# Should we expand or reduce the size of government?



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

I strongly believe the US government is ridiculously bloated and we need serious reductions in the size of government. Unfortunately it appears that the idea of starving government into shrinking through tax cuts has not been working. Congress is frighteningly accepting of deficits.

I started this thread because I'm curious how other forum members feel about the size of the government. I fear that, among the general public, I'm among a small minority.


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

Reduce, absolutely.


----------



## Vladimir Berkov (Apr 19, 2005)

Reduce. In terms of size, power and money.


----------



## pendennis (Oct 6, 2005)

Not only reduce the government in size, but set Consitutional limits on its size (a percentage of the GNP - 3%, 5%, 10% - ???).

Turn Congress into a part-time body; to limit the amount of mischief they can do.

Turn the judiciary out after 10-12 years. No lifetime unaccoutability.

Remove term limits from the President.

Dennis
If you wish to control the future, then create it.
Est unusquisque faber ipsae suae fortunae


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Reduce, reuse, recycle. The fed needs a diet badly, it can't control spending, it can't account for what it spends money on, the congress votes through budgets that they don't even read or analyze, everything is just too big and unmanageable.

My quick plan to increase overall financial "goodness," and reduce "badness," to borrow an engineering phrase:

1 - Military: needs much, MUCH better spending management. We don't need 1000 nukes anymore, or fleets of boomers, or satellite defense systems, or fancy bombers and useless helicopters. We need a military broken into small units ready for rapid deployment. Close a few dozen foreign bases while you're at it, the military is there to defend the US, not to play policeman.

2 - Social welfare programs should be shifted to state control. What works for New York probably doesn't for Alaska, or Delaware, or Minnesota. Remove federal funding for these programs and shift the financial burden to states. Same deal with education, the federal department of education operate in an advisory capacity.

3 - We need some balanced budget legislation. The congress can't be trusted to hold down spending. The solution to every problem, in the eyes of presidents and congress, is to spend more. This needs to change.

The national debt isn't as bad a thing as most people think, but it certainly isn't a good thing, either.

https://brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

Good/Fast/Cheap - Pick Two


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

Glad to see I'm not alone. I really liked the suggestions from both jbmcb and pendennis. As far as I recall, and I could be wrong seeing as I was just thirteen at the time, closing and consolidating foreign bases was something Bush ran on back in 2000 when he was preaching against nation building. I liked those ideas back then and I still like them even if the party has done a complete reversal. We just don't need Cold War remnants such as tens of thousands of troops in Germany or even in Japan. Sure I'm aware of the North Korea threat but we also have thousands of troops in South Korea.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by tmlewis_
> 
> Glad to see I'm not alone. I really liked the suggestions from both jbmcb and pendennis. As far as I recall, and I could be wrong seeing as I was just thirteen at the time, closing and consolidating foreign bases was something Bush ran on back in 2000 when he was preaching against nation building. I liked those ideas back then and I still like them even if the party has done a complete reversal. We just don't need Cold War remnants such as tens of thousands of troops in Germany or even in Japan. Sure I'm aware of the North Korea threat but we also have thousands of troops in South Korea.


We've actually been reducing and consolidating overseas bases for years... two of the places where I've been assigned, Soesterberg AB in the Netherlands and the GLCM base in Sicily were history in the early 90s. Many UK and German bases have been shut down or reduced to a skeleton crew. I agree that something like 8 bases in a country like Italy is ridiculous.

https://www.defenselink.mil/brac/


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I think it would help if the judiciary (and both of the other branches) remembered what was actually written in the Constitution, as opposed to that living/changing crap. The federal government does far too many things that it doesn't really have the authority to do. 

I don't mind the govn't running a deficit at times. It's not a totally useless idea. But it seems like 20% of the budget is pork and most of the rest is either inefficiency or illegality.

I think the best idea of how to slow down the govn't would be to pass two Amendments. First, bills can only contain material relating to their original purpose (no tacking on stupid provisions to unrelated bills). Second, all laws sunset in 10 years. That'll keep Congress so busy repassing the important stuff, the rest will just go away.

CT

Fabricati diem, pvnc. (loose translation, To Serve and Protect) -- Sign above the door of the City Watch House, Ankh-Morpork.


