sandorski
No Lifer
Government size has nothing to do with it.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Bill Maher to "teabaggers".....
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Government size has nothing to do with it.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
Ok can we remove all of our military bases from Europe and Asia and let them worry about their own defense then? We provide the military for half of the democratic world, which is what enables them to waste so much money on socialism.
soulcougher73
Lifer
So do politicians.
Rangoric
Senior member
Are all those based half the budget? I don't know what those bases cost compared to the people that work there, the machines of war (planes/tanks etc) being build, and other things.
Glad to see you got to work your bogeyman word in there though.
Thump553
Lifer
Even though the dictionary definition of pompous windbag says "see Bill Maher" I have to admit he hit the nail right on the head here. I live in an area overlapped by two major defense contractors, Electric Boat (nuclear subs) and Pratt & Whitney (substantial business in military aircraft). And I'm sure most of us live in similar regions. Cutting either would devestate this area for a decade at least, but failure to cut them will eventually devastate the country as a whole.
And he's totally correct on cutting government spending-everyone's for it so long as it doesn't effect them personally. I bet even MotF Bane's "revolutionary cuts" also fall into that category-along the lines of eliminate Social Security promoted by someone not receiving it.
And he's totally correct on cutting government spending-everyone's for it so long as it doesn't effect them personally. I bet even MotF Bane's "revolutionary cuts" also fall into that category-along the lines of eliminate Social Security promoted by someone not receiving it.
nonlnear
Platinum Member
It's not really that. Looking at it that way requires taking people at their word, which seems like the reasonable honest thing to do until you realize that many people are totally deluded about what the nature of their beliefs and expectations of government. Most people who say they want a smaller government simply do not. It is only the people who truly want those government services they use the most to be cut who can even be taken seriously on this score. I include most Republicans in the "failed imagination" category because they are simply lying to themselves about what they believe. At least progressives are honest (for the most part, except during campaigns) about the need for taxes to fund their pet programs.
In his indignation Sandorski missed the fact that I was actually agreeing with Maher - mostly. After all, the vast majority of people are severely lacking in imagination when it comes to what government could be.
That's not what he said. He said we need to get rid of the 'empire' i.e. bring troops home that we don't need in these other countries and cut defense spending in half (well technically he didn't say in half he said make it equal to the next top 8 spenders which may or may not be half). Also, he said if you were against these kinds of cuts then teabaggers are not serious, they are just a bunch of crazy racists. He didn't say if you were against wasteful spending you are a racist.
sandorski
No Lifer
I don't read between Lines. Sorry.
nonlnear
Platinum Member
Well I didn't even have a second line for you to read between so it would have taken a very charitable read for you to get my subtext. Given that we disagree so often, I can't really blame you for taking the quick shot back at me. 😉 Not to mention I really am one of the people who imagines and desires radical cuts. However I have no delusions of them ever happening in a likely future! 😀
Last edited:
nick1985
Lifer
Would you rather have a bigger government or a smaller one
Thump553
Lifer
As pointed out before, your question is not only irrelevant but frankly probably 90+% of the population would answer smaller government-if the changes don't impact them adversely. It's making the hard decisions-eliminating public schools, eliminating Social Security and the like, eliminating all public funds for road building, airports, trains, snowplowing, trash pickup, police, fire, diaster relief, judicial and ambulance services, etc. that the decisions become hard-and avoided.
People being what they are most people's personal political philisophy can be boiled down to a version of I want everything I want, but I don't want to pay for it, nor do I want the government telling me what to do. A corrollary belief system is "I got mine, so FU." Even most libertarians are a version of this, it's just that nearly all of them ignore practical realties like street building and other infrastructure expenses and national defense.
So long as the electorate behaves irresponsibily the vast majority of politicians (of either party or any third party) will also act irresponsibly.
Looking at this from a simple perspective imagine what life would be like in a democracy of folk who hate themselves and do not know it because knowing it would be too painful. Such a people would have to do something with that hate and a known mechanism of 'safely' dealing with hate is by projection. In such a scenario, a person would see his self hate projected out onto some other with that other the source of hate. This would call for immediate defense against that other and provide anybody seeking power in such a democracy to use that projected fear as a tool. A politician, in exchange for a vote, would offer such brain dead cowards, I mean self denying unconscious sleepers, safety in the form of a powerful military. The need for a powerful military would then become a basic tenet of such a democracy. Imbeciles with this disease. actually good folk who couldn't help not being sick, but effective imbeciles based on how irrational they are and how that irrationality is the product of their own self hate, would have to suffer both the tax burden they have to pay to maintain that military and all the rest of the world projecting onto them their own self hate as fear of hegemony and intended aggression. They would, in effect, create a painful tax burden, which being irrational, they would think is the fault also of some other, and at the same time create a reality to their paranoia. They would effectively create the enemies they at first only imagined were out there.
Thus, if people do in fact hate themselves and don't know it, anybody with an open mind will be able to see that what is is a perfect match to what would obviously be if people do in fact hate themselves and don't know it.
And in such a case, one would also see that the answers are not political. The answers are to treat the disease and not the symptoms. But that, of course, would mean allowing oneself to feel. We can't have that, now can we!
Thus, if people do in fact hate themselves and don't know it, anybody with an open mind will be able to see that what is is a perfect match to what would obviously be if people do in fact hate themselves and don't know it.
And in such a case, one would also see that the answers are not political. The answers are to treat the disease and not the symptoms. But that, of course, would mean allowing oneself to feel. We can't have that, now can we!
sandorski
No Lifer
nick1985
Lifer
Figured you wouldnt answer
For me I don't believe the idea of bigger or smaller government is important. Neither one is inherently better. The government is there to provide for the community in ways they cannot provide for themselves. This of course requires money that the community gives to the government to pay for said services. If the government offers me more services at a reasonable cost, I could be in favor of that. If the government offers me a service at too high a cost I would turn it down. If the government wants to offer me less services they should charge me less in taxes. It is all about trade offs.
Basically as an example I would be willing to pay 10% of my income in exchange for certain things, or 50% of my income if I got more from the government. Either one would be acceptable if I was getting my moneys worth.
nick1985
Lifer
The government is there to enforce the Constitution and defend the nation.
Have you or have you not come to the realization that left or right, people want big government on issues that are important to them, the left a welfare state the right a military industrial complex to use short hand? Have you seen that you are just as insane as everybody else?
Naturally, I expect an answer, (of one kind or another).
cliftonite
Diamond Member
There is the whole general welfare thing...
Ah yes, defend the nation according to your notion of what a national defense consists of. Others feel that such a defense could be had for about a trillion less, eh, and that a real defense is a healthy happy people who don't fear joblessness or social injustice.
So what about something like the fire department? I guess you could argue that it could be left to the private sector to provide, but I doubt most people would want that.
In most towns under 20K population, it is left to the private sector......volunteer fire departments are the "norm" in these small towns.
As far as Mahr....he's the polar oppisite of Limbaugh and both their opinions and remarks need to be thrown aside.
What evidence do you have they are polar opposites or that both need to be thrown aside, aside, that is, that this is just your opinion unsupported by any argument.
And you know what? I don't really give two shitz! LOL! Whatever is floating around up there in your brain and the comments you make are nothing but your opinion and is meaningless to me and apparently a lot of other people. 🙂
Have a GREAT day!
nonlnear
Platinum Member
I would highly prefer private fire departments. Allow private fire departments to operate for only paying properties. Keep a skeleton of basic safety protocol legislation under which fire departments operate, and leave operational details to the departments themselves, and let the insurance market deal with the operational aspects that right now gum up municipal politics. Set up a framework in which insurers, fire fee payers and fire departments openly negotiate performance targets and operational policies.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
