educate me

mikepegg44

I have tried to understand it but I just cannot. Can someone educate me as to why having a large federal government is a good thing? This is a serious question. i don't want this thread to devolve into non-sense (which is probably impossible)

BinFrog

That's an extremely broad question and I do not know how to even begin to answer it. What are you trying to ascertain?

mikepegg44

BinFrog wrote:

That's an extremely broad question and I do not know how to even begin to answer it. What are you trying to ascertain?

I am referring to the democratic ideal that more government oversight, more government involvement is the solution to most of the problems with our country. I meant it to be broad because I think my view has blinders as I truthfully only see bad things when I think of the federal government and must just not be seeing the whole picture. Many people on here are level headed and can give me reasons, I just was hoping to get a few truthful answers as to why more government involvement in the every day lives of citizens is a good thing.

BinFrog

As far as gov't goes, big usually goes hand in hand with bloated. I suppose for the most part that is true.

Godfather.

mikepegg44 wrote:

I have tried to understand it but I just cannot. Can someone educate me as to why having a large federal government is a good thing? This is a serious question. i don't want this thread to devolve into non-sense (which is probably impossible)

to gain and keep complete control over the states,I think state law/rule is more relaxed and open to public opinion and rule and feds can hold complete control over the states by holding funds and other stuff I know nothing about really,it just my simple opinion.

Godfather.

polaris_x

the size of any entity is secondary to the efficiency ...

large gov'ts are not a problem ... inefficient ones are ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

the size of any entity is secondary to the efficiency ...

large gov'ts are not a problem ... inefficient ones are ...

I would definitely agree with that to a point, efficiency is one of the main reasons I want the fed gov't to shrink.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

I would definitely agree with that to a point, efficiency is one of the main reasons I want the fed gov't to shrink.

shrinking gov'ts do not necessarily equate to efficient government ... ultimately, i think everyone can agree that wasteful spending should be curbed but that where the differences occur are what programs gov't should be involved in ...

you can privatize the shit out of everything right down to who picks up your garbage ... will society function better? ... it's debatable i suppose ... i tend to believe that many people working towards similar goals tends to yield the better results ...

cajunkiwi

mikepegg44 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

the size of any entity is secondary to the efficiency ...

large gov'ts are not a problem ... inefficient ones are ...

I would definitely agree with that to a point, efficiency is one of the main reasons I want the fed gov't to shrink.

I'm not sure how a smaller government would work out unless someone did something about lobbyists. If you have fewer politicians, you'll still have the same number of lobbyists - only now the lobbyists will have fewer people to fight over. At the end of the day you could end up with fewer politicians, each of whom is beholden to more lobbying groups than the current crop is.

While I understand the logic behind splitting the government into a House and a Senate, do people think it's really necessary to have two bodies? I'm aware of the "checks and balances" argument, but has there ever been a time, in recent memory, where one body was really getting carried away and the other body had to step up and rein them in?

markin ball

1. Define "large", please.

2. What about having the largest military?

Godfather.

...and a safe place to live ?

Godfather.

mikepegg44

markin ball wrote:

1. Define "large", please.

2. What about having the largest military?

1. Large would be the fact that the federal government, excluding the military and the post office, is the nations largest employer. That speaks volumes to me. large would be having an fbi, cia, nsa, dhs, and probably more secret agencies that could all serve the same purpose. large is ... well you get the idea.

2. couldn't agree more. The military is a huge barrier to shrinking the federal governments reach into our pockets.

Cosmo

If you are talking about Government spending... you'd have to ask George W. Bush about that. Government spending grew to humongous proportions under him.
So it depends on how you see it... Government regulators to make sure Wall Street douchebags don't make the rules that benefits Wall street douchebags, instead of worker Joes... or Government military expenditures that benefit Government contractors. Size doesn't matter... spending does. If you care about spending over headcount.

unsung

mikepegg44 wrote:

I have tried to understand it but I just cannot. Can someone educate me as to why having a large federal government is a good thing? This is a serious question. i don't want this thread to devolve into non-sense (which is probably impossible)

It isn't.

