Notice I never said that I favored anarchy, but that I would like to see the present level of government cut rather severely. But do you still favor the govt. being in the mail or railroad business when private entities could do a better job for less money?
Tabling the problems of network economics, cream skimming, regulated industries, universal service obligations, and other concepts that the mail and post office raise, my fundamental point, and that of Krugman, is that the present level of government HAS been cut severely. In fact, it is at a postwar low. I have already, in this thread, exposed the myth that discretionary social spending is growing out of control. Quite the opposite, its been shrinking, relative to GDP for a while. Why do you want to go to the pre-war level of government? What makes you think that the pre-war level of government, which could not: 1. prevent the great depression, 2. support an activist foreign policy, with a fractiion of the amount of citizens, is going to lead to a desirable outcome? Nobody, not you, not Grover Norquist, not George Bush, not Bill Kristol, not ANYBODY has provided an explanation for why Hoover was such a great president that we need to return to his era in government. Don't give me platitudes about "less government is better" give me concrete examples. I've got an example of a place with minimal government involvement and no gun control: it's called Iraq. The very idea that we can go back to pre-war era of government is absurd. What are we going to do, tell the WTO and the IMF that we're out? Cut the army's size in half? Tell retirees who have paid thousands into Soc. Sec in their lifetime, that Sorry, you aren't getting anything back? Game over? You don't get it. No matter what your views are on the governments size, creating a massive, destablilizing debt in order to prove a philosophical point about the size of government, that you and I will have to pay, is a horrible, horrible, dangerously stupid idea. But that's whats happening.
If you're so afraid of this horrid debt, let it be known by contacting your representative that you support spending reductions. Less of government is always better. I don't understand why you think the government is benign and benevolent when in fact it will destroy you and your rights in a cold second in the name of power and control. Government is a necessary evil, but remember that it is evil. Nothing you can say could convince me otherwise. To me the greatest lie ever uttered was "I'm from the govt. and I'm here to help you."
Trust me, I tried. I didn't vote for George, I vote for the party of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility whenver I get a chance. As for your psychological hatred of the government, I don't know if I want to plumb those depths. You already conceded earlier that, without government roads, schools, police, defense, etc you would be SOL, so I don't know why you cling to the evil government monster fantasy.
Well, that party is not the Democrats, so I assume correctly that you don't support this so-called "fiscal responsibility." Trying to get Democrats not to spend other people's money is like getting an A&M fan to root for the Horns. They would spend every single dime they could get their grubby mits upon from taxpayers on various vote-buying schemes such as the prescription drug benefit, Mediscare and other useless entitlements if they could.
That may have been true in the 1980's, but now h, the evidence proves that you're wrong. Look at budget deficits during the Clinton era. Look at budget deficits during the Bush era. Now who was more responsible? Who has been whining about fiscal responsibility on the campaign trail for the last 2 years? A: the democrats Who got us into a super expensive war/nationbuilding exercise in Iraq (and lied about the cost beforehand)? Who pushed through irresponsible tax cuts that created roughly half of the current 400b+ deficit? A: the republicans Look, I respect your right to hold opposite views, but all day long I have been posting facts, and you have been posting suppositions. Your suppositions are just not supported by facts. The whole point, back on Friday when I posted that article, was that maniacal hysteria and propaganda that right wingers promote on taxes and spending is not solidly based on facts. Yet time and time again, you rebut this argument with that very same hysteria and propaganda. It's like this: It's a bit frustrating to say the least.
This isn't actually true. Most rich people got that way or at least the opportunity to make their money because of inheritance, connections or both. There truly are some who 'worked their way up from the mailroom' but by and large most of the people in the top positions at the top companies, are ivy league, come from wealthy backgrounds, and were afforded the opportunity to meet the people to make the big bucks. There are some, like our current President, who has been a failure at every business he's run, but still made huge amounts of money. Of course he had the opportunity both for school and business because of his family and not through working his ASS off.
