Big Government

Decades of Big Government Result in Massive Doubts It Fixes Anything

So why is more big government on the menu for the election?

|

"They will, once they've got their pensions nice and spiked."
Credit: Brphoto | Dreamstime.com

The Obama Administration can insist that it's winning the war on terror and that the Affordable Care Act is working, but Americans don't agree. A new poll from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research shows the majority of Americans (six in ten) have little to no confidence that the federal government may actually fix problems. The skepticism cuts across party lines. A trio of quotes from the AP:

"They can't even seem to get together and pass anything that's of any importance," said Doris Wagner, an 81-year-old Republican from Alabama who said she's "not at all confident" about seeing solutions in 2016. "It's so self-serving what they do," said Wagner, who called herself a small-government conservative.

In Texas, Democrat Lee Cato comes from a different political perspective but reached a similar conclusion. She allowed for "slight" confidence, but no more. The 71-year-old bemoaned a system of "lobbyists paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to get Congress to do what they want" for favored industry. "They aren't doing anything for you and me," she said.

Joe Flood, a GOP-leaning independent, said he sees government's inner-workings in his job as a federal contractor. A 49-year-old resident of the District of Columbia, Flood described the executive branch as a bureaucratic behemoth and the legislative branch as an endlessly partisan wrangle. "That's why government can't get anything done," he said.

People say this all the time. Heck, even President Barack Obama himself complained about bureaucratic red tape in his final State of the Union address, even though his administration has introduced tens of thousands of new regulations that contribute to the bureaucratic nightmare Flood is complaining about.

Though it may seem somewhat contradictory, the poll answers could help explain the popularity of strongman candidates with populist appeal like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. While it's been common for candidates to try to present themselves as political outsiders no matter how much they've fed at the public trough, nobody has managed to ride that populist wave in recent elections like Trump and Sanders (even though neither of them are actual outsiders, either).

They're not promising to "reform" the system. They're promising to either bypass it entirely (Trump) or break it entirely and rebuild it (Sanders). They're promising to make big government work for their constituency.

For libertarians and small-government conservatives, this all seems nonsensical. It's the increasing size and scope of federal government power that causes both the heavy lobbying and the bureaucratic nightmares. The more the government can control what big business may and may not do, the more money those corporations are going to spend—indeed they more money they need to spend—to influence those policies in their favor. The federal bureaucracy defends itself above all things, as does any bureaucracy. It will always make sure there is more work to do and a that there is a need for an incrasing number of employees.

It helps explain why presidential candidates are so reluctant this election cycle to even suggest that there are things that they may not have the authority to do as president.

While it appears very much to be a call for bigger, stronger, more authoritarian government, there's a bit of a paradox here in the subtext. All three of the people quoted above seem to understand that the big government that exists is not working in their interests. The challenge is getting them to understand that this is the nature of big government and inherent in federal bureaucracy, and not because of a particularly special political dynamic that is in play just at this moment.

Read more about the poll here.

NEXT: Pity National Review & Conservatives, For Donald Trump Has "Stolen" Their Issues

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So why is more big government on the menu for the election?

    Because when all you have is a hammer…

    1. Because government is necessary to fix my pet peeves. It’s a bloated waste trying to fix yours.

    2. Why is more big government on the menu?

      Because of people like Doris, the 81-year-old small-government conservative. Apparently she sees no conflict in her described political beliefs and her complaint that the federal government can’t seem to get it together and pass anything of any importance.

      1. Also, maybe we’ve already plucked all the low-hanging “matters of importance?”

        I think Europe “works better” because they already are at maximum state/taxes, so they are forced to work on actual governing, administration, etc.

        Whereas we are still in “pass another law” and “smear on another layer of government” to solve problems.

        1. I think Europe “works better”

          Assumes facts not in evidence.

  2. Back when I used to think the obvious answer is devolution, this news would have been heartening. It’s the right answer, but not, apparently, the obvious one. The obvious answer is the oblivious one, wherein we elect Caesar not to rein in but to set the federal government galloping.

    We’re flirting with open fascism. Some libertarian moment.

    1. We’re flirting with open fascism.

      “If I told you that you have a beautiful secret police, would you hold it against me?”

  3. The Obama Administration can insist that it’s winning the war on terror and that the Affordable Care Act is working, but Americans don’t agree.

