Government: How big is too big?

R

Ruined

CAGiversary!
I was listening to this soundclip:
http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTr...d.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/levin03272009.mp3

And I was just wondering, what is all of your opinions on size of government? I know this is very much a left-leaning forum, but I have read a lot of comments from many angles here. So, on some of the topics discussed in this clip, where do you stand on government size/power over the individual? Is there a limit, and where is that limit?

On a related note, I read California is looking to ban big screen HDTVs because of their power draw... Now thats scary IMO.
 
I dont draw a distinction between the government and the people. Therefore as long as the government continues to stay accountable to the people, there is no limit.
 
The government is only accountable to 50.01% ;)

We have abandoned the Constitution and the majority can virtually enslave the minority via taxes if they choose to today. People will constantly vote for bigger and bigger government because they think it's an easy way to get a bigger piece of the pie..more benefits, more freebies, and a better life for themselves at the expense of everyone else. The problem is that everyone CAN'T live at the expense of everyone else. It's like two parasites that begin feeding on each other. They might be happy temporarily but they are really killing each other..and won't survive very long. Our government is similar to this. It's too big and too parasitic.. The current trend is not sustainable, and government will eventually collapse under it's own weight unless we shrink it to a reasonable level.
 
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."

Written just over 200 years ago, I think it's striking prophetic. We are definitely on the decline side of the curve.
 
[quote name='dopa345']Written just over 200 years ago, I think it's striking prophetic. We are definitely on the decline side of the curve.[/quote]

In before msut states the above is an internet rumor.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In before msut states the above is an internet rumor.[/QUOTE]

Ah, I see you've played Knifey-Spoony before!
 
I used to think the federal government was about five times too big (I would cut government outlays - and taxes - to 20 percent of what they were). With this latest round of ginormous increases in government influence and power, Maybe that's down to 15 percent. So I would take government to 15 percent of what it is today. Government should be maybe 4-5 percent of GDP, not 28 and climbing as it is now.

I would get the federal government out of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, welfare, maybe other things too that I haven't thought of off the top of my head. These sorts of things should be left to the states, or we get the situation as we have it today where the responsible states (and the people of those states) pay for the lunacy of the irresponsible ones (California most especially).

The federal government is responsible for defense, international diplomacy and international trade, as well as deciding disputes between states, but really shouldn't be doing a whole lot more than that.

Ironic enough to the subject of this thread and what I wrote above, I would also increase the size of government in one area: the number of representatives. Right now that number is capped at 435. This means that even though we have millions more Americans each census, they are represented by the same number of people. I think we need more of them so that they are more responsive to the people they represent, as well as more of them being a hedge against any one congressman being too powerful, and the ability of parties to manipulate votes to the detriment of the country.
 
Personally, I thought the Patriot Act and all related "Patriotic" bs that came out of the Bush years was the biggest (and unconstitutional) increase of government we've seen lately.

~HotShotX
 
To me the size of government means nothing, its the profit based corruption and lies, politicians don't solve problems and never will. again size means nothing when the government is corrupt and unfortunately no matter what type of government it is, if its profit based, its corrupt. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Personally, I thought the Patriot Act and all related "Patriotic" bs that came out of the Bush years was the biggest (and unconstitutional) increase of government we've seen lately.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

If the reaction is to point to/blame former-president Bush every time a valid criticism is made of whoever is in office, said politicians will get away with murder while we are busy finger pointing. The politicians are still running with Bush too in their PR, because it still works as an excuse to give them free-reign to do what they want.

That's not to say Bush should get a free pass, but the Patriot Act was obviously a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11. You could try to argue that some of the current stimulus/financial packages are a knee-jerk reaction to the recession, but I fail to understand how massively helping out the minority public sector while not helping out the dominant private sector at all (with the exception of the small business proposal, which is miniscule in size compared to the overall budget) is an effective long term way of helping the economy; it seems more an excuse to grow government and spend oodles of taxpayer money for government programs we don't need in a time of recession, hurting the economy greatly in the long run. Granted, you could say the Patriot Act was an excuse to grow government, but at least there you can see the rationale of untying the hands of the FBI/CIA in terms of spycraft to combat domestic and foreign terrorist cells.

