I found this an interesting read... VOX GOP Can Not Pass a Budget
For a different view... Politico GOP Leaders Unveil
BI Tax Reform after Trump Deal with Dems
It is kind of amazing the level of gridlock we are experiencing given that one party is supposedly in control. The good news for me is that I like a slow moving government. :-)
For a different view... Politico GOP Leaders Unveil
BI Tax Reform after Trump Deal with Dems
It is kind of amazing the level of gridlock we are experiencing given that one party is supposedly in control. The good news for me is that I like a slow moving government. :-)
26 comments:
I think the GOP is the enemy of the poor and near poor working people. I agree that their difficulty in passing a budget is a good thing but they will eventually get it done.
Republicans aren't about doing things. Apart from tax cuts, they are about preventing things getting done. But now that Trump has learned about the joys of dealing with the supposedly obstructionist Democratic Party, that might change.
==Hiram
Laurie,
That's funny... I think the DEMs are the enemy of the poor and near poor working people. The DEMs work so hard to turn them into dependent needy individuals with little self esteem and little hope.
Hiram,
The GOP says it wants to do a lot of good things. (ie reduce regulations, reduce taxes, shrink government, etc) They just don't seem to be able to work together to get it done.
Regulations do things, so it's natural that the party against getting things done would oppose them. While Republicans want to reduce taxes, they don't really want to reduce the things we spend taxes on. Trump, who is very popular among Republicans, made it clear he was very opposed to cutting Social Security, and Medicare, while strongly increasing our funding of the military. Well, as any household budgeter knows, you can't reduce spending without reducing the things you spend money on.
Government is pretty shrunken already. Government employment hasn't kept pace with population growth. Government spending has increased, but does that mean when someone starts collecting Social Security, or a child gets needed medical treatment that's paid for by SS or medicaid, that government has gotten larger?
--Hiram
Some regulations do things and some regulations stop things from being done...
Please remember that what Trump says and what Trump does can be very different.
Thanks to technology and improved communications there really is no need to tie government employee head count to the number of citizens in the country. On a related note...
Please remember that what Trump says and what Trump does can be very different.
Trump contradicts himself a lot and that facilitates cherry picking. But what is always the truth about Donald, what made him so appealing to the Russians, is that through his vanity, and his insecurity, he is easily manipulated. He wants to win, but he doesn't have much interest in what he wins. So the key to manipulating Trump is to construct scenarios which he can plausibly, and sometimes even implausibly, present himself as the winner. The Democrats are doing that now, with considerable success.
People want to say government is bigger, but they don't want to be pinned down as to exactly how. Is it in the increase in spending? But the spending is on health care and pensions? Does that spending make government bigger? If not, in what other specific way is government getting larger?
==Hiram
Well you know with me it is all about personal vs governmental choice and who bears the consequences of a person's poor decisions. Remember...
"•In 1916 citizens got to keep ~90% of the GDP to do with as they felt was best for their families. The government politicians and bureaucrats were given ~10% of the GDP to keep citizens safe and to run the country.
•In 1966 citizens got to keep ~75% of the GDP to do with as they felt was best for their families. The government politicians and bureaucrats were given ~25% of the GDP to keep citizens safe, to run the country and to help the truly needy.
•In 2016 citizens get to keep ~68% of the GDP to do with as they feel is best for their families. The government politicians and bureaucrats are given ~37% of the GDP to keep citizens safe, to run the country, to help the truly needy and to ???"
So a citizen used to have much more control over what they saved, where they invested, what they spent, when they spent it, etc.
Now they have much less control... I would say that is straight forward example of how government has grown at the expense of the individuals.
The assumption that underlies your comments is that not being taxed is equivalent to freedom. And I don't think that's true. Countries that have low government spending as a % of GDP (like Chad, Sudan, Uganda, Somalia) tend to be less free, not more.
That's not to say that it means that paying lots of taxes means you're more free, either, but rather that the analysis needs to be more sophisticated than just pointing to a percentage and saying -- aha, freedom! The question comes down to what you think of as "freedom". To me, the notion that I pay taxes today that enable elderly folks to have Medicare and Social Security isn't a freedom-reducer, it's a freedom-enhancer.
So a citizen used to have much more control over what they saved,
When did government take over their IRA's and 401k plans? Back in 1916 they could do anything they wanted with them.
