Federal Gridlock

I don't think it is so simple as bigger or smaller. Governments (us as a society) clearly have a role in making things work. In some cases governments should only, in my opinion, have a regulatory role such as in most consumer goods producing industries. In other cases, they should form all of or a majority of the organizations supplying services (medical services and pharmaceuticals would be high on my list) since non government solutions have clearly worked very poorly (e.g., the US health care system-- terrible value for high cost and cruel (even unchristian ) to boot.Having worked as a consultant to large organizations both governmental and not I feel that there is a danger in allowing an organization to grow too large whether they are governmental or not. You have to tune the size very carefully and constantly retune.

Your chart shows a lot of "doing too much" and a lot of "should do more" which is pretty much what I was saying. If the government could do more with less (taxation), more people would be asking for more.

Reminds me of a British TV show, Yes, Minister. A new government comes up with a plan to reduce the size of government - Step One: Hire 100 new civil servants to decide which jobs can be cut.

Everyone feels the same.The issue is trying to determine what's 'their own business' and what isn't.

Nah, I don't think that follows. You're wrongly assuming too much cohesiveness.Its a partisan issue: Republicans mostly think its too much and Democrats mostly think it should be more.

As little as possible, imo."Government" at the Federal level is a joke.Its ineffective and expensive. Practically worthless.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. It isn't, "Most of us (U.S.) think the government is doing too much," as you claimed in Message 30. It's, "Most of us (Republicans) think the government is doing too much."Reminds me of an editorial I read in the 70s: Democrats think everybody in the world wants to be an American; Republicans want to make everybody in the world an American. Now you seem to think only Republicans are Americans.

I recommend disbanding the armed forces.

But the total number of people who think the government is doing too much is a majority, which is what I said.And more Democrats think its too much than Republicans think it should be more.And the independents mostly think its too much.So I'm entirely correct, and what you're saying is not.

It's a slim majority at best, and not always a majority on your chart. The fact is that a lot of people want the government to do more, so claiming that "most" want it to do less is a bit weasely.

Worthless?What other public institution has the power to stand against multinational corporations, foreign invasion, etc.?Look at the countries with truly small governments. They are even more enslaved to corporate interests than the U.S. The companies are more powerful than the government (= the people); wages are in the single-digit dollars per day, work hours are outrageous, safety standards don't exist, and from all this the standard of living is abysmal.There has to be a force of power (and considerable power) to defend the people's interests against competing interests of considerable power.Small government is a stupid idea. If anything is a waste of money, it is small government.

Okay, claiming facts is weaselly... And?Go on.

It is weasely to claim that most Americans want the government to do less when it isn't always a majority at all and when it is a majority it's only a majority of Republicans. Your "facts" are misleading.If you had said that a majority of right-wing nuts want the government to do less, I wouldn't have disputed the "fact" - though I suspect that many of them are just spouting the party line and don't really understand the implications of what they're saying.

That doesn't make any sense at all.More people want the government to do less than people who don't. That's a majority. That's the most.Why are you trying to weasel out of that? Oh, so they don't really want what they say they want? Your mind-reading powers are amazing.

Not in 1993. Not in 2002. And there are half a dozen points on your graph where the number falls below 50%. Claiming a blanket majority is definitely weasely. Yes, if a man hits his thumb with a hammer, screams, swears a blue streak and claims it doesn't hurt, I know he doesn't mean what he says. And if somebody claims he wants lower taxes but he also wants more police and more military spending, I know he doesn't mean what he says.I truly am The Amazing Ringo.