Bigger Government against smaller Government

davidjlee71

Rookie
Jan 16, 2018
7
2
1
There is a discussion going on in our society right now it is about Bigger Government and Smaller Government. The question is which one is better for the people. Bigger Government is based on Government programs that are paid for by taxpayers. Smaller Government is the elimination of Government programs that in some people's eyes are not necessary and to only have Government programs that are necessary.

The argument comes down to what people need and or believe. Some people need and believe that as a citizen of this Country that the Government was created to take care of them in ways. It is my opinion that Government serves a purpose for some and that is good. The problem is it serves too much of a purpose for too many people. The Government is there to help people who truly need it. Keyword truly.

Then there is small Government. The people who back small Government believes that the Government shouldn’t touch our lives in certain situations I agree. For example, ask yourself should Government have the right to make taxes for sugary drinks because they think it is unhealthy for you? An example the Philadelphia beverage tax. Should the Government decide what medical procedures you need to be done? For example, single-payer healthcare. Should the Government fund programs without investigating its need to society?

The role of Government in our Country is a complex issue that has become more an issue of political belief then what is best for the people of this Country. Our leaders need to solve this issue and quick because the debt clock is rolling and we need answers. My solution is that Government should be used when needed. A qualification concept needs to be put in place and struck too. The Government will have a right place.
 
There is a discussion going on in our society right now it is about Bigger Government and Smaller Government. The question is which one is better for the people. Bigger Government is based on Government programs that are paid for by taxpayers. Smaller Government is the elimination of Government programs that in some people's eyes are not necessary and to only have Government programs that are necessary.

The argument comes down to what people need and or believe. Some people need and believe that as a citizen of this Country that the Government was created to take care of them in ways. It is my opinion that Government serves a purpose for some and that is good. The problem is it serves too much of a purpose for too many people. The Government is there to help people who truly need it. Keyword truly.

Then there is small Government. The people who back small Government believes that the Government shouldn’t touch our lives in certain situations I agree. For example, ask yourself should Government have the right to make taxes for sugary drinks because they think it is unhealthy for you? An example the Philadelphia beverage tax. Should the Government decide what medical procedures you need to be done? For example, single-payer healthcare. Should the Government fund programs without investigating its need to society?

The role of Government in our Country is a complex issue that has become more an issue of political belief then what is best for the people of this Country. Our leaders need to solve this issue and quick because the debt clock is rolling and we need answers. My solution is that Government should be used when needed. A qualification concept needs to be put in place and struck too. The Government will have a right place.


It's all a very pragmatic argument. Government generally SUCKS at most everything it does -- because it ATTEMPTS to do way too much. With barely ANY oversight or program pro-active mgt -- ineptitude, incompetence, and neglect run rampant. And hardly anyone is held accountable or punished..

Until the "culture" of the minions of morons CHANGES -- there's no sense or argument that JUSTIFIES expanding the scope of the Federal powers..
 
The role of gov't is a major bone of contention these days, not just what it should do but at what level of gov't and at what cost. Is it right and just to spend more money than we take in as a gov't, thus passing a huge and growing debt to future generations? I got a real problem with that, if we can't afford a specific program than we shouldn't do it. Would you buy a house or a car and make your kids pay for it? That's pretty much what we're doing, so do our societal needs today outweigh the responsibility to pay for it without passing that debt on?

One wonders how much of the gov't spending we do today isn't because we really need it, it's because of politics so a person or party can say "vote for me, look what I did for you". Are there better, more cost-effective ways to accomplish the same thing? Uh, yeah I'd say so. You name it, the gov't sucks at doing it. The fraud, waste, and abuse truly is huge, and it exists at every level of gov't. We're getting hosed, and we're doing next to nothing about it. I think this is one big reason why Donald J. Trump is our President; both political parties have alienated so many of our citizens, and except for the ideological fools a lot of people are fed up with what's been going on. And part of the problem is that neither party is showing they can be the solution; they're too God Damned worried about losing control and losing their jobs to worry about us. I think they have convinced themselves that beating the other party or person is the best way to serve this country.
 
The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, who has the right to revoke his/her consent to be governed and holds all the powers held by government upon such revocation. If an individual had the right before government, the individual retains that right. Conversely, if the individual did not have a certain right, government does not have that right.

For example, the individual has a right to his/her property. The individual does not have the right to the property of other individuals, absent bargain and exchange under a specific contract. Lack of such bargain and exchange is theft. Because the individual had no right to the property of another individual, government does not have the right to take from one and give to another, regardless of how allegedly noble the ends.

Government that exceeds the inalienable rights of the individual is tyrannical and should be revoked. Call it "big' government if you want. Unauthorized government is more appropriate, in my opinion.
 
The U.S. Constitution is about 19 pages long, somehow government has grown that into millions of pages of government legislation and regulations. The tax code alone is over 74,000 pages long.
 
The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, who has the right to revoke his/her consent to be governed and holds all the powers held by government upon such revocation. If an individual had the right before government, the individual retains that right. Conversely, if the individual did not have a certain right, government does not have that right.

For example, the individual has a right to his/her property. The individual does not have the right to the property of other individuals, absent bargain and exchange under a specific contract. Lack of such bargain and exchange is theft. Because the individual had no right to the property of another individual, government does not have the right to take from one and give to another, regardless of how allegedly noble the ends.

Government that exceeds the inalienable rights of the individual is tyrannical and should be revoked. Call it "big' government if you want. Unauthorized government is more appropriate, in my opinion.

You have the right to move to another country and renounce your US citizenship if that's what you want to do. BUT - as long as you live here you do not have the right to revoke your consent to be governed according to the law.
 
The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individual, who has the right to revoke his/her consent to be governed and holds all the powers held by government upon such revocation. If an individual had the right before government, the individual retains that right. Conversely, if the individual did not have a certain right, government does not have that right.

For example, the individual has a right to his/her property. The individual does not have the right to the property of other individuals, absent bargain and exchange under a specific contract. Lack of such bargain and exchange is theft. Because the individual had no right to the property of another individual, government does not have the right to take from one and give to another, regardless of how allegedly noble the ends.

Government that exceeds the inalienable rights of the individual is tyrannical and should be revoked. Call it "big' government if you want. Unauthorized government is more appropriate, in my opinion.

You have the right to move to another country and renounce your US citizenship if that's what you want to do. BUT - as long as you live here you do not have the right to revoke your consent to be governed according to the law.
Of course, we do. However, those who chose that path had better be prepared for the consequences should they lose.

It's not going to happen though. There are to many people who are 'comfortable' in life to rebel against a government that they see will change in 2 - 4 years of patience. So, this will never come about.

People really only revolt if they are hungry or physically oppressed (meaning in chains or slave camps).

Since that isn't happening in the USA, its a moot point.

@davidjlee71

You're on the right track, but before any question of how much government we should or should not have, we must first decide the proper role of the government we do have.
 
The issue of Government has become more of Politicians saying look what I can do for you please vote for me.
 
The issue of Government has become more of Politicians saying look what I can do for you please vote for me.

And yet -- rarely do they problem solve. As you say -- they excel at pandering. Count the number of programs where they ran to the rescue and implemented programs like the "VChip" or "Do Not Call" or "Community Reinvestment Act or Patriot Act and then walked away and neglected the follow-thru.. Once they get "the credit" -- they show no interest in oversight or management of the programs that they create. Even the BIG ONES like Fed Min Wage or Social Security or any other phony "trust fund" have been raided, mismanaged and/or neglected..

You call the IRS -- you get a 60% chance of being told correct information. The implementation of Obamacare technology on their website marketplace and the "Customer Support" for that program is atrocious and inept.

IF -- govt actually SOLVED problems and showed some competency in how they operate, I could be a lot more trusting in "large govt". But 1st they need to stop pretending to be SuperHeroes and get some humility and perspective on their limits.
 
There is a discussion going on in our society right now it is about Bigger Government and Smaller Government. The question is which one is better for the people. Bigger Government is based on Government programs that are paid for by taxpayers. Smaller Government is the elimination of Government programs that in some people's eyes are not necessary and to only have Government programs that are necessary.

The argument comes down to what people need and or believe. Some people need and believe that as a citizen of this Country that the Government was created to take care of them in ways. It is my opinion that Government serves a purpose for some and that is good. The problem is it serves too much of a purpose for too many people. The Government is there to help people who truly need it. Keyword truly.

