What can we expect in the two years following the midterms?

[Czarcasm]

@Debaser

Your question of “who picks” is so silly it doesn’t deserve an answer.

Reducing or eliminating regulations and laws is certainly something that is possible and not so complicated that it couldn’t be done as you seem to be saying.

Who picks? I don’t care.

The person proposing the new law could pick old ones to sunset as part of the proposal and that is voted on along with the law. That would work and would be simple. There’s a dozen other ways you could do it as well.

The only silliness here is you thinking we wouldn’t see through the absolute crap this proposal really is. Trying to get a law passed now is next to impossible, but when you factor in trying to decide which two laws both sides could possibly agree to let die off without getting the whole mess stuck in committee for the next twenty years, well…but you already know that, don’t you, and that is precisely why you like the idea. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but it is designed to put the government to a dead stop while turning the blame away from the Republicans for causing it.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Terr

Cite where I said I do?

It’s inherent in your blanket contempt for government of all kind - you’ve only specifically condemned “bad government” (a bold stand there) when called out.

In fact, cite where I said the current government is a “good” government?

That’s just it - you haven’t allowed that there *are *any, or ever could be.

[Terr]

@ElvisL1ves

That’s just it - you haven’t allowed that there *are *any, or ever could be.

Just for you, I will explicitly allow that there could be.

[RTFirefly]

@Debaser

You can see a good graph of the growth of government, here, if your interested:

My interested? Sure.

Now that you’ve chosen a metric (percentage of GDP), your own cite disproves your claim that the size of government constantly increases.

Government spending at the start of the 20th century was less than 7 percent of GDP. It vaulted to almost 30 percent of GDP by the end of World War I, and then settled down to 10 percent of GDP in the 1920s. In the 1930s spending doubled to 20 percent of GDP. Defense spending in World War II drove overall government spending over 50 percent of GDP before declining to 22 percent of GDP in the late 1940s.

Up, down, up, down.

Constant increase? Not hardly.

I notice that you’re using the metric (overall government spending)/GDP.

Two problems:

1. If state and local government are good, can we kindly separate them out? ‘Big government’ isn’t what happens in Columbus or Topeka.

Not to mention, people can choose whether to live in a high-tax, high-service state, or a low-tax, low-service state. If California has high taxes, nobody’s making you live there and pay them.

2. Assuming we were looking at the Federal government alone, I should point out that your chosen metric is good over long periods, or shorter periods of steady growth. But if you’re considering short periods with abrupt changes in economic circumstances, change in (Federal spending)/GDP says nothing about the size of government when GDP crashes, for instance. It just tells you that the denominator went south, not that the numerator grew.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Terr

Just for you, I will explicitly allow that there could be.

Will you take the next step and render judgment upon the one we share responsibility for, like it our not, to wit, ours? I won’t even ask you to provide your definitions of good and bad, howzat?

[Terr]

@ElvisL1ves

Will you take the next step and render judgment upon the one we share responsibility for, like it our not, to wit, ours? I won’t even ask you to provide your definitions of good and bad, howzat?

Current federal government? Bad.

[Airbeck]

@Debaser

Assuming that most people share the same definition of the word “large” that the dictionary does: Yes. It does support my claim.

That’s not what you were claiming. Your claim for which a cite was requested was not simply the definition of the word large. Can you at least take responsibility for the words you typed? Revisionist history doesn’t work when your original words are just a little bit higher up the page.

By the way, how big is a regulation? What unit of measurement do you use when measuring regulations? What constitutes whether one regulation is larger than another? Are all regulations equally large, or bad? What about regulations regarding disposal of radioactive material? What size are those regulations?

[RTFirefly]

@Debaser

I’ve never said this.

Look, there’s no other way to take your claim that “There are 30,000 gun laws in this country. That’s too many.” That’s a statement that the problem is the sheer number of laws.

In fact, I’ve said the opposite and said that legislation can be good in my view, if they serve to reduce the number of laws and the amount of legislation currently on the books.

And I’ve pointed out (third time now, which, alas, won’t be the charm) that that’s a nonsensical statement - that passing a law adds to the number of laws.

Yes. From the Congress. Because that’s what this thread is about. Read the OP.

Well, you’re the one who brought up those 30,000 laws, which we both agree are mostly state and local laws.

So I guess you’re saying I should ignore what you say, that it has nothing to do with anything we’re discussing here in this thread.

I gotta admit that, for once, you’ve said something I can’t find fault with.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Terr

Current federal government? Bad.

Okay, I did say I wouldn’t ask you for your definitions, and won’t. But could you at least provide an example of a real government you would call good? You do say there could be such a thing, but does it exist only in theory?

[PastTense]

@BrainGlutton

It looks like the Republicans will take the Senate and not lose the House. What will they do with that power?

