Size of government

[MaC]

as a whole, I'm looking for.  Not a trick question, although it is simple.

[A18]

Just eliminate 80% of non-defense spending, and it'll be about the right size.

[Cashcow]

Too large, but not by much.

[opebo]

Too small, and very poorly allocated.  Spending on things like the military should be reduced, while redistributionist spending such as welfare and free medical care should be increased.  About 30% of GDP would be better than the current 18 or 22%, whatever it is.

[Richard]

Too small, and very poorly allocated.  Spending on things like the military should be reduced, while redistributionist spending such as welfare and free medical care should be increased.  About 30% of GDP would be better than the current 18 or 22%, whatever it is.

It is actually over 33%.  Glad you approve of cutting it down.

[opebo]

Too small, and very poorly allocated.  Spending on things like the military should be reduced, while redistributionist spending such as welfare and free medical care should be increased.  About 30% of GDP would be better than the current 18 or 22%, whatever it is.

It is actually over 33%.  Glad you approve of cutting it down.

No, in the US the federal government is around 20%.

[Richard]

Citation.

[opebo]

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0

[Adam Griffin]

I can't make a definite decision, based on the fact that conservatives essentially control all three branches of government. I think that if liberals, or even moderates controlled the government for the most part, I would be for larger government. Large government in the hands of conservatives, who fervently call for small government with more power handed to the states than the federal government, is quite dangerous in my view because while in control they rarely reduce its powers and actually augment its ability to intervene in the areas which I consider gross: private matters and freedoms.

For example, we have seen the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, which in my view is just as weak as the seperate groups that existed before September 11. Combined with the Patriot Act, perhaps one of the largest encroachments on freedom manipuable by big governments to date, there has been an erosion of private, social freedoms among Americans. We can learn from examples in other countries that laws passed in favor of "freedom" or "anti-freedom"; both lead to the latter and not the former. You may be able to make one person feel as if they are protected and have freedom, but how many people will have to feel as if they have no protection or freedom in the process?

I believe in expanding the government in the area of socio-economic programs, immigration, and human rights if certain states have a biased opinion towards a certain group of people. Sure, taxes may increase, but that's just a part of life. No taxes may sound great, but when you need your roads paved, your hospitals updated, and your schools refurbished with materials less than ten years old, don't complain to the federal government; maybe you can use all that money you didn't pay in taxes to repair these areas. I believe that welfare, however, should be managed better in order to encourage job growth; I believe that the amount of people that should be on welfare at any given time should be no greater than 110% of the unemployed workforce.

I am in no way for small government if the government is being managed by fiscally-responsible, moderate-to-liberal personnel. It is quite a paradox, however; I believe that if I had lived in a different state, say Massachusetts, I would be more pro-State than pro-Federal, due to the fact that my state would be more liberal than the federal government. Perhaps it is my hope that by putting my faith in a large, federal, semi-liberal government, the ridiculous laws and ways of my extremely conservative state will be thwarted at some point in time.

[Richard]

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0

That is federal government only.  This isn't about just one government, but about all government.  Include those in your figures please.

[David S]

Just eliminate 80% of non-defense spending, and it'll be about the right size.

Sounds about right.

[TX_1824]

Too big. The supreme court just ruled that local governments may seize a person's home or business against their will for economic development in a 5-4 vote. Are we in Communist Russia, North Korea, or semi-Communist Venezuela? Bad ruling.

[David S]

Too big. The supreme court just ruled that local governments may seize a person's home or business against their will for economic development in a 5-4 vote. Are we in Communist Russia, North Korea, or semi-Communist Venezuela? Bad ruling.

Once again I have to say that you cannot solve these kinds of problems by continuing to vote for Republicans or Democrats. They created the problems in the first place.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3521&sequence=0

That is federal government only.  This isn't about just one government, but about all government.  Include those in your figures please.

The poll asked about "the U.S. government".   I think it's fair to interpret that as meaning the federal government.

I voted too small.  Certainly on the domestic side, it is much too small.  We should nationalize healthcare and several other "natural monopoly" industries, and create a public works programs as a partial substitute for welfare.   

On the defense side, I'm ambivalent.  I'm sure there is a lot of wasteful spending that could be eliminated, but I think we should maintain an active presence around the world in spreading democracy, and wouldn't want to cut anything that would impede that effort.
I think we should also massively expand foreign aid, though its such a small portion of the budget now that even increasing our spending tenfold wouldn't make much difference on the overall size of government.

