I’m talking about a more fundamental kind of goal. One reason we’re in a mess is that the people change their goals from election to election. Or, like in California, their goals are lower taxes, more spending on schools and roads and other stuff, and no budget deficit.
So am I. There are people out there who would argue until you’re both blue in the face that the role of government is not to produce/provide the maximum good for citizens, but rather to provide a firm and limited set of services that the Constitution and case law mandates, and to otherwise not interfere in commerce or private lives.
I personally don’t hold with that- I think the right path is somewhere in between a simplistic “maximum good” and a strict-constitutional/get the hell out of the way role.
The problem with “maximum good” is that it subordinates all other considerations to that goal, and probably isn’t realistic over the long term. But I think the government has to take a more active role than the other side would suggest as well.
Quote:
Oh, and in addition to the Presidio budget being pocket change on a federal level, it hasn’t been an Army base since 1994, and was closed by Congress at a time when Democrats held the majority of both houses.
This reminds me of Sam Raeburn’s remark- “a billion here, a billion there, it adds up”.
Yes, and this was a billion[sup]*[/sup] that was deemed to be not worth the cost and so the government decided to stop spending it every year. Sounds like fiscal responsibility to me. What’s the big mystery?
- Or whatever the actual amount was.
The line of “A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you’re talking real money.” is mis-attributed to Everett Dirksen. Not Rayburn. Note that no evidence that Dirksen ever said has been found and he denied it.
Congress-critters have the typical innumeracy problem. They can bring proceedings to a halt for a week over a $40M matter and then approve a $10B amendment without blinking.
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws.”
Mayer Rothchild
Woodrow Wilson sold this country out in 1913.
The only interest Government has is self serving as in keeping the cooperate banks propped up, keeping it’s citizens working 9-5’s so they can continue to fleece tax revenue from the nation’s middle class to pay for all the entitlements and fund conflict.
“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by it’s system of credit.
We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”
Woodrow Wilson 9/25/1919
Oh, I know! Return to the Gold Standard! Because depressions and crashes and bank failures can’t happen under a Gold Standard! Right?
Did I say gold standard or mention anything about crashes?
Not gold standard, Federal Reserve. But to realign your point, plenty of crashes happened before the Federal Reserve - which got established in part because the economy was getting too big for a few rich people to bail it out during panics.
Without the Fed many of the Fed haters would have found themselves on the streets selling apples in 2009.
Did I say you said anything at all?
**When Did We Cease Having a Government That Had Fiscal Responsibility?
**
[QUOTE=Alexander Tytler]
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
[/QUOTE]
As soon as this started happening, the idea of fiscal responsibility was on its deathbed.
The fact that democracies in Europe are still around refutes Tytler utterly.
Yes, please provide examples of that having happened.
The Tytler “quote” is again a mis-attribution. The earliest known version appeared in 1951!
The quote, regardless of age or source, is peculiarly relevant to recent events.
The good news: Good old fashioned pork no longer matters. The typical voter knows little about whether their Rep of Senator is bringing in stuff to the area. What matters are campaign ads. If you can convince people you’re bringing in pork (or your opponent convinces them you aren’t), then that might sway some contest elections. I.e., you buy votes with ads, not pork.
The bad news: To get the ad money you have to give people with money what they want. (Tax breaks, bailouts, etc.) While far fewer in number than voters, there still is the public treasury being used to win election.
Countries where the sway of campaign money isn’t so large are less influenced by this.
To think that the modern US Congress is wasting significant amounts of money to appease the folks back home is very quaint.
The debt was pretty stable for 40 years, then started growing dramatically in the 1980s.
Another vote for Reagan.
Those democracies have mostly been around a pretty short time, actually. There are still a lot of people in Europe who lived under authoritarian governments. Britain is very old, obviously, but all the continental nations except for a couple small ones are new to democracy. France is a special case, since it’s long been democratic(off and on), but it’s most recent government only dates back to 1958, when Charles de Gaulle was given the power to rule by decree while a new constitution was written and new institutions were set up.
Don’t kid yourself. Except for Britain and maybe NOW France and Scandinavia, democracy is fragile in Europe.
I think it’s now pretty well ingrained in Switzerland, Germany, Netherlands, to name just a few.
Okay, I’ll agree with all those save Germany. I’ll believe that Germany is secure when they have a depression and get through it.