• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the federal government too big and if so, what should we do?

Is the federal government too big and if so, what should we do?

  • It's too small! We need to expand govt healthcare, infrastructure and buying failing companies.

    Votes: 3 13.6%

  • It is just about right. Govt provides essential services that for-profit companies can't.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • It is too big. Reduce the deficit by reducing military and limiting entitlement eligibility.

    Votes: 1 4.5%

  • It is TOO BIG!!! Entitlements to the states, reduce military, elim. Departments. Target: 25% GDP.

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • It is TOO BIG!!! Entitlements to the states, reduce military, elim. Departments. Target: 10% GDP.

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • Total voters
    22
American said:
How come there's not choice to increase military spending in the first choice? The poll is a joke set up to force conservatives to make false choices.
Click to expand...

Wait, you want to increase spending? I thought you guys were all cuts right now? Cut everything no matter what.
 
whysoserious said:
I don't mind the Tea Party link. Everyone is slightly partisan. But it did tip me off to check it out. Again, my numbers which come from the government don't match your numbers. I noticed the federal transfers and I am not sure of what they are either.

But it appears that the actual spending % is much lower than what is on your charts. Sort of misleading, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...

I don't really know the details of the numbers either. I am too lazy to check and REALLY burned out from following Mid-East protests, to commenting here, and trying to finish a very challenging work task I have been slamming for 3 weeks now - it is close to being done but I am so burned out I can't work on it.

My gut suspicion is this. I don't ****ing trust any of these numbers, especially the government numbers. I think the House numbers are low because they are not counting the loan they get from Social Security.

Let's consider your lower ~20% federal...still a significant portion of the economy and a MASSIVE increase from 100 years ago.
 
The federal/national government is TOO DAMN BIG!!! :mrgreen:
The federal/national government should fit into the little box called the US Constitution.
 
whysoserious said:
Wait, you want to increase spending? I thought you guys were all cuts right now? Cut everything no matter what.
Click to expand...

First things that need cutting are all the unconstitutional **** that FDR and his ilk established, then we'll talk about cutting defense which happens to be the #1 job of the federal govt.
 
My point is that even though Welfare, Healthcare, Pensions and Education has been growing as a strong clip since 1950, and that Defense has also grown much slower than that since 1917, the overall government has been growing as well, significantly. Overall, the FEDERAL government has grown from less than 4% in 1900 to around 18%-25% in 2011, of GDP. Not all of that growth is Entitlements or Defense. But still, I hear more than 60% is Entitlements and 25% is Defense, leaving 15% for everything else.

Since State percentage is 12% and Local percentage is 10%, they have also grown since 1900.

Everyone is in debt and spending HAS to be cut.
 
So what is the particular areas of fed gov spending that should be reduced, apart from thigs related to the army?
 
End the Department of Education.
End the Department of Energy.
End Social Security.
End Medicare/Medicaid.
End the Federal Reserve.
Shrink the defense budget.
End the IRS (and the income tax for that matter).
End the Department of Commerce.
End the Department of Health and Human Services.
Etc., of course.
 
phattonez said:
End the Department of Education.
End the Department of Energy.
End Social Security.
End Medicare/Medicaid.
End the Federal Reserve.
Shrink the defense budget.
End the IRS (and the income tax for that matter).
End the Department of Commerce.
End the Department of Health and Human Services.
Etc., of course.
Click to expand...

So your solution is to send us from the 21st century to the 18th century. Great! I am looking forward to wiping my ass with my shirt instead of toilet paper.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
So your solution is to send us from the 21st century to the 18th century. Great! I am looking forward to wiping my ass with my shirt instead of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

Try leaves and old catalogs. Your clothes will be too valuable due to the rampant poverty.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
So your solution is to send us from the 21st century to the 18th century. Great! I am looking forward to wiping my ass with my shirt instead of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

libs labor under the delusion that getting rid of unconstitutional nonsense means we want to completely reject all progress

more government is hardly progress

progress is more freedom and less dependence
 
TurtleDude said:
progress is more freedom and less dependence
Click to expand...

Right and there can still be a government there. There will always have to be a government. The problem is that right now a lot of despot wannabes have their reaches and influences on the government. And that is what we are all feeling. We need to get rid of that and we need to secure a modest budget that gives good return. But how?! Too many irresponsible people in this nation. Not a good thing to rule over, etc.
 
I don't think the US government is very big compared to other governments... However, people who are opposed to government will probably always say it's too big
 
There is no greater than 25%?

I can't do anything with this poll.
 
megaprogman said:
Try leaves and old catalogs. Your clothes will be too valuable due to the rampant poverty.
Click to expand...

It's not 2 minutes post-economic collapse that a liberal is thinking entrepreneurially. I'd say that was exactly the hope!

;)
 
TurtleDude said:
libs labor under the delusion that getting rid of unconstitutional nonsense means we want to completely reject all progress

more government is hardly progress

progress is more freedom and less dependence
Click to expand...

TD, some people are dependent and can't help it... Some people will never be independent and will always be cared for because they are mentally or physically incapable of doing it. Independence and freedom are not the same... Freedom isn't really even a relative measurement when asking the question should people have enough food to eat, and should mentally and psychically handicapped adults and children living in nursing homes have some quality of life?

I am all for reducing government and spending. However, society and individuals should care about those people... and not expect them to be independent. The government shouldn't be forcing us to care, in fact, it's obvious the government can't force us to care. It's also obvious people don't care, because people like you always overlook the less advantaged and handicapped in these debates.

It's not a government problem nor should it be a government solution. The problem of ignoring these people and brushing them under the rug is a personal problem people (like you) appear to suffer from. You have the ability to solve the problem, if you're willing to address it exists. We can do it personally, we can do it as a community, and we can do it without the federal government... but one thing it will require is individuals to stop looking at every opportunity and every unit of work as a measurement of personal profitability.
 
Last edited:
Oh the we must care for the people that can't help themselves argument.

It is not a human responsibility to take care of each other, It is not societies, nor is it the governments. Its the peoples responsibility to take care of themselves.

and SheWolf, not to burst your bubble but life is about profit.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
TD, some people are dependent and can't help it... Some people will never be independent and will always be cared for because they are mentally or physically incapable of doing it. Independence and freedom are not the same... Freedom isn't really even a relative measurement when asking the question should people have enough food to eat, and should mentally and psychically handicapped adults and children living in nursing homes have some quality of life?

I am all for reducing government and spending. However, society and individuals should care about those people... and not expect them to be independent. The government shouldn't be forcing us to care, in fact, it's obvious the government can't force us to care. It's also obvious people don't care, because people like you always overlook the less advantaged and handicapped in these debates.

It's not a government problem nor should it be a government solution. The problem of ignoring these people and brushing them under the rug is a personal problem people (like you) appear to suffer from. You have the ability to solve the problem, if you're willing to address it exists. We can do it personally, we can do it as a community, and we can do it without the federal government... but one thing it will require is individuals to stop looking at every opportunity and every unit of work as a measurement of personal profitability.
Click to expand...

Well said. However, I do feel there is a role to be played by government, just not the federal government. The problem is that in that absence of government assistance, there are inconsistent results in caring for the poor, the sick, the elderly.

I think that different levels of government have different responsibilities.

The federal government has responsibilities:
  • interstate commerce and finance
  • foreign policy and diplomacy
  • military
  • regulatory agencies for
    • air travel
    • food and drug safety
    • serious emergency assistance to local agencies for things like hurricanes, epidemics, forest fire, floods, etc
  • R&D funding for economic development and growth
  • educational testing standards and federal student loans
  • NOAA weather and meteorology
  • Coast Guard
  • State and local debt assistance - the Fed is the only one who can print money (inflationary activity, not all bad) and run a deficit/debt with loans to other countries.
  • ...
The thing you may notice is that none of these items is local in nature.

The state government has responsibilities:
  • highways, roads, bridges, rail, local waterways, transportation networks
  • land development
  • communications
  • licensing and identification
  • disaster response - the primary responsible party
  • state police
  • prisons
  • educational facilities - State Universities, Comm Colleges, ...
  • entitlement assistance to the local authorities
  • ...

The city/county/municipality local government has responsibilities:
  • education
  • police
  • healthcare
  • welfare
  • elderly care
  • ...

I think of the funding at the local level to help the poor, the sick and the elderly as a COMMUNITY TAX. We must take care of our community.

If we could shift the responsibility and funding to fit this pattern, taxes may well go up. But the Fed books may balance, and waste may be better addressed with local control of entitlements. The fed has overreached authority since the Civil War, and especially post-WW II.
 
Last edited:
SheWolf said:
TD, some people are dependent and can't help it... Some people will never be independent and will always be cared for because they are mentally or physically incapable of doing it.
Click to expand...

Yes. Although is this really the biggest part of the burden?

How many severely disabled, and what percentage of the federal budget goes to help them? Also, why does it have to be government, why can't we do this with the same human energy and capital, but without funneling it through politicians? Let's put it this way, if it's really the serverly disabled (not simply old age) and orphans that are creating our massive budget defecit and unfunded SS liability, etc.,etc., I can be swayed. I'm skeptical that it is.
 
Last edited:
dadrone said:
It would certainly have that effect on people who don't work.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. Did you know that in most third world countries the differences between those who work and don't is not very big? I have been to india and the majority of workers are desperate for money. They don't have enough to feed their families and pay for rent, etc. So yeah going back to the 18th century that many libs want is not a good thing for all of us.
 
Henrin said:
Oh the we must care for the people that can't help themselves argument.

It is not a human responsibility to take care of each other, It is not societies, nor is it the governments. Its the peoples responsibility to take care of themselves.

and SheWolf, not to burst your bubble but life is about profit.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no compassion for the weak and helpless, so nothing compassionate (feeling) people can say will make you change your mind.

ricksfolly
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
So your solution is to send us from the 21st century to the 18th century. Great! I am looking forward to wiping my ass with my shirt instead of toilet paper.
Click to expand...

You think it is laws and regulations that brought us the prosperity that we have today? You realize that many of the laws and programs that we live with today were around during Roman times, right? Yet we're not at Roman living conditions. It is production that has brought us our prosperity, not the work of a group of thieves.
 
SheWolf said:
TD, some people are dependent and can't help it... Some people will never be independent and will always be cared for because they are mentally or physically incapable of doing it. Independence and freedom are not the same... Freedom isn't really even a relative measurement when asking the question should people have enough food to eat, and should mentally and psychically handicapped adults and children living in nursing homes have some quality of life?

I am all for reducing government and spending. However, society and individuals should care about those people... and not expect them to be independent. The government shouldn't be forcing us to care, in fact, it's obvious the government can't force us to care. It's also obvious people don't care, because people like you always overlook the less advantaged and handicapped in these debates.

It's not a government problem nor should it be a government solution. The problem of ignoring these people and brushing them under the rug is a personal problem people (like you) appear to suffer from. You have the ability to solve the problem, if you're willing to address it exists. We can do it personally, we can do it as a community, and we can do it without the federal government... but one thing it will require is individuals to stop looking at every opportunity and every unit of work as a measurement of personal profitability.
Click to expand...

Society and individuals should care about those people, but far be it from us to force it upon them.

I have to ask, where was the mass of starving people during the 1800s that apparently we would have today if we got rid of all of our social safety nets? Where were they? We didn't have these programs back then yet we didn't see mass starvation. Why apparently do we need it now?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom