The "I want small gov't" Hypocrisy - help me out here (1 Viewer)

[LinusMarr]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Right, and yet here we have progressives (big government) supporting a mandate that is based on ideas of personal responsibility (small government!) via compelling personal behavior (big government) while their own liberal (anti small government) president who used to criticize executive orders (small government) now issues EO's (not small government) to restrain this law (the law itself is big government), which restraint conservatives (small government) now oppose.

Confusion abounds.

lol

 

[Koya]

maybe it's just how I view this issue. I have a healthy distrust of government and any power base to be honest.

The last thing I want to do is grant the govt the legal right to kill its citizens. I don't like the idea now and it scares the crap out of me not if, but when our govt really consolidates its power and turns on its citizenry

So do you want a smaller government?

In theory, 100%.

But at the same time, I recognize the need for the public realm. That said, I think the private sector is best suited to get most if not all things done, but you have to oversee that to ensure the public good. The gov't should ensure the health and safety of its citizens and facilitate the best quality of life for its residents. That's it in vague terms at least. To tired to get into detail at this point.

I'd like to see much smaller direct government reach / size, a decent reduction in the overall responsibilities of the government (at least at a Fed level) but that will be very difficult to do piecemeal (take arts funding, which maybe the gov't should not be directly involved in, but I'm not going to stand on ceremony and allow that to be taken away, but have over-reaching tax protections for houses of worship and associated entities, for example, it must all be addressed comprehensive imo. Where the gov't can provide better infrastructure (legal and physical) for the movement of goods and services, life in general etc, that's a fine role with the proper oversight. Often that means more getting out of the way than in the way, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's in the public interest to not regulate the private sector, that's a key role of gov't - regulate to let things flow, better, theoretically speaking.

I also realize that as much as intellectually I prefer less government, I don't mind it as much as I just don't trust it. Power wants more power, and gets more power, and that is the greatest danger to freedom. If there is one thing I love and want to protect more than anything in the world, it is freedom. From there, all flows. If we have full anarchy, the smallest of gov't, is that freedom, or are you more beholden to the dangers and the need to survive? And as much as I personally crave freedom, if a small degree more freedom means say millions of young children starve, I have to say I'm not ok with that. I can't let my ideology get in the way of what's actually best for the community at large, and it's always a question of what exactly is the right balance.

No offense, but this sounds like it came from a politician- lots of generic buzz words, but very few if any details.

I think just about everyone agrees that government has some role- the debate is about the size and scope of that role, which is mostly subjective.

I am putting out my general ideology / philosophy, not a policy by policy treatise here. Some people truly believe in big government, with logic behind it. Some want very limited government. In general, I prefer it be limited, but recognize that the modern world makes it very difficult to simply say do as you wish so long as you don't affect / harm others.

Of course the debate is the specifics, but you have to start somewhere and a general ideology is where I begin, at least.

 

[Koya]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Obamacare is a good example - of a decent idea toward solving a solution (put it into the private sector) and a TERRIBLE job of gov't completely screwing the pooch in both arriving at the solution (the Dem's inability to get something done right and being disingenuous along the way, and just as guilty was the Rep's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions rather than play obstruction politics which contributed to preventing an amicable broad based solution from happening. Once again, politics (on both sides) rather than governance.

 

[Koya]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

Enough to never worry about being defeated. Ever.

What if by investing SO much in the military that:

1. You will never be defeated in war, but economically and perhaps socially you fall significantly behind other nations because of your imbalanced investment in the military? This could then cause internal strife where the enemy is less external, and more your own citizenry?

2. The military, as most power structures, becomes so big and powerful that it encroaches upon and perhaps one day limits or god forbid (but it's happened throughout history) eliminated the very freedoms that it is supposed to protect? Here, the enemy is no longer the external nation, but our own nation's military power structure. And if we know one rule of humanity, the rule of self preservation, for individuals or for groups, seems to overcome just about everything else. Power begets the want for more power, and by ceding the appropriate resources, you allow power to beget more power until it could usurp the populace of its rightful place as the true power base of the nation.

I can see your point on this. And I obviously can't say this wouldn't ever happen. I just don't think we're near that happening in the US. But I understand your point now.

