November 6, 2012 at 2:54 pm #156519
great article by Matt Taibbi, on gettin a grip on Bush past (big intrusive government) and out seemingly inevitable future (bigger intrusive government). The myth of Bush or republicans being for small government has got to go – it just is not true, and has not been for the past forty years.November 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm #156518
So bush liked to spend, but in half the time Obama has spent the same amount. If the republicans keep working for smaller government it will help to keep in check the unprecedented expansion and corresponding loss of liberty that the Obama democrats would like.
You will find that as the government has more and more control over your life, that the entity really does not know better, how you should liver your life.November 6, 2012 at 5:01 pm #156517
It is interesting to watch the pendulum swings that are inevitable in this style of government. We have a great system and though it is frustrating, no one wins and no one loses every time.November 6, 2012 at 5:19 pm #156516
You miss the point, Jordan. Republicans only talk about smaller government, they don’t DO it. We will be paying for Bush’s unfunded war for the rest of our lives, and it will continue to burgeon,as the Vets get older.
The myth of smaller goverment and republicans doesn’t want to die, they seem to be able to fool us once, and fool us twice (then you’ve fooled me twice, thanks Prez Bush). what they actually like to do is spend big on military so their companies can pocket the money, and institute rules that favor the rich. Cutting protection on federal lands is not cutting government – it is just redistributing the it to favor the rich.
As for not having anything really change, I beg to differ, Leslie. You can see the effects of lack of bank regulation across the land, in abandoned houses, smaller police forces, lousy libraries,etc.
The country responds very quickly to the change in party – FEMA turned from a political patronage to a functioning agency, in one election cycle. Believe me, that is a LOT of change, for people in New York.November 6, 2012 at 5:27 pm #156515
I voted earlier this morning. The fight is over for me for a few years. Maybe now is the time to stand shoulder to shoulder as Americans to make this thing work.
Let’s stop demonizing each other and let’s look at ourselves as the incredible diverse community that we are. We need each other.
Thanks landplanner for “going there” and giving us a place to have a healthy dialog as LAs and LDs…well at least I thought it was healthy.
–Peace to EveryoneNovember 6, 2012 at 5:49 pm #156514
Andrew Garulay, RLAParticipant
Agreed. Discussion is good in a free society.
PS. Are the polls doing OK with the storm issues and more importantly, did you and yours make it through OK?November 6, 2012 at 7:35 pm #156513
Craig: This was a more than healthy dialogue and I hope those that were “Drive-by” spectators and those that “stepped in it” got something from the back and forth and the yin and the yang of it all. By last count there were over 2500 “hits” so that means this topic did get some significant attention.
I am with you, shoulder-to-shoulder. I just hope we can unify around whomever our new leader will be and our representatives can actually, represent our common will and good, and do the same.
I will wrap the forum up tomorrow (or the next day) with a unbiased (as much as I can) summary of what I think was valuable in this discourse and what we might take away from it.November 6, 2012 at 9:47 pm #156512
NO!! Never! Craig, I will never stand next to a landscape architect or Republican in my life. Not in this current lifetime or the next. Neither one has helped me in my life. I am a Planner / Investor, baby.November 6, 2012 at 9:54 pm #156511
That’s the GOP myth and their sheep don’t seem to get it. Every election time, a Republican candidate cry about reducing government and NEVER actually do when they get in office. Remember Scott Brown and Rand Paul? Yeah, they sure reduced it or try to alright. This is fact: every President has increased the federal government before his predecessor, including the GOP God Ronald Reagan.
And all the Republicans want less government UNTIL a disaster hits them. Then, the government can’t help them fast enough.November 7, 2012 at 6:06 pm #156510
Not sure I am following your argument. So if you want smaller government you should vote for democrats who are apologetically for larger government.November 7, 2012 at 6:42 pm #156509
No, if you want smaller gov. don’t be fooled again by Republican claims (really, it has been like 40 years of lying about that) but stick with the dems who want smarter government. I mean Ryans budget was giving the military all and 300% more, and even the military was saying it didn’t want that. And Romneys budget was just tax cuts for the rich and cut anyone who inspects any industry. Clinton is the only one in recent history who has actually reduced the size of a gov. program, with his welfare cuts.
Is it hard to think that one needs to look behind the claims your party is making? Why would one vote for Bush again, for example, after what he did with wiretapping of private citizens – that is a done deal now, huge government program, not to speak of his huge gov. program that gave money to war contractors, called the war in Iraq.
Perhaps that is too subtle.
But first, when a Republican says he wants smaller gov.,I would give them the stink eye and say, pull the other one. Republicans want governemtn that puts money in rich peoples pockets, that is all.November 8, 2012 at 12:08 pm #156508
This whole “smaller government” rhetoric is a red herring.
Government grew in response to specific needs which the electorate wanted and needed.
Going back to 1790 may be a nice image but leaves a great many questions.
Shall corporations decide when and where to build roads? Shall corporations decide whether or not you may use their roads and rails to transport your goods and selves? Shall large enterprises own and control the internet? all media? Shall insurance companies and banks operate unregulated? Employers do whatever they please with employees? Obviously this arrangement from the past only benefited those with power and money. Why would working people want to return to that? It’s all we can do with the aid of government to slow the growing power of corporations today!
Is the problem what the government is trying to do or how they are accomplishing it? Is there an alternative system to discuss?
To simply cry “smaller government” is immature. What’s the social plan then?November 8, 2012 at 1:37 pm #156507
Get off that horse.
You are a fricking Gardener like all of us, just with a poscher titel.
You are a brown nosed like to be investor who’l burn a lot of $$ over the next year.
Lang lebe das Kapital
reg. ErnstDecember 6, 2012 at 10:16 pm #156506
Oops! Sorry Andrew for the crazy late response – we’re just fine. The wife and I are working out of the DC area for now.December 6, 2012 at 10:34 pm #156505
mauiB – You my friend are a landscape architecture groupee.
Your beef with the Republicans is typical and it’s that kind of divisiveness we don’t need.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.