"Smaller government" advocates

[Contumacious]

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

It also means to look out for those who are actually doing the work in this country. Those who actually create the wealth but see less and less of it. Those whose piece of the American Dream is rapidly evaporating

Nonsense. Your premise is a fail on its face as you once again equate taxation with prosperity

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

Of course what you meant to say is "It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so" and steal , er excuse me, tax the fuck out of the producers in order to support his the parasites "In the manner in which they have become accustomed",

 

[bripat9643]

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

It also means to look out for those who are actually doing the work in this country. Those who actually create the wealth but see less and less of it. Those whose piece of the American Dream is rapidly evaporating

Nonsense. Your premise is a fail on its face as you once again equate taxation with prosperity

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

No it's not. You have no moral right to force taxpayers to pay your bills. Government has no moral authority to medal in people's relations with each other. The notion that it does is fundamentally totalitarian and servile.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

It also means to look out for those who are actually doing the work in this country. Those who actually create the wealth but see less and less of it. Those whose piece of the American Dream is rapidly evaporating

Nonsense. Your premise is a fail on its face as you once again equate taxation with prosperity

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

Education is funded mostly with property taxes. Government healthcare doesn't help the economy. The massive taxes to pay for it positively harm the economy.

Not higher education
It is killing the middle class

Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy for the middle class

In 2013 there were an estimated 400k personal bankruptcies filed which "nerdwallet.com" attributed to medical expenses.
This represents less than 2% of all households in the US.....This study does not break down the numbers based on household income.
Biggest Cause of Personal Bankruptcies? Medical Bills
The blanket statement you made ,"Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy for the middle class" is unsubstantiated.
Another factoid is that many of those who are buried in medical bills are insured. And have FULL medical coverage. Meaning their coverage limits are very high. Conversely, so are deductibles.
Now the the study goes on to conclude that ACA is NOT a panacea. Most ACA participants have selected the lower coverage plans which have high deductibles and low coverage limits.
Any type of Single Payer system would have many of the same restrictions on coverage limits and would be subject to high deductibles. Essentially the same thing we have now. Of course the additional factor of additional government bureaucracy and a tax which would not doubt be confiscatory with middle and upper income levels would be saddled with the majority of the tax burden. Meanwhile lower middle and low income levels would pay nothing. That would be a highly unfair and economy crushing burden on too few earners.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

Education is funded mostly with property taxes. Government healthcare doesn't help the economy. The massive taxes to pay for it positively harm the economy.

Not higher education
It is killing the middle class

Medical expenses are the leading cause of bankruptcy for the middle class

Those liberal run colleges are really raking people over the coals.

Completely silly

It is all colleges including technical colleges. Blaming liberals is not the solution

It may not be the solution, but it's the absolute truth. Look at our elementary schools, who are running those? The US spends more per capita on education than any other industrialized country in the world, yet we have mediocre results to show for it.

Yeah, And according to planet liberal, that is the fault of conservatives who object to their taxes being increased to stratospheric levels.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

It also means to look out for those who are actually doing the work in this country. Those who actually create the wealth but see less and less of it. Those whose piece of the American Dream is rapidly evaporating

Nonsense. Your premise is a fail on its face as you once again equate taxation with prosperity

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

And what if we elect them to buy us a new car every three years? What if we elect them to make our mortgage payments? What if we elect them to give us free premium cable/satellite service and maximum speed internet?

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Looking out for fellow Americans" is a leftist euphemism meaning to loot the productive for the benefit of ticks on the ass of society. It means organized plunder and robbing Peter to pay Paul. It means your nothing but a cheap thug.

It also means to look out for those who are actually doing the work in this country. Those who actually create the wealth but see less and less of it. Those whose piece of the American Dream is rapidly evaporating

Nonsense. Your premise is a fail on its face as you once again equate taxation with prosperity

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

Not true. Not even accurate. The results of an election do not change the US Constitution.
BTW, we taxpayers( Not you) already provide enough "help"....55% of the federal budget is spent on social programs.

 

[hortysir]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Not wanting our government to endorse and enable certain behaviors does not mean that we call on the government to "ban" anything.

You toadstools can't live a day without your allowed ration of your government's shit to sustain you.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It also means to look out for those who are actually doing the work in this country. Those who actually create the wealth but see less and less of it. Those whose piece of the American Dream is rapidly evaporating

Nonsense. Your premise is a fail on its face as you once again equate taxation with prosperity

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

And what if we elect them to buy us a new car every three years? What if we elect them to make our mortgage payments? What if we elect them to give us free premium cable/satellite service and maximum speed internet?

