Isn't Trump / Le Pen THE argument for being against Big Government?

[Pangean]

Most Americans oppose the trade deal (TPP or whatever it is called). We have a representative government, a government "by the people- for the people." Our officials are supposed to be our voice or the voice of our beliefs. The problem we are currently having is that most of our officials seem to forget that as soon as they are elected and just start stubbornly pursuing their own agenda. When most Americans oppose something, our officials should as well.

Of course the "officials are supposed to be our voice or the voice of our beliefs" shouters grow silent when something they personally believe in is the small minority and the politicians support that. See public support of universal background checks. (And don't turn this into a gun thread, its simply an example.) "It shows: their personal agenda > voters"

[Korlok]

Grummy thread pops up bashing liberals in a not so subtle way, but skirting the lines of posting rules.
The usual suspects flock to defend the truth of the definition of liberal.
A couple of the other usual suspects show up to defend Grummy Grum's thread.
Waiting for some of my favorite comedia.... I mean posters to show up.
Where are you Orlong???

[Kasierith]

Most Americans oppose the trade deal (TPP or whatever it is called). We have a representative government, a government "by the people- for the people." Our officials are supposed to be our voice or the voice of our beliefs. The problem we are currently having is that most of our officials seem to forget that as soon as they are elected and just start stubbornly pursuing their own agenda. When most Americans oppose something, our officials should as well.

Do you see the problem with what you're saying?

Clinton: I'm going to support the TPP because it is economically beneficial, shuts China out of these sectors as the dominant market share, and gives us the ability to influence their political system to force change and improvements in working conditions.
Democratic constituents: we don't like it! Make it go away!
Clinton: alright, if that's what the constituents want, I'll change my position.
Berniebros: Oh my god you shill!! How dare a political figure cater to the interests of her electorate!!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

TPP is the scourge of many and will blight many, its just those people don't live in NYC or Silicon Valley.

I've had yet to see anyone make a well researched and coherent argument against the TPP based on the agreement as a whole as opposed to random snippets they got off of facebook.

[Theodarzna]

I've had yet to see anyone make a well researched and coherent argument against the TPP based on the agreement as a whole as opposed to random snippets they got off of facebook.

Here is a fun graphic filled site that can give better info than I can. And an over all text description. So lets take the U.S.-Korea trade deal....

This Saturday is the second anniversary of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), which took effect on March 15, 2012. President Obama said at the time that KORUS would increase US goods exports by $10 to $11 billion, supporting 70,000 American jobs from increased exports alone. Things are not turning out as predicted.

In first two years after KORUS took effect, U.S. domestic exports to Korea fell (decreased) by $3.1 billion, a decline of 7.5%, as shown in the figure below. Imports from Korea increased $5.6 billion, an increase of 9.8%. Although rising exports could, in theory, support more U.S. jobs, the decline in US exports to Korea has actually cost American jobs in the past two years. Worse yet, the rapid growth of Korean imports has eliminated even more U.S. jobs. Overall, the U.S. trade deficit with Korea has increased $8.7 billion, or 59.6%, costing nearly 60,000 U.S. jobs. Most of the nearly 60,000 jobs lost were in manufacturing.

Trade deals do more than cut tariffs, they promote foreign direct investment (FDI) and a surge in outsourcing by U.S. and foreign multinational companies (MNCs). FDI leads to growing trade deficits and job losses. U.S. multinationals were responsible for nearly one quarter (26.9 percent) of the U.S. trade deficit in 2011. Foreign multinationals operating in the United States (companies like Kia and Hyundai) were responsible for nearly half (44.2 percent) of the U.S. goods trade deficit in that same year. Taken together, U.S. and foreign MNCs were responsible for nearly three-fourths (77.1 percent) of the U.S. goods trade deficit in 2011.



The administration is now negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with eleven other nations in the Asia-Pacific region, including Malaysia, Vietnam, and Japan. The United States has also encouraged South Korea join the TPP. China has also expressed interest in joining the TPP talks. The United States had a trade deficit of $260 billion with the 11 other proposed members of the TTP which has grown steadily since 2009, despite falling U.S. trade deficits with the rest of the world over the past two years .

