This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Americans Want Smaller Government And Lower Taxes

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Americans Want Smaller Government And Lower Taxes

From Rasmussen:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 64% of Likely U.S. Voters prefer a government with fewer services and lower taxes over one with more services and higher taxes. That’s unchanged from last month and consistent with findings in regular surveys since late 2006. 

In fact, a plurality of Americans have called for small government and lower taxes ever since the days of Reagan.

But it has never worked out like that:

So what’s the difference? Is it that voters outwardly claim to be in favour of smaller government, and then when it comes down to it choose the advocates of big government? I don’t think so — I think it is that voters aren’t being given a real choice.

Here’s the increase in national debt by President:

The reality is that — with the exception of Obama — Americans have again and again opted for a candidate who has paid lip-service to small government. Even Bill Clinton paid lip service to the idea that “the era of big government is over” (yeah, right). And then once in office, they have bucked their promises and massively increased the size and scope of government. Reagan’s administration increased the debt by 190% alone, and successive Presidents — especially George W. Bush and Barack Obama — just went bigger and bigger, in total contradict to voters’ expressed preferences.

The choice between the Republicans and Democrats has been one of rhetoric and not policy. Republicans may consistently talk about reducing the size and scope of government, but they don’t follow through.Today Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate who is putting forth a seriously reduced notion of government, has been marginalised and sidelined by the major media and Republican establishment. The establishment candidate — Mitt Romney — as governor of Massachusetts left that state with the biggest per-capita debt of any state. His track record in government and his choice of advisers strongly suggest that he will follow in the George W. Bush school of promising smaller government and delivering massive government and massive debt.

As Libertarian presidential candidate and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson put it:

Pick Obama, pick Romney, government’s going to be bigger. Government’s going to be more intrusive.

So will the American people eventually get what they want? To do that, they have to ditch the hierarchies and orthodoxies of the past. Ron Paul and his tireless band of youthful supporters look set to achieve a strong showing at the Republican convention, as well as so far winning party chairs in Iowa, Colorado, Alaska, and Virginia. The Republican party — currently dominated by ageing tax-and-spend boomer Republicans — is being taken over by the libertarian youth who crave small government at home, as well as a smaller foreign policy. Ron Paul has taken the majority of youth votes in a plurality of states in 2012. And even if Ron Paul is not on the presidential ballot, Gary Johnson — a consistent advocate for lower debt, lower taxes, and smaller government — seems set to take a large slice of the vote in November.

As the mainstream parties continue to defy a majority of voters’ will and accrue more debt and make government bigger and bigger (while failing to address problems of unemployment and underemployment)  it seems natural and inevitable that more and more Americans — especially young Americans (who tend more and more to be unemployed and underemployed) — will abandon the sclerotic big-government Republicans and Democrats.

Trouble is, things may go badly wrong before Americans get the chance to put a practitioner of smaller government into power. Already a majority of Eurasian manufacturing and resource-producing nations have ditched the dollar for bilateral trade. Dollars and treasury bonds have long been America’s greatest export — and the greatest pillar of support for growth in spending and welfare. With the dollar’s downfall, smaller government may not be a choice.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:06 | 2448245 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:14 | 2448273 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

The new 'taxer in chief' is a........ GONG!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:26 | 2448314 idea_hamster
idea_hamster's picture

Yeah!  Government should be cut back to its basic functions:  violently suppressing dissent and debouching the currency.

Other than that, I think market forces can take care of everything -- but when it comes to the jack boot on my neck or the shinplaster in my pocket, I prefer mine to be standard issue, thank you very much!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:30 | 2448684 BKbroiler
BKbroiler's picture

Re:2nd chart, WHAT??? You mean it's not all Obama's fault? You mean Reagan wasn't the poster boy for fiscal responsibility?  This goes totally  againts what Fox, Drudge, and ZeroHedge have been telling me.  Charts are socialist.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 18:08 | 2449009 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

lower capital gains taxes by 5%

lower income taxes by 15%


win repubs and democrats.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 20:36 | 2449311 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Ron Paul was our last chance, and even that was a slim one.  Next up defaults and collapse.  Not a question of if, just when.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 18:16 | 2449035 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

Reagan could get away with increasing the debt for two reasons. !. We were leaving a very shitty recession. 2. We stll had the capacity to pay down the debt. We had jobs then. Since then we have lost 30 million jobs. It's hard to pay any debt down when there is no money coming in. That dynamic, whether it was used or not, is no longer in play.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:28 | 2448329 CrimsonAvenger
CrimsonAvenger's picture

Just waiting for a tax on schnitzengruben.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:48 | 2448373 Andy_Jackson_Jihad
Andy_Jackson_Jihad's picture

Will it be progressive or flat?  I love me some schnitzengruben but if its taxed at a progressive rate then I think 15 is my limit on schnitzengruben.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:51 | 2449211 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

No thanks, 15 is my limit.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:38 | 2448347 Dixie Rect
Dixie Rect's picture


He said the "taxer in chief" is near


No, gone blame it dang blammit the "taxer in chief is a .... GONG

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:53 | 2448402 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:11 | 2448862 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Second head should be smaller, but LOL

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:06 | 2448246 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Americans want SNAP cards & iThingys


There, fixed it...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:19 | 2448289 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

Not all Americans want welfare. There are a lot that do and the number is rising. It always will as long as the option is there. But there are still plenty of hardworking self-respecting good people left. They just haven't gotten mad enough yet to FORCE a change. The government knows it to thats why they spend so much of their time stressing over "home-grown terrorists". Eventually it will be time to put up or shut up.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:06 | 2448650 CH1
CH1's picture

there are still plenty of hardworking self-respecting good people left.

There are, and they are increasingly dropping out of the system altogether.

It's the right thing to do. We are not meant to labor on the behalf of parasites.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:48 | 2448375 LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

Yep, just like corporations want bailouts and the military industrial complex wants a blank fucking check.  Fuck all of them.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:58 | 2448429 barroter
barroter's picture

Correct! God forbid we shut off that tax money flow to those leeches.

Calling them dirt shit pigs is an insult to pigs.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:50 | 2448388 Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

Democracy is mathematically certain to lead to debt. People want more government services and less taxes, in the aggregate. That's what they vote for and that's what they get.

Tue, 05/22/2012 - 06:18 | 2450173 rich_wicks
rich_wicks's picture

This is a flat out stupid statement.

If wanting more for less leads to bankruptcy, why then do corporations exist?

People wanted more television shows for less money - they got it.  They wanted more computing power for less money, they got it.  They wanted more food for less money, they got it.

You can argue about the quality of the product, but people got what they wanted with increasing profits for those that provided it.

Government doesn't innovate, that's why they go bankrupt.  Why, for example, can't I do a simple thing like submit and track my taxes online?  Why do I need to submit my taxes in a paper form at all?  Why aren't school books available online - they are paid for by taxpayer money after all.  Why can't I mail the IRS and get a response?  Why doesn't the government provide the ability of people to be directly polled on bills?  Why isn't there a breakdown on how government money is spent right down to the square mile, and where it's sourced from?

Democracy doesn't lead to bankruptcy of a nation - corruption does.

We don't live in a Democracy.  We voted in 2006 to end the Iraq war - did it end with the new Democratic congress?  Oh, they were blocked by Bush, so we elected Obama - did it end?  Well, he got the Nobel Peace Prize - you can get them out of a Cracker Jax box today I understand.  Did we vote to continue warrantless wiretapping?  The Patriot Act?  Keep Guantanamo open?  Did we vote for our Congress to do insider trading? Did we vote for TARP?  QE1?  QE2?

We don't live in a Democracy.  Do you really think people are in favor of all this crap?  Sure, you have a minority of idiots that support anything the government does, but with an unrelenting stream of propaganda that is laughably called the media, the former 4th estate, the current 4th Reich - people can be made to believe anything.

