• 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!

How Much Would Ypu Pay for Less Government?

How Much Would You Pay for Less Government?

  • Up to 20%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 30%

    Votes: 1 7.1%

  • Up to 40%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 50%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 60%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 70%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 80%

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Up to 90%

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Over 90% (specify amount)

    Votes: 2 14.3%

  • Other (specify)

    Votes: 9 64.3%
  • Total voters
    14
  • Poll closed .
ronpaulvoter

ronpaulvoter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
111
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Yes, this is hypothetical. But let's have some fun.

Let's assume that for a one time fee, you could roll back the size of all levels of government in the US (federal, state and local) to what it was in 1955.

There would be no "great society," no medicare or medicaid (health care costs at this time were very modest and most people never bothered to even think about insurance), no EPA, no OSHA, no DEA, no RICO, no NAFTA, no GATT, no wars, and very modest taxes (in real terms) compared to today.
And yes, you would live in today's world with all of your high-tech gadgets.

The question: What is the MAXIMUM one time fee you would be willing to pay to roll back all levels of government this far?

Since people make widely varying incomes, I have expressed the choices in a percent of your yearly income. Use your comments to express amounts and any conditions you might want.
 
I voted other. If it is the right thing to do, it should be free in this case. If it is the wrong thing to do, any penny more is too expensive.
 
Who would you be paying anyway- the government? :2razz:


I'm sorry, this makes no sense, even in a hypothetical way.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
Yes, this is hypothetical. But let's have some fun.

Let's assume that for a one time fee, you could roll back the size of all levels of government in the US (federal, state and local) to what it was in 1955.

There would be no "great society," no medicare or medicaid (health care costs at this time were very modest and most people never bothered to even think about insurance), no EPA, no OSHA, no DEA, no RICO, no NAFTA, no GATT, no wars, and very modest taxes (in real terms) compared to today.
And yes, you would live in today's world with all of your high-tech gadgets.

The question: What is the MAXIMUM one time fee you would be willing to pay to roll back all levels of government this far?

Since people make widely varying incomes, I have expressed the choices in a percent of your yearly income. Use your comments to express amounts and any conditions you might want.
Click to expand...

Um...reducing government means I pay less....so...I don't understand the question :confused:
 
americanwoman said:
Who would you be paying anyway- the government? :2razz:

I'm sorry, this makes no sense, even in a hypothetical way.
Click to expand...

I worded it wrong. It should have read "How Much Would You Give Up..." instead of "Pay."

You might "pay" a hypothetical watchdog to reduce government. The question is how much would it be worth to you?


Jerry said:
Um...reducing government means I pay less....so...I don't understand the question :confused:
Click to expand...

The point is how much it is worth to you to roll back government. Of course, you would NOT pay anything to the government. You want to make it smaller, so you would want to take measures to REDUCE government revenue and therefore its power. However, some of these measures would come at a high cost.

Example: You could quit working and have almost no income. You would no longer have to pay income taxes, BUT you would forfeit the benefits of a normal income. That's too extreme for most people.
 
new coup for you said:
places with weak ineffective governments have no wars?
Click to expand...

Only a statist liberal would equate less government with weak and ineffective government. Stop inviting yourself into my life, thanks.
 
The idea of less government is that we do not have to pay, period.

If bribing government officials to go away was all that was required, wouldn't we have done that long ago?
 
This is an idiot question. You can't pay more for less government!!! :doh
 
People... stop hyping on the wording, you know what he means.
He could have said, "for how long will you give up food blah blah"
It is about how much you want a change, not about paying more or less...

I would pay, or eat, or stop eating... a lot or for a long time, to get less government.
I would go back further than 1955... I would go before the New Deal.
 
I would give everything I own to have minimal government.
 
Is there some reason 0% isn't an option, considering that less government is indeed what the Constitution requires, so it's not like we should have to pay to make what we have get smaller?
 
new coup for you said:
no wars?

places with weak ineffective governments have no wars?

like Somolia?
Click to expand...

They're having a civil war in Somalia right now and LOTS of unchecked crime. And don't forget the pirates.


celticlord said:
The idea of less government is that we do not have to pay, period.

