[besson3c]

It's hard for a day to go by reading the PWL and not coming across some post about how incompetent the government is, how they suck at everything, are useless, etc.

Be honest if this applies to you: were you this vocal during previous administrations about your general feelings towards government, or has this been on the rise since the Obama election? Are you prepared to maintain this whenever a Republican is next elected? Cause several of you guys hate it when people on the left go on about the bad things Bush and prior Republican administrations have done, but if government in general is really this incompetent and useless this should be consistent no matter what administration is in power, right? If government is somehow more tolerable during a Republican administration and that is the point you want to make, shouldn't you also be prepared for people to disagree with this by pointing out the failures of the Bush and prior administrations?

I know this is sort of troll-like, but the truth is I haven't made up my mind completely how many of your gripes are just sort of general generic rants against the left, and how much of this ideology is genuine and non-partisan. It definitely seems like this is a fairly new thing, I don't remember daily anti-government rants in here in years past.

To tell you the truth, Obama is definitely seeming like more of Bush to me, definitely not delivering on the change stuff, it is frustrating. However, many of the frustrations I feel are not new to me.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

... genuine and non-partisan. ...

These things do not exist here.

[ghporter]

"Government" is just people. We often hire or elect jerks and morons, or worse, people with agendas who look OK to begin with. It isn't being "government," it's that we give these people power and expect them to respect our choices, but we don't hold them accountable-and we don't take strong and vigorous action against the jerks and morons when they prove themselves to be not worth employing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Government" is just people. We often hire or elect jerks and morons, or worse, people with agendas who look OK to begin with. It isn't being "government," it's that we give these people power and expect them to respect our choices, but we don't hold them accountable-and we don't take strong and vigorous action against the jerks and morons when they prove themselves to be not worth employing.

Brilliant!

To add; many do not place themselves on the chopping-block by being outspoken in public. They are labeled "astro-turf", "sell-out", "racists" etc... by those who would bully them into silence. Not unlike product reviews, the PWL is a place specifically for the opinionated and in this case, railing on government and indicting Administration policies for stupidity. I've been here since 2003 and not only do the daily "anti-government" posts have solid precedent here, they had solid precedent in all forms of media during the Bush Administration.

Besson: It's worth pointing out that you've been a relatively consistent proponent of Obama almost regardless of the policy in question. I maintain that you're simply much more sensitive to the rhetoric against "your guy". I've noted your hypocrisy in this on several occasions. I'd humbly ask that you employ some introspect man, you're getting way outside yourself here. i.e. quit cryin' about opposition to your guy.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Brilliant!

To add; many do not place themselves on the chopping-block by being outspoken in public. They are labeled "astro-turf", "sell-out", "racists" etc...

"anti-American", "terrorist supporters", "commies" ...

[Big Mac]

I'll reply to this thread, but I am waiting for your reply to my response to your last post in the Touch Down Jesus Lightning Strike thread. Waiting impatiently.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's hard for a day to go by reading the PWL and not coming across some post about how incompetent the government is, how they suck at everything, are useless, etc.

American Government is mostly incompetent, although it's good at certain things. It's good at maintaining the military for the most part and maintaining our military technological edge, although it could serve the troops better. And national defense is not so coincidentally the main thing the federal government is Constitutionally charged with providing for. Everything else the federal government does is either mediocre or poor - most of it unconstitutional - and it's mostly getting worse at it every day.

Be honest if this applies to you: were you this vocal during previous administrations about your general feelings towards government, or has this been on the rise since the Obama election?

I was not as vocally anti-Bush as I am anti-Obama, but I was still vocal about the growth of government and out-of-control spending. Remember, Obama's deficits are far larger than Bush's then record deficits. Granted, not all of that was/is his fault because of economic conditions, but he's growing government massively, regulating and Socializing more and more industry, and making government more destructive to liberty. Bush was guilty of many of the same things, but the scale has increased under Obama and he shows no sign of being responsive to the people's pleas to walk any of it back. Also note that Obama is poised to allow for the greatest tax increase in the country's history by allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire after this year.

Are you prepared to maintain this whenever a Republican is next elected?

It depends on the extent to which the hypothetical next Republican president either continues on Bush and Obama's path of an ever more enormous and powerful State, or if he or she goes in the opposite direction.

I know this is sort of troll-like, but the truth is I haven't made up my mind completely how many of your gripes are just sort of general generic rants against the left, and how much of this ideology is genuine and non-partisan. It definitely seems like this is a fairly new thing, I don't remember daily anti-government rants in here in years past.

