Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Celebrating Memorial Day!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2016, 08:06 AM
 
983 posts, read 996,621 times
Reputation: 3100

Advertisements

How about effective government? I wouldn't care if it were big or small as long as it was effective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2016, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,931,188 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
How about effective government? I wouldn't care if it were big or small as long as it was effective.
I want it to be effective too but the problem is neither side wants to compromise at all. How effective are we with no compromise and continuous filibustering?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 08:41 AM
 
Location: Homeless
17,717 posts, read 13,554,472 times
Reputation: 11994
Not an expert on politics nor do I claim to be but it would seem to be that a smaller government would do less damage to us as a nation then a bigger one. I see no real difference in the two parties other then the left seems to want more religious freedoms & is ok with things like Pro-choice. The right wants to see everyone here living under a Christian rule of sorts. No gay marriage, Pro-life, etc. But it does seem that both of them do want bigger government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 09:15 AM
 
8,275 posts, read 7,956,673 times
Reputation: 12122
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I want it to be effective too but the problem is neither side wants to compromise at all. How effective are we with no compromise and continuous filibustering?
You can't compromise when the two sides don't share a baseline set of values upon which to start the negotiations. We used to have that but now we don't, and I don't see how it can ever come back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 10:29 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,931,188 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
You can't compromise when the two sides don't share a baseline set of values upon which to start the negotiations. We used to have that but now we don't, and I don't see how it can ever come back.
Nope, both sides are far too polarized.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Eastern Tennessee
4,385 posts, read 4,400,604 times
Reputation: 12709
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
How about effective government? I wouldn't care if it were big or small as long as it was effective.
Yes!!
I will add that I am much more concerned about the degree of corruption in government than the actual size (although I confess I favor smaller Federal govt)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,906 posts, read 24,404,506 times
Reputation: 32997
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
There's really no argument to be made here.

We've had BIG government for many decades and it's here to stay.

The main difference between the major parties comes down to whom they prefer to tax and whether to spend most of that on creating bomb craters in the mideast or on improvements here in the USA.
I think is where we are really at.

However, I don't think the "right" question is do we want big government or small government. I think question is what do we want government to do?

For example, here in Colorado Springs we have the worst snow removal I have ever seen (as compared to western NYS and the Maryland and Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C.). It's not just inconvenient, but downright dangerous, and I think the people here are stupid to accept it. But they want small government. So they make up all sorts of excuses for poor snow removal. Their thinking is to decide how much they want to pay before they know how big the problem is. That's now how to do a budget and provide services. Decide what level of service you want, then determine the price tag, and try to reconcile the two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Sun City West, Arizona
50,906 posts, read 24,404,506 times
Reputation: 32997
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
How about effective government? I wouldn't care if it were big or small as long as it was effective.
Yes!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 12:29 PM
 
Location: The Commonwealth of Virginia
1,386 posts, read 1,001,924 times
Reputation: 2151
Quote:
Originally Posted by IheartWA View Post
How about effective government? I wouldn't care if it were big or small as long as it was effective.
So now all we have to is wave our magic wand....


_
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2016, 01:07 PM
 
5,460 posts, read 7,766,510 times
Reputation: 4631
The issue is, with a truly small government, are people's interest and well-being actually protected the same way they are, with big government? With progressive government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and others, citizens are essentially guaranteed a certain state of quality of life and well-being. People have guaranteed health care, elderly people won't have to work until they literally drop dead of advanced age, etc.


With small government's suggested approach of charities and church-sponsored financial aid to those legitimately in need, the guarantee goes away, and people's well-being, and in some cases, their lives, are almost wholly-dependent on the charities' intentions and good will.


End result: big government is a series of compulsory, mandatory programs to ensure its citizens' livelihood. Charity and religious organizations are a voluntary counterpart at best and at worst, people run the risk of suffering greatly (i.e., more poverty, homelessness, starvation, etc.), if the charity doesn't deem the individual in need as meriting their assistance. IMO, the people's basic needs are therefore better-served with big government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top