We had a good conversation going in the Libya thread and thought we should start the conversation as a spin-off.
Gaspar and I see government differently. I wrote:
Government can make a positive difference in lives. Government is not just an necessary evil. I know hundreds of government employees who work incredibly hard for fair wages who make my life better. By reading the comments of gaspar and guido, you would think that everything connected to government is inefficient, corrupt and just trying to interfere with their life. They act like if it is government, it should be spit on.
He countered with:
I don't believe that. I only believe that some of the actions of government are inefficient, corrupt and attempts to control our lives. Primarily those actions that are adopted in the name of "fairness," and those that limit the economic freedom of the people. Government cannot give without taking, and there is not a single example of efficient behavior in this respect.
We are a nation of people of diverse mindsets and an increasing number of us are demanding that our sustenance be derived from government distribution. This is the natural evolution of a free society. There will always be a small number of us that resist this political progress, because we understand the path. Ultimately we can do nothing to stop it, but perhaps we can wake up a few minds to slow the progression.
What do others think?
My whole post:
I don't believe that. I only believe that some of the actions of government are inefficient, corrupt and attempts to control our lives. Primarily those actions that are adopted in the name of "fairness," and those that limit the economic freedom of the people. Government cannot give without taking, and there is not a single example of efficient behavior in this respect.
We are a nation of people of diverse mindsets and an increasing number of us are demanding that our sustenance be derived from government distribution. This is the natural evolution of a free society. There will always be a small number of us that resist this political progress, because we understand the path. Ultimately we can do nothing to stop it, but perhaps we can wake up a few minds to slow the progression.
In the long run progressive politics always wins, and societies become centralized, socialized, and individual economic liberty regulated. It is a losing battle for conservatives, and those of us with a libertarian mindset, however the battle is worth it if only to preserve a small portion of our freedoms for our children to enjoy.
Don't let us bother you. In the end, we are losers. Progressive politics wins, because it promises everything it cannot deliver.
It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money. – P.J. O'Rourke
In increasing numbers, Americans believe that it is the responsibility – nay, the duty – of the federal government to take the earnings of some Americans and redistribute them to other Americans for various and sundry "good" reasons including "fairness." Citizens who know it is wrong to use force to take money from a neighbor have rationalized that it is OK for the government to do it for them. – Linda Bowles
The fact throughout history is that whenever government dominates the economic affairs of its citizenry, a free society is eroded, then destroyed, and a minority government ensues. Personal liberty without economic liberty is an absolute contradiction; the one cannot exist without the other. – William E. Simon
What seems fair enough against a squalid huckster of bad liquor may take on a different face, if used by a government determined to suppress political opposition under the guise of sedition. – Learned Hand
In a free society the state does not administer the affairs of men. It administers justice among men who conduct their own affairs. – Walter Lippmann
Central planning will eventually destroy individual liberty by concentrating all political power in one person or in a committee; furthermore, it will eventually end our prosperity by laying the dead hand of state control on the economy. – Robert M. Thornton
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 01:32:39 PM
We are a nation of people of diverse mindsets and an increasing number of us are demanding that our sustenance be derived from government distribution.
Do you think that this increasing number of people looking to get some government assistance is influenced by an incredibly widening gap between the rich and poor?
As the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Would it not be natural for some to look for assistance?
Many have seen the government take care of the disadvantaged their whole lives. There are very few families that doesn't have a senior citizen receiving Medicare and Medicaid. If our Presidents are bailing out Wall Street, why not their street?
"The role of government is to take care of those in the dawn of life, the young; those in the dusk of live, the elderly; and those in the shadows of life, the disadvantaged."
Hubert H Humphrey
It's about giving a hand up instead of a hand out.
Surely, we could start to gain a grip if there were means testing for entitlements and putting an end to corporate welfare as well! This should be tax reforms mantra. Sadly, they are hardly discussed.
Politics is and has always been the art of obtaining money from the rich and votes from the poor on the pretext of protecting each from the other.
The gap between wealth and poverty is not nearly as important as the opportunity for the poor to build wealth. The problem is that the opportunities to engage in the very same free enterprise that made the successful wealthy is diminishing.
People are trading opportunity for security and receiving neither.
In answer to your second question, Yes. It is natural for the poor to seek assistance. This is the great burden. It is what ultimately brings down governments. The weight of the very dependency that politicians seek is ultimately their undoing. Again, there is no way to stop this, only to slow its progress.
Education is by far the best way I know of to fight poverty, however that choice too has been delivered unto the hands of government, and rather than producing exception and recognizing achievement, the goal is to promote the average and celebrate fairness. We treat our children like shrubs, if one grows too tall we hack it down to match the rest.
As for your third question, I don't think even the most dedicated liberal arm-band wearer will celebrate the job that Medicare and Medicaid have done. In attempting to make medicine affordable to some, they have succeed in making unfordable to all. And now we propose to expand this system.
Sure, we bailed out banks. Why? Because we through the force of government required them to make loans to those who could not pay under the false guise of some government guarantee. Those loans were packaged and sold under that imaginary guarantee, and exactly what everyone knew would happen, happened. We should have let them go under. We should have let GM go under. It would have been devastating on the American people, but would have taught a lesson that we are now destine to learn again, and perhaps again.
For those looking for security, be forewarned that there's nothing more insecure than a political promise. – Harry Browne
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. – Ludwig von Mises
It's not an endlessly expanding list of rights – the "right" to education, the "right" to health care, the "right" to food and housing. That's not freedom, that's dependency. Those aren't rights, those are the rations of slavery – hay and a barn for human cattle. – Alexis De Tocquiville
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 23, 2011, 02:17:42 PM
It's about giving a hand up instead of a hand out.
Surely, we could start to gain a grip if there were means testing for entitlements and putting an end to corporate welfare as well! This should be tax reforms mantra. Sadly, they are hardly discussed.
