Debt Debate in Congress

[nathanm]

The primary difference that makes people mad is that the Tea Party's foundation is a belief in the power of the individual. . .the smallest minority.  That is the opposite of the group-thought that pervades the liberal establishment. For this, I respect them as a movement, but they have no hope of ever being a political party, and I don't know if that is even their goal.  I think they just want us to get back to the fundamental principals of individual freedom that this country was founded on.

OK, then why are they not on a farm somewhere where they can be as individualist as they like? While I'm quite sympathetic to that point of view (it wasn't much more than a decade ago that I was a dyed in the wool Randian), I have just come to realize that it's unworkable in modern society where we're all interdependent due to the necessity of infrastructure, financing, and other things. Our way of life requires big business. Big business requires big government to prevent big business from cheating. If they really want to get back to that world, they might consider joining the Amish.

I was thinking about this the other day and it struck me that a large part of the reason why the Tea Partyists are completely convinced that government is the problem is that for much of the 20th century, government was big and intimidating and difficult and all that. That's what we decided we wanted to have after the gilded age and the Great Depression. And it largely worked. Government was a complete and utter a**hole and used that to keep corporations in line, which made big business seem all cuddly, friendly, and safe, much like a lion cub. Now that the tables have turned and much of the regulatory state has been dismantled, the situation has largely reversed, but those who spent much of their lives in the old regime fail to see that the world has changed around them.

Regarding your trend line comment, yeah, revenues trend downwards when you cut taxes and have a poorly performing economy. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that one out.

[Teatownclown]

Nate and Swake get it. Gassie, you are nothing but a smiling anarchist.

[Conan71]

OK, then why are they not on a farm somewhere where they can be as individualist as they like? While I'm quite sympathetic to that point of view (it wasn't much more than a decade ago that I was a dyed in the wool Randian), I have just come to realize that it's unworkable in modern society where we're all interdependent due to the necessity of infrastructure, financing, and other things. Our way of life requires big business. Big business requires big government to prevent big business from cheating. If they really want to get back to that world, they might consider joining the Amish.

I was thinking about this the other day and it struck me that a large part of the reason why the Tea Partyists are completely convinced that government is the problem is that for much of the 20th century, government was big and intimidating and difficult and all that. That's what we decided we wanted to have after the gilded age and the Great Depression. And it largely worked. Government was a complete and utter a**hole and used that to keep corporations in line, which made big business seem all cuddly, friendly, and safe, much like a lion cub. Now that the tables have turned and much of the regulatory state has been dismantled, the situation has largely reversed, but those who spent much of their lives in the old regime fail to see that the world has changed around them.

Regarding your trend line comment, yeah, revenues trend downwards when you cut taxes and have a poorly performing economy. I don't think it takes a genius to figure that one out.

The problem is, big government has gone beyond protecting individuals from big business.  It's morphed into some sort of nanny trying protecting individuals from themselves and to be the solution to every single man-made disaster and natural occurrence which is why it's now collapsing under it's incredible weight of debt.  Too many people (and corporations) want too many things out of the government.

[Teatownclown]

Jeeebuzz CoCo.....you too are an anarchist? We'll know for certain come next week.

The clown calls your bluff.....you ain't that stupid.....are you?

[nathanm]

I don't really have a problem with government also figuring out ways to impose a cost on previously externalized activities, like pollution. That's part and parcel of keeping big business in check. Nor do I have a problem with Government being an insurance company; It's more efficient to have a larger risk pool and not siphon off a profit. (Not that private insurance shouldn't be available, mind you!) And I think when government is doing its job relative to fostering competition in the private markets, that's a fantastic thing, which is why it would please me to no end if more municipalities would build open-access fiber networks that any ISP can use to compete.

[nathanm]

Oh, and this is mildly interesting, from those pinko commies at Bloomberg:

"In Washington, more spending and more debt is business as usual," the Republican leader from Ohio said in a televised address yesterday amid debate over the U.S. debt. "I've got news for Washington - those days are over."

Yet the speaker, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell all voted for major drivers of the nation's debt during the past decade: Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and Medicare prescription drug benefits. They also voted for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, that rescued financial institutions and the auto industry.

Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation's accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion.

As Congress nears votes to raise the $14.3-trillion debt ceiling to avert a default on U.S. obligations when borrowing authority expires on Aug. 2, both parties are attempting to claim a mantle of fiscal responsibility. They both bear some of the blame: Many Democrats contributed to the expenses that are forcing lawmakers to boost the nation's debt limit, as have Republican leaders at odds over how much borrowing authority to hand President Barack Obama and when.

