Ok. I think we agree. However, I have less hope than you that the government (self-licking ice cream cone) will ever stop licking and feeding itself regardless. Certainly not with leaders like Hillary, Obama, Reid, Bernie Pelosi and RINOs.

No they didn't and I do not feel represented by any in the elected ranks.

I would change however to of course and add one sentence. "There are significant progress and solutions developed in the world, greatly improving the standard of living for all; of course, government is not the source of these. The fact that there is so much progress happening in other areas gives me hope that we might make progress in reducing the cost and scope of gov't."

Can I correctly paraphrase your statement: "There are significant progress and solutions developed in the world, greatly improving the standard of living for all; however, government is not the source of these."?

Countless problems went away or decreased dramatically. Gov't does not account for the solutions. Gov't is the counter-example of one problem that got worse amid all the amazing progress. If you look at world focusing on just the problem of gov't, things can seem almost hopeless. With so much amazing progress, I can't conceive of things being hopeless. Even if I were in a hopeless situation, I'd want to work out positive things I could do rather than just thinking about the facts of how bad things were.

You posed a lot of questions. The summary answer is "yes".
What problems went away in your lifetime, and how,does government intrusion account for the solutions?

"Why are you bringing up media? "
I'm just saying we're talking about this problem (increasing cost and intrusiveness of gov't) because this is the problem at hand, not a sign that problems are increasing in general.

Do you think democratic republics won't work b/c they inevitably find a way around their constitutional limitations and causing the gov'ts to collapse under their own weight? Will we trend toward something like the Roman Empire, which also over-extends and collapses, but in a more slow fashion? Or will people find ways to work around the gov't until it turns into an armed conflict?

In my lifetime, in a couple decades, I've watched problems that seemed like basic unfortunate facts of human existence just disappear. So I want to see a solution to this too.

+1 to offset a down vote? My state votes dems .We were the only state that voted Mondale in Reagans landslide '84. Us and the dist of Columbia . State voted for Carter in 1980. Last election as my wife and I went to vote
We passed 8 burka clad women with
I voted sticker on their black shrouds who, effectively canceled our votes x4. My vote has never counted for a win.

+1, MA have a good evening.

The government reduced spending after WWII because the war spending ended. This is not an reduction in government powers or influence. See chart 2-21 and 2-22 in:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/s...
The trend of increasing government is chronologically local and global, and it covers all countries unless I am missing an example.

I would love to believe as you suggest, that the electorate will drive a reduction in government, but I do not.

As Sean Connery said in the Hunt for Red October, "A little revolution is healthy now and then, eh Ryan?"

Why are you bringing up media? I recognize their influence and bias, but what does this have to do with reduced government?

"then it was a massive lie."
Yeah, I know nothing about how it was sold. Most people when they have the chance to opt out (by being a minister opposed to it on religious grounds or by S-Corp election or other business structure) they do it.

This is NOT what was told to the people by the govt. if it was designed as you say, then it was a massive lie. If it was set up as they promised, it's outright theft

"was that the money they took from me went into a "trust fund" that was to be used to pay MY benefits."
My understanding is the program was designed as I said, with the only the excess due to demographic fluctuations being saved and most of the money simply transferred to recipients. The gov't doesn't invest this small fund containing the demographic excess in stocks and bonds b/c gov't outright owning private business would create problems. So they invest in US Treasuries, which are the most secure investment in the world and therefore provide a very low rate of return. Since Treasuries are a form of the gov't borrowing, this means the SS system lends that small bit of excess that it saves to the gov't by investing in Treasuries. Some people describe this as "the gov't raiding the SS trust fund for spending projects." I consider that an incorrect characterization; I have other problems with the how it's structured though:
1) It doesn't save the money up but rather relies on transferring someone else's earnings.
2) Even if it did save up significant money, it can't (and absolutely should not) invest in private business

You are totally right. Its theft and it kept me from saving and investing for my OWN retirement

Thanks Freedomforall , well said. The government is creating a problem for everyone but themselves.

Social security is a forced extortion of a private sector employees wages up to a certain maximum Annual amount. Money extorted intended for a trust fund for retirement, has been looted by GOP and Dems alike. My opinion anyways.

My understanding of the SS system, and what they told me at the time, was that the money they took from me went into a "trust fund" that was to be used to pay MY benefits. Then the government borrowed against the trust fund and "spent" it on their stupid general programs. Now its empty except for IOU's that will never be repaid except by printing money.

Therefore I would dispute your statement below:
I don't think "forced to safe" was ever true. The plan of the program was not for people to save but rather mostly transfer and spend it. So in this case the gov't didn't steal anything. They administered the program as planned, a plan which has its problems.

"Show me an example of government reduction in powers that came about without revolution or other bloodshed"
In recent times, after WWII, gov't spending and interference in the economy decreased. Of course, it increased shortly after. The same thing happened to a much smaller extent after the Cold War.