Why don't we have a free media?  Is it because it's not lucative?  People don't want to know what is going on?

Why does this site exist?  Why is viewership of television news plummeting?  Why are newspaper subscriptions crashing?  Why did our esteemed president actually say there might be monetary injections (and there probably are) to support our "media"?

We do not have a Democracy.

It's very simple, you pay as you go - real simple.  Maybe you want to take a bit of a risk, and go into debt - then you issue bonds - but somebody has to buy them.  The Federal Reserve buys nearly 1/2 of all the US bonds that are issued today - banks that were bailed out probably buy the other half.  You don't really know, because you don't live in a Democracy.

You live in a Dumbocracy.  We're in fascism light, we might be in fascism heavy in another 10 years.  It's pretty obvious to anybody paying attention that nobody likes this government, but you can tell?  We have electronic voting machines, we have free speech zones, we have polls you can never verify (well you could, try calling some random numbers and just see what you hear when you do your own survey).

There's no Democracy here.  A few hundred people show up to a Mitt Romney speaking engagement - that's big news.  5000 people show up to a Ron Paul speaking engagement, that's not news at all.  Libya's gold disappears, it's mentioned, that's it.  Jon Corzine, well connected, steals a bunch of money - nothing happens to him.  We have a bunch of criminals in our financial sector, Franklin Raines lied about Fannie Mae's books for 3 years - nothing happened to him - nothing will ever happen to him, not by government hands anyhow.  There's no law for certain segments of the population.  The USSR was like this, Russia is like this in many ways, Nazi Germany was like this.

We do not live in a Democracy.  Just because it's drilled into your head endlessly that "this is a Democracy" doesn't mean it is.  We're not in a Democracy at all.  We haven't been for over a decade.

Tue, 05/22/2012 - 09:12 | 2450428 dizzyfingers
dizzyfingers's picture


The "government" exists as a make-work job program and guarantee benefit plan (as well as gigantic number of guaranteed votes if you factor in how many extended families of government workers' daily bread if paid for by "government workers") i.e. for people who can't otherwise find employment or are too lazy to do productive work in the rough-and-tumble of a capitalist society, and don't forget that when they are no longer "working for you" (you pay their salaries and benefits) you're going to be paying their pensions for as along as they live, and for every person elected to office in the government too. See the problem? YOU'RE A SLAVE, WORKING TO PAY THOSE SLUGS IN GOVERNMENT. NO GOVERNMENT WORKER IS EVER GOING TO BE OFF YOUR BACK, AS LONG AS YOU LIVE BECAUSE EVEN AFTER THEY'RE NO LONGER WORKING, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO BE PAYING THEIR BENEFITS!!!!

Slugs work for government and produce nothing. THAT IS WHY "GOVERNMENT" IS BANKRUPT, dolt, but in fact GOVERNMENT is BANKRUPTING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS of future generations, INCLUDING the working "rich" (those who strive in the rought-and-tumble capitalist society. Only SURPRISE!!! 100,000 million Americans of working age who could be working, want to work, can't find jobs in the capitalist society that has been collapsed by the puppetmasters of THE GOVERNMENT!! So that's a lot of missing tax receipts that over time are going to sink the USA's Mandatory Programs, which learn more about here

The SUPER-RICH are another story. THEY OWN GOVERNMENT, and because they're super rich, those in government who are supposed to be "looking out for" "the people" are really looking out for the SUPER RICH, all about whom you can read here:  and here:




Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:23 | 2448247 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture



I think it is that voters aren’t being given a real choice.


Red Team, Blue Team, same league ownership.

Keep buying giant foam # 1 fingers, watching the game, listening to expert analysis, and cheering like your voice really impacts what is happening on the field.  It is the American way.

When was the last time either Rush or NPR truly addressed, in depth, the truth about The Fed, The Inflation Tax, bank bailouts, campaign contributions, term limits, or legalized bribery (aka lobbying)? They stick to the divisive social issues. 

Divide and conquer is alive and well.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:52 | 2448395 Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

The emotional experience of "watching politics" and wanting either the dems or repubs to win is identical to the emotioinal experience of watching sports.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:57 | 2448813 Captain Kink
Captain Kink's picture

Threw out my TV. wish I could sleep until after the election to avoid the inanity.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 22:51 | 2449611 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Inanity == insanity (eventually) :>D

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:03 | 2448447 Doubleguns
Doubleguns's picture

Yep exactly right, red team, blue team, republicrat, demican its all the same. Only difference is what is one each others shopping list. Both will expand govt and spend us blind. They are all liars!!! 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:25 | 2448527 marathonman
marathonman's picture

Rush always talked about the need for smaller government but never made the connection about the incentives that the government has to increase debt by any means possible because at the end of the day, the Fed and the big Fed banks make a killing on US government debt (redistributing our income taxes right to their banks) and would never allow their hands to be removed from the throats of the American people.  I've always thought about calling the show and trying to get through the screener but haven't tried yet.  A local Houston area talk show guy, Micheal Berry (who is actually pretty dog-gone funny), cut off a caller that wanted to talk about fractional reserve lending and The Money Masters youtube video.  Quickly said the topic was too boring.

My blinders have only been off since about 2009.  The squid won't give up easily.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:13 | 2448868 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

Good to see people are catching on that Rush is complicit in this crime.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 23:55 | 2449723 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture


along with his own personal ones

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 18:25 | 2449055 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

What I find insane about the one mongrel dog their success in convincing bloggers and/or sites like Ace of Spades or Huffpo into actually believing there is one fucking shred of difference between these two money sucking, vulture parties. Both parties exist to fleece us. That is how they have evolved.

As long as the parties and their minions maintain this divisiveness (we waste votes voting for third parties) we are assured of one shitbag after another. Ad infinitum.

It is patriotic to vote well or not at all.


So sayeth the lunatic fringe.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:08 | 2448253 Kreditanstalt
Kreditanstalt's picture

When push comes to shove, and their beloved entitlements are threatened with cuts, most will vote for socialism.  You know it.  I know it.

Remember, most Americans aren't even net taxpayers.  More power to them for achieving that dubious status, but they have no skin in the game.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:17 | 2448283 Whats that smell
Whats that smell's picture

Every week my paystub has a place on it called deductions. There is one for something called "Social Security" another is called "Medicare" I do not know what it is for but know I get nothing in return. Is this an "entitlement? How do I sign up to be "entitled" to get my money back???

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:55 | 2448412 Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

Age rapidly.

Those deductions are put into the social security trust, etc., where they are then removed and exchanged for a government IOU which will never be repaid. In other words, the trust is a farce, your deduction is an extra tax, and the money is treated as entirely fungible, meaning that social security is (in its practical application) a spend-as-you-go entitlement. One which you will likely never benefit from.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:21 | 2448706 Shizzmoney
Shizzmoney's picture

Just wait until the 18-34 crowd finds out that this money won't be there for them in 35+ years.

Thats gonna go over well.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:14 | 2448873 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

35+ years?

IMO that makes you a starry-eyed optimist!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 23:57 | 2449730 DaveyJones
DaveyJones's picture

I always laugh whenever anyone calls it a "trust fund." If lawyers ever did what our government does to our "trust" they'd lose their license and go to jail.

unless they work for the government..

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:00 | 2448433 barroter
barroter's picture

Have fun purchasing private health insurance when your 65. I guess $40,000 a year is doable?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 20:20 | 2449279 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Social Security 'contributions' are made to provide a modicum of retirement income for your older relatives. It is a very worthwhile contribution because it helps avoid having your grandmother move into your room while your parents move you down in the basement. SS allows the elderly to live independently and not interfere with the rest of the family. It was not supposed to be a retirement plan, but politicians kept raising the benefits to buy the votes of the elderly.