By "means testing", are you referring to rich people who pay tons of money into social security and when they retire they don't get their money back? And for purposes of this discussion, what exactly is "corporate welfare"?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 01:43:37 PM
Do you think that this increasing number of people looking to get some government assistance is influenced by an incredibly widening gap between the rich and poor?
IMO, that's not it at all. I think the stigma of receiving benefits has slowly eroded with time much like social stigmas like having children out of wedlock and divorce has eroded as well. Less educated people have come to believe the government has unlimited funds and exists to provide for all their needs: housing, food, medicine, transportation, communication. They don't have a clue what mechanism funds this and they don't care. When the government sends out a stimulus check it's a bonus for doing absolutely nothing. The government has rewarded thoughtless reproduction and laziness.
FDR's social programs were supposed to be a hand-up through hard times, instead they've become a legacy of permanent dependence for some people. The Federal government took the place of the church, synagogue, or mosque as the primary provider of charity.
When we've tried mass scale programs to bring prosperity to the "have-nots" via home ownership programs, SBA programs, student loans, grants, etc. it gets bastardized by the haves as yet one more opportunity for a revenue stream and before long the program is going in the toilet because what started out as a noble initiative has been abused into something so far from the original intent you have a hard time figuring out what that intent was. We mistakenly believe that trying to force-place prosperity will result in previously irresponsible people suddenly re-prioritizing and becoming responsible. It's very hard to change someone's basic tendencies through a government program. If someone was chronically late with their rent or evicted from one apartment after another, there's very little hope they won't default on a government-backed mortgage with really nothing out of their own pocket at stake.
Better educated people realize the government doesn't run on unlimited funding, but they figure as long as everyone else is gaming the government, they might as well get their share. That takes place in the form of accepting grants they really don't need, cheating on taxes, various frauds committed against public assistance either as the end-user or a provider, etc.
Government tries to do too much to help too many.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 02:28:48 PM
Education is by far the best way I know of to fight poverty, however that choice too has been delivered unto the hands of government, and rather than producing exception and recognizing achievement, the goal is to promote the average and celebrate fairness. We treat our children like shrubs, if one grows too tall we hack it down to match the rest.
You got that right. Exceptionalism and hard work should be celebrated, not discouraged.
QuoteThe Boeing Co. on Tuesday submitted its first application for job creation incentives offered by Oklahoma City as the aircraft giant begins its initial round of hiring for new operations near Tinker Air Force Base.
http://newsok.com/boeing-seeks-job-incentives/article/3551064 (http://newsok.com/boeing-seeks-job-incentives/article/3551064)
I guess some could see that and think "well if a multi-billion dollar business can file for incentives to be somewhere I could too". The individual could think they have something to offer just like the corporation does...just in a smaller scale. Why not get paid to be somewhere?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 23, 2011, 02:30:35 PM
IMO, that's not it at all. I think the stigma of receiving benefits has slowly eroded with time much like social stigmas like having children out of wedlock and divorce has eroded as well. Less educated people have come to believe the government has unlimited funds and exists to provide for all their needs: housing, food, medicine, transportation, communication. They don't have a clue what mechanism funds this and they don't care. When the government sends out a stimulus check it's a bonus for doing absolutely nothing. The government has rewarded thoughtless reproduction and laziness.
Here is this mindset on full display:
Quote from: guido911 on March 23, 2011, 02:32:47 PM
You got that right. Exceptionalism and hard work should be celebrated, not discouraged.
They are celebrated. Everyday, everywhere in our lives. Everybody looks up to the entreprenuer, the risk-taker, the successful. I guess I don't understand your point.
Are there exemplary, hard-working examples of not being celebrated?
Quote from: guido911 on March 23, 2011, 02:38:25 PM
Here is this mindset on full display:
Why do you find individuals making stupid comments captured on YouTube relevant to a conversation? Am I supposed to post stupid thoughts by unknown people too?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
Why do you find individuals making stupid comments captured on YouTube relevant to a conversation? Am I supposed to post stupid thoughts by unknown people too?
Only if you're stuck without anything to add.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 02:44:37 PM
Why do you find individuals making stupid comments captured on YouTube relevant to a conversation? Am I supposed to post stupid thoughts by unknown people too?
Why do you consider them "stupid comments"? These people actually believe that the government has limitless supplies of money, which is precisely the point Conan was making. You don't like it because these uneducated and ignorant bottom feeders are what drives people like me from wanting government involved in our daily lives. You should be damned embarrassed because they are the natural consequence of your fanciful notion of government making a "positive difference."
And T, RM is a big boy and can handle himself.
I see many examples where government has solved a problem that private industry and personal responsibility did not.
My first example is the Tire Fund in the state of Oklahoma.
We now have to pay an extra $1 per tire (five dollars on a new car...includes the spare) that goes into a fund that guarantees proper recycling/disposal of old tires. Before the law was passed, there were large tire dumps all over the state breeding mosquitos and catching fire. There was also a pile behind many of our garages.
The fund got them cleaned up. It also paid for environmental groups like mine to do collections of tires. Now, these piles are virtually gone. New industries have popped up to reuse these tires and cement plants now have invested in equipment that allows them to be used as fuel.
The fund has done a great thing. Now people can make their lives safer by not storing tires.
Unfortunately, because the problem has been mostly solved, the fund has a cash balance. The legislature robs it for money to go into the general fund.
Whose fault is it that the fund gets raided? Is it the elected officials or the people who voted for them again and again after they raided it? Is it an unfair tax because rich people buy more new cars than poor people?
"give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Give a man a job and he can eat for an hour, usually between noon and one."
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 03:00:38 PM
I see many examples where government has solved a problem that private industry and personal responsibility did not.
My first example is the Tire Fund in the state of Oklahoma.
We now have to pay an extra $1 per tire (five dollars on a new car...includes the spare) that goes into a fund that guarantees proper recycling/disposal of old tires. Before the law was passed, there were large tire dumps all over the state breeding mosquitos and catching fire. There was also a pile behind many of our garages.
