Forum Post: Which do you think would be better to solve the problems as you see them: Bigger Government or Smaller Government?
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 2:31 p.m. EST by JohnnySuburban
(88)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Just a simple question to gauge where people here stand. There are many different issues people want addressed, so my question is this:
Which do you think would be better to solve the problems as you see them: Bigger Government or Smaller Government?
example: Bigger Govt = More Regulations and taxation Smaller Govt = End the Fed, simpler tax code
Please at least answer Bigger or Smaller before you expound on that answer, thanks.
Size doesn't matter, quality does.
we need a like button for comments like this.
There's an upvote-downvote system a la reddit. Click the arrow next to the post.
thank you
Thank YOU for the upvote (at least I assume it was you...)
Haha, to those who say that size doesn't matter;
Besides what that makes you sound like if you're a male,
It demonstrates that you don't know the difference between production and overhead. Government is an overhead expense. It doesn't produce, it consumes. If size didn't matter, then why not 100%?? Because then nobody would be able to produce the goods that the Tax Pigs consume, that's why not.
The size of government is not a root problem, it's a symptom. Nothing will deeply change if you merely adjust the size of government. Either way, there would still be hugely powerful interests.
Our revolution will have succeeded as soon as the majority are true critical thinkers. If we achieve this seemingly impossible goal, then government will have an entirely different meaning -- and so will the original poster's question.
government must expand in size to solve problems. the ideal government is very small, the current size of government is very large because they never solve any problems- they just complicate them.
unfortunately the only way out is a temporary expansion of government to solve the problems, this should be followed by decrease of government- obviously if a problem is truly solved there is no more need for government.
corrupt government understands this and thats why they never actually solve anything.
http://www.oligarchyusa.com/
http://www.istockanalyst.com/finance/story/5390832/some-fascinating-stats-about-our-corporate-oligarchy
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/category/21st-century-challenges/ethicsandeconomics/
According to a 2008 article by David Rothkopf, the world’s 1,100 richest people have almost twice the assets of the poorest 2.5 billion (Rothkopf, 2008). Aside from the obvious problem – that this global elite has their hands in everything from politics to financial institutions – …
http://theprogressiveplaybook.com/2011/09/occupywallstreet-an-american-tahrir/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ght22PnCXy0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/wisconsin-is-ground-zero_b_825321.html
http://last-lost-empire.com/blog/?tag=global-corporate-oligarchy
To the extent that we, the people, are removed from control over our lands, marketplaces, central banks, and media we are no longer empowered. In practice, those few who do control the land, central bank, media and "free market" are the real rulers of our corrupt and declining "democracy."
Due to propaganda from a corporate-owned and edited media we are kept from knowing, much less debating, the nature of our system. Due to a central bank owned by bankers, media owned by a few global concerns, and trade regime controlled by global corporations (i.e., one designed to remove the people from control over their markets and environments) the vast majority have become little more than latter-day serfs and neo-slaves upon a corporate latifundia.
To restore a semblance of effective democracy and true freedom Americans, and people around the world, need to re-educate themselves as to the true nature of their political and economic systems. Toward this end, OligarchyUSA.com is dedicated to providing old and new information, books, links, reform ideas and debates not easily found or accessed today in establishment media.
OligarchyUSA.com is but one more site and sign of the times as ground-up counter-revolutions arise around the world... all in response to a forced and freedomless globalization of a ruling global elite perfecting their top-down plutocracy and revolutions of the rich against the poor. In short, democracy is no longer effective today. For this reason, it is toward a restoration of truly effective and representative democracies, and natural freedom, that this site is dedicated.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/organizational-map-2/
It's hard to answer without getting into semantics first. At the end of the day, it's not the size of the government, but the actions of the government.
With that said, I'll try - I would advocate smaller Federal government and stronger state government.
The reason for this is: 1) I believe this is the way the founders wanted the country to be organized 2) I believe smaller government is better able to represent the people - people can mobilize to change law or enact law that doesn't run counter to the constitution. Currently there is a disconnect between those in Washington and the state they represent. 3) I believe it would create competition among states which would actually show which laws and regulations benefit the people the most 4) If the regulations/laws of a state run counter to what you want, one can leave a state. Leaving a country is a difficult matter.
That's not to say I think the Federal government should be a lion with no teeth, I just don't think they need to hold more power than the states. It consolidates the power and that much power is too much for most people.
Todays economy is the result of big government. If one thinks the economy is great, then demand more government and allow them to make your choices. If one believes things are unfair, then demand a true free market and you decide what to choose.
