HOW BIG SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE?
I have written previously that I believed the biggest contribution Ronald Reagan made to American conservatism was that he almost singlehandedly altered the civic conversation about government spending on social programs.
Prior to Reagan’s reasoned, and impassioned dialectic against big government, the debate over government programs began and ended with the question “How much more” should we be spending,” or “How big should this government program be” to accomplish its intended objective.
Democrats monetized this debate by increasing the number of zeroes in these program’s appropriations. Granted, this is something of an oversimplification but essentially, the center of gravity in Washington tilted toward more, more, and still more in the belief that “solving” the problem being addressed, and showing “compassion” for the poor was a matter of growing the size of government to meet the challenge.
Enter Ronald Reagan who championed the idea that “throwing money” at a problem wasn’t solving anything, and was making things worse. (There were other conservatives who gave Reagan his arguments - Buckley, Hayek, Mises, etc. But none had as big a bullhorn.) Over time, the civic conversation was altered to question not only the huge appropriations, but the necessity and the viability of these programs.
At bottom, of course, was Reagan’s contention that government was mis-spending tax dollars and threatening individual liberty by growing the size and scope of the federal government. It was an argument that plowed already fertile fields because from it’s founding, Americans have fiercely resisted centrally exercised power from Washington. From Andrew Jackson’s destruction of the Bank of America to the cheers of the common man, through Abe Lincoln’s draft, which set off riots in the north, through FDR’s overreach, and Bill Clinton’s attempt at nationalized health care, Americans have been more than suspicious of big government. There seems to be a genetic predisposition for Americans to resist government that they perceive as overstepping its limits.
Granted, those limits have expanded since Andy Jackson’s time. Most Americans have accepted a government that can feed them when they’re hungry, house them when they’re homeless, and generally be there with a “safety net” if misfortune befalls them. Social Security, Medicare, and other entitlements are sacred cows because they enjoy almost universal support by voters. This may be the death of us yet unless we can find a way to get their gargantuan costs under control.
But, as President Obama is finding, there are still lines in the sand that Americans are refusing to allow their government in Washington to cross. And Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, writing in the NY Post, nails why:
While the commentariat’s condescension is almost comical, the whole evil-or-stupid explanation misses the elephant in Obama’s room: Americans of all stripes, it turns out, aren’t very keen about the government barging into their lives.
An ABC/Washington Post poll from June showed people preferred “smaller government with fewer services” over “larger government with more services” by 54% to 41%, up from 50%-45% a year earlier (independents were even more pronounced, at 61%-35%). A Rasmussen poll from April showed that 77% of Americans preferred a “free market” economy over a “government managed” economy, up seven percentage points from just last December. A July CBS poll found that 52% of Americans think that Obama is trying to do “too much.”
After 11 months of federal bailouts and freakouts, Americans have become bone tired of panicky power grabs from Washington. It’s the big government, stupid.
The message of the various Tea Party protests, which predated this summer’s ahistorical media panic over town hall “lynch mobs,” has been pretty simple, says Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks, the nonprofit that has helped organize the protests, told Reason magazine this spring. “It was: stop spending so much money, stop borrowing so much money, and stop bailing out people who were irresponsible.”
I applaud the attempt by Mr. Welch to alter the narrative that begins and ends with protestors being “racist,” fascist mobs,” “un-American,” or “retarded.” It won’t matter anyway. Polls also show that a majority of Americans support the protestors which means that the Krugman’s, Rich’s, Pelosi’s, Garafolo’s, and the rest of the left aren’t getting any traction with their “evil-or-stupid” incantations.
Regardless, it’s the resistance to government overstepping what Americans sense is a proper exercise of its power that has so many, so angry. While there is much more tolerance for big government today - even government that helps the middle class with programs like S-Chip, and home mortgage bailouts - there are still boundaries (sensed more than specifically spelled out) that a majority of Americans refuse to stand for.