    If *only* the administration would explain it better to The People. If *only* we had something that could do that with, um, *authority*. A “Ministry of Truth”, as it were.

    1. #BernItToTheGround

    2. Everybody always forgets about Nyarlathotep. At least he cares about us.

  4. While it appears very much to be a call for bigger, stronger, more authoritarian government, there’s a bit of a paradox here in the subtext. All three of the people quoted above seem to understand that the big government that exists is not working in their interests. The challenge is getting them to understand that this is the nature of big government and inherent in federal bureaucracy, and not because of a particularly special political dynamic that is in play just at this moment.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah. With the right people in charge they can whip those bureaucracies into shape. With enough power the government can control the corporations that control it and bring power back to the people. Whatever. Besides that, most people who claim to support smaller government go silent when you start talking specifics. They want to cut government, just not that. Or that. Or that. Or that. Don’t cut that either. Nope, we need that. That is important too…

    1. Except for Rand Paul, has any of his “smaller government” opponents said word one about what agency budgets would be cut or abolished? I asked my GOP congressman what he did this term along these lines and it was
      “crickets.”

      1. Rick Perry tried, but couldn’t do it. Turned him into a laughing stock.

        Seriously though, it is political suicide to get specific about cutting government. Everything government does represents someone getting money. Be it contractors, government employees, or people getting entitlements, any and all cuts in government mean someone not getting a check. And people like their checks. So any politician who gets specific about what they are going to cut from government immediately creates enemies out of the people who will cease to get paid. That’s not an effective strategy for winning an election.

        1. Too bad that “getting specific” doesn’t result in as many friends gained as lost. That’s why we libertarians can never have nice things.

          1. Those grannies aren’t gonna push themselves off the cliff.

      2. I think Ted Cruz is for abolishing the IRS, which doesn’t make any fucking sense but hey, at least he named an agency.

        1. Cruz has already proposed […] a plan abolishing four federal departments, plus the Internal Revenue Service, and 25 more named federal agencies. Those include the Departments of Energy, Commerce, Education (sent back to states in block grants), and HUD.

  5. As for ACA, I work in health care and see it every day. The vast majority of beneficiaries are on expanded Medicaid, which is pretty comprehensive health care for 0 premium [paid of course by taxes]; the next segment are those with a “market” plan that is highly subsidized; saw a patient the other day whose insurance may suck [high deductibles and co-pays, limited providers] but for which she was paying $60 a month. I have yet to meet anyone, ANY ONE, who actually pays full price for such a plan be it bronze, silver, gold, platinum, whatever; such coverage for a family of four costs around $900 a month, if you have to pay for it. For those who do not qualify for subsidies they take their chances, go without, and pay the penalty; though that is getting worse.

    Another thing to consider: the “Cadillac” tax for those of us with decent [not outrageous by any stretch of the imagination] coverage is coming, so in addition to taxation we will be picking up that part of the tab as well. Obama will be well out of office by then, and of course it will be someone else’s fault. The concept on which ACA was premised, that younger, healthier, and financially able persons would pay full price and cover the costs of those who are less able, older, and sicker is not coming to fruition, unless it is by force.

    I agree the everyone needs to have access to affordable insurance, but this is not cutting it. We will ALL by paying for it, significantly, if not already.

    1. Everyone only needs access to affordable insurance because the government has made it mandatory.

    2. I agree the everyone needs to have access to affordable insurance

      I dont. Some people are too expensive for affordable insurance.

      1. One of my coworkers has a son with Downs and a host of other problem. Kid is in surgery a couple times a year for hernias and other issues. I understand that the guy loves his kid, but shit. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical care every year, and it isn’t going to change as he gets older. At what point do you simply say “No more”?

        1. If we weren’t shelling out a couple billion to provide health insurance for some of the wealthiest folks in the nation we could probably afford to have Medicaid cover the expenses for people who are truly uninsurable at any price.

          1. If we weren’t shelling out a couple billion to provide health insurance for some of the wealthiest folks in the nation we could probably afford to have Medicaid cover the expenses for people who are truly uninsurable at any price.

            “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

            ? Thomas Sowell

            I see you have mastered the first lesson of politics. Maybe you should disregard it and move along to economics.

