The problem is not that the federal government pays for some things, but is expected to pay for everything. Look at education. The Feds have no jurisdiction over education except as it violates the Constitution. So they can enforce anti-discrimination laws but in general something like NCLB would violate the 10th Amendment if it were mandated. But it gets around that with the legilation through pursestrings allowed under South Dakota v. Dole. But my question is, why are the Feds paying for education? Why not leave it up to the states and locals? Is it:
It is just expected? Have we kept the New Deal mentality that Big Daddy Fed will take care of everything by throwing $ at it?
Is it impossible for the Feds to get out? Is education now so expensive (and if so is that the Feds fault?) that the system would collapse if they didn’t fund it?
Now add UHC (again of questionable Constitutionality if SD v. Dole doesn’t exist). Why is there the expectation that the Feds need to pay for it?
Cosmic Relief, the place for rants is the BBQ Pit. This topic is certainly fodder for a Great Debate, but you set the tone and poisoned the well and I have no intention of spending hours seeing has gotten out of line in this thread.
Off to The BBQ Pit. (If you want to open a Great Debate on the topic, feel free, but do it with a lot less emotional baggage the next time.
If you shrink the government down to a thimble that costs a trillion dollars and can only be financed by borrowing, but that’s OK because it happens to be a weaponized thimble that can destroy ICBM’s, I fail to see what’s fiscally conservative about that.
The Republicans are using deficit hysteria to ram through indiscriminate spending cuts. It’s true that their rationale to keep this or ditch that is colored by their perspective of what government ought to be doing. But the overriding justification right now is “OMG the deficit is a horrendous beast about to eat us all, so you will now sit down and start cutting stuff that’s important to you (not us).”
I just sincerely want to know how this relates to the Reagan myth. For years they told us his deficits didn’t matter and in fact were a form of genius because they helped end the recession and win the Cold War. In fact deficit spending was such a brilliant solution for the last recession and war that that George W. Bush simply copied it. Republicans only found their sense of horror over deficits after Obama became president. Now that a Democrat is president, of course, they tell us of course that deficits are no solution for a recession.
Of course, if we need an explanation for that, we need look no farther bald-faced hypocrisy. That’s not what I’m curious about. My curiousity is about the status of the Reagan myth now. If we all agree that deficits are fiscally irresponsible and a threat to the country, doesn’t that mean Reagan was a colossal fuckup. If not, why not? Or is the current drumbeat of deficit horror nothing more than a dogwhistle for the proper role of government, which in turn is a dogwhistle for tossing meat to the rich and scraps to the poor?
First question: And that can only be done through the Feds paying for it? If we want to put education under the Federal jurisdiction, why not change the Constitution or pass laws requiring the states to follow certain procedures and hope for an activist Judge. If the Feds can’t just pass a law standardizing education or health care, then why should they be allowed to do it using tax and spend?
Second question: So we throw the enumerated rights and state responsibilites out of the Constitution and rewrite it as “The Federal government pays for everything”? Or is the Constitution (despite all of its fault) only to be followed when convienient?
Third question: Why do people from each state have to have the same of everything? If California taxpayers decide to spend more in state and local taxes to have a better educational system and Arizona’s attitude is “Fuck it.” then isn’t that the residents’ perogative AND doesn’t it let you choose whether you wan’t to pay more for a better education when picking a state to live in?
Fourth question: There’s only one way to have quality education and UHC? Because that’s exactly what you get when the Feds pay for it. Every state now has to educate in the NCLB style and give health care that corresponds to Obamacare?
What? Look, you don’t understand what fiscal conservatives believe. But I’m hear to tell you. Ask and I’ll answer. Keep posting stuff like this and I’ll assume you wisj to remain ignorant.
If I’m understanding you correctly, it’s essentially the doctrine of being stingy in financing things the government has no business doing? Have I got that about right or would you like to fine-tune it a bit before I point out the obvious hypocrisy?
When considering a new government program, fiscal conservatives generally think in terms of “is this something the government should do, or should it be left to the private sector?”. Fiscal liberals generally think in terms of whether the government program would advance their social goals–they aren’t concerned about the “proper areas” for the government to act.