I just hope out of all this we don't get some ultra-high taxation VAT crap like the UK and many other countries are subject to due to their governments spending too much money they don't have. If we dig the hole too deep, there will be no way out other than the ubertax; which the government can then exhibit further control upon you by bending you over the tax barrel whenever you buy something they don't want you to, in addition to what will amount to a higher overall tax in general.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I dont draw a distinction between the government and the people. Therefore as long as the government continues to stay accountable to the people, there is no limit.[/quote]

It's never been accountable to the people.

[quote name='HotShotX']Personally, I thought the Patriot Act and all related "Patriotic" bs that came out of the Bush years was the biggest (and unconstitutional) increase of government we've seen lately.

~HotShotX[/quote]


This bailout will eventually trump that. Government is one of the few entities that is hiring now. The more goverment workers you have, the harder it will be to get rid of them later. Don't get me wrong, if I could get a government job I would, but the increase in is coming. As long as we think the government is the only solution to every problem we have, it will continue to grow.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I was listening to this soundclip:
http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTr...d.net/o29/network/Levin/MP3/levin03272009.mp3

And I was just wondering, what is all of your opinions on size of government? I know this is very much a left-leaning forum, but I have read a lot of comments from many angles here. So, on some of the topics discussed in this clip, where do you stand on government size/power over the individual? Is there a limit, and where is that limit?

On a related note, I read California is looking to ban big screen HDTVs because of their power draw... Now thats scary IMO.[/quote]

Yeah, it's a left leaning forum, but there are some independents here like myself. I don't no if there are many on the right. I know years ago there was PittsburghAfterDark, but I don't know what happened to him.

I'm no poltical expert by any means though, just an average Joe.

What's scarier is that California proposes to give illegal aliens IN-STATE tuition to attend colleges. I heard that on the news the other day and I was like WTF? That was one of the more absurd things I have heard in my life.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']
the responsible states (and the people of those states) pay for the lunacy of the irresponsible ones (California most especially).
[/quote]
Given that red states couldnt function without all the federal blue state money they get, I think you have this backwards. I would love to see all the social programs handled on a per state level though, so the red states can fail outright.

It would be tough to regulate the state borders though.

On one hand, we couldnt let people from the red states go over to blue for their health care/unemployment/k-12 education and so on, while on the other, we couldnt let blue state folks buy unregulated and external cost laden red state manufactured products. It would be like having different countries.

We'd also have to make sure you dont work across state lines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Ruined']If the reaction is to point to/blame former-president Bush every time a valid criticism is made of whoever is in office, said politicians will get away with murder while we are busy finger pointing. The politicians are still running with Bush too in their PR, because it still works as an excuse to give them free-reign to do what they want.
[/QUOTE]

You're a grown-up. Act like one.

When we're talking about government and the people, we're ultimately talking about the balance between individual rights and public order. I sacrifice a bit of my freedom so that I can live. I'm willing to give up, or permit to be sanctioned, my desire to kill stupid people, in order to protect my own life from those who might consider me stupid.

On the other hand, and this is a setup I use in my intro classes - childhood obesity is a growing problem in the US. Should we permit the government to regulate the items, portions, and times we feed our children in order to improve overall health, fitness, and reduce medical issues like hypertension and cardiac conditions? Let's sponsor the "healthy children initiative." Who's against healthy children? Jerks, that's who! But what is the act, you say? We decide what and when your children eat. It is portioned and rationed. Deviations are citeable offenses punishable up to $5000 per offense.

Great, right? Watch diabetes drop to the floor! Watch average American BMI hit the floor! What an idea? How great! How...huh?

