I'd prefer to set the goal at "better" (as in more efficient, more accessible, more transparent, less self-serving) and allow the matter of "larger or smaller?" be a side effect of "better". As one example, there is a huge difference between regulation (the need for it and the benefits of it) and the reality of regulatory agencies. An agency is created due to an observed or perceived need (doesn't really matter what that need is, all tend to apply), the Legislative branch then writes laws that determine what the nation wants done to regulate or control that issue or need. To enforce those new laws, the Executive branch either assigns the enforcement of those laws to an existing agency, or creates a new agency to enforce those laws. The Legislative branch then authorizes funding for that agency. So far, so good. Sounds perfectly reasonable, logical and effective. But then something strange happens. The agency (again, doesn't matter which one, they all do to some extent or another) knows that its existence (not just as a collection of letters and a logo, but as a group of people who get paid) is dependent on continuing to receive funding from the Legislature, and what every agency wants is not steady funding, but MORE funding. After all, bigger budget means "this agency can then do MORE". And so, the agency begins performing studies that show just how helpful and important its existence is. Not just the fact that it's enforcing laws, but that it's refining and building on those laws by determining new regulations that are agency created. They're not laws, but they have the power and force of laws, and they are determined and set by the agency that gets more funding to justify not only the enforcement of those additional regulations, but to support the growth and infrastructure of the agency itself. That's when a subtle cycle begins and agencies become powers unto themselves. Does anyone know what goes on in any of the multitude of alphabet soup agencies? And when I say, "goes on" I don't mean "what is their general purpose or stated reason they exist", I mean does anyone really know what they are doing with multi-billion dollar annual budgets? The IRS, FDA, and the rest of the alphabet soup? Here's a listing https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies have fun scrolling through it. Each of those agencies has to go to either its parent or to Congress, show how it spent last years budget, ask for the next years, and try to grow and continue to stay valid, worthwhile and ever increasingly "effective". The internal bloat that can build up in such organizations can collect faster than the plaque on the walls of a heart patient at an all-you-can-eat fatty food buffet. People don't get fired, they get new titles. The agency has to grow after all. Oh, and if the agency is large enough, the people who work for it can unionize. Not too terrible an idea on the surface, until you realize that when Congress is seen as the source of the payroll instead of the general populace, then the elected officials who are in Congress can be lobbied, pressured, and contributed to and when they are in office, they then authorize the budgets for those agencies, who then may see more money in their department, more benefits, and so on. Imagine if unionized employees of a private enterprise could help elect, support or even pressure the fiscal officers within the company they work for. When that happens, who is working for who or do we have one hand washing the other? IMO, regulations are a part of life and realistic, fair and reasonable ones should be in place and enforced professionally. But the "nature of the beast" when it comes to literally ANY agency is that eventually it becomes about preserving/enlarging/empowering itself as well as the intended purpose of enforcement. And that's why I would like to see something "better", where agencies are not just audited, but their entire existence is limited at the time of their founding/authorization and when that lifespan runs out, the Legislature then looks at what has been built, what is effective, efficient, worthwhile, and in the interests of the People. If it makes sense, keep the regulations that work, eliminate the ones that are chaff, and recreate the agency (or create a merged agency where two existing ones were overlapping) with an eye towards something that makes sense for that time, not keeping something that still has divisions dedicated to issues that are no longer relevant (but no one would dare remove them, because they get funding!). Any government agency, body or group that is not authorized by the Constitution? They should have an "expiration date" where it's previous existence and structure is reviewed, resolved, and either eliminated, tasked to other agencies, or that agency is built again, without the cobwebs, fat, inbreeding and cronyism that some agencies have enjoyed for generations. A rebirth and spring-cleaning, if you will. Experts who served in the previous agency are welcome to find positions within, especially considering their experience. But the restructure and new agency is treated as new and in need of "proving itself" and not "we've always been here, you just can't get rid of us". No aspect of the government should ever be "too big to fail", "too established to question" or "too important to start again from scratch", especially when not one person within ALL of those agencies was voted into their position or otherwise answers to the electorate. Not one.

Either way works as long as their done well, however corruption is inevitable, and larger governments have more pieces likely to fall.

I think you already know my stance. For pragmatism's sake I would like to see a net decrease in both income and spending for the government. I think Britton and I would largely be in agreement for what cuts should be prioritized. Having anything remotely resembling corporate welfare is completely disgusting, and there's a lot of completely unnecessary subsidization. There needs to be not only a reduction in military spending, but a reduction in our military's mission. Being the international strongman at the expensive of our citizens' income is never justified. There's also an appalling amount of money being wasted on the war on drugs in various ways. It's ridiculous that this is even a thing.

If every American payed $53,125, then our government would be out of debt. Seems fair to me.

Arguably, both. Reroute spending to internal/interpersonal projects (education, housing, medical care, etc), and reduce funding to external and military R&D type projects. So instead of funding the "newest and greatest" military debacle, we put that money into improving the Education system. Instead of galavanting off to another pointless conflict, we fund better, more affordable housing for the poor. Instead of creating our newest pet project for dick-measuring contests, we provide better access to medical care. Etc.

Very thoughtful post. The problem (in my opinion) seems to be with the monetary system itself. Where there is wealth, there will always be poverty. Where there is progress, there will always be greed. We need to abolish the monetary system and implement the Venus Project. Progressives have their hearts in the right places, but monetary economics won't let everyone live a decent life.

Because every problem can be solved when we dont spend, right? Because governemnt spends our money overseas and our corporations dont, right. Spending gets the economy going. Govetnemnt can and should spend its the shoring up of assets by weathier individuals thats the problem. They store it and dont let it curculate, damaging the economy the middle and lower classes have less spending money then ever before. None of them get a cut of the profits and gains that america has gained for the last 30 years. Nice way to post btw. If you just said "more government" you know you would get more of those, so you put "spend more" to deter that vote and sway to your favor. You can easily increase governemnt without spending

I'm all for stopping rampant spending, but we need a solid plan in place before the Department of Education is on the chopping block. Cutting the department without one will deny low income university students the financial aid they need to afford college, and make the student debt problem even worse in the long run since they will turn to loans without the financial assistance they need. Sure there is state financial aid, but that wont cut it in some cases.

At this point in time the debt is just an exponentially increasing number. With the current political system it's not going to slow down, let alone reverse, whether there's a Democrat or Republican government. You want a government that's 100% committed to reducing its spending whilst improving lives, because improving lives means people will earn more, so they won't be reliant on government programs or welfare (which costs practically nothing I know but it'll help if only a bit; the point is to make people wealthier so they won't need welfare rather than forcing people off welfare because they should be working harder) and if there are more tax brackets then they will be paying more tax too which will also help. By reducing spending I'm mostly talking about the military budget. Most of that can go and part of it can be diverted to education (as well as an overhaul of that particular -blam!- up of a department so kids actually learn shit). Also removing subsidies to those companies/industries that don't need it, that's literally flushing money down the drain, as well as making sure that 100% of tax is paid, because again it may a mount to a small sum of money initially but it all adds up. Increased spending is good if you want to provide an initial injection into an industry or idea, as a medicine for an economic ailment, but it just isn't sustainable as a lifestyle.

Inbetween. Extremes are never good

How it is right now is fine

Decrease in spending (where necessary) and increase in taxes. (Like anyone would ever let either of those things happen).

Just spend everything on nasa.

Net decrease, as long as the decrease comes from the right areas.

Not about how much money you have, its how you use it- Ekko the boy who made millions

You dont need to spend more or less, you just need to put that money where it is needed as well as where it is wanted.