Why we fear Bam big gov't

[Sofiyya 1,687]

This explains a lot about the anger so many Americans are feeling toward the government today:

Updated: Sun., Mar. 21, 2010, 5:42 AM

Why we fear Bam big gov't

By MICHAEL GOODWIN

Last Updated: 5:42 AM, March 21, 2010

Posted: 3:48 AM, March 21, 2010

One of these days, God willing, we won't have health care to kick around any more. But hold the champagne. No matter the out come in Congress, the final vote won't be the end of the raging national conflict.

In fact, get ready for the sequel. And Part III and probably Part IV as well.

That's because the battle over health care is merely a front in a larger war. Thanks to President Obama's statist agenda, America's new civil war is, at heart, the mother of all culture wars.

It's the showdown between Americans who want bigger government and those who want smaller government. And it won't be over anytime soon.

Not only does it encompass and include other wedge issues, such as abortion, taxing and spending, but the war over the size of government goes to the heart of the concept of American exceptionalism.

Either you believe America is different and should play a unique role in expanding individual liberty, or you believe we should trim our freedoms to fit international norms, as embodied by centralized authorities and global organizations like the United Nations.

It's clear where Obama stands.

As he said in response to a question in Europe nearly a year ago, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I imagine that Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism and the British believe in British exceptionalism."

Though he said he was proud of his country, the answer was unmistakably no, he's not a believer. On that day and so many others -- remember his apologies and bows to foreign potentates -- he demonstrates he doesn't subscribe in the tradition of his predecessors and most of his countrymen.

His health-care obsession, with industry tentacles reaching 17 percent of the economy, reveals his vision. There is little dispute the industry has big flaws, yet Obama passed up a bipartisan chance to fix most of them.

He opted for a sweeping expansion and takeover that would put Washington in charge of every aspect, from levels of care, to cost, to mandates, to jobs and taxes.

Ultimately, no American will be able to escape its centralizing impact, which is why opponents are so ferocious and frightened. While Obama tries to blame Republicans, most of the country, especially independent voters, is running away from his plan even though some components are popular.

It's the sheer size -- the expensive big government grab -- that is stoking anti-takeover passion.

Pass or fail, the issue will move off center stage. But there will be no rest for a weary nation.

A huge immigration bill is waiting in the wings, and Obama & Co. label it "comprehensive." Translation: It will be intrusive, expensive and infuriating because Washington will pick winners and losers.

Next it's probably back to cap-and-trade, an energy takeover that would affect every light switch, gas tank, thermostat and factory in America. Translation: higher prices, more boondoggles, more subsidies for favored interests.

Or education could jump the line, with the feds aiming to run everything from curriculum to funding. Their vision is to gradually erode local control and shift power to Washington.

As with health care, parts of each issue make practical sense. Reducing our reliance on foreign oil, for example, is a goal most Americans share.

But what they object to, and will continue to resist, is the animating impulse that gives Washington more control over our daily lives. That is the definition of a statist, and it's what Obama is.

He is not troubled by the bribery for votes and the manipulated process because, to him, the end justifies the means.

Not surprisingly, he refuses to grasp why a clear majority of America now opposes his health care takeover.

"People have lost faith in government," he said at a recent rally in St. Louis. "They had lost faith in government before I ran, and it has been getting worse."

Actually, people haven't lost faith in government. They just don't think bigger is better. And the bigger he wants to make it, the less faith they have in him.

Source: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/why_we_fear_bam_big_gov_zFBhU4FkgiKa6roMSiyrMJ

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Yup.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I saw the author on tv yesterday. He looked so sick and small. He said he voted for Obama because he thought he would bring the country together after Bush, but instead, he has sparked a cultural war. I admire his candor and hsi ability to admit he was wrong. There are many like him out there who don't have a column to voice their deep disappointment in the man who was supposed to save them, but who has lead them down the wrong road.

Maybe there's hope for Steven yet . . .

Edited March 22, 2010 by Sofiyya

[mawilson 2,133]

Maybe there's hope for Steven yet . . .

Don't count on it. Comrade Steven Sheeple never strays from the party line.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Don't count on it. Comrade Steven Sheeple never strays from the party line.

Perhaps he's been promised Dodd's villa or one of Rangel's Caribbean vacations homes for his efforts on behalf of the state.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Michael Goodwin voted for Obama knowing that he was promising to reform health care in the direction that he did? Poor guy couldn't figure out just what he was voting for.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Michael Goodwin voted for Obama knowing that he was promising to reform health care in the direction that he did? Poor guy couldn't figure out just what he was voting for.

A lot of folks feel the same way as Goodwin.

If Obamacare is so good, it wouldn't have taken a year, bribes and so much down to the wire arm-twisting to pass. That has been an eye-opener to many of the blind. We're praying for you to wake up.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Sofiyya

[Ali G. 37]

It's bizarre to me that so many dislike government. Quite frankly, I don't care what the Constitution says. What I do care about is the end product-the reality.

You guys have had zero government for years now yet what is the end result?

• Crumbling second world grade at its best infrastructure.
  
• Another wall street - private sector induced recession.
  
• A quality of life that is dropping daily.
  
• Education rankings that are dropping daily.
  