Oh, yeah. freedom. Whatever. I guess that's important.

So "big government" or "small government" is a silly question to ask, and one that's not properly focused. Thinking of "individual rights" versus "public order" might be a more valuable place to start.

Plus, it will lead to better and more interesting debates that listening to you numbskulls talk about how we're overtaxed, and about "redistribution of wealth," without citing anything other than abstract philosophy. At least if you hold onto "rights versus order," you'll be backing up philosophical points with abstract thinking, instead of using abstract thoughts to define the performance of concrete institutions in the US.

EDIT: and, keep in mind, that there are no more individuals. These are individuals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child#Documented_cases
 
I look at my country and I see a country that spies on people, tortures people, is only slightly less militaristic than North Korea and has more people in jail than any other. Yet there are those in my country fretting about the government getting to big for its britches because of the prospect of (for example) universal access to healthcare.

It is like we are not even having the same conversation.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']What's scarier is that California proposes to give illegal aliens IN-STATE tuition to attend colleges. I heard that on the news the other day and I was like WTF? That was one of the more absurd things I have heard in my life.[/quote]

IIRC, something like this was tried at the Federal level in 2007. I think it was called the Dream Act, but it got filibustered.

As far as the Patriot Act goes, the Reauthorization of it is far worse than the original bill (I did a 40 page report on it one summer) and I can tell you that there are some funny, funny things in that bill. And remember that that's the one that got filibustered and Harry Reid claimed "we killed the Patriot Act". It was merely a product of pandering that time around because it had to get to 60.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Thinking of "individual rights" versus "public order" might be a more valuable place to start.[/QUOTE]

So rights must be restricted to maintain order?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']all of them? no. But if no rights needed restriction, we wouldn't require government, would we?[/QUOTE]
If I understand you correctly, your argument is that we require government to restrict certain rights so that order is maintained. But which rights do you feel need to be restricted?
 
That's the question.

My right to not be murdered by you is an easy one.

My right to not have to put up with your second-hand smoke has been a contentious one that varies from state to state is another.

My right to not have to listen to your house party rockin' Soula Boy (Tell 'Em) at 3AM is something the police will come to your house for.

We have these debates. My right to not be observed by the government without my knowledge that was violated by the Bush administration. My right to due process and habeas corpus, which was violated by the Bush administration? That's a pretty contentious area under which our rights are being violated.

The "easy way out" answer to "which rights" is for me to say "well, look at the constitution. there's a place to start." But, as we know historically, the constitution can be interpreted in a number of different ways.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The "easy way out" answer to "which rights" is for me to say "well, look at the constitution. there's a place to start." But, as we know historically, the constitution can be interpreted in a number of different ways.[/QUOTE]
If you believe a woman can be Vice President, then you're a fucking dirty liberal that doesn't believe in the holy gospel of the Constitution and are certainly *not* a strict constructionist. If you don't know why, you're even worse than that and don't deserve to be even acknowledged.

Here's the rub. At this point, our culture has determined that certain things are "communal" (omg that word!). Defense. Transportation. Law. To a lesser extent, education. Health. Sustenance. Policing.

The question in my mind is which ones make us "better" economically. Sure, Capitalizt will QQ all day about how his personal rights are trampled, but what we are ultimately is an economic trust. If it makes economic sense to do for all in order to free business to deal with business, then it's the government's business.

Clearly business likes to not pay for education, which is why they require their workers to absorb billions in education costs simply to work for them. Does education make business sense for the government? Sure. Clearly. Then the feds should be involved.

The federal government should be involved in that which makes us more competitive (including healthcare, food, anything that quells the proletariat and frees business to do business) and not in things business can do better (primary education (to a point), etc.).

