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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Dec 29, 2020.

  1. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Ok no problem, that means that if you get into an accident no public funds will be used to treat you, can't afford it tough luck.
     
  2. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope, the man has kids their hurt.
     
  3. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Wrong. The government pays for their ER care, and then sends a lifetime of disability benefits, because the idiot put himself in a wheelchair or got brain damage. Or, the idiot orphaned a kid or five. Now we pay for them.

    These are very real costs.

    Any law that inconveniences nobody, costs nothing to implement and saves taxpayer money is an absolute no brainer.
     
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Neoliberalism is the cause, with the advent of Reagan.

    That is the fact of the matter.
     
    Jiminy likes this.
  5. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am used to wearing one. I am the one in the family that inspects their kids car seats to make sure they are installed correctly. I have a locked gate around my pool even though the law does not require it. (I get a discount on my homeowners insurance) I buy my kids quality helmets and safety gear for when we ride dirt toys.

    I don't understand why people need the government to tell them what to do.

    Getting back on topic, Republicans want small government until they get power the same way democrats want to help the poor until until they have power.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No sir, you clearly stated that Democrats without interference from Republicans. That is false and you are trying to move the post. I hope you now understand how Republicans can support a party that produces the opposite of what they promise. You do it to.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  7. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which would be fine if America had to policy of "sucks for you" when it comes to personal decision making but we don't roll like that. I'm not arguing whether we should or should not hold that mentality but we simply don't.

    If you choose not to wear a seatbelt and you get launched through your front window or whatever then now somebody has to help you in some capacity in most cases. If you have your own full scale medical insurance and can cover everything on your own then fine. If you have disability insurance to cover your bills while you recuperate then that's good too. If you die and have your own life insurance to take care of those expenses then great as well. If you have a will and relatives to take care of your kids then great. Etc, you get the point I'm sure. However, if you are one of the countless number of people out here lacking in one of those departments and you choose not to wear a seatbelt and get injured or killed then you now become MY problem because with or without my permission the government takes taxes from me that it's going to use to deal with you in some capacity. Society isn't going to just let your dead body lay in the street and leave it for the crows, all of these things at each level of this rabbit hole cost someone else money.

    Now we can make the argument that it actually shouldn't be like that and yeah if you get launched through your windshield and have no medical insurance then we just let you die and leave your body there for the crows. But that's not what actually happens. The federal, and in most places the state, government takes taxes from us with or without our permission. So long as that is the case then folks do have at least a basic argument as to why they should be able to have some say so in what you can and can't do in life.

    I am a HUGE proponent of personal responsibility, and many of my sentiments most folks would find flat out cruel even on the staunch Republican side. However, the government doesn't agree with my pretty harsh stance on life and so long as they take my money without my permission to "support" society as a whole then no folks shouldn't be able to just do whatever they want without the rest of us having any say so in it.
     
  8. Jiminy

    Jiminy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2016
    Messages:
    7,509
    Likes Received:
    8,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When conservatives speak of small business it is only in reference to the poor and the middle class. However, when it comes to the corporate welfare state, oh man, the bigger the government the better. The corporate welfare state literally cannot exist without a big and bigger government; corporations are government-created entities that receive their special rights and privileges from the government.
    [​IMG]
     
    Patricio Da Silva likes this.
  9. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Government small enough to fit in a women's privates I guess

    [​IMG]

    really I think Pence just wanted an excuse to look at the pictures, honey, it's for work
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2020
    Patricio Da Silva and Lucifer like this.
  10. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think many on the right are just misguided on what they believe, they will say they support small government while actually wanting an increase in military, police or forcing companies to allow them to say whatever they want online. They want large government, just in the areas they want it in — they care little for programs that help others or propel society forward in exchange for a deluded concept of isolated nationalism.

    The solution is simple however and it was what the US was originally set up to do. Allow states to decide the level of involvement and taxation they want while the federal government is relatively neutral. If California wants to have high taxes to support massive education, state provided healthcare, green infrastructure, high minimum wages, social safety nets and so on that would be their priority. If Alabama wants zero public education, a massive police force, zero subsidized healthcare, coal power plants, banned abortion and no safety net in exchange for little taxes that would be their priority.

    And let the people choose.

    The issue is that we would then need to regulate travel heavily, people would want to live in areas that provide these services but pay the taxes of the areas that they support ideologically. Pollution would drift into states that are fighting to combat it which the federal government would have to regulate.
     
    Lucifer and Curious Always like this.
  11. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,141
    Likes Received:
    7,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What you don't understand is the difference between NEED and WANT.
     
  12. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Bingo, that is absolutely the way it should be. However, you'll find that depending on the particular topic of discussion neither party is actually as in favor of "live and let live" and they claim to be. As you said Republicans want large government but only in areas they want it in. Democrats are the exact same way yet more so. Democrats tend to push for many more federal policies than Republicans do. The biggest thing Republicans tend to want federalized at the national level is bans on abortion because they feel it to be legit murder. Most other stuff they do tend to be in favor of being regulated at the lowest level. The adage of "I don't care what California does I don't live there" is way more of a Republican one than a Democrat one.

