USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[lecholas 2]

Hmm, I think I'll start from the end.

I think you have valid arguments but I think you go too extreme with your arguments (not just this but I have read some of your earlier posts as well). The good way to go about it is somewhere in the middle I think. It is not possible to keep everyone happy, that's a fact I think we can agree on that... and one extreme is very unfair to the other extreme, while the other extreme is again very unfair to the others. What to do? Go middle-road and accept to get the relatively small whining from the two extremes. Whining is always going to happen, so there is no point trying to avoid it completely

You see, we have a totally different positions when it comes to telling what is the purpose of the government. You say it's making people happy. I say it's protecting justice. It's not about whining or not. It's about justice, principles and rights. Government should not care about whining of citizens but should care for making just laws. Even when it means that the most of the society will whine.

E.g. Imagine you have a country of 100 people. Ten of them are very-very rich, the rest is very poor. You collect 20% of money of every citizen as taxes. It's obvious that the most of the 'public money' are from those ten rich people. Now, you could make a law that everyone has right to: education, health-care, own home, own digital tv etc. no matter what, even if he doesn't work. It is founded by the money of those 10 rich people (The government steps in and helps the 90 people with the costs as you would say). If you look at it from your point of view ('to make people happy' ) this solution is very good. The most of people (90 of them) would be happy because the get something for free. The minority would not be happy because they are forced to give some of their goods for free. But the overall (mean) 'happiness' in plus.

The example is of course very simplified but I want to show the principles laying beneath our two ways of thinking about a government. That is alwayas the case when democracy (i.e. happines, acceptance or how you call it, of the majority) is the leading principle. Minority will always be hurt by majority (even when you make anti-discrimination laws) because government looks for the highest rate of happiness i.e. to make the majority of citizens happy (the middle-road as you call it).

On the other hand, from my point of view there are no such things as right to free health care etc. no matter what the majority thinks about it. Everyone has a right to keep what he earned and that's all. It's a constant rule which can't be changed by anyone's whinig. So in the above example there would be 10 people happy and 90 unhappy, but - as I stated before - it's not about happiness; it's about justice and principles.

And now to get from the high level of abstraction to the practical case.

1. I don't see having a working TV set in your house is a 'human right' which should be guaranteed by the state. I don't have a TV and I know a lot (and I mean: a lot) of people who don't have a TV by their own choice.

2. I don't see having a phone is a 'human right' that should be guaranteed by the state.

3. To sum the two above points. If you decide to live in a place where you can't have a TV or phone it's your call. If 'the shape of the terrain around your house' doesn't allow you to use a TV or a phone, you can move to a place where you would have them or you can stay and live without them. If I decided to build a house in Biebrza Swamps (one of the biggest swampy regions in Europe) would you say the 'government' has to spend 'public money' to provide me with a TV and a phone? Or would you say it's my decision to live without them or to pay some enormous ammounts of money to get them?

And one more thing.

The thing why a lot of people think it sucks to have to pay for it is that the change was forced on us.

How can you say the change was FORCED on you? You were faced with a decision problem but none of the choice was FORCED on you. No one threatened you with any sanctions if you decided not to use a TV anymore. If this was the case that you were forced to do something you could as well say that BIS will force a lot of people to buy a new PC when releasing ARMA 2 (persuming that it has higher system requirements than ARMA).

[General Barron 0]

Like lecholas, I believe that the government's job is NOT to "make people happy". The government is NOT a voluntary organization. The government runs by taking away the freedom of other people. We should limit the use of that kind of power.

Quote[/b] ]The thing why a lot of people think it sucks to have to pay for it is that the change was forced on us. If we wanted to continue watching tv, we had to pay...

I bet you can find millions of people from the USA who did not know about the digi-tv at all and who did not ask for the digi-tv and do not need it, but still they need to pay the cost of the equipment if they want to keep watching tv. I see it so that the government there is willing to compensate at least a little bit for that.

(emphasis added)

See, the problem with your "middle road" argument is that you are ignoring just where that "government money" comes from: the taxpayers.

By arguing that the government should pay for your TV (because "it sucks" that YOU have to), you are essentially arguing that your neighbors should pay for your TV. Against their will.

I just don't see why you expect someone else to pay for your own TV. Would you also argue that someone else should pay for your electricity to run the TV?

Sure, "it sucks" that you have to shell out extra money to keep watching TV. It forces you to make an abnormal sacrifice, in addition to the sacrifices you already make to watch TV.

But I think "it sucks" even more to force your neighbor to make that sacrifice, instead of you.

Yes, you didn't ask for your old TV to stop working. But your neighbor didn't ask for you to watch TV at all. One of you will have to make a sacrifice in order for you to continue watching TV. How can you argue that your neighbor should make that sacrifice, not you?

And no, I don't agree that a TV in my neighbor's house is somehow part of the nation's infrastructure, or vital for defense. My neighbor's TV only benefits my neighbor, and no one else.

But hey, as long as I get my TV for "free", I could give a #$@ less about the guy who I forced to pay for it, right? Is that the "middle ground"?

[Sdstorage 0]

Think about any road or stadium or park that the government has subsidized or even paid for outright, what about those? Are they worthwhile endeavors of your tax money?

I did not own a car until last year, but my taxes sure as hell paid for the roads all that time.

An estimated 99% of people in the US have a television. Look, I'm sorry you don't want one, but the rest of us do! So, yes, I am glad the gov't gave out coupons for the digital transfer.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]An estimated 99% of people in the US have a television.  Look, I'm sorry you don't want one, but the rest of us do!  So, yes, I am glad the gov't gave out coupons for the digital transfer.

You are ignoring my central point: someone has to pay for these coupons. Who should it be?