Likewise, Medicare is a surreptitiously socialized form of healthcare for the elderly. You pay your Medicare taxes (or are they contributions, too?) so when your retired father requires extremely expensive healthcare during the last two weeks of life, he will not have to pay it himself. You benefit because he will have left a larger estate to you.

It should be pointed out that your employer pays an equal amount of each of these. (Actually, in yet another vote-buying exercise, SS is currently maintained at a below-normal level. Enjoy the tax break while you can.) The employer of course considers these matching amounts as part of the cost of employing you, and therefore avoids paying you directly for the value of your labor.

It should also be pointed out that, as I write this, my tongue is so far into my cheek it is starting to hurt. Oh - and the part about Medicare covering substantial healthcare charges in the last two weeks of life did apply to my father. I didn't care about the fact that Medicare picked up the tab; good fathers are priceless. Enjoy yours while you can.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:49 | 2449486 barroter
barroter's picture

...and considering how wonderful private health insurance is now!  I can imagine the plans they'd have for 65 year olds if Medicare was abolished.  I doubt nothing under $30,000 a year with a ton of provisos.  

 There's nothing like a cornered, desperate customer wanting to live. Can extract his retirement savings in weeks!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 22:56 | 2449623 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

People want Doctors to take responsibility for making them well, AND they want someone else to assume the responsibility for paying for it!


Health insurance should cover accidents and catastrophes, NOT routine medical bills.  I've noticed that my auto insurance does NOT cover oil changes and tire rotations...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:25 | 2448316 Bizaro World
Bizaro World's picture

Sadly you are right. Too many are dependent on entitlements, which was/is the exact goal of socialist politicians, especially Barry the self proclaimed Kenyan. Make enough dependent on the state that they will continually vote for more and more free S***. It will continue to work until the day it doesn't, then there will be riots.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:49 | 2448380 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

 Not that I like Barry -- I don't -- but the chart above clearly shows that Reagan, GWH Bush and GW Bush all increased the national debt by a large percentage more than Barry did (although Barry certainly did his part).   These huge geometric increases are the real reason that the debt is absolutely fucking unpayable now.  There is no way the American people can be taxed enough to pay down the debt at this point.  This is the real reason the Fed needs to print 60% of all federal spending now with interest rates at historic low (thanks to the Fed's negative real rates policy).  That 60% can only increase thanks to miracle of compound interest.

Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this mess, but it can be argued that the Republicans are more to blame due to their absolutely unaffordable military spending.  Reagan/Bush started us down this rabbit hole of no return (though LBJ is not entirely blameless).  His cheerleaders claim his (it was more accurately GHW Bush's, the power behind the throne) military spending bankrupted the Soviet Union.  Perhaps it did, although it can be argued that there were other causes of the SU breakup.  It definitely bankrupted America and the rest of the West.

Remember The Dick's immortal words: "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."   I suggest Reagan and his successors proved deficits do matter.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:03 | 2448441 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture


Ignore that most of the free world is dead broke much of it having no military spending-like the major US cities and  states,

or have decimated their militaries beyond belief like most of Europe and have higher taxation to boot but are still DEAD BROKE. SO they largely followed the liberal plan to a tee and WOW shocking same end result-maybe even worse since they can't cut military moving forward.

But it's the military spending not the hundreds of trillions of globally unfunded social obligations.

Illinois refied again recently, paid corp junk rates for military spending!


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:15 | 2448881 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

This started with Johnson's "Great Society" welfare/warfare state.

All parties have contributed to it in equal numbers.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:17 | 2448888 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

It was recently pointed out by another poster on another thread that Greece would not have the debt problem it has were it not for the NATO spending that it agreed to.  Military spending bankrupts countries.  It's happened before -- Louis XIV's France is a good model and there are many others -- and it's happened right here in the good ol' USofA.

Social spending provides a better educated, housed, and fed population although it can be argued that the slackers don't deserve it.  Military spending only enriches a small percentage of the population and doesn't provide anything to support the needs of the people.   Claimed benefits of protection are just that -- claimed.  There is no evidence that the huge military spending has protected Americans much if at all.  There is plenty of evidence to the contrary -- that it has caused Americans to die in foreign conflicts.

And your employer, the fascist, rascist State of Israel, does absolutely fucking nothing to deserve the American taxpayer's largess -- quite the opposite in fact.  Israel has done more to bankrupt America than the Soviet Union did.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:11 | 2449100 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Oh try try again-

no military spending in the entire world since 1979 and the world is still buried in debt.

Hundreds of trillions that is what is being financed worldwide, not getting to hundreds of trillions in military spending probably going back to the first weapon ever built.

What will it take before the completely brainless neo marxist fanatic acknowledges epic fail?

I see nothing possible.  Despite it being obvious the rich and powerful built these massive governments to their own benefit, still have complete fucking morons who think big government benefits the people and not the rich and powerful. Mind numbing. Yo dumber than dirt imbecile, if small government benefitted the rich and powerful they would have spent the last 100yrs dismantliing governments not growing them to obscene sizes.

As far your daily crapping of jew hate-

have you found the billions from Ms Arafat yet?

How about Mubarak?

How about Daffy? 

Yea largesse! the US wastes more money on backward ass tyranical muzzie dictators hell bent on setting back the human race than they ever could on those evil joos.   That not even counting the boatloads of cash for oil, something that should sell for what it costs to get out of the ground plus a little and not some ludicrously inflated price because of the deterioration of the dollar.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:13 | 2449130 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Wrecktal Itche said:

Yea largesse! the US wastes more money on backward ass tyranical muzzie dictators hell bent on setting back the human race than they ever could on those evil joos.

You neglected to include US military spending, a significant portion of which is wasted due to the US military's indirect control by backward ass tyrannical izzie dictators, like Netinyahoo, hell bent on setting back the human race.

But hey, such self-imposed blinders, paid for by America, are part of the eternal nature of izzie citizenism.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:30 | 2449152 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Include everything times ten just don't exclude the obviously inflated oil revenue.

Still not getting to the shitloads of money going to the tyranical muzzie dictators.

It is fucking laughable beyond all comprehension.

It is laughable regardless,  like not even in the same universe laughable even excluding oil.

But hey, fanatics are fanatics for a reason.  Afterall who gives a shit where less than 1% of the federal budget goes? total US foreign aid= less than 1% of the federal budget. Oh right the joo haters do and then they like to deny that their beloved muzzie dictators did not receive superior largesse even though it is not close.




Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:40 | 2449188 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Wrecktal Itche said:

But hey, fanatics are fanatics for a reason.

Fanatical izzie citizenism is as fanatical izzie citizenism does. But hey, it must be great because it is brought by izzie citizenism so...

Afterall who gives a shit where less than 1% of the federal budget goes? Oh right the joo haters do and then they like to deny that their beloved muzzie dictators did not receive superior largesse even though it is not close.

Ah, the good old days when the Arabs falled in love with izzie citizenism and volunteered to squander their property on accomplishing the promised land.

Forget about the story of pride of izzie citizen tax payers funding their government state society to crush and enslave stateless stories.

They are just disturbing stories.Nothing more.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:43 | 2449475 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

The only disturbing story around here, is the lengths the local fanatics will go to in order to post the earth is flat.

and even that is not that disturbing because afterall you are a fanatic.

Who else would try and compare all the money shipped to the muzzie dictators compared to the zionists?  Only a fanatic. Anyone else would instantly know how silly that happens to be. Maybe instead of actually catagorizing aid by country, they should do it by religion to make it easier for the special kids.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 22:45 | 2449602 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Wrecktal Itche said:

Who else would try and compare all the money shipped to the muzzie dictators compared to the zionists?  Only a fanatic. Anyone else would instantly know how silly that happens to be.

Ah, ah, fantasy best thrives in native fantasy environment, that being izzie citizenism. It may be possible that the requirement of self indiction avoidance is such in izzie citizenism that one should not confess fantasy acts. Could be worth real.

