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

[BobPlumb]

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.

If the private sector can defend the country better than the government, why have a government run defense department and all else that relates to our national security?

Actually, it's our private sector that has developed the technology that gives our military the edge.

 

[Redfish]

The Constitution says nothing about the required size of our government

It defines the roles of the central government and the governments of the states.

Changing those roles requires a constitutional amendment, not a presidents signature.

Yup........And our Constitutionally enacted governemtn remains the same

We vote for the programs and size of government that we need. If you think it is in some way unconstitutional.......that is why we have courts

Go for it

neither the citizens or the congress has the authority to change the constitution. only a vote of 38 states can do that.

as you have said many times, we do not live in a pure democracy.

 

[Redfish]

A business expense is not a subsidy.

In finance, a subsidy is aid. A tax deduction is a form of indirect aid.

In that case, it is a subsidy to everyone who pays taxes because everyone gets to deduct expenses from their taxes. I guess that means that, in the big picture, you get to subsidize yourself.

Except we all know the real world doesn't work that way, which is why you sound so stupid for trying to argue unrealized tax revenues like it is a real thing.

a tax deduction is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct payment from the government. EIC is a subsidy.

 

[rightwinger]

It defines the roles of the central government and the governments of the states.

Changing those roles requires a constitutional amendment, not a presidents signature.

Yup........And our Constitutionally enacted governemtn remains the same

We vote for the programs and size of government that we need. If you think it is in some way unconstitutional.......that is why we have courts

Go for it

neither the citizens or the congress has the authority to change the constitution. only a vote of 38 states can do that.

as you have said many times, we do not live in a pure democracy.

Who wants to change the Constitution?

It is working fine, just the way we have it. If you want a small government and limited services, then vote for representatives who support that concept.

That is the way America works

 

[Redfish]

Yup........And our Constitutionally enacted governemtn remains the same

We vote for the programs and size of government that we need. If you think it is in some way unconstitutional.......that is why we have courts

Go for it

neither the citizens or the congress has the authority to change the constitution. only a vote of 38 states can do that.

as you have said many times, we do not live in a pure democracy.

Who wants to change the Constitution?

It is working fine, just the way we have it. If you want a small government and limited services, then vote for representatives who support that concept.

That is the way America works

its the topic of the thread, if you are not interested, drop out

 

[dblack]

In finance, a subsidy is aid. A tax deduction is a form of indirect aid.

In that case, it is a subsidy to everyone who pays taxes because everyone gets to deduct expenses from their taxes. I guess that means that, in the big picture, you get to subsidize yourself.

Except we all know the real world doesn't work that way, which is why you sound so stupid for trying to argue unrealized tax revenues like it is a real thing.

a tax deduction is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct payment from the government. EIC is a subsidy.

Deductions targeted to reward specific people or mandate behaviors function the same as subsidies. Not sure why it matters what we call them.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

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

Look at what it does exceptionally well. Like, next to nothing.

If that doesn't tell you why it should be kept smaller and restricted to only certain tasks, what would?

 

[rightwinger]

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

Look at what it does exceptionally well. Like, next to nothing.

If that doesn't tell you why it should be kept smaller and restricted to only certain tasks, what would?

And yet we have the best government in the world. One that has been emulated around the world

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You seem to excel at irrelevancies.

 

[bripat9643]

Yup........And our Constitutionally enacted governemtn remains the same

We vote for the programs and size of government that we need. If you think it is in some way unconstitutional.......that is why we have courts

Go for it

neither the citizens or the congress has the authority to change the constitution. only a vote of 38 states can do that.

as you have said many times, we do not live in a pure democracy.

Who wants to change the Constitution?

It is working fine, just the way we have it. If you want a small government and limited services, then vote for representatives who support that concept.

That is the way America works

Democrats simply ignore the Constitution. That's why you don't think it needs changing.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Look at what it does exceptionally well. Like, next to nothing.

If that doesn't tell you why it should be kept smaller and restricted to only certain tasks, what would?

And yet we have the best government in the world. One that has been emulated around the world

The why are Dimocraps always trying to emulate Europeans socialist governments?

 

[Foxfyre]

Not all that many years ago, the state of New Mexico and a barely incorporated Village of Rio Rancho put together a tax break for an Intel plant to establish itself there. Again it didn't take a penny out of anybody's pocket or put a penny into Intel's pocket. It was bait dangled out there to get a very large employer to locate on the high desert with few amenities when it could have chosen a more attractive location. Intel is now New Mexico's largest single private sector employer, pays massive taxes to the State of New Mexico and the city, has donated many wonderful things for the community, and the good jobs it has created have provided a market base for hundreds of other businesses providing a good living for tens of thousands that wouldn't exist without Intel. Rio Rancho is the fastest growing city in New Mexico, and the odds are good that it will be the largest in a few years.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, thinks that initial tax break was not a good investment and was not a huge benefit to all, i.e. promoted the general welfare.

A government initiative that benefits only one entity is of course immoral. But one that creates private sector jobs for many hundreds or thousands including providing a market base for many other private sector enterprises is a solid investment.

