Size Of Government - What Do We Really Want?

[cb7010]

Debt ceiling, deficit, health care, foreign wars, regulations, taxes and then all of the politicing and posturing..before we solve the problems; wouldn't it be smart to define what we are really trying to accomplish, which from my perspective has everything with the size and scope of what the federal government should be and do. So if we could cut through all of the rhetoric and it were put simply, which would you choose:

 

[chinaco]

I see you went out of your way to not polarize the questions.

 

[MichaelB]

I see you went out of your way to not polarize the questions.

That's because it was framed in such an objective manner.

 

[Midpack]

I wish we would spend equal to revenues plus inflation/GDP growth on average (can't necessarily be done each year, but total debt would give the indicator). We don't have the collective will to do so, and I include the mainstream population with our politicians. People know more about American Idol than our spending, revenues, deficit/debt, just ask around...

 

[rescueme]

People know more about American Idol than our spending, revenues, deficit/debt, just ask around...

So true - how sad ...

 

[grumpy]

My solution: In order to send troops to fight anywhere in the world should require a majority vote in congress to raise taxes enough to cover the costs. With that requirement, we would only fight in the most urgent of circumstances where our interests are clearly threatened. Without that unfunded drain on the budget, balancing the budget should be a snap.

 

[Midpack]

My solution: In order to send troops to fight anywhere in the world should require a majority vote in congress to raise taxes enough to cover the costs. With that requirement, we would only fight in the most urgent of circumstances where our interests are clearly threatened. Without that unfunded drain on the budget, balancing the budget should be a snap.

"A snap?"

Certainly part of the reason for our larger recent deficits. But if we ended all wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) and associated spending, that would have reduced our 2010 deficit by about 1/3rd. Even if we eliminated all defense spending and foreign aid (not even remotely possible IMO), we'd still only reduce the 2010 deficit by 2/3rds.

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...udget-reduce-the-deficit-specifics-55630.html

 

[HawkeyeNFO]

My solution: In order to send troops to fight anywhere in the world should require a majority vote in congress to raise taxes enough to cover the costs. With that requirement, we would only fight in the most urgent of circumstances where our interests are clearly threatened. Without that unfunded drain on the budget, balancing the budget should be a snap.

Not sure it's even 1/3. Defense spending is not the majority of federal spending. That being said, the military is filled with waste and could probably do its job even after getting reduced down to 75% of its size. The place to look for cuts is in the entitlement programs. I personally don't expect to get anything from (dare I say it here) social security. The pyramid scheme is no longer viable. Or unemployment benefits for two years. Or food stamps that are typically bought and sold on the black market. _________________(insert federal entitlement program here).

 

[RetiredGypsy]

So much smaller. Giving more money and power to incompetent people, or even letting them keep what they have, seems counterproductive.

 

[Mulligan]

I believe it will have to shrink. Spending a third more than revenues coming in will no doubt force a change. I find it interesting the confusion with the current budget deficit in relation to SS and Medicare. They are currently not contributing to the current deficit problem. Yes long term they are a problem that needs to be addressed, but short term they are not causing this problem. Seems like other programs should be under the knife prior to these 2 unless you are wanting to cover up other spending problems with the revenue coming in from these 2.

 

[Purron]

Where's the choice to merge with Denmark and let their government take charge?

The Happiest Countries in the World - Bruce Stokes - Business - The Atlantic

 

[eridanus]

Where's the choice to merge with Denmark and let their government take charge?

The Happiest Countries in the World - Bruce Stokes - Business - The Atlantic

We can always take them over.

 

[clifp]

We can always take them over.

+1

I saw the most beautiful girl the other day while volunteering at the beach turns out she was from Denmark. My friend/coworker first wife was from Denmark so he spoke a bit of Danish, I could only listen and drool. No wonder the Danish men are so happy. . If socialism means redistributing all types of wealth, I could be a convert.

