Dispelling the Big Government Myth

[Boss]

I was reading a thread comment the other day from Mac1958 (I think) who said he viewed the left as being more "Big Government" and I wanted to challenge this myth. I understand where he gets his point but I think he's missing something.

The left only likes "Big Government" when THEY are in charge of it. The US just set a new record for government spending in a fiscal quarter. We literally had the "biggest" government in our nation's entire history under President Trump. If the left truly liked "Big Government" they'd be over the moon but they're not. In fact, to hear some tell it, the world is about to end. Never have we heard so many breathless cries of people suffering and dying.

So it's NOT "Big Government" they like... it's CONTROL of Big Government! When they are not in control of government, they want to obstruct it completely. They'll challenge executive powers, they'll challenge congressional majorities, they will defiantly "resist" anything the government tries to do... when they are not in power. They'll even seek to overturn the will of the people and undermine the electoral process.

 

[Mac1958]

I was reading a thread comment the other day from Mac1958 (I think) who said he viewed the left as being more "Big Government" and I wanted to challenge this myth. I understand where he gets his point but I think he's missing something.

The left only likes "Big Government" when THEY are in charge of it. The US just set a new record for government spending in a fiscal quarter. We literally had the "biggest" government in our nation's entire history under President Trump. If the left truly liked "Big Government" they'd be over the moon but they're not. In fact, to hear some tell it, the world is about to end. Never have we heard so many breathless cries of people suffering and dying.

So it's NOT "Big Government" they like... it's CONTROL of Big Government! When they are not in control of government, they want to obstruct it completely. They'll challenge executive powers, they'll challenge congressional majorities, they will defiantly "resist" anything the government tries to do... when they are not in power. They'll even seek to overturn the will of the people and undermine the electoral process.

Yeah, "Big Government" was meant as kind of a generalized statement, but I get your point. Actual "big government" can take different forms, from massive military spending to massive entitlement spending. Or, of course, both.

To put it another way, I think the Left tends to look first to government and/or bureaucracy to deal with problems. They have a basic distrust (at least) of business and private industry, and are generally content with it playing a secondary role (at best). Of course, the Right is essentially the opposite.

The rest of us look for equilibrium, and I'd guess that most who are not on the ends of the spectrum are happy giving the private sector a chance to tackle a problem, but are comfy handing it to government after that. That's how I look at things, let markets take a shot, but keep an eye on them.
.

 

[Boss]

The rest of us look for equilibrium, and I'd guess that most who are not on the ends of the spectrum are happy giving the private sector a chance to tackle a problem, but are comfy handing it to government after that. That's how I look at things, let markets take a shot, but keep an eye on them.
.

Well, I think you have to keep an eye on capitalists because capitalism doesn't necessarily mean free market capitalism. I often speak in terms of favoring a "free market capitalist system" and "system" is important. That includes a vibrant free market, encouraged free enterprise and constitutional protections of the individual. Governmental oversight to safeguard clean air and water, protecting vital resources and land management, antitrust laws against monopolies, etc., are all well and good... it's part of the "system" as established by our framers in Article I Sec. 8. It's when we get into federal land grabs, nationalization of the private sector and corporate bailouts, where I have an issue. I also have a problem with exploiting environmental issues to harm commercial enterprise.

But again, the left has no problem with "Big Business" as long as they are controlling it. They support nearly everything that is unionized. They don't have any problem with Hollywood capitalists or "green technology" capitalists. Any "big money" corporation which supports their agenda is fine. You never hear a complaint about George Soros. Funny, that.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

basically that describes both the dems and pubs.............the saying "two wings of a bird of prey" is pretty apt

 

[Boss]

basically that describes both the dems and pubs.............the saying "two wings of a bird of prey" is pretty apt

I think it describes ESTABLISHMENT Republicans.

 

[bitter clinging swiftie]

basically that describes both the dems and pubs.............the saying "two wings of a bird of prey" is pretty apt

I think it describes ESTABLISHMENT Republicans.

which pretty much covers all of them with the exeptions of Paul and Amash

 

[Boss]

which pretty much covers all of them with the exeptions of Paul and Amash

Well, there are a few more. Cruz and Lee for sure. Pretty much all of the Freedom Caucus.

 

[Flash]

Big government. We haz it.

The combined Federal, State and local government is about 40% of the GDP.

In most households rich or poor the cost of government is usually the largest single expenditure. More than food, more than housing, more than any other single expenditure. It is killing our productive economy.