Then there is small Government. The people who back small Government believes that the Government shouldn’t touch our lives in certain situations I agree. For example, ask yourself should Government have the right to make taxes for sugary drinks because they think it is unhealthy for you? An example the Philadelphia beverage tax. Should the Government decide what medical procedures you need to be done? For example, single-payer healthcare. Should the Government fund programs without investigating its need to society?

The role of Government in our Country is a complex issue that has become more an issue of political belief then what is best for the people of this Country. Our leaders need to solve this issue and quick because the debt clock is rolling and we need answers. My solution is that Government should be used when needed. A qualification concept needs to be put in place and struck too. The Government will have a right place.

Good post....

And there is a number of ways to look at this... We can ream off idiotic government programs from Federal to Local...

But you can also say the US Government went to the Moon, Won WW2, Reduced Diease,Ensured Safe Food and Drinking water....
Even a pet hate of some is the work place health and safety:
"The Occupational Safety and Health Administration was established in 1971. Since then, OSHA and our state partners, coupled with the efforts of employers, safety and health professionals, unions and advocates, have had a dramatic effect on workplace safety. Fatality and injury rates have dropped markedly. Although accurate statistics were not kept at the time, it is estimated that in 1970 around 14,000 workers were killed on the job. That number fell to approximately 4,340 in 2009. At the same time, U.S. employment has almost doubled and now includes over 130 million workers at more than 7.2 million worksites. Since the passage of the OSH Act, the rate of reported serious workplace injuries and illnesses has declined from 11 per 100 workers in 1972 to 3.6 per 100 workers in 2009. OSHA safety and health standards, including those for trenching, machine guarding, asbestos, benzene, lead, and bloodborne pathogens have prevented countless work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths. This timeline highlights key milestones in occupational safety and health history since the creation of OSHA."

Think about that, the US Government in 40 years saved 24,000 lives a year and just short of 10 million illness and accidents a year.
Think about the savings to the US Society as a whole. Some will say they took away peoples personal choice, what real choice have you when your boss tells you to do something that you find questionable, loose your livelihood or make your children possibly loose there Dad.

But there are areas the Government should be and areas they shouldn't be. I would suggest looking at EU for some examples. EU Countries generally hasn't the unlimited bond release system like US, it has to be a lot more fiscally responsible. They have also less natural resources and don't have a high illegal population which they are allowed exploit. Immigrants in Europe get minimum wage so they have to compete on the same level as the locals.

They will say that to run a country preforming at optimal level you need education for your best (not your wealthiest), healthcare for when your sick, transport for people and goods, proper environmental standards....
Government steps in places that sometimes don't seem economical but can be very beneficial. Rural Broadband would be one. You want people to grow up in a town and not need to go to the city to find work. Proper 21st century communication allows a small town to compete for IT work like a big city. Local Software Engineers in Ireland run 'Coding Dojos' in small towns to teenagers so they can learn how to write software at a young age.

Same for Schools and Hospitals,...


Like a lot of things life just needs balance and Government can be infuriating but that is the reason to get involved in local government and try and change things to be better. The Government isn't just just a bunch of Politicians and Public Servants, it should be about an engaged and informed electorate.
I encourage anyone to look at an issue(with an open mind) in there area, research it, know the different sides so you could argue each side and try and inform the people around you.
 
You have the right to move to another country and renounce your US citizenship if that's what you want to do. BUT - as long as you live here you do not have the right to revoke your consent to be governed according to the law.
Thomas Jefferson and the founders disagree with your totalitarian ass.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Declaration of Independence

:dance:
 
There is a discussion going on in our society right now it is about Bigger Government and Smaller Government. The question is which one is better for the people. Bigger Government is based on Government programs that are paid for by taxpayers. Smaller Government is the elimination of Government programs that in some people's eyes are not necessary and to only have Government programs that are necessary.

The argument comes down to what people need and or believe. Some people need and believe that as a citizen of this Country that the Government was created to take care of them in ways. It is my opinion that Government serves a purpose for some and that is good. The problem is it serves too much of a purpose for too many people. The Government is there to help people who truly need it. Keyword truly.

Then there is small Government. The people who back small Government believes that the Government shouldn’t touch our lives in certain situations I agree. For example, ask yourself should Government have the right to make taxes for sugary drinks because they think it is unhealthy for you? An example the Philadelphia beverage tax. Should the Government decide what medical procedures you need to be done? For example, single-payer healthcare. Should the Government fund programs without investigating its need to society?