DUDE, take off the blinders! YOUR president is spending $87 BILLION on Iraq... What Can $87 Billion Buy? The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute based in Washington, D.C. http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8857 On September 7th, President Bush asked Congress for an additional $87 billion for the war in Iraq, acknowledging that the engagement in Iraq is going to cost many hundreds of billions of dollars. This was a surprise considering that prior to the war, the administration dismissed such estimates, and even fired its top economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for suggesting those estimates were correct. To get some perspective, here are some real-life comparisons about what $87 billion means. $87b Is More Than The Combined Total Of All State Budget Deficits In The United States The Bush administration proposed absolutely zero funds to help states deal with these deficits, despite the fact that their tax cuts drove down state revenues. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] $87b Is Rougly The Total Of Two Years Worth Of All U.S. Unemployment Benefits The U.S. spends about $50 billion a year on unemployment insurance. At least 1.1 million people have exhausted all of their unemployment benefits without finding a job, and yet Congress has refused to extend benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] $87b Is Enough To Pay The 3.3 Million People Who Have Lost Jobs $26,363 Each The unemployment benefits extension passed by Congress at the beginning of this year provides zero benefits to "workers who exhausted their regular, state unemployment benefits and cannot find work." All told, two thirds of unemployed workers have exhausted their benefits. [Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] $87b Is More Than Double The Total Amount The Government Spends On Homeland Security The U.S. spends about $36 billion on homeland security. Yet, Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) wrote "America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs" for homeland security without a funding increase. [Source: Council on Foreign Relations] $87b Is 7 Times What The Government Spends On Title I For Low-Income Schools President Bush proposed a budget of just $12 billion for Title I, leaving a $6.2 billion hole in what he promised to spend on Title I in his No Child Left Behind Bill. [Source: House Appropriations Committee] $87b Is 87 Times The Amount The Federal Government Spends On After School Programs President Bush proposed a budget that reduces the $1 billion for after-school programs to $600 million -- cutting off about 475,000 children from the program. [Souce: House Appropriations Committee] $87b Is About 9 Times What The Federal Government Spends On Special Education Legislation authorizes the federal government to pay 40 percent of the cost of special education, but because of budget shortfalls, it only pays roughly 18 percent (or $9.9 billion), driving up local property taxes. [Source: House Appropriations Committee] $87b Is More Than 10 Times What The Government Spends On All Environmental Protection The Bush administration requested just $7.6 billion for the entire Environmental Protection Agency. This included a 32 percent cut to water quality grants, a 6 percent reduction in enforcement staff, and a 50 percent cut to land acquisition and conservation. [Source: Natural Resources Defense Council] $87b Is 8 Times The Total For Pell Grants -- The Major College Program In The U.S. In 1975, when the Pell Grant program was established, it financed about 84 percent of the cost of attending a four-year public college. Today, that share is down to about 40 percent, and under Congress’s current proposal to freeze Pell Grant funding at about $10 billion, it would drop to 38 percent. [Source: House Appropriations Committee] $87b Is More Than The Total Cost Of The First 3 Years Of The Medicare Pres. Drug Proposal [Source: Congressional Budget Office] $87b Is Enough To Give Every Man, Woman And Child In America $300 "[We] want to control spending. And I hope Congress lives up to their words. When they talk about deficits, they can join us in making sure we don't overspend. They can join us and make sure that [they are] focused those items that are absolutely necessary to the American people." - President Bush, Jan. 6, 2003
Bama, I'll give you credit for the guts for trying to take on Krugman. I don't think too successfully, but nonetheless. Now It is too tough for Jorge. Supposedly he is a real stud in econ cause he helps a company mange their money. I guess Krugman is just too tough and presents too many disconcerting facts and arguments for him to even try.
I was wondering if T_J would even make an attempt. Of course, he probably read the word Krugman in the thread title and just avoided it. If there are two things that T_J ignores, they are documented evidence and facts. I guess far right wingers like him only need empty rhetoric and baseless claims.
