Taxes, Loans, and Wasted Resources.

[PoliticalChic]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution specifies the places that government has a role, and, therefore, should direct the money it collects.

Alas, that seems to have become, like red and green lights in Rome, merely a suggestion.


What should we expect as the outcome of the way government uses money?
The short answer is that if it is used as the Constitution authorizes, we can consider it well spent....or, at least, correctly spent.



2. Government doesn't make any money itself....although we all know that, via the Federal Reserve, they've found a way to do just that. Should we expect a profit from government endeavors, some wealth creation, to compensate for the wealth destroyed by taxes imposed to pay for whatever it does with the money?
Doubtful.
But is it beyond expectation for the taxpayer's funds to be spent reasonably, carefully,....sanely?





3. Now....picking winners and loser: How does the government's basis for providing financial reward differ from that of the private economy?
Consider the basis for awarding government largesse/ loans....


a. A banker, abiding by his fiduciary obligations, considers the individual's record, i.e., does he have a good business model, is he honest, has he already accumulated part of the amount he needs....in short, is he a good risk.

The banker wants to be assured of repayment.
And, if the banker makes a mistake...he is the one who suffers directly.


b. Government lenders are in a far more charitable mode, and this infuses his loan decisions: he is looking at an individual who can't get a loan from private lenders because he has no savings, no record as a good worker, no real business model, perhaps he is on welfare.

The government lender has the money, and it is not his....so no worry if it is squandered. And, he can always say they 'believed' they could make the borrower a useful and productive member of society by lending him enough for a mortgage, or for a business.


Clearly, individuals chosen by such government standards will be poorer risks than those chosen by private banker's standards. Logic dictates that government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. .....unless, as with the mortgage crisis, the government pushes the private banker into loans he would not have made, thereby ensuring that the private economy has just as many failures.



4. Not only would government policy lead to more risk, and to more failures, but the failures and inefficiency is simply shrugged off.
And...with the Federal Reserve printing money on demand, no longer could fiscal conservatives claim that money given to person A could not also be given to person B.
Fiat money is unlimited!





5. On the darker side, government lending policy is perfect for favoritism, crony capitalism, 'picking winners' who don't 'win,' kickbacks and bribes. And, as every individual can stake a claim to government largesse, it is an iteration of socialism and communism: the underlying belief is the imperative of material equality.


6. Then, there is this: the money is largely taken by taxation from the productive segments of society and placed in the hands of those less competent and/or less trustworthy.
Such is the design of the current government.


The above loosely based on "Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics," byHenry Hazlitt

 

[DriftingSand]

Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle have become GUILTY of mishandling public funds. We can expect liberal Democrats to spend like there's no tomorrow but now we have Bonehead Boehner tagging along like the good little RINO that he is. At this point, I hope they keep spending until China closes their spending account.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle have become GUILTY of mishandling public funds. We can expect liberal Democrats to spend like there's no tomorrow but now we have Bonehead Boehner tagging along like the good little RINO that he is. At this point, I hope they keep spending until China closes their spending account.

Conservatives are political orphans in this milieu.

 

[DriftingSand]

Unfortunately, both sides of the aisle have become GUILTY of mishandling public funds. We can expect liberal Democrats to spend like there's no tomorrow but now we have Bonehead Boehner tagging along like the good little RINO that he is. At this point, I hope they keep spending until China closes their spending account.

Conservatives are political orphans in this milieu.

True. There are very few true Conservatives left in D.C. Most have flown the coop.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. .....where does the government get the funds that it decides how and where to dole out?


Those who have studied Jefferson's writings know that, much like the Bible, one can usually find something that agrees with any perspective. But, thinking about taxation, especially 'progressive taxation,' the following is dispositive.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
US Department of the Treasury

Founding.com A Project of the Claremont Institute

 

[Sonny Clark]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution specifies the places that government has a role, and, therefore, should direct the money it collects.

Alas, that seems to have become, like red and green lights in Rome, merely a suggestion.


What should we expect as the outcome of the way government uses money?
The short answer is that if it is used as the Constitution authorizes, we can consider it well spent....or, at least, correctly spent.



2. Government doesn't make any money itself....although we all know that, via the Federal Reserve, they've found a way to do just that. Should we expect a profit from government endeavors, some wealth creation, to compensate for the wealth destroyed by taxes imposed to pay for whatever it does with the money?
Doubtful.
But is it beyond expectation for the taxpayer's funds to be spent reasonably, carefully,....sanely?