The role of Government in our Country is a complex issue that has become more an issue of political belief then what is best for the people of this Country. Our leaders need to solve this issue and quick because the debt clock is rolling and we need answers. My solution is that Government should be used when needed. A qualification concept needs to be put in place and struck too. The Government will have a right place.
My belief is that I know what serves my needs better than someone 3000 miles away does.

My belief is that decisions which affect my life should be made on as local a level as possible, not from 3000 miles away.

My belief is that the more we centralize the power over our lives, the easier we make it for very bad entities to capture that power and thereby control us.

My belief is that the more we centralize power, the less freedom and liberties we enjoy.
 
You have the right to move to another country and renounce your US citizenship if that's what you want to do. BUT - as long as you live here you do not have the right to revoke your consent to be governed according to the law.
Thomas Jefferson and the founders disagree with your totalitarian ass.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
Declaration of Independence

:dance:

Totalitarian? Who, me? Hyperbole much?

The D of I is not a law. You can revoke your consent to be governed if you want to, but sooner or later your gov't is going to come looking for you. So you better be paying your taxes and obeying the law or you're going to be in a heap of trouble.
 
There is a discussion going on in our society right now it is about Bigger Government and Smaller Government. The question is which one is better for the people. Bigger Government is based on Government programs that are paid for by taxpayers. Smaller Government is the elimination of Government programs that in some people's eyes are not necessary and to only have Government programs that are necessary.

The argument comes down to what people need and or believe. Some people need and believe that as a citizen of this Country that the Government was created to take care of them in ways. It is my opinion that Government serves a purpose for some and that is good. The problem is it serves too much of a purpose for too many people. The Government is there to help people who truly need it. Keyword truly.

Then there is small Government. The people who back small Government believes that the Government shouldn’t touch our lives in certain situations I agree. For example, ask yourself should Government have the right to make taxes for sugary drinks because they think it is unhealthy for you? An example the Philadelphia beverage tax. Should the Government decide what medical procedures you need to be done? For example, single-payer healthcare. Should the Government fund programs without investigating its need to society?

The role of Government in our Country is a complex issue that has become more an issue of political belief then what is best for the people of this Country. Our leaders need to solve this issue and quick because the debt clock is rolling and we need answers. My solution is that Government should be used when needed. A qualification concept needs to be put in place and struck too. The Government will have a right place.


It's all a very pragmatic argument. Government generally SUCKS at most everything it does -- because it ATTEMPTS to do way too much. With barely ANY oversight or program pro-active mgt -- ineptitude, incompetence, and neglect run rampant. And hardly anyone is held accountable or punished..

Until the "culture" of the minions of morons CHANGES -- there's no sense or argument that JUSTIFIES expanding the scope of the Federal powers..

I disagree. That’s just a mantra by the anti gov peeps that gov sucks at what it does . Truth is the gov usually covers areas private biz won’t touch .

And let’s not forget there’s a lot of businesses that fail. Gov or biz , it’s still people .
 
The D of I is not a law. You can revoke your consent to be governed if you want to, but sooner or later your gov't is going to come looking for you. So you better be paying your taxes and obeying the law or you're going to be in a heap of trouble.
But, the D of I does show intent. You can't argue that.

Just like the British Crown, the new American tyranny will be ruling with an iron fist and demanding the fruits of our labor while giving us no protection and basically ass fucking us all. And, you are not only okay with that, but you would take up arms and try to stop us, wouldn't you?

You should have been a Brit.

“. . . The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” Thomas Jefferson
 
The D of I is not a law. You can revoke your consent to be governed if you want to, but sooner or later your gov't is going to come looking for you. So you better be paying your taxes and obeying the law or you're going to be in a heap of trouble.
But, the D of I does show intent. You can't argue that.

Just like the British Crown, the new American tyranny will be ruling with an iron fist and demanding the fruits of our labor while giving us no protection and basically ass fucking us all. And, you are not only okay with that, but you would take up arms and try to stop us, wouldn't you?

You should have been a Brit.

“. . . The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” Thomas Jefferson


I think you're nuts. American tyranny, iron fist, demanding the fruits of our labor, no protection, assfucking all of us. I'll pass on the shooting and killing if you don't mind. Good luck with the revolution/secession, whatever it is you got planned.
 
