Q. For Small Government Adherents

[TemplarKormac]

Gee, I missed you. You cut and ran after you goaded me into a debate. You're pitiful.

Actually, you ran. You were swiftly routed. You said and I quote "I will debate issues, not talking points."

When you chose to respond with that, and everything except answers to my questions, you lost. Whatever you said about the Koch brothers and Citizens United had zero to do with what I put to you.

Anyhow...

We don't need a bigger government, but thanks so much for telling me what I want, it is so like you to open with a logical fallacy,

Your title suggested you were mocking those who advocated for smaller government. If you don't want criticism, don't employ such polarizing titles. Easy.

Moreover, your positions indicate (from every post I read from you) that you are for bigger government. You are a liberal Democrat. Besides one needs not look any further than to our debate in the Bull Ring about what precisely you advocate, from post #3 in that thread, with your points being addressed in order:

Pick your poison:

• The Economy
• Education in America
• Legalization of Marijuana
• The PPACA
• Gun Control
• Tax Policy
• Criminal Justice
• Social Contract Theory
• LGBT Rights
• Voter Suppression v. Voter Fraud
• Abortion
• CU v. FEC & McCutcheon

1) You advocate for more government regulation of the economy, that's big government.

2) You advocate for further government manipulation of the education system, that's bigger government.

3) You favor the PPACA, which is the epitome of bigger government.

4) You advocate for gun control, that's bigger government.

5) Your obsession with Social Contract Theory screams bigger government. Basically, you are insisting that total government is preferable to anarchy. SCT runs the risk of forfeiting all personal liberty for a modicum of protection. Moving on...

6) You support government coercing the states into marrying same sex couples and granting them rights that they already have. That's bigger government. Moreover, if you favored smaller government, you would understand government should not insert itself into the marital choices of anyone, gay or straight.

7) You believe the government should weed out voter suppression wherever it may be. That's bigger government. There is no need to scream voter suppression when even dead people are allowed to vote. (Tongue in cheek, yes, but case in point).

8) See #3. Essentially you support a mandate which forces employers to fund abortion coverage, regardless of their religious beliefs. That's bigger government.

9) You favor government regulation of campaign donations, that's bigger government.

What we need to do is to bring spending under control, something simple in design, and nearly impossible in the real world.

So bringing spending under control, according to you, is impossible. Let me guess, you favor something...Keynesian in nature, right? Since when did spending our way out of a spending problem solve the spending problem?

This is what I think might work:

• Amend Article II of the COTUS and give the POTUS the line-item veto
• Amend Article II and limit a POTUS to one term of six years
• Amend Article I of the COTUS to allow The Congress to control and limit campaign spending

1) No. Why would you allow the president to nullify parts and provisions of budgets passed by Congress? Perhaps you aren't aware of Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998). Granting the President line item veto power is unconstitutional.

2) How does this address the issue of bigger/smaller government?

3) Why amend the First Amendment to regulate campaign donations? I see, you simply don't like the CU decision and will look for any way for government to limit how much someone can support a candidate for office. And yes, this is bigger government, too. What you want, like I said before, is bigger government. None of these suggestions would limit the size of government. At all. In fact, it would increase it.

I have more ideas, but chew on these for a while.

There's no need for that. There's no point in digging yourself further into the ground.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

So, how do you create jobs when you want people to have access to government entitlements? This is like trying to put out a fire with smoke.

 

[Dragonlady]

Liberals are totally against people making profits and creating jobs.

That's a shining example of total bigotry.

No, it isn't. Liberals openly despise the private sector and think government is better. The private sector would handle a lot of things better and cheaper. Only reason to object would be because someone is making a profit by providing a service.

Although conservatives refuse to admit it, there are some things that government does better and cheaper than the private sector. Education and healthcare being two of them.

The best system is a mix of public and private services.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Although conservatives refuse to admit it, there are some things that government does better and cheaper than the private sector. Education and healthcare being two of them.

Lies.

The US government spends more money per child than any other country in the world and still has a subpar education system. We have the best healthcare in the world, with the highest healthcare costs in the world, and government only contributes to the cost.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree with those voicing the sentiment:
Check the Constitution. Anything not explicitly authorized by the federal government needs to be abolished. National parks, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, HHS, etc etc. That is about 40% of gov't right there.
We didnt have an Energy Dept until Jimmy Carter. I guess we all went around without energy during the preceeding 200 years. Ditto the others.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Cutting things to the bone will mean that we won't compete in shit. We're either the most powerful nation on earth with a respectable government or we're not.

