"Less Government"

[mike3]

Hi.

I'm curious to discuss the following view. Government takes responsibilities that people do not take themselves. So if you want, e.g. "less government" in healthcare, then you have to take over those responsibilities yourself. This includes helping others who are in need get what they need, and not just judging them as "lazy" when you really don't know them. If you can't do that, then you don't deserve "less government" there.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm curious to discuss the following view. Government takes responsibilities that people do not take themselves.

I don't think that's even a legitimate definition of what government does. Some things we can only do as a society and not as individuals.


However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation. We revisited the issue of "states' rights" and a weaker central government in the Civil War. If government is bad, why is state government good?

The fact is, we have a large country with, I think, the largest economy in the world. We will never have anything that can properly be called a "small government".

What they usually mean is that while they approve of really big government spending for the common defense (in recent years, the U.S. has been spending roughly what the entire rest of the world combined spends on military), they disapprove of a lot of spending for the general welfare. I like to point out that the only places "the common defence" occurs in the Constitution it is in parallel with "the general welfare".

[respect]

I don't think that's even a legitimate definition of what government does. Some things we can only do as a society and not as individuals.


However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation. We revisited the issue of "states' rights" and a weaker central government in the Civil War. If government is bad, why is state government good?

The fact is, we have a large country with, I think, the largest economy in the world. We will never have anything that can properly be called a "small government".

What they usually mean is that while they approve of really big government spending for the common defense (in recent years, the U.S. has been spending roughly what the entire rest of the world combined spends on military), they disapprove of a lot of spending for the general welfare. I like to point out that the only places "the common defence" occurs in the Constitution it is in parallel with "the general welfare".

Government's benefits are also its problems. It can and does desirable things that private businesses and charities don't do, or can't do in the way we desire. However, it also lacks the restraint that private organizations must show because costs (and bankruptcy) are of such little concern. I wouldn't say the problem with "big government" is necessarily what it does, but rather that it does its business in such an inefficient manner so often.

To give an example of what I mean, someone I know was a high ranking bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Several other people around the country held the same regional position. They got together and negotiated lucrative early retirements on the grounds that their positions were completely unnecessary due to redundancy and it would be cheaper to buy them out. Why the hell should such positions exist to begin with? A private business wasting money like that would suffer, government does not. And that hardly gets into "favors". Even if every function of government is desirable, it could do a much better job of spending our money efficiently.

[JoeTheJuggler]

However, it also lacks the restraint that private organizations must show because costs (and bankruptcy) are of such little concern.

And private businesses lack the checks and balances of government. Also, we're free to vote out politicians we don't want back. Even with publicly traded corporations, there is no one-person-one-vote approach.

Basically, that just says they're two different things.

It doesn't argue that government should be significantly smaller than it is.

[respect]

And private businesses lack the checks and balances of government. Also, we're free to vote out politicians we don't want back. Even with publicly traded corporations, there is no one-person-one-vote approach.

Basically, that just says they're two different things.

It doesn't argue that government should be significantly smaller than it is.

You seem to be responding to a different post than you cited.

[JoeTheJuggler]

To give an example of what I mean, someone I know was a high ranking bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Several other people around the country held the same regional position. They got together and negotiated lucrative early retirements on the grounds that their positions were completely unnecessary due to redundancy and it would be cheaper to buy them out. Why the hell should such positions exist to begin with? A private business wasting money like that would suffer, government does not. And that hardly gets into "favors". Even if every function of government is desirable, it could do a much better job of spending our money efficiently.

So you would favor privatizing all education because private corporations never give their execs golden parachutes? They never reward or incentivize incompetence?

I think anti-corruption legislation and proper oversight is a more reasonable solution to the problem you cite.

[respect]

So you would favor privatizing all education because private corporations never give their execs golden parachutes? They never reward or incentivize incompetence?

This has nothing to do with what I said.

I think anti-corruption legislation and proper oversight is a more reasonable solution to the problem you cite.

That's a bingo.

[BobTheCoward]

I don't think that's even a legitimate definition of what government does. Some things we can only do as a society and not as individuals.


However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation. We revisited the issue of "states' rights" and a weaker central government in the Civil War. If government is bad, why is state government good?

Being a proponent of fewer government powers does not mean an increase is powers granted to the state.

[Bikewer]

I have often wondered about the end-point of "less" government. How much less? Much of what is talked about getting rid of is excessive regulation and control. Essentially, a move towards a more libertarian attitude towards business and industry.

Yet many of the regulations and controls were enacted to correct severe problems. Are we to assume that removing the regulations will automatically ensure compliance in some way?
This does not appear to be the case historically, where even under strict controls businesses and industries try to cheat and game the system all the time. Not to mention just outright engaging in illegal enterprise.
You can certainly make a case that government is bloated; that there is a lot of waste, redundancy, and complexity that's probably not needed. How small do these folks want government to be?

[TragicMonkey]

In my experience, people who talk about the benefits of "less government" really mean "get rid of all the government spending on programs that I, personally, do not use or think I will use". The things they use themselves never seem to make it onto their list of things to get cut.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Being a proponent of fewer government powers does not mean an increase is powers granted to the state.

Tell that to Gov. Brewer. There are many who base their anti-federalist position on a states' rights argument.

[JoeTheJuggler]

In my experience, people who talk about the benefits of "less government" really mean "get rid of all the government spending on programs that I, personally, do not use or think I will use". The things they use themselves never seem to make it onto their list of things to get cut.

I guess I'm a bit less cynical. I think many "small government" proponents really are arguing for an ideology, often even against their own best interests. (The mass of people at Tea Party rallies, for example, are not wealthy or even upper middle class.)

[TragicMonkey]

(The mass of people at Tea Party rallies, for example, are not wealthy or even upper middle class.)

And if you go into their finances, you'll find that the vast majority of them will be relying on Social Security and Medicare in retirement.

[JoeTheJuggler]

You seem to be responding to a different post than you cited.

Nope. You pointed out a control on bad decision making that applies to private companies by not to the government. I pointed out that the government has many controls that private companies lack.


So? I see nothing there that argues for "less government".


This has nothing to do with what I said.

It's pretty much the same as above. You pointed out a problem whereby high-up people in the Department of Education cut themselves a sweet retirement. I pointed out that the same sort of thing happens in the private sector too--only more so.

Again, I see nothing that argues for "less government".

[JoeTheJuggler]

And if you go into their finances, you'll find that the vast majority of them will be relying on Social Security and Medicare in retirement.

Exactly. I think there's some manipulation of the masses involved. It is against their own interest to argue for drastic cuts in those programs. They've been sold an ideology, I think. (Or they at least have bought into an ideology regardless of how it would affect them personally.)

[BenBurch]

"Less Government" really means "Less restriction on how invasive and kleptocratic government may be."

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Less Government" really means "Less restriction on how invasive and kleptocratic government may be."

Does it mean that across the board? Why are those who want to cut spending so reluctant to revoke tax breaks for the highly profitable big 5 oil companies? Why are they so eager to cut trivial programs like funding for NPR and Planned Parenthood?

And why are those same people in favor of laws restricting a woman's right to get an abortion? Why are those same people in favor of the DOMA which is essentially the government forbidding homosexuals from getting married?

How exactly does one define "invasive" wrt government?

[TragicMonkey]

How exactly does one define "invasive" wrt government?

Invasive government is "any government action that I, personally, do not think should be done."

And any action which the speaker thinks the government should be doing, but isn't, is an example of "shocking neglect".

[respect]

Nope. You pointed out a control on bad decision making that applies to private companies by not to the government. I pointed out that the government has many controls that private companies lack.


So? I see nothing there that argues for "less government".



It's pretty much the same as above. You pointed out a problem whereby high-up people in the Department of Education cut themselves a sweet retirement. I pointed out that the same sort of thing happens in the private sector too--only more so.

Again, I see nothing that argues for "less government".

The point was that government could be more efficient with its resources (largely the taxes we pay) and you somehow took this to mean privatizing education. It wasn't an argument for "less" government, rather for smarter government that does a better job allocating resources.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The point was that government could be more efficient with its resources (largely the taxes we pay) and you somehow took this to mean privatizing education. It wasn't an argument for "less" government, rather for smarter government that does a better job allocating resources.

Ah--my apologies. It sounded just like the kinds of arguments people make for saying that the private sector can do better than government--part of the "small government" arguments one often hears.

Can you explain the relevance of the observation that government can't go bankrupt the way private businesses can?

[Darat]

The point was that government could be more efficient with its resources (largely the taxes we pay) and you somehow took this to mean privatizing education. It wasn't an argument for "less" government, rather for smarter government that does a better job allocating resources.

A claim often made however is it true? As you state above " It can and does desirable things that private businesses and charities don't do, or can't do in the way we desire. ". Perhaps what we perceive as "inefficiency" is the cost of doing things "in the way we desire". And as others have stated in the thread government is not the same as private enterprise, albeit sometimes it does things that private enterprises also do so it is in some areas a matter of comparing apples and pears, yes they are both fruits but with different flavours.

[respect]

Ah--my apologies. It sounded just like the kinds of arguments people make for saying that the private sector can do better than government--part of the "small government" arguments one often hears.

Can you explain the relevance of the observation that government can't go bankrupt the way private businesses can?

The private sector is much more efficient than government because businesses and non-profits face significant financial consequences if they are not. The advantage of government is that it does not have to make decisions on those same grounds, however, the lack of financial restraint also leads to a lot of poor decisions. Many are just unnecessary waste like redundant positions in the Department of Education. And many are deliberate waste due to favoritism and cronyism.

I suspect that if it were not for the endless parade of news stories about wasteful spending and corruption the calls for smaller government would not be so popular. Open up the Chicago Tribune on any given day and you can read about how some politically connected piece of #@%# got a hefty government contract or cushy no-show job at the taxpayer's expense.

People want government services, but also see that those same services could be provided at much less cost if government did a better job of cracking down on waste and corruption. It is only natural to recognize that constant waste would doom a private company as its competitors would only have to spend more wisely to price them out of the marketplace. If government ran a tighter ship you would see a lot less anger at its spending.

[respect]

A claim often made however is it true? As you state above " It can and does desirable things that private businesses and charities don't do, or can't do in the way we desire. ". Perhaps what we perceive as "inefficiency" is the cost of doing things "in the way we desire". And as others have stated in the thread government is not the same as private enterprise, albeit sometimes it does things that private enterprises also do so it is in some areas a matter of comparing apples and pears, yes they are both fruits but with different flavours.

To illustrate, most everyone but a handful of Ron Paul fanatics agrees that governmental fire departments are a desirable function of government. However, that does not mean anyone will be happy if there is three people redundantly doing the same job at the commissioners office and a made up position that pays $80,000 a year to inspect the foundations of department buildings that just happens to go to the brother of a guy who organized a get out the vote campaign on behalf of the mayor despite him having no qualifications and he only has to actually work 20 hours a year to collect the salary.

I'm not saying those a real examples, just that things like that happen a lot. Perhaps I am jaded by Chicago where such corruption is so common.

[Ziggurat]

And if you go into their finances, you'll find that the vast majority of them will be relying on Social Security and Medicare in retirement.

That is thoroughly unpersuasive. If you've been taxed to fund entitlement programs in the past, then you do not have the financial resources that you would have if you hadn't been taxed. You may therefore be dependent on a system that you never wanted in the first place. But forcing someone into dependency doesn't mean that they want that dependency, or that the dependency is good, just because they've become dependent.

Plus, of course, social security and medicare aren't the only, or necessarily even the primary, issues for the tea party or its individual members, so you haven't demonstrated any kind of hypocrisy here. All you've done is demonstrate a lazy sort of guilt-by-association accusation, akin to pointing out how some leftists are personally very rich.

[Ziggurat]

Exactly. I think there's some manipulation of the masses involved. It is against their own interest to argue for drastic cuts in those programs. They've been sold an ideology, I think.

What makes you think that's where they're asking for drastic cuts? For many older members of the tea party, the logic is probably exactly the reverse of what you presume: they're worried that out-of-control spending in OTHER areas of government threaten their benefits, and want to curb the growth of government in order to protect those benefits.

[Ziggurat]

However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation.

The optimal government is somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the Soviet Union. What is not obvious, and in fact what has no universal answer because it depends on your values, is where exactly that optimal point is. Favoring bigger or smaller government only has real meaning in comparison to the present size of government. Wanting smaller government doesn't mean that you want the Articles of Confederation any more than wanting bigger government means you want the Soviet Union. All it means is that you think we're above (or below) whatever that optimal point is. Neither position can be discounted by appealing to the extreme endpoints.

[seayakin]

The optimal government is somewhere between the Articles of Confederation and the Soviet Union. What is not obvious, and in fact what has no universal answer because it depends on your values, is where exactly that optimal point is. Favoring bigger or smaller government only has real meaning in comparison to the present size of government. Wanting smaller government doesn't mean that you want the Articles of Confederation any more than wanting bigger government means you want the Soviet Union. All it means is that you think we're above (or below) whatever that optimal point is. Neither position can be discounted by appealing to the extreme endpoints.

This is where I get a little more cynical as TragicMonkey indicates. I'll hazard a guess that less than 5% of the population wants to go to a command and control economy or go to some libertarian free state. However, few people want to cut programs that hurt them directly. (My parents will rail endlessly against the evils of government while collecting social security and receiving medicare and fight anyone who tries to implement means testing or other measures to limit its cost.)

This is where the op-ed poses an interesting question. For those who are highly critical of the government (but not libertopians), how much should the government do beyond national defense, police protection and fire protection.

I personally believe it should do all that in addition to supporting a transportation infrastructure, education level to ensure people can make at least semi-reasonable decisions in voting, and a safety net so no one should starve to death or freeze death (unless they absolutely refuse aid). I also admit that defining what this safety net should cover gets very fuzzy and difficult to define.

[BenBurch]

This is where I get a little more cynical as TragicMonkey indicates. I'll hazard a guess that less than 5% of the population wants to go to a command and control economy or go to some libertarian free state. However, few people want to cut programs that hurt them directly. (My parents will rail endlessly against the evils of government while collecting social security and receiving medicare and fight anyone who tries to implement means testing or other measures to limit its cost.)

This is where the op-ed poses an interesting question. For those who are highly critical of the government (but not libertopians), how much should the government do beyond national defense, police protection and fire protection.

I personally believe it should do all that in addition to supporting a transportation infrastructure, education level to ensure people can make at least semi-reasonable decisions in voting, and a safety net so no one should starve to death or freeze death (unless they absolutely refuse aid). I also admit that defining what this safety net should cover gets very fuzzy and difficult to define.

Well, you know, every single thing we are doing now was voted on by at least two bodies ordained by the Constitution and elected by the People.

Many Conservatives try to present the present system as though it was foisted upon the People by some unaccountable federal monster, when in reality the Federal Government IS the People. Making war on government is making war on the People and represents the position that the People are not fit to govern.

[Ziggurat]

Many Conservatives try to present the present system as though it was foisted upon the People by some unaccountable federal monster, when in reality the Federal Government IS the People. Making war on government is making war on the People and represents the position that the People are not fit to govern.

"Making war" is obvious hyperbole, but along with "the People", it does muddy the water. While you can accurately claim that government has grown to its current size by following democratic mechanisms, it's not accurate to suggest that its current size is the result of any specific consensus. It isn't. That's not how the system works. Minority viewpoints often win out for various reasons (and that's not always a problem), and our spending doesn't resemble a single design or designer. We're where we are now as the result of constant pushing and pulling from different sides. The fact that one particular group is pulling very hard in a direction that's different from how we've been moving so far is in no way a break from that process, but is very much a continuation of it. Trying to push both politicians and voters in a new direction is in fact EXACTLY the sort of democratic action that you're implying conservatives are trying to undermine.

[BenBurch]

What I observe is Conservatives seeking to do everything possible to disenfranchise the People.

[Biscuit]

If government is bad, why is state government good?

A question I have often asked but never received a good answer until this weekend. Some NPR program was interviewing a young female tea bagger in Seattle who was arguing for stronger state government using an argument that I will reframe for my own situation.

