers have demonstrated that they don't understand the first thing about the issues they claim to care about this week. Please, they think a Czar is a "Russian King."

Present Tents

OK, sure, I'll take a stab at this one. Although not a "teabagger", I do see the difference.

Floods : Natural disaster
National Health Care : Not a natural disater

As a libertarian (and therefore generally not a fan of government intervention in most things), I do see where the government might have a hand in helping out when thousands of people are left homeless through a natural disaster (a'la Katrina or the like).

It could be successfully argued either way, but without getting into the why's of the healthcare thing (which is a completely different topic - you're just asking about the difference between the two), this is the essential difference. One is the government trying to take care of every little need that citizens have in the course of our daily lives, and the other is government stepping in during an exceptional situation and lending a hand.

catefrances

pprewett wrote:

OK, sure, I'll take a stab at this one. Although not a "teabagger", I do see the difference.

Floods : Natural disaster
National Health Care : Not a natural disater

As a libertarian (and therefore generally not a fan of government intervention in most things), I do see where the government might have a hand in helping out when thousands of people are left homeless through a natural disaster (a'la Katrina or the like).

It could be successfully argued either way, but without getting into the why's of the healthcare thing (which is a completely different topic - you're just asking about the difference between the two), this is the essential difference. One is the government trying to take care of every little need that citizens have in the course of our daily lives, and the other is government stepping in during an exceptional situation and lending a hand.

oh it will be if the poor start dying through lack of medical care. therell be no workers or cannon fodder to prop up the machine and then well all be screwed. and by we i mean you all.

VINNY GOOMBA

As someone who believes in the Libertarian roots of the TEA (taxed enough already) party movement, I can say that yes, this is BIG GOVERNMENT, but at the same time, that if it is absolutely NECESSARY for the government to help with disaster relief, you won't find any objection from myself or anyone else. Actually, you'll find that anyone who is believes in limited government really does not want the FEDERAL Government doling out money, because it does so inefficiently. When it's necessary, it's necessary-- and it's necessary when charitable organizations, volunteerism, and local or state governments cannot afford to take care of the problem themselves. All the Federal government is going to do is print more than enough money needed to accomplish the job, and there's a good chance that the job might not even get done, while still having billions be lost in the shuffle (Katrina, anyone?). But for it to be as painless as possible for government to "print" money, as in keeping inflation in check, let's shoot for these reforms first:

1) End the wars everywhere.

2) Bring the troops home from around the globe and sell off our bases everywhere.

3) Stop subsidizing failure, be it agribusiness, banks, or oil, or anything else-- including many forms of welfare.

Now, if money were to be injected into our economy at the actual cost to manufacture money, and nothing more for purposes of disaster relief when needed-- I could live with that. If all 3 points were accomplished above, we might even be able to allow the government to provide universal health care by simply printing money as it was needed to care for the people of this country, instead of borrowing it at interest from the Fed and other countries. Right now our government expands the money supply through the banking system, and through the military-industrial complex. If we are going to have a fiat currency and an "elastic" money supply, why not do it through these programs, and these programs only?

If you've looked at our government's track record of how recklessly they spend our money on any program, you could certainly understand why people are wary of allowing them to use our money, especially since we are going to be paying it back in taxes, or devaluing the currency if we continue to borrow and print money.

But as far as people complaining about government involved in health care -- you can see why there is the uproar if you think about it. Insurance companies are awful. The whole concept of insurance is a scam, really, and they pretty much operate in the same fashion as major banks, which is working with money that they don't even have-- but still have no problem charging US for their imaginary money. Who has allowed these companies such privileges? Government. Insurance wants to worm their way into everyone's lives, doing their best to make themselves necessary, all while trying to pay out as little as possible-- that's their bag. The only reason this type of "enterprise" is not only allowed to exist, but to thrive to the point where it actually becomes mandatory through law, is because of government. It is the merger of corporations and government (fascism) that is killing this country. Government and medical insurance gave us HMOs, and was the start of the horrible system we have in place today. Anywhere insurance becomes mandatory introduces exploitation and price inflation from all angles. With insurance, the patients believe that they have a potential never-ending source of money for everything from medication to mal-practice, the doctors are forced to charge additional money for cover-your-ass dollars in case the insurance companies do what they do best, which is try NOT to pay for everything. It's a 3-way tug of war, when really, it should either be doctor-serves-patient for money, or what UHC advocates want: doctor-serves-patient for government money.