Can I say "the same" but distributed differently? more to local, more to state, less to federal?
No brainer, SMALL GOVERNMENT= freedom, prosperity and peace.
Ron Paul 2012
thanks for the reply.
I'm wondering though...how are you going to square that idea w/ the Bigger Govt Obama ppl in OWS?
I'm not. I'm here to at least offer a different point of view. A view very few have never heard thanks to the establishment. And if I happen to teach someone the truth, all the better.
How about a government the size we have now, just not funded by private interests.
Big Labor (Unions) provided more campaign ad money than Corporations did in the last election.
Do you consider this good or bad?
Show me where you're getting that from.
"Labor unions have dominated spending on independent campaign ads so far this election season"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070602133.html
Thanks for the prompt link, I'll be extremely interested to see where that percentage is with regards to the 2012 presidential election.
It's bad. Labor unions support those in charge of them, not the American citizen. This is still private interests having undue influence over government. Being in a union doesn't make you any more of an American citizen than being a CEO.
I believe Obama is on track to raise $1 Billion for his re-election campaign.
Noam Chomsky posted an interview this week in which he predicted both Obama and the Republican's choice would both raise over a billion dollars.
1:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ubx9m900CM
I agree that I don't think size is the problem. Its that the INFLUENCE of the individual has been so diminished. Also, I think when people talk about big vs small government I think they should understand the difference between big government (which to me is teachers and police and researchers etc.) and Big Bureaucracy - Which I think is the real money pit.
That's the wrong question man. It's not about bigger or smaller. It's about smarter and UNbought. We need to see how much we have in common and realize we, the 99% have the power. For too long the 1% using their media minions have been dividing us into camps, pitting us against one another. I reject that mindset completely. Government is us my friend. Anyone that makes it out to be evil is calling the people evil and none of us want any part of that. The days of demonization are over. The people are awakening and realizing how absurd it is for 1% of the population to rule the 99% using fear and divisiveness. We are letting go of fear. We are letting go of divisiveness. We are the 99% and we are not afraid. The people united can never be defeated.
yes, that's why we vote.
Well, it used to be that votes "bought" influence. But now politicians on both sides talk a good game to the 99% on during election season and then serve the interests of the 1% the rest of the time. That's about to be history. The jig is up. Voting is about to mean something again which means politicians will have to become real leaders, building real consensus and doing the work of the people. The 99% won't be making DEMANDS from a position of weakness. The 99% will be making DECISIONS from a position of strength. It will be the plutocrats, the 1% that will be clamoring making lists of demands.
one problem though...
OWS is currently made up of primarily Ron Paul supporters and Obama supporters...w/ Anarchists and Communists on the sides.
The Ron Paul ppl will never come to an agreement w/ the Obama people as to who to vote for.
You're stuck in a mindset of divisiveness man. This movement is being supported by millions of people around the world from all backgrounds. Here's how it's going to go. Please visit this link. http://occupywallst.org/forum/which-do-you-think-would-be-better-to-solve-the-pr/#comment-76190
I'm going to clue you in on something before you and other continue to make the same mistake...the VAST majority of Americans don't care what how the World thinks we in the U.S. should run our own government.
There are millions of ppl in other countries who demand we in the U.S. change things? So what...who cares...they are not Americans and have ZERO to say in how we do things for ourselves.
How many Americans support OWS? hundreds, thousands?
ok...great!
OWS is going to need 150+ million to have any real say in changing things.
And they do not have anywhere near those numbers.
Fasten your seatbelts man. Because what you're suggesting is exactly the direction this is heading. Gandhi said it best (and he pushed British out of India wearing only a bedsheet): "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
no...it's not.
OWS is currently made up of Ron Paul ppl vs Obama ppl...with some Anarchists and Communists on the edges.
None of these groups will EVER come to an agreement on how to fix anything.
And once one side finally takes control of OWS, the others will leave.
Already OWS has the Unions, Moveon.org, Soros, Media Matters, Van Jones, and SEIU trying to take control.
It won't be long before the Ron Paul ppl give up and leave.
Ahhh. Well, my friend, you just made my point for me. You said they are TRYING to take control. Let's put aside whether that's true or not for a moment. The fact is they haven't succeeded, despite all the pressure. And they won't. Because this is a grassroots movement, an organic movement, an authentic movement. It's unstoppable. You are currently in the "ignore / laugh phases of the Gandhi analysis above." Eventually you and others will find common ground with the 99% rather than living a life of cynicisim and nihilism, something the marketing minions of the 1% have been drilling into our heads for decades. Millions of people are now realizing there's another way to live. Take your time. You'll come around. And the 99% will welcome you. Take all the time you like. Seriously. A debate is healthy. And a hard won realization sticks. So keep probing.