Maybe instead of actually catagorizing aid by country, they should do it by religion to make it easier for the special kids.

Yes, sure, because that being the method of izzie firsters categorizing the world.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 20:37 | 2449313 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

<<boatloads of cash for oil, something that should sell for what it costs to get out of the ground plus a little and not some ludicrously inflated price because of the deterioration of the dollar.>>

You can look to your beloved Faux-Jooze for the answer to that.   Rothschild, Rockefeller, The British Empire, WW1, BP, Iran puppets, and the partnership/love affair between The Empire and the House of Saud are a big part of the reason oil sells for what it does and why the profits are "ludicrously inflated".

America wastes money on "backward ass tyranical muzzie dictators" because that's what America's owners, the Faux-Jooze want.  It's all part of The Big Plan -- World Denomination by G-d's Chosen People and 1,000s of Gentile slaves for each one of them.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:34 | 2449450 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Right so save the neo marxist nonsense and just post I HATE JEWS next time.

That post is the usual gibberish from start to finish.

They doing a great job with the master plan as Islam spreads like the plague.

thanks for playing.



Mon, 05/21/2012 - 23:07 | 2449638 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Xkwiseetlee Panefool Wrecktal Itche said:

Right so save the neo marxist nonsense and just post I HATE JEWS next time.

More fantasy again. It is just a fantasy invented by izzie citizens to mediate between reality and their thoughts on how reality should be.

That post is the usual gibberish from start to finish.

Nothing to see here except izzie citizenism strawsman and offuscation. Just to divert attention from izzie citizenism blobbing up to exterior.

They doing a great job with the master plan as Islam spreads like the plague.

Izzie citizen nature is probably the only one to fit the bill of eternity. All you need to do is a kicking the can and a truer than true attitude.

You know, members of the species, izzie citizens excel at defining who is a human and who is not.

The excuses izzie citizens can invent to dilute their responsibility, what fantasy they are ready to accept.


Tue, 05/22/2012 - 14:22 | 2451830 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

<<They doing a great job with the master plan as Islam spreads like the plague.>>

"They" are your employers, the Faux-Jooze, and they are doing one helluva Hegelian job pissing of Islam and providing the causes and the ignition sparks for radical Islam to "spread like the plague".   Brilliantly, America gets to pay the bill for Faux-Joodumb's Master Plan.

FYI, Marxism is a Faux-Jooze invention.  Marx was Faux-Joo economist.  Zionism is neo-marxist nonsense with the Zionists the Chosen People and the rest of humanity their slaves, not much different from the Nazi Übermensch dogma.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:00 | 2449111 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

FeralSerf said:

Not that I like Barry -- I don't -- but the chart above clearly shows that Reagan, GWH Bush and GW Bush all increased the national debt by a large percentage more than Barry did (although Barry certainly did his part).

I recall watching the Reagan-Carter debates from 1980. It is important to understand that Carter was telling Americans that it was time that we, as a nation, grew up and accepted our responsibilities like adults. For instance, we had to fork over taxes to pay the bills that we owed, and we had to develop a sustainable and realistic energy policy. On the other hand, Reagan was telling us that it was morning in America. We could pay our bills by cutting taxes, and, as long as we remembered that we were America®, we could wish our problems away.

It became clear that Carter was just another tax-and-spend liberal. Fortunately, America chose Reagan, a borrow-and-spend conservative, whose policies are largely responsible for the prosperity we enjoy today.

Both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this mess, but it can be argued that the Republicans are more to blame due to their absolutely unaffordable military spending.

It is easy to say this in hindsight, but we must remember that, during Reagan's presidency, not once did Deng Xiaoping and the People's Liberation Army attempt an invasion of America. Additionally, Reagan prevented an invasion of the Homeland by the Soviet Army under three different dictators (Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, and Konstantin Chernenko). The death of these three dictators convinced Mikhail Gorbachev that Reagan had placed a curse on the position of Soviet Dictator, which is why the Soviet Union surrendered to America, ending the Cold War.

Also, under Reagan's leadership, relations between Israel and Iran were much better than they are now. This cannot be disputed, since Israel delivered armaments to Iran under the terms of the Iran-Contra treaty.

Yes, Reagan spent a lot on the military, but thanks to him, we are not all now speaking Chinese or Russian. Freedom isn't free, after all.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:25 | 2449158 Havana White
Havana White's picture

"American history (version) brought to you by the Heritage Foundation."

Speaking Russian or Chinese -- LOL.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 20:47 | 2449327 GeezerGeek
GeezerGeek's picture

Everyone should understand that, until recently, presidents only spent what was authorized by Congress. I'm not sure if that currently holds true. For decades the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress with only a brief interlude (1981-1986) where Republicans controlled the Senate. Reagan asked for increases in military spending to rebuild the Navy, which Carter had allowed to atrophy. He also wanted tax cuts to encourage economic growth and extract the US from the Carter-induced national malaise. Tip O'Neill (D-Mass.), Speaker of the House, went along with Reagan partially, promising (with fingers crossed) to cut non-defense spending. O'Neill also forced the tax cuts to be phased in over several years, delaying the economic recovery.

Clinton's spending was just as bad as that of George H.W. Bush until 1995, when Republicans captured both the House and the Senate. Led by Newt Gingrich, then Speaker of the House, Republicans passed a series of budgets that drastically reduced the yearly deficit. On any number of occassions Clinton objected, saying the budget could not possibly be balance for seven, or eight, or nine years. All those dates were well beyond the end of his second term. When the deficit did, in fact, shrink, Clinton was quick to declare that the era of big government was over and took credit for the budget miracle.

Unfortunately, the longer the Republicans were in power the more like Democrats they became. Bush 2 got elected and spending increased. Then came 9/11, wars and the Patriot Act, the Education Bill written with Ted Kennedy's assistance, Medicare part D, and all the rest of the "compassionate (but not even close to) conservative" garbage that Bush encouraged. Republican voters got tired of the turncoat big spenders and delivered Congress back to the Democrats in the 2006 election. Pelosi (House) and Reid (Senate) took over Congress in January of 2007, passed all sorts of garbage with Bush's (mostly willing) help, and a year of so later the bubbles burst and the economy cratered.

Trying to assign blame for deficits or spending levels to any president operating under normal budgetary procedures is shortsighted. Democrats in control of Congress overspent. Republicans in control of Congress overspent. Forget the party affiliations and stop playing the blame game. If you see an incumbent on the ballot, vote for the opponent. Except if the last name is Paul.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 20:03 | 2449254 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Not that I like any of them, but the chart doesn't correct for the amount of debt at the time of each president nor make comparisons based on years in office. This chart is designed to make Barry look good. He has spent more in less than four years than any president before him.

This is why it is prudent to learn about statistics and how they are used.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:41 | 2448354 gaoptimize
gaoptimize's picture

We past the Alexis De Tocqueville event horizon several years back.  There is no escaping the attraction of benefits from the public treasury, until the treasury runs out and SHTF ensues.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:30 | 2448541 marathonman
marathonman's picture

To paraphrase G. W. Bush, 'This sucker could go down.'

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:08 | 2448254 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

With the dollar’s downfall, smaller government may not be a choice.


Let me fix this for you:   With the dollar's downfall, smaller government WILL BE AMERICA'S ONLY CHOICE -- A HOBSON'S CHOICE, you might say

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:13 | 2448271 Aziz
Aziz's picture

I was being euphemistic.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:15 | 2448279 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

or, "euthanistic", as the case may be...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:16 | 2448884 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

I'm enthusiastic!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:08 | 2448255 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Americans want more free shit.

Cut off all welfare and government transfer programs today and tell me Americans want a smaller government.

Americans want free shit and that means bigger government. Period.

Can't have your cake and eat it too kiddies.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:10 | 2448261 Sophist Economicus
Sophist Economicus's picture

Some Americans want 'free shit', some do not.    That is where the epic battle lies....

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:13 | 2448270 redpill
redpill's picture

That's because when they say 'free shit' they really mean 'YOUR shit', now HAND IT OVER OR WE'LL CRY RACIST

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:31 | 2448337 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

Stop being a selfish Terrorist...............

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:40 | 2449189 Chump
Chump's picture

I would not want to be in an urban area (or even suburban for that matter) when the SHTF if I had any meaningful amount of supplies already stockpiled.  Better make sure you drastically reduce your caloric intake anyway so as to look gaunt like the rest of the zombies.  Otherwise, your comment will have become the new reality.

"Hoarder!  America hater!  Git that terrorist!"

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:23 | 2448516 krispkritter
krispkritter's picture

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Poster earlier...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:15 | 2448276 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

Americans are like ticks on the welfare tit, don't fool yourself.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:17 | 2448284 malikai
malikai's picture

Welcome back. Sux that you're right. America has the government it wants and deserves.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:22 | 2448305 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

I agree with that. We will get the government we deserve when we raise up and earn it back.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:29 | 2448332 bob_dabolina
bob_dabolina's picture

I never left, just mainly partake in another part of ZH now.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:54 | 2448409 FeralSerf
FeralSerf's picture

<<Can't have your cake and eat it too>>

Sure they can.  They just need the Chinese to bake more cakes than the Americans can eat (and the Americans can eat a lot of cake) and get the Chinese to accept fiats -- the paper variety -- in exchange for the cakes.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:01 | 2448436 barroter
barroter's picture

While we're at it, slash any and all subsidies to business.  Any gov't sponsored favors as well.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:11 | 2448263 bobnoxy
bobnoxy's picture

Is the average American smart enough to know the difference? Feed them the same nonsense over and over again, and for not wanting to actually think for themsleves, they'll repeat it. They still won't understand it, but they'll at least think they sound smart.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:12 | 2448264 kito
kito's picture

i really want to replace my big ol' belly with a ripped 6 pack....but im not planning any situps in the near future..........sacrifice people.......thats what your rasmussen poll dreams require................

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:14 | 2448275 hellas4life
hellas4life's picture

The 1.4 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2009 should be added to the bush column in that chart. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009  fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House.


The events and policies that pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term were, for the most part, not of President Obama’s making. If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time. By the time CBO issued its new projections on January 7, 2009 — two weeks before Inauguration Day — it had already put the 2009 deficit at well over $1 trillion.


The graph tells a simple story that I've recounted before. For all the talk you hear about Obama's historic spree, government spending actually hasn't increased so dramatically under this president. The stimulus was big, but it's over. It's been replaced by, if not austerity (which has struck our states and cities) then a hard correction to the center.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:20 | 2448293 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Yeah ~ You're right... How can you blame someone like Obama who can't even come up with a budget?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:22 | 2448304 Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

He's written quite a few budgets.  Just can't seem to get any votes.


But the Obamabot is right...the spending spree isn't Obama's fault.  He's just a stooge in front of a teleprompter  Spending bills originate in the House and then go to the Senate.  It's easy to tell who is in charge of those two bodies at any point in time :)

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:37 | 2448349 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Spending bills originate on Wall St, "K" Street, & in Arlington... Then they go on to the House & Senate (for rubber stamp approval)...


There, fixed it...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:20 | 2448296 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

We get it democrats good republicans bad.....keep telling yourself that. What ever you need to do to sleep at night.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:30 | 2448335 hellas4life
hellas4life's picture

they're all bad, dr and are each guilty of their own crony capitalism/socialism esp when it comes to 30 trillion in bailoutfunds for wall street and counting  but let's try to get some facts straight first before laying blame and the reason for the massive deficits if we're ever going to address the situation properly. 

here's some more info for you.

50% of spending goes to military!

The Pew Center reported in April 2011 the cause of a $12.7 trillion shift in the debt situation, from a 2001 CBO forecast of a cumulative $2.3 trillion surplus by 2011 versus the estimated $10.4 trillion public debt we actually face in 2011. The major drivers were:

Revenue declines due to the recession, separate from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 28%
Defense spending increases: 15%
Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003: 13%
Increases in net interest: 11%
Other non-defense spending: 10%
Other tax cuts: 8%
Obama Stimulus: 6%
Medicare Part D: 2%
Other reasons: 7%[39]

2008 vs. 2009

In October 2009, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave the reasons for the higher budget deficit in 2009 ($1,410 billion, i.e. $1.41 trillion) over that of 2008 ($460 billion). The major changes included: declines in tax receipt of $320 billion due to the effects of the recession and another $100 billion due to tax cuts in the stimulus bill (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act or ARRA); $245 billion for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and other bailout efforts; $100 billion in additional spending for ARRA; and another $185 billion due to increases in primary budget categories such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Defense – including the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. This was the highest budget deficit relative to GDP (9.9%) since 1945.[40] The national debt increased by $1.9 trillion during FY2009, versus the $1.0 trillion increase during 2008.[41]

The Obama Administration also made four significant accounting changes to more accurately report the total spending by the federal government. The four changes were:

accounting for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ("overseas military contingencies") in the budget rather than through the use of supplemental appropriations;
assuming the Alternative Minimum Tax will be indexed for inflation;
accounting for the full costs of Medicare reimbursements; and
anticipating the inevitable expenditures for natural disaster relief.

According to administration officials, these changes will make the debt over ten years look $2.7 trillion larger than it would otherwise appear



Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:32 | 2448341 Dumpster Fire
Dumpster Fire's picture

According to administration officials, 


Thanks for the laughs.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:02 | 2448445 barroter
barroter's picture

Yeah, trust the market, it won't screw everyone over. No no...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:10 | 2448484 Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

The only accurate thing about your post is the fact that you're all bad. Any propaganda quotable to administration officials is laughable at best.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:14 | 2448877 bjfish
bjfish's picture

Your commie pie-chart is a joke ... just like you.  Why don't you check the actual Federal budget at  economic report of the president, Appendix B-81 82

You would see the facts:  Military spending at 21% of budget, less than SS, and FAR less than gov't health care spending.

So many here wish to assign blame (which is kinda childish), but no one is pointing out that every president is saddled with pre-existing programs.  It is SS and health care spending which is CLEARLY driving our federal spending, so shouldn't the blame go th FDR and LBJ ?


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:22 | 2449146 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

     Military spending at 21% of budget,

Oh, bullshit.  That's not military spending, that DoD spending.  Lots of "military" spending is not part of the DoD budget.

I've never understood why this is still misrepresented so persistently. Even smart folks who are psyched to show off some statistical familiarity refuse to even TRY to get it right.

For example: taking care of the strategic missile stockpile is a military expense, and it's covered in the DoE budget. 

Looking at the kids' charts and the summaries of the budget won't work.  You have to read the words.  That puts it out of reach of most Americans, who lack either the patience or the interest, if not the ability.

I do agree that SocSec and Medicare are huge shares of the budget and can be expected to continue growing very rapidly.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:55 | 2449490 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Oh bullshit.

Let's forget that pensions and healthcare for retired veterans is part of the DOD  which accounts for 1/3rd of their budget.

2/3rds of the federal budget not including interest is not military spending,

but so little of it is actually listed as explicit social welfare, but what the fuck else can it possibly be?

I guess I have to actually read the words to see how many different names it goes by these days.

That put's it out of reach of most Americans, they don't count the Arctic Research Commission as social spending.

Tue, 05/22/2012 - 09:11 | 2450486 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

You're right about something, amazing.  The military is largely a welfare program--for the members and for the failed businesses it subsidizes.

That may be true in your country, too.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 20:13 | 2449271 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

You sound like an honest guy. Guess you'll tally up the 14 trillion the FED dumped into the system as well? 