Seems that all of those things are in the liberal arena of "help"...
Yes sir.
We pay a fee on our cable/telco delivered internet service so that people who cannot afford the luxury of high speed internet can have it. The government has concluded that access to the internet is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
We pay a fee on our cell phone bills so that the government can in turn provide free cell service to those who cannot afford their own. The federal government has concluded that access to a cell phone is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
I don't know about you but I am getting pretty sick of having to "take one for the team" every time some whiny left wing politician decides he or she needs to reassure their constituents are still on board on election day. Because that is really what these entitlements and goodies are all about. Votes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nonsense. Your premise is a fail on its face as you once again equate taxation with prosperity

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

And what if we elect them to buy us a new car every three years? What if we elect them to make our mortgage payments? What if we elect them to give us free premium cable/satellite service and maximum speed internet?

Seems that all of those things are in the liberal arena of "help"...
Yes sir.
We pay a fee on our cable/telco delivered internet service so that people who cannot afford the luxury of high speed internet can have it. The government has concluded that access to the internet is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
We pay a fee on our cell phone bills so that the government can in turn provide free cell service to those who cannot afford their own. The federal government has concluded that access to a cell phone is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
I don't know about you but I am getting pretty sick of having to "take one for the team" every time some whiny left wing politician decides he or she needs to reassure their constituents are still on board on election day. Because that is really what these entitlements and goodies are all about. Votes.

Cradle-to-Gravers don't give a damn. They never ask how something is going to get paid for, they are just promised X and expect it to be delivered.

Our founders never envisioned our country that way. Governments job is to govern, not conduct a social club.

Years ago we used to have Communes. In a commune, some went out to fetch supplies and bring in money. Others stayed in the commune having babies and using drugs. After a while, the providers of the commune left. That's why there are no communes today.

Liberals look at our country as one giant commune. Some go out and produce, others sit home and take. When there are not enough supplies or money, the producers are expected to bring home more.

 

[hortysir]

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

And what if we elect them to buy us a new car every three years? What if we elect them to make our mortgage payments? What if we elect them to give us free premium cable/satellite service and maximum speed internet?

Seems that all of those things are in the liberal arena of "help"...
Yes sir.
We pay a fee on our cable/telco delivered internet service so that people who cannot afford the luxury of high speed internet can have it. The government has concluded that access to the internet is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
We pay a fee on our cell phone bills so that the government can in turn provide free cell service to those who cannot afford their own. The federal government has concluded that access to a cell phone is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
I don't know about you but I am getting pretty sick of having to "take one for the team" every time some whiny left wing politician decides he or she needs to reassure their constituents are still on board on election day. Because that is really what these entitlements and goodies are all about. Votes.

Cradle-to-Gravers don't give a damn. They never ask how something is going to get paid for, they are just promised X and expect it to be delivered.

Our founders never envisioned our country that way. Governments job is to govern, not conduct a social club.

Years ago we used to have Communes. In a commune, some went out to fetch supplies and bring in money. Others stayed in the commune having babies and using drugs. After a while, the providers of the commune left. That's why there are no communes today.

Liberals look at our country as one giant commune. Some go out and produce, others sit home and take. When there are not enough supplies or money, the producers are expected to bring home more.

And now the hunters and gatherers have figured out that it pays better to stay home and be a taker.


Sad, really

 

[MarcATL]

Conservatives, libertarians, and most others on the right also have this ridiculous, inconsistent perception of what constitutes 'government.'

They ...

They ....

<sigh>

But it's true black.

Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here is how it works

Lower taxation on the wealthy means less revenue available to help the poor and working class. Meaning more of the burden for things like education and healthcare shifts to the workers

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

And what if we elect them to buy us a new car every three years? What if we elect them to make our mortgage payments? What if we elect them to give us free premium cable/satellite service and maximum speed internet?

Seems that all of those things are in the liberal arena of "help"...
Yes sir.
We pay a fee on our cable/telco delivered internet service so that people who cannot afford the luxury of high speed internet can have it. The government has concluded that access to the internet is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
We pay a fee on our cell phone bills so that the government can in turn provide free cell service to those who cannot afford their own. The federal government has concluded that access to a cell phone is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
I don't know about you but I am getting pretty sick of having to "take one for the team" every time some whiny left wing politician decides he or she needs to reassure their constituents are still on board on election day. Because that is really what these entitlements and goodies are all about. Votes.

Cradle-to-Gravers don't give a damn. They never ask how something is going to get paid for, they are just promised X and expect it to be delivered.

Our founders never envisioned our country that way. Governments job is to govern, not conduct a social club.

Years ago we used to have Communes. In a commune, some went out to fetch supplies and bring in money. Others stayed in the commune having babies and using drugs. After a while, the providers of the commune left. That's why there are no communes today.

Liberals look at our country as one giant commune. Some go out and produce, others sit home and take. When there are not enough supplies or money, the producers are expected to bring home more.

A perfect example of this is the popularity of Bernie Sanders among college students.
On Wednesday there was a candidates forum held at Winthrop University in a suburb of Charlotte NC....In hearing man on the street interviews many of the people who claimed to be students said they were committed to supporting Sanders based solely on his campaign idea that he would provide everyone who wanted it, a free college education....
Now, what I find unfathomable is that here we have supposedly intelligent young people who have been granted admission to college, saying they support a person who claims he will get them something free of charge. I have to ask, by what funding mechanism do these people believe is going to compensate the school and the employees so that they can have their "free" education....
I conclude that either these people are incredibly naive or they have an attitude of "screw you, I got a free college degree and I don't care who had to pay for it as long as it wasn't me"...
The fact is Sanders has no chance in hell of ever achieving this idea. The sad part is there are people who actually believe such a thing is impossible.
The worst part is how the entitlement mentality has entrenched itself into the fabric of our society.

 

[flacaltenn]

The part of this OP that has broad support amongst Americans is this notion of corporate welfare. TRUE conservatives and TRUE Liberals (or every Libertarian) will agree that the govt should NOT be picking winners and losers in the marketplace and that there are very FEW instances where the Govt ought to subsidizing ANYTHING that's already an existing (or even planned) product.

Imagine how much lobbying and campaign bribery disappears when the power to have the govt pay you for every widget you produce -- or have the govt HOBBLE your competition with regulations --- goes away.

The 92% of the Commerce Dept has become corporate foreign marketing and welfare. Strategic RESEARCH $$$ is fine and maybe should be expanded. THAT's a more appropriate tool for juicing the economy than giving GE a $75 tax credit for every Energy Efficient washer/dryer that they sell.

You start nibbling away at abuses like those -- and a LOT of folks like Frigid will realize what govt is "too big" means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That may be the rationalization in which you believe, but it is not based in fact.
First, it is not the job of the federal government to "provide help" for anyone.
We do however, as a society have a duty to insure those who are incapable of the pursuit of life liberty and happiness have the opportunity to to do so.
You assume that a general increase in taxes( leave the wealthy out of it because any tax increases must apply to all) in the short run may result in an increase in revenue, but over the long term the opposite is ALWAYS true. As taxes increase, the funding available to build, expand, invest and create is removed from the economy....
In a market based economy, only a healthy and growing private sector is capable of expanding the flow of revenue to govt coffers.
I must ask....Why is it you believe that all economic health MUST begin and end with government?

It is the job of government to provide help if we elect them to do so

And what if we elect them to buy us a new car every three years? What if we elect them to make our mortgage payments? What if we elect them to give us free premium cable/satellite service and maximum speed internet?

Seems that all of those things are in the liberal arena of "help"...
Yes sir.
We pay a fee on our cable/telco delivered internet service so that people who cannot afford the luxury of high speed internet can have it. The government has concluded that access to the internet is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
We pay a fee on our cell phone bills so that the government can in turn provide free cell service to those who cannot afford their own. The federal government has concluded that access to a cell phone is a right and an entitlement. No matter what the cost.
I don't know about you but I am getting pretty sick of having to "take one for the team" every time some whiny left wing politician decides he or she needs to reassure their constituents are still on board on election day. Because that is really what these entitlements and goodies are all about. Votes.

Cradle-to-Gravers don't give a damn. They never ask how something is going to get paid for, they are just promised X and expect it to be delivered.

Our founders never envisioned our country that way. Governments job is to govern, not conduct a social club.

Years ago we used to have Communes. In a commune, some went out to fetch supplies and bring in money. Others stayed in the commune having babies and using drugs. After a while, the providers of the commune left. That's why there are no communes today.

Liberals look at our country as one giant commune. Some go out and produce, others sit home and take. When there are not enough supplies or money, the producers are expected to bring home more.

A perfect example of this is the popularity of Bernie Sanders among college students.
On Wednesday there was a candidates forum held at Winthrop University in a suburb of Charlotte NC....In hearing man on the street interviews many of the people who claimed to be students said they were committed to supporting Sanders based solely on his campaign idea that he would provide everyone who wanted it, a free college education....
Now, what I find unfathomable is that here we have supposedly intelligent young people who have been granted admission to college, saying they support a person who claims he will get them something free of charge. I have to ask, by what funding mechanism do these people believe is going to compensate the school and the employees so that they can have their "free" education....
I conclude that either these people are incredibly naive or they have an attitude of "screw you, I got a free college degree and I don't care who had to pay for it as long as it wasn't me"...
The fact is Sanders has no chance in hell of ever achieving this idea. The sad part is there are people who actually believe such a thing is impossible.
The worst part is how the entitlement mentality has entrenched itself into the fabric of our society.

Entitlement mentality, or the view that education is really important and that a lot of people, MOSTLY POOR, find the expense of going to college too great. So they have a few choices. Join the military and get sent to places like Iraq and put their limbs and lives on the line.

How many US soldiers in Iraq who died were only there to get a college education?

