Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Small government elected with public financing, the only problem it’s Republican!

Posted 2 years ago on April 14, 2012, 4:44 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

66 Comments

66 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by SPAR23 (25) 2 years ago

Well small government is the Republican way, Democrats dont want a small governement. The Demorat way is big government.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Big government to deal with big business sounds like something I would like to see, small government stuck into my private parts, not something I would want to see.

I got a question aren't all those prison guards working for the government, don't they make government bigger? And don't the Republicans keep thinking up ways to give the prison guards more work? So isn't that big government?

[-] -2 points by SPAR23 (25) 2 years ago

No, big government is stuck to youre balls! The idea of big government is everyone going to the governemnt for help. Republican govenrment involves more state run things like healthcare. Government dealing with and controlling big buisness is totalinarism and fasicsm. Its what the Nazis and Mussolini did.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and I thought GOP government was about my bedroom and doctors office, teach me to listen to them

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I think small government with no campaign contributions would be a good thing.

A small effective gov that isnt "as" influenced by the corporations and unions as much. They might be able to actually make smart choices then.

[-] 4 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I like clean water, clean air, inspected meat and vegetables that meet certain requirements, someone checking on the pharmaceuticals I take, and making sure the car I drive meets safety requirements.

Although a large government isn't perfect, there is no small government proposed that will meet any of my needs. Moving regulatory responsibilities to the state level makes for fat state governments with no uniform standards across the nation.

[-] 3 points by TheMisfit (48) 2 years ago

"I like clean water, clean air, inspected meat and vegetables that meet certain requirements, someone checking on the pharmaceuticals I take, and making sure the car I drive meets safety requirements."

Those items can easily be interpreted as part of the "general welfare" of the people, which is a power given to the federal government.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I agree. Tell hchc.... :)

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

the problem with hchc is he leaves the GOP in charge, here in AZ they only take $5 contributions the rest is public, but since they are GOP it doesn't matter, what they do matters as well as how they are funded

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I actually agree with you, if the people pay attention, and stick to the truth, then the government is the voice and the power of the people. I see no reason the people should not be powerful enough to establish and maintain the best possible conditions for the people.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Its not hard to simply write the standards and then let the states do it themselves.

Cuts out a middle man. Which is usually an idiot beauracrat who simply wants a paycheck.

I like all the things you listed. But this current train wreck is out of control. Small and efficient allows for flexibility.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This would be like letting the quarterback pay the refs directly all the league need do is provide the rulebook it doesn't matter who pays or hires/fires the refs? I don't think so, somebody has to be on the people's side.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Then a balance has to be set. Smaller is good... but not too small. Personally I don't trust the states to carry out squat. Some have the revenue, some don't.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

It should be the size that is needed, no more.

No reason a small gov cant do all the things you listed.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Sure it means a small govt can't do all those things... because that was the short list. The list is actually much longer, we didn't even talk about controls on business and fair play in the markets. Nor on foreign trade.

I also believe in NASA and the National Laboratory system for basic scientific research... that left to their own devices the private sector won't do. It's been 15 years since the private sector had the go to put people into space... they still haven't put someone in orbit. NASA did it 40 years ago with slide rules and basic materials. The technology edge we gain by this makes it's way directly to the private sector and general public.

The Federal government does a real lot that is beneficial.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I understand your logic, and your thoughts, but is clearly not the case.

The fed gov has bankrupted the nation. The wars WILL NOT END. This is what happens when you locate TONS OF POWER into a small tiny place (DC). Its a runaway train and the nation is simply not solvent.

We are bombing our way to oblivion.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

War is a huge problem. This is a policy issue with regards to buisness interests, not government function. Bankrupting the nation is very inaccurate. I have to go, but I will explain later..... MMT, Modern Monetary Theory.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Government function isnt part of war? They go to war for business reasons, and this isnt a freakin governmental problem?

Who are the ones we elect again?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Yes, back to bankrupting our nation. That idea would have been correct if we were talking about a gold backed monetary system. For the last 40 years we have been on a fiat based monetary system .... not that either one is a favorite of mine, there are inherent problems with both... but since we are using a fiat monetary system one should be aware of the rules of the game as they are important.

1. Sovereign governments, that issue their own currency, can never run out of money. They can never go bankrupt, or become insolvent.

As long as taxes are required to be paid in the currency issued by the government there will be a demand for that currency.

2. Federal spending (debt) creates private sector savings (credit). The only way the private sector can net save, therefore, is if the government goes into debt. The net savings of the private sector is - "down to the penny," - the same as Federal debt.