----------



## Gong Tao Jai (Jul 7, 2005)

Reduce, reduce, and reduce some more.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

i'm gonna go against the wacky libertarian grain on the internet brings and vote for expansion. we had a more libertarian country in the 1800's, and i have no interest in living in that kind of world. many people on the internet have this belief (mistaken, in my view) that things will be better for them and everybody else in the lockean world of freedom of contract, absolute property rights, and minimal to no government intervention. i suspect a more libertarian world would like all the other time frames when libertarianism was prevalent - nasty, brutish and short. 

i'm not too thrilled with this statement that we need to cut the military. some redundacy is good in the area. gives you something to fall back on in the case of an effective first strike or wacky event.

isolationism, as some of the people suggest above, isn't a realistic option today. isolationism would only work if you could close or substantially restrict the borders both ways (in and out) to both people and commerce, and thus eliminate. and doing that will harm us more economically. Much better, i think, to embrace a realistic wilsonian-hamiltonian approach, with the jacksonian responses kept under check and only let out during direct or clearly impending attacks (i.e, afghanistan yes, iraq no).

domestically i'm for single-payer health care and universal college education. if forced to, i'll trade welfare for those two, but i think welfare helps a lot more than it hurts. for every welfare mom that the anti-welfarites trot out, there are hundreds who get government help for a short period of time and then get back to contributing significantly to the american economy. in the no-welfare world, we can lose those people for good. and when you try to "punish" all the cheats, you hurt all the people who use the programs as they should all the more.


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by NoVaguy_
> 
> isolationism, as some of the people suggest above, isn't a realistic option today. isolationism would only work if you could close or substantially restrict the borders both ways (in and out) to both people and commerce, and thus eliminate. and doing that will harm us more economically.


I think you're using a far too restricted definition of isolationism. To write off "isolationism" as meaning we would attempt to totally remove ourselves from the world is to ignore it's practical potential. Isolationism was tarnished by the two World Wars but things are very different now that we have NATO and the UN.

It would be totally feasible for the government to practice moderate isolationism in the sense of a foreign policy where we stay out of other nation's affairs, unless a pressing national interest exists, while still engaging in trade and allowing immigration. To close ourselves off entirely would be senseless but I do think we should curtail our over-involvement in foreign affairs.

The United States government derives its power from the people of the United States. The government is charged with providing for their best interests and as long as there are people in need in this country I think it is fundamentally wrong to use our resources for nation building and the like. Obviously we still have to have a presence in the world, we just need to be more selective and make our work more productive.


----------



## tiger02 (Dec 12, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by pendennis_
> Turn Congress into a part-time body; to limit the amount of mischief they can do.


No way man, did you watch the NFL playoffs and superbowl this year? Much more mischief done by the guys who can't devote all their time to the job at hand.

Tom

--------------------
Death is...whimsical...today


----------



## Albert (Feb 15, 2006)

In Germany, a large part of the civil service is on labour action since almost six weeks.

Adverse results? Nothing significant. You hardly notice - except for some little troubles in the beginning (waste management etc).

This is the ultimate proof that it just doesn't matter how much civil service you have, if any. When this strike is over, I would just axe the parts of the public administration which have just proven their redundancy.









+++++++

_"The problem with London is the tourists. They cause the congestion. If we could just stop tourism we could stop the congestion."_

(HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh commenting on the London traffic debate, after mayor Ken Livingstone launched his plan to charge motorists Â£5 to enter the city)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

reduce and transfer as many functions as possible to the states. After this has been accomplished, the states should reduce.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Expand then reduce, like a yogic breath. 

I think it's curious, given Republican control, that government seems bigger than ever these days (though perhaps underfunded). Some terrific ideas left, right and center. Like that "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska they were talking about. 

I've come to think that *most all* the politicos have a screw loose, regardless of party affiliation. If given the chance to spend our money (frivolously) they will. 

That said, there does remain a role for a (properly run) FEMA and the like, no? I know the Libertarian pov on this, but do most of the rest believe it a good idea to have the feds play this sort of role?

********************************
"It's about time some publicly-spirited person told you where to get off. The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you've succeeded in convincing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you're someone."


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I think people wouldn't object to taxes so much if there was any evidence that the money is spent wisely.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

I think the size is *roughly* okay. In broad outline I support the major programs that are the largest part of the budget - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, and support for higher ed. I'm sure that there is some waste in these programs, and I'm sure that there is more waste in other programs - but even if we could get rid of all waste (and this is something that no private company has done), the size of government would remain roughly the same.

