Q. For Small Government Adherents

[Iceweasel]

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.

I would eliminate them all and only fund the ones we need, not want, just enough to do the job. Like any responsible household. The fact that liberals have to ask proves they shouldn't be in charge of anything involving anybody besides their own useless selves.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Creating jobs isn't the government's purpose. The purpose is to create an atmosphere where jobs can be created. Being a parasite is fine as long as your host doesn't mind, if you choose to take what isn't yours instead of making yourself marketable then prison is exactly where you belong. Only you can decide to be a worthless human being.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

No it's not lies. Your healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world not first. You have a great system for the very rich, but for the rest, not so much. Your system is controlled by the insurance companies. They determine what care you get and your doctor has to fight to ensure they will pay for it. One third of your healthcare dollars goes to administration, versus 10% in single payer nations.

The medical industry feeds you this myth that the US has the best healthcare in the world because they're getting rich off this lie. Americans who get treatment in other countries are astounded at how much better their care is, how the doctors and hospitals are focused on their treatment, not how they will pay for it.

The US used to have one of the best education systems in the world until voucher programs and charter schools became all the rage. Now the public education system is being starved for funds. The US is currently ranked 14th.

When you have schools teaching Creationism, and ignoring science and technology, your ranking has nowhere to go but down.

Your country is in decline in every major quality of life study, and yet Americans crow that they live in the best country in the world. Here's what you do lead the world in:

Money expended on your military - number one with a bullet there;

Percentage of your citizens who are in prison - more than China, India or any other nation on earth. 25% of the world's prison population is in the US. Of course the largest percentage of those in prison are black or Hispanic so what does it matter?

Medical costs per capita - by far and away the world leaders, and for all that money spent, you end up in 37th place. Capitalism at its finest.

 

[hortysir]

First, go to a flat tax or another easier tax system...get rid of most of the IRS...get rid of the Dept. of Education and allow the states to keep that money...or more importantly the tax payers.....that would be the start....get rid of the grants for humanities or whatever that is called...stop most foreign aid to enemies of this country...do an audit on all government agencies...reign them in and cut their staff an initial 10% and then dig in and see how much more you can cut them.....cut back on congressional staff and perks.....
The list would be endless.......mention some and I'll let you know...

Phase out Social Security into another, more effective system...encourage people to save their own money for retirement......

Get rid of the post office...let the private sector handle it...........

The 'list' is idiotic, reactionary, and unwarranted – exhibiting the naïve ignorance and stupidity of most on the radical right, and why they're incapable of responsible governance.

Their idea of responsible governance means making someone with a profit motive fully responsible for things much more important than a single company's profits.

So we should continue to invest in government programs that operate at a loss

 

[occupied]

First, go to a flat tax or another easier tax system...get rid of most of the IRS...get rid of the Dept. of Education and allow the states to keep that money...or more importantly the tax payers.....that would be the start....get rid of the grants for humanities or whatever that is called...stop most foreign aid to enemies of this country...do an audit on all government agencies...reign them in and cut their staff an initial 10% and then dig in and see how much more you can cut them.....cut back on congressional staff and perks.....
The list would be endless.......mention some and I'll let you know...

Phase out Social Security into another, more effective system...encourage people to save their own money for retirement......

Get rid of the post office...let the private sector handle it...........

The 'list' is idiotic, reactionary, and unwarranted – exhibiting the naïve ignorance and stupidity of most on the radical right, and why they're incapable of responsible governance.

Their idea of responsible governance means making someone with a profit motive fully responsible for things much more important than a single company's profits.

So we should continue to invest in government programs that operate at a loss

Yes, some things are far too important to subject to profiteering. No one has ever suggested that the government run at a profit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

 

[Pksimon2007]

First, go to a flat tax or another easier tax system...get rid of most of the IRS...get rid of the Dept. of Education and allow the states to keep that money...or more importantly the tax payers.....that would be the start....get rid of the grants for humanities or whatever that is called...stop most foreign aid to enemies of this country...do an audit on all government agencies...reign them in and cut their staff an initial 10% and then dig in and see how much more you can cut them.....cut back on congressional staff and perks.....
The list would be endless.......mention some and I'll let you know...

Phase out Social Security into another, more effective system...encourage people to save their own money for retirement......

Get rid of the post office...let the private sector handle it...........

- We all know what you all want to do.

The OP very clearly asked for a cost benefit analysis.

I see there is none.

Not that you didn't present it - there is none.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Start with a balanced budget amendment.

- The OP asked for a cost benefit analysis. That seems to be missing.

If asked, I can articulate very clearly the costs of a balanced budget amendment, and explain logically how destructive it would be.

Is there any argument FOR a balanced budget amendment that is based on anything other than emotion?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The first thing to cut is in the realm of foreign policy. The U.S. military doesn't need to occupy every country in the world, and it's time to stop invading and bombing the Middle East. This will save large amounts of money over time as the government stops having to pay the large amounts of soldiers it takes to occupy the world and then pay for their health benefits when they come back. Not to mention the destruction and rebuilding that they inevitably pay for. This would also cut the wasteful spending on military equipment and weapons to the war contractors, and thus free up resources to go into private investment. That's where you start, and anybody who says otherwise isn't serious about cutting government spending.

 

[rightwinger]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

 

[The Rabbi]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

END THE FED!!! WOOOOO!!

Ahem, now that that's out of my system...

Please, explain to us how you would maintain a bigger government. Since you believe it to be a good thing, perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us the benefits it would reap for the average American citizen.

Your attempt at trying to trap conservatives in their own ideology is utterly predictable. Now, if you have a way to shrink government, we'd all be glad to hear it. Answer your own question.

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

That out of my system, though calling you pitiful doesn't really describe all of your many character flaws, I'll leave it there.