If you recieved a coupon, then you are saying "I shouldn't pay for this". Those coupons were paid for by all the other taxpayers who did NOT take a coupon (regardless of whether they have a TV or not).

To me, this is just a case of one special interest group (those who took the coupons) screwing over the rest of us.

Why should I pay for your coupon?

Quote[/b] ]Think about any road or stadium or park that the government has subsidized or even paid for outright, what about those?  Are they worthwhile endeavors of your tax money?

I do NOT agree with cities paying for stadiums! This is another case of special interests screwing over the rest of us (in this case, stadium goers screw the rest of us, because their ticket prices are being subsidized by our tax money).

I DO believe that roads and parks are one of the responsibilities of (local) government. Essentially, the government reserves certain sections of land to be dedicated for these purposes, which is not something that can be done very well via private ownership. Just how much they are funded / etc is the grey area.

Road are one of the fundamental reasons why humans live in cities. I don't think it is feasible to have a private road network covering an entire city. So that is one of the core functions of city government, IMO.

Parks are a type of public space that are generally not commercially viable (meaning, you can't make money off of them). I believe land should be set aside for them, but very little, if any, taxpayer money should fund them. I'd rather see voluntary funding of parks. If people care about having a developed park, they will voluntarily pay for it. If they don't care, then why should we force them to pay for it? The land should just stay undeveloped instead.

--------------------

Again, I believe in limited government.

The Federal government should have a specific, limited range of power and responsibility. Same with the state governments. Same with the county governments. Same with the city governments. They should all have their own limited sets of responsibilities and powers, and there should be as little overlap as possible. All remaining powers and responsibilities should be reserved for the individual people.

It's funny that this could be considered an "extremist" point of view these days. The USA was founded on this principle. It's written in the Constitution, for god's sake! Read the 10th Amendment!

I believe that using taxpayer money to hand out TV coupons to select individuals is outside of the federal government's responsibility. Even if I did own a TV, I would be against this on a matter of principle. You shouldn't agree with something just because it benefits you.

Do you believe the government should have limits on its power? If so, where do you believe those limits should be?

[chops 111]

It's interesting (and I'm making a huge generalisation here) to see how averse a lot US citizens are to paying tax, compared to their European friends at least.

Seeing how joining the military, fighting, killing and dying for your country appears to be held in such noble regard in the US, it seems strange that

"I will fight and die for my country, but there's no way in hell a government can take away my freedom and make me pay taxes!"

It seems people will offer their lives 'for the country', but not a set fraction of their income.

Seems strange to be willing to die for the same people you're outraged at the prospect of giving a few dollars to.

I recall Palin trying to tap into that sentiment in the election, saying something about how they didn't enjoy paying tax while her son was in the military (who pays his wages?).

Again, just a thought.

[General Barron 0]

Paying taxes is something we force upon people, against their will. Joining the military is voluntary.

And, for the record, taxes don't account for "just a few dollars". They take up almost half of the average person's income. That means, half the time you are working, you are working for the State. I think that gives us the right to be critical about where that money is spent.

[Wolfrug 0]

Um. Military budget of the United States (Wikipedia). And also: US federal budget (Wikipedia). Wikipedia might not be good for a lot of things, but they're pretty good at charts!

Anyway, mr.averse-to-paying-taxes, you apparently have no problems with 20% of your taxes aboutish going to fightin' ("voluntarily"), but you'd rather go down kicking and screaming than pay for social security or healthcare. I personally object more to the military part of the budget in Finland than any of the others, but I also know most of my money goes to social security and education, so I don't really mind paying my taxes! Which is pretty much the largest fallacy of all your arguments: that taxpayers do so gritting their teeth and hating every second of it! If they really did that, why did they elect Obama? It's obvious he's going to raise taxes (whatever he said during the elections), since that's the way you pay for things like increased social security and better salary for the teachers (or whatever he's promised).  

Anyway, I should stop butting in. Our views are completely opposite of one another, and there probably really isn't anything we can do to find ourselves on the same side of the fence, eh? We'll let the democratic institutions decide who's "in the right" (sadly it seems that for large parts of the world, you end up "in the right", but oh well).

All the best,

Wolfrug

[chops 111]

Paying taxes is something we force upon people, against their will. Joining the military is voluntary.

True, but how is 'serving your country' in a war so highly thought of, when financially serving your country is so reviled, voluntarily or otherwise?

And, for the record, taxes don't account for "just a few dollars". They take up almost half of the average person's income.

Are you seriously trying to say that the tax rate on average income in the US is 50% ?

It seems the highest taxation rate (which starts at $357,701) is 35%.

That means, half the time you are working, you are working for the State.

Interesting to use the word 'state' a faceless, Orwellian oppressor when paying taxes. Would you also say the 4000+ who died in Iraq were fighting for the State? What do you see as the difference between 'country' and 'state'?

I think that gives us the right to be critical about where that money is spent.

On that point sir, we are in complete agreement. I thought what was at issue was the governments right to collect taxes.

Die for country = glory.

Pay for country = theft/communism/trampling my rights.

In my opinion the current financial mess has been brought about by the whole free-market fundamentalist, regulation = communism, hands-off our stock exchange attitude.

And to where do these champions of hyper-liberalised finance turn when it all goes belly up? Yes that's right, the very governments they demanded keep out of their affairs.

[lecholas 2]

Which is pretty much the largest fallacy of all your arguments: that taxpayers do so gritting their teeth and hating every second of it! If they really did that, why did they elect Obama? It's obvious he's going to raise taxes (whatever he said during the elections), since that's the way you pay for things like increased social security and better salary for the teachers (or whatever he's promised).  

I can't see a fallacy here. I can only see a sad truth. (I base my observations on my country but I assume it's more or less like that everywhere).

