Federal Government too large/powerful

As I have mentioned before the multigenerational welfare families may be highly visible and irritating, but they generally don't impact significantly on a society's financial viability.

When large multinational companies arrange their affairs so that they pay under one percent tax on their incomes, while still using the infrastructure (roads, ports, telecommunications, etc) that the society's middle income earners tax has paid for I get a little upset. That's why I don't have an iPhone or use Amazon, among others.

biochem wrote:
One of the problematic issues around welfare is that both the liberals and the conservatives use stereotypical narratives. Both conservative AND liberal stereotypes are true because in actuality welfare recipients are not a monolithic group and there are subgroups which fit the liberal stereotypes and other subgroups which fit the conservative ones! One of the biggest failures BOTH liberal and conservative politicians have in addressing the situation is that typically BOTH assume a population of clones that fits their particular preconceptions and thus propose the usual one size fits all government solutions.

Reducing the numbers on welfare won't be easy and will take multiple solutions. Fixing the low end of the economy will help. Waiting until the economy is booming and then forcing others off will help (doing that now won't work, that solution only works when the economy is doing very well). The situation of the semi-disabled (people with genuine health issues that reduce their employability but who are not disabled enough to be eligible for disability) still needs to be addressed. I haven't seen any solutions to this particular subgroup's employment challenges. Probably the best solution would be some small scale experiments of a variety of different ideas and see what works. Etc Etc.

Welfare fraud, gaming the system etc is detrimental in more ways than just the $$$. It's similar to the income inequality problem. It triggers that same feeling of the government is unfair. They are taking money that people worked hard for and are giving it to someone else. Think of how the ant in Aesop's ant/grasshopper fable would feel if forced to give up what they have worked hard for to the feckless grasshopper and you capture the feeling of injustice. When people feel (whether that feeling is accurate or not) that the recipients resemble the grasshoppers, they resent it AND they resent the government.

Corporate welfare is a whole different problem. And is is a BIG problem. But it's not an either or situation. BOTH types of welfare are problematic. On the $$$ side and on the destruction of trust in government side.

In the case of corporate welfare, there are big issues with politically favored companies getting bailouts or sweetheart deals (banks, Solyndra etc), which also triggers huge resentment. But the biggest impact is regulatory. Connected companies lean on regulators/lawmakers to slip in small changes to the regulations/laws that for the most part aren't noticed by the general public but which give that company a competitive advantage over the less well connected. The more complex and encompassing the regulations, the easier it is for companies to get away with it.

biochem wrote:And 10-20% for the presidential primaries, where only the most engaged voters participate.

Starsaber wrote:

biochem wrote:And 10-20% for the presidential primaries, where only the most engaged voters participate.

And in many states, only the engaged voters registered with a political party. Many states have closed primaries, which disenfranchise people who don't belong to either party, ensuring that moderate voices don't get heard until it's a choice between two extremes.

PeterZ wrote:

Starsaber wrote:And in many states, only the engaged voters registered with a political party. Many states have closed primaries, which disenfranchise people who don't belong to either party, ensuring that moderate voices don't get heard until it's a choice between two extremes.

This assumes the major parties do not have moderates in them. Looking at the current crop of Republicans, I would disagree with you. Quite a few moderates including Jeb Bush. Romney was a moderate and he won the nomination. I would agree that moderates on the democrat side are rarer.

Starsaber wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
This assumes the major parties do not have moderates in them. Looking at the current crop of Republicans, I would disagree with you. Quite a few moderates including Jeb Bush. Romney was a moderate and he won the nomination. I would agree that moderates on the democrat side are rarer.

But (as an example), Romney had to play to the extremist factions of the Republican party to make it through the primaries rather than standing for his own position. Going back to the center after the primaries damaged his credibility with quite a few independents (me included).

I held my nose and voted for him because the alternative was worse. If you prefer Obama to Romney, then I suspect your definition of moderate leans quite a bit to the left. My point is that there are moderates and they can win. Nobody believed Romney was a conservative. He didn't have to play up to the right wing to win. They would not have voted for him in the primary regardless. He won without their vote.