A (hopefully civil) political thread

[Shavely Manden]

Listening again to a recent This American Life, something finally clicked with me...I totally don't get why something has to be done to control the size of government. I kinda like government services...law enforcement keeps me safe, education improves everybody's lives, social security and medicare make sure my aging grandparents aren't too much of a burden on the family...I don't understand why we'd want to give those up.

This isn't a rant or an accusation, it's a genuine question. I understand wanting to pay less tax, but countries with higher taxation (e.g., Scandinavian countries) have higher standards of living. What's the point in sitting on piles of cash if we're deprived of basic services?

 

[mmack66]

The problem is that the US isn't sitting on piles of cash and the government spends way more than they take in.

 

[Baloosh]

In before this thread devolves and gets locked and/or deleted.

You know it will. You *all* know it will.

Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That... is the sound... of inevitability.

 

[Shavely Manden]

The problem is that the US isn't sitting on piles of cash and the government spends way more than they take in.

Yes, but it feels like nobody's even considering raising taxes as a solution to the deficit. I know it's politically difficult, but to me it seems better than massive cuts in Medicare and Social Security (and I'm nowhere near retirement age). Plus, plenty of folks on the right seem to use the limit-the-size-of-government thing as a reason to lower taxes, which would make the deficit even worse. I don't understand this way of thinking, and I'd really some insight instead of just getting mad every time I turn on the news.

In before this thread devolves and gets locked and/or deleted.

You know it will. You *all* know it will.

Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That... is the sound... of inevitability.

...yup, I imagine it will. But I'm really curious as to how the other side thinks, so maybe there'll be some civil replies before the inevitable descent into chaos and lockage.

 

[Bertilak]

I see two issues: Freedom and Economics. These are intertwined. For an example of this relationship, note that Von Mises' book on economics is titled "Human Action".

From an economic perspective, see http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/stay-worried/.

 

[Kevan]

Raising taxes (even 3% on the rich) is politically difficult as is cutting entitlements, much less just a LITTLE in defense (over 50% of our budget is this alone). Even cancelling the new moon mission and cutting NASA's budget caused a huge political fit.

I don't think there's going to be a solution in the short term. And we still give billions every year to Israel, who have proven they can take care of themselves, so why not stop? Again, it would cause a political fit.

............In before the lock!

 

[patrisVII]

...law enforcement keeps me safe..

Possibly - if they successfully find, prosecute and incarcerate/terminate violent offenders, you may be safer. But of course the offender had to initially commit a crime, so in every case at least one person was not made safe by law enforcement.

...education improves everybody's lives..

Terms needs to be defined. What is the improvement and what is the content of the education that brings it about?

American public eduction is quite poor at producing literacy and does not even attempt to teach logical thought - the two primary goals of western education, historically speaking.

social security and medicare make sure my aging grandparents aren't too much of a burden on the family

We have been conditioned to view the care of our elders - who sacrificed so much to care for us when we were young - as a burden. Think about how this mindset came about.

This isn't a rant or an accusation, it's a genuine question. I understand wanting to pay less tax, but countries with higher taxation (e.g., Scandinavian countries) have higher standards of living. What's the point in sitting on piles of cash if we're deprived of basic services?

Again, terms need to be defined - Europeans pay more for nearly every good and service than Americans (except maybe for sugar), so from that perspective it's difficult to argue for a higher standard of living. They pay for health care via a third party (taxes primarily and private insurance in some countries) but Americans do as well (private insurance primarily with taxes covering the indigent and elderly).

The overarching point is that people are willing to pay for desired services. Physical security, conflict resolution, assistance in the care of elders/juveniles/invalids, eduction of our youth, etc. If people want it, then other people will provide it freely.

When the state provides a desired services, it never does so as a market participant. Rather it does so as a violent monopolizer. No one else can do it, or at the very least they are restrained regarding the extent of what they can provide. As a result the desired service will be of a higher price and a lower quality than that which would be provided via free choices of market participants.

 

[ackvil]

Raising taxes (even 3% on the rich) is politically difficult as is cutting entitlements, much less just a LITTLE in defense (over 50% of our budget is this alone). Even cancelling the new moon mission and cutting NASA's budget caused a huge political fit.

I don't think there's going to be a solution in the short term. And we still give billions every year to Israel, who have proven they can take care of themselves, so why not stop? Again, it would cause a political fit.

............In before the lock!

Actually, Defense is 20% of the budget as is Social Security. The other major parts of the budget are safety net programs (14%), and Interest on Debt (6%). See http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Spending money does not equate with quality. For example, Washington DC spends more money per capita on education and yet has the lowest graduation rate and lowest test scores.

 

[Kevan]

Okay, so my figure was high. But surely we can cut defense by 5%. It would be a start.

 

[Groat]

Some government is preferable, I think we can all agree on that point. Roads, for example, we all like those. It's just that I feel that the government has the tendency to get its nose into things it doesn't need to. FCC regulation of television is one example; TV is so neutered that it's nuts sometimes. God forbid you have on incident at a Super Bowl halftime and every prude around the country starts screaming their head off. Now people want the FCC to have regulatory control over the internet, which I believe is an absolutely horrible idea.

Unemployment is another interesting example. I wouldn't wholeheartedly condemn unemployment, but there have been some interesting studies done on the subject. In parts of Europe that give people money based on a higher percentage of their past income, these studies show that people are unemployed longer. This is most likely due to the opportunity cost of finding a job being lower. I understand it's not as simple as all that, but my point is that the system can be gamed.

I would like to note that I wouldn't lump myself in with the Tea Party. Those people are nuts. My political views just tend to favor a smaller government.

