You’re both saying you want a budget but you don’t want any new laws.
Guess what? The budget is a new law.
So figure out what exactly it is you want.
See post #27, #28, and #37.
Is there something wrong with the board, and only conservative posters can see posts #27 and #28?
Very odd.
The government constantly growing, both in size and complexity is what’s convoluted. We will not doubt grow from a country that has 30,000 gun laws to one that has 40,000. Then 50,000. That’s "freakin’ convoluted. Reducing the laws doesn’t need to be, despite your handwaving insistence to the contrary.
Maintaining highways - which is the example you brought into the thread - is producing results.
You appear to feel that these things happen by some form of magic and the government has nothing to do with it. So you call for the elimination of government without understanding the consequences.
This post?
Of course we see it. And it’s nonsense.
They pass a new budget every year? And you think it isn’t a new law?
You’re right. Let’s start by repealing the Stand Your Ground laws. They were some of the most recently passed gun laws, and it’s funny how none of the pro-gun people said, “wait, there are too many gun laws already, we really don’t need any more of them” when pushing the SYG laws.
Note: I’ve got no interest in turning this thread into another gun debate, but I think this demonstrates the underlying sincerity of the ‘too many laws’ argument. Nobody’s really for it, as Czarcasm more or less points out, unless they’ve got the opportunity to remove laws they don’t like.
Also, ‘laws’ are generally defined as ‘what a legislature passes, and isn’t vetoed by the executive.’ The PPACA (‘Obamacare’) is one law. It’s got a lot of sections to it, but it’s one law. If a subsequent law were passed that simplified some of the PPACA’s complexities, that would be two laws. But from the perspective of counting laws and equating more with worse, nothing should ever, ever be done to simplify the PPACA.
As far as sheer number of laws is concerned, we’ve got 50 states, something like 3,100 counties and independent cities in the U.S., plus lots of municipalities within counties (e.g. Ferguson, MO and a whole bunch of other towns in St. Louis County) that still get to pass laws of their own. We could simplify the sheer number of laws by drastically reducing the authority of states and localities to pass their own laws, and kicking all of that authority up to the Federal government.
So reducing the total number of laws, and devolving authority to state and local governments, are fundamentally in tension. If one’s good, then the other is bad.
This is getting very odd. I’m used to people simply ignoring what I post and responding to what they think a conservative probably believes. That happens a lot on this board. But you’re just making things up.
Czarcasm brought up highways in a misguided attempt to argue with Bone before I even posted to the thread.
Despite the fact that you’ve got to really misinterpret Bone’s comment to mean he doesn’t want a budget passed, he has specifically clarified that by “new” legislation he doesn’t mean things like a routine budget that’s passed every year. I have as well.
Try reading the posts we’re making to the thread. Then respond to the things we actually say.
The budget doesn’t count as a new law for purposes of this discussion, because the budget expires each year, so they don’t have a cumulative effect.
I’d be thrilled with one.
None; but doing that is never a routine ministerial exercise. The budget is always politicized, and always will be, because it involves spending money.
There will be no reason to, either – will there?
Define ‘size,’ please. Inflation-adjusted dollars? Number of employees? Percentage of GDP?
Because just saying the government is constantly growing in size doesn’t make it so, but it’s rather hard to falsify unless we know what you’re talking about.
Yes. Of course pro-gun people are unlikely to complain about a pro-gun law.
But most of the 30,000 gun laws in this country are not pro-gun.
Of course people are more likely to want to eliminate or reduce laws they don’t like. However, there are also instances of wanting to reduce the number of laws you do like.
I’m pro-choice. But rather than see dozens or hundreds of pro-choice laws passed around the country I’d prefer a constitutional amendment making abortion legal.
Probably this is a bad example since Roe v Wade has muddied the waters so badly.
Yes, I understand that. So what? Such a semantic nitpick doesn’t matter. It’s clear what someone means when they say they want “less laws, less regulations and less government”. You could be talking about a hundred smallish laws passed in separate bills or one giant bill with many provisions. The point still stands.
Also, I’ve been very clear that I’m obviously fine with new legislation if it’s purpose is to reduce laws, reduce complexity of the tax code or reduce regulations. It’s not complicated.
This is a fair point. Distribution of authority to local governments is a good thing, but that does result in patchworks of laws and regulations that can be confusing and overwhelming.
Sometimes local control is good, sometimes not so much. I like that every town gets to decide it’s own zoning rules, for instance. But having different rules for driving in every town wouldn’t be a good idea.
But while this is a concern, it’s certainly no reason to favor more legislation and more regulation from the Congress.
No - one short, simple gun law would be much more effective. Glad to have you on board with that.
Everything is going to be debated and argued about because you know, people. That’s a given. So back to what I said, a congress that passes no new laws is successful as far as I’m concerned.*
*the term “new” meaning anything that didn’t exist in the same form in a prior year. So passing the current year budget would not be considered new.
So yes, I expect the congress to pass a budget. I’d like it to be smaller than it was in the prior year, but I’ll settle for being not bigger.
In the case of roads and bridges on the interstates being repaired, yes. The highway trust fund is mostly funded by the gas tax of 18.4¢/gallon, which was last increased in 1993, when a gallon of gas cost less than a dollar. Inflation has eroded the value of that tax, but maintenance and repair costs haven’t similarly decreased. If highway and bridge repair is to continue, funding needs to be increased. So that requires not just new legislation, but a tax increase as well.
President Clinton said, in 1995, that the era of big government was over. But he was wrong. The post World War II era has been a golden age of government spending, and it shows no sign of ending. Although spending dropped back to 21 percent of GDP immediately after WWII, it steadily climbed thereafter until it hit a peak of 35 percent of GDP in the bottom of the recession of 1980-82. Thereafter government spending chugged along in the mid 30s until the mortgage meltdown of 2008. In the aftermath of bank and auto bailouts, government spending surged to wartime levels at 41 percent of GDP. The mortgage emergency seems to have ratcheted out-year spending up a notch. Near term government spending in the future is pegging at 36 percent of GDP.
But it’s not just the spending. Government size is also determined by how many laws/regulations there are. Each year in the last decade 70 to 80 THOUSAND pages of regulations were added to the federal register. And the rate of growth keeps growing.
So you’d *rather *have it work badly than efficiently, and will work hard to make that happen, solely out of some nihilistic instinct that denies the validity of any concept of society and mutual obligations.
Civilization doesn’t work that way, never has, never can.
You can see a good graph of the growth of government, here, if your interested:
No, it isn’t.