I am worried about the deficit, not because they are always bad, but because I'd rather that we, to the extent practicable, without getting silly about it, try to have a roughly balanced budget. The amount we pay in interest on the debt is, in many cases, a wasted expense.

I think that the biggest problem that the US has right now are gerrymandered districts that make 90% of local legislative and national congressional races non-competitive. If these could be drawn in a more neutral manner (doing so is the trick, of course...), I think that we would get better government and more involved citizenry. If, say, 60% of races were competitive, I do think that people would pay a lot more attention to issues, and we would have more *real* political discussions at local and national levels...and, I hope, fewer purely theoretical and/or partisan discussions.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Another problem is that a lot of "frivolous" spending is more cynical than frivolous.

Cynical politicians bribe constituents into reelecting them with pork from the pork barrel. The bridge in Alaska was a classic example of this kind of unnecessary, but politically important spending.

Unless we as people learn to see through these tactics, I think we are doomed to a government that grows cancerously. Until there is a real national crisis like the depression, I think we as a people are too complacent to bother to learn to see through the tactics.


----------



## tmlewis (Aug 7, 2005)

In years past my political contributions may have favored the RNC but in the present day I have moved toward organizations concentrating on the promotion of fiscally conservative government. My favorite being The Club for Growth.

https://www.clubforgrowth.org/


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

The answer should be determined, to a large degree, by what the objective of the government is to be. I prefer the original ideas of the founding Fathers. Therefore, reduced drastically.
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************


"But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime."
- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law"


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

reduce, please.


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

I think the question is framed incorrectly. Instead of talking about the size of government as if it were an amporphous blob that doesn't do anything, let's talk about the functions of government. In that respect, I think it's clear that our government does not do enough. Health care is the biggest example of where government fails its citizens. Education, energy, and mass transit are three others. However, it is also clear that corruption is sapping the government of its ability to do anything good. Corruption such as Halliburton/Bechtel war profiteering, the annual blank checks written to giant agro-industrial mammoths in the supposedly "limited government" Red American "heartland" (as opposed to the "brainland" of the coasts, I guess), or the insane pharma giveaway that some people nonetheless persist in calling a prescription drug benefit. 

Therefore, by the terms in which the original question was framed, my answer is "yes". However, the real answer is that government needs to provide more services, while cracking down on corruption. The pair is not impossible to combine, though with the current hyper-corrupt Congress, an incurious Know Nothing executive, and wimpy ratings-driven press it is hard to imagine such a change coming about right now. Then again, seven years ago who would've thought that we'd be spending so much blood and treasure on a fool's errand?


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SGladwell_
> ...


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

Expand. Tame the markets.

Cheers,
Harris


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> You're clearly a Bush hater.


We're in dark ages indeed when someone speaks frankly about the problems currently besetting us and instead of provoking thought is simply and rudely labeled a "hater". And interestingly enough, despite the fact that I laid blame for our current predicament at the feet of Congress, the executive, and the press you only saw the middle one.

Dr. Paul Krugman's latest column was instructive. It seems that now conservatives who have been saying what Krugman has been saying for the last seven years (i.e. back to the campaign) are "heroes" but those who saw early-on what I (and others who pulled the lever for the man in 2000) did not discover until it was too late are "haters." Or maybe the line between "hater" and "hero" is not the 2000 campaign but the foolishness of 2003, I don't know.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 No, I base this one many of your other posts in the past, both here and elsewhere. You can vehemently disgree with one's policies without calling him a "Know Nothing" and a "fool".


> quote: And interestingly enough, despite the fact that I laid blame for our current predicament at the feet of Congress, the executive, and the press you only saw the middle one.


Look again at my quote. I high-lighted all the statements which I found offensive.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I vote reduce. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide those things that people want/need but do not have, but merely to provide them with an opportunity to attain them, if they so desire.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I vote reduce. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide those things that people want/need but do not have, but merely to provide them with an opportunity to attain them, if they so desire.


So I guess the government should stop providing certain services to the poverty-stricken elderly? I mean, after all, according to you, nobody--especially the government!--should be helping them with things they need but don't have.