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,

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

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

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

We don't need bigger government, yet it is the only entity growing by leaps and bounds. Apparently, were it not for "government" (AKA the monster), there would be no growth whatsoever by this administration.

 

[Pksimon2007]

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 think it can be evaluated from a macro perspective. There are costs and benefits to individual programs, but there are also costs and benefits to federal spending, taxing, surpluses, and deficits.

From the longest view, federal deficits are private sector surpluses. Deficits and surpluses are flows of money, so the sum of all flows of money must equal zero.

Conservatives forget this, and don't comprehend what their calls for a balanced budget amendment mean, from a macro perspective.

One macro perspective I find particularly useful is called the sectoral balances approach, which looks at the economy being divided, monetarily, into three sectors: the federal government, which is the monopoly issuer of the currency, the private sector, which produces real wealth and private credit/debt and uses the government currency, and the foreign sector with which the private sector trades.

The conservative approach is to argue that responsibility demands that the private sector and government sector must both either balance their budgets or run surpluses.

What they forget is that surpluses and deficits (like profits and losses) are flows, and cannot simultaneously exist among all sectors. For one sector to have a surplus (and a profit would be a surplus), then another sector must run a deficit.

For both the government and private sector to be net positive, the only way that can happen is for the US to be a net exporting country, with net flows of money incoming from other countries in exchange for real wealth which we produce. The only way that can happen is for US workers to allow wages to fall, and to forego the enjoyment of real wealth so that it can be shipped to other countries in order to produce a financial profit for the private sector (which would have to be realized, necessarily, outside of wages) and for the government.

This is why they have to advocate a race to the bottom for US workers. They don't understand their own logic, but at some intuitive level they know that people must be forced to suffer to produce the financial surpluses they feel government must run.

They simultaneously forget that government is the monopoly issuer of its own currency, so there is no reason it should run a financial surplus. To government, which creates money at will ("printing" it), money is free. Governments which produce their own currency are not constrained from producing more - their constraint is on their ability to buy real resources with that money, which means inflation, in a practical sense is their limiting constraint on spending.

So yes, even though we cannot evaluate individual programs this way, it is very clear that we can evaluate a macroeconomic effect which tells us whether government should have a deficit, surplus, or balanced budget. The answer will be different, depending on the behavior of the private and foreign sectors. Government exists to serve the private sector (us), and its budgetary position should be tailored to support our objectives.

If our objectives are to employ our labor and other real resources in order to create wealth and to provide savings for ourselves, that is only possible if we have government run deficits or if we run trade surpluses.

This is also my answer to the OP, and includes my cost-benefit analysis at a macroeconomic level.

 

[Pksimon2007]

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.

END THE FED!!! WOOOOO!!

Ahem, now that that's out of my system...

Please, explain to us how you would maintain a bigger government. Since you believe it to be a good thing, perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us the benefits it would reap for the average American citizen.

Your attempt at trying to trap conservatives in their own ideology is utterly predictable. Now, if you have a way to shrink government, we'd all be glad to hear it. Answer your own question.

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

That out of my system, though calling you pitiful doesn't really describe all of your many character flaws, I'll leave it there.

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,

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

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

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

We don't need bigger government, yet it is the only entity growing by leaps and bounds. Apparently, were it not for "government" (AKA the monster), there would be no growth whatsoever by this administration.

I hear the emotion.

Where is the cost-benefit analysis?

 

[RandallFlagg]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

 

[RandallFlagg]

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.

END THE FED!!! WOOOOO!!

Ahem, now that that's out of my system...

Please, explain to us how you would maintain a bigger government. Since you believe it to be a good thing, perhaps you can demonstrate to all of us the benefits it would reap for the average American citizen.

Your attempt at trying to trap conservatives in their own ideology is utterly predictable. Now, if you have a way to shrink government, we'd all be glad to hear it. Answer your own question.

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

That out of my system, though calling you pitiful doesn't really describe all of your many character flaws, I'll leave it there.

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,

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

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

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

We don't need bigger government, yet it is the only entity growing by leaps and bounds. Apparently, were it not for "government" (AKA the monster), there would be no growth whatsoever by this administration.

I hear the emotion.

Where is the cost-benefit analysis?

It's called the "Constitution". Perhaps you should read it?

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

"We need smaller government", "we need a balanced budget", "we need to get rid of the IRS", and so forth are not "cogent ideas".

They are preferences taken without virtue of explanation. There is no identification of costs or benefits which I have seen, though I may have missed them.

As I understand it, the OP is not looking for a brainstorming session on ways to reduce government, but for the cost-benefit analysis on which anyone would base a preference to do so.

 

[Pksimon2007]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

- We can argue all day long over whether that's true or not. I don't think anyone is specifically charged, constitutionally, with taking care of anyone. The point of the document is to establish a system of self-government within which individual rights are protected.

What the OP seems really to be looking for is a cost-benefit analysis for reducing government.

I again hear your emotion, but don't see any such analysis.

If you choose to say "I don't believe we should look at a cost-benefit analysis", just say so. At least that would be an honest way to say "I have none, my preferences are based on something else. I don't care about costs and benefits."

 

[The Rabbi]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

"We need smaller government", "we need a balanced budget", "we need to get rid of the IRS", and so forth are not "cogent ideas".

They are preferences taken without virtue of explanation. There is no identification of costs or benefits which I have seen, though I may have missed them.

As I understand it, the OP is not looking for a brainstorming session on ways to reduce government, but for the cost-benefit analysis on which anyone would base a preference to do so.

Cherry picking statement is sure to land you on Ignore. But not before I make fun of your pretentiousness, logorrhia and muddled thinking.
It is not a question of cost and benefit. It is a question of what is the right way to govern. And eliminating every federal agency whose function is not authorized by the Constitution is the right way.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.