General discussion



By Dr Dij ·
How do you feel knowing that YOU, PERSONALLY owe $184,000 that the fed govt spent on stuff (that probably wasn't for YOU)

This is our share of the official $11 trillion, 80% of the GDP, or so the govt spends 80% of everything produced each year but manages to NOT PAY FOR IT AND PUT IT ON CREDIT instead

or if you count promised liabilities such as social security and medicare, $54 trillion


Similar theme, the daily reckoning site produced video IOUSA about same subject

(short 30 min version on youtube)


Are we going to see the weimar republic again with hyperinflation?

Will everyone have to resort to barter?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by santeewelding In reply to IOUSA
Collapse -


by jdclyde In reply to Or,
Collapse -

Dang Statistics

by TheChas In reply to IOUSA

You can do a lot of playing with statistics and come to lots of false or at least misleading conclusions.

Take that $184,000 number. That presumes that everyone shares the cost of government equally. It also presumes a static number of taxpayers to pay the bill when it comes due.

Likewise, while it is very easy to claim that you get little or no benefit from government spending, it is very different when you look at where the money is spent and what benefits you do get from that spending.

You can argue about how much we should spend in most areas. But, there are very few areas of government spending that do not have some benefit to society.

Just for thought, take a look at how a few types of government spending help you even if you don't use the service.

Public transportation:
If nothing else, public transportation provides a way for those who cannot afford a car, cannot drive, or should not drive a way to get to work and contribute to society.

Or, would you rather have those who cannot afford a car go on welfare?
Those who should not drive (DUI) drive anyway?
Handicapped, also on welfare.

We have to face the fact that we have created a society where many people will never be able to hold a job that will provide them with a level of income such that they can afford the basic necessities.
Or, would you rather see parts of US communities turn into the abject slums that are common in third world countries?
Restricting or eliminating public assistance does not suddenly provide jobs for the unskilled and uneducated. It just forces them into more desperate situations.
Or, do you like tent cities and ramshackle shacks?

Financial and Industry bailouts:
Do I like what has happened with the US financial and Auto industry bailouts? NO. Do I believe that at least some portion of the bailout was necessary? Yes.
In the name of free markets and profits, we allowed many companies to grow so large that their failure would have had far reaching global economic impact. I for one felt that the risk of the worst case scenario was worth propping up the companies.

There are no less than 304,000,000 different agendas for what and where government funds in the US should be spent.

The answer to reduce government spending is not to jump up and say stop spending on what benefits my neighbor.

The way to reduce government spending is to stand up and say don't spend this money that benefits me. I can fix or do it myself.

And, if you are not willing to have the government spend less on things that directly benefit you, don't complain when taxes or the national debt rise.


Collapse -

That is the point

by jdclyde In reply to Dang Statistics

many of us do have personal responsibility and do NOT take from the government other than for national security and infrastructure.

The trend that Obama has pushed and encouraged is that he will take care of us, moving people in the wrong direction. Sure, once in a while he HAS talked about responsibility, but has done nothing but talk, his actions do not reflect that.

A segment of people in government WANT people to be dependent on government. It is called making a peasant class in a gift society.

Collapse -

But Chas

by maxwell edison In reply to Dang Statistics

You said, "The way to reduce government spending is to stand up and say don't spend this money that benefits me. I can fix or do it myself."

Chas, how many times have I said that very thing, but then you came back and accused me of being selfish and self-centered? Yea, that's right, Max, you would say; think of yourself and no one else.

Your statement actually defined the true role of our government. The role of government is not to solve everyone's problems, but stay out of their way so they can solve their own. We're on the road to financial disaster because too many people have failed to understand government's true role, and because too many people do turn to government to solve every little problem.

Collapse -

Not To Disagree

by TheChas In reply to But Chas

Not to disagree, but I think you are leaving out some contextual value from our past discussions.

Of course, I do not expect anyone to turn to their elected representatives and say don't spend this money that benefits me or my community. My point is that unless most of us are willing to ask government to do less for us we will never reduce government spending.

Nearly every comment I have ever heard or read on reducing government spending boils down to someone who does not see a benefit to a specific area of spending asking to have the spending that helps their neighbor cut, not the spending that helps them or that they think is critical.

If you want to hear the loudest complaints, and the surest way to lose the next election, have your representative step up and cut a program that benefits your area with little tangible benefit for the rest of the country. It just will not happen.

Then, many issues are just to large for individual or community action to deal with. Take the environment as an example. It is very easy for one person to cause more damage than 100 other people acting responsibly can balance out.

From my perspective, government is not doing enough to help ordinary people be able to make the most out of their God given talents. Further, I firmly believe that a balanced Federal budget is much more important than low tax rates. So, as I have no areas of the budget that affect me that I am willing to ask for cuts in, I have to be willing to accept higher tax rates.

And, lest you think all I want is more social spending, one of my highest personal priorities would be more funding for police traffic patrols. I want all drivers to take the traffic laws and the privilege of driving seriously.

Same for alternate energy research. I want the next generation energy source to be open source rather than controlled by a single company.


Collapse -

So you don't disagree?

by maxwell edison In reply to Not To Disagree

You and I both know past context, and it's not necessary to repeat it. And again, you've just said many things that I have said, but when I said them in the past (perhaps in a different way), you've diasgreed with me.

I also believe that government is not doing enough to help ordinary people be able to make the most out of their God given talents. But the way government can help the most is to help the least - just butt-out and get the **** out of people's way and their lives. What government has done, especially over the past four or five decades is not to help people, but actually hurt them.

As an analogy, keep giving a drug addict needles and free drugs, and you not only fail to help, but it actually hurts (not to mention the dirty little fact that government got them hooked in the first place). To carry the analogy a bit further, we've become a nation of dependents, codependents, and enablers. We need to stop the madness.

Do you disagree, Chas? Or are you doing a 180? Are you finally coming around to my way of thinking?

Collapse -

That would be a GREAT campaign theme

by maxwell edison In reply to So you don't disagree?

We've become a nation of dependents, codependents, and enablers. Which are you? We need to stop the madness.

Personally speaking, I'm none of the above. Which are you, Chas?

Collapse -

Sneaky, Max

by santeewelding In reply to That would be a GREAT cam ...

Necessary and appropriate, though.

Collapse -

Thank you, santee

by maxwell edison In reply to Sneaky, Max

Although I've said this many times in these threads over the years, it just snuck up on me and hit me like a ton of bricks.

It's short, sweet, and to the point - and rather profound, if I could be so bold to suggest such a thing.

Absolutely everything in a campaign (of less government) could be built upon this foundation. And how could anyone possibly disagree? (Or they might look foolish trying.)

P.S. Feel free to tear it apart and look for holes. Better now than later.

Related Discussions

Related Forums