This is the essence of American exceptionalism. We are a different people than Europeans, and any other society in the world. We were deliberately made so at our founding and continue to be to this day. What should be self evident, is lost on many liberals who equate American exceptionalism with a rude form of nationalism. Not so - demonstrably not so. There is no other society in the world that looks upon government with such a jaundiced eye when they perceive that government to be crossing a comfort barrier relating to how much power the central authority should wield.
At heart, America is a profoundly conservative country in that First Principles, a respect for our past, and supporting change only when that change can be folded into tradition, is believed and supported by a large majority. This doesn’t mean that the out of bounds hasn’t been moving left the last 100 years. We are also, at bottom, a practical people, and see real benefit to growing government when the occasion calls for it. This too, makes us an exceptional people in that despite all, the people still have a big say in how big a government they will accept.
Perhaps one day, Americans will accept a growth in government that will result in Washington running health care. But it is not today, nor do I see such a day arriving in my lifetime. Each generation of Americans defines the parameters of their liberty differently. It is our particular genius as we constantly re-invent ourselves to meet the challenges of a changing world.
Obama and the Democrats ignore this reality at their political peril.
When Harry Truman integrated the armed forces that idea was polling something like 13%. What do you think it polls today? 80%? 90%?
The ‘public option’ is still polling about half the population. Despite the usual barrage of Republican lies spread through their idiot constituency.
We didn’t elect Obama just to clean up after George W. Bush’s disastrous mess. We elected him to pursue his and our agenda.
Whether we end up with a public option or not, we’re moving more of health care into the federal sphere of influence. And five years from now people will not only support it, they’ll defend it with the same kind of crazy they bring to defending medicare. Which was also opposed by your party on grounds it was too much, too fast, too change-y, too communistic, too whatever the hell it is you people are forever terrified about.
But don’t worry: we’re also going to clean up the giant dung heap the GOP left us.
You have degenerated into nothing more than a hack - and a bad one at that.
ed.
Comment by michael reynolds — 8/23/2009 @ 12:18 pm
Michael Reynolds is a glaring example of what is seriously wrong with this country - something which is not going to change in my opinion and ultimately reduce it to another second world nation at best.
It is hard to believe that educated people can be so ill informed - the effects of which are made worse by supporting a strident statist idealogy which is modern day liberalism
Money Quote:
Whether we end up with a public option or not, we’re moving more of health care into the federal sphere of influence. And five years from now people will not only support it, they’ll defend it with the same kind of crazy they bring to defending medicare.
Indeed, it is crazy to support something like Medicare - especially when its the younger and middle aged folks supporting the system which is facing a 30 TRILLION plus Dollar Deficit. They are the ones who will be left holding the bag, when they retire.
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Does-Money-Go-Federal/dp/0061241873
Your Government cannot run Medicare efficiently that is for people,65 years or older and yet it wants to take on responsibility for the entire population ?? If you cannot do a good job with 40 million, we are now somehow supposed to give you the benefit of the doubt to take on millions more of uninsured people ?
http://paelderestatefiduciary.blogspot.com/2007/12/nbc-reports-rampant-fraud-in-medicare.html
http://www.miamiherald.com/460/story/1171663.html
And people who question this are now called crazy ? The arrogant intolerance of a liberal to any facts that might stand in his way and idealogy is simply stunning.
Which was also opposed by your party on grounds it was too much, too fast, too change-y, too communistic, too whatever the hell it is you people are forever terrified about.
Some one should have listened back then to the objections to the Great Fracking Society. When the Ponzi schemes of Medicare and Social Security crash under their own weight, those warnings about the perils of big entitlement programs will sound prescient.
Margaret Tatcher said it best - the problem with Socialism is that ultimately you run out of spending other people’s money.
Rick, i have to disagree with you on the conservative nature of this country. America may have started out that way - but it has significantly veered away from its conservative roots to the point of no recovery. The New Deal and the Great Society programs are the final nails on the coffin of American conservatism.
