• 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!

Less Government vs. Better Government

Less Government or Better Government?

  • Total voters
    57
SouthernDemocrat said:
We weren't a first world nation then, try again. You are comparing pre-industrialization to today's economy / world. It's an absurd comparison. Moreover, you must be arguing that a libertarian government was one that tolerated slavery, wholesale genocide of native peoples, and so on.
Click to expand...

In the later half of the 19th century we were industrialized first world and did not need the government we have now.

The increase of government did not begin with needs it began with ideas which were percieved as well intentioned Such as income tax. At first it was strictly for the wealthiest ten % of the population and only ten% of those peoples income. And look at it now.

Government increases in size and power are always predicated on doing something better not solving a problem. But they always make things worse and create more problems.
 
ChrisL said:
I think a smaller government would be able to solve problems more effectively. That's half the problem, I believe, is that our government is humongous and just keeps growing and growing, like an evil monster that eats money.
Click to expand...

That's conservative lingo. :)

Also, you say you believe our government lied to us and went to war, yet you want MORE government? That's insanity dude. INSANITY.
Click to expand...

Oh, you guys are just messing with me now.
 
Amadeus said:
Which do you feel is more important: A government that is smaller, or a government that can solve important problems more effectively?
Click to expand...

Personally, the answer is "both."

Barring a crisis of some sort, I'd prefer an unobtrusive and streamlined government which is only so large as is strictly necessary to function in a competent manner.
 
Amadeus said:
That's conservative lingo. :)
Click to expand...

Goodness, that is nothing but the truth! :) Are you denying it?



Oh, you guys are just messing with me now.
Click to expand...

How so? Did you or did you not say that you believed our government lied to us and led us into a war based upon nothing but lies? Now, you say that you think you would like an even BIGGER government. Wow is all I can say. WOW! :mrgreen:
 
It's not an "either/or" question. In the USA, our government has ballooned into a massive bloated bureaucracy, with redundant departments doing basically the same things without having either the desire or ability to communicate with each other. We have uncountable government agencies to deal with "disaster, internal"; "disaster, global"; "disaster, relevant to US"; "disaster, irrelevant to US"; "disaster, public relations, internal"; "disaster, public relations, global"... okay, it's hyperbole but not far off reality.

I can't speak for other countries, but I want a government that is both smaller... with redundancies eliminated, and trimmed for efficiencies of scale... and works better, with remaining bureaucracies communicating more efficiently, squash the internal squabbles between similarly-tasked agencies, resources utilized for the good of the people instead of the good of the bloated bureaucracy.

I've been in public service. I know how it works. At the end of each fiscal year, every individual in every agency scrambles to spend every last nickle of unspent appropriations to avoid having their budget for the next year cut to, well, to what they actually need rather than what they actually want. I've seen the most ridiculous lies put on line-item budget requests for no other reason than to get those bucks for the year, and hoard them to spend on stuff they want but would never be approved if they were actually honest. It's a game, a game of personal power and prowess, where manipulating the system by manipulating the money is a game, and the department with the most money and toys wins. Your tax dollars at work, people.

The pittance spent on fiscal watchdog agencies is laughable. So yeah, I want to see the game end, grownups take charge, the bloat sliced out, and taxpayers' money actually being used to benefit the citizens instead of public service employees who want champagne with their government-funded Christmas party and new rental cars every year.

Gawk. I digress into the dull and uninteresting rant of someone who has seen too much backroom gamesmanship. Sorry about that. Also sorry that I can't answer your poll. In this country (I can't speak to other countries), the people both need and deserve both: Less Government and Better Government. I see no legitimate compromise to that.
 
DiAnna said:
It's not an "either/or" question. In the USA, our government has ballooned into a massive bloated bureaucracy, with redundant departments doing basically the same things without having either the desire or ability to communicate with each other. We have uncountable government agencies to deal with "disaster, internal"; "disaster, global"; "disaster, relevant to US"; "disaster, irrelevant to US"; "disaster, public relations, internal"; "disaster, public relations, global"... okay, it's hyperbole but not far off reality.

I can't speak for other countries, but I want a government that is both smaller... with redundancies eliminated, and trimmed for efficiencies of scale... and works better, with remaining bureaucracies communicating more efficiently, squash the internal squabbles between similarly-tasked agencies, resources utilized for the good of the people instead of the good of the bloated bureaucracy.

