FARK.com: (6851867) The Republican candidates want limited government, right? Not so much

		The Republican candidates want limited government, right? Not so much (nytimes.com)		63
		More: Sad, Republican, Republican candidates, limited government, GOP, human beings, targeted killings, imminent threat, signing statements

• • •

3174 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Dec 2011 at 10:32 AM | Favorite | share:

more» |

Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends!

shirt it!

Share this link:

URL:

http://fk.cm/go/6851867

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

63 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

Generation_D

2011-12-30 09:27:39 AM

Dems want big government and Repubs want big government. It just depends on what issues they want it on.

Vodka Zombie

2011-12-30 09:37:12 AM

Big government, little government, I think, at this point, I'd just be happy to have ANY government that isn't comprised of ignorant, farking children.

This has to be the most embarrassing legislative session in the history of American politics, and we really should demand better of those we task with representing us. The fact that we don't just shows what a pathetic populace we've become.

gilgigamesh

2011-12-30 09:40:35 AM

Generation_D: Dems want big government and Repubs want big government. It just depends on what issues they want it on.

Classic democrats believed in a strong social safety net, and classic republicans in a strong military but a hands-off domestic policy.

Now they are two nearly indistinguishable corporatist parties, with the exception that republicans also stand for theocracy in general and federal intrusion in private sexual matters specifically.

gilgigamesh

2011-12-30 09:43:33 AM

Vodka Zombie: This has to be the most embarrassing legislative session in the history of American politics, and we really should demand better of those we task with representing us. The fact that we don't just shows what a pathetic populace we've become.

We don't demand anything because we aren't hungry.

Despite some pantomime brinksmanship from the GOP, both parties seem to have learned that they have a free hand to loot the public fisc wholesale for their corporate masters, so long as they also make a gesture to do so by keeping the people at least marginally comfortable.

Gulper Eel

2011-12-30 09:48:50 AM

gilgigamesh: Now they are two nearly indistinguishable corporatist parties, with the exception that republicans also stand for theocracy in general and federal intrusion in private sexual matters specifically.

To simplify:

Democrats want to play Santa Claus. Republicans want to play God.

The only other difference is that people find out there's no Santa Claus a bit earlier than they find out there's no God (or so my FSM/Cthulhu/whisky-worshiping friends tell me).

Pocket Ninja

2011-12-30 09:57:27 AM

Look, subby. This isn't hard. A "limited" government means that it is limited in its ability to do things that you don't like. Nobody wants to limit the government's power to do things they *like*, though, that would be stupid. That would be like hobbling the government, not "limiting" it. And why would you want to hobble the government? That would be like hobbling America? That would be like that scene in that Stephen King movie where the guy is tied to the bed and then the crazy woman comes in with the hammer and she breaks his ankles and then the backwood hillbillies make him squeal like a pig. Except the guy tied to the bed is America and you're one of the hillbillies. That's what you want, isn't it? To hobble America and make her squeal like a pig You're probably just some damn terrorist yourself, and what we really need is for the government to be able to go after people like you. But you probably want to "limit" that, right? Bastard.

Diogenes

2011-12-30 10:00:35 AM

Article conflates "big government" and expansion of Executive power. These aren't the same things. Although the latter can easily lead to the former.

Eddie Adams from Torrance

2011-12-30 10:34:28 AM

Arguments over big government vs. small government are pretty stupid.

I want good government. Then we can talk about how large it ought to be.

Mugato

2011-12-30 10:39:52 AM

NFA

2011-12-30 10:40:18 AM

Vodka Zombie: Big government, little government, I think, at this point, I'd just be happy to have ANY government that isn't comprised of ignorant, farking children.

This has to be the most embarrassing legislative session in the history of American politics, and we really should demand better of those we task with representing us. The fact that we don't just shows what a pathetic populace we've become.

THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS

GhostFish

2011-12-30 10:40:21 AM

They're also not fiscal conservatives. They want to spend the money on different things, but they still want to spend it.

Lonewolf45100

2011-12-30 10:42:12 AM

RON PAUL!

monoski

2011-12-30 10:44:06 AM

When they say "Limited" they mean limited to their platform.

//that is all

Lee Jackson Beauregard

2011-12-30 10:44:20 AM

MindStalker

2011-12-30 10:45:15 AM

Pocket Ninja: That would be like that scene in that Stephen King movie where the guy is tied to the bed and then the crazy woman comes in with the hammer and she breaks his ankles and then the backwood hillbillies make him squeal like a pig.

