Approval ratings drop for Obama, Strickland | The Columbus Disp...

Oregon Is Disgusting wrote:

<quoted text>
Bigger than what?
Exactly how big should government be in terms of % of GDP, in terms of actual dollars, in terms of employees. How big?
Oh, that is right, you have no answers but you do continue whining like a little kid.

How would you know? You are in Canada. Vote here then you can have a say.

Pitypat wrote:

<quoted text>
How would you know? You are in Canada. Vote here then you can have a say.

i live and vote here in the U.S. what this country needs more than anything else is a realization that this country was founded on mutual respectful debate.not the jerry springer style of screaming that passes for debate today.

JDH29 wrote:

<quoted text>
You can't answer a question with another question moron. Obviously you have less than a GED with this response. It's a simple question... WHY WOULD ANY AMERICAN (maybe I should say intelligent American) ever want a bigger government?!!! I'm not asking you to solve a calculus problem or anything... Maybe you should change your name to liberal and dumb like all other liberals.

No reply to you. When you can approach this with proper respect, then you will get my answer. You think you can come in here and try to browbeat someone, it's not going to work with me. Go pound sand.

liberal AND proud wrote:

<quoted text>
No reply to you. When you can approach this with proper respect, then you will get my answer. You think you can come in here and try to browbeat someone, it's not going to work with me. Go pound sand.

LOL- gee, a liberal dodging a question he doesn't know how to answer. Way to represent! ;) Simple question...why would you want to increase the size of our Gov't?! I'm asking nicely...with sprinkles and chocolate syrup and gummy bears on top with a nice little rainbow in the background.(Is that nice enough for you?)

jimmy agler wrote:

<quoted text>i live and vote here in the U.S. what this country needs more than anything else is a realization that this country was founded on mutual respectful debate.not the jerry springer style of screaming that passes for debate today.

Then someone needs to tell the Democrats because that is just what they do. You don't agree with them - they shout you down. How many times in colleges have conservative speakers been shouted down by liberals?

liberal AND proud wrote:

<quoted text>
No reply to you. When you can approach this with proper respect, then you will get my answer. You think you can come in here and try to browbeat someone, it's not going to work with me. Go pound sand.

The term is go pound salt.

Pitypat wrote:

<quoted text>
The term is go pound salt.

Maybe where you're at. Where I'm from it's "go pound sand". You should get out more. There are regional variations in expression.

Grew up in Ohio. It is pound salt. Trust me. And while we are at it, you can go pound salt. I am well traveled in the US.

JDH29 wrote:

<quoted text>
LOL- gee, a liberal dodging a question he doesn't know how to answer. Way to represent! ;) Simple question...why would you want to increase the size of our Gov't?! I'm asking nicely...with sprinkles and chocolate syrup and gummy bears on top with a nice little rainbow in the background.(Is that nice enough for you?)

I know how to answer it. I don't get into arguments with uncivilized people. But since you made a (lame) attempt to be nice, here you are:

It is sometimes necessary, and desireable, to increase the size of government. Going back in the historical record, let's take the creation of the Interior Department as an example. After the Mexican War, the United States acquired a vast amount of unpopulated territory. In order to administer it effectively, in other words to attempt to impose some civil order on the small populations existing, and because there was no STATE government, the U.S. created the Interior Department in 1849. Later, the American people, acting through Congress, decided to form the first national park in the world. After several of these were created, it was necessary to have a new department to administer them as a whole, and not individually. Thus the National Park Service was created.

The Civil War was an expensive campaign, both in human lives and money. To finance it, the U.S. started using paper money for the first time since the Revolution. To combat counterfeiters, and thus keep the money supply safe, and retain the confidence of the people using it, the Secret Service was added to the government.

The Central Intelligence Agency was created with the goal of having a professional organization which would keep America apprised of the intentions of enemies, actual and future. Whether it has been that effective at times is certainly open to debate.

The Department of Transportation was partly created to standardize road design, especially the interstate system, so that when you cross from state to state, you don't have to deal with a hodge-podge of different road standards and safety issues.

