US Government is WAY too big (Poll Added)

[jimboston]

What kind of wealth does socialism create?

It doesn't.

[Titanic]

The poll is ridiculous in its' extremes.

Indeed, looks like Phatty is rubbing off on a few of his extreme friends.

[BigBallinStalin]

The poll reminds me of a PhatScotty poll.

How bout a third option making fun of the first two options?

[SultanOfSurreal]

I would eliminate:

Social Security (I can save my own money thank you)
Medicare (I can buy my own insurance)
Medicade (I can buy my own)
Unemployment/Welfare (get a job)
Interest on Nation Debt (We have to get rid of our debt. This is currently 8.5% of the budget, wait till it's 100%)


That eliminates: 21.05, 13.34, 7.32, 11.77, 8.5, for a sum of 61.98%. That would be a great place to start.

I would also greatly reduce the 16.85% that is Department of Defense. I think we need to protect ourselves, and stop fighting 15 wars for 15 different countries in 15 different parts of the war.

hahaha, do you realize what america would be like right now without safety nets like social security, medicare/medicaid, and unemployment insurance? there almost certainly would have been a fucking revolution years ago, and certainly by the time all the shit of 2007/2008 started going down. without these social programs we'd be living in a goddamn mad max movie right now. luckily for us, idiots like you don't run government, and not even the worst conservative stain in congress actually wants to eliminate these programs. it's politically, morally, and economically infeasible. a complete non-starter. what you're advocating for is the realm of loons with no grasp on reality

Yes, good point Sultan...
The internet was invented by the government, of course (Al Gore, I believe).
Then we have motor vehicles... invented by some senator from Wisconsin or something.
Let's see what else... the telephone, computers, cellular phones, various pharmaceuticals including Viagra... I mean the list goes on and on...

titanic provided a neat list of things that wouldn't exist without government funding already, so i'll defer to him. (fun fact though, a lot of what he posted is more accurately a list of things that wouldn't exist without world war ii and the cold war.)

yes, computers and the internet would not exist without the government. "business" doesn't fucking invent things because business is not a magic giant who sprinkles prosperity dust across the land. "business" would not have stepped in and made those particular innovations out of thin air. no, things are invented by individuals and teams of individuals -- by scientists -- and these scientists depend upon grants from government to do research. they certainly depended upon it to invent the modern computer and computerized communication networks which would only later be commercialized.

but this is not the large part of my point. i'm not claiming that no innovation happens without the state funding it. that's retarded. what i'm saying is that the state provides the infrastructure that makes innovation possible and the implementation of it feasible. where did your computer come from? the actual, physical computer you're using right now -- where does it come from?

yes, it was assembled by a private company (several in fact). but if it was assembled in america, the petroleum, silicon, and other parts composing it were originally taken from the earth by either a government agency or a company under strict government regulations working with government funding. they were refined and built by a company also under strict consumer-safety regulations. they were shipped to a processing plant on highways built and maintained by the government, or in planes traveling skyways regulated by the government, or across waters regulated by the government to docks regulated by the government. the different parts, coming from very disparate parts of the country (indeed the world) were finally assembled into a working computer by whatever company markets it, and shipped to your town, again via public highways. if your computer does not originate in america, then it is here only because of the complex network of trade agreements hammered out -- not by private business -- but by the government.

the same goes for any consumer product. the french fries you enjoy today started as potatoes grown by farmers in idaho working with government subsidies, shipped to you (again) across public highways. and they didn't fucking kill you because the government makes sure restaurants change their fryer grease regularly. without this sort of top-down infrastructure, our post-industrial society simply wouldn't be possible. all this shit costs money.

[Titanic]

titanic provided a neat list of things that wouldn't exist without government funding already, so i'll defer to him. (fun fact though, a lot of what he posted is more accurately a list of things that wouldn't exist without world war ii and the cold war.)

Well war is the greatest provider of innovation, you know, "innovation in times of desperations" or something like that...its getting too late to think clearly. And anyway, WWII is possible (and probably) the greatest war in history with the Cold War being the military industrial complex' wet dream.