According to the CIA Fact book The cost of combined government in the US is larger than the GDP of sll but two other countries on the face of the earth. The Federal government by itself is larger than all but three other economies.

Our country sucks because it spends so much money for government. In addition to that we are in debt more than the GDP of all but one other country on the face of the earth.

The Democrats love big government because it gives them power by creating a dependent voting base and enables their socialist agenda. Despicable, isn't it? The Republicans say they are anti big government but at the end of the day they just about as bad as the filthy Democrats.

"Abandon hope all ye that enter here"

 

[Mac1958]

The rest of us look for equilibrium, and I'd guess that most who are not on the ends of the spectrum are happy giving the private sector a chance to tackle a problem, but are comfy handing it to government after that. That's how I look at things, let markets take a shot, but keep an eye on them.
.

Well, I think you have to keep an eye on capitalists because capitalism doesn't necessarily mean free market capitalism. I often speak in terms of favoring a "free market capitalist system" and "system" is important. That includes a vibrant free market, encouraged free enterprise and constitutional protections of the individual. Governmental oversight to safeguard clean air and water, protecting vital resources and land management, antitrust laws against monopolies, etc., are all well and good... it's part of the "system" as established by our framers in Article I Sec. 8. It's when we get into federal land grabs, nationalization of the private sector and corporate bailouts, where I have an issue. I also have a problem with exploiting environmental issues to harm commercial enterprise.

But again, the left has no problem with "Big Business" as long as they are controlling it. They support nearly everything that is unionized. They don't have any problem with Hollywood capitalists or "green technology" capitalists. Any "big money" corporation which supports their agenda is fine. You never hear a complaint about George Soros. Funny, that.

Yeah, can't argue. There are always "exceptions" to the rule, and coincidentally, those "exceptions" always happen to go in my favor. Capitalism is fine as long as I can leverage it for my agenda, but outside of that, it is evil.
.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, can't argue. There are always "exceptions" to the rule, and coincidentally, those "exceptions" always happen to go in my favor. Capitalism is fine as long as I can leverage it for my agenda, but outside of that, it is evil.
.

Well, "free market" has nothing to do with agendas. It's the fair and honest voluntary trade of goods and services between parties for remuneration with price determined by supply and demand. Everyone's "agenda" is served in a free market. It's the most fair and equitable system known to man. Government can serve as an agent to protect and promote it OR to corrupt and destroy it. THAT is where "agendas" come in.

 

[Tehon]

The market should not be conflated with capitalism. The market is a way to distribute commodities that is independent of the method of production.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, can't argue. There are always "exceptions" to the rule, and coincidentally, those "exceptions" always happen to go in my favor. Capitalism is fine as long as I can leverage it for my agenda, but outside of that, it is evil.
.

Well, "free market" has nothing to do with agendas. It's the fair and honest voluntary trade of goods and services between parties for remuneration with price determined by supply and demand. Everyone's "agenda" is served in a free market. It's the most fair and equitable system known to man. Government can serve as an agent to protect and promote it OR to corrupt and destroy it. THAT is where "agendas" come in.

For me, the smartest approach is finding a proper equilibrium between "free" market dynamics and efficient regulation - finding and maintaining the place where capitalism is restrained too much by regulation, and that's a loaded and subjective phrase. I'm in the financial services industry, and I saw first hand how a lack of regulation played a role in the Meltdown.

On the other hand, you appear to be hinting that there are those who are perfectly fine to "corrupt and destroy" capitalism, and I'd have to admit that you're right. Just as libertarian thought too simplistically knee-jerks towards free markets and de-regulation, the other end of the spectrum considers capitalism to be an overriding evil that must be stopped at very opportunity and replaced with government.

For me, it's about equilibrium.
.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I was reading a thread comment the other day from Mac1958 (I think) who said he viewed the left as being more "Big Government" and I wanted to challenge this myth. I understand where he gets his point but I think he's missing something.

The left only likes "Big Government" when THEY are in charge of it. The US just set a new record for government spending in a fiscal quarter. We literally had the "biggest" government in our nation's entire history under President Trump. If the left truly liked "Big Government" they'd be over the moon but they're not. In fact, to hear some tell it, the world is about to end. Never have we heard so many breathless cries of people suffering and dying.

So it's NOT "Big Government" they like... it's CONTROL of Big Government! When they are not in control of government, they want to obstruct it completely. They'll challenge executive powers, they'll challenge congressional majorities, they will defiantly "resist" anything the government tries to do... when they are not in power. They'll even seek to overturn the will of the people and undermine the electoral process.

