The Bigger the Government…the Smaller the citizen.

[Allan]

Of course we elect the officials. That does not mean that "we are the government" LOL. Your argument is naïve and sophomoric. I was looking beyond such simplicity and know that @Allan is capable of that too... hence my surprise that he would like a post as relatively childish as the one that you made.

Which childish post is that exactly?

 

[Bodi]

Which childish post is that exactly?

Not one that you made... I said that you were able to look beyond such simplicity.

 

[Individual]

Of course we elect the officials. That does not mean that "we are the government" LOL. Your argument is naïve and sophomoric. I was looking beyond such simplicity and know that @Allan is capable of that too... hence my surprise that he would like a post as relatively childish as the one that you made.

@tshade and then there is also what bomber says...

@tshade kinda just getting hammered left and right.

So can politicians... kinda the point that you missed.

It doesn't even mean that those we've elected are the government.

 

[Bodi]

It doesn't even mean that those we've elected are the government.

Obviously...

 

[BrotherFease]

Not quite. I actually said these policies have "expanded dependency, as well as an entitlement mentality." That is a fact. For example, we have a whole class of citizens who now depend on Social Security. So much so by many of whom that they have made no other efforts at contingency savings and investments.

Then many find themselves "retired" and living on an essentially fixed income (with minor adjustments per "cost of living") which are eaten up by inflation. Forcing them to continue working, or living sparely. Don't even get me started on Welfare and it's affects on family and work ethics.

Except for the fact we all pay for these services via taxes.

Social Security is a government-run retirement account, per say. People contribute money into the system throughout their entire lives, and when they qualify for SS, they get their money back with a rate of return.

Medicare has been proven to be significantly lower poverty among senior citizens AND live longer lives. If it wasn't for Medicare, my mom (retired) wouldn't be able to afford highly expensive drugs to help her walk and stay alive.

If you think "big government" is bad, tell us which government programs should be cut or get rid of. I'll provide a list:

The Square Deal
The New Deal
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Food and Drug Administration
The Environmental Protection Agency
The Affordable Care Act

In my humble viewpoint, these programs are flawed, but the positives outweigh the negatives by a long shot.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Except for the fact we all pay for these services via taxes.

Social Security is a government-run retirement account, per say. People contribute money into the system throughout their entire lives, and when they qualify for SS, they get their money back with a rate of return.

Medicare has been proven to be significantly lower poverty among senior citizens AND live longer lives. If it wasn't for Medicare, my mom (retired) wouldn't be able to afford highly expensive drugs to help her walk and stay alive.

If you think "big government" is bad, tell us which government programs should be cut or get rid of. I'll provide a list:

The Square Deal
The New Deal
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Food and Drug Administration
The Environmental Protection Agency
The Affordable Care Act

In my humble viewpoint, these programs are flawed, but the positives outweigh the negatives by a long shot.

You assert that these programs are paid for (by all?), but the national debt and annual federal “budget” deficits indicate that is quite not so. What we should learn from this is that government spending is much more popular than the taxation (required?) to support it.

The OP’s point stands: once an income redIstribution program is started, we the sheeple become accustomed to (and feel that we may depend upon) its continuation. While there may be no objection to current (or even adding more) federal spending there is certainly a limit as to how much taxation is possible without objection.

One negative, frequently ignored, is that federal borrowing (essentially fiat money creation) imposes a hidden (and quite regressive) tax that we call inflation.

 

[BrotherFease]

The subject of the thread is not about the relationship between revenue and expense. It's about the benefits of providing government services to their citizens.

When you look at your paycheck stub, you will see that the federal government deducts money out of your paycheck in order to fund their services. So yes, we're paying for these services.

By all means, we can discuss the relationship between revenue and expense on here, but that's not the intention of the thread.

You assert that these programs are paid for (by all?), but the national debt and annual federal “budget” deficits indicate that is quite not so. What we should learn from this is that government spending is much more popular than the taxation (required?) to support it.

The OP’s point stands: once an income redIstribution program is started, we the sheeple become accustomed to (and feel that we may depend upon) its continuation. While there may be no objection to current (or even adding more) federal spending there is certainly a limit as to how much taxation is possible without objection.