Of course a great deal of their base will demand they impeach Obama, but any sane Congresscritter knows that would be worse than pointless – they still won’t have the 2/3 majority needed to convict in the Senate, and no Dem will vote to convict, and they must remember that the Clinton impeachment only provoked an anti-Pub backlash.

Mitch McConnell is threatening to attach riders to spending bills that will be unacceptable to Obama and perhaps force another government shutdown – will he follow through? Whatever the base wants, the Congressional Pubs will have their eye on 2016 and don’t want to be remembered, again, as shutdowners.

So did anyone here read the OP’s post? From the discussion so far I would guess no one has–as I see no one responding to it: the post is not about whether posters favor a bigger or smaller government–it is a query as to what posters predict the Republicans will do.

[RTFirefly]

@Terr

Current federal government? Bad.

What I love is the sophistication of the conservative anti-government arguments.

[Terr]

@ElvisL1ves

Okay, I did say I wouldn’t ask you for your definitions, and won’t. But could you at least provide an example of a real government you would call good? You do say there could be such a thing, but does it exist only in theory?

A small federal government, that takes care of foreign policy, the military, and arbitration between the states when needed. The rest goes to local governments - state, county, city, etc. Now those can be arbitrarily big/small/social net/laissez faire depending on how the populace wants them. People will vote both with their votes and with their feet.

[ElvisL1ves]

Does that mean there are, in fact, *no *actual, existing governments you would call “good”? None at all?

[RTFirefly]

@Terr

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.

Oh noes!

And this means…what, exactly? What is quantified by the Federal Register?

Take today’s Federal Register: August 25, 2014. Its 298 pages have 107 Notices, 9 Proposed Rules, and 11 Rules. IOW, the vast majority of its content is comprised of giving the public the opportunity to comment on what the various agencies are proposing to do.

Bad, bad government!

You can see the 11 actual rules [[is]=08%2F25%2F2014&conditions[type]=RULE"]here](Federal Register :: Document Search[publication_date), just to give people an idea of the sort of nasty stuff the government’s cramming down your throat after extensive public comment.

[Terr]

@ElvisL1ves

Does that mean there are, in fact, *no *actual, existing governments you would call “good”? None at all?

Currently? None that I investigated. Could be some - you know my criteria, so maybe you could point some out for me to look at.

[Debaser]

@RTFirefly

Constant increase? Not hardly.

I notice that you’re using the metric (overall government spending)/GDP.

Give me a break.

Yes, it’s up and down. But the ups are usually bigger than the downs. The trend is overwhelmingly clear: The government grows over time.

Is it a bit hyperbolic to say “constant increase”? Maybe. But the trend is clear: Government grows over time. I can’t see how you could argue against this being true.

[Debaser]

@PastTense

So did anyone here read the OP’s post? From the discussion so far I would guess no one has–as I see no one responding to it: the post is not about whether posters favor a bigger or smaller government–it is a query as to what posters predict the Republicans will do.

Yeah. It’s unfortunate but true. Merely voicing a conservative opinion on this board is enough to completely derail a thread.

It’s not enough that people disagree with the simple opinion shared by millions that the government is too large. (In terms of both size of spending and complexity and number of regulations.) But the nitpicking just is getting silly. People claim that it’s just too complicated to reduce the size of government. People denying that government grows over time. People blatantly bending posts around to misrepresent them to the point of not understanding simple words like “large”.

It’s tedious, that’s for sure.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Terr

Currently? None.

None? Not at all? Then your cavils about my oversimplification in describing your blanket nihilism are misplaced. All real, existing governments are bad and should be destroyed. That’s what you’re telling us.

You’re no different from the anarchists of over a century ago, except that they had the balls to place some bombs and try to make it happen, instead of just whining on an anonymous message board about some people getting health insurance to cover their gunshot wounds.

[Terr]

@ElvisL1ves

None? Not at all? Then your cavils about my oversimplification in describing your blanket nihilism are misplaced. All real, existing governments are bad and should be destroyed.

Changed, improved, reduced in size - yes.

[Debaser]

@Airbeck

That’s not what you were claiming. Your claim for which a cite was requested was not simply the definition of the word large. Can you at least take responsibility for the words you typed? Revisionist history doesn’t work when your original words are just a little bit higher up the page.

It wasn’t me who originally made the claim. But the claim is correct. A government with more regulations can be called “large” as the size of government isn’t just about spending.

This is true, as the dictionary definition indicates, if you read it.

By the way, how big is a regulation? What unit of measurement do you use when measuring regulations? What constitutes whether one regulation is larger than another? Are all regulations equally large, or bad? What about regulations regarding disposal of radioactive material? What size are those regulations?

I really do try to answer any questions that people ask of me. But this is just silly. I don’t see the point in answering this. If you’ve got some kind of a point to make other than simply sniping away then just make it already.