HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » I'm not a "small gov...

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 08:48 AM

I'm not a "small government" person.

Last edited Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:11 AM - Edit history (1)

In otherwords, I do not believe current problems in our economic system have something to with too many government programs for the public or the people.

I use economic data in my opinion. I haven't found that claim to have any supporting data currently (just as I have found no data to support income tax cuts at the top, for example, help balance budgets or create jobs for any sustained period).

I do not believe that the purpose of government is to provide taxpayer support to large corporations as a substitute for government roles or responsibilty concerning the welfare of the people. No for profit corporation was created to take care of societal needs, but to the sole legal purpose to profide a profit for its shareholders as its fudiciary duty. Therefore, privatization is not in the public interest. I have always known this since I have been in business all my life. So therefore, any propaganda to the contrary of this knowledge does not work on me.

This is the source of current conflict in the nation and also current conflicts within the Democratic Party since the 80's as the party sought to mimic the success Reagan and the Republicans had politically.

I think Democrats abandoned some winning ideas it had and enjoyed as a majority party for many years, particularly from the 30's until at least the 70's. I think currently there are no real pendulum swings in terms of economic and social practices that allow people to try anymore. It is like an endless trap from which there is no escape.

33 replies, 4872 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply I'm not a "small government" person. (Original post)
mmonk Dec 2011 OP
quaker bill Dec 2011 #1
Scuba Dec 2011 #4
kestrel91316 Dec 2011 #15
Bogart Dec 2011 #2
quaker bill Dec 2011 #9
Mass Dec 2011 #10
Bogart Dec 2011 #13
Mass Dec 2011 #14
UnrepentantLiberal Dec 2011 #22
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #28
Bogart Dec 2011 #31
hifiguy Dec 2011 #30
kestrel91316 Dec 2011 #16
Bogart Dec 2011 #19
xchrom Dec 2011 #3
wakemewhenitsover Dec 2011 #5
mmonk Dec 2011 #8
etherealtruth Dec 2011 #6
Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #7
Mass Dec 2011 #11
glowing Dec 2011 #12
mmonk Dec 2011 #17
glowing Dec 2011 #20
meow2u3 Dec 2011 #18
mmonk Dec 2011 #21
dshort Dec 2011 #23
kentuck Dec 2011 #24
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #25
kentuck Dec 2011 #26
grantcart Dec 2011 #27
mmonk Dec 2011 #32
BOHICA12 Dec 2011 #29
marmar Dec 2011 #33

Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:01 AM

1. I am more of a "the people create government" person

Government is not some abstract foriegn entity. People created it, one step at a time, to solve real problems. The problems existed perfectly fine in the private sector before government was created to address them. If the private sector had all the answers to our problems, government would never have been invented or given the roles it has, because the problems would not have existed in a way that called for government intervention.

The notion that problems will go away when matters are handed back to the private sector denies all the collected wisdom of many dozens of successive generations of people, who created government to deal with real problems that actually existed in the private sector before government became involved.

To the extent government is ever dissolved, people will begin to reinvent it the next day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quaker bill (Reply #1)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:05 AM

4. "If all men were angels, no government would be necessary." James Madison n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:05 PM

15. I'm gonna steal that one.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:02 AM

2. The problem is not "too many government programs for the public or the people..."

 

The problem is that there are so many government employees that, for example, in states like CA, they consume 2/3 of the state's budget--67% overhead...!!!

Like you, I do not believe that the purpose of government is to provide taxpayer support to large corporations. However, I also do not believe that the purpose of government is to provide taxpayer support to multitudes of government employees.

http://civfi.com/2011/02/09/how-much-of-californias-state-budget-is-personnel-expense/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bogart (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:23 AM

9. Government is the people it employs

Experiments to privatize the delivery of public services have proven in nearly every case to be more expensive, often vastly more expensive. Sometimes it is less expensive, but then also vastly less efficient.