• Cities that look like abandoned and rusted out ghost ships.
  
• A vanishing middle-class - something reminiscent of second and third world countries.
  
• Zero consumer protection against business.
  

Before anyone starts with blaming the government for this - which I know you will do - or laughably tell me to get out, keep in mind the strongest, healthiest, most stable and economies that are actually growing in this recession have strong government involvement.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Ali G.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's another bogus premise argument. What people want is not 'big government', what they want is services and structures that support stable society where everyone has the opportunity to do well, and those who do not do well are not left for dead. No one wants a top heavy, bureaucratic wasteful government, and no one wants selfish and self serving politicians.

Well, obviously there are people who want to beat dead horses - some even seem to enjoy that, but that's not really what America stands for.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[lucyrich 20]

It's the showdown between Americans who want bigger government and those who want smaller government.

Baloney.

It's a showdown between Republicans and Democrats, as shown by the entirely partisan voting. Republicans stand for bigger government, as do Democrats. Many of the Republicans who voted against the healthcare reform actually supported George W. Bush, and some still cling to the belief that he was an OK president.

Nobody who really wants smaller government would support the biggest spending president in our history like that.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

Some of those Republicans actually failed to support Bill Clinton, the last president who actually succeeded in cutting the size of government, and who actually ran a budget surplus. In fact, some of them voted for his impeachment!

I'm not claiming the Democrats want to shrink government. Just that this is not a "big government vs. little government" showdown. It's a "big government vs. big government" showdown. The Republicans and Democrats vary somewhat in where they want government to grow, but they both want it to grow.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Your premise that we have had zero government is wrong. Governments intervention in the US has not yielded the strongest economies.

It's bizarre to me that so many dislike government. Quite frankly, I don't care what the Constitution says. What I do care about is the end product-the reality.

You guys have had zero government for years now yet what is the end result?

• Crumbling second world grade at its best infrastructure.
  
• Another wall street - private sector induced recession.
  
• A quality of life that is dropping daily.
  
• Education rankings that are dropping daily.
  
• Cities that look like abandoned and rusted out ghost ships.
  
• A vanishing middle-class - something reminiscent of second and third world countries.
  
• Zero consumer protection against business.
  

Before anyone starts with blaming the government for this - which I know you will do - or laughably tell me to get out, keep in mind the strongest, healthiest, most stable and economies that are actually growing in this recession have strong government involvement.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Baloney to you. It's not a party issue. Current polls show that 68% of Americans want to throw all the bums out. This is not about the parties and how they govern, but about how the people want to be governed, and that is where the struggle for big government vs. smaller government is rooted.

Baloney.

It's a showdown between Republicans and Democrats, as shown by the entirely partisan voting. Republicans stand for bigger government, as do Democrats. Many of the Republicans who voted against the healthcare reform actually supported George W. Bush, and some still cling to the belief that he was an OK president.

Nobody who really wants smaller government would support the biggest spending president in our history like that.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

http://mercatus.org/publication/spending-under-president-george-w-bush

Some of those Republicans actually failed to support Bill Clinton, the last president who actually succeeded in cutting the size of government, and who actually ran a budget surplus. In fact, some of them voted for his impeachment!

I'm not claiming the Democrats want to shrink government. Just that this is not a "big government vs. little government" showdown. It's a "big government vs. big government" showdown. The Republicans and Democrats vary somewhat in where they want government to grow, but they both want it to grow.

[Peikko 1,575]

Baloney.

It's a showdown between Republicans and Democrats, as shown by the entirely partisan voting. Republicans stand for bigger government, as do Democrats. Many of the Republicans who voted against the healthcare reform actually supported George W. Bush, and some still cling to the belief that he was an OK president.

Nobody who really wants smaller government would support the biggest spending president in our history like that.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa543.pdf

http://mercatus.org/...t-george-w-bush

Some of those Republicans actually failed to support Bill Clinton, the last president who actually succeeded in cutting the size of government, and who actually ran a budget surplus. In fact, some of them voted for his impeachment!

I'm not claiming the Democrats want to shrink government. Just that this is not a "big government vs. little government" showdown. It's a "big government vs. big government" showdown. The Republicans and Democrats vary somewhat in where they want government to grow, but they both want it to grow.

That is pretty much true and is party due to how government works but partly due to the people getting bogged down in the fear mongering and scare tactics. I am quite sure that it is possible to provide essential services without lining the pockets of greedy politicians and other hangers on but there has to be a will to examine the process of government, not simply lay the blame at the door of Mr Democrat, or Mr Republican.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

You miss alot.

It's another bogus premise argument. What people want is not 'big government', what they want is services and structures that support stable society where everyone has the opportunity to do well, and those who do not do well are not left for dead. No one wants a top heavy, bureaucratic wasteful government, and no one wants selfish and self serving politicians.

Well, obviously there are people who want to beat dead horses - some even seem to enjoy that, but that's not really what America stands for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A lot of folks feel the same way as Goodwin.

If Obamacare is so good, it wouldn't have taken a year, bribes and so much down to the wire arm-twisting to pass. That has been an eye-opener to many of the blind. We're praying for you to wake up.

What is different from what Obama promised with health care reform in his campaign and the bill that just passed that Michael Goodwin is upset about again?