54% of “political class” think Federal Government should have Unlimited Power

[bobbyw24]

Posted by Tabitha Hale (Profile)

Friday, August 6th at 4:10PM EDT

9 Comments
Let’s ignore for a minute the 9% of people who have no problem with full government control, according to this Rasmussen poll. That number is disturbing in and of itself. Let’s look at this part:

By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.

Seem outrageous? It absolutely is. But when you think about it, it’s not hard to believe. Remember when Pete Stark came out and said it last week? When they passed bills on a “trust us, this won’t hurt a bit” promise? Clearly, they know what’s best. They are the ruling class and should be in charge. Nevermind us mere mortals that, you know, pay their salaries and actually function in and drive the economy that they are currently destroying.

A fundamental belief of the Left is that the government can fix anything that is broken in society, whether it be racial injustice, health care problems, failing banking systems, or evil little children that don’t pay for licensing when they set up their lemonade stands. There is this idea of a state-sponsored utopia in Washington that compels them to meddle and “fix” everything they can get their hands on. The private sector is just too stupid to be left to their own devices. Black people and women need “national leaders” and caucuses because we’re all just too stupid to “lead” ourselves. Small business owners clearly don’t know what is best for their businesses, parents aren’t trusted to know what’s right for their children, and when a CEO is failing, a President with zero private sector experience is to destroy him and buy the floundering company.

After all, with such a brilliant cast of characters in Washington right now, why wouldn’t we trust them to make all of our decisions for us? The idea that more than half of the people in charge of running our country believe that the federal government should have unlimited power is terrifying, and it is the very reason that we’re forced to fight this fight right now. According to these numbers, 67% of people in the “political class” still believe that the country is generally on the right track, while a staggering 84% of mainstream voters believe that we’re headed in the wrong direction. That is a better than 40% gap between the voters and the political class.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the people that we have elected to put in office and the people that make up the United States of America


http://www.redstate.com/tabithahale/2010/08/06/54-of-political-class-think-federal-government-should-have-unlimited-power/

[shenlu54]

How to define political class???

[michaelwise]

Our main goal should be vote out every incumbent and repeal every stupid law passed in the last 100 years.

[roho76]

100% of children think they should have unlimited access to candy.

Of course they do.

[heavenlyboy34]

How can you be surprised? I and my colleagues have been trying to tell you just this for months! I'm glad you understand now, though. Welcome to red pill world. :cool:

[GunnyFreedom]

How can you be surprised? I and my colleagues have been trying to tell you just this for months! I'm glad you understand now, though. Welcome to red pill world. :cool:

:rolleyes:

Dude, why do you always have to pretend like you re the only one who knows stuff that is already blatantly obvious to everybody on these forums? Man, I love ya and respect ya, but my goodness whenever you do this it is soooo annoying!

[heavenlyboy34]

:rolleyes:

Dude, why do you always have to pretend like you re the only one who knows stuff that is already blatantly obvious to everybody on these forums? Man, I love ya and respect ya, but my goodness whenever you do this it is soooo annoying!

Because people keep arguing with me as if I'm wrong! I'm more addressing the arrogant types like Theo than you-you seem more reasonable to me so far. :o

Note I also never said anything about being the "only one" to know this-I specifically credited my colleagues here. Not sure why you skipped over that. Just feeling argumentative?

[low preference guy]

:rolleyes:

Dude, why do you always have to pretend like you re the only one who knows stuff that is already blatantly obvious to everybody on these forums? Man, I love ya and respect ya, but my goodness whenever you do this it is soooo annoying!

Yeah. I also noted HB seems to like showing off a lot, but usually ends up looking like a fool. For example, if Locke is mentioned, he often posts something like "Yeah, Locke was great, but he was wrong on the labor theory of value", even if he repeated the same thing many times in the past AND the thread is unrelated to that particular statement.

When HB isn't posting repeated and unrelated statements, he is usually trolling on the different forums for candidates telling people not to vote.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Yeah. I also noted HB seems to like showing off a lot, but usually ends up looking like a fool. For example, if Locke is mentioned, he often posts something like "Yeah, Locke was great, but he was wrong on the labor theory of value", even if he repeated the same thing many times in the past AND the thread is unrelated to that particular statement.

When HB isn't posting repeated and unrelated statements, he is usually trolling on the different forum for candidates telling people not to vote.

