How big would you like your government?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

maxiep

RIP Dr. Jack
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
28,321
Likes
5,919
Points
113
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/america_s_best_days

America's Best Days: 66% Favor Smaller Government With Fewer Services, Lower Taxes

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Sixty-six percent (66%) of U.S. voters prefer a smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes over a more active government with more services and higher taxes.

That's the second highest finding of the year: In August at the height of the congressional town hall controversies over the health care plan, 70% felt that way.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 22% prefer a government with more services and higher taxes. Eleven percent (11%) aren't sure which is best.

Eighty-eight percent (88%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major party like a smaller government better. Democrats are more narrowly divided: 51% favor a smaller government, but 37% opt for a larger, more activist government.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of liberals chose a government with more services and higher taxes. Eighty-six percent (86%) of conservatives think a smaller government is better.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of all voters say tax cuts are a better way than more government spending to create jobs and fight unemployment. Only 21% say additional stimulus spending is a more effective tool.

Voters overwhelmingly believe that the bigger problem in the United States is the unwillingness of politicians to control government spending rather than voters' unwillingness to pay enough in taxes.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Seventy four percent (74%) of voters say U.S. society is generally fair and decent, up seven points from early November and the highest level measured in two years. Just 17% percent disagree and feel society is generally unfair and discriminatory, the lowest level measured since November 2006.

Whites are more inclined than African-Americans and voters of other ethnicities to believe U.S. society is generally fair and decent.

Just under half (49%) of voters nationwide believe President Obama views American society as generally unfair and discriminatory, while 36% say he sees society as fair and decent. Fifteen percent (15%) are not sure. These findings have remained fairly consistent since late July.

Thirty-six percent (36%) believe America’s best days are in the future, up slightly from early November. Meanwhile, 47% say America’s best days are in the past, down five points from the previous survey. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure.

Sixty-two percent (62%) of voters also now believe it would be better for our allies to follow America's lead more often. This is up 12 points from when Obama took office in January and is the highest level measured since Rasmussen Reports began regularly tracking this question in November 2007.

Just eight percent (8%) now say it would be better for the United States to do what our allies want more often. That's the lowest level measured in a little over two years. In November 2007, 29% of Americans felt America should follow our allies more often. Since then, the number of voters who feel this way has steadily declined.

But 23% of voters say the president thinks it’s would be better for the United States to do what our allies want more often. The plurality (47%) feels the president believes it would be better for our allies to do what the United States wants more often, the highest level measured since the beginning of the year.

The latest survey was conducted a little over a week after the president detailed his plan, for winning – and ending – the war in Afghanistan in a speech at West Point. Fifty-three percent (53%) of voters support his plan to send another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, and nearly as many (47%) support his plan to begin withdrawing troops from that war-torn country in 18 months. But put them together, and overall support for the plan falls to 37%.

In his speech, the president stressed how important it is for America’s NATO allies to pitch in. However, 61% of voters are not confident that America's NATO allies will help us win the war in Afghanistan.

I don't think either party grasps the idea that the citizenry would like them to do less, and not more. Instead, the name of the game is still "bringing home the bacon".
 
I agree. The citizens want smaller government, but the socialists in control want bigger and more controlling government. At some point in time if the socialists don;t start listening to the citizenry, they'll find themselves in the minority in federal government.
 
I agree. The citizens want smaller government, but the socialists in control want bigger and more controlling government. At some point in time if the socialists don;t start listening to the citizenry, they'll find themselves in the minority in federal government.

Or people will become so dependent on their government, they become slaves to it. And when that happens, they'll vote for whoever "gives" them the most. Power and control are the currency of the Big Government crowd. As for me, I'd rather be responsible for my own life.
 
Small government sounds great in theory, but neither party is for it when they are in power. So if both parties expand it, you might as well put the one that is an expert on the matter in control. :)
 
If people really wanted small government, they would have voted for ron paul; end of discussion.
 
I'll stab first at that one- I think he was. I strongly considered voting for him, but he seemed a bit 'out there' to me.

Why did he seem "out there" to you? How was he covered during the campaign? All I know is I didn't see him at any of the Presidential debates nor did I see him discussed in the polls much. Nader got more play and (IIRC) received fewer votes. Hmm....

My point is he was a third party candidate in a two party system. He was ignored by the media and therefore, wasn't given a real shot.
 
Another meaningless poll addressing nothing.

