View Full Version : More Democrats Fear Big Government
According to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/151490/Fear-Big-Government-Near-Record-Level.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication), 48% of Democrats fear that big government is the greatest threat to the nation, up from 32% in 2009.
If polls teach us anything, it’s that public opinion is always changing, but I think this demonstrates in some small way the American people’s astute understanding (regardless of the OWS movement), at a time of 8.6 percent unemployment, that jobs depend on expanding businesses, whereas increased government very often creates perverse incentives that undermine economic growth.
I think it will be interesting to see what electoral implications this may have in the upcoming presidential election.
What does "big" government mean? Or "Increased government"? Big as in physically, economically, intrusively?
And what does "not big" mean?
Is it their fear of "big government" that has changed? Or what they believe the label means? Or both? Or something else?
I hate these little labels - they are so often used as in "I'm using this to mean what I want it mean in this particular situation" So while a 1000 people may all say "big government", there's a 1000 different meanings. And no one is talking about the same thing. Which makes a poll like this next to meaningless.
I fear that big government is the greatest threat to the nation as well, but it's likely we would not agree on many of the underlying issues supporting that statement.
ApatheticNoMore
12-13-11, 12:49pm
I fear aspects of "big government" too. Like for instance congress just passed a law allowing for indefinite detention of U.S. citizens (very bipartisan, but with heavy Republican support). If that's not trashing the constitution what is? Our only possible protection against this is one waffling Obama (and I do hope he comes through) or else the supreme court. So let's see the president can kill anyone he wants without a trial including U.S. citizens, the government can detain anyone it wants indefinitely without a trail. Is THIS what you meant by big government? Then it sure as heck won't break down on partisan lines but I do support anyone who votes against someone of either party who voted for this legistlation!
I suppose a strict definition of "big government" isn't really a requirement to identify a trend. It is certainly encouraging to see the increase in that sentiment among Democrats. It appears people would rather worry about all the other stuff once there is a chicken in every pot.
Just a note: it always irks me to see the November and December job figures. Yes, unemployment is down to 8.6%. Yes, we added 120,000 total jobs last month. By another account we actually added 480,000 seasonal jobs which means a loss of 360,000 non-seasonal positions. The numbers and how they are reported get so convoluted that I'm not sure if anyone really knows what the net results are, but I do have the feeling that January and February could be interesting.
I suppose a strict definition of "big government" isn't really a requirement to identify a trend. It is certainly encouraging to see the increase in that sentiment among Democrats. It appears people would rather worry about all the other stuff once there is a chicken in every pot.
Just a note: it always irks me to see the November and December job figures. Yes, unemployment is down to 8.6%. Yes, we added 120,000 total jobs last month. By another account we actually added 480,000 seasonal jobs which means a loss of 360,000 non-seasonal positions. The numbers and how they are reported get so convoluted that I'm not sure if anyone really knows what the net results are, but I do have the feeling that January and February could be interesting.
The devil is still in the details. Whacking defense by at least 80% and dismantling Homeland Security (including pushing TSA back to being owned and run and paid for by airports) would be a good start. At least to me.
Whack SS, Medicare, welfare, WIC, food stamps, public schools, public transportation, and a zillion other programs and we'd see a big drop in "big government".
The other interesting thing in the poll was Democrat's feelings on Big Business. The number of Dems reporting a fear of Big Business as a threat to the nation has gone done since 2009, from 52% to 44%. Actually it dropped in every demographic.
Sorta makes me wonder about the accuracy of the whole "we are the 99%" meme and the efficacy of party leaders constant refrain against business and business interests.
The devil is still in the details. Whacking defense by at least 80% and dismantling Homeland Security (including pushing TSA back to being owned and run and paid for by airports) would be a good start. At least to me.
Whack SS, Medicare, welfare, WIC, food stamps, public schools, public transportation, and a zillion other programs and we'd see a big drop in "big government".
Right there with ya creaker. I do think it might be best to start with a scalpel rather than a chain saw to give our economy a chance to reach equilibrium at each stage*, but I have a hard time thinking of a budget sector that shouldn't be cut.
*We need to keep in mind that if we cut something like defense spending by 80% it will throw how many...several MILLION people out of work? And destroy a few TRILLION dollars worth of equity (in companies catering to the defense industry)? We need a plan that also creates something for the people and the companies to do when the shift is made. Infrastructure development will forever be my personal soapbox to climb on. I'm no economist, but it seems like we'd be better off with a steady transition even if some money is "wasted" than we would be if that level of wealth is destroyed and that many people hit the unemployment system all at once.