There is a discussion going on in our society right now it is about Bigger Government and Smaller Government. The question is which one is better for the people. Bigger Government is based on Government programs that are paid for by taxpayers. Smaller Government is the elimination of Government programs that in some people's eyes are not necessary and to only have Government programs that are necessary.

The argument comes down to what people need and or believe. Some people need and believe that as a citizen of this Country that the Government was created to take care of them in ways. It is my opinion that Government serves a purpose for some and that is good. The problem is it serves too much of a purpose for too many people. The Government is there to help people who truly need it. Keyword truly.

Then there is small Government. The people who back small Government believes that the Government shouldn’t touch our lives in certain situations I agree. For example, ask yourself should Government have the right to make taxes for sugary drinks because they think it is unhealthy for you? An example the Philadelphia beverage tax. Should the Government decide what medical procedures you need to be done? For example, single-payer healthcare. Should the Government fund programs without investigating its need to society?

The role of Government in our Country is a complex issue that has become more an issue of political belief then what is best for the people of this Country. Our leaders need to solve this issue and quick because the debt clock is rolling and we need answers. My solution is that Government should be used when needed. A qualification concept needs to be put in place and struck too. The Government will have a right place.


It's all a very pragmatic argument. Government generally SUCKS at most everything it does -- because it ATTEMPTS to do way too much. With barely ANY oversight or program pro-active mgt -- ineptitude, incompetence, and neglect run rampant. And hardly anyone is held accountable or punished..

Until the "culture" of the minions of morons CHANGES -- there's no sense or argument that JUSTIFIES expanding the scope of the Federal powers..

I disagree. That’s just a mantra by the anti gov peeps that gov sucks at what it does . Truth is the gov usually covers areas private biz won’t touch .

And let’s not forget there’s a lot of businesses that fail. Gov or biz , it’s still people .

Lots of platitudes there. And "feelings" that are not borne out in reality. Like govt covers areas that private biz won't touch. That's part of the BIGGEST issues and areas of govt overreach and inefficiency right there. Because at the heart of that faulty assertion is the basis for all Govt/Corp COLLUSION and chronyism.

For instance -- NO corp should EVER be showered with Govt benefits and tax breaks for good and services that are ALREADY mature marketplace goods and services. We should not ALLOW political critters to pick favorites and "market winners" for things already designed and offered as products. This is how GE ends up "paying no taxes" MERELY for making "energy efficient appliances" that would be on the market ANYWAY. Or ONE Billionaire like Elon Musk ends up sucking taxpayers for virtually EVERY business or brain fart that he conceives ---- TO THE DETRIMENT of others that wish to ENTER that market to compete.
 
Thank you, everyone, for your comments. I feel Government has become too much of a political tool. We truly need to have serious people who want what is good for the people to decide what is good Government and what is bad Government. For that to happen ideology has to go away and common sense has to take over
 
I think you're nuts. American tyranny, iron fist, demanding the fruits of our labor, no protection, assfucking all of us. I'll pass on the shooting and killing if you don't mind. Good luck with the revolution/secession, whatever it is you got planned.
Who said I had anything planned?

I said that a government usurping authority the people didn't grant is tranny worthy of revoking consent, not that I am loading the weapos as we speak.
:lol:
 
Research has shown that many times government will build up an issue that really isn't a serious problem in society... and even use stats that aren't necessarily reflective of the real issue... then spend lots of time and tax payer money on a solution to that problem they created, and then use stats that were actually similar to those before the solution in order to provide proof that they accomplished their goal.

It is basically like a strawman argument, but with societal/political issues. What's really bad about this is, not only is it a total waste of tax dollars used to simply try to make the politician look successful to their constituents, but it is also taking resources and time away from REAL issues that need to be dealt with.

A good example of this is crime rates... or border security. Have you guys noticed that Trump and his team posted stats saying how far illegal border crossings have dropped under his presidency, taking credit for the great success, but then the next day Trump is screaming that the border is leaking like a sieve with tons of criminals crossing over the border? He's trying to have it both ways. If the border crossing stats are correct, then there is no need to spend BILLIONS of money on a new wall. That's billions of dollars that could go elsewhere for things like healthcare.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top