The Department of Energy was created to have a coherent national strategy on supplying our energy needs. Again, questionable effectiveness from time to time. This one, along with the Education Department, have been targets of conservative Republicans since they were formed, but it is interesting that when they have Congressional as well as White House power, they have not abolished them. Reasons? I can't guess, since I don't know how the conservative mind works.

Now we are getting a Financial Consumer Product Safety Commission to approve (or not) some of these new financial schemes, many of which led us into the current banking crisis because they were unregulated.

So that's my take on your question. These are just a very few of the various expansions in the federal government that I think have been necessary, and for the most part worthwhile. If you are a "government be damned" type, then I am quite sure you will find my answer lacking. In that case we just have deep philosophical differences.

Pitypat wrote:

Grew up in Ohio. It is pound salt. Trust me. And while we are at it, you can go pound salt. I am well traveled in the US.

So am I. I have never heard salt used. All the people I converse with, when they use it, say sand. Rat cheer in good ol' Klumbus Ahia. Whatever, it's not that important. I will take notice of your usage.

Pitypat wrote:

Grew up in Ohio. It is pound salt. Trust me. And while we are at it, you can go pound salt. I am well traveled in the US.

Dude, google both sand and salt. You'll see they are both out there. So each of us is right. Or wrong. You're welcome.

liberal AND proud wrote:

<quoted text>
I know how to answer it. I don't get into arguments with uncivilized people. But since you made a (lame) attempt to be nice, here you are:
.

Thank you for that history lesson America. I guess I should have rephrased my question..(I still understand why you don't understand it...Why would anyone want to make this Gov't bigger...) Here is the 4th grade question for you, Liberal: DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWN GENERAL MOTORS- ONE OF THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN AMERICA? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWNING BANKS? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR HEALTH CARE? DO YOU THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO SPEND 787 BILLION (BILLION!) DOLLARS TO ONLY CREATE 675,000 JOBS?! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OBAMA IS A BIG TIME SUPPORTER OF UNIONS (THE VERY REASON WHY GM WENT DOWN TO BEGIN WITH) AND WANTS TO HAVE ALL OF CORP. AMERICA UNDER UNIONS?!
Now, it is very clear he is trying to turn this country into a Socialist Country.(I'm not trying to scare you, b/c you seem to be very intelligent and well knowledge) but take a look at how a country BECOMES a socialist country and you will find a lot of similarities to what we are doing right now. The majority of the nation is against this health care reform and yet...he still goes through with it. Is this what you call a democracy? He has done some things that I agree with and like- but for the most part...he's going to ruin this country. SO! If you still say 'yes, I want a bigger government to all the things that have happened and are yet to happen' I guess my last question is...Who will bail the government out when they fail?(Not Asia/Not Japan/Not the rest of N. America and definitely not Europe.)

liberal AND proud wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude, google both sand and salt. You'll see they are both out there. So each of us is right. Or wrong. You're welcome.

I am not a dude.

Pitypat wrote:

<quoted text>
I am not a dude.

I use "dude" in a gender non-specific way. Just as I use the word "guy". If you'd rather be addressed as Ms., Miss, Mrs. Mr., hey you, doofus, sh-- for brains, etc., you'll have to let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

JDH29 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for that history lesson America. I guess I should have rephrased my question..(I still understand why you don't understand it...Why would anyone want to make this Gov't bigger...) Here is the 4th grade question for you, Liberal: DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWN GENERAL MOTORS- ONE OF THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN AMERICA? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWNING BANKS? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR HEALTH CARE? DO YOU THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO SPEND 787 BILLION (BILLION!) DOLLARS TO ONLY CREATE 675,000 JOBS?! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OBAMA IS A BIG TIME SUPPORTER OF UNIONS (THE VERY REASON WHY GM WENT DOWN TO BEGIN WITH) AND WANTS TO HAVE ALL OF CORP. AMERICA UNDER UNIONS?!
Now, it is very clear he is trying to turn this country into a Socialist Country.(I'm not trying to scare you, b/c you seem to be very intelligent and well knowledge) but take a look at how a country BECOMES a socialist country and you will find a lot of similarities to what we are doing right now. The majority of the nation is against this health care reform and yet...he still goes through with it. Is this what you call a democracy? He has done some things that I agree with and like- but for the most part...he's going to ruin this country. SO! If you still say 'yes, I want a bigger government to all the things that have happened and are yet to happen' I guess my last question is...Who will bail the government out when they fail?(Not Asia/Not Japan/Not the rest of N. America and definitely not Europe.)