One negative, frequently ignored, is that federal borrowing (essentially fiat money creation) imposes a hidden (and quite regressive) tax that we call inflation.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The subject of the thread is not about the relationship between revenue and expense. It's about the benefits of providing government services to their citizens.

When you look at your paycheck stub, you will see that the federal government deducts money out of your paycheck in order to fund their services. So yes, we're paying for these services.

By all means, we can discuss the relationship between revenue and expense on here, but that's not the intention of the thread.

You seem to have totally ignored the second paragraph of my post. When the government gives you “free” X then there is little (or no) perceived need or even a strong incentive to provide X for yourself. That rapidly creates (total?) dependency on the the government to provide X.

You asked what should be cut, rather than what should never have been started (at the federal government level) to create that dependency. When I pointed out that (tax) revenue does not cover federal spending (which you claimed was the case) you now try to assert that my response to your claim was off topic.

I’m not trying to assert that defined contribution retirement pension programs (public, private or some mix of them) are a bad idea, but when they depend on simply printing the funds (borrowing from future generations?) to pay retirees then they are no longer “paid for by taxes” - which was your assertion.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The people in those countries definitely have less liberty. They pay a shit ton more in taxes than we do in order to support their bigger government. Also none of those countries have free speech like in the US, and none of them respect the right to self defense like the US does.

Arguably, they have less economic freedom than we do, but more personal freedom. For example, marijuana is legal in Canada. All of those countries have much smaller prison populations than we do. In Sweden you have the right to roam anywhere in nature. Since their health insurance is not tied to their jobs, people in those countries can change jobs more easily. As to self defense, those are countries with 1/5 our murder rate. Point being, its much more complicated than you seem to think it is.

 

[eohrnberger]

Arguably, they have less economic freedom than we do, but more personal freedom. For example, marijuana is legal in Canada. All of those countries have much smaller prison populations than we do. In Sweden you have the right to roam anywhere in nature. Since their health insurance is not tied to their jobs, people in those countries can change jobs more easily. As to self defense, those are countries with 1/5 our murder rate. Point being, its much more complicated than you seem to think it is.

'people in those countries can change jobs more easily'
I'm wondering if this is a guess on your part?

From what I have learned from conversations with someone who lives in an EU country is that the labor unions are very strong and have large memberships. It was described to me that because of the labor laws it is nearly impossible to fire a poor performer or adjust staffing levels when businesses has a down turn, Consequently businesses are hesitant to hire anyone unless they absolutely have to. The result is that businesses can't, and don't, respond to economic changes very quickly, either up or down, due to their limited rate of adaptability and this results in worker mobility between jobs is also limited for that reason.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

'people in those countries can change jobs more easily'
I'm wondering if this is a guess on your part?

From what I have learned from conversations with someone who lives in an EU country is that the labor unions are very strong and have large memberships. It was described to me that because of the labor laws it is nearly impossible to fire a poor performer or adjust staffing levels when businesses has a down turn, Consequently businesses are hesitant to hire anyone unless they absolutely have to. The result is that businesses can't, and don't, respond to economic changes very quickly, either up or down, due to their limited rate of adaptability and this results in worker mobility between jobs is also limited for that reason.

Norway and Sweden both rank higher than the United States in terms of labor mobility https://www.mipex.eu/labour-market-mobility

 

[BrotherFease]

You seem to have totally ignored the second paragraph of my post. When the government gives you “free” X then there is little (or no) perceived need or even a strong incentive to provide X for yourself. That rapidly creates (total?) dependency on the the government to provide X.

You asked what should be cut, rather than what should never have been started (at the federal government level) to create that dependency. When I pointed out that (tax) revenue does not cover federal spending (which you claimed was the case) you now try to assert that my response to your claim was off topic.

I’m not trying to assert that defined contribution retirement pension programs (public, private or some mix of them) are a bad idea, but when they depend on simply printing the funds (borrowing from future generations?) to pay retirees then they are no longer “paid for by taxes” - which was your assertion.

As established before, government assistant programs are not free at all. You pay for them through your taxes. Think of it like an insurance program.

I think your logic is backwards in its concept. The exchange is this: You give the government money, and in return, the government provides services for you.

If we didn't have the programs I listed, we would live in a less free society. More poverty, less freedom. We would allow gigantic corporations to exploit people, especially children. People wouldn't know the chemicals in their foods. The air would be dirtier. The water less clean.

I am not arguing for socialism here. Just remember that socialism is unpopular among Democrats too. The Democratic Party picked Biden over Sanders by a large margin.

To top it all off, why is wrong for the elderly and disabled to be reliant on governmental services? Why is it wrong for low-income Americans to receive Pell grants in order to help afford college?

 

[ttwtt78640]

As established before, government assistant programs are not free at all. You pay for them through your taxes. Think of it like an insurance program.

I think your logic is backwards in its concept. The exchange is this: You give the government money, and in return, the government provides services for you.

If we didn't have the programs I listed, we would live in a less free society. More poverty, less freedom. We would allow gigantic corporations to exploit people, especially children. People wouldn't know the chemicals in their foods. The air would be dirtier. The water less clean.

I am not arguing for socialism here. Just remember that socialism is unpopular among Democrats too. The Democratic Party picked Biden over Sanders by a large margin.

To top it all off, why is wrong for the elderly and disabled to be reliant on governmental services? Why is it wrong for low-income Americans to receive Pell grants in order to help afford college?

If federal spending was paid for by taxation we wouldn’t have consistent annual federal “budget” deficits or growing national debt.

Rest assured that an insurance company routinely paying out more in claims than it receives in premiums would not last long.

 

[BrotherFease]

If federal spending was paid for by taxation we wouldn’t have consistent annual federal “budget” deficits or growing national debt.

Rest assured that an insurance company routinely paying out more in claims than it receives in premiums would not last long.

Let me remind you again my friend: You're going into a different subject matter. The growing debt and deficit has nothing to do with government assistance programs, and everything to do with the two recessions in the 2000s era and poor tax policies from the Republican Party. I am perfectly fine with adding more governmental assistant programs, as long as there's a mechanism for paying for it. It's completely illogical to say that Medicare and Medicaid users should have to suffer because we have clowns running the government.

 

[eohrnberger]

If federal spending was paid for by taxation we wouldn’t have consistent annual federal “budget” deficits or growing national debt.

Rest assured that an insurance company routinely paying out more in claims than it receives in premiums would not last long.

The federal government just tells the Fed click it's mouse and create more money, causing economic damage to every single person presently alive in the US as well as economic damage to anyone in the future. That's why the federal government can continue on as it is.

 

[Dans La Lune]

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

1) Liberty to do what?

2) Individuality? How is that a libertarian trait?

3) Goodness: No, libertarian ideology is based first and foremost on pure selfishness.

4) Human Character: Well, you got me there!

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.

So I assume you support regulations on the behavior that causes/accelerates natural and man-made disasters, then. And also a high minimum wage ($15 - $30) and progressive taxation that mitigates the need for a social safety net. Not to mention a healthcare system where people don't go bankrupt because they get sick.

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

No, it's an absurd premise. In a representative democracy, government should be equal to the size of the needs of the citizens who ultimately control government. If the people want government to provide a UBI (for example), or universal healthcare, then the government should meet those needs. Smaller government is an ideological constraint, not a practical one based on real-world data.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The federal government just tells the Fed click it's mouse and create more money, causing economic damage to every single person presently alive in the US as well as economic damage to anyone in the future. That's why the federal government can continue on as it is.

Yep, so long as that method of federal “budgeting” gets congress critters re-elected at rate of over 90% we should not expect anything different to be tried.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yep, so long as that method of federal “budgeting” gets congress critters re-elected at rate of over 90% we should not expect anything different to be tried.

It's a case of doing the same things over and over, and then being surprised when you get the same results.

 

[Jason Warfield]

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.

The error in your post is an assumption that you are making about human nature: if a person is left alone with little regulation that person will choose to do right more often than not.

The whole of human history proves that assumption wrong.

And you all simply dismissed the notion that the power of the government comes from us and that we are simply governed. Now, if the at is true, is it really the fault of government? Or those who allowed that government to happen?

it doesn’t matter if government is large or small. What matters is the manner of the government we put in. If the people allow an incompetent liar like Trump to run government…then yes, people will lose character, goodness, etc. because the values that put Trump are not those values. But it has nothing to do with the size of government.