I live in Tucson AZ and the state capital is about 90 miles due north of me. I can get to phoenix and back in a day where I can visit all of my states government buildings. I can meet representatives, protest out front, perhaps even testify on an issue. In order to get to Washington DC I must drive for days or fly at great expense and eat up at least two days. The chances of actually seeing one of my reps is much lower and actually lobbying them is unlikely.

While I don't agree with all aspects of that argument it is the most rational one I have heard of. The rest of her arguments in the segment where typical tea bagger nonsense but that part got me thinking.

[TragicMonkey]

That is thoroughly unpersuasive. If you've been taxed to fund entitlement programs in the past, then you do not have the financial resources that you would have if you hadn't been taxed. You may therefore be dependent on a system that you never wanted in the first place. But forcing someone into dependency doesn't mean that they want that dependency, or that the dependency is good, just because they've become dependent.

Yeah, because everybody would definitely save and invest the money taken out of their paychecks for SS and Medicare. You can see how much that is, it's printed on every paycheck. They're not being "forced into dependency"--they're already dependent. They're merely forced to pay for part of what they'll take out later.

[Without Rights]

If government is bad, why is state government good?


Because it is not a single monolithic answer to all problems. The States are closer to the people and therefore the people have more power over them. If your state is not in line with your political morals, you can leave her and still be an American. Choice exists under State sovereignty.

[Without Rights]

Well, you know, every single thing we are doing now was voted on by at least two bodies ordained by the Constitution and elected by the People.


Many Conservatives try to present the present system as though it was foisted upon the People by some unaccountable federal monster, when in reality the Federal Government IS the People. Making war on government is making war on the People and represents the position that the People are not fit to govern.

Wrong. It represents the position that the Government doesn't care about what the people think and is acting beyond the lines the people have drawn. When media told Cheney that 70% opposed the war in Iraq his answer was "so what". That is not Government by the people. And since all these wars were entered upon without congressional consent, it is blatant disregard for the people. Obama promised to fix that, instead he continued the practices of Bush and increased war in a way Bush would have never been able to achieve. His attempts at making every Muslim nation our enemy is even pissing China off to the point were they will intervene. Government by the people doesn't exist. We vote and then they do what they want, for whoever they want.

Joe Biden said "war without congressional approval warrants impeachment". File the paperwork Joe.

[mhaze]

That is thoroughly unpersuasive. If you've been taxed to fund entitlement programs in the past, then you do not have the financial resources that you would have if you hadn't been taxed. You may therefore be dependent on a system that you never wanted in the first place. But forcing someone into dependency doesn't mean that they want that dependency, or that the dependency is good, just because they've become dependent.

Plus, of course, social security and medicare aren't the only, or necessarily even the primary, issues for the tea party or its individual members, so you haven't demonstrated any kind of hypocrisy here. All you've done is demonstrate a lazy sort of guilt-by-association accusation, akin to pointing out how some leftists are personally very rich.
Not only that but the Tea Party argues that expenses must be brought down to about the level of income, and that we need to directly address the large number of people who are being forced into dependency based on their receipt of government money that does not exist, that was printed out of thin air.
They argue that this change is a good thing. I find it hard to argue with that, and have trouble seeing how anyone could argue with it.

It isn't anything like the traditional government dependency model of liberals.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because it is not a single monolithic answer to all problems. The States are closer to the people and therefore the people have more power over them. If your state is not in line with your political morals, you can leave her and still be an American. Choice exists under State sovereignty.

First, I don't think anyone ever asserted that the federal government provides a single monolithic answer to all problems, but I don't see that, for example, the healthcare crisis is so very different from one state to another. In fact, it rather annoys me that some benefits are available to people in some states that aren't there for citizens of other states. That always struck me as unfair.

And how are the states closer to the people? Federal Representatives and Congresspersons are chosen in direct elections just as they are for state legislatures. Letter writing (or faxes or e-mails or phone calls) are just as effective if sent to a local office as to one in D.C. A great many of our federal representatives started out in state government.

I think very very few people leave their home states because it is "not in line with your political morals".

ETA: And if by "choice" under state sovereignty you mean the freedom to leave the state, then there is more choice under the federal government. That is, there are more nations you could move to than there are states. And frankly, wherever I live I would be an American. If you're talking about citizenship or residency status or some such, then I can't leave Missouri and still be a Missourian either.

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, because everybody would definitely save and invest the money taken out of their paychecks for SS and Medicare.

We aren't talking about everybody. We're talking about a self-selected group. And you have no idea what they would have done had things been different. In fact, basically everything you've said about what they think is unsupported conjecture on your part.

They're not being "forced into dependency"--they're already dependent.

You can't get around this issue by playing with verb tense, TM.

They're merely forced to pay for part of what they'll take out later.

No. They were forced to pay for other people's benefits. Those payments form no part of their future benefits. The system has never worked the way you suggest. Furthermore, what you suggest is clearly impossible to sustain: retirees can only receive more in benefits than they put in as payments as long as the working population grows faster than the retired population. But that is now a demographic impossibility.

[Ziggurat]

What I observe is Conservatives seeking to do everything possible to disenfranchise the People.

Why don't you just say "the Proletariat"?

[geni]

To give an example of what I mean, someone I know was a high ranking bureaucrat in the Department of Education. Several other people around the country held the same regional position. They got together and negotiated lucrative early retirements on the grounds that their positions were completely unnecessary due to redundancy and it would be cheaper to buy them out. Why the hell should such positions exist to begin with? A private business wasting money like that would suffer, government does not.

Changeing technoligies making people more productive and changing priorities. Companies are costantly getting rid of people who do job they no longer feel are needed and early retirement deals are a standard way of doing so.

[geni]

The private sector is much more efficient than government because businesses and non-profits face significant financial consequences if they are not.

Strangly no. Since companies are generaly limited by garentee financial consequences are equaly limited.



I suspect that if it were not for the endless parade of news stories about wasteful spending and corruption the calls for smaller government would not be so popular. Open up the Chicago Tribune on any given day and you can read about how some politically connected piece of #@%# got a hefty government contract or cushy no-show job at the taxpayer's expense.

Except if you look at who companies tend to contract stuff out to there is a tendecy to make deals with people they already know. In the private sector what you are refuring to as "politically connected" is called networking.



People want government services, but also see that those same services could be provided at much less cost if government did a better job of cracking down on waste and corruption. It is only natural to recognize that constant waste would doom a private company as its competitors would only have to spend more wisely to price them out of the marketplace.

How's that working out with microsoft?

[geni]

A question I have often asked but never received a good answer until this weekend. Some NPR program was interviewing a young female tea bagger in Seattle who was arguing for stronger state government using an argument that I will reframe for my own situation.

I live in Tucson AZ and the state capital is about 90 miles due north of me. I can get to phoenix and back in a day where I can visit all of my states government buildings. I can meet representatives, protest out front, perhaps even testify on an issue. In order to get to Washington DC I must drive for days or fly at great expense and eat up at least two days. The chances of actually seeing one of my reps is much lower and actually lobbying them is unlikely.

While I don't agree with all aspects of that argument it is the most rational one I have heard of. The rest of her arguments in the segment where typical tea bagger nonsense but that part got me thinking.

The catch is most people don't do that. In fact most people don't interact with their goverment outside of elections and the odd letter writing campain.

People tend to only be aware of what their goverment is doing through news reports and with falling news budgets it's only the big centeral goverments that get significant media coverage these days.

[Darat]

To illustrate, most everyone but a handful of Ron Paul fanatics agrees that governmental fire departments are a desirable function of government. However, that does not mean anyone will be happy if there is three people redundantly doing the same job at the commissioners office and a made up position that pays $80,000 a year to inspect the foundations of department buildings that just happens to go to the brother of a guy who organized a get out the vote campaign on behalf of the mayor despite him having no qualifications and he only has to actually work 20 hours a year to collect the salary.

I'm not saying those a real examples, just that things like that happen a lot. Perhaps I am jaded by Chicago where such corruption is so common.

That is corruption and fraud and therefore I would have thought was illegal? And that is not the same as inefficiency in an organisation.

[JoeTheJuggler]

That is corruption and fraud and therefore I would have thought was illegal? And that is not the same as inefficiency in an organisation.