I don't think we are too close to it happening, however the technology exists now as never before, and the military complex is just huge... if it continues to slide in the direction of 1984, NSA and all, by the time we "realize" that the gov't is truly usurping our power, it will likely be too late.

 

[Clifford]

i'd prefer a gov't that doesn't spy on its citizens, its reporters, its congress. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't send guns to cartels in Mexico. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't enable Iran to get nukes. I'd prefer a gov't that doesn't lie to its people repeatedly about a peice of major legislation then change the legislation repeatedly to fit its own political desires.

The liberals on this board will disagree, they love this #### lol

If you want to pursue this line of thinking in the thread, so be it - but (1) I agree with everything listed and more importantly (2) the specific issues chosen are done so not out of a legitimate and objective perspective but rather partisan politics.

We have become so consumed, by politics. We need to refocus on governing. The ideologies are killing us. The game, the "winning" and the us vs. them, is killing us.

And, I don't believe you know what liberal means. Liberal? That's arguable, I suppose.

What's really funny is that outside of a few wedge issues, there is very little substantive difference between the two parties. They have practically identical stances on foreign policy, human rights, civil rights, military industrial complex, health (in terms of what they allow to be sold to US citizens). The illusion that you have a choice in overall philosophy by voting Democrat of Republican is one of the greatest large-scale illusions ever pulled off.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

Enough to never worry about being defeated. Ever.

What if by investing SO much in the military that:

1. You will never be defeated in war, but economically and perhaps socially you fall significantly behind other nations because of your imbalanced investment in the military? This could then cause internal strife where the enemy is less external, and more your own citizenry?

2. The military, as most power structures, becomes so big and powerful that it encroaches upon and perhaps one day limits or god forbid (but it's happened throughout history) eliminated the very freedoms that it is supposed to protect? Here, the enemy is no longer the external nation, but our own nation's military power structure. And if we know one rule of humanity, the rule of self preservation, for individuals or for groups, seems to overcome just about everything else. Power begets the want for more power, and by ceding the appropriate resources, you allow power to beget more power until it could usurp the populace of its rightful place as the true power base of the nation.

I can see your point on this. And I obviously can't say this wouldn't ever happen. I just don't think we're near that happening in the US. But I understand your point now.

I don't think we are too close to it happening, however the technology exists now as never before, and the military complex is just huge... if it continues to slide in the direction of 1984, NSA and all, by the time we "realize" that the gov't is truly usurping our power, it will likely be too late.

But I think this goes back to trusting your government. Any size military could try a coup. I'm not sure there's a perfect sized military that can both guarantee protection and also guarantee that they will not try a coup.

 

[Spanky267]

As most on this board probably know, I don't fall neatly into the left or the right, though it end up leaning more left by our political system (aka: limited choices). As such, my quick explanation to people is I am a left leaning libertarian who, in an ideal world, would allow each of us as individuals and free citizens to do as we please, so long as what we do does no harm to others. A lot of grey areas here (i.e. I should be free to not wear a helmet while on a motorcycle, but not if that means you are going to have to pay my medical bills when I crash, I have to take responsibility for that, even if taking responsibility means I can't afford it and die - to be blunt and to give but one example).

One of my biggest pet peeves by being in this odd middle (left on some issues, right on others) is this BS we hear about big gov't vs. small govt and the Capital Punishment thread got me thinking.

These are legit questions and certainly folks from any political viewpoint can respond, but especially curious to those who consider themselves small government conservatives. This is not a thread to needle your viewpoint, but to legitimately understand what I see as either hypocrisy or at least a complete disconnect between a stated goal (small gov't) and desired policies (that would seem to be big govt). Some examples:

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

I think the rationale is largely for a smaller federal government that sticks to its primary functions. The arguments will be as follows.

The death penalty has always existed regardless of the size of our government. This one seems like a non sequitur. The federal government and state governments have had the authority to carry out the death penalty. Doesnt seem to be a small govt/big govt argument.

You can be for a small federal government and larger armed services because the federal government is solely responsible for national defense. The federal government would be noticeable smaller if it shifed some of the responsibilities that it has foisted upon itself over the last century.

I dont think that the government should dictate a national language. But the government should conduct its business in a single language. English is the predominant language in the country and is the primary language taught in our schools. It is the de facto national language. I believe states should have the right to determine if they will conduct their business in several languages or one.

