Less Government - Less Waste, Less Control

The poster in this video makes some valid points. No government is probably NOT a good idea. Limited government like the Vermont town meeting concept at the Federal and State level - a good idea.



A better idea:



Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3O8_9z4hcU

Do you know who made these famous quotes?

• I have little interest in
  streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean
  to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I
  propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal
  them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old
  ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their
  purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial
  burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is
  "needed" before I have first determined whether it is
  constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked
  for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply
  that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in
  that cause I am doing the very best I can.
  

• I would remind you that
  extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind
  you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
  
  
  
  • Acceptance Speech as the 1964 Republican Presidential
    candidate. Variants and derivatives of this that are often quoted
    include:
    Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance
    in the face of tyranny is no virtue.
    Extremism in the defense of
    liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no
    virtue.
    Moderation in the protection of liberty is no virtue;
    extremism in the defense of freedom is no vice.
    

• Those who seek absolute power,
  even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply
  demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth.
  And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the
  most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who
  seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken
  course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen.
  Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood
  it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative
  differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our
  time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
  

• I'm the most underdog underdog
  there is.
  

• It is a fact that Lyndon
  Johnson and his curious crew seem to believe that progress in
  this country is best served simply and directly through the
  ever-expanding gift power of the everlastingly growing Federal
  Government. One thing we all know, and I assure you I do: that's a
  much easier way to get votes than my way. It always has been. It's
  political Daddyism, and it's as old as demagogues and despotism.
  

• My faith in the future rests
  squarely on the belief that man, if he doesn't first destroy
  himself, will find new answers in the universe, new technologies,
  new disciplines, which will contribute to a vastly different and
  better world in the twenty-first century. Recalling what has
  happened in my short lifetime in the fields of communication and
  transportation and the life sciences, I marvel at the pessimists who
  tell us that we have reached the end of our productive capacity, who
  project a future of primarily dividing up what we now have and
  making do with less. To my mind the single essential element on
  which all discoveries will be dependent is human freedom.
  

• I think every good Christian ought
  to kick Falwell right in the ass.
  

• On religious issues there can
  be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are
  so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful
  ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah,
  or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful
  weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used
  sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our
  land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are
  trying to force government leaders into following their position 100
  percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular
  moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money
  or votes or both.
  I'm frankly sick and tired of the political
  preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want
  to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B,"
  "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are?
  And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their
  moral beliefs to me?
  And I am even more angry as a legislator
  who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it
  has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in
  the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step
  of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all
  Americans in the name of "conservatism."
  

• I told Johnson
  and old colleagues on Capitol Hill that we had two clear choices.
  Either win the [Vietnam] war in a relatively short time, say within
  a year, or pull out all our troops and come home.
  
• Vietnam is about halfway around
  the world from Washington. It's as large as the major European
  nations, with nearly 130,000 square miles... Its ancient recorded
  history goes back to 111 B.C... We entered (that country) with
  considerable ignorance.
  

• If preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure
  trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly,
  these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise.
  But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so
  they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with
  them.
  

• Most Americans have no real
  understanding of the operations of the international moneylenders...
  the accounts of the Federal Reserve have never been audited. It
  operates outside the control of Congress and... manipulates the
  credit of the United States
  

• When you say "radical right" today, I think of
  these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat
  Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party
  away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization
  out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye.
  

• The big thing is to make this country, along with every other
  country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating
  against people just because they're gay. You don't have to agree
  with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's
  what brings me into it.
  

• Having spent 37 years of my life in the military as a
  reservist, and never having met a gay in all of that time, and never
  having even talked about it in all those years, I just thought, why
  the hell shouldn't they serve? They're American citizens. As long as
  they're not doing things that are harmful to anyone else... So I
  came out for it.
  

• A government big enough to give you everything you want is
  a government big enough to take from you everything you have.
  

Barry Goldwater

The first poster is correct that government should be limited. There are 2 differences on how people are cared for. First when we pay taxes to the Government they processes the tax money, it filters through levels of government beaurocracy and only pennies on the dollar get back to people who need it. Even the poorest run charity is much more efficent than the Government at helping the poor. The second problem is that people who have genuine needs appreciate help from a local community and are less likely to take advantage. Government help, welfare, unemployment, food stamps and other hand outs are seen and even promoted as rights. People are told that these payments are money taken from the rich and given to them to help even things out. People need to wake up, the government uses these programs as a way to create dependancy. Unemployment for more than a year is WELFARE. After that long people have been destroyed, have adapted to living on less, and are no longer motivated to work.

Earthworks... I agree 100% that government should stay out of caring for people.... However, if faith based charities are handing out care they have no right to even mention their religion to the recipient. People just don't want to hear it! I know for a fact that the Catholic faith based services never mention religion to the clients. The same can't be said about the Southern Baptist Convention! I think all charity should be administered by the Red Cross or a similar organization with no religious agenda. Then if the Christians need to give to get into to heaven they can write a check to the organization responsible for the aid. Evangalism by missionaries has done more damage to cultures around the world than I care to mention under the guise of "helping" others....