US Government- Expand or Decrease?

himtroy wrote: I fail to see why anybody would want a government to expand, especially at this large of a stage already.  The bigger the government gets the less freedom you'll have, and the more corrupt it will get, and then you can't do anything about it, becuase you have a huge government.

Agreed.

hawkcwg wrote: The T wrote: hawkcwg wrote: I like how was done in ancient times, children would voluntarily meet up and listen to philosophers speak and really take in the subjects they were interested in.   Do you really want American youngster to be even more stupid than they're right now? If schools were made voluntary, most youngster will prefer to try to get some "quick cash money" instead of trying to better themselves and actually making much more money in the future... (as money is the only thing that matters for some).   American high-schools are so atrocious... Now make them voluntary... Damn....   About the question, I want the government out of my life in private issues as abortion (allow it), drugs (legalize them), gay marriage (allow it) and so.... I want government in issues like economy regulation, healthcare system, workers rights, etc....   Gun control is the only so-called private issue where I want the government to step in and impose it. Actually, it's not private: it c eases to be private when you can use your gun to kill... I agree with you on your point about the original question, but not on the school subject. As I previously answered. I think that you have little faith in the people that actually want to learn. Why force people into a jail for 6 hours a day, in a social caste system, wasting away their childhood? If kids want to get into the real world let em. And someone responded that children going to school is a way that keeps them out of trouble, well thats not true at all, because the ones that are going to get some "cash-money" are the ones that are already skipping class, and the ones that want to screw up there future, why should there be a school system to babysit them? Another waste of tax money if you ask me.

The T wrote: hawkcwg wrote: himtroy wrote: I fail to see why anybody would want a government to expand, especially at this large of a stage already.  The bigger the government gets the less freedom you'll have, and the more corrupt it will get, and then you can't do anything about it, because you have a huge government. Because they themselves don't care about other people, and don't want change, or are not educated on the subject enough to make a logical, rational decision on there own.   I'd prefer more government because it has been proven that people, especially in the US, are extremely selfish and greedy and don't give a flying f**k about the others? and there are people who can't afford health care because f**king private insurance companies hold a complete dominance over pricing and over who gets approved and who doesn't. I'd like bigger government because I HAVE BEEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES (unlike some "real Americans" who consider traveling going from state to state) and I have seen the difference, and I myself come from a poorer country where people at least are less selfish and greedy. I prefer more government because in America companies do what they want, pay workers sh*t, while they swim in profits, creating a gap that eventually leads to this recession...   Learn a little bit more about people before saying what people want my good Da Chazter. And don't run... Obama doesn't want your gun.... YET.

"I'd prefer more government because it has been proven that people, especially in the US, are extremely selfish and greedy and don't give a flying f**k about the others?"

How would increasing government help this problem? So you think government should give people more handouts and more money should go to bureaucracies, because the rich mans getting greedy with his power?

THAT would not fix the problem. THAT would cause more problems. As if the government isn't big enough, throwing OUR money away, that they STEAL from us to go to these programs. Why should everyone have to pay money for your ideas? if YOU want to pay money to help people get their medicine, then YOU can go right ahead and daily, monthly, or annually donate money for that cause, But why should WE have to pay for those programs?

If my next door neighbor is dying of "fluenitous", is it right for the cops to come into my house and point a gun to my head and say that i need to give all or some of my money to help my neighbor? Because that's exactly what the government does to aid all its little shenanigans. AND YOU WANT A BIGGER GOVERNMENT, AND MORE BUREAUCRACIES, AND MORE TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





Edited by hawkcwg - May 15 2009 at 00:57

hawkcwg wrote: The T wrote: hawkcwg wrote: himtroy wrote: I fail to see why anybody would want a government to expand, especially at this large of a stage already.  The bigger the government gets the less freedom you'll have, and the more corrupt it will get, and then you can't do anything about it, because you have a huge government. Because they themselves don't care about other people, and don't want change, or are not educated on the subject enough to make a logical, rational decision on there own.   I'd prefer more government because it has been proven that people, especially in the US, are extremely selfish and greedy and don't give a flying f**k about the others? and there are people who can't afford health care because f**king private insurance companies hold a complete dominance over pricing and over who gets approved and who doesn't. I'd like bigger government because I HAVE BEEN IN OTHER COUNTRIES (unlike some "real Americans" who consider traveling going from state to state) and I have seen the difference, and I myself come from a poorer country where people at least are less selfish and greedy. I prefer more government because in America companies do what they want, pay workers sh*t, while they swim in profits, creating a gap that eventually leads to this recession...   Learn a little bit more about people before saying what people want my good Da Chazter. And don't run... Obama doesn't want your gun.... YET. "I'd prefer more government because it has been proven that people, especially in the US, are extremely selfish and greedy and don't give a flying f**k about the others?" How would increasing government help this problem? So you think government should give people more handouts and more money should go to bureaucracies, because the rich mans getting greedy with his power? THAT would not fix the problem. THAT would cause more problems. As if the government isn't big enough, throwing OUR money away, that they STEAL from us to go to these programs. Why should everyone have to pay money for your ideas? if YOU want to pay money to help people get their medicine, then YOU can go right ahead and daily, monthly, or annually donate money for that cause, But why should WE have to pay for those programs? If my next door neighbor is dying of "fluenitous", is it right for the cops to come into my house and point a gun to my head and say that i need to give all or some of my money to help my neighbor? Because that's exactly what the government does to aid all its little shenanigans. AND YOU WANT A BIGGER GOVERNMENT, AND MORE BUREAUCRACIES, AND MORE TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. Social benefits =/= handouts. Unless they're handled badly. Admittedly, you always get a few people leeching off the system, but those seem to me as much to be  selfish and relatively well off people who shouldn't be on the program in question as people who are on it and not doing anything about it.