In a nutshell, "teabaggers" who are consistent with their beliefs about government remaining small, feel this way across the board on every issue. The fact is, most of us have seen government throw money every which way for decades now, and have been brainwashed and trained to believe that there is only one place to go when shit hits the fan, due to it's sheer size and authority: the federal government. It's not just for the money, it's also for the big guns that back the operation. That's why everyone tries to co-opt this entity for their own agenda, be it the "religious right" or ACORN or the arms industry or banking or insurance.

It's the biggest "mafia" there is, and it has its hands in everything. You and I are paying the vig, and have to work to do it. The only way to stop it, is to become independent of it, and voting to decrease its size and influence. Then, you have true liberty and independence.

And by the way, if you are looking for an honest answers from particular groups of people, whether you like them or not, you're probably better off not referring to their group in a way that is implicitly negative, like "teabaggers." If their ideas suck bad enough, they will hang themselves with their own words. We've seen at least 20 youtube videos on this forum alone of the TEA parties in action which have served to define these protests as being lead by the same type of lemmings and bandwagoners that permeate the bottom rung of every political movement everywhere.

thefin190

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

As someone who believes in the Libertarian roots of the TEA (taxed enough already) party movement, I can say that yes, this is BIG GOVERNMENT, but at the same time, that if it is absolutely NECESSARY for the government to help with disaster relief, you won't find any objection from myself or anyone else. Actually, you'll find that anyone who is believes in limited government really does not want the FEDERAL Government doling out money, because it does so inefficiently. When it's necessary, it's necessary-- and it's necessary when charitable organizations, volunteerism, and local or state governments cannot afford to take care of the problem themselves. All the Federal government is going to do is print more than enough money needed to accomplish the job, and there's a good chance that the job might not even get done, while still having billions be lost in the shuffle (Katrina, anyone?). But for it to be as painless as possible for government to "print" money, as in keeping inflation in check, let's shoot for these reforms first:

1) End the wars everywhere.

2) Bring the troops home from around the globe and sell off our bases everywhere.

3) Stop subsidizing failure, be it agribusiness, banks, or oil, or anything else-- including many forms of welfare.

Now, if money were to be injected into our economy at the actual cost to manufacture money, and nothing more for purposes of disaster relief when needed-- I could live with that. If all 3 points were accomplished above, we might even be able to allow the government to provide universal health care by simply printing money as it was needed to care for the people of this country, instead of borrowing it at interest from the Fed and other countries. Right now our government expands the money supply through the banking system, and through the military-industrial complex. If we are going to have a fiat currency and an "elastic" money supply, why not do it through these programs, and these programs only?

If you've looked at our government's track record of how recklessly they spend our money on any program, you could certainly understand why people are wary of allowing them to use our money, especially since we are going to be paying it back in taxes, or devaluing the currency if we continue to borrow and print money.

But as far as people complaining about government involved in health care -- you can see why there is the uproar if you think about it. Insurance companies are awful. The whole concept of insurance is a scam, really, and they pretty much operate in the same fashion as major banks, which is working with money that they don't even have-- but still have no problem charging US for their imaginary money. Who has allowed these companies such privileges? Government. Insurance wants to worm their way into everyone's lives, doing their best to make themselves necessary, all while trying to pay out as little as possible-- that's their bag. The only reason this type of "enterprise" is not only allowed to exist, but to thrive to the point where it actually becomes mandatory through law, is because of government. It is the merger of corporations and government (fascism) that is killing this country. Government and medical insurance gave us HMOs, and was the start of the horrible system we have in place today. Anywhere insurance becomes mandatory introduces exploitation and price inflation from all angles. With insurance, the patients believe that they have a potential never-ending source of money for everything from medication to mal-practice, the doctors are forced to charge additional money for cover-your-ass dollars in case the insurance companies do what they do best, which is try NOT to pay for everything. It's a 3-way tug of war, when really, it should either be doctor-serves-patient for money, or what UHC advocates want: doctor-serves-patient for government money.

In a nutshell, "teabaggers" who are consistent with their beliefs about government remaining small, feel this way across the board on every issue. The fact is, most of us have seen government throw money every which way for decades now, and have been brainwashed and trained to believe that there is only one place to go when shit hits the fan, due to it's sheer size and authority: the federal government. It's not just for the money, it's also for the big guns that back the operation. That's why everyone tries to co-opt this entity for their own agenda, be it the "religious right" or ACORN or the arms industry or banking or insurance.

It's the biggest "mafia" there is, and it has its hands in everything. You and I are paying the vig, and have to work to do it. The only way to stop it, is to become independent of it, and voting to decrease its size and influence. Then, you have true liberty and independence.