Fun fact, there is a category in Netflix for "strong women staring roles". That movie is one of the first.

Dr Dreidel

2011-12-30 10:45:32 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Arguments over big government vs. small government are pretty stupid.

I want good government. Then we can talk about how large it ought to be.

I also want a government big enough to handle 310,000,000 people. Well, that's how many people we have NOW. I want a government that can handle 350,000,000 people, and leave room for growth.

I also want a government that remembers that the rights of every single one of those people is more important than the next election or the last campaign donation.

// but I'm a dreamer

imontheinternet

2011-12-30 10:46:19 AM

The expansion of executive power is the thing that scares me the most about Newt. Based on some of his statements, the Gingrich administration would make Nixon look like Coolidge.

That said, Obama has an expansive view of executive power, as well. Not as far as Gingrich, but Obama's reading of the War Powers Act is arguably broader than that of Bush/Cheney.

Only Mr. Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas, argued for a more limited view of presidential power.

RTFA to make sure this distinction was made.

MaudlinMutantMollusk

2011-12-30 10:46:26 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Arguments over big government vs. small government are pretty stupid.

I want good government. Then we can talk about how large it ought to be.

What's good is an even bigger argument

fredbox

2011-12-30 10:47:26 AM

GhostFish: They're also not fiscal conservatives. They want to spend the money on different things, but they still want to spend it.

And to pay for the increased spending by cutting taxes on the rich.

Snarfangel

2011-12-30 10:48:59 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Arguments over big government vs. small government are pretty stupid.

I want good government. Then we can talk about how large it ought to be.

There is actually a way to get a rough estimate of the correct size of government. Just set the aggregate spending by government equal to the aggregate rent based on land value (known as the Henry George Theorem).

This also gives a good indication on how to spend the money wisely -- if land value ultimately increases as a result of the program more than it costs to implement, it should be enacted. If not, the money should be redirected to areas that will have such an effect.

FuturePastNow

2011-12-30 10:49:16 AM

Ron Paul is against limited *Federal* government, but he wants the states you live in to have nearly unlimited power to interfere with your sex life and womens' reproductive rights.

Minus 1 Charisma

2011-12-30 10:49:51 AM

Did someone say "limited government"?

Bob16

2011-12-30 10:50:04 AM

Generation_D: Dems want big government and Repubs want big government. It just depends on what issues they want it on.

The difference being that the Dems haven't been running their big mouths about being the party of small government while the Repubs have.

FuturePastNow

2011-12-30 10:51:07 AM

FuturePastNow: Ron Paul is ~~against~~ for limited *Federal* government, but he wants the states you live in to have nearly unlimited power to interfere with your sex life and womens' reproductive rights.

/sometimes I dyslexic the wrong word

Diogenes

2011-12-30 10:51:34 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Arguments over big government vs. small government are pretty stupid.

I want good government. Then we can talk about how large it ought to be.

What's good is an even bigger argument

What would be good is if they were having the same argument. Eddie nailed it. Until we have mutually agreed upon terms as to exactly what government should be doing, there will be no progress. One side wants to regulate tangibles, the other side wants to regulate intagibles.

The same problem affect the abortion debate. They're using two different arguments, and never the twain shall meet until there is a mutually agreed upon definition of "life" (which will never happen). Until then you will have an existential moral argument and an argument for personal rights that do not correspond with each other.

I don't get the sense anyone wants to come to resolution. You get more from perpetuating the stalemate.

Mugato

2011-12-30 10:51:57 AM

MindStalker: Fun fact, there is a category in Netflix for "strong women staring roles". That movie is one of the first.

That's pretty funny. No wonder I can't find anything on that farking site unless I directly search for the the title and the "you might also like...." list is always shiat I hate.

qorkfiend

2011-12-30 10:53:50 AM

GhostFish: They're also not fiscal conservatives. They want to spend the money on different things, but they still want to spend it.

The Democrats at least make token gestures towards paying for their programs. The GOP, not so much.

Xaneidolon

2011-12-30 10:54:57 AM

Size and scope of government is irrelevant without the rule of law.

MindStalker

2011-12-30 10:55:30 AM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Arguments over big government vs. small government are pretty stupid.

I want good government. Then we can talk about how large it ought to be.

Exactly, efficient government is my desire.

//You know what amuses me the most, the shows about "how your tax dollars are being 'wasted'." That make a big deal about some $2 million dollar research program, yet ignoring the billion dollar expenses.

