Comments on: The high cost of hating government Wed, 26 Nov 2014 19:47:54 +0000 hourly 1 By: Overcast451 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:32:40 +0000 I mean – if you base a ‘law’ on statistics of guns and the deaths they cause – who should be disarmed?

The citizens or Government?

By: Overcast451 Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:30:15 +0000 *Such paranoia about the role of government is a recurring theme in our society’s most appalling massacres,*

As government increases it’s power and handle on things – this will only grow.

Murder has been around a whole hell of a lot longer than guns. Banning guns will just make more people a “criminal” who would otherwise not be considered a ‘criminal’ – just for owning a gun to protect themselves.

But you people will like to yourselves and somehow think a “law” will fix the problem. Every shooting like this – is already WAY outside the bounds of the law.

Many want to go on about how the ‘war on drugs’ is worthless, and then start a ‘war on guns’.

There’s a LOT more drugs on the streets NOW than in the 80’s when this supposed ‘war’ started.

And the same will happen with guns – outlaw them, and people will go to the black market to get them – and government will have even less control in the end.

At least with registration and such now – there’s a trail. Try to track down where some cocaine was made or an IED – you won’t be able to, without seriously forensic work and the hope that the criminal left some kind of a trail.

But mostly – THIS GOVERNMENT would NOT exist – if not for ‘guns’.

But THE MAIN thing is this:

In who’s hands have guns taken the most human life?

1. In the hands of law-abiding citizens who legally purchase and register guns.
2. In the hands of criminals who obtain them illegally.
3. In the hands of Government.

We can debate if it’s 2 or 3 – but there’s no way, by a **HUGE** margin – that it’s number 1 on the above list.

By: M.C.McBride Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:44:24 +0000 I was in agreement with the article until the point where you said,”Ghosts from the eighteenth century are preying on our school-children, abetted by those who believe that compromise on amending our gun laws is surrendering to the forces of big government. Such unbending absolutism costs human lives.” Please correct me if I am wrong, that guy was legally not allowed to own the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. He, supposedly, murdered someone and took it.
The next paragraph, you attack home schooling after just illustrating how school children were massacred in a public school. After that perplexing argument, you jump back in history to link Timothy McVeigh and the massacre at Waco to anyone who supports shrinking any part of the Federal government. It is my understanding that the Federal Government’s actions (FBI siege) in Waco motivated Timothy McVeigh’s horrific actions. I like to keep my comments short and concise, so I will just go on to give this article 1 star out of 5.

By: MikeSmoth Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:28:00 +0000 The reason there is an anti-government backlash is because we are in this mess because of the government. Businesses have been leaving the U.S. long before the Tea Party because of high taxes and regulations. This idea that the Republicans have been obstructionist is nothing but Democratic propaganda to hide the failure of their programs. Let’s go trough the list. Obama has passed Obamacare, tons of regulations, tax increases, tons of pork for Obama’s favorite programs from green energy to protection of union jobs, a trillion dollar in stimulus programs that has done nothing a $105 highway bill. The list goes on and on. So where is the obstruction? At one point a sane person has to say no more. Many of the changes Obama made in tax policy, healthcare and regulations were deliberately set to take place after the election. The chickens will come home to roosts during his second term. Tax increases for everyone is the first one.

A single payer system means a no-choice system. This is in fact a monopoly, a monopoly run by the government. A single payer system will be run as efficient as the United Postal Service. Putting our healthcare on the hands of, not of government, but of politicians is crazy. Every time a new party comes into power it will change the system based on their own philosophy. The liberals will offer all types of healthcare without worrying about the costs. The conservatives will try to cut services because the liberals ran up the bills. It will be a mess. By the time Obama lives office he will leave behind a $20 trillion deficit even with tax increases. That is a monument to government inefficiency. That is the last group people that I want taking care of my health. The $20 trillion deficit is also a monument to LOVING government too much!

By: anthonyatlas Tue, 08 Jan 2013 21:04:24 +0000 Why would I respect the opinion anyone who writes such uninformed drivel. This is just off the cuff made up crapola disguised as thought. Obviously educated in a vacume of collectivist worship of authority the author mixes incorrect definitions of political party objectives with fear mongering about what life would be like without government overseers. Libertarians do believe government is necessary but that we have way too much of it. The statement that the Tea Party questions whether we should have government at all is patently false. Using words like insurgents is a device he learned to conjure up images of war and militarism. There are many Tea Party advocates in every state.
As to health care costs those countries with lower figures also have very high taxes and fees and practice government rationing. You also must wait in pain for most services (it might cost you your life or diminish your quality of life) whereas in the U. S. you can usually get treatment immediately if you need it.
Writing articles such as these is just using low information voters for other political objectives. Shameful blind apologist lackey. We need to pare government back to its original purpose – to defend our liberty.

By: Cassiopian Sat, 05 Jan 2013 13:11:41 +0000 The GOP, and its Tea Party affiliate, or mutant reactionary wing, has created record dysfunction in Washington. Its true believers, heavily slanted towards older, white voters from the South and Mountain States (the Tea Party House Caucus is loaded with reps from Texas), are trying to find their bearings in the 20th century. Their position on guns is looney, their paranoid rantings about the “nanny state” on the Potomac ridiculous. Ron Paul exemplifies the numbing mindlessness with his 18th century ideology and his obsession with the Fed Reserve.