That’s really it. FC’s have a list (which varies from person to person) of what they think it’s proper for the government to do, and FLs don’t–they don’t even ask the question that would make it necessary to generate such a list.
I await with bated breath your undoubtedly stunning and original observation about the obvious hypocrisy of the fiscal conservative position. Thanking you in advance.
Cad-You DO understand that people from Mississippi and Connecticut are EQUALLY American, right? :dubious: And people will eventually have to interact with people from all over the country (and world, possibly) and should be on as equal a footing as practical.
Sure, if you assume that roads, police forces, and militaries aren’t the domain of the Federal government. Most fiscal conservatives, including me, think that they are. So your assertion is ridiculous. But at least you knew and admitted that with your “broad brush” comment.
But that needn’t be mentioned. You automatically lose the thread for using the “black president” defense.
Which is it? Do we want it, or do we not care? You can’t have both. Personally, I don’t care. More accurately, I reserve the right not to care. I still may care if your kid is dying and you can’t pay to heal them. But I don’t have to.
Why? Does their status of “American” mean that they have to have the same income? Housing? Political views?
Then why do they have to have the same education and health care? You seem to be one of those people that think “fair” means “same”.
Yeah, we don’t require everyone to wear the same color socks… why should they be FORCED to have access to breathable air and safe drinking water? You just want us all to be a bunch of faceless clones!
I was going to write something long to counter the statements above but it isn’t necessary. Fuck all your your hypothetical examples. True fiscal conservatives like myself believe that habitual deficit spending is bad because it is building up debt that has to be paid back and will eventually lead to either full collapse of the economy in the worst case or interest payments that drag down the economy at some point whether it is while you are alive or your kids are. There is no need to break out fancy charts and economic theory to justify the nuances. The fact remains, if you spend more than you make individually or collectively, you will pay for it at some point.
This is a case where common sense can outperform the most educated person in the world if you don’t keep the argument at its most basic level. I don’t want to hear about inner city black kids with rare illnesses or schoolchildren propping up expensive government programs on their own just because they exist. They will get their treatments and education one way or another. Some of it will be subpar but that may be what it takes. The U.S. already invests a huge amount of money in education comapred to other countries with questionable results. I love the military and its technology but it is massive overkill at this point. Chop everywhere you can and still maintain reasonable defense. Baby boomers are the ones that screwed much of this stuff on their own. They need to suffer in retirement just like everyone else does.
What needs to be done is to look at every single line item and prioritize about what is most important and what isn’t. If it isn’t that important, chop! If you saw you were about to be homeless in the future unless you made changes, there are probably things you could learn to live without and not make a big impact on your life. The best time to do that is before men in suits come knocking on your door because that is when things get really painful. That is called life and being an adult.
It is time to face facts. The world isn’t a giant Ponzi scheme and I hope the U.S. comes to that realization faster than most. If you start cutting off infected fingers now, the rest of the hand may be able to be saved. The one thing that has impressed me about Obama lately is he seems to be open to cutting popular programs that aren’t a pressing need.
The market should serve society. We form societies because pooling resources works better in some cases and people individually following their own interests is not an optimal strategy for the group.
The government should be involved in societal needs where market competition does not result in more efficient delivery of goods and services. So where there is essentially no market competition and company(ies) have effective monopolies and pricing is static, it might be a legitimate area for government involvement.
In areas where demand is relatively inflexible, say like medical care, where you have to deal with the question “what portion of your resources are you willing to spend to save your life”, it is in our collective interest not to have one industry own our lives.
Of course it does. My post didn’t address what I (or any other fiscal conservative) thinks those “proper areas” are. But the point is that fiscal conservatives ask the question “is this an area the government should be involved in” whereas fiscal liberals simply do not ask that question. Different fiscal conservatives of course have different ideas of what the proper areas for government involvement are.
I guess that snipping at my heels is all you are capable of. Maybe you could phone a friend to explain how I’ve got it all wrong since you appear unsuited for the task.