Exactly. And there's nothing at all that guarantees corruption and fraud wouldn't happen if the same services were run by private sector entities or state governments.

[Bilbo]

Plus, of course, social security and medicare aren't the only, or necessarily even the primary, issues for the tea party or its individual members, so you haven't demonstrated any kind of hypocrisy here. All you've done is demonstrate a lazy sort of guilt-by-association accusation, akin to pointing out how some leftists are personally very rich.

I agree completely. They are more concerned with that ****** in the "White House" than anything. Oh, and they don't want poor women getting abortions for some, yet to be explained, reason. (that could have to do with the military)

Oh yeah, they also want less taxes for the top 2% of Americans, just in case their lottery numbers hit. Don't even mention letting teh gheys have equal rights...no sir E.

But when the almighty gawd sends a 190mph breeze into their trailer park community, like Joplin, they are the first ones with their hands out wanting some fema cash.

How come the 130 dead in Joplin aren't considered to have been "Raptured"?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Plus, of course, social security and medicare aren't the only, or necessarily even the primary, issues for the tea party or its individual members, so you haven't demonstrated any kind of hypocrisy here.

"Only" or "primary" aren't necessary to point out hypocrisy. Would you at least agree that the position of small-government Tea Party members is to cut spending on social security and medicare?

[Ziggurat]

How come the 130 dead in Joplin aren't considered to have been "Raptured"?

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Ziggurat]

"Only" or "primary" aren't necessary to point out hypocrisy. Would you at least agree that the position of small-government Tea Party members is to cut spending on social security and medicare?

I doubt there's unanimity on that specific point. Additionally, most plans for reducing social security spending, for example, call for reductions for future retirees who will have time to make any necessary adjustments. There's nothing hypocritical about wanting to change the system but only doing so in a way that gives people time to adapt, nor is there any hypocrisy in taking advantage of a system that exists even if you would prefer that it had not existed from the start.

For example, you could quite reasonably oppose the mortgage interest deduction but still use it. The fact that this deduction exists makes the mortgage on a house at a given price more affordable, thus allowing more buyers to bid on it, and thus driving up the price. You might feel that we would be better off without this market distortion, but given that it exists, you're not better off forgoing what everyone else is taking advantage of. It's a shallow analysis that concludes this is hypocrisy. It isn't.

Look, I'm not trying to say that there's no hypocrisy among tea partiers. Of course there is. That's a human trait, so you'll find it in any large group. But it isn't axiomatic, and it's not inherent to wanting small government and using social security/medicare. Just like there's nothing inherently hypocritical about being rich and progressive, even though some rich progressives (Michael Moore, for example) are quite definitely hypocritical.

[lomiller]

Generally speaking governments have taken on the role of providing things that the private sector doesn’t effectually fill. While there are probably some exceptions this is pretty much the way things work now. In some areas government probably does a little too much in others it probably does too little and the balance between these changes a bit from country to country.

The problem as I see it is that while “less government” in the sense of not having government do things the private sector does better is indeed a valuable concept, it’s no more valuable then “more government” in the sense of having government step in where the private sector doesn’t do so well on it’s own.

A real discussion would involve asking if there are problems with the private sector doesn’t work quite so well on its own and the best way for government to resolve the issue. What we are normally treated to, however, is blanket ideological claim that less government or more government is better regardless of the situation being discuses. I.E. the claim is used as support for the debate instead of having the discussion and deciding whether more/less intervention is appropriate. IMO in the US it’s far more likely to be the “less government” people that are guilty if this but that’s certainly not not the case everywhere

[Bilbo]

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Well, somehow I'm just not feelin' it. I even looked in the mirror, and I'm not even blushing.

So now, as you seem to be advocating "less government", do you believe the federal government should just turn their back on the relatives of the raptured people of Joplin?

I can see how you might not be sure if all 130 made it through the pearly gates, but by gawd, it's time for the bootstrappy people of Joplin to practice what they preach..."Smaller Government"! (but don't let teh gheys marry, praise jeebus)

[lomiller]

What makes you think that's where they're asking for drastic cuts? For many older members of the tea party, the logic is probably exactly the reverse of what you presume: they're worried that out-of-control spending in OTHER areas of government threaten their benefits, and want to curb the growth of government in order to protect those benefits.

If you exclude mandatory spending like social security/Medicare and the portion of discretionary spending that goes towards defence the yearly US budget is ~450 billion. Anyone who complains about “to much spending” without being in favour of cutting one or all of Defence, Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security is deluded.

“Too much spending” is without a doubt one of the cornerstones of what the tea baggers complain about. Any that are not in favour of cutting these things are certainly deluded, so claiming they want cuts is the more generous assumption.

[Ziggurat]

Well, somehow I'm just not feelin' it. I even looked in the mirror, and I'm not even blushing.

Somehow I'm not surprised. But let me tell you why you should feel ashamed of yourself. You just gloated over the deaths of a bunch of people you know nothing about. You flatter yourself with your prejudices, justifying your mockery of their suffering and loss with crude stereotypes which aren't even remotely connected to reality. You categorize the victims in ways which you can't possibly know, and on the issues where knowledge is obtainable, you're wrong (Joplin isn't a trailer park). And what for? Why have you mocked death, pain, and loss? To try to score some partisan points on a message board? <SNIP>

Edited (<SNIP>), breach of rule 0.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem as I see it is that while “less government” in the sense of not having government do things the private sector does better is indeed a valuable concept, it’s no more valuable then “more government” in the sense of having government step in where the private sector doesn’t do so well on it’s [sic] own.
Well said, except for the fact that no one seems to be advocating for "more government". (Remember, even in the recent budget compromise, the Democrats accepted that cuts would need to be made.) At any rate, the thread is on the topic of "less government".

“Too much spending” is without a doubt one of the cornerstones of what the tea baggers complain about. Any that are not in favour of cutting these things are certainly deluded, so claiming they want cuts is the more generous assumption.
Yep.

But again, I disagree with whoever it was here who said that they're only acting in self-interest. I think they really are promoting an ideology (one that most resembles Anti-Federalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Federalism) or "New Federalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Federalism)" or the states' rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights) movement)--often against their own best interests.

[Darat]

...snip...

What we are normally treated to, however, is blanket ideological claim that less government or more government is better regardless of the situation being discuses. I.E. the claim is used as support for the debate instead of having the discussion and deciding whether more/less intervention is appropriate. ...snip...



Totally agree, I'm for pragmatism; if society has decided it wants X lets see what is the best way to achieve X and if that's private sector lets use that, if it's not the private sector then lets use another approach (and yes "the best way" is also dependent on the values the society holds dear) . What I want to see is effective government, couldn't give one iota about a specific ideology.

[seayakin]

A real discussion would involve asking if there are problems with the private sector doesn’t work quite so well on its own and the best way for government to resolve the issue. What we are normally treated to, however, is blanket ideological claim that less government or more government is better regardless of the situation being discuses. I.E. the claim is used as support for the debate instead of having the discussion and deciding whether more/less intervention is appropriate. IMO in the US it’s far more likely to be the “less government”
people that are guilty if this but that’s certainly not not the case everywhere

I agree with this but I think the difficulty is many conservatives take the ideological position that the government doesn't do anything better and would privatize as much as is politically feasible. I forgot where I heard it but someone said that the government generally does well when supporting an infrastructure. This made sense to me when you look at the highway system, the internet and to a lesser extent the railroads. Neither the railroads or the Internet are infrastructures entirely supported by the government but the government played a significant role in establishing them.

[seayakin]

Totally agree, I'm for pragmatism; if society has decided it wants X lets see what is the best way to achieve X and if that's private sector lets use that, if it's not the private sector then lets use another approach (and yes "the best way" is also dependent on the values the society holds dear) . What I want to see is effective government, couldn't give one iota about a specific ideology.

Being "effective" I think is a very important point. I'm a librarian and I know of many libraries that will try to collect money for the cost of every book that is not returned. Some of these libraries maintain records of who lost a book 25 years ago and have maintained the billing records with the fantasy that they will collect it some day (think Seinfeld's library cop episode). I know other libraries that take the position that this is the cost of doing business and lost books after some point are simply written off as bad debt. Trying to collect the the cost of every book not returned might demonstrate a high level of fiscal responsibility but I would hardly call it effective given that it is a cost they will never recover and only serves to alienate library customers. (These same libraries I have dealt with who are trying to collect bad debts think they are being efficient although I would argue it creates inefficiencies.)