If this country is still considered right of center, it is simply a self satisfying “we are still conservative” pat on the back.
When the baby boomers start retiring in waves starting 2017 the entitlement explosion is going to be so ugly, people will long for the type of years 2008 and 2009 are.
Comment by Nagarajan Sivakumar — 8/23/2009 @ 2:27 pm
[...] Yes Mr. Obama, there IS a line in the sand. YOU JUST CROSSED IT! Posted at August 23, 2009 HOW BIG SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE? [...]
Pingback by Yes Mr. Obama, there IS a line in the sand. YOU JUST CROSSED IT! — 8/23/2009 @ 2:30 pm
“At heart, America is a profoundly conservative country in that First Principles, a respect for our past, and supporting change only when that change can be folded into tradition, is believed and supported by a large majority. This doesn’t mean that the out of bounds hasn’t been moving left the last 100 years. We are also, at bottom, a practical people, and see real benefit to growing government when the occasion calls for it. This too, makes us an exceptional people in that despite all, the people still have a big say in how big a government they will accept.”
Well said. Americans are conservative in the sense of revering our founding traditions of Jefferson/Adams/Washington and our Constitution etc., pragmatic, and distrustful of Big Government … Obama is crossing all those lines (tradition vs change, pragmatism vs ideology, big govt vs people) with the mad rush to ‘not waste a crisis’ and impose an ideologically driven solution to a complex solution. He might have gotten away with it had he not already stuffed the plate full with bailouts, stimulus, massive budget deficits, and a CO2 cap&trade bill.
I think the crisis with Obama’s leadership has not come to a head yet and wrote today in my own blog:
If President Obama attempts to ‘fix’ his problems with salesmanship, he will fail. The problem is fundamental: Obama has the wrong focus, the wrong agenda, the wrong priorities, and the wrong ideas. It is an ultimate act of mis-leadership by President Obama, and an act of ideology triumphing over common sense, that he pursues his command-and-control programmatic agenda, including these ten items (top 10 power grabs), while failing to focus on economic recovery and private sector job creation as Job One.
http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/08/big-govt-agenda-goes-clunkety-clunk.html
It will only be worse should our economy get on with its (likely tepid) recovery. The deficits and over-spending will still be egregious but the excuse that govt pump-priming is needed will be unavailable. If Obama/Pelosi Dem leadership doesnt “get it” that HE is the one off course, not the protesters, then expect a Tsunami rejection of Dems in 2010/2012.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 8/23/2009 @ 2:59 pm
Heh. Reagan. I’ll never understand why he’s conservatisms patron saint.
I mean, let me get this straight, Reagan was the greatest modern president, he turned the US into a debtor nation, cut social programs, supported Sadam, literally ignoring him using WMD on his own people, sold Iran thousands of missiles, armed and trained those who became the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and married religion with conservatism.
So yeah, lets study the lessons learned from Reagan. Reasoned and impassioned dialect? Oh! Everyone from the made up Cadillac driving welfare queens. Nonsense. Reagan term is a horrible place to look for answers to the health care situation.
There are two simple core reasons why the Republicans want to destroy Obama’s healthcare bill at any cost: 1. If they win, (they believe) it will destroy Obama’s credibility. 2. If they lose they know it will destroy what’s left of theirs. Whether it is good for the country or not never enters the equation.
1. The US was well on its way to being a debtor nation before Reagan even took office.
2. Spending for social programs grew faster than the rate of inflation under Reagan. The rate of growth of those programs slowed.
3. “Thousands of missiles?” Holy Jesus what a maroon! What planet did that occur on?
4. The US supported the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan - who opposed the Taliban when they were created by Pakistan in 1993. Al-Qaeda was the creation of Osama Bin Laden who never received a dollar or a bullet from America.
5. Your knowledge of history is appalling. The rise of religious conservatism predated Reagan who gave lip service to its agenda. He didn’t life a finger when their issues came before Congress.
6. You are too stupid to know anything except soundbites and those select quotes used by the media to demonize Reagan. Many of his speeches in formal settings - before think tanks, important conservative groups - were seminars in the role of government in society. These are speeches he wrote himself, having spent 30 years thinking through the issues at stake.
7. Your comment is the perfect example of the mouthings of someone who literally knows nothing except what is fed him by partisans and moron leftists. Your grasp of Reagan and history is outrageously shallow, incomplete, and skewed by ideology.
And I’ve spent entirely too much time pointing out your many factual errors, errors of analysis, and out and out idiocy.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 8/23/2009 @ 3:00 pm
“Polls also show that a majority of Americans support the protestors”
I’d love to read these polls.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/122276/Town-Hall-Meetings-Generate-Interest-Sympathy.aspx?CSTS=alert
The poll shows a 34-21 plurality supporting the protestors.
Couldn’t find t but there’s a Pew survey showing 51% support the protestors.
ed.
Comment by Davebo — 8/23/2009 @ 3:39 pm
I’m a hack? You’re continuing to hack for a depraved wreck of a party you don’t even believe in, that doesn’t want you and where you don’t belong.
Pot: kettle.
Comment by michael reynolds — 8/23/2009 @ 3:58 pm
“Reagan was the greatest modern president, he turned the US into a debtor nation”
- false, debt/GDP and deficit/GDP wasnt much higher when he left office then when he entered ,
“cut social programs”
- false, spending was higher in 1988 than 1980, thanks in part to an economy that grew by 1/3rd
” supported Sadam, literally ignoring him using WMD on his own people”
- false, Secty of State George Schultz explicitly condemned it in 1988
“sold Iran thousands of missiles”
- exaggeration
“armed and trained those who became the Taliban and Al Qaeda”
- false, one of those urban legends
“, and married religion with conservatism.”
- false, Reagan no more married the two than say FDR with his prayer on D-Day or Jimmy Carter touting his Baptist Sunday school teacher background or Clinton campaigning in black churches. if anything, Reagan merely extended America’s traditional attachment to religious values as a part of a reaction to the excesses of 60’s secularist liberalism. (In other words, the ‘culture wars’ are wholly a product not of the ‘religious right’ but the ‘irreligious left’ who’s activism awakened a response from people of faith seeing their values maligned and crushed by political elites.)
Meanwhile, you missed that whole “Reagan cut taxes and reinvigorated the American economy” elephant in the room, leading to an expansion that grew the economy by one-third in 7 years.
As Rick M. put it: “Your grasp of Reagan and history is outrageously shallow, incomplete, and skewed by ideology. ” … The left doesnt understand Reagan, and someday because of that they will be condemned to repeat the experience.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 8/23/2009 @ 4:43 pm
I say we eliminate all the current taxes and replace them with a very simple and fair 25% tariff.
Comment by charles — 8/23/2009 @ 4:52 pm
“The poll shows a 34-21 plurality supporting the protestors.”
Which question exactly are you referring to Rick?
Comment by Davebo — 8/23/2009 @ 4:59 pm
Q: “HOW BIG SHOULD GOVERNMENT BE?”
A: Big enough to fit in my sock drawer and room enough left over for two dozen clean socks.
Comment by CZ — 8/23/2009 @ 5:25 pm
Ronald Reagun certainly seemed happy enough wasting millions of your dollars on imaginary missile defence programs which still came to nothing. His foreign policy seemed to be a total mess too, look at the support given to despicable south and central american regimes because they were nominally anti communist.
Comment by yoyo — 8/23/2009 @ 5:40 pm
Although I must say that Oliver North would have prospered under the Bush administration.
Comment by yoyo — 8/23/2009 @ 5:44 pm
Majority and Plurality aren’t the same thing Rick.
The percentage of Americans perceiving that the behaviors are abuses ranges from 41% for making angry attacks against a healthcare bill to 59% for shouting down supporters when they speak in favor of a healthcare bill.
There’s certainly a lot of that going on.