1. Many voters don't know and don't understand what are the 'public money' and what must be done to allow rising of teachers' sallarys etc. They don't realise that it means that they will pay higher taxes. I'm not sure how aware of that  people are in the USA but in post-communistic countries people often don't see any connection between their taxes and 'public money'.

2. Many people agree that the taxes should be higher to get better sallarys for teachers, nurses etc. but when it comes to THEM paying the taxes they do everything to find a gap in the law not to pay the taxes by themselves. Let the other pay it. I know a lot of people who register a one-person-company and buy a car, a laptop, a phone etc. just because you if you register it for your company you can lower your income by it's price and an amount of money you spend for keeping it running (fuel for car, bills for phone etc.), so you pay lower taxes. You think people buy only goods they need for their company? Of course not. They buy them for private use, for use of their kids and relatives. But as the goods are registered for a company they can pay lower taxes even if they use it only for private use. That's one most common way of legally avoiding taxes. There are many more (legal or not). And I haven't seen even one person not avoiding taxation and saying he's doing it gladly to rise teachers' or nurses' sallarys.

3. Many people don't know how high taxes they pay. Taxation do not only cover the income tax. There are a lot of other taxations. Modern states usually hide as much taxes as they can it prices of products. You have a VAT (in Poland it's 22% of almost EVERY product you buy), you have an excise (in Poland when you buy a litre of gasoline you pay about 1 PLN for the gasoline itself and 2,50 to 3,50 PLN for taxes), and many more. I don't know how high taxes you pay in the USA when you combine all those taxes (I assume it's above 50% like General Barron said) but I saw some calculations for Poland and it was above 70%. But the taxes are hidden. People don't realise they pay them (or even if they do they take it much more easily if the taxes are hidden in proucts' prices - it's just psychology) and that's why they don't 'gritt their teeth and hate every second of it'. I wonder if this was the case if the taxation system were not hidden at all. You would recive a sallary before taxation, you would buy a gasoline and all the other products without a tax and once a month you would have to go to an Internal Revenue Service office and give them half of your month's income.

Die for country = glory.

Pay for country = theft/communism/trampling my rights.

Hmm. I can see some difference in VOLUNTARLY dieing for something you belive in and giving away half of your money for something you don't belive in (e.g. ability of other persons to watch TV) forced by the law. But maybe I'm wrong.

In my opinion the current financial mess has been brought about by the whole free-market fundamentalist, regulation = communism, hands-off our stock exchange attitude.

And to where do these champions of hyper-liberalised finance turn when it all goes belly up? Yes that's right, the very governments they demanded keep out of their affairs.

That only means that there is no free market. If there were free market they couldn't turn to government. They would just went bankrupt. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. That's how it should be at free market. Bad companies die and make a room for new ones. Keeping bad companies alive (from public money) is counter-productive. It's against free market so how can you call a person who wants subventions from a government a free-market fundamentalist?

[chops 111]

That only means that there is no free market. If there were free market they couldn't turn to government. They would just went bankrupt. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. That's how it should be at free market. Bad companies die and make a room for new ones. Keeping bad companies alive (from public money) is counter-productive. It's against free market so how can you call a person who wants subventions from a government a free-market fundamentalist?

Hence their hypocrisy. Will I walk you through it again?

[lecholas 2]

That only means that there is no free market. If there were free market they couldn't turn to government. They would just went bankrupt. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. That's how it should be at free market. Bad companies die and make a room for new ones. Keeping bad companies alive (from public money) is counter-productive. It's against free market so how can you call a person who wants subventions from a government a free-market fundamentalist?

Hence their hypocrisy. Will I walk you through it again?

No need. I just say that they are not free-market fundamentalists but hypocrites who change their positions always to the one that suits their needs. When there is a benefit for them in praising free market they do it and when there's benefit for them in turning for government's regulations they save their asses by doing so. So they're not 'free-market fundamentalists' but hypocrites (just like people about which I wrote in my previous post who say teachers should have higher sallarys and then avoid paying taxes for their sallarys). Do we agree on that?

[billybob2002 0]

Are you seriously trying to say that the tax rate on average income in the US is 50% ?

It seems the highest taxation rate (which starts at $357,701) is 35%.

There are state and local taxes too. The Wikipedia article only talks about what the Federal Government takes from what you earn. State and local taxes varies by state and locality.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Are you seriously trying to say that the tax rate on average income in the US is 50% ?

You must include state and local taxes, not just Federal taxes, when checking wikipedia.

According to the The Tax Foundation, the average American pays spends 31% of their time working for the government. So it is closer to one third, not half.

Quote[/b] ]Americans will work longer to pay for government (113 days) than they will for food, clothing and housing combined (108 days). In fact, Americans will work longer to afford federal taxes alone (74 days) than they will to afford housing (60 days). As a group, Americans will also work longer to pay state and local taxes than they will to pay for food.

However, I don't think this number includes the extra 7.65% SSI/Medicare employment tax paid by self-employed individuals and employers, which ultimately is money that would go into the paychecks of non-self-employed too. (Anyone else who files as self-employed knows what I'm talking about)

Nor does it include the government-induced inflation rate (maybe "officially" 3.38% on average, though I'd suspect it is much more, especially recently).

So add another ~11% to the direct tax rate, leaving you with 42% reduced income due to government. Still not half, but pretty close.

And this doesn't include the indirectly increased price of goods due to other government regulations and taxes pushed onto producers.

And here's the kicker: even after all these taxes, our government still spends LOTS more money than it takes in. So, in the future, we will have to raise taxes even further, or else reduce government services below the current level (which many seem to believe is too low). Just to pay for the government we are using right now.

Please, someone argue with me on the above point, because it is so important; but most people aren't even aware it exists.

So even the 41% figure is an understatement. If we didn't run our government on credit, the figure would have to be MUCH higher (current estimates are something like 1 decade of 100% tax, just to pay down the current debt). Eventually we will have to pay back the debt, so that figure eventually WILL have to go higher, assuming our current government is the government we want.

Whether you agree with our current level of spending or not, I don't see how anyone can argue that it is even sustainable. Unless you are unaware of the facts, or just choose to ignore them. Again, I'd like someone to argue with me on this one.

(And just to preempt some people on this one: yes, the Iraq war has been expensive, but not so much in the big-picture of government spending. The war has cost about 5.5% of the national debt. Bush's prescription drug plan has obligated us to FAR more debt then that. And the recent bailouts have obligated us to roughly an additional 50% more debt on top of that. So yes, war is expensive, but our domestic spending FAR outweighs it. Even if we had a smaller military and weren't engaged abroad, it wouldn't change our overall debt/tax position by very much.)

---------------

HOWEVER, my original intention in reviving this thread wasn't to argue whether we should enjoy paying taxes or not.

Rather, I was focusing on one very specific use of tax money, and questioning whether that was the proper role of the United States (not Finland, etc) federal government.

I'll repose a question I asked:

Quote[/b] ]

Do you believe the government should have limits on its power? If so, where do you believe those limits should be?

My view is that the Federal government should, in fact, have limits on its power; and that buying TV's for a small segment of the population should be outside of the limits of its power.

I believe that the US Constitution backs up my beliefs. If anyone should be buying TV's, it would be the state or local governments, as per the 10th Amendment.

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote[/b] ]

The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited only to the powers granted in the Constitution is generally recognized to be a truism.

Obviously TV's weren't around when the Constitution was drafted. However, the constitution does lay out the scope of Federal government responsibilities. Even under the broadest of definitions, I fail to see which responsibility includes buying luxuries for a small segment of the population.

Discuss.

--------------------

Note: If you haven't read the US Constitution, I'd suggest that you do so before posting in this thread on US politics. It's a real short read. My copy is wallet sized, includes the Declaration of Independence, and is still only 58 pages long.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]My view is that the Federal government should, in fact, have limits on its power; and that buying TV's for a small segment of the population should be outside of the limits of its power.

I believe that the US Constitution backs up my beliefs. If anyone should be buying TV's, it would be the state or local governments, as per the 10th Amendment.

Why shouldn't the federal government have to pay, if it was the federal government that is forcing the change?

For the federal government to force such a change then insist on the state and local government's to pay for it should be equally against your views.

[General Barron 0]

Why shouldn't the federal government have to pay, if it was the federal government that is forcing the change?

For the federal government to force such a change then insist on the state and local government's to pay for it should be equally against your views.

When the federal government changes the regulations on the manufacture of automobiles, should the federal government pay the extra cost to those businesses?

Or a more practical example: what if, to fight global warming, the government passes a law protecting the environment, which in turn increases the cost of producing, say, chemicals? Should the government make up the difference to those chemical companies? After all, the federal government is the one forcing the change, right?

Or, let's bring it down to the consumer level. Say the government passes clean energy regulations, which increases the cost of producing electricity. This in turn increases the price of electricity. Should the government pay me the difference in my energy bills?

I doubt you would answer yes to these questions. The simple fact is, when the government passes regulations, the cost of those regulations traditionally fall on the people being regulated, not the taxpayer.

It reeks of basic politics to make an exception for TVs, which most Americans own and spend a lot of time watching. Essentially it sounds like buying votes. Bread and circuses, if you will.

-----------------------------

Aside from the moral / legal argument, I also make a very practical argument: we simply can not afford this. We currently can not afford the government we have. It makes no sense to be buying luxuries, when we are living on credit as a nation.

Don't believe me?

Watch this video of a guy called David Walker:

US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy

He's the nation's top accountant, and he says the US government can not maintain its current standard of living.

Basically, we are doomed to bankruptcy, unless we make drastic changes.

That means, more taxes, and/or less spending. And not just a little. A lot. Everybody's taxes will have to go up, not just some person with more money than you. Everybody's favorite programs will have to get less money, not just your favorite program to pick on like defense or social spending.

Everybody in DC knows this, but they don't have to address the problem, because as a people we don't care. Hey, as long as I get a free TV, why should I care how it gets paid for, right?

Please, somebody respond to this point, one way or another. So far this month, nobody has responded to this part of my posts, even though it is the most practical matter to talk about. No wonder, as a nation, our politicians don't have to address this issue. We don't even want to talk about it.

The simple fact is, we are forcing future generations to pay for our indulgences. This includes the b.s. "bailouts" and free money that we are handing out like mad right now. The nation won't collapse if we go into recession or depression. Both are unavoidable forces of nature in industrial societies, so we are stupid to think we can stop them. But by racking up enormous debt, we are ensuring the nation's collapse in the future, when we can no longer pay for any government services.

Thanks Bush.

Thanks Obama.

Thanks Republicans.

Thanks Democrats.

[shinRaiden 0]

The Articles of Confederation of the pre-Union independent states, widely viewed as a failure by most historians, had at its foundation the principle that the States retained net power over the associative National body. Secondly, there was no effective means by which the national body could resolve debts incurred by the Continental Congress and inherited by the new national body.

As a result of this lack of interstate framework, and compounded by decentralized Foreign affairs representation, the Constitutional Committee met to establish a viable and self-sustaining Federal government. Initially, the only forms of revenue allowed under Constitutional authority were those explicitly tied to interstate commerce and foreign customs. While stringent, this provision was financially sufficient as the new Federal Government was able to resolve the outstanding debts and actually at one point was completely eliminated under the Jackson administration.

Ironically, the historical context of President Jackson's domestic economic policy is an interesting study for illustrating the substantial and regular historical precedent for which 'loose money' policy combined with real estate speculation in particular, with the corresponding rise and falls, has repeatedly and predictably occurred throughout US history.