OutOfBreath

Well, there's no point in big government for the sake of big government. I'm assuming that you by government refer to the entire state apparatus.

What matters is which tasks are better taken care of publicly without a profit motive, and which can be taken care of by the private sector. When we have an agreement about what tasks the public should be into, I think everyone agrees that it should be as efficient as possible. Mind you, efficiency in this sense isn't about $ spent in a sector or program. For instance, good education reaps massive benefits for the entire society and should be judged on that quality, not by money spent pr graduate. (Although the latter isn't irrelevant, it shouldn't be the only or main concern)

That the state apparatus grows isn't alarming in itself. You do have population growth last I checked, meaning there's more people to look after and/or serve as well. New agencies appears because of needs and demands. That you beefed the hell out of your intel isn't surprising given the 911 aftermath. I think it's safe to assume that a large majority of people will be willing to spend quite a few tax dollars to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Big/small government is a sidetrack really. The point is deciding (and agreeing to an bipartisan extent) on what tasks are best suited to be dealt with publicly, and then ensure that the public gets the funds it needs and are organized optimally to meet that goal. Of course, if the expense remains the same and quality drops, that's not good. But if it drops because more people need it than the funding allows for, then maybe it is the funding that's the problem, which should defend a tax increase or reallocation of public funds.

In any case, looking at expense in $ terms is quite misleading. As long as you have a base population growth in the bottom, every service is gonna cost a bit more in $ to provide the same. The trash-guy needs to get paid for the extra cans he have to collect etc. So the real measure is relative. Cost pr head, or cost after inflation and price increases. Making a big, ominous number when we talk of serving 100s of millions of people isn't that hard.

Peace
Dan

mikepegg44

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there's no point in big government for the sake of big government. I'm assuming that you by government refer to the entire state apparatus.

What matters is which tasks are better taken care of publicly without a profit motive, and which can be taken care of by the private sector. When we have an agreement about what tasks the public should be into, I think everyone agrees that it should be as efficient as possible. Mind you, efficiency in this sense isn't about $ spent in a sector or program. For instance, good education reaps massive benefits for the entire society and should be judged on that quality, not by money spent pr graduate. (Although the latter isn't irrelevant, it shouldn't be the only or main concern)

That the state apparatus grows isn't alarming in itself. You do have population growth last I checked, meaning there's more people to look after and/or serve as well. New agencies appears because of needs and demands. That you beefed the hell out of your intel isn't surprising given the 911 aftermath. I think it's safe to assume that a large majority of people will be willing to spend quite a few tax dollars to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Big/small government is a sidetrack really. The point is deciding (and agreeing to an bipartisan extent) on what tasks are best suited to be dealt with publicly, and then ensure that the public gets the funds it needs and are organized optimally to meet that goal. Of course, if the expense remains the same and quality drops, that's not good. But if it drops because more people need it than the funding allows for, then maybe it is the funding that's the problem, which should defend a tax increase or reallocation of public funds.

In any case, looking at expense in $ terms is quite misleading. As long as you have a base population growth in the bottom, every service is gonna cost a bit more in $ to provide the same. The trash-guy needs to get paid for the extra cans he have to collect etc. So the real measure is relative. Cost pr head, or cost after inflation and price increases. Making a big, ominous number when we talk of serving 100s of millions of people isn't that hard.

Peace
Dan

that is a great answer...thanks a lot

VINNY GOOMBA

mikepegg44 wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

Well, there's no point in big government for the sake of big government. I'm assuming that you by government refer to the entire state apparatus.