47% believe booing members of congress is an abuse of democracy which to me goes a bit beyond approve or disaprove.
A whopping 59% believe that shouting down reform supporters is, again, an abuse of democracy.
No word on the view of folks screaming NAZI!
Comment by Davebo — 8/23/2009 @ 5:45 pm
yoyo:
First off you bumbling idiot it’s spelled Reagan. He believed in freedom and he would of cut spending more if it wasn’t for that liberal congress. And besides the only way to have peace is through having a strong military and you know what Star Wars will work one day. If it wasn’t for the Reagan tax cuts and the Reagan military increases we would of being kept on the same path the idiot peanut farmer Carter took us on. Reagan on foreign policy collapsed the Soviet Union and when it came to the economy he brought back freedom.
Comment by charles — 8/23/2009 @ 5:49 pm
Q. Why dont the left just come “Out of the closet”
We want to kill yurin, take yous cash, and watch it all burn? EFFERRS.
Comment by The Modocer — 8/23/2009 @ 5:55 pm
It’s funny, I voted for Reagan in 1980 as my first presidential vote.
And when in 1984 I spent 121 days straight at sea on the America off the coast of Iran I didn’t complain. I did volunteer after all.
Upon finding out we were negotiating to sell them weapons at the time I must admit I was a bit perturbed.
Comment by Davebo — 8/23/2009 @ 6:54 pm
Charles the spelling of Reagun was quite deliberate. It’s how he was seen. Star wars will never work at least in it’s current design, can not will not but hell go ahead and throw dollars at it. As for the myth that your man brought down the soviet union, if it keeps you warm inside to think so, go ahead but there were a hell of a lot of other factors and players that had more impact (remember a little figure like gorbachev?) . Let’s face it charley boy, you liked Reagan because he made you feel like you were in the shadown and under the protection of the school yard bully. Bullies have an unfortunate habit of doing deals with other bullies and it’s a pity it cost you the respect a great country like America deserves.
Comment by yoyo — 8/23/2009 @ 7:11 pm
It’s interesting, isn’t it? This stubborn American distrust of the rising powers of government, even after 40 years of pro-government-expansion public schooling, and as many years of a media that is decidedly working to further the interests of the powerful over the governed. I attribute it largely to those plain-spoken founding documents:
–”Free speech”
–”The right to bear arms”
–”Congress shall make no law…”
–”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people”
The “nuance” the left is forced to argue in order to convince free men to relinquish their freedoms without bloodshed is, quite simply, washed away by the undisguised meaning of those founding documents — and their direct limits on government. I had to chuckle when Obama said he doesn’t like the “negative rights” the U.S. Constitution requires. I imagine he does not. They represent a hill the left has not been able to climb, no matter how hard they have tried.
Comment by Anon — 8/23/2009 @ 8:43 pm
yoyo:
You bumbling idiot first off I know you did that intentionally. Now Reagan isn’t a military designer and he just gave off a plan. Besides he collapsed the Soviet Union you idiot like no other president did. He made Americans feel good about being Americans, because we were in trouble. The economy was bad and there were 52 hostages in Iran. You see other countries were scared to death by Reagan and that’s the kind of influence I want us to have, because it’s either they fear us or they love us.
Comment by charles — 8/23/2009 @ 8:43 pm
yoyo:
Also even friends that I know who are completely liberal say Reagan was a good president.
Comment by charles — 8/23/2009 @ 8:45 pm
Chuck:
You had it right. Reagan exploded the deficit. He did marry conservatism to religion, the fact that he was a screaming hypocrite about it changes nothing. The GOP is in a long-term, committed relationship with hypocrisy.
I’ll add that at a time when Reagan could have moved away from the GOP’s Nixon-era race-baiting he chose instead to perpetuate it. And then there’s the number: 241. The number of Marines who were murdered by terrorists and who caused Ronald Reagan to turn tail and run.
The essential fact about Reagan is that most Republicans don’t actually remember him. It was a long time ago. So they only have the myth, not the reality.
