Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think you understand how government works, I am for efficient and cost effective government. I guess if I was simple minded I could answer your question, but I am not.
But for sake of argument, I will go with small gov't cause that's got a nice ring to it.
But you answered to "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Liberal" on a recent C-D poll.
Are you sure you just don't want to avoid admitting to loving Big Government in response to a direct question? After all, Big Governments are the only entities large and flush enough to allocate crony capital.
But you answered to "Socially Liberal, Fiscally Liberal" on a recent C-D poll.
Are you sure you just don't want to avoid admitting to loving Big Government in response to a direct question? After all, Big Governments are the only entities large anough to allocate crony capital.
Oh not at all, I am a social liberal, fiscal liberal who supports small gov't. I think we should be shrinking the military budget, the amount we give to foreign countries should be reduced. We should eliminate handouts to corporations. I am sure you agree with all these points if you too are for small gov't.
Oh not at all, I am a social liberal, fiscal liberal who supports small gov't. I think we should be shrinking the military budget, the amount we give to foreign countries should be reduced. We should eliminate handouts to corporations. I am sure you agree with all these points if you too are for small gov't.
Tell us how you reconcile "social liberal" and "fiscal liberal" with small gov't. Do you disavow progressive social policies like nanny state and public employee unions and Dept. of Education, etc.?
Tell us how you reconcile "social liberal" and "fiscal liberal" with small gov't. Do you disavow progressive social policies like nanny state and public employee unions and Dept. of Education, etc.?
Actually I do, I support there being strong private sector unions, though I question the need for public sector unions. The Dept. Of Education needs an overhaul because this one size fits all program they are running is a mess and education could be handled better at a state level. And no I don't support nanny state things, I think a woman should be allowed to govern her own body without the government trying to step in.
What about you? Would you support cutting the military budget in half? Getting the federal government out of our bodies? And education programs being put together at a state level?
We discussed the issue. We proved that the OP is every bit for Big Government as the Swedes and put the debate to rest.
It's not an insult when it's true. It's simply not caving to political correctness and instead calling these folks out for their simplistic grasp of issues.
Actually it is an insult even if it is true. Do you go around telling ugly people they are ugly?
Given the benefits structure in America, it's unlikely reducing work hours would lead to an increased number of full time (according to the new definition) workers. it would simply increase the number of benefit-less part timers.
It's interesting to see how far conservatives have drifted from Reagan.
Reagan eliminated income tax on the lowest income people specifically to stimulate their spending power withoutbhuge government infrastructure, yet today conservatives mock and ridicule those who benefit from Reagan's polciies.
Reagan also started what's known today as Obamaphone.
Cell phones were not being used by the general public, let alone poor people, in the 1980's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.