Many members of the proposed TTP trade and investment deal have long histories of currency manipulation, dumping, and other unfair trade practices that have dramatically increased U.S. trade deficits and job losses, and the agreement could sharply curtail the ability of the United States to challenge these practices. The TPP would significantly increase the threat that rapidly growing trade deficits and job losses in the United States would be locked in if the TPP is completed.

KORUS was the template for TPP and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It is a broken model. If completed and approved by Congress, these deals will only result in a more outsourcing by US and foreign MNCs, rising trade deficits and even more trade-related job losses. Proposed trade and investment deals are a direct threat to the heart of U.S. manufacturing employment and domestic production. The United States should stop negotiating new trade deals and fix the ones we have.

(source)


There is also of course the problems inevitably created by the creation and expansion of the ISDS extra-legal system and IP laws that are bizarre.

[satimy]

A Trump presidency would scare liberals and conservatives into both actually wanting smaller government

[Deleted]

A big government controlled or even just ordered project such as a wall on the border of Mexico is not big government? Explain that one.

Because maintaining border control is a function of the violence monopoly - and that is as basic a government function it gets.

Protectionism, limiting trade by essentially blocking trade by the government and tell consumers and companies what they may or may not trade and buy is not big government? Would like this explained also.

Once again, maintaining border control is a function of the violence monopoly - Trade policy may not be the most basic, but its certainly still on the small government side.

More immigration control, more hoops for people to jump through and so more border control in general and detecting illegals, what means more public servants needed and this more branches of government being expanded with more personal for more projects is less government how exactly? Again some explanation would be nice.

Once again, maintaining border control is a function of the violence monopoly.

But limiting free speech is something you do find is the only thing that increases government control, projects and spending, while all the above require that also to work.

A small Government may still have huge resources, its what it does that determines if its a small or a big government.
The US government is a small one as most governments go, regardless of the resources it controls.

[Deleted]

America is in such a bad Place right now... i really feel sorry for them.
They get to vote for a Warcriminal or a Psychopath.

[Acidbaron]

Because maintaining border control is a function of the violence monopoly - and that is as basic a government function it gets.

Once again, maintaining border control is a function of the violence monopoly - Trade policy may not be the most basic, but its certainly still on the small government side.


Once again, maintaining border control is a function of the violence monopoly.


A small Government may still have huge resources, its what it does that determines if its a small or a big government.
The US government is a small one as most governments go, regardless of the resources it controls.

All of that is needed to be done requires more government and growing programs with more people, it also requires more laws build around them. So it's more government regardless how you wish to spin it

[Deleted]

All of that is needed to be done requires more government and growing programs with more people, it also requires more laws build around them. So it's more government regardless how you wish to spin it

A small government is limited in what it does, not by how much resources it commands and how much people it employs.

[Acidbaron]

A small government is limited in what it does, not by how much resources it commands and how much people it employs.

And as i pointed out to enforce all that new laws would have to be made, new programs would have to be set up and existing ones expanded. So all of those further increase government on any level.

Or do you believe restriction of trade and protectionism do not require more laws and government programs and/or existing agencies to expand and grow further?

[Zecora]

Liberals believe in Big Government. They think the central government should be able to directly control education, health care, housing, investment, factories, companies, and everything else. But isn't it inevitable that a crisis will arise that will scare voters into voting for a "strong man/woman"? For a thug? If you assume the liberal description of Trump and Le Pen is the correct one, that they fit into the thug category, isn't this a huge argument against big government?

Liberals create all these government mechanisms to control everything in society, and then the voters elect a dictator (who promises to protect you) and corrupts it all to personally suit him or herself? How do you prevent that except by never constructing all of those mechanisms in the first place?

Isn't the ONLY sane choice to be for small government?

I don't give a shit whether the government is small or big. I DO give a shit whether it is full of corruption and nepotism, and whether it provides the necessary services to the citizens or not. Because unlike the size of the government, THAT actually matters.

[Fruujik]

Trump is not for the small government. His policies would require massive increase in the bureacracy and surveillance/active intelligence gathering.

And French governance system is intrusive by definition.