3. Now....picking winners and loser: How does the government's basis for providing financial reward differ from that of the private economy?
Consider the basis for awarding government largesse/ loans....


a. A banker, abiding by his fiduciary obligations, considers the individual's record, i.e., does he have a good business model, is he honest, has he already accumulated part of the amount he needs....in short, is he a good risk.

The banker wants to be assured of repayment.
And, if the banker makes a mistake...he is the one who suffers directly.


b. Government lenders are in a far more charitable mode, and this infuses his loan decisions: he is looking at an individual who can't get a loan from private lenders because he has no savings, no record as a good worker, no real business model, perhaps he is on welfare.

The government lender has the money, and it is not his....so no worry if it is squandered. And, he can always say they 'believed' they could make the borrower a useful and productive member of society by lending him enough for a mortgage, or for a business.


Clearly, individuals chosen by such government standards will be poorer risks than those chosen by private banker's standards. Logic dictates that government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. .....unless, as with the mortgage crisis, the government pushes the private banker into loans he would not have made, thereby ensuring that the private economy has just as many failures.



4. Not only would government policy lead to more risk, and to more failures, but the failures and inefficiency is simply shrugged off.
And...with the Federal Reserve printing money on demand, no longer could fiscal conservatives claim that money given to person A could not also be given to person B.
Fiat money is unlimited!





5. On the darker side, government lending policy is perfect for favoritism, crony capitalism, 'picking winners' who don't 'win,' kickbacks and bribes. And, as every individual can stake a claim to government largesse, it is an iteration of socialism and communism: the underlying belief is the imperative of material equality.


6. Then, there is this: the money is largely taken by taxation from the productive segments of society and placed in the hands of those less competent and/or less trustworthy.
Such is the design of the current government.


The above loosely based on "Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics," byHenry Hazlitt

Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt. Remember, "The Washington Brother" acts as an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government is well known for wasteful spending, corruption, favoritism, and frequently stepping outside the Constitution. They make the rules as they go.

We, the public, the voters, the taxpayers, have no say-so when it comes to government spending. The government even spends on things that are considered top secret due to national security. Our government is well known for giving away money to foreign governments, paying subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, pork spending, no-bid government contracts, and excessive military spending. Our government borrows money each and every day just to keep itself running.

Lets look at some of the spending by our government, shall we. (1) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorist. (2) Senseless deadly costly wars. (3) Building mosques on foreign soil. (4) The care and support of illegal immigrants. (5) The useless worthless "Fence" along our southern border. (6) Bribes paid to North Korea and Iran. (7) The well publicized failed war on illegal drugs. (8) Subsidies to Brazilian corn crops. (9) Exploring the far reaches of the universe. (10) Wall Street and corporate bailouts. (11) Foreign aid. (12) Ridiculous grants { studying the mating habits of fire ants }. (13) The excessive perks and benefits paid to members of Congress. (14) Excessive government travel. (15) Lavish White House parties and expensive vacations. (16) Pork spending { kick-backs }. (17) Prison amenities { big screen TV's, gyms, computers, rec equipment, fully stocked libraries }

What is either totally neglected, or partially neglected: (1) Infrastructure repairs and upgrades. (2) Support and care for Vets. (3) The homeless. (4) Adequate funding for R&D to develop alternative energy sources.

NOTE: At present, our economy is kept afloat via government debt. We are not a self-supporting nation, nor are we a self-supporting citizenry. The government can raise the debt ceiling, borrow money at will, and spend tax dollars on anything and everything. Once elected to office, professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people. We are not asked to either approve or disapprove spending. We have no vote on the floors of Congress. Our economy is basically at the mercy of those elected to protect our well-being. In summary, government spending has no boundaries, is not limited, and can operate on debt as long as it can get by with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution specifies the places that government has a role, and, therefore, should direct the money it collects.

Alas, that seems to have become, like red and green lights in Rome, merely a suggestion.


What should we expect as the outcome of the way government uses money?
The short answer is that if it is used as the Constitution authorizes, we can consider it well spent....or, at least, correctly spent.



