Why should government be kept smaller, and restricted to only certain tasks?

[Cecilie1200]

A federal government restricted to the tasks assigned to it in the Constitution would eliminate so much unsustainable evil--yes I mean EVIL--and general crap that divides us and creates a toxic environment in our society.

With such a government we would not have concern about:

1. A George Soros or Koch Brothers who use their wealth to influence government.

2. Huge divisions between Republicans and Democrats as we would all share common goals. Our differences would be in negotiating how best to achieve those goals.

3. Whether Fox News is the demon's voice or MSNBC is the devil personified as it is probable that reporters would again be reporting the news instead of engaging in advocacy for this or that party or ideology.

4. Who should or should not be receiving government subsidies or assistance because there wouldn't be any at the federal level.

With such a government we could be enjoying:

1. A true free market system with just enough regulation to keep us from doing economic or physical violence to each other.

2. A citizen Congress of public servants who would serve for a time and then go home to live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us because there would be no advantage or incentive or ability for career politicans and bureaucrats to achieve incredible power and personal wealth at our expense.

3. A President who would see his legacy as controlling costs, balancing the budget, facilitating an efficient and effective military and bureaucracy that would serve the people instead of controlling them, and promoting the general welfare rather than one who would leave his mark as one who created a 'better' society or new world order.

It is true that if one wants to take the influence of special interest dollars out of the government, the best way to do it is to make politicians less valuable by giving them less power.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A smaller government is less competition for the rich. Look at who backs the Kochbaggers.

Rich people got that way because, by and large, they built businesses that produce goods and services that people WANT. Whereas government becomes rich by taxing the people who actually produce value in society. Which one sounds more "compassionate" to you?

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

You actually believe the government is an ASSET to business development, rather than a hindrance? That what it looks like from the welfare line, is it?

 

[Londoner]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

Turn off talk radio. The biggest violator of the "Small government" credo are Republicans and Corporations.

Republicans, under Bush, created the most far reaching and invasive bureaucracy in this nation's history > Homeland Security.

They also created the Patriot Act, which gives government the ability to spy on American citizens. There is no greater threat to American privacy and freedom.

Large corporations have created a lobbying empire to secure subsidies and bailouts from the nanny state. They also get Patent protection so that Big Government builds monopoly protection around their investments.

Ronald Reagan and George W Bush added more jobs to government than Clinton and Obama. This is easily researched. Please turn off talk radio.

Look at the power Reagan gave to Big Government through the war on drugs.

Look at the power Bush gave to Big Government through the war on terrorism.

Please read this article on Homeland Security so you understand how Republican's created the largest, most expensive, most secretive, most invasive Big Government bureaucracy in this nation's history.

"Click me to read about the real party of Big Government"

Reagan tripled Carter's spending and debt.

Bush doubled Clinton's spending and debt.

Your party always spends more.

Your party has given government far more money and concentrated power than LBJ could have ever dreamed.

(You've been lied to. Stop repeating the propaganda of dear leader)

Government should bust-up the energy, health care, and internet/cable monopolies that have been put in place by the Republican Lobbying Industrial complex. They should protect consumers from the Republican Big Business State. Unfortunately, the Dems lack the messaging infrastructure and political power to do it - which means they can only push through Republican ideas, like Bob Dole's health care plan and pass toothless regulations over the Wall Street derivative crooks. Game over.

 

[oreo]

Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.

Occasional events like wars might cause govt departments designed to deal with them, to grow to a size appropriate to do so. But afterward govt must reduce back to its smaller size.

If you feel that government can do something better than private people or groups can do it, that's insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it. If private people can do it at all, it must be denied to govt unequivocally.

The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) Government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) Government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained.
(c) History grimly shows that when government is allowed more authority than necessary, the imperfect humans it's made of begin to abuse that power, virtually every time. And with time, that abuse only increases, often rising to disastrous levels.

For these reasons, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.

Agreed--I really can't think of any federal government agency that runs efficiently or effectively.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicade plus the U.S. post office is running in so much red ink they might as well go bankrupt.

Their involvement into the mortgage business--Fannie Mae and Freddie mac is really the foundation of the economic collapse in 2008. Where the Federal Government thought it would be a great idea to co-sign our names to more than 50% of the mortgages in this country while at the same time lowering lending standards--(so everyone could become a home-owner.) Lowering income and credit requirements sure did it's damage. Let alone back in the 90's they got rid of the Glass/Stegall banking act of the 1930's so they could come up with the Diriivitives markets--in which they also ignored warning after warning.
All of this the Federal Government did--and they left the American taxpayer holding the bag on it--while they pointed fingers at Wall Street, which by the way is regulated by them.

