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.
I think depending on which shade of republican you're talking about that smaller federal varies widely. Libertarians seem to advocate for no fed beyond supreme court and military. Others just get on a bandwagon of less regulation is more money for them. Moderate brand seems to want the programs, just not the bureaucracy that comes with it, and have this mistaken belief if everything were privatized it would be more cost effective.
Republicans and conservatives (sometimes the same but not always) use "small government" to mean a system that transfers taxpayer (preferably from a lot small income people and little from large income people – flat tax for example) money to companies that they and their cohort own and does not spend money on services to the lower income people. Government is to provide profit and protection for the anointed of Mammon and a tyranny for everyone else.
This is Republican small government – lots of guns but no butter.
Moderator cut: language do republicans mean with "we want smaller government"?
Do you mean "more efficient"? If you mean more efficient, then why in the hell do you always ask for "smaller government"?
Or are you saying that the less people there are in the government, the less corrupt it is?
That would make Bush beloved China the less corrupt country in the World (Communist country)
It has more to do with efficiency, cost, and ease of doing business.
For instance, the US spends over $10,000 per high school student in the US. While I do not have a complete list of nations (the statistic is from The World Almanac and Book of Facts), according to the list, only Switzerland spends more. Yet the US school system regularly is beaten out by most other developed nations, some of which (like Australia) spend almost half of what the US does. Also, many private schools spend less per student, yet still achieve better results. What is the money going to? Could it maybe (just maybe) have something to do with the fact that the US school system is bloated with administrators? But if someone wanted to reform the system, the administrators (who in some school districts, almost match the number of teachers) would accuse that politician of "taking money away from schools".
Another case is Medicare and Medicaid. The Federal government spends as much on healthcare per capita as Canada does per capita. Yes, the Federal government spends as much on public healthcare per person as the Canadian people (private, local government, provincial government, and national government) spends per person. You'd think that the American people (or at least the poor) would get similar access to healthcare as Canadians. But a sizeable minority of Americans don't. Market failure? Possibly, but the market doesn't exist to provide general welfare, the government does. I think the government has failed to provide for the indigent.
Or what about government programs that conflict with each other? The government subsidizes tobacco to support the farmers who grow it and to keep the price down and then increases tobacco taxes with the expressed purpose of making it more expensive. So you have a government that subsidizes a crop to lower its price, taxes it to increase its price, uses those taxes to pay for the subsidy, earns decent amount of revenue from those taxes, yet increase those taxes with the intent that it would encourage people to quit buying the crop, which causes subsidies to be raised to help the farmers make up for the reduced customers, and continues to raise taxes on the crop in the intent to raise more revenue and to reduce the amount of people buying the crop (which would reduce revenue).
Or what about the tax code? What is now, about 50,000 pages? I understand that even if taxes were drastically simplified that tax law would still be extremely complex and would still require thousands of pages to be of any use. But couldn't it be narrowed down to something like 30,000 pages?
And this is just me thinking of stuff off the top of my head. I'm not even seriously getting into countless other failed programs, conflicted policy, waste, and corruption.
Took more than 20 posts for somebody to say it,
then why doesn’t anybody ever say “We want a more efficient government�
Because I'm sure 99% of americans want a more efficient government
But it would mean cutting a lot of government stuff and programs. Some would be eliminted, some would be cut, and some would be rebuilt.
You can't make government more efficient without firing many of its employees by either eliminating the programs they work for or by making their specific job redundent.
I disagree. Many state projects get federal funding. People are complaining about the Stimulus Package, but it will put many more police officers on our streets. If by "smaller" you mean allowing states to govern themselves, then I might take your side. However, the word small is being used by the Republicans to freeze spending.
To those who keep bringing up the way things used to be and the Constitution, look at the population 200 years ago. There were approximately 7 million people living in this country. Now there are about 305 million. In a small country village, you don't need traffic lights either.
I don't have a problem with earmarks that support local police because it was the taxpayers money to begin with. It is very stupid that people are happy to give money to the federal government so their reps can beg for the money to come back to the district in the form of an earmark. It really makes no sense to transfer the funds from local to federal and back to local. A local government should never rely on the federal government to meet their financial needs. The federal government has more than 300 million other citizens to worry about.
Just because the Amendments let you "change" the constitution..that doesnt mean it has to be "bigger".
True. I was responding to people bringing up the Constitution as a reason not to have government programs. Of course I wish the government was more efficient and that people who live in this country didn't expect so much from it. However, look at what's happened to us in the past 20 years. There has been a steady decline in our standard of living and the government no longer serves the people but big business for profit.
I was looking around for articles the other day about this subject and came across a 2006 article in the Washington Post that discusses the increase in Federal contractors by 2.5 million from 2002 to 2006.
[URL="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/05/AR2006100501782.html"]Big Government Gets Bigger - washingtonpost.com[/URL]
So I guess when it comes to the size of government or its spending, if you put a label on it like "war on terror" then it's not part of the equation. When you call it "health care" or "education" then it is. Maybe this is going to sound like a stupid analogy to some of you, but last week an acquaintance commented on the $20 a month I spent for vitamins. She said "I don't have the money to spend on designer vitamins like you." I reminded her that she smokes. She couldn't understand the comparison.
Smaller government is a way of saying no taxes on me.
It is a way of saying "I already got my education so I don't need to pay for others"
It is a way of saying "I have health insurance so who cares if some minimum wage person doesn't have any"
It is a way of saying "I don't care about my country and countrymen, as long as my stock portfolio doesn't lose value"
At least thats how I view those who tout the "smaller government" line.
I pay my property taxes, so there goes number one.
Your right, I don't want to pay for the welfare and health insurance of my lazy next door neighbor who doesn't want to work. I paid my way, every other able bodied american should do the same.
Actually, we care more about our country than the "big gov't" folks do and want to have an America that we can pass on to our children.
How about the 27 amendments? The Republicans jumped on Obama when he said it wasn't perfect, but the framers gave us the ability to legally change the Constitution when it no longer serves the people.
To answer the OP, I think it's just one of the Republicans buzz words like socialism. What can be more oppressive than an administration in which the President and Vice President grant themselves more power?
you mean like Obama wanting the power to seize businesses? That kind of power?
Socialism:
a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
an economic system based on state ownership of capital define:socialism - Google Search
but yeah, socialism and big gov't spending are just buzz words.
It took Bush 8 years to increase the nat'l debt 3 trillion dollars.
Obama has already added over 3 trillion while predictions point to 9.3 trillion over the next decade.
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.
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.
