Smasharoo wrote:
Now, if you're willing to step up to the bat and actually disagree with the meaning as used by conservatives (that means not quoting liberals saying what they think conservatives mean btw), then by all means, knock yourself out.
Sure, state it completely for me without equivocation and we'll disagree.
Assuming you mean what's meant by "Big Government" and not the statement you quoted above. How about I just quote what I already wrote in this thread:
Quote:
Small (or Big) 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.
The only addendum I'd toss in is to make clear that something can be in scope but still considered big government if it's particularly wasteful or appears to be unnecessary. So while interstate commerce falls in the scope of federal powers, using it to force people to buy health insurance is seen as big government. In that case, it's stretching the definition of the thing itself. And yes, military spending, especially when the purpose seems more about bringing dollars into someone's district rather than actually building effective military capability can also be seen as "big government".
There's zero equivocation in that statement. It's absolutely clear about what makes something in or out of scope (and thus leaning towards small or big government), and provides a list of examples. This is pretty consistently what conservatives in the US mean when we talk about big versus small government.
Do you think that there's some other meaning that conservatives have which is contradictory to this one?
