Problem is, the OP likely has more trust in government than most liberals.
He believed in the Iraq War, which came with a predicted expense that would stretch infinitely into the future.
He believed that BIG GOVERNMENT could effectively analyze the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, that is, he believed everything Bush said about Saddam's ties to 9/11, Al Qaeda and WMDs.
I'm guessing he believed that the Washington Defense Bureaucracy - the largest staff inside of Government, run ultimately by Bush - could stabilize Iraq, against predictions that there would be a never-ending wave of insurgents; against predictions that periods of relative calm would always been followed by uprisings because Washington cannot control an entire Arab region, despite the faith the OP likely has in Big Government. (You can blame Obama for losing the peace, but only a Big Government Republican like the OP would believe that Washington could prevent every insurgency from every country (Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Iran, etc.,) from rising up and spilling into the Banana Republic created by Bush. We will always be sending troops back to Iraq, and the cost will destroy our grandchildren's future more than anything the petty and very diminished Hussein could have done)
This is why Libertarians don't trust Washington with BIG things, because it lacks the information and competency to control whole other contents. It's called the law of unintended consequences. (And don't tell me that Bush left it stable because that kind of ignorance is what created the war in the first place. Stability in the middle east is always temporary, especially when you replace whole governments)
If the OP doesn't trust big government....
If the OP doesn't think big government can run things effectively and efficiently....
If the OP doesn't think that Big Government can run a laundromat effectively and efficiently . . .
.... than why did he and his party give it the power to rebuild an entire Arab culture?
Whenever the OP's party controls Washington, it spends more than its Democratic predecessor. This is why Reagan tripled Carter's debt and Bush doubled Clinton's. Of course the Republicans blamed everyone but themselves for their big spending . . . but that is what they do.
Also, the OP sounds like a FOX News drone when he speaks about evil government versus the free market, as if those things are separate when you consider the lobbying efforts of the Koch brothers or any large player. I'm guessing the OP has not spent much time in a library or had much advanced education on this stuff. It would be nice to see the OP read the arguments and data for every point of view, and then come up with a thorough analysis of ALL the information on his own, rather than getting spoon-fed talking points from his media masters. This way he could give us more information to debate, not just bumper sticker fortune cookie mammer jammer. (I actually agree with some of the things the OP writes, but it's so tiresome to see the same posts repeated ad infinitum)
I urge the OP to revisit the the divide between evil government and the free market. Business has always gone begging to Washington for subsidies, bailouts, regulatory protection and infrastructure (roads, bridges, water & energy systems - to name only a fraction of what the market gets from Washington. This is not to mention the defense of global supply chains and trade routes). Our economy has always been run by a partnership between business and government - a partnership that business wants, and begs for, and lobbies to the tune of trillions per annum for. Boeing and aerospace technology wouldn't exist without the ultra-deep pockets of Government. Has the OP ever studied the subsidies given to our "free" market players. The biggest welfare has always gone to the special corporate interests who fund our elections and own our politicians. Our system is owned largely by our wealthiest capitalists. Do you know what happens to a Republican congressman who votes against the interests of Kochs' holdings? That congressman gets primaried and removed. This happens on both sides of the aisle. The market - its most powerful players - control Washington on more levels than the OP understands.
But let's talk about the OP's tireless single entendre assertion that government is bad, and only a hindrance. (I agree that it does many things terribly, but I see the issue as more complex than the OP) Does anyone really think the OP knows how much vital technology has come out of the state sector? Does anyone really think the OP knows about the technology that flowed from the Cold War Defense & NASA budget into the 80s consumer electronics boom? (This reprimand is equally aimed at Liberals, who under-report the benefits of military keynesianism. Reagan vastly improved the economy of Southern California by building up defense industrial capacity. People criticize him for the insane debt left by his excessive military spending - but so much of that spending put more workers and thus more consumers on main street. Ya' think the OP understands this? Reagan expanded the Federal workforce more than any of his contemporaries, and much more than Bush or Clinton, but those federal workers added to the aggregate purchasing power of the population, which kept many main street shops in business).
Again, though, the OP just lacks all the complicated information about how the government fits into the economy. Seriously, ask the OP to describe, say, where the satellite system came from, specifically what government sector lead its development and for what purpose. Secondly, ask the OP to describe how much private sector profit is made from our satellite system. Again, he wouldn't be able to tell you because FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Lavine, and Michael Savage never told him.
Pheonix would not exist but for the Hooever Damn and the trillion+ that flowed from government into the Colorado tributary. No single market player had the income for that kind of investment - this is why government did it - and yet the number of profit makers who benefit from that government planned infrastructure is a number that would blow the OPs mind. But of course the key is to use government effectively, and prevent it from taking over functions that it can't handle - and yes, this is a challenge that we have failed to meet. It will be a never ending problem, but it doesn't help when 1/2 the population can't name the things government has provided that help the economy, especially those things that our most powerful capitalists beg for with their army of lobbyists....
But yes, I agree with the OP. Government is inefficient, and it often lacks that information and incentive to create the kind of outcomes it promises. No shit. I just wish the OP could say something interesting or enlightening about this stuff.