We must invest in infrastructure, science, r&d and education or we risk becoming a third world shit hole.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Although conservatives refuse to admit it, there are some things that government does better and cheaper than the private sector. Education and healthcare being two of them.

Lies.

The US government spends more money per child than any other country in the world and still has a subpar education system. We have the best healthcare in the world, with the highest healthcare costs in the world, and government only contributes to the cost.

big loll's, can you name one educational system within the top 10 that doesn't use government? I bet you can't! Certainly, a duel public/private system in healthcare is by far the best and this is what we have. I wouldn't trust unregulated capitalism as it is evil. Period. We wouldn't have the medical standards we have if it wasn't. The research is mostly funded by government grants, the standards demanding clean tools and standards at all are regulated by government, etc. AND NO, the private sector wouldn't give a damn about the people as over time one would become a MONOPLY! Once a monopoly they'd would care about as much as Comcast does about your internet about your body!

Our healthcare system also has NEVER been private. It is regulated!! And that is a good thing as morality is something truly lacking with fucking pure capitalism.

We vote for the government, we sure as fuck don't vote for the effin private sector! The sector that has offshored so much and stabbed us in the back.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Liberals are totally against people making profits and creating jobs.

That's a shining example of total bigotry.

No, it isn't. Liberals openly despise the private sector and think government is better. The private sector would handle a lot of things better and cheaper. Only reason to object would be because someone is making a profit by providing a service.

Although conservatives refuse to admit it, there are some things that government does better and cheaper than the private sector. Education and healthcare being two of them.

The best system is a mix of public and private services.

Yep,,,,

Infrastructure and new science are two other areas that the public sector does better. Warning society of storms and hazardest weather is yet another...Of course, these are people that think we shouldn't spend shit on anything so good luck in convincing them of anything...They'd have this country a third world Haiti if they got their way. A back water.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

So, how do you create jobs when you want people to have access to government entitlements? This is like trying to put out a fire with smoke.

Focus on jobs and stay away from welfare that allows a person to be lazy? We can do that by focusing on infrastructure, science and r&d jobs that demand work for the pay. This work will make our country stronger and the wheel will turn!

 

[Darkwind]

There is no such thing as 'small' government, or 'big' government, for that matter – government exists at the behest of the people, acting at the behest of the people, performing services at the behest of the people, and doing so in a manner consistent with the Constitution and its case law – having nothing to do with the 'size' of government.

What will you do when the people clamor for less government?

 

[ScienceRocks]

There is no such thing as 'small' government, or 'big' government, for that matter – government exists at the behest of the people, acting at the behest of the people, performing services at the behest of the people, and doing so in a manner consistent with the Constitution and its case law – having nothing to do with the 'size' of government.

What will you do when the people clamor for less government?

lol, I will feel sad as I watch China become the next super power and become number one in infrastructure, science, r&d and everything we once held. You idiots with the leftist idiots of low standards are killing this country. I'll think I'll cry as I see my country without any vision to do a damn thing anymore.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Should be accountable government...Small government is retarded and the end of any great civilization.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

They think no such thing. Perhaps you should address the honest effort to provide you with opinions on what to cut from the budget. If every job in the Federal Government were to be eliminated, (~2,185,000) in a society of 310 million, the blip on unemployment would barely register.

Bringing the US government to heal is more than just the number of jobs lost.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

They think no such thing. Perhaps you should address the honest effort to provide you with opinions on what to cut from the budget. If every job in the Federal Government were to be eliminated, (~2,185,000) in a society of 310 million, the blip on unemployment would barely register.

Bringing the US government to heal is more than just the number of jobs lost.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Cumcatcher believes reducing gov't spending by one penny will usher in the Dark Ages.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

They think no such thing. Perhaps you should address the honest effort to provide you with opinions on what to cut from the budget. If every job in the Federal Government were to be eliminated, (~2,185,000) in a society of 310 million, the blip on unemployment would barely register.

Bringing the US government to heal is more than just the number of jobs lost.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Cumcatcher believes reducing gov't spending by one penny will usher in the Dark Ages.

Most progressives (on this forum) believe that every penny spent by the government is vital and that no program is unnecessary. I know this because I have asked them to cut just one program that is not authorized by the Constitution, and none of them will ever provide one. I've listed some of the most minor programs that were created by administrative law, and they (almost to a man) refused to consider cutting it.

