I am not saying you don’t need government. And if course, it is possible for the government itself–instead of private industry–to actually build roads, airports, etc…
But that’s what crapped out for the commies. Turns out the government was really really lousy at it.
I remember reading memoirs from people who lived under the crushing hand of the Soviet Unions. Chapter after chapter was spent lamenting the horror of government building roads. After what they had to endure, the very idea of the existance of public roads is horrifying.
I’m convinced. Down with government.
Yeah, inorite? That federal interstate system is such a complete, colossal failure!
Very simple. The Conservatives feel that given our history that if we raise taxes $1 billion that spending will increase $2 billion. Tax cuts are the only way to reduce spending which of course DOESN’T reduce spending as George “Read My Lips” Bush found out when the Dems broke their promise to reduce spending in exchange for higher taxes.
Which is why the Reagan and Bush tax cuts were accompanied by lower spending, right? Which is why the debt level of the US has remained modest, right? When is it that this starve the beast strategy has supposedly worked for you? When is it that your own people have even tried to execute the spending side of the strategy?
What years under Reagan and Bush was spending lowered?
Year Reciepts Spending Deficit
1980 517,112 590,941 -73,830
1981 599,272 678,241 -78,968
1982 617,766 745,743 -127,977
1983 600,562 808,364 -207,802
1984 666,438 851,805 -185,367
1985 734,037 946,344 -212,308
1986 769,155 990,382 -221,227
1987 854,288 1,004,017 -149,730
1988 909,238 1,064,416 -155,178
1989 991,105 1,143,744 -152,639
1990 1,031,958 1,252,994 -221,036
1991 1,054,988 1,324,226 -269,238
1992 1,091,208 1,381,529 -290,321
Am I missing something? Spending increases every year in that table, more than doubling in fact over the Reagan/GHWB years. Are you interpreting the negative deficit numbers are spending decreases compared to the previous year? If you’re trying to make a case about spending as a fraction of GDP you’re missing data.
Damn laptop thought I hit post.
Both the Dem and Pub side are responsible for spending and I never claimed any different. The only time I called out the Dems specifically was when they made a deal with Bush I to raise taxes and lower spending which they broke. I’ve also pointed out in other threads that Reagan was a horrible spender using Fed-sponsored supply-side economics to increase aggregate demand. I’ve credited Clinton with being the one President to put together a budget package that worked. I’ve lambasted all neo-Keynesian from both parties that have misinterpreted JM Keynes work by convienently forgetting that the intention is to save in good times so the Feds can stimulate the economy in bad times.
Yes you are missing something, namely the key line in my post
that the Republicans are blinded in that they think like underwear gnomes
Of course the counterpoint is the Dem thinking
Denying the facts doesn’t make them false.
Fact: One of Clinton’s first acts upon becoming President was an attempt to increase the deficit. Cite, cite, cite.
Fact: Clinton’s submitted budget did not balance the budget. Cite.
Cite.
Save your accusations of lying for the Pit.
It’s an additional, unneeded step in some cases. Once a government entity is created and funded, there is no dissolving it (even once long past its usefulness) Social Security was supposed to be a short time deal (That ain’t working out so hot) Someone, somewhere will find a new use or make one up to keep it growing. When I hear the phrase “Starve the beast” this is the type of thing it refers to, IMO.
If the beast can’t fund itself, it needs to die.
A balanced budget is the ONLY way people will feel the pain of the actions they perform right now. Too often whomever is in control just passes the buck on down to the next generation, that sucks.
Cheerleader or lap dog?
In the post you’re responding to, I described Clinton’s 1993 budget and mentioned “the $250 billion spending cuts … largest [in] history … was offset by such things as interest on the ever-mounting debt, and $150 billion in new investment [credits].”
You’ve found a newspaper article which mentions those new investment credits. Whooppee.
That’s just another newspaper article describing the same investment credits.
And another. I did you the courtesy of clicking all three links and get … useless repetition? :dubious: Summarize them in future please if you want them clicked.
Repeating a lie doesn’t necessarily make one a liar; suggesting such was not my intent. I assumed you were a dupee. If, instead, you want to brag about being a duper, you take it to the pit. 
Cite?
Let’s take a look at some of these cites, shall we?
“Reported to be lining up support”, that’s one of his first acts as president, is it?
“Deficit reduction”.
“Cut the deficit”.
Regards,
Robot Arm
I don’t disagree with any of these thoughts. Getting rid of a program is nearly impossible. I think almost everyone agrees government is too big, but no one wants the programs benefiting them cut.
So while I agree the government is in a lot of things it does not need to be in and is an unnecessary step, I’m not sure I can still see how the money that goes into government is lost. It may not be creating jobs or wealth where the original owner would have, but that money is going to those things. And if the money were going to a Bill Gates, Paul Allen or Phil Knight type of person, my guess is that most of it wouldn’t go to more job creation and wealth, at least not locally.
OK. The summary is that what I said was correct, and your attempt to deny it was stupid.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll simplify.
Imagine you wanting to use tax dollars ($1 M) to feed the homeless.
You create a government entity to do so. The people you employ (unless they were homeless) are getting paid with dollars you are taking from the homeless in order to pay them. My point is that it isn’t a 1-1 transfer.
I think what you are trying to say is that the money is being used. And the use of said money is more key for you than how it actually gets used?
My point is that we waste money by creating ways to distribute.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are some things that need to be a part of the government domain or they might not get done but even my example is on the fence.
It’s not money lost. It’s money allocated in a way that is less efficient than allowing the market to allocate it. For example, is a manned mission to Mars an efficient use of resources? The market would say no, while the government would say yes. The market would direct these resources towards things folks actually wanted to purchase. This is how living standards can rise.
I didn’t know that the homeless paid that much in taxes!