2. Government doesn't make any money itself....although we all know that, via the Federal Reserve, they've found a way to do just that. Should we expect a profit from government endeavors, some wealth creation, to compensate for the wealth destroyed by taxes imposed to pay for whatever it does with the money?
Doubtful.
But is it beyond expectation for the taxpayer's funds to be spent reasonably, carefully,....sanely?





3. Now....picking winners and loser: How does the government's basis for providing financial reward differ from that of the private economy?
Consider the basis for awarding government largesse/ loans....


a. A banker, abiding by his fiduciary obligations, considers the individual's record, i.e., does he have a good business model, is he honest, has he already accumulated part of the amount he needs....in short, is he a good risk.

The banker wants to be assured of repayment.
And, if the banker makes a mistake...he is the one who suffers directly.


b. Government lenders are in a far more charitable mode, and this infuses his loan decisions: he is looking at an individual who can't get a loan from private lenders because he has no savings, no record as a good worker, no real business model, perhaps he is on welfare.

The government lender has the money, and it is not his....so no worry if it is squandered. And, he can always say they 'believed' they could make the borrower a useful and productive member of society by lending him enough for a mortgage, or for a business.


Clearly, individuals chosen by such government standards will be poorer risks than those chosen by private banker's standards. Logic dictates that government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. .....unless, as with the mortgage crisis, the government pushes the private banker into loans he would not have made, thereby ensuring that the private economy has just as many failures.



4. Not only would government policy lead to more risk, and to more failures, but the failures and inefficiency is simply shrugged off.
And...with the Federal Reserve printing money on demand, no longer could fiscal conservatives claim that money given to person A could not also be given to person B.
Fiat money is unlimited!





5. On the darker side, government lending policy is perfect for favoritism, crony capitalism, 'picking winners' who don't 'win,' kickbacks and bribes. And, as every individual can stake a claim to government largesse, it is an iteration of socialism and communism: the underlying belief is the imperative of material equality.


6. Then, there is this: the money is largely taken by taxation from the productive segments of society and placed in the hands of those less competent and/or less trustworthy.
Such is the design of the current government.


The above loosely based on "Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics," byHenry Hazlitt

Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt. Remember, "The Washington Brother" acts as an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government is well known for wasteful spending, corruption, favoritism, and frequently stepping outside the Constitution. They make the rules as they go.

We, the public, the voters, the taxpayers, have no say-so when it comes to government spending. The government even spends on things that are considered top secret due to national security. Our government is well known for giving away money to foreign governments, paying subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, pork spending, no-bid government contracts, and excessive military spending. Our government borrows money each and every day just to keep itself running.

Lets look at some of the spending by our government, shall we. (1) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorist. (2) Senseless deadly costly wars. (3) Building mosques on foreign soil. (4) The care and support of illegal immigrants. (5) The useless worthless "Fence" along our southern border. (6) Bribes paid to North Korea and Iran. (7) The well publicized failed war on illegal drugs. (8) Subsidies to Brazilian corn crops. (9) Exploring the far reaches of the universe. (10) Wall Street and corporate bailouts. (11) Foreign aid. (12) Ridiculous grants { studying the mating habits of fire ants }. (13) The excessive perks and benefits paid to members of Congress. (14) Excessive government travel. (15) Lavish White House parties and expensive vacations. (16) Pork spending { kick-backs }. (17) Prison amenities { big screen TV's, gyms, computers, rec equipment, fully stocked libraries }

What is either totally neglected, or partially neglected: (1) Infrastructure repairs and upgrades. (2) Support and care for Vets. (3) The homeless. (4) Adequate funding for R&D to develop alternative energy sources.

NOTE: At present, our economy is kept afloat via government debt. We are not a self-supporting nation, nor are we a self-supporting citizenry. The government can raise the debt ceiling, borrow money at will, and spend tax dollars on anything and everything. Once elected to office, professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people. We are not asked to either approve or disapprove spending. We have no vote on the floors of Congress. Our economy is basically at the mercy of those elected to protect our well-being. In summary, government spending has no boundaries, is not limited, and can operate on debt as long as it can get by with it.

1. "Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt."

So....to be clear, you are in agreement with the nature of the post.


2. "...professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people..."

And, in agreement with J.L.Talmon
“Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. There was a time when the nation operated along the lines Jefferson noted, above.
Alas, it is no longer so....not since Franklin Roosevelt changed America for the worse.