However, what I get tired of is the blatant lies regarding the intent of their political opponents. They cannot simply accept that people want to control and limit government without wanting to kill babies and starve grandparents, or enslave their minority group de jour. It gets old, but assigning deceitful intent to their opponents is all they have.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

They think no such thing. Perhaps you should address the honest effort to provide you with opinions on what to cut from the budget. If every job in the Federal Government were to be eliminated, (~2,185,000) in a society of 310 million, the blip on unemployment would barely register.

Bringing the US government to heal is more than just the number of jobs lost.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Cumcatcher believes reducing gov't spending by one penny will usher in the Dark Ages.

Most progressives (on this forum) believe that every penny spent by the government is vital and that no program is unnecessary. I know this because I have asked them to cut just one program that is not authorized by the Constitution, and none of them will ever provide one. I've listed some of the most minor programs that were created by administrative law, and they (almost to a man) refused to consider cutting it.

However, what I get tired of is the blatant lies regarding the intent of their political opponents. They cannot simply accept that people want to control and limit government without wanting to kill babies and starve grandparents, or enslave their minority group de jour. It gets old, but assigning deceitful intent to their opponents is all they have.

Its the only way they can argue. There are so many gov't programs that are total wastes of time and money it is impossible to defend them. But libs are locked into an all or nothing mindset. Because they're stupid. If they agree that this program is wasteful then they cant be certain that all of them wont be shown to be wasteful. And they lose the argument. So they are locked into it.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't believe that this question can be answered without knowing all of the functions of the federal government and being aware of the implications of losing functions. I seriously doubt anyone on here (including myself) can make an informed opinion on such a huge budgetary issue.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

They think no such thing. Perhaps you should address the honest effort to provide you with opinions on what to cut from the budget. If every job in the Federal Government were to be eliminated, (~2,185,000) in a society of 310 million, the blip on unemployment would barely register.

Bringing the US government to heal is more than just the number of jobs lost.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Cumcatcher believes reducing gov't spending by one penny will usher in the Dark Ages.

Most progressives (on this forum) believe that every penny spent by the government is vital and that no program is unnecessary. I know this because I have asked them to cut just one program that is not authorized by the Constitution, and none of them will ever provide one. I've listed some of the most minor programs that were created by administrative law, and they (almost to a man) refused to consider cutting it.

However, what I get tired of is the blatant lies regarding the intent of their political opponents. They cannot simply accept that people want to control and limit government without wanting to kill babies and starve grandparents, or enslave their minority group de jour. It gets old, but assigning deceitful intent to their opponents is all they have.

Its the only way they can argue. There are so many gov't programs that are total wastes of time and money it is impossible to defend them. But libs are locked into an all or nothing mindset. Because they're stupid. If they agree that this program is wasteful then they cant be certain that all of them wont be shown to be wasteful. And they lose the argument. So they are locked into it.

Mostly. It is why I no longer even try to provide information to these kinds of threads. The OP isn't so much interested in talking about the issue raised as trying to create a 'gotcha' situation. The problem is, the gotcha is based upon flawed reasoning, personal wants, and no little amount of fear.

 

[The Rabbi]

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

They think no such thing. Perhaps you should address the honest effort to provide you with opinions on what to cut from the budget. If every job in the Federal Government were to be eliminated, (~2,185,000) in a society of 310 million, the blip on unemployment would barely register.

Bringing the US government to heal is more than just the number of jobs lost.

Total Government Employment Since 1962

Cumcatcher believes reducing gov't spending by one penny will usher in the Dark Ages.

Most progressives (on this forum) believe that every penny spent by the government is vital and that no program is unnecessary. I know this because I have asked them to cut just one program that is not authorized by the Constitution, and none of them will ever provide one. I've listed some of the most minor programs that were created by administrative law, and they (almost to a man) refused to consider cutting it.

However, what I get tired of is the blatant lies regarding the intent of their political opponents. They cannot simply accept that people want to control and limit government without wanting to kill babies and starve grandparents, or enslave their minority group de jour. It gets old, but assigning deceitful intent to their opponents is all they have.

Its the only way they can argue. There are so many gov't programs that are total wastes of time and money it is impossible to defend them. But libs are locked into an all or nothing mindset. Because they're stupid. If they agree that this program is wasteful then they cant be certain that all of them wont be shown to be wasteful. And they lose the argument. So they are locked into it.

Mostly. It is why I no longer even try to provide information to these kinds of threads. The OP isn't so much interested in talking about the issue raised as trying to create a 'gotcha' situation. The problem is, the gotcha is based upon flawed reasoning, personal wants, and no little amount of fear.

