For you hard core leftists....think about it

[sirs]

With this insidious effort to make Government the end all be all authority to whatever IT deems proper & "fair", as as much as you see Republicans, especially conservative republicans, as evil. whoring. in-your-face oligarchs, just itching to impose their morality on you, why the hell would you attempt to mold a Government into such an intrusive monster, that when Republicans do have control, you've given them all the tools they supposedly would need to make your lives a living hell??

[sirs]

Founding Fathers sought to 'maximum personal liberty'

The scandals surrounding the Obama administration come down to one common theme: The ever-growing size and scope of our federal government gives it enormous power over virtually every aspect of our lives, power that in the wrong hands can be used to reward supporters, exact revenge and punish enemies. In education, health care, transportation, energy, disaster relief, welfare, commerce, work and salary rules, and on and on, the federal government plays an outsized role completely inconsistent with the Founding Fathers’ notion of a limited government that allows maximum personal liberty.

In 1900, government at all three levels – federal, state and local – took about 10 percent of the people’s money. It now takes nearly 50 percent.

On what basis should Americans – especially those who did not vote for Barack Obama – feel that the president will guard their interests, especially when apparently vindictive actions have been taken under his watch?

The IRS admits to, and has apologized for, targeting conservative groups. The second article of impeachment against Richard Nixon accused him of using the IRS to go after political enemies. Incredibly, the IRS commissioner of the office in charge of tax-exempt organizations from 2009 to 2012 – when the conservative groups were targeted – is now the director of the IRS Affordable Care Act office, responsible for Obamacare tax compliance.

The Justice Department, in apparent violation of policy, subpoenaed the phone records of as many as 100 reporters without notifying their employer, the Associated Press. And the Department of Justice subpoenaed the phone records of a Fox News reporter, as well as the phone records of his parents.

Now every president fights with the media, whose job description supposedly requires them to serve as watchdog over government. It is why the First Amendment protects “freedom of the press.” But how many administrations have openly and repeatedly stated contempt for a particular news channel, the way Obama and his aides have publicly attacked the Fox News Channel?

Early in his administration, Obama complained, “I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.” He told Rolling Stone: “The golden age of an objective press was a pretty narrow span of time in our history. Before that, you had folks like (William Randolph) Hearst who used their newspapers very intentionally to promote their viewpoints. I think Fox is part of that tradition – it is part of the tradition that has a very clear, undeniable point of view. It’s a point of view that I disagree with. It’s a point of view that I think is ultimately destructive for the long-term growth of a country that has a vibrant middle class and is competitive in the world.”

Fox News is “ultimately destructive”?

Then-White House senior adviser David Axelrod said that the Fox News Channel was “not really a news station” and that much of the programming is “not really news.” Similarly, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn said about Fox: “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

A few days later, calling Fox News “a wing of the Republican Party,” Dunn said: “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.” Dunn also said, “I mean the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party,” and told Time Magazine: “It’s opinion journalism masquerading as news. They are boosting their audience, but that doesn’t mean we are going to sit back.”

How despicable do Democrats find Republicans? A recent CNN poll found 76 percent of Democrats still believe President Bush “deliberately misled” the country into the Iraq War. And Obama defenders say Bush “used” the IRS to “target” the NAACP. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., even offered up this Bush/Hurricane Katrina conspiracy: The president, you see, dragged his feet during Katrina so that black New Orleanians would leave the state and take their Democratic votes with them. Frank called this alleged Bush scheme “ethnic cleansing by inaction.”

What’s the answer? Tone down the rhetoric? Elect morally superior human beings? Vote for “common sense” moderates?

No.

Let’s agree that neither side trusts “the other side.”
Let’s agree that neither side thinks much of the goals and motives of their political opponents.
Let’s agree that the bigger the government, the more money and power it takes from its citizens.

So where does this leave us? It takes us back to a founding principle of this country: limited government. By reducing the size of government, we limit the amount of damage “the other side” can do when in charge.

It isn’t that smaller government is more trustworthy or transparent. Among other attributes, a smaller government allows the commander in chief to focus on job one – that of protecting the American people against enemies. For both Obama-haters and Bush-haters, a smaller government reduces the amount of influence and control the “wrong side” has over the other – a win-win

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is simplistic to blather on and on about the SIZE of government. What we need is an efficient and effective government that protects people from scams and fraud and assures that no one will go bankrupt because of accidents or poor health.

The current government is too big especially in the aspect that it has all these contractors, mostly doing business less efficiently and at a higher cost than the government could do itself.

Farm subsidies, especially to agribusiness are far too generous. There is no earthly reason to subsidize sugar in the US. for example. It pollutes and corrupts and costs us all a lot of money.

[sirs]

Efficient doesn't equal bigger.  In fact, the bigger X gets, the more inefficent X gets, and thus less and less effective at doing what X is supposed to do

[Xavier_Onassis]

And yet, you won't crusade for busting up the big banks, big pharma, big oil.

What a hypocrite!

[sirs]

Define "bust them up".  What have they done that requires that they be "busted up"? 

Now that we've addressed the effort at changing the subject, the point you made remains unrefuted.....the bigger X gets the more inefficient X becomes.  If the the goal of Government is to provide more efficient services, then it's going the wrong way

[Xavier_Onassis]

They are too big. By your definition, that means that they are less inefficient.

The Too Big to Fail Banks have already cost us dearly.

Big Oil clearly overcharges because there is insufficient competition. The same is true of Big Pharma.

So bust them up first.

[sirs]

They are too big.

Based on what numerical/objective qualifier?  Too big by YOUR definition perhaps

The Too Big to Fail Banks have already cost us dearly.

Yea, thank you Obama

Big Oil clearly overcharges because there is insufficient competition. The same is true of Big Pharma.

Countless Government hearings tried to prove that, but alas could not validate that perseverating leftist claim, I'm afraid

So bust them up first.

No need to for the reasons I just outlined above.  I can chose what Oil or Pharma I want.  I can chose what Bank I want.  I have no choice in Government, which is exponentially bigger than all those companies combined.  No, THAT's the issue here, not the attempted change in subject


But hey, let's compromise.  I'll start advocating the need to "bust up" Big X, if you'll start advocating the need to bust up Big Government

Deal?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I do not control the government, as you keep suggesting.

The government is the only force that can bust up Big Fiance and all the other Bigs. So that won't fly. And you have no more power to influence all this than I do, even if you are armed and dangerous.

What I can do, I do. I keep my money and accounts out of the big banks and use a christian credit union to pay my bills. They claim to give money to missions, which has to be better than giving it to Big Finance execs. I have the majority of my investments in TIAA-CREF, a non profit with really low fees and great service. My Schwab "counselor" spent half an hour trying to sell me on some Windhaven Investment plan that would make all my investments for me. But of course, that would cost me 1%, and TIAA has the same service for essentially free. He started out telling me that it was some sort of ETF thing. Totally confusing.

Is Schwab big finance? more so than TIAA.

[sirs]

I do not control the government, as you keep suggesting.

Nor do I, nor am I suggesting any such thing, so why even remotely think that I said you did??  I want to see if a Dem can compromise.  You claim all these other entities are "too big" and must be "busted up"  I gave you a laundry list of why they're not near the massive intrusion to life that the U.S. Government is.  I demonstrated how using YOUR mandate for a more efficient Government requires a smaller version than the current out-of control version

So, let's see if a hard core liberal can demonstrate the ability to compromise.  I'll start advocating for the "busting up" of BigX, and you start advocating the need of "busting up" of Big Government, so that they can indeed function more efficiently, as you've already referenced a need for them to do

You keep harping on how its the GOP that is the supposed party of "no", and refuses to compromise, when its been made painfully clear that the only folks running a My way or the highway agenda, are the Democrats.  You have an opportunity to demonstrate an example of a Democrat actually willing to compromise.  Can you do it?

[Xavier_Onassis]

You are sooooo full of sheist that it exudes from your ears. The big problem that I have is NOT the federal government, it is the corporations that diddle us and pollute the country as much as they can on a daily basis.

Your idea of compromise has a name, and his name is Ben Dover. Get effing serious.

I want a government big enough to bust up the monopolies: the phone companies, the banks, the oil companies, the cable companies, the drug companies, agribusiness.

They let you carry a gun around like Secret Squirrel. Isn't that good enough for you?

[sirs]

So let's recap

Sirs references why its actually in the best interests of everyone, including hard core liberals, to want a smaller less intrusive Government, so as not to allow those evil Republicans the tools to completely tear apart the country and Democrat party, when they're in control

Xo throws out the notion that a more efficeint government is what's really needed

Sirs concurs, and explains why an ever expanding Government simply by that very nature, becomes less and less efficient

Xo tries a deflection in trying to turn the conversation into BigX (x being whatever industry the left really doesn't like, banks, Pharma, Oil, etc.)

Sirs throws him a bone, and demonstrates how they're not even remotely the intrusive monster that the Government currently is, and then tries to redirect back to the subject at hand, the expansion of Government

Xo insists on trying to make this about BigX

Sirs capitulates and even provides an opportunity to compromise, being that the supposed goal of even Xo is a more efficient government.  Sirs will start advocating the need to shrink BigX, if Xo starts to advocate the need to shrink Big Government, since that will help bring about a more efficient Government

Xo tries again with the deflection of not in control of Government, which was never the point to begin with, with sirs pointing that out, and again offering an opportunity to demonstrate compromise from a liberal Democrat

And the final answer is "obviously", compromise is not found in the liberal playbook.  It's the Dem way or the highway, and if you don't adhere to that, it's supposedly the GOP's fault for failing to "compromise"

[Xavier_Onassis]

No one is going to compromise with sirs because he is oblivious to the facts and how things work.

Gnaw on your own putrid bones, don't throw them at me.
The GOP is a sinking ship, spiraling down the drain.

No need to compromise with dying morons and moribund fanatics.

[sirs]

Xo, you wouldn't know a fact if it was sand on a beach.  You can try to hide from your complete unwillingness to compromise, completely shooting your own notion of a more efficient Government, but what it really helps highlight & exemplify is precisely the mindset of the left, inability to compromise, inability to see past their ideological blinders, but chalk full of nasty angry insultive paranoid derrogatories. 

"How things work"........LOL

[Plane]

With this insidious effort to make Government the end all be all authority to whatever IT deems proper & "fair", as as much as you see Republicans, especially conservative republicans, as evil. whoring. in-your-face oligarchs, just itching to impose their morality on you, why the hell would you attempt to mold a Government into such an intrusive monster, that when Republicans do have control, you've given them all the tools they supposedly would need to make your lives a living hell??

Very good points, great post.

Every customer of Bank of America knows that the bank is too big to run well , the diffrent departments trip over each other and loose each others paperwork constantly , I have twice failed to pay tax on mortgagued property on time because I relied on the escrow which BOA can't run in a seprate office from the mortguage without miscommunication.

Effective anti-trust legislation would grade on a curve, Banks that are run well could be allowed to grow a bit above the advradge size, Banks that grow lots of customer complaints and regulation violations might need to be split into more effecient sized units .

  There is a good reason to have large banks around , this is the best way to finance large projects , there is a great reason to have a limit on banks growing "too large to fail", such that the failure of a few poorly managed giants can ruin the whole economy... so the balance has to be struck with anti trust legislation that encourages good banking practice and reduces the risk of having too many eggs in too few baskets , ... without limitiong growth arbitarily and making money hard to find for good large projects.

Now take everything I have just said about banks and put "government agency" where I have "bank" isn't it still true?