It is instructive to compare Jefferson's words to the planks in the Communist manifesto:

a. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
Americans do these with actions such as the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management (Zoning laws are the first step to government property ownership)

b. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Americans know this as misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".

c. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
Americans call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes. Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

 

[Sonny Clark]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution specifies the places that government has a role, and, therefore, should direct the money it collects.

Alas, that seems to have become, like red and green lights in Rome, merely a suggestion.


What should we expect as the outcome of the way government uses money?
The short answer is that if it is used as the Constitution authorizes, we can consider it well spent....or, at least, correctly spent.



2. Government doesn't make any money itself....although we all know that, via the Federal Reserve, they've found a way to do just that. Should we expect a profit from government endeavors, some wealth creation, to compensate for the wealth destroyed by taxes imposed to pay for whatever it does with the money?
Doubtful.
But is it beyond expectation for the taxpayer's funds to be spent reasonably, carefully,....sanely?





3. Now....picking winners and loser: How does the government's basis for providing financial reward differ from that of the private economy?
Consider the basis for awarding government largesse/ loans....


a. A banker, abiding by his fiduciary obligations, considers the individual's record, i.e., does he have a good business model, is he honest, has he already accumulated part of the amount he needs....in short, is he a good risk.

The banker wants to be assured of repayment.
And, if the banker makes a mistake...he is the one who suffers directly.


b. Government lenders are in a far more charitable mode, and this infuses his loan decisions: he is looking at an individual who can't get a loan from private lenders because he has no savings, no record as a good worker, no real business model, perhaps he is on welfare.

The government lender has the money, and it is not his....so no worry if it is squandered. And, he can always say they 'believed' they could make the borrower a useful and productive member of society by lending him enough for a mortgage, or for a business.


Clearly, individuals chosen by such government standards will be poorer risks than those chosen by private banker's standards. Logic dictates that government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. .....unless, as with the mortgage crisis, the government pushes the private banker into loans he would not have made, thereby ensuring that the private economy has just as many failures.



4. Not only would government policy lead to more risk, and to more failures, but the failures and inefficiency is simply shrugged off.
And...with the Federal Reserve printing money on demand, no longer could fiscal conservatives claim that money given to person A could not also be given to person B.
Fiat money is unlimited!





5. On the darker side, government lending policy is perfect for favoritism, crony capitalism, 'picking winners' who don't 'win,' kickbacks and bribes. And, as every individual can stake a claim to government largesse, it is an iteration of socialism and communism: the underlying belief is the imperative of material equality.


6. Then, there is this: the money is largely taken by taxation from the productive segments of society and placed in the hands of those less competent and/or less trustworthy.
Such is the design of the current government.


The above loosely based on "Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics," byHenry Hazlitt

Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt. Remember, "The Washington Brother" acts as an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government is well known for wasteful spending, corruption, favoritism, and frequently stepping outside the Constitution. They make the rules as they go.

We, the public, the voters, the taxpayers, have no say-so when it comes to government spending. The government even spends on things that are considered top secret due to national security. Our government is well known for giving away money to foreign governments, paying subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, pork spending, no-bid government contracts, and excessive military spending. Our government borrows money each and every day just to keep itself running.

Lets look at some of the spending by our government, shall we. (1) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorist. (2) Senseless deadly costly wars. (3) Building mosques on foreign soil. (4) The care and support of illegal immigrants. (5) The useless worthless "Fence" along our southern border. (6) Bribes paid to North Korea and Iran. (7) The well publicized failed war on illegal drugs. (8) Subsidies to Brazilian corn crops. (9) Exploring the far reaches of the universe. (10) Wall Street and corporate bailouts. (11) Foreign aid. (12) Ridiculous grants { studying the mating habits of fire ants }. (13) The excessive perks and benefits paid to members of Congress. (14) Excessive government travel. (15) Lavish White House parties and expensive vacations. (16) Pork spending { kick-backs }. (17) Prison amenities { big screen TV's, gyms, computers, rec equipment, fully stocked libraries }

What is either totally neglected, or partially neglected: (1) Infrastructure repairs and upgrades. (2) Support and care for Vets. (3) The homeless. (4) Adequate funding for R&D to develop alternative energy sources.