But come on, Chuck, let’s have some pity for brother Rick: what’s he going to do praise George H.W. Bush? Or his idiot son, the least capable president of the modern era?
Rick can’t even name anyone on the GOP’s presidential candidate list he doesn’t actively despise. Palin? Hates her. Huckabee? hates him. Has he ever said a kind word about Romney or Boehner or McConnel?
So he rails against liberals and pounds on you and me because he’s trapped in a party with people he knows are beneath him. Wedded to a dead ideology.
It’s enough to make a guy cranky.
Comment by michael reynolds — 8/23/2009 @ 9:06 pm
no we weren’t really scared of ronny raygun we just hoped his alzheimers didn’t mean he’d push the button by mistake during a “senior” moment.
Comment by yoyo — 8/23/2009 @ 9:26 pm
The people that protest know exactly what they are doing, and are being rude to their representatives very deliberately.
Why? It is a matter of context. In the context of a Dem majority in Congress and a leftist President that have simply gone hog wild with public money, the idea of signing up to yet another extravaganza that threatens to become far, far more expenseve, and far more intrusive in our lives, has indeed crossed the line with a huge segment of the population.
In their total frustration, they are killing the messenger. Any messenger is tainted now! Of course it is rude. Reasoning with the Dems on spending and power grabs, however, is futile. So, the protesters are just saying: NO!
Comment by mannning — 8/23/2009 @ 9:26 pm
I think the question still is ‘how can the United States stay competitive with more collectivist societies’. It is true that Europe has found a slightly different solutions with its own merits and faults. I think the employer based health care was a little of a historic artifact but one that now does put the US economy at a disadvantage e.g. car industry. Anyway, this will obviously not be easy but there are ways to reduce costs and increase coverage.
In contrast, this constant demonizing, hyperventilating attack on the ‘other side’ really does nothing to make us a stronger nation; well maybe that is just my collectivist German upbringing getting the better of me.
Comment by funny man — 8/23/2009 @ 10:16 pm
now to get everyone, left and right, to lighten up a bit; read this about the upcoming German election. Wish we had some more fun like that.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,641787,00.html
Come to think of it we have, $90,000 in a freezer, walking the Appalachian trail..
Ok, back to Reagan and FDR
Comment by funny man — 8/23/2009 @ 10:25 pm
You want to drastically reduce the size of the federal government?
Eliminate Medicare. It’s Medicare that is making reform unavoidable. It’s costs are spiraling out of control and something has to be done or it will bankrupt this country within 20 years.
So either figure out a way to make it more affordable, or eliminate it.
I guarantee you if the GOP makes a proposal to eliminate it a lot of the shouters will hail it, and in say 30 years the GOP might be able to win back 1 or 2 of the House seats it will have lost due to the proposal.
Good luck with that.
Really!
Comment by Davebo — 8/23/2009 @ 10:46 pm
Rick said:
Earth.
According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:
* August 20, 1985. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
* September 14, 1985. 408 more TOWs
* November 24, 1985. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
* February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
* February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
* May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
* August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
* October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs
Total: 2,530 Missiles + spare parts.
http://tinyurl.com/nsnxoh
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 8/24/2009 @ 12:18 am
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Comment by sota — 8/24/2009 @ 5:57 am
3. “Thousands of missiles?” Holy Jesus what a maroon! What planet did that occur on?
He’s right. It does appear to have occurred on the planet Earth.
Comment by Pug — 8/24/2009 @ 7:03 am
Michael:
Listen under Reagan the economy was good and we collapsed the Soviets. Now he wanted to do things which would of balanced like getting rid of the Department of Education and a serious of other government programs and agencies. If it wasn’t for that democratic house he would of done it. Now here’s the thing I’m very angry with Bush, but under him we had a 400 billion dollar deficit and taxes were low. Now under under the messiah were likely to have a 2 trillion dollar deficit and are taxes are going to be raised. Also under Carter we still had a deficit, taxes were high, and we had 52 hostages in Iran. Also obama is raising taxes on the middle class, because just look at crap and trade. Also in the year 2012 if he wins reelection he’ll say I’m going to increase taxes on the middle class.
