[quote name='thrustbucket']CochesesUSA pretty much said it. The New Deal was not, in itself, bad. It was a mixed bag and got the country out of it's depression. However, about the time of the New Deal seems to be where this country took a sharp turn towards government dependency on a number of levels.
I'm not saying the New Deal was the cause. It could be coincidence. I simply use the New Deal as a time marker for when the country really started to warm up to higher taxes, more government programs, more government interference and more bureaucracy. [/quote]
It seems to me that you're using such broad strokes to paint the entirety of the "problem of government" in this sense that you overlook the largest areas where the government has grown where overspending is a problem (namely, prisons and defense) that, I genuinely believe you would have a problem with a "small government" in that regard - which renders moot, more or less, any argument about wanting to shrink government spending or reduce the size or influence of government. You seem to want to end expenditures on policies and programs that you don't support and ignore those that you do - which makes the "small federal government" argument a red herring on your part.
I also think that you have no data whatsoever to back up your claims that New Deal programs are what cause spending problems, or that they are the root of government dependency. Are you arguing that ND *is* the problem, or that it *led* to the problem? I see much of both (with little confirmatory evidence).
As far as Bureaucracy and government interference is concerned, I could just as easily claim that shady tactics of those enveloped in big business, perpetually seeking means of shirking the tax system, caused said "interference" by trying to avoid their civic obligation to pay taxes in the first place. Their compliance would have led to less bureaucracy.
Sigh.... Ok, sure. I'll run with that. Heaven forbid we criticize any policy of a candidate without first making sure we know it's all Bush's fault to begin with.... Seems to be standard tactic now.
The point was that your "criticism" wasn't anything but the aping of the old, tired "those Dems are commies/socialists/pinkos/etc." polemic. It's completely unsubstantive, devoid of detail, and rooted in perception. If you want to point out which of his policies are unpalatable to you, then great - but don't rest your weary head after typing out the kind of statement that would fit, both in terms of size and intellect, on a bumper sticker, and accuse me of taking away your ability to criticize. I merely expect better of some people - yet you continually prove me wrong in that regard.
You must have missed some of the posts where someone (forgot who) flat out said other country's were better. Period. That's what I was responding to. Otherwise, I agree with you.
Msut? He's on my ignore list. I recommend you do the same.
But it really does seem to me that many people on the left really dislike our country, universally. And they really like other countries more. Strictly going by their verbage. And that's what I was addressing. Honestly, you can only take person or group's bitching so long about so many things before you suggest they do something a little more drastic to fix their situation than bitch.
1) "strictly going by their verbage" is still imposing your interpretation on their statements.
2) You could just ignore pathetic posts, you know.