NOTE: At present, our economy is kept afloat via government debt. We are not a self-supporting nation, nor are we a self-supporting citizenry. The government can raise the debt ceiling, borrow money at will, and spend tax dollars on anything and everything. Once elected to office, professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people. We are not asked to either approve or disapprove spending. We have no vote on the floors of Congress. Our economy is basically at the mercy of those elected to protect our well-being. In summary, government spending has no boundaries, is not limited, and can operate on debt as long as it can get by with it.

1. "Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt."

So....to be clear, you are in agreement with the nature of the post.


2. "...professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people..."

And, in agreement with J.L.Talmon
“Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

I believe that what I wrote and expressed is very clear. I believe that I covered a lot of ground in my response. Is there something that I wrote that you have a question about? Did I leave something out? I expressed my opinion and view, and did so in detail. What exactly are you questioning? I tried to explain the way I see government spending, the use of tax dollars, and the obvious waste and debt issues.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution specifies the places that government has a role, and, therefore, should direct the money it collects.

Alas, that seems to have become, like red and green lights in Rome, merely a suggestion.


What should we expect as the outcome of the way government uses money?
The short answer is that if it is used as the Constitution authorizes, we can consider it well spent....or, at least, correctly spent.



2. Government doesn't make any money itself....although we all know that, via the Federal Reserve, they've found a way to do just that. Should we expect a profit from government endeavors, some wealth creation, to compensate for the wealth destroyed by taxes imposed to pay for whatever it does with the money?
Doubtful.
But is it beyond expectation for the taxpayer's funds to be spent reasonably, carefully,....sanely?





3. Now....picking winners and loser: How does the government's basis for providing financial reward differ from that of the private economy?
Consider the basis for awarding government largesse/ loans....


a. A banker, abiding by his fiduciary obligations, considers the individual's record, i.e., does he have a good business model, is he honest, has he already accumulated part of the amount he needs....in short, is he a good risk.

The banker wants to be assured of repayment.
And, if the banker makes a mistake...he is the one who suffers directly.


b. Government lenders are in a far more charitable mode, and this infuses his loan decisions: he is looking at an individual who can't get a loan from private lenders because he has no savings, no record as a good worker, no real business model, perhaps he is on welfare.

The government lender has the money, and it is not his....so no worry if it is squandered. And, he can always say they 'believed' they could make the borrower a useful and productive member of society by lending him enough for a mortgage, or for a business.


Clearly, individuals chosen by such government standards will be poorer risks than those chosen by private banker's standards. Logic dictates that government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. .....unless, as with the mortgage crisis, the government pushes the private banker into loans he would not have made, thereby ensuring that the private economy has just as many failures.



4. Not only would government policy lead to more risk, and to more failures, but the failures and inefficiency is simply shrugged off.
And...with the Federal Reserve printing money on demand, no longer could fiscal conservatives claim that money given to person A could not also be given to person B.
Fiat money is unlimited!





5. On the darker side, government lending policy is perfect for favoritism, crony capitalism, 'picking winners' who don't 'win,' kickbacks and bribes. And, as every individual can stake a claim to government largesse, it is an iteration of socialism and communism: the underlying belief is the imperative of material equality.


6. Then, there is this: the money is largely taken by taxation from the productive segments of society and placed in the hands of those less competent and/or less trustworthy.
Such is the design of the current government.


The above loosely based on "Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics," byHenry Hazlitt

Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt. Remember, "The Washington Brother" acts as an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government is well known for wasteful spending, corruption, favoritism, and frequently stepping outside the Constitution. They make the rules as they go.

We, the public, the voters, the taxpayers, have no say-so when it comes to government spending. The government even spends on things that are considered top secret due to national security. Our government is well known for giving away money to foreign governments, paying subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, pork spending, no-bid government contracts, and excessive military spending. Our government borrows money each and every day just to keep itself running.

Lets look at some of the spending by our government, shall we. (1) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorist. (2) Senseless deadly costly wars. (3) Building mosques on foreign soil. (4) The care and support of illegal immigrants. (5) The useless worthless "Fence" along our southern border. (6) Bribes paid to North Korea and Iran. (7) The well publicized failed war on illegal drugs. (8) Subsidies to Brazilian corn crops. (9) Exploring the far reaches of the universe. (10) Wall Street and corporate bailouts. (11) Foreign aid. (12) Ridiculous grants { studying the mating habits of fire ants }. (13) The excessive perks and benefits paid to members of Congress. (14) Excessive government travel. (15) Lavish White House parties and expensive vacations. (16) Pork spending { kick-backs }. (17) Prison amenities { big screen TV's, gyms, computers, rec equipment, fully stocked libraries }

What is either totally neglected, or partially neglected: (1) Infrastructure repairs and upgrades. (2) Support and care for Vets. (3) The homeless. (4) Adequate funding for R&D to develop alternative energy sources.