          2. “…we could probably afford to have Medicaid cover the expenses for people who are truly uninsurable at any price.”

            Yeah, fuck that, commie.

            1. He may be referring to government workers guys. Congressmen, judges, bureaucrats at all levels have their insurance paid for by us.

          3. Are you suggesting that “some of the wealthiest folks in the nation” are using Medicaid that should go instead to poor people? I just can’t imagine wealthy people putting up with Medicaid. But, if you have a citation that confirms your claim, then I’ll accept it.

            1. You have to enroll in Medicare to accept SS, I believe.

              My father’s business partner is wealthy by any reasonable definition of the term, but he’s on Medicare so he can recoup his buy-in of the Ponzi before it expires.

              1. *to be eligible to collect Soc Sec. Don’t know where “accept” came from.

              2. You have to enroll in Medicare to accept SS, I believe.

                Not really. I’m retired and collect SS. They pushed me to enroll in medicare but I refused it. I’m currently on my wife’s insurance partly because my family doctor doesn’t accept medicare or medicaid.

                1. Looks like all recipients are auto-enrolled in Parts A and B. I’m willing to bet that most don’t bother opting out, though I have no data on that front.

                  https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10035.pdf

                  If you already are getting Social Security benefits when you turn 65, your Medicare hospital insurance (Part A) starts automatically. If you live in one of the 50 states, Washington, D.C., the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands, you’ll be enrolled
                  in medical insurance (Part B) automatically. Residents of Puerto Rico or foreign countries won’t receive Part B automatically. They must elect this benefit.

                  Whether or not wealthy people are actually using it is a separate question, but I think it’s clear that they can if they want to. Regardless, seniors on the whole are a very wealthy demographic, as has been repeatedly documented on this site, and that may have been SFC B’s point.

            2. I don’t think most people under 65 realize how much of a subsidy seniors get from Medicare. My wife and I are in the top 2% by wealth and the top 5% by income, yet my wife gets over $4,000 annually in subsidy because she just got on Medicare. It’s the same good, comprehensive plan – from the same private provider – that she had before she turned 65. And when I turn 65 I’ll get the same deal. So that’s over $8,000 per year provided to two 2%’ers simply because we’re old. It’s stupid.

          4. Who’s this “we” you’re talking about? pretty sure most billionaires pay for their own health insurance, if they even bother

        2. Duh. When your coworker has spent every last quarter and declared bankruptcy. Obviously.

            1. …because I don’t believe that private charities are a suitable replacement for a system that provides medical care for everyone, including the poor.

              1. No, it’s because you believe it is ok to threaten peaceable people with deadly force.

                1. You mean like collecting taxes, right? Why do libertarians see using force to evict squatters from a billionaires unused summer home as legitimate and using force to collect taxes from billionaires as coercive? Is this part of their desire to make things better for the working class? As stated previously, good intentions don’t mean shit.

                  1. Why do libertarians see using force to evict squatters from a billionaires unused summer home as legitimate and using force to collect taxes from billionaires as coercive?

                    Do you still have R and L written on each of your shoes?

                  2. The question is not about enforcing the law. It is about the law. The law forces taxpayers to contribute to charities that they would rather not give to.

                    For example: would you give to a fund to bail out JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and several other over extended banks? Too bad. The federal government deemed that you would and if you refuse, the IRS goons will come and put a lien on any property that you own after taking whatever you have in the bank.

                  3. american socialist|1.25.16 @ 3:14PM|#
                    “Why do libertarians see using force to evict squatters from a billionaires unused summer home as legitimate and using force to collect taxes from billionaires as coercive?”

                    Property rights; how do they work?
                    Sit on it and spin, shitbag.

              2. american socialist|1.25.16 @ 2:31PM|#
                “…because I don’t believe that private charities are a suitable replacement for a system that provides medical care for everyone, including the poor.”

                Right, shitbag. Why ask for money when you can jam a gun in someone’s face and take all you want?
                What a fucking pathetic excuse for a human being…

        3. Charity hospitals and/or charity health insurance. Government shouldn’t be pay for anything, for anyone, anywhere, anytime. Every bloated government welfare program started with “This will be only for those who REALLY need it.”

      2. Your hatred of blacks, homosexuals, women, and children is staggeringly problematic. You oppose the utopian vision of the Dear Leader and his Anointed Agents of Succession with such candor, I suspect you’re a Klansman.

