Big Government

[Woodruff]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

[hecter]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

Of course not, because the people get to carry around 9mm's or their Colt 45's to fight off those tanks and fighter jets.

[jonesthecurl]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

Well, it'd better be dangerous to some bastard, 'cos that's a lot of money to waste on just posing.

[rockfist]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

It could be. It could also not be.

[SultanOfSurreal]

You are aware that it is the government which provides national defence? If you have a large military budget, you have a large government.

You are aware that government run health care, banks, schools, taxes is BIG government?

Eh? What are you on about.

You're the one who said that defence spending doesn't count towards big government.

I said defense spending is a given. You have to have THAT. The other stuff mentioned, not so much.

so big government is ok when you like it and not ok when you don't

gotcha

[Woodruff]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

It could be. It could also not be.

For reference, let's compare "the level of dangerousity to it's own people" between a government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense and a government that does car dealership takeovers. Hmmmm...

[Trephining]

How can a corporation which exists in essence only to make money for its onwers/stockholder be to greedy.

The point of making a business is to succeed and become wealthy from it.

The government was intended to protect our rights...now its run like business.

The government was NOT intended to protect our rights. The limitations built into our government (through the Constitution) were intended to enable the people to protect themselves form government.

[Trephining]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

Of course not, because the people get to carry around 9mm's or their Colt 45's to fight off those tanks and fighter jets.

While that is a clever-sounding bit of sarcasm you have there, recognize that members of the US military are US citizens. Their duty as part of the military is to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution is intended to protect the freedom of the people from their own government.

[BigBallinStalin]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

Of course not, because the people get to carry around 9mm's or their Colt 45's to fight off those tanks and fighter jets.

While that is a clever-sounding bit of sarcasm you have there, recognize that members of the US military are US citizens. Their duty as part of the military is to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution is intended to protect the freedom of the people from their own government.

Well, the Constitution held up pretty strongly against the US Patriot Act, didn't it?

Thank God those US military servicemen were there to defend the Constitution and protect our freedom from our own government...

[beezer]

So defence spending doesn't count towards the size of a government? Thats bull, if you have a large military it means you have a large government. You have the choice of having a small government if you decide to have lower defence spending (like many nations around the world have done). All the parts that make a "large government" are voluntary and can be removed if its decided to.

Try to follow eh?

Defense spending is one fraction of government spending. One that is necessary for obvious reasons. I don't care if the government spends 75% of their budget on defense. The problem arises when they start intruding in our everyday lives. Health care takeover, car dealership takeovers, bank takeovers etc. In other words, when the government moves in to control what once was in the PRIVATE SECTOR we have a problem. A government with that much power is dangerous.

A government that spends 75% of the national budget on defense isn't dangerous to its' own people?

It's alarming that I can agree with you on this, Woodruff.

Jay, when you start these kinds of threads you are painting yourself as a paranoid sometimes. Government has a proper place. Think of the times that the government had to use the military to enforce equality to end segregation in public schools.

I'm with you if you're saying they shouldn't be running our health care.

[Trephining]

While that is a clever-sounding bit of sarcasm you have there, recognize that members of the US military are US citizens. Their duty as part of the military is to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution is intended to protect the freedom of the people from their own government.

Well, the Constitution held up pretty strongly against the US Patriot Act, didn't it?

Thank God those US military servicemen were there to defend the Constitution and protect our freedom from our own government...[/quote]

That was another good reach into the sarcasm bag.

The US Patriot Act is in my opinion a failure of the checks and balances established in the Constitution. The Act grants the executive branch powers that it should not have, as they are not powers enumerated in the Constitution. That said, Congress should not have passed the Act, the POTUS should not have signed it, and the SCOTUS should not permit it.

Remember I never said the Constitution has been upheld perfectly. There are numerous breaches, increasing rapidly over the past century.

[Trephining]

It's alarming that I can agree with you on this, Woodruff.

Jay, when you start these kinds of threads you are painting yourself as a paranoid sometimes. Government has a proper place. Think of the times that the government had to use the military to enforce equality to end segregation in public schools.

I'm with you if you're saying they shouldn't be running our health care.

The federal govermment did not "have to" use the military in the segregation in public schools instance you mentioned. In fact, that was an overstep of the federal government's power as granted by the Constitution. The federal government has no business in education whatsoever. The fact that they are involved in both funding and creating standards is a violation of the concept of a federal government as defined in the Constitution.

All that said, I also don't agree with segregation. While I believe each state should be able to address education as they see fit [and as their respective state Constitutions permit], I don't think segregation is acceptable.

I prefer that people (including lower levels of government, such as state, county, municipal, etc) have the freedom to act stupidly, and also that they have the responsiblity to accept the consequences. As an example, I don't have a problem with a restaurant that refuses to serve white people. I think it is a stupid way to run a business, and I would vote with my dollars and never spend any money there. They are free to be stupid though.

[jay_a2j]

It's alarming that I can agree with you on this, Woodruff.

Jay, when you start these kinds of threads you are painting yourself as a paranoid sometimes. Government has a proper place. Think of the times that the government had to use the military to enforce equality to end segregation in public schools.

I'm with you if you're saying they shouldn't be running our health care.

I'm confused, you say that you agree with Woody yet you make points that agree with me?

[beezer]

It's alarming that I can agree with you on this, Woodruff.

Jay, when you start these kinds of threads you are painting yourself as a paranoid sometimes. Government has a proper place. Think of the times that the government had to use the military to enforce equality to end segregation in public schools.

I'm with you if you're saying they shouldn't be running our health care.

I'm confused, you say that you agree with Woody yet you make points that agree with me?

Yeah, I didn't explain that very well. What I'm saying is that you seem to paint this very general picture of almost any growth in government = BIG GOVERNMENT. If I lived in a community with a BIG crime problem I would want my state and county to spend alot of money for a BIG police force to deal with it.

What I was agreeing with Woodruff about was that spending 75% on defense spending would be dangerous. You said you didn't care if a country did that. If a country did that, it would mean that they've probably lost their credibility with their own people and need to enforce laws through military force. They would probably also be looking to force their views on other countries as well. That would hardly be for the purpose of 'defense' and would most likely be pursuing hostility.

What I would agree with you about is the government sticking its nose into peoples' private and personal health care issues. That's none of their business IMO. Right now, they're attempting to do that and using the uninsured as an excuse.

[BigBallinStalin]

While that is a clever-sounding bit of sarcasm you have there, recognize that members of the US military are US citizens. Their duty as part of the military is to defend the Constitution, and the Constitution is intended to protect the freedom of the people from their own government.

Well, the Constitution held up pretty strongly against the US Patriot Act, didn't it?

Thank God those US military servicemen were there to defend the Constitution and protect our freedom from our own government...

That was another good reach into the sarcasm bag.

The US Patriot Act is in my opinion a failure of the checks and balances established in the Constitution. The Act grants the executive branch powers that it should not have, as they are not powers enumerated in the Constitution. That said, Congress should not have passed the Act, the POTUS should not have signed it, and the SCOTUS should not permit it.

Remember I never said the Constitution has been upheld perfectly. There are numerous breaches, increasing rapidly over the past century.

Would you be of the opinion that the US military failed in its duty to defend the Constitution?

[jay_a2j]

It's alarming that I can agree with you on this, Woodruff.

Jay, when you start these kinds of threads you are painting yourself as a paranoid sometimes. Government has a proper place. Think of the times that the government had to use the military to enforce equality to end segregation in public schools.

I'm with you if you're saying they shouldn't be running our health care.

I'm confused, you say that you agree with Woody yet you make points that agree with me?

Yeah, I didn't explain that very well. What I'm saying is that you seem to paint this very general picture of almost any growth in government = BIG GOVERNMENT. If I lived in a community with a BIG crime problem I would want my state and county to spend alot of money for a BIG police force to deal with it.

What I was agreeing with Woodruff about was that spending 75% on defense spending would be dangerous. You said you didn't care if a country did that. If a country did that, it would mean that they've probably lost their credibility with their own people and need to enforce laws through military force. They would probably also be looking to force their views on other countries as well. That would hardly be for the purpose of 'defense' and would most likely be pursuing hostility.

What I would agree with you about is the government sticking its nose into peoples' private and personal health care issues. That's none of their business IMO. Right now, they're attempting to do that and using the uninsured as an excuse.

I'm not against the government spending money to ensure the safety of its citizens, military or police. It's when they do things that expand government that has nothing to do with the security of its citizens. (Not that I'd support tanks rolling down my street just a common sense approach to security)

I doubt that our government will ever commit 75% of its budget to defense but if China, Russia, Iran or N. Korea were spending that much, I could see the need to do it ourselves. It worked for Reagan.

[Snorri1234]

It's alarming that I can agree with you on this, Woodruff.

Jay, when you start these kinds of threads you are painting yourself as a paranoid sometimes. Government has a proper place. Think of the times that the government had to use the military to enforce equality to end segregation in public schools.

I'm with you if you're saying they shouldn't be running our health care.

I'm confused, you say that you agree with Woody yet you make points that agree with me?

Yeah, I didn't explain that very well. What I'm saying is that you seem to paint this very general picture of almost any growth in government = BIG GOVERNMENT. If I lived in a community with a BIG crime problem I would want my state and county to spend alot of money for a BIG police force to deal with it.

What I was agreeing with Woodruff about was that spending 75% on defense spending would be dangerous. You said you didn't care if a country did that. If a country did that, it would mean that they've probably lost their credibility with their own people and need to enforce laws through military force. They would probably also be looking to force their views on other countries as well. That would hardly be for the purpose of 'defense' and would most likely be pursuing hostility.

What I would agree with you about is the government sticking its nose into peoples' private and personal health care issues. That's none of their business IMO. Right now, they're attempting to do that and using the uninsured as an excuse.