Comment by charles — 8/24/2009 @ 7:16 am
Selling Snake Oil to the Public
I am still mad about various Democratic sources calling town hall protesters un-American, rude, or simply numbskulls. That, after all, is what they themselves are showing themselves to be, with their leftist agenda to turn America into wasteland. Why a wasteland?
As things stand, we will have a national debt of at least 17.5 trillion dollars in 2019 because of their profligate spending and commitments to spend this year and for the next 9 or 10 years. This is over 3 trillion dollars more than our entire GNP in 2008. Just how can we pay that sum back? No rational plan to reduce the debt has been put forward, only legislation that is certain to raise it by trillions!
It is no wonder that ordinary America citizens are very upset at their representatives for trying to foster this abomination off on us and on our children’s children, and maybe even another generation. There is little need to debate the fine tuning of various propositions, all of which raise the debt level even more. Thus the protesters are simply shooting the messengers from this spendthrift Congress and President. No one believes the President’s assertion that Obama Care will be revenue neutral, either, unless it is to cut services the citizens feel necessary.
Citizens also perceive that these town hall types of sessions are merely a cover for the administration’s real plan, which is virtually hidden in 1,000 pages of gobbledygook, and impenetrable to the common reader. Thus, various possibilities, such as paying for the health care of Illegal immigrants, or the start of advisory panels on death options, have seized the public’s imagination, and no declarations to the contrary from Obama are believed anymore.
Then, too, with a Democratic majority in both houses and the presidency, people realize that their opinions have been submerged under the thrust of leftists to pass their own agenda, and to hell with public opinion. “Bi-partisan” support in Congress has withered under the take-it-or-leave-it positions of Democrats.
So, why should enraged citizens be quiet and respectful of their representatives, when they have not even been shown the respect of being presented with a sensible draft of a bill to peruse, feel that they are being sold out by snake oil salesmen, and are being asked to give Congress a blank check?
No conservative I know gives government a blank check, especially not the government of Obama’s czarist crowd.
Comment by mannning — 8/26/2009 @ 2:37 pm
Ronald Reagan was the worst president of my life and at 75 I’m old enough to know what I’m saying. Who is that idiot who says jobs were good. Pure baloney it was longest period of unemployment I can remember. Remember “Ronald Reagan must love poor people he is creating so many of them.”
George W. was a clone of Reagan who implemented many of Reagan’s policies…and we now know just how bad Reagan’s voodoo economics was for this country. Trickle down doesn’t. Conservative philosophy has been around since before Herbert Hoover it is nothing more than the rich keeping themselves on top by disenfranchising the poor.
If anyone is expert at turning this into a fascist country I would say it is the Conservative Republican wing nuts. We’ve had plenty of snake oil rammed down our throats during the last 8 years. Like a war that has cost us trillions to catch bin Laden only the idiot tried to carry out that mission in the wrong country.
Sorry you lost, but why should those who won consider the rantings of a bunch of wing-nuts legitimate. We’ve heard their rants before. We need health care reform and we have needed it for a very long time…and we need it NOW!
Comment by JW from Newark — 9/4/2009 @ 6:49 am
List of Departments we should get rid of.
Department of Education
Department of Labor
FDA
Department of Transportation
Privatize Social Security
Privatize medicaid and medicare through investments in renewable energy like Nuclear and Solar to get revenues
Privatize welfare through same system
Department of Energy
Acorn
Department of Agriculture
HHS
The office of personal management
Department of Commerce
Office of Personal Management
The EPA Please!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Put more into
Border Security
Department of Defense
Veterans benefits “yet you still can put money into private accounts invested into energy, but you still can put a lot into them.
Comment by charles — 9/4/2009 @ 4:11 pm