2. The government is elected and supported by the people, aye? Hence, it's not theft, it's represented taxation, which is crucial to being out of anarchy. When you have anarchy, you don't have any rights, because none of your rights are guaranteed or protected except in as much as you have the personal power to do so. I.e. weak people have then less rights than the strong, and it's questionable whether even the strongest truly have rights rather than just power.

Hence, more government actually can = more rights. The trend is to include more obligations as well. Having rights is crucial to having freedom.

If my next door neighbor is dying of "fluenitous", is it right for the cops to come into my house and point a gun to my head and say that i need to give all or some of my money to help my neighbor?

In answer to that, I think so, though you're taking the whole tax thing ridiculously.

The government is elected by your neighbour as well as you, right? If the government has made a pledge to protect everyone's right to healthcare, that's obviously going to come at a cost which is going to have to be footed by the taxpayer in general. You shouldn't be particularly singled out for tax because of wealth, nor should you not be receiving the benefits of that tax money because of wealth. That, I think, is where socialist and communist parties of the last century have been going wrong for a while... obsession with class struggle simply means that they're not a very viable choice for anyone who's in the middle class.

Now, if you're really offended by the idea of elected representatives taxing you, either vote for the ones who say they're not going to and put up with the results if  they lose or else move. Out of interest, the government's role in upkeeping the military is obviously pretty important for your security, would you support them ceasing to do that? (which would downsize government a lot more than just reducing 'bureaucracy')




Edited by TGM: Orb - May 15 2009 at 05:15

Taxes are the lifeblood of a government. You get out what you put in. What's most atrocious is the amount of tax money that goes into war compared to that which actually goes into making the country better. Regardless of any ideological bullsh*t, countries with universal healthcare/ socialized medicine are happier than those without (re: Europe). If you don't value happiness, by all means, be anti-socialized medicine out the wazoo.

stonebeard wrote: Taxes are the lifeblood of a government. You get out what you put in. What's most atrocious is the amount of tax money that goes into war compared to that which actually goes into making the country better. Regardless of any ideological bullsh*t, countries with universal healthcare/ socialized medicine are happier than those without (re: Europe). If you don't value happiness, by all means, be anti-socialized medicine out the wazoo.

Post of the year!

I have to say, I just don't understand those people who are obsessed with not paying taxes (and we have quite a few of them in Italy too). Are they really so naive to think that they will ever get anything for free? Or is it just the idea of paying them to the 'big, bad government' that rubs them the wrong way? I'm sorry, but as a person who is nearing the age of 50, I believe the government is made up of people, just like everything else in this world, and does nothing but reflect the nature of its citizens. If people stopped for a while playing the victims of the 'big, bad gov't', and took some responsibility for change, the world would be a better place by far.