If you want less government employees, then expecting less public services is the path to take.

People always want to cut taxes and reduce staff, but still want all the same stuff delivered, and usually want it faster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bogart (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:25 AM

10. I am not sure I can see why if these jobs are useful.

There are public sectors that are notoriously understaffed, and I have yet to hear about a reason why private would be better in the case of jobs that benefit the public good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:34 AM

13. Everyone has seen it...

 

...4 or 5 government DOT workers watching one work...too many chiefs and not enough indians.

The private sector is more efficient because they do not carry dead weight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bogart (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:45 AM

14. I am sure there are cases like that, as there are in the private sector.

But you have the opposite as well: medical care is generally more efficient when public, for example, as there is no incentive overcharging customers and multiplying tests.

My standard is whether a function is for the greater good or not. Education, healthcare, transportation, security, are examples that come to mind as in the first category and where I would like to see more public involvement and not less.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bogart (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 09:36 AM

22. Freeper alert

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bogart (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:35 AM

28. 'The private sector is more efficient'

Not in my experience. I have NEVER encountered a government service as bad for the customer as some private organizations; and I live in an area with one of the worst County Councils. Moreover in most cases where I have experienced bad service from either a private or public organization, it's been associated with understaffing rather than the reverse.

And, come to think of it, the incompetence and greed of the banks caused a lot of our problems - and they then demanded that the public sector rescue them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftishBrit (Reply #28)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 03:27 PM

31. Look no further than the news regarding the raiding of the SSTF.

 

Everyone is congratulating themselves for the "hard work" and effort they expended to "give" us a $40 tax cut.

Inefficient organizations are pushed aside in the private sector by means of competition. Conversely, governments are monopolies that do not face competition. As a result, you end up with stuff like we see in CA, where government workers consume two out of every three tax $. And believe it or not, someone responded that they should consume 3/3 of every $, instead of 2/3!

I am not opposed to paying for government programs to help those who are in need, but anyone who actually cares about helping others should be astonished by the $$$ eaten up by government workers that never make it to those truly in need.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bogart (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 11:16 AM

30. Anyone who thinks "private enterprise" is by definition more

 

efficient that government has never worked in any large private entity. They carry PLENTY of dead weight, most of it in the executive suites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bogart (Reply #2)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 01:08 PM

16. One would hope that a government budget would be 100% overhead

 

and ZERO profit. What you call "overhead" i call essential government services.

This isn't Libertarian Underground. Your ideas aren't going to stick in this neighborhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #16)

Mon Dec 19, 2011, 07:05 PM

19. Well, if you your "wish," were to come true,

 

it would mean the end of ALL essential government services.

You see, my friend, 100% overhead would mean that there would be nothing left for education, roads, welfare, etc. For under your scenario, every single $ would be consumed by government workers.










Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:04 AM

3. Du rec. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:07 AM

5. You should either: (1) run for President, or (2) become a Democratic speech writer.

Great stuff, plainly spoken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wakemewhenitsover (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:19 AM

8. Wow. You make me blush.

Thank you for the compliment. You are very kind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:08 AM

6. Nor am I

I want a strong government to protect the environment, I want strong consumer protections, I want a government that assures all of it citizens have access to healthcare, I want a government that provides a safety net for the poorest and most fragile among us, I want a government that that protects its workers from exploitation and dangerous working conditions, I want a government that educates its citizens to the highest levels of an individuals capabilities and desires ... I want a strong government that works for the citizenry rather than itself or corporations.