The OP is the most failed poster on here. Information means nothing to him or those on his side.

 

[Jarlaxle]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Cut everything. Fire up the chainsaw and start slashing. Cut all non-military programs 20%, cut all military programs 30% enroute to 50%. Keep slashing from there.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, I missed you. You cut and ran after you goaded me into a debate. You're pitiful.

Actually, you ran. You were swiftly routed. You said and I quote "I will debate issues, not talking points."

When you chose to respond with that, and everything except answers to my questions, you lost. Whatever you said about the Koch brothers and Citizens United had zero to do with what I put to you.

Anyhow...

We don't need a bigger government, but thanks so much for telling me what I want, it is so like you to open with a logical fallacy,

Your title suggested you were mocking those who advocated for smaller government. If you don't want criticism, don't employ such polarizing titles. Easy.

Moreover, your positions indicate (from every post I read from you) that you are for bigger government. You are a liberal Democrat. Besides one needs not look any further than to our debate in the Bull Ring about what precisely you advocate, from post #3 in that thread, with your points being addressed in order:

Pick your poison:

• The Economy
• Education in America
• Legalization of Marijuana
• The PPACA
• Gun Control
• Tax Policy
• Criminal Justice
• Social Contract Theory
• LGBT Rights
• Voter Suppression v. Voter Fraud
• Abortion
• CU v. FEC & McCutcheon

1) You advocate for more government regulation of the economy, that's big government.

2) You advocate for further government manipulation of the education system, that's bigger government.

3) You favor the PPACA, which is the epitome of bigger government.

4) You advocate for gun control, that's bigger government.

5) Your obsession with Social Contract Theory screams bigger government. Basically, you are insisting that total government is preferable to anarchy. SCT runs the risk of forfeiting all personal liberty for a modicum of protection. Moving on...

6) You support government coercing the states into marrying same sex couples and granting them rights that they already have. That's bigger government. Moreover, if you favored smaller government, you would understand government should not insert itself into the marital choices of anyone, gay or straight.

7) You believe the government should weed out voter suppression wherever it may be. That's bigger government. There is no need to scream voter suppression when even dead people are allowed to vote. (Tongue in cheek, yes, but case in point).

8) See #3. Essentially you support a mandate which forces employers to fund abortion coverage, regardless of their religious beliefs. That's bigger government.

9) You favor government regulation of campaign donations, that's bigger government.

What we need to do is to bring spending under control, something simple in design, and nearly impossible in the real world.

So bringing spending under control, according to you, is impossible. Let me guess, you favor something...Keynesian in nature, right? Since when did spending our way out of a spending problem solve the spending problem?

This is what I think might work:

• Amend Article II of the COTUS and give the POTUS the line-item veto
• Amend Article II and limit a POTUS to one term of six years
• Amend Article I of the COTUS to allow The Congress to control and limit campaign spending

1) No. Why would you allow the president to nullify parts and provisions of budgets passed by Congress? Perhaps you aren't aware of Clinton v. City of New York 524 U.S. 417 (1998). Granting the President line item veto power is unconstitutional.

2) How does this address the issue of bigger/smaller government?

3) Why amend the First Amendment to regulate campaign donations? I see, you simply don't like the CU decision and will look for any way for government to limit how much someone can support a candidate for office. And yes, this is bigger government, too. What you want, like I said before, is bigger government. None of these suggestions would limit the size of government. At all. In fact, it would increase it.

I have more ideas, but chew on these for a while.

There's no need for that. There's no point in digging yourself further into the ground.

You are dishonest, and so stuck in an ideological box, you cannot or will not think critically.

Example, you comment on the line-item veto is both ignorant - Congress can override and reinstate an item blue-lined - and void of any critical thinking.

Example, you want others to believe CU & McCutcheon v. FEC protected free speech - that is beyond foolish. No one is denied the opportunity to speak, under these two 5-4 decision the voice of the special interests drowns out the voice of the people.

I agree, yet so many think cutting spending, which means cutting jobs is a panacea without unintended consequences.

So, how do you create jobs when you want people to have access to government entitlements? This is like trying to put out a fire with smoke.

Focus on jobs and stay away from welfare that allows a person to be lazy? We can do that by focusing on infrastructure, science and r&d jobs that demand work for the pay. This work will make our country stronger and the wheel will turn!

Yep, but many of those on welfare have few marketable skills. Conservatives want to eliminate jobs training, drug treatment and other social services and instead build jails.