Well Eric is back covering the pro big government supporters. MP Gov't Helping Things Get Better
"Continually the Left makes the case that the Right is trying shrink the government to somewhere we have not been before. Often comparing the GOP's dream government to some third world country. All the while neglecting to mention that the total government spend as a % of GDP has been growing pretty much non-stop since 1900. Federal_State_and_Local_Spending_In_20th_CenturyThoughts?
Now I am not recommending that we go back to 8% of GDP, however I think 33+% is probably excessive. How about instead of giving government more of our hard earned dollars, we demand that they become more effective and efficient with what they already receive.
I also, thought this was amusing. "But, Hacker said, “the new idea that government is parasitic on a very small creative elite and the rest of society is mooching off of that elite is new to me and troubling.”" Because of course Ayn Rand was writing about that concept in 1943." G2A
20 comments:
Continually the Left makes the case that the Right is trying shrink the government to somewhere we have not been before.
I don't know that this case true, so it does raise the question of why the left wants to make it. For one thing, we can't even agree on what "size of government" means. Some want to define it terms of budget, but that makes sense only if we believe the government gets larger when someone applies for Social Security benefits.
But the fact is, the government is larger, does more than it did in the past. I would also suggest that by a lot of measures the size of government is stable even stagnant. And if we do think of size of government in budgetary terms, it's growth is driven by matters we can't control such as the aging of the population.
And I should note, while the right may pay a certain amount of lip service to the shrinkage of government, their policies are in no way consistent with that. Republican presidential candidates typically advocate a larger military. That's support for bigger government any way you look at it. They do want to reduce "entitlements" sure, but not what entitlements pay for which is basically population aging. Their leading presidential candidate doesn't even support that.
--Hiram
Facts and Data Even though the world is equally or more dangerous, we are spending less on defense than in the past. Where as Liberals seem to say we are spending more / too much. I don't know what the correct number should be, but let's understand the reality.
And of course government gets bigger when government decides how much you will pay into medicare / social security and what you will get out of it. Thus reducing your freedom and responsibility to make these decisions yourself.
As for "growth is driven by matters we can't control such as the aging of the population." That of course is silly. The government can not control the aging, however they do determine who gets which benefits. They can swallow their pride and admit that they failed to invest all those premiums we paid in the way of payroll taxes wisely, thus they will need to reduce benefits or collect even more money.
As even conservatives acknowledge a lot of what government does is simple wealth redistribution. If a transfer agent increases the amount of wealth from A to B, does that mean the transfer agent is bigger?
--Hiram
In terms of absolute power and control, most definitely. Just try to not pay your payroll taxes so you can save and invest them yourself...
And apparently in headcount also.
Here is some interesting data / math... One govt employee for 13.5 citizens
For the last 55 years the politicians have been compromising and the spending has just gone up and up. Please remember that both the Democrats and the Republicans like to spend on things that their voters want. Personally I would prefer to have more of that money in my pocket so my family can spend it on what we want.
It is a spending problem
So can we really afford more compromise if it does not lead to be more effective and efficient government? Personally I am happy some folks are saying no to the past behaviors that led us to a $20,000,000,000,000 national debt and nearly a record spending rate. (% of GDP) See link above.
By the way, the National Debt works out to about $62,500 / citizen.
I am thinking about having my niece Sophie hold up a new sign... She owes $12,500 more and I think she will turning 5...
By they way, the previous comment was something I posted at MP in response to the typical Liberal "we need compromise and spend more. Government has been doing so good..."
Kevin Drum has something to say about the national debt, too:
Dear Time Magazine: Cut the Crap, Okay?
or you could follow Drum's link and read this from Vox:
Time magazine's new cover trolls economically literate people with absurd scare tactics
VOX Article
Sometimes Mr Drum makes a little sense. This is not one of those times.
He is correct that rich will end up paying for more of it... They are the ones who pay for most our public expenses. Thanks heavens for those folks.
Now he is correct that using debt to create leverage and increase benefits can be a good thing. Borrowing for roads, bridges, etc that will pay back is a good thing. Or to fight a war and preserve our freedom.
Now look at his "The Fake Debt Crisis" Chart. Like with a household or a company it is important to look at the Debt to Equity ratio. Now one can understand why the ratio was high after the Civil War, after WWI and after WWII. I mean those were long drawn out expenses, and it took awhile to pay them off.
Since ending slavery and keeping us from being forced to speak German were very important, that was some excellent use of debt. However using it HEAVILY since ~1970 has been a very bad use of debt.
Also, Mr Drum made a point to explain how low our interest cost is at this time. That is true , however Natl Debt is like an "adjustable rate mortgage". That payment can increase many times very quickly if interest rates start to increase.
According to the chart, the debt to equity ratio in 1970 was a healthy ~0.42. (50/120) And now it is an unhealthy ~.88. (105/125) Can you think of any significant investments that were made to rationalize this massive increase in debt load?
I can't... I think we citizens are just spending too much and not paying enough. Seemingly happy to pass the excess costs on to our children.
Look at the chart in this article if you want to see of over leveraged we are against the value of our economy.
For a different perspective. Still looks not so good.
By the way, the National Debt works out to about $62,500 / citizen.
What is percentage of the national debt with respect to the overall value of being an American citizen? As always, the question about any given number is whether it's a little or a lot?
--Hiram
Well as I have shown above, based on our country's history and relative to other countries... We are significantly over leveraged...
So does that mean that if a national asset goes down in value, we can expect a margin call?
--Hiram
If things get bad enough. See Greece if you doubt this.
See Greece if you doubt this.
We can print our own money. Greece can't.
--Hiram
How about Japan then?
Japan can print their own money too.
Greece is like Puerto Rico or Texas, dependent on the policy of others.
--Hiram
The MP Comments are still going strong... Here is my response to Paul and Anthony who swear the Bush / GOP is 100% responsible for our national debt problem.
"Please remember that many Democrats voted with the old bus driver throughout his time in office. And that the Democrats and the new bus driver were more concerned with passing a legacy healthcare program than raising taxes on the rich when they had full control. I am pretty sure the rich could have afforded higher taxes even during the recession. And the poor needed that extra funding then more than ever.
Please remember that I think politicians from both parties and many citizens are responsible for our mess.... I mean they all have wealthy donors and many of them are wealthy themselves... And they all want to get "stuff" for their voters, be it tax cuts, tax credits, programs and/or benefits.
Which citizens are willing to say, I am happy and will vote for you if you raise my tax rate, and/or cut my credit, program or benefits? I think many Americans are happy running a deficit today if it means they have more now, and can have someone else pay for it. Maybe it our culture's norm to live in debt..." G2A
It's always hard in our two party system to argue that one party is 100% responsible for everything. As a Democrat, I have always acknowledged that part of the eoonomic foundation of the disastrous Bush years was laid in the Clinton administration. And in all honesty, I have to admit than in 2004, Democrats just like Republicans, were not campaigning on a platform demanding tight money policies and making it more difficult to buy a home. It's the Federal Reserve, not politicians, who are suppose to make those decisions.
Mistakes were made on all sides, as they always will be. The question going forward is always who will learn from those mistakes, and will what is learned be right?
--Hiram
Post a Comment