I just wanted to get a sense of AD'ers views on the size of government. I know that many here may believe that it should be spending more in some areas and perhaps less in others. But what I'm wondering is what everyone thinks the government's take should be overall. Is there a danger to our freedom from the federal government controlling too much of a chunk of the nation's GDP, in terms of the ability of politicians to either reward friends and punish enemies, shield themselves from accountability, manipulate the nation's economic life by choosing winners and losers, attach strings and conditions upon the recipients of funds, create constituencies that use public funding to increase their power, or just plain micromanage too much of what goes on in our society?

1. Are the concerns cited above valid concerns in the abstract?

2. If so, are we actually in danger of approaching that point currently?

Where's the "taxing" part? We seem to be spending all right but we're cutting taxes. It's more like cut taxes and spend like a drunken sailor.

Here's an interesting article on how lobbyists are blowing up and making millions on the new "give away" attitude of the current congress/white house.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062101632.html

I'd submit that most of the spending is going to the interests that are paying these lobbyists.

So in an era where politicians seem to have given up and simply search out the best money, spending will continue to increase and we're going to be more and more indebted to other nations like China.

Obviously we need to change faces in DC with more pro-citizen politicians and less corporate interested politicians.

Lots of spending,lots of nation building. Makes Democrats look like Reagan republicans. GW is probably the best Democrat ever elected to office.




How? you get the same at the state and city level. The “you scratch my back and I’ll see that you benefit obscenely” happens at all levels. Much like the story of Cincinatus, the people who would refrain from that path aren’t in politics – they have lives. Sadly this leaves us with the leeches and those with a pathological need to “save us” and make the world a “better place”.

As for whether we will ever get away from the taxes and the spending—I doubt it very much.
Simply put Pork Sells – better than sex. States need the support for their internal industries, There are some states which rely heavily on Fed money to keep their people at home working, --example, highways need to be built to keep lots of people employed and off the unemployment line.
Hell without subsidies the American farmer get they would face the reality of global competition and probably die out and be replaced by corporate farms—which is horrible for political parties that like to scream about ‘small government” since those are their voters and a HUGE bonanza for those that love those votes.

The only way to break Taxes and Spending is to break Government and completely decentralize political power. People cannot give what they don’t have or cannot take.
and I would wager most people would be lost without Big Brother/Mother so that wont happen.

I included taxes in the title because they're inseparable from spending - it's just a question of when they end up kicking in. Every dollar government spends is going to be taken from the private sector one way or the other. My question has to do with whether you think there's an inherent danger to our freedom when this goes beyond a certain point, and where (roughly) you think that point is, relative to where we're at now.

1. Yes. Our government has continued to grow unabated independent of which party is in power. It's created a life of it's own and like Frankenstein, it eventually will go on a rampage. The problem with what government spends is its inherent inefficiency independent of the "noble cause" or the "social justice" behind the justification for the spending. Government does not compete. It's a massive bureaucracy, run largely by unionized or similarly protected employees, with ZERO incentive to hold down costs, increase efficiencies, or find smarter and faster way to deliver the "services" they are chartered with providing. Instead, the main goal of the government organism, like any parasite, is to "survive".

2. We're well PAST that point. I advocate a 50% reduction in the US government across the board. I also advocate privatizing vast portions of the public sector especially education, transportation, social security, and health care. Private companies can do FAR better, at a lower cost, than the government.

I applaud Bush's stance toward the Islamist terrorists and his decision to go on the offense against them and against the states who enable them (like Iraq). However, he's been a HUGE disappointment when it comes to the size and scope of the government. The creation of yet another huge bureaucracy (Homeland Security) combined with his massive increase in federal education funding (in contrast to the constant whining by the left wing teachers unions) were steps in the wrong direction.

But, realistically, the prospects for change are minimal. Bush was arguable pragmatic in adopting such an approach. The democrats, since the vast majority of their constituents get the lion's share of the benefits related to income redistribution, will always favor "socking it to the rich" in order to provide hand outs for those who don't make such good choices in their lives. And as long as a homeless guy's vote counts the same as Bill Gates, that trend will continue. And, people are afraid of privatization due to the decades of propaganda that they've been fed by the statists in the democrat party. Remember the outcry against a miniscule privatization of Social Security that would be done on a VOLUNTARY basis? It was the end of the world if you listened to Reid, Pelosi, Dean and the other mouthpieces for the huge state run monopoly. If we can't even make small, and relatively innocuous changes to a system like SS, I don't hold much hope for public education experiencing significant reform.

Isn't that the point of gov't? Supposedly they do what the private sector and individuals can't do alone. Should we all depend on a monopolist like Bill Gates to save us instead? A guy who kills competition, makes billions....then takes our money to Africa and India?

You can harp about gov't, but to even a small extent we need it. And gov't can make the country a better place, it just depends on people's attentiveness and accountability. If people concentrate on gay marriage or fear "them folks gonna take the word God off money!" then it's easy for the pork and kickbacks to flow.

Right now we have a very corrupt gov't. Lobbyists are running rampant and making millions in the process. That's our money they're making!

And I disagree that it's the states that are necessarily getting this money. Look at Jefferson in La or that California rep who made millions for HIMSELF.

The key is accountability. If people don't care, the foxes WILL raid the hen house.



Didn't education get cut? Grants were slashed, weren't they? Yeah, damn that education let's give money away to Halliburton instead. Which leads me to my question, you never mentioned the ungodly waste in Iraq or defense spending. Or the huge kickbacks to HMOs and Pharma companies.



Do you have a link that proves this? Seems to me Exxon execs and Halliburton execs and defense contractors, etc. etc. are making BILLIONS right now on that "income redistribution". Meanwhile the very rich get tax cuts? I call you out, LORDHELMET, where's the beef?

And BTW, homeless and poor people don't vote. That's why all the kickbacks and tax cuts are going to corporations and billionares. Like HP who just lobbied to bring back $50 Billion in revenue TAX FREE from OVERSEAS which was most likely made with OUTSOURCING. They paid the gov't and got the money tax free!!

Let's blame the poor people....ya right. Even the democrats don't care about poor people.

I don't know what you're referring to here. Maybe particular programs got cut, but overall federal education has not been cut, and certainly not below pre-2001 levels. Go here and scroll down to Tables S-3 and S-4.

So putting aside for the moment the criticisms of the Republicans' priorities on spending, do you think there's an overall level of spending that's too dangerous, regardless of which party's in power?

I agree with minimizing gov't expenditures especially on the federal level. I've workd for gov't and I've seen the waste on the very small level much less the monumental level like losing a billion dollars in Iraq.

Will it hurt us if we let it go out of control? I think we may find out! I don't know if it hurts democracy, I think the failing of the american people to elect the right people and hold them accountable is hurting our country, not vice versa.

The reason I like less spending nationally is that it's much easier to spend that money and it's much harder to hold anyone accountable. If you look at the best gov't it's always on a local level. School boards are a prime example. Most gov't spending should be on a local level and not vice-versa.