NOTE: At present, our economy is kept afloat via government debt. We are not a self-supporting nation, nor are we a self-supporting citizenry. The government can raise the debt ceiling, borrow money at will, and spend tax dollars on anything and everything. Once elected to office, professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people. We are not asked to either approve or disapprove spending. We have no vote on the floors of Congress. Our economy is basically at the mercy of those elected to protect our well-being. In summary, government spending has no boundaries, is not limited, and can operate on debt as long as it can get by with it.

1. "Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt."

So....to be clear, you are in agreement with the nature of the post.


2. "...professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people..."

And, in agreement with J.L.Talmon
“Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

I believe that what I wrote and expressed is very clear. I believe that I covered a lot of ground in my response. Is there something that I wrote that you have a question about? Did I leave something out? I expressed my opinion and view, and did so in detail. What exactly are you questioning? I tried to explain the way I see government spending, the use of tax dollars, and the obvious waste and debt issues.

Yup....my question is why you wrote what you did as though it was other than the post to which you were responding?

Didn't you understand the OP?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now...about the vaunted bureaucrats picking 'winners and losers'....


8. "The government never lends or gives anything to business that it does not take away from business. One often hears New Dealers and other statists boast about the way government “bailed business out” with the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Home Owners Loan Corporation and other government agencies in 1932 and later. But the government can give no financial help to business that it does not first or finally take from business.

The government’s funds all come from taxes. Even the much vaunted “government credit” rests on the assumption that its loans will ultimately be repaid out of the proceeds of taxes.

When the government makes loans or subsidies to business, what it does is to tax successful private business in order to support unsuccessful private business.



Under certain emergency circumstances there may be a plausible argument for this, ..... But in the long run it does not sound like a paying proposition from the standpoint of the country as a whole.
And experience has shown that it isn’t."
Hazlitt s Economics in One Lesson Chapter Six Credit Diverts Production

 

[Sonny Clark]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

Article I, section 8, of the Constitution specifies the places that government has a role, and, therefore, should direct the money it collects.

Alas, that seems to have become, like red and green lights in Rome, merely a suggestion.


What should we expect as the outcome of the way government uses money?
The short answer is that if it is used as the Constitution authorizes, we can consider it well spent....or, at least, correctly spent.



2. Government doesn't make any money itself....although we all know that, via the Federal Reserve, they've found a way to do just that. Should we expect a profit from government endeavors, some wealth creation, to compensate for the wealth destroyed by taxes imposed to pay for whatever it does with the money?
Doubtful.
But is it beyond expectation for the taxpayer's funds to be spent reasonably, carefully,....sanely?





3. Now....picking winners and loser: How does the government's basis for providing financial reward differ from that of the private economy?
Consider the basis for awarding government largesse/ loans....


a. A banker, abiding by his fiduciary obligations, considers the individual's record, i.e., does he have a good business model, is he honest, has he already accumulated part of the amount he needs....in short, is he a good risk.

The banker wants to be assured of repayment.
And, if the banker makes a mistake...he is the one who suffers directly.


b. Government lenders are in a far more charitable mode, and this infuses his loan decisions: he is looking at an individual who can't get a loan from private lenders because he has no savings, no record as a good worker, no real business model, perhaps he is on welfare.

The government lender has the money, and it is not his....so no worry if it is squandered. And, he can always say they 'believed' they could make the borrower a useful and productive member of society by lending him enough for a mortgage, or for a business.


Clearly, individuals chosen by such government standards will be poorer risks than those chosen by private banker's standards. Logic dictates that government loans will waste far more capital and resources than private loans. .....unless, as with the mortgage crisis, the government pushes the private banker into loans he would not have made, thereby ensuring that the private economy has just as many failures.



4. Not only would government policy lead to more risk, and to more failures, but the failures and inefficiency is simply shrugged off.
And...with the Federal Reserve printing money on demand, no longer could fiscal conservatives claim that money given to person A could not also be given to person B.
Fiat money is unlimited!