[NoScotsman]

Less government? When has that ever happened?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Being "effective" I think is a very important point. I'm a librarian and I know of many libraries that will try to collect money for the cost of every book that is not returned. Some of these libraries maintain records of who lost a book 25 years ago and have maintained the billing records with the fantasy that they will collect it some day (think Seinfeld's library cop episode). I know other libraries that take the position that this is the cost of doing business and lost books after some point are simply written off as bad debt. Trying to collect the the cost of every book not returned might demonstrate a high level of fiscal responsibility but I would hardly call it effective given that it is a cost they will never recover and only serves to alienate library customers. (These same libraries I have dealt with who are trying to collect bad debts think they are being efficient although I would argue it creates inefficiencies.)

I think that's a really good description of an important issue here.

Earlier in the thread, Respect agreed with me that more oversight and anti-corruption legislation was the better solution than privatization for an example of corruption in the federal government. You can refer to that kind of oversight as "more government" or "more bureaucracy" or you could consider it to be "more efficient" government. That stuff is all just spin.

I think my point is that we will never have anything that might be called a "small" federal government short of throwing out the Constitution and going back to some fundamentally different system (like the Articles of Confederation).

[Ziggurat]

I think my point is that we will never have anything that might be called a "small" federal government short of throwing out the Constitution and going back to some fundamentally different system (like the Articles of Confederation).

That's an unnecessarily narrow definition of "small".

[Bilbo]

Somehow I'm not surprised. But let me tell you why you should feel ashamed of yourself. You just gloated over the deaths of a bunch of people you know nothing about. You flatter yourself with your prejudices, justifying your mockery of their suffering and loss with crude stereotypes which aren't even remotely connected to reality. You categorize the victims in ways which you can't possibly know, and on the issues where knowledge is obtainable, you're wrong (Joplin isn't a trailer park). And what for? Why have you mocked death, pain, and loss? To try to score some partisan points on a message board? Moderated content removed.

No, not deaths...they have been raptured by the Lord. Taken home to be with their heavenly father.

<SNIP>

Edited, breach of rule 11.

[Ziggurat]

No, not deaths...they have been raptured by the Lord. Taken home to be with their heavenly father.

You really can't bring yourself to act decently, can you? People died, and the best you can do is mockery that isn't even on target?

[BenBurch]

Less government? When has that ever happened?

Somalia.

[TragicMonkey]

Less government? When has that ever happened?

At various points during the French Revolutionary period known colorfully as "the Reign of Terror" there was a noticeable decrease in the per capita number of government functionaries. Sorry, I meant de capita.

[Bilbo]

You really can't bring yourself to act decently, can you? People died, and the best you can do is mockery that isn't even on target?

I have always found it interesting how the Bible Belt fits almost perfectly with Tornado Alley. Personally, I'm scared to death of Tornadoes, and would never chose to live there.

Now when Gawd shakes his angry little fist, and calls home some of the faithful, I would like to believe that they are better off...in the company of the Lord. Sure, I don't believe a freakin' syllable of that non-sense, but since they preach that stuff all day long, they damn well better be happy when 130 of their friends get personal invites to heaven. Granted, these same idiots, who live where the wind blows 190mph occasionally, could have built underground shelters, but no, they had faith that their gawd would make the wind blow in Oklahoma, not in Misery.

Now, back OT.

In the name of lesser government, I propose that Governor Nixon(D), take up a collection at next Sunday's church services to rebuild the town of Joplin, and save the federal government millions in fema cash.

And on a brighter note, there are now thousands of job openings in Joplin...hopefully they will balance out the 1000 or so that Gov. Nixon has cut from the state, in the name of "smaller government". (get there before the brown people take yur jerbs)

[Ziggurat]

I have always found it interesting how the Bible Belt fits almost perfectly with Tornado Alley.

Except that it doesn't. And the most recent rapture prediction came from California. And not rural California either, but the Bay Area.

Now when Gawd shakes his angry little fist, and calls home some of the faithful, I would like to believe that they are better off...in the company of the Lord.

Obviously not. You would like to believe that even a tragedy is a suitable occasion for mockery of the victims, even though you don't actually know anything about any of them.

[Arrow]

Rather enjoyed Thomas Sowell's article today about government programs and dependency that can be created.

"The Weak Link: Dependency And The Voter"

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/573038/201105231836/The-Weak-Link-Dependency-And-The-Voter.htm

Excerpt:

Those who regard government "entitlement" programs as sacrosanct, and regard those who want to cut them back as calloused or cruel, picture a world very different from the world of reality.

To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.

In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.

This is the vision promoted by many politicians and much of the media. But, in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line.

Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck — and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television and a microwave oven — and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.

Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight even more often than other Americans.

As for housing and homelessness, housing prices are higher and homelessness a bigger problem in places where there has been massive government intervention, such as liberal bastions like New York City and San Francisco.

As for the elderly, 80% are homeowners whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities and maintenance.

The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are — in the world of reality — the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35- to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.

If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can? The country as a whole is not any richer because the government pays our medical bills — with money that it takes from us.

[NoScotsman]

Somalia.



Well ... anytime there is a breakdown of government (war, revolution, etc.) you necessarily have less government (i.e., anarchy). I suppose I was speaking more in the natural evolutionary sense of government, wherein bureaucracies behave like the Borg Collective.

[Bilbo]

Except that it doesn't.

Ok, less Government Guy....

the Bible Belt...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=688&pictureid=4558

where gawd chooses to call home his faithful sheep...

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=688&pictureid=4557

I see a pretty good indication that the Lord prefers to rapture those that go to church more often than those heathen elitist nor-easters, or those flaming San Francisco libtards.

[Ziggurat]

I see a pretty good indication that the Lord prefers to rapture those that go to church more often than those heathen elitist nor-easters, or those flaming San Francisco libtards.

Of course you do. It's called confirmation bias.

http://www.nathazmap.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/earthquake_seismic_hazard.180183611.jpg

http://www.nathazmap.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/nathazmap_landslide_hazard_map.186191323.jpg

http://www.nathazmap.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/wildfire_lores.209114000.jpg

[Bilbo]

Now back On Topic....House Majority Leader Eric Cantor agrees with me about these raptured folks in Joplin.....as a defender of small government, and his not being a bible reader, I can see why he doesn't want to help the families of raptured Joplinians?

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said Monday that if Congress passes an emergency spending bill to help Missouri’s tornado victims, the extra money will have to be cut from somewhere else.

In other words, he means, "If you don't let me cut medicare, and kill a few thousand old ladies that aren't paying any taxes, I don't wanna help the relatives of the raptured xtians in MO".

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/24/cantor-disaster-relief/

by the way....<SNIP>, Cantor

Edited, breach of rule 10.

[Cobalt]

Now back On Topic....House Majority Leader Eric Cantor agrees with me about these raptured folks in Joplin.....as a defender of small government, and his not being a bible reader, I can see why he doesn't want to help the families of raptured Joplinians?



In other words, he means, "If you don't let me cut medicare, and kill a few thousand old ladies that aren't paying any taxes, I don't wanna help the relatives of the raptured xtians in MO".

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/24/cantor-disaster-relief/

by the way....<SNIP>, CantorModerated content removed.

Must be nice in your world where money comes from nowhere when you need it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Must be nice in your world where money comes from nowhere when you need it.

Here in the actual world, the federal government is certainly free to run deficits, especially in time of emergency. Do you agree with Cantor that we ought not do so, but only make emergency appropriations if we can cut the same amount from somewhere else?


If so, I'd point out that the period in our history with the highest deficits and greatest debt (as a percentage of GDP) was during WWII. I think the consensus is that it was a good thing--not just for the war effort, but for the economy in general (finally putting the Great Depression behind us).

[Bilbo]

Must be nice in your world where money comes from nowhere when you need it.

Well, since we are in the Politics forum, I wont get into my personal finances...however, I recall a time when the party of "less government" decided it was best to keep the two wars in the middle east off the books so as not to look like they were bankrupting the USA, while doling out billions to their pals in Haliburton and the oil companies.

