Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.
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 government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power."
That's absolute horseshit. The Weimar government ran practically everything. It had a social insurance program, a medical insurance program, numerous other social programs and regulated business to the teeth.
The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.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 cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
- If that is the case, then why have government at all?
To protect our freedom.
In my view, the small government debate actually misses the point. Government should be big enough to do its job effectively. The problem is that we don't have any consensus on what government's job is. Some people want to use it as a tool of convenience, to force others to bend to their will arbitrarily.
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.
Nonsense
It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense
See General Welfare
Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.
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.
Nonsense
It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense
See General Welfare
The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.- 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 cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
- If that is the case, then why have government at all?
To protect our freedom.
In my view, the small government debate actually misses the point. Government should be big enough to do its job effectively. The problem is that we don't have any consensus on what government's job is. Some people want to use it as a tool of convenience, to force others to bend to their will arbitrarily.
- Now we're back to the subjectivity question.
In my view, things like savings and profits are essential to our freedom, and the only way they can be sustained in a global industrial economy is with government fiscal policy that functions as I outlined above.
Left wingers don't remember the long painfully slow recovery with all the government growth and spending. Arguing military size is one thing but the government does much more than that.The idea that a country of 300 million people, with the largest military in the history of the world, could function with small government, is beyond ridiculous. If you believe that it could, I have a ski resort in Miami I'd like to sell you.
On the other hand, if the U.S. were to tax citizens to the level required to balance the budget with the current level of the military spending and use that money to pay for infrastructure, education, and rebuilding your inner cities, instead of spending the money abroad to fight wars which protect the assets of American corporations, then you might have a country to be proud of.
I've come to believe that right wingers have no memory of what happened after the 1929 stock market crash and the poverty and devastation to the people that resulted.
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.
Nonsense
It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense
See General Welfare
No, it's actually not the job of government, period. Protecting us from predators, both foreign and domestic, is the only legitimate function of government.
The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.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 cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
- If that is the case, then why have government at all?
I would start with entitlements ie social programs and the dept of defense. From there I would look at each agency within its dept. I wouldn't even know where to begin about how much to cut...probably around 10 percent.
Since you only look at cuts, and not the consequences of cuts, we can all be thankful you've never been in charge of anything.
The consequences are more money for the taxpayers, something that you're against. Sadly, you need govt to guide you and lead you by the nose.
LOL, yeah, sure I do.
That it never occurred to you, that with several hundred thousand jobs lost ,there would be be less tax payers, isn't surprising.
The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.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 cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
- If that is the case, then why have government at all?
To protect our freedom.
In my view, the small government debate actually misses the point. Government should be big enough to do its job effectively. The problem is that we don't have any consensus on what government's job is. Some people want to use it as a tool of convenience, to force others to bend to their will arbitrarily.
- Now we're back to the subjectivity question.
In my view, things like savings and profits are essential to our freedom, and the only way they can be sustained in a global industrial economy is with government fiscal policy that functions as I outlined above.
Again, that's utter horseshit. Explain how companies made a profit before 1914 when the Federal Reserve was created and before there was anything called "fiscal policy."
One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDETo 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.
Nonsense
It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense
See General Welfare
When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare," it means by using only the enumerated powers.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.
Nonsense
It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense
See General Welfare
No, it's actually not the job of government, period. Protecting us from predators, both foreign and domestic, is the only legitimate function of government.
- Yeah, you should only pay attention to the words in the Constitution which you like.
The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.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 cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.
- If that is the case, then why have government at all?
Good question. Why have government at all?
When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare," it means by using only the enumerated powers.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.
Nonsense
It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense
See General Welfare
No, it's actually not the job of government, period. Protecting us from predators, both foreign and domestic, is the only legitimate function of government.
- Yeah, you should only pay attention to the words in the Constitution which you like.
That being said, the Constitution isn't the final word on government. It's a seriously flawed document. The "general welfare" clause is just one example of how it's flawed.
One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDETo 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.
Nonsense
It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense
See General Welfare
We the people have decided what size government we want and what we want them to doIt 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.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.
Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.
I would start with entitlements ie social programs and the dept of defense. From there I would look at each agency within its dept. I wouldn't even know where to begin about how much to cut...probably around 10 percent.
Since you only look at cuts, and not the consequences of cuts, we can all be thankful you've never been in charge of anything.
The consequences are more money for the taxpayers, something that you're against. Sadly, you need govt to guide you and lead you by the nose.
LOL, yeah, sure I do.
That it never occurred to you, that with several hundred thousand jobs lost ,there would be be less tax payers, isn't surprising.
And it never occurred to you that taxpayers pay govt salaries. I'm continually embarrassed for you.
I would start with entitlements ie social programs and the dept of defense. From there I would look at each agency within its dept. I wouldn't even know where to begin about how much to cut...probably around 10 percent.
Since you only look at cuts, and not the consequences of cuts, we can all be thankful you've never been in charge of anything.
The consequences are more money for the taxpayers, something that you're against. Sadly, you need govt to guide you and lead you by the nose.
Hell, there would be less tax payers as there'd be less people working. Government makes up most of our infrastructure and science institutions by far. Tens of millions of jobs would go down the crapper! High paying ones. Of course, you don't have any facts as you're just spouting bullshit.
We the people have decided what size government we want and what we want them to doIt 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.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.
Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.
Just like the founders intended
