"Smaller government" advocates

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Can’t agree with this post in its entirety, but the fundamental premise of the thread is correct.

Conservatives – the social right in particular – have no interest in ‘less’ or ‘smaller’ government; indeed, many on the right seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[NightFox]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Nice attempt at a strawman.

First you say "I don't get people who say they want smaller government" and then proceed to spout all this nonsense about what they believe, you might actually get their point if you started listening to what people that believe in "smaller" government actually have to say on the subject instead of just making up a whole bunch inane bullshit out of thin air.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Nice attempt at a strawman.

First you say "I don't get people who say they want smaller government" and then proceed to spout all this nonsense about what they believe, you might actually get their point if you started listening to what people that believe in "smaller" government actually have to say on the subject instead of just making up a whole bunch inane bullshit out of thin air.

I was posting why I don't get it. I don't get why someone would say they support something when they don't support it? Do you understand why someone would do that?

 

[BIG YANK BAL 1976]

Repugs, Cons, and the Tea Maggots, all bitch and gripe about how they want smaller Gubmint, blah, blah, blah, BUT, love BIG Gubmint when it comes to starting unwinnable wars that drag on for an eternity with no end in sight, and cost the country Trillions of dollars..

Funny too how they love BIG Gubmint when it comes to a woman's right to choose, and drug testing welfare receipents, gee why don't drug test members of congress??

 

[kaz]

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces

Nope, I want to slash it by 1/3 to 1/2, close all permanent overseas based and make it defensive focused

* They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage.

Technically true, but completely misleading. I want to end all government marriage, straight and gay

* They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

Nope, all drugs should be legal

* In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

I'm not gay or into recreational drugs either

* Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.

Yes, you're for big government, you're clear on that

*Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute

Liberals love to talk about handouts, but you hate to define what it means. tax cuts when we are still paying way more than our share are not "handouts." Government allowing corporations to deduct their expenses are not "handouts." Define what you mean by this.

* Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Clearly a bunch of us on the site do

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces

Nope, I want to slash it by 1/3 to 1/2, close all permanent overseas based and make it defensive focused

* They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage.

Technically true, but completely misleading. I want to end all government marriage, straight and gay

* They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

Nope, all drugs should be legal

* In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

I'm not gay or into recreational drugs either

* Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.

Yes, you're for big government, you're clear on that

*Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute

Liberals love to talk about handouts, but you hate to define what it means. tax cuts when we are still paying way more than our share are not "handouts." Government allowing corporations to deduct their expenses are not "handouts." Define what you mean by this.

* Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Clearly a bunch of us on the site do

I'm right with Kaz.

 

[NightFox]

I was posting why I don't get it. I don't get why someone would say they support something when they don't support it? Do you understand why someone would do that?

Yeah because they mistake a handful of examples as emblematic of the whole and are too intellectually lazy to do any research on the subject. So their answer more often than not is; attempt a straw man that reinforces their existing beliefs to themselves.

There are plenty of resources out there that examine the concept of "smaller" government in great detail... everything from thoughtful anarcho-capitalists to run of the mill strict constructionists (and A LOT in between). Perhaps you should take an objective listen to what they have to say and then make up your mind from an informed perspective instead of just listening to some 10 second sound byte with Joe Yokel on "the news" that has no understanding of the subject beyond the fact that it sounds cool as a bumper sticker slogan.

Godspeed in your quest for knowledge and understanding, I wish you well.

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose.

No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." -- Albert Jay Nock, the Criminality of the State

 

[frigidweirdo]

I was posting why I don't get it. I don't get why someone would say they support something when they don't support it? Do you understand why someone would do that?

Yeah because they mistake a handful of examples as emblematic of the whole and are too intellectually lazy to do any research on the subject. So their answer more often than not is; attempt a straw man that reinforces their existing beliefs to themselves.

There are plenty of resources out there that examine the concept of "smaller" government in great detail... everything from thoughtful anarcho-capitalists to run of the mill strict constructionists (and A LOT in between). Perhaps you should take an objective listen to what they have to say and then make up your mind from an informed perspective instead of just listening to some 10 second sound byte with Joe Yokel on "the news" that has no understanding of the subject beyond the fact that it sounds cool as a bumper sticker slogan.

Godspeed in your quest for knowledge and understanding, I wish you well.

"The State's criminality is nothing new and nothing to be wondered at. It began when the first predatory group of men clustered together and formed the State, and it will continue as long as the State exists in the world, because the State is fundamentally an anti-social institution, fundamentally criminal. The idea that the State originated to serve any kind of social purpose is completely unhistorical. It originated in conquest and confiscation—that is to say, in crime. It originated for the purpose of maintaining the division of society into an owning-and-exploiting class and a propertyless dependent class — that is, for a criminal purpose.