I'm sure Cantor's policies will play out well in the flyover states, where the relatives of the recently raptured really don't believe that their families have been called home to the Lord....and they want the federal government to pay for their Honda Accord that just got rolled over 16 times in the Wal-Mart parking lot, and a late model Chinese manufactured mobile home. (buy American)

Keep ******* that chicken republicans...one day these dolts that prey on jesus, will realize they have been taken for a ride.

Edited, breach of rule 10.

[lomiller]

Here in the actual world, the federal government is certainly free to run deficits, especially in time of emergency. Do you agree with Cantor that we ought not do so, but only make emergency appropriations if we can cut the same amount from somewhere else?



The three options are:
1) Increase taxes someplace
2) Reduce spending someplace else
3) Run a deficit.

Obviously Cantor feels #2 is the way to go. I’m not convinced but even if he’s right he’s the one who wants cuts so he needs to be the one to propose what gets get. In all probability he didn’t name them because he couldn’t think of any that didn’t make him look bad.

IME this is pretty much par for the course for “small government” types. Many people are willing to support un-named tax cuts, but when the actual cuts are named they don’t go over so well, and the ones that do are typically small and only popular with a very specific ideological base that has an axe to grind on that particular issue.

This is why small government has equalled huge deficit for the last 3 decades, the real savings to be had are small but that doesn’t stop them from cutting taxes and having nothing to pay the bills with.

[BenBurch]

Must be nice in your world where money comes from nowhere when you need it.

Must be nice in your world where a nation of 400 million people cannot find the human decency to help those who need it most.

[Ziggurat]

Must be nice in your world where a nation of 400 million people cannot find the human decency to help those who need it most.

I find it peculiar that you think the federal government is the only thing that can help people in the event of a natural disaster.

As a matter of fact, if you as a private individual want to help, you pretty much have to act on your own or through private organizations such as the Red Cross. While it is possible to voluntarily contribute to the federal government, you cannot direct those payments for any purpose.

[Bilbo]

I find it peculiar that you think the federal government is the only thing that can help people in the event of a natural disaster.

As a matter of fact, if you as a private individual want to help, you pretty much have to act on your own or through private organizations such as the Red Cross. While it is possible to voluntarily contribute to the federal government, you cannot direct those payments for any purpose.

WTF is this word salad? Either you believe that people sometimes need help, and the Govt is the way to do it, or you don't. Personally, I hate the hypocrisy of the folks that preach, "LESS GOVT" until they need it.

Why haven't the Tea Baggers of Missouri shown up in Joplin to raise funds for the families of the raptured? All I see on the TV is a bunch of whiny azz white folk complaining that they need help....where did they leave the boot straps?

And what's with all the "praying for my missing cousin" BS? He's with gawd now you ignorant church goer....praise the Lawd.

[Ziggurat]

Personally, I hate the hypocrisy of the folks that preach, "LESS GOVT" until they need it.

You evidently hate a lot of things. Including people who die in natural disasters, even though you know nothing about them except where they lived.

[Bilbo]

You evidently hate a lot of things. Including people who die in natural disasters, even though you know nothing about them except where they lived.

People who believe is gawd don't "die" in natural disasters...they get raptured into eternal bliss with the lawd, and their relatives collect "death" insurance policies.....double indemnity!

Now come on Ziggy, defend Cantor's approach to "smaller government". After all, that is the topic here.

[Ziggurat]

People who believe is gawd don't "die" in natural disasters...they get raptured into eternal bliss with the lawd, and their relatives collect "death" insurance policies.....double indemnity!

Once again, you know nothing about the people who died. Or, evidently, anything about actual Christian theology.

Now come on Ziggy, defend Cantor's approach to "smaller government". After all, that is the topic here.

Now come on, Bilbo, stop trying to insult people you don't know anything about. After all, that's not what this thread is about.

You are in no position to lecture me about being off topic.

[Bilbo]

Once again, you know nothing about the people who died. Or, evidently, anything about actual Christian theology.

You are correct. I do not know any of the lucky raptured folk from Joplin. However, I'm pretty sure, from my upbringing in the xtian faith, that when the good lawd calls your name...it's time to go home. (in the dirt box)



Now come on, Bilbo, stop trying to insult people you don't know anything about. After all, that's not what this thread is about.

It was supposed to be "Belbo", as I am a fan of Eco, but alas I was drinkin' when I signed up...perhaps I will beg for an alteration in nomenclature.

You are in no position to lecture me about being off topic.

Now young man, address the issue at hand....Cantor, the freakin' house majority leader, wants to hold hostage the fema funds from the raptured family members in Missouri...pray tell your ideas on this lesser government philosophy?

[Without Rights]

I don't think that's even a legitimate definition of what government does. Some things we can only do as a society and not as individuals.


However, my own response to people arguing against "big government" is usually thus:

We already tried and rejected a system with a weaker central government under the Articles of Confederation. We revisited the issue of "states' rights" and a weaker central government in the Civil War. If government is bad, why is state government good?

The fact is, we have a large country with, I think, the largest economy in the world. We will never have anything that can properly be called a "small government".

What they usually mean is that while they approve of really big government spending for the common defense (in recent years, the U.S. has been spending roughly what the entire rest of the world combined spends on military), they disapprove of a lot of spending for the general welfare. I like to point out that the only places "the common defence" occurs in the Constitution it is in parallel with "the general welfare".

The general welfare is not accomplished by creating $14 trillion in debt.

The fact is that we live beyond the means of the economy. And that is definitely not small Government. If they kept their noses out of the free market, education, and foreign affairs then we would save $Trillions.

[Bilbo]

The general welfare is not accomplished by creating $14 trillion in debt.


Cry me a river.....


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=688&pictureid=4560

The fact is that we live beyond the means of the economy. And that is definitely not small Government. If they kept their noses out of the free market, education, and foreign affairs then we would save $Trillions.

Fact is, it's time to tax the rich folk that don't get their stuff stolen because of the police to pay up. When times get tougher, and they will, the rich will gladly pay more to save their mercedes, their mcmansions, or their daughters from hell...

Big Government will be praised by the wealthy once a revolution begins...

"Please raise my taxes and keep those heathens from taking my stuff".

[Ziggurat]

You are correct. I do not know any of the lucky raptured folk from Joplin.

Yet you gloat at the tragedy anyways, because of their presumed beliefs. I don't think you need to be Christian in order to view celebrating the deaths of innocent people as pretty damned sick.

It was supposed to be "Belbo", as I am a fan of Eco, but alas I was drinkin' when I signed up...

Were you drinking when you posted in this thread?

[Without Rights]

Cry me a river.....
If you don't care about the deficit or national debt then you don't understand economics. Taxing the rich won't help either. The deficit is $1.7 Trillion. Raising taxes of the rich high enough to accomplish that would be preposterous. It would also hurt the economy as "the rich" are the business owners who employ the people. Raising their taxes to cover 1.7 Trillion would cause job cuts everywhere.

The problem is not taxes are too low, the problem is spending is too high.

[BenBurch]

...
It was supposed to be "Belbo", as I am a fan of Eco, but alas I was drinkin' when I signed up...perhaps I will beg for an alteration in nomenclature.
...

Those are routinely granted. Just don't make a new account and start using it on your own as they get upset by that.

[leftysergeant]

It would also hurt the economy as "the rich" are the business owners who employ the people. Raising their taxes to cover 1.7 Trillion would cause job cuts everywhere.

That's what the worthless drongos told us in 1981. How'd that work out?

Most of the workk I have had was for middle-class business owners. They're getting screwed now because they can't compete with the big boxes that have all their stuff made off-shore.

The problem is not taxes are too low, the problem is spending is too high.

Cutting taxes while borrowing money is the problem. That is the primary tactic of the GOP to make it look like they created a good ecconomy by cutting taxes.

Except that they actually increased taxes on the working class.

[BenBurch]

If you don't care about the deficit or national debt then you don't understand economics. Taxing the rich won't help either. The deficit is $1.7 Trillion. Raising taxes of the rich high enough to accomplish that would be preposterous. It would also hurt the economy as "the rich" are the business owners who employ the people. Raising their taxes to cover 1.7 Trillion would cause job cuts everywhere.