We shall see, won't we.
yelling about issues is one thing...voting for change is completely different.
And the two main groups in OWS, the Ron Paul ppl and the Obama ppl, will be voting for completely different candidates.
Not if the 99% are occupying the agenda :). You keep thinking the current paradigm is permanent. It ain't.
and you keep thinking that "99%" means you have a majority of Americans on your side.
Just because you claim it, doesn't make it true.
OWS is a small minority of People.
You need 150+ million to make changes and you don't have it.
Stay tuned :)
Size wont matter until we get rid of the ability to buy legislation. Our government works on a principle that, 'he with the most money, makes the rules." Until this ends, it wont matter.
The congress and senate are the problem.
They do not care about americans.
They care about elections, power, keeping others down.
Term limits would go a long way in solving this problem.
Term limits would require Congress to vote them in.
you do realize this, right??
I am talking about voting them out.
Every 4 years.
Some of the bigest problem children have been there for decades. They scream at the president about leadership.
He should point right back at them and ask them what they have accomplished in the 20 years they have been in DC.
I fully agree.
I support term limits and voting to make it happen.
stop the perpetual campaigning and force politicians to get it, do the people's work and then get out.
It's a false choice. The size of the government has never been the question. It's always been about the government's priorities and effectiveness.
Focus, guys. We need to properly identify the problem, or we'll end up wasting our efforts on these red herrings.
this isn't difficult...
What do you want? A better happier life...we all do.
How will you get it and what's standing in your way?
No, it isn't difficult. But you're still getting it wrong.
What's standing in my way of a "better, happier life" is other people whose ideas of a "better, happier life" conflict with mine.
So how do we co-exist peacefully without resorting to violence, tribalism, fear and barbarity? We develop social systems that attempt to be fair arbitrators of these conflicts.
And why isn't it working? Because it's not being a fair arbitrator.
And why isn't it being fair? Because its priorities have been shifted away from fair arbitration and towards campaigning and fundraising.
Get me? It isn't difficult. If you want to problem-solve proper, you can't start with a conclusion. The size of government is not the problem. It's the government's priorities.
you have no difficulty describing the problems, which I agree with...but you seem to be lacking in clear concise doable solutions.
as most ppl here seem to be. btw, I don't claim to have all the answers either.
perpetual campaigning and fundraising is an issue.
agreed.
what's the solution?
-Campaign Finance Reform
-Abolish Corporate Personhood
-Impose Congressional Term Limits
-Disclose Private Finances of Congress
These are all aimed at divorcing money from governance. There are more steps to be taken in this direction, but this is how we restore a democracy that prioritizes the demos.
All of those things will require politicians voting them in...you agree right?
Regarding Corporate Personhood? What does that mean? Does it mean that Corporations cannot campaign for, run ads for, or promote Politicians running for office?
Yes, these demands would require legislation. That's how our system of governance works. I believe Occupy needs rally voters to demand fixing the system - and to oust any members of Congress who refuse to honor the will of the people they were elected to represent.
Corporate Personhood is not only about the campaign ads and endorsements - most of that should be under the umbrella of Campaign Finance Reform anyway. Corporate Personhood is about not allowing Corporations to have all of the legal protections an individual person is afforded by the Constitution. Corporations are entitled to their simple motive of profit. But governance must not be beholden to that motive. Governance must also prioritize public good. Giving Corporations the protections of individuals gives them an unduly large voice in governance - one that overpowers the voice of citizens.
Above all, we need to subordinate corporate interest to the interest of citizens, and we can't do that if the law claims corporate interest is public interest.
There are finer distinctions to be made between Corporations, PACs, and the press. There are legal details to fill in, but the broader philosophy needs to be made clear: government is responsible to its people, not to large corporations.
I agree. It is definitely not the question of size. It is dividing business from state, religion from state and a complete departure of the notion that socialism is equated to Communism. It does not.
Better government.
Regulations that are culled for those that are unnecessary and can scrapped, but regulations given real teeth to protect us: clean air and water, no financial fraud or even underhanded cheating, etc.
May I please offer a third choice. Honest, Efficient, and Effective Government. One that does not accept corporate, banker, and special interests money. One that does not spend extremely large amounts of money on fraud and waste.
States' Rights. We are the United States of America. We are composed of 50 individual states; each represent the populous of that state.
