|
joether -> RE: Wasting money (1/9/2012 10:26:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: erieangel
popeye, I'm with you on that one. We need smaller government. Unfortunately, to most republicans "smaller government" means a government that ends welfare and social security, doesn't see that all citizens have the basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing, for survival, doesn't care for those citizens unable to care for themselves; doesn't see to the education of our young people; but one that does legislate morality.
I know Admins, this is going off the primary topic on the surface, but really is on-topic when viewed below the surface...
The problem that I have with smaller goverment arguements, stems from people (usually of the conservative/libertarian philosophy) that argue big goverment creates more problems than it solves. That a smaller goverment would make it easier for Americans to control goverment, and there by control how goverment governs the people under its control. I find the arguements are silly, since there are plenty of examples of countries around the world that have small goverments and are for all intents and purposes, slaves to a large multi-national corporation. Oil and precious gems (i.e. diamonds) are just two examples of commodities that corporations hold enough of an interest in, to control the goverment that should be left to the actual people.
Its considerably easier (and less resources) for the top 100 multi-national corporations operating in America if the goverment was made smaller than it is now. Those resources could then be turned into profits that benefits entities other than the American people as a whole. Drugs have become another semi-source of commodities in that they must be manufactured from several different sources. Corporations need to have control over those 'raw material' origins as much as the rules regarding their manufacture and use (less research, testing, and trials before consumer use).
A smaller goverment in America would be considerably easier to handle from the corporation's viewpoint. Less regulations, less eyes on corporate secrets, and more control over the media that might inform Americans of potential dangers inherent with medication that was not tested throughly. How many products within the last two years alone have had to be recalled due to any number of 'safety' and 'potentiall fatal' hazards towards Americans? Would they have been recalled with 'smaller goverment' that had less eyes, rules, laws, and regulations (not to mention the regulators and indepent testing facilities)?
|
|
|
|