You were probably just ignoring those of us who were complaining back then. I did my share of complaining, especially about Entitlements. I also remember disagreeing with a person who claimed President Bush would be remembered as fondly as President Reagan is, one day. Bush was a mediocre president, a big government conservative (one of the worst kinds of conservatives), but he got some points in my book for a few things. Among them would be his handling of national security post-911. Plus, having courage to take the fight to the Middle East and then to stay the course when things looked bleak in Iraq and traitorous Democrats wanted us to lose there. He had the courage to see the surge through when Barack Obama said it would fail. Bush also tried in vain to reform Socialist Security, and he also warned about the financial problems at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae while Barney Frank was lying through his c-sucking teeth about them being financially sound. Frank wanted to cover up for the reckless Socialist loan policies that helped ensure a sub-prime crisis, and he was also covering for his lover who was an official at Freddie.

To tell you the truth, Obama is definitely seeming like more of Bush to me, definitely not delivering on the change stuff, it is frustrating. However, many of the frustrations I feel are not new to me.

It sounds like you got suckered into thinking the change Obama was talking about would be positive change for the country. He's definitely brought some change, like ramming through a bankrupting, thoroughly corrupt Obamacare bill that's going to cost far more than the Democrat's most pessimistic estimates. He handed over on a silver platter ownership of GM to the unions that were killing it, in a move that may well have been illegal. He's selling out our allies internationally while making things pretty darn nice for our worst enemies. He botched the response to the BP catastrophe and is now using it as a pretext to push Cap and Tax down the nation's throat. He and the Pelosi-Reed Congress are spending us to death, in the direction of Greece and other failing Socialist economies of old Europe. He's not going to reform either the public or private government Entitlements that will kill the country financially if nothing is done, but he's probably going to push through a VAT tax that will allow government to grow that much fatter. He's far more partisan than he claimed he would be, but I guess that's okay in his book because to him the will of the opposition party or of the people generally don't matter given that he won the presidency. He's bringing change certainly, just not good change.

[CreepDogg]

I'll never vote for a candidate that runs on the 'government is the problem' platform. Why should I vote for someone who aspires to be part of the problem?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I'll never vote for a candidate that runs on the 'government is the problem' platform. Why should I vote for someone who aspires to be part of the problem?

Good point, although it worked for President Reagan when he said "government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."

Only anarchists want to live in anarchy. The most libertarian of libertarian thinkers still sees some very limited role for government to play. If I were running for office I'd alter Reagan's saying to, "Government is not the problem. Enormous, corrupt, unconstitutional government is the problem."

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Good point, although it worked for President Reagan when he said "government is not the solution to the problem. Government is the problem."

Yep. And then he went and promptly became part of the problem!

Only anarchists want to live in anarchy. The most libertarian of libertarian thinkers still sees some very limited role for government to play. If I were running for office I'd alter Reagan's saying to, "Government is not the problem. Enormous, corrupt, unconstitutional government is the problem."

True - and in that case I'm interested in hearing about how a candidate wants to address the problems, not just that there's a problem. I already know that. And even libertarians will often disagree on how the problems should be addressed.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Besson: It's worth pointing out that you've been a relatively consistent proponent of Obama almost regardless of the policy in question. I maintain that you're simply much more sensitive to the rhetoric against "your guy". I've noted your hypocrisy in this on several occasions. I'd humbly ask that you employ some introspect man, you're getting way outside yourself here. i.e. quit cryin' about opposition to your guy.

That's not true at all. I've been a proponent of accuracy and fairness, and still am. If you want to blame ridiculous things on Obama or make ridiculous one-sided arguments, I'll probably speak up. I want to give him a fair chance to disappoint me, cause I'm a glutton for disappointment!

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

If I were running for office I'd alter Reagan's saying to, "Government is not the problem. Enormous, corrupt, unconstitutional government is the problem."

Exactly.

That really was Reagan's real point, as his main point was that too many people think it's the solution to things it has no business even being involved with. A government that does only what it's actually tasked with isn't a problem- it's the fact that government is looked to as a solution for things it can only make worse that's the problem.

Of course, Reagan was also addressing people whom he knew had the mental capacity to actually grasp the subtlety of his point, not the average Big Government sycophant drone that possesses no such ability.

[ebuddy]

besson3c, you have this incredible knack for projecting. I mean you key on your own biggest struggles in ways that almost give your posts their own background music. YOU were certainly more critical of the last Administration/Republicans and infinitely less defensive of them. You tell me, were you this defensive of the Republican majority under Bush?

It's like I'm waiting for "I have this friend who..."

Republicans generally speak of limited government, lower taxes, individual empowerment, yada-yada-yada. Bush did as well. This message resonates with those who want smaller government. While they've not always been good stewards of this message, they at least speak it giving them better odds of following through on a few of those principles IMO. It is one thing to hold out some hope that they will make good on promises, it is another thing entirely to hear promises you and 70+ percent of the country would rather not be made.