        /Facebook liberal.

    3. I have yet to meet anyone, ANY ONE, who actually pays full price for such a plan be it bronze, silver, gold, platinum

      Now you have. You’re welcome.

    4. I agree the everyone needs to have access to affordable insurance

      Let’s be clear about what insurance is: it’s a pool of payees spreading out costs of paying out for expected, but rare occurrences that require payment. So just as you have collision coverage for your car, you can have catastrophic health insurance, that covers serious illnesses and operations.

      What you are talking about are pre-paid heath care plans, where everything is paid for. It’s unsustainable without gaming the system, which is what every player in the system does, at the expense of another player.

      If you want cheap health insurance, then create a market-based system of high deductible catastrophic insurance with generous limit, tax-free HSA accounts for everyday medical expenses.

      1. That’s too sensible and simple. How can they manipulate people with such a simple system?

    5. If you don’t get subsidies, you buy off-exchange. You still are funding the ACA that way, IIRC.

      I know a guy from high school who’s paying $60 a month. He goes out clubbing, eats out, on road trips, flies for vacations, etc.

      I’m confused because he should be dirt poor if he’s only paying $60/month, but he still can live a great lifestyle.

    6. Where in health care do you work that you haven’t seen ANYONE that pays full price for a qualifying plan? EVERYONE that has health insurance and isn’t in a grandfathered plan and who doesn’t qualify for a subsidy is paying full price.

  6. It’s because people have been so steeped in the idea that there must be exactly one government. It seems pretty obvious why people think *some* government is necessary, otherwise you have chaos (so they think, but I am not convinced). But whereas people can imagine the Mad Max chaos of no government, the concept of multiple governments is beyond comprehension, as is the related idea of a very minimal government, where things like K-12 schools, regulatory agencies like the FDA, roadzzzz, dams, etc, are all left to private means. Throw in victim prosecution, no government police, prosecutors, or courts, and they think the loonies have expanded upon chaos.

    1. ‘as is the related idea of a very minimal government’
      For most of contemporary history, government has been quite small. Big government seem to be a 20th century problem, something like a tumor. It’s not going to get better anytime soon, unfortunately.

      1. Partly government was so small because an economy was so much home- or farm-based, small, and not amenable to oversight by bureaucracies. Regulation also benefits tremendously from economies of scale.

        One argument for the libertarian moment is 3D printing, Uber, and other decentralization moves, which are so hard for the regulators to come to grips with.

  7. Popular apathy provides authoritarians and parasites with a lush, fertile environment for the endless accumulation of power and wealth. There are no substantial consequences for the degenerate conduct of our politicians and bureaucrats, so why would they ever cease their misbehavior? There is every incentive for them to pillage, the ease of that activity being so appealing, and none for restraint.

    1. Popular support for authoritarians makes it even worse.

  8. President Barack Obama himself complained about bureaucratic red tape in his final State of the Union address, even though his administration has introduced tens of thousands of new regulations that contribute to the bureaucratic nightmare…

    It’s different when Chocolate Nixon does it.

  9. Time-travelers recently smuggled a copy of Hillary’s inaugural speech from 2017 to our present:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo4cFViNLes

  10. The government can’t get anything done? That sounds like a feature not a bug.
    What people generally mean is “they can’t get anything done that *I* want”.
    Still a feature.
    The last thing I want is an effective government. Sadly, the next-to-last is an overpaid bloated government that endlessly feeds cronies and former government officials.
    We are well and truly intercoursed.
    Trump vs. Sanders? The horror, the horror.

    As always, I can predict with 100% accuracy who will lose the election — you and me, folks, you and me.

  11. The 71-year-old bemoaned a system of “lobbyists paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to get Congress to do what they want” for favored industry. “They aren’t doing anything for you and me,” she said.

    Nearly 100% of people I know and read who complain of our system being “captured by lobbyists and interest” almost always favor more regulations, rules and government in general to remedy this problem.

    The percentage of people who have actually connected the dots between that increased regulation and the subsequent attraction of lobbying and special interest is vanishingly small.

