It seems like a very suspect concept.

US = Dictatorship, basically.

Much like Presidential pardons, just because Bush does it doesn't mean he invented the concept or that it's so inherently evil it needs to instantly go away.

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020206.html

The issue is how he applies the privilege, not that it exists.

"it's so inherently evil it needs to instantly go away."

I disagree.  Executive privilege was basically created out of thin air and thus has no defined boundaries.  The fact that previous presidents didn't abuse their position doesn't mean that the concept is sound.

Bush tends to take what other presidents have done and extend it WAY further than was previously considered acceptable.  Kind of the "give him an inch and he takes a mile" abuse of power thing.

I only hope that our next administration doesn't expand to fit the new paradigm, but instead goes back to the slightly less corrupt utopia of pre-2000.

Unfortunately, once the genie is out the bottle it's hard to put it back.  This also goes with my theory that governments rarely act to reduce their own power (and thus their own size).

There appear to be very few people in any branch of the US government, or in any party, who are working for the good of democracy.  In fact, I think that notion itself is almost quaint these days.

It means whatever they say it means, at that time.

Sortof like porn -- you know it when you see it.

The size of government WAS reduced under the Clinton administration.

I mean, it's almost Biblical.  Which would you prefer -- an administration that DOESN'T promise to reduce Government, but then does so; or an administration which DOES promise to reduce Government, then expands it?

Sure, under Clinton, the number of people working for the government was reduced but the actual power and responsibilities of the federal government were not.

Let's see -- fewer people, less cost, same power, same responsibilities.

I think that's a win/win, no?  What, you want them to NOT pay Social Security?

I agree it's a good thing and it proves that Clinton was a good manager and there was a lot of fat to trim. 

But does "smaller government" really mean just employing the absolute minimal number of people required to rule every minuscule detail of the country from Washington?

The problem with smaller government is that every time a law gets passed, or a program gets voted in, you need a staff to run it and a computer system to keep track of it.  So it just grows and grows.

I think this shows they're NOT "ruling every miniscule detail of the country" from Washington.

Hell, that was even before No Child Left Behind.

AMerrickanGirl made my point.

"I think this shows they're NOT 'ruling every miniscule detail of the country' from Washington."

No, all it shows is that either: a) They were previously overstaffed or b) They became understaffed.  Certainly it doesn't mean the government is trying to do less  -- it's just trying to do the same amount with less people.

Check your reality distortion field, Wayne, I suspect it's doing too good a job.

I expect that kind of response from muppet.

Yeah, when you say "OH, Government ALWAYS gets larger", and I say "Well, in this instance it didn't", and you say "Well, yes, but in EFFECT it's POWER got larger", and I say "Well, perhaps, but it costs less and takes less people", and then you say "Nope, it's still just as bad" --

In that case, I think your reality distortion field is making everything you see look bad.  It's hard to make good decisions (or good arguments, for that matter) in that case.

A muppet argument would simply be that you're a moron, repeated again and again ad nauseum.  I don't do that, and I'm not doing that now.

"The problem with smaller government is that every time a law gets passed, or a program gets voted in, you need a staff to run it and a computer system to keep track of it."

Stop passing stupid make-work laws then...

Or stop passing them at all... but keep Hubble in a job, and fund science/education and stuff. But stop dicking around with making all the new laws.

"'Well, perhaps, but it costs less and takes less people', and then you say 'Nope, it's still just as bad'"

I didn't say it was just as bad.  In fact, I said "I agree it's a good thing."  I don't know how you twisted that around.  But those who fight for smaller government aren't fighting merely for fewer government employees but rather less (and more local) government influence.  That's the bigger picture.  Cutting a few jobs is not the same thing.

I'm not necessarily one of those people who fights for smaller government -- I'm more of a socialist.  I think there are some services that government should provide (some of which the US government doesn't do).

But I think that consolidation of power and influence at a single level of government is bad.