    But I agree 100%, I have always advocated heavily for States rights and I believe individual States should be allowed to operate almost independently outside of blatant stuff. No I won't support Arizona declaring itself a sanctuary state for legal murder or anything, I mean we have to have some rules for everyone who wishes to live under the US Flag. But outside of things like that, let the States decide. The Federal Government should be regulated to dealing with foreign nations and whatnot and things that effect "America" as a whole from a national perspective.

    Folks will argue that these concepts don't work though because there aren't exactly borders between states. That's the argument used with federalized gun regulations. "It doesn't matter if NY bans AR-15s but Pennsylvania doesn't because then people can just goto Pennsylvania and get them then come back to NY. It must be banned everywhere". Admittedly that is true, same thing happened with fireworks and cigarettes at least when I lived there. Folks who really wanted fireworks that went boom would just drive next door to Pennsylvania and buy them then bring them back. And I believe last time I checked cigarettes were the number 1 thing smuggled into NY due to NY's outrageous cigarette prices from that "sin tax" thing. But with that I am also 100% in States deciding to actually have border security if they want. If NY wants to put up border checkpoints with troopers stationed there I am fine with that. I believe Massachusetts did that when COVID first popped up and specifically banned New Yorkers from their State and setup checkpoints on the border. I was fine with that.
     
    nobodyspecific likes this.
  13. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,941
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you against a law that helps save lives?
     
  14. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,941
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why do you assume people NEED the govt to tell them what to do?
     
  15. Curious Always

    Curious Always Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2016
    Messages:
    16,924
    Likes Received:
    13,462
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Because they cost me money.
     
    ECA likes this.
  16. Nightmare515

    Nightmare515 Ragin' Cajun Staff Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,132
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yup. Get rid of taxes or completely revamp the tax system to where I as the individual can specifically choose exactly which government programs my personally collected taxes get allocated to and I'll have no problem with people doing whatever the hell they want. But so long as the government takes my money with or without my permission and uses it the way they see fit, which includes scraping you off the pavement, then they get to have some say so in your life.
     
  17. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The top 1% have 30% of the nation's wealth, which comes to $34 Trillion

    The bottom half has about 1.8% which is about $2 Trillion.
    (source: Federal Reserve wealth distribution chart)

    So, the logical place to get the money from is where it is at, the top 1% and the upper 49% ( progressively ).
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2020
    FoxHastings likes this.
  18. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,262
    Likes Received:
    16,934
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your sentence has awkward syntax, and, as written, makes no sense. What is it, specifically, are you trying to communicate?
    What is false? Remember, your sentence was incoherent.
    You just wrote that Republicans support a party that produces the opposite of what they promise. I assume you mean their own party, and then I agree with that.

    But, on "you do it to", you meant, 'you do it, too.' ( your writing is sloppy ) and no, I don't do it, 'too'. I have a lot of criticism of my own party, ( as I'm a progressive ).

    But, we are straying from the purpose of the thread, so back to the OP, please. FYI, as a progressive, I would like the dem party to return to being the party of the working man and woman. I'm not defending their straying from that objective. I would never claim dems to be the party of the less fortunate, but I would like to see the less fortunate get a chance to better their condition, and be helped.



     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2020
    FoxHastings likes this.
  19. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good. Perfect.

    That's just another example of government legislating healthcare, realizing it creates other problems, so rather than fix their error they create more legislation. That creates further issues... rinse and repeat.
     
  20. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm ok with kids having to wear seatbelt by law.
     
  21. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Government created that problem when they started paying for things like Healthcare and disability.

    There are orphanages in existence?

    Slippery slope that then gives justification to things like outlawing sugary drinks.
     
  22. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,905
    Likes Received:
    10,504
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm so for laws that require car manufacturers to install seat belts in every car.

    I'm all for laws that require that parents buckle their kids in.

    I'm 100% against laws that are based on protecting from themselves, or protecting the collective from the costs associated with others decisions. Collectivism is the problem, giving rise to many state policies that remove personal freedom and responsibility in the name of collectivism.

    It was never the intent of our government to be our parental figures to protect everybody else's interests.

    This is a prime example of collectivism creating an issue, moving away from individualism. Rather than fix the issue that is collectivism, we legislate more and more personal responsibility away.
     
  23. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    31,941
    Likes Received:
    15,602
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you’re not a fan of laws that saves lives. Got it.
     
  24. AmericanNationalist

    AmericanNationalist Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2013
    Messages:
    41,164
    Likes Received:
    20,940
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Surely by now the Democratic Society would have ushered in a prosperous society when we had a Democratic house from 1954 to 1992 right? No, the reality is democrats talk a big game and vastly under deliver and then blame everyone else for their failure to deliver.
     
    joesnagg likes this.
  25. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure because big, powerful governments have always ended well......
     

Share This Page