The Federal government does three things. It provides National Defense, it provides health care, and it provides retirement benefits. It did none of those things in 1916, and none of those things existed to any real extent back then. Which do you want to give up?
--Hiram
Sean,
If I said anything so foolish, I think you would accuse me of false equivalency. The reality is that the greatest country in the modern world prospered and grew under a government that had lower taxes and more personal freedoms. That of course being the great USA. It is odd how Liberals always fall back on the Chad, Sudan, Uganda, Somalia, etc silliness...
Of course being required to pay taxes so that older people have a welfare program is the opposite of freedom. If you doubt this, please feel free to try refusing to use your payroll tax in a different way. Or maybe you should ask the government for some of the money you have been forced to pay into the system back so you can start your dream business...
Hiram,
I think you are stretching the National Defense concept and your responsibilities seem off.
"Under the U.S. Constitution, certain powers are granted exclusively to either the national government or the state governments, while other powers are shared by both.
In general, the Constitution grants those powers needed to deal with issues of overarching national concern exclusively to the U.S. federal government, while the state governments are granted powers to deal with issues pertaining to issues affecting the particular state only.
All laws, regulations, and policies enacted by the federal government must fall within one of the powers specifically granted to it in the Constitution. For example, the federal government’s powers to levy taxes, mint money, declare war, establish post offices, and punish piracy at sea are all enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.
In addition, the federal government claims the power pass many diverse laws – such as those regulating the sale of guns and tobacco products – under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, granting it the power, “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Basically, the Commerce Clause allows the federal government to pass laws dealing in any way with the transportation of goods and services between state lines but no power to regulate commerce that takes place entirely within a single state.
The extent of the powers granted to the federal government depends on how the pertinent sections of the Constitution are interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court."
"Under the U.S. Constitution, certain powers are granted exclusively to either the national government or the state governments, while other powers are shared by both.
Are you arguing that a document written in 1787 tells us how large government was in 1916 or is in 2017? Did they have pensions or health care in 1787? Did they even have an army?
--Hiram
I am simply showing that we have had and have been paying for a national defense since 1775... And that your statement is incorrect. Just think of our wars with the Brits, Mexicans, etc.
"The Federal government does three things. It provides National Defense, it provides health care, and it provides retirement benefits. It did none of those things in 1916, and none of those things existed to any real extent back then."
And personally I would be happy if government got out of the healthcare and retirement business... To me they are just ways to forcefully transfer the consequences of poor decisions / poor effort from one group of citizens to another.
I would much prefer if people had the freedom to choose and had to deal with the personal consequences of the choices they made. Whenever one arbitrarily shifts who bears the consequences, one may drive undesirable behaviors.
I begrudgingly accept that SS, SSD, Unemployment Insurance and Medicare are forced pay insurance accounts that are necessary because so many Americans do make irresponsible life choices and have a hard time planning for the distant future.
And since our society is not willing to make them live with the consequences. (ie poverty, dependent on private charity, etc) It is better to make them pay as they go even if the rest of us are caught in the net with them.
However do not fool yourself, society's absorbing the costs / natural consequences for those who make poor decisions and show little effort is not good for our country. It simply reduces the incentive for those people to change, grow and improve and contribute to the well being of our country.
I am simply showing that we have had and have been paying for a national defense since 1775...
Have we? To any meaningful extent? For most of our history, in real terms, our military has been virtually nonexistent.
But in any event, I don't see the relevance of the constitution to the size of government. Lots of countries don't have constitutions at all and still have governments of various sizes. And it's also a fact that even with our government, the non government portion of the economy today is much larger than the economy of 1787. Government may be doing something right.
We can debate what government should do, but the question here has to do with what government is. It's larger than it was in 1787, but is it larger than it was in 1987? What metric would we choose to answer that question? As I asked earlier, when I start receiving social security and medicare, will that make government larger? Am I government?
--Hiram
"The reality is that the greatest country in the modern world prospered and grew under a government that had lower taxes and more personal freedoms."
Freedom does not solely consist of lower taxes. We had lower taxes a century ago. Of course, women and non-whites couldn't vote, gay folks were forced to be in the closet, educational attainment was far lower than it is today, on and on and on and on... We're markedly *more* free today than we were back then even if we pay more in taxes.
Sean,
And now you are conflating 2 different topics.
