Are you a fan of "big government"?

[JohnnyCougar]

I know that term is very broad and general, so I will try and make it clear in my answer options.

[Minstrel Boy]

1. This frames the question in a way that plays to the Right,

and is part of the conditioning that is allowing idealogues to dismantle the New Deal, while those who need it cheer them on. Because perversely in America, government encourages citizens to regard it as a negative force, so more power can accrue to its corporate paymasters.

"Big Government"? How about, "Good Government"? Or even, "Enough Government"?

Should Americans talk about "Big Corporations," they're painted as representing "special interests." But a government ought to be big enough to offset corporate power. Even though it seldom wants to.

[jdj]

5. I don't link "big gov't" with tax as much as I do with regulation.

And when it comes to regulation of the environment, gov't can't be big enough, at least not from where we presently stand.

We need govt to be what it was designed to be, a shield against carnivorous policies of big business, and a means of keeping a safety net for the poor.

But it's nice to see taxation mentioned in a way that ties it with gov't, not democrats, expecially since repukes have total control of "big gov't" right now.

Is this a new republican scheme, to link the meme 'big gov't' with TAXATION now instead of the loss of privacy rights? During the Reagan era it was all about CONTROL, not MONEY, and making people feel like the gov't had too much control over their lives. Now are they dragging this old saw out again to hurt democrats with, while simultaneously encroaching on our personal freedoms in every way?

[JohnnyCougar]

10. This should be our biggest wedge issue in 2006.

The Republican party HAS to be painted as the party of big government. This is the way to win the rural voters back. We should have started this already. The PATRIOT act has to be used against Bush. Why aren't we raving mad, day after day on the talk shows talking about the PATRIOT act and its "big government" evil?

The PATRIOT ACT and the "birth tax" will be our wedge issues in 2006. Or we will lose again.

[jdj]

13. We will lose again. Unless they let us win.

Their big corporate buddies made 80% of the voting machines.

We can come up with all the memes we want and it won't matter because they won't run our ads.

Bomb and Spend Republicans, Corporate shagging whores.

I'm starting to think that prayer is the only answer at this point.

[JohnnyCougar]

7. The right is a fan of big government as well

They say they aren't, but they're hypocrites. Bush is big government.

I don't understand how this plays to the right. Big government basically means government gets to decide instead of the individual. If the term "big government" makes you think I am playing to the right, that is your impression. I couldn't say "good government" or "enough government" because it is not the same thing. Everyone is for good government, and everybody thinks their idea of government is enough. Big government is a specific concept that implies government power over the people.

[Minstrel Boy]

12. Maybe I'm just looking at this through Canadian eyes.

The "big goverment" bogeyman doesn't look the same from here.

I don't think Americans have enough government. That is to say, a responsible government, that attends to their health and well-being.

[JohnnyCougar]

16. "Big government" has been traditionally used against the left, though.

But the truth is, we are not anymore "big government" than the right. It's been framed into one of the right's strongest issues. But I feel it will be easy enough to paint the right as pro "big government" after Bush spending like a drunken sailor.

[Minstrel Boy]

19. Bush is a Big Spender, but he's not building a Big Government.

He's dismantling it, and emptying the Treasury.

[Poiuyt]

11. The term "Big Government" has gotten a bad rap, much like the word,

"Liberal"

You make some excellent points

[Warpy]

2. Government that's big enough to be an adversary

to the rich, powerful, and corporate on behalf of ordinary people is a concept I can certainly live quite well with.

The nanny state of laws against sexuality, laws against internal chemistry, and laws against any personal choice that doesn't harm other people against their will is tyranny, and I want no part of it.

[denverbill]

3. I don't like your wording much.

'Government' doesn't tax us. We tax ourselves. If 51% of the people in the US wanted to eliminate taxation altogether, all it takes is an election. Sure, we'd have to eliminate the military, the FBI, the CIA, the FDA, and every other service performed by the government, but it's a conscious choice voters make.

Nobody likes to pay taxes, but nobody enjoys paying their cable bill either. But they pay their cable bill because the service they receive is, in their opinion, worth the cost.

I'd like to pay lower taxes. Everyone would. But I don't want to pay lower taxes if it means I might lose my chance to get unemployment benefits if I lose my job, or Medicaid if I lose my health insurance, or if it means the government won't inspect food producers to make sure my food isn't contaminated. I'd be willing to pay even higher taxes if it meant I could have guaranteed health care benefits regardless of my age or employment status.