[A18]

Too big. The supreme court just ruled that local governments may seize a person's home or business against their will for economic development in a 5-4 vote. Are we in Communist Russia, North Korea, or semi-Communist Venezuela? Bad ruling.

Once again I have to say that you cannot solve these kinds of problems by continuing to vote for Republicans or Democrats. They created the problems in the first place.

What did voting Libertarian ever solve?

[Richard]

I think we should also massively expand foreign aid, though its such a small portion of the budget now that even increasing our spending tenfold wouldn't make much difference on the overall size of government.

I sure hope you send half of your welfare check to Africa for aid.

[MaC]

Too big. The supreme court just ruled that local governments may seize a person's home or business against their will for economic development in a 5-4 vote. Are we in Communist Russia, North Korea, or semi-Communist Venezuela? Bad ruling.

Once again I have to say that you cannot solve these kinds of problems by continuing to vote for Republicans or Democrats. They created the problems in the first place.

What did voting Libertarian ever solve?

Well until the Democrats and Republican realize the error of their ways by writing draconian ballot access laws, and start repealing them, we may never know.  Libertarian philosophy isn't taught in schools, nor mentioned in campaigns, nor frequently in newspapers, so many people really don't know how great our ideas are.

[MaC]

After being up for more than I day, I make my point.  Although forumites may be a little different than the common man, 71% of us want less government.

In other polls as cited by Harry Browne and David Boaz, Americans generally think that the government is too large.  Granted there is no option for "way too large" or anything, but I must wonder:  How come, if Americans realize that they don't want a government that is too large, they don't do anything about it?

I realize the common man has heard little or nothing about the Libertarian Party, but shouldn't they be a bit suspicious of their politicians who waste money on social programs, and don't know fiscal responsibility.  Even if the libertarians never get a president elected, shouldn't we have enough of an influence to have the public elect more libertarian leaning Democrats and Republicans?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

People's attitude to the size of government can be a little strange; my take is that most actually *like* the government doing things for them (there's a reason why running on a platform calling for massive slashes in public spending is usually results in electoral disaster except in execeptional circumstances) but at the same time *don't* like bureaucracy or red tape or whatever... and don't see anything wrong or unusual about holding both opinions at the same time.

[muon2]

People's attitude to the size of government can be a little strange; my take is that most actually *like* the government doing things for them (there's a reason why running on a platform calling for massive slashes in public spending is usually results in electoral disaster except in execeptional circumstances) but at the same time *don't* like bureaucracy or red tape or whatever... and don't see anything wrong or unusual about holding both opinions at the same time.

You are right on target with your observations. People do hold both opinions simultaneously. IMO, the best strategy is to make government more efficient in the way it delivers services. This can cut costs and red tape.

[Beet]

Too big. The supreme court just ruled that local governments may seize a person's home or business against their will for economic development in a 5-4 vote. Are we in Communist Russia, North Korea, or semi-Communist Venezuela? Bad ruling.

A terrible ruling. I have to agree with you here.

[David S]

People's attitude to the size of government can be a little strange; my take is that most actually *like* the government doing things for them (there's a reason why running on a platform calling for massive slashes in public spending is usually results in electoral disaster except in execeptional circumstances) but at the same time *don't* like bureaucracy or red tape or whatever... and don't see anything wrong or unusual about holding both opinions at the same time.

You are right on target with your observations. People do hold both opinions simultaneously. IMO, the best strategy is to make government more efficient in the way it delivers services. This can cut costs and red tape.

Government is not subject to the competitive pressure that private business is, so it lacks the incentive to be be efficient.

[muon2]

People's attitude to the size of government can be a little strange; my take is that most actually *like* the government doing things for them (there's a reason why running on a platform calling for massive slashes in public spending is usually results in electoral disaster except in execeptional circumstances) but at the same time *don't* like bureaucracy or red tape or whatever... and don't see anything wrong or unusual about holding both opinions at the same time.

You are right on target with your observations. People do hold both opinions simultaneously. IMO, the best strategy is to make government more efficient in the way it delivers services. This can cut costs and red tape.

Government is not subject to the competitive pressure that private business is, so it lacks the incentive to be be efficient.

It does lack the same pressure, but the voters can put in place a government that has the incentive to carry out their will. I know few see it, but it happens, and I will attest from personal experience.