Now they want to manage our health care---

 

[dblack]

...
Unfortunately, the Dems lack the messaging infrastructure and political power to do it - which means they can only push through Republican ideas, like Bob Dole's health care plan and pass toothless regulations over the Wall Street derivative crooks. Game over.

I was right there with you until this. The Dems have all the power they need. They don't WANT to change things.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even simple societies needed government to protect commerce. All the way back to stopping thieves from stealing your goods, stopping raiders and opening up trade with neighboring tribes

The fact is trade existed long before government. Farmers, craftsmen and artisans brought their goods to market before the state ever existed.

I don't think it would be much fun doing commerce without a government protecting property rights. Just sayin'.

Fun? Maybe not. Possible? Absolutely.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think it would be much fun doing commerce without a government protecting property rights. Just sayin'.

Exactly

You could bring your goods to market, but nobody would protect you once yo got there
Government also created this thing called money which made commerce possible

Which is why we no longer have alcohol in the US, and drugs are all but eliminated.

Wait...

Makes no sense....you been hitting he drugs and alcohol?

 

[mmmjvpssm]

Those "only certain tasks" including of course suppressing the vote, attacking working people, and forcing girls who have been raped to have babies

 

[rightwinger]

Rich people got that way because, by and large, they built businesses that produce goods and services that people WANT. Whereas government becomes rich by taxing the people who actually produce value in society. Which one sounds more "compassionate" to you?

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

You actually believe the government is an ASSET to business development, rather than a hindrance? That what it looks like from the welfare line, is it?

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

 

[Cecilie1200]

Commerce was going strong before roads and harbors came into play. The Silk Road was nothing more than trails and sea routes repeatedly used by tradesmen to move goods between countries. There was no pavement and no dredged harbors.

Yes, and they had the good fortune of having pirates and gangs of thieves helping them on the way. Until they demanded that governments help them

You're making things up again. They never demanded any such thing. I don't think any government ever provided security for caravans on the silk road.

Nope. The caravan drivers themselves clubbed together and hired guards. And when the Muslim raiders became too much, Christopher Columbus went hunting for a new route. At no time did any government step in and try to police the Silk Road.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

You actually believe the government is an ASSET to business development, rather than a hindrance? That what it looks like from the welfare line, is it?

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

What color is the sky on your world?

 

[Contumacious]

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

You actually believe the government is an ASSET to business development, rather than a hindrance? That what it looks like from the welfare line, is it?

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

And let me guess, the moochers, the parasites, the tax consumers define what is a "level playing field", AND AND after 17 TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTrillions dollars the field is not "level" yet.

.

 

[rightwinger]

You actually believe the government is an ASSET to business development, rather than a hindrance? That what it looks like from the welfare line, is it?

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

What color is the sky on your world?

Just a minute.....I'll check
.

.

.

Its black

 

[Iceman]

All of which wouldn't have been possible without the government.

You actually believe the government is an ASSET to business development, rather than a hindrance? That what it looks like from the welfare line, is it?

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

A level playing field?

Two things that disprove that notion
Wall Street Bailouts
Ag Subsidies

Just off the top of my head.

 

[rightwinger]

You actually believe the government is an ASSET to business development, rather than a hindrance? That what it looks like from the welfare line, is it?

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

A level playing field?

Two things that disprove that notion
Wall Street Bailouts
Ag Subsidies

Just off the top of my head.

Monopolies
Legal Protections

Just off the top of my head

 

[bripat9643]

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

A level playing field?

Two things that disprove that notion
Wall Street Bailouts
Ag Subsidies

Just off the top of my head.

Monopolies
Legal Protections

Just off the top of my head

All monopolies that ever existed were protected by the government. They were government creations.

How is that a "level playing field?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

What color is the sky on your world?

Just a minute.....I'll check
.

.

.

Its black

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

A level playing field?

Two things that disprove that notion
Wall Street Bailouts
Ag Subsidies

Just off the top of my head.

Monopolies
Legal Protections

Just off the top of my head

Monopolies only exist when government enforces them.

 

[Iceman]

Government provides a level playing field, protects their patents and intellectual property and protects their international markets

A level playing field?

Two things that disprove that notion
Wall Street Bailouts
Ag Subsidies

Just off the top of my head.

Monopolies
Legal Protections

Just off the top of my head

Those don't negate what I posted.

Anti-Trust laws don't negate the corporate favoritism engaged in by the government.

The playing field isn't level.

That is a very naive thing to say.

 

[rightwinger]

A level playing field?

Two things that disprove that notion
Wall Street Bailouts
Ag Subsidies

Just off the top of my head.

Monopolies
Legal Protections

Just off the top of my head

Those don't negate what I posted.

Anti-Trust laws don't negate the corporate favoritism engaged in by the government.

The playing field isn't level.

That is a very naive thing to say.

Its not?

Why do we have court systems?