The fund got them cleaned up. It also paid for environmental groups like mine to do collections of tires. Now, these piles are virtually gone. New industries have popped up to reuse these tires and cement plants now have invested in equipment that allows them to be used as fuel.
The fund has done a great thing. Now people can make their lives safer by not storing tires.
Unfortunately, because the problem has been mostly solved, the fund has a cash balance. The legislature robs it for money to go into the general fund.
Whose fault is it that the fund gets raided? Is it the elected officials or the people who voted for them again and again after they raided it? Is it an unfair tax because rich people buy more new cars than poor people?
"give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Give a man a job and he can eat for an hour, usually between noon and one."
I think you will get universal agreement that the tire fund and what it accomplished is a great use of government. It's when politicians and bureaucrats start trying to find jobs for their friends and supporters funded by such funds that it gets corrupted and becomes a part of government creep.
Somehow over the years, and I have mentioned this before, the liberal philosophy has changed. It has become more of a progressive political philosophy than that of free thinkers.
I think the great disconnect is in the substitution of the words "society" and "government."
I also think this was a calculated progressive plan to expand political power, and incorporate and control the liberal masses.
Society is what is most necessary. It's what all liberals should celebrate. It is not interchangeable with the term "government" unless of course you are a politician. Politicians want voters to believe that they are serving "society," they are not. They are serving government, hopefully as a representative of society.
I would challenge any liberal on this forum to substitute the word society for government in many of their posts and see how it affects their understanding.
I anticipate the answer. . . ;)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 02:42:16 PM
They are celebrated. Everyday, everywhere in our lives. Everybody looks up to the entreprenuer, the risk-taker, the successful. I guess I don't understand your point.
Are there exemplary, hard-working examples of not being celebrated?
Are you serious? Government rewards the risk takers and the successful by taxing the ever-living crap out of them. In all seriousness, had I known that all the years I spent in college/law school (and my wife even more than I) would result in me paying the astronomical federal income tax that I get hit with every year I would have chosen a different path.
Quote from: guido911 on March 23, 2011, 02:56:46 PM
And T, RM is a big boy and can handle himself.
He'll go blind
Quote from: RecycleMichael on March 23, 2011, 03:00:38 PM
Unfortunately, because the problem has been mostly solved, the fund has a cash balance. The legislature robs it for money to go into the general fund.
Whose fault is it that the fund gets raided? Is it the elected officials or the people who voted for them again and again after they raided it? Is it an unfair tax because rich people buy more new cars than poor people?
"give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Give a man a job and he can eat for an hour, usually between noon and one."
They all start off well. Pirates are always pirates. Government plunders, especially itself.
Quote from: guido911 on March 23, 2011, 02:29:05 PM
By "means testing", are you referring to rich people who pay tons of money into social security and when they retire they don't get their money back? And for purposes of this discussion, what exactly is "corporate welfare"?
Look. When there are 400 people whose total income equates to 150,000,000 others cumulatively then yes.
But mainly for medicare. I do not believe in class warfare so I would prefer to not drudge :D into this discussion any further.
If you don't understand corporate welfare then over time I would be happy to illuminate you with examples.
You can check with the Chamber of Commerce for lots of examples. They are boss hawg enhancing these type
"incentives".
Quote from: guido911 on March 23, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
Are you serious? Government rewards the risk takers and the successful by taxing the ever-living crap out of them. In all seriousness, had I known that all the years I spent in college/law school (and my wife even more than I) would result in me paying the astronomical federal income tax that I get hit with every year I would have chosen a different path.
Good to know you make good income but do you not believe in helping pay for security, education, and well being of your neighbors?
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 23, 2011, 03:23:07 PM
Good to know you make good income but do you not believe in helping pay for security, education, and well being of your neighbors?
So. . .From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 23, 2011, 03:23:07 PM
Good to know you make good income but do you not believe in helping pay for security, education, and well being of your neighbors?
So government's job is to force the well off to be charitable? In any case, I really did not want to turn this into a tax policy debate. I'm kinda hacked off at myself for starting it.
Public wellfare is a role of government, is it redistribution of wealth? Sure, but it buys us all a certain guilt lite existance; our poverty is not as overt as it would be without these programs.
I've been to countries that have little or no public wellfare programs, child services programs, housing programs etcetera and these are not places that are nice to live in. The result of moving social services like these into the private sector is-commonplace begging and robbery. Children beg and rob, and people who are contibuters in our society (like the blind or handicapped) stand (or sit) in traffic and beg.
That said, I agree that in the US we enable people to stay on the dole when we should be educating them and moving them from the system and into a contributing role.
Quote from: carltonplace on March 23, 2011, 03:57:29 PM
That said, I agree that in the US we enable people to stay on the dole when we should be educating them and moving them from the system and into a contributing role.
That is because "the dole" is comfortable.
I am amazed at how people and politicians get outraged when someone suggests that people on welfare be required to volunteer 15-20 hours a week in service to their fellow man.
You can't buy votes when you force people to work for a living. Oh! The humanity!
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 04:06:18 PM
That is because "the dole" is comfortable.
I am amazed at how people and politicians get outraged when someone suggests that people on welfare be required to volunteer 15-20 hours a week in service to their fellow man.
You can't buy votes when you force people to work for a living. Oh! The humanity!
I don't think too many would say it is comfortable. I know some single moms who would not be able to keep their kids fed with healthy meals without the assistance they get from SNAP. They would love to work more, but struggle with keeping kids fed, dressed and in school, and keeping a work schedule that allows for raising a family. Sometimes that results in part time work, barely covering bills. While they may take more than they contribute to the tax base, are these examples the lazy welfare recipients you speak of? I think they are like a vast majority of benefit recipients. The lazy teet sucking welfare recipient is likely a small percentage of those who need help.
