If we could reject them, we would. Our philosophy is for all people to choose their own poison. You're forcing it down everyone's throat. ONCE AGAIN, states' rights. If California or Iowa or [state] wants to enact this legislation, alright. But don't force it on 300m people! Our nation is too large for the high government to be representative of the people. Such sweeping, life changing, nation-bankrupting legislation is best reserved for the better-representing states, where only a portion of the country will be affected.

I only want to shrink the FEDERAL government, and I apologize if I didn't make that clear.

There's no reason that 'modern government' has to be neatly organized in one massive engine, unless you're wanting to make a lobbyist's day shorter.

That being said, the Constitution is very much the perfect thing for a limited Federal government. The States are encouraged to both write their own laws AND solve their own problems.

As you may know, it is monumentally easier to change the State law than it is the Federal.

You're already modded down, but at the risk you're looking for a discussion, let me see if I can relate how I understand it, personally:

"Liberty" relates to "budget" under the terms of "small government". We can have fewer programs, at least at the Federal level, and that would in itself be good, but it would also cost less. That's not at all incoherent, even if it wasn't explained in detail. Less liberty will basically always mean more spending, because someone has to fund the enforcers, the tracking system, etc. There's just no way to implement a program like that for zero cost. A libertarian sees fewer programs as a win-win in this way.

"Budget" relates to "taxes" because the government should not have any other income. Taxes are one entire side of the balance sheet that makes up the budget. Ergo, a smaller and/or balanced budget would lead to fewer taxes demanded in the future.

Again, more wars means more tax needs. This point should, and I underscore should, be completely obvious to anyone, whether you agree with it or not.

There does exist a framework for running our government. Most of it us under glass at the National Archives Rotunda in DC, I think. Otherwise, I'm sure you can locate a copy online with relative ease.

Budget neutral is not filler. That's crucial, because the taxes are, again, the only income for this business entity that will be managing a large portion of the economy. Responsibility is paramount, because our children deserve better than 'pay for it somehow tomorrow'. At least they do if we do not wish the USA to follow in Rome's footsteps.

Abortion is not filler because these are public dollars being spent. If the constituency is not in favor of this type of expenditure, then it shouldn't probably occur. Unless there's some kind of opt-out provision that I'm unaware of...

The latter of your point is a fine position to take. My only rebuttal there would be that once/if the system is no longer broken, we will see no opportunity to remove this program. It is not a 'fix', it is a retrofit. If we're unhappy with it, due to the entitlement angle, we'll simply suffer under it forever - as we will with Medicare.

Or is it that Joe Public wants the cheap products and services that only cheap labor can provide, and won't let the problem be solved? It's just the free market in action.

Your continuing guesswork is close.

I'm actually one of the ones who has an ulcer with an unknown cause, I take pantoprazole every day and I'm fine.

I was diagnosed using the standard urea breath test, which is around 97% accurate.

I have no A. Pylori, but if I did, I would be off the meds right now, instead having to take them indefinitely.