The Making of an American Soldier: Why Young People Join the Military

"According to a 2007 Associated Press analysis, "nearly three-fourths of [U.S. troops] killed in Iraq came from towns where the per capita income was below the national average. More than half came from towns where the percentage of people living in poverty topped the national average.""

A lot of poor people join the military.

"When working-class youth make it to their local community college, they often encounter military recruiters working hard to discourage them. "You're not going anywhere here," recruiters say. "This place is a dead end. I can offer you more." Pentagon-sponsored studies -- such as the RAND Corporation's "Recruiting Youth in the College Market: Current Practices and Future Policy Options" -- speak openly about college as the recruiter's number one competitor for the youth market."

3039 of those soldiers who died, about half, in Afghanistan and Iraq were between the ages of 20-24. 412 were between the ages of 18-19.
Not all would have been after a college education, but quite a few would have been.

I remember the story of the female soldier who got lost. He then escaped, and became a hero. But she didn't come back 100%, all she wanted was a college education.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Then what do you believe the role of government to be? Bigger? Smaller? Somewhere in between? What responsibilities should it have?

From what I've seen in the few years I've been posting in this board, the liberals in particular criticize those who want a smaller government, and that they want the government to interfere in her ability to give birth or have an abortion; whereas, in the process, the liberal unwittingly advocates for government regulation of abortion and abortifacients, which lies in direct conflict with their want for government to "stay out of the bedroom."

No, I don't think liberals want smaller government either.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces.

Perhaps you forgot that that is one of government's main roles. To protect and defend from enemies foreign and domestic. What, do you want a smaller military? I'm a libertarian, with little bit of isolationist ideals mixed in. But, what good would a small military do if we are attacked by another nation?

What are we going to do, throw our Nerf bats at them?

 

[ScienceRocks]

These retards want the fucking wild west. They're advocating for the destruction of modern civilization.

I want accountability but that isn't what these idiots want. They want it all gone...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

330 million Americans and people want smaller or less government? We gonna get rid of citizens at the same time?

" Democracy and Optimum Population Size: 2500 years ago, Aristotle considered the best size for a city and concluded that a large increase in population would bring, "certain poverty on the citizenry, and poverty is the cause of sedition and evil." He considered that a city of over 100,000 people would exclude most citizens from a voice in government.

To get an idea of what the founders of the United States had in mind for our representative Democracy, at the low end, the Constitution says (Article 1, Section 2) that a Representative to the House should represent a minimum of 30,000 people. When the Constitution was written, the United States had a total population of around 2.5 million, and the Constitution allocated 65 Representatives to the 13 states. So each Representative of "the People's House" had about 38,500 constituents. Currently each Representative has 712,650 constituents. It's really a form of irony today to call it "the People's House" when only wealthy donors and paid lobbyists really have the ear of your "representatives." What we have now is not Democracy in the sense intended by the country's founders. "
Effects of Overpopulation on the Environment and Society | HowMany.org

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Then what do you believe the role of government to be? Bigger? Smaller? Somewhere in between? What responsibilities should it have?

From what I've seen in the few years I've been posting in this board, the liberals in particular criticize those who want a smaller government, and that they want the government to interfere in her ability to give birth or have an abortion; whereas, in the process, the liberal unwittingly advocates for government regulation of abortion and abortifacients, which lies in direct conflict with their want for government to "stay out of the bedroom."

No, I don't think liberals want smaller government either.

I didn't say I was necessarily in favor of bigger government. I said I don't get many people who say they're in favor of smaller govt but clearly aren't.

My view on government would be that a government should make life better for people by doing certain things that are needed that wouldn't happen under pure capitalism.

The police.
The fire service
Healthcare
Infrastructure
Welfare (and not this isn't me saying we should just hand out cash, I believe people should have worked in order to be able to get welfare, perhaps five years before they can get any welfare at all)
Armed forces
Prisons
Helping trade (this doesn't include invading countries in order to have your companies take over, nor does it include using the World Bank to fuck over countries)
To regulate Capitalism so that it doesn't go crazy
To make laws based around a system of Human Rights, ie, you can do what you like as long as it doesn't harm other people
To provide education fit for the needs of the citizens
To do other things based around making society more cohesive and more a place where people can have opportunities and chances to do things.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces.

Perhaps you forgot that that is one of government's main roles. To protect and defend from enemies foreign and domestic. What, do you want a smaller military? I'm a libertarian, with little bit of isolationist ideals mixed in. But, what good would a small military do if we are attacked by another nation?

What are we going to do, throw our Nerf bats at them?

There's a BIG difference between protecting and defending against enemies, and going out and making enemies.

Oh, we want a bigger military, I know, let's make enemies with the second largest religion in the world, then we can protect and defend ourselves against them. That'll be fun, won't it? We'll have a massive defense budget then.