"There's plenty of blame to go around," for the debt, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates for balanced budgets. "If there had been no Barack Obama, we would still be bumping up against the debt limit.'"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-26/republican-leaders-voted-for-drivers-of-u-s-debt-they-now-blame-on-obama.html

I remembered another interesting factoid yesterday: In Bush's budgets, the wars were not counted, which made his headline budget deficits look much smaller. Boehner is so full of smile.

[Gaspar]

Nate and Swake get it. Gassie, you are nothing but a smiling anarchist.

No, I believe the answer to America's political problems is the same commitment to freedom that earned America its greatness: a free-market economy and the abundance and prosperity it brings; a dedication to civil liberties and personal freedom that marks this country above all others; and a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade as prescribed by America's founders.

It's really simple, I believe that people do a better job of running their lives than the government does. 

I believe that you cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.

[Gaspar]

[nathanm]

It's really simple, I believe that people do a better job of running their lives than the government does. 

Oh, right! You think government caused the financial meltdown, Enron's malfeasance, and the BP gusher. Your philosophy makes much more sense in light of that. If only such a magically simple worldview were consistent with the facts.

[Conan71]

Oh, right! You think government caused the financial meltdown, Enron's malfeasance, and the BP gusher. Your philosophy makes much more sense in light of that. If only such a magically simple worldview were consistent with the facts.

That's a complete non-sequitur if I've ever seen one.  He's talking about personal liberty and government's slow but steady erosion of that and you bring up corporate malfeasance like Enron and BP?

[Gaspar]

Oh, right! You think government caused the financial meltdown, Enron's malfeasance, and the BP gusher. Your philosophy makes much more sense in light of that. If only such a magically simple worldview were consistent with the facts.

Every time something goes poorly, to look toward government and say "we need you to protect us" is just sad. Regulatory totalitarianism is not a panacea.  Our society is breaking down under the belief that individual liberty is granted by government.  The very purpose of our constitution was to protect the individual from the tyranny of ever increasing government creep. 

Sure, government can protect you from monsters, but once you inflate government, the bureaucracy that follows becomes the the most terrible monster of all, one that is almost impossible to scare away!

What is so bad about big government? My indictment of big government is that it is bad because it attacks liberty, prosperity, progress, harmony, and morality. Thanks to big government, we have significantly less of all of those good things than we would if we had been able to keep government right-sized. Big government is cancerous. Like a cancer, it hurts the body and tends to spread, doing more and more harm as it grows. It is time for some radical surgery. – George C. Leef

The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of people. – Justice William O. Douglas

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. – Patrick Henry

[RecycleMichael]

Sure, government can protect you from monsters, but once you inflate government, the bureaucracy that follows becomes the the most terrible monster of all, one that is almost impossible to scare away!

No. It is not. Federal government employees as a percentage of population has ballooned and shrunk repeatedly over the years. You just make up facts to bash government. 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)

Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
(the last number is the percentage)

1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+

[Gaspar]

No. It is not. Federal government employees as a percentage of population has ballooned and shrunk repeatedly over the years. You just make up facts to bash government. 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/09/how_many_federal_workers_are_t.html

Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)

Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
(the last number is the percentage)

1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+

Wasn't really a comment on government employment. 

Was a comment on programs, regulations, and bureaucracy.   Employment should shrink over time as technology improves government's ability to administer more complex bureaucracy.  Simply look at your tax forms.  Most file electronically now and an electronic analysis takes place.  That used to be people, but now computers maintain the growth of the monster. 

Try to open up a small rental company (personal experience).  Compared to 20 years ago, you now have to spend thousands in licensing, permits, and inspections just to make your first dollar. 

Sure there are fewer paper-pushers but that does not mean there is less paper.

[nathanm]

Sure, government can protect you from monsters, but once you inflate government, the bureaucracy that follows becomes the the most terrible monster of all, one that is almost impossible to scare away!

Government is monstrous when is controlled by corporate interests instead of the people. The right wing's insistence that corporate speech be equivalent to personal speech is the mechanism by which that takeover has been accomplished.

Gaspar, I'm sorry the state and city were making it so hard for you to get your business going.

[we vs us]

That's a complete non-sequitur if I've ever seen one.  He's talking about personal liberty and government's slow but steady erosion of that and you bring up corporate malfeasance like Enron and BP?

I totally got it.  For Gaspar, everything relates to government and its relative level of intrusion into X (life, the market, your sense of self-worth).  Government is the original sin, and is the bad apple that spoils the bunch.  Everything else could exist in a blissful state of equilibrium if it weren't for the corrupting hand of government -- which spreads like a fungus into everything man does.  Government corrupts individuals, corporations, natural law, the works.  

So when you look at corporate malfeasance, or you look at the failure of markets, or you look at the nature of poverty, the central problem in all of these things is that government is present.  And if it isn't immediately obvious where the government in all of these things is, well . . . then you're just not looking hard enough.