Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3349)	12/23/2016 3:27:58 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By one_less Respond to of 354539

That sounds reasonable to me and you would certainly know better than I would. But there are some areas where the money just shouldn't be to begin with. And in some cases the law need not be changed, just the regulations. I believe Trump is correct in targeting EPA and Dept of Education. Not every target is that big (the Air Force 1 planes, for example). I will be disappointed if he doesn't crunch budgets and make some move toward zero-based.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3349)	12/31/2016 1:02:56 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 354539

The size of the government is not measured by its budget but the reach of its business. I'd say its both. If the government doesn't increase regulation, doesn't expand in to new areas, and even doesn't do more in the areas where its already active, but spends more (perhaps by increasing government salaries) doing the same thing, its still bigger government (although not as much so if it spends the extra money to impose a lot of new regulations). But I do think that your right that to really pull back government we have to go beyond just focusing on spending levels, and look to the scope of government, the extent of the law, the level of complexity and control imposed by regulations and regulatory interpretations, etc.