I'm not against the government spending money to ensure the safety of its citizens, military or police. It's when they do things that expand government that has nothing to do with the security of its citizens. (Not that I'd support tanks rolling down my street just a common sense approach to security)

I doubt that our government will ever commit 75% of its budget to defense but if China, Russia, Iran or N. Korea were spending that much, I could see the need to do it ourselves. It worked for Reagan.

Should the government try to ensure the health of it's citizens?

[Phatscotty]

When I was in college, about 2000 ish, we did an hour on how much of the economy the gov't controlled (macro-econ 131). At that time, it was 38%, and we classify that officially as a "mixed" economy. Not totally free, but not totally controlled by gov't.

During the Bank Bailouts, reports at that time put gov't control just below 50%. I have not seen an official report or read a similar story since then, but I must reason that since the Auto bailouts, there can be no doubt the gov't officially runs well over 50% of the entire economy. Add the 17% health care represents, and you gotta call it official socialism.

I do not know if the federal gov't, getting about 25% of every dollar a company makes[(except those that hire lobbyist, of course) (income tax, SS, Med, Med)], qualifies that as 25% ownership. but it should.

At some point after the gov't hits the 50% mark of controlling "everything", its becomes harder and harder to not be a slave.

It fascinates me there is still a couple people out there that think the crash of 2007/8 was due to the economy being too "free"

[jay_a2j]

Should the government try to ensure the health of it's citizens?

Outside of banning toxic chemicals and health related regulations, no. We have a private sector for that.

[Snorri1234]

Should the government try to ensure the health of it's citizens?

Outside of banning toxic chemicals and health related regulations, no. We have a private sector for that.

Why not?

I mean, let's assume that if the government gave everyone insurance it would make everyone better off. You don't have to agree with it, you just have to assume it to be true to give an outline on your theoretical view on government. (Like, I don't approve of several government things because they do not work, not because I believe the government shouldn't be involved because it's the government.)

If the government could do a better job, should the government get involved?

[jay_a2j]

Should the government try to ensure the health of it's citizens?

Outside of banning toxic chemicals and health related regulations, no. We have a private sector for that.

Why not?

I mean, let's assume that if the government gave everyone insurance it would make everyone better off. You don't have to agree with it, you just have to assume it to be true to give an outline on your theoretical view on government. (Like, I don't approve of several government things because they do not work, not because I believe the government shouldn't be involved because it's the government.)

If the government could do a better job, should the government get involved?

No. First, I highly doubt the government could do a better job. I'd bet on it. Government run health care will do a number of things: it would cause a substantial decrease in QUALITY of service as well as doctors not wanting to be doctors because of the "cap" on wages that would no doubt turn many doctors or would-be doctors away from the field. COMPETITION is a good thing, it keep prices down and quality high. People come from all over the world to access our health care because it's the best in the world. If the government takes it over it won't be.

[john9blue]

If the government could do a better job, should the government get involved?

Yes. And jay I think you are too hardheaded about this.

But at the same time it is hard to imagine the government doing a better job than the private sector... there is competition in the private sector... not in government (unless you count voting in representatives, which is much slower and less effective than 'voting with your money").

[BigBallinStalin]

When I was in college, about 2000 ish, we did an hour on how much of the economy the gov't controlled (macro-econ 131). At that time, it was 38%, and we classify that officially as a "mixed" economy. Not totally free, but not totally controlled by gov't.

During the Bank Bailouts, reports at that time put gov't control just below 50%. I have not seen an official report or read a similar story since then, but I must reason that since the Auto bailouts, there can be no doubt the gov't officially runs well over 50% of the entire economy. Add the 17% health care represents, and you gotta call it official socialism.

I do not know if the federal gov't, getting about 25% of every dollar a company makes[(except those that hire lobbyist, of course) (income tax, SS, Med, Med)], qualifies that as 25% ownership. but it should.

At some point after the gov't hits the 50% mark of controlling "everything", its becomes harder and harder to not be a slave.

It fascinates me there is still a couple people out there that think the crash of 2007/8 was due to the economy being too "free"

have you a link to any of these reports or perhaps some good reading material concerning this?

[jay_a2j]

Yes. And jay I think you are too hardheaded about this.

And I'm not alone.

[Snorri1234]

No. First, I highly doubt the government could do a better job. I'd bet on it. Government run health care will do a number of things: it would cause a substantial decrease in QUALITY of service as well as doctors not wanting to be doctors because of the "cap" on wages that would no doubt turn many doctors or would-be doctors away from the field. COMPETITION is a good thing, it keep prices down and quality high. People come from all over the world to access our health care because it's the best in the world. If the government takes it over it won't be.

Are you incapable of understanding hypotheticals?

I don't want to know why you think they can't. I already know what you think and frankly consider it to be bollocks, but it isn't what I asked.

What if the government would do a better job? Are you ideologically opposed to government-interference in this regard, or merely practically opposed?