Americans Are Delusional

when the majority support Arizona
when the majority think John McCain would be preferable to Obama
The majority believes in death panels

Yes, Americans Are Delusional

Where's you tax return, bitch?

And you're an American, Petey. Show us your delusions, baby. Oh wait, you do that daily.

Cheers.

Correction: Jack Off is not American. He is delusional, though.

"when the majority support Arizona" - What's the matter Petey? Having trouble believing polls when they conflict with your mypoic world-view?

"when the majority think John McCain would be preferable to Obama" Which Majority is that, Petey. Last time I looked, Obama is President.
"The majority believes in death panels" Yeah, those stupid Democrats who rushed to take out the death panel provisions. What were they thinking?

So who is delusional again, Petey?

"when the majority think John McCain would be preferable to Obama"

I don't know about that Stan. John McCain would at best be Obama lite.

I just wish the hell the Republicans would have put up anyone but McCain.

Just demonstrating that polls aren't worth Jack, Stan. The are simply fodder for news show discussions, but shouldn't guide policy.

It always makes me laugh when administrations talk about making government more efficient. Government is neither efficient nor effective, it is political.

Melissa, you've missed... i don't know, I don't know if i'd say you even missed the point of the text you seem to be using as a launchpad into your argument. You've just made up a point, and appear to have aimlessly picked this argument to launch said point from.

1. the quoted section, which you even managed to embolden, reads
"believed government could be effective with better management"

2. you then begin your discussion by defining "better goverment", bring up some examples of the flaws of "better government", and then, using those flaws, argue for less government.

3. finally, you ask us what we want from government efficiency.

The whole point is that the quoted text doesn't mention better government, it mentions more efficent goverment, and that the people think that better *management* is needed for this.

So why you want to shake your citizens when they want a more efficient goverment (although, let's face it, they never actually *say* that in the poll. Just that goverment could be more efficient if it was better managed) is beyond me.
Surely a more efficient government could imply a smaller one? After all, less doing the same amount is more efficient. Or, by your argument, do we construe that you don't care about the *cost* of government, or the number of people in it, merely that the government itself does less. That is, do we construe you are arguing for a less efficient government?

It really begs the question, what do *you* think, Melissa, about any of these things you seem to addle in your articles, and why is it that you seem to think that writing a few throwaway lines as a lede in to ask readers to comment is a good style for a blog?
I normally don't agree with many of the articles here, but at least they give me *something* to read and ponder over.

Is a "lede in" anything like a "lead-in?"

Maybe you need to study journalism:

Lead or intro

The most important structural element of a story is the lead (or "intro" in the UK) — the story's first, or leading, sentence. (Some American English writers use the spelling lede (pronounced /ˈliːd/), from the archaic English, to avoid confusion with the printing press type formerly made from lead or the related typographical term leading.[3])

Ronald Reagan stated it best when he said "More government is not the solution, too much government is the problem." Today, the US Federal Government's bureaucracy continues to intrude more and more into our lives, anyone seen the details of that living abortion of a healthcare bill?
Adding government bureaucracy to ANY list of ingredients guarantees misery and failure, if the Feds do things right, then how come Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Social Security are all in such an ungodly mess?
WHAT have the Federal Government's Departments of Education and Energy done for us in the past 10 years? The United States' public education system is typically in shambles despite getting more and more of our federal tax dollars every year, and the DOE was founded during the Carter Adminitration to get the US independent of foreign oil, something it's been an abject failure at. Meanwhile since the Democrats took over Congress, junket and perk spending has gone through the roof, along with [wannabe] Emperor Obama's extravaganzas, dinner and a play in NYC, 2 executice aircraft to Oslo, a separate aircraft for the dog on the maine vacation, perpetual golf outings.......

I have a question: Why didn't you get a small laptop?

I think you posted this in the wrong thread. Were you asking why she got an iPad instead of a laptop?

There is no way to eliminate waste and fraud because it is proportional to the size and scope of government. That's been a steadfast rule throughout history and almost independent of the form of government.

Incompetence is also related to the size and scope of the government. Tell me, who would do a better job administering the economy: 500 or so elected officials, or 300 million individual decision makers acting in their own best interest?

The Big Lie of socialism has always been that it will bring utopia if only the right people are in charge. Well those people don't exist. The next best thing is to make the government as small as is practical and allow people to make their own decisions.

The steadfast rule you cite is a figment of your imagination.

If you don't believe government bureaucracies can be run with a semblance of efficiency, you need to get out more. Your opinion of government workers is right down there with welfare abusers, and it wreaks of ignorance.

Ignorance because your model for government is based on a business model. The government has a role in society, and it is as important as the role of business.

Government is the only thing that can protect us from the goals of business. If it weren't for the government this country would be polluted and abandoned, thanks to the needs of business.

The Big Lie of capitalism is that consumers vote with their dollars. If your only choices are from what will make a profit and not what is in your interest, the vote you have is meaningless.

"The next best thing is to make the government as small as is practical and allow people to make their own decisions."

Could a possible step in that direction be repealing the 17th amendment and have senators appointed by the states. Then we could possibly return to the theoretical function of the federal government that the forefathers envisioned. And get rid of the idiotic notion that the United States is a democracy. No democracy the size of the United States could ever function well. We need to get back to the idea of a Constitutional republic.

Repealing the 17th amendment would make the senators answerable to their state as it was supposed to be. That is why they have 6 year terms. The representatives were to be answerable to the people and could be changed more often.

Just a thought and I apologize if this veered a bit off topic. One final question, has there been a study showing the growth of the federal government before the 17th amendment passage and after? My overall contention is that having all of Congress elected by the people has caused them to increase the size and scope of the government to try and keep themselves in power.

Th1 17th Amendment is hardly the problem. Besides, the whole reason it came about in the first place were difficulties in getting legitimate Senators seated because of corruption, patronage, and gridlock in the state legislatures that elected them. Going back to having one corrupt and dysfunctional elected body elected by multiple corrupt and dysfunctional elected bodies isn't going to solve any problems.

You hit it on the last four words of your post though. Corruption springs from maintaining power, and the favor trading and bribes that make winning elections easier. For all the talk about the growing power of the Executive, the fortunes of this country still rise and fall with the quality of Congress. The current Congress is exceptionally abusive, egotistical, corrupt, and inept, and the country is going down the tubes as a result.

It may well take a Constitutional Convention to take the needed steps of Congressional term limits, some means of providing fiscal responsibility, and reining in the power of the government. Once enough states go broke, get sued by the Federal government, or start to see civil unrest, it will be easier to accomplish that we think.

I appreciate the crticism of my argument baoxian and thinking about it, I see the fallacy in my argument that you mentioned.

I would support whole heartedly all of your suggesstions in the last paragraph, though I can imagine the wailing and thrashing of the "elites" if any of this was actually tried.

They might think "better" means "less waste, fraud and incompetence"

Well, that would definitely mean less government, then... or at least less Federal government.

I'm for more efficient gov't as long as that efficiency is not created by breaking the Constitution. There are other nations that do a better job, I suspect, in how their bueraucrats get stuff done.

Supposedly in France, you go to an elite school, and pass a blind test. Whereas in America, you get decent grades at Harvard, and you're in. Its the difference between a Meritocracy and a Connectrocoracy.


However, this is a secondary issue to reigning back the gov't which comes first. And yes, shrinking the Fed would make the whole thing more efficient.