hawkcwg wrote: The T wrote: hawkcwg wrote: The T wrote: hawkcwg wrote: I like how was done in ancient times, children would voluntarily meet up and listen to philosophers speak and really take in the subjects they were interested in.   Do you really want American youngster to be even more stupid than they're right now? If schools were made voluntary, most youngster will prefer to try to get some "quick cash money" instead of trying to better themselves and actually making much more money in the future... (as money is the only thing that matters for some).   American high-schools are so atrocious... Now make them voluntary... Damn....   About the question, I want the government out of my life in private issues as abortion (allow it), drugs (legalize them), gay marriage (allow it) and so.... I want government in issues like economy regulation, healthcare system, workers rights, etc....   Gun control is the only so-called private issue where I want the government to step in and impose it. Actually, it's not private: it c eases to be private when you can use your gun to kill... I agree with you on your point about the original question, but not on the school subject. As I previously answered. I think that you have little faith in the people that actually want to learn. Why force people into a jail for 6 hours a day, in a social caste system, wasting away their childhood? If kids want to get into the real world let em. And someone responded that children going to school is a way that keeps them out of trouble, well thats not true at all, because the ones that are going to get some "cash-money" are the ones that are already skipping class, and the ones that want to screw up there future, why should there be a school system to babysit them? Another waste of tax money if you ask me.   Luckily for the human race, generally parents make this kind of decision, not 12-year olds. Everybody would leave the school system, go to work in dead end jobs, feed the machine with their sweat but without gainging anything in the process. Companies would have cheaper labor than today, and as the employees would be utterly ignorant, they would be able to play with them and pay them what they wanted, and these people would never go anywhere because they wouldn't know better, and as they grow older and gain more responsibilities, they would be even less free to change jobs because of their needs.   Damn... even today, american youngsters can't identify IRAQ, with whom we just had a 23928302-year war, in the map. Imagine without schools....   Yes, I prefer s school system to babysit them than having them on the streets without any maturity and with lots of stupid ideas... I've through the public school system most of my life so you think your experience is enough evidence for your idea? Don't you think countless people with LOTS of studies have done research and found out that education is necessary?  and no one learns anything in those schools except how to be an obedient, controllable idiot. I don't think so, especially since American schools teach youngsters how to be narcisistic punks, not controllable idiots. And if they actually tone down your wish to do what you want, wouldn't it be at least partially good? "Only overcoming yourself shall you overcome". The only ones that learn are the ones who are willing to play the silly power games with the school officials. Sorry but this is absurd, ridiculous, and more... The only ones who learn are those WILLING TO LEARN , who don't want to be ignorants their whole life. And believe me, even the ones who don't want to learn still learn something, at least how to interact with OTHER PEOPLE. Statistics show that the children that are homeschooled, unschooling, or independently learning, are learning five times faster than the average highschooler and most GED degree children have better test scores than the average highschool graduate. Whose statistics? How can a home school be better than an institution with dedicated teachers for each subjects? I guess in some areas there might be advantages, but in general, for a broad, WORLD-VIEW-READY education, a farm in the depth of the Mississippi river can't substitute an actual school. So the public school system is completly useless, No... nthere are people who can't access any other option. Stop being so incredibly selfish. Oh, well, you're young and American..besides the fact that it babysits the idiot children of america. No... those who think they are being babysat are the ones who really need a babysitter.  while the tax payers money is poored down the drain by public school nutcases. The system needs 23729382 changes, but elimination is not one. Look to Europe man.... nobody is eliminating schools there...   Do you even have children? No... do you, who are so much younger?? And if you do, then some better education would have helped you. Because if you do then I think the process would be evidence enough that the system is useless. This is preposterous and defies any logic. The system is poorly implemented, that's it. Go ask a highschooler and ask him or her, Did you learn anything today johnny? Some will, some won't. Some are idiots, some aren't. Anyway, we shouldn't generate public policy based on the answers of 16-year old peopleYeah theres this great new app on my phone that allows me to send texts with out the teacher knowing.......Good.... at home in the farm in Nebraska maybe they wouldn't have learned even that useless thing... Really go into a highschool or ask a highschooler if he really learned anything today. I bet Oh you put a whole idea that would change the fate of millions of people ona  BET? hahaha. I though you had better evidence than that. you the average highschooler didn't learn jack sh*t, they just memorized, and crammed a bunch of information just... To ,,, Pass... A .... Test..... They are learning at least how to get over circumstances created by others. They're learning THAT THEY ARE NOT THE ULTIMATE sh*t IN THE WOLRD AND THAT THEY CAN'T GO ABOUT DOING WHAT THEY f**kING WANT. And as we see, when the general student populous grades are low then we will just have to drop the bar for them some more. The bar is low because many teachers suck... Till the general student populous is at an all time low. Then they will be perfect government bait, and easily controlled to run "the machine" as you referred to. No... grow up please. The government doesn't control anything... but the manager in your local retail store does, the CEO of your manufacturing company does, the mastermind behind that new credit card does.... THEY ENSLAVE you, not the govermnet....

Let's keep the discussions civil. This is a decent poll and I don't want it closed.

Governments will always need to raise money via taxation - this is what pays for essential services in a civilised society. Also, people should bear in mind that the right wing press who always bemoan social assistance and government sponsored essential programmes are also the first ones to bemoan just how crap those services are when the cuts take place.

The key to this argument is that ordinary working people pay more as a proportion of their income in taxes than the exceptionally rich do. The latter can afford to pay bloodsucking accountants to siphon their money away in tax havens, capital schemes, and other money saving wheezes. Until THAT issue is addressed, you will never arrive at a situation where the people are entirely comfortable with the government/state/taxes. Progressive taxation is the key to a fair society, and neither the US or UK have it.

The question is not necessarily whether big government is good, it is whether government is effective, both in terms of administration and delivery. Brown's government has centralised or privatised virtually everything that has moved, thus taking away accountability and control from local people - this is an example of big government being bad. The right wing, of course, want to take government away full stop, except when it suits them and their corporate friends - the tragedy of the UK is that New Labour have been better at this than the Conservatives could ever have dreamed of.