Come on, man. Show a modicum of compassion.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I would support a form of social security that does not resemble the one that we have now. One where those receiving benefits are not receiving taxes paid by their children and grandchildren, but by themselves when they were working. And people should be given the choice to invest this money to try to receive a better return.

Harris, in your world, where would people begin to have to be accountable for their decisions and actions? What is the incentive of anyone to put away some of their current income if they know that if they do not, it will be taken care of by others?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Given that a lot of people don't have the education necessary to make these decisions and that a lot of the investment firms kill small accounts with fees, the people might not make all that much money from their investments.

There is too much government in a lot of areas, but Social Security may not be one of them.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I would support a form of social security that does not resemble the one that we have now. One where those receiving benefits are not receiving taxes paid by their children and grandchildren, but by themselves when they were working. And people should be given the choice to invest this money to try to receive a better return.
> 
> Harris, in your world, where would people begin to have to be accountable for their decisions and actions? What is the incentive of anyone to put away some of their current income if they know that if they do not, it will be taken care of by others?


What sort of "accountability" do you seek?

What sorts of "decisions" and "actions" are you referring to?

And about whom are you speaking when you refer to people who lack incentive to save income for the future?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I think very few people have awakened into consciousness for the first time in their later years to find themselves in a position of poverty. Aside from minors, I think everyone is at least partially responsible for their situation in life. It is more than likely that at least some mistakes were made on becoming one of the "poverty-stricken elderly". That mistake may have been not working enough. It may have been spending beyond one's means. Whatever it was, there were probably mistakes on their part. At what point would you require that people be held accountable for their mistakes, and have to live with the consequences of them?

I've already stated that I would like to see a modified Social Security system, where people are saving for their own futures, rather than relying on the taxation of others. Social Security benefits should provide enough so that we do not have elderly citizens starving in the streets, but in no way should it result in a desirous lifestyle, even for the most lazy among us.

Edit for clarification:
I think the current level of Social Security benefit is about right. The only reason I would seek reform is to be sure that the system can sustain itself in the future.


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by hopkins_student_
> 
> I think very few people have awakened into consciousness for the first time in their later years to find themselves in a position of poverty. Aside from minors, I think everyone is at least partially responsible for their situation in life. It is more than likely that at least some mistakes were made on becoming one of the "poverty-stricken elderly". That mistake may have been not working enough. It may have been spending beyond one's means. Whatever it was, there were probably mistakes on their part. At what point would you require that people be held accountable for their mistakes, and have to live with the consequences of them?
> 
> [snip]


By far the most common mistake is to have chosen the wrong parents.

However, many women will make the additional mistake of staying home and raising children, and some people will also have made the mistake of earning a pension at a company that discharged its pension obligations in bankruptcy.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

The question is not if the federal government is inflated or not, but what we expect this government to be responsible of. The US is the only country which after 230 (short) years still did not decide what government they want. In other democratic countries, most citizens support and believe in their government (though they might disagree on what political party or people should be in power). 
There are many areas in which the congress (with the fear of being blamed for inflating the federal government) did not provide the feds with even minimal means to carry on their tasks. Immigration is such an example. US citizens expect government to enforce the law on 12 million illegal emigrants (and several additional millions currently knocking the doors) with a handful of underpaid, unmotivated employees working with 19th century methods. 
Before 9/11, most Americans did not even know that an agency such the INS exists. Did not want to know and pay for that. 
Only in 2004 (!) the FBI got a computer network to link between their agents and centers. (Most US commercial firms were computerized since the beginning of the 90s). The US public did not know and did not care. Then 9/11 struck. 
Another example is our defense. The Pentagon agenda speaks of an armed force capable of carrying TWO simultaneous wars, such as Iraq AND North Korea, or Iraq AND Iran. As we clearly see, US forces are already starched to maximum (no personal armor/ no suitable armored vehicles/ not enough forces on the ground!!!).
Some in the US may think that issues such as immigration and defense should not be the feds responsibility. However, as the situation currently is, congress did not provide the government with the minimal resources needed in many areas. (And I did not mention FEMA yet)


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by Wimsey_
> By far the most common mistake is to have chosen the wrong parents.


 Define "wrong parents", or if you wish, define "right parents".


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Generally, if you are not born to wealthy parents, you will have a lot of disadvantages. You may not get to go to good schools, etc.

I think you already know this and knew what the other posters were talking about.

