Hardware

Ask something
Discussion Locked

IOUSA

0 helpful
23 replies

by dr dij

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

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

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090703/ap_on_go_ot/us_mountain_of_debt;_ylt=ArUqw6uVJDCUQNSgOY_D0sMUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTMzbGNxdnZxBGFzc2V0Ay9hcC8yMDA5MDcwMy9hcF9vbl9nb19vdC91c19tb3VudGFpbl9vZl9kZWJ0BGNwb3MDNgRwb3MDNgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA21vdW50YWlub2ZkZQ--

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

(short 30 min version on youtube)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

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

Will everyone have to resort to barter?

23 replies

by thechas

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.

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.

Chas

by jdclyde

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.

by maxwell edison

You said, [i]"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."[/i]

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.

by thechas

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.

Chas

by jdclyde

when we are spending up to 2k more a year for energy for our homes, that will sure be a big help.

When the cost of fuel soars again, that will sure give relief to the middle class and low class.

How about that the majority of that stimulus debt is NOT going to stimulate anything?

by maxwell edison

As for resorting to barter, even that will be taxed. It's not possible for people to live in a barter society (no money), because the value of the bartered goods and services are taxable under our current tax code. It begs the question, if people DO try such a thing, where will they get the cash, and what will happen if they don't (can't) pay?

by maxwell edison

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 [i]government is not doing enough to help ordinary people be able to make the most out of their God given talents.[/i] But the way government can [i]help[/i] the most is to [i]help[/i] the least - just butt-out and get the hell out of people's way and their lives. What government has done, especially over the past four or five decades is not to [i]help[/i] 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?

by maxwell edison

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

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

by thechas

Max,

I used to believe more like you that smaller government was the answer to our problems. I now longer subscribe to that philosophy.

While I do not want my government to do everything for everybody. I do want my government to set and enforce strong standards. Be it financial, commercial, or the environment, we need strong standards to protect us all from the ravages of individual and corporate greed.

Even as recent as 10 years ago, I was apt to vote no on every tax proposal that was on any ballot. Having seen the errors of my ways, I now vote yes for nearly every tax proposal. About the only item I vote no on is funding for any kind of sports.

The point that you missed in my original post is that almost everyone looking to reduce the size of government is asking other people and groups to give up the programs that are important them. But, never seem to get around to stating which programs that they think are important should be cut. In fact, most of the time people ask others to give up a program so that a pet program or pet tax break can be paid for.

Further, there is no contradiction in my 2 statements.

We will never effectively reduce the size of government unless people start asking to have the programs that benefit them reduced or eliminated.

As I do not wish to have the programs that I believe are important reduced, I therefore must support larger government and higher taxes.

Now, if enough people start asking for reductions in the programs that benefit them, we change the legislative and budget dynamic. If everyone is taking a hard look at how government works to help them, I would be much more inclined to consider reductions in the programs that I support.

But, you along with most people asking for smaller government want everyone else to just capitulate on their priorities and have our government match your model. Where is the fairness in that?

Chas

by maxwell edison

You, along with most people asking for larger government, want everyone else to just capitulate on their priorities and have our government match your model. Where is the fairness in that?

Edited to add:

The difference is, my model does not infringe on the individual rights of others, while yours does. So you actually place the importance (and preference) of your model over that of individual rights.

by maxwell edison

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.

by santeewelding

Big, glaring, mother of a hole that the Chas, which, no doubt, if he honestly retrenches, will have to acknowledge.

My first lengthy attempt that did not live to see the light of day, was composed around the notion of the, "hole".

Rather, I erased that and fired a rifle shot.

I thought, screw it; if Max doesn't resonate, then I'll check it off to my cryptic, passive-aggressive, innuendo that falls, more often than not here, flat.

by maxwell edison

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

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

by santeewelding

Of x-bar and (a) bell curve.

By default, and in order to ask your question, you purport to escape that.

You may need to escape a whole lot more than that to comprehend my answer.

by thechas

Just what individual rights does the large government model impinge upon?

Oh, that's right, you consider any government spending on programs that you don't support a limit on your rights.

So, in order to exercise your desire to have small government and low taxes, you want to take away my right to petition the government to assist with solving problems that are beyond the scope of what an individual can accomplish.

It must be nice to live in an idyllic setting where you can personally take care of all around you with no need for assistance.

Chas

by maxwell edison

..... leaves a lot to be desired.

In other words, you use the government as the broker to TAKE the earnings from one American for the purpose of giving them to another who did not earn it.

You call it petition. I call it theft.

Take government out of the equation; would you still have the gall - or the courage - to take from another that which he/she earned just because your elitist attitude dictated what was best?

Looking at your first message versus your last, it's obvious that you're a ....... well, it simply does not compute.

by jdclyde

What exactly is it that is beyond the scope of what individuals can accomplish?

Get a free education, either via free public school or getting a the degree in free vocational school?

Taking that free education to develop a skill set that will allow someone to find a job or two? Sometimes it takes a few years to work your way up to be gainfully employed, we all went through it.

Using their free education to live within their means? If they don't have a high income, maybe they should trade in the Navigator for something that doesn't cost more than my house did.

How often do you see someone that pretends to be the poor poor that still has a cell phone? Smoking a pack a day?

People should have to live with the consequences of their actions.

by thechas

Max,

While I still think it would be a good exercise for you to run for office and bring your ideas to a broader audience, you would never make it as a politician. You would end up as the least effective active office holder ever.

Your dogmatic no compromise style would doom you to no support for your proposals. Even among other politicians who support you on principle, most would want your vote on some measure that would not fit into your narrow dogmatic view of the world. Without supporting a few measures outside of your constraints you would never get the votes to pass your proposals.

Of course, your big fear for running for any office is that you may find out just how unrealistic and unattainable your ideas are.

And, who is more elitist?
The person who says, I made it on my own, so can you?
Or, the person who says, I am doing okay, but you are struggling, let's find a way so you can move ahead if you want to?

Chas

This discussion is closed to new replies.