The problem is not taxes are too low, the problem is spending is too high.

Taxes are too low. Way, WAY too low.

Any money a person makes over a million a year should be taxed at no less than 70%. And the first $30K a person makes should not get taxed a cent.

Then we elevate the status of the working poor and at the same time not only lower the deficit, but lower the debt.

Once we get the debt paid off, we should consider MAYBE lowering the top rate again, but really I would be for banking three year's tax revenues first - then no downturn can ever again drive us into debt.

[Without Rights]

Cry me a river.....


http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?albumid=688&pictureid=4560




If this graph is supposed to prove democrats spend less then I know why they left Obama out of the equation. Obama tripled 2008 deficit spending ($458B to 1.7T) and nearly tripled National debt. ($5.8T to $14T)

[lomiller]

Obama tripled 2008 deficit spending ($458B to 1.7T) and nearly tripled National debt. ($5.8T to $14T)

Why pick the 2008 budget? The last Bush budget, for 2009, ended up with a deficit in the $1.4 trillion range IIRC. Obama certainly did no triple the deficit he inherited, in fact it's held relatively constant.

[BenBurch]

If this graph is supposed to prove democrats spend less then I know why they left Obama out of the equation. Obama tripled 2008 deficit spending ($458B to 1.7T) and nearly tripled National debt. ($5.8T to $14T)

Tough to reduce anything when your predecessor saddled you with two incompetently prosecuted wars (one of which was totally unnecessary,) the failure of much of both the banking and insurance sectors, near collapse of the industrial sector, worse unemployment than at any time since the Great Depression, and an unemployment that is structurally hard to deal with as previous administrations allowed outsourcing to China without so much as a protective tariff, and a previous administration that changed the tax base such that revenue is badly hit by anything that harms the middle class.

Sadly, I don't think Obama's up to the task either. But I see nobody else less unqualified.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The general welfare is not accomplished by creating $14 trillion in debt.

Good, then I guess we're all opposed to spending money for no purpose except to increase the federal debt.

[respect]

Strangly no. Since companies are generaly limited by garentee financial consequences are equaly limited.

What is this supposed to mean?




Except if you look at who companies tend to contract stuff out to there is a tendecy to make deals with people they already know. In the private sector what you are refuring to as "politically connected" is called networking.

You think that networking and no-show jobs are the same thing?


How's that working out with microsoft?

They will have to screw up badly to suffer catastrophe but most companies are not in anywhere near as good of a position as they are.

[respect]

Changeing technoligies making people more productive and changing priorities. Companies are costantly getting rid of people who do job they no longer feel are needed and early retirement deals are a standard way of doing so.

Right, early retirement buyouts happen in the private sector as well, but they usually are not because a bunch of redundant positions were created because no one was paying attention.

[respect]

That is corruption and fraud and therefore I would have thought was illegal? And that is not the same as inefficiency in an organisation.

There were two examples of wasteful spending in the hypothetical situation described, only one involved blatant corruption. Regardless, the corrupt example is a highly inefficient use of resources, unless you mean to say that it is efficient as that is the only alternative. Something need not be legal to be efficient or inefficient. And many real world similar acts are not always illegal. Let's not pretend that government contracts are not often handed out as favors, so to speak, but this not always illegal even if it is unethical. Besides that, efficiency/inefficiency is important to completely illegal enterprises. Drug cartels can't just waste resources on a whim anymore than legal businesses.

[NoScotsman]

Taxes are too low. Way, WAY too low.

Any money a person makes over a million a year should be taxed at no less than 70%. .

Why not make it 100%? That way we could bring back the slave economy.

I've always said that "rich" is the new black.

[tyr_13]

Why not make it 100%? That way we could bring back the slave economy.

I've always said that "rich" is the new black.

Why do people do that 'argument to the absurd' every time someone says they think taxes should be raised, or that the rich aren't paying enough taxes, or that taxes should be placed back at the level of the nineties?

Really, it's a stupid distraction, and pretty much code words to call the opposition dirty Commies. Only hardline Communists are suggesting 100% tax, the Democrats certainly haven't, and the person you quoted most certainly didn't.

Are you suggesting the taxes on the rich be reduced to 0%? Why not? More money for them to make jobs with. How is that any different from the silly '100% tax' talking point?

[respect]

Exactly. And there's nothing at all that guarantees corruption and fraud wouldn't happen if the same services were run by private sector entities or state governments.

For private companies, corruption can and does happen, but there is considerably more pressure not to use resources inefficiently. Most corrupt acts by private business are to benefit the business. That by no means is a justification, but if a private business is acting illegally it is usually to make themselves more efficient, not less. And when there is corrupt behavior that is not in the interest of the company, it is usually in the interest of the individual but not necessarily at the expense of the company, for example, insider trading when you know the company you work for is about to declare bankruptcy. Self sabotage is a rarity in private business.

As far as state governments, there is no reason to expect a decline in corruption, although we may see a shift in how it plays out the lower we go. For example, no-show jobs seem to happen at city and county levels a lot, not all that much at higher levels. Whereas major contract kickbacks are a bigger issue at higher levels.

Quite frankly, I don't see why anyone would argue with what I have said here. If government did a better job at not wasting money, calls for smaller government would be less popular. When the voter keeps seeing examples of wasteful spending on the news, both legal and illegal, it becomes very easy to be frustrated and say, "this crap is where my taxes go, $$^& this."

It is no secret that when asked people will routinely say they want less government spending but be reluctant to want specific programs to be slashed, even when they don't personally benefit although more so in those cases. This implies that there is a general frustration with how government does its business, not just its business. There are plenty of things that fuel this. Most people do not want to see others starving, but we all have probably known someone on government assistance at some point that turned down a job because they considered it beneath them, or not enough more than their government payouts to justify the time spent or whatever else. Damn near everyone is irritated by that and thinks something along the lines of, "this jerk is living off my taxes and they turned down a %^&*ing job, why the ^$&& are they allowed to stay on welfare then?"

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think that at least a lot of the anger at government spending comes from people seeing that their tax money is being blatantly wasted rather than anger at specific programs. I suspect a much more serious approach to self-auditing would go a long way towards reducing anger at government spending and save the taxpayers a lot at the same time.

[NoScotsman]

Why do people do that 'argument to the absurd' every time someone says they think taxes should be raised, or that the rich aren't paying enough taxes, or that taxes should be placed back at the level of the nineties?



If the government owning 70% of my labor is a good thing... better, than say 40%... then why not 80% or 90%? Is it absurd, therefore, to call a man a slave who is already 3/4 of a slave? And explain why this wouldn't alter my incentive to work ... or why I wouldn't choose to relocate to a more favorable economy.

Personally, when it comes to laws I side with MLK in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"....

"An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."

Reduce that to absurdity.

[Ziggurat]

Why pick the 2008 budget? The last Bush budget, for 2009, ended up with a deficit in the $1.4 trillion range IIRC.

There's no reasonable way to label that number as a "Bush budget". The stimulus wasn't Bush, and even the ordinary budget didn't get passed by Congress until after Obama was in office.

Obama certainly did no triple the deficit he inherited

Only true to the extent that the budget he signed was a budget he inherited. Which is a bit of a stretch

in fact it's held relatively constant.

That is simply false.

[Ziggurat]

Taxes are too low. Way, WAY too low.

Any money a person makes over a million a year should be taxed at no less than 70%.

In other words, you think that the top marginal income tax rate is too low. But this is not actually the same thing as taxes being too low.

When you say "taxes" without qualification, the only reasonable interpretation is total tax revenues. And the most sensible way to measure that is as a function of GDP. Measured that way, taxes have held fairly steady at about 20% of GDP. If this is too low, then what do you consider enough? If you want to raise the top marginal income tax rate in order to raise revenue (and not as a wealth redistribution mechanism), then that can still only really occur by raising the GDP percentage. So what's a high enough GDP percentage? And how much of an increase will your proposed 70% marginal rate produce? Or do you even know?

[respect]

In other words, you think that the top marginal income tax rate is too low. But this is not actually the same thing as taxes being too low.

When you say "taxes" without qualification, the only reasonable interpretation is total tax revenues. And the most sensible way to measure that is as a function of GDP. Measured that way, taxes have held fairly steady at about 20% of GDP. If this is too low, then what do you consider enough? If you want to raise the top marginal income tax rate in order to raise revenue (and not as a wealth redistribution mechanism), then that can still only really occur by raising the GDP percentage. So what's a high enough GDP percentage? And how much of an increase will your proposed 70% marginal rate produce? Or do you even know?

Well said, if he is aware of what he is talking about, he wants to shrink the economy to tax the rich.

[respect]

Why do people do that 'argument to the absurd' every time someone says they think taxes should be raised, or that the rich aren't paying enough taxes, or that taxes should be placed back at the level of the nineties?

Really, it's a stupid distraction, and pretty much code words to call the opposition dirty Commies. Only hardline Communists are suggesting 100% tax, the Democrats certainly haven't, and the person you quoted most certainly didn't.

Are you suggesting the taxes on the rich be reduced to 0%? Why not? More money for them to make jobs with. How is that any different from the silly '100% tax' talking point?

Government tax receipts don't seem to change much with tax brackets.

[Teemu]

No other OECD country relies on the rich for their income tax as much as United States
http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/27134.html
And when you take into account how low the consumption and service taxes are in United States, United States is really has the most progressive taxation system of OECD countries. Here is example from my country how European social democracy is funded. Our customs announces proudly on its pages that they collect third of the government revenues. Contrast that to your customs share of 3% or so of federal revenues. In total consumption and service taxes, and specific fees related to certain products and services add up to two thirds of the government revenue.

Also you should remember that during the good old soak the rich tax rates the lowest marginal rate, starting from the first dollar earned, also peaked at 15%. Considering the history, and considering how much the other countries are able to "harvest money" out of their rich, I doubt you can get much more out of them.

[Darat]

There were two examples of wasteful spending in the hypothetical situation described, only one involved blatant corruption. Regardless, the corrupt example is a highly inefficient use of resources, unless you mean to say that it is efficient as that is the only alternative. Something need not be legal to be efficient or inefficient. And many real world similar acts are not always illegal. Let's not pretend that government contracts are not often handed out as favors, so to speak, but this not always illegal even if it is unethical. Besides that, efficiency/inefficiency is important to completely illegal enterprises. Drug cartels can't just waste resources on a whim anymore than legal businesses.

Personally I don't consider that as part of understanding whether a company is running as efficiently as possible and certainly when I advise companies of ways to increase their efficiency I don't consider such matters and I've never been asked to consider such matters. (I have been asked to look into ways of reducing fraud and theft.) Certainly in the UK awarding a contract on that bases is illegal, it may be different in the USA. However it is not illegal in the private sector (unless it is part of running a cartel) and often occurs so if you consider that an inefficiency there is less of it in government awarded contracts than there is in the private sector. Again I've had companies tell me that they don't want to consider changing their working relationship with another company for various reasons (often when you get to the core of it it is about their mates' companies) even if it is a matter of inefficiency.

Interestingly in the UK government contracts have to be awarded to the lowest cost tender that meets the criteria (in general - there are of course a multitude of exceptions and exemptions). This has often had the result of service levels (and quality of services) falling below what is acceptable.

[respect]

Personally I don't consider that as part of understanding whether a company is running as efficiently as possible and certainly when I advise companies of ways to increase their efficiency I don't consider such matters and I've never been asked to consider such matters.

You probably shouldn't have to in your job, but if you understand the English language you should know that there isn't a third alternative, and economic science as a whole does not stop predictions when behavior is illegal.

(I have been asked to look into ways of reducing fraud and theft.) Certainly in the UK awarding a contract on that bases is illegal, it may be different in the USA. However it is not illegal in the private sector (unless it is part of running a cartel) and often occurs so if you consider that an inefficiency there is less of it in government awarded contracts than there is in the private sector. Again I've had companies tell me that they don't want to consider changing their working relationship with another company for various reasons (often when you get to the core of it it is about their mates' companies) even if it is a matter of inefficiency.

Right, what was the quid pro quo? When the company benefits, it is efficient unless their was a superior alternative that was nixed because of it. Did the electorate benefit compared to alternatives?

Interestingly in the UK government contracts have to be awarded to the lowest cost tender that meets the criteria (in general - there are of course a multitude of exceptions and exemptions). This has often had the result of service levels (and quality of services) falling below what is acceptable.

This is certainly not the case in America, not because of substandard returns, but because contracts go to who is owed.

[lomiller]

There's no reasonable way to label that number as a "Bush budget".


Bush wrote the proposal and signed it into law, how is it anyone else's budget?




The stimulus wasn't Bush, and even the ordinary budget didn't get passed by Congress until after Obama was in office.

If he had been in office a little longer he would have, and in any case stimulus money didn't flow until late in the budget year most of the discrepancy was an income shortfall of ~$800 billion.





That is simply false.

If by that you mean everything you just posted then I agree, if you mean anything else you are simply wrong. The largest single "spending" increase under Obama was bringing the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on the books after 5+ years of simply being left out of the budget. After that spending increases are on the order of 5%, and overall budget surpluses are clearly in the same range as the Bush 2009 budget.

[Ziggurat]

Bush wrote the proposal and signed it into law

No, he didn't sign it into law. And the budget as passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama was not the same budget that Bush submitted. You have your facts wrong.

If he had been in office a little longer he would have

And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses when they hop.

We wasn't in office a little longer.

[tyr_13]

If the government owning 70% of my labor

Full stop, what?


is a good thing... better, than say 40%... then why not 80% or 90%? Is it absurd, therefore, to call a man a slave who is already 3/4 of a slave? And explain why this wouldn't alter my incentive to work ... or why I wouldn't choose to relocate to a more favorable economy.

Someone is 3/4 a slave now?


Personally, when it comes to laws I side with MLK in his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"....

"An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself. This is difference made legal. On the other hand a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal."

Reduce that to absurdity.

You already did.


So why do you think the rich shouldn't be taxed at all?

[lomiller]

No, he didn't sign it into law. And the budget as passed by Congress and signed into law by Obama was not the same budget that Bush submitted. You have your facts wrong.


That would be a neat trick since the budget for 2009 was singed in October 2008. That's 4 months before Obama was inaugurated.




For fun:
Bush 2008 budget
Spending $2.9 trillion + ~200 trillion in Iraq+Afghanistan = $3.1 trillion
estimated revenues $2.65 trillion
Actual revenues $2.65 trillion.

Bush 2009 budget
Spending $3.1 trillion + ~200 trillion in Iraq+Afghanistan = $3.3 trillion (up 6%)
estimated revenues $2.7 trillion
Actual revenues $2.1 trillion. (SO I was wrong the the drop in 2009 was $600 billion not $800 billion)

2010 Obama budget
spending $3.5 trillion (up 6%)
revenues $2.1 trillion

2011 Obama budget
spending $3.7 trillion (up 6%)
revenues $2.2 trillion


So there you have it despite higher the normal payouts for things like EI and the stimulus spending growth remains comparable to previous years. What notable is the huge drop in revenues.

[Ziggurat]

That would be a neat trick since the budget for 2009 was singed in October 2008. That's 4 months before Obama was inaugurated.

No it wasn't. Parts of it may have been, but the omnibus spending bill wasn't passed until March of 2009.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29632177/ns/politics-white_house/t/obama-signs-massive-imperfect-spending-bill/

[lomiller]

No it wasn't. Parts of it may have been, but the omnibus spending bill wasn't passed until March of 2009.

The omnibus spending bill is not the budget. All it does is authorize spending from already passed in the Bush budget.

Furthermore, as it covers only non-defense related government departments it's a tiny part of spending. Just a touch over $400 billion in 2009. Unless you are trying to argue for the abolition most US government departments cuts to this just aren't meaningful, it's a red herring to keep the uninformed far right fanatics detracted from the crap they are being fed.

[BenBurch]

An incoming President, historically, has very little influence on the budget for that year.

[lomiller]

An incoming President, historically, has very little influence on the budget for that year.

As should be obvious from the fact that budget year starts 4 months before the incoming President is even inaugurated.