Furthermore, if you are concerned with someone grazing for handouts from the government, look no further than defense contractors. The military spends astronomical amounts of tax dollars on things we simply do not need.
Also, the subsidies for farmers which are taken advantage of by big corporate farms who make a healthy profit and don't need it.
So, who is worse here? Where do your tax dollars benefit us most?
Quote from: tulsascoot on March 23, 2011, 04:20:41 PM
I don't think too many would say it is comfortable.
I think this illustrates the mentality quite well:
Quote
A CEO, a Tea Party activist and a Union employee are sitting at a table. A plate of a dozen cookies sits in the middle of the table. The CEO takes 11 of the cookies, turns to the tea partier and says, 'Watch out for that union guy. He wants a piece of your cookie."
(not my joke)
Quote from: tulsascoot on March 23, 2011, 04:20:41 PM
I don't think too many would say it is comfortable. I know some single moms who would not be able to keep their kids fed with healthy meals without the assistance they get from SNAP. They would love to work more, but struggle with keeping kids fed, dressed and in school, and keeping a work schedule that allows for raising a family. Sometimes that results in part time work, barely covering bills. While they may take more than they contribute to the tax base, are these examples the lazy welfare recipients you speak of? I think they are like a vast majority of benefit recipients. The lazy teet sucking welfare recipient is likely a small percentage of those who need help.
Furthermore, if you are concerned with someone grazing for handouts from the government, look no further than defense contractors. The military spends astronomical amounts of tax dollars on things we simply do not need.
Also, the subsidies for farmers which are taken advantage of by big corporate farms who make a healthy profit and don't need it.
So, who is worse here? Where do your tax dollars benefit us most?
Good ideas, lets reduce spending on unnecessary defense contracts, and lets END farm subsidies. I'm liking the way you think.
I don't think all welfare recipients are lazy, I just think there should be some return attached to the program. It's a hand up rather than a hand out.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 04:36:51 PM
I don't think all welfare recipients are lazy, I just think there should be some return attached to the program. It's a hand up rather than a hand out.
As in a profit margin? ???
Quote from: Townsend on March 23, 2011, 03:11:59 PM
He'll go blind
Not if he stops when he needs glasses.
Quote from: nathanm on March 23, 2011, 06:08:46 PM
As in a profit margin? ???
A loss leader might be good enough. Just don't lose it all.
Quote from: nathanm on March 23, 2011, 06:08:46 PM
As in a profit margin? ???
No!
But when you give a dollar it is cherished and valued more when the recipient aquates it to some labor or skill. There is no pride in a hand out.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 23, 2011, 07:16:22 PM
There is no pride in a hand out.
A corollary: There is no shame in being needy.
Quote from: nathanm on March 23, 2011, 08:19:38 PM
A corollary: There is no shame in being needy.
Unless it is self inflicted by factors within one's control.
Quote from: guido911 on March 23, 2011, 03:10:54 PM
Are you serious? Government rewards the risk takers and the successful by taxing the ever-living crap out of them. In all seriousness, had I known that all the years I spent in college/law school (and my wife even more than I) would result in me paying the astronomical federal income tax that I get hit with every year I would have chosen a different path.
Powerful opportunists owe a debt to "society." (Interchange THAT with "government!"...it works!). :)
Way to show some moxie!
Quote from: Teatownclown on March 23, 2011, 09:03:56 PM
Powerful opportunists owe a debt to "society." (Interchange THAT with "government!"...it works!). :)
Way to show some moxie!
Am I and my wife "opportunists" that owe some sort of a debt to someone? Please explain how I am an opportunist or how I have gamed the system to get to where I am today.
Quote from: guido911 on March 23, 2011, 09:26:23 PM
Am I and my wife "opportunists" that owe some sort of a debt to someone? Please explain how I am an opportunist or how I have gamed the system to get to where I am today.
You don't portray your sensitive side too often. I am sorry you took the comment personally but I do not place you in the category I refer to.
You certainly did not game the system. Otherwise, you wouldn't spend your time here. You'd have enough money to be living the high life. And besides that, I can't place you in the "powerful" category unless you buy politicians or government officials for special treatment and personal gain.
Even Buffet has said the collections are out of kilter and the code's a lopsided miss.
The favorable depreciation schedules for developing on "native American" land in Oklahoma is an incentive for those with the money for risk but it means less is available to fund the necessary obligation of society to each other. Do you ever wonder how these welfare incentives sneak their way into the code?
I was really interested in the ideas the Obama the candidate seemed to be espousing -- especially in contrast to Bush II. Obama's liberalism rested on two essential points: 1) government is still necessary to modern life and 2) it can always be smarter and more efficient. Amongst the left, it was a subtle and important re-think because it acknowledges the importance of government, but then issued an essential challenge, which was to make it move smoother, to make it smaller if necessary, to absolutely make it more efficient.
As much as Obama's been painted as an ideologue, he's been very nonideological when it's come to his place in the liberal timeline, especially in comparison with Big Government Liberalism of the 60's and 70's (a liberalism that, I might point out, the GOP is still fighting against and still scoring points again all the way up to the present day). Obama's explicitly said that government can and should be smaller if smaller government is called for. At the same time, he's willing to make sweeping policy if the problem calls for it. If you take a look at his policies to date, he's been willing to work both of those sides of the government divide.
I like this because I still believe that government can and should have an active hand in our lives. I believe that we're now in an era of human development where the problems we face are largely national, regional, or global, and can't be addressed on an individual level. IMO, a lot of American conservatism harkens back to a socio-political time that no longer exists in our country (The Wild West, the Gilded Age, a lot of the late 1800's pioneer ethos), and is now fighting kind of a rearguard effort to recreate not only the political conditions but the whole historical environment.
