The Bigger the Government…the Smaller the citizen.

[highroller]

Congress critters enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% despite having a public approval rating barely above that of a roadkill sandwich. Far too many voters are content to leave their congress critters in place simply because the alternative is to vote for a ”wrong” party replacement candidate. Normally, if a congress critter is not dumped during their party’s primary then they are going to be re-elected in the general election.

When you draw the lines, you get to choose who votes for you. Of course they’re going to reelection rate of 90%. It’s the nature of the beast.

 

[gbg3]

how do you feel about big government in relation to military and border control?

You didn't ask me but I think both should be functions of government. They should be provided via taxpayer monies and the people of the country should be able to rely on the government to actually provide these taxpayer paid services.

 

[roguenuke]

No.

There is an easy argument to refute this. What happens if there is no government? Are we all now able to do whatever we want, be happy and healthy and have complete and total control over our own lives?

There is a balance, but the actual stance of the thread is ridiculous. Quality of government affects how the people are treated, not size or quantity.

 

[eohrnberger]

Congress critters enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% despite having a public approval rating barely above that of a roadkill sandwich. Far too many voters are content to leave their congress critters in place simply because the alternative is to vote for a ”wrong” party replacement candidate. Normally, if a congress critter is not dumped during their party’s primary then they are going to be re-elected in the general election.

If one were to catalog structural flaws in the US system of government, I think this one would be, and should be, pretty high on the list of priorities to address, i.e. incumbent entrenchment.
How to address, is a question to be sure. Term limits might very well be a solution, but try to get congress to pass that, never happen.

 

[tshade]

Congress critters enjoy a re-election rate of over 90% despite having a public approval rating barely above that of a roadkill sandwich. Far too many voters are content to leave their congress critters in place simply because the alternative is to vote for a ”wrong” party replacement candidate. Normally, if a congress critter is not dumped during their party’s primary then they are going to be re-elected in the general election.

correct---------voters have always been stupid that way. That might change a little if more people took part

 

[tshade]

The ability to vote alone is not enough to establish that as we can see with the amount of influence money has in decision making. We also see the disenfranchisement of gerrymandering. Disenfranchisement through malappropriation is still disenfranchisement.

again-----up to who we put in office

 

[ttwtt78640]

If one were to catalog structural flaws in the US system of government, I think this one would be, and should be, pretty high on the list of priorities to address, i.e. incumbent entrenchment.
How to address, is a question to be sure. Term limits might very well be a solution, but try to get congress to pass that, never happen.

I’m not convinced that having term limits (for a specific government position/office) is going to change much. Perhaps a limit of 12 years max for any (and all) government employment would help rid us of folks having a ‘job for life’ attitude, but if it only results in having the same folks move around within the government it would change little.

 

[eohrnberger]

I’m not convinced that having term limits (for a specific government position/office) is going to change much. Perhaps a limit of 12 years max for any (and all) government employment would help rid us of folks having a ‘job for life’ attitude, but if it only results in having the same folks move around within the government it would change little.

Fair observation. I too am not enamored by 'career politicians' with a lifetime job in allegedly 'public service' (always seems to end up being in service of self at tax payer expense).

 

[Individual]

You forget that WE are the government

Actually WE only elect our government from the choices given us.

 

[ttwtt78640]

correct---------voters have always been stupid that way. That might change a little if more people took part

That is not likely to happen. Few can afford to invest the time and/or money required to campaign for elective office. It takes a special type of person to spend many times more than what a job pays (or at least what it should pay) just to apply for it.

Far too many voters choose based on the party label alone and could not name their current two US Senators and single House representative. That is further complicated by having gerrymandered congressional districts which favor one (major) party over the other.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Fair observation. I too am not enamored by 'career politicians' with a lifetime job in allegedly 'public service' (always seems to end up being in service of self at tax payer expense).

Nobody should receive a government retirement benefit beyond Social Security and Medicare - with exceptions for ‘career’ military service being a possible exception. Those that are able to opt out of one or both of those “regular folks” programs do so mainly (or only?) because they see public pension benefits as being not only better but virtually guaranteed.

 

[swing_voter]

Do you agree with the idea that the bigger the Government, the smaller each citizen becomes?

I am not the originator of this point, although I have recognized it most of my life. But I am curious as to how my peers might think. The following is the argument:

The premise is that everything gets smaller as the government gets bigger. Including:

• Liberty
• Individuality
• Goodness
• Human Character

That this is both an observable fact and just plain common sense.

We can all recognize that Government does have a certain value when it:

Protects us from foreign attacks, and criminals in our own country; addresses natural and man-made disasters; and when all else fails, acts as a safety net of last resort.

BUT, it must always be of LAST resort; because when government is looked to as the FIRST resort, then individual responsibility tends to diminish.

First to go is Goodness. As people look more and more to government for help, individuals ask themselves "why help others when the government can do it for you?"

Next to go is Human Character. Relying on others to take care of you when you are capable of taking care of yourself is both selfish and the definition of irresponsible. Moreover, in relying on other’s in the form of State largess paid for via taxation creates a sense of ENTITLEMENT. This is soon followed by feelings of ingratitude and resentment at any attempts to modify or limit such largesse.

Then goes Liberty. The more government, the more rules. The more rules, the less liberty. U.S. example: the Federal Register which started out with 2,620 pages of rules in 1936 now has well over 87,000 pages currently. Microsoft Word - fed-reg-pages (llsdc.org)

Finally, when goodness, human character, and liberty dissipate, sacrificed to the power of government and the Collective, we ultimately lose our Individuality…becoming mere cogs in the machine of all pervasive government control.

In my opinion, the old saying "The best government is that which governs least" is how we should all look at centralized power and any desire to expand such power.

