Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

"We need smaller government", "we need a balanced budget", "we need to get rid of the IRS", and so forth are not "cogent ideas".

They are preferences taken without virtue of explanation. There is no identification of costs or benefits which I have seen, though I may have missed them.

As I understand it, the OP is not looking for a brainstorming session on ways to reduce government, but for the cost-benefit analysis on which anyone would base a preference to do so.

Cherry picking statement is sure to land you on Ignore. But not before I make fun of your pretentiousness, logorrhia and muddled thinking.
It is not a question of cost and benefit. It is a question of what is the right way to govern. And eliminating every federal agency whose function is not authorized by the Constitution is the right way.

- That at least is an honest answer.

If that's you're answer, then you ought to be finished, right?

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government? Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

END THE FED!!! WOOOOO!!

Ahem, now that that's out of my system...

Please, explain to us how you would maintain a bigger government. Since you believe it to be a good thing, perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us the benefits it would reap for the average American citizen.

Your attempt at trying to trap conservatives in their own ideology is utterly predictable. Now, if you have a way to shrink government, we'd all be glad to hear it. Answer your own question.

Gee, I missed you. You cut and ran after you goaded me into a debate. You're pitiful.

That out of my system, though calling you pitiful doesn't really describe all of your many character flaws, I'll leave it there.

We don't need a bigger government, but thanks so much for telling me what I want, it is so like you to open with a logical fallacy,

What we need to do is to bring spending under control, something simple in design, and nearly impossible in the real world.

This is what I think might work:

• Amend Article II of the COTUS and give the POTUS the line-item veto
• Amend Article II and limit a POTUS to one term of six years
• Amend Article I of the COTUS to allow The Congress to control and limit campaign spending

I have more ideas, but chew on these for a while.

We don't need bigger government, yet it is the only entity growing by leaps and bounds. Apparently, were it not for "government" (AKA the monster), there would be no growth whatsoever by this administration.

I hear the emotion.

Where is the cost-benefit analysis?

It's called the "Constitution". Perhaps you should read it?

- I have, and would be happy to debate it on a thread that has that as its purpose, as opposed to the current one.

Again, I hear your emotion.

 

[whitehall]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

 

[RandallFlagg]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

- We can argue all day long over whether that's true or not. I don't think anyone is specifically charged, constitutionally, with taking care of anyone. The point of the document is to establish a system of self-government within which individual rights are protected.

What the OP seems really to be looking for is a cost-benefit analysis for reducing government.

I again hear your emotion, but don't see any such analysis.

If you choose to say "I don't believe we should look at a cost-benefit analysis", just say so. At least that would be an honest way to say "I have none, my preferences are based on something else. I don't care about costs and benefits."

Curious....How much of a "cost-benefit analysis" was done when our Founders brought forth this country? When they repeatedly warned us about "big government becoming an oligarchy"?

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

 

[RandallFlagg]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

 

[Pksimon2007]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

- I just posted at length the macroeconomic calculation for doing so.

Perhaps you're looking at it through too ideological a lens. Increasing government deficits doesn't necessarily mean "expanding" government in any way that ought to fire up your emotions.

A government with a $5 trillion budget and a $4 trillion deficit which makes no rules about your behavior is less "expansive", perhaps, than one which has a billion dollar balanced budget but which dictates how you can speak, wouldn't you agree?

Spending is not how you measure the intrusiveness or benevolence of government.

 

[Pksimon2007]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

- We can argue all day long over whether that's true or not. I don't think anyone is specifically charged, constitutionally, with taking care of anyone. The point of the document is to establish a system of self-government within which individual rights are protected.

What the OP seems really to be looking for is a cost-benefit analysis for reducing government.

I again hear your emotion, but don't see any such analysis.

If you choose to say "I don't believe we should look at a cost-benefit analysis", just say so. At least that would be an honest way to say "I have none, my preferences are based on something else. I don't care about costs and benefits."

Curious....How much of a "cost-benefit analysis" was done when our Founders brought forth this country? When they repeatedly warned us about "big government becoming an oligarchy"?

- You're equivocating.

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses.

No one can understand anything for you. You are a dishonest fuck. You spent two seconds composing a disingenuous questions and expect people to spend their day defending smaller government. Why don't you instead explain the rationale for continuing to spend ourselves into bankruptcy? You assholes are the ones that need to defend yourselves!

