OK, we're going to try an experiment here - discussing an actual political philosophical issue! Atttempted ground rules: 1. No use of GOP/Dem smear talking points. Nothing about how Obama is an evil monster who just wants to raise your taxes or how John McCain owns 17,349 homes and doesn't understand you. 2. No personal attacks. Disagree with someone? Post something with substance, on the topic at hand. 3. Ignore the trolls. You know they'll show up. You know they'll try to instigate. Just ignore them - don't respond. Once you do, that's the end of this thread. All that said, here's the topic of the day: What do you feel is the realistic direction government should take to on fiscal issues? This is different from the poll question - which is about your core general philosophy. There's not really a lot to discuss/debate on the core philosophy. Some people believe government can and should be more involved, others don't. I think the more interesting topic is looking at reality. If you believe government can/should solve more problems like health care, how do you think that can/should be funded? Do you believe the deficit and accumulating debt is a problem, and if so, what do you believe is the best way to deal with that? If you believe lower taxes should be the focus, how do you believe those tax cuts should be paid for? "Cut programs" is the easy answer - but here's where reality comes in; neither party has shown an interest in actually cutting programs. Given that, would you still favor lower taxes, or do you have ideas of how to actually get program cuts in place? What areas would you favor rolling back? If you believe something else, share! Personally, I'm ideally in favor of smaller government/lower taxes. However, I'm more in favor of fiscal responsibility - and that means if government IS going to grow, it needs to be paid for. In an ideal world, I would cut down on short-term spending and focus as much of spending as possible on long-term investments. I'm all for expanding spending on scientific research, education, infrastructure, etc - things that I think pay themselves back. I'm less inclined to support spending on new entitlements, or various shorter-term things. If this thread goes anywhere and results in a legit discussion, feel free to suggest topics for future issue threads. Two that I have in mind: how to structure tax policy and how to address health care issues.
I'm of the opinion that the government should use its muscle to deal with market inefficiencies such as externalities and public good. For example, in the case of negative externalities, Coasian bargaining can't really work in the real world issues because of transaction costs, so the most efficient solution is to provide an incentive to lessen said externalities through a Pigovian tax or a market solution (such as emissions trading). And of course, I believe in the inverse (subsidies) for good that are shown to have positive externalities, such as higher education or health care.
Small government and lower taxes. With a balanced budget amendment so spending is kept in check. It worked in the 90's with Clinton and the GOP-led Congress. Granted, the economy was strong and the world was relatively peaceful, but that's what Washington should be aiming for.
I don't think the first 2 options are that contradictory. Most countries around the world now realize that markets must be allowed to work to grow their economies. Many EU countries have gotten on board and the philosophy has boosted the growth of China and India. However, there will always be a role in government in setting up the rules within which market works and helping those who are hurt by change and globalization. As long as government doesn't interfere with the work of the markets or cost too much, then I there is not necesarily a contradiction.