Freedoms for women and minorities have increased greatly, however this could have happened without the government taking ever more out of our pay checks to use as they deemed appropriate.
Just think how much "more free" we would have been if government did not mandate:
- how much we pay in FICA (ie SS, SSD, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare)
- where that money is invested, when we can get it back and who gets what back
- how much we will "give" to the less successful and how it is used
Remember one of my favorite comics.
Here are some other cute ones.
Comic2
Comic 3
Comic 4
Ah forget it... Knock yourself out...
Other countries have higher tax burdens and do fine. This country went through it's greatest growth period, in the post war period when tax rates were incredibly high. The fact is, like anything else, what matters in terms of economic growth isn't the tax burden, it's what we spend money on.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Actually government was made bigger when they started taking money from you that you could have chosen to use differently. At that time they decided they knew better than you how your money should be used.
Imagine a household making $100,000 / year for simple math. At 10 % they had $90,000 to spend as they wished. At 38% they only have $62,000 to use as they wish. Liberals seemingly believe the government knows how to use that $28,000 better than the home owners.
I do agree with you somewhat here... "what matters in terms of economic growth isn't the tax burden, it's what we spend money on" And unfortunately our government spends a lot of money on itself and supporting people who are making poor choices. Now if they improved their effectiveness and held recipients accountable for improving themselves, we would not be having a disagreement.
I really liked this comic... :-)
"And now you are conflating 2 different topics."
No, I'm rejecting your insistence that I see the world through your frame.
"Freedoms for women and minorities have increased greatly, however this could have happened without the government taking ever more out of our pay checks to use as they deemed appropriate."
Yet, it didn't.
"Just think how much "more free" we would have been if government did not mandate:
- how much we pay in FICA (ie SS, SSD, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare)"
Let's just take this an example. 100 years ago, before these programs were in place, if you got cancer, you died as quickly as the disease wanted to take you. X-rays weren't even widely available, much less modern cancer treatments. Chemotherapy, for instance, has only been widely available for the last 50 years or so. MRIs, CT scans and the like are all newer, as our the powerful Rx we now have. So even people who plan well are going to have a hard time saving up enough money to both live and face end-of-life health care expenses.
If you take the government out of health care for the elderly or disabled, what happens? Only a tiny sliver of those folks end up getting the care they need. Because the market will price everyone else out. Would you want children to have to decide between cashing out their 401ks or paying for their parent's treatment? By ensuring a base level of financial security for our elderly we not only make them more free, but their families more free and everyone's family more free.
But that's tyranny to you. How small your world is.
I am happy to discuss both of the above mentioned unrelated frames.
Please also remember that I am fine with charitable giving and even government care for the elderly / disabled. However our society has moved far left from that logical position. Now we provide a great deal of funds to tens of millions of healthy citizens and require almost no improvements / changes from them.
And unfortunately that has had catastrophic results for many millions of children who are growing up poor in single Parent homes.
By the way, who used the word tyranny? (ie cruel and oppressive government or rule)
All I said was...
"So a citizen used to have much more control over what they saved, where they invested, what they spent, when they spent it, etc.
Now they have much less control... I would say that is straight forward example of how government has grown at the expense of the individuals."
Actually government was made bigger when they started taking money from you that you could have chosen to use differently
does it get smaller when it spends that money with people who can do with it what they like?
Imagine a household making $100,000 / year for simple math. At 10 % they had $90,000 to spend as they wished.
What do they wish for? should they use their money to pay for potholes? On the building or repair of roads to their lake home? How about public schools for their kids? Are these things people don't want? How about armies to provide national defense? Shouldn't we let markets provide these things?
--Hiram
Now they have much less control
Bear in mind that when people have the ability to invest in fraudulent schemes, their decisions affect us at all. In the 2000's the banks nearly destroyed the economy because they found investing your money could be immensely profitable for them at your expense.
--Hiram
I see Trump has put a deal on the table allowing for extension of DACA in exchange for increased border security, i.e. the hiring of more unionized workers. Note this is a win win for Democrats. We get DACA which we like, and we get bigger government in the form of more government employees, which we also like. It's the irony of big government opponents who object to government getting larger when it means a child getting medical care, but seem to have no problem when it means hiring a border patrol officer who has nothing at all to do with the actual issues involved in illegal immigration.
--Hiram
Post a Comment