Q. For Small Government Adherents

[rightwinger]

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.

It also illustrates how naïve and sophomoric the reactionary right is, and their ridiculous perception of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with, and was anything but 'ideal' for African-Americans, women, and gay Americans, among others.

Government is the 'size' it is to accommodate a first world, 21st Century, modern, industrialized super power, a government necessary, proper, and Constitutional.

So the EPA always existed from George Washington's time?
Libs say the dumbest things.

Rabbi once again jumps up to show he is clueless as to what a post is saying

 

[Pksimon2007]

I would start with entitlements ie social programs and the dept of defense. From there I would look at each agency within its dept. I wouldn't even know where to begin about how much to cut...probably around 10 percent.

Since you only look at cuts, and not the consequences of cuts, we can all be thankful you've never been in charge of anything.

The consequences are more money for the taxpayers, something that you're against. Sadly, you need govt to guide you and lead you by the nose.

Hell, there would be less tax payers as there'd be less people working. Government makes up most of our infrastructure and science institutions by far. Tens of millions of jobs would go down the crapper! High paying ones. Of course, you don't have any facts as you're just spouting bullshit.

I've worked in govt and there is a lot of waste and an over abundance of unnecessary jobs. I'm spouting truth.

- I've always worked in private industry, and the same applies. Being human makes people fallible.

 

[bripat9643]

The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.
The cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.

- If that is the case, then why have government at all?

To protect our freedom.

In my view, the small government debate actually misses the point. Government should be big enough to do its job effectively. The problem is that we don't have any consensus on what government's job is. Some people want to use it as a tool of convenience, to force others to bend to their will arbitrarily.

- Now we're back to the subjectivity question.

In my view, things like savings and profits are essential to our freedom, and the only way they can be sustained in a global industrial economy is with government fiscal policy that functions as I outlined above.

Again, that's utter horseshit. Explain how companies made a profit before 1914 when the Federal Reserve was created and before there was anything called "fiscal policy."

- Through lack of sustainability. Booms were possible, and were always followed by crashes.

Since when is "lack of sustainability." an economic concept? How do booms and bust allow corporations to make a profit? Booms and busts have almost entirely been caused by banking panics, both prior to and subsequent to the creation of the Federal Reserve. Government fiscal policy hasn't stopped them. In fact, it has only made them bigger, as we have recently observed.

Through population growth. Population growth increases demand and raises interest rates.

The problem with that theory is that the economy has grown faster than the population. According to your theory that shouldn't be possible. How does increased population raise interest rates? I'm dying to see that explanation.

I can go on, but your stunning lack of ability to look at multiple factors makes me think that presenting only two is probably going to be most helpful to you.

I have no ability to believe in idiocies, is what you really mean. Your head is pumped full of propaganda justifying the interventionist welfare state rather than valid economics.

 

[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

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense



See General Welfare

Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.

Some of us think that We the People elect those who are most in tune with what we expect a government to be

That is not force, that is democracy

 

[hortysir]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

- It actually uses both words.

meh

Bygones.

You aren't quoting the Constitution as anything other than a weapon.

You're absolutely right.
It calls for them to provide for the common Defense and promote the general Welfare.
But in Bizarro ass backwards Dembulb land you would call for cuts in what we should PROVIDE and increase spending for something that we should only PROMOTE

 

[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

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense



See General Welfare

Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.

Agreed. And, the thought of "receiving" from the "government" is something that I don't understand. I can find nothing (and I mean NOTHING) that implies that it is the responsibility of ANY governing entity (be it federal, state or local) to "take care" of the people. Nowhere. LBJ started the "Great Society" to end poverty. 50 trillion dollars later - there is as much poverty as there ever was. Boondoggle.

The only thing I am certain about, is that the federal government is charged with "collecting tariffs" and providing for the defense of the country. 99% of the rest of this nonsense has been nothing more than a power grab by both sides to garner votes. Now, this monster is bigger than BOTH parties and we spend every waking moment feeding the beast.

And this "beast" has one hell of an appetite.....

The role of government is to do what needs to be done as determined by We the people
That includes helping those who need help

 

[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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

No, it's actually not the job of government, period. Protecting us from predators, both foreign and domestic, is the only legitimate function of government.

- Yeah, you should only pay attention to the words in the Constitution which you like.

When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare," it means by using only the enumerated powers.

That being said, the Constitution isn't the final word on government. It's a seriously flawed document. The "general welfare" clause is just one example of how it's flawed.

I truly believe that is the reason for both the 9th and the 10th Amendments. The Constitution was never intended (in my opinion) to be the "end all". That's why the majority of power with this country was intended to lie within the individual states and NOT at the federal level.

The men who founded this country were very aware of what could possibly happen with a large federal government and they warned against it.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
--Patrick Henry

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
--John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
--Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

 

[dblack]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense



See General Welfare

Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.

Some of us think that We the People elect those who are most in tune with what we expect a government to be

That is not force, that is democracy

Some of us are amoral cowards. Bullying others isn't made right just because your gang is bigger.

 

[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

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[bripat9643]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

- If I need words to put on a bumper sticker, I'll ask.

The Weimar Republic?

I'd be happy to educate you on the experience of the Weimar Republic, so that you can make more informed decisions.

The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power.

Their hyperinflation had nothing to do with profligate spending or large government, and everything to do with harsh war reparations and negative supply shocks.

If you want to understand it, rather than being satisfied with meaningless one-liners, I can do so, or I can post links to good references.

"The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power."

That's absolute horseshit. The Weimar government ran practically everything. It had a social insurance program, a medical insurance program, numerous other social programs and regulated business to the teeth.

- Ah, a Glenn Beck listener.

None of that is actually true. The Weimar Republic inherited some of the Kaiser's existing programs, but they were quite modest, and were neglected during the Weimar regime for lack of money.

Apparently you've never read "The Road to Serfdom" were Frederick von Hayek detailed all the Weimar Republic's interventions into the economy. Try it sometime and learn something.

You probably ought to subject your (or Glenn's) musings to the test of common sense.

The Weimar Republic was established by the Allies as an allied proxy to prevent the re-emergence of German power after WWI.

The Weimar Republic was not established by the allies. Do you know anything that's actually true?

Weimar Republic - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​

Following the First World War, the republic emerged from the German Revolution in November 1918. In 1919, a national assembly was convened in Weimar, where a new constitution for the German Reich was written, then adopted on 11 August of that same year.​

Does it make sense to you that the Allies would establish such a proxy with broad, extensive powers to create massive government programs, or would they severely restrict what it could do in order to achieve the twin goals of preventing another war and extracting war reparations?

Since the allies had nothing to do with it, what they would want is totally irrelevant.

After you ask yourself that question, run to the library and read real history, and quit listening to Beck and taking stupid internet memes as gospel.

Please show us a reference that says the allies created the Weimar Republic.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

Taking money by force from the people who earned it to give to people who didn't earn it doesn't promote the welfare of either.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

No, it's actually not the job of government, period. Protecting us from predators, both foreign and domestic, is the only legitimate function of government.

- Yeah, you should only pay attention to the words in the Constitution which you like.

When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare," it means by using only the enumerated powers.

That being said, the Constitution isn't the final word on government. It's a seriously flawed document. The "general welfare" clause is just one example of how it's flawed.

- Ah, so you want us to stick to a seriously flawed document?

You're an inconsistent little authoritarian, aren't you?

The document is flawed, but it's far better than what brainwashed turds like you would replace it with.

 

[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

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

Taking money by force from the people who earned it to give to people who didn't earn it doesn't promote the welfare of either.

Taxation is a cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the price you pay for living in a great society

Great societies take care of their own

 

[bripat9643]

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.
The cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.

- If that is the case, then why have government at all?

Good question. Why have government at all?

- That question was answered fairly decisively in the eighteenth century, for most of us.

Some learn a little more slowly, but you might start by reading about the enlightenment.

No, it wasn't answered. And history has shown the Founders made the wrong decision.

 

[hortysir]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

But the best way to promote the general welfare would be to allow an environment that makes it easier for citizens and charities to provide and more difficult for the government to do so

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

One day it might sink into your mushy head that the COTUS calls for the government to Promote the general welfare, not PROVIDE

And sometimes providing for the welfare of those who most need it promotes the general welfare of all

Taking money by force from the people who earned it to give to people who didn't earn it doesn't promote the welfare of either.

Taxation is a cornerstone of our Constitution. It is the price you pay for living in a great society

No, it's simply extortion we have to pay for failing to evict a gang of criminals from our midsts

 

[Pksimon2007]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

No, it's actually not the job of government, period. Protecting us from predators, both foreign and domestic, is the only legitimate function of government.

- Yeah, you should only pay attention to the words in the Constitution which you like.

When the Constitution says "promote the general welfare," it means by using only the enumerated powers.

That being said, the Constitution isn't the final word on government. It's a seriously flawed document. The "general welfare" clause is just one example of how it's flawed.

I truly believe that is the reason for both the 9th and the 10th Amendments. The Constitution was never intended (in my opinion) to be the "end all". That's why the majority of power with this country was intended to lie within the individual states and NOT at the federal level.

The men who founded this country were very aware of what could possibly happen with a large federal government and they warned against it.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."
--Patrick Henry

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
--George Washington

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. --Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.
--John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
--Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

- I notice that most of your quotes are from people who were out of the country during the drafting of the Constitution, or had nothing to do with it for other reasons, or who opposed it.

Do you find any irony in that, or did you just not know?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense



See General Welfare

Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.

Some of us think that We the People elect those who are most in tune with what we expect a government to be

That is not force, that is democracy

Democracy is force, numskull. It's mob rule.

 

[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

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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense



See General Welfare

Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.

Some of us think that We the People elect those who are most in tune with what we expect a government to be

That is not force, that is democracy

Some of us are amoral cowards. Bullying others isn't made right just because your gang is bigger.

If you are being bullied you have access to our court system. The fact that most Americans don't agree with your point of view is not bullying

 

[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.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense



See General Welfare

Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.

Agreed. And, the thought of "receiving" from the "government" is something that I don't understand. I can find nothing (and I mean NOTHING) that implies that it is the responsibility of ANY governing entity (be it federal, state or local) to "take care" of the people. Nowhere. LBJ started the "Great Society" to end poverty. 50 trillion dollars later - there is as much poverty as there ever was. Boondoggle.

The only thing I am certain about, is that the federal government is charged with "collecting tariffs" and providing for the defense of the country. 99% of the rest of this nonsense has been nothing more than a power grab by both sides to garner votes. Now, this monster is bigger than BOTH parties and we spend every waking moment feeding the beast.

And this "beast" has one hell of an appetite.....

The role of government is to do what needs to be done as determined by We the people
That includes helping those who need help

You know, it's funny. Ask yourself this one question: When this country was growing - how many hundreds of thousands of lives were lost as folks headed West? How many settlers left to go West and were never heard from again? How many starved to death along the way? Gee.....if only the federal government had been there to hold their hands......


Now? Lose your job and they jump in to help. Decide (for generations) that you and your family WON'T work and we will take care of you. Man, how the times change....