Suffice it to say, we and many others fundamentally disagree on some of these principles. It's just that those who most often disagree with you really feel the need to opine right now. It may seem unusually loud because they represent the majority sentiment in this country. Right or wrong, the Democratic party owns the bulk share of "establishment" and Obama holds the most important pulpit of their platform. Those more closely aligned with this Administration and/or its party platform will be more sensitive to criticism of it and more compelled to defend it. Others of course will defend those more closely aligned with them.

In short, it's just a numbers game. It seems louder to you now because it likely is, but it's not as if you've not participated in the phenomena. The fact that you started this thread is curious to me. Maybe I'm missing something, I don't know.

[turtle777]

On the economy, Bush screwed it up, and Obama is taking it to new heights. Both of them are responsible for the American economy going down the drains. Both of them enacted stupid legislation and retarded policies. It just seems that Obama wants to top 8 years of bad policies in just one year.

Reps or Dems, doesn't really matter all that much these days. You basically pick between enormous deficit spenders or gigantic deficit spenders.

Unless there's a revolution and the American people decide to cut back government, special interests and stupid money games, this country is going broker and broker.

-t

[Kerrigan]

Reading that original post was like listening to a nagging woman: too much rambling, too much talking about your feelings, too many rhetorical questions.

Save everyone time and get to the point, besson3c.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

On the economy, Bush screwed it up, and Obama is taking it to new heights. Both of them are responsible for the American economy going down the drains. Both of them enacted stupid legislation and retarded policies. It just seems that Obama wants to top 8 years of bad policies in just one year.

Reps or Dems, doesn't really matter all that much these days. You basically pick between enormous deficit spenders or gigantic deficit spenders.

Unless there's a revolution and the American people decide to cut back government, special interests and stupid money games, this country is going broker and broker.

-t

qft

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

"Government" is just people. We often hire or elect jerks and morons, or worse, people with agendas who look OK to begin with. It isn't being "government," it's that we give these people power and expect them to respect our choices, but we don't hold them accountable-and we don't take strong and vigorous action against the jerks and morons when they prove themselves to be not worth employing.

Well said!!!!!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

"anti-American", "terrorist supporters", "commies" ...

Well if it quacks like a duck. Regardless, there's something decidedly more pathetic about leadership stooping to this level.

BTW, you forgot "socialist". Socialism is what you have until you're ready for communism. Baby steps.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Republicans generally speak of limited government, lower taxes, individual empowerment, yada-yada-yada.

And then proceed to do the exact opposite. Except when it comes to taxes that is.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Bush did as well. This message resonates with those who want smaller government. While they've not always been good stewards of this message, they at least speak it giving them better odds of following through on a few of those principles IMO. It is one thing to hold out some hope that they will make good on promises, it is another thing entirely to hear promises you and 70+ percent of the country would rather not be made.

I've been following politics for a long time my friend. And this is how I see the fundamental problem ...

-- Democrats often advocate governmental solutions to societal problems, which cost money in the form of taxes.

-- Republicans often advocate individual solutions to societal problems, which presumably enables lower taxes.

-- Neither advocate a significant reduction in government spending where it counts (i.e. military and entitlement expenditures)

Perhaps the incessant bickering about big government vs. smaller government should be replaced with a realistic focus on fiscally sustainable government by all involved? And that isn't a function of "big" or "small". That's simply a function of "revenues > expenditures".

OAW

[el chupacabra]

… …

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Perhaps the incessant bickering about big government vs. smaller government should be replaced with a realistic focus on fiscally sustainable government by all involved? And that isn't a function of "big" or "small". That's simply a function of "revenues > expenditures". OAW

I've been following politics a long time as well and one of the oldest forms of apologetics for any party's activity is; "they both do it". I don't think this is good enough any more. I'm railing on besson perhaps a little unfairly because it's way beyond him. OAW, you must know that a great many perceive this thread as whining and of course most unbecoming and worrisome of our leadership, where this message has taken root.

I understand besson's frustration and disappointment, I just wish it hadn't been expressed with so little introspect. He's welcome to produce some evidence to substantiate his claim of greater scrutiny of this Administration or face the possibility of looking like exhibit A of his complaints. It was encouraging to see besson close by distancing himself from what is becoming more obvious, but seemingly as a small disclaimer for the shamelessly partisan rant that preceded it. I'm also encouraged by the level of awareness and scrutiny of this Administration. If there's one thing folks are beginning to learn it is that smaller government is more fiscally sustainable than larger government. Proponents will characterize opposition as "anti" to imply an intellectually baseless sentiment which of course is also nothing new.

I'd revise your statement to; expenditures < revenues to perhaps illustrate the differences in our pov that compelled you to address me instead of besson.

[stevesnj]

Well I don't blame anyone for the way government runs, I elected, or helped elect, my so called 'leaders'. I have no one to blame but myself for electing the lesser of the two evils. Or so I thought.