    1. She’s pretty up-front about it anyway: she’s upset that the state isn’t doing things for her.

      1. She wants a small government that does things for her. Fuck those other people.

        1. Oh, wait, that’s the geriatric big-government idiot, not the geriatric small-government idiot.

    2. The percentage of people who have actually connected the dots between that increased regulation and the subsequent attraction of lobbying and special interest is vanishingly small.

      The percentage of people who recognize that good intentions do not guarantee intended results is depressingly tiny.

      1. I estimate about 22. Not 22 percent, but 22 people. Most of them post here.

        1. Everyone else is busy paving the Road to Hell.

          1. At least that has a steady paycheck!

        2. And half of those are sockpuppets.

      2. Libertarians don’t think that less government will result in better outcomes and, thus, have good intentions?

        1. *WHOOSH*

          That was the point going over your head.

          1. You mean I’ve misjudged the prissy self-righteousness of right-wingers that post here? Hmm, I don’t think so.

          2. isn’t the point that good intentions by themselves are not enough?

            1. isn’t the point that good intentions by themselves are not enough?

              Um, no. But thank you for playing.

        2. Well, insofar as when getting an oppressors boot off your neck, you might slip and fall while getting up, sure.

        3. Outcomes. There’s the rub. Keep trying, it’s enlightening

  12. You see the fundamental problem in the quoted poll responses. The reason most people think that big government doesn’t work is that it doesn’t sufficiently cater to them and screw their enemies. But the truth is, even if you had a government of angels, a government that tries to do that for 300 million people is going to do a marginal amount of catering and a metric fuckton of screwing.

    1. I was talking with my father on Saturday. I believe he said he read somewhere, not sure where, that because humans are basically genetically wired to screw each other over, the maximum group size that could exist with minimal conflict is about 300.

      1. He’s apparently never seen the move 300. Those dudes were all about conflict.

      2. I’ve heard that nugget somewhere before as well, though I recall that the number was a bit smaller (200-250). The Tipping Point, maybe?

  13. The [A] problem with democracy is that all of us are stupider than any of us.

  14. “explain the popularity of strongman candidates with populist appeal like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”

    Hahahahaha… Cite needed. The false equivalence is strong with this one. Scott, name me one example of where an elected democratic socialist government has turned into a totalitarian communist one.

    “Lobbyist paid thousands of dollars to get government to do what they want”

    What a sucker. This guy obviously hasn’t read Reason.com’s persuasive series on campaign finance. Dummy, politicians become more responsive to the interests of 71-year-old retirees when they’re getting millions of dollars from billionaires. Anyone whose read ATLAS SHRUGGED could tell you that.

    1. Venezuela

      1. No TP for Cornholio.

      2. Demonstrably wrong. Oil companies finally got their wish there.

        http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/…..elections/

        1. We’ll just conveniently ignore the shadow parliament being set up right now to deny power to the opposition…

        2. Yeah, LynchPin. You’re wrong, because Venezuela turned away from socialism, in a flourish of democracy.

          Duh.

        3. Well I’m happy to be proven wrong and that the slide to a totalitarian dystopia has at least been temporarily halted. But, I’m confused…do you think socialism has been a *good* thing for Venezuela????

          1. Of course not.

            That’s the great thing about democratic socialism: it gives people a chance to see how much of a basket case it creates, and to turn away.

            Clearly, AmSoc has a great point with that. It’s stunning, really.

    2. You may have heard this once or twice before, but you’re kind of a dummy.

      1. He’s never heard it… Not once in the innumerable times it’s been demonstrated.

    3. Sanders does not sound like a strongman? Check his Twitter feed.

    4. Sorry… I forgot the obvious answer of obama’s kkkommunist America. My bad.

      1. Is severe mental illness as extreme a burden as your behavior indicates?

    5. Scott, name me one example of where an elected democratic socialist government has turned into a totalitarian communist one.

      Twenty-five yard penalty, moving the goal posts violation. First down!

      1. Your mic’s on!

    6. “Totalitarianism is totes uncool. So it’s about time we let the state clamp down on unseemly political speech.”
      -Shorter AmSoc

    7. name me one example of where an elected democratic socialist government has turned into a totalitarian communist one

      See France as a work in progress right now

    8. I see No True Scotsman has showed up!

      Because, after all, if a democratic, socialist leader turns his govt totalitarian, than he really wasn’t a socialist, amiright?