Government shouldnt push one form of religion or theology over another. Government should not interfere nor adopt an official religion. However there are social mores that are derived from religious beliefs that can be upheld. Views such as prohibitions and penalties for murder as an example.

Small government is not mutually exclusive of recognizing marriage. I would prefer that government doesnt sanction marriage except to prevent the wedding of minors. Again something that perhaps the federal government shouldnt regulate which should be left to the states.

What youll find is that most who argue for smaller government are arguing for smaller federal government. State governments are a different animal entirely. The small government proponents are also largely supports of government closer to the people i.e. state and local governments. The belief is that they are more representative of the peoples they serve and are more beholden to them in turn.

Personally I would prefer a much smaller federal government with the trade off being potentially larger state and local governments which can cater to the specific needs of their residents as opposed to the one size fits all approaches that often come from the federal government. Government that is truly sensitive to the needs of Floridians, Texans, Californians without need to reach out to Washington for tax money or approval.

 

[humpback]

maybe it's just how I view this issue. I have a healthy distrust of government and any power base to be honest.

The last thing I want to do is grant the govt the legal right to kill its citizens. I don't like the idea now and it scares the crap out of me not if, but when our govt really consolidates its power and turns on its citizenry

So do you want a smaller government?

In theory, 100%.

But at the same time, I recognize the need for the public realm. That said, I think the private sector is best suited to get most if not all things done, but you have to oversee that to ensure the public good. The gov't should ensure the health and safety of its citizens and facilitate the best quality of life for its residents. That's it in vague terms at least. To tired to get into detail at this point.

I'd like to see much smaller direct government reach / size, a decent reduction in the overall responsibilities of the government (at least at a Fed level) but that will be very difficult to do piecemeal (take arts funding, which maybe the gov't should not be directly involved in, but I'm not going to stand on ceremony and allow that to be taken away, but have over-reaching tax protections for houses of worship and associated entities, for example, it must all be addressed comprehensive imo. Where the gov't can provide better infrastructure (legal and physical) for the movement of goods and services, life in general etc, that's a fine role with the proper oversight. Often that means more getting out of the way than in the way, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking it's in the public interest to not regulate the private sector, that's a key role of gov't - regulate to let things flow, better, theoretically speaking.

I also realize that as much as intellectually I prefer less government, I don't mind it as much as I just don't trust it. Power wants more power, and gets more power, and that is the greatest danger to freedom. If there is one thing I love and want to protect more than anything in the world, it is freedom. From there, all flows. If we have full anarchy, the smallest of gov't, is that freedom, or are you more beholden to the dangers and the need to survive? And as much as I personally crave freedom, if a small degree more freedom means say millions of young children starve, I have to say I'm not ok with that. I can't let my ideology get in the way of what's actually best for the community at large, and it's always a question of what exactly is the right balance.

No offense, but this sounds like it came from a politician- lots of generic buzz words, but very few if any details.

I think just about everyone agrees that government has some role- the debate is about the size and scope of that role, which is mostly subjective.

I am putting out my general ideology / philosophy, not a policy by policy treatise here. Some people truly believe in big government, with logic behind it. Some want very limited government. In general, I prefer it be limited, but recognize that the modern world makes it very difficult to simply say do as you wish so long as you don't affect / harm others.

Of course the debate is the specifics, but you have to start somewhere and a general ideology is where I begin, at least.

I don't think many people want zero government, nor do many want government to control every aspect of everything. In that way, I think pretty much everyone wants "limited" government, meaning they don't want government to have limitless power. That doesn't really get us anywhere in this debate though.

 

[MaxThreshold]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Right, and yet here we have progressives (big government) supporting a mandate that is based on ideas of personal responsibility (small government!) via compelling personal behavior (big government) while their own liberal (anti small government) president who used to criticize executive orders (small government) now issues EO's (not small government) to restrain this law (the law itself is big government), which restraint conservatives (small government) now oppose.

