When republicans shout "small government" what does it mean?

When republicans say 'we are the party of small government' what does that actually mean? Just look at their policy proposals, all of which add up to one unescapable picture, translated into policy it means more goodies for rich people and less goodies for everyone else and anything that doesn't equal their bizarre world view is 'socialism'.

 

I find it very bizarre for a political party that courts evangelicals to so whole-heartedly support a Darwinian economic system where everyone is allowed to their own devices to achieve the "American Dream" whether by hook or crook.

 

Why are they so willing to support their party when results show the opposite of what they promise?

 

What we mean is less bureaucracy and less people in government but most importantly it means less regulations and laws and court mandates.

For instance, there should be no seatbelt laws.

Just by doing that the government would cost less and be smaller but less intrusion in our lives is the main goal.

Very simple actually

 

I disagree with your example. I believe government should get out of things the private sector could do better and more efficiently but seat belt laws protect the masses even if it is indirectly. If everyone that did not wear seat belts simply died in accidents then I would be more prone to agree. Unfortunately these people often live and the are often covered by medicare or the affordable care act which impacts tax payers. If they become injured and cannot work the government will have welfare payments to them and their family. I may support no specific mandate to find people that violate seat belt laws but to simply ticket someone after they are legitimately stopped for something else cost us very little.

I think where smaller government comes into play are for things like USPS. Can the private sector be an adequate replacement? What about increase cost to rural user? Will coverage be a problem?

 

There isn't one standard definition but the point is basically the same.

But using your example just look at private industry taking over space and doing it far better.

Scrapping the space shuttle was one of the few things Obama did right.

But then look at prisons which honestly should be run by the government.

The seatbelt thing is just my personal view but I would also remove all speed limits.

 

A perfect example of that Darwinian model way of thinking.

 

As @cristiansoldier said, this is a terrible example.

Public health & safety is a legit use of government, especially when such a simple thing saves so many tax dollars.

 

And that's a good thing I take it.

 

Pick another example then but the point is the same.

The goal of smaller government has never been to spend less although that would inevitably be the case.

 

Sure, if we could put all the people who think this way on a deserted island, they would kill themselves, ala Lord of the Flies, in a couple of years. No thanks. You can keep your dystopian Wild West to yourselves.

 

Oh so you are one of those that need the government to tell them exactly what to do and when to do it.

Yeah there are a bunch of people in your situation.

 

No, I want the government to protect me from folks who believe this crap.

 

You are a terrible spokesperson for fiscally conservative people like me. We want less spending. Losing the seat belt law will lower the size of government, 0%.

Get rid of the Dept of Education, for starters.

 

Thats a high price for a false sense of security.

 

Constitutional conservatives are for limited central government -- the linchpin of our republic-- not necessarily small government. Many Republicans are RINOs, not constitutional conservatives and like a big central government just as much as Democrats.

I won't comment on your illusory made up inane example. (Which party has the most billionaire backers???)

 

Don't know about Republicans, but many who favor smaller government in the U.S. generally favor smaller, central federal government, and in many states and cities, have little problem with state and local government overreach, there are many notable exceptions, especially in the age of manufactured COVID1984 Authoritarianism. The mid 20 century when progressives held sway is full of mostly unconstitutional federal trash and only a little treasure where size and power of central government is concerned. Worthy goals of Civil Rights were coopted towards larger and larger government, more overlapping graft regulations, less state and local autonomy.

 

Not 'simple', but 'simplistic'. The distinction is important.

Simple is a good thing, but simplistic isn't, for it means reduced beyond a point of being reducible, such that it is no longer viable.

Interesting that you mentioned seat belt laws.

You know, for years, there were no requirement to wear a seatbelts, though the law said manufacturers had to provide them, but I ignored them. then in the late 90s, they made it a law, you had to wear them while driving. I wasn't used to wearing them and so I continued not wearing them. Then, in one year, i got three seatbelt tickets, and the last one was expensive. The judge told me, if I got fourth one, the ticket would be on the order of sticker shock. So, I started wearing them.

About a year later, I got into auto accident, It was raining and as I traversed over a hill on a wide free way, traffic was averaging about 70, there was a truck sideways at a dead stop just in front of me which came into view as I arrived on the other side of the hill, and I hit it almost head on, I didn't have enough time to stop though I braked as good as I good without losing control..

What saved me from being hurled through the window was a seat belt.

What seat belts do and helmet laws do is save lives. I don't think you can put a value on a life, do you?

They also cost society less because injuries are diminished.

So, eliminating seat belt law would do nothing to reduce 'bureaucracy', i.e., there is no bureau dedicated to seatbelts. It's just a law. That is precisely why your example is simplistic.

 

City/County and even State governments were not as concerning to the framers as they are much easier to control and rein in by the people than the distant federal government.

 

I don't have children so I don't have any clue what it is like dealing with our current schools these days, but considering the amount of ignorance we witness just here on these forums alone, something tells me this should not be a dept we abandon to the local yokels to figure out. Just saying.

 

Like in your "poverty" thread, results are not a factor in willingness to support a party. You are no different.

 

The people can easily control the local schools. They cannot control the federal yokels in government. Besides the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to mess around with schooling.

 

We appreciate that. Odd to see you call others ignorant.

 

And yet that doesn't address my post, which underlines the national rift on facts and logic.

 

I got a quality education in public schools from 1971 - 1984. The fed got involved with education in the late 70s. Too late to mess up my education, but look where we are, now. Our oldest graduated HS without ever passing a math test.

His final semester grade Jr year was a 54, so they "rounded up" to a 60, so they could pass him.

All the fed does is **** things up.