Side note: don’t use charity as an example. Most charities that people give too also take money from government as well. Usually in the form of grants. That means that if you feel a person who gives charity has character and goodness, then so does the government.

In terms of liberty, again, that has nothing to do with size but rather intent. And intent is the driver, not the size. One can argue that larger government is needed to take away liberty…but at the same time, how can you protect your liberties without the government? An argument can be made the addition of freedoms and liberties will create a larger government to help protect those liberties…just saying.

Not as cut and dried as you think it is.

 

[Captain Adverse]

The error in your post is an assumption that you are making about human nature: if a person is left alone with little regulation that person will choose to do right more often than not.

Actually, I have never in my life assumed that "Man is essentially good." Conversely, I also don't assume "Man is essentially evil."

I consider mankind, as with most species, "opportunistic;" just more intelligent and thus more capable of expressing all sorts of individual character traits than can the majority of other species.

The whole of human history proves that assumption wrong.

The whole of human history supports my understanding of human nature. In fact, that is supportive of my OP position.

And you all simply dismissed the notion that the power of the government comes from us and that we are simply governed. Now, if the at is true, is it really the fault of government? Or those who allowed that government to happen?

Did the power of the Nazis come from every individual who lived in Germany? Of the Communists from every individual who lived in Soviet Russia? Every individual in the current States of North Korea, China, Iran, etc.?

More close to home, did everyone in the USA support the "power change" in either 2016 or 2020?

It is idealistic to believe that the power of government "comes from us." For example, in the USA certain Founding Fathers realized that government can become abusive. They agreed to create a Bill of Rights in order to get the cooperation of a union with the various new "States" created by that victory. This document was supposed to limit the powers of that newly constituted by "Constitution" government, including the Second Amendment. The primary purpose of that Amendment in it's own wording is to allow the people the right to keep and bear arms and form militia as "necessary to the security of a free State."

Yet here we are 233 years after the Founding (in 1788) of the USA with people seeking to give MORE power to the central government while also seeking to disarm the common citizen as much as possible, if not completely. This so that we cannot "resist" (regardless of possible success or failure) whatever form of government and governmental controls our "new society" morphs into.

it doesn’t matter if government is large or small. What matters is the manner of the government we put in. If the people allow an incompetent liar like Trump to run government…then yes, people will lose character, goodness, etc. because the values that put Trump are not those values. But it has nothing to do with the size of government.

It DOES matter the form of government. Just ask the hundreds of millions of people who died (and in some places are still dying) in death camps/prisons in Cambodia, Russia, Germany, and other nations around the world and throughout history. BTW, your assertions about Trump and the "people who allowed him" demonstrates both your own confirmation biases at work, and why your viewpoint only proves MY point.

Not as cut and dried as you think it is.

It is as "cut and dried" as I think it is. You simply either can't see it, or choose not to because you currently agree with how government is being run. I point out that you don't always agree though, as demonstrated by your partisan arguments and the radical views and actions of your side of the argument over the last 4 years.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It's a case of doing the same things over and over, and then being surprised when you get the same results.

Yep, that’s our electorate in a nut shell. The crazy thing is that, even with under a 10% turnover, the latest (major) party with a slight legislative majority claims to have some magical mandate to further expand federal government power and expense.

 

[eohrnberger]

Yep, that’s our electorate in a nut shell. The crazy thing is that, even with under a 10% turnover, the latest (major) party with a slight legislative majority claims to have some magical mandate to further expand federal government power and expense.

The imagined mandate is justified in their minds, and their minds only, that they, and only they, known what's best for everyone better than everyone else knows for themselves. It's a case of self-delusion on a massive scale.

 

[vesper]

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.

We have reached the point where we are all serfs now living under the bondage of debt.

 

[eohrnberger]

We have reached the point where we are all serfs now living under the bondage of debt.

Just like how the political elites want it.

 

[tshade]

Yes, we get to choose from a list of candidates, who will govern us. Period. Our involvement then comes to an end until the next election.

??????????????????? No-----we choose who the candidates will be. Didn't you ever petition for a candidate??? Let me know when you do, then we can debate a bit....