In summary, a cursory overview of US history will show that approximately every 30 years with only rare exceptions, the US has experienced a significant bubble 'pop' with varying severity based on the over-extension of credit leading to compounded speculation.

Throughout the 1800's, the US experienced a series of recessions triggered by the previously listed reasons, and compounded by domestic or foreign entanglements, and sometimes combined with natural environmental rebalancing. President Jackson's policy, regardless of the debates over the objectives and motivation, would have resulted in a single change that could well have significantly reduced the severity of and turmoil caused by subsequent recessions, as well as potentially moderating the economic imbalances that contributed to the Civil War.

If the 2nd National Bank had been fully established, with sufficient authority to mandate a single national currency, the immediate credit discount problems caused by banks producing their own currency (comparable to less-regulated modern commercial credit) could have been reduced significantly. However, there were and remain significant constitutional questions about the appropriateness of a Federal Bank, regardless of the benefits of a standardized currency.

The significant recession in the 1890's fueled by the new availability of substantially more liquid capital than in previous cycles, resulted in a popular shift against fixed currencies which were believed by the public to have been ineffective at resolving the inter-currency discounting problem, savings reliability, and currency availability. Significantly however, technology now existed to allow unregulated speculation and communication of general public sentiment, but also noticeably had not been used to resolve the underlying problems.

This shift in public sentiment led to the popularization of the Federal-Commercial institutions established prior to the Great Depression. With the new system, the mantra was that there would be more money in the system, being sponsored by the government it would be more reliable, and thus the Great Ship Titanic wouldn't go down again like the Panic of 1890, the first recession widely communicated by telecommunications and print media.

However, ironically yet predictably, history repeated itself again. This time, with even more liquidity, the system only had further to fall. The 'solution', yet again, was an increased Federalization of domestic economic affairs (as opposed to policy), and the 'fortuitous good luck' of building a massive and lucrative industrial backbone in a few short war-time years.

The skewed demographics of that economic surge, combined with other historical demographic anomolies, resulted in essentially 'skipping' an otherwise expected 1950's significant recession, but the late 70's caught its turn in time.

Now we're seeing a big 'pop' as a result of reactionary policy established to 'never repeat' the 1970's recession. In theory, it 'worked' through the 80's and 90's though the various Junk Bond and S&L crisis's in particular, should have been ample reminder that the policies if unchecked would result in catastrophe.

Once again, we find ourselves nationally in a frenzied 'panic', and the pundits (who ironically are the ones with the most to lose) loudly advocate the policy of increased Federalization, step for step in line with the questionable policies of their predecessors.

That's not to say that all of the prior post-recession policy changes had net negative results. The establishment of a common currency, the separation in principle of banking credit and speculative financial activities have had substantial net benefits to the nation as a whole.

Historically, the common notion is that with sufficient liquid capital, troubles can be slid past, and business can go on as usual and pretend nothing is wrong. In the past, when global economics were such that the US could bury the rest of the planet with capital and laugh it off, perhaps it was possible. Perhaps in the past when there was a substantially higher percentage of the GDP from industrial and agriculture sources, historically self-sufficient commercial sectors, it might have been possible.

Now with the re-balancing of global economics, combined with shifts towards non-commodity service-based industries, we've got an entirely different unknown. Revenue requirements as a natural result of proto-inflationary policy based on liquid credit require an ever-increasing growth of 'Revenue'.

But what, in this modern day and era, constitutes 'revenue'? Increasingly, it has like historical predecessors, lost any association with 'real' currency, and become just wild, meaningless numbers. Obligations, of whatever form, whether they be to suppliers, future populations rightfully apprehensive about trends towards Soylent Green production, debt holders, or whatever, represent real obligations that can not be fed by mere revenue.

Inflating the system does not resolve any of these problems, rather, in the classical Chicago system of established patronage, it buys political power necessary to postpone the inevitable. Money will not due when bread is required. It's been over a hundred years since the US last experienced significant domestic unrest in response to the largely unwarranted failure of their livelihood due to the outright and deliberate shenanigans of those responsible for the protection and guidance of the nation.

-edit-

Just for historical reference, here's William Jennings Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech given in 1896.

Quote[/b] ]His dramatic speaking style and rhetoric roused the crowd to a frenzy. The response, wrote one reporter, “came like one great burst of artillery.†Men and women screamed and waved their hats and canes. “Some,†wrote another reporter, “like demented things, divested themselves of their coats and flung them high in the air.†The next day the convention nominated Bryan for President on the fifth ballot.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]When the federal government changes the regulations on the manufacture of automobiles, should the federal government pay the extra cost to those businesses?

We're not talking about ordering car manufacturing to, for example, require air bags...something that could be considered for the common good/safety of society. In this case, one could argue that car manufacturers should have been making safer in the first place. Similar to say, changing safety regulations on air travel. In this particular case, the government is doing it's job (in my view) of keeping the citizenry safe(er), through regulation of business.

Quote[/b] ]

Or a more practical example: what if, to fight global warming, the government passes a law protecting the environment, which in turn increases the cost of producing, say, chemicals? Should the government make up the difference to those chemical companies? After all, the federal government is the one forcing the change, right?

The citizenry is affected by polluted air far more than automobile safety, as polluted air effects those that may not even use the chemicals produced (unlike for example, car safety which does not concern those that do not drive). Air pollution has also been tied to increased healthcare costs, so again, in my view it is the government doing it's job of protecting the citizenry (and from another view, the companies should not have been polluting in the first place).

Quote[/b] ]

Or, let's bring it down to the consumer level. Say the government passes clean energy regulations, which increases the cost of producing electricity. This in turn increases the price of electricity. Should the government pay me the difference in my energy bills?

No, since as I kind of alluded to above, you would see benefits from the cleaner air.

Quote[/b] ]

I doubt you would answer yes to these questions. The simple fact is, when the government passes regulations, the cost of those regulations traditionally fall on the people being regulated, not the taxpayer.

It reeks of basic politics to make an exception for TVs, which most Americans own and spend a lot of time watching. Essentially it sounds like buying votes. Bread and circuses, if you will.

Technically speaking, the taxpayer in this case IS being regulated (have a digital signal reciever or don't get "Survivor"). Costs have been borne by stations as well (also being regulated...you must transmit exclusively in digital) for upgraded and new systems. Any other regulation also has been borne by the taxpayer or consumer as well, or as I have been calling them, the citizenry. Government says airbags need to be installed for safety, and GM says "Ok" and just ups the price of cars. Same for your electricity example and chemical example (as whatever end product is produced is increased in price).

So no matter what happens, you end up paying for it one way or the other. In the grand scheme of my tax dollar uses, TV boxes is WAY low on my list (a war I don't support, military spending, pork spending, etc).

-------------------------------

Quote[/b] ]That means, more taxes, and/or less spending. And not just a little. A lot. Everybody's taxes will have to go up, not just some person with more money than you. Everybody's favorite programs will have to get less money, not just your favorite program to pick on like defense or social spending.

Everybody in DC knows this, but they don't have to address the problem, because as a people we don't care. Hey, as long as I get a free TV, why should I care how it gets paid for, right?

Quote[/b] ]That means, more taxes, and/or less spending. And not just a little. A lot. Everybody's taxes will have to go up, not just some person with more money than you. Everybody's favorite programs will have to get less money, not just your favorite program to pick on like defense or social spending.

Everybody in DC knows this, but they don't have to address the problem, because as a people we don't care. Hey, as long as I get a free TV, why should I care how it gets paid for, right?

So tax's have to go up. It's about time the US stops thinking that they can have whatever they want and not pay for it.

But like you said, the biggest problem is wasteful spending, and it's about time the fact that education and social programs get slashed, while crap is funded starts getting more attention.

I doubt you and I are on the same political spectrum. I don't care about higher taxes as long as I GET SOMETHING in return, whether it be healthcare or better education for my future progeny. As cool as it would be, I can't really do anything with a $1 billion B-2. One could argue I'm "paying to be protected" but I just argue it defense pork.

Don't know if that even remotely addressed your comment.

[Wolfrug 0]

Heh. I'm guessing in the end it's not a question about anything else but money here. TV is a huge industry, which directly leads to the consumption of products (the various programs) and the incentive to consume other products (via ads etc.). I don't think anyone wants the average American to stop watching their box in some kind of protest against the digitalization of things. -I- don't own or watch TV since the same happened here in Finland, and I don't really feel that I've lost anything (not that I did it in protest, mind - I just didn't bother getting a TV in the first place).

But yeah, that's just a thought. Call it "buying votes" if you want, seems pretty accurate really. But I've got a feeling the US would -lose- more money than they -gain- by NOT going through with it, so really, why not? Aside from the whole ideological issues that I'm not going to go into.

Note: my completely uninformed opinion, based on no numbers or facts from anywhere, just a random hunch. Feel very free to steamroll me if you have the cold hard facts!

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Akira 0]

I'm not sure that the switch to digital can be quite seen as a "vote getter". Most constituents wouldn't know an analog from a digital signal (or picture) if it came up and smacked them.

There is no real political gain in making people spend more money. A major reason for the voucher program was that this government mandated change of a basic communication device would adversely effect poor populations, as they generally will not have the money for a flat screen TV, and the converter box might even be beyond their reach.

Some people would argue that if they are too poor to be able to receive TV signals, then oh well, but that isn't really what this nation or most civilised nations are about. The government can't mandate a change that will adversely effect the communication abilities of a large population and then turn its back.

However, if you are a government official in the supposedly richest, greatest nation and see that most of the world is going digital and you are still stuck in analog...well that just won't do. The US has been declining steadily in the technology and science sectors, a trend that hopefully will be reversed.

[MehMan 0]

lets not forget the education sector.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Please, somebody respond to this point, one way or another. So far this month, nobody has responded to this part of my posts, even though it is the most practical matter to talk about. No wonder, as a nation, our politicians don't have to address this issue. We don't even want to talk about it.

I don't even know where to begin. The problem of spending is massive, and I personally think it's locked into the nature of a country that gives the people some control over policy creation. Many people want to pretend that we can put 1 Billion into the government and get 1.2 Billion worth of services out of it, whereas in reality, that billion only translates to maybe 800 million in possible services (Running a bureaucracy isn't cheap). So instead of being honest with ourselves, and maybe running only a minimal welfare system to help the truly unfortunate (And honestly call this redistribution), we build a huge system on the wishful assumption that we can get more out of government than we put in. We want to pretend that the gov't can efficiently function as an HMO or retirement savings organization, whereas in reality it can't do so efficiently. Social Security (Apparently based on the belief that it's not a Ponzi Scheme if you make it big enough) is almost certain to become a massive liability in a few decades, but I guess lots of people are too invested in some belief that it's actually a safe retirement fund, rather than an ocean of IOUs.

Plus, the language has gotten so bizarre that it's starting to reach Orwellian heights. The way we talk about "rights" comes to mind. The rights we're guaranteed are those enumerated in the Constitution, and they're a series of negative rights. Yet somehow our political language today implies that we have innumerable positive rights. Instead of "You have the right to be free from gov't intrusion in your speech, arms ownership, home, etc" it's become "You have the right to a retirement fund, health care, and other goodies". Those are nice sentiments, not traditional negative rights, and the result is a total change in the nature of gov't. Instead of a small institution, designed to protect out right to do things, it has become (Due to our own demands) designed to provide everything in the world. The result was probably best described by P.J. O'Rourke: "Federal Spending is determined by a simple mathematical formula: X - Y= A Huge Stink. X is what we want, which is everything in the world. Y is how much we're willing to pay for this in taxes, which is not very much, and we're going to cheat on that."

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Many people want to pretend that we can put 1 Billion into the government and get 1.2 Billion worth of services out of it, whereas in reality, that billion only translates to maybe 800 million in possible services (Running a bureaucracy isn't cheap).

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

We have been using debt to make up the .4 billion difference in your theoretical example.

Everybody likes getting something for nothing. Hey, as long as I'm benefiting from government spending, why should I care where that money comes from?

Isn't it awesome, that we can just vote ourselves rich?

"I want healthcare, and I want a big-ass TV. I can only afford one or the other.... Unless we just pass a law that magically makes healthcare free!"

This greed and/or ignorance will lead to the end of the republic. This isn't doom and gloom, it is mathematical fact.

We simply can't live off of debt forever. Nor can we live a life of luxury off the backs of "the rich". Why would they continue to build businesses and make jobs, if they can live a life of luxury on the government's dime?

Quote[/b] ]

I've got a feeling the US would -lose- more money than they -gain- by NOT going through with it, so really, why not?

Is that really the best way to run a society? Based on seat of the pants guessing?

"Well, I think this will happen, so why not do this?"

Also, again, you aren't looking at the other side of the issue. The "why not" would be incredibly apparent if you were to look at it that way.

Why not?

Because our government is in massive debt, and will collapse if we don't pay down that debt.

Any dollar we spend is a dollar that isn't paying down that debt. So, every program needs a better justification, instead of just "why not?".

You are also ignoring the opportunity cost. That tax money would have been invested in something else, if it weren't taken out of the economy in the form of taxes. So, it might have gone towards research for a new technology, but instead the government has taken it and spent it on TVs.

This is actually a really profound statement that people will gloss over: every dollar the government taxes, is a dollar that would have gone to something else. If you can understand this point, you can see that government "job creation" is a complete and utter lie. The government can only "create" jobs in one sector of the economy by destroying jobs in another. There is no net gain.

Quote[/b] ]

A major reason for the voucher program was that this government mandated change of a basic communication device would adversely effect poor populations, as they generally will not have the money for a flat screen TV, and the converter box might even be beyond their reach.

Ok, this sounds like something that I could see a sane person try to argue. That would essentially be a social welfare program.

But please, let's try to stick with the reality of the situation.

Was there an income limit to get these vouchers? Did you have to prove that you made less than X dollars a year, in order to qualify for one?

Unless someone shows me otherwise, that doesn't seem to be the case. Bill Gates could have qualified for the voucher.

So, in reality, the program wasn't a social welfare program at all. Even the most bleeding hearts should be able to see something wrong with spending government dollars to buy a TV for Bill Gates.

Quote[/b] ] I don't care about higher taxes as long as I GET SOMETHING in return, whether it be healthcare or better education for my future progeny.

To say that "as long as I get something in return, I don't care about higher taxes" is a bit of an illogical statement to make, unless you add qualifiers to it. Let me explain.

You can go to the store, and spend $100 to buy food. Or, the government can raise your taxes by $100, and then buy you food.

It wouldn't make any sense to do the latter. Why should the government tax you, to pay for something you could have bought yourself?

Education, insurance, TVs, etc are all commodities that can be purchased. It makes no sense to have the government take your money from you, just to buy these things for you.

The only logical reason to want something paid for by taxes is because you can't afford it yourself, nor can you buy or rent just a part of it. If you could buy it yourself, you wouldn't need the government to buy it for you.

So you should be more honest with your statement about taxes. You can choose to pay more for more health insurance or education already.

What you really mean is that you only want to pay for, say, 50% of it, and have somebody else ("the rich") pay for the other 50%.

This is a fine argument to make, but please be intellectually honest when making it.

Bringing it back to my main point of the national debt: in reality, the current taxpayer is only paying for a portion of any given program (say, 80%). The remaining portion is being put on the national credit card. We can't do that forever. And I doubt we could raise your taxes high enough to pay for the difference. Nobody makes enough money for that, not even "the rich".

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Ok, this sounds like something that I could see a sane person try to argue. That would essentially be a social welfare program.

But please, let's try to stick with the reality of the situation.

Was there an income limit to get these vouchers? Did you have to prove that you made less than X dollars a year, in order to qualify for one?

Unless someone shows me otherwise, that doesn't seem to be the case. Bill Gates could have qualified for the voucher.

So, in reality, the program wasn't a social welfare program at all. Even the most bleeding hearts should be able to see something wrong with spending government dollars to buy a TV for Bill Gates.

I'm not arguing whether the government handled correctly or not, I'm just tellin' ya the facts. The mandate was given, and then someone said "Hey wait! Not everyone can afford a flat screen." And the government went "Crap!" and came up with the voucher program.

The vouchers weren't for someone that only made less than $12K a year...it was for anyone who couldn't, or didn't want to buy a flat screen digital TV, so your complaint is some what invalid unless you are saying there are people with flat screens that are taking vouchers for some unknown reason.

You criticism would have to assume that (using Bill Gates) Mr. Gates not only got a voucher, but a flat screen TV to be a valid complaint, because if he got the voucher and no flat screen then he was a valid voucher recipient, see? If he got a flat screen AND a converter box, then he is an idiot. But I'm not going to rule out that there are people out there doing that...not out of greed or malice, but because they have NO IDEA about technology.

That problem, however, will manifest itself in any large change.

Quote[/b] ]To say that "as long as I get something in return, I don't care about higher taxes" is a bit of an illogical statement to make, unless you add qualifiers to it. Let me explain.

You can go to the store, and spend $100 to buy food. Or, the government can raise your taxes by $100, and then buy you food.

It wouldn't make any sense to do the latter. Why should the government tax you, to pay for something you could have bought yourself?

Education, insurance, TVs, etc are all commodities that can be purchased. It makes no sense to have the government take your money from you, just to buy these things for you.

The only logical reason to want something paid for by taxes is because you can't afford it yourself, nor can you buy or rent just a part of it. If you could buy it yourself, you wouldn't need the government to buy it for you.

So you should be more honest with your statement about taxes. You can choose to pay more for more health insurance or education already.

What you really mean is that you only want to pay for, say, 50% of it, and have somebody else ("the rich") pay for the other 50%.

This is a fine argument to make, but please be intellectually honest when making it.

Bringing it back to my main point of the national debt: in reality, the current taxpayer is only paying for a portion of any given program (say, 80%). The remaining portion is being put on the national credit card. We can't do that forever. And I doubt we could raise your taxes high enough to pay for the difference. Nobody makes enough money for that, not even "the rich".

Oh yeah I forgot to mention I have socialist tendencies, so what you say is correct. I am willing to pay my fair share of a program, if it is something logical or beneficial to the rest of the society as a whole like healthcare and education. The problem with your example is it assumes that EVERYONE can afford education or healthcare, and the fact is they can't. My personal belief is that the main function of government is to care for and protect its citizenry, some what of a modern social contract, and in my view that includes those that can't afford it or have access to it, as well as those that can afford it (it being whatever you want).

So yes, I am a proponent of LOGICAL government spending. There are thousands of government programs that never should have been enacted, or funded. The start to balancing any budget is to start there, and continue with spending oversight ($500 hammers come to mind).

[Wolfrug 0]

Education, insurance, TVs, etc are all commodities that can be purchased. It makes no sense to have the government take your money from you, just to buy these things for you.

Education is not a "commodity", education is a right. Health (and therefore health insurance) is also a right, not a commodity. I don't think watching TV is a right, personally, so I don't really see what's up with all of that - rather, as mentioned, I figure it's a matter of economy (people watching TV = good for the economy).

I realise this qualifies as a value statement from me: I believe these things to be inalienable rights, not things you buy and sell to and from the highest bidder. There are some other things I 'feel' (as in, in my opinion) should be kept non-privatized, such as the postal service or certain forms of public transportation (railways come to mind), mostly for convenience's sake (ever tried figuring out how to get from point A to point B in Britain using the train? Egads), but I am not going to fight the privatization kicking and screaming.

Anyway, I'll stop here before more evil commie slogans start spewing uncontrollably from my mouth

Regards,

Wolfrug

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Education is not a "commodity", education is a right.

Of course it's a commodity. However, most of us (I think) believe that everyone has a right to have some of that commodity.

Quote[/b] ]There are some other things I 'feel' (as in, in my opinion) should be kept non-privatized, such as the postal service or certain forms of public transportation (railways come to mind), mostly for convenience's sake (ever tried figuring out how to get from point A to point B in Britain using the train? Egads), but I am not going to fight the privatization kicking and screaming.

I'm not sure if gov't run train schedules are any more intelligible . Speaking from my own experience as a US citizen, a privately run postal system is superior to a gov't run outfit. If I want to send or receive something quickly, then I'd use UPS, DHL, FedEx, or some other outfit, never the dread US Postal Service. Actually, if I recall, there have been some great bureaucratic semi-scandals involving this principle: The story, possibly apocryphal, is that a politician was strongly arguing against privatizing the Postal Service, so due to this immediate need for some documents he had them delivered overnight by FedEx . Not sure if it's true, but it's a funny anecdote. And it does match at least with many Americans view of the differences between the Postal Service and the private deliverers. The private companies have to compete with each other, hence they make great effort to deliver items on time; The Postal Service has, or at least used to have, no competition, and developed a reputation for sluggish deliveries.

Quote[/b] ]Health (and therefore health insurance) is also a right, not a commodity.

Then it's a positive right, not a negative right like the rights enumerated in the US BoR. Declaring health care to be a negative right ("You may not be denied coverage on the basis of sex, race, nationality, political belief, etc") is something I'd be far more comfortable with than declaring it to be a positive right. Why should it be a positive right? Declaring it to be such seems to evade the issues inherent in declaring unconditional gov't-provided health insurance. What about people dying of expensive-to-treat diseases? Putting them on the system makes it one of straight redistribution, not insurance. On a related note, it seems inevitable that with the growth in scientific knowledge, our ability to manipulate the human body will increase, though it will be done through ever more expensive procedures. There must come a point when there's some form of operation that will be very popular but will be completely unaffordable to make a universal right. Ten thousand dollar procedures, heading to hundred thousand dollar procedures, heading to million dollar procedures (Maybe they'll find a way to put quadraplegics into Terminator exoskeletons). A guarantee of very basic medical procedures (Immunizations, anti-biotic prescriptions, etc) is one thing; Declaring that the gov't will handle all your potential medical expenses is another thing entirely.

Also, why does everyone "deserve" insurance? What about some of the guys I knew back in construction, whose lot in life had much to do with voluntary choices (Becoming a drunk in high school, dropping out in the 10th grade, and acquiring a minor criminal record)? Why should I, the college-boy who studied on Friday and Saturday nights, spend my working years paying additional taxes to subsidize the lives of people who made poor decisions where I made better ones? Doing so would only make sense if there was sort of benefit to society for insuring everybody, otherwise it's just another weight around the neck of the US budget, which is already half sunk and is still sinking.

P.S. - I will return later and correct some of my early morning babble.