Money is always the liability of a bank; either a commercial bank (bank deposits) or the central bank/government (Federal reserves, currency). Commercial banks lend money into existence. When a bank makes a loan, it creates a deposit. The deposit is (of course) in the exact amount of the loan. Bank deposits, which are credits to the nonbank public, are therefore always the same as the total amount banks have lent to the public. The public, in turn, owes banks the same amount (plus interest). Considering the private sector alone, therefore, the total amount of savings minus the total amount of debt always nets to zero.

In the same way money is created by the Federal Government. When the Federal Government makes a deposit in a commercial bank account through the Fed Reserv, this becomes a debit on the government side and a credit on the private commercial bank side, creating savings which then become distributed throughout the private sector.

We have gone to 125% GDP Federal spending in the past with fiat currency (1945), with no hyperinflation when the spending severely cut back in 1946.

With underemployment and high unemployment now rampant there is a productivity gap that pads how much spending the government can do before it becomes detrimental to the value of the dollar. The value of the dollar is tied to the 'real productivity' of the nation.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The military is for national defense. Offensive operations and nation building, half way around the world, do not qualify as the government function the military was designed for. This occurred through a change in foreign policy.

If you believe that these policy decisions are a result of those we elect I know of a bridge in Brooklyn thats for sale that I can get for you real cheap.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Are the ones we elect stopping them?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Chicken or the egg? Are our govt officials accountable for selling out to private interests that effect foreign policy? YES

Are private interests just as accountable for influencing the government to follow their agenda? YES.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

You trust the feds more than the states?!

It should be the size that is needed to do the things you listed, and whatever one deems appropriate, and no bigger.

And "someone checking my pharmaceuticals"... Come on, you really listed that? The poison they shove on everyone, all the pills... And obvious revenue differences would be addressed, as they are now.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

You would you take pharmaceuticals manufactured in China??? Not me. I believe most are unnecessary, but some are very necessary and save lives or improve the quality of life for many people. I won't go into specific detail as that is not needed. We have a great medical profession here, it's the healthcare industry that sucks.

What guarantees are there that corporations wouldn't corrupt state authorities with probably more ease than the Feds?

And yes I trust the Feds more than I trust the states. .. but first we have to remove the corporations from the Federal framework.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"What guarantees are there that corporations wouldn't corrupt state authorities with probably more ease than the Feds? And yes I trust the Feds more than I trust the states. .. but first we have to remove the corporations from the Federal framework."

The key is accountability. The feds have always been horrendous with that. Wars, massive idiotic legislation, etc. All of em hiding in DC 24/7, instead of being back in the states with the people that elected them.

Ive honestly never seen anyone say they prefer the federal gov to state govs.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I've never met someone who knew who their state reps were but didn't know their fed reps, but I meet people all the time where it is the other way around. I can't remember ever meeting someone who knew what the state was thinking of doing before it was already done. Truth is people watch the feds much more closely and the feds are held to account much more than states, but even if it were the same, there are tons of cases where states have given stuff to corporations and causing the people to pick up the slack, you cons with your give all power to the states what you're really saying is give all the power to the corporations.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Try to go get appointments with both. Let me know which one was easier to deal with. Dumbass.

And NO ONE holds ANYONE accountable, or we would be in this mess.

Man are you dumb. You and your little pack of pro Establishment clones should actaully GO TO OWS and see how everyone there feels about it. Or at least practice it at your local level.

They wont throw you out. But the eye rolling will be obvious.

Rookie.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you are any example I'm sure they get their orders straight from the RNC.

Have you ever read a paper don't you know how the locals bow and scrape before any CEO that says "jobs" sure you can get an appointment, if life is abouit you feeling good, oh I forgot who i was talking to, you're the guy willing to let the GOP take over because Obama hurt your feelings, of cousre a meeting would make you feel good.

Corporations roll over states thats why you want them to have more power.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

wow...

Im going to go out on a limb and guess that YOU work for a huge corporation.

I dont.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There is much more accountability in Washington than the state house, people are much more likely to know who their US senator is than their state senator, for state office most people vote party and so it is decided in primaries which are almost entirely decided by the parties money men unless somebody like the TEA party or OWS gets involved in the primary to push someone they like. State people are always giving away tax breaks to get companies to move into the state, why? because corporations are bigger than states, but not the feds, so the more the state do the more powerful the corporations are this is why the cons push for more state level stuff.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Corporations own your government. Its centralized power. Broad sweeping rules that affect everyone, and destroy competition from smaller people.

There is NO accountablity in DC. That much should be obvious. If there was, we would have some changes from OWS by now. But we have none.

The feds screw out tax rates for the multinationals.

"decided by the parties money men"...there is nothing more true than the federal level if you are looking for examples.

Tea and OWS getting involved at the state levels is what we need. We need more people getting involved, period. From all walks of life.

If like more centralized power in DC, then you probably back the wars too.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.

FActsrfun backs War, and that is a fact.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey I didn't vote for Nader and help Bush get into office, those are the people who made these wars possible, that's a fact.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Tell that to the dozens of people that got killed in Yemen last week.

Oh wait, you are pro establishment, therefore endorse those wars.

ITs all about you isnt it. You need someone to throw you a bone, and dont care how many people had to die in order to pull it off.

You are one sick fuck.

I forgot.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

yeah me and Nader just workin for ourselves

no Nader = No wars

how much do you hate the wars?

enough not to be fooled again?

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Enough that I voted for Obama and got, well....

Go ask Yemen (just bombed the shit out of them last week, killing dosens), Iraq (still droning and have 15,000 people there- occupy Iraq), Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somolia and Libya how they feel about our End the Wars candidate.

See, the problem with those that dont think for themselves (which are most on the right and the left) is that they only get sensationalized by what the media puts out, and therefore hte public latches onto.

If CNN was blasting the administration for bombing Yemen, there would be protests in the streets.

Its really that simple to control the mass psychology of any country.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yeah well vote for Romeny or not at all, same thing really, and see if the GOP stop all the wars, that should work.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Why would the GOP stop the wars? They started em. You remember that much, right?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I know what you want, gut the only power in America that can stand up to the corporations. I know the corporations sure runs my state government and WI too as far as what I've been reading. Here in AZ they helped to pass SB 1070 so they could make more money off their prisons. They also got the taxpayers to pay for a bunch of SUV's so their business buddies could make a lot of money off the state, one of the things that caused us to go broke, every time I turn around I'm hearing about some state giving something to a corporation to "save" jobs by keeping them from moving to another state. Talk about divide and conquer, that's exactly what this is, move everything to states is all about, divide the people's power of government, so that the corporations can have more control.

war on the trolls and corporations

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

"Ive honestly never seen anyone say they prefer the federal gov to state govs."

Thats what the Civil War was mostly about. The Federal Govt was favored over 150 year ago. Accountability fails in State govs as well... people are only as good as the system they keep.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

this is a result of the lies/spin from the right, it's our job to fix that, hchc is here to defend it

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

People are only as good as their ability to remove their heads from their asses. Most cant/wont. The only thing consistent in this system is the apathy of the people.

Which is why state govs are better, you have more control of them. And you dont have to worry about almost a third of the nations money for investment being used to prove who has the biggest dick.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

'People are only as good as their ability to remove their heads from their asses. Most cant/wont. The only thing consistent in this system is the apathy of the people.'

Well that statement guarantees that there will be no change and improvement.

'Which is why state govs are better, you have more control of them. And you dont have to worry about almost a third of the nations money for investment being used to prove who has the biggest dick.'

This doesn't logically follow your first statement as a valid conclusion, since it's the same voting population for both governments. If one is apathetic towards government, one is politically apathetic be it local or federal.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

True. But for those that arent, its easier to control the state govs. And we get into less international bullshit if they have more power, because the feds simply dont have the cash for it.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Ah but the Feds do have the cash. I addressed that in another post regarding something you posted on us going bankrupt. We will have to agree to disagree on more power to the states. I don't buy it.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Thats fine. With the amount of freakin idiots Ive had to deal with here the last few days, after being gone for a while, I appreciate the decent mannered discussion.

And that was a good post on the bankruptcy thing. I guess we cant technically go bankrupt, but we can force the markets to take a dump on our currency.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Thank you.

It's possible to force the markets to do so, but is it probable? By volume we are still the heaviest traded currency on the market by an order of magnitude. China is letting their currency float more as of this week, that ought to be interesting. Bonds are still selling despite the stupidly low interest rates..... tells ya something.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what are your needs that wont be met? I see it's all about YOUR needs - I thought this movement was about the good of society. See - it is about personal greed.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I would venture most people have the same needs or the organizations created to protect these things wouldn't exist in the first place. They were created by popular demand.

Points for trying to attempt to turn my post around, but everything I listed benefits everyone in this country.

