Responding to Calls for “Smaller Government”

My response to someone on FB saying they’re for “smaller government” and that my language describing the outcomes of the Republican platform was extreme:

“Carl – The tag line “smaller government” is an antiseptic version of us taxpayers refusing to take care of each other and instead funding a military-industrial complex and companies who have a profit motive.  You should question “smaller” for whom?  It’s smaller for middle class and poor people, unless you’re a woman, then the the supposed “small government” politicians expand their reach literally into our bodies (re: vaginal probes – that was determined to be state-mandated rape).  Remember the 2nd Bush campaign, Carl, when their were commercials threatening that if you didn’t vote for him, you have a great chance being killed by a terrorist?  Why would you have a problem, then, with any of us progressives discussing real life consequences of Repubs’ draconian policies/budget?  A budget is a moral document that represents the priorities of our citizens.  In bad economic times, when people are already suffering, to put families out on the street, leave them with absolutely no lifeline, would cause disease and death.  To lower women’s pay, when we are the primary breadwinners – many barely making a living to begin with – would cause our children to suffer greatly.  To force women into back alley abortions by denying them both birth control and abortions causes death.  When services for women who have survived violent crimes is cut, more women will commit suicide and suffer debilitating mental and physical problems.  When you call what I’m saying hyperbole, you remind me of Akin, who denies that women actually suffer from “real rape.”  Do you have a problem with real consequences?  Repubs are keeping their language intentionally dry and devoid of any real life descriptions of the very serious human outcomes.  There is a reason for that, Carl, and you should question it.”