The reality of the situation is that no matter how badly we get fleeced by the American royal class, there's always going to be apologists. Just look at my sig. Yea, that happened. Moving past the retarded that is the extremists and towards the reality that is a communal economic trust is where we'll find balance.
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']Given that red states couldnt function without all the federal blue state money they get, I think you have this backwards. I would love to see all the social programs handled on a per state level though, so the red states can fail outright.[/quote]

I think you're not realizing California is just dealing with a $42 billion budget deficit due to their irresponsibility. And yes, I know they pay more in taxes than they get back from the federal government.

I think that red states could function just as well as blue states as long as they stay within their means. In fact, I don't understand what red states and blue states, a tired concept anyway, have to do with this topic at all. But yes, by all means people in Texas should not be paying for social programs in Kansas, and vice versa.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']It would be tough to regulate the state borders though.

On one hand, we couldnt let people from the red states go over to blue for their health care/unemployment/k-12 education and so on, while on the other, we couldnt let blue state folks buy unregulated and external cost laden red state manufactured products. It would be like having different countries.[/quote]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The regulation of interstate commerce would be the same as it is now, so I don't see why you think all these things would be a problem with a smaller federal government. And I think, again, you're laying on the BS quite thickly with the red/blue dichotomy. Do you Texans go to California or New York for your medical care? I thought not.

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']We'd also have to make sure you dont work across state lines.[/QUOTE]

Well, I happen to work across state lines right now. But what difference would that make? I pay my state taxes where I live, not where I work. I don't see why that would change if we did what I wrote above. You jump to unwarranted conclusions, as if the political structure of the country would be destroyed if the federal government wasn't so vastly bloated as it is today (and getting bigger).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']That's the question.

My right to not be murdered by you is an easy one.

My right to not have to put up with your second-hand smoke has been a contentious one that varies from state to state is another.

My right to not have to listen to your house party rockin' Soula Boy (Tell 'Em) at 3AM is something the police will come to your house for.

We have these debates. My right to not be observed by the government without my knowledge that was violated by the Bush administration. My right to due process and habeas corpus, which was violated by the Bush administration? That's a pretty contentious area under which our rights are being violated.

The "easy way out" answer to "which rights" is for me to say "well, look at the constitution. there's a place to start." But, as we know historically, the constitution can be interpreted in a number of different ways.[/QUOTE]

Right. Are you referring to programs that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

In any case, what makes the Constitution so special? None of us were even alive when it was drafted. And it didn't even ban slavery initially. What kind of list of rights is that?
 
The federal government should be no bigger than what is necessary to execute the powers granted to it by the constitution.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The federal government should be no bigger than what is necessary to execute the powers granted to it by the constitution.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='rickonker']In any case, what makes the Constitution so special? None of us were even alive when it was drafted. And it didn't even ban slavery initially. What kind of list of rights is that?[/QUOTE]

I'll direct this to you as well.
 
The constitution is not a static document, it can be changed with a two thirds majority. The constitution is what grants all legal authority in the US, it establishes what powers are granted to the government by the people, and it defines the role and structure of government. Without such a document as the source of all power, you'd likely have a government based on whatever powers that can be derived though the force of arms.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The constitution is not a static document, it can be changed with a two thirds majority. The constitution is what grants all legal authority in the US, it establishes what powers are granted to the government by the people, and it defines the role and structure of government. Without such a document as the source of all power, you'd likely have a government based on whatever powers that can be derived though the force of arms.[/QUOTE]
What gives the Constitution this special status? What people granted those powers to the government?
 
[quote name='rickonker']What gives the Constitution this special status? What people granted those powers to the government?[/QUOTE]
The people's elected representatives did, both at the Philadelphia convention and by the delegates elected within each state to ratify or reject it.

Its not simply a document written 200 years ago. Its a living document that can be and has been modified, and will continue to be.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']The people's elected representatives did, both at the Philadelphia convention and by the delegates elected within each state to ratify or reject it.