Both. They have their nose in some areas they shouldn't where they should put those resources into studying other suspicious activities.
Let's discuss on the AlRoc&Kris show saturday nite at 9pm. To hell with conventional media they are all controlled by either the right or the left. This show is controlled by no one Warklive.com 877 927 5548
Let's discuss on the AlRoc&Kris show saturday nite at 9pm. To hell with conventional media they are all controlled by either the right or the left. This show is controlled by no one Warklive.com 877 927 5548
I think smaller government with less power is best. I just watched a docu on the EPA and fracking and how a certain politican got the EPA to say fracking did not need to be held accountable for water pollution. Now people are getting sick from toxic pollution in their water! from near by fracking and the EPA does not do anything about it. I think that is a good example how big government gets controlled by money and people end up screwed.
Neither...
I don't fear any government other then a corrupt one.
Anarchy then?
Won't happen in America...we have 300 million ppl the vast majority of whom don't want that.
So what will you do?
I don't support anarchy.
Big government or small, they will both have their problems. They both have their pro's and cons. Either way i don't fear any government other then a corrupt one.
I probably should have explained what i meant a little better in my first post. I do favor a big government though. I know first hand that people are greedy, corrupt, immoral and will step on a dieing man for a penny and not give it a seconds thought. Give some one the opportunity to exploit another and they will.
"people are greedy, corrupt, immoral and will step on a dieing man for a penny"
So you want a bigger Govt filled with those people to oversee other people?
interesting...
No, i just want a bigger government that is there to help protect those that can't protect them self. One where money is removed and is truly of the people. Not every one fits into "people are greedy, corrupt, immoral and will step on a dieing man for a penny" but a lot do.
I'm interested in how you see this Bigger Govt working...
For example: If a company tries to raise the fees or costs it charges its customers, do you think it's the job of Govt to step in and stop this?
You are talking about an intrusive government, not a big one.
feel free to explain what you believe a Bigger Govt would be
More regulations, taxation, and social safety nets?
I already did.
no, you just spoke in vague terms..."Govt that's there to help protect those that can't protect them self"
There's no detail to that vague notion.
You might as well just say, "I want happiness!"
What good is going threw a list of 100 million things with you when you think a small government is going to save us and i don't ? I don't want to change your mind. I gave my opinion and if you don't like it, to damn bad.
my intent here isn't to change ppl's minds...I asked this question to see how diametrically opposed many in OWS are about the solutions to the problems as they see it.
In the end, someone at some point will have to offer up concrete demands/solutions. OWS can't spend weeks/months/years just yelling about issues and offering up nothing.
And when those demands/solutions are finally offered...I suspect that many here will be in conflict w/ each other.
Most of the people talking about politics don't understand what the OWS movement is about. The people that get it, there is one clear goal. All this big government, little government, raise taxes, lower taxes, End the Fed, Left, right, Republican, Democrat talk ... it's just that. Talk.
Watch this video, 2 people in this group of 4 discussing OWS understand it. One is indifferent and the other... lol
Start at the 3 minute mark and there is also a 5 minute commercial in the middle so it's not as long as it seems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO9oMV-RXRU&list=
You said, "...it's just that. Talk"
All OWS is just that...TALK.
There's a simple reason for OWS not being able to come together to make their demands clear...because OWS is basically filled with two groups who see the solutions in entirely different ways.
The far right ppl of OWS, the Ron Paul people And the far left ppl of OWS, the Obama people and then you have the outliers...the Anarchists and Communists.
that is OWS...and THAT is why OWS will never come to any agreement on anything, because once one side finally does take control...they will lose the others.
I gave you the answer to your question. You can accept it or not.
The link i posted is a discussion by 2 people who are really involved in the OWS movement, not internet warriors who pretend to know what they are talking about.
I don't have to pretend...I can already read these forums to see how the fight between the far right and far left is progressing inside OWS.
soon, the split will happen.
One side wants Bigger Govt and the other side wants Smaller Govt.
They can't co-exist within OWS
Smaller government. They are just puppets of those with money. That's what this protest is about. Get rid of the puppeteer.
thanks for the reply.
I'm interested to see how many believe as you do though...
I suspect it's a 70/30 split with most people here wanting Bigger Govt...taxation, regulations, more laws, etc
Yeah, I know they do. I don't think it would work. Money will still be the biggest factor.
"If it has a job, tax it, if it moves, regulate it, if it stops moving, subsidize it."
I want a healthy government which can prevent accidents before they happen.
Bigger
Neither, "new" Government AND "new" Business is needed, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate – myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.