The Biggest Lie Of The 20th Century

Other than actual homeland security, please give me a few examples where more government helps.

Btw, nice post on the employment numbers. You should know those numbers are always cooked!

 

Much of this started in the 60's [the 1960's...in the 20th century].

But thanks for reminding us that the 21st century started on January 1, 2001.

 

For me, it worked. My mother raised me with no help from my deadbeat dad. I have been married 25+ years and my wife and I raised 5 kids together. My sister in law married a female and they raised a child together.

Is there a specific result you are referring to?

 

Lol...If you think that the east or the Middle East or planet earth isn't guilty of misogynism, you're wrong. To quote John Lennon, 'woman is the ****** of the world'.
It's as pervasive globally as racism.

 

Healthcare for one.

 

Government is THE main reason why this health care system is as pathetic and corrupt as it is!

 

Again, I am really glad everything worked out for you, but you need to look at the statistics for kids brought up by single moms compared to kids brought up by a mother and father. It [should be obvious] is really important to have both parents influences in one's upbringing. It is especially important for a boy to have his father present. I am sure you can understand this even though you were able to thrive without such.

 

Not at all.

 

What’s the title of this thread?

 

Lol. Lol...If you think that the west or the euroAmerica or planet earth isn't guilty of misogynism, you're wrong. To quote John Lennon, 'woman is the ****** of the world'.
It's as pervasive globally as racism.

 

Where in the OP did he mention any of that?

 

As in, kill off all those who don't agree with you, then we will all be in agreement in a world of love and peace. And women.... only count as a half-person, so they are just there to serve... their happiness doesn't matter.
Yes, I too have a copy of the Koran.

 

Yes, men who desert their children ARE scumbags who destroy decent family life...and the parent left to raise them IS the saint, the strong one, the decent one, the BEST one..

 

not sure where you live but here in England, where we have millions of Muslims, they don't go around killing whites fyi. In fact they're probably the least likely group to murder others.

 

But that is one aspect of "American Exceptionalism" isn't it. We go it at alone because we are Americans and we are number one at everything I guess.

The problem is that Doofenshmirtz is right in a modern context. There are guys who don't need nor want women as a partner. They are fine going in at it alone, by themselves, etc. And there are women who can practically do a lot of things that used to be just "men's work" and do it better than men. Women in all OECD countries are not relying on the man for everything at all. that does not mean they will not get married, they are just not getting married at a young age. They are having careers and being more selective in who they date and eventually marry. Men are doing the same thing. It is why we need immigrants to keep the birth rate up for one thing, but it is also why we are becoming more and more sophisticated in our economy as well. It is an outdate way of thinking and it is basically a MGTOW argument.

 

Did you not read the email you quoted before responding?

"Big government", "small government", "more government".... those are equally absurd expressions that have absolutely NO meaning in real life. And are only used by the right. The government should be whatever size it needs to be to perform its functions. It's the FUNCTIONS it must provide that should be debated. Should it provide military defense? Should it provide assistance to the poor? Should there be Social Security? Should it provide border security? Should it build a wall? Should it fight crime? If it does, then the size of the government is whatever it needs to be to fulfill those needs. Period! The rest is right-wing hogwash fed by politicians on the right to fill in meaningless bumper-stickers. And people eat it up because it spares them from making a mental effort to discuss the REAL functions it should perform.

 

My friend, I believe you need to spend a tad bit more time researching the validity of your arguments. "The government should be whatever size it needs... ." ?? Have you ever run a business? Your statement demonstrates you lack a basic understanding of the fundamentals of business.

You must realize that government is incredibly inefficient and wasteful and that the outcomes of most projects they take on are less than optimal. Big government is another way of saying wasteful government. Small government is another way of saying less wasteful.

I do agree that there is a place for government but it needs to be as unobtrusive and as frugal as is possible...otherwise you have to contend with the succession of economic and financial crisis we have been dealing with over the past century [and especially since 1971].

 

When a right-winger says that they mean "listening to Tucker, Alex Jones, Breitbart, ... and the rest of the wingnut media"

I OWN a very succesful business. And a government is NOT a business. Except during the Trump administration when he MADE it a business to profit HIM.

No I do not. Not as a general rule. The Republican mantra is that the Government is TERRIBLE. And then they come to power and PROVE how horrible it is.

The first two years of this administration were relatively productive. The problem is the headwinds it encounters from the RIGHT. And THAT makes it ineffective SOMETIMES.

But the government is NOT a business. The purpose of a government is NOT to profit. It's to provide services to the citizens.

100% no!!!! In the right wingnut fantasy world it's what they tell their gullible followers. But it's NOT in reality. In reality, to the right, it means NOT SPENDING". Period! But only when Democrats are in power. When THEY are in power they have no problem. BTW "not spending" is absurd because, depending on the circumstances, a government can SAVE more by spending more. The right wants to "control the border" (which I don't think is a major problem, but they do). But they don't want to spend in more immigration judges to process refugees quickly. So it's just one HUGE set of contradictions.

Unobtrusive as in not tell women what to do with their bodies. Not punishing private businesses for utilizing freedom of speech. ....

But it needs to be MORE intrusive in protecting the rights of their citizens. The right to LIVE being primordial. The right to equal opportunities. The right to make choices that ONLY affects the person and nobody else. And they need to spend ANYTHING they need to spend in protecting those rights. Because that is their one and only function.