yep. deadbeat nation. life is TOO HARD in america..boo hoo. iwant to be free to ruin my life and the lives of EVERYONE around me boo hoooo

liberal AND proud wrote:

<quoted text>
I use "dude" in a gender non-specific way. Just as I use the word "guy". If you'd rather be addressed as Ms., Miss, Mrs. Mr., hey you, doofus, sh-- for brains, etc., you'll have to let me know and I'll be happy to oblige.

Another rude liberal.

JDH29 wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you for that history lesson America. I guess I should have rephrased my question..(I still understand why you don't understand it...Why would anyone want to make this Gov't bigger...) Here is the 4th grade question for you, Liberal: DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWN GENERAL MOTORS- ONE OF THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN AMERICA? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWNING BANKS? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR HEALTH CARE? DO YOU THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO SPEND 787 BILLION (BILLION!) DOLLARS TO ONLY CREATE 675,000 JOBS?! DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT OBAMA IS A BIG TIME SUPPORTER OF UNIONS (THE VERY REASON WHY GM WENT DOWN TO BEGIN WITH) AND WANTS TO HAVE ALL OF CORP. AMERICA UNDER UNIONS?!
Now, it is very clear he is trying to turn this country into a Socialist Country.(I'm not trying to scare you, b/c you seem to be very intelligent and well knowledge) but take a look at how a country BECOMES a socialist country and you will find a lot of similarities to what we are doing right now. The majority of the nation is against this health care reform and yet...he still goes through with it. Is this what you call a democracy? He has done some things that I agree with and like- but for the most part...he's going to ruin this country. SO! If you still say 'yes, I want a bigger government to all the things that have happened and are yet to happen' I guess my last question is...Who will bail the government out when they fail?(Not Asia/Not Japan/Not the rest of N. America and definitely not Europe.)

See this is why I responded to your first question with my own question, because the context wasn't clear to me. I've looked at your previous posts, and the question has four variations: " want a bigger gov't", "ever want (etc)", "increase the size", "make this gov't bigger". Only with this reply do you actually spell out what you want, that's what I was trying to get you to do. Instead, there's the name calling, the typing in all CAPS, seriously, take some deep breaths, it's not that bad. So I think you want me to defend Obama's actions. Which I'm not going to do. It's his government, after all, not mine. If you want me to say how I'd fix things, I would, but until that's what you ask, I'm not. My previous answer was more to "why would any American ever want a bigger government", which to me involves some history. Now let's see what you are asking me here....Do I think it's a good idea for the gov't to own GM? In general, no. But what would have happened if they hadn't stepped in? You do know that GM in the past has done a lot of work for the Defense Dept? Would we have that capability if we let them go under? If not, that could impact our national security. I'm not privy to all that, but Obama has said that he doesn't want to sell cars and I take him at his word. Should the gov't own banks? Just long enough to kick all the executives up the backside and threaten them with more regulation and oversight unless they get their act cleaned up. After that? No. But I will point out that the government is closing banks which are ready to, and arranging sales to other banks, so that people don't lose their money. The FDIC guarantees deposits up to a certain amount, THAT was an expansion of government, before that people were just out of luck. Sorry, more history. Do I think it's a good idea for gov't to take over our health care. I don't think that is what is happening. But for senior citizens, that's where they get their health care, from Medicare, a gov't agency/program. So they are already part-way in it. And it seems to be working ok. That's a pretty broad question, so it's hard to answer.