While you may come up with the occasional Horatio Alger story, a lot of people are raised in environments where they do not receive the advantages of say, a George Bush, who made contacts at Yale and was not drafted and sent to Vietnam to be shot.

The average person born in the slums can work 75 times as hard as Bush ever thought about working and still not get any place.

I do not know that increasing the size of government to try to alleviate this is a good thing. I personally believe it is not.

But when people who have a lot of advantages (or were born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple) refuse to acknowledge them as part of the reason for their success, it leaves me cold.

Even a poor person with responsible parents will have a much better chance than a poor person born into a home infested with alcohol and drugs. 

As we think about dismantling the safety net, I wish we would think more about these things. 

But, the government has proven to be horridly inefficient at addressing this. Maybe if people really did support charities on the level they would need to be supported to really help, there would be a chance for some of these people.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Also, while I have a bit of disdain about GM retirees who complain about having to pay a little bit for their health care (as opposed to driving GM into bankruptcy and getting nothing), there is something to be said for people who were told they would get a pension and are now getting screwed.

Sometimes, you do just get screwed, and it is not your "fault" that you are poor.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> But, the government has proven to be horridly ineffecient at addressing this. Maybe if people really did support charities on the level they would need to be supported to really help, there would be a chance for some of these people.


I was unnecessarily harsh in my description of what leads some people to depend on support from the government, but I think that being unnecessarily harsh is no more damaging than being too lenient. I agree with you that charity is the only way to solve many of these problems. These people need one on one support from people volunteering their time to help rather than a check in the mail.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> Generally, if you are not born to wealthy parents, you will have a lot of disadvantages. You may not get to go to good schools, etc.


Define wealthy. What are good schools? Do you mean that if one goes to public schools he can't keep himself off public assistance?



> quote:I think you already know this and knew what the other posters were talking about.


 No. Actually, I hear the general rhetoric bandied about a lot, but without details of definitions. I think we could possibly get to the bottom of some reality if we didn't speak in "talking pointese".



> quote:While you may come up with the occasional Horatio Alger story, a lot of people are raised in environments where they do not receive the advantages of say, a George Bush, who made contacts at Yale and was not drafted and sent to Vietnam to be shot.
> 
> The average person born in the slums can work* 75 times as hard* as Bush ever thought about working and still not get any place.


 You can't be serious. I know more Horatio Alger stories *by FAR* than I know stories of privilege. In my world, it is the rule - not the exception. I wasn't raised around "privilege", whatever that is. If your example of GWB were fair, then how do you explain all the past presidents and other leaders that came from humble beginnings? On the flip side, if connections are all that is required, then why are there so many well-connected heirs that are complete screw-ups? Didn't help Steve Forbes become president. He was wealthy, connected AND intelligent. I don't want to sidetrack the conversation, but I don't think that the sweeping generalizations advance the conversation.



> quote:But when people who have a lot of advantages (or were born on 3rd base and thought he hit a triple) refuse to acknowledge them as part of the reason for their success, it leaves me cold.


But what you may view as an advantage may hinder. A life without challenge can lead to a soft man without character. Or conversely, it is often the challenges that the disadvantaged experience in childhood that make them overcomers - much more able to adapt to the curveballs of life.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there is NO legimacy to your analysis. I just think your numbers (75x) are WAY the heck off. I don't even think it's twice as hard. But your life experiences have shown you differently, I assume.

At what point does one start to take some personal responsibility for his life? Even a child can escape a bad situation for 35 - 40 hours per week in elementary school to learn from caring teachers. There is no excuse for anyone to reach adulthood without basic life skills such as reading, writing and math...unless of course they are being granted social advancement without first learning the fundamentals. Almost all schools have vo-tech programs through which to give skills to those without other future plans.

But assume for a moment that no parent or teacher or grandma or neighbor or pastor ever mentored or encouraged a child. He still has a plethora of free job training / adult education programs available to him through what I would consider to be legitimate government programs.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

In today's world, unless you have the educational background and funding to attend college, you have incredible odds to overcome to make any sort of an adequate living. Also, unless you know how to use a computer, you are at a huge disadvantage. Not every family can afford one. 

While I agree there should be more accountability, there should be some compassion. For a lot of people, it is not their fault. The example about a pension being taken away is one.