And by the way, if you are looking for an honest answers from particular groups of people, whether you like them or not, you're probably better off not referring to their group in a way that is implicitly negative, like "teabaggers." If their ideas suck bad enough, they will hang themselves with their own words. We've seen at least 20 youtube videos on this forum alone of the TEA parties in action which have served to define these protests as being lead by the same type of lemmings and bandwagoners that permeate the bottom rung of every political movement everywhere.

It seems that your view of Government is some cronyism run system that looks to have their hand in everyone's pocket and control them. Its fair to say that we all do not like taxes, but pay for them. But what we get in return for those taxes depends on who we elect. I mean, Sweden pays up to 60% in their income to taxes, but a lot of it comes back to the citizens in social services and they have a budget surplus. Meanwhile, our taxes went to fund useless wars and increased spending by a "fiscal conservative" for the past 8 years. Unfortunately, this currently Administration doesn't see it best to just drop everything and leave, so we are going to be paying for these useless wars for a while. In fact, for a long long time if you include all the expenses that aren't even directly added in the military budget, such as soldier's pension. But I digress. The part you leave out is the inefficiency of government is most likely do to corporations buying out politicians. PACs and corporate donations are lifelines to politicians on both sides of the aisle to assist with their campaigns, so politicians in return do the corporations' bidding. That is why probably since maybe 1976, our government has been slow to do anything meaningful to the American people and probably has been branded as some evil corrupt system.

To be honest, I do not know why libertarians whine about government getting bigger, but do not seem to have a problem with corporations like McDonald's or Wal-Mart taking over the world. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart are private companies, with the purpose of increasing the profits of the shareholders. They do not care how they do it, they could force children to work for pennies on the hour if that means increasing the share price. Government, on the other hand, serves the people, or is supposed to (I can agree with you that I question sometimes the motives of the current government). The government has no profit motive, its purpose is supposed to be there for the people when the free market fails on them, because capitalism, you might or might not know this, doesn't benefit everyone. THe government serves as a check and balance. Without it, you wouldn't have a 40-hour work week, sanitary work conditions, etc. Not to mention one corporation would probably run the world by now if we didn't have the government to enforce anti-trust laws, although today there are oligopolies, which is almost as bad. I agree that the government shouldn't do everything, but the private sector by no means is suited to do everything. There has to be a check and balance between the two.

And I do not understand how people who wanted small or no government get elected. They bash on the government, talk about how bad it is, and still work for the government! It would be like me going into a job interview saying how much I hate the company, and how I look forward to decreasing its share value or company size because it is becoming to big, or discontinue some product lines because we have too many. I mean companies do make these decisions, but they wouldn't dare to publicly criticize the company they work for or say in plain language that their company shouldn't be as big.

Prince Of Dorkness

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

And by the way, if you are looking for an honest answers from particular groups of people, whether you like them or not, you're probably better off not referring to their group in a way that is implicitly negative, like "teabaggers."

Um.. honey... that's what they call themselves. They came up with the term. That's what Glenn Back calls them.

And honestly... if they really thought we were "Taxed Enough Already," why did they only suddenly start to care about it 14 days after the new president took over?

Why aren't they supporting a man who says he wants to lower the taxes of he middle class and raise them on the richest 1%?

VINNY GOOMBA

Jasunmark wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

And by the way, if you are looking for an honest answers from particular groups of people, whether you like them or not, you're probably better off not referring to their group in a way that is implicitly negative, like "teabaggers."

Um.. honey... that's what they call themselves. They came up with the term. That's what Glenn Back calls them.

And honestly... if they really thought we were "Taxed Enough Already," why did they only suddenly start to care about it 14 days after the new president took over?

Why aren't they supporting a man who says he wants to lower the taxes of he middle class and raise them on the richest 1%?

I was unaware of anyone calling themselves a "teabagger" from this movement, but I believe you-- especially if it came from Beck, who I think is a huge detriment to the liberty movement, but I'm not going to get into that right now.

As for the sudden anger after all this time-- like I've mentioned before: the core of this movement started long before Barack came into office-- The "We The People Foundation" have been doing this stuff since the early 90s, and it has recently picked up a lot of momentum when Ron Paul joined the '08 presidential campaign in mid 2007. Bush was the lamest of lame ducks in the history of our country-- the energy wasn't worth being wasted on him anymore. However, this guy Barack comes along and ran on the very vague platform of "CHANGE," and I for one was looking to hold him to it-- I know a lot of other like minded friends of mine who were looking to do the same. In some ways, it is a compliment to Barack. I'm not a true believer in him by any means, but he seems that he might be able to show incrementally more capacity to listen to the people of this country than his predecessor. Why shouldn't WE, the people take advantage and lay it on thick? After all, he does have something to prove, and if he wants to be re-elected, he should listen to us.

