Every election cycle we always hear from these liberal politicians the promises of prosperity and magic (yes I’m utilizing a bit of sarcasm) that their big central government policies will bring. The one that always comes to my mind is Obama’s nebulous and ignorant one about “building the economy for the bottom up”, but I digress. There’s always this litany of things that they are going to do to improve our lives and bring about equity and happiness to all.
Here’s some questions I’m looking for answers to. Tell me which, if any states, have accomplished this? Tell me which countries, in particularly which large countries, have accomplished this? Tell me how do you believe your personal situation is going to improve through Biden?
As of 2014, some six years after the beginning of the recession and during a period of “recovery,” the rate of poverty remains high at 14.8%. In fact, according to these government statistics, the rate of poverty for every year Obama has been president is higher than it was for every year during George W. Bush’s presidency.
The percent of people below 125% of the official poverty rate has also been higher every year under Obama than during Bush’s presidency, and has been over 19% every year from 2010 through 2014. The highest level it reached under Bush was during the start of the recession in 2008 when it was at 17.9%.
What is most disturbing is the percent of the population living in extreme poverty, or having an income at 50% or lower than the poverty level.5 Every year that Obama has been president, the percent of the population at that level of income has been over 6% and, as of 2014, consisted of over 20 million people. When George W. Bush was president, the percent was always under 6%. The last time it was over 6% was during the first year of the Clinton presidency.
The surprising thing is that I thought I would at least get the usually BS about Demark, Norway and Sweden. But maybe most realize that comparing tiny countries with populations well under 15 million that are ethnically monolithic is not a fair comparison to a very diverse country and the third most populated country in the world.
Liberals view Obama as the greatest president ever. From the link I posted:
“As of 2014, some six years after the beginning of the recession and during a period of “recovery,” the rate of poverty remains high at 14.8%. In fact, according to these government statistics, the rate of poverty for every year Obama has been president is higher than it was for every year during George W. Bush’s presidency.”
Small - government limited to the text of the Constitution.
Medium - some drift while respecting federalism and individual rights over nationalism.
Large (out of control) - what we have today.
And I can give you an example of medium and small. Medium - a district judge issues a ruling, it applies only to his jurisdiction and no higher court will hesitate if it is wrong.
Large - a district judge ruling applies to the entire country because he said so.
As far as the definition of Utopia, of course it is subjective. I never heard of a Comanche running off to live in Washington DC and every child they stole tried to run back to them after repatriation if they lived among them more than a couple of months.
So if a constitution is drafted to allow local, district and federal judges to have far reaching power and jurisdiction, that’s still “small government?” Or does your definition necessitate a specific type of constitution?
Utopia is subjective. Government size is subjective. A subjectively sized government “promising” a subjective utopia is subjective.