i heard this from libertarian media, i do not have an answer for this.
2006-08-23 11:04:30 · 12 answers · asked by xiy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
The problem I see is that everyone believes that the blames lay on one group's shoulders.
Republicans. Liberals. Democrats. Conservatives.
There is no government anymore. The whole concept of government, large or small, is irrelevant when actions are decided FOR those who contribute the most money.
They're all culprits. Even if they've not taken the money many have, standing idly by while our country is sold to the highest bidder is equally criminal.
Vote third party and make the lobbyists pay even more to steal your tax dollars.
If this is such a great country.... where the HECK is my flying car?!?!
2006-08-23 11:15:24 · answer #1 · answered by Quinton1969 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The federal government and bureaucracy have been greatly expanded under GW Bush.
Bruce Bartlett wrote a book, published early this year that deals with this exact topic:
Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. Here's the amazon.com review
Also, see Fact Sheet on the New True Size of Government
2006-08-23 11:08:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They would have you believe they do, but the apparent reality is a resounding NO.
It's all word games, but they're porkers just as bad as the democrats. You hear garbage like "we have reduced the rate of increase" and "we've trimmed all the fat off this budget" and the reality is that the status quo hasn't changed.
If the republicans lose control of either or both houses of congress and or the presidency, the lack of fiscal responsibility may well have been the tipping point.
2006-08-23 11:14:37 · answer #3 · answered by OzobTheMerciless 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
RyGuy, The Patriot Act became into and is a lots mandatory evil, that act paved the way for the native land protection organization, it had to be completed through terrorist assaults and the "No baby Left in the back of" isn't a clean government software, examine it out: Act of Congress: No baby Left in the back of (2001) top homestead > Library > history, Politics & Society > Acts of CongressNo baby Left in the back of (NCLB) (P.L. 107-one hundred ten, one hundred fifteen Stat. 1425) is a significant revision of the 1965 basic and Secondary practise Act (ESEA). the biggest factors of the recent version of this law, surpassed with significant bipartisan help, are 2 aims linked with accountability and the remaining of the fulfillment hollow between scholars of distinctive socioeconomic backgrounds. Critics of the unique 1965 law argued that the regulation provided federal investment to colleges yet did no longer mandate accountability for tutorial outcomes; NCLB does the two. in assessment, critics of the present law, alongside with the national tutorial association, have claimed that sufficient investment isn't provided to fulfill the extra stringent accountability standards lined in NCLB.
2016-12-17 16:04:53 · answer #4 · answered by joyan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In useless giberish, yes. They say they stand for smaller governement. In practice no. In fact, as we were coming out of the recession, the bulk of new jobs were Government jobs, not private sector jobs. Thanks W! Chimp.
Hmmm if I remember correctly, the last pres to shrink gov a bit was ... hmmm, let's see... Clinton! hee hee. Let's see, oh he also shrunk the welfare rolls... booyah!
Even Reagan expanded government.
2006-08-23 11:09:37 · answer #5 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes they do. Ever since they gossip about President Bush, things went bad and everyone started hating him.
A big reason was because sending people off to war. It is THERE choice to go to war and they know they have a risk of dying.
2006-08-23 11:10:44 · answer #6 · answered by Maria 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea of less Government means less socialist programs, less handouts to those to damn lazy to work, the whole reason we have jobs for illegals. If I were running this country no more welfare, want your check let's put an illegal out of work and put the fat lazy welfare addict on the payroll, he gets the same that the illegal gets then as long as he has done equal work as the illegal he replaces it is subsidized by a government check that is real, work for your money!!! What a consept.
2006-08-23 11:16:57 · answer #7 · answered by Jbellomo 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Republican Electorate buys into smaller government, but those it elects act like drunken liberals when it comes to spending...very sad.
2006-08-23 11:05:47 · answer #8 · answered by netjr 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They used to.
2006-08-23 11:06:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The deficit expands so I guess that means more per person in the government! Don't see how that helps though.
2006-08-23 11:10:46 · answer #10 · answered by Wounded duckmate 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