To be honest, my father was upper middle class, if not wealthy. I, because I spent some of my early years playing music on the side had to get accounting jobs that were flexible enough (not 80 hours a week, in other words.) to permit that.

I am solidly in the middle class with a job in a small company that is having some financial difficulty. Because I live in Michigan, if this job goes away, I will almost certainly have to move to another state if I wish to stay in the middle class.


----------



## Harris (Jan 30, 2006)

hopkins student,

I may as well go ahead and the proverbial cat out of the bag: Although I retain some interest in seeing some sort of safety net for the poor who cannot help themselves, I'm probably with you on most if not all points regarding government's role in a free society. Anyone who's paid any attention to my presence amidst these fora would recall that during a sabbatical I used the username "Thatcher" (in honor of a certain prime minister) and have exalted Tory values.

So, my question about what's informed your libertarianism was purely genuine. Not flippant. I thought perhaps you had flirted with some Adam Smith or Friedman or F.A. Hayek or even a a bit of Ayn Rand. I was just curious.

I wasn't provoking or baiting you, but I was interested in prompting a pro-libertarian argument _from someone who actually serves in the medical field_. I think that, as time goes on, the pro-free market types are going to have to become better at offering principled (deontological?) arguments to support the subtle and frequently benevolent (here I go sounding like Smith) work of markets. As things stand, the only famous (modern) Kantian was Harvard's John Rawls, who was, uh, not so much of a pro free market guy.

Do markets allocate resources efficiently and even benevolently when left relatively unrestrained by government intervention? This remains the question, and there are more than a few who believe that if the government stopped all entitlement programs tomorrow, the church would finally be inspired to do the work (compassionate charity) they're supposed to be doing.

Let's keep the discussion going.

Cheers,
Harris


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

forsbergacct2000, I'm sorry but that's nonsense. There are very few people in this country who are born with enough money to be lazy and not see any adverse effects. And there are plenty of people who start life poor and make something of themselves. My maternal grandfather was dirt poor and ended up VP for a major company. My father grew up with an outhouse (this is the 1950's here) on a small poor farm and attended a one-room school house. He ended up general counsel for a very successful non-profit organisation. I went to decidedly average public schools and went to college on an academic scholarship and now I'm a professor. The Kennedy-type do-nothing have-everything families are rare. (Yes, I chose the Kennedy's on purpose.)

But to get back on topic: SGladwell


> quote:Health care is the biggest example of where government fails its citizens. Education, energy, and mass transit are three others.


Yes, the federal government fails us by being involved. The US government has no business being involved in health care, education, or mass transit. There are state issues and the states should decide them. That's the problem and that's the solution.

CT


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I must have written poorly. I did not say there would be no problems if rich people were lazy.

Someone asked what advantages rich people have and I tried to explain them. Please don't try to tell me that they don't exist.

While it is not impossible for the poor to achieve success, a lot of cards are stacked against them.

Someone also tried to say that if a person is poor, it is because they did not plan things or were irresponsible. This may make wonderful theory, but if you are hit with a disease and cannot work, or it your pension is stolen or taken away from you in bankruptcy, I do not think that that kind of event is in the control of an individual.


----------



## Joseph Casazza (Aug 26, 2005)

This is far too simplistic a question. What do you want the government to do? What size does it need to be to do that? Just those two questions could keep you going for quite some time all on your own. Now ask a couple of hundred million other Americans what they would say, and try to come to some consensus, and there would still be a group of your fellow citizens claiming the government was bloated. The federal government is the size it is because of a history of demands that elected officials have tried to meet (either for the sake of their own power and influence or out of a real sense of public duty). While a dictator could at a stroke say "cut this" or "eliminate that," for the time being our elected officials must still play politics the usual way.


----------



## mikeber (May 5, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Joseph Casazza_
> 
> This is far too simplistic a question. What do you want the government to do? What size does it need to be to do that?
> The federal government is the size it is because of a history of demands that elected officials have tried to meet (either for the sake of their own power and influence or out of a real sense of public duty)


Well said, Joseph. As I wrote above, the people of this country cannot make up their mind on what type of governmant they want. That's the real question, which after 200+ years, still remains open. As a result, the US is the only democratic country (that I know of), with such a high degree of mistrust in it's own government.


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_While it is not impossible for the poor to achieve success, a lot of cards are stacked against them.


