Do you favor smaller government?

[Liability]

Of course I support small government. Not for any reason other than our constitution tells us to limit the size of government.

Citation?

I believe he already offered the citation.

The CONSTITUTION.

Or are you imagining that it has to use the phrase "limited government" in order for it to clearly demand limits on government?

 

[Modbert]

I'm gonna need you to expand on that point on him having no problem with big gov't at the state level.

He has a problem with the Federal Government banning things, not the state. The issue is that too many people think the Federal Government is the only one who can have too much power against it's citizens. The states can as well.

Our history has some examples for this. Jim Crow laws for one.

 

[Kuros]

If you support any current candidate for president besides Ron Paul, you support big government.

Ron Paul has no problem with big government at the state level. You also forgot Gary Johnson.

I think Modbert means constitutionally and as members of the Federal gov't interacting with autonomous states. But I doubt Ron Paul would advocate big gov't in Texas, and Gary Johnson vetoed A LOT of Democratic state initiatives while governor of New Mexico.

 

[Sallow]

Police officers doesn't equal big government.

You could probably cut our current budget by 99% and still have enough money for police.

Most of gov't spending is unemployment/welfare/social security/all the big gov't departments and the military, not cops.

Best line of the thread.

Why the lol?

Are you another one of these types who tries to pretend libertarianism and anarchy are the same thing?

Take a look at your hero's budget last year, hell you could probably slash 99% of government spending and still be able to afford our entire police force.

But also being in favor of small government would equal less cops, as people who favor freedom want to put an end to the drug war, and that would cause a far smaller need for cops.

You are holding that police are somehow "not big government". Of course it's example of big government. I really don't know what the heck you guys think small government looks like. Maybe Costa Rica..they have sort of a small government. No military. Very small everything. But it's a very small country.

So I really don't understand what a "small government" here would look like. But from where I sit..this small government according to conservatives, is one that would allow people to die, starve to death, or go through life without an education..simply because they can't "afford" it..while on the other end funding all sorts of exotic weapon systems, corporate risk taking, infrastructure, courts, police..and a plethora of other services designed to help the rich make and/or hold on to money.

So unless we make some clear distinctions on big vs. small government..this mix/match thing reeks of hypocrisy.

As I posted..I am not in favor of "small government". We live in a very large, powerful nation that is the gold standard and world leader in just about everything. No "small government" is going to maintain that.

And if you guys don't like the benefits of that..maybe you should start looking for new digs.

 

[Si modo]

I'm gonna need you to expand on that point on him having no problem with big gov't at the state level.

He has a problem with the Federal Government banning things, not the state. The issue is that too many people think the Federal Government is the only one who can have too much power against it's citizens. The states can as well.

Our history has some examples for this. Jim Crow laws for one.

And THAT is a perfect example of how it is supposed to work. Let the states rule but the federal government steps in when needed...not the other way around.

 

[shintao]

If you support obama, you support big government. kept Gitmo, resigned the Patriot Act, kept DOMA, and has vastly increased the powers of the TSA well passed Constitutional limits.

If you support any current candidate for president besides Ron Paul, you support big government.

That maybe so, yet Paul still does not go far enough, and doesn't suggest removing the spend thrifts from congress, taxing the rich or end corporate aid or foreign aid. He is a real pussy in the game, and a lame duck. Nadar had balls.

 

[Sallow]

‪Cricket Chirping‬‏ - YouTube

Damn Sallow, we conservatives have jobs we have to attend to so we can pay for your entitlements. Give me a break.

First, you have a law enforcement issue going on here and the police need to arrest those who are resorting to violence and let the legal system sort them out. Second, the power plant finds a different coal supplier. This is a local issue, not national.

Police?

What police? You going to hire police?

How?

 

[Wry Catcher]

National defense is convered in the Constitution.

So we either have prisons or get Roman or muslim on our criminals.

We have a penal system (prison system, specifically) which does much worse than nothing. We incarcerate too many for too long in an evironment where violence is the norm and not an aberration. We then release them into society, many angry and with little or no skills or supervision.