[Ave07]

America is in such a bad Place right now... i really feel sorry for them.
They get to vote for a Warcriminal or a Psychopath.

If only we had a 3rd party who actually took the elections seriously.

[Nadiru]

Do you see the problem with what you're saying?

Clinton: I'm going to support the TPP because it is economically beneficial, shuts China out of these sectors as the dominant market share, and gives us the ability to influence their political system to force change and improvements in working conditions.
Democratic constituents: we don't like it! Make it go away!
Clinton: alright, if that's what the constituents want, I'll change my position.
Berniebros: Oh my god you shill!! How dare a political figure cater to the interests of her electorate!!!!!

Nobody thinks China is going to be shut out of the TPP market. Why? Because of part sourcing. Bangladesh and Indonesia aren't going to develop a widget, sprocket, what-have-you industry overnight, so if they're making stuff for the US import market, they'll have to source parts from somewhere. And when I say "somewhere" what I mean is "China." So yeah, sure, the TPP will hurt some Chinese exporters, specifically those Chinese exporters dealing in assembled goods. It will also greatly help some Chinese exporters, chiefly those Chinese exporters dealing in parts.

And, naturally, the TPP will not help American employment or American wages. It will help price levels of consumer goods in the US, which will increase real household income. But there will either be fewer households with employment, or there will be no increase in households with employment. In either case, the government will have to pay for that consequence.

[Theodarzna]

Nobody thinks China is going to be shut out of the TPP market. Why? Because of part sourcing. Bangladesh and Indonesia aren't going to develop a widget, sprocket, what-have-you industry overnight, so if they're making stuff for the US import market, they'll have to source parts from somewhere. And when I say "somewhere" what I mean is "China." So yeah, sure, the TPP will hurt some Chinese exporters, specifically those Chinese exporters dealing in assembled goods. It will also greatly help some Chinese exporters, chiefly those Chinese exporters dealing in parts.

And, naturally, the TPP will not help American employment or American wages. It will help price levels of consumer goods in the US, which will increase real household income. But there will either be fewer households with employment, or there will be no increase in households with employment. In either case, the government will have to pay for that consequence.

That'll be the day, The US government will just as soon kick those people to the curb.

[vareck]

What? Striving for small goverment and personal freedom is the definiton of liberal.

You just described Libertarians. That is not what modern American liberalism is.

They really shouldn't be called liberals to describe such a wide variety of ideologies.

Classic liberalism typically is for small government and more freedom and free market.

Modern American liberalism is not classical liberalism.

Government needs to be as big or small as it needs to be to function efficiently.

If the thing you want most is efficiency then Democracy is not the answer.

[Gob]

It's possible for government to be "big" in some areas, and "small" in others.

[Bodakane]

Liberals believe in Big Government. They think the central government should be able to directly control education, health care, housing, investment, factories, companies, and everything else. But isn't it inevitable that a crisis will arise that will scare voters into voting for a "strong man/woman"? For a thug? If you assume the liberal description of Trump and Le Pen is the correct one, that they fit into the thug category, isn't this a huge argument against big government?

Liberals create all these government mechanisms to control everything in society, and then the voters elect a dictator (who promises to protect you) and corrupts it all to personally suit him or herself? How do you prevent that except by never constructing all of those mechanisms in the first place?

Isn't the ONLY sane choice to be for small government?

As a liberal, that's not what we believe.

It must be nice though, to invent scenarios and ideologies and just slap them on your opposition. I mean it must make arguments so much easier. Tell you what, since you tell us what we believe and then tell us we're wrong for what you made up, why not just sit in a room and argue with yourself?

[Nadiru]

That'll be the day, The US government will just as soon kick those people to the curb.

The government may not want to pay for that consequence, but pay they shall. Either they increase entitlements spending, or, as segments of the population turn to crime, they increase law enforcement spending. In a more enlightened scenario, the government puts job training programs into overdrive. In any case, resources are made available from government sectors as a result of these trade decisions.

[Cthulhu 2020]

It's funny because for the last 3 decades, liberals have enacted less "big government" programs than conservatives.

"Small government" might be the rallying cry ever since 2008, but it certainly isn't the practice.