Neither party is all that concerned about the actual size of government. They would simply eliminate the huge emphasis the other party has on certain things and redirect it to their concerns.

Repubs will always vote for enlarging government for more cops, jails, homeland insecurity, military programs, wars...

Dems will always vote for enlarging government for more assistance to the needy, education, oversight of commerce to ensure the safety of our products and environment.

Bottom line is our government is tiny compared to it's mandates. It worked just fine until the uber-wealthy stopped paying their share to support it.

Tax the rich or live in a ditch.
 
Why did he seem "out there" to you? How was he covered during the campaign? All I know is I didn't see him at any of the Presidential debates nor did I see him discussed in the polls much. Nader got more play and (IIRC) received fewer votes. Hmm....

My point is he was a third party candidate in a two party system. He was ignored by the media and therefore, wasn't given a real shot.

I guess you don't count the internet as a part of the media?

Ron Paul does not represent anything that Americans could identify with. He offered little direction and no solutions.
 
Another meaningless poll addressing nothing.

Neither party is all that concerned about the actual size of government. They would simply eliminate the huge emphasis the other party has on certain things and redirect it to their concerns.

Repubs will always vote for enlarging government for more cops, jails, homeland insecurity, military programs, wars...

Dems will always vote for enlarging government for more assistance to the needy, education, oversight of commerce to ensure the safety of our products and environment.

Bottom line is our government is tiny compared to it's mandates. It worked just fine until the uber-wealthy stopped paying their share to support it.

Tax the rich or live in a ditch.

It's probably not important to you that the "rich" currently pay a higher percentage of the total tax receipts than at any time in the country's history.
 
I guess you don't count the internet as a part of the media?

Not in a substantive way.

Ron Paul does not represent anything that Americans could identify with. He offered little direction and no solutions.

Thank you once again for willingly placing your ignorance in the limelight. You may not have liked his policy prescriptions, but that doesn't mean he didn't have them.
 
Or governments will become so dependent on their big corporations, they become slaves to them. And when that happens, they'll vote for whoever "gives" them the most. Power and control are the currency of the Big Corpoation crowd. As for me, I'd rather be responsible for my own life.
Fixed it for ya :devilwink:
 
I hate politics and there is nothing I can do about any of it. So why bother? The rich are in charge and always will be. There is nothing we can do about it.
 
I'm actually a very big Ron Paul supporter, especially on foreign policy.
 
I'm actually a very big Ron Paul supporter, especially on foreign policy.

Interesting. Being a "Ron Paul supporter" must be the hip thing to say these days. Judging from your other posts on this forum, you and Ron Paul share very, very little in common with respect to political views.
 
Interesting. Being a "Ron Paul supporter" must be the hip thing to say these days. Judging from your other posts on this forum, you and Ron Paul share very, very little in common with respect to political views.

Thanks. I get that a lot.
 
Maybe that should be a hint?

Good point! 2 people on this forum saying that > what I think.

Anyway, I agree with plenty of his stances, and also disagree with some. Primarily, I agree with his foreign policy. I think his foreign policy is exactly what we need right now. I think he is the only candidate out there that will actually bring change, something our country needs. He is probably the only politician I could have trust in as well. I definitely agree with his stance on the Fed also.

You will never agree 100% with someone (unless you are a complete ideologue, I'm not sure if you are so I won't speak on your behalf), but overall I think he would be my first choice of candidates right now. As for the traditional 2 party system, I'd take left over right any day because I agree with them on more things than I do the right (who I've been disgusted with in the last 5 or 6 years). I'm not against what the republicans supposedly stand for, but the party isn't the once great party of the past, and has turned into a bunch of dangerous neo-cons like Dick Chaney, Karl Rove, and John Bolton *that hasn't advocated for small government and fiscal restraint while in power.*

*edit*
 
Last edited:
Good point! 2 people on this forum saying that > what I think.

Uh, you said that "you get that a lot". I didn't know that 2 == "a lot".

Anyway, I agree with plenty of his stances, and also disagree with some. Primarily, I agree with his foreign policy. I think his foreign policy is exactly what we need right now.

Fair enough

I think he is the only candidate out there that will actually bring change, something our country needs.

More Obama brainwashing. Not all change is good, as evidenced by Obama's governing.

He is probably the only politician I could have trust in as well.

The way you strongly defend Obama, you appear to be able to put all your trust in him as well.

I definitely agree with his stance on the Fed also.

Ok.


