Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Plus you lose the efficiencies of economy-of-scale with things like health care, road work, construction, police, etc.

I'm sure that without the efficiencies of economy-of-scale, the great health care system that takes care of our sick and the perfect roads we drive on would've created a national debt in the trillions.

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Plus you lose the efficiencies of economy-of-scale with things like health care, road work, construction, police, etc.

I'm sure that without the efficiencies of economy-of-scale, the great health care system that takes care of our sick and the perfect roads we drive on would've created a national debt in the trillions.

Got anything besides snark? You know, like a point or something?

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by MaulingMonkey

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by Myopic Rhino
It's becoming increasingly apparent to me that no form of government works well on a large-scale. I haven't quite become an anarchist yet (and no, Mith, I'm not kidding), but I think we'd be a lot better of with *no* central government and lots of small, weak local governments.

I agree as well.

I'm not quite that far off the beaten path, although the idea of micro-nationalism (as I call it) certainly intrigues me. Sadly, there are a lot of problems to be addressed, the most obvious being the reason that many of these large governments came to be in the first place -- if you don't consolidate power, some tyrant with an army larger than yours will conquer and take over. Things like criminal and suspect extradition can also get... messy.

I do think we could use *a lot less* central government, however.

Plus you lose the efficiencies of economy-of-scale with things like health care, road work, construction, police, etc.

Every government wants these things, it doesn't make sense to have thousands of separate instances.

All the more reason for government to get out of those things.

Quote: Original post by Silvermyst

Quote: Original post by LessBread
There are more than 300 million people in the United States and half of them think we only need enough government for 100 million...

Are you talking about the half that believes that about 1 out of every 3 Americans is so helpless that it requires 2 out of every 3 Americans to give up more than half of the fruits of their labor to support the helpless one?

Half the people don't believe that. Half the people barely believe that the top tax rate should be raised from 36% to 39%, and the other half denounces them as socialists for it, that's how programmed Americans are. We're so programmed we squabble over $8 billion in pork in a budget bill days after giving AIG an extra $30 billion on top of the $140 billion we've already given them. We're so programmed we beat ourselves up and say we don't deserve free health care and free education even as the Federal Reserve dumps $5 trillion on Wall Street [1]. That's twice what free health care and free education would cost [2]. We're so programmed we hold contracts with bankers up as sacred, but contracts with union workers we treat like confetti. We're so programmed we would rather let our states go bankrupt than bail them out, even as we bailout the bankers with their offshore accounts. We're not at all programmed the way you say we are. Who's programming you with such false ideas?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Half the people don't believe that. Half the people barely believe that the top tax rate should be raised from 36% to 39%, and the other half denounces them as socialists for it, that's how programmed Americans are. We're so programmed we squabble over $8 billion in pork in a budget bill days after giving AIG an extra $30 billion on top of the $140 billion we've already given them. We're so programmed we beat ourselves up and say we don't deserve free health care and free education even as the Federal Reserve dumps $5 trillion on Wall Street [1]. That's twice what free health care and free education would cost [2]. We're so programmed we hold contracts with bankers up as sacred, but contracts with union workers we treat like confetti. We're so programmed we would rather let our states go bankrupt than bail them out, even as we bailout the bankers with their offshore accounts. We're not at all programmed the way you say we are. Who's programming you with such false ideas?

The way you have written this it makes it sound like you think the people are displaying some sort of hypocrisy by disapproving of extra spending on pork and health care. That would imply an approval of the bank bailouts, which is distinctly not what happened (it would also imply a fixation on the fallacy of sunk costs). Only 28% approved of the bailouts, over half disapproved. Congress had a 74% disapproval rate. Hell, even Bush was 8 ticks higher. I personally wrote my Congressman and both of my Senators to not vote for the bailout. The point is that the people don't want ANY new spending. If you're taxing one group of people to pay for social services for another group of people, that is redistribution of wealth, that is socialist policy by its very definition.

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Half the people don't believe that. Half the people barely believe that the top tax rate should be raised from 36% to 39%, and the other half denounces them as socialists for it, that's how programmed Americans are. We're so programmed we squabble over $8 billion in pork in a budget bill days after giving AIG an extra $30 billion on top of the $140 billion we've already given them. We're so programmed we beat ourselves up and say we don't deserve free health care and free education even as the Federal Reserve dumps $5 trillion on Wall Street [1]. That's twice what free health care and free education would cost [2]. We're so programmed we hold contracts with bankers up as sacred, but contracts with union workers we treat like confetti. We're so programmed we would rather let our states go bankrupt than bail them out, even as we bailout the bankers with their offshore accounts. We're not at all programmed the way you say we are. Who's programming you with such false ideas?

The way you have written this it makes it sound like you think the people are displaying some sort of hypocrisy by disapproving of extra spending on pork and health care. That would imply an approval of the bank bailouts, which is distinctly not what happened (it would also imply a fixation on the fallacy of sunk costs). Only 28% approved of the bailouts, over half disapproved. Congress had a 74% disapproval rate. Hell, even Bush was 8 ticks higher. I personally wrote my Congressman and both of my Senators to not vote for the bailout. The point is that the people don't want ANY new spending. If you're taxing one group of people to pay for social services for another group of people, that is redistribution of wealth, that is socialist policy by its very definition.

The hypocrisy is in decrying social outlays that pale in comparison with outlays to long established elites. The hypocrisy is in the double standard applied to contracts with elites compared with contracts with workers. The point I'm making is that people have been programmed to promote policies that are not in their interest. They supposedly don't want any new spending but what that gets them is no new spending on them and increased spending on elites. That's upwards redistribution of wealth and it's just plain stupid, but we've been programmed to denounce spending on the people as socialist and so we end up suckered into paying for spending on elites. At this stage in the game, tax increases aren't about paying for social services, they're about paying for the massive failures of elites, the failures that led to the invasion of Iraq and the failures that crashed the economy, failures that created the gigantic debts the country faces. Elites should pay for those failings with higher taxes, but as soon as higher taxes are suggested, the programming kicks in, the same old complaints about wealth redistribution are trotted out, the fear of socialism is raised, and nothing changes. The people continue paying for the failures of elites and elites continue laughing all the way to the bank. We are programmed to buy into this suckers game and unfortunately, we are programmed to play the role of suckers. Less Bread! More Taxes!

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Who's programming you with such false ideas?

The idea I described?
The witholding column on my paycheck.
Conversations on this very board, which have more than once revealed that pro-big government supporters believe themselves superior to their fellow man.

The ideas you described? If I had to choose between supporting "free" healthcare and "free" education or Wall Street bailouts, I'd side with you. I don't think I'll have to choose, though. I think this empire's going down anyway, and there will be no choice left to us. Less bread, indeed.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
Got anything besides snark? You know, like a point or something?

Just bitterness at once having been taken in by the "big government economy-of-scale" concept. I will say that I'd like to be proven wrong, but I believe that there's a point to economy-of-scale and that big government is way, way beyond that point. A point where accountability is out of the picture and where citizens have turned from players into "playees". A point at the end of a well-intentioned road that this nation has been travelling on for more than a century now.

I see. Well, your paycheck is wrong. It's not one third, it's one tenth: One in 10 Americans gets help from U.S. to buy food

Quote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A record 32.2 million people -- one in every 10 Americans -- received food stamps at the latest count, the government said on Thursday, a reflection of the recession now in its 16th month.

Food stamps, the major U.S. anti-hunger program, help poor people buy groceries. The average benefit was $112.82 per person in January.
...

I just stumbled across that story, but it provides an example of how we're programmed to be play the role of suckers. Nowhere in the story does it say how much money the program costs. Using google news I found plenty of stories about how food stamp benefits in various states were increasing due to the stimulus bill, but not a mention of how much the entire program costs. Eventually I found this testimony before Congress last year, Testimony of Kate Houston, Deputy Under Secretary, Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, July 9, 2008: "Since 2001, funding for the nutrition assistance programs increased more than 76 percent to $60.1 billion in fiscal year 2008, and accounts for over half of USDA’s annual budget." According to Stimulus Would Help States Provide Food Stamps, the stimulus added $20 billion (roughly, the Senate cut the increase back to $16 billion).

At any rate, for the sake of argument let's say that the total cost this year is $80 billion. For some reason this is not a figure we are supposed to know. This is a figure that is supposed to be buried, a figure we have to dig out and paste together from disparate news sources and Congressional testimony. In contrast, when it comes to stories about how the benefits are going up, we get stories like this, California food stamp benefits go up 13.6%, repeated in newspapers across the nation. Check it out for yourself. Go to google news and type in "food stamps". You'll find plenty of stories from across the nation about the increase in benefits. These stories serve to increase the resentment that taxpayers have against those they perceive as free loaders. They provide fodder for those who would seek to blame scapegoats for the problems we face as a society. I doubt it would be difficult to find rants against this at any number of conservative blogs. Already a lawmaker in Tennessee is proposing drug tests for food stamp recipients.

Remember, food stamps cost the nation $60 billion last year and are slated to cost the nation $80 billion this year. That's a lot of money for sure, but check out this story: $296 Billion in Overruns in U.S. Weapons Programs.

Quote:
Nearly 70 percent of the Pentagon’s 96 largest weapons programs were over budget last year, for a combined total of $296 billion more than the original estimates, a Congressional auditing agency reported Monday.

The findings, compiled by the Government Accountability Office, seemed likely to add to the pressure on officials to make sizable cuts in the most troubled programs as they work out the details of a proposed $664 billion defense budget for fiscal 2010.
...

It should be obvious at this point where I'm going with all this. The Pentagon was over budget by nearly $300 billion dollars last year - that's 5 times as much as was spent on food stamps - over budget! Where are the complaints about that? Where are the calls to Congress complaining about that spending? Why are people angry over social spending and why do they complain about social spending as wealth redistribution, but are totally fooled about the actual spending culprits? Suckers in a suckers game!

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by capn_midnight

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Half the people don't believe that. Half the people barely believe that the top tax rate should be raised from 36% to 39%, and the other half denounces them as socialists for it, that's how programmed Americans are. We're so programmed we squabble over $8 billion in pork in a budget bill days after giving AIG an extra $30 billion on top of the $140 billion we've already given them. We're so programmed we beat ourselves up and say we don't deserve free health care and free education even as the Federal Reserve dumps $5 trillion on Wall Street [1]. That's twice what free health care and free education would cost [2]. We're so programmed we hold contracts with bankers up as sacred, but contracts with union workers we treat like confetti. We're so programmed we would rather let our states go bankrupt than bail them out, even as we bailout the bankers with their offshore accounts. We're not at all programmed the way you say we are. Who's programming you with such false ideas?

The way you have written this it makes it sound like you think the people are displaying some sort of hypocrisy by disapproving of extra spending on pork and health care. That would imply an approval of the bank bailouts, which is distinctly not what happened (it would also imply a fixation on the fallacy of sunk costs). Only 28% approved of the bailouts, over half disapproved. Congress had a 74% disapproval rate. Hell, even Bush was 8 ticks higher. I personally wrote my Congressman and both of my Senators to not vote for the bailout. The point is that the people don't want ANY new spending. If you're taxing one group of people to pay for social services for another group of people, that is redistribution of wealth, that is socialist policy by its very definition.

The hypocrisy is in decrying social outlays that pale in comparison with outlays to long established elites. The hypocrisy is in the double standard applied to contracts with elites compared with contracts with workers. The point I'm making is that people have been programmed to promote policies that are not in their interest. They supposedly don't want any new spending but what that gets them is no new spending on them and increased spending on elites. That's upwards redistribution of wealth and it's just plain stupid, but we've been programmed to denounce spending on the people as socialist and so we end up suckered into paying for spending on elites. At this stage in the game, tax increases aren't about paying for social services, they're about paying for the massive failures of elites, the failures that led to the invasion of Iraq and the failures that crashed the economy, failures that created the gigantic debts the country faces. Elites should pay for those failings with higher taxes, but as soon as higher taxes are suggested, the programming kicks in, the same old complaints about wealth redistribution are trotted out, the fear of socialism is raised, and nothing changes. The people continue paying for the failures of elites and elites continue laughing all the way to the bank. We are programmed to buy into this suckers game and unfortunately, we are programmed to play the role of suckers. Less Bread! More Taxes!

Two wrongs don't make a right. If this Democratic Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid has ignored the will of the people and voted for unpopular bailouts, it does not improve the outlook of pending national bankruptcy by spending "only just a little more" on a government-ran monopoly on health care. But I suppose you look forward to going to the DMV every time you want to see a DM. I could be the fattest, hardest drinking, chain smoking slob on the planet and you want to pay my health care bills.

"The elites should pay for those failings with higher taxes." The elites? Would you care to quantify what establishes one as an elite? You sound like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Guevara, or Castro, attempting to foment violent animosity in the proletariat against the middle class for the crimes of a minority of the aristocracy. So who are the elite who should pay more taxes for being at fault behind this crash? Those people making more than $250,000 a year? Tell that to a family of four living in Manhattan or San Francisco. How will you differentiate those rich people who came to their prosperity through hard, honest work? Oh wait, I forgot, the socialist world view cannot accept such a person, the rich only got to their position by stomping on the necks of the poor.

The justification for socialism is a lie. It is not an egalitarian love of the poor that motivates the socialist. It is greed, jealousy, and hatred towards the upper class that motivates the socialist. It is just another form of classism, wherein the adherent must stir the pot of unrest in order to give himself a purpose in society. It is central planning that has led to this fiasco, the central planners who told everyone that they were smart, that everything was okay, and that the system was under control. This system cannot ever be under control, but the central planners sold the public the lie and have laughed all the way to the national banks they own. It took governments to push fractional reserve banking, it took governments to destroy the stability of currency, it took governments to round up the people for the ovens, it took governments to create famines out of favorable agricultural seasons. And your answer is more government. Will you ever learn from your mistakes?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Half the people don't believe that. Half the people barely believe that the top tax rate should be raised from 36% to 39%, and the other half denounces them as socialists for it, that's how programmed Americans are. We're so programmed we squabble over $8 billion in pork in a budget bill days after giving AIG an extra $30 billion on top of the $140 billion we've already given them. We're so programmed we beat ourselves up and say we don't deserve free health care and free education even as the Federal Reserve dumps $5 trillion on Wall Street [1]. That's twice what free health care and free education would cost [2]. We're so programmed we hold contracts with bankers up as sacred, but contracts with union workers we treat like confetti. We're so programmed we would rather let our states go bankrupt than bail them out, even as we bailout the bankers with their offshore accounts. We're not at all programmed the way you say we are. Who's programming you with such false ideas?

I agree. We've become a nation of sheep. We put up with outrages on the part of our government that are several orders of magnitude larger than what the founding fathers fought a revolution over. People are starting to get mad, but it's often misdirected, such as blaming in on the other party, rather recognizing that it's both, or by getting mad about the $165 million in bonuses paid out to AIG execs, when that amounted to little more than a drop in the ocean of the total AIG bailout which we know now largely went as direct payouts to banks, including foreign ones.