 

[Go West Young Man]

It's just a cultural difference - Americans are by nature self-sufficient frontiers-people who don't trust what they see as 'interference' in their lives. Everyone is responsible for his/her own welfare and the government's job is to get out of the way. People succeed or fall behind based on how hard they work in their own interests. The government is like Dad, providing for necessities but not really involved.

Western Europeans and Canadians are of a more socialist bent, feeling that everyone in society is responsible for the well-being of everyone else. In their minds, people who are fortunate enough to have more should help out those who are less fortunate. The government is like Mom, making sure everyone gets enough milk and cookies and doesn't go to bed hungry.

I'm painting with a pretty wide brush, of course, but both approaches are valid. Each country has created a system that works well for itself, and would be a disaster if transplanted to the other one.

 

[stevedi]

I would like to note that I wouldn't lump myself in with the Tea Party. Those people are nuts.

Really?? Careful who you call "nuts", please, as I DO "lump" myself in with the Tea Party, and I would bet many others here do as well. Its one of the few widespread and truly populist movements that we've seen in this country in our lifetimes.

 

[Kevan]

..............And this thread lasted barely into double digits before it got lock-worthy.

 

[Go West Young Man]

Really?? Careful who you call "nuts", please, as I DO "lump" myself in with the Tea Party, and I would bet many others here do as well. Its one of the few widespread and truly populist movements that we've seen in this country in our lifetimes.

I think there's a difference between the "fiscal conservative/small government Tea Partiers" and the "Crazy nutjob Tea Partiers". There's probably more of the former, but the latter get all the publicity.

 

[Shavely Manden]

Possibly - if they successfully find, prosecute and incarcerate/terminate violent offenders, you may be safer. But of course the offender had to initially commit a crime, so in every case at least one person was not made safe by law enforcement.

Yes, but it's better than nothing, isn't it? Law enforcement can't be privatized -- it's just not profitable. I don't think it's that controversial that law enforcement makes us safer than if we didn't have law enforcement...what's the other option?

American public eduction is quite poor at producing literacy and does not even attempt to teach logical thought - the two primary goals of western education, historically speaking.

Again, it's better than nothing. What's the other option--private schooling? Anybody who can afford private schooling gets it already -- we just can't provide universal education through private means.

We have been conditioned to view the care of our elders - who sacrificed so much to care for us when we were young - as a burden. Think about how this mindset came about.

So, it'd be better for our elders -- who sacrificed so much to care for us when we were young -- to go impoverished and without healthcare? Sure, it'd be great for families to take them all in, but that's just not feasible; even if they have kids, the kids are probably in the "sandwich generation" sacrificing and caring for their own children.

Again, terms need to be defined - Europeans pay more for nearly every good and service than Americans (except maybe for sugar), so from that perspective it's difficult to argue for a higher standard of living. They pay for health care via a third party (taxes primarily and private insurance in some countries) but Americans do as well (private insurance primarily with taxes covering the indigent and elderly).

Europeans live longer, are healthier, have cleaner cities, are better educated, don't have to worry as much about losing their job or going broke, and are just generally happier. Sure, they have less stuff, but what does stuff mean when you're dirty, ignorant, and unhappy?

The overarching point is that people are willing to pay for desired services. Physical security, conflict resolution, assistance in the care of elders/juveniles/invalids, eduction of our youth, etc. If people want it, then other people will provide it freely.

No, other people won't provide it freely. Not if the other person can't pay.

When the state provides a desired services, it never does so as a market participant. Rather it does so as a violent monopolizer. No one else can do it, or at the very least they are restrained regarding the extent of what they can provide. As a result the desired service will be of a higher price and a lower quality than that which would be provided via free choices of market participants.

I don't disagree; things that are practical to provide via the free market should be provided that way. It's just not true that everything can be -- plenty of necessary services just aren't profitable and are impractical in the free market. And it's not true that the government always provides a worse service for a higher price -- there's a reason practically everybody on the B/S/T uses USPS. The government provides small, residential mail at a higher quality and lower price than the private couriers.

This is just depressing; I really thought B&B was up to more than muckraking.

 

[DE_Dude]

This is just depressing; I really thought B&B was up to more than muckraking.

I'm enjoying reading the contrasting opinions so far and personally didn't see anything distasteful about the previous post.

 

[LinuxMintyFresh]

Man, this thread is tempting, but I'm already surprised that it's lasted this long. I don't want hasten its demise any more than necessary. I'll let those more outspoken than I am do that...

 

[Austin]

Folks lets conduct ourselves as gentlemen. Thank you.

 

[mikromicke]

Unemployment is another interesting example. I wouldn't wholeheartedly condemn unemployment, but there have been some interesting studies done on the subject. In parts of Europe that give people money based on a higher percentage of their past income, these studies show that people are unemployed longer. This is most likely due to the opportunity cost of finding a job being lower. I understand it's not as simple as all that, but my point is that the system can be gamed.

There has been a bit of problem in Sweden regarding this. The sitting government (the less socialistic of the two options) introduced something they called job deduction. Essentially meaning that everyone that worked could make a deduction in the taxes and thus get more money left every month. The did this just to make it more interesting to work rather than just get government money for being unemployed (which a lot of people did).

The job deduction made the retirees reaaaally upset and they started arguing that they were taxed higher when they were in fact living on the pension they earned years ago and already had been taxed on. A difficult situation to say the least

 

[Doc4]

Keep calm, guys ... you can't all fix the internet.

(If things get too heated, just discuss something more interesting, like pole vaulting or something ... )