Its equivalent to me wasting time debating on a yearly expense of 50 cents when I'm spending my entire paycheck on security, then borrowing to pay my basic bills

GhostFish

2011-12-30 10:58:35 AM

FuturePastNow: Ron Paul is against limited *Federal* government, but he wants the states you live in to have nearly unlimited power to interfere with your sex life and womens' reproductive rights.

I'm not sure it's fair to say that's what he wants. What he wants is a government that operates under the laws set forth by the constitution, and in his interpretation that would currently give the states a lot more potential power over the lives of their residents. The constitution can of course be changed through legal means, and he'd be fine with that I think.

The problem is, he's kind of a ridiculous "lawful neutral" D&D character. Yes, he means well, but if the law says that the Baron gets to rape the Princess...well, that's the law. What can you do?

Cletus C.

2011-12-30 10:59:11 AM

The NYT's questions and answers about executive powers painted all the candidates into a corner that nobody, Democrat or Republican could emerge from paint-free.

Should the president be able to order the execution of a U.S. citizen who has not yet been convicted of anything?

What if that person belongs to a terrorist group that targets the U.S.?

What if the president believes that person and his terrorist group are about to cause great harm to the people of the good ol' U.S.A?

What if that person is standing on one leg holding a detonation button that would wipe out an orphanage?

theorellior

2011-12-30 11:00:10 AM

Minus 1 Charisma: Did someone say "limited government"?

You're right, black people don't need *any* government.

Mr. Coffee Nerves

2011-12-30 11:02:10 AM

It's all about context:

Telling a company they need to be as safe as possible to not Bhopal San Diego = job-crushing regulations that force our Small Businessheroes to decide to go broke

Demanding a judge order a Commonwealth to change the ballot because I didn't feel like doing the legwork = Thomas Jefferson's corpse with a chubby

imontheinternet

2011-12-30 11:02:56 AM

Xaneidolon: Size and scope of government is irrelevant without the rule of law.

Exactly.

The rule of law is what has been lost in Washington. The first step is to apply the criminal statutes on bribery to politicians and regulators as stringently as they would apply to police officers. If you take a bribe to betray the public trust, you are a criminal, and you belong in prison.

MFL

2011-12-30 11:05:43 AM

Actually for the most part the GOP in congress isn't doing too bad. The shiatstorm we are seeing are the democrats flipping out like a vampire in church because anyone would dare attempt to cut their precious. lifeblood.

The only hope the progressives have is poison the well so bad that their pathetic president doesn't look so bad in comparison. The fate of the country be damned.

Mugato

2011-12-30 11:08:51 AM

MFL: Actually for the most part the GOP in congress isn't doing too bad. The shiatstorm we are seeing are the democrats flipping out like a vampire in church because anyone would dare attempt to cut their precious. lifeblood.

The only hope the progressives have is poison the well so bad that their pathetic president doesn't look so bad in comparison. The fate of the country be damned.

Yeah, all of what he said. Except the polar opposite.

3 G's

2011-12-30 11:12:41 AM

imontheinternet: The expansion of executive power is the thing that scares me the most about Newt. Based on some of his statements, the Gingrich administration would make Nixon look like Coolidge.

That said, Obama has an expansive view of executive power, as well. Not as far as Gingrich, but Obama's reading of the War Powers Act is arguably broader than that of Bush/Cheney.

Only Mr. Paul, the libertarian-leaning congressman from Texas, argued for a more limited view of presidential power.

RTFA to make sure this distinction was made.

From what I've seen that would be a VERY "arguable" point.

While President Obama's view of Executive Power in general, and with regards to the War Powers Act more specifically, is certainly much more broad than my own, I don't think it's *quite* as broad as was the Bush/Cheney Administration's view. Perhaps it is in theory, but I don't think it has been nearly so broad in terms of actual actions.

Giltric

2011-12-30 11:17:35 AM

Its equivalent to me wasting time debating on a yearly expense of 50 cents when I'm spending my entire paycheck on security, then borrowing to pay my basic bills

In all the charts I've seen the security part of the budget is just as big as the entitlment or safety net part of the budget.

50% of our population is on the dole....when is that "1.6 times the initial investment" gonna kick in and throw our economy into Xanadu levels of honeydew and milk of paradise like the entitlement experts claimed.

its funny that Obama is way to the right of the horrors of the Bush use of executive power ...but slightly to the left of the current GOP candidates view of how much executive power they should have.

Pincy

2011-12-30 11:24:57 AM

Minus 1 Charisma: [t2.gstatic.com image 186x271]

Did someone say "limited government"?

Except for abortion. The government has every right to tell a woman what she can do with her body when it comes to abortion.

