After listening to all the discussion, it seems that Obama supports moving much closer to a Unitary governmental system. (Feds in charge) This means the government needs to collect a lot of money and create one size fits all policies. (ie education, healthcare, immigration, welfare, workers rights,etc) Therefore removing this authority and responsibility from the local and state governments. In essence saying that the Local folks are not to be trusted to take care of their own citizens.
Where as Romney wants to maintain our current Federalist governmental system and ensure the States keep their power and flexibility. This means defunding many Federal government programs and empowering the States to tax and manage the programs if they choose to, and run it in the way the choose.
As I noted in the Hierarchy, doing detail things at that high level is just too ineffective and inefficient for my taste. The States and individual citizens can do this much better. Maybe I'll add these labels to the continuum, Unitary on the Left, Federalism at about 20% and Conferate at the far right.
Romney still has my vote even though I don't like Ryan's strong ProLife Anti-Gay views.
CNN If Romney is Elected
CNN If Obama is Elected
CNN Poll of Polls
FOX News Election Center
Fed, Confed & Unitary
Spark Govt Systems
G2A Responsibility Hierarchy
G2A Political Continuum
Of course here are some more reasons why folks are voting for Obama... (ie Obama bucks and phones) He has to cry when these people choose to support him on line or in front of a camera... Please forgive the commentator for making Rush look like a moderate, I thought the clips were more interesting.
Info Wars Report - Phones Compilation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Is the issue whether we have a unitary system of government, or one with different entities of government serve different roles. Although, even with football teams, if one player drops the ball it's up other players to pick it up, if they can. The player who doesn't do that when the need arises, arguing that it isn't his job to do that, might quickly find himself released. In any event, the founders, should anyone want to take their views into account, clearly came down on the side that in economic terms, we should be one nation, a decision that was affirmed at Gettysburg, some years later.
I read on on this board that it is the duty of all of us to help those in need. To what extent is that duty limited by arbitrarily drawn lines on a map which in fact have no physical reality. Are we somehow relieved of our duty to help those on the east coast, for example because they live in different states?
==Hiram
The federalists, by the way, favored strong federal government. And while there don't seem to be any memorials to Alexander Hamilton, theirs is the view that prevailed. It's interesting that there are more than a few memorials around to Hamilton's great antagonist, Thomas Jefferson, but it was his view of America that failed.
If we defund federal programs, what impact will that have on the right to travel? Minnesota is a wealthy, high benefit, state, and Texas is a relatively poor state. Will we be able to bar Texans from moving to Minnesota to take advantage of our higher benefit levels?
--Hiram
One last thing. Federal government is just as local as any other kind of government. Your mailman doesn't commute from Idaho.
--Hiram
Then do you support getting rid of of all Local and State politicians, courts departments, etc? That would save some money and simplify things.
Not to disagree with your version of history, but it looks like the Feds started taking over from the States in about 1930. (~30% of spend 1930 to 60% of spend in 1950) Now it seems that Obama wants to take it to a whole new level.
Not sure how to treat the blue area, it is Fed money sent back to the states for Medical.
It is hard to imagine we went from where gov't was only ~12% of our economy to it being ~38% in only 80 yrs. This can not be a good trend line.
One could argue 1933, others argue that we didn't really begin to become once country until 1954. For me, I have always seen the greatest constitutional event, the one that defined as a nation, was the Civile War.
But in economic terms, the founders always saw us as one nation, that's why they enacted the interstate commerce clause.
As for getting rid of different entities of government, does the quarterback want to get rid of the offensive line, simply because the don't handle the ball often?
One reason the federal government is we have increased what we define what the federal government does, particularly in the medical area. But as I have also pointed out the growth of the federal government has not kept pace with the increase in the size of the population. A lot of what the federal government does consists of simply ministerial tasks, writing Social Security checks for example. And it really is misleading to think the growing percentage of Americans who receive them as an arm of the federal government.
--Hiram
Well tomorrow we will get a better feel about if the citizens think the government is getting too big and intrusive or not.
The 2 candidates definitely have different visions. One full of Gov't provided Wealth Transfer and one where People get to keep more of their personal property.
Interesting link...
Powerline Romney Surging
My friend and I had an interesting discussion at lunch, and it seems to me that the growth of govt answer may depend on our old friend.
If Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment are just another Gov't program that is paid for by Taxes. Then the increase in expenditures is definitely a measure of the increase of govt size. Just like when they choose to spend more on welfare, war, NASA, etc. All of these are expenditure that govt can and should manage.
Where as if the premiums were mandatory savings and insurance payments, then the govt would just be the trustee. And the trust fund would not be part of the govt.
Since Hiram and J have agreed that payroll taxes are just taxes. It seems that govt has grown significantly per my previous point.
Then the increase in expenditures is definitely a measure of the increase of govt size.
Why is that. If for some reason you decide to pay twice as much for a rocket ship, is it twice as large? Is your house bigger in the winter than the summer because in the winter it costs more to heat?
This is not to say there aren't costs that can be managed, one can drive a tougher bargain with the rocket ship manufacturer, or one can lower the house's thermostat. But the management of costs related to something bears no necessary relationship to how big that something is.
Payroll taxes are just taxes, but then that's all they ever were. In which coat pocket the government chooses to put the money has no bearing on the size of the coat.
--Hiram
Yes if NASA's budget grew as a percent of the govt's budget, I would say it is getting bigger. It apparently would have gained power to spend more of the limited funds.
Just like govt having greater spending authority as a percentage of the GDP shows its growth.
This seems similar to the concept used by Liberals who fear the "growing" power and influence of the wealthy. Instead of some wealthy person who earned the money, it is politicians and bureaucrats trying to wield the power by seizing control of more of the economy. And we have been letting them.
USA Today Koch Influence
Yes if NASA's budget grew as a percent of the govt's budget, I would say it is getting bigger.
Why would you say that? Let's say the cost of it's rocket ships double for whatever reason. It doesn't employ more people, it doesn't have more buildings. If you visited a NASA facility there would be no visible change in size. It's budget may have grown or declined with respect to some arbitrarily chosen number, but that number changes as well. How do changes in the GDP affect the size of NASA?
--
Apparently I'll have to think about how I could explain this more clearly...
By your rational though, it is nice to see that you don't see the wealthy 1% having a large portion of America's wealth as a problem. Since it apparently doesn't matter what percentage people have?
By your rational though, it is nice to see that you don't see the wealthy 1% having a large portion of America's wealth as a problem.
A pie doesn't change size based on the size of the portions that are taken out of it. And whether the portions are too large, or too small is a different issue. For myself, I am less concerned with the size of the pie that goes to wealthy as I am with the size of the pie that goes to those who are not.
The other concern I have is that our economy is far too concerned with dividing up the pie than making it bigger. We have managed to concoct a system that rewards way too many, way too much for doing way too little in contributing to overall economic growth. We have, in effect adopted Mitt Romney values, mistakenly equating what should be a very minor and insignificant part of our economy, with the economy as a whole. And what's so much worse is that we make financial, political, and economic decisions on that distorted view of the world, which has resulted in rampant mispricing throughout our economy, and resulting in huge waste.
I often saw this in the campaign where any criticism of Bain Capital was automatically assumed to be a criticism of capitalism in general. I can't think of any other context right now, where a criticism of a specific business is taken to be a criticism of business as a whole, or capitalism as a whole. And that's wrong. Bain and others aren't representative of capitalism as a whole, they are more like capitalism's bookies dedicated to finding ways to generate wealth from the risks taken by others. It's not an entirely worthless role, but one that doesn't create wealth, indeed one that doesn't depend on the creation of wealth to be successful. Bain Capital, like you local bookie, makes the same profit on good football teams as he does on bad football teams.
--Hiram
So allocations do matter.
And I disagree with trusting politicians and bureaucrats to correctly spend 40% of our economy. I would rather have private citizens spend their own money.
I would rather have private citizens spend their own money.
Perhaps, in a different world that would be nice. But in the real world, the one we actually live, money is power, and because private citizens don't have money, they inevitably lose, to those to do. And among the myriad of problems with that is Mitt Romney, whose economic power isn't based on spending his own money, but on spending other people's money, the benefits of which accrue to himself, and the risks of which invariably accrue to others.
--Hiram
Well we agree on one thing. Money is power.
However, as I stated I think it is the state is accumulating too much money and power.
I mean they make Gates and Buffet look like paupers...
Post a Comment