·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?
What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow
Not enough hijinks.
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
SwaziSpring wrote:
Big government would be the opposite of small government;
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
SwaziSpring wrote:
Big government would be the opposite of small government;
Also, you misspelled Sesame Street, I fixed it for you.
lolgaxe wrote:
SwaziSpring wrote:
Big government would be the opposite of small government;
To be fair, I think big government is envisioned as a government with lots of employees, lots of regulation, lots of oversite and spending lots of our taxes
In that respect our government is boringly average.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Obviously the biggest problem with the term "big government" is that you can't have a "small government" and "the largest and most powerful military in the world".
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I don't see how saying "I'm against big government and my opponent is for it" is empty at all.
Because "big government" is a meaningless buzzword.
No, it's not. It has a far more specific meaning than nearly any other phrase that might be used in political circles.
Quote:
It's specifically supposed to be vague so that the audience will hear whatever they want and the speaker can retroactively argue it meant whatever is most convenient for her at the moment.
I think you're confusing the phrase "big government" with phrases like "move America forward", and "health care reform", and "help the poor".
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
catwho wrote:
Actually, most people are too stupid to make their own investment retirement decisions (or to save for retirement at all.) Even smart investors make dumb decisions, as evidenced by the disastrous Facebook IPO, and everyone who got swindled by Bernie Madoff.
So what? We take away their freedom to make those dumb choices? Not sure how that's a win here.
Quote:
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.
I'm always amused by that expression given that cat food is typically much more expensive pound for pound than human food.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.
I'm always amused by that expression given that cat food is typically much more expensive pound for pound than human food.
When that expression came about that wasn't the case. You seem dumber lately, Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Guenny wrote:
Obviously the biggest problem with the term "big government" is that you can't have a "small government" and "the largest and most powerful military in the world".
Isn't it odd that the only people who actually seem confused about what "big government" refers to are liberals? One might suspect a deliberate attempt to remain ignorant in order to avoid discussing the issue.
Small government refers to the scope of government more than the actual dollars spent (although less dollars is good as well obviously). I know for a fact that I've explained this on this forum at least a dozen times. And I know that I've responded to that precise "why support the military" argument that the left weakly tosses out there at least as many times as well.
The constitution defines a set of things that the federal government is required to do. Maintain some form of military is one of them. So while we can argue about the size of the military itself, and whether its actions are ones we agree with, in the terms of the "scope" of government, it's in scope. Health care, is not. Social Security is not. Income assistance is not (that's welfare btw). Education is not. At least half of what we spend money on at the federal level is on things that are *not* in the scope of the (necessary) federal powers of our government. Can the federal government do them? Yes. Should it? That's a matter of political position.
Those who are against "big government" believe that the federal government should not involve itself in those extra areas (or should do so to a much lesser degree). Those who are for big government believe that the federal government should involve itself in those extra things. So when Obama says that "we need to help ensure that every child receives the best education possible, with the best health care possible, and the best nutrition possible", he's clearly an advocate of the big government side of things.
Again: Is this really something people don't understand? Or is it something people just pretend not to so they can make those silly "but why do conservative support the military" arguments?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
catwho wrote:
Social Security exists to ensure those who are unable or unwilling to put away for their own retirement aren't forced to eat cat food and there's not old people dying in the streets like there was a hundred years ago.
I'm always amused by that expression given that cat food is typically much more expensive pound for pound than human food.
When that expression came about that wasn't the case. You seem dumber lately, Did you suffer a traumatic brain injury?
By dumber you mean "more wise and all knowing than normal", right?
Cans of cat food (which is what's usually referred to) have always been more expensive than human food. Compare the price of a can of cat food to that of a can of tuna, for example. And that's far and away not the most inexpensive thing you could buy for human consumption. Even when looking at bulk bags of dry cat food, you'd still be better off buying bags of flour, rice, and beans. Yes. Even when the expression became common.
It was a silly joke back then. It was (and really still is) a play on the stereotype of the elderly woman with a house full of cats, who uses all her money to feed the cats, but has none left for herself, so she'd eat the cat food. It was always more of a mythical statement than reality.
Why the hell am I needing to explain this?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Again: Is this really something people don't understand? Or is it something people just pretend not to so they can make those silly "but why do conservative support the military" arguments?
When someone says "big government" it seems to imply size to me; irregardless of what powers that government has taken on. Number of people employed or money spent seem to a natural measure of that. If that's not what y'all mean, then you probably what to try using a phrase that wouldn't be so easily misinterpreted. Might I suggest the phrase 'Broad Government' instead of 'Big Government'. Worst case there I'm picturing a hot blonde or something; win/win in my book.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
gbaji wrote:
Those who are against "big government" believe that the federal government should not involve itself in those extra areas (or should do so to a much lesser degree).