But I also think that oversize bureaucracy doesn't have to follow; we can be smart, and use technology to make things more streamlined. Government should be big where it needs to be big, but should be small where it needs to be small. That's a little simplistic, but thinking of it that way can help us detach from some of the old old battles we're fighting and maybe get to a place where we can be more pragmatic about our government.
I guess I can't see a smaller, weaker federal government being able to deal with climate change, our aging population, the healthcare crisis, the general global resource crunch that's coming with rising populations, or the transition of billions of people into a consumer middle class. There are multiple global upheavals coming our way in the very near future, and a less empowered federal government is exactly what we don't need in order to weather those problems.
Quote from: we vs us on March 24, 2011, 10:03:49 AM
I was really interested in the ideas the Obama the candidate seemed to be espousing -- especially in contrast to Bush II. Obama's liberalism rested on two essential points: 1) government is still necessary to modern life and 2) it can always be smarter and more efficient. Amongst the left, it was a subtle and important re-think because it acknowledges the importance of government, but then issued an essential challenge, which was to make it move smoother, to make it smaller if necessary, to absolutely make it more efficient.
As much as Obama's been painted as an ideologue, he's been very nonideological when it's come to his place in the liberal timeline, especially in comparison with Big Government Liberalism of the 60's and 70's (a liberalism that, I might point out, the GOP is still fighting against and still scoring points again all the way up to the present day). Obama's explicitly said that government can and should be smaller if smaller government is called for. At the same time, he's willing to make sweeping policy if the problem calls for it. If you take a look at his policies to date, he's been willing to work both of those sides of the government divide.
I like this because I still believe that government can and should have an active hand in our lives. I believe that we're now in an era of human development where the problems we face are largely national, regional, or global, and can't be addressed on an individual level. IMO, a lot of American conservatism harkens back to a socio-political time that no longer exists in our country (The Wild West, the Gilded Age, a lot of the late 1800's pioneer ethos), and is now fighting kind of a rearguard effort to recreate not only the political conditions but the whole historical environment.
But I also think that oversize bureaucracy doesn't have to follow; we can be smart, and use technology to make things more streamlined. Government should be big where it needs to be big, but should be small where it needs to be small. That's a little simplistic, but thinking of it that way can help us detach from some of the old old battles we're fighting and maybe get to a place where we can be more pragmatic about our government.
I guess I can't see a smaller, weaker federal government being able to deal with climate change, our aging population, the healthcare crisis, the general global resource crunch that's coming with rising populations, or the transition of billions of people into a consumer middle class. There are multiple global upheavals coming our way in the very near future, and a less empowered federal government is exactly what we don't need in order to weather those problems.
English major, right? ;)
I'm in agreement with most of what you say in the last two paragraphs other than climate change or healthcare being a "crisis". I detest a government which creates "crises" to make itself relevant in as many lives and arenas as possible. And I don't think you are being simplistic. It's a common sense approach.
No one wants a weaker government, often times too much bulk makes someone or something much weaker because of inefficiency. There are most definitely examples of where government does need to be necessarily large and examples where it's too large for it's own good.
Agencies like the EPA have been quite effective in cleaning up the environment and I do shudder to think what the country might look like today if many of the air, water, land, etc. pollution initiatives had never been brought about. I appreciate what they have done for the most part. However, they have also created many over-reaching rules and regs which find their way into the cost of doing business and ultimately what consumers pay for a product.
OSHA has done quite a bit to protect the American worker in the workplace. The FAA, NHTSA, NTSA, FDA, USDA, etc. ad nauseum protect us and help the country run smoothly every day without doubt. But there is a lot of waste and redundancy within those agencies which could be cut. The problem in doing that is pretty much what we've seen on the state level. Each department head claims there's no room for cutting and threatens their system will be thrown into total chaos if they suffer cut-backs. All they care about is protecting their own little fiefdom. There should be some sort of reward system for each department coming up with ways to cut budgets and reduce staff. Perhaps outsourcing is a better alternative which will help grow the private sector.
Okay, I'm rambling now, but mainly wanted to point out you've made some good points and say a simplistic approach is the best approach, IMO.
we vs us,
Great organization of thought and presentation of your position. I understand exactly what you feel the role of government should be, and I think it would be a valid position if government actually worked that way, but it does not. It never has. It simply cannot.
Yours is the exact position that most liberals share, and I think you did a far better job in explaining it than most. This is exactly how I used to think. The vision of a governmental system that is inherently free, fair, and structured efficiently. The problem is that human nature will not allow for this. We have to accept the role of ego in government just as we do in society.
As much as I enjoy Star Trek, Gene Roddenberry's template of society can never exist. Bureaucracy is the very goal of government.
Why?
Because there is no reward for efficiency. There is no concern for competition.
Any surplus in revenue is viewed as threat by the entities fed by that revenue, so they expand to encompass it.
The reason that conservatives fight for smaller government is because they know that the only way to halt the growth of government is to stop feeding it.
Liberals on the other hand still have this Gene Roddenberry idea of the technology based, streamlined, efficient society where everyone is cared for according to their needs. They then take that a step further by replacing the word "society" with "government" and convince themselves that it applies.
What President Obama was espousing on the campaign trail was the same tired dialogue that can be heard on any college campus on the merit of collective societal models. The Utopian principal, while nourishing to the imagination, fails to manifest. Because humans make up government. Human nature and the drive for self preservation, security, and political advancement corrupt the concept.
Let me go ahead and answer the next question that will be posed by some.
"Why would private endeavor be any different?"
It is not, but competition and profit cause private industry to seek efficiency, become smarter and use technology to advance. Free market causes private industry to move in the direction that serves the end user with the most cost effective and comprehensive solutions. A broad contrast to any government endeavor.
The problem with private entities serving the public is that they are liable to shareholders and not citizens or elected officials for their performance. This is why I have such a huge problem with our health care delivery. If it were government run, the officials would have to answer to the voters for their decisions, not the shareholders. As it is, there is no way to demand that we all have a fair stake in health care, and we are all subject to a private bureaucracy for our health care decisions based on a profit percentage loss ratio.
I am not saying gov't run health care is what we need, but a point to argue.
I do not feel profits should be considered over our citizens welfare.
Quote from: tulsascoot on March 24, 2011, 12:15:04 PM
If it were government run, the officials would have to answer to the voters for their decisions,...
We all know how well that works.
Quote from: tulsascoot on March 24, 2011, 12:15:04 PM
The problem with private entities serving the public is that they are liable to shareholders and not citizens or elected officials for their performance. This is why I have such a huge problem with our health care delivery. If it were government run, the officials would have to answer to the voters for their decisions, not the shareholders. As it is, there is no way to demand that we all have a fair stake in health care, and we are all subject to a private bureaucracy for our health care decisions based on a profit percentage loss ratio.
I am not saying gov't run health care is what we need, but a point to argue.
I do not feel profits should be considered over our citizens welfare.
I like your argument because it can be applied to almost anything.
The problem with private entities serving the public is that they are liable to shareholders and not citizens or elected officials for their performance. This is why I have such a huge problem with our food producers. If they were government run, the producers would have to answer to the voters for their decisions, not the shareholders. As it is, there is no way to demand that we all have healthy food to eat, and we are all subject to a private bureaucracy for our grocery decisions based on a profit percentage loss ratio.
I am not saying gov't run food production is what we need, but a point to argue.
I do not feel profits should be considered over feeding our citizens.
The reason that healthcare is in a shambles is because of government intervention. Step one was to distribute care through social programs. As a result the snowball was formed and eventually regulation to restrict healthcare organizations from free trade between states was mandated. This was originally to protect risk pools (and insulate local companies from competition), but as you can imagine it ended with the death of the small to medium size health provider and ultimately the birth of the mega-clinics. The end result is what we have now. Very little competition because the law protects the big players from competition. The cost of care is no longer based on simple cost, but spread out to cover noncollectable liabilities.
For the past 25+ years, healthcare has been semi-government. Now we propose to make it total government. There is absolutely no chance that this will serve anyone well. Instead of expensive quality care, we will end up with expensive deplorable care, but the cost will be hidden from sight so that the sheep don't "bahh" to loudly.
I don't by any means think that government is a panacea, or that all your troubles will be solved if you'd just trust it. There's simply no reason to believe that. And I want to make clear that I don't think there's ANY human-devised organization out there that will miraculously solve all of our problems. Trust me, Gaspar, Gene Roddenberry was the dewiest of idealists, and his fantasies would dry up and float away if they were exposed to the air outside of a TV box. I don't know anyone beyond the occasional 15 yr old Trekkie who might believe that.
If, like me, you believe that the world is essentially the grinding together of massive power centers (nations, religions, corporations, etc), a democratic government is the one power center that might be responsive to all of its citizens. Other forms of government aren't made with everyone in mind; corporations certainly aren't; and international orgs (UN, World Bank, etc) live in an abstract level of the atmosphere that have little to do with real world stuff.
At least our government gives us the opportunity, no matter how hamfisted, to address the problems of the least of us.
And bureaucracy isn't necessarily the natural state of government. It's the natural state of our government. Look: we have governmental forms on the neighborhood level, the city and county level, the state level, and the federal level. Most of that is an outgrowth of our founding documents, and the sorts of oppositions between branches, regions, and sizes that the Founders put in motion. We're built to be unwieldy and to be checked and balanced. Is it any wonder that all of the branches of government have grown around that?
Also, we're the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world. Why wouldn't the machinery needed to sustain that be huge?
This is not to argue that our current level of bureaucracy should continue to exist unchallenged, but this is to argue that there are logical reasons for our size and cost of government that don't involve original sin.
And Conan: I think one of the biggest threats to our country is the total disintegration of fact. Discourse in our country has mutated to the level where two smart, well-read and educated, good looking guys (like you and me) can, based on the reporting we see and read, believe exactly opposite things about what's happening with the climate. You can base your considered opinion on facts and so can I. I feel like we're stuck in a Kafka novel, where no one can agree what color the sky is, or if water's wet.
This is the biggest threat to the country because there's no way we can agree to govern together if we can't agree on what planet we're living on. IMO, there are several global problems confronting us over the next few decades. My facts tell me that. I know your facts tell you different, but it freaks me out to think that we'll be risking approaching my problems without the least bit of a plan.
To find out how we got to where we are and what the "role" of the government is, was and should be I started going through history in my head. I decided to put it down - and it's a damn novel. Sorry...
At the founding of our nation the role of the central (Federal) government was to protect guaranteed freedoms to white property owners with powers given to it by the States (who then took whatever powers they wanted and the rest was reserved for the people). This included enforcing contracts and arbitrating other disputes in Courts. It included providing security and to a very limited degree facilitating commerce. It also included "state building" activities such as killing Indians and dealing with other nations.
That role grew quickly to include central banking, monetary policy, a postal service, an expanded armed forces (a navy), to keep the peace between the several states, and to actively govern unincorporated territories. Most of that activity can be traced to encouraging, protecting, and facilitating commerce BY guarantying the civil rights of "full" citizens. Such was the role of government through the lives of the founders.
That role expanded with the "great debate" on slavery. How far we extend one groups freedom while protecting another group's freedom: namely, do we take property away from land owning white men and give said property to itself. This led to greater central governmental roles in State affairs as new "free" and "slave" states came into being and federal courts had to adjudicate and federal troops had to enforce policies on slave owning. This debate culminated in a civil war in which some independent States decided to break away from their weak Federal Government.
The well known outcome is that the weak central government was empowered by the "free" states to assume vast new powers. It raised massive armies, took over industries, mandated standards for roads and railroads, directed naval commerce, coordinated the medical car of veterans, and in the end central government - which only had the power given to it by the States - temporarily outright subjugate the rebelling states. At which point the government assumed new powers to "rebuild" the south and govern it - to hand out land to railroads, to assign western lands to citizens, to set mandates on industry.
That power were never really relinquished and it is widely acknowledge that the "States" were relegate to provinces from those point forward - allowed to control whatever the Federal Government said they could. It is also the start of entitlement politics: veterans groups were given more and more money to gather support (after the war pensions went up 5 fold over the next 20 years). To a large extent direct control was given back to the States, but the power to keep a thumb in the situation and override rules it didn't like remained with the Federal Government. The Federal Government grabbed a ton of emergency powers and gave a large chunk back, but not all.
The role of the central government slowly continued to grow with various wars, canals, and situations through the 19th Century and the first part of the 20th. In the early 20th century the Federal Reserve, the FDA, the FTC, and a slew of other acronyms started. The shift was decided to Federal power and decidedly towards looking out for economic welfare above political welfare.
The biggest leap in the growth of the Federal Government was 1913 and the 16th Amendment. Before the income tax the government, at most, accounted for 3% of GDP. Estimates today put that number closer to 23%. It started very small and effected few people, but obviously has grown over the years. But that focuses on taxation, not the role or power of government - so I digress.
The next big leap was the great depression. In order to set the nation back on the right course we needed more power in the Central Government. More monetary power, more borrowing power, authority to build vast stretches of infrastructure (railroads, dams, roads, farm fields, irrigation, electricity), authority to "provide" for the needed in various ways. Economic lending to farmers, development funds, federally owned development corporations, bailouts, and so on. Antitrust laws also went into effect and were progressively more vigorously enforced - another power to regulate industry.
The government also started regulating morality with more marriage law, segregation laws (misogyny), and of course prohibition (which started a trend in making getting high/mood altering illegal). The Federal government said citizens of the States couldn't do these things, so they couldn't.
Of course this culminated in the new deal. Initially started as a social safety net and a group of reforms - but grew to include sweeping reforms to everything from labor relations, business regulation, jobs programs, infrastructure development, and a slew of entitlement programs. A massive increase in the governments role. The role had started as guaranteeing rights, had shifted to a focus on economics, and included a machine of social welfare. Interestingly a large part was originally declared an unconstitutional power grab until the President threatened the Supreme Court to get his way. Nonetheless, the New Deal added social welfare, largely in the form of political entitlements to certain groups, to the role of government.
And since that time power has only gradually increased, the programs have gradually grown, and the role of States has gradually been chipped away. Welfare, medicare, social security, medicaid, food stamps, etc. - are all mostly funded and directed by the Federal Government (states can pass laws that conform to their guidelines). The Interstate Highway System coupled with the Transportation Department funds most road-miles in the United States and consequently can dictate any policy that effects driving (DUI, weight, who gets a license), the FAA controls all air traffic, the FCC all communication, the ATF all firearms, and so on and so on. The commerce clause has been interpreted to allow the Federal Government to do anything it wants, in the last 50 years only one case has limited the power of the Federal Government to regulate anything.
What started as a Federal Government with a limited role has expanded to include everything. There are very few things that the Federal Government could not do if they chose to. From commanding states to pass laws (or we withhold Billions of dollars we took from your citizens) to regulating tiny details in the sale of produce. From taxing the rich to giving to the poor. The role of the Federal Government as it now stands is limitless: it controls the entire economy, it protects the rights of citizens, and it attempts to guarantee the economic and social well being of every citizen.
What *SHOULD* the role be?
Not a simple answer in my book. In some areas the solution is probably either LESS government and let the system sort it out, or to just admit government is so intertwined they may as well take it over and stop pretending. The outcome of more Federal Government has been both beneficial (no slaves, rising standard of living, greater influence of the US globally) and negative (inefficiencies, directed taxation and regulation causing poor decisions [not saving, buying a home when you can't afford it, subsidizing one thing so you have to subsidize another]).
Here's some complaints:
1) Too focused on short term goals
It seems to be the system is too geared towards the short term. If this doesn't do something good in 2 years, my congressman doesn't care. Fixing home lending and tax codes so in the long term we don't give people an incentive to buy a home when they really shouldn't - doesn't get him reelected in November.
2) Built in interests
When a bill is passed, even with good intentions, to specifically benefit one group - that group often gets a life or death dependence on it. Farm subsidies, industry tax breaks, or regulations ignoring coal pollution - may have had a place. But eventually those things need to be reviewed, and under the current system those groups can place all their effort to make sure THEIR special treatment doesn't go away. As a result the number of "special" groups is ridiculous and has insane results (e.g., we subsidize our cotton production, as a result we have to subsidize cotton production in many other countries AND require our industries to purchase the more expensive America cotton. So we pay them to grow it, we pay other countries because we pay ours to grow it, and then we pay MORE for the end product anyway. Or: we subsidize corn production, we also pay some farmers NOT to grow corn, then we subsidize ethanol production to foster energy independence using corn - which we aren't sure creates more energy than it uses to produce, THEN we require the use of ethanol in gas which may or may not increase costs of fuel.).
All laws, tax exemptions, and regulations should have a sunset date.
3) Two party system
Now that the States have almost no power to make significant changes, a two party system is a failure. What one party is for, the other must be against. Very little is done to compromise and everything the other does is wrong (even if we did it last week). This leaves no room for a coalition, no room for compromise, no room for true debate. It only leaves room for political expedience and grand standing.
And if you were a lobbyist or special interest, you only have to persuade one party to get your job done.
All governmental funding for political parties should cease. Why allow the people in power to pay for themselves to remain in power?
4) Lack of Representation
When the nation was founded each representative had 30,000 constituent. They answered to less people than a Tulsa city counselor does. Currently, each representative in the US Congress stands for 710,000 people. When the House size was frozen it was one per 200,000 people. There is no way one man can stand up and pretend to speak for 700,000 people on the variety of issues we face.
