Government: Is it Ever Big Enough? | 5 Minute Video
Can the government ever be too big? How much spending is enough spending? And if there can be too much spending, where is that point? William Voegeli, Senior Editor of the Claremont Review of Books, explores these complex questions and offers some clear answers.
Donate today to PragerU! http://l.prageru.com/2ylo1Yt
Joining PragerU is free! Sign up now to get all our videos as soon as they’re released. http://prageru.com/signup
Download Pragerpedia on your iPhone or Android! Thousands of sources and facts at your fingertips.
iPhone: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsnbG
Android: http://l.prageru.com/2dlsS5e
Join Prager United to get new swag every quarter, exclusive early access to our videos, and an annual TownHall phone call with Dennis Prager! http://l.prageru.com/2c9n6ys
Join PragerU’s text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! https://optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click https://smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
VISIT PragerU! https://www.prageru.com
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/prageru
Twitter: https://twitter.com/prageru
Instagram: https://instagram.com/prageru/
PragerU is on Snapchat!
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: http://l.prageru.com/29SgPaX
JOIN our Educators Network! http://l.prageru.com/2c8vsff
Script:
Ever since Franklin Roosevelt promised Americans a “New Deal” in 1932, liberal politicians and pundits have insisted that the government must do more to alleviate poverty, increase economic security, and enhance the quality of life. But the word “more” implies there’s a level of government activity that would be “enough.” In reality, however, there’s never enough.
That’s because the liberal theory and practice of activist government is an endless pursuit of a goal that can’t be achieved. When was the last time you heard a liberal politician say, “Yeah, we solved that social ill. We’re just going to close up that government agency now, zero out the budget and move on to another problem.”
What you hear instead is that “we need more.” And, more always sets the stage for still more down the road.
Liberalism’s lack of a limiting principle raises two questions: First, can our republic govern itself on this basis? Second, should it? My answers are…maybe. And No.
Maybe we can go on, at least for a while, to continue to expand entitlement spending. We’ve been doing it for decades. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, government spending—federal, state, and local—was nearly seven times as large in 2014 as it was in 1948. That sounds like a perfect example of the economist’s adage: if something can’t go on forever, it won’t.
In 1948, government spending amounted to 17%—just over one-sixth—of our gross domestic product, the total value of all the goods and services produced by the American economy that year. In 2014, government spending was 32% of GDP, just under one-third. This trend puts us on a steady course to a European social democracy—one where government spends more than 50% of GDP.
Europe is straining under this burden. France, for example, the third largest economy in the European Union, has stagnant growth and unemployment twice as high as America’s.
Even nations with stronger economies, such as Sweden and Germany, face the dilemma of welfare states around the world: the number of workers paying taxes continues to decline, while the number of beneficiaries—those who receive government benefits—continues to grow.
America has the same problem. As it is, government spending on social welfare and insurance programs, the part of the budget liberals like best, is crowding out everything else. Such spending accounted for 72% of federal outlays in 2014, twice the proportion in 1969. Common sense suggests this can’t go on indefinitely.
For the complete script, visit https://www.prageru.com/videos/government-it-ever-big-enough
source
Then let's get back to a rational interpretation of the Constitution, instead of the one FDR's New Deal spurred on via one of its many challenges in SCOTUS that led to the General Welfare clause being considered to give the gov powers far beyond those enumerated.
You want to eat, you better work, or have a family that will care for you!
Government needs to be small and their job is minimal…
For billionares, no, the government is never big enough to bail them out when they crash the economy.
20,000 metric tons of gold were 'circulating naked' in 1933.” President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 1933 executive order outlawing the private ownership of gold in the United States was arguably unconstitutional.
That's what happens when the government is too big, they actually rob you.
I was thinking the other day what am I getting for my 40% of my salary approximately almost sent to the federal government every year?
I wish Texas would secede from the federal government and I could just pay my sales tax and that would be an extra almost 40% in my pocket every year there's a lot I could do with that 👍🏻
Our federal government has 30 trillion dollars in debt and the fed's balance sheet has almost 9 trillion, that's not counting unfunded liabilities.
I think we're at the end of a cycle of democracy. When the founding fathers handed off the Republic to us they said good luck keeping it. They knew about the cycles of government. A country is like a tree, it grows from a small seed into a beautiful large strong tree and then starts its decline or decays and withers and dies to start over again. I think we're at the end of this cycle and you can see it with all the weird wokeism.