[Phatscotty]

The poll reminds me of a PhatScotty poll.

How bout a third option making fun of the first two options?

Please stalin, I know I exploded onto the scene like Washington re-incarnate, but give me more time, I will fizz out.

FYI, I would have easily made the call of this poll, instead of basically individualism or collectivism (hmm I already made that one) I would haev made the options

I have money

I do not have money

[john9blue]

titanic provided a neat list of things that wouldn't exist without government funding already, so i'll defer to him. (fun fact though, a lot of what he posted is more accurately a list of things that wouldn't exist without world war ii and the cold war.)

yes, computers and the internet would not exist without the government. "business" doesn't fucking invent things because business is not a magic giant who sprinkles prosperity dust across the land. "business" would not have stepped in and made those particular innovations out of thin air. no, things are invented by individuals and teams of individuals -- by scientists -- and these scientists depend upon grants from government to do research. they certainly depended upon it to invent the modern computer and computerized communication networks which would only later be commercialized.

but this is not the large part of my point. i'm not claiming that no innovation happens without the state funding it. that's retarded. what i'm saying is that the state provides the infrastructure that makes innovation possible and the implementation of it feasible. where did your computer come from? the actual, physical computer you're using right now -- where does it come from?

yes, it was assembled by a private company (several in fact). but if it was assembled in america, the petroleum, silicon, and other parts composing it were originally taken from the earth by either a government agency or a company under strict government regulations working with government funding. they were refined and built by a company also under strict consumer-safety regulations. they were shipped to a processing plant on highways built and maintained by the government, or in planes traveling skyways regulated by the government, or across waters regulated by the government to docks regulated by the government. the different parts, coming from very disparate parts of the country (indeed the world) were finally assembled into a working computer by whatever company markets it, and shipped to your town, again via public highways. if your computer does not originate in america, then it is here only because of the complex network of trade agreements hammered out -- not by private business -- but by the government.

the same goes for any consumer product. the french fries you enjoy today started as potatoes grown by farmers in idaho working with government subsidies, shipped to you (again) across public highways. and they didn't fucking kill you because the government makes sure restaurants change their fryer grease regularly. without this sort of top-down infrastructure, our post-industrial society simply wouldn't be possible. all this shit costs money.

You're making the assumption that just because something is done by the government means it should be done by them.

Of course government and private companies have a hand in nearly every industry, but the question is: to what degree should each? Governments are probably the right entities for managing airspace/safety/etc. because cooperation in those areas produces better long term results than competition. But fryer grease? If a restaurant has nasty infected fries, they will change or go out of business. If they have immaculate golden brown fries, they will grow. No bureaucracy necessary!



EDIT: I predict Sultan will label me as someone who wants people to eat infected fries and die.

[Titanic]

You're making the assumption that just because something is done by the government means it should be done by them.

Of course government and private companies have a hand in nearly every industry, but the question is: to what degree should each? Governments are probably the right entities for managing airspace/safety/etc. because cooperation in those areas produces better long term results than competition. But fryer grease? If a restaurant has nasty infected fries, they will change or go out of business. If they have immaculate golden brown fries, they will grow. No bureaucracy necessary!



EDIT: I predict Sultan will label me as someone who wants people to eat infected fries and die.

History proves you wrong. If you can sell unhealthy food and food which is potentially very bad for you at a cheap price (through cutting corner or w/e), you will outsell and be larger then an outlet which sells healthy foods at the higher price of doing everything by the rules. Point in case: McDonalds vs local butchers or bakery

[SultanOfSurreal]

You're making the assumption that just because something is done by the government means it should be done by them.

Of course government and private companies have a hand in nearly every industry, but the question is: to what degree should each? Governments are probably the right entities for managing airspace/safety/etc. because cooperation in those areas produces better long term results than competition. But fryer grease? If a restaurant has nasty infected fries, they will change or go out of business. If they have immaculate golden brown fries, they will grow. No bureaucracy necessary!