If 30,000,000 Americans want to legalize Marijuana, but they are spread out over the nation, they very well might not have a single voice in Congress. Same for a litany of other issues. Coupled with a two party system that ensures that many important issues will never be addressed because they are not, nation wide, the dominant issue of the moment.
In nearly every other system a minority voice is allowed to be heard. We have decided that the only minority voice that can be heard at the Federal Level is that of the "other" party. Since that "other" party generally represents the other 40% of the vote, any true minority viewpoint is swallowed up unless it becomes a majority of that 40%.
Additionally, if you only have to bribe, errr lobby 435 people it makes it much easier to get your job done. 200 of those in any given session probably don't matter. A good number are probably on your side for one reason or another. Just bribe the small handful you have left and your bill passes.
With the powers given to the United States Congress, we need wider representation.
Man I could go on, sorry for the long rant and there goes my late lunch... No time to wrap up!
This thing was SUCH a honey pot for CF. Scratch a lawyer, find a budding constitutional scholar. ;)
Quote from: we vs us on March 24, 2011, 01:29:02 PM
I don't by any means think that government is a panacea, or that all your troubles will be solved if you'd just trust it. There's simply no reason to believe that. And I want to make clear that I don't think there's ANY human-devised organization out there that will miraculously solve all of our problems. Trust me, Gaspar, Gene Roddenberry was the dewiest of idealists, and his fantasies would dry up and float away if they were exposed to the air outside of a TV box. I don't know anyone beyond the occasional 15 yr old Trekkie who might believe that.
If, like me, you believe that the world is essentially the grinding together of massive power centers (nations, religions, corporations, etc), a democratic government is the one power center that might be responsive to all of its citizens. Other forms of government aren't made with everyone in mind; corporations certainly aren't; and international orgs (UN, World Bank, etc) live in an abstract level of the atmosphere that have little to do with real world stuff.
At least our government gives us the opportunity, no matter how hamfisted, to address the problems of the least of us.
And bureaucracy isn't necessarily the natural state of government. It's the natural state of our government. Look: we have governmental forms on the neighborhood level, the city and county level, the state level, and the federal level. Most of that is an outgrowth of our founding documents, and the sorts of oppositions between branches, regions, and sizes that the Founders put in motion. We're built to be unwieldy and to be checked and balanced. Is it any wonder that all of the branches of government have grown around that?
Also, we're the richest and most powerful country in the history of the world. Why wouldn't the machinery needed to sustain that be huge?
This is not to argue that our current level of bureaucracy should continue to exist unchallenged, but this is to argue that there are logical reasons for our size and cost of government that don't involve original sin.
Very well put.
We are not so different, the foundations of our philosophy simply make us come at things from different directions. I find that government is very good at enforcing the law, mobilizing armies and collecting taxes. When it comes to social issues, government continuously fails, and therefore is in a constant state of "reform."
The quality of the product produced by private endeavor far exceeds that produced by government. We need to be careful what freedoms we are willing to hand over to government. There is no turning back. You can not revoke something once it becomes an entitlement.
Quote from: we vs us on March 24, 2011, 01:54:04 PM
And Conan: I think one of the biggest threats to our country is the total disintegration of fact. Discourse in our country has mutated to the level where two smart, well-read and educated, good looking guys (like you and me) can, based on the reporting we see and read, believe exactly opposite things about what's happening with the climate. You can base your considered opinion on facts and so can I. I feel like we're stuck in a Kafka novel, where no one can agree what color the sky is, or if water's wet.
This is the biggest threat to the country because there's no way we can agree to govern together if we can't agree on what planet we're living on. IMO, there are several global problems confronting us over the next few decades. My facts tell me that. I know your facts tell you different, but it freaks me out to think that we'll be risking approaching my problems without the least bit of a plan.
Actually approaching it from two differing conclusions isn't the real problem. Not reaching compromise is. And maybe that's what you were getting at.
CF nutted it: The two party system means it's become a binary system of political thought and action.
The real problem is the lack of compromise. Each party seems to be defined by it's extreme wings which really comprise of no more than 20 to 25% of their membership. At least it's viewed that way by the opposing party and certainly characterized that way. Well over 60% of our population is either apolitical or those who are more interested in politics are quite moderate in their views and simply want constructive solutions even if they are not the solutions endorsed by their own party.
I hear it all the time. Because I'm a registered GOP, I'm mischaracterized as a neo-con, Tea Partier, or RWRE. I'm none of the above. I'm one of the more moderate people I know with strong libertarian leanings as personal liberty is very important to me. I don't automatically assume every Democrat is a flaked out liberal either but I hear the stereotype anytime I tune in to a conservative-leaning commentator. Your thinking is definitely to the left of mine while Hoss and I think pretty much the same with minor issue differences. I'm willing to see those degrees in others, I simply wish our politicians would as well.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on March 24, 2011, 01:56:49 PM
What *SHOULD* the role be?
Not a simple answer in my book. In some areas the solution is probably either LESS government and let the system sort it out, or to just admit government is so intertwined they may as well take it over and stop pretending. The outcome of more Federal Government has been both beneficial (no slaves, rising standard of living, greater influence of the US globally) and negative (inefficiencies, directed taxation and regulation causing poor decisions [not saving, buying a home when you can't afford it, subsidizing one thing so you have to subsidize another]).
Wow, that was very well done CF. I thought there might be some merit in expanding on this part.
Other Benefits of more/bigger government:
Child labor laws
Protections for citizens from corporate entities (cleaner air, water, credit laws, safer planes ((
Odd that goverment has to play a role to protect a business's customers from the business itself)))
Fewer Senior citizens without homes/means
Fewer families without access to basic needs
Public Education
Infrastructure
Safer food sources
Negatives of more/bigger government.
Legislating morality
Public Education
Redudant Government agencies with similar objectives
Trillions of dollars of national debt
Nuclear weapons
Sarah Palin