It really doesn't matter. Congress is in charge of spending. Presidents just want the credit when it makes them look good. They always blame the last president for the debt charged to them. 

I could care less how much they spend, it is the NDAA/ Patriot type laws that they sign that are problematic. For those, they should be shot.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:16 | 2448281 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

Someone needs to invent a form of government that does not move from smaller to bigger.

One that doesn't follow every other one from less restrictive to more.

Win a nobel prize or something.

Until that happens, that is how it works with minor blips and exceptions until there is no governance at all.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:32 | 2448339 Lucky Guesst
Lucky Guesst's picture

Come up with a reasonable total number of government employees and a time limit they can keep the job. Everytime someones time is up hire another and add them to the bottom of the list. But it can't grow.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:20 | 2448292 Bluntly Put
Bluntly Put's picture

I've contributed to Ron Paul's campaigns in the past, but no longer. If he drops from the elephant herd, I'll send him some $$ but not until then. Dr. Paul needs to practice what he preaches.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:29 | 2448334 fpdguy
fpdguy's picture

Have you considered how much more powerful it is to see the RINO's without a party... without a home?  As Ron Paul supporters continue to take over the various state apparatus, the artists formerly known as the GOP find themselves less as a force to be reckoned with and more as lost souls trying to find themselves...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 23:10 | 2449644 StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

How many MORE election cycles do you think we have?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:20 | 2448295 Joaquin
Joaquin's picture

Right, and America has shown everyone how American capitalism has nearly the intelligence of brewers yeast.  As yeast in a wine vat drown in their own excrement, so does American Capitalism drown as it gorges on debt.  This shouild never have been allowed except that there has been no political leadership in the U.S. except as paid stooges of the wealthy.   Yes, just what we need less government so that the elite can have more.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:25 | 2448310 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture


The rich and powerful control governance and in the last 100yrs or whatever have built obscene amount of government.

WHy do you people continue to believe that big governance is in your interests?

THey could have spent that time dismantling governments and not building them up if that was in their best interests instead just the opposite took place and they obviously have benefitted immensly,

so how can anyone believe big governance is in anyone's best interests but the rich and powerful?

it makes ZERO SENSE.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:36 | 2448350 Xkwisetly Paneful
Xkwisetly Paneful's picture

BTW it should be noted that dumb governance is worse than no governance.


Because it gives the illusion of safety that doesn't exist.

People who deal  in unregulated industry and service are well aware of the perils,

people who deal in dumb governance believe some beaurocrat is out there protecting their interests when no such things exist.

Hardly anyone disputes the benefits of effective governance. 

The dispute arises regarding ineffective or dumb governance.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:08 | 2448471 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

The stage is set for complete, total full spectrum World domination from The Global Elite. Understand the core reason these Criminals continue to rape, pillage and steal wealth is though Illusion/Cover. We are not THE UNITED STATES but we are The United States of America. It is not The Constitution of The United States, it is The Constitution For The United States of America. Notice the difference. Do you see the Cover/Illusion.

These Criminals have been hiding behind the Corportate version of The Constituiton. Get it? That's the Cover and the reason behind their Crimes Against Humanity and The American People. Ask yourselves, why CIA propaganda, misinfomation/disinfomation is so good? Because it works. And the Elite own the media and have it staffed with their CIA agents/Council of Foreign Relation stooges like Andersen Cooper and Dianne Sawyer. The PsyOp runs deep, very deep.

The American people can continue to stay divided and blame the puppets Obama/Bush. Like they have any say in the matter. Both parties are the same sides of the same coin, bought and paid for a long time ago by The Elite Orligarchs. These Criminals sold their souls long ago.

So, continue to follow their lies, cover stories and false narratives such as Osama Bin Laden. A convenient CIA funded and trained Operative, code name Tim Osman. Sorry, But I digress.

Divide and Conquer. That's the Elite's game.

Total Complete Full Spectrum World Domination.  Via The City of London. The financial location of The Banksters, which Wall Street is just an extension. They own the Military, Media and have put forth hundreds of years worth of planning to complete their goals of the aforementioned.

It began with The Fascist Patriot Act which morphed into The Military Commissions Act, John Warner Defense Act, NDAA, PD51, Torture, Illegal Wire Tapping etc..etc... You get the picture? We're dealing with pure Evil, which cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. Their goal was to break the sovereignty of The United States along with our good men and women of the Military while simultaneously ushering in their NWO protective force of Their Global Military/Police Force to protect their Corrupt system/Crimes Against Humanity. We're just their Debt Slaves. Divided and Conquered.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:17 | 2448689 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

Accepted 4 Value...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:38 | 2448298 JustObserving
JustObserving's picture

Who cares what Americans want? The elite banksters and their poodles, the politicians, control American policy.  

Most Americans are against wars, bailout of the big banks, Patriot Act, for decriminalization of marijuana, and against NDAA.  That has made no difference to US policy.

Why do we even take polls in the US of A?  To keep up that pretense that the voice of the people matters?

Keep on dreaming of democracy in a fascist country - the new American dream.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:17 | 2448499 Chupacabra-322
Chupacabra-322's picture

The highly educated intelligent & wealthy owners of the world banking, media, military & major corporations are in control of the world political & economic policies, so morally it doesn't really matter. They deceive, wage wars, killing and impoverish millions of the other 99% human populations, for the New World Order to satisfy their greed & arrogance, all in the name of democracy, freedom & war on terrorism. Does it sound delusional? Not if you are the so called? "God" chosen white western elephants.


"The few who understand the system, will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantages...will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without suspecting that the system is inimical to their best interests." -- Rothschild Brothers of London communique' to associates in New York June 25, 1863

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:21 | 2448300 Alejandrito
Alejandrito's picture

I absolutely agree with the Americans, now we just need to be put in place that reduce their budget and lower their taxes.

But do not think it strange reason none of that will produce.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:24 | 2448309 W10321303
W10321303's picture

We must attack Iraq before 'a mushroom' cloud...blah blah blah" and we will finance this act of pure aggession by (no new taxes, in fact lower taxes for the SUPER RICH to speculate on DERIVATIVES with) selling worthless U.S. debt to China and Britian and Japan --VOOOOOODOOOOOO Economics and we will transfer Federal tax revenue to the Military-Industrial-Complex with NO, ZERO, NONE, accounting system to monitor the effectiveness of the expenditures, AND all the while we will hire smoooooth-talking soap salesmen to blather on about how EVIL BIG government is and how lower taxes will create new jobs and trickle down, blah, blah, blah, and all of the pseudo-intellectuals will BUY the whole line of Bullshit, like a bunch of leming/sheep....bahhhh bahhhh bahhhhhh, - the only mystery is...who is dumber?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:04 | 2448456 barroter
barroter's picture

Attack Iran? We'll see debacle #2 occur because these fools didn't manage the last war correctly.  I bet Rumsfeld can be hired again to oversee this new war!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:26 | 2448320 spooz
spooz's picture

Choosing between giant douche and turd sandwich isn't exactly "giving voice".  Just saying "government is getting bigger" ignores the type of government we have: crony capitalism infects both parties, so any government spending will first go to the corporate masters.  If something trickles down to the sheeple, just make sure its not much.  Austerity, yeah, thats it.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:27 | 2448321 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

"Americans Want Smaller Government And Lower Taxes"

I think a more accurate account from what I've read is that they want lower taxes, smaller government, but the same services and handouts.  I know, that's pretty stupid, but how do you think we've ended up with the government we have?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:38 | 2448572 spooz
spooz's picture

There are good ways and bad ways to cut expenses.  I would start with single payer health care.  Save money by giving less to big Pharma, corporate health care and insurance, more to care.  I've posted the details on how to actually make healthcare affordable before.  It can be done, but crony capitalism won't let it happen.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:29 | 2448331 A Lunatic
A Lunatic's picture

The polls say one thing but the votes tell the true tale............the majority of voters is quite happy with big government, big spending, and circuses.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:33 | 2448346 rufusbird
rufusbird's picture

It is all about power and control. A person in a position to spend large amounts of money gets treated in a way that beomes addictive. The rush of that power is so overwhelming that it becomes compulsive. Control by giving and granting contracts. They can't resist. It is all smiles when you are handing out money.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:43 | 2448362 Whats that smell
Whats that smell's picture

This November I might feel Green, Libratarian, (Not the REPublican fake kind) or perhaps Pirate. but no to R or D.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:48 | 2448374 kralizec
kralizec's picture

Smaller government?  Lower taxes?  These people must be raaaaacists!

