Over the past months, I've heard several people state that the government is only taking the necessary steps required to fight terrorism, and everyone who is worried about supposed and/or potential breaches of privacy rights are being dramatic.

I disagree. When there is secrecy and little oversight, people will abuse their power, and make no mistake, the ability to find out basically anything you want on anyone you want is power. When you can fall back on, "I was told by a superior to do it" knowing that the trail WILL end before it goes far enough up the ladder to incriminate someone, and executive privilege can take care of loose ends, you've got unlimited potential to have influence or make money. I'M NOT SAYING that has happened. I'm saying it easily may have, could, and given enough time, WILL happen.

That's why reports like this bother me so much. It's enough to know that it happens without having hard evidence to prove such.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/..._pe/senate_fbi

"Fine's earlier report, issued March 9, 2007, blamed agent error and shoddy record-keeping for the bulk of the problems and did not find any indication of criminal misconduct.

It uncovered thousands of examples of the FBI's failure to properly report the number of national security letters as required by law. The 2007 report also identified instances where agents did not get proper authorization or made otherwise improper requests for information from telephone companies and Internet service providers."

hire more gubament employees to get the job done right

These people make their living off of this... why the hell would they want to end it? They're all just waiting until their mid 50s when the pension money will start rolling in.

"In 2005, for example, Fine's office found more than 1,000 violations within 19,000 FBI requests to obtain 47,000 records. Each letter issued may contain several requests.

In contrast to the strong concerns expressed by Congress and civil liberties groups after last year's inspector general's report was issued, Mueller's disclosure drew no criticism from senators during just over two hours of testimony Wednesday."

*puke*

So stop voting for democrats that want bigger and more nanny-like government.

Smaller government creates more transparency.

The Federal Gov't has grown more under Bush than any other President, including giving the government more power to take actions against citizens.

I used to buy into the "Democrats want big govt, Republicans want small." but really it is "Democrats want big govt, Republicans want just as big, but on different things".

QFT.

Would you like your money spent on corporate welfare or social programs?

Technically, corporate welfare is usually just giving the big guys breaks that put little guys at a disadvantage, so its not giving, but taxing little guys extra. But don't forget spending money on the the military industrial complex AND huge increases in social programs, like we have managed to do in the last 8 years.

Show me a Republican not named Ron Paul at the Federal level who has actually done something to shrink the size of government.

I've always viewed corporate welfare as most any relationship between corporations and government which resulted in inefficient use of tax revenue or competitive disadvantage, so that's what I'm getting at.

I love how unbiased your distinction is.

Tax breaks are "corporate welfare", but paying individuals to be unemployed is a "social program".

Where the hell do you think that "corporate welfare" money goes? Do you honestly think it all goes to the top few people within that company who just use the money buy different colored yachts?

Corporate "welfare" create jobs. Social welfare creates more degenerates who just enjoy the free ride.

See my clarification.

Edit: My intent was not to make "social programs" look rosy and "corporate welfare" evil. I think they're both problems.

Broken window fallacy. The money that is taken for corporate welfare programs comes from somewhere, which would create the same jobs (if not more, since a lot is lost in red tape).

So lower the tax rate on the front end. But that's no excuse to hand that tax money out as food stamps and free day-care for degenerates who dont work and could be raising their children themselves instead of giving it back as tax breaks to the corporations who use it to create jobs.

I think the whole idea is.....why give tax money out as hand-outs to anybody?

Because government makes abhorrent decisions when it comes to spending money.

Hi, I'm a $250,000,000.00 bridge built to service 72 idiots who decided to build a house on an island and then whined that they can't get off in bad weather.

Hi, I'm a $12,000,000.00 BIKE PATH to service 100 people a day who have decided that the old one was half a mile out of their way.

Hi, I'm a $50,000,000,000.00 subsidy to farmers to grow corn to make ethanol which is a TERRIBLE product that consumers despise.

etc
etc
etc

I agree with you 100% on all three counts.

Also:

Hi, I'm $18,000,000,000 in subsidies given to a company that has set record profits during the last 4 business quarters.

Hi, I'm $2,000,000,000,000 that got lost in the Defense department's couch around the time we were gearing up for Iraq.

Hi, I'm a $550,000,000,000 prescription plan for seniors that is something any democrat might be proud of. I'm not allowed to renegotiate for better prices.

Hi, I'm a $12,000,000,000 pallet of cash that got sent to Iraq. Nobody knows what happened to me.

I think both parties are screwing the pooch, and have been for some time. I don't think anybody should be pointing at only the democrats or only the republicans. I think everybody should be mad as hell at the lot of them, and have a goal of reduced taxes and reduces spending.

Then we both agree that the government sucks.

I trust you will be voting against Socialism come November?

McCain is hardly perfect, but he's by FAR the lesser evil to get us through to hopefully a better group of candidates next time.

Their whole point is that BOTH of these things are bad. Continuing to point out how bad social welfare programs are isnt make your point any better, it just makes you look like a partisan hack who doesnt understand the discussion.

Right, so tell me again why Democrats are worse than Republicans? You are just saying <government is better than >government, which everyone here already agrees with. Its all resting on your faulty assumption that Republican=<government.

I might just give everybody the finger and vote for Nader.

He's just angry enough for my taste.

I don't think I've ever said what you're saying I've said.

I think the Republicans USED to mean smaller government/less spending/less taxes (for middle class), but don't anymore. I actually think both parties are about even in their pro's/con's now. Republicans campaign off what they "used to do" and democrats campaign off what they're "going to do."

I voted for Paul in the primaries, so take that for what it's worth.

He wasn't talking to you.

vhawk follows me around ever since I made fun of him in SMP.

Ah, I misread the quote.

good thread bomp

Another way to phrase it: both capitalist factions (Republicans and Democrats) of our one party system, the business party, are naturally going to continue to do what the capitalist class wants (unless popular struggle can disrupt business as usual), and what they want is pretty clear. "Business wants the popular aspects of government, the ones that actually serve the population, beaten down, but it also wants a very powerful state, one that works for it and is removed from public control."(Chomsky)