Most come from a environment full of violence and have no skills, and are already angry.

It's up to them to get skills and education, that's not on society or the prison system.

So do you choose the Roman or muslim way of dealing with criminals, since you don't support the prison system?

Carefull with that straw man your building. I didn't say I don't support imprisonment. There are really two ways to punish in our culture: a loss of libery (incarceration) or fines (a loss of money).

The threat of prison deters many, and probation supervision is less costly, keeps families together and allows for the supervision and control of the convicted; also a loss of liberty, probation officers monitor the offender and enforce condtions of supervised release (counseling, drug testing, electronic monitoring, stay away orders, etc.), That is not to suggest everyone is amenable to such supervision, but to incarcerate non violent felons and please them into an environment where the cultural and societal values are so different is a mistake.

Remember, a condition of probation does and is usually a term in jail (county jail) not in a state institution generally overcrowded and gang infested.

Gotta go.

 

[Kuros]

I'm gonna need you to expand on that point on him having no problem with big gov't at the state level.

He has a problem with the Federal Government banning things, not the state. The issue is that too many people think the Federal Government is the only one who can have too much power against it's citizens. The states can as well.

Our history has some examples for this. Jim Crow laws for one.

Federalism is as much about checks and balances as the tripartite division between Executive, Legislature, and Judicial functions. In Federalism, you have the States, the Federal, and the People. When the States violate the People's rights, the Federal institution steps in (the 14th Amendment). When the Feds violate the People's rights, the States or the People establish a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Notice that the States will always be inevitably weaker than the Federal government.

 

[Dr.Drock]

I'm gonna need you to expand on that point on him having no problem with big gov't at the state level.

He has a problem with the Federal Government banning things, not the state. The issue is that too many people think the Federal Government is the only one who can have too much power against it's citizens. The states can as well.

Our history has some examples for this. Jim Crow laws for one.

Oh ok, but even if a state has some big government programs they aren't making other states pay for it, but I agree the big gov't talk typically has to do with the federal gov't.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I'm gonna need you to expand on that point on him having no problem with big gov't at the state level.

He has a problem with the Federal Government banning things, not the state. The issue is that too many people think the Federal Government is the only one who can have too much power against it's citizens. The states can as well.

Our history has some examples for this. Jim Crow laws for one.

And THAT is a perfect example of how it is supposed to work. Let the states rule but the federal government steps in when needed...not the other way around.

Slightly poor choice of words, unless you meant that Jim Crow laws were a "perfect example of how it's supposed to work".

I think the point that Modbert was getting at is that States can, and do, write awful, intrusive, big-government laws - it's not just the realm of the Federal government.

 

[Modbert]

And THAT is a perfect example of how it is supposed to work. Let the states rule but the federal government steps in when needed...not the other way around.

Except for years, the same argument of "states rights" was made when it came to Jim Crow laws. There is whole issue itself of defining "needed" when it comes to the Federal government when you put it that way. Your definition of when the federal government is needed and someone else's could be vastly different. Heck, I'm sure there are a good number of people out there who would say that states should be allowed to have Jim Crow laws.

The other issue I see is you see a lot of states that bash the Federal Government for having too much power but also ignore how much money they receive from the federal government. In fact, it's thanks to the federal government that many of those "Anti-Big Government" states that those states haven't fallen into bankruptcy.

 

[kwc57]

‪Cricket Chirping‬‏ - YouTube

Damn Sallow, we conservatives have jobs we have to attend to so we can pay for your entitlements. Give me a break.

First, you have a law enforcement issue going on here and the police need to arrest those who are resorting to violence and let the legal system sort them out. Second, the power plant finds a different coal supplier. This is a local issue, not national.

Police?

What police? You going to hire police?

How?

The town already has a police force and a court, which is part of the reason the local government exists in the first place. You honestly can't be this stupid. I refuse to believe it. You know that the "big government" in question is the US government and not state and city governments......which can be bloated as well, but is not the isssue at hand. Tell me how and why you think the federal government should be involved in the local example you gave?

 

[dblack]

That maybe so, yet Paul still does not go far enough, and doesn't suggest removing the spend thrifts from congress, taxing the rich or end corporate aid or foreign aid. He is a real pussy in the game, and a lame duck. Nadar had balls.

Actually Paul endorses all those goals. Nadar's a good guy too. He and Paul are on the same page more often than not.

 

[Si modo]

And THAT is a perfect example of how it is supposed to work. Let the states rule but the federal government steps in when needed...not the other way around.

Except for years, the same argument of "states rights" was made when it came to Jim Crow laws. There is whole issue itself of defining "needed" when it comes to the Federal government when you put it that way. Your definition of when the federal government is needed and someone else's could be vastly different.

....

I don't think so. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Those states had unconstitutional laws. The fed stepped in.

It worked as designed.

 

[Modbert]

Federalism is as much about checks and balances as the tripartite division between Executive, Legislature, and Judicial functions. In Federalism, you have the States, the Federal, and the People. When the States violate the People's rights, the Federal institution steps in (the 14th Amendment). When the Feds violate the People's rights, the States or the People establish a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Notice that the States will always be inevitably weaker than the Federal government.

Madison talked about this in Federalist paper #10. I assume you have read it.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Best line of the thread.

Why the lol?

Are you another one of these types who tries to pretend libertarianism and anarchy are the same thing?

Take a look at your hero's budget last year, hell you could probably slash 99% of government spending and still be able to afford our entire police force.

But also being in favor of small government would equal less cops, as people who favor freedom want to put an end to the drug war, and that would cause a far smaller need for cops.

You are holding that police are somehow "not big government". Of course it's example of big government. I really don't know what the heck you guys think small government looks like. Maybe Costa Rica..they have sort of a small government. No military. Very small everything. But it's a very small country.

So I really don't understand what a "small government" here would look like. But from where I sit..this small government according to conservatives, is one that would allow people to die, starve to death, or go through life without an education..simply because they can't "afford" it..while on the other end funding all sorts of exotic weapon systems, corporate risk taking, infrastructure, courts, police..and a plethora of other services designed to help the rich make and/or hold on to money.

So unless we make some clear distinctions on big vs. small government..this mix/match thing reeks of hypocrisy.

As I posted..I am not in favor of "small government". We live in a very large, powerful nation that is the gold standard and world leader in just about everything. No "small government" is going to maintain that.

And if you guys don't like the benefits of that..maybe you should start looking for new digs.

Charities and churches can help people from starving and we educated people better before the department of education was put into place.

But yes let's end a lot of those things, and I don't view having my brains taxed out and government spending us into oblivion as a "benefit" of big government.

I don't see how one could look at the federal budget with all the spending and view cops as a big government thing. We have a big government now whether it's reps or dems running things so don't worry, your side is winning and has been all 26 years of my life.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Okay..

Give ya a real life problem.

A labor dispute at a coal mine starts. The workers are looking for safer conditions and more pay..the management says operating costs are to high and he can't cover the costs.

Labor organizes and goes on strike. The boss hires thugs to go round up the organizers and has them beat up. Labor responds by beating up the thugs. This goes back and forth for awhile and the town's power plant has to shut down because they are not getting coal. People start to freeze to death.

You are the mayor of the town.

What do you do?

You have police go there, arrest everyone who's fighting and let the court decide which individuals are guilty/innocent.

Then if the owner of the coal plant finds workers who will work for what the other laborers won't and do a good job, hire them, if he can't find such workers, work out a deal with them.

Nothing else is necessary.

Police? A court? Work out a "deal"?

Isn't that big government? And interferring with an internal business decision?

Having government is not big government

You're being idiotic

 

[Modbert]

I don't think so. The supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Those states had unconstitutional laws. The fed stepped in.

It worked as designed.

And how long did it take for the Federal Government to be able to step in?

States had laws banning interracial marriage until the Supreme Court stepped in. There are a lot of people who see that kind of ruling on the part of the Courts as itself being unconstitutional.

 

[Modbert]

I think the point that Modbert was getting at is that States can, and do, write awful, intrusive, big-government laws - it's not just the realm of the Federal government.

Pretty much.