Confusion abounds.

lol

Let's clear up any confusion on the "Obamacare was the GOPs original solution" nonsense that far left zealouts like Todd Andrews and TGunz constantly bring up:

It was a FAILED solution that conservatives abandoned a long, long time ago. It appears they were correct in labeling it as "FAILED" as we are seeing it proven out with Obamacare.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I am a process guy. To me it's all about the Constitution. It's like a fantasy football league; we all agree on the rules, and when there's a tie in the FF championship game, why we just go to our rules and we see that bench points wins. Simple, right?

...

- Morality: just vote on it. Why do people have a problem with democracy? If you lose, try to persuade people differently and try again.

Are these two sentiments consistent? At least at the federal level, isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers? Ours is not an all-purpose democracy. It's a severely limited democracy. To answer your question, people have a problem with certain aspects of democracy when those aspects are unconstitutional.

(At the state level, there are decent arguments for deciding moral issues by vote; but even then, democracy is severely constrained by the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.)

Let's try to keep it close on the OP.

isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers

No, I think this defies the very meaning of "govern"ment. What are we governing? Every law considered is based on morality, what is good or bad, best or worst for us. The essence of government everywhere not just here is the criminal code.

Most people would not consider the enactment of every law to be voting on morality. Establishing a post office, coining money, and regulating commerce among the states are not most people's idea of regulating morality. Banning gay sex is most people's idea -- stuff that can be justified primarily on moral rather than pragmatic grounds.

But you mention the criminal code, which is a good enough example of my point. How many acts does Congress have the constitutional authority to criminalize? Murder? Generally not (unless the victim is a federal official, etc.). Theft? Generally not (unless it directly affects federal agencies or interstate commerce). Pretty much the only things that the constitution gives Congress the power to criminalize are tax evasion, piracy, counterfeiting, illegal immigration, and treason.

Obviously, Congress has criminalized a lot more than that, to the point where some have argued that the average person commits multiple federal felonies per day (such as throwing away junk mail that isn't addressed to you). But the constitutional authority for many federal laws -- including the entire War on Drugs -- is pretty flimsy in many people's opinion, including mine.

Would you list the War on Drugs as an example of people voting on morality? If we stuck to the Constitution, as I interpret it, most issues that are commonly considered to be moral issues -- abortion, homosexuality, drugs, euthanasia, gambling, porn, stem cell research, the death penalty, cloning -- would be completely off the table in federal elections. That's what I meant in my previous response.

 

[Joe Bryant]

A lot of people want the part of government that tells them what to do to be small, but the part of government that tells other people what to do to be big.

I'd say Maurile sums it up there. I'd just add that when I hear "small government", I think lots of people are thinking "getting the deficit under control without raising taxes".

But that goes back to the "us and them" thing Maurile is talking about. it's like pork projects. Everyone hates pork projects that look like wasteful spending in other areas. But we're all for it when it brings money to our state and our unemployed friend now gets a job working on the project. It's human nature. So "getting the deficit under control without raising taxes" translates more to "be fiscally responsible without cutting any of the programs that I like". Which is tough.

J

 

[tommyGunZ]

A lot of people want the part of government that tells them what to do to be small, but the part of government that tells other people what to do to be big.

I'd say Maurile sums it up there. I'd just add that when I hear "small government", I think lots of people are thinking "getting the deficit under control without raising taxes".

But that goes back to the "us and them" thing Maurile is talking about. it's like pork projects. Everyone hates pork projects that look like wasteful spending in other areas. But we're all for it when it brings money to our state and our unemployed friend now gets a job working on the project. It's human nature. So "getting the deficit under control without raising taxes" translates more to "be fiscally responsible without cutting any of the programs that I like". Which is tough.

J

Agree completely.

I'd go a step further and suggest that often "small gov't" is shorthand for "someone else make the sacrifice". That's essentially what folks who are in favor of cuts to social welfare instead of modest tax increases are saying.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

We used to have good topics of discussion like this all the time.

I don't know if I am a small government person in the sense you are asking. I believe the system should operate a certain way and if it does the policy that comes out of it isn't really my concern in terms of the government being good or bad. I also differentiate between the federal and state and local governments. The ideal should be the parts of government that infiltrate your daily life or that run and operate social policy should be more geared towards states then the fed, and then localities than the states.

IF you want to get technical, in this day and age, no one can support small government and still believe the government should exist because almost everything is "big". Your military example is a perfect one. I don't think there are too many people that dispute the fact that having a military and beyond that a system of criminal laws and punishment isn't pretty much the very purpose of government and with that comes a need for taxation and departments of war and justice. Things kinda flow from there.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I am a process guy. To me it's all about the Constitution. It's like a fantasy football league; we all agree on the rules, and when there's a tie in the FF championship game, why we just go to our rules and we see that bench points wins. Simple, right?

...

- Morality: just vote on it. Why do people have a problem with democracy? If you lose, try to persuade people differently and try again.

Are these two sentiments consistent? At least at the federal level, isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers? Ours is not an all-purpose democracy. It's a severely limited democracy. To answer your question, people have a problem with certain aspects of democracy when those aspects are unconstitutional.

(At the state level, there are decent arguments for deciding moral issues by vote; but even then, democracy is severely constrained by the federal Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.)

Let's try to keep it close on the OP.

isn't voting on morality barred by the constitutional doctrine of specifically enumerated powers

No, I think this defies the very meaning of "govern"ment. What are we governing? Every law considered is based on morality, what is good or bad, best or worst for us. The essence of government everywhere not just here is the criminal code.

Most people would not consider the enactment of every law to be voting on morality. Establishing a post office, coining money, and regulating commerce among the states are not most people's idea of regulating morality. Banning gay sex is most people's idea -- stuff that can be justified primarily on moral rather than pragmatic grounds.

But you mention the criminal code, which is a good enough example of my point. How many acts does Congress have the constitutional authority to criminalize? Murder? Generally not (unless the victim is a federal official, etc.). Theft? Generally not (unless it directly affects federal agencies or interstate commerce). Pretty much the only things that the constitution gives Congress the power to criminalize are tax evasion, piracy, counterfeiting, illegal immigration, and treason.

Obviously, Congress has criminalized a lot more than that, to the point where some have argued that the average person commits multiple federal felonies per day (such as throwing away junk mail that isn't addressed to you). But the constitutional authority for many federal laws -- including the entire War on Drugs -- is pretty flimsy in many people's opinion, including mine.

Would you list the War on Drugs as an example of people voting on morality? If we stuck to the Constitution, as I interpret it, most issues that are commonly considered to be moral issues -- abortion, homosexuality, drugs, euthanasia, gambling, porn, stem cell research, the death penalty, cloning -- would be completely off the table in federal elections. That's what I meant in my previous response.

Well, if we're talking what people mean by "small government" if we're limiting or expanding government we have to agree what government does, or is supposed to do.

You mention some very hot button issues, I think it's kind of easy to get wrapped up in those discussions.

Look at some more mundane things. Let's say the feds build a dam. I see a lot of moral issues here: energy (good, helps health, the economy, quality of life), environment (maybe bad, could harm wildlife), employment (good, we want people to work, have income). The whole project is moral, and since we all have a stake in it, we should vote on it. We're all deciding, through our representatives, what's right and what's wrong about it. - I have a hard time thinking of any single big, small or in between project by the federal or local government that isn't morally based in our decision to do it or not. The point is, we don't want one person (an autocrat) or several (a plutocracy or oligarchy) or ministerial (a priest, theocracy) making the moral call for us. We decide - together.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And koya, thanks for the starting this the way you did. One of my political annoyances is that for some reason, lots of people feel the need to "categorize" everyone. People are categorized as "liberal" or "conservative". I've always found it interesting that for some reason, we cede control to the people in power that get to determine the position on each issue. I get it that there are "planks" in a party platform and such. But it seems kind of silly that it feels like an all or nothing deal at times.

That a "good liberal" has to support something. Or that a "good conservative" has to be support something else.

I actually think there are lots of people like yourself who don't fit neatly into a box.

J

 

[TheIronSheik]

This new guy Joe Bryant makes some great points. Welcome, Joe! I think you'll fit in quite nicely around here.

 

[Koya]

And koya, thanks for the starting this the way you did. One of my political annoyances is that for some reason, lots of people feel the need to "categorize" everyone. People are categorized as "liberal" or "conservative". I've always found it interesting that for some reason, we cede control to the people in power that get to determine the position on each issue. I get it that there are "planks" in a party platform and such. But it seems kind of silly that it feels like an all or nothing deal at times.

That a "good liberal" has to support something. Or that a "good conservative" has to be support something else.

I actually think there are lots of people like yourself who don't fit neatly into a box.

J

Just doing my part to keep busy between the who's hottest polls.

Seriously, thanks for the kind words.

 

[Scoresman]

And koya, thanks for the starting this the way you did. One of my political annoyances is that for some reason, lots of people feel the need to "categorize" everyone. People are categorized as "liberal" or "conservative". I've always found it interesting that for some reason, we cede control to the people in power that get to determine the position on each issue. I get it that there are "planks" in a party platform and such. But it seems kind of silly that it feels like an all or nothing deal at times.

That a "good liberal" has to support something. Or that a "good conservative" has to be support something else.

I actually think there are lots of people like yourself who don't fit neatly into a box.

J

Exactly! Some of us don't fit either label well at all. You could say we're "independent" even.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Just keep your inane lifestyle choices off my wave and stop asking others to accept and monetarily support them.

Actually agreed with most of your post... but just what does this mean? What is an "inane" lifestyle and how are you monetarily supporting whatever this inane lifestyle is?

the government is forced to pay for all those big gay abortions

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Just keep your inane lifestyle choices off my wave and stop asking others to accept and monetarily support them.

Actually agreed with most of your post... but just what does this mean? What is an "inane" lifestyle and how are you monetarily supporting whatever this inane lifestyle is?

It seems like one of the main functions of our government these days is insulating people from the results of their own stupid decisions. How many lazy stoners do you think are collecting unemployment rather than putting in a day of hard work? How many college students have racked up tens of thousands dollars in government loans only to default on their payments because the worthless liberal arts degree they received won't get them a decent career? Gay activists screamed bloody murder and claimed the federal government needed to spend billions to fight AIDS while conveniently forgetting it was their own extremely reckless behavior which resulted in it becoming widespread within their community. How many single mothers become and stay that way because Uncle Sugar pays the bills a heck of a lot better than "baby daddy"? I could go on and on.

America has become a nation filled with tens of millions of entitled, narcissistic, identity politics obsessed losers who are enabled by a government that is more than happy to cater to their every whim in return for their undying allegiance on election day.

more than 30 years ago...

 

[Todd Andrews]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Obamacare is a good example - of a decent idea toward solving a solution (put it into the private sector) and a TERRIBLE job of gov't completely screwing the pooch in both arriving at the solution (the Dem's inability to get something done right and being disingenuous along the way, and just as guilty was the Rep's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions rather than play obstruction politics which contributed to preventing an amicable broad based solution from happening. Once again, politics (on both sides) rather than governance.

Well, government often executes incredibly poorly. Anyone remember the Iraq War?

For the record, I am pro single payer and against the ACA. But all of this bleating about how it is a government takeover of healthcare is just sad ignorance.

 

[Scoresman]

I cant figure out if TPW is schtick or if he really is the biggest bigot on the forum. My sig does not have enough room for all his quotes I want to put in there.

 

[jon_mx]

There isn't one government agency which could not survive a 10 percent cut.

 

[Christo]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Obamacare is a good example - of a decent idea toward solving a solution (put it into the private sector) and a TERRIBLE job of gov't completely screwing the pooch in both arriving at the solution (the Dem's inability to get something done right and being disingenuous along the way, and just as guilty was the Rep's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions rather than play obstruction politics which contributed to preventing an amicable broad based solution from happening. Once again, politics (on both sides) rather than governance.

Well, government often executes incredibly poorly. Anyone remember the Iraq War?

For the record, I am pro single payer and against the ACA. But all of this bleating about how it is a government takeover of healthcare is just sad ignorance.

The Iraq "War" was handled spectacularly well. The Iraq "Occupation", not so well.

 

[Todd Andrews]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Right, and yet here we have progressives (big government) supporting a mandate that is based on ideas of personal responsibility (small government!) via compelling personal behavior (big government) while their own liberal (anti small government) president who used to criticize executive orders (small government) now issues EO's (not small government) to restrain this law (the law itself is big government), which restraint conservatives (small government) now oppose.

Confusion abounds.

lol

Let's clear up any confusion on the "Obamacare was the GOPs original solution" nonsense that far left zealouts like Todd Andrews and TGunz constantly bring up:

It was a FAILED solution that conservatives abandoned a long, long time ago. It appears they were correct in labeling it as "FAILED" as we are seeing it proven out with Obamacare.

Right, they abandoned it a long time ago, back when Romney successfully implemented that huge failure and all of the 2008 GOP presidential candidates were still in support of it. Let me see, it was so long ago that they abandoned it . . . if I recall correctly, it was right around when President Hussein advocated for it as a fallback from single payer. Nice work, MaxKooK. Thanks for straightening that out for us.

 

[Todd Andrews]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Obamacare is a good example - of a decent idea toward solving a solution (put it into the private sector) and a TERRIBLE job of gov't completely screwing the pooch in both arriving at the solution (the Dem's inability to get something done right and being disingenuous along the way, and just as guilty was the Rep's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions rather than play obstruction politics which contributed to preventing an amicable broad based solution from happening. Once again, politics (on both sides) rather than governance.

Well, government often executes incredibly poorly. Anyone remember the Iraq War?

For the record, I am pro single payer and against the ACA. But all of this bleating about how it is a government takeover of healthcare is just sad ignorance.

The Iraq "War" was handled spectacularly well. The Iraq "Occupation", not so well.

When did the Iraq "War" end?

 

[Scoresman]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Obamacare is a good example - of a decent idea toward solving a solution (put it into the private sector) and a TERRIBLE job of gov't completely screwing the pooch in both arriving at the solution (the Dem's inability to get something done right and being disingenuous along the way, and just as guilty was the Rep's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions rather than play obstruction politics which contributed to preventing an amicable broad based solution from happening. Once again, politics (on both sides) rather than governance.

Well, government often executes incredibly poorly. Anyone remember the Iraq War?

For the record, I am pro single payer and against the ACA. But all of this bleating about how it is a government takeover of healthcare is just sad ignorance.

The Iraq "War" was handled spectacularly well. The Iraq "Occupation", not so well.

When did the Iraq "War" end?

"Mission Accomplished!"

 

[Christo]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Obamacare is a good example - of a decent idea toward solving a solution (put it into the private sector) and a TERRIBLE job of gov't completely screwing the pooch in both arriving at the solution (the Dem's inability to get something done right and being disingenuous along the way, and just as guilty was the Rep's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions rather than play obstruction politics which contributed to preventing an amicable broad based solution from happening. Once again, politics (on both sides) rather than governance.

Well, government often executes incredibly poorly. Anyone remember the Iraq War?

For the record, I am pro single payer and against the ACA. But all of this bleating about how it is a government takeover of healthcare is just sad ignorance.

The Iraq "War" was handled spectacularly well. The Iraq "Occupation", not so well.

When did the Iraq "War" end?

April 2003

 

[Todd Andrews]

How can these people be for small government, but for Obamacare?

Biggest hypocrites of all.

Because Obamacare is essentially a free market approach which requires people to buy commercial health insurance rather than freeload and drive everyone's rates up, and only a small portion of it is expanding government health care. You forget that Obamacare was the "small government" crowd's free market solution to universal single payer government health care.

Obamacare is a good example - of a decent idea toward solving a solution (put it into the private sector) and a TERRIBLE job of gov't completely screwing the pooch in both arriving at the solution (the Dem's inability to get something done right and being disingenuous along the way, and just as guilty was the Rep's unwillingness to engage in constructive discussions rather than play obstruction politics which contributed to preventing an amicable broad based solution from happening. Once again, politics (on both sides) rather than governance.

Well, government often executes incredibly poorly. Anyone remember the Iraq War?

For the record, I am pro single payer and against the ACA. But all of this bleating about how it is a government takeover of healthcare is just sad ignorance.

The Iraq "War" was handled spectacularly well. The Iraq "Occupation", not so well.

When did the Iraq "War" end?

April 2003

OK, Rumsfeld.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

"Mission Accomplished!"

April 2003

You two are in agreement.

 

[17seconds]

I cant figure out if TPW is schtick or if he really is the biggest bigot on the forum. My sig does not have enough room for all his quotes I want to put in there.

It's not shtick. That last post is a perfect description of the underlying mindset of the tea party.

 

[Mr.Pack]

How do we have people who claim to be all for small gov't, but want that gov't to kill its citizens via the death penalty?

How can you be for small gov't, but want a (MUCH) bigger armed forces?

How can you be for a small gov't, but want that gov't to dictate that one language is "official"?

How can you be for small gov't, but ask that gov't to push one view of God / religion rather than just staying out of it totally?

How can you be for small gov't, but want to impose a specific set of morality on others, including for things that have no negative (or any real) effect on others, be it blue laws or laws against homosexual acts?

How can you be for small gov't, but insist on gov't sanctioned "marriage" to then be interwoven into our tax laws?

I think I may be pretty close to your huckleberry on this.

-The death penalty may be the only one on your list I'm staunchly for, but as long as we are enforcing laws and utilizing any form of punishment, capital punishment falls under enforcement of laws. I wouldn't recommend we stop imprisoning and fining people either. I think the nature and volume of the laws one supports makes someone big or small gov't, not the punishments they support.

-I don't want a much bigger armed forces and would like to see our military pulled back to within our borders MUCH more than it is currently.

-I support one official language simply for the sake of logistics. I think having to include multiple languages on all government documents and signs would be a big government thing, not small. I wouldn't deport any citizens for failing to learn English, but I also don't think we should be forced to accommodate them.

-I don't and would never ask for the government to push one religion.

-I don't think there should be laws on moral issues that don't harm others.

-I think the government should have no say in who is married and make no laws recognizing any such union. However, I think we are way too far midstream in the US to change to that horse.

I am 100% with you on everything here.

 

[pats3in4]

If we measure "Big Government" by where the money is spent, here are the 2013 CBO numbers. Of note:

Total 2013 budget was $3.8 trillion.

Medicare/Medicaid and the rest of the Dept. Health and Human Services was $940.9B, or 24.7% of the total.

Social Security (+admin) was $882.7B, or 23.2% of the total.

Defense was $672.9B, or 17.7% of the total.

Interest on debt is $246B, or 6.5% of the total.

These are the four biggest components of the budget, making up almost $2.75T of the $3.8T total, or over 72%.

Figuring that the debt payments aren't going anywhere, proponents of "Small Government" have to emphasize reductions on medical/retirement entitlements and defense. Everything else is just crumbs in the grand scheme of things.

 

[tommyboy]

A lot of people want the part of government that tells them what to do to be small, but the part of government that tells other people what to do to be big.

I'd say Maurile sums it up there. I'd just add that when I hear "small government", I think lots of people are thinking "getting the deficit under control without raising taxes".

But that goes back to the "us and them" thing Maurile is talking about. it's like pork projects. Everyone hates pork projects that look like wasteful spending in other areas. But we're all for it when it brings money to our state and our unemployed friend now gets a job working on the project. It's human nature. So "getting the deficit under control without raising taxes" translates more to "be fiscally responsible without cutting any of the programs that I like". Which is tough.

J

Agree completely.

I'd go a step further and suggest that often "small gov't" is shorthand for "someone else make the sacrifice". That's essentially what folks who are in favor of cuts to social welfare instead of modest tax increases are saying.

How bout modest tax increases in exchange fir balancing the budget and across the board cuts in actual spending, not "spending growth"?

 

[DrJ]

Huh?

 

[Joe T]

This thread went to hell quickly.

 

[DrJ]

This thread went to hell quickly.

Yeah, in the first post.

 

[Koya]

This thread went to hell quickly.

Yeah, in the first post.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but a number of folks have stated that this has, at the least, brought about some good discussion. If you'd prefer not to engage in the discourse, no need to interject as you have here. Just carry on.

 

[tommyboy]

Lets turn this question around for the libs: our country is $17 Trillion in debt with over 50 Trillion in unfunded future liabilities. How much bigger do you think our govt needs to be? Part 2 of that question is how good of an investment do you think that $17 Trillion has been so far?

 

[msommer]

I don't really see the correlation of a small government and big military. I get the other one's, but I think a military is necessary. Am I alone on this?

How much military though?

Enough to never worry about being defeated. Ever.

THat could be zero. If anyone can defeat you, you can stop worrying