But the trend is increased gov't. That's why we're talking about this. We're not talking about the problem of the big three TV networks' monopoly on video media b/c that problem went away. If your claim is this problem, unlikely the other problems I mention, cannot be solved peacefully, what is the solution? Do we simply need a little rebellion now and then?

"People were forced to save a portion of their lifetime earnings into the ss trust fund which was then returned when they were retired or disabled."
I don't think "forced to safe" was ever true. The plan of the program was not for people to save but rather mostly transfer and spend it. So in this case the gov't didn't steal anything. They administered the program as planned, a plan which has its problems.

"I have to pay for the previous generation's health costs"
Yes, and Social Security retirement too.

"This doesn't inspire confidence at all."
It sets up a constant conflict of interest between people working and people receiving promised benefits. On top of that, when demographically there are many people in their top earning years, it creates a false sense that tax revenue is plentiful. When they retire and it's time to pay those obligations, it creates a the reverse problem.

" I get a bill for $1000 lab tests, which are discounted by $900 IF I have insurance."
You have to get past the front-line people but administrators are sometimes willing to give a reasonable price (one somewhat close to the price they charge insured customers) to customers who negotiate. You have to be willing to walk. Sometimes you have to walk if they won't deal. If you're not willing or able to walk, say in the case of an unexpected emergency, you will pay an absurd price unless you have insurance or some pre-arranged deal.

On two separate occasions doctors have recommended I get expensive tests, but when I dug deeper I found they weren't needed. They were almost certainly conditions that would respond quickly to a safe and inexpensive medicine, but they have to recommend the test because customers might be mad (and might sue) if it turned out to be something serious. But an easy check was to try the medicine for two days and come back for further tests if it didn't work. Of course if insurance is paying for it, money's no object.

I thought this problem of clinics and hospitals assuming customers have turned off their business brains was primarily an issue here in Midwest where HMOs started. I'm now thinking it's everywhere. People who would send all day analyzing a $1000 TV purchase think of nothing of running up thousands of dollars of medical test without checking pricing, if it's the best test, etc..

Without a direct cost to the one receiving care there is nothing to limit demand. The one receiving care has a big incentive to demand all procedures regardless of cost or likelihood of successful treatment, and the provider has a big incentive to provide all those treatments regardless of cost. Demand causes increased cost of treatment and providers have no incentive to spend time treating those they can actually help. It perverts the entire health care system. It funnels funds away from developing products to cure disease and concentrates them in never ending palliative treatments.
This is government creating a problem for everyone and using it to transfer earnings from individuals to those who provide funds for their campaigns. The only thing these government programs create is corruption and serfdom.

You have the most sensible arguments I have heard. I suppose your idea was actually tried with social security. People were forced to save a portion of their lifetime earnings into the ss trust fund which was then returned when they were retired or disabled. Unfortunately the government just stole the money and spent it- and turned it into a massive wealth transfer program. Same with Medicare. Government can't be trusted to manage programs like these, and I think their intention is to expand the Medicare/Medicaid and social security system to everyone and do away with private insurance altogether. But given government is based on thievery, they make the systems financially insolvent, eliminate underwriting, and render the programs into pay as you go based on arbitrary forced taxation as needed. This doesn't inspire confidence at all. So when I work, I have to pay for the previous generation's health costs, and I then have to rely on the government stealing money from younger workers to pay for my health care. I think the only way to fix this IS an HSA that each of us administers on our own behalf, and a free market in medical services to eliminate this ridiculous two tier pricing where I get a bill for $1000 lab tests, which are discounted by $900 IF I have insurance. !!!

Consider in a few years you may be able to give a baby a genetic test for predisposition to heart disease, cancer, depression, or even risky behavior. Insurance against health problems will work even less in the future.

It works a little b/c we can't predict unlikely disease striking at a young age very well yet, and there are still accidents.

PPACA admits the notion of real "insurance" was falling apart by doing away with underwriting. This is why I lobbied unsuccessfully for allowing term-health insurance with generous HSAs. So you could still buy insurance at a young age against unlikely illness and save tax-sheltered for likely illness in old age. This is exactly what people do with term-life.

The counter-argument for my idea is what will we do with people who don't save and don't have family? We will probably find some way to tax other people's money to pay for their care, so let's just admit that and allow insurance without underwriting so it's effectively socializing the costs of healthcare, which was sort-of happening before anyway with people who couldn't pay. I don't agree with their argument b/c I think we could have done more keep the gov't out of it and keep customers in charge of their purchases.

The more I think about it the more I think medical insurance can't really work. I have fire insurance on my house because I am pretty sure it won't burn down but in the unlikely event it does, I am protected from loss. With medical I am almost 100% sure that I (and everyone else) am going to get sick from some set of diseases that will kill us all. The only insurable part of that might be how much medical care I might need before I die. But I would have to pay premiums to a single company all my life to make that even possible. Unless I am missing something...