EDIT: I predict Sultan will label me as someone who wants people to eat infected fries and die.

so i take it you've never read sinclair's the jungle, nor know fucking anything at all about the history of food service before the creation of the fda and other inspection agencies

[rockfist]

I've read the Jungle. The one thing I remember the most was the toxic chemical dying the peas green.

Are you familiar with how the government created the industrial revolution?

[BigBallinStalin]

The poll reminds me of a PhatScotty poll.

How bout a third option making fun of the first two options?

Please stalin, I know I exploded onto the scene like Washington re-incarnate, but give me more time, I will fizz out.

FYI, I would have easily made the call of this poll, instead of basically individualism or collectivism (hmm I already made that one) I would haev made the options

I have money

I do not have money

Man, you still got it!

[Baron Von PWN]

don't you dare fucking turn to Socialism/Communism when your time comes and you can't pay the piper.

Why shouldn't we turn to Socialism? Pure Capitalism has failed. With such a large number of devout Christians in America, I fail to understand why Socialism isn't more widely accepted as an alternative to capitalism.

Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

Socialism and Communism amount to slavery of the talented by the brainless masses...yet slaves don't work very hard or very creatively so the system fails. They are immoral systems of government. They fucking failed in Russia and Eastern Europe...

There is a huge difference between what happened in eastern Europe and Russia and socialism. Communism (not the meaning espoused by marx but what actually occurred) is a totalitarian state with extensive control of all areas of society. In these systems the government was for all intents and purposes the economy little to no economic activity occurred outside of direct government control (some of the Warsaw pact states allowed very limited personal enterprise, but it was frowned upon)

The parts of the EU on the other hand could be described as socialist, they will typically sacrifice some economic growth in favor of a more level society and social programs, this could take any number of shapes.Typically government has a substantial role in the economy maybe they operate a couple of the industries maybe they just regulate things more.A minority of Socialist states are authoritarian.

Interesting, I was reading a 19th century Russian aristocrat's attack on democracy and universal sufferage. It sounds like you might agree with him rocko.

[72o]

Now, do you need a math lesson also?

Maybe you need an economics lesson. 2010 is a horrible year to look at a budget to prove the effects of social spending. It was written in the middle of the largest recession in 70 years and as anyone with a basic economic understanding knows during recessions tax receipts go down and social spending goes up, thus making the proportion allocated to social spending higher during those years then in the norm (which is why I used the 2008 budget).

I was comparing dollars, not proportions. You're making the claim that if the economy was better, we'd be spending less on Social Security and more on defense spending?

Dollars and proportions will be exactly the same. If you are spending more dollars on one thing then another then the proportion for that thing is going to be larger....

If the economy is bad we will spend more on social programmes, if it is good we spend less on social programmes. Defence will stay pretty constant unless there are planned cuts or increases by the politicians. The social programmes costs are fairly automatic in the budget, the defence can be artificially decided.

I love how you can say that social programs (of which social security is one) increase when the economy is bad, and in the same breath, say that costs of social programs are automatic and predictable.

I ask my question again. You are making the claim that if the economy was better, we would pay out less Social Security? How is that possible, if the costs are automatic? Does that mean less people turn 65 when the economy is good? Less families lose a wage earner due to death?

[jaimito101]

This is a list of Public debt loads around the world complied by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... rank=61#us

It seemed relevant to the conversation. In it it appears the US public debt is rather modest at 37% of GDP, compared to the Extreme case of japan at 172% of GDP. it looks like very few rich countries have lower debt burdens.

this is a list of median incomes on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

the 37% public debt is misleading. As you see in the chart you provided it only acounts for public debt, and not gross national debt (look at the description of the chart). What your chart has provided is only debt to foreign entitees and has failed to account for intragovernmental debt. (debt wich the US owes to itself, A neat financial trick thar allows the US government to lend from governmental organizations such as its own governamental social security trust fund!)

A more accurate debt measure for the US debt would be at 75% of its GDP and growing at a yearly rate of 9.2% at this moment!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

Furthermore closer to this article, the sultan explained it pretty well, you need social security if you have such income differences as the US has (highest in any developed country). Without that and you will have social unrest.

Furthermore ethically you need to take care of people who are in a bad situation through no fault of their own. (fired by the economic crisis, handicaped people, sick people)

For Education, i do agree it should be given to you as a monthly loan to everybody willing to study (allowance based on your parents income). Once you have your education you will have to return the loan, also in a monthly term. If you have not passed your education can stop at any time and return the loan you had borrowed till that time. This stimulates you to put real effort into finishing your study as quick as possible, as well as making it accessible to the masses.

[thegreekdog]

titanic provided a neat list of things that wouldn't exist without government funding already, so i'll defer to him. (fun fact though, a lot of what he posted is more accurately a list of things that wouldn't exist without world war ii and the cold war.)

yes, computers and the internet would not exist without the government. "business" doesn't fucking invent things because business is not a magic giant who sprinkles prosperity dust across the land. "business" would not have stepped in and made those particular innovations out of thin air. no, things are invented by individuals and teams of individuals -- by scientists -- and these scientists depend upon grants from government to do research. they certainly depended upon it to invent the modern computer and computerized communication networks which would only later be commercialized.

but this is not the large part of my point. i'm not claiming that no innovation happens without the state funding it. that's retarded. what i'm saying is that the state provides the infrastructure that makes innovation possible and the implementation of it feasible. where did your computer come from? the actual, physical computer you're using right now -- where does it come from?

yes, it was assembled by a private company (several in fact). but if it was assembled in america, the petroleum, silicon, and other parts composing it were originally taken from the earth by either a government agency or a company under strict government regulations working with government funding. they were refined and built by a company also under strict consumer-safety regulations. they were shipped to a processing plant on highways built and maintained by the government, or in planes traveling skyways regulated by the government, or across waters regulated by the government to docks regulated by the government. the different parts, coming from very disparate parts of the country (indeed the world) were finally assembled into a working computer by whatever company markets it, and shipped to your town, again via public highways. if your computer does not originate in america, then it is here only because of the complex network of trade agreements hammered out -- not by private business -- but by the government.

the same goes for any consumer product. the french fries you enjoy today started as potatoes grown by farmers in idaho working with government subsidies, shipped to you (again) across public highways. and they didn't fucking kill you because the government makes sure restaurants change their fryer grease regularly. without this sort of top-down infrastructure, our post-industrial society simply wouldn't be possible. all this shit costs money.

Yes, yes, I agree with all that... your original comment was not clear, which is why it surprised me.

[Baron Von PWN]

This is a list of Public debt loads around the world complied by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... rank=61#us

It seemed relevant to the conversation. In it it appears the US public debt is rather modest at 37% of GDP, compared to the Extreme case of japan at 172% of GDP. it looks like very few rich countries have lower debt burdens.

this is a list of median incomes on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

the 37% public debt is misleading. As you see in the chart you provided it only acounts for public debt, and not gross national debt (look at the description of the chart). What your chart has provided is only debt to foreign entitees and has failed to account for intragovernmental debt. (debt wich the US owes to itself, A neat financial trick thar allows the US government to lend from governmental organizations such as its own governamental social security trust fund!)

A more accurate debt measure for the US debt would be at 75% of its GDP and growing at a yearly rate of 9.2% at this moment!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_d ... tial_terms

Furthermore closer to this article, the sultan explained it pretty well, you need social security if you have such income differences as the US has (highest in any developed country). Without that and you will have social unrest.

Furthermore ethically you need to take care of people who are in a bad situation through no fault of their own. (fired by the economic crisis, handicaped people, sick people)

For Education, i do agree it should be given to you as a monthly loan to everybody willing to study (allowance based on your parents income). Once you have your education you will have to return the loan, also in a monthly term. If you have not passed your education can stop at any time and return the loan you had borrowed till that time. This stimulates you to put real effort into finishing your study as quick as possible, as well as making it accessible to the masses.

Hmm thank you for setting the numbers straight. I agree with your other comments, people are ingoring the positive externalities of these programs.

In Ontario they have something similar to what you are sugesting, students get automatic student loans(might even be grants) depending on their parent's income levels. I'm from Quebec so I'm not elegible or know the details, anyways it makes university affordable for many more students than if these measures were not there. They also subsidise universities so that tuition stay relatively low compared to the USA (about 5000$ canadian for a whole year in ontario,), I have heard our universities don't give out as many scholarships so maybe that's an effect of subsidising universities.

In Quebec they just subsidise university more heavily and don't have a government run student loan system like in ontario. For a Quebec resident tuition comes out to $2-3k canadian for a year's tuition.

[Frigidus]

So...the poll is basically asking if I'd rather have no government whatsoever or no system of money whatsoever? That's a tough call. Having no roads, sewage systems, police, or army would kind of blow, especially since we would be immediately annexed by someone with a fairly competent military. But owning nothing but necessities would also blow. It's a tough call.

[thegreekdog]

The real (i.e. good) question is, what are you willing to pay taxes for? For example, I have no problem paying taxes for roads. I have a problem paying taxes for universal healthcare. I have no problem paying taxes for a police department. I have a problem paying taxes for some business subsidies.

[Baron Von PWN]

So...the poll is basically asking if I'd rather have no government whatsoever or no system of money whatsoever? That's a tough call. Having no roads, sewage systems, police, or army would kind of blow, especially since we would be immediately annexed by someone with a fairly competent military. But owning nothing but necessities would also blow. It's a tough call.

not quite the government would be providing evrything. Think soviet union assuming they didin't blow all their money on dumb shit like thounsands of WMDs. They had all the necesities there would be shortages but you would get by, there were theaters but they would would often show the same movies for a long time, libraries and meuseums ect. nothing crazy but they had leisure activities.

[SultanOfSurreal]

I have a problem paying taxes for universal healthcare.

unless you're a millionaire, i guarantee that the proportion of your money going towards healthcare would be lower under a nationalized system than it is now

[thegreekdog]

I have a problem paying taxes for universal healthcare.

unless you're a millionaire, i guarantee that the proportion of your money going towards healthcare would be lower under a nationalized system than it is now

Will my healthcare still be of good quality?

If it is, maybe you and I can reach an agreement whereby you'll reimburse me for any healthcare costs associated with a government plan that I would not have incurred with a private plan.

[SultanOfSurreal]

Will my healthcare still be of good quality?

it will be of comparable quality to whatever you have right now. probably a little better, and certainly a lot better if you ever happen to suffer some sort of catastrophic illness or injury that requires extensive treatment

it will also be ∞% better than what 44 million americans have at this very moment

[bedub1]

Right now "Healthcare"(medicare & Medicaid) take up about 20% of the expenditures, and appears to cover about 100 million Americans. The current population is about 300 million. So to cover everybody else the "healthcare" would then be 60% of the payouts. Which 40% do you want to cut from the budget? Or do you want government spending to grow from 37% of our GDP to even higher? Anybody want to figure out what government spending would be as a % of GDP if we added the other 40% for universal healthcare?

Oh, and given the wonderful way that medicare, medicaid, social security, veterans hospitals, and these other government programs work, are you SURE you want the government in charge of that too?

medicare will be broke by 2017
social security by 2037

http://www.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-b ... ove-closer

If we add another 40% worth of costs to the federal government, how long do you think it would be before "universal health care" is bankrupt?

[thegreekdog]

Will my healthcare still be of good quality?

it will be of comparable quality to whatever you have right now. probably a little better, and certainly a lot better if you ever happen to suffer some sort of catastrophic illness or injury that requires extensive treatment

Okay, then I'm in. Just send me a contract indicating that you will reimburse me for any costs associated with having public healthcare as opposed to private healthcare. We'll build something in there regarding the potential for poor quality

[SultanOfSurreal]

Right now "Healthcare"(medicare & Medicaid) take up about 20% of the expenditures, and appears to cover about 100 million Americans. The current population is about 300 million. So to cover everybody else the "healthcare" would then be 60% of the payouts.

man i just love specious reasoning