Q. For Small Government Adherents

[rightwinger]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense

See General Welfare

 

[Iceweasel]

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

- We can argue all day long over whether that's true or not. I don't think anyone is specifically charged, constitutionally, with taking care of anyone. The point of the document is to establish a system of self-government within which individual rights are protected.

What the OP seems really to be looking for is a cost-benefit analysis for reducing government.

I again hear your emotion, but don't see any such analysis.

If you choose to say "I don't believe we should look at a cost-benefit analysis", just say so. At least that would be an honest way to say "I have none, my preferences are based on something else. I don't care about costs and benefits."

Curious....How much of a "cost-benefit analysis" was done when our Founders brought forth this country? When they repeatedly warned us about "big government becoming an oligarchy"?

- You're equivocating.

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

That is stunningly wrong.
For starters the fed gov ran in balance or in surplus for most of the years before JFK. Was there an oligarchy then?
You are demonstrating the maxim that a little knowledge is a humorous thing.

- I explained the mechanics of sectoral flows above, which you apparently did not read.

The economy is slightly more complex than a dualistic, black and white approach can grasp.

We were a net exporting country after the war. If you use my model above, you will see how that changes the necessary behavior of government.

I would be happy to explain how a BBA as currently proposed supports oligarchy, if you're inclined to want to know.

You speak with great flatulence.

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

- If you don't care about the "cost-benefit crap", why are you still derailing a thread which is asking for precisely that?

 

[Pksimon2007]

- We can argue all day long over whether that's true or not. I don't think anyone is specifically charged, constitutionally, with taking care of anyone. The point of the document is to establish a system of self-government within which individual rights are protected.

What the OP seems really to be looking for is a cost-benefit analysis for reducing government.

I again hear your emotion, but don't see any such analysis.

If you choose to say "I don't believe we should look at a cost-benefit analysis", just say so. At least that would be an honest way to say "I have none, my preferences are based on something else. I don't care about costs and benefits."

Curious....How much of a "cost-benefit analysis" was done when our Founders brought forth this country? When they repeatedly warned us about "big government becoming an oligarchy"?

- You're equivocating.

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

That is stunningly wrong.
For starters the fed gov ran in balance or in surplus for most of the years before JFK. Was there an oligarchy then?
You are demonstrating the maxim that a little knowledge is a humorous thing.

- I explained the mechanics of sectoral flows above, which you apparently did not read.

The economy is slightly more complex than a dualistic, black and white approach can grasp.

We were a net exporting country after the war. If you use my model above, you will see how that changes the necessary behavior of government.

I would be happy to explain how a BBA as currently proposed supports oligarchy, if you're inclined to want to know.

You speak with great flatulence.

- You consider that an adult answer?

 

[dblack]

To the right, small government means not doing anything that will help people who are struggling

But don't do anything that might annoy the rich

Again, for those incapable of rational thought, it is the job of the STATES to take care of the citizens living there. NOT the fed. Show me in the Constitution where the federal government is charged with this.

Nonsense

It is the job of all levels of Government. Done at the level where it makes the most sense



See General Welfare

Yes, your interpretation of "general welfare" is exactly what's at issue. Some of us don't think that government should be used as a tool to get what we want from others by force.

 

[Pksimon2007]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

- If I need words to put on a bumper sticker, I'll ask.

The Weimar Republic?

I'd be happy to educate you on the experience of the Weimar Republic, so that you can make more informed decisions.

The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power.

Their hyperinflation had nothing to do with profligate spending or large government, and everything to do with harsh war reparations and negative supply shocks.

If you want to understand it, rather than being satisfied with meaningless one-liners, I can do so, or I can post links to good references.

That is stunningly wrong.
Weimar suffered from bad economic polciies. See Milton Friedman's words on the subject.

- If you have an argument, make it. I've read Friedman and disagree. I've explained a position which you have not denied - and I suspect cannot.

This is a debate forum, not a reading club. If you can't make an argument, why bother posting?

 

[Iceweasel]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

- If you don't care about the "cost-benefit crap", why are you still derailing a thread which is asking for precisely that?

Not really. The benefit to government spending is highly subjective since it isn't operating as a business where we can look at dollars out versus dollars in. You talk a lot without saying much.

 

[Iceweasel]

Curious....How much of a "cost-benefit analysis" was done when our Founders brought forth this country? When they repeatedly warned us about "big government becoming an oligarchy"?

- You're equivocating.

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

That is stunningly wrong.
For starters the fed gov ran in balance or in surplus for most of the years before JFK. Was there an oligarchy then?
You are demonstrating the maxim that a little knowledge is a humorous thing.

- I explained the mechanics of sectoral flows above, which you apparently did not read.

The economy is slightly more complex than a dualistic, black and white approach can grasp.

We were a net exporting country after the war. If you use my model above, you will see how that changes the necessary behavior of government.

I would be happy to explain how a BBA as currently proposed supports oligarchy, if you're inclined to want to know.

You speak with great flatulence.

- You consider that an adult answer?

You aren't an adult.

 

[Pksimon2007]

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

Rather than asserting the argument as a given, why don't you simply support it instead? That would make more sense. How does a balanced budget lead to an oligarchy? And a larger deficit lead to more financial stability?

- I already explained both in my post on sectoral balances, but let me pull out the points that apply.

Larger deficits equate to more financial stability because they allow private sector profits and savings even if we have a trade deficit. The only option to maintain savings and profits without a government deficit is to increase private sector debt, which is destabilizing and unsustainable.

A balanced budget amendment promotes oligarchy because it forces the US to become an exporting country, which requires lowering American living standards by reducing the real wealth that we consume and invest ourselves, and sending it to foreign countries instead. The only way to become a net exporting country is to reduce wages, which means that the increase in export revenues necessarily accrues to profits - as well as the balanced budget itself requiring reductions in transfer payments, which in and of themselves mitigate the creation of oligarchy.

 

[bripat9643]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

- If I need words to put on a bumper sticker, I'll ask.

The Weimar Republic?

I'd be happy to educate you on the experience of the Weimar Republic, so that you can make more informed decisions.

The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power.

Their hyperinflation had nothing to do with profligate spending or large government, and everything to do with harsh war reparations and negative supply shocks.

If you want to understand it, rather than being satisfied with meaningless one-liners, I can do so, or I can post links to good references.

"The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power."

That's absolute horseshit. The Weimar government ran practically everything. It had a social insurance program, a medical insurance program, numerous other social programs and regulated business to the teeth.

 

[Iceweasel]

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

Rather than asserting the argument as a given, why don't you simply support it instead? That would make more sense. How does a balanced budget lead to an oligarchy? And a larger deficit lead to more financial stability?

- I already explained both in my post on sectoral balances, but let me pull out the points that apply.

Larger deficits equate to more financial stability because they allow private sector profits and savings even if we have a trade deficit. The only option to maintain savings and profits without a government deficit is to increase private sector debt, which is destabilizing and unsustainable.

A balanced budget amendment promotes oligarchy because it forces the US to become an exporting country, which requires lowering American living standards by reducing the real wealth that we consume and invest ourselves, and sending it to foreign countries instead. The only way to become a net exporting country is to reduce wages, which means that the increase in export revenues necessarily accrues to profits - as well as the balanced budget itself requiring reductions in transfer payments, which in and of themselves mitigate the creation of oligarchy.

So an increased tax and spend policy creates more profit for the privated sector? OK, explain why we shouldn't increase taxes across the board to 90%.

 

[Dragonlady]

The idea that a country of 300 million people, with the largest military in the history of the world, could function with small government, is beyond ridiculous. If you believe that it could, I have a ski resort in Miami I'd like to sell you.