Sometimes I think we need big government in order to regulate big business.
Sometimes I think we need big government in order to regulate big business.
Sadly, I think it's too late, and now we see business controlling government.
i think it might be important to note that most OWSers consider themselves independents (and many are libertarians), and that they would not be considered "liberals" or "democrats" to be discussed as per this particular poll.
it might also be noted that they still haven't created a specific "demand" -- but overall are protesting the connection between corporate and government corruption. I think that, if they were asked how they feel about "big government" (ambiguous meaning) and that were defined as this issue between corporate and government corruption, then they, too would "fear big government."
I'm just putting it out there, since nearly all of this is supposition.
And ANM, I hear you on that craziness.
and, FWIW, I've been polled (via phone) several times on several different issues and the polls are written with such a ridiculous bias AND often with such ridiculous levels of ambiguity, that if you ask the person polling for clarity on a given description of an issue, they cannot answer that question. I was told they were trained not to, given a specific script, and that they can only re-read it and ask you to interpret it and then answer according to the parameters they give you. It's very difficult to know how my words were "taken" because I couldn't interpret how I would answer the question because of the bias and ambiguity.
So, i don't have a whole lot of trust in these various polls, to be sure.
They are always so much like this: Have you stopped beating your wife?
No, people are continuing to beat their wives!
Yes, people have reformed and no longer beat their wives!
Headline: All women beaten in marriages; 80% of husbands reform after 5 years, 20% never reform!
If you attempt to answer the poll with "but I have never beaten my wife! or anyone for that matter!" you get "i'm sorry, sir, but my instructions are to ask you "have you stopped beating your wife?" and you have to answer "no, i still beat my wife" or "yes, i am reformed." which one most closely resembles your opinion or experience, sir?
Yes, sir, which one?
Swear to god, it's frustrating as hell. I don't knw why i keep agreeing to do them. I think I feel sorry for the call center person.
Sometimes I think we need big government in order to regulate big business.
I think what we need is efficient government. In most cases there are plenty of regulations already in place. There is also a lack of well trained regulators with the resources to enforce those regulations. I'm a fan of minimal regulation, but not a capital anarchist. There needs to be oversight and swift action with real consequences when the rules are broken. A smaller, more efficient regulatory body (lean and mean, so to say) should be far more effective that a large, slow moving bureaucracy with far too many layers. Human nature being what it is it probably makes sense to have smaller, independent, industry focused regulatory entities to avoid creating a new J. Edgar Hoover.
flowerseverywhere
12-14-11, 9:13am
well, I for one am getting sick and tired of laws being passed that are none of governments business, making things more complicated and expensive for consumers.
Here is one in NY
http://www.9wsyr.com/news/state/story/Cuomo-signs-prescription-bills-into-law/2jNz1BQqd0aVIWDnB92-2g.cspx
The governor signed a law that prohibits insurance companies from making you use mail order pharmacies to get cheaper drugs- they can't charge less now for mail vs. local pharmacy. For years, I have been on a low level cholesterol drug due to family history. I get it in the mail every three months and it cost me $10. What is the harm in that? Of course, pharmacies lobbied to get this law in place. Does it really benefit consumers? More likely it will make my insurance premium increase. Of course, there are many drugs that you have to get at the drug store but for routine meds it is cheap and easy to get by mail.
I see this all the time, for instance in the school system. People sit in offices not classrooms and make mandates for what is to be done in the classroom. But they don't fund the mandates after they pass them. In the meantime you have well educated dedicated teachers that spend much time dealing with rules that were put in place by non educators.
Some laws, such as texting and phoning while driving are for the protection of the people. some laws are for the benefit of lawmakers and political contributions. A sick system.
Gardenarian
12-14-11, 6:13pm
I am a born and bred Democrat, and I have become increasingly disenchanted with the Federal government. The idea of big government is that it would represent the values of the nation as a whole (as opposed to states having the power to regulate things in their own peculiar ways.) But right now the Fed seems to be only representing big business, the defense department, and the 1%.
So, I'm with the survey.
I don't have an answer. I don't think we want to give states free reign either.
I think what we need is efficient government. In most cases there are plenty of regulations already in place. There is also a lack of well trained regulators with the resources to enforce those regulations. I'm a fan of minimal regulation, but not a capital anarchist. There needs to be oversight and swift action with real consequences when the rules are broken. A smaller, more efficient regulatory body (lean and mean, so to say) should be far more effective that a large, slow moving bureaucracy with far too many layers. Human nature being what it is it probably makes sense to have smaller, independent, industry focused regulatory entities to avoid creating a new J. Edgar Hoover.
Most of my social circle is with folks in private industry who work with agencies such as the EPA, Dept. of Interior. and Forest Service and represent business clients cleaning up Federal Superfund Sites or new development projects. Their jobs are to insure the business clients satisfy the various environmental regulations. I can assure you that without the regulations and watchdog agencies, the business clients would get away with environmental murder. However, the stories they tell me about the difficulties if dealing with the government agencies leave me shaking my head in amazement.
My take is that the problem is not the regulations themselves, but the incompetence of the regulators to enforce and administer them. Probably part of this is the complication of things, but unfortunately goes to the core of government work standards and way they are organized to administer things. IMHO., they haven't lived under the rules of "lean and mean" that have driven private industry, especially now in a bad economy. It's sort of like the Postal Service vs. UPS, where one has prospered in private industry and one is failing.
Regulations on their own need to be judged on a case by case basis. It's probably accepted opinion that deregulation of the financial industry was one of several causes of our recent meltdown. No doubt there are are other regulations that are just silly.
Anyway Greg, I pretty much agree with you. I just don't know what is needed to change, and I don't think the Tea Party has the answer.
Right there with ya creaker. I do think it might be best to start with a scalpel rather than a chain saw to give our economy a chance to reach equilibrium at each stage*, but I have a hard time thinking of a budget sector that shouldn't be cut.
*We need to keep in mind that if we cut something like defense spending by 80% it will throw how many...several MILLION people out of work? And destroy a few TRILLION dollars worth of equity (in companies catering to the defense industry)? We need a plan that also creates something for the people and the companies to do when the shift is made. Infrastructure development will forever be my personal soapbox to climb on. I'm no economist, but it seems like we'd be better off with a steady transition even if some money is "wasted" than we would be if that level of wealth is destroyed and that many people hit the unemployment system all at once.
While I agree that chopping 80% of the military industrial complex would certainly put a lot of people out of work I think a bigger question is, if we're going to have make-work programs to employ vast quantities of people could we not surely find a more productive enterprise than a death and destruction machine that we impose on the rest of the world?
The only question that should matter in regards to military spending is whether we think the money is being well spent on something important to us. If not then the spending should be cut. Period. And if we need a government funded jobs program lets pick a better one.
As for the investors and principles who would lose out if companies like Halliburton suddenly crashed and burned because of a change in government policy, I don't feel much sympathy. These companies have been sucking at the teat of the taxpayer for decades and getting rich. Anytime the government changes the rules there are winners and losers. If these people now become the losers after so much winning then too f'ing bad.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-11, 1:10am
While I agree that chopping 80% of the military industrial complex would certainly put a lot of people out of work I think a bigger question is, if we're going to have make-work programs to employ vast quantities of people could we not surely find a more productive enterprise than a death and destruction machine that we impose on the rest of the world?
+1 Although at this point I think it might be a resource seizing machine (death and destruction are just the side effects - prevalent as they are). But I am somewhat lost about who the U.S. military is even seizing resources for anymore when China seems to get more benefit out of Iraqi oil than the U.S.. Seizing them for U.S. creditors? (and by such wars the U.S. becomes even more indebted?) Siezing them for certain economic actors? For the "economic system" as such?
As for the investors and principles who would lose out if companies like Halliburton suddenly crashed and burned because of a change in government policy, I don't feel much sympathy.
All I'm saying is that we have to look at the whole picture. Halliburton is a great example because it's shares are so widely held. You have to remember who the investors really are. The largest shareholders of HAL include FMR (Fidelity), Vanguard, Janus, etc. Millions of Joe Six-Pack Americans have retirement funds with those companies. If you cut the company off at the knees those are the people who are the most at risk. The big individual shareholders at HAL would lose more in absolute dollar terms, but its the people of average means that would have the hardest time recovering from a loss.
I think there are ways to step away from defense spending where no one gets hurt. Jobs and companies can transition to other fields if given a reasonable chance to do so. Wealth (at all levels) can be preserved and even enhanced. It just doesn't have to be all about slash and burn and it should never be about punishing those who profited from the system. You take you eye off the big ball if that is your focus. We need to step away from our spending in, well, steps. The military should already have the programs most vital to our future defense in place and the top brass know where we get the most bang for the buck. We just need to transition down to that level.