      But you know, I can’t think of a single popularly elected leader, who who later turned the government into a totalitarian one. While giving speeches about how the govt knows better and that we have to protect our citizens from those “other guys” who are taking our jobs. And how the rich, fat cats are screwing over the common man.and how we all need to pull together for the common good. And how some speech is just so bad, it should be banned.

      Nope, not a single one……

      1. You mean like Ernst thalmann

        Is all libertarian theory dependent on making examples of false dependency. Btw, the facile false equivalency you employ here ignores the millions of communists who battled Adolf Hitler– so there’s that.

        1. Do all slavers rewrite history? You do remember WHY those commies fought hitler, right?

        2. It’s like you barely try anymore.

          You reach a point where you can’t say anything compelling or persuasive, but you feel the urge to say something, so….

          you throw up in your mouth, write it down, and call it a comment.

    9. Besides, what the fuck is with the fetish of “democratically elected”? Hamas was democratically elected in Gaza. Robert Mugabe was democratically elected in Zimbabwe. As is obvious from my post above, Mussolini was democratically elected. A certain Austrian corporal with distinctive facial hair and a flair for the dramatic was democratically elected.

      People have been electing leaders democratically since Athens did it 2500 years ago. Why do 50% of the people +1 have the right to tell me what to do, anymore than 1 person does. Besides, for every Washington, there is a Mussolini.

      The breakthrough our founders made was NOT democratically electing our government. Parliament was democratically elected in Great Britain. But the founders believed in LIMITED government.

      1. for every Washington, there is a Mussolini

        That’s absurdly optimistic.

        1. +1 Fascist dictator

    10. american socialist:

      “explain the popularity of strongman candidates with populist appeal like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders”

      Hahahahaha… Cite needed. The false equivalence is strong with this one. Scott, name me one example of where an elected democratic socialist government has turned into a totalitarian communist one.

      I’m sorry: I’m missing it. What’s the relevance of this comment and the one it cites?

      I love the communist qualifier: gotta carve out an exception for National Socialism, because, that just doesn’t count as bad socialism.

      Of course, that says nothing about Weimar Germany, but, who cares about details?

      How about North Korea? Sure, they’ve never had democracy, but they were installed by the Soviets. Do the Soviets get credit for being communist totalitarians? Or socialists?

      How about the Soviet Union itself? Do Leninists get credit for being socialists, or was there just not enough democracy in the Bolshevik revolution for it to count?

      1. Really, I need to make sure the special pleading exceptions and qualifiers are correctly in place here, so that socialism comes out looking A-OK, as intended.

  15. “They can’t even seem to get together and pass anything that’s of any importance”

    “They aren’t doing anything for you and me”

    “That’s why government can’t get anything done”

    But notice that the pervasive attitude is that government *should* be doing something but is being stymied by corruption or inefficiency. There doesn’t seem to be any fundamental suspicion of government, just frustration over who is in charge.

  16. This is extremely dry satire….please tell me that it’s satire:

    I couldn’t fulfill my sugar addiction ? so I turned to sex

    1. Actually, she sounds like someone with a systemic yeast infection. Not only does it cause you to crave sugars and simple carbs, it can cause emotional instability.

    2. I got pregnant when I was 24 ? it wasn’t a conscious decision not to put my diaphragm in correctly, but when you’re eating sugar like I was, you’re out of your mind and not thinking straight. I had an abortion, buckled down on my schoolwork and finally graduated from NYU at 26.

      How does this sort of scatterbrained freestyling get an article in a major newspaper?

      “The stars came out… and my mother made biscuits… life would never be the same!”

      1. Journalistic standards are so spectacularly low in relative terms, I’m frankly surprised YouTube comments aren’t yet being printed in major newspapers as sociopolitical commentary.

        1. Uh, hello, Twitter comments from unknown persons are now “news”, “sources” and used to gauge the zeitgeist on any given issue.

    3. Reefer Sugar Madness!

  17. I make $82h while I’m traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris?This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out,

    —————– http://www.richi8.com

  18. I make $82h while I’m traveling the world. Last week I worked by my laptop in Rome, Monti Carlo and finally Paris?This week I’m back in the USA. All I do are easy tasks from this one cool site. check it out,

    —————– http://www.richi8.com

  19. “The skepticism cuts across party lines.”