JDH29 wrote:

<quoted text>
DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWN GENERAL MOTORS- ONE OF THE BIGGEST CORPORATIONS IN AMERICA? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE THE GOVERNMENT OWNING BANKS? DO YOU THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO TAKE CONTROL OF OUR HEALTH CARE? DO YOU THINK IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO SPEND 787 BILLION (BILLION!) DOLLARS TO ONLY CREATE 675,000 JOBS?!

Regarding your first two questions, I'd say the government couldn't do much worse than the previous owners.

And as for your last question (I'll sit out the health care debate for now), I don't think the $787 billion was just for job creation, nor do I think the 675,000 is a valid (or final) number. Based on the lessons learned from the Depression something had to be done, and it had to be done sooner rather than later, a lesson Bush tried to follow with the TARP bailout. The stimulus package may not prove to be everything promised, but, as Hoover found out, sitting and doing nothing wasn't an option. You can compare what Obama is doing to what Roosevelt did, but remember that Roosevelt didn't get a crack at it until 3 years after the bottom fell out, and by then it was too late.

I understand your basic premise, and while you may have some valid arguments I don't think we're anywhere near becoming a socialist country, especially since I heard most of the same arguments at the beginning of the Clinton administration, and I have yet to be referred to as "comrade". Have faith in the system. If Obama pushes us too close to a socialist system, the voters will reverse course just like they did in 2000 & 2008.

Is it a good idea to spend $787 billion to create 675,000 jobs? I can't really answer this because a) less than half of the $787 billion has been spent, that was the amount that was authorized, b) some reports say less jobs than that were actually created, c) what would have happened if they hadn't spent any? We could be having a lot more unemployed. It's ok to criticize, but you have to have a CREDIBLE alternative, and so far the Republicans only know one word: NO! Obama a big time supporter of unions? Most Democrats are, where's the surprise there? Just as most Republicans support (and get big money from) large corps. That's just politics. If employers actually take care of their employees, they don't have to fear unions. But usually they get too greedy. Obama can try to unionize America (I don't think that his intentions, despite the card-check thing), but it won't happen. And no, most people want health care reform. We already have death panels--they are called insurance companies. And we are tired of our premiums going up. Don't just watch Fox, spread your intelligence gathering around. So did I answer your questions ok???

Something happened to my post, the first half didn't show up, this is it, this should be read before the other half.

See this is why I responded to your first question with my own question, because the context wasn't clear to me. I've looked at your previous posts, and the question has four variations: " want a bigger gov't", "ever want (etc)", "increase the size", "make this gov't bigger". Only with this reply do you actually spell out what you want, that's what I was trying to get you to do. Instead, there's the name calling, the typing in all CAPS, seriously, take some deep breaths, it's not that bad. So I think you want me to defend Obama's actions. Which I'm not going to do. It's his government, after all, not mine. If you want me to say how I'd fix things, I would, but until that's what you ask, I'm not. My previous answer was more to "why would any American ever want a bigger government", which to me involves some history. Now let's see what you are asking me here....Do I think it's a good idea for the gov't to own GM? In general, no. But what would have happened if they hadn't stepped in? You do know that GM in the past has done a lot of work for the Defense Dept? Would we have that capability if we let them go under? If not, that could impact our national security. I'm not privy to all that, but Obama has said that he doesn't want to sell cars and I take him at his word. Should the gov't own banks? Just long enough to kick all the executives up the backside and threaten them with more regulation and oversight unless they get their act cleaned up. After that? No. But I will point out that the government is closing banks which are ready to, and arranging sales to other banks, so that people don't lose their money. The FDIC guarantees deposits up to a certain amount, THAT was an expansion of government, before that people were just out of luck. Sorry, more history. Do I think it's a good idea for gov't to take over our health care. I don't think that is what is happening. But for senior citizens, that's where they get their health care, from Medicare, a gov't agency/program. So they are already part-way in it. And it seems to be working ok. That's a pretty broad question, so it's hard to answer.