Are Republicans the "Small Government" Party?

I don't get it. So many people claim to favor the Republicans because they don't want the government to run their lives. A lot of libertarians lean towards Republican and vote Republican because of this. They call the Democrats a bunch of socialists and say that they will raise taxes.

In recent years, I've grown more cynical about politics.  I finally concluded that defending republicans is about as smart as defending democrats...well, political leaders of each, I should clarify.  Nearly all of the major players are corrupt.  I've given up.

Republicans are as much swindlers as the dems...well, maybe not as much, but close enough, so w/e.  I don't really even care that much anymore.

No Republicans are not the small government party. Neo-conservatism is their banner now. Neither are. Unfortunately there are very few Libertarian politicians.

I can't wait for that blasted party to split already.

I want my Whigs dammit.

The politicians in the Republican party (at least the ones you hear from) are not for small Government.  And neither are Democrats.

 I agree with your point , After attempting to accuse the Obama administration of wrong tax policies and holding absurd TEA parties among people who actually received tax cuts , Republicans are now trying to bring upon the issue of liberalisms VS socialism  and change the public opinion regarding Democrats and the government .

First I should mention that Socialism is not a bad thing in its nature specially if you are a religious conservative !!!!  , because socialism ‘s main code is equality for every one and as we know that is what Jesus always talked about : equal opportunity for every one .

Nevertheless , GOP union will not get anywhere with its current strategy .

By the way I should mention that Stimulus plan was merely approved by two Republicans, one of which recently has changed his party and became a Democrat .

I think that no one should be exploited at the expense of others. This is why my views tend to lean towards the socialistic ideal envisioned in utopic landscapes. You may say that it is unrealistic to dream of an economic world where every one is equal, but to you I say, "Why not?"

Fuck the republicans and fuck the Democrats too. Libertarian is the way to go.

But to answer your question about the Republicans being for small government, I guess they sort of are if you compare them to the socialist democrats that have the government taking over banks and car companies and such.

LMFAO neo-cons.

What about social conservatism?  Republicans warn about regulating our lives, and yet they don't care about attempting to enact bans on social issues that they disagree with.  Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum has even said birth control is evil.

I also agree about forming a viable third party.  Here's my observation:  Republicans and Democrats both favor expanded government, but they only speak out against expanding government when it concerns issues that contradict their party platform.  They never talk about issues that they want government expansion on without twisting the facts, such as social issues.  Many Republicans even want to regulate online gambling, which is none of the government's business.

Social conservatism in the sense that they want to control the lives of others, including law-abiding gay citizens that, as you said, don't encroach on the liberties of others.  They like to speak about religious freedom, but some religions are having their freedoms violated when same-sex marriage is not legal, so it's bad logic.  They simply revert to the slippy slope argument, which could apply to MANY things that are legal today.  Both parties also favor the PATRIOT Act and regulating some online activities.

This is why I'm a Libertarian.

It also infuriates me greatly when Republicans hide behind THEIR definition of "family values" to pass their restrictive agenda.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I was impling social conservatism as in perserving liberty and not enforcing xernophobia, as its become associated with.

Biggest problem with marriage is it should have no legality at all. It is a religious bond, not a government dictation.

I to am non-religious. I mean that government shouldnt even need civil contract. I have a 3 year old and met my ex-girlfriend 7 years ago. We never married. The only practical reason to get married was for a tax break. I dont necessarily think marriage should be a part of law at all.

I see what you mean.  There are a few complexities.  If you live together with your partner, and there are deaths or a divorce, a settlement must be made to sort out who receives what.  How would the legality behind this hold up if we didn't have some sort of legal contract to confirm that the two individuals did indeed have a relationship that would qualify them for a piece of the settlement?  There are other situations where not establishing some civil contract would be tricky.  However, I do agree that the government is way too involved in marriage.

I think the Republicans didn't do enough when they had Bush and Congress before 2006.  I simply believe that it will become a power game between the two parties.  One party wins, the other party demonizes them until the next election, and it continues.  We need a viable third party.

Also, has anyone ever noticed that government-sanctioned prohibition on a social level generally fails, and in fact succeeds in increasing support for certain social issues?  The Prohibitions of the past only encouraged finding new ways to bypass the social dictation of a hungry government.

Republicans are now the "Moral" Government party. Like everything religious fanatics are allowed to integrate with, its core has withered and died.