[Beware the Beast Man]

4. Neo-cons what you to believe they are small government,

when they are not. I don't like to frame the issue in terms of "big government" vs. "small government." For what it's worth, I think everyone would like a more EFFICIENT government; cutting govt. waste where it truly exists, not destroying social programs because they do not gel with a business agenda.

[jdj]

15. Which reminds me, social security has a 1% overhead

according to Krugman. That's a hell of a lot more efficient than any corporation I've ever heard of and just about all of the charities too.

[tubbacheez]

6. i'd prefer to not equate "big" government with "rich" government.

I think government should be "big" in certain arenas. When I say "big", I mean "big" in the sense that it gets involved in the issue. It's this level of involvement that determines what constitutes as adequate personnel and adequate funding.

Specifically, I prefer government to be "big" in healthcare, social services, food and drug testing, public education, scientific research, and environmental issues.

I prefer government to be "medium" in defense (DoD, not DHS), corporate regulation, managing the economy, and law enforcement.

I prefer government to be "small" in terms of religion, sexuality, privacy, partisan politics, so-called Homeland Security, and a host of various pork projects.




My beef with the current administration is over their allocations of our taxes, not necessarily with the amount of taxes. I disagree with their priorities.

In my opinion, with better priorities, we might not need so much taxation to get the same (or better) result for our day-to-day lives.

[FogerRox]

8. Big Gov put a man on the moon. Big Gov can get asteriods for resources

Big Gov--helped build 6 different transcontiental Railroads 1865 to 1896. This Rail infrastructure led to the industrail capacity that won WW2.

WTF !!!! Lincolm won WW2? HUH? Oh yeah--OK

[tubbacheez]

18. your post is perfectly aligned with mine.

With the right priorities, having plenty of funds would be a very good thing.



I like your examples from government-funded science. Good post.

[Stop_the_War]

9. Big Gov = Bush

Bush spends all your money on war.
Bush wants to control our lives.

[rniel]

14. Irrelevant

What matters is is the economy going strong, do we have justice. Do people have jobs, do people have an opportunity to better themselves through education.

Whether this is done with big government/small government doesn't really matter to me.

In other words "results matter"

[DFLer4edu]

17. I hate the phrase big government

other should be an option.

[tubbacheez]

20. too many people say "big govt" when they really mean overtaxation. nt

[JohnnyCougar]

23. So do freepers

that's why we need to paint the Republicans as "big government"

[ultraist]

21. "Big Government" is just another propaganda term created by the Repukes

Responsible government, as Minstrel boy stated, is what the left REALLY proposes. One that is both accountable to the people and responsible to the people, including effective social programs, funding research, and implementing envio regulations.

What we have now, is a total lack of accountability and responsibility in both government and BIG CORP industry.

It's not a matter of big or small, but responsible and effective or reckless and ineffective.

[gottaB]

22. I'm a fan of smart government

The rightness of government's exercise of power depends upon the democratic qualities of the government. A completely undemocratic government has absolutely no rights, not even rights of sovereignty. This view has radical implications for how we conceptualize international affairs, so I should make it clear that my understanding of "democratic qualities" encompasses a broad array of disparate political forms. Furthermore, I do not regard the absence of legitimacy as ipso facto an invitation for aggression, though it is one of the conditions that may count towards the legitimation of international interventions and, of course, revolutions. And that still says little about the wisdom of undertaking any particular hostility.

The government of my dreams would be rather an egalitarian democratic socialist utopia, with strong protections for civil rights and liberties, and minimal regulation of markets per se. I support regulations that have demonstrable benefits for the world we live in, or the way we as societies live in it. This puts me at odds with libertarians and freemarketeers who tend to view certain activities, burning coal for instance, only in their economic aspects. It seems reasonable to me view activities more holistically and pragmatically, i.e. with an understanding of their realworld consequences. I would like to see this perspective given more prominence in American politics.

There are a host of vital projects that appear uniquely suited to "big government." I support, for example, mass transit, universal single-payer health care and universal public education, K-Ph.D. I am unconvinced that there are better ways of doing these things, though I regard myself as open to considering alternatives. I have an abiding distrust of those who propose alternatives to existing programs while at the same time proposing to dismantle existing programs. This is a political prejudice which may be an obstacle to genuine progress, but may more likely reflect a healthy survival instinct coupled with a distillation of the lessons of recent decades.

On taxes and spending my view is that whereas stinginess with other people's money is a virtue, stinginess with one's own money may easily become a vice. I see investments in the longterm, and try to see the big picture.