The criminalisation of drugs The criminalisation of abortion The expansion of military prowess The invasion of other countries ... guess what? you aren't for small government.
I think you need to educate yourself as to how much of the federal budget is spent on the Military vs. how much is spent on entitlements, and then come back and open this thread with something intelligent and factual to say. [Edit]Forgot to point out that legalization of Marijuana has overwhelming bi-partisan support in California. It seems the people who oppose it are the competition, those whose jobs depend on it being illegal, and the Obama Admin.
It doesn't matter. If you are for the expansion of military prowess, the invasion of other countries, laws against abortion and laws against drugs, you aren't for a small government. end of. Sure, you can argue that too much is spent on welfare and not enough on the military, invading other countries, the creation of laws preventing abortion and the enforcement of laws prohibiting drugs, but not in the same breath as claiming you want the government out of your business. You can't have it both ways im afraid.
But as I mentioned earlier, I'm not for anti-abortion or anti-gun laws. That leaves your argument with the military, and lets face it. Without our military, you'd be speaking German. "My Business". Terrific way to phrase it. I want them out of my business. Not sure what the Military has to do with my business, unless my business is avionics, armored troop carriers, or some other field that feeds the industrial military complex. Since you didn't take the time to look it up, we spend a third of our federal budget on the military, and most of the rest on entitlements. When you consider the military has been used as an extension of our trade policy for a long time, it would seem keeping the military about is actually good for my "business".
I'm not arguing for a small government. The fact that money is spent on the military is fine with me. It's a problem for those who espouse the "small government" philosophy who have the problem trying to reconcile the claim that they want the government to spend less while wanting to expand their military prowess. Like i said, If you are for the expansion of military prowess, the invasion of other countries, laws against abortion and laws against drugs, you aren't for a small government. end of. You simply can't have it both ways.
Right. You were trying to use your limited knowledge of US Politics and more or less left wing stance to build a ridiculous straw man that represents very few people in the US. I was more focused on the holes in your logic, rather than the fact your straw man applies to very few people in the US. By the way, regarding budgets, we invaded Iraq, occupied the nation for 8 years, rebuilt it from the ground up, and spent less than Obama did in one year on a health care bill that will drive up the costs of Insurance in the US. If Iraq sides with Saudi Arabia in holding down the price of oil, we could recoup those costs in a few years. You need to rethink your argument.
Are you for small government or big spending, or is it just what the money is spent on that you are concerned about i.e more bombs and less medicine? make your mind up. It's simply not enough to trot out rhetoric. You also seem to be under the impression that i am arguing for small spending. I'm not. The government should spend everything it gets in taxes. it should be spent wisely, but it should be spent. I just have a hard time understanding how someone can one minute rant on about how great the war is and how everyone has benefited from the trillions spent, and in the next breath claim to be for "small government". It's almost like they have learned the songs to sing but forgotten to pay attention to the words.
There are two, and only two, legitimate roles for government. Providing a military defense of national interests and providing police and a judicial system for ensuring that people obey the laws within national territory. Understood properly, which you seem to be having a hard time doing, one can be (and should be) both for a strong military and for a small government.
Will, you are short sighted. All you are doing in stating what you want them to do. I dont understand how you can want them to defend you and still argue that they should be "small"
Now there is a surprise. The list of things you don't understand starts with atheism, and covers just about everything else you present your opinion on.
Infrastructure, minimum living standards, retirement, the military, judiciary, natural resources, taxes etc. etc. - gov.t must be adequate and responsive globally for a free society.
I am stating what their legitimate roles are. Anything else government becomes involved in is illegitimate and it an affront to the rights of the people. Government should be large enough to fulfill it's two legitimate roles and no larger. Our current government is significantly larger than that, exactly because the government has drawn power towards itself. Thomas Jefferson warned us that this would happen, writing "When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." st0x, you do appear woefully ignorant this area. Partially this is understandable, as you are British. The British are a nation of subjects. However, you can educate yourself in about 15 minutes by reading these selected quotes on government.
So you're not "for small government" then. You seem to want to say you are, just before listing all the places you want them to be big. You are making the mistake of attaching yourself to a platitude and a sound bite then trying to crowbar your views to fit the catchphrase.
Hey Stox. Congratulations on the UK cutting 500,000 government jobs. Perhaps your nation can be saved from your way of thinking.
Awesome article. I had actually already read Krugman's prebuttal to the UK budget cuts. Finding 650 billion to cut from the Federal budget should be a no brainer, but Obama is going the exact opposite direction. In his two years in office, he has blown the budget out of the water with gluttonous short term spending("stimulus"), created a monstrous long term unfunded liability with his new entitlement, grown the size of the federal government exponentially via salary hikes, pension hikes, and expansive hiring while the economy contracted, not to mention his gigantic increases to the already bloated base budget left to him by Bush. If they wanted to bring the federal budget down by 650 bil, they probably would not need to lay off a single federal employee. Just paying the federal employees what their counterparts in the private sector make would do the job instantly. Those who don't like it can go look for work in the private sector like the rest of us, and see if they can do better. I'm confident that for every one who quits over federal pay cuts, there are 10 equally qualified people in the private sector without any job at all who would gladly work for the reduced salary and pension.
as usual Stox, you are full of it. Why do any of these things have to mean a large government needs to be? These thing have existed with small government for years
Yes. a government should be exactly the right size it needs to be, not too small and not too large -- just exactly the right size it needs to be in order to accomplish its legitimate functions. Unfortunately, we the people have allowed our governments to grow many times larger than they optimally should be.