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.
How about the 27 amendments? The Republicans jumped on Obama when he said it wasn't perfect, but the framers gave us the ability to legally change the Constitution when it no longer serves the people.
To answer the OP, I think it's just one of the Republicans buzz words like socialism. What can be more oppressive than an administration in which the President and Vice President grant themselves more power?
Last edited by justNancy; 03-29-2009 at 11:42 PM..
WTF do republicans mean with "we want smaller government"?
Do you mean "more efficient"? If you mean more efficient, then why in the hell do you always ask for "smaller government"?
Or are you saying that the less people there are in the government, the less corrupt it is?
That would make Bush beloved China the less corrupt country in the World (Communist country)
It's a romanticized fairy tale sold to conservatives for their vote. I believe a quote that was popular for sometime was "I want to make government small enough so that you can drown it in a bath tub". I hardly see that as constitutional. The constitution defines both congressional powers and congressional limits. Unfortunately these right wingers take fox and talk radio seriously and have no idea what the constitution actually says.
Smaller Government = Less Regulation = Greater public at risk
Just imagine the citizens of a crime-ridden community demanding a smaller police force
When people say "smaller government" they aren't concerned about decreasing the size of local and state governments. They are talking about the federal government.
When people say "smaller government" they aren't concerned about decreasing the size of local and state governments. They are talking about the federal government.
Federal and local issues are miles apart. A smaller federal government wouldn't have any impact on that situation. That is handled by the city, county, or state.
Federal and local issues are miles apart. A smaller federal government wouldn't have any impact on that situation. That is handled by the city, county, or state.
I disagree. Many state projects get federal funding. People are complaining about the Stimulus Package, but it will put many more police officers on our streets. If by "smaller" you mean allowing states to govern themselves, then I might take your side. However, the word small is being used by the Republicans to freeze spending.
To those who keep bringing up the way things used to be and the Constitution, look at the population 200 years ago. There were approximately 7 million people living in this country. Now there are about 305 million. In a small country village, you don't need traffic lights either.
Last edited by justNancy; 03-30-2009 at 12:50 AM..
Federal and local issues are miles apart. A smaller federal government wouldn't have any impact on that situation. That is handled by the city, county, or state.
In scope, but not necessarily in nature. A smaller federal government means less regulation and enforcement for those entities that operate on a macro level (health care, finance, energy, etc) affecting the public at large. And less regulation in those sectors, as we have seen, creates the very conditions in which unhealthy management trends leading to internal collapse can thrive. Same principle applies on the local level.
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.