It costs nobody anything. And the benefits are huge.

See, I think this is actually a really insidious problem with the way we've implemented federalism. I'd like to see the concept of equal protection expanded to include all levels of government and elevated to something of a 'prime directive' in our Constitution. This sort of governance radically undermines the rule of law. No one, no business, no special interest group, should be able to bargain for special treatment.

In the example I used, I simply don't see the problem you see. To me, it illustrates what 'promote the general welfare' was intended to be as the Founders understood it. Again any government initiative that benefits a favored one or few only--bad government. A government initiative that presumes to benefit everybody via coercion or subversive means--think Obamacare--very bad. But a government initiative that costs nobody anything even initially, mandates nothing from anybody, but benefits everybody--I just see that as a positive thing.

The example I used was not government spending the taxpayer's money or trying to do commerce and enterprise itself. It was making something possible and then getting out of the way to let free enterprise work. And it worked magnificently to create jobs, to create opportunity for massive entreprenourship, and to keep everybody's taxes lower while taking nothing whatsoever away from anybody.

How can you object to that? I think we should applaud good government when it happens and encourage more of it. It surely does not increase the size and scope of government, and if we can return government to a government that promotes, rather than claims to provide, the general welfare, we will have the small, efficient, effective government we need.

It isn't no government at all that we need. It is that small, efficient, effective government that secures our rights, promotes the general welfare; and then gets out of our way that we need.

 

[bripat9643]

In that case, it is a subsidy to everyone who pays taxes because everyone gets to deduct expenses from their taxes. I guess that means that, in the big picture, you get to subsidize yourself.

Except we all know the real world doesn't work that way, which is why you sound so stupid for trying to argue unrealized tax revenues like it is a real thing.

a tax deduction is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct payment from the government. EIC is a subsidy.

Deductions targeted to reward specific people or mandate behaviors function the same as subsidies. Not sure why it matters what we call them.

They can, but 99% of deductions are for legitimate business expenses. Allowing a business owner to deduct the cost of his new jet skis from his company's income is obviously a scam, but deducting the cost of the company trucks is not. The former is prosecutable, however.

 

[Redfish]

In that case, it is a subsidy to everyone who pays taxes because everyone gets to deduct expenses from their taxes. I guess that means that, in the big picture, you get to subsidize yourself.

Except we all know the real world doesn't work that way, which is why you sound so stupid for trying to argue unrealized tax revenues like it is a real thing.

a tax deduction is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct payment from the government. EIC is a subsidy.

Deductions targeted to reward specific people or mandate behaviors function the same as subsidies. Not sure why it matters what we call them.

true, but our left wing friends continually misuse the word 'subsidy'. just trying to set them straight.

 

[Foxfyre]

a tax deduction is not a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct payment from the government. EIC is a subsidy.

Deductions targeted to reward specific people or mandate behaviors function the same as subsidies. Not sure why it matters what we call them.

true, but our left wing friends continually misuse the word 'subsidy'. just trying to set them straight.

Some of our more thoughtful libertarian friends are also misunderstanding exactly what is a subsidy and what is not too.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Look at what it does exceptionally well. Like, next to nothing.

If that doesn't tell you why it should be kept smaller and restricted to only certain tasks, what would?

And yet we have the best government in the world. One that has been emulated around the world

The why are Dimocraps always trying to emulate Europeans socialist governments?

I love my country and admire our Government. There is no other government in the world I would like to have

It is conservatives always planning war against the "evil" government

 

[rightwinger]

neither the citizens or the congress has the authority to change the constitution. only a vote of 38 states can do that.

as you have said many times, we do not live in a pure democracy.

Who wants to change the Constitution?

It is working fine, just the way we have it. If you want a small government and limited services, then vote for representatives who support that concept.

That is the way America works

Democrats simply ignore the Constitution. That's why you don't think it needs changing.

If that is what you believe, you have the judicial system as a remedy....go at it

 

[Redfish]

And yet we have the best government in the world. One that has been emulated around the world

The why are Dimocraps always trying to emulate Europeans socialist governments?

I love my country and admire our Government. There is no other government in the world I would like to have

It is conservatives always planning war against the "evil" government

A US government that takes away constitutional rights by executive fiat is evil and should be replaced.

 

[Redfish]

Who wants to change the Constitution?

It is working fine, just the way we have it. If you want a small government and limited services, then vote for representatives who support that concept.

That is the way America works

Democrats simply ignore the Constitution. That's why you don't think it needs changing.

If that is what you believe, you have the judicial system as a remedy....go at it

suits are being filed as we speak.

 

[dblack]

Deductions targeted to reward specific people or mandate behaviors function the same as subsidies. Not sure why it matters what we call them.

true, but our left wing friends continually misuse the word 'subsidy'. just trying to set them straight.

Some of our more thoughtful libertarian friends are also misunderstanding exactly what is a subsidy and what is not too.

I'm not that interested in whether we call the games we play with the tax code 'subsidies' or 'incentives' or 'gifts-to-lobbyists'. But I would like to see the practice abolished. It's just plain bad government in my view.