It's funny that you have that avatar, but you support theft -- just saying :p

Also, is this really news to people? Really?

[low preference guy]

you support theft

source?

[heavenlyboy34]

Yeah. I also noted HB seems to like showing off a lot, but usually ends up looking like a fool. For example, if Locke is mentioned, he often posts something like "Yeah, Locke was great, but he was wrong on the labor theory of value", even if he repeated the same thing many times in the past AND the thread is unrelated to that particular statement.

When HB isn't posting repeated and unrelated statements, he is usually trolling on the different forums for candidates telling people not to vote.

You're so cute when you're jealous! :D FYI-I've never been "made a fool" on these forums. Though if you're delusional or self-absorbed enough, I can see how one could come to that conclusion. You also falsely claim that I "trolling on the different forums for candidates telling people not to vote." I've not done this at all, per the forum rules. Since you've so thoroughly discredited yourself here, you should take a break and think before you post next time. :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

source?

Your disdain for voluntary Governance. Unless of course you erroneously believe that taxation is not theft.

[low preference guy]

Your disdain for voluntary Governance. Unless of course you erroneously believe that taxation is not theft.

First statement: Incorrect logic.
Second statement: Look at my avatar and at my post history arguing on the side that taxation is theft.

Why do you lie?

[heavenlyboy34]

First statement: Incorrect logic.
Second statement: Look at my avatar and at my post history arguing on the side that taxation is theft.

Why do you lie?

I could ask the same of you. WHY DO YOU LIE, low preference guy? And not only lie, but slander others without proof or just cause, such as myself. :confused:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

First statement: Incorrect logic.
Second statement: Look at my avatar and at my post history arguing on the side that taxation is theft.

Why do you lie?

Why then do you support the State if you believe taxation is theft?

[low preference guy]

Why then do you support the State if you believe taxation is theft?

i don't support forceful taxation. i believe all government funding should be voluntary. you seem unaware of the existence of such people, but it's not that unusual, Ayn Rand held the same position.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

i don't support forceful taxation. i believe all government funding should be voluntary. you seem unaware of the existence of such people, but it's not that unusual, Ayn Rand held the same position.

So then, if I don't pay can I opt out (of whatever rules your Government sets up) and create my own protection service? If so, you are pretty much an An-Cap, and Ayn Rand held so many conflicting views (Like James Madison) its hard to take her seriously.

[low preference guy]

So then, if I don't pay can I opt out (of whatever rules your Government sets up) and create my own protection service? If so, you are pretty much an An-Cap, and Ayn Rand held so many conflicting views (Like James Madison) its hard to take her seriously.

i'm not an ancap. the government i would found would still be a monopoly, which just doesn't give services to those who don't pay.

if someone commits a crime against you and you didn't fund the government, the offender would still be prosecuted because it will be in the interest of those who pay to catch criminals. but you won't be able to have contracts enforced.

if you hire a "private court" to enforce a contract, whoever wants to enforce that contract by exerting some sort of violence will be prosecuted by the state, because the state has a monopoly in the legal use of violence (with a few exceptions like self defense). again, where am i supporting theft?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

i'm not an ancap. the government i would found would still be a monopoly, which just doesn't give services to those who don't pay.

if someone commits a crime against you and you didn't fund the government, the offender would still be prosecuted because it will be in the interest of those who pay to catch criminals. but you won't be able to have contracts enforced.

if you hire a "private court" to enforce a contract, whoever wants to enforce that contract by exerting some sort of violence will be prosecuted by the state, because the state has a monopoly in the legal use of violence (with a few exceptions like self defense). again, where am i supporting theft?

What happens if no one pays?

[low preference guy]

What happens if no one pays?

is that directly relevant as to whether i support theft or not? because that's the only claim i want to rebuke, that i support theft. and i don't want to hijack the thread even further. i will answer your question if you ask me on a thread related.

the only thing i can imagine that could make this being related to whether i support theft is if I say, yeah, then people should be forced to pay. but no, if no one wants to pay, (which won't happen for reasons i won't expand here because i don't want to hijack the thread), that's still no justification for stealing.

[sailingaway]

This is why repeatedly about 40% of the American people think Congress should be replaced by people picked at random from the phone book.

The chances of them being from the 'political class' are slim.