 

[Lancelot]

Where's the choice to merge with Denmark and let their government take charge?

The Happiest Countries in the World - Bruce Stokes - Business - The Atlantic

I'm not trying to be argumentative but relative to their home countries' populations many Scandanavian expats reside in Thailand and one of the reasons is the cheaper cost of living-and tax avoidance.

 

[frank]

there is to much government intrusion on private lives, too much taxation, too much spending of tax on foreign wars and supporting foreign countries. in addition federal, state, and local government workers are getting wages and benefits way beyond what is available in the private sector that pays for them. government has to be put under control and made smaller, with less regulation if we are to make it through this crisis.

 

[Purron]

I'm not trying to be argumentative but relative to their home countries' populations many Scandanavian expats reside in Thailand and one of the reasons is the cheaper cost of living-and tax avoidance.

OK then. Canada which is #2 on the list.

 

[cb7010]

My point was this, I am sick of turning on the tv and seeing arguments over minutia (EX: depreciation schedule of corporate jets..). And, except for the so-called extreme tea partiers, who are pretty much explicit about their desire for smaller government; I am simply not sure what the others guys (both Republicans and Democrates) are arguing toward, and thus, can only guess they are both just in it for power and don't really have an underlying philosophy they believe is best for the country.

So, the premise of my initial question was simply to understand what some other forum participants thought of the overall direction of our government relating to its size and scope. Hey, if we all think the government should be bigger, then we can at least acknowledge that as our underlying goal and start coming up with ideas to support it..

 

[Midpack]

Everyone wants smaller government and lower taxes, but no one is willing to give up anything that benefits them. But we're all willing to slash something that benefits someone else.

Can't remember the exact quote, but something like 'we all get on the merry go round, and get dizzy and sick, but no one ever gets off.'

 

[jebmke]

Could certainly do with a much smaller defense spend and wind down probably half of the military-industrial complex. Would have to be done over some period of time to deal with the job dislocation.

 

[ziggy29]

Everyone wants smaller government and lower taxes, but no one is willing to give up anything that benefits them. But we're all willing to slash something that benefits someone else.

Yep -- cut MY taxes, cut THEIR programs.

Frankly I'm neither wedded to "big" government nor "small" government dogmatically. I want a government that works well and provides reasonable services and programs relative to the taxes I pay.

 

[Automatika]

Ok, really... who voted for the bigger government? Gotta hear the justification for that...

 

[FinanceDude]

My solution: In order to send troops to fight anywhere in the world should require a majority vote in congress to raise taxes enough to cover the costs. With that requirement, we would only fight in the most urgent of circumstances where our interests are clearly threatened. Without that unfunded drain on the budget, balancing the budget should be a snap.

Unless you believe that the first responsibility of govt is to make sure its people are safe, which is not overtly stated in the Constitution but is implied. Fact is, we are the world's police, and not sure why we decided that was necessary.............

 

[GregLee]

Ok, really... who voted for the bigger government? Gotta hear the justification for that...

I voted bigger, with reservations about the reasonableness of the poll questions. The "bigger" option favors increased taxes on the rich to support government services (which I favor), but the "smaller" option is about the don't-tread-on-me libertarian flavored sort of politics (which I also favor, though obviously I don't accept the libertarian idea that progressive taxation infringes liberty unfairly).

 

[HFWR]

Yep -- cut MY taxes, cut THEIR programs.

Frankly I'm neither wedded to "big" government nor "small" government dogmatically. I want a government that works well and provides reasonable services and programs relative to the taxes I pay.

I'd settle for one that balances outflow and income. As someone once said, the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it...

 

[Nodak]

there is to much government intrusion on private lives, too much taxation, too much spending of tax on foreign wars and supporting foreign countries. in addition federal, state, and local government workers are getting wages and benefits way beyond what is available in the private sector that pays for them. government has to be put under control and made smaller, with less regulation if we are to make it through this crisis.

+1