Us goverment si too big.
Only geopolitics will force governments to be efficient otherwise it will fall like the polish Lithuanian government.
I can't agree more. These facts are staring everyone on the face but why can't everyone realize this is common sense?
Bought gouverment is the problem
PragerU: government is too big: it needs to ban abortion, drugs, kill people, have huge police, military bigger than the rest of the world, and stay they hell out of our lives.
A reserve question can also be answered: Is the government ever small enough? Or maybe no government at all? Anarchism? Anarcho-Communism?
https://youtu.be/tUtrg4tmYTw
Conservatives wants a limited government that cant safe your life if you get Canser, but a government that CAN take your life if you commit certain crimes. Thats hypocrisy.
There is too much government
Our government would be a lot more efficient and lower cost if the people running the damn thing gave a shit about what our society needs. Unfortunately, the GOP is too busy giving corporate bailouts to billion dollar companies instead of helping starving Americans who can't even afford prescription drugs.
“A government big enough to give you what you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” -Thomas Jefferson
I believe in a middle sized government. Not too big and not too small
They call themselves liberals, they are supposed to fight for liber-ty, but no they fight to create a totalitarian government.
Again this one guy misleads libertarians with leftist/socjalist, painful to swallow this episode …
Traduzione non corretta: "liberal" nel mondo anglosassone è il termine che indica la sinistra, molto vicina al socialismo; "liberale" in Italia indica il conservatorismo, il centro destra
government that is big enough to provide everything you need is also big enough to take everything you have. (That is, it is way too big.)
I think liberals are trying to compensate for something with the size of government.
Actually, liberalism and leftism aren't the same.
The goverment must be BIG enough to satisfy all feminist and left wing womens! 😉
One sided because Conservatives want the government to enforce what others do when it fits their views. Military spending is a huge burden especially all the chaos and havoc unleashed in the middle east by conflicts of police and choice.
Its worth to note that Liberalism outside of America often is associated with Small governtment and anti taxation. Less government regulations and interference. Its funny how Americans uses the word so differently 😛
I have a legitimate and genuine question; what is the conservative right's view on a big enough government? I see a lot of statements saying that a limited government is the best, and while I agree, I have yet to see a clearly outlined statement on what is a well sized government. I am genuinely curious what that would look like to the average conservative, as a fairly middle of the road American myself.
Very recommendable!
this reminds of of feminism, a movement that should have been dissolved in the west
hmmm. this is a long one, just warning you. a reallllly long one
although PragerU is an interesting watch, theres a few things about them, and this in particular. the thing is, any sort of constitution, government format or society or culture cannot remain unchanged for a long period of time. times change, new problems arise and new technologies bring to light different alternatives. yet, it seems that PragerU is indifferent to how much things have changed in the last century or so, and advertises that their format is a size that fits all. in the extreme case, with government size, i'd just like to make a point about the ancient roman republic. a government system americans generally praise because they're based of it. let's just say that conservatives, capitalism, small government were destroying the roman republic. the provinces were wasted from heavy profit-based companies, and small government allowed the governors to run unchecked, the roman republic was hated in the provinces. back home in italy, the conservative senate had a monopoly on almost all the land in italy, causing mass unemployment. what fixed all this was enlarging the government, stripping away or regulating those monopolies and tax collectors, governors were also brought under heel and so forth, creating a system that would dominate the mediterranean for some 600 years, bring 230 years on impressive peace and prosperity- the pax romana, dubbed (although challenged) a golden age of man. -with a big government. Your beloved republic couldn't stay ideal forever. Rome changed again, after the crisis of the third century it was ruled by the military, and the state controlled everything, yet, it saved rome, although the west still did fall, the east persevered under this format and became the most powerful state in the Mediterranean, another change after the 650's greek became the new language, capitalism began emerging again, and although it took rome some time, they became the wealthiest state in the Mediterranean, despite heavy military losses for some 150 years. military failure proved to great and it finally fell. just an example how how much Rome had to adapt, change, twist and turn in it's efforts to stay on top.
my point is: in some circumstances and situations the right is right, but in others the left is more favourable, unfortunately tribalism has somewhat decimated American moderates. the Consistent lies, deliberately mislead info, bias and censoring from BOTH sides has made it real damn hard for me to place my bets on which one is better. it's god damn frustrating. it seems like the right don't care as long as they get on top, and likewise with the left.
the reason i chose rome as an example is because rome and america are almost freakishly alike. seriously, you both threw of imperial overlords and got your independence (british/Etruscans) you then federated* and became a singular nation (latin league/ 13 colonies) you quickly gained massive tracks of land, economic power but remained ignored by world powers (consolidation of italy/ america either purchasing or beating the hell out of spain to get it's territory) then introducing itself to the world via a world war (punic wars/ww1) then became really powerful, and took on the same combatants plus a rival (2nd punic war- carthage plus macedon/ WW2 Germans+japs) then became a world power and started bossing the rest of the world until pressed up against another superpower (rome vs parthia/america vs Soviets) then had a period of prosperity before old enemies start gearing up again (Julio-claudian era/ modern day) also, both faced a civil war between the rich and the poor (American Civil war/Roman Social war) both faced a severe economic depression (great depression/ Roman late 2nd century) both acquired massive tracks of land at the start of their history and then turning back on imperial expansion, both have a similar amount of land, both are trade-dependent both had the worlds biggest slave trade, both have a similar government format…. etc. only difference is PraegerU, Rome had a LOT better run then you've had. yet… so please enough of America's the best ever!
wierd isn't it?
but at the moment, i'll have to say PragerU, the conservative republicans of America have messed up big time, want a simple reason why? if America was going good, Russia, China North Korea and the like wouldn't dare be taking the steps they're currently taking because America would've been on the ball. the sheer fact that the question of russian-presidence collusion is a thing is enough to say America isn't what it used to be. and if i recall correctly, Republicans are at the wheel of America, and while i might agree with a few of their ideas, their administration and governing of America has let the world down. (side track a bit, it's a bit unwise to have all western culture dependent on American military ain't it? much prefer a french-british like scenario in the 20th century) Russia's encroaching on eastern europe, US not doing a damn thing, and we here in Australia are opening talks about military partnerships with India and the Japs, because our faith in america now has it's cracks. and we've just had china through a fit over Australia introducing new anti-espionage and anti foreign spying laws. i think that in itself explains how broad china's influence is spreading. to say that America is as strong as ever. nah, not gunna buy it.
right then… where were we? another point: i've just watched your video on the women's marches, and i just have to say, it takes a fool to believe the tax plan will support the middle class. (which i might add, has shrunk by over 10 percent since 1970) yes it's true the tax plan gives benifets to the middle class, it also plans to put further taxes on the middle class down the line, while giving tax cuts to the rich. wealth inequality is already extreme in conservative western countries. and it's not doing good for the countries themselves. Donald Trump is clearly not a good president.
other points:
-Dennis' ideology of supporting Israel regardless of what they do;
big problem with that, while israel has my current support, blind following is bad for obvious reasons. *cough cough nazis. (how ironic would it be if the jews ended up being the 22nd century nazis though. don't worry, just a slightly extreme example)
-Monopolies are the result of Government and their regulations!
yes, a bad government and it's bad regulation will allow for easy construction of monopolies. that doesn't relate to the size of the government neccesarliy. and with monopolies, anyone who's been smashed at a game of monopoly knows what that feels like, and is like for your own financial opportunity
-Capitalism
big complicated one, but referring to my point above, if done right (has sufficient counter-balances, regulation and opportunity for growth) then it's brilliant, history has enough examples of that, but capitalism left unchecked (as it is now) will ultimately start doing more harm then good. Capitalism has almost always been leaning to the extreme and it's taken government control to bring it back to sanity (east indian trading company) –
-big government hurts citizens individuality
ask any of rome or greece's great writers if they feel that the big bad government has hurt them any more then a small one. look, as long as the government isn't so big that it crushes independent organisation's opportunities like back in nazi germany, and it isn't so small that those independent companies are rich enough, and powerful enough to get away with whatever they want. (East indian trading company is a perfect example, but also america to a certain extent.)
Government should be leaner! Please apply lean thinking into your budgets!!
But the meme
every increased spending is a 'necessity' and every single cut is a 'crisis' brought on by victimizers.
In terms of economics, conservatives have become liberal, and liberals have become socialist.
0:35 a lot of those agencies were created with the plan to close them eventually, but the circumstances changed and they were repurposed to meet them, with the repurposing having no clear end in sight. Perhaps we need a video on THAT philosopy?