By: flashrooster Fri, 04 Jan 2013 07:20:27 +0000 This is one of the best op-eds I’ve read in quite some time. It’s deeply disturbing and genuinely threatening that rational thinking has been successfully sidelined to a large degree in this country. Equally disturbing is that this has been accomplished by a minority in this country, a partnership between some wealthy plutocrats whose objective is to control the US government in ways that best protect and grow their wealth, and the pliable rightwing masses who seem to incorporate into their belief systems anything they are fed by Republican leaders and the rightwing media. All one has to do to see this in stark view is to consider what they were insisting on during our 8 years under the Bush Presidency and juxtapose that to what the rightwing masses began insisting on the moment Obama was sworn in to office.

Under Bush, the emphasis was on war and record spending, while cutting taxes, primarily for the affluent, and deregulation. Cheney made the statement, “Deficits don’t matter,” and not a word of complaint could be heard on the right. Imagine if Obama or Biden said that.

Enter Obama. Bush hands over an economy tumbling into the worst recession since the Great Depression to the new President. Most economists, and past Presidents, agreed with what Obama wanted to do, get a stimulus bill passed. Here we were at a crucial juncture in this nation’s economic history, and instead of focusing on working with Obama to get our economy back on its feet, the Republicans decide that their main objective, pretty much their only objective, was to ruin the Obama Presidency by opposing everything he wants to do. Ironically, this might not have been so bad if Obama wanted to continue in the same vein as Bush, but Obama is a very practical guy, which meant the Republicans were opposing mostly practical measures. So when Bush was creating deficits with largely reckless spending, deficits didn’t matter. We could have done fine without spending the money trying to give Afghanistan an infrastructure or if we had continued to deal with Saddam Hussein through a successful containment policy rather than a massive invasion and rebuilding of Iraq. There was the very inefficient Medicare D Drug Plan, a huge new government bureaucracy (Dept of Homeland Security), and cutting taxes while taking us to war. These were not practical or efficient expenditures, but we really did need the stimulus spending for OUR country. The Republicans supported all of Bush’s questionable spending and opposed Obama’s when this country really needed it. How do people who claim to be such patriotic Americans justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars of our money on improving the infrastructures of Iraq and Afghanistan, but be vehemently opposed to spending that kind of money improving our own dilapidated infrastructure and creating much needed jobs for Americans? Ask one of these TeaPartiers this question and you’re sure to get some sort of illogical response.

We can debate if Obamacare was the best way to improve our healthcare system, and I would venture to guess that privately Obama would admit that there were better ways, but what isn’t debatable, as Mr. Wapshott so aptly and succinctly points out, is that our healthcare system is the most expensive, impractical, inefficient system in the world and we can’t afford it. It’s dangerously stupid. And the reason Obama wasn’t able to tackle our healthcare problems more directly is because he knew the Republicans wouldn’t allow it, and throw in a few moderate Democrats, certain to buckle under pressure from healthcare lobbyists.

So here we are, stuck with a government that no longer functions and no one knows what to do to solve the problem. Most of the media is afraid to tell the unvarnished truth, as Nicholas Wapshott has done here with this excellent op-ed, for fear of upsetting the radicals and hurting the bottom line of whatever media company they work for. They, instead, paint a picture of a false balance, that both sides of the political divide are doing the same thing. This is not true and is a grave disservice to our nation. The Republicans have gerrymandered their states so that it’s almost impossible for them to lose the majority in the House. The practical majority in this country is at a loss as to what to do, and the extremist minority have adopted a scorched earth policy like it’s a religion, that includes a willingness to wreak grave harm to our nation’s well-being if they don’t get their way. And I don’t, for one second, discount the possibility that a month, two months, six months from now the extremist right will to led back into believing that war is the priority once again, or anything else their thought masters decide will best serve them personally. Things really are that bad. We seem to be stuck with the accelerator wide open and we’re headed for a cliff, and no one seems to know what to do.

By: citizen033 Thu, 03 Jan 2013 18:30:12 +0000 Wapshott is an excellent fear-monger. Here he sends the message to centrist Republicans that too close an alliance with those fond of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul (as well as Friedman, et al.) will cost them their place in politics. And sadly, with no term limits, some less principled politicians will be swayed. I hope better things for America.

The fear-mongering comes from a place of power–it is the voice of the aging elite (and I speak of a movement, irregardless of individual ages), wary that control is slipping from their greedy hands.

Centrist Republicans in the US Congress are fine with Wapshott and his ilk–they will continue to expand federal government and maintain the backscratching connections between big government and big business (esp. multi-national corporations), all the while selling out the citizen, whom they fail to represent in any substantive manner.

Oh yes, Mr. Wapshott, it would be a shame for Republicans to lose all we gained, and even our jobs; we now cower before the left and cow-tow in the face of your collectivist leftist cronyism.

By: Stanley7746 Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:19:56 +0000 The question is not whether you are standing in a corner, I think the question is becoming how many of us are standing in the corners, I do think the election told us two corners are becoming smaller. The voters in the bigger corner are predicted to become much larger not at the expense of the other two corners but at their exclusion.

By: Samrch Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:32:51 +0000 We live in a world making use of increasingly dangerous things that need regulation like electricity, nuclear power, chemicals of all sorts, new powerful drugs, other medical other procedures and devices, cars and roads for cars, airplanes. We have had failures in trade policy, free trade does not work for us for a long time.

Whenever our banking system was deregulated it failed. WE depend on insurance more than before but without regulation, the insurance companies put escape causes in like pre-existing condition cause. That escape cause made medical insurance worthless if you got any of the common long term illnesses like heart trouble or high blood pressure, allergies or diabetes, etc. It was fraud.

Few of us are small farmers like in 1776. Most work for others and need protection and education.

Things like the internet or any wireless communication depend on government assign bands.