How come liberals seem to understand how bad off our government really is...?

the "man" pays their heating bills now.......and their rent...and their food....and their cell phones...and their bus rides to the voting places to register them...and.......the list is endless.....

I agree with Rico and add that I'm not sure "selling out" is the right turn of phrase. After all, people will, for example, buy a product overseas because it is better or more cost-effective than they could get it over here. The overseas company gets the money, but we get the better product/price. So why is that bad?

But sorry, that's more economics than government. I don't really have a satisfactory answer, since politics are such a slippery subject and I'm no politician.

But I ask you, what is a bigger, more obtrusive government? Who says that is what it would become? Perhaps that is what we need to correct the poor state our government has fallen into. (And I won't point any fingers, but we all know who was responsible for that decline...)

This old liberal only hates "the man" that doesn't work in the best interest of all the people, like the last administration that allowed wall street to have its way with the American economy.

The size of government is not the issue, only to right wing conservatives. Government needs to be however big or small it needs to be to serve the people.

How come conservatives are so against "...a bigger, more obtrusive government..." except when it comes to defense? That we can give about all our rights and individual freedoms for the sake of "keeping us safe"? Like the Patriot Act, was it liberals or conservatives that gave us that?

a) So whilst 'different' enemy warring events make that declare, the government can reject it. elementary. you may not argue against one group of folk being attempted in civilian courts via claiming that a distinctive group of folk will, until you may certainly make some causal connection. you may not. b) No they won't. See? i will make unsupported assertions to boot. c) 'Non enemy warring events' have already got get right of entry to to the U. S. device. Why does not they? d) Rights to government programmes are actually not 'constitutional rights'. The rights that certainly are entrenched in the U. S. shape already stick to to non-electorate, and constantly have. once you're truly a criminal expert, how are you able to heavily make those ridiculous arguments? Take your 2d ingredient, as an occasion. you're able to desire to comprehend that in spite of what enemy warring events could declare, a regulation can purely be held to be unconstitutional via the preferrred courtroom. If the regulation is constitutional, the preferrred courtroom could probably locate it to be so, and the regulation could stand. the way you describe the yank criminal device, it extremely is as though every person can thoroughly exchange the regulations in basic terms via 'claiming' that they are in a position to. how are you able to write such nonsense? You supply no logical foundation for suggesting that any of those issues could take place, and distinctive of them are impossible or ridiculous besides.

I understand how the conservatives mucked up the system under GW Bush and are aiming to continue their damage.

I don't know. I just figure they're responding emotionally and lacking in logic.