I see the point, you're trying to make and even voted it winner to that end; but the truth is that both parties are big govt. You ever think that what Reps/Dems do is a big dog and pony show? They have to vote certain ways to keep their jobs in many cases; but ultimately the whole shit gets staged to make them more powerful with each session.

 

[Tehon]

The market should not be conflated with capitalism. The market is a way to distribute commodities that is independent of the method of production.

The capitalist mode of production is the primary detriment to a "free" market as the capitalist seeks to use his capital to maximize his advantage.

 

[Norman]

Leftist like running other people's lives (to ground), while they can't even run their own.

They hate their life being run.

It's always the same hypocrisy. Supporting big government is questionable, exactly because the necessary hypocrisy. So what many support is big government on their term only, which breaks all moral principles of any supposed equality in an epic fashion. These folks my friends, are the enemy.

 

[Boss]

Yeah, can't argue. There are always "exceptions" to the rule, and coincidentally, those "exceptions" always happen to go in my favor. Capitalism is fine as long as I can leverage it for my agenda, but outside of that, it is evil.
.

Well, "free market" has nothing to do with agendas. It's the fair and honest voluntary trade of goods and services between parties for remuneration with price determined by supply and demand. Everyone's "agenda" is served in a free market. It's the most fair and equitable system known to man. Government can serve as an agent to protect and promote it OR to corrupt and destroy it. THAT is where "agendas" come in.

For me, the smartest approach is finding a proper equilibrium between "free" market dynamics and efficient regulation - finding and maintaining the place where capitalism is restrained too much by regulation, and that's a loaded and subjective phrase. I'm in the financial services industry, and I saw first hand how a lack of regulation played a role in the Meltdown.

On the other hand, you appear to be hinting that there are those who are perfectly fine to "corrupt and destroy" capitalism, and I'd have to admit that you're right. Just as libertarian thought too simplistically knee-jerks towards free markets and de-regulation, the other end of the spectrum considers capitalism to be an overriding evil that must be stopped at very opportunity and replaced with government.

For me, it's about equilibrium.
.

Okay, you could say that zoning laws played a role in widespread prostitution in Las Vegas. But prostitution in Vegas didn't happen because of the lack of proper zoning laws. We repealed Glass-Steagall and then applied new legislation which superseded the free market. So it wasn't really the deregulation as much as it what happened in the wake of it. I mean. we could argue all day about the various factors involved with the "Meltdown" but suffice it to say, the entire debacle was the result of government interference in normal free market trade. It was never the free market that was the problem.

Again, there is a GREAT distinction between capitalism and free market capitalism or a free market capitalist system. Crony capitalism (corporatism) is a huge problem and it's corrupt and destructive to it's core. That's NOT free market capitalism but many people confuse it as such. It all just gets lumped in together. Hell, Communist Russia used capitalism... it wasn't a free market system.

I believe trying to achieve some arbitrary and subjective "equilibrium" between government regulation and free market capitalism is a futile effort wrought with potential disaster. Free market doesn't need government manipulation. The laws of supply and demand ensure a natural equilibrium. To the extent government regulation plays any useful role, it should be to ensure and promote a fair free market. All too often, special interests and lobbyists exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over the free market and that's when we see problems.

 

[easyt65]

' Big govt' isn't jut about money - it's power and control as well.

Thomas Jefferson warned that a govt that can give you everything you want can also take everything you have.

Obama and the Democrats took *everyone's health care away, destroying the old system and replacing it with their stepping stone to Single Payer. They then gorced the American people to buy a govt-mandated, specified product with the threat of monetary punishment for non-compliance.

THAT'S big govt.

 

[Mac1958]

Yeah, can't argue. There are always "exceptions" to the rule, and coincidentally, those "exceptions" always happen to go in my favor. Capitalism is fine as long as I can leverage it for my agenda, but outside of that, it is evil.
.

Well, "free market" has nothing to do with agendas. It's the fair and honest voluntary trade of goods and services between parties for remuneration with price determined by supply and demand. Everyone's "agenda" is served in a free market. It's the most fair and equitable system known to man. Government can serve as an agent to protect and promote it OR to corrupt and destroy it. THAT is where "agendas" come in.

For me, the smartest approach is finding a proper equilibrium between "free" market dynamics and efficient regulation - finding and maintaining the place where capitalism is restrained too much by regulation, and that's a loaded and subjective phrase. I'm in the financial services industry, and I saw first hand how a lack of regulation played a role in the Meltdown.