Congress is sending a $662 billion defense spending bill to the President this week. What if we set a ceiling next year at $550B. Then $475B in 2014. And so on until it gets to a level that provides a strong, and almost entirely domestic, national defense strategy. I'm not sure exactly where that level would be, but 80% less than the current $662B is $132B. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
"We can't just eliminate slavery overnight, think of all of the industries and investors that rely on the slave trade..."
A strawman, bae? Not your usual style so I'm just guessing there may be a moral correlation (slavery/war)? Trick is, defense spending doesn't necessarily mean that money is being spent on war. Defense vs. offense. We're ending one war and I think we should end the other so go ahead and cut the WAR budget by 80% or more and we have nothing to debate.
Beyond that, its worth remembering that not all non-battlefield defense spending is in weapon development preparing for war. How many products used in daily life have come from what was originally a military application? Point is, the military and defense contractors have cutting edge technology and state of the art R&D facilities available so why don't we simply begin a shift of priority regarding what products they are developing. Concentrate those resources on food and energy production, medical research, communication technology, etc. No real limits as far as I can see. Defense contractors are private sector, they will adapt to something else if weaponry orders decline. The government side can be pared down through retirement and people in the ranks who don't reenlist until we hit whatever level is deemed sustainable and necessary. No jobs get cut, no wealth is destroyed, no one suffers and in the long run everyone benefits from the advances. Am I missing something?
A strawman, bae? Not your usual style so I'm just guessing there may be a moral correlation (slavery/war)? Trick is, defense spending doesn't necessarily mean that money is being spent on war. Defense vs. offense. We're ending one war and I think we should end the other so go ahead and cut the WAR budget by 80% or more and we have nothing to debate.
Beyond that, its worth remembering that not all non-battlefield defense spending is in weapon development preparing for war. How many products used in daily life have come from what was originally a military application? Point is, the military and defense contractors have cutting edge technology and state of the art R&D facilities available so why don't we simply begin a shift of priority regarding what products they are developing. Concentrate those resources on food and energy production, medical research, communication technology, etc. No real limits as far as I can see. Defense contractors are private sector, they will adapt to something else if weaponry orders decline. The government side can be pared down through retirement and people in the ranks who don't reenlist until we hit whatever level is deemed sustainable and necessary. No jobs get cut, no wealth is destroyed, no one suffers and in the long run everyone benefits from the advances. Am I missing something?
I think just one thing - who's going all to buy all this "something else" that defense contractors move into producing? It seems like we are producing more goods than we have the money to purchase now - and productivity per employee continues to increase.
A strawman, bae? Not your usual style so I'm just guessing there may be a moral correlation (slavery/war)?
We are enslaving the productive citizens of this country, and future generations, to pay the costs of a "defense" industry that is essentially the size of the entire rest of the planet's combined military budget. This huge amount of social capital isn't really being used for "defense", it is just a wealth/ income transfer scheme for special interests.
So, not a straw man at all. (reduction ad absurdum perhaps, but that's a legitimate formulation of an argument...) It's immoral, just as slavery was, and you can't justify keeping it around just because it would be inconvenient to some to shut down the gravy train.
How many products used in daily life have come from what was originally a military application?
You also can't justify this level of spending by pointing at the wonderful crumbs that are thrown off as side effect. You might as well argue that burning piles of $20 bills in barrels on streetcorners is good, because it helps keep the homeless warm. It's a hugely inefficient use of capital, and if you wanted to achieve those side effects, with the public money, you have a duty to do so as efficiently as you can arrange.
We are enslaving the productive citizens of this country, and future generations, to pay the costs of a "defense" industry that is essentially the size of the entire rest of the planet's combined military budget. This huge amount of social capital isn't really being used for "defense", it is just a wealth/ income transfer scheme for special interests.
So, not a straw man at all. (reduction ad absurdum perhaps, but that's a legitimate formulation of an argument...) It's immoral, just as slavery was, and you can't justify keeping it around just because it would be inconvenient to some to shut down the gravy train.
You also can't justify this level of spending by pointing at the wonderful crumbs that are thrown off as side effect. You might as well argue that burning piles of $20 bills in barrels on streetcorners is good, because it helps keep the homeless warm. It's a hugely inefficient use of capital, and if you wanted to achieve those side effects, with the public money, you have a duty to do so as efficiently as you can arrange.
Ok, now I get where you're coming from. And I agree. My argument isn't at all that defense spending, per se, should be continued. My point is more that if we just chop off the head of the monster we're going to spend just as much money as we do now, or at least close, but not have anything to show for it.
