Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:
It's a stupid question, though.
Of course Liberals favor limited goverment. We just disagree with you over where those limits should be.
Cycloptichorn
Its a stupid question according to you, cyclops, because you don't like questions that have answers that do not fit your template. Health care is only one example of many issues wherein liberals want bigger government with increased authority and scope of influence. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
Sure, but that answer is not inconsistent with the idea that Liberals also support a government that is limited in size and power. We just don't agree with you where the gov't should be larger, and where it should be smaller.
For example, I would like to see us spend less on defense. Much less. Our defense budget equals the rest of the world combined. It is ridiculous that we drop such gigantic amounts of money when we have such huge problems in other areas which affect people's everyday lives just as much.
Therefore, I would like to see gov't limited and shrunk in that fashion.
'Limited government' is a criticism, not a governing philosophy, Okie. We all have different opinions as to where the limits should be, but to claim that Liberals simply want to balloon the gov't up as large as possible is ridiculous and nothing more than stereotyping. More importantly, you should look at how the gov't has grown under the last several years of Republican rule before you start throwing around accusations of who wants unlimited government.
A thought: you want a gov't which is limited in size, whereas I want a gov't which is limited in power.
Cycloptichorn
I understand your philosophy pretty well, I think, Cyclops. I think you belong to a group that is just liberal rather than closet communists or Marxists like many leftists are. You want government to take care of everybody and do not see the national threat grave enough to warrant military expenditures like we've seen, but you are not a Marxist or blatant socialist, or at least you don't see yourself in that light.
I think you probably understand my philosophy as well, at least I hope. As outlined by the Constitution, one of the primary purposes of our government is defense, so I advocate a strong defense. Within that philosophy, there is much room for debate concerning world involvement and whether we should be involved in what war, etc., and I am okay with that. I understand the opposition to Iraq, but I simply want people to be consistent over time with a situation like Iraq for example.
Whether or not you agree with the Constitution or not, it really does not mandate much more than defense, police protection, and few things as basic as that. It does not mandate taking care of and insuring happiness, health, and financial security of every citizen from cradle to grave. It guarantees freedom for the pursuit of happiness and equal opportunity, but it does not guarantee happiness or equal outcomes.
Domestically, Bush is not a conservative, so throw out what he's done on that front. For example, I oppose more federal involvement in K-12 education. I oppose many other programs that are federally funded. I may not necessarily be opposed to every program, but I think the functions are best left to state and local governments, as they are best fitted to know who and what are the most serious needs in society, and can therefore spend the tax monies more efficiently and also are closer and therefore more accountable to the people. And we really must accept the responsibility as citizens that we are not helpless, and begin to act like it. If there is no school to go to, do we stay ignorant? We don't have to, but bureaucrats would love us to believe we would. I am not advocating abolishing schools, but I am simply saying we should quit blaming our lack of excellence in education on bureaucracy and/or dollars. Throwing more dollars at any and every domestic problem is not the best answer. We have forgotten something called "citizenship." Along with being a beneficiary of freedom, we have responsibilities and duties along with it in order to be successful.
And cyclops, you really must face up the reality that whoever pays for something has the power. And also that size means power. Bureaucrats aren't going to sit around without trying to justify their jobs with power. Scope of government means more power. You must forget what looks good on paper and face the realities. The one that controls the purse strings has the power.