As I mentioned above, yes, there is a certain amount of "herd mentality" showing up at these tea parties, as I'm sure was the same with the anti-war protests a while back. There are some very real, genuine, and intelligent people with real concerns who organize these things. This isn't just racism or blind partisanship, but those players will make their way into any event, and will find their way to a video camera inevitably.

Let's be real about "supporting a man who says he wants to lower the taxes of the middle class and raise them on the richest 1%." Any politician can SAY anything or PROMISE anything. It's as simple as do you believe him or not. Since most of this country does NOT know how our government is funded, what reason do they have to believe him that taxes will not go up when the man has already put us in a huge deficit since he's been in office? How is that to be repaid if not through higher taxation at some point down the line? And it will happen, and I highly doubt it will be absorbed by only the top 1%-- and if it is, don't you think the top 1% are some pretty major corporate players? You think they'll raise their prices, or cut their workforces to compensate for any losses that they might incur?

Again, not every protester in this movement is partisan, or racist, or a redneck, or all of the above. Quite a few of us have as many or more issues with Bush than Barack, because we take issue with all of their issues! Let's not forget who voted in favor of TARP. The then current president (Bush), and both major party candidates Obama, and McCain. To me, that spells FUCKED, FUCKED, AND FUCKED.

Do I want change? Damn right, I do-- even if I have to yell and scream to get it.

Everyone needs to stop pointing to the talking heads as symbols of our own respective movements. Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh DO NOT speak for me.

VINNY GOOMBA

thefin190 wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

As someone who believes in the Libertarian roots of the TEA (taxed enough already) party movement, I can say that yes, this is BIG GOVERNMENT, but at the same time, that if it is absolutely NECESSARY for the government to help with disaster relief, you won't find any objection from myself or anyone else. Actually, you'll find that anyone who is believes in limited government really does not want the FEDERAL Government doling out money, because it does so inefficiently. When it's necessary, it's necessary-- and it's necessary when charitable organizations, volunteerism, and local or state governments cannot afford to take care of the problem themselves. All the Federal government is going to do is print more than enough money needed to accomplish the job, and there's a good chance that the job might not even get done, while still having billions be lost in the shuffle (Katrina, anyone?). But for it to be as painless as possible for government to "print" money, as in keeping inflation in check, let's shoot for these reforms first:

1) End the wars everywhere.

2) Bring the troops home from around the globe and sell off our bases everywhere.

3) Stop subsidizing failure, be it agribusiness, banks, or oil, or anything else-- including many forms of welfare.

Now, if money were to be injected into our economy at the actual cost to manufacture money, and nothing more for purposes of disaster relief when needed-- I could live with that. If all 3 points were accomplished above, we might even be able to allow the government to provide universal health care by simply printing money as it was needed to care for the people of this country, instead of borrowing it at interest from the Fed and other countries. Right now our government expands the money supply through the banking system, and through the military-industrial complex. If we are going to have a fiat currency and an "elastic" money supply, why not do it through these programs, and these programs only?

If you've looked at our government's track record of how recklessly they spend our money on any program, you could certainly understand why people are wary of allowing them to use our money, especially since we are going to be paying it back in taxes, or devaluing the currency if we continue to borrow and print money.

But as far as people complaining about government involved in health care -- you can see why there is the uproar if you think about it. Insurance companies are awful. The whole concept of insurance is a scam, really, and they pretty much operate in the same fashion as major banks, which is working with money that they don't even have-- but still have no problem charging US for their imaginary money. Who has allowed these companies such privileges? Government. Insurance wants to worm their way into everyone's lives, doing their best to make themselves necessary, all while trying to pay out as little as possible-- that's their bag. The only reason this type of "enterprise" is not only allowed to exist, but to thrive to the point where it actually becomes mandatory through law, is because of government. It is the merger of corporations and government (fascism) that is killing this country. Government and medical insurance gave us HMOs, and was the start of the horrible system we have in place today. Anywhere insurance becomes mandatory introduces exploitation and price inflation from all angles. With insurance, the patients believe that they have a potential never-ending source of money for everything from medication to mal-practice, the doctors are forced to charge additional money for cover-your-ass dollars in case the insurance companies do what they do best, which is try NOT to pay for everything. It's a 3-way tug of war, when really, it should either be doctor-serves-patient for money, or what UHC advocates want: doctor-serves-patient for government money.

In a nutshell, "teabaggers" who are consistent with their beliefs about government remaining small, feel this way across the board on every issue. The fact is, most of us have seen government throw money every which way for decades now, and have been brainwashed and trained to believe that there is only one place to go when shit hits the fan, due to it's sheer size and authority: the federal government. It's not just for the money, it's also for the big guns that back the operation. That's why everyone tries to co-opt this entity for their own agenda, be it the "religious right" or ACORN or the arms industry or banking or insurance.

It's the biggest "mafia" there is, and it has its hands in everything. You and I are paying the vig, and have to work to do it. The only way to stop it, is to become independent of it, and voting to decrease its size and influence. Then, you have true liberty and independence.

And by the way, if you are looking for an honest answers from particular groups of people, whether you like them or not, you're probably better off not referring to their group in a way that is implicitly negative, like "teabaggers." If their ideas suck bad enough, they will hang themselves with their own words. We've seen at least 20 youtube videos on this forum alone of the TEA parties in action which have served to define these protests as being lead by the same type of lemmings and bandwagoners that permeate the bottom rung of every political movement everywhere.

It seems that your view of Government is some cronyism run system that looks to have their hand in everyone's pocket and control them. Its fair to say that we all do not like taxes, but pay for them. But what we get in return for those taxes depends on who we elect. I mean, Sweden pays up to 60% in their income to taxes, but a lot of it comes back to the citizens in social services and they have a budget surplus. Meanwhile, our taxes went to fund useless wars and increased spending by a "fiscal conservative" for the past 8 years. Unfortunately, this currently Administration doesn't see it best to just drop everything and leave, so we are going to be paying for these useless wars for a while. In fact, for a long long time if you include all the expenses that aren't even directly added in the military budget, such as soldier's pension. But I digress. The part you leave out is the inefficiency of government is most likely do to corporations buying out politicians. PACs and corporate donations are lifelines to politicians on both sides of the aisle to assist with their campaigns, so politicians in return do the corporations' bidding. That is why probably since maybe 1976, our government has been slow to do anything meaningful to the American people and probably has been branded as some evil corrupt system.

To be honest, I do not know why libertarians whine about government getting bigger, but do not seem to have a problem with corporations like McDonald's or Wal-Mart taking over the world. Both McDonald's and Wal-Mart are private companies, with the purpose of increasing the profits of the shareholders. They do not care how they do it, they could force children to work for pennies on the hour if that means increasing the share price. Government, on the other hand, serves the people, or is supposed to (I can agree with you that I question sometimes the motives of the current government). The government has no profit motive, its purpose is supposed to be there for the people when the free market fails on them, because capitalism, you might or might not know this, doesn't benefit everyone. THe government serves as a check and balance. Without it, you wouldn't have a 40-hour work week, sanitary work conditions, etc. Not to mention one corporation would probably run the world by now if we didn't have the government to enforce anti-trust laws, although today there are oligopolies, which is almost as bad. I agree that the government shouldn't do everything, but the private sector by no means is suited to do everything. There has to be a check and balance between the two.

And I do not understand how people who wanted small or no government get elected. They bash on the government, talk about how bad it is, and still work for the government! It would be like me going into a job interview saying how much I hate the company, and how I look forward to decreasing its share value or company size because it is becoming to big, or discontinue some product lines because we have too many. I mean companies do make these decisions, but they wouldn't dare to publicly criticize the company they work for or say in plain language that their company shouldn't be as big.

I had a great answer for you, and then the power went out here, and lost it all.

Bottomline: McDonald's and WalMart do not FORCE ME to patronize them. The US government has no problem using force and coercion against me.

And I do not support either McDonald's or WalMart, and am fairly outspoken against the both of them, actually. Read some of my other posts. What better way is there to make your point against a business than to boycott it? Apparently, enough people out there are satisfied enough with mystery meat burgers, and cheap plastic shit that it doesn't make sense for a lot of them to stop buying from these businesses, just yet. When workers in China unite and start demanding fair pay as we did in this country, Wal*Mart won't be as powerful anymore.

Also, I never said that there shouldn't be a complete absence of government in dealing with business. Safety laws make perfect sense, however, unions could be just as persuasive in demanding safety, and are the reason that safety laws exist.