The government is not a for-profit business. It's an organization that was constituted to protect the rights of citizens

The government should avoid falling into a financial crisis. But MORE important than that, it needs to fulfill its duty to protect the citizens and their rights. And we have seen the government protecting rights without that meaning we have a financial crisis. Many many times. But we have also seen the party that CLAIMS to be frugal sending us into financial crisis after financial crisis. And how do they do that? But TELLING their voters again and again that it's the OTHER party that does the things THEY do. And their voters believe them becase repeating the same lies over and over IS effective.

 

No post.

 

when people complain about government, they are most likely complaining about bureaucracy, the healthcare issue comes from the 1971 RW Powell
manifesto which implored business to hire lobbyists to counteract LBJ, well the rightwing created the lobby monster, larger government generally helps minorities who need the bill of rights to gain equal access

 

You are incredibly intellectually lazy as you roll out this right wing non-sense like clockwork. I am not right wing, nor am I Republican. I consider myself apolitical and support whomever is for more freedom. You can do better.

It should not be but from what I can tell, it's the biggest business on the planet. And stop with the Trump stuff. Get over it.

Are you kidding? These people are complete morons.

This is a business that so many people are ripping off that you never have to worry about it turning a profit. And they sell their products and services via extortion, that is, you pay or you lose [everything].

 

You SAY you're not right-winger. But you definitely TALK like a right winger. Your defense of Trump is very typical.

Anyway... I hope this post has some substance. None so far....

So many words to say NOTHING. The government doesn't "sell" products and services. It protects citizens who decide to live in it. There is no campaign promoting that you stay. Anybody is free to live under a different government if they so choose. Or even under NO government. I'm sure there are still many uninhabited islands in the Pacific for anybody who doesn't want a government.

But the hypocrisy of people who like the benefits of living under a government, but refuse the obligations, is astounding.

Here you made a mess of your quotes. Let me see if I can undo it for you

90% less military, 90% less roads, 90% less police, 90% less education...

Clearly you don't know what you're saying. You are just repeating right-wing talking points. You say you're not right-winger? Yeah...

It IS their only duty. Problem is you don't realize what that duty implies.

Because it's a big economy. And the most successful country in the history. That is great. But it's not cheap.

YOU are!

 

You're a total all or none kind a guy. I just said stop it with the Trump stuff. Trump is over. Move on.

What's with the middle school comment?

So it's either your way or no way. I am on the side of the Founding Fathers, not Marx and Engels.

It's not all or none.

I know you believe you are this brilliant guy, but you need to take a serious look in the mirror. You seem to have a poor understanding of basic economics and government not to mention a need to be correct 100% of the time. Do you understand that all things knowable are in constant flux?

Maybe it's 85% or 91.534% but most of what government spends is completely unnecessary.

No, this is what you think it is. Of course, you seem so left that everybody must seem like a right winger to you.

Again, what's with the childish comments? How old are you?

 

Then you are completely upside down. Because our founding fathers said a lot about equality, "defence" (sic), everybody's welfare, ... etc. Not much that I could find about "small government"

On the other hand, the ultimate goal of Marxism IS basically NO central government. Where "communes" (thereby the term "commun-ist", govern themselves and sometimes meet to pursue common goals.

So looks like you are closer to advocating for Marxism than you thought.

So 85% or 91.534% less military, less education, less police, less roads....

You have made no progress. And the statement is ridiculous because the concept is ridiculous. If there is unnecessary spending, you point it out. And that takes a lot of intellectual effort. Much more than just saying "we want small government". But the latter is an absolutely meaningless right wing bumper-sticker that is NEVER going to help accomplish anything. Not even whatever goals you hope to achieve. And proof of this is that no government that got elected campaigning on "small government" has actually made the government any smaller. In fact, the OPPOSITE is true.

So if you ever want to take a glimpse at reality, the road is not easy. You actually have to say WHAT it is you want to cut. And each and every one of those cuts is one debate. Because sometimes "cutting" things is, in the long run, more expensive than not cutting it. You'd have to be prepared to analyze reality on a case by case basis. And you would have to understand what the government is for. This last part should not be difficult because it's spelled out in the Preamble of the Constitution. But it is most definitely NOT a business in any way shape or form.

On the other hand, if you prefer the EASY route: clinging to the meaningless "small government vs big government" binary dogma... you'll have it much easier. It doesn't require much thinking or effort. But you will never make any progress.

 

Well, you might wish to recall that the founding of this country had something to do with getting away from the oppressive rule of England. Do you believe the FF were fans of BIG government?

Again, what's with the need to point out a spelling error? You are truly hyper-competitive.

Thank you for the history lesson but I assure you I have read the entire collected works of M&E...all forty something volumes. Getting to zero government in communism is like getting to heaven in Christianity. The only communism that appears is Communism, the ultimate human sh*t-show.

I believe that Clinton balanced the budget for a couple of years, but that's not the point. Do you understand how money works and what it is, because if you don't then you cannot understand why the government grows and grows and grows.

Is it possible that you believe that the government partakes in ZERO unnecessary spending? They should make THE Minister of Propaganda.

Cut EVERYTHING. Eliminate most of it. Here's one...eliminate the The Department of Education. Eliminate all subsidies to colleges and universities. Here's another. Eliminate the Department of Health. And another. Get rid of everything that is not absolutely necessary! And that's pretty much everything. You DO NOT need half the country working for the government [directly or indirectly]. Another...phase out social security and all medical payments.

The idea is to have a system that is there only to protect people's rights...little else. Right now you have so many people dependent on the government that it can do nothing else but keep on growing...and it will until there is nothing left to tax and the currency is completely worthless. You know how good your government is by assessing how healthy your currency is. Pretty bleak, eh?