The US has a ridiculously low public budget for social policies. Ridiculously low. But the use of Reaganite negative language like "entitlements" helps creating the Cato Institute for Liberty's type of negative mindset against government. Compare the US spending to all the other OECD peers. It's well below. Instead, can the US afford having a military budget many times bigger than everybody else combined? The answer, Mr. Voegeli, is maybe, but it shouldn't. Can the US pay double (% GDP) in public-private healthcare provision than the OECD peers? Again, same answers. The denostated universal healthcare systems are much more effective, efficient, sustainable and half the price. And the social impact is longer and happier lives for everybody.
@2:40
The "growing beneficiary" problem is WAY more (in America's case at least–I can't speak for Europeans' domestic politics) a result of aging populations just GENERALLY (that is, technological improvements causing people to live longer) than it is the result of increasingly generous and additional/new government benefit programs (of which I challenge so-called "conservatives" to name even a SINGLE major example of besides Obamacare, which is dubious as an example anyway, because it might very well have required MORE people and/or dollars be paid IN a la the individual mandate, granted to the healthcare insurance industry rather than the government directly but for present purposes that makes no difference, than it increased in government pay OUTS a la increased Medicare availability and healthcare insurance premium subsidies for SOME people; in other words, Obamacare was FARRRRRR from a free-for-all giveaway of government benefits).
And I would DEARLY like a citation for this "72% of federal spending is on social welfare programs" figure that the narrator appears to just pull straight from his ass.
I neither want nor need indefinite government expansion. But I do DEMAND a government by, for, and of THE PEOPLE, the WHOLE People, and NOTHING BUT the People. This may be placed in STARK contrast to the oligarchy of plutocrats that rule American society, and human society WRIT LARGE, in the status quo.
When (presuming we survive as a species long enough for this to happen) our political institutions are reformed to put power into the hands of the People, arguably for the first time in history in FACT, I would very much expect certain basic public goods (food, water, shelter, "education" or mere access to information broadly speaking, and healthcare–to name the most important and immediately obvious examples of such public goods, and perhaps a sufficient and exhaustive list as well), and the securing of these public goods to be enjoyed by all, to be the PRIMARY focus of this new government. A government that safeguards GENUINE democracy and TRULY seeks the maximization of human freedom and prosperity is all I want or need. I do not need, nor want or expect, such a government to be in the business of manufacturing televisions, or producing movies, or one of a thousand other "private" industries that are perfectly fine remaining the business of the citizen. And in fact, few if any are advocating anything else–indeed, MOST Democrats are asking for FFARRRRRRRR less when it comes to government reform or responsibilities to its citizenry. Self-serving propaganda from "conservatives" (i.e. fascists) notwithstanding, Democrats IN FACT are not all that different from Republicans in terms of the policies they support. They have ZERO interest in any reform that would ACTUALLY make American an iota more democratic, because, LIKE the Republicans, it would threaten their one-and-a-half-party monopoly on political power. They are quite happy "competing" with Republicans (with whom they don't REALLY compete, by and large, because barring any changes to historical voting behaviors, the MAJORITY of Republicans will rarely if ever vote for a Democrat, and vice-versa) and Republicans ALONE for political power.
No, you're not a colony.
You should do a video on the history of the terms "liberal" and "liberalism." Too often do people use it when the correct term would be Socialist and Socialism.
The economy in USA is in a deep danger. I hope the conservatives can master the executive and legislative powers. Though, a mere succession of parties in power will not be enough if the politicians do not strongly decrease public spendings on society.
The problem of the welfare is not welfare itself but the people who control it and people who have benefits from it. When will the rightists understand that?
Retarded republicans channel
The key to this video is that you do enough homework to realize that the left thinks the problems of earlier generations are just as bad today as they were then. For example: thankfully Jim Crow laws were struck down or repealed. But if you ask the left if that action accomplished anything they will tell you that bigotry and tyranny from the majority is just as big of a problem in 2016 as it was in 1966. A professional unhinged whiner can never admit that things do get better and some problems do get solved. Because if they did they would have to engage in less hyperbolic hysteria. And acting normal and being normal is a very uncomfortable place for them to be.
Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and so on disagree with you and prove you wrong. Nice try though.
I know the speaker believes what he is saying; however, he has flaws in what he is saying. Liberals just want more all of the time? I don't think so. This man sounds as though he would get rid of prisons, social security and government flood insurance.
"The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficiency."
–Eugene McCarthy