Spending needs and excuse, not spending speaks for itself.

Thread FAIL.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

 

[dblack]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Is promoting blind stereotypes easier, or just more fun?

 

[The Rabbi]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

- We can argue all day long over whether that's true or not. I don't think anyone is specifically charged, constitutionally, with taking care of anyone. The point of the document is to establish a system of self-government within which individual rights are protected.

What the OP seems really to be looking for is a cost-benefit analysis for reducing government.

I again hear your emotion, but don't see any such analysis.

If you choose to say "I don't believe we should look at a cost-benefit analysis", just say so. At least that would be an honest way to say "I have none, my preferences are based on something else. I don't care about costs and benefits."

Curious....How much of a "cost-benefit analysis" was done when our Founders brought forth this country? When they repeatedly warned us about "big government becoming an oligarchy"?

- You're equivocating.

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

That is stunningly wrong.
For starters the fed gov ran in balance or in surplus for most of the years before JFK. Was there an oligarchy then?
You are demonstrating the maxim that a little knowledge is a humorous thing.

 

[Pksimon2007]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

- If I need words to put on a bumper sticker, I'll ask.

The Weimar Republic?

I'd be happy to educate you on the experience of the Weimar Republic, so that you can make more informed decisions.

The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power.

Their hyperinflation had nothing to do with profligate spending or large government, and everything to do with harsh war reparations and negative supply shocks.

If you want to understand it, rather than being satisfied with meaningless one-liners, I can do so, or I can post links to good references.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.
The cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

It also illustrates how naïve and sophomoric the reactionary right is, and their ridiculous perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and was anything but 'ideal' for African-Americans, women, and gay Americans, among others.

Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

- If I need words to put on a bumper sticker, I'll ask.

The Weimar Republic?

I'd be happy to educate you on the experience of the Weimar Republic, so that you can make more informed decisions.

The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power.

Their hyperinflation had nothing to do with profligate spending or large government, and everything to do with harsh war reparations and negative supply shocks.

If you want to understand it, rather than being satisfied with meaningless one-liners, I can do so, or I can post links to good references.

That is stunningly wrong.
Weimar suffered from bad economic polciies. See Milton Friedman's words on the subject.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

It also illustrates how naïve and sophomoric the reactionary right is, and their ridiculous perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and was anything but 'ideal' for African-Americans, women, and gay Americans, among others.

Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

So the EPA always existed from George Washington's time?
Libs say the dumbest things.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

It also illustrates how naïve and sophomoric the reactionary right is, and their ridiculous perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and was anything but 'ideal' for African-Americans, women, and gay Americans, among others.

Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

I wondered how long it would take for this clown to show up. Still haven't answered. My question, have you genius?

 

[Pksimon2007]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

- We can argue all day long over whether that's true or not. I don't think anyone is specifically charged, constitutionally, with taking care of anyone. The point of the document is to establish a system of self-government within which individual rights are protected.

What the OP seems really to be looking for is a cost-benefit analysis for reducing government.

I again hear your emotion, but don't see any such analysis.

If you choose to say "I don't believe we should look at a cost-benefit analysis", just say so. At least that would be an honest way to say "I have none, my preferences are based on something else. I don't care about costs and benefits."

Curious....How much of a "cost-benefit analysis" was done when our Founders brought forth this country? When they repeatedly warned us about "big government becoming an oligarchy"?

- You're equivocating.

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

That is stunningly wrong.
For starters the fed gov ran in balance or in surplus for most of the years before JFK. Was there an oligarchy then?
You are demonstrating the maxim that a little knowledge is a humorous thing.

- I explained the mechanics of sectoral flows above, which you apparently did not read.

The economy is slightly more complex than a dualistic, black and white approach can grasp.

We were a net exporting country after the war. If you use my model above, you will see how that changes the necessary behavior of government.

I would be happy to explain how a BBA as currently proposed supports oligarchy, if you're inclined to want to know.

 

[Iceweasel]

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

Rather than asserting the argument as a given, why don't you simply support it instead? That would make more sense. How does a balanced budget lead to an oligarchy? And a larger deficit lead to more financial stability?