I agree, Forsberg. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. But I think that there are a FEW cards stacked against them, rather than a lot. For instance, it is a LOT easier for the underpriviledged to get financial assistance to college than it is for a lower-middle class family squeaking by on $40K/yr. I happen to know this personally.



> quote:Someone also tried to say that if a person is poor, it is because they did not plan things or were irresponsible. This may make wonderful theory, but if you are hit with a disease and cannot work, or it your pension is stolen or taken away from you in bankruptcy, I do not think that that kind of event is in the control of an individual.


Believe it or not, I agree with this as well. Only a fool would make such absolute statements, as there are exceptions to every rule. If I stated it that emphatically, then it was not my intent or belief. But I think that the number of poor who find themselves in this situation BECAUSE of a loss of their pensions is miniscule compared to other reasons. I would guess that it is in the 1-5% range, if even that. Unexpected serious illness is a bigger problem, but that's already being addressed on another thread. But I've seen it first hand happen to people who DID make all the right choices throughout life, just to have it siphoned off by medical bills. Tragic, really.

The causes for poverty (in America, anyway) are overwhelmingly (60-80%, depending on whom you believe) wrapped in 1 or more of the following:

-Teenage pregnancy
-Dropping out of high school
-Getting married and/or having children before the age of 20.

I think we can all agree that these ARE preventable. If the government is to have a bigger role in anything, it is to educated and provide mentorship programs to these at-risk groups to _prevent _ these behaviors.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

Goverment (in the USA) is becoming more and more intrusive in both political and economic terms every year. Just on the federal level, it is quite scary that only 537 people have the basically unchecked spending power of almost 2.5 TRILLION dollars per year. Thats over $4.6 BILLION EACH, EVERY YEAR, YEAR AFTER YEAR. Sorry, but bigger govt to me just means a few people have more and more power over my own future. No thanks.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Joseph Casazza_
> While a dictator could at a stroke say "cut this" or "eliminate that," for the time being our elected officials must still play politics the usual way.


Which is why we need a Dictator.

I nominate...myself.

(That'll show those &@#$! Lizard People.)


----------



## Wimsey (Jan 28, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by Preston_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


By the "wrong" parents, I of course mean parents who are unable to provide you with sufficient social, intellectual, and (the least important) monetary capital to make the best use of your potential.

While there are people who are able to overcome such disadvantages, statistically it is difficult for people to realize their potential if they:

- Were born to a poor unwed 16 year old HS dropout.

- Were born to a family with an income below the poverty level for a substantial period of time.

- Were born to a family that lived off of public assistance.

- Were raised in a poor single parent household.

- Were raised in a family that, while above the poverty level, had difficulty making ends meet.

- Were raised in a family in which neither parent attended college (the single biggest predictor of whether a person will graduate from college is whether his parents did).

- Were raised in an abusive family.

- Were raised in a family in which one of the parents was a felon.

(Note that many of these groups overlap.)

Being a child in one of these families makes you much more likely to end up in poverty than being a child in a stable, middle class, college-educated family, even if the family had relatively modest means.

Certainly there are advantages to being born rich - but the opportunity gap between the rich and middle class family described above is much less significant than between the middle class family and the poor family.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> In today's world, unless you have the educational background and funding to attend college, you have incredible odds to overcome to make any sort of an adequate living. Also, unless you know how to use a computer, you are at a huge disadvantage. Not every family can afford one.


That's a tremendous societal change in just the last generation.

There USED to be an industrial base in the US and plenty of decently-paid jobs for people who did not attend college. There still are some, but the chance of landing one today is much smaller than in the past.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by VS_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Used to be some decently-paid jobs for people who DID attend college, too, but a BA is almost the same as a high school diploma used to be in terms of general knowledge and savvy. Now you pretty much have to go to grad school...

Aaagh.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I will be the first to concede that the trend toward single parenthood and divorce also contribute to many individuals being mired in poverty.

Irresponsible sex, while great at the moment, is a real problem for our society.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I would add that irresponsibility in general is a real problem for this society. 

Sex is one (albeit, a big one) of many aspects that suffer from this attitude.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by forsbergacct2000_
> 
> I must have written poorly. I did not say there would be no problems if rich people were lazy.
> 
> ...