No State known to history originated in any other manner, or for any other purpose. Like all predatory or parasitic institutions, its first instinct is that of self-preservation. All its enterprises are directed first towards preserving its own life, and, second, towards increasing its own power and enlarging the scope of its own activity. For the sake of this it will, and regularly does, commit any crime which circumstances make expedient." -- Albert Jay Nock, the Criminality of the State

So your argument is what? Oh, wait, you don't have one, yours is to just attack me for making a point.

There might be loads of stuff about small government out there. That's no my point. My point is about those who claim to support smaller govt.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces

Nope, I want to slash it by 1/3 to 1/2, close all permanent overseas based and make it defensive focused

* They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage.

Technically true, but completely misleading. I want to end all government marriage, straight and gay

* They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

Nope, all drugs should be legal

* In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

I'm not gay or into recreational drugs either

* Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.

Yes, you're for big government, you're clear on that

*Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute

Liberals love to talk about handouts, but you hate to define what it means. tax cuts when we are still paying way more than our share are not "handouts." Government allowing corporations to deduct their expenses are not "handouts." Define what you mean by this.

* Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Clearly a bunch of us on the site do

I said "most people", not "all people".

You said "nope" and then spoke about yourself. Clearly you are not enough to make it to the "most" part.

So, I could look at what you, as an individual think, but this isn't what most people think.

What I mean by govt giving money to corporations would be something like:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=1&#TX

Texas, for example, gives $19 billion a year on "incentive programs" for businesses. That's $759 dollars on average per person.

$277 million goes to Amazon. Why the feck does Amazon need Texas to pay it that much money? Seriously, why?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Your idea of smaller government is no laws. Just because we have laws doesn't mean we are behind big government. There is a difference between a country that is ruled by law and a government that coddles you cradle-to-grave.

If government shouldn't be intruding in marriage, is it okay with you if a man marries several women? How about if a man marries his daughter or son? What about a man that wishes to marry one of his sheep? Should government stand idly by and observe, or should they place limits on marriage? Or perhaps, you believe government should only back-off when it comes to gay marriage, but all others, okay for government to make restrictions.

What I find the most interesting is that people who are behind pot legalization were the same ones who have complained about cigarette smoke for decades. If you think government should not be restricting people as to what they smoke, then I guess you're okay with government allowing cigarette smoke on airplanes, in stores, in the movie theater, in busses.

Government creates law for the protection of the people. Most people don't want drug addicts roaming our streets with the police incapable of doing anything about it because drugs are legal. We don't want to come home to a ransacked house because a drug addict needed money for his fix. We don't need to be supporting these people because they can't work which is the case for many addicted to opiate drugs. We don't want them hanging around our playground where our children are left unattended. That's not big government, that's common sense.

 

[gipper]

We need a much BIGGER government where a small elite gets to control ALL of society...I mean really...doesn't history clearly tell us a big centralized government is the best form of government?


I guess so...if you prefer suffering, intolerance, corruption, and death.

 

[NightFox]

So your argument is what?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Oh, wait, you don't have one, yours is to just attack me for making a point.

I'm not attacking *you* per se, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic and directing to you resources that if examined with an open mind *might* lead you to understand the question you purport to be asking. If you're actually interested in the answer you will avail yourself of that advice, if not you simply prove my assertion regarding intellectual laziness applies to you.

There might be loads of stuff about small government out there. That's no my point. My point is about those who claim to support smaller govt.

Those who claim to support smaller government? As I already pointed out you're making the mistake of taking a handful of examples you saw in 10 second sound bytes and attempting to portray them as emblematic of the whole. If someone tells you they support "smaller government" and then rattles off a laundry list of government "programs" that they want to either preserve or expand it should be patently obvious that the person does not represent the beliefs of people that actually believe in "smaller" government, they're just reciting bumper sticker slogans, It doesn't take an advanced understanding of calculus to recognize the difference.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Let's be clear what they mean by smaller government

They want the things they like and benefit from.......they want a smaller government on things others receive

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Your idea of smaller government is no laws. Just because we have laws doesn't mean we are behind big government. There is a difference between a country that is ruled by law and a government that coddles you cradle-to-grave.

If government shouldn't be intruding in marriage, is it okay with you if a man marries several women? How about if a man marries his daughter or son? What about a man that wishes to marry one of his sheep? Should government stand idly by and observe, or should they place limits on marriage? Or perhaps, you believe government should only back-off when it comes to gay marriage, but all others, okay for government to make restrictions.

What I find the most interesting is that people who are behind pot legalization were the same ones who have complained about cigarette smoke for decades. If you think government should not be restricting people as to what they smoke, then I guess you're okay with government allowing cigarette smoke on airplanes, in stores, in the movie theater, in busses.