Gulper Eel

2011-12-30 11:26:55 AM

Dr Dreidel: I also want a government big enough to handle 310,000,000 people. Well, that's how many people we have NOW. I want a government that can handle 350,000,000 people, and leave room for growth.

Splendid. I can't wait to be handled. Will they be doing it TSA-style?

imontheinternet

2011-12-30 11:29:41 AM

3 G's: From what I've seen that would be a VERY "arguable" point.

While President Obama's view of Executive Power in general, and with regards to the War Powers Act more specifically, is certainly much more broad than my own, I don't think it's *quite* as broad as was the Bush/Cheney Administration's view. Perhaps it is in theory, but I don't think it has been nearly so broad in terms of actual actions.

I was referring to Libya. Bush/Cheney sought and obtained congressional approval for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, though not going so far as a declaration of war. Obama obtained international approval from the UN for operations in Libya, without ever taking the issue to Congress. The War Powers Act specifically states that congressional authorization must be obtained within 90 days of the beginning of hostilities.

That's a significant expansion of executive power, effectively making an end run around Congress.

KarmicDisaster

2011-12-30 11:30:38 AM

It if is anything like what the GOP has done in Wisconsin, what they really wanted after all is Big Big government that intrudes into your private life, all at taxpayer expense. Nothing but more rules and regulations and tax breaks for the uber rich billionaires and raises for themselves and breaks for their donors. That's what they wanted.

Giltric

2011-12-30 11:31:53 AM

Pincy: Minus 1 Charisma: [t2.gstatic.com image 186x271]

Did someone say "limited government"?

Except for abortion. The government has every right to tell a woman what she can do with her body when it comes to abortion.

The big thing recently on NPR was elective C-sections...cause the woman wants a designer birthday or just can't deal with being pregnant anymore.

One of the women in favor of elective c-sections claimed it was her body to do what she wanted and that its a very emotional thing to go through......except she failed to mention that emotion is the worst possible reason to do something....and that a baby delivered at week 39 has 10 times the risk of something being wrong compared to a baby delivered at 40 weeks.

imontheinternet

2011-12-30 11:34:09 AM

Giltric: IIn all the charts I've seen the security part of the budget is just as big as the entitlment or safety net part of the budget.

You are correct.

Federal Spending By Category (new window)

Dr Dreidel

2011-12-30 11:36:15 AM

Gulper Eel: Dr Dreidel: I also want a government big enough to handle 310,000,000 people. Well, that's how many people we have NOW. I want a government that can handle 350,000,000 people, and leave room for growth.

Splendid. I can't wait to be handled. Will they be doing it TSA-style?

The TSA will, I imagine.

Would you have minded if I said "I want a government big enough to perform necessary functions of government on the scale necessary to serve 350,000,000 people"? I used a shorter word, figuring context was enough that you could infer my meaning.

// were you one of the people opposed to PPACA because "the Post Office/DMV sucks"?

Deftoons

2011-12-30 11:36:39 AM

Looks like The New York Times hired Captain Obvious for a political writer. What an astute conclusion to make after about 1000000000000 other people saw the same thing, for decades.

Poopspasm

2011-12-30 11:43:08 AM

Neither party wants to stop spending. It's just that democrats want to help those in need, who have fallen through the cracks of our society. Republicans want to spend it on bombs and sending people to prison for smoking plants. In other words, both sides are bad so vote republican.

Styro Foam

2011-12-30 11:51:33 AM

Nancy Pelosi seriously farked up when she and the Dems decided not to fight Bush over his dictatorial idea of executive power. By not challenging it, they legitimized it. It's the new norm. This is how we fall to fascism.

Giltric

2011-12-30 11:55:39 AM

Styro Foam: Nancy Pelosi seriously farked up when she and the Dems decided not to fight Bush over his dictatorial idea of executive power. By not challenging it, they legitimized it. It's the new norm. This is how we fall to fascism.

Its almost as if both sides want the same authoritarian/totalitarian thing.....Nancy and the dems didn't fight it cause they could later play innocent and claim it was all Bushs fault.

Its not like we have seen a decrease in executive power since a dem took the white house.

thornhill

2011-12-30 12:02:53 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Arguments over big government vs. small government are pretty stupid.

I want good government. Then we can talk about how large it ought to be.

Right. You have all of these GOPers saying that FEMA is bad, but when the shiat hits the fan, everyone wants the big bad federal government in their state handing out money.

Displayed 50 of 63 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh comments

This thread is closed to new comments.