Hmmm, whatever...I guess I am one of 'em.  ; )

Too bad nobody fricken listens to us! 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:33 | 2448558 spooz
spooz's picture

No, if they want neocon propaganda they can get it first hand on FOX.  No need to listen to brainwashed sheeple.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:49 | 2448376 falak pema
falak pema's picture

If Americans want smaller government and lower taxes they have to destroy Pax Americana and hang the Oligarchs who helped built it!

Pipe dream? Wet Dream? Put your money where your mouth is those who believe in this. Apparently you don't, as your isolationist candidate is OUT and you are on the phoney Oligarchy capitalist round-about! 

And its destroying American republic and democracy and you are doing nothing about it except blaming Keynes. 

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:05 | 2448462 barroter
barroter's picture

The neocons did such a great job on that last war huh? Losers all!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:50 | 2448384 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep, everybody wants smaller gubbmint... just as long as their slice of the gubbmint cheese doesn't get smaller...

And be sure to cut my taxes while you are at it, don't forget that I am entitled to $1 worth of benefits for $0.15...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:50 | 2448387 Cranios
Cranios's picture

CORRECTION: TAXPAYERS want lower taxes and smaller government. (But they'll never get that because the 46% of people who pay no taxes want larger government and want taxpayers to pay for their goodies)

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:51 | 2448393 ZackAttack
ZackAttack's picture

People *say* they want smaller government and lower taxes.

That's for other people, though. They want to keep their own pork, direct and indirect.  

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:53 | 2448403 tekhneek
tekhneek's picture

Do people actually care about the debt?

The system was designed to continue to accumulate debt and shift the loss to the taxpayer with inflation -- that has always been the plan.

You can't have $0 debt when your entire monetary system is based on debt. They borrowed the first $1 into existence for Christ's sake and invented the IRS as a way to pay back the interest on the $1 they borrowed.

This is great in theory, but where do you get the second dollar to pay off the interest? Even if you tax it, you still had to borrow it for it to come into circulation. You simply cannot pay off the debt, that-is-the-fucking-point.

It will never go down, it will continue to rise until it goes parabolic and renders all fiat worthless. E.g., it finds its intrinsic value (zero, 0, zilch, nada.)

Coming to a continent near you.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:02 | 2448442 Sweet Chicken
Sweet Chicken's picture

So easy a muppet can learn it!

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:27 | 2449161 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

No, no one actually cares about the debt, because most people don't understand what it means, and the folks who understand what it means know full-well it won't ever be paid.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:55 | 2448414 azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

The only way it stops is a total breakdown. A violent revolution of the people or it just continues. These people don't care what "the people" want. I am non violent guy, never owned a gun in my life until 2009, but I can see that the only way to change it is a violent overthrow of everything the political elites and corporate elites stand for.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:55 | 2448416 semperfi
semperfi's picture


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:55 | 2448417 i_call_you_my_base
i_call_you_my_base's picture

If you asked if they wanted more services and lower taxes you would get 100% agreement.

The problem with these studies is that no one ever defines what "small government" means or what is included in "fewer services". Studies like these just show peoples' pavlovian response to loaded phrases.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:56 | 2448418 American Sucker
American Sucker's picture

These surveys are a hoot.  When you start asking people what spending they want to cut specifically, they tell you they don't want to cut the military, Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.  The only program that gets a solid majority is "foreign aid", which is a miniscule part of the budget.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:00 | 2448432 Morrotzo
Morrotzo's picture

People "want" smaller government. Until it threatens their shit. Take away my public school? Take money off my food stamp card? Take my Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Veteran's pension and disability? Woah woah woah. I meant smaller government for OTHER people! Leave my shit alone!

In the same way a sizeable portion, oftentimes a majority, will come out in favor of "increased taxes on the rich" with the unsaid premise, the enthymeme, that "rich" means "only people who make more money than I do."

In the same way, somebody like Ann Romney, who lives a life of breath-taking luxury and is married to a man with approximately 200 million dollars, can say "I don't consider myself rich." In the same way the current multi-millionaire president can always declare that he just wants people to pay a "fair share," a number never given that can be defined and redefined as suits him and his political purposes.

Complete civic retardation.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 14:59 | 2448434 Shock and Aweful
Shock and Aweful's picture


You can get a person to say anything.

Most of the morons who answered these questions for Rasmusson simply heard the word "lower taxes" and voted for that know I'm right too.

See, it's easy to get somone to vote and agree to some abstract concept...especially one that says "you will pay less in taxes".

But, when these people start to realize that their lower taxes also mean they are gonna have all of the things they have grown accustomed to taken away or severly cut will find that many of them will change their minds quickly.

Obviously, this poll didn't ask ANY of the 50-60 million Americans who are living with the help of food security....medicare.....if they want to do without their services....did it?

Again, polls can say anything....and so can people.  But when push comes to shove, and you actually start taking away peoples standard of'll have an angry mob on your hands (ala Greece)

One thing for sure....the lower our taxes, the worse our financial situation is going to get.   Look, we have been cutting taxes - especially on capital gains for the better part of 40 years....and everytime they do it they say "this will create such a boom in growth that we will balance our budget....blah, blah, blah...".  But it never works.

I mean honestly, who wouldn't vote for a liar who says he is going to be able to cut taxes AND reduce the debt / defecit?    I continue to be amazed at the willingness of the public to be lied to....

It is much easier to be oblivious that it is to be honest with yourself I guess.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:03 | 2448453 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

It's too late America

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:06 | 2448463 Morrotzo
Morrotzo's picture

I would also like to point out that America officially has more net tax consumers than tax payers. Ultimately a leech will never willingly vote to stop sucking another being's blood.

A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:29 | 2448540 crawldaddy
crawldaddy's picture

stupid arguement, last I checked it was congress in charge of such matters.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:35 | 2448564 DrDre
DrDre's picture

Yes, they do want smaller government and fewer taxes, but they also want their benefits preserved. They think the problem is a few extra agencies and mothers out of wedlock on welfare. Wait until you tell them that their own entitlements are gone...

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:37 | 2448567 UTICA CLUB XX PURE
Mon, 05/21/2012 - 15:47 | 2448599 Revjack36
Revjack36's picture

I recently had a discussion with a Gen Y'er and his young son about the level of people on food stamps and govt assistance. Me being a Gen X'er and raised with the train of thought on paying your taxes, working towards retirement and a having a little savings. I was having a hard time understanding this whole younger generation being left in the dust with no skills and so quick to get a handout. The fascinating thing I pulled from this talk was the fact this younger gentlemen said that it doesn't bother him getting assistance. He looks at it like he is collecting what was promised to him in future now. A lot of these younger adults see through the smoke and mirrors understand these taxes collected for SS, Medicare etc will not be around once they get to retirement age. We are truly screwed as this is the prevailing thought process of these young adults, even the ones on my Gen X timeline. These kids know they been sold a empty bag of goods and are really paying for the older generations to golf and go to bingo etc. I guess in a way they have a realistic view based on the in your face facts of current living. I just have a hard time with the fact they do not have the drive to make their own way. Sorry all, time for me to get off the soap box.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:13 | 2448675 jplotinus
jplotinus's picture

I call BS to "small govt / less tax" dogma.
I also call BS on "push polling"

Smaller government and/or fewer services is an oxymoron. Whatever the phrase may mean, it probably doesn't mean less defense spending and fewer corporate tax breaks. As the nation as a whole is being lowered inexorably into or nearer to poverty, it is highly unlikely the majority want social security or Medicare or aid to housing to be cut, let alone food stamps. And they probably didn't want unemployment benefit cuts either, but they got that anyway.

