I think many of these guys would be perfectly happy to turn the clock back 50 years or more. That would get you smaller government.
Not by their definition, because then their taxes would be higher: translation: “BIG GOVERNMENT!” (complete with ominous music)
Because it’s no longer “small government is best”, it’s “the government I like is best”, same as with everyone else. “I want to reduce the size of government except where I don’t want to” is a fine position, but it’s not what’s being implied in the cry for “small government”.
And besides that, every time I see it, they platform on -7, +4, and then they implement the +4 and oops, no -7.
It plays in Peoria but doesn’t represent anything that actually happens in the reality in which we live.
I am reminded of Barry Goldwater, yet again. He said that he agonized over his decision to oppose Federal intervention in state’s voting rights decisions, as embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was a matter of principle to him, that “big government” not enforce its will upon the separate states, that is was unconstitutional and would do grave violence to our system of governance.
I think he was wrong, but I think he was wrong even if he were right. It was intolerable that some American citizens be denied their most basic human rights, even if that denial were founded on rock-solid principle. If a finger must be cut off to save the hand, then so be it.
Very similar to the “activist judges” fiction. While on one hand there are rational arguments regarding the scope of judicial power, it’s *much *more commonly (and among the tea party, practically exclusively) used to say “I want an activist judge who agrees with my conservative viewpoint.”
This is something I’ve actually presented in political discussions with friends. Ultimately, I’ve come to realize that while I am for smaller government, there are certain things (namely: fundamental human/ civil rights) that simply must be handled on a Federal level. Period. End of story. There can’t be any tolerance for those types of denial of rights, regardless of how small the Feds should be. And heck, that’s what they’re for. I mean, there’s a reason we aren’t still operating under the Articles of the Confederation- we need the Federal government to have the power to enforce fundamental things.
And that’s, personally, why I vote democrat and not lib or republican. Sure, I’d like a smaller government, too, but there is zero excuse to deny fundamental human rights to citizens, whether it be because they are homosexual or a woman trying to regulate what happens to her own body.
50 years or more. The era of “big government” started with the New Deal. Go back to pre-New Deal tax rates, and they are lower.
Was the government smaller or larger pre-New Deal?
You don’t often miss the point by so much.
Not relevant, IMHO, in either a practical or a moral sense. This is not 1920.
And yet some people with things had not changed so much since then. The fact that you aren’t in that group does not mean they don’t exist.
I’m not sure there’s enough other government for him to cut, to balance out the massive expansion of government power he advocates by gutting the first amendment.
New Deal? Hells to the yeah. Let’s get rid of that money suck of a Department of Defense and their half a trillion dollar budget. That’ll turn this ship around. Or the stupid Department of Transportation? What the hell, man. You think the Pony Express looked for congressional approval? No, they got on their stallions and rode, motherfucker!
Or you know what? Fuck the New Deal. Why not get rid of the Department of Justice in 1870. If we could fight a Civil War without a goddamn Justice League, then that’s a good enough America for me.
Holy shit, let’s go back to the United States our Founding Fathers knew and get rid of the Department of State. If it wasn’t good enough to be around during the signing of the Declaration of Independence, it’s a goddamned waste of money.
No income taxes and one shilling a fortnight spent on tea. That’s the land for me. I want a government small enough to fit into my Tri-fold hat, mother fuckers.
Perhaps not, but it’s pretty good evidence that he’s not a fucking idiot.
Could you maybe rephrase this as a coherent thought or idea, instead of a pair of grammatically correct sentences with no concrete nouns or referents?
[nitpick]The reason the Pony Express was founded was in the hope of landing a big government mail contract.[/nitpick]
ETA: “Big” as in lots of money, not as in “big government”.
Eh. You apparently only want to hear opinions you agree with. No point in beating a dead horse.
I agree that he’s an idiot. That’s why I don’t find it necessary to make up things about him in order to prove that.
Keep fuckin’ that chicken. If you can’t be bothered to communicate clearly, and then pretend that means I’m suddenly less worth talking to than I was before you posted a nonsensical response, that’s on you.
You cannot be “for small government” if you expressly want to increase the size of government.
Ya know, you gotta wonder what kind of values they are promoting when the winner of the “Values Voter Summit” straw poll advocates the legalization of heroin. Strange bedfellows indeed.
Anyone with a 5th grade education could understand what I posted. Unless, that is, they don’t want to understand.
And you’ve done nothing but hand-wave away the fact that many of these folks do want smaller overall federal government. Your amazing mind reading powers notwithstanding.