As near as I can tell, nobody is actually in favor of small government nor have they ever been. People just disagree about where the government should be big.
The same options the average citizen of any country has - protest followed by rebellion. America was founded by rebelling against the tyranny of unfair taxes.
Until Americans understand that this isn't going to end without violence (or a very real threat of violence, meaning people actually show up prepared to fight), they will continue to be increasingly oppressed. You may disagree with violence, but the oppressors see that as convenient.
If your opponent knows all you will do is use words, they have nothing to fear. MAGA was all about the 2nd Amendment and shows of personal force (running busses off the road, boat parades, going armed into state houses, etc) and got all the pacifist Dems cowed.
I don't "mean" anything, since I asked a question. If you're trying to communicate that our options are things like "mass protests", why communicate it in such a condescending manner?
We can hear things in our minds in many ways. Your question was open to interpretation in two distinct ways:
1: Enumerate some ways, please.
2: I think not, why do you think so?
I interpreted as #2. You, however, might disagree that these are actually options for any number of reasons. Perhaps you do? There are other stronger ones, of course. As an intelligent human, living within some national political framework, I'm sure you can think of others. Since your question hinted you thought there were none at all, "do you mean like" is testing whether these fit your definition.
People seem to get caught up in the political end of this issue but the fact is the US is spending 1.7T a year MORE than its tax base supports. This MUST stop and if this is how it happens, then I guess this is what it took to make the change. Stop wasting money on silly things and "services" the government has no rational business in (states have their own governments mind you) and THEN come talk to me about a tax increase to make up any necessary shortfalls.
This is at best wishful thinking when 2/3 of the federal budget are medicare/ss/military. What exactly will get cut?
The efficiency cuts they are talking about will barely make a dent while making services worse for everyone. Good luck next time a disaster area needs FEMA assistance.
And not unlike a business when you have a deficit you have two options: cut cost and increase revenues, this incoming government will very likely decrease revenues through tax cuts, making the deficit even worse.
Absolutely correct regarding medicare/ss/military. Its an issue. What will get cut? Enough things that we can start to have a real conversation about how much "government" we're all willing to pay for.
"What exactly will get cut?" - Make you a deal - set a timer and do 10 minutes of research on the subject and come back to report you found NOTHING that could be reasonably and easily cut?
EDIT - so far I haven't heard anyone claim we're going to balance the budget via this mechanism. The goal is to CUT WASTE and IMPROVE EFFICIENCY. I see this as a basis for having a real conversation about taxation personally.
I imagine nearly every single American thinks there is waste in government spending, but it is going to be difficult to find cuts that 60% of the population agrees with, especially in an amount that makes more than a tiny dent in the budget. One thing is for sure, Elon, an unelected individual from another country, who also happens to be the richest man in the world (in history?), is likely to make cuts which advantage him, not the average American. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
It really feels like we're nearing the inevitable outcome from Citizens United, a country ran by billionaires, to the exclusive benefit of billionaires.
Maybe Elon has heard stories about socialist single-payer healthcare systems that deliver good results at half of American prices and wants to copy them in extenso?
Everyone claims they received a decisive mandate, because a mandate is in the minds of people. If they think you have a mandate, then you do. So after every election, the winner claims to have a mandate, because they keep hoping that everyone else will act like they do, and therefore that they will.
Some politicians actually talk about what they're going to do in some detail before election and then have some validity in claiming a mandate for those things after winning.
Others talk utter BS, make a million conflicting promises, loudly deny stuff that they fully intend to do etc. Those people do not have a valid claim at a mandate.
I just learned from Duolingo that the French word for "term of office" is "mandat".
I started a whole unit on words about elections about two weeks ago. It was a pretty damn upsetting two weeks. I really wish Duo gave me the ability to skip a section and come back to it later.
Well, it's having two people where one would do. On a committee that is about efficiency and removing waste.
Then there's the "unpaid volunteers" thing. You don't get the best and brightest that way; the best and brightest already have things to do with their time. The state of civic involvement these days means that the best and brightest are not just going to drop what they're doing in order to serve their country for no money. Instead, you're going to get two kinds of people: 1) ideological warriors, and 2) people who can bend things in directions that will make them money. That's not going to produce good results.
These type of actions will only lead to an outcome that will be extreme.
Eventually, it will lead to a genocide. Once it is all done, there will be a large body of research into how this happened. The primary purpose of it will be to feel good and pat ourselves on the back with how civilized we are.
Then we in the West will move on and try to find another group that we will like to hate.
The more things change, the more they remain the same.