Nice try please come back and play again.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

I didnt ask about most peoples needs - I asked about yours since you said "my needs". what are YOUR needs?

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I posted them. I talk in the first person most times when typing.

Quid Pro Quo....

What are YOUR needs?

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

"Although a large government isn't perfect, there is no small government proposed that will meet any of MY NEEDS." Sounds like you want a hand out.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Thanks for not answering the question.

At the top of my list for needs was clean air and clean water... the basics that all life forms on this planet, including YOU, require. If thats needing a handout... well excuse me for living.

Good bye troll.

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

oh ok - Yea everyone want clean air water etc. You used the words my needs so it threw me off. You sounded like the greedy people you so despise.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You mean he sounded like the person you see when you look in the mirror.

[-] 1 points by JadedGem (895) 2 years ago

No he doesn't. You are just projecting that view onto the people here because it is what you wish to see and think and spew. If you believe everyone is just squirrel looking for a nut, then you can justify your own greed and exploitation. You can tell yourself might makes right or that you really deserve more because you and your peers are the real humans and the rest of the people beneath you were put here to step on. This is about you trying to justify the unjustifiable. Maybe there is hope for you if you even recognize such things need a justification in your mind. Casting everyone as nothing but greedy people who do the same as you in your position is nothing but a lie you need to tell yourself.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Remember we passed public funding in 1998, all I'm trying to say is money is not a magic bullet, it matters what they do too, if we want to have influence, we have to take some down so the rest will listen.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

in AZ they only take $5 contribution the rest is public money, but we have so many republicans in the state it doesn't matter they still pass the most right wing stuff in the country, so what I say is get the money and the GOP out of politics

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

See, that why states having power are nice. You can move to one that is more liberal. Im from Rochester NY, and we are generally a pretty liberal area up there. Actually have some AM liberal radio too.

And plenty of people have moved to place like AZ (I lived in Phoenix on E Thomas for about 5months one winter, but for work reasons) because they cant stand things that they deem as liberal.

Give the feds too much, and you just get raw fascism across the board. Get ready to be buying your grocieries from McDonalds

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

really your answer is run away?

I guess you could move out the country too if that's your thoughts.

I know your bosses won't let you say anything bad about the GOP, I understand, life is hard people got to make a livin.

Those who wish to gut the government are just working for the corporations.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

you are so fuckin dumb, and it is so predictable.

Someone disagrees with you, so they must be a Republican.

This is the stupidity that those that want change are fighting, on both sides mind.

Go on a conservative chat site. Challenge them. You get the same thing. They all accuse you being any one of idiotic names they have for liberals. In that matter, you are actually more like them than I, because I can see through this media bullshit that you are stuck in.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you support their people by not joining with those that could change things we could do this if we stick together, and stop all this outside the system crap, if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, every third party voter is part of the problem not the solution, the solutuon is get rid of the GOP so a new party can be born, but your path just keeps the GOP in power, so if you support them though an active deciesion on your part or just as a result of everything you write here the result is the same more GOP in office, and I believe based on all you havew written here that is your only goal.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

again, I cannot complete with this type of one sided thinking, there is no way to show you how I think may work, because you are 100% locked into your world.

Get rid of the GOP so another party can be born. You realize that of those that vote, its about half and half, right?

The GOP isnt going anywhere, and neither is the Dem party. Both are useless at this point.

Just answer me this question: What would the D party have to do in order for you to not vote for them? just wondering...

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You don't "complete" with truth, truth just is, you think I don't wish things were different, this is not about what I want to be true, it is about what is true.

I do disagree with you though I believe we can kill the GOP, not in one election, this is a long lasting movement, or little will get done at all.

The forces building within the GOP only need a little push and they will blow apart. If you are truly interested in how this happens I might decide to share it, but I'm not looking to show my hand too early, that should give you a hoot.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

I would honestly like to hear what you have to say on that topic. I too, agree that the GOP is pretty close to falling apart. Same for the Dems, but prob not as much.

I think the first group that can organize something that is fairly common, in the middle, with normal people running it, with some basic groundwork, is going to experience great growth over the next couple of elections.

All I see from the D and R parties is the same thing we have gotten the last 50 years....More bullshit.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6763) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The threads are thin, super pacs will not be gone soon, the Royals will turn on each, if they lose more than they think they should the fallout will viscous, if we are nibble we can help the process, if we diffuse our influence, it will be like pushing a balloon, if we are sharp in our attacks it will be like a pin and we will burst the balloon.