On the other hand, you appear to be hinting that there are those who are perfectly fine to "corrupt and destroy" capitalism, and I'd have to admit that you're right. Just as libertarian thought too simplistically knee-jerks towards free markets and de-regulation, the other end of the spectrum considers capitalism to be an overriding evil that must be stopped at very opportunity and replaced with government.

For me, it's about equilibrium.
.

Okay, you could say that zoning laws played a role in widespread prostitution in Las Vegas. But prostitution in Vegas didn't happen because of the lack of proper zoning laws. We repealed Glass-Steagall and then applied new legislation which superseded the free market. So it wasn't really the deregulation as much as it what happened in the wake of it. I mean. we could argue all day about the various factors involved with the "Meltdown" but suffice it to say, the entire debacle was the result of government interference in normal free market trade. It was never the free market that was the problem.

Again, there is a GREAT distinction between capitalism and free market capitalism or a free market capitalist system. Crony capitalism (corporatism) is a huge problem and it's corrupt and destructive to it's core. That's NOT free market capitalism but many people confuse it as such. It all just gets lumped in together. Hell, Communist Russia used capitalism... it wasn't a free market system.

I believe trying to achieve some arbitrary and subjective "equilibrium" between government regulation and free market capitalism is a futile effort wrought with potential disaster. Free market doesn't need government manipulation. The laws of supply and demand ensure a natural equilibrium. To the extent government regulation plays any useful role, it should be to ensure and promote a fair free market. All too often, special interests and lobbyists exploit the powers of government to leverage an advantage over the free market and that's when we see problems.

We'll disagree on the Meltdown. Greenspan & Co. (and others) aggressively refused to exercise their authority to regulate derivatives - he even admitted he couldn't understand CMO's - and those very same derivatives (led by CMO's, CDO's and CDS's) overloaded, completely distorted and wrecked the system regardless of the various machinations of the two silly political parties. The laws of supply and demand brought us down, because the supply of derivatives was infected.

A "free" market needs efficient and effective regulation to avoid those very distortions, and Greenspan's notion of a free market regulating itself were proven dramatically wrong. It didn't. Our economic system became, and in some ways remains, fraudulent in many core areas. We apply and enforce rules of conduct across our society to avoid fraud, anarchy and damage. There is no good reason - outside of politics - to exempt our financial system from that approach.
.

 

[Boss]

I see the point, you're trying to make and even voted it winner to that end; but the truth is that both parties are big govt. You ever think that what Reps/Dems do is a big dog and pony show? They have to vote certain ways to keep their jobs in many cases; but ultimately the whole shit gets staged to make them more powerful with each session.

To an extent, you are very much right when it comes to political parties. I think it was Thomas Sowell who pointed out that government's natural state is to grow larger and usurp more freedom in the process. Maybe that was a reiteration of one of the founding fathers but it's a valid point. Ultimately, WE are to blame.... No matter what "side" you're on, when you go to the polls and vote, you generally vote for the candidate who promises to "do something for you!" This means growing government, usurping more individual liberty in the process.

Think about it... what if a politician said: Vote for me and I promise not to do anything for you, I won't bring home any bacon, I think government is doing too much for you and if you elect me, expect LESS from government because I don't believe they should be doing most of what they're doing now! ....What are his chances of victory?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I see the point, you're trying to make and even voted it winner to that end; but the truth is that both parties are big govt. You ever think that what Reps/Dems do is a big dog and pony show? They have to vote certain ways to keep their jobs in many cases; but ultimately the whole shit gets staged to make them more powerful with each session.

To an extent, you are very much right when it comes to political parties. I think it was Thomas Sowell who pointed out that government's natural state is to grow larger and usurp more freedom in the process. Maybe that was a reiteration of one of the founding fathers but it's a valid point. Ultimately, WE are to blame.... No matter what "side" you're on, when you go to the polls and vote, you generally vote for the candidate who promises to "do something for you!" This means growing government, usurping more individual liberty in the process.

Think about it... what if a politician said: Vote for me and I promise not to do anything for you, I won't bring home any bacon, I think government is doing too much for you and if you elect me, expect LESS from government because I don't believe they should be doing most of what they're doing now! ....What are his chances of victory?

I don't. If I vote for a candidate at all, it is for the one I believe will fuck things up the least. But more and more, I don't vote for candidates unless I have some element of belief in their leadership. If I go to the polls, it's typically to vote for or against propositions (things I have direct control over).