If budget cuts are sudden millions of people will be thrown out of work. All our social safety nets would be impacted. Unemployment compensation, food stamps, social security (assuming most 62 year olds would opt to retire at that point rather than job hunting), etc. Those programs aren't even sustainable at current levels. The only available method to fund those programs at that point would be to borrow from the same pool that is being borrowed from right now. It might make it a little easier to digest if you fire the bomb makers, but the ultimate costs would even out (less defense spending = less income tax revenue + higher social program costs). All things being equal I can't help but think the people would be better off remaining employed and productive and we retain some opportunity to advance from their efforts as we shift output from defense to other sectors.
Gregg -
The thing is, they aren't "employed and productive". They are employed, yes. But what they are "producing" is so incredibly wasteful. Huge amounts of scarce resources, energy, and brainpower are being used to construct items that have no real use, that don't increase our stock of capital or infrastructure, and that require a fair bit of cleverness to dispose of properly.
You'd be better off employing half of them to dig holes, and the other half to fill the holes back in.
I grew up learning to "duck and cover". I spent a while last year in Los Alamos and at White Sands. Think of the hundreds of billions wasted, and the precious natural resources squandered, and the effort of several generations thrown away...
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-pnjS8xDO87o/TLEl_yx0o4I/AAAAAAAABp0/1A2af5waf6A/s640/img_0728.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ba3B__NixlM/TLEmAzLL7FI/AAAAAAAABp4/mpKZiVW7ZDc/s640/img_0729.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-IGZDSUmvlxc/TLEmBiimhkI/AAAAAAAABp8/kVkWJn-KhCA/s640/img_0730.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mRv9CVHxPRQ/TLEmE1SxouI/AAAAAAAABqM/xjhBL98puDQ/s720/img_0734.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-CI7b3Z89tks/TLEhJZUTZ9I/AAAAAAAABbU/UctWRFrBIc4/s720/img_0467.jpg
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2DuwLCS6U8s/TLEiJJE-1HI/AAAAAAAABek/MmYV0tN9xq8/s640/img_0514.jpg
If you want to plow the citizen's money into something, how about:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-8L6z9LKxIUI/TLEnv8buf3I/AAAAAAAAByE/LMgvH5fOhmk/s640/img_0855.jpg
Here's a black hole at the center of a galaxy. Isn't that cooler than building bombs and aircraft and naval vessels and military bases?
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-pPlAe5KraCg/TLEnV7Trg-I/AAAAAAAABwI/uPDbx5tyiJ8/s640/img_0826.jpg
I had lunch here one fine afternoon.
Moon Over Trinity
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-uxsNjND-POQ/TLEWCCZi-gI/AAAAAAAABXE/FkWtgRpAxlc/s720/img_0563.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QUHaRyyMQ5U/TLEV672E0QI/AAAAAAAABWw/ubS_8UBa8kw/s720/img_0548.jpg
Can't we build bridges, roads, ports, hospitals, schools, and railways instead?
iris lily
12-15-11, 10:29pm
... I spent a while last year in Los Alamos and at White Sands.
I lived in Las Cruces for some years. I worked with a woman whose husband had worked at White Sands Missle Range for decades. She got breast cancer, a virulent form. She was, oh, 60ish. She was being treated for it when her 30 year old daughter came down with it, and the daughter died. I always wonder if the stuff that came home on dad's boots from White Sands was a big factor in this.
Can't we build bridges, roads, ports, hospitals, schools, and railways instead?
That's been my personal mantra for years, on and off the boards. I've jumped on the infrastructure soap box at every opportunity and will continue to do so. Putting the defense industry's internal infrastructure to work in those areas is EXACTLY what I am talking about. I totally agree that weapons production is a negative account in terms of human capital and should be immediately slashed to the absolute minimum level required to maintain adequate (actual) defense.
But weapons are the bath water. The baby, the other work being done by companies in the defense business, includes development of communications systems, advanced aeronautics, robotics, electronics, information systems, computer security, space systems, transportation systems, battery technology, material engineering, ship design and building and on and on. I can't imagine there wouldn't be a nearly infinite demand for non-aggressive applications of any or all of that accumulated knowledge and technical expertise. Really the only part of your statement that I might take issue with is that I believe the people employed in the defense industry are very productive. I just think that we've been asking them to produce the wrong things.
iris lily
12-16-11, 10:29am
While we are designing the next work phase of the military-industrial machine, I vote "no" to hospitals. American hospitals are already giant complexes of gubmnt funded health care and we do not need more bleeding skyscraper buildings devoted to illness.
Probably rural areas need health care professionals, but that is a different issue. Well, maybe it's related: Armed Services docs could be transferred to those places that need docs.
That's been my personal mantra for years, on and off the boards. I've jumped on the infrastructure soap box at every opportunity and will continue to do so. Putting the defense industry's internal infrastructure to work in those areas is EXACTLY what I am talking about. I totally agree that weapons production is a negative account in terms of human capital and should be immediately slashed to the absolute minimum level required to maintain adequate (actual) defense.
But weapons are the bath water. The baby, the other work being done by companies in the defense business, includes development of communications systems, advanced aeronautics, robotics, electronics, information systems, computer security, space systems, transportation systems, battery technology, material engineering, ship design and building and on and on. I can't imagine there wouldn't be a nearly infinite demand for non-aggressive applications of any or all of that accumulated knowledge and technical expertise. Really the only part of your statement that I might take issue with is that I believe the people employed in the defense industry are very productive. I just think that we've been asking them to produce the wrong things.
The gotcha on this is all this "defense" is being funded with massive amounts of debt - unless you're going to continue massive debt spending when you switch to funding infrastructure, how do you fund it?
iris lily
12-16-11, 10:59am
The gotcha on this is all this "defense" is being funded with massive amounts of debt - unless you're going to continue massive debt spending when you switch to funding infrastructure, how do you fund it?
ah, the voice of reality. dammit, stop bringing up common sense. :)
The gotcha on this is all this "defense" is being funded with massive amounts of debt - unless you're going to continue massive debt spending when you switch to funding infrastructure, how do you fund it?
No "gotcha" at all. People have lots of misconceptions about debt. It's not necessarily a bad thing to take on debt when you get something worthwhile in return. That is investment. Improving our infrastructure pays dividends. The dividend is that the next generation becomes more efficient than ours. They'll be able to do more with less. If we invest for them now revenues will increase and expenses will decrease more than sufficiently to cover debt load. Borrowing 2041 dollars at 2011 costs to do that makes sense.
Borrowing to fund a war doesn't make sense. Weapons, as bae pointed out, and the wars they are used in are a bad investment. The return is negative. It's worse than racking up your credit card for a vacation. We should stop making them and stop fighting wars.
No "gotcha" at all. People have lots of misconceptions about debt. It's not necessarily a bad thing to take on debt when you get something worthwhile in return. That is investment. Improving our infrastructure pays dividends. The dividend is that the next generation becomes more efficient than ours. They'll be able to do more with less. If we invest for them now revenues will increase and expenses will decrease more than sufficiently to cover debt load. Borrowing 2041 dollars at 2011 costs to do that makes sense.
Borrowing to fund a war doesn't make sense. Weapons, as bae pointed out, and the wars they are used in are a bad investment. The return is negative. It's worse than racking up your credit card for a vacation. We should stop making them and stop fighting wars.
It really depends on who is taking on the debt on who is taking the return on that investment. If government takes on all the debt and private concerns take all the return it can't last.
And how many years do you pay interest on a debt before any positive affect from that debt is negated? We're still paying interest on debt we took on decades and decades ago.
It really depends on who is taking on the debt on who is taking the return on that investment. If government takes on all the debt and private concerns take all the return it can't last.
And how many years do you pay interest on a debt before any positive affect from that debt is negated? We're still paying interest on debt we took on decades and decades ago.
It kills me that people get hung up with "government takes on all the debt and private concerns take all the return". That is false. First and foremost, we WANT the private sector to be profitable. We NEED them to be profitable. Revenue from the private sector is the only real source of income our government has. If the private concerns don't succeed we, through our government, won't either. And its not a paradox, no chicken or egg here. The infrastructure has to come first. The investment has to come first. Only after that can returns begin to be realized.
People get blue in the face because (for example) a trucking company makes a fortune by moving cargo over public roads. The perception is that they should pay every time rubber hits the road. How could we let that happen? The argument is so absurd it should be difficult to get your mind around it so the popular media processes and packages until just enough facts are left out that it seems sensible. They tell us about the huge expenditure and corresponding debt from the road construction. They tell us how the trucking company owner got rich running up and down public roads. They leave out the little details like...the trucking company (and their fellow motorists) are the ones who pay for the road. Wheel tax, fuel tax, license and registration fees, tolls, etc. all go toward paying for that road. Neither you nor the trucking company can legally drive a mile on a public road anywhere in this country without paying to use the road.
The whole idea of our country is that we collectively invest in things that give the citizens living here an opportunity to succeed. When they do they pay the rest of us back (through taxes). You can opt out if you want. Using the road example, no one is stopping you from walking through the woods to get to work and thereby avoiding all the costs of using the road. If you decide to drive then you, as a private concern, are expected to pay your share.
How many years do you pay interest on debt? That question can't be answered unless you know how the debt was structured. There is no single overriding formula for that, but if you know the details you would have the answer. I CAN tell you when the payback for infrastructure improvement begins. The very first day it becomes available to the public.
Gregg - about half the roads in my county are private, and it is perfectly legal to drive on them without government permission or fees, assuming the road owner is agreeable. You don't even need a drivers license, or a registered vehicle, or be using taxed fuel.
Gregg - about half the roads in my county are private, and it is perfectly legal to drive on them without government permission or fees, assuming the road owner is agreeable. You don't even need a drivers license, or a registered vehicle, or be using taxed fuel.
In terms of the country at large would you say your county is the exception or the rule?
It kills me that people get hung up with "government takes on all the debt and private concerns take all the return". That is false. First and foremost, we WANT the private sector to be profitable. We NEED them to be profitable. Revenue from the private sector is the only real source of income our government has. If the private concerns don't succeed we, through our government, won't either. And its not a paradox, no chicken or egg here. The infrastructure has to come first. The investment has to come first. Only after that can returns begin to be realized.
People get blue in the face because (for example) a trucking company makes a fortune by moving cargo over public roads. The perception is that they should pay every time rubber hits the road. How could we let that happen? The argument is so absurd it should be difficult to get your mind around it so the popular media processes and packages until just enough facts are left out that it seems sensible. They tell us about the huge expenditure and corresponding debt from the road construction. They tell us how the trucking company owner got rich running up and down public roads. They leave out the little details like...the trucking company (and their fellow motorists) are the ones who pay for the road. Wheel tax, fuel tax, license and registration fees, tolls, etc. all go toward paying for that road. Neither you nor the trucking company can legally drive a mile anywhere in this country without paying to use the road.
The whole idea of our country is that we collectively invest in things that give the citizens living here an opportunity to succeed. When they do they pay the rest of us back (through taxes). You can opt out if you want. Using the road example, no one is stopping you from walking through the woods to get to work and thereby avoiding all the costs of using the road. If you decide to drive then you, as a private concern, are expected to pay your share.
How many years do you pay interest on debt? That question can't be answered unless you know how the debt was structured. There is no single overriding formula for that, but if you know the details you would have the answer. I CAN tell you when the payback for infrastructure improvement begins. The very first day it becomes available to the public.
Well said Gregg! Well said! Especially the part about how we, as a society, collectively decided we want these things for the good of our society, and should gladly pay for them. We all benefit! We all certainly benefit from the successful truck company. If it weren't successful, we wouldn't have the modern, easy movement of goods, which benefits us all. I wonder where else we can apply these ideas and principals? Health care maybe?
Explain to me again why you aren't a democrat?;)
In terms of the country at large would you say your county is the exception or the rule?
You said, and I quote:
Wheel tax, fuel tax, license and registration fees, tolls, etc. all go toward paying for that road. Neither you nor the trucking company can legally drive a mile anywhere in this country without paying to use the road.
I provided you with a specific counterexample. Of hundreds of miles of roads you are free to use without charge.
An example that people here are quite grumpy about in fact, as the state government still extracts road tax from fuel purchased in this county, but doesn't send a dime of it to us for the maintenance of our roads. The county roads we have are paid from out of our property-tax levies, from a separate line item that the voters approve. Tourists and delivery companies don't directly pay any of the costs of the road construction or maintenance here, public or private. (They might deduce from that fact that speeding tickets could be a bit spendy here, and drive accordingly...)
Once again, I'll point people at Beito, Gordon and Tabarrok's "The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society" for other examples of how such services have been and are being provided.
Explain to me again why you aren't a democrat?;)
Who said I'm not?
Really peggy, its just because I have such an intense desire for the government's role in my life to be as small as possible. Over all the years that we've all interacted the points of contention have hardly ever been about WHAT benefit we would like to see citizens get from government. The hackles only seem to get raised when we talk about HOW to do it. Ok, yea, a few little skirmishes regarding what should come first, but you get the idea.
I provided you with a specific counterexample. Of hundreds of miles of roads you are free to use without charge.
You're right, of course. I even lived on a private road for 20 years so should have thought about that (although we couldn't get anywhere except to the neighbor's houses without hitting a public road). The trucking example had me thinking of highways rather than residential streets and private lanes. I stand corrected and amended my post to accurately reflect the situation.
It kills me that people get hung up with "government takes on all the debt and private concerns take all the return". [/U]
What I mean is we are not paying down the debt with any of that return - we just increase the debt year after year. And that is not sustainable.
What I mean is we are not paying down the debt with any of that return - we just increase the debt year after year. And that is not sustainable.
The way I see it there are two ways to reduce debt: cut expenses and increase revenue. There is no doubt in my mind that the US needs to do both.
Cutting expenses, with the focus on the defense budget we have here, can easily start with an end to the wars. Iraq is in the the final stages. If we commit to a foreign policy of non-intervention Afghanistan can follow (and we can stay out of Iran when the time comes). That saves a lot. From there we can phase weapon production down to nothing more than is needed to defend ourselves. That will save more. And we can being shutting down foreign bases. That will save even more. The real kick is that every department in the government should be able to come up with similar, albeit probably smaller, measures.
Increasing revenue is a different cat because expenses have to go up in the short run to bring revenue up for the long haul. Of course the government could, and probably will, just raise taxes to increase revenue without much expense, but wouldn't you rather pay more taxes because you made more money and had a higher quality of life? We've been through what infrastructure includes ad nauseam over the years, but basically its our delivery systems. To remain at or near the top the US needs to have more secure and more efficient ways to deliver information, power, goods and services than we have now. If we develop that nearly everyone in our country can be more proficient at what they do. That translates into increased revenue for citizens which provides more revenue for the government.
I agree that our current debt level, at slightly more than the GDP, is too high. I've heard learned people saying that somewhere around 50% to 60% of GDP is sustainable. I don't know where the magic number is, but reducing our debt by 50% seems like a reasonable goal. It pays to keep in mind that our debt is still cheap money. It's a lot cheaper than our current revenue. If China buys $10 billion in 30 year T-notes we will pay them back in 2041 dollars, not 2011 dollars. Since periods of deflation are relatively so rare the government assumes 2041 dollars will be worth a lot less than today's money. I don't have a crystal ball to see 2041, but if you look the other way, back 30 years to 1981, a dollar then had the same buying power as $2.54 today. Inflation over that period averaged 3.16% per year so was not out of line. Interest rates on 30 year Treasury notes on Friday was 2.86%. That makes debt with a 2041 due date REALLY cheap.
You're right, of course. I even lived on a private road for 20 years so should have thought about that (although we couldn't get anywhere except to the neighbor's houses without hitting a public road). The trucking example had me thinking of highways rather than residential streets and private lanes. I stand corrected and amended my post to accurately reflect the situation.
While indeed there are private roads in existence I think your original premise that the vast majority of miles driven in the US happens on public roads is still valid. Sort of like how pointing out how one's Aunt Bertha lived to be 89 despite smoking 2 packs per day doesn't negate the fact that smoking generally causes life shortening illnesses like lung cancer.
Nobody seems to be getting cancer from our private or locally-owned roads here.
We are however being subjected to pressure from outside forces to bring our roads "up to standard", because they tend to be narrow, twisty, have lovely trees too close to the roadway, and so on.
We adopted some years ago a locally-appropriate plan for our roads, and so far we're trying to stick to it, even though the State tells us we should all be dead by now because they are too dangerous...
http://sanjuanco.com/publicworks/scenicrdmanual.aspx
What a perfect illustration of one of the major problems facing us right now. Issues that effect only a very few people are bogging down legislation much the same way a very fine point sidetracked this thread. We need leaders that can look at the big picture and begin to do what is good for our country as a whole. They need to sort out what will benefit the most people when prioritizing legislation. This is as good a reason as any to fear big government, it is constantly bogged down. Bae's roads should be handled by their local government (as they are). There should be no real consideration of those roads in national transportation policy beyond a simple foot note that passes the responsibility on down to that local jurisdiction. The government is too big in part because it keeps absorbing responsibility for things that should be local or state issues.
iris lily
12-18-11, 2:24pm
... The government is too big in part because it keeps absorbing responsibility for things that should be local or state issues.
yes, exactly. Including Education.
Today I leaned of yet another gubmnt regulation, a new and more restrictive one about lead paint. Now when replacing windows in our old houses the average joe will have to address the tiny particles of lead paint that remain after 2 generations of replacement windows. Or, in the case of my friend, her original windows were pulled out, soaked in a stripper chemical, and rehung. There is no lead anywhere on the window. But they will root around in the window casing and find specks of lead and there is a mandated procedure for dealing with that.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.