Government creates law for the protection of the people. Most people don't want drug addicts roaming our streets with the police incapable of doing anything about it because drugs are legal. We don't want to come home to a ransacked house because a drug addict needed money for his fix. We don't need to be supporting these people because they can't work which is the case for many addicted to opiate drugs. We don't want them hanging around our playground where our children are left unattended. That's not big government, that's common sense.

No, my idea of smaller govt is not no laws. But thanks for pretending you know me.

Is it okay if a man marries several women? Not my thing. But if everyone is happy then what's the problem?

I'm against smoking. However the doesn't mean I need to tell people they can't smoke. There's a big difference. I would encourage people to quit, however if they want to allow them to.
Am I okay with them banning smoking in certain places? Yes I am. Why? Because if a person smokes on a plane, they're making the air bad for everyone else. This is where you can do what you like as long as you don't harm other comes into play.
You can smoke where you like, as long as you're not forcing me to smoke your smoke.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So your argument is what?

Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Oh, wait, you don't have one, yours is to just attack me for making a point.

I'm not attacking *you* per se, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic and directing to you resources that if examined with an open mind *might* lead you to understand the question you purport to be asking. If you're actually interested in the answer you will avail yourself of that advice, if not you simply prove my assertion regarding intellectual laziness applies to you.

There might be loads of stuff about small government out there. That's no my point. My point is about those who claim to support smaller govt.

Those who claim to support smaller government? As I already pointed out you're making the mistake of taking a handful of examples you saw in 10 second sound bytes and attempting to portray them as emblematic of the whole. If someone tells you they support "smaller government" and then rattles off a laundry list of government "programs" that they want to either preserve or expand it should be patently obvious that the person does not represent the beliefs of people that actually believe in "smaller" government, they're just reciting bumper sticker slogans, It doesn't take an advanced understanding of calculus to recognize the difference.

No, you're not pointing out flaws in my argument, because you're not discussing my argument. End of.

 

[gipper]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

Let's be clear what they mean by smaller government

They want the things they like and benefit from.......they want a smaller government on things others receive

You really think Ds are different from Rs?

 

[my2¢]

I'm for smaller government. An example, eliminate the Department of Education, education can be handled on a local level and the department was created only as Jimmy Carter's thank-you to the teachers union.

As far as military spending goes, I'm against spending dollars to prop up foreign governments and nation-build. I desire that a vast portion of our military funds go towards (1) development of weapons of war which are effective in dealing with the enemy while putting our soldiers at least risk and (2) health and education benefits for those that have served.

As far as marijuana goes, my wife uses medical marijuana which she finds works best for her pain. What she buys pretty much knocks her out and doesn't cause much of a high. I believe it should be available on a prescription basis so that my insurance would cover it.

 

[dblack]

I don't get people who say they want smaller government.

Mainly because I don't believe they want smaller government.

Most of the people who advocate smaller government are the sort of people who support the US having a massive armed forces. They're the sort of people who want the government to ban same sex marriage. They're the sort of people who want the govt to ban drugs like Marijuana, perhaps even alcohol.

In other words, they're people who want the government in YOUR face, just not in their face. They're happy for big government, just so long as it doesn't step on their patch. They're not gay, they're not into recreational drugs, they're not getting invaded by the US armed forces, so they just don't care and they're happy for big government in those areas.

Also, I've been discussing government subsidies. Yes, we all know about welfare (for your information, before you jump on my back about it, I'm in favor of welfare based on how long you have worked, and before you've worked for 5 years you should get no welfare at all unless you're in education and doing well in your education at that, and then the longer you've worked, the more you can get, like after 10 years an increase in payments, if you need them) and the left giving money to people who really shouldn't be getting it, but this isn't what's been spoken about here, so lay off this topic.
Government subsidies to farmer and big corporations. Seem the right is all in favor of handing out money to rich people. Seems strange to talk about smaller govt one minute, then advocate govt giving out loads of money to businesses the next minute.

Does anyone actually, really, truly, support smaller government?

I think government should be as big as necessary to effectively do its job. The real debate is over that its job should be.

 

[NightFox]

No, you're not pointing out flaws in my argument, because you're not discussing my argument. End of.

I'll be happy to discuss your "argument" when you formulate one that involves reason and evidence, up to this point all you've been doing is attempting to construct a rather flimsy strawman, one can only wonder what you hope to accomplish by doing this beyond reinforcing your own existing beliefs.

Are you actually interested what people that truly believe in "smaller" government think ?or will you continue to be content with simply regurgitating partisan talking points? I only care because I actually do believe in "smaller government" (very, very small in fact) and it's not because Sarah Palin in her purdy pink tutu told me that I should believe that. I drew my conclusions based on examining what actual advocates of "smaller government" had to say and then comparing their arguments to the evidence presented by history and current events, perhaps you may want to avail yourself of the same opportunity.