Right. Typically exemplified through throwing big temper tantrums over government spending and then saying "Gimme gimme gimme gimme!!!" once there's district money on the table while people like Gbaji spin themselves in circles defending it.
I like watching Gbaji play the role of True Believer though. I really hope it's sincere naivety on his part because that sort of childlike wonder is a joy to behold in this cynical age
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
Isn't it odd that the only people who actually seem confused about what "big government" refers to are liberals?
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Maybe the only people who stop to question the Daily Buzzword are liberals. Conservatives just smile, nod and add it to their talking point lexicon without question.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Again: Is this really something people don't understand? Or is it something people just pretend not to so they can make those silly "but why do conservative support the military" arguments?
When someone says "big government" it seems to imply size to me; irregardless of what powers that government has taken on.
I'm not sure how you separate those two though. If a government takes on more things, then it can be said to have grown in "size". Everything else being the same, right?
Quote:
Number of people employed or money spent seem to a natural measure of that.
It's *a* measurement of it, but not the whole picture. Certainly, a big government will employ more people and will spend more money, but that's not the sole reason it's "bad". It's also about what the money is being spent on and what those people are employed to do. If we were talking about personal finances, you'd certainly make a distinction between money spent on groceries and rent/mortgage versus money spent on 5 premium cable channels and a trip to Vegas. One set are things you actually need, while the others are extras you might want, but are not necessary.
Both spending on rent and spending on a trip to Vegas increase the total amount of money you're spending. But when looking at cutting spending out of your budget, most sane people would cut the trips out first, right?
Quote:
If that's not what y'all mean, then you probably what to try using a phrase that wouldn't be so easily misinterpreted. Might I suggest the phrase 'Broad Government' instead of 'Big Government'. Worst case there I'm picturing a hot blonde or something; win/win in my book.
Why? Because you imagine that Big means size and then assume a very narrow meaning for the word "size"? It's a phrase that has a very specific meaning in politics. Why go out of your way to ignore the meaning of the phrase meant by those who use it? Does every term in your field make perfect literal sense? But you use them anyway, right? So isn't it basically a form of denial for some to pretend that "big government" means something different?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Isn't it odd that the only people who actually seem confused about what "big government" refers to are liberals?
I have never used the term big government in any other meaning that that which I described earlier.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
So only according to your painstakingly made up definition, got it.
Guenny wrote:
So only according to your painstakingly made up definition, got it.
Except that even Wiki has more clue that you guys do:
Quote:
Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]
Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]
Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]
While I think the wiki page glosses over some key points, it at least gets right that this includes more than just dollars spent. Hence why I wonder when I run into people who seem to revel in this idea that it's just about dollars, so one dollar here is no different than a dollar there.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I'm sorry, but a wiki page article on an abstract concept does not a definition make. Try again.
gbaji wrote:
Except that even Wiki has more clue that you guys do:
While I think the wiki page glosses over some key points, it at least gets right that this includes more than just dollars spent. Hence why I wonder when I run into people who seem to revel in this idea that it's just about dollars, so one dollar here is no different than a dollar there.
Quote:
Big government (sometimes capitalized as Big Government) is a term generally used by political conservatives, laissez-faire advocates, or libertarians to describe a government or public sector that they consider to be excessively large, corrupt and inefficient, or inappropriately involved in certain areas of public policy or the private sector. The term may also be used specifically in relation to government policies that attempt to regulate matters considered to be private or personal, such as private sexual behavior or individual food choices.[1] The term has also been used to define a dominant federal government that seeks to control the authority of local institutions - an example being the overriding of state authority in favor of federal legislation.[2]
Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]
Big government is primarily defined by its size, a criterion that incorporates variables such as the number of employees, relative costs, and the "spheres of involvement"[clarification needed]. The concept can also be defined by the perceived role of government in society, the quality of services (that is, the impact of government effort), and the degree of democracy and societal representation.[3][4]
While I think the wiki page glosses over some key points, it at least gets right that this includes more than just dollars spent. Hence why I wonder when I run into people who seem to revel in this idea that it's just about dollars, so one dollar here is no different than a dollar there.
See what happens when you emphazise other contexts?
So Wiki says "big government" means 'a government someone thinks is too big'?
Holy shit, that's like a fuckin' laser in its focus. No way could that be used as a vague catch-all buzzphrase.
Edited, Sep 11th 2012 7:00pm by Jophiel
Holy shit, that's like a fuckin' laser in its focus. No way could that be used as a vague catch-all buzzphrase.
Edited, Sep 11th 2012 7:00pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
ITT: the only things our government should be responsible for are collecting taxes, and bombing people.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Don't forget making sure women never get an abortion! Gotta have all kinds of government in them wombs!
Technogeek wrote:
Don't forget making sure women never get an abortion! Gotta have all kinds of government in them wombs!
There's no womb for dead baby jokes around here, Mr.
Recent Visitors: 495
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (495)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC