What do you mean when you say you want smaller government?

[spectrumc01]

The fight over "Smaller Government"

Just what is meant by saying we need to have Smaller Government. Is it the cutting of programs? is it the elimination of departments? Is it the combining of departments?

I want smaller government on all levels. By saying this I want to eliminate %50 of all government jobs at every level. After that if we don't have the man power to run the programs we have than we must eliminate those programs. What I mean by government jobs is... politicians, politicians aides and staff, political committees, police, teachers, firemen, and regulators / inspectors.

I want smaller government which means that I need to define what I want government to do. I want government to provide a level playing field for everyone, I want government to protect my life and property with a fair and balanced justice system. I want government to create and maintain a sound and functioning infrastructure by employing private business to accomplish this. By doing these things the other stuff will take care of itself, i.e. taxes.

What do you mean when you say you want smaller government?

 

[dblack]

I don't think it's very useful to focus on the size of government. It's the scope that I'm concerned with. A large government, both in terms of size and cost, might be necessary in certain circumstances.

What I'm concerned with is the growth of government's power to intrude on our lives unnecessarily. That's why I find the concepts of limited government so important. Not to keep it 'small' or save us money as taxpayers, but to protect liberty.

 

[spectrumc01]

I don't think it's very useful to focus on the size of government. It's the scope that I'm concerned with. A large government, both in terms of size and cost, might be necessary in certain circumstances.

What I'm concerned with is the growth of government's power to intrude on our lives unnecessarily. That's why I find the concepts of limited government so important. Not to keep it 'small' or save us money as taxpayers, but to protect liberty.

If you limit it's size don't you also limit it's ability to encroach on our liberties at the same time? If government is made smaller by half we have also halved it's ability to enforce the laws that would encroach on our liberties.

 

[dblack]

No, not necessarily. An intensely fascist, intrusive government could still be 'small' in size.

 

[uscitizen]

No, not necessarily. An intensely fascist, intrusive government could still be 'small' in size.

Yes religious based govts are often this way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you limit it's size don't you also limit it's ability to encroach on our liberties at the same time? If government is made smaller by half we have also halved it's ability to enforce the laws that would encroach on our liberties.

Incorrect.

The ‘size’ of government or how many people it employs is irrelevant in the context of the rule of law. It’s when we allow government – regardless its size - greater authority to ‘fight crime’ or conduct a ‘war on terror’ in an attempt to realize greater security that we jeopardize our liberty.

 

[spectrumc01]

You can make and pass all the laws you want but if you only have ten people to police 100K than you have a problem. If you count on the population at large to help enforce such draconian laws and they do help, than we have more problems than we suspect.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its simple catchy phrase for small minds

 

[Si modo]

Its simple catchy phrase for small minds

Yet, for morons, like you, it's incomprehensible.

 

[Truthmatters]

No not incomprenhesible, just unworkable in any society

 

[Dragon]

No, not necessarily. An intensely fascist, intrusive government could still be 'small' in size.

Correct. The absolute monarchies of Medieval Europe were, by modern standards, very small governments with very little scope.

Liberal democracies have evolved three methods to prevent government from being a danger to the people's liberty: separation of powers (including an independent judiciary), public accountability through periodic elections, and explicit prohibitions against certain government actions that infringe the rights of individuals. Our problem today is not that the government has grown too big or gained too much scope (at least as far as liberty is concerned; there may be other reasons to oppose this). It's that at least two of the checks on tyranny have failed -- maybe all three.

Because politicians are beholden to corporate campaign donations, direct and indirect, public accountability is a sham. Because Supreme Court justices are appointed by these corrupt politicians and so are in service to corruption themselves, separation of powers is seriously weakened. And because of this, we are in danger of losing any meaningful protection from the Bill of Rights.

 

[Si modo]

No not incomprenhesible, just unworkable in any society

So, if smaller government is 'unworkable', then government must be infinite in size.

As I said...moron.

 

[William Joyce]

All of that.

It's crazy to have a federal Department of Education, for instance, when the federal government has ZERO business getting involved with something as intensely local as schooling.

Yet I do seek good funding levels for local education: I want the public schools for my kids to have decently paid teachers, good facilities, and so on.

So, it's not reflexively smaller government I want -- it's common sense.

 

[Foxfyre]

I want a government large enough to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare meaning EVERYBODY'S welfare without respect to political affliation, ideology, or socioeconomic standing, and that recognizes, defends, and protects our unalienable rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I want the government to be large enough to promote free trade with foreign trading partners, enforce reasonable and practical immigration policy, and to enact such regulation as is necessary to prevent the people from doing physical or economic violence to each other.

In other words I want a government large enough to fulfill its Constitutional obligations as stated and no bigger than that.

That should scale the federal government down to about 1/10th of what it is now and return the intended freedom to the people who, with their rights secured, are then free to live, love, laugh, govern themselves, and form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

 

[Sherry]

I want an efficient and responsible government...if a job can be reasonably carried out by one person, then don't hire three people to do it just for the sake of supplying jobs.

 

[Foxfyre]

I want an efficient and responsible government...if a job can be reasonably carried out by one person, then don't hire three people to do it just for the sake of supplying jobs.

I'm with you in spirit. But for matters of practical consideration, we do have to spell out what we want an efficient and responsible government to do. Otherwise our leftist friends will consider it efficient and responsible to have. . . .well, what we have along with the $15 TRILLION in debt that factors out to $133,000 per American household and is growing by billions every day that passes.

Let's say we want an efficient and responsible federal government to handle its constitutional responsibilities in a manner that respects the people's money as much as those who earned it respect it, and that does nothing that cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the states, local communities, and/or the private sector.

 

[Flopper]

The fight over "Smaller Government"

Just what is meant by saying we need to have Smaller Government. Is it the cutting of programs? is it the elimination of departments? Is it the combining of departments?

I want smaller government on all levels. By saying this I want to eliminate %50 of all government jobs at every level. After that if we don't have the man power to run the programs we have than we must eliminate those programs. What I mean by government jobs is... politicians, politicians aides and staff, political committees, police, teachers, firemen, and regulators / inspectors.

I want smaller government which means that I need to define what I want government to do. I want government to provide a level playing field for everyone, I want government to protect my life and property with a fair and balanced justice system. I want government to create and maintain a sound and functioning infrastructure by employing private business to accomplish this. By doing these things the other stuff will take care of itself, i.e. taxes.

What do you mean when you say you want smaller government?

If you want to remove major functions of government, you can not just cut them from the budget. You have to repeal or modify the laws that recreated those functions. For example if you eliminated funding for Medicaid or the School Lunch program, or the EPA, there would be lawsuits filed against the federal government by every state and a multitude of special interest groups. The federal government can not pass laws that make commitments and then refuse to honor those commitments without changing the laws. So if you want to eliminate the EPA, you have to repeal or modify the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and a number of other laws. The chance of this type of congressional action is just about zero which makes all this rhetoric just political posturing.

 

[whitehall]

The first thing we have to understand is that government is not an employment agency. Jobs funded by taxpayers do not grow the economy. So called "shovel ready jobs" that Obama joked about do not grow the economy. All the lefties who are salavating about infrastructure jobs that might spike the employment statistics need to realize that moving taxpayer money from one segment of society to another does not grow the economy. Yeah, wee need to keep up infrastructure and roads but understand that it has no impact on the GDP. Only the private sector can grow the economy. Once the lefties get that fact through their thick skulls they might have a different attitude about their corporate enemies list.

 

[Flopper]

The first thing we have to understand is that government is not an employment agency. Jobs funded by taxpayers do not grow the economy. So called "shovel ready jobs" that Obama joked about do not grow the economy. All the lefties who are salavating about infrastructure jobs that might spike the employment statistics need to realize that moving taxpayer money from one segment of society to another does not grow the economy. Yeah, wee need to keep up infrastructure and roads but understand that it has no impact on the GDP. Only the private sector can grow the economy. Once the lefties get that fact through their thick skulls they might have a different attitude about their corporate enemies list.

Government jobs do create economic growth. There was two problems with the shovel ready jobs. First, there were not enough of them. Secondly and most important, these were not projects which lead to long term growth. This type of stimulus pumps money into the economy. It can slow or stop and economic fall which it apparently did, but this pump priming only works to revive the private sector if there isn't deep underlying structurally problems that must be solved.

The type job program that pays big dividends in economic growth is not really a job program. It's a project whose goal is making America more protective and improving our standard of living. For example the Interstate Hwy. Project started in fifties, has had an enormous impact on economic growth. As had building of Hoover Dam, the TVA project and many other such projects. They created a lot of jobs but more importantly they laid a foundation for future economic growth.

 

[Rozman]

Smaller is better....that's what I always told my wife.