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

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...

And if people can't take care of themselves, then what... let them all die? My 3 year old niece can't take of herself, nor is it profitable to support her. Is the natural human instinct to abandon her to nature... let her starve to death and die, so I can spend more time working and profiting? Should we kick all the handicapped and mentally challenged out of nursing homes, and heartlessly watch them die on the streets because caring would equate to a financial burden on us?

Life is not all about profit. Life is about, at it's basic level, surviving and continuing the species... Most people want to create some profit or gain access to some cash, so they can spend it and enjoy life. Enjoying life is essential to most people. Profit is not the only motivation that drives people in life, because people get enjoyment from many things they don't profit from.

The federal government needs to do the following;

1. Get rid of all unconstitutional departments
2. End all federal entitlement programs (let the states decide)
3. Close all foreign bases and tell Europe, Latin America, parts of Asia and Africa that the Cold War is over and its time to defend yourself.

Mach said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think the best thing to do is focus on the people who need assistance, not the people who don't. Once we can agree who needs the assistance and how to best provide it to them, we can start kicking the moochers off of welfare and assistance and feel better about doing it as society... Nobody wants to support people who can work and don't. Lumping them all together, and arguing the numbers are not significant enough to care isn't working in your favor.. of course that's my opinion, but it's a better place to start.

reefedjib said:

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.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with you... I think welfare should be a community concern, not a federal. I think people who can work, should be kicked off federal assistance... then it should be gutted and reworked to benefit the people who really need it, and ideally they would receive assistance from the community/local level. It has to start somewhere.

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 agree. When I see a homeless man or woman on the street I always give him five dollars, not enough money to change his life style, but enough for both of us to feel good about it for a moment. Sure, there's always the possibility that he might get drunk, but that's all right too, because it's his to do whatever he needs at that time.

I am all for reducing government and spending. >>

So am I but not when it means people will lose their jobs

However, society and individuals should care about those people...>>

Of course... All the civilized countries do, and we did too until Reagan demonized them as being the cause of our bad economy at the time... Deadbeat dads, welfare mothers, Regan's words, is still a blight on all the homeless and helpless.

It's not a government problem nor should it be a government solution. >>

True, but the propaganda is too widespread for people to change, and if the government doesn't help them, who will?

ricksfolly

The choices in this poll seem a bit on the rather biased side and fail to properly represent my attitude. The choices are rather cartoonish... which is probably perfect for the responses it hopes to garner.

The federal government is doing too much in some areas.
The federal government is doing far too little in other areas.

ricksfolly said:

However, society and individuals should care about those people...>>

Of course... All the civilized countries do, and we did too until Reagan demonized them as being the cause of our bad economy at the time... Deadbeat dads, welfare mothers, Regan's words, is still a blight on all the homeless and helpless.

Click to expand...

Whenever somebody makes the claim that society must help, why is it always the case that they are supporting forced aid? Why can't society voluntarily do these things? Why must it be forced upon them? Let's be real, when you say society, what you really mean is the band of thieves known as our government must take from the rich and give to others.

In that case, why do you ignore the great things that private charity has done and how much more effective it is?

Even more important, our new budget is about .40 on the dollar of DEBT.

We can't sustain that. I'm sorry, I don't care how much we want to take care of everyone and do everything, we're spending WAY too much. It's going to destroy our economy.

We've got to cut spending drastically or we're in DEEP trouble in a few years. Maybe sooner.

Hausers' law points out that federal revenues tend towards 18% of GDP

so i would shoot for about 15% of GDP, and put 3% towards debt reduction.

haymarket said:

The federal government is doing too much in some areas.
The federal government is doing far too little in other areas.

Click to expand...

Good... Showing there are ALWAYS two sides to everything and every story is a phenomena few can relate with. or even want to.

ricksfolly

I don't buy into the too big or too small. I would prefer effective vs ineffective and the government is a mix in my limited knowledge.

SE102 said:

I don't buy into the too big or too small. I would prefer effective vs ineffective and the government is a mix in my limited knowledge.

Click to expand...

Logic or common sense has no place in politics, only partisanship, controversy, hope and rancor is allowed.

ricksfolly