I've been in public service. I know how it works. At the end of each fiscal year, every individual in every agency scrambles to spend every last nickle of unspent appropriations to avoid having their budget for the next year cut to, well, to what they actually need rather than what they actually want. I've seen the most ridiculous lies put on line-item budget requests for no other reason than to get those bucks for the year, and hoard them to spend on stuff they want but would never be approved if they were actually honest. It's a game, a game of personal power and prowess, where manipulating the system by manipulating the money is a game, and the department with the most money and toys wins. Your tax dollars at work, people.

The pittance spent on fiscal watchdog agencies is laughable. So yeah, I want to see the game end, grownups take charge, the bloat sliced out, and taxpayers' money actually being used to benefit the citizens instead of public service employees who want champagne with their government-funded Christmas party and new rental cars every year.

Gawk. I digress into the dull and uninteresting rant of someone who has seen too much backroom gamesmanship. Sorry about that. Also sorry that I can't answer your poll. In this country (I can't speak to other countries), the people both need and deserve both: Less Government and Better Government. I see no legitimate compromise to that.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! :shock:

We agree on something! Well said. :lol:
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I want better government. There are effective governments out there, just look at Scandinavia. Would you rather live in Norway (big but effective government) or Haiti (very, very small government)?

That said, I think that a better government is going to be much more decentralized with many of its functions than the one we have.
Click to expand...

Leave it to a leftie to bring up a Scandiavian country as some bastion of perfection. You remind me of the guy as soon as a bear market hits starts crying out capitalism is dead. There is nothing like a good stock market bear run to get all the media wags out and chattering about the “death of capitalism.” Invariably the same folks take to lecturing the rest of us about how the only hope for humankind is “social democracy” in the form of Scandinavian-style “socialism.”

It would be hard to understate the extent of romanticizing and fantasy concerning Scandinavia’s economic and social systems to be found among the Western “intellectual classes,” and that clearly includes the left wing of the Democrat Party. Scandinavians themselves are often not as convinced that Scandinavian socialism is all it is cracked up to be, and Sweden’s own ex-Prime Minister Carl Bildt (current Foreign Minister) has pronounced it a failure.

Scandinavian countries are “socialist” in some senses and vibrantly capitalist in other senses. They are “socialist” in the sense that they have very high taxes with very generous social welfare services provided by the state, the famous “cradle-to-grave” welfare state. They are vibrantly capitalist in the sense that they have low levels of interference in markets by the government, low levels of regulation, low levels of nationalization of industry and capital, and almost no protectionism. Because of their lack of over-bloated regulations on capitalism as the left in this country is constantly persuing is why the people in Scandanavian countries have jobs and work to pay the exhuberant taxes that provide them with the cradle to grave welfare state. Interestingly, Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden, manage to maintain those levels of taxes and expenditures while achieving high levels of national wealth and production, and a standard of living among the world’s highest. As a result Western groupies of Scandinavia hold its “socialism” up as the model for the rest of the world and certainly for the bastions of capitalist inequality and class conflict, especially the English-speaking nations. But even their welfare state has not eliminated their poor. Go figure.

You know the wealth and riches of Sweden of course have nothing to do with their socialist government but more about the byproduct of Swedish cowardice and moral depravity. Sweden sat out both World Wars, and emerged from them with its economy completely in tact. In fact, “neutral” Sweden made money trading with Hitler’s Germany and providing the Nazi war machine with war materials, even while its fellow Scandinavian nations were being overrun, brutalized and devastated. Scandinavian “socialism” is no panacea for poverty. What they define as poverty makes those in the U.S. who are defined as poor living on the Ritz. But it is because of their attitude toward capitalism with little regulations and government interference that affords opportunities to its citizens to friggin work for a living! Something in the last 6 years with the countless boatloads of new regulations pouring out of this administration hindering economic growth the U.S. no longer is privy to such opportunities. With every new EPA regulation or any other regulation coming forth the stifling of our economy will continue. Period. If you want big social programs, cradle to grave, then you best be willing to get government the hell out of the way and allow the private sector to produce the jobs without being hindered with countless regulations so people can get to work and pay the damn taxes it takes to produce this farging socialist utopia you wish for. You can't have it both ways. Or better yet how about returning to the road map the founders left us, restoring government as it was intended instead of trying to transform it into some European socialist government it was never intended to be.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Goodness, that is nothing but the truth! :) Are you denying it?
Click to expand...

I don't see government as an evil entity, no.

How so? Did you or did you not say that you believed our government lied to us and led us into a war based upon nothing but lies? Now, you say that you think you would like an even BIGGER government. Wow is all I can say. WOW! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

1) A smarter government wouldn't invade other countries, and bill the credit card while cutting taxes for the rich.

2) I never said anything about bigger government.

3) I never said anything about bigger government.

4) I never said anything about bigger government.

5) Wow is all I can say. WOW! :mrgreen:
 
Amadeus said:
I don't see government as an evil entity, no.



1) A smarter government wouldn't invade other countries, and bill the credit card while cutting taxes for the rich.

2) I never said anything about bigger government.

3) I never said anything about bigger government.

4) I never said anything about bigger government.

5) Wow is all I can say. WOW! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Okay. :lol: You said "better" government. Obviously since you are comparing "better" government to "less" government, you must think bigger government is better government, correct? :mrgreen:
 
ChrisL said:
Okay. :lol: You said "better" government. Obviously since you are comparing "better" government to "less" government, you must think bigger government is better government, correct? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Incredulity.jpg
 
Amadeus said:
Incredulity.jpg
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that, but I'll assume it means you are surprised by my assessment. I guess that means you think smaller government is better?
 
ChrisL said:
Not sure what you mean by that, but I'll assume it means you are surprised by my assessment. I guess that means you think smaller government is better?
Click to expand...

I am absolutely surprised by your assessment, especially since I've explained myself in posts that you have quoted and you're still oblivious. This is a question of ideological priorities: do you want government that is small, or a government that works. That is the beginning and end of the question.
 
Amadeus said:
I am absolutely surprised by your assessment, especially since I've explained myself in posts that you have quoted and you're still oblivious. This is a question of ideological priorities: do you want government that is small, or a government that works. That is the beginning and end of the question.
Click to expand...

Explain why you don't think a smaller government would be better please.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Holy crap! :shock:

We agree on something! Well said. :lol:
Click to expand...

I am reminded of an experience by a young Thomas Sowell, who at the time was actually a Marxist.
A Personal Odyssey (2000)
In the summer of 1959, I worked as a clerk-typist in the headquarters of the U.S. Public Health Service in Washington. The people I worked for were very nice and I grew to like them. One day, a man had a heart attack at around 5 PM, on the sidewalk outside the Public Health Service. He was taken inside to the nurse's room, where he was asked if he was a government employee. If he were, he would have been eligible to be taken to a medical facility there. Unfortunately, he was not, so a phone call was made to a local hospital to send an ambulance. By the time this ambulance made its way through miles of Washington rush-hour traffic, the man was dead. He died waiting for a doctor, in a building full of doctors. Nothing so dramatized for me the nature of a bureaucracy and its emphasis on procedures, rather than results.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisL said:
Explain why you don't think a smaller government would be better please.
Click to expand...

Smaller than what?

The size of government should be equal to the size of the problem(s) it is attempting to address.
 
Amadeus said:
Smaller than what?

The size of government should be equal to the size of the problem(s) it is attempting to address.
Click to expand...

Holy smokes! :shock: Every single ONE of us would have to work for the government!
 
US Conservative said:
I am reminded of an experience by a young Thomas Sowell, who at the time was actually a Marxist.
Click to expand...

Try spending a little time in the military.

Trust me. You'll learn aaaallll about the wonders of "bureaucracy" before you even finish your first week. :lol:
 
ChrisL said:
Holy smokes! :shock: Every single ONE of us would have to work for the government!
Click to expand...

I would ask how you misconstrued my statement this time, but I really don't care.
 
Amadeus said:
I would ask how you misconstrued my statement this time, but I really don't care.
Click to expand...

Well Duh! :roll: You said the size of government should be equal to the size of the problems we are trying to tackle (in so many words).

Are you taking your ball and going home now? :2razz:
 
Amadeus said:
Smaller than what?

The size of government should be equal to the size of the problem(s) it is attempting to address.
Click to expand...

But what if the government is the reason for the problems that exist in the first place?
 
ChrisL said:
Well Duh! :roll: You said the size of government should be equal to the size of the problems we are trying to tackle (in so many words).
Click to expand...

Nope. I said problem. As in, if a problem is set before the government to solve, then government should be big enough to solve it. Or not.
 
vesper said:
But what if the government is the reason for the problems that exist in the first place?
Click to expand...

If you believe that government is so abhorrent that it sucks even when its working properly, I would opt for the smallest government possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom