Japan Today

Here
and
Now

opinions

The U.S. has always had ‘big government’ – even in the colonial era

29 Comments
By Sidney Shapiro and Joseph Tomain

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© The Conversation

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

29 Comments
Login to comment

This article from two men who are known hard left progressives, not even remotely surprised he would say something so out of context and wrong and so much of his analysis can be challenged on that false narrative.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

No one likes government but they come screaming for police, defense, clean environment, social security, etc. etc.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

bass4funkToday 07:31 am JST

This article from two men who are known hard left progressives, not even remotely surprised he would say something so out of context and wrong and so much of his analysis can be challenged on that false narrative.

Historical argument not found, but we also used to let the elderly die on the street and poor starve to death and we aren't going to be doing that anymore.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Historical argument not found, but we also used to let the elderly die on the street and poor starve to death and we aren't going to be doing that anymore.

You haven’t been to LA recently, huh?

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

No one likes government but they come screaming for police, defense, clean environment, social security, etc. etc.

Different from giving cradle to grave entitlements on a massive scale.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Different from giving cradle to grave entitlements on a massive scale.

Who gets those?

 Any civilized society should provide a safety net from birth until the end of life.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

The number of Federal employees has been consistent since 1970.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Who gets those?

https://stanfordreview.org/you-are-entitled-to-nothing-deconstructing-americas-entitlement-crisis/

 Any civilized society should provide a safety net from birth until the end of life.

According to whom?

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Americans have the right to welfare when they qualify.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

bass4funkToday 08:25 am JST/

 Any civilized society should provide a safety net from birth until the end of life.

According to whom?

According to the law that Bass4Funk doesn't have the votes to throw people off of food stamps, medicaid, or housing assistance. And there is no time limit on those things because that is immoral. Btw, here is the breakdown of expenditure so you can tell us where the waste is:

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Americans have the right to welfare when they qualify.

according to whom? The Constitution?

According to the law that Bass4Funk doesn't have the votes to throw people off of food stamps, medicaid, or housing assistance.

And another reason why stateside New York are becoming third world nations, and people are leaving.

And there is no time limit on those things because that is immoral.

According to whom?

Btw, here is the breakdown of expenditure so you can tell us where the waste is:

Yes

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

More far-left tripe trying to justify big government hovering over every aspect of life - a common theme in the opinion articles that appear on JT. Ever thought of posting articles that don't take a leftist slant on something, just for some balance?

 Any civilized society should provide a safety net from birth until the end of life.

There's a difference between a safety net for those who can't afford to take care of themselves and entitlements for those too lazy to go out and earn a living for themselves. No country has the balance perfect. Why should hard-working people at every socio-economic level pay high taxes to fund those who think they're entitled to welfare just for existing? It should only be reserved for the genuinely needy.

In my opinion, national government should be limited to looking after the national interest in relation to immigration, national defence/diplomacy, emergency response, prudent regulation to prevent pollution and blatant violations of reasonable safety standards. Things like health, education and welfare for those who truly NEED it should be dealt with more at the state/provincial level.

We're taxed way too heavily to fund thick layers of politicians and bureaucracy that offer little value for the amount of money they suck up. The public service shouldn't be an employment program for people too incompetent or ideological to get a job in the private sector. There are good people who work in the public sector, granted. But there are lots of lazy ones who're just there because it's good pay with very low chance of being held accountable. Not to mention the ideological ones who want to control the public without accountability. Having worked as contractor in the sector, I've seem 'em all.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

More far-left tripe trying to justify big government hovering over every aspect of life - a common theme in the opinion articles that appear on JT. Ever thought of posting articles that don't take a leftist slant on something, just for some balance?

 Any civilized society should provide a safety net from birth until the end of life.

There's a difference between a safety net for those who can't afford to take care of themselves and entitlements for those too lazy to go out and earn a living for themselves. No country has the balance perfect. Why should hard-working people at every socio-economic level pay high taxes to fund those who think they're entitled to welfare just for existing? It should only be reserved for the genuinely needy.

In my opinion, national government should be limited to looking after the national interest in relation to immigration, national defence/diplomacy, emergency response, prudent regulation to prevent pollution and blatant violations of reasonable safety standards. Things like health, education and welfare for those who truly NEED it should be dealt with more at the state/provincial level.

We're taxed way too heavily to fund thick layers of politicians and bureaucracy that offer little value for the amount of money they suck up. The public service shouldn't be an employment program for people too incompetent or ideological to get a job in the private sector. There are good people who work in the public sector, granted. But there are lots of lazy ones who're just there because it's good pay with very low chance of being held accountable. Not to mention the ideological ones who want to control the public without accountability. Having worked as contractor in the sector, I've seem 'em all.

Spot on.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Americans have the right to welfare when they qualify. 

according to whom? The Constitution?

There are a lot of things you take for granted that are not mentioned in the constitution and you sure would miss them if they were taken away.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

But as history shows, markets can also limit the liberty of consumers and workers, and when this happens, the public interest is not served.

The Marketolatry gospel preached by the alt-right is ahistorical and obscene. The deregulation and and dysfunction engendered by neo-liberal Reaganism and continuing with MAGA has resulted in a distorted system where corporations and oligarchs pay little or no taxes and the tax burden for an increasingly more inefficient government is pushed onto labor.

https://www.fool.com/taxes/2020/09/25/why-does-billionaire-warren-buffett-pay-a-lower-ta/

Meanwhile if you scroll up it is the usual factless, ahistorical screeds calling out 'far-left radical progressives, cultural Marxists' etc etc.

And never any mention of the vast majority of government bloat is in the mil-industrial complex and corporate welfare.

https://www.nydailynews.com/2020/10/27/his-corporate-welfare-trump-has-shoveled-cash-to-massive-companies/

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Bad HaircutToday  11:28 am JST

More far-left tripe trying to justify big government hovering over every aspect of life - a common theme in the opinion articles that appear on JT. Ever thought of posting articles that don't take a leftist slant on something, just for some balance?

 Any civilized society should provide a safety net from birth until the end of life.

There's a difference between a safety net for those who can't afford to take care of themselves and entitlements for those too lazy to go out and earn a living for themselves. No country has the balance perfect. Why should hard-working people at every socio-economic level pay high taxes to fund those who think they're entitled to welfare just for existing? It should only be reserved for the genuinely needy.

In my opinion, national government should be limited to looking after the national interest in relation to immigration, national defence/diplomacy, emergency response, prudent regulation to prevent pollution and blatant violations of reasonable safety standards. Things like health, education and welfare for those who truly NEED it should be dealt with more at the state/provincial level.

We're taxed way too heavily to fund thick layers of politicians and bureaucracy that offer little value for the amount of money they suck up. The public service shouldn't be an employment program for people too incompetent or ideological to get a job in the private sector. There are good people who work in the public sector, granted. But there are lots of lazy ones who're just there because it's good pay with very low chance of being held accountable. Not to mention the ideological ones who want to control the public without accountability. Having worked as contractor in the sector, I've seem 'em all.

MY WORDS

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Bad HaircutToday 11:28 am JST

Why should hard-working people at every socio-economic level pay high taxes to fund those who think they're entitled to welfare just for existing? It should only be reserved for the genuinely needy.

I think some people are under the impression that people are living high on the hog from welfare in the US. I would question whether living in a studio apartment in the worst part of town with no car and not enough food to sustain life is really living that well. And the studio apartment only comes if you can prove disability. Otherwise, the US assumes you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps living on the street.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

There are a lot of things you take for granted that are not mentioned in the constitution and you sure would miss them if they were taken away.

But they are not, so....

The Marketolatry gospel preached by the alt-right is ahistorical and obscene. The deregulation and and dysfunction engendered by neo-liberal Reaganism and continuing with MAGA has resulted in a distorted system where corporations and oligarchs pay little or no taxes and the tax burden for an increasingly more inefficient government is pushed onto labor.

Interestingly, big government has never been the answer and California is a prime example of how big government can destroy a once power state like CA and NY, the confining restrictions and redistribution of wealth have turned the state into a zombie apocalyptic Socialist nightmare and so the exodus continues. Liberals cry that the rich pay most of the taxes overall, they want to punish the rich for being rich, all the rich have to do is take their money and relocate somewhere else, and who gets punished in the end, not the rich and not the poor, but the middle-class get hammered to death.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2021/08/25/laffer-spending-spree-is-income-redistribution-and-it-wont-work/

Meanwhile if you scroll up it is the usual factless, ahistorical screeds calling out 'far-left radical progressives, cultural Marxists' etc etc. 

All true. Interesting why do these people you mentioned never visit or take care of the people that heavily support them? Why is that? They are only good and will fight for their cause as long as they can get their votes, after that, they are essentially worthless.

And the vast majority of government bloat is never mentioned in the mil-industrial complex and corporate welfare.

True, but I prefer a bigger, more powerful US military over a Chinese and Russian one. It helps project strength

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

The US government has been the same size since 1970, nearly 75 years.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It always seems to me that the debate is skewed. It's the cost of government and benefits of free markets versus the benefits of governments. The cost of free markets and market failure gets a free pass all too often. I will leave it to the free market proponents to think about their cost.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The US government has been the same size since 1970, nearly 75 years.

That is 110% not true, just an absolute Pinocchio.

The size and scope of the U.S. federal government have increased significantly since 1970,

Federal Budget

• 1970: The federal budget was approximately $195 billion.

• 2023: The federal budget is projected to be around $6.8 trillion.

This increase is partly due to inflation but also reflects expanded government programs and services.

• 1970: Federal spending was about 18% of GDP.

2023: Federal spending has risen to about 25% of GDP.

National Debt

• 1970: The national debt was around $371 billion.

2023: The national debt exceeds $31 trillion.

Federal Workforce

• 1970: There were approximately 2.9 million federal employees.

2023: There are roughly 2.1 million civilian federal employees, excluding military personnel. The federal workforce has become more efficient, but the number of contractors and grantees working indirectly for the government has increased.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

U.S. history.

Yes in less than 300 years look at the negative impact the USA has had on the world

Not something to be proud of

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Yes in less than 300 years look at the negative impact the USA has had on the world

Not something to be proud of

I vehemently beg to differ, although not perfect, I think we have made a lot of positive impacts and a lot to be very proud of.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Yes in less than 300 years look at the negative impact the USA has had on the world

Not something to be proud of

But many positive impacts too, especially in the fields of science and technology.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We can easily quantify the government by its tax revenue. I imagine about 30% of GNP is a reasonable place to be.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mr GoodmanMay 28 07:49 pm JST

U.S. history.

Yes in less than 300 years look at the negative impact the USA has had on the world

Not something to be proud of

Yes, we defended the world from communism mostly successfully. Must make you angry.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass4funkMay 28 07:10 pm JST

• 1970: There were approximately 2.9 million federal employees.

• 2023: There are roughly 2.1 million civilian federal employees, excluding military personnel. The federal workforce has become more efficient, but the number of contractors and grantees working indirectly for the government has increased.

So great success right? Especially since you think that contractors are infinitely more efficient than government employees.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So great success right? Especially since you think that contractors are infinitely more efficient than government employees.

Yes.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funkMay 28  09:30 am JST

Americans have the right to welfare when they qualify.

according to whom? The Constitution?

'Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. It's in there.

bass4funkMay 28  09:14 pm JST

Yes in less than 300 years look at the negative impact the USA has had on the world

Not something to be proud of

I vehemently beg to differ, although not perfect, I think we have made a lot of positive impacts and a lot to be very proud of.

We certainly have, until trump disgraced the US with his fascistic uncouth undiplomatic delusional and deranged persona. He brought SHAME upon America that's going to take decades to heal from, if we ever can. He raped America, and nothing or nobody is the same after that occurs.

> albaleoMay 28  09:24 pm JST

Yes in less than 300 years look at the negative impact the USA has had on the world

Not something to be proud of

But many positive impacts too, especially in the fields of science and technology.

And culture and ideas too. The US doesn't hold a monopoly on that but still there's no denying the tremendously positive impact it has made on planet Earth and all its people.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites