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

Without also having a majority in the Senate, having a majority in the House means nothing. There is a reason the founding fathers set up our govt the way they did.

 

They got Medicare passed, Medicaid etc. All of the social programs they said we needed, ACA. And all of it fell on its face. But instead of critically examining that: "Welp, blame Republicans." It's a good slogan, it gives someone to blame and it ignores the issue. BUT the issue is still there.

 

I have no idea what republicans mean by small government but I can answer for myself. For me small government at the federal level means defending the country, dealing and treating with other countries, maintaining a stable currency and resolving interstate disputes. Everything else should go to the states, the private sector or the trash can. I think it would make sense for the federal government to answer to the states rather than the public and be funded by the states rather than the public. Radical enough for you?

 

Which of course are NOT examples of a split Congress...

 

Pretty simplistic.

We should also:

Outlaw smoking, fast food, sugar drinks, beer and alcohol, weed... we should mandate helmets, exercise, required dental visits.... I could go on and on and on.

Just simply supporting something because you perceive the positives without evaluating the negatives... doesn't make any sense.

 

What is the negative of wearing a seat belt?

 

In my mind, it's the removal of individual freedom. Meaning, we have once again placed agenda for the collective higher than the individual. It is the fundamental issue with the slippery slope that has progressives like New York elites outlawing sugary drinks.

I wear a seat belt every time I get in a car. I don't give three shits if somebody else does, nor do I assume responsibility for that decision.

Collectivism is the biggest downfall, and core discussion and agenda of progressive liberals. The prioritization of the collective over the individual.

No thank. At all levels.

 

Why do you wear a seat belt?

 

WANT does not require government interference.

 

Neither does NEED.

 

Because WANT does not require government inference. If you support big government, higher taxes, and more laws, you need them.

 

That is a very simplistic way to view things. I didn’t need the govt to make wearing a seat belt a law. I use one based on common sense.

 

It does if you WANT government interference.

 

How does a seat belt law increase the size of government?

A law that saves me money and costs us nothing is not a "bigger government," law.

 

What a silly argument.

My right to consume sugar has nothing to do with a law that costs nothing to implement, and saves money of everyone.

You have every right to risk your life. I do not dispute this.

If we shouldn't create laws to save money, then thievery should be legal. That law does nothing except save people money.

 

After such a lengthy discussion, I assumed you remembered. I am working long hours and rarely complete a post without interruptions. You clearly stated that on the subject of poverty, Democrats without the interference from Republicans was better. Results show the opposite and to avoid recognizing results, you moved the post to Democrat presidents that had to deal with plenty of Republican interference and gridlock. You then moved the post to neoliberalism, which would, of course, be another result of Dem control. Reagan no longer has a voice in CA.

So the same way Republicans support their party in spite of results being inconsistent with their promises, you are no different if they still get your vote. Both parties exist because of blind followers.

 

I agree, but try convincing those pushing for more government.

My son told me he needed a $200. for shoes. I had to correct him. "You don't need the shoes, you want them. What you need is a job!"

 

Odd that people think a seat belt law has increased the size of govt

 

It means less un elected government employees in a nutshell. Democrats want "everyone" working for government. That is their entire goal. It consolidates them in power. Who do you think government workers vote for anyway? More government gives them more security. It is a cancer!

 

I am one that doesn't want or need it. In fact, I would like to reduce government to a minimum. They just want my money!

Weather report shows that its so cold in D.C., politicians have their hands in their own pockets!

 

Hyperbolic drivel.

 

States did the right thing by making driving on public roads a privilege rather than a right. Mandating seatbelts goes along with the right. Welfare is just wrong.

 

Guess you think that sounds intelligent. Makes you feel edumacated or something.

 

What do you do with a person who becomes paraplegic through no fault of his own and can no longer support himself? Kill him?

 

Enforcing laws is not free. My kids and I watched "Cops" for years. Many people are brought to jail for possessing a plant. It all starts with being pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, or a broken tail light. Now we have a movement to defund law enforcement.