Do students and parents really prefer higher interest loans so they can have smaller government? I doubt it.

They might want fewer "public/private" government handouts to private profit scams, especially those that allow the actual work involved to be outsourced to China. They do want fewer Wall Street bailouts, but it might be asked: how did that work out for us?

Who, exactly, are the "likely voters" anyway? What the phrase more accurately means is those who "likely" think their corporate jobs are secure. To be sure, that is a dwindling number but chances are Rasmussen knows precisely where to find enough of them to base a stupid poll on.

Invite better articles please.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:34 | 2448749 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

Mitt Romney and the GOP aren't going to give you a balanced budget or a smaller government, and since when does the government listen to "the majority of Americans"? 

If this was true, we'd be out of Afghanistan and we'd have single payer healthcare.  Give me a fucking break.



Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:35 | 2448753 Cardiodoc
Cardiodoc's picture

What we really want is less taxes, less government and more services, and we vote accordingly (and are accordingly obliged with political leaders who have ascended to their lofty positions after having been separated from their apparent grasp of reality).  We're getting what we want... by snorting pixie dust laced with hopium. (And I hear the withdrawal is horrible....)

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 16:59 | 2448824 Venerability
Venerability's picture

The vast majority of Americans are Centrist, no matter what their political affiliation.

The main thing we want is for the Extremes to stop ranting, raving, and fighting and to make real strides to reach consensus for everyone's good.

Political polls are useless these days, because they don't reach cell phones and other mobile devices and because only those on either Extreme tend to participate in them.


Tue, 05/22/2012 - 10:54 | 2449580 Lord Koos
Lord Koos's picture

You have too much common sense to be posting on ZH.

Tue, 05/22/2012 - 05:27 | 2450138 Lednbrass
Lednbrass's picture

This is utterly meaningless. Define what your "Centrist" postions are, and how they will fix anything, and also how this "compromise" is supposed to be benificial in any way. What you have expressed here is nothing but wooly headed nonsense.

So-called compromise is exactly why we are where we are. Instead of either a low tax/limited central government model or a high tax/high benefit central planning model (either of which is somewhat functional)we have a low tax/high benefit result which will implode. I would argue that you and the rest of the ostriches with no clear cut beliefs or opinions in any direction are the problem. You blow with the wind direction and offer nothing whatsoever beyond calling anyone who does have an actual opinion "extreme" and pretend that having no apparent value system of any kind or anything worth standing for is a virtue.

Good luck to you and the rest of your feckless suburban tribe when things unwind as they now certainly must.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:06 | 2448845 entropos
entropos's picture

I've already got my Gary Johnson yard sign up and am donating 5% of each paycheck to his campaign. 

It's pennies, almost, but it's the best I can do.  

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 17:20 | 2448897 Heroic Couplet
Heroic Couplet's picture

You cannot have "small" goverrnment if you have a standing military industrial complex; it's impossible when military spending comes from tax dollars. I know a surgeon who deliberately keeps salary well below 5 figures because of taxes that go to fund the military.

Small government: start with your family. Use state roads, stay away from anything regulated by the Federal Aviation Authority and the Federal Communication Commission. They're paid for with taxes. Want to do away with the Department of Education. Ok, think real hard: do away with it. Now, what savings have you realized?

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:18 | 2449139 DosZap
DosZap's picture

Want to do away with the Department of Education. Ok, think real hard: do away with it. Now, what savings have you realized?

A National Average of over $8,000+ per student that cannot spell(unless they are blessed to be taught using phonics),do math manually w/out a calc (if they know how to turn one ON.)

Or do manual division/multiplication tables, fractions,decimals, cannot pass the basic tests given to proceed to the next grade.( So, what do they do?, LOWER the standards for the test!!!!).

Friggin LUNACY.How's that for a start?.

Face it, the DOE is/was/has been a planned failure since the Sixties.( Why do you think the Voucher program has been fought over like abortion rights?,means the teachers have to Perform).

Or, paying Public school teachers based on their kids perfomance, rather than years of employment.

Pre-planned and brought on us by the PROGRESSIVE movement................which happens to currently be in charge of ALL of it.(Top down,ALL the way to the top)

And we wonder why most of our kids are basically  illiterate?.(Esp inner city/Urban ones).


Home schooled kids on average, come into the colleges, min 1-2 years ahead of their public school counterparts.

Why is that?...................didn't cost you and I $8k+ per head..................

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 18:36 | 2449068 cdskiller
cdskiller's picture

Completely bogus. If you wish to be taken seriously, back your assertions up.

"In fact, a plurality of Americans have called for small government and lower taxes ever since the days of Reagan."

One telephone poll, in which the question started with "In general..." does not support the post. secondly, the graphs are grossly misleading. During Clinton, federal spending was entirely flat. During Reagan and Bush pere, spending radically increased, despite their talk of smaller government and W increased the deficit dramatically. A majority of the increase in the deficit under Obama was his mistake of bailing out the banks that failed.


Mon, 05/21/2012 - 18:50 | 2449094 jplotinus
jplotinus's picture

Facts are meaningless absent owning up to the assumptions underlying them and a proper context in which to consider them. Consider this gem of a misrepresenting of facts:

"You would see the facts:  Military spending at 21% of budget, less than SS, and FAR less than gov't health care spending."

It is a gross misrepresentation to express $700billion ( military $$) as a percentage and compare that with pensions and healthcare for 70million people. That is especially apt because pensions and healthcare are paid for via contributions made by people over the course of their working careers.

Private pensions and healthcare have all but dried up. What remains are profit-making schemes that place emphasis on making money. Whether you have a reasonable pension and adequate healthcare are almost beside the point in private schemes. And that's nothing new.
Insurance is a for profit business where success is measured by an excess of premiums over claims and where exclusions from coverage and reductions in fees to providers are the driving forces.

Havent you heard, capitalism can't afford to pay for things like that.

We need smaller capitalism and less profit takers.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 18:51 | 2449097 DosZap
DosZap's picture Kudo's to Clinton and his Proposed Budget Magic...........HE was froced by a Repub majority to do it.

Period, end of story.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 19:46 | 2449199 blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Things won't change unless the systems and/or processes they use change.

If the election process continues to select candidates based on their ability to collect campaign donations from businesses, we'll continue to get candidates whose constituents are all part of the wealthiest 10% of the population.  They're the folks with the money, and they're the ones who run that process.

If the legislative process continues to be dominated by lobbyists, the laws written will continue to benefit the same people and organizations who pay the lobbyists.

If the only involvement of the masses in the political process is a day every few years where they get to tick a name on a computer screen, they will remain alienated from the process and largely uninterested in participating.

So the answer to the author's question is surely NO, but the reason is that there's no cogent description of how things actually work.  It's not hard to figure out how to change things if you start with an honest discussion of what's wrong.  We're not prepared to have the discussion, apparently.

Mon, 05/21/2012 - 21:18 | 2449410 johnf322
johnf322's picture

John Aziz,

It's obvious that you either never lived in Massacusetts or your head is up your ass... this state is so Democratisized (90%) that the state constitutional amendment (passed by Democrats) only allows a governor to "suggest" a budget with zero power to do a friggin' thing once he has. He didn't leave Massachusetts with anything other than the longest streak of congressional leaders who have been indicted for corruption since Adam shit in the garden. Get your facts straight.


Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!