The Disaster of Big Government

[Aikbach]

Here's an insightful article rebuking big government and the foolishness of bureaucracy from a a less than conservative news source, The Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/03/09/how_government_makes_things_worse/

[arglebargle]

I agree, Big Government is bad; it allows big money corporations to write the law to benefit themselves, to the detriment of most everyone else.

Article did make some good points....

[Sasquatch]

We must have read different articles. I didn't see anything on size of government or bureaucracy, just the unintended consequences of wrongheaded government intervention, stemming not necessarily from size but the undue influence of the farm lobby and Wall Street.

But, if you're still intent on reducing the size of government bureaucracy, you might want to start with the Department of Defense and the Postal Service, two of the larger ones.

[Aikbach]

We must have read different articles. I didn't see anything on size of government or bureaucracy, just the unintended consequences of wrongheaded government intervention, stemming not necessarily from size but the undue influence of the farm lobby and Wall Street.

But, if you're still intent on reducing the size of government bureaucracy, you might want to start with the Department of Defense and the Postal Service, two of the larger ones.The Postal Service is self-sustaining, the true crippling effects are pork spending and the welfare state.

[Aikbach]

We must have read different articles. I didn't see anything on size of government or bureaucracy, just the unintended consequences of wrongheaded government intervention, stemming not necessarily from size but the undue influence of the farm lobby and Wall Street.

But, if you're still intent on reducing the size of government bureaucracy, you might want to start with the Department of Defense and the Postal Service, two of the larger ones.Yes your presuppositions have a knack for spinning blindly in favor of big government, it is the savior of humanity afterall.

[Cajuncowboy]

We must have read different articles. I didn't see anything on size of government or bureaucracy, just the unintended consequences of wrongheaded government intervention, stemming not necessarily from size but the undue influence of the farm lobby and Wall Street.

But, if you're still intent on reducing the size of government bureaucracy, you might want to start with the Department of Defense and the Postal Service, two of the larger ones.

I have an idea, instead of starting with that, let's reduce the welfare state first, then we'll look at what we can do to weaken our national defense. Fair enough?

As for the postal service, let me ask you a question. If I gave you .41 to take a letter from Los Angeles to New York, would you do it for that? Complain all you want about the post service, and there are reasons to do so, but it's still one of the best values out there for what they do.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Big Government is bad.

However it is funny that those on the left think it is only bad in some areas, and those on the right think it is only bad in other areas.

The bigger the government the worse it is for the people. That includes universal health care AND government agencies that have been given power that is no longer in the check and balances system. When america no longer requires a warrant and people on one side are all for it...they have no right what so ever to complain about big government...because they are backing it.

[ThaBigP]

We must have read different articles. I didn't see anything on size of government or bureaucracy, just the unintended consequences of wrongheaded government intervention, stemming not necessarily from size but the undue influence of the farm lobby and Wall Street.

But, if you're still intent on reducing the size of government bureaucracy, you might want to start with the Department of Defense and the Postal Service, two of the larger ones.

"Big Government" is not referring to the physical size of a government (or the number of folks in it's employ), but rather the scope to which government intrudes upon the private sector and individual lives. Hence, you DID read precisely the same article the poster read.

[ThaBigP]

We must have read different articles. I didn't see anything on size of government or bureaucracy, just the unintended consequences of wrongheaded government intervention, stemming not necessarily from size but the undue influence of the farm lobby and Wall Street.

But, if you're still intent on reducing the size of government bureaucracy, you might want to start with the Department of Defense and the Postal Service, two of the larger ones.

Regarding your weak attempt to throw the private sector under the bus in regards to an overbearing government (i.e. it's the fault of the private lobbies!), a government run within the means set forth in the Constitution could *not* be influenced - for it would not have (nor would it attempt to stake a claim to) jurisdiction in such matters. For example, most corporations lobby the government to redress grievances brought about by government intrusion in the first place. Usually the lobbying is for reduction in taxes or granting various tax incentives, relaxation of regulatory standards (or increases in them, in the case of environmental lobbyists), and so forth. In other words, the situation we have exists because our government has set itself up as a distributor of favors in exchange for campaign cash (or certain behavior, like installing solar panels or buying a hybrid for a tax break). It was never meant to be so. I personally think term limits for Congress would go a long way to reverse this trend. Career politicians begin looking out for their careers and personal advancement rather than what is best for the Republic.

[burmafrd]

Libs want the Nanny State (as long as THEY are in charge).
Libs think that most of the American people are too dumb to really act like the LIbs think they should- so the government is needed to tell them what to do. BUT only as long as the Libs are in charge.

[Jarv]

Regarding your weak attempt to throw the private sector under the bus in regards to an overbearing government (i.e. it's the fault of the private lobbies!), a government run within the means set forth in the Constitution could *not* be influenced - for it would not have (nor would it attempt to stake a claim to) jurisdiction in such matters. For example, most corporations lobby the government to redress grievances brought about by government intrusion in the first place. Usually the lobbying is for reduction in taxes or granting various tax incentives, relaxation of regulatory standards (or increases in them, in the case of environmental lobbyists), and so forth. In other words, the situation we have exists because our government has set itself up as a distributor of favors in exchange for campaign cash (or certain behavior, like installing solar panels or buying a hybrid for a tax break). It was never meant to be so. I personally think term limits for Congress would go a long way to reverse this trend. Career politicians begin looking out for their careers and personal advancement rather than what is best for the Republic.

Man, I couldn't have said it better although I've tried many times here. I've got your back on this and could not agree more. Thank you for posting this !

[Sasquatch]

Regarding your weak attempt to throw the private sector under the bus in regards to an overbearing government (i.e. it's the fault of the private lobbies!), a government run within the means set forth in the Constitution could *not* be influenced - for it would not have (nor would it attempt to stake a claim to) jurisdiction in such matters. For example, most corporations lobby the government to redress grievances brought about by government intrusion in the first place. Usually the lobbying is for reduction in taxes or granting various tax incentives, relaxation of regulatory standards (or increases in them, in the case of environmental lobbyists), and so forth. In other words, the situation we have exists because our government has set itself up as a distributor of favors in exchange for campaign cash (or certain behavior, like installing solar panels or buying a hybrid for a tax break). It was never meant to be so. I personally think term limits for Congress would go a long way to reverse this trend. Career politicians begin looking out for their careers and personal advancement rather than what is best for the Republic.

Not sure why you would think I have a problem with the private sector or term limits.

I'm all for laissez-faire. It's a French concept, after all. :D

[ThaBigP]

Not sure why you would think I have a problem with the private sector or term limits.

I'm all for laissez-faire. It's a French concept, after all. :D

I'll admit it was "reading between the lines" to see something you actually did not say, though there are legions of those who would explicitly toss private industry completely under the bus at every opportunity. Many times I'll take a specific post and wander off into the wilderness rambling about this-and-that. :rolleyes:

[Jordan55]

http://elections.foxnews.com/files/2008/03/obama_wright_320.jpg

Can you say Big Government, Bet you can.
Priceless!!!!

[Jordan55]

Not sure why you would think I have a problem with the private sector or term limits.

I'm all for laissez-faire. It's a French concept, after all. :D



I just think you have a problem:shoot2:
But that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it