What matters is which tasks are better taken care of publicly without a profit motive, and which can be taken care of by the private sector. When we have an agreement about what tasks the public should be into, I think everyone agrees that it should be as efficient as possible. Mind you, efficiency in this sense isn't about $ spent in a sector or program. For instance, good education reaps massive benefits for the entire society and should be judged on that quality, not by money spent pr graduate. (Although the latter isn't irrelevant, it shouldn't be the only or main concern)

That the state apparatus grows isn't alarming in itself. You do have population growth last I checked, meaning there's more people to look after and/or serve as well. New agencies appears because of needs and demands. That you beefed the hell out of your intel isn't surprising given the 911 aftermath. I think it's safe to assume that a large majority of people will be willing to spend quite a few tax dollars to ensure it doesn't happen again.

Big/small government is a sidetrack really. The point is deciding (and agreeing to an bipartisan extent) on what tasks are best suited to be dealt with publicly, and then ensure that the public gets the funds it needs and are organized optimally to meet that goal. Of course, if the expense remains the same and quality drops, that's not good. But if it drops because more people need it than the funding allows for, then maybe it is the funding that's the problem, which should defend a tax increase or reallocation of public funds.

In any case, looking at expense in $ terms is quite misleading. As long as you have a base population growth in the bottom, every service is gonna cost a bit more in $ to provide the same. The trash-guy needs to get paid for the extra cans he have to collect etc. So the real measure is relative. Cost pr head, or cost after inflation and price increases. Making a big, ominous number when we talk of serving 100s of millions of people isn't that hard.

Peace
Dan

that is a great answer...thanks a lot

If Dan ran "big government" I'd be a lot less angry at it, that's for sure. I still maintain that large government equals large state power, and is therefore very attractive for special interests to co-opt. I feel it is easier and more efficient to make government less powerful, diminishing the want to, and power for special interests to use government for their own gain, rather than attempt to change the minds of the special interests while having concentrated state power.

polaris_x

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If Dan ran "big government" I'd be a lot less angry at it, that's for sure. I still maintain that large government equals large state power, and is therefore very attractive for special interests to co-opt. I feel it is easier and more efficient to make government less powerful, diminishing the want to, and power for special interests to use government for their own gain, rather than attempt to change the minds of the special interests while having concentrated state power.

easily fixed through transparency legislation ...

VINNY GOOMBA

polaris_x wrote:

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If Dan ran "big government" I'd be a lot less angry at it, that's for sure. I still maintain that large government equals large state power, and is therefore very attractive for special interests to co-opt. I feel it is easier and more efficient to make government less powerful, diminishing the want to, and power for special interests to use government for their own gain, rather than attempt to change the minds of the special interests while having concentrated state power.

easily fixed through transparency legislation ...

I wish! If it were that easy, we'd have a full audit of The Federal Reserve by now, the first in its existence (nearly 100 years). 320 members of the house originally co-sponsored this bill, and almost 100 of them voted the provision down when it came time for a vote. Shady indeed.

polaris_x

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

I wish! If it were that easy, we'd have a full audit of The Federal Reserve by now, the first in its existence (nearly 100 years). 320 members of the house originally co-sponsored this bill, and almost 100 of them voted the provision down when it came time for a vote. Shady indeed.

definitely ... right now, you have the perfect storm of a ignorant and unegaged public with a corrupt power system ... nothing is gonna change until one or the either gets resolved ...

OutOfBreath

VINNY GOOMBA wrote:

If Dan ran "big government" I'd be a lot less angry at it, that's for sure. I still maintain that large government equals large state power, and is therefore very attractive for special interests to co-opt. I feel it is easier and more efficient to make government less powerful, diminishing the want to, and power for special interests to use government for their own gain, rather than attempt to change the minds of the special interests while having concentrated state power.

Well, thank you for the vote of confidence there.
Although, to warn you, I will put stuff like health care in the definitely public responsibility box.

As for special interests etc, that won't be that much less of a problem with a "smaller government" really. They'd just shift their focus to local governments is my guess and play them against each other like a fiddle. As long as we have capitalism, money gives great power one way or another to the owners of capital. The important thing to combat these things is transparency above all. Every and all moves to increase this and to limit the importance of money in elections should thus be applauded.

Peace
Dan