    This is the way it should be in a pluralistic democracy–and the bigger the government gets, the more we’ll see of that attitude.

    Yes, ranchers are pissed off at the BLM for caving to environmental concerns; meanwhile, the environmentalists are pissed off at the BLM for serving the interests of ranchers in regards to things like wild Bison, wild horses, etc. at the expense of environmental concerns.

    Pluralistic democracy is all about the government serving competing and diametrically opposed interests. A very wise man once said, “No one in the world ever gets what they want, and that is beautiful”. I sometimes get some of the stuff I want, but thank goodness it never comes from the government. Imagine how much worse the world would be if government force really were an effective means to solve our problems. The progressives would be twice as bad as they are!

    Anyway, the four in ten Americans who believe the government can solve our problems are made up of two groups: a) people who willfully want to throw the survey results and b) people with room temperature IQs.

    1. That a diverse, ideologically variant alliance exists against a given governmental abuse is also ultimately of detriment to the cause of liberty, because the solution such a multifaceted rainbow coalition proposes is never likely to involve actual deregulation, much less on the premise of sacred rights

  20. to regulate effectively the regulations need to be effectively regulated. its a brilliant plan to increase growth, federal growth that is.

  21. I think this election is very ordinary, in this way:

    Nobody is seriously arguing about shrinking government (very typical of most elections).

    They are only arguing about who the Top. Men. should be, who can direct government to benefit their friends, and hurt their enemies. Again, very typical.

    The only nuance in this election is that the establishment usually doesn’t have much trouble getting their Top. Men. on the ballot.

    1. But again we come to the libertarian paradox:
      The only way to reduce the power of Top Men, is to elect one of our own top men. But in so doing, our top man, becomes a Top Man. I think our republic has seen its greatest days. I don’t know if we will have a second Civil War. I think it more likely that we will continually sink into mediocrity until the modern equivalent of the Visigoths come and sack DC.

      “And the last Centurions left their shields in the heather and took a barbarian bride . . .”

      1. The Republic’s peak was the day before the Whiskey Rebellion.

    2. They didn’t have any trouble getting them on the ballot, they’re just having trouble getting people to listen to them.

  22. Haw can anybody claim they’re winning a war on an enemy they are afraid to name because it is politically incorrect and refuse to study the textbooks from which they gain all their inspiration and philosophy? What an asinine individual. There is no mystery whatsoever why Donald Trump is a speeding locomotive to the White House.

  23. But didn’t Nick Gillespie or someone say that if we make the government work better, people will want less of it?

    1. See Gillespie correctly realized that many people pissed at the government end up wanting more of it but he moronically thought that the reverse was true: that if government worked then people would want less of it

  24. “”They can’t even seem to get together and pass anything that’s of any importance,” said Doris Wagner, an 81-year-old Republican….who called herself a small-government conservative

    Does anyone have any aspirin?

    1. Just some cyanide, but I’m not sharing. Get your own.

    2. She may just be parroting what she heard on the news. That is the MSM narrative.

      She’s 81 and maybe trusts the media more than she should.

  25. I think Abbot of Texas has the right idea. Changing people rarely can affect such a complex system.

    So change the system.

    If Congress can’t outsource writing laws, Congress would actually gain power.

    If states can sue more, and can threaten federal laws, then states would gain power.

    It would also give incentives for progressives to stop the fixation on the federal government. Frankly, if progressives would just work to build socialism in the deep blue states and leave everyone else alone, it would be much better.

    (I assume they focus on national government that because its a way to force their solutions on rednecks, to not allow voting with your feet, and the magic federal printing press…)

  26. The consistent misconception I see in the quotes above is that people think it would be better if government “got things done!”

    You know who else made the trains run on time?

  27. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Workpost30.Com

  28. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ? http://www.Jobstribune.com

  29. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do..

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ??????? http://www.netjoin10.com

  30. I live in a Republican dominated county, but you would think it was democratic, from the taxes and the cronyism that goes on. A recent example is they now let us pay taxes online. Great. I buy stuff online all the time. I pay my bills online. I use credit cards or Paypal online. Nobody charges me extra to do this, in fact it is cheaper if anything. But not my county government. They have contracted with some digital payment service called Municipay and it costs $40 to pay online.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.