So, to the poll question: Do you agree that the bigger the Government, the smaller the individual citizen becomes in every way?

Yes

No

Other.

Nordic countries have big government and the idea of the individual seems fine in Nordic countries.



.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Do you agree with the idea that the bigger the Government, the smaller each citizen becomes?

I am not the originator of this point, although I have recognized it most of my life. But I am curious as to how my peers might think. The following is the argument:

The premise is that everything gets smaller as the government gets bigger. Including:

• Liberty
• Individuality
• Goodness
• Human Character

That this is both an observable fact and just plain common sense.

We can all recognize that Government does have a certain value when it:

Protects us from foreign attacks, and criminals in our own country; addresses natural and man-made disasters; and when all else fails, acts as a safety net of last resort.

BUT, it must always be of LAST resort; because when government is looked to as the FIRST resort, then individual responsibility tends to diminish.

First to go is Goodness. As people look more and more to government for help, individuals ask themselves "why help others when the government can do it for you?"

Next to go is Human Character. Relying on others to take care of you when you are capable of taking care of yourself is both selfish and the definition of irresponsible. Moreover, in relying on other’s in the form of State largess paid for via taxation creates a sense of ENTITLEMENT. This is soon followed by feelings of ingratitude and resentment at any attempts to modify or limit such largesse.

Then goes Liberty. The more government, the more rules. The more rules, the less liberty. U.S. example: the Federal Register which started out with 2,620 pages of rules in 1936 now has well over 87,000 pages currently. Microsoft Word - fed-reg-pages (llsdc.org)

Finally, when goodness, human character, and liberty dissipate, sacrificed to the power of government and the Collective, we ultimately lose our Individuality…becoming mere cogs in the machine of all pervasive government control.

In my opinion, the old saying "The best government is that which governs least" is how we should all look at centralized power and any desire to expand such power.

So, to the poll question: Do you agree that the bigger the Government, the smaller the individual citizen becomes in every way?

Yes

No

Other.

Did you vote for Trump?

 

[tshade]

Actually WE only elect our government from the choices given us.

WE elect the choices too !!! We call it the primaries.....

 

[tshade]

That is not likely to happen. Few can afford to invest the time and/or money required to campaign for elective office. It takes a special type of person to spend many times more than what a job pays (or at least what it should pay) just to apply for it.

I'm not talking about RUNNING for office, I mean just the election process like voting, or helping a person get on a ballot, etc......

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm not talking about RUNNING for office, I mean just the election process like voting, or helping a person get on a ballot, etc......

I realize that, but it’s not like write-in candidates (or those without big money backing) have any chance at all. Voting is simply choosing among those who did run for office.

In most cases an incumbent is assured re-election if they survive the primary election process - otherwise one must vote for the candidate from the “wrong” (major) political party to have any hope of ousting them.

 

[bomberfox]

again-----up to who we put in office

Nope. If you have a gerrymandered district, your vote is very much worth less if you didnt win last election.

 

[HangLow]

This idea the gop has of small government is a pipe dream. It is the gop who for decades told their base over and over, government, bad. Ever since reagan and the gop leadership has proven that to their base by keeping them poor by voting against anything that would raise their standard of living or their standard of education. There is a reason the southern states are the poorest decade after decade, they are run by republicans who tell their base government bad.

I say start spending some of our tax dollars on we the people instead of giving them away to corporate america and the super wealthy along with the military industrial complex and the pentagon. Life would be better for most people if we did. Government doesn't have to be bad as the dems are now proving.

 

[Bodi]

??? WHO elects these guys?? Hint: look in a mirror.....

That is not what I said, and you completely missed the point... about 100%. Which makes me a little worried. @Allan why would you agree?

 

[American]

Did you vote for Trump?

How original and creative.

 

[American]

View attachment 67345380​

Trickle Down is a leftist political slogan used, as a hammer, to cover up Democrat lack of economic policy that works. Socialism is not a viable economic policy, and they know it.

 

[eohrnberger]

Trickle Down is a leftist political slogan used, as a hammer, to cover up Democrat lack of economic policy that works. Socialism is not a viable economic policy, and they know it.

Indeed. There is not a single economist of reputable reputation which has described, much less purported an economic theory called 'Trickle Down'.
It is simply an invention of the left, from their fevered imagination.

 

[HangLow]

Trickle Down is a leftist political slogan used, as a hammer, to cover up Democrat lack of economic policy that works. Socialism is not a viable economic policy, and they know it.

How original and creative.

 

[RealityNow]

If people are vile, dishonest, and full of malice and greed, then the last thing we'd want is to allow a relatively small group of them to rule over everybody else.

But perhaps you believe that politicians are morally superior to the rest of us?

I know for a fact that we live in a Governed Society, with Elected Representatives, and that makes up our Representative Democracy, which functions via a Republican Form of Governance.

The Voice of the People, is who elect Politicians, if people continue to be too uneducated on policy and the civics that advance the nations and their ignorance votes for Illicit people, then that problem falls on the people, and their ignorance will come back upon them, by the actions of electing illicit people.. when ignorance amasses in any area and elect illicit people, it will affect all people, when it happens in County, City, State or Federal...

and what we have not is a majority Republican Senate of Illicit people who have been elected by people who are uneducated on policy and do not know or understand the civics of governance, and have no respect of or for the Representative Democracy that exist, the result is... we get a melomaniac autocratic delusional person placed in office who tries to enact a coup d'etat for his self centered and melomaniac madness of lust to try and make himself an autocratic tyrant over America.

 

[d0gbreath]

Suppose that the citizen was an anarchist. Who cares about the size of the government that you don't recognize?

Asking for a friend.