I second Preston's answer. The silly rich do exist and the poor-through-no-fault-of-their-own do exist, but both groups are much in the minority compared to the rich by hard work and poor by whatever. I don't mean to demonize the poor, and I know that's how this sounds, but some hard work and keeping it in their pants would go a long way to getting them out of poverty.

CT


----------



## SGladwell (Dec 22, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> I second Preston's answer. The silly rich do exist and the poor-through-no-fault-of-their-own do exist, but both groups are much in the minority compared to the rich by hard work and poor by whatever. I don't mean to demonize the poor, and I know that's how this sounds, but some hard work and keeping it in their pants would go a long way to getting them out of poverty.


Actually, the majority in both groups by a gigantic margin are "rich/poor because their parents were rich/poor." Social mobility in America is all but dead today. France actually has greater mobility than we do! Boomers don't notice it as much, perhaps, but for Gen Xers it is very obvious.

One may choose not to believe that. However, one would then be letting ideology rather than data about the real world determine what you believe. That kind of rigid fundamentalism helps nobody and no cause.


----------



## ChubbyTiger (Mar 10, 2005)

I suppose that, as a GenX-er, I should find it obvious that social mobility is dead. Quite to the contrary, I see the evidence as showing that it hasn't really changed during my lifetime. See the NY Times article for a nice graphic:

https://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_03.html

That Frace seems to be a percent or two better than the US doesn't really bother me too much, given their overall lower quality of life. Of course, where you start makes a difference, but it isn't the deciding factor by any means. Starting poor is an obstacle, but hardly an insurmountable one. A smaller federal government and more flexable state goverments would allow for a far more reasonable approach to dealing with the problem than we currently have. The idea that having a more powerful federal government would solve these ills is has been proven wrong in the US since WWII, in China, in the USSR, take your pick.

CT


----------



## Preston (Aug 8, 2003)

> quote:_Originally posted by SGladwell_
> Social mobility in America is all but dead today.


Where do you get this information? If indeed this were the case (and I don't believe that it is), then it is NOT because of a lack of opportunities, but rather sociological. Expectations are oftentime set for children by their parents, either directly or indirectly. College-educated parents are far more likely to set the expectation that their children will also attend/graduate from college.

If it were anything else, then how do you explain all the immigrants who come here with NOTHING - no education, no connections, no money, (and in many case) no knowledge of even the language - and still make a good life for themselves and their children, just by "scrapping"? Happens every day.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Patrick06790_
> 
> Used to be some decently-paid jobs for people who DID attend college, too, but a BA is almost the same as a high school diploma used to be in terms of general knowledge and savvy. Now you pretty much have to go to grad school...
> 
> Aaagh.


Don't look at me; I'm a dropout, just like Bill Gates!

...okay, well, I'm not actually at all like him.

It is also true that an 8th grader in 1920 probably had better basic skills than a high school graduate today.

People need more advanced degrees not only because jobs have become more specialized, but because high school and college diplomas mean less, unless the student has graduated from a very challenging school.

There seem to be many 18-year-olds out there who can't make change for $7.53 out of $10 without a calculator.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by ChubbyTiger_
> 
> I suppose that, as a GenX-er, I should find it obvious that social mobility is dead. Quite to the contrary, I see the evidence as showing that it hasn't really changed during my lifetime. See the NY Times article for a nice graphic:
> 
> ...


I don't think you can say that France has a lower quality of life....


----------



## bosthist (Apr 4, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by NoVaguy_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NoVaGuy:

I'm sure there is a study somewhere that definitively proves the US offers a superior quality of life to that of France. I'll check lewrockwell.com first, and, if I can't find it there, I will just make up a a bunch of stuff based on some anecdotal evidence and a couple of tables lifted from the 1955 Information Please Almanac.


----------



## NoVaguy (Oct 15, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by bosthist_
> NoVaGuy:
> 
> I'm sure there is a study somewhere that definitively proves the US offers a superior quality of life to that of France. I'll check lewrockwell.com first, and, if I can't find it there, I will just make up a a bunch of stuff based on some anecdotal evidence and a couple of tables lifted from the 1955 Information Please Almanac.


I don't think you can definitely prove it, in part because it's going to be debatable as to what constitute a superior quality of life.

Is it the median performance? Performance of what? Does quality of health count? Vacation and Leisure time? Potential for career advancement?

The French do live longer, have better health care and health, and have much more leisure time than Americans.


----------