You will never agree 100% with someone (unless you are a complete ideologue, I'm not sure if you are so I won't speak on your behalf), but overall I think he would be my first choice of candidates right now. As for the traditional 2 party system, I'd take left over right any day because I agree with them on more things than I do the right (who I've been disgusted with in the last 5 or 6 years). I'm not against what the republicans supposedly stand for, but the party isn't the once great party of the past, and has turned into a bunch of dangerous neo-cons like Dick Chaney, Karl Rove, and John Bolton.

If you think that Ron Paul has more in common with the left than the right, even the current and recent group of Republicans, then you clearly haven't spent time learning about Ron Paul's positions. And again, you must just think it is hip to say you are a Ron Paul supporter.
 
Uh, you said that "you get that a lot". I didn't know that 2 == "a lot".

It was a joke referring to a conversation I recently had with Maxiep.

More Obama brainwashing. Not all change is good, as evidenced by Obama's governing.

This doesn't make sense. How is saying that Ron Paul is the only candidate that would bring actual change = Obama brainwashing. I don't like where our country currently is right now, so I believe we need change. Are you saying that anyone who wants "change" is brainwashed by Obama?

The way you strongly defend Obama, you appear to be able to put all your trust in him as well.

I've critisized Obama plenty on here. Like I said, I agree with the left more than the right when comparing Democrats vs. Republicans. I think he is doing alright, though i've been disappointed with his 180 from campaign version Obama.

I've bashed him on Afghanistan, I've bashed him on his talk with the "Fat Cats on Wall street" (notice the thread I started) and on other things. But I usually try and stick by any US president for as long as I can until they completely lose me. Same thing I did wish Bush up until Iraq (though I was only 16 then).
If you think that Ron Paul has more in common with the left than the right, even the current and recent group of Republicans, then you clearly haven't spent time learning about Ron Paul's positions. And again, you must just think it is hip to say you are a Ron Paul supporter.

Again, I never said that. I'm against the neo-republicans. I like the older republicans, I'm a huge fan on Lincoln and Eisenhower as they are 2 of my favorite presidents. Hell, I even like Bush the 1st.

Also, I have no friends who are Ron Paul supporters. I recently talked to one of my friends in a business class about him and he had no idea who he was -- his answer, and I'm serious, was, "Oh, I love NPR" (thinking that he was one of the hosts I guess...).

I think you assume a lot, and it makes you look silly.
 
I'd like government to be as large as possible. I'd like for there to be as many or more government employees than there are people (citizens and otherwise). That way, if "government isn't afraid of the people," or "government is fattening itself at the expense of the people," there will be no victims...because we will all be the government.
 
I'd like government to be as large as possible. I'd like for there to be as many or more government employees than there are people (citizens and otherwise). That way, if "government isn't afraid of the people," or "government is fattening itself at the expense of the people," there will be no victims...because we will all be the government.

Is that really how you feel, or are you not posting with "honorable intent"?
 
I guess you don't count the internet as a part of the media?

Ron Paul does not represent anything that Americans could identify with. He offered little direction and no solutions.

Obama's media coverage on the internet trumped everyone.

It was a joke how Ron Paul was treated during the televised debates. They never allowed him a fair amount of time to talk about his policies and views.

I think the presidency is predetermined based on the amount of money their campaign can raise. I don't remember the actual figures, but Obama had the largest war chest by a significant margin. IIRC Bush had more money to spend over his opponents when he ran.

As for the question it really depends on the economic state of the country. When times are bad (like now) there should be smaller government and less spending. When then there's a surplus then the government should spend for long term improvements (infrastructure, public transportation, education, etc.)

The general problem I see are politicians only think about short term rewards while in office and could careless about the future. "That's the other guy's problem."
 
Is it your opinion that Ron Paul was given a fair chance?

I didn't vote for Ron Paul. He was allowed to speak at some of the nomination debates. Maybe if he had more interest, he would have gotten onto the final presidential debates.:dunno:

In reference to the topic, I want lots of regulation, which requires big government. I also want my schools taken care of and my military paid for and my roads maintained.
 
I want it as big as it takes to take over the world and make it one big united commonwealth of a world. make space travel commonplace and inhabit other worlds to expand the human race. USA POWA! GO REPUBS!! LOL /popcorn
 
When you come to me on a summer breeze
Keep me warm in your government then you softly leave.
And it's me you need to show
How big is your government?
How big is your government?
I really need to learn

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top