5. On the darker side, government lending policy is perfect for favoritism, crony capitalism, 'picking winners' who don't 'win,' kickbacks and bribes. And, as every individual can stake a claim to government largesse, it is an iteration of socialism and communism: the underlying belief is the imperative of material equality.


6. Then, there is this: the money is largely taken by taxation from the productive segments of society and placed in the hands of those less competent and/or less trustworthy.
Such is the design of the current government.


The above loosely based on "Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics," byHenry Hazlitt

Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt. Remember, "The Washington Brother" acts as an entity unto itself, answerable to no one except itself. The government is well known for wasteful spending, corruption, favoritism, and frequently stepping outside the Constitution. They make the rules as they go.

We, the public, the voters, the taxpayers, have no say-so when it comes to government spending. The government even spends on things that are considered top secret due to national security. Our government is well known for giving away money to foreign governments, paying subsidies to rich farmers and big oil, pork spending, no-bid government contracts, and excessive military spending. Our government borrows money each and every day just to keep itself running.

Lets look at some of the spending by our government, shall we. (1) Supplying weapons to drug lords and terrorist. (2) Senseless deadly costly wars. (3) Building mosques on foreign soil. (4) The care and support of illegal immigrants. (5) The useless worthless "Fence" along our southern border. (6) Bribes paid to North Korea and Iran. (7) The well publicized failed war on illegal drugs. (8) Subsidies to Brazilian corn crops. (9) Exploring the far reaches of the universe. (10) Wall Street and corporate bailouts. (11) Foreign aid. (12) Ridiculous grants { studying the mating habits of fire ants }. (13) The excessive perks and benefits paid to members of Congress. (14) Excessive government travel. (15) Lavish White House parties and expensive vacations. (16) Pork spending { kick-backs }. (17) Prison amenities { big screen TV's, gyms, computers, rec equipment, fully stocked libraries }

What is either totally neglected, or partially neglected: (1) Infrastructure repairs and upgrades. (2) Support and care for Vets. (3) The homeless. (4) Adequate funding for R&D to develop alternative energy sources.

NOTE: At present, our economy is kept afloat via government debt. We are not a self-supporting nation, nor are we a self-supporting citizenry. The government can raise the debt ceiling, borrow money at will, and spend tax dollars on anything and everything. Once elected to office, professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people. We are not asked to either approve or disapprove spending. We have no vote on the floors of Congress. Our economy is basically at the mercy of those elected to protect our well-being. In summary, government spending has no boundaries, is not limited, and can operate on debt as long as it can get by with it.

1. "Regardless of what the U.S. Constitution says and directs, the government spends money ( tax dollars ) anyway they want, when they want, and in the process, amasses astronomical debt."

So....to be clear, you are in agreement with the nature of the post.


2. "...professional politicians exert their will, and not the will of the people..."

And, in agreement with J.L.Talmon
“Totalitarian democracy” is a term made famous by J. L. Talmon to refer to a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government.

I believe that what I wrote and expressed is very clear. I believe that I covered a lot of ground in my response. Is there something that I wrote that you have a question about? Did I leave something out? I expressed my opinion and view, and did so in detail. What exactly are you questioning? I tried to explain the way I see government spending, the use of tax dollars, and the obvious waste and debt issues.

Yup....my question is why you wrote what you did as though it was other than the post to which you were responding?

Didn't you understand the OP?

Yes, I understood it just fine. As though it was other than? I didn't realize that it came across that way. I thought that I was adding to, and not copying. Please excuse me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Let's take a look at how the government's use of the money taken from the economy works out.

"When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:

Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?

If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577. "
Right Truth War on Poverty the high costs and the depressing results




When L.B.J.’s War on Poverty initiatives are balanced against costs—the lost economic growth, the massively expanded taxation, the substantial increase in the size and scope of government, and the creation of a class of citizens completely dependent upon the government...

....—the War on Poverty looks like a failure.

 

[Conservative65]

9. Let's take a look at how the government's use of the money taken from the economy works out.

"When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:

Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?

If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577. "
Right Truth War on Poverty the high costs and the depressing results




When L.B.J.’s War on Poverty initiatives are balanced against costs—the lost economic growth, the massively expanded taxation, the substantial increase in the size and scope of government, and the creation of a class of citizens completely dependent upon the government...

....—the War on Poverty looks like a failure.

It is a failure for two reasons: 1) The percentage of those in poverty has decreasedlittle if any from what it was just prior to the "war" being waged and 2) It assumed that by simply handing people money, often providing more overall than one could earn based on the skills set being offered, would be an inventive to not accept handouts and do it on their own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Let's take a look at how the government's use of the money taken from the economy works out.

"When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:

Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?

If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577. "
Right Truth War on Poverty the high costs and the depressing results




When L.B.J.’s War on Poverty initiatives are balanced against costs—the lost economic growth, the massively expanded taxation, the substantial increase in the size and scope of government, and the creation of a class of citizens completely dependent upon the government...

....—the War on Poverty looks like a failure.

It is a failure for two reasons: 1) The percentage of those in poverty has decreasedlittle if any from what it was just prior to the "war" being waged and 2) It assumed that by simply handing people money, often providing more overall than one could earn based on the skills set being offered, would be an inventive to not accept handouts and do it on their own.

1. "The percentage of those in poverty has decreased little if any....
Yup.
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago."
Scribd



2. The concept behind Liberal welfare policies is not only faulty, but well known to be faulty

The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in whichlow income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.

Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf




3. It was Franklin Roosevelt's administration that set this disaster in motion.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that before Roosevelt, human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the formeralso dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

 

[Conservative65]

9. Let's take a look at how the government's use of the money taken from the economy works out.

"When Lyndon Johnson inaugurated the War on Poverty in 1964, he assured the public that “. . . this investment [of tax dollars] will return its cost many fold to our entire economy.” Now that this “investment” has reached a trillion dollars a year we should evaluate whether the returns have, in fact, been large. Some questions to consider:

Is the low-income population more independent and self-supporting than before the War on Poverty?

If a trillion dollars were simply given to those counted as poor by the federal government (37 million in 2005), it would amount to $27,000 per person. That’s $81,000 for a family of three, higher than the median income of all American families, and far greater than the poverty threshold of $15,577. "
Right Truth War on Poverty the high costs and the depressing results




When L.B.J.’s War on Poverty initiatives are balanced against costs—the lost economic growth, the massively expanded taxation, the substantial increase in the size and scope of government, and the creation of a class of citizens completely dependent upon the government...

....—the War on Poverty looks like a failure.

It is a failure for two reasons: 1) The percentage of those in poverty has decreasedlittle if any from what it was just prior to the "war" being waged and 2) It assumed that by simply handing people money, often providing more overall than one could earn based on the skills set being offered, would be an inventive to not accept handouts and do it on their own.

1. "The percentage of those in poverty has decreased little if any....
Yup.
"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago."
Scribd



2. The concept behind Liberal welfare policies is not only faulty, but well known to be faulty

The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in whichlow income families were given a guaranteed income,a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for.

Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given,low income recipients reduced their laborby 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/...eams/12794.pdf




3. It was Franklin Roosevelt's administration that set this disaster in motion.
Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that before Roosevelt, human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the formeralso dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..

1. Those that support that "war" talk about how it's an investment. How many of them would invest that kind of money to get that little of a return?

2. When you guarantee someone more for doing nothing but having nothing than they can make working, there is no incentive to work. Redundancy is a big problem. Food stamps is calculated based on number in the household, including kids. It's done to provide 1095 meals/year (365 days x 3 meals/day). Many of those already having that provided to their kids also qualify for free breakfast and lunch, another 360 meals/year (180 school days x 2 meals/day). It's one thing to say a child needs to eat. It's another to have taxpayers provide him/her 5 meals per day at least during the school year.

3. I've challenged more than one of the bleeding hearts that supports such programs to meet the needs they say exist. For example, if they knew somoene without healthcare coverage, pay their premiums. None have accepted but one did take credit for having voted for elected officals that support Obamacare as being the same. It was JoeB131.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

The defense industy is perennially fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Is that what you're referring to?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. What is the common factor in all three?

The government, and money: where it comes from, and where it goes.

The defense industy is perennially fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Is that what you're referring to?

"The defense industy (sic) is perennially fraught with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Is that what you're referring to?"

The money the government spends on the Swiffer Sweeper.....it helps the "defense industy."

No....it was the money the government wastes in sending you those self-improvement DVDs.....

....not helping.