Its not simply a document written 200 years ago. Its a living document that can be and has been modified, and will continue to be.[/QUOTE]
As I said we weren't even alive then. So what your argument comes down to is that the Constitution is valid because a majority of people wanted it that way?
 
[quote name='rickonker']As I said we weren't even alive then. So what your argument comes down to is that the Constitution is valid because a majority of people wanted it that way?[/quote]

And still want it that way.
 
[quote name='rickonker']So you say...[/QUOTE]

If we don't want it that way, we can amend the Constitution. So either we still want it that way (I vote this), or not enough people want to change it, or we're just stupid and haven't changed it even though we want to.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...-Big-Government-Set-Your-Salary-42158597.html

So...big enough for you, yet? Or have we crossed the line?[/quote]

From the article:

The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government.
Click to expand...

Read articles before you post them, and actually make comments on them instead of just posting bullshit.
 
[quote name='evanft']Read articles before you post them, and actually make comments on them instead of just posting bullshit.[/quote]

If a company receives a startup "loan" or credit, should the government be able to decide how much executives can be paid that year? the next year? 5 years later? 10 years later? etc?
 
[quote name='evanft']From the article:

Read articles before you post them, and actually make comments on them instead of just posting bullshit.[/quote]

I did read it, but you need to ask yourself where is the end of all this regulatory nonsense? Because I assure you they won't stop here.
 
[quote name='rickonker']Right. Are you referring to programs that aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?

In any case, what makes the Constitution so special? None of us were even alive when it was drafted. And it didn't even ban slavery initially. What kind of list of rights is that?[/quote]

You obviously have never read the Constitution. Otherwise you'd know that slavery was never authorized.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/UnconstitutionalityOfSlaveryContents.htm
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Oh, Jesus Christ, you want me to read 100 pages of legalese.

Come on. Give us the cliff notes or a few high points.[/quote]

Can't handle information that isn't in easily digestible sound bytes? You post clearly shows a bias against the essay without having actually read it, legitamately skim it, or even know anything about it.

If you can at least wrap your brain around chapter VIII, you'd have a decent grasp on the argument.
 
[quote name='familydog']Can't handle information that isn't in easily digestible sound bytes? You post clearly shows a bias against the essay without having actually read it, legitamately skim it, or even know anything about it.

If you can at least wrap your brain around chapter VIII, you'd have a decent grasp on the argument.[/quote]

I have a bias against reading several chapters of anything on the Internet while I'm at work and have six more chapters of my CCNA book to read.

But... I'll focus on Chapter 8 if there is time. Thanks.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If a company receives a startup "loan" or credit, should the government be able to decide how much executives can be paid that year? the next year? 5 years later? 10 years later? etc?[/QUOTE]
I don't think the government should be in the business of loaning money to private businesses, but I think they can set whatever conditions they'd like as long as you are not required to take the money.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Are you the new level1online?

Post a link and then drop out of the conversation?[/QUOTE]

What, you expected me to respond to your first reply which starts off with an insult (like this one)? No thanks. I think there has been some good discussion in this thread thus far.
 
:lol:

This is one of the most civil vs forum discussions I've ever seen, and yet you choose to play the victim card.

There, there. Why don't you just not type anything at all, and make it easier on yourself?
 
No one's playing the 'victim card,' but if you don't give me the courtesy of respect why should I bother giving you the courtesy of reading and replying to what you have to say? Pretend you are in a real life interaction, if you attempted to start a conversation with an insult someone would tell you to go **** off. Basic social skills.
 
As I said before, I'm not the only one having a discussion in this thread. You don't have to respond to me, but it's pretty disrespectful to everyone else in here to take a dump in here by doing nothing but posting a link and leaving.

If you want to have a temper tantrum, go right ahead. You're not exactly doing a lot to refute my original "insult." You're making me look more correct by the post.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're a grown-up. Act like one.[/quote]

No offense myke, but that was the first thing you said to the OP in this thread and it seemed uncalled for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top