I hope everybody knows what the rethugs mean by SMALLER GOVERNMENT

[bigdarryl]

Laying off and firing more Government workers making the unemployment rate even higher.This is why the job market is in trouble because you have Governors around the country laying off teachers fire fighters and cops to balance there budgets and with the number of rethugs winning Governorships it's going to get worst

[Xipe Totec]

1. They mean government services for the top 2% nt

[flamingdem]

8. Yes, and the rest of us will be NICKEL an DIMED to death having to PAY for services

This is class warfare

[niyad]

2. except for snooping in women's bedrooms and bodies

oh, and increasing the fascist state they have created.

[mainer]

3. Here in Maine, it was rural poor who voted for the Republicans

From this morning's Portland Press Herald came this nugget of analysis about the victory of the Tea Party candidate, Paul LePage, for governor:

"The Maine counties with the highest poverty rates and reliance on be:nefits programs, including welfare, all went for LePage, who has promised to create jobs and set tighter limits on public assistance."

It was the rich, liberal areas of Maine that voted for the two liberal candidates. But the poor rural areas, where the most people are on public assistance, went for the Tea Party candidate who promised small government and an end to welfare. Huh. They're going to get a big surprise when their public assistance gets cut off.

[NoNothing]

6. True in many places

And it is a complicated dynamic. I think there are some serious issues. We have to understand that most poor, especially rural poor, don't want to be on public assistance. They will accept help if they have to but they don't like it. They would rather work for an honest living. So between two candidates alternately promising jobs and welfare, they will take the jobs candidate every time.

One of the biggest catastrophes for the Democrats, in my opinion - and I know this will upset a lot of people - is that they have come to be perceived as "anti-business." Partly this is because some lefties *are* anti-business, but also because of all the pushing back against businesses that has taken place in defense of the environment, safety standards, anti-discrimination, etc. Just this week, another example - that mine with the nasty safety record probably getting shut down. Should it be shut down? Yes. Do the workers appreciate this? Probably not. If they would rather have not worked there, they would have quit.

Businesses mean jobs. People want jobs right now, real bad. And Democrats have an anti-business stigma. I think this directly led to the drubbing in the House. What is the solution? I'm not so sure, but I do think that as a whole Democrats need to be very sensitive to the perception that many Democratic initiatives have come at the cost of these low-skill, low-paying jobs - and to those workers, welfare is not an acceptable substitute.

[flamingdem]

9. good points nt

[msongs]

4. come to California where you can tell the difference between dems and repubs lol nt

[Wickerman]

5. Because there is no supply for business to tend to

the Govt is the only "business" of any size feeding the economy through hires, orders, and construction. Cut that off and we'll see that double dip recession everyone has been harping on.

Dumbasses.

[2Design]

7. anything that serves the people - congress will raise their salaries and benefits though

money for wars will be there, for banks, and for wall street and of course for corporations

[LiberalFighter]

10. I bet too many didn't get it when they announced that the gains were in the private sector

but unemployment was still high. They weren't thinking about all the cuts made at the local government level. How many teachers, police, fire, and other government workers were cut?

[niceypoo]

11. Republicans dont know what they believe

They talk smaller government, but when they implement their ideology, government gets bigger. It is a failed ideology.

[Kweli4Real]

12. On a slightly different note ...

I work in Human Resources for an Arizona (third branch) governmental agency. One of my co-workers (really more than one) was particularly happy about the recent election's results. She wondered into my office and said: "I'm so happy; the people have spoken. Now we're going to get the smaller government that the people want!"

Now, despite my agency's having suffered 10 successive quarters of budget cuts, we have been able to largely avoid the dreaded "L-word" (Lay-offs). Actually we had a relatively small lay-off in a single job classification that we were able to bring back after 3 only weeks. (Thanks to many late nights in HR ... We found that we could absorb the cuts through tight(er) supply and travel management, attrition and vacancy-savings, and FTE swaps.)

This rightwing co-worker had the misfortune of chatting me up right after I had just returned from a management meeting in which that "L-Word" was tossed out as a likely result of a (largely) rightwing sweep of the State Legislature (These idiots now have a super-majority in both State Houses, with Russel "the SB1070" Pierce being chosen to preside over the Senate).

I looked her in the eye and said: "You do realize that you work for government, don't you? You do realize that you are a supervisor over one person ... a Receptionist, right? You do realize that on those occasions when both of you are out, the Court continues to function ... we don't have to cancel a single hearing. You get that, right? Well, you just may get your "smaller government" dream ... but I suspect it'll be more of a nightmare."

The sad thing is ... I don't think she understood what I was saying. Go figure.