On the other hand, if the U.S. were to tax citizens to the level required to balance the budget with the current level of the military spending and use that money to pay for infrastructure, education, and rebuilding your inner cities, instead of spending the money abroad to fight wars which protect the assets of American corporations, then you might have a country to be proud of.

I've come to believe that right wingers have no memory of what happened after the 1929 stock market crash and the poverty and devastation to the people that resulted.

 

[Pksimon2007]

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

- If you don't care about the "cost-benefit crap", why are you still derailing a thread which is asking for precisely that?

Not really. The benefit to government spending is highly subjective since it isn't operating as a business where we can look at dollars out versus dollars in. You talk a lot without saying much.

- I just laid it out in sectoral balance terms, which can be represented mathematically.

So which premise of mine do you disagree with?

- We should be able to enjoy our real wealth rather than shipping it to foreign countries for others to enjoy
- We should not tax people when it is unnecessary to do so
- Business exists for the purpose of making profit. To enjoy the benefits of trade, profit must be achievable
- Savings is a stabilizing force in the economy
- Continuously expanding private sector debt is destabilizing and ultimately unsustainable
- Oligarchy and plutocracy are undesirable.

Those are my subjective premises, which are necessary to and sufficient to establish the beneficial nature of my model.

With which do you disagree?

 

[Iceweasel]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

- If I need words to put on a bumper sticker, I'll ask.

The Weimar Republic?

I'd be happy to educate you on the experience of the Weimar Republic, so that you can make more informed decisions.

The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power.

Their hyperinflation had nothing to do with profligate spending or large government, and everything to do with harsh war reparations and negative supply shocks.

If you want to understand it, rather than being satisfied with meaningless one-liners, I can do so, or I can post links to good references.

"The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power."

That's absolute horseshit. The Weimar government ran practically everything. It had a social insurance program, a medical insurance program, numerous other social programs and regulated business to the teeth.

Gotta be a college student freshly programed by a commie poly-sci professor.

 

[Pksimon2007]

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

Rather than asserting the argument as a given, why don't you simply support it instead? That would make more sense. How does a balanced budget lead to an oligarchy? And a larger deficit lead to more financial stability?

- I already explained both in my post on sectoral balances, but let me pull out the points that apply.

Larger deficits equate to more financial stability because they allow private sector profits and savings even if we have a trade deficit. The only option to maintain savings and profits without a government deficit is to increase private sector debt, which is destabilizing and unsustainable.

A balanced budget amendment promotes oligarchy because it forces the US to become an exporting country, which requires lowering American living standards by reducing the real wealth that we consume and invest ourselves, and sending it to foreign countries instead. The only way to become a net exporting country is to reduce wages, which means that the increase in export revenues necessarily accrues to profits - as well as the balanced budget itself requiring reductions in transfer payments, which in and of themselves mitigate the creation of oligarchy.

So an increased tax and spend policy creates more profit for the privated sector? OK, explain why we shouldn't increase taxes across the board to 90%.

- You are proving your inability to read what is written.

I am advocating larger deficits. A deficit occurs when government spends money WITHOUT taxing it back.

I am advocating lower taxes. derp

 

[bripat9643]

I would argue that those who advocate for balanced budgets and the like are actually advocating for the sort of oligarchy against which the founders warned.

People like me, who argue for larger deficits, are not.

You are equating budget deficits with oligarchy, with absolutely no logical justification for doing so.

Rather than asserting the argument as a given, why don't you simply support it instead? That would make more sense. How does a balanced budget lead to an oligarchy? And a larger deficit lead to more financial stability?

- I already explained both in my post on sectoral balances, but let me pull out the points that apply.

Larger deficits equate to more financial stability because they allow private sector profits and savings even if we have a trade deficit. The only option to maintain savings and profits without a government deficit is to increase private sector debt, which is destabilizing and unsustainable.

ROFL! That has to be one of the dumbest claims ever posted on this forum. Apparently, before 1932, no corporation in this country ever made a profit! That's what you would have us believe.

A balanced budget amendment promotes oligarchy because it forces the US to become an exporting country, which requires lowering American living standards by reducing the real wealth that we consume and invest ourselves, and sending it to foreign countries instead. The only way to become a net exporting country is to reduce wages, which means that the increase in export revenues necessarily accrues to profits - as well as the balanced budget itself requiring reductions in transfer payments, which in and of themselves mitigate the creation of oligarchy.

It does nothing of the sort. Your economic theories are pure abracadabra.

 

[bripat9643]

How could any sane person possibly advocate expanding the federal government?

Those on the left do it every day - claiming that "government" is the answer. Pretty much like the German people during the Weimar Republic. We saw how that turned out, didn't we?

- If I need words to put on a bumper sticker, I'll ask.

The Weimar Republic?

I'd be happy to educate you on the experience of the Weimar Republic, so that you can make more informed decisions.

The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power.

Their hyperinflation had nothing to do with profligate spending or large government, and everything to do with harsh war reparations and negative supply shocks.

If you want to understand it, rather than being satisfied with meaningless one-liners, I can do so, or I can post links to good references.

"The government of the Weimar Republic was quite small, and had very little power."

That's absolute horseshit. The Weimar government ran practically everything. It had a social insurance program, a medical insurance program, numerous other social programs and regulated business to the teeth.

Gotta be a college student freshly programed by a commie poly-sci professor.

Agreed. I hope that isn't the kind of swill the "teach" in government universities nowadays.

 

[Pksimon2007]

It's obvious that the self proclaimed conservatives, all for small government, completely failed to provide thoughtful responses. If ever there was a thread which exposed the single minded mentality of the echo chamber, as one based on a foundation of ignorance, it has done so here.

Of course attacking the author of the OP is the second most popular response, the first being the abject stupidity of wanting to cut hundreds of thousands of jobs, and believing only good would come of it.

It's no wonder they vote for the Republican candidate and support Republican policies - as Lincoln pointed out, you can fool some of the people - the stupid ones - all of the time.

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.
The cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.

- If that is the case, then why have government at all?

 

[Iceweasel]

The idea that a country of 300 million people, with the largest military in the history of the world, could function with small government, is beyond ridiculous. If you believe that it could, I have a ski resort in Miami I'd like to sell you.

On the other hand, if the U.S. were to tax citizens to the level required to balance the budget with the current level of the military spending and use that money to pay for infrastructure, education, and rebuilding your inner cities, instead of spending the money abroad to fight wars which protect the assets of American corporations, then you might have a country to be proud of.

I've come to believe that right wingers have no memory of what happened after the 1929 stock market crash and the poverty and devastation to the people that resulted.

Left wingers don't remember the long painfully slow recovery with all the government growth and spending. Arguing military size is one thing but the government does much more than that.

 

[dblack]

Nine pages of good cogent ideas and your response is simply to dismiss them. Typical.

Isn't that the operational plan of the left; to ask the question, then belittle the answer?

Truthfully, I have understood for years, the way the left ambushes those on the right.

- Where is the answer?

The OP asked for a cost-benefit analysis. I already explained how you could frame an honest answer. The Rabbi chose to do so. You have not.

Before you go on ignore, I suggest you go back through the thread and read my answer in my initial post. I don't give a hoot in hell about the "cost-benefit" crap. The federal government is NOT a corporation (as apparently you believe it is) it is a form of governence and a form that is leading us into tyranny - as our founders warned us against.

The benefit of smaller government is more freedom and more economic growth, resulting in higher incomes across the board.
The cost of smaller gov't is loss of power to some elites.
Seems like a no brainer to me.

- If that is the case, then why have government at all?

To protect our freedom.

In my view, the small government debate actually misses the point. Government should be big enough to do its job effectively. The problem is that we don't have any consensus on what government's job is. Some people want to use it as a tool of convenience, to force others to bend to their will arbitrarily.