I am not a small government person!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:13 AM

7. k&r

The public *is* the economic system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:26 AM

11. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 09:32 AM

12. I'm not either.. and

 

I would actually increase the Dept of Education so that all teachers, staff, and support personnel would be rounded up into one govt entity... so that all of these people are paid directly through the Govt like the CIA, military, or FBI. And I would eliminate the school boards altogether. School Boards are political stepping stones and only the kids suffer. And if the Dept of Education is responsible for the whole kit n' caboodle, then, they would also be responsible for maintaining the public schools large and small across the land and make sure that their is equal opportunity no matter where a child lives. Pay for teachers is not subject to property taxes collected by the region. Poor areas would have just as rich of schools. And during a downturn in the economy, teacher's pay would remain the same, experienced professional teachers wouldn't be tossed out the door because their pay bracket is larger, and the "extra" activities like art, P.E., music, and sports are not eliminated for budget issues. It only makes sense to take education with Federal Mandates into a real agency that actually deals with our future in a responsible manner. And insulate the standards with actual teachers and principles in this country... Best yet, no need to partner with private business to bring in revenue. The Govt can tax for the revenue for the agency and get out of the privatization of the schools (which in large part have been unsuccessful).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glowing (Reply #12)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 04:11 PM

17. Interesting points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 22, 2011, 08:31 PM

20. I believe most countries address education as a national issue.

 

They want to compete, they don't leave the details of their future within the hands of small town, small-brained tea-party idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Sun Dec 18, 2011, 05:17 PM

18. Those who argue about the SIZE of government are distracting the people about their motives

Allow me to decode the real meaning of "small government": its working definition is "economic license for the superrich; serfdom for the 99%." Anyone who tells you different is trying to con you into acting against your rightful self-interest, just as the fat cats scammed the middle class into thinking they could become rich by voting repuke, accepting longer hours for less pay, and allowing the boss to ship their jobs off to Third World sweatshops, such as China, Vietnam, India, Myanmar, etc. The only rewards they got for following the small government propaganda were either pay cuts or layoffs, home foreclosure and/or eviction, and a rapid descent into poverty or near poverty.

These are the same "small government" conservatives who want "big government" when it comes to intruding into people's private lives and personal decisions.

What we should be discussing has nothing to do with the size of government and everything to do with its quality. In other words, we should be debating good government, which does the will of the people, versus bad government, which sells out to the highest bidder.

I'm not a small government person. I'm a proponent of good government, even if it means politicians must miraculously grow the spine, guts, and gonads to bite the hands Big Business and their hired goons, i.e., paid lobbyists, that feed them, at the risk of losing their political careers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:09 AM

21. Yes. Excellent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 09:52 AM

23. Small Govt or Responsible Govt???

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you, but I think the most important issue is that we need a reponsible govt that the public can trust - big or small.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:00 AM

24. I think this is the major political issue of our time...

Do we prefer taxcuts over school lunch programs, over Medicare hospice care, over education grants, over environmental concerns, etc?

Are we willing to give up a lot of programs we take for granted so we and the wealthy can have low taxes and more tax cuts?

This is the question all Democrats should ask themselves? This is the looming issue of our Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:00 AM

25. +1000!

Applies very much to the situation in Britain at the moment, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:11 AM

26. At the risk of being attacked....

...what role do you think President Obama is playing in changing our Party? Does he believe in lower taxes or bigger government? Unfortunately, it cannot be both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:13 AM

27. I am a little confused. Has someone charged that you are a "small government" person?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grantcart (Reply #27)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 08:44 AM

32. Nope.

Just declaring "small government" is an overused, worthless, and ideological term with little meaning other than support of the few at the expense of the many and society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 11:08 AM

29. Ideas are Great - but Reality in Implementation trumps

 

We have folks thinking up great stuff and not understanding the consequences.

And the folks that think the stuff up - are not the ones that implement the policies, thus creating a disconnect. Plus once an idea is implemented - refinement is often way to slow.

Two examples: 1990s - Social Security program of Welfare to Work & the current ARRA as implemented through USDOL - both crazy spending of money with few measurable results.

Government often institutionalizes inefficiency and its behemoth size prevent change.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mmonk (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 08:48 AM

33. D'accord. ..... 'Big Government' that makes life better for its citizens is a good thing.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread