Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"1. Why Should the Government Provide Public Education? (Why isn't it privitized?)"
This segments and divides the population by wealth (as a reflection of PUBLIC POLICY) and would also probably result in a significant portion of the population not receiving any education at all. Neither of those is best for the overall health and prosperity of the nation. Public education represents a decision by the society to provide a MINIMUM level of education for the children of all citizens.
"2. Why Should the Government Tax younger workers, because of the failure of older workers to not properly invest and manage their money?"
This has to do with the Social Security program. So why don't you say so in your question? Again, this program represents the society's decision to provide a MINIMUM level of income to those citizens who are vulnerable (aged, survivors of certain deceased persons, etc.).
"3. Why should the government continue to stymie competition, innovation, and raise prices on consumers via high tariffs, high taxes, government controlled monopolies, subsidies, and poor inefficent government services?"
Are you ignoring the structural inefficiencies in the private sector that result from unregulated restraint of trade practices, interlocking boards of directors, etc.?
Do you have something against the notion of American Citizenship?Do you actually have nothing in common with your fellow American? Do you believe that, no matter what your manner of profession, that you don't benefit from decades of public investment in infrastructure, etc. that allows you have the standard of living and affluence you enjoy today?
You have given us a Right Wing Screed.
Last edited by ParkTwain; 01-28-2008 at 01:29 PM..
"1. Why Should the Government Provide Public Education? (Why isn't it privitized?)"
This segments and divides the population by wealth (as a reflection of PUBLIC POLICY) and would also probably result in a significant portion of the population not receiving any education at all. Neither of those is best for the overall health and prosperity of the nation. Public education represents a decision by the society to provide a MINIMUM level of education for the children of all citizens.
"2. Why Should the Government Tax younger workers, because of the failure of older workers to not properly invest and manage their money?"
This has to do with the Social Security program. So why don't you say so in your question? Again, this program represents the society's decision to provide a MINIMUM level of income to those citizens who are vulnerable (aged, survivors of certain deceased persons, etc.).
"3. Why should the government continue to stymie competition, innovation, and raise prices on consumers via high tariffs, high taxes, government controlled monopolies, subsidies, and poor inefficent government services?"
Are you ignoring the structural inefficiencies in the private sector that result from unregulated restraint of trade practices, interlocking boards of directors, etc.?
Do you have something against the notion of American Citizenship?Do you actually have nothing in common with your fellow American? Do you believe that, no matter what your manner of profession, that you don't benefit from decades of public investment in infrastructure, etc. that allows you have the standard of living and affluence you enjoy today?
You have given us a Right Wing Screed.
Look I strongly disagree with your rebuttles, but currently do not have the time to tackle the argument in depth. However you first point is very inaccurate their would still be safety nets that allowed for all children to get an education if the education system was privitized. Also you merely gave brief synopses about programs not why the government should run them. Also challenging my committment as an American citizen is not german to this argument and does not answer my questions.
We have had a very 'conservative values' based economic era for nearly the last 30 years.
What does this mean? Business and corporations and the upper income groups have been heavily favored. Much regulation has been cut or reduced, health care and pensions reduced or eliminated, and Unions becoming less of a force.
Corporations and the wealthy have been given large tax breaks, welfare was ended- and may other safety nets reduced or stopped. Much of the debt we now have is from a nearly 5 year war- plus most of our manufacturing base being shifted overseas.
The dream of conservatives 40 years ago of less government- and favoring the corporate class has been largely realized.
If anything the real fear of conservatives is that so called '36 year shift' when the pendulum begins to shift in the opposite direction- may be now beginning; and that 'direction' will be to the left, especially in the area of economics and social reform.
Barry Goldwater warned Ronald Reagan in 1980 prior to him winning the election to stay away from the Religious right. He did'nt listen and then when GHB took office he allowed it to get even worse.
If you are concerned about the downfall of the Republican party and our declining freedoms then support Ron Paul! He's the only true Republican out there!
The privileged class will mandate a government as large as necessary to maintain their Power, Privilege and Profits. So long as they do not have to pay for it.
Let me step back for a moment and note that it may be extremely difficult for an active global superpower to ever cut back (in any serious way) on the size of its government, either the international or domestic apparatus.
People have speculated on the causes of this effect for a while. I'm not sure about the exact mechanism. But being a superpower requires power projection, which is, like it or not, going to be a large, government-directed effort.
And once you have established that the government needs to be "oversized" in one enormous regard (acting as a global superpower), you need it to be oversized in other regards to prop up that sector. You need an extensive domestic fundraising apparatus (e.g., taxes and IRS) to raise the revenue to run a military big and sophisticated enough to support the country's global position. You need lots of "soft power," too, to protect your superpower's trade and economic interests.
It would be very difficult for a government to be "small" in all other regards, but massive in only one particular sector. Rather, once the revenue-raising and other institutions are in place, it becomes incredibly tempting to use them for other reasons. It becomes irresistible for politicians to promise to use them to grant certain favors to their constituents - we usually think of that in terms of a Roman bread and circus, but remember where their money comes from. Corporations also have an interest in a larger government that can be used to further their interests, and protect them from risk.
And once you introduce that level of power and money into the system, the interests representing the system will do everything they can to see that their power is not diminished.
So, if I had to bet money, I'd say that the government will remain huge and probably get bigger so long as the US remains a global superpower.
The Soviet Union was a military superpower but was economically very fragile, and the distribution of economic benefits to their population was probably extremely uneven, more so than in the U.S. Its per capita GDP trailed that of the US by a mile. Large government/ economic affluence/ military superpower don't appear to have necessary relationships.
Let me step back for a moment and note that it may be extremely difficult for an active global superpower to ever cut back (in any serious way) on the size of its government, either the international or domestic apparatus.
People have speculated on the causes of this effect for a while. I'm not sure about the exact mechanism. But being a superpower requires power projection, which is, like it or not, going to be a large, government-directed effort.
And once you have established that the government needs to be "oversized" in one enormous regard (acting as a global superpower), you need it to be oversized in other regards to prop up that sector. You need an extensive domestic fundraising apparatus (e.g., taxes and IRS) to raise the revenue to run a military big and sophisticated enough to support the country's global position. You need lots of "soft power," too, to protect your superpower's trade and economic interests.
It would be very difficult for a government to be "small" in all other regards, but massive in only one particular sector. Rather, once the revenue-raising and other institutions are in place, it becomes incredibly tempting to use them for other reasons. It becomes irresistible for politicians to promise to use them to grant certain favors to their constituents - we usually think of that in terms of a Roman bread and circus, but remember where their money comes from. Corporations also have an interest in a larger government that can be used to further their interests, and protect them from risk.
And once you introduce that level of power and money into the system, the interests representing the system will do everything they can to see that their power is not diminished.
So, if I had to bet money, I'd say that the government will remain huge and probably get bigger so long as the US remains a global superpower.
The funny thing is you're basically agreeing with my intial argument in a round about way.
Look the tenants of being a true conservative is that government provides it citizens a strong defense against foreign enemies. The size of the Military has nothing to do with how effective it is. I'd bet 200 million dollars (if i had it to bet),that the tiny army of Isreal could have defeated the Russian Army, which was 20 times its size. Why? Well, it comes down to training, efficency, planning, and having better technology to produce weapons. Thanks to the US, Isreal has the technology, so I highly doubt many armies larger than the Isreali Army could defeat it. But this argument about size and military's ability to defend is really not part of the argument as to why the government is getting bigger.
The government is getting bigger not due to defensive spending over the last 20 years. It is getting bigger due to the government taking on many roles it should not, roles that if initiated by government should have been passed along to private citizens to fill and control via market forces and open competition. I could name a number of programs that the government does small or large, that would best be handled in the private sector. Hell, "The War On Drugs" is one of them. I'm pretty sure if you allowed private compaines to go after drug dealers at the boarders, they would be much more successful thant he government currently is, simply due to competitive forces. The government currently creates laws, that are in most cases not needed then makes a public office to carry out useless laws, that office then hires people who are not competent and they do a very inefficent job.
What i'm looking for is the government to start to reduce its size by privitzing more of the services (it should not be doing) and helping to stimulate the economy through better run private services. The benefits from increases in competition, technological advances, and overall innovation are good for our country and good for the American people. It also helps keep government in check and protects individuals rights to freedom and choice. The government has consistenly been over stepping its boundries in many areas of the economy.
A reduction of government would not hurt the US as a super power. However, what you mentioned in your original argument is the power, that big business, politicans, and other lobbying groups have gained from the expansion of government. However, as i've previously said before POWER IN THE HANDS OF MANY OR A FEW STILL EXCLUDES THOSE OUTSIDE OF THAT POWER, which is currently the American Citizens particularly the American Middle Class. This sort of government expansion cannot continue to go on unchecked it is a strict violation of the constitution and the true tenants of being a conservative.
Sure there's huge difference between Fiscal Conservatism and Overall Social Conservatism. I'd prefer less government involvement and more people getting activily involved. The more government expands the more it becomes an Authoritarian State, which is where we are headed.
Not sure but as of tonight it looks like the dems have three front runners.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
