educate me
mikepegg44
Posts: 3,353
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)
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
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.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
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.
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.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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 ...
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?
2. What about having the largest military?
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Godfather.
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.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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.
Hail, Hail!!!
It isn't.
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
that is a great answer...thanks a lot
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
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.
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 ...
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
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
exactly ... like i said ... :thumbup:
The Tenth Amendment was created with this concern in mind, and I think it might not go far enough. Maybe States should be able to nullify federal law, instead of the other way around? That can never happen however, because the federal government is too powerful to let it happen.
They ARE able to nullify Federal Law, Constitutionally speaking. Search "Tom Woods Nullification." He is a Constitutional Scholar and has a book out about it, as well as a number of videos and articles on the subject.
Really? Just as an example, every time I hear an argument for gun legislation by a state (or D.C. because it is fresh in my mind) the reason that it can't happen is because federal law protects the right to own guns. Another example is abortion. That should not be a federal issue, it should be a state issue. I'll look into the Tom Woods thingy later...
Nullification does not apply to laws by written by the states that TAKE AWAY rights already acknowledged by the Federal Government-- it's the opposite. Nullification is used by the states to re-establish and re-affirm rights where the Federal Government has over-stepped its bounds and has taken them away. The Health Care legislation would be an example, where the Federal Government has NO RIGHT over the people to require you to buy a product, unless of course you have a very perverse reading of The Commerce Clause. States can use nullification to call the Federal Law "Unconstitutional" and make its residents NOT participate. Nullification was built into the Constitution for reasons just like this, but is rarely exercised.
Roe V. Wade made abortion a Federal issue I believe-- whether that is actually Constitutionally "legal," I'm not positive, but I agree with you that it is a matter best left to the states, and legally, that may be the case.
But your first post makes the key point. The GIANT SLEDGE HAMMER that is the Federal Government makes it nearly impossible for states to stand up to them despite having the legal authority to do so. The sleazier way that they get states to comply is with debt, and handouts-- after all, THEY have the printing press and it's hard for anyone to turn down "free" money. It's never really free though, of course-- there is always debt, obligations, and the withdrawal symptoms felt by the states when the federal government cuts off the cash flow for non-compliance, or simply "austerity." It always comes back to this for me, but it's just another great argument for getting rid of the Federal Reserve, as it is the number one enemy of state (and individual) sovereignty.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
What's interesting about this is that Republican presidents are worse than Democratic presidents when it comes to increasing the size and scope of government. You might save a few dollars on April 15th, but they'll ship your kid off to die in any war that can be sold, increase the size of the police-state, lock you up for years for putting substances into your own body, tell women what they can or can't do to their own body, tell you which God you should be praying to, keep the lower class poor and the upper class rich, spend tons of your money to "keep you safe," and all the while they tell you how FREE you are... and that FREEDOM AIN'T FREE! Yeah I AGREE, but whatever happened to getting what you paid for?