Are you for more government or less government in your life? Which party supports your view?

Answer 1

I am liberal and for less government because my party represents me.

The republicans are under the misconception that they are for small government. Those ppl have no clue what they are talking about and normally have social programs in their heads when they make such a false statement.

When I say small government, I am referring to the government getting its nose out of my life... things like a seatbelt law or satellite monitoring. I think we need regulation of monopolies because everytime we deregulate those industries the cost of living gets hiked up. ie, energy, the phone company, cable, etc..

Republicans tend to say small government, like I said before, thinking about social programs, while at the same time agreeing to record spending on other types of government spending. It is all about hate and prejudices where their party has convinced them that the poor or black want to live off them while sitting at home having babies.

Answer 2

Like all the other answers, I am for less government.
I work on the basis that I am old enough to govern myself.

I have a proposal.

The present method of governing is out of date


My idea is that we need a complete revamp in government. Not just change the people, but completely change the way we think about government.
When the current system of democracy was created the population was about a sixth of what it is now.

So each person's representation has reduced by around 600%.
In other words, you now get about one sixth of the representation that a citizen used to get.
This is obviously ludicrous. and is absolute evidence of a need for a change.

As the population has increased so dramatically, then the effectiveness and fairness of a central government has reduced.
What we now need is an increase in the power of local government, and a reduction in the power of central government.
I propose that we should bring back something akin to the parish councils. We should have constituencies of a maximum of 500 families. These constituencies should have total control over the lives of its constituents, with no interference from outside, They must provide all of their own facilities such as school, health care, pensions, police, ar anything which they feel that they need.
If they feel that they are too small for a particular project or service, then they negotiate with nearby constituencies to make suitable arrangements. There would be no higher level arbitrator. Full responsibility would rest at the local level.

The benefits of this are enormous. Firstly, everybody would know everybody else within a constituency, so when a problem arises it would be easy to get to the source, because it would be to everyone's benefit to do so. This alone would reduce terrorism and serious crime to a minimum. A sort of neighbourhood watch scheme in which everybody takes full part, and makes the decisions. The money presently spent on taxes, most of which disappears in red tape, civil servants' and congress men's and senator's salaries, waging war, and hundreds of other expenses from which the average citizen receives no benefit whatsoever, would be spent on directly benefiting the community, on projects voted for by the community.
It is most likely that taxes could be reduced to a fraction of what is presently paid, because all wastage would be readily identified. Everybody would participate in their own government, because they would be able to understand it, and would have a real voice.
There would be no need for secret services, or secrets of any kind, saving another fortune, and removing another load of confusion.

I'm sure you can identify many other benefits, and I'm also sure that any disadvantages could quickly be overcome.

Answer 3

Less, of course. Independent, but of late I feel forced to vote Republican. I have my own business, and it seems Democrats have slipped too far to the left, concerning economics. While Republicans (politicians) are intrusive socially, they are free market thinkers. And their intrusion in private affairs is not as bad as the intrusion from the left in economic affairs. Return the Democratic party to JFK mentality and they can get some votes back from people like me.

But in the end, neither party represents my views, so I vote independently, it doesn't matter what party, Dem, Repub, Ind, Lib, Unfortunately, the only people that I get information on are either Dem or Repub and therefore, most of the time I vote Repub, as I explained. And many times, the isn't much difference between a Repub and a moderate Dem.

Answer 4

Alright look, I don't claim to belong to any party. However I do lean towards Democratic views, and even probably more of a libetarian. Republicans irk me, half of my family is republicans, and yes they irk me to.

I support more government, and more civilians backing a government in power, I also support the programs that democrats stand for, medicaid, welfare, etc.. Most people who oppose the democratic views have never had to suffer on a day to day basis were your health is deteriating, and you have to whore out your wife to pay the mortgage. Only then will people see that some sort of system to back people when they are down is appreciated. I am not talking about my own experiences but people I know, I am quite wealthy and financially independant.

Answer 5

WEll, I'm for less government. Neither of the major parties supports my views. In all honesty, I am not represented by any of the parties that exist, that is why I consider myself to be an independent voter, Not a member of the Independent party, but independent of all organized platforms.

Answer 6

I'm for as little government intervention in my life as possible. The Libertarian party follows this creed but given the choice between the two biggies, I'd have to pick republican over democrat. The democratic party has always stood for more government programs and higher taxes.

Answer 7

I am for less national government and more for states rights. I vote Republican. However, in these days of terrorism, it is necessary for government to take more of a role to safe guard our nation. I think all these people who complain about the large presence of government would be the first to blame the government for not doing more if another attack should take place.

Answer 8

I believe we should have some government in our lives, to secure our liberties, protect the weak from the strong, and to provide those services which are too essential to be provided by the private sector. And to tax sufficiently to carry out the above tasks. The Democratic Party is usually more in line with my conception of government.

Answer 9

Less Government. Lean most towards Libertarian.

Answer 10

Much less! And at present no political party supports my view!