If bribing government officials to go away was all that was required, wouldn't we have done that long ago?
Click to expand...

You STILL don't understand my context. How much would you GIVE UP for mid 1950's government instead of what we have today?

You can't bribe your way to freedom.

Our founding fathers paid a dear price for less government. Read a good history book.


American said:
This is an idiot question. You can't pay more for less government!!! :doh
Click to expand...

I repeat. Our founding fathers did. Read a good history book.


Baralis said:
I would give everything I own to have minimal government.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true patriot. At least somebody understands.


Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Is there some reason 0% isn't an option, considering that less government is indeed what the Constitution requires, so it's not like we should have to pay to make what we have get smaller?
Click to expand...

If you want 0%, just vote "other." Your post said it, and it's counted.

But I can't say liberty is free. Our founders fought a bitter war and paid a dear price for a free nation. Have you ever checked out what happened to most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

And we have fought other wars to keep ourselves free.

Have you ever heard the phrase, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilence."

And DON'T FORGET, a patriot doesn't just fight foreign enemies. Right now, we have dangerous domestic enemies, and we must deal with them. In other words, we must work together to VOTE THEM OUT.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
The question: What is the MAXIMUM one time fee you would be willing to pay to roll back all levels of government this far?
Click to expand...

What is the percent based against? If I were to choose 30% is it 30% of $1,000 or $5 billion???

In any case I highly doubt that the government would do far less then it does now with a new exorbitant amount of money. This just opens that gate for the government to start demanding this payment to stay less involved.
 
Bodhisattva said:
People... stop hyping on the wording, you know what he means.
He could have said, "for how long will you give up food blah blah"
It is about how much you want a change, not about paying more or less...

I would pay, or eat, or stop eating... a lot or for a long time, to get less government.
I would go back further than 1955... I would go before the New Deal.
Click to expand...
No, I don't know what he means. The whole thing is silly. And why do I have to give up a meal? Smaller government means they need less money, meaning I keep more.
 
Gibberish said:
What is the percent based against?
Click to expand...

A one time cost of a percent of your annual income.

People make different incomes. That is why specific amounts could not be equally applied.

The money would NOT be paid to the government. It would be paid to whomever or whatever forces that would be effective in reducing government.
 
Last edited:
American said:
This is an idiot question. You can't pay more for less government!!! :doh
Click to expand...

Really? We are paying quite a bit for what little GOOD we get in return...:2razz:
 
I see your point, but you know what I mean.
 
ronpaulvoter said:
The point is how much it is worth to you to roll back government.

Of course, you would NOT pay anything to the government. You want to make it smaller, so you would want to take measures to REDUCE government revenue and therefore its power. However, some of these measures would come at a high cost.

Example: You could quit working and have almost no income. You would no longer have to pay income taxes, BUT you would forfeit the benefits of a normal income. That's too extreme for most people.
Click to expand...

You're just not making any sense at all :confused:
 
ronpaulvoter said:
A one time cost of a percent of your annual income.

People make different incomes. That is why specific amounts could not be equally applied.

The money would NOT be paid to the government. It would be paid to whomever or whatever forces that would be effective in reducing government.
Click to expand...

So we would pay some sort of private army or higher government that would oversee what the current government can and cannot do?

This isn't a dictatorship. If American's really wanted less government they would vote accordingly. There is no need to pay for it to be forced.
 
Last edited:
ronpaulvoter said:
Yes, this is hypothetical. no EPA, no OSHA, no DEA, no RICO, no NAFTA, no GATT, no wars, and very modest taxes (in real terms) compared to today.
And yes, you would live in today's world with all of your high-tech gadgets.
Click to expand...


Nice purpose but unreal.
 
American said:
No, I don't know what he means. The whole thing is silly. And why do I have to give up a meal? Smaller government means they need less money, meaning I keep more.
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
People... stop hyping on the wording, you know what he means.
It is about how much you want a change, not about paying more or less...
Click to expand...

Does that help at all... ?
 
I chose other, because it seemed to me that having to pay anything for causing a reduction in how much I pay the government seems a bit contridictory.

But who would oversee a reduction? Some private "government reduction ensurance panel"? Who would make sure they were doing their jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom