I haven't watched/read the link, but in the abstract, I will say this - when the system's main function is SELF PERPETUATION, smashing it may be the very best way to go.
The Wall Street Journal reported that the whole fight has come down to OBozo's insistence that any real work on the ceiling not come until after the next election.
I'm reading "In the Garden of the Beasts" and the happenings in the days of Germany when Hitler was just the Chancellor read remarkably like the past 3 years.
And I've got to agree with Duke in that if it is broke, and we know it is, then maybe it does need smashing.
I'd rather hurt a little more right now and fix it than to get to feeling better and then have them make it hurt again one day in the future.
I haven't read the article but I already have an opinion = part of the problem. Read the FARKING LINK before posting. Fer chrissake...
To give some more background on David Frum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frum said: I'm a conservative Republican, have been all my adult life. I volunteered for the Reagan campaign in 1980. I've attended every Republican convention since 1988. I was president of the Federalist Society chapter at my law school, worked on the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal and wrote speeches for President Bush—not the "Read My Lips" Bush, the "Axis of Evil" Bush. I served on the Giuliani campaign in 2008 and voted for John McCain in November. I supported the Iraq War and (although I feel kind of silly about it in retrospect) the impeachment of Bill Clinton. I could go on, but you get the idea
He said: 4) The place to cut is health care, not assistance to the unemployed and poor. The United States provides less assistance to the unemployed and the poor than almost any other democracy. It spends 60% more per person on health care than almost any other democracy -- and gets worse results. The problem is not that Americans use too much medicine. People in other countries use more. The problem is that Americans pay too much for the medicine they use. Go where the money is, cut where the waste is grossest.
I'd be interested to hear just how he plans to do that.
I read the title only and responded to the title only. And I'm well aware of who David Frum is.
I like what he has to say there. I think I agree with nearly all of it.
Call me whatever, but I don't believe the sky is falling or that we're facing the biggest most insurmountable problems this nation has ever seen. Bitch all you want about whichever side you like less, but I think the biggest problem in Washington is people who are more worried about proving that their ideologies are right (or that the other guys' are wrong) than they are about solving the real problems this country faces.
And yes, our deficit is a symptom of the problems, not the cause. Get people working and investing in businesses again; Get this economy back on track; Then you'll see a lot more options to manage the gov't budget situation.
I have to agree to some extent. There are a LOT of people that (sadly) work for or make money somehow from the government. Reducing government spending is pretty much guaranteed to impact the economy negatively.
A bit of a catch-22 really.
I don't think it is a catch-22. Government spending did not cause this recession. It certainly hasn't helped, because it means the government has less resources to bring to bare, but it did not cause it. Cutting back government spending, therefore won't fix the problem. (That's not to say that the government shouldn't reign in how much it spends, just that this is not the correct time to tackle that issue.)
The bigger issue right now is insufficient revenue. Not because taxes are too low and we need to raise taxes (although closing loopholes and b.s. "incentives" wouldn't hurt), but because there is not enough taxable income out there.
The real problem is that not enough people are working and not enough people are starting or expanding businesses. We need to address that root problem before we tackle the secondary issues. I don't have an answer on the best way to do that, but crippling the systems that are keeping people afloat is not it.
I am not saying government spending caused the recession. I am saying government spending is Driving the economy, thus cutting it will have a harsh effect.
Another thing he notes: "Republicans and conservatives have worked themselves into a frenzy of rage and contempt for President Barack Obama."
Is right on target. The amount of misplaced vitriol towards the president has become ridiculous. The phrase "everything he does is bad for the country" is a good and sadly common example.
In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
i dunno how he plans to, but despite the problem being ridiculously complicated, the solution is simple.
when you unravel the thread, the original problem began when the federa government started passing laws restricting how much people get paid in salary.
In response, fringe benefits started being offered by employers that didn't count as salary, and the main one that popped up was health insurance.
This caused a forcible ignorance in the population about the responsibility, the cost, and the effect of their personal healthcare decisions. Even after the law was changed some time later, the subsequent laws passed continued to favour the process with tax exemptions, etc etc.
Costs bloat when ignorance is the policy standard.
the ultimate symptom of this ignorance is that government spends MUCH more on the same health care than individuals when it provides it thru SS and Medicare.
AND, private insurance, while better than the government, also allows non-marketplace costs to be paid depending on the advantage they get from the industry providers too.
Salanis wrote: I don't think it is a catch-22. Government spending did not cause this recession. It certainly hasn't helped, because it means the government has less resources to bring to bare, but it did not cause it. Cutting back government spending, therefore won't fix the problem. (That's not to say that the government shouldn't reign in how much it spends, just that this is not the correct time to tackle that issue.)
I have a really basic question I can't seem to get an answer to, when I ask people who don't think government spending is a primary and overwhelming problem.
If the economy shrinks from a slowdown (and therefore tax revenues decrease as a result of the lessening of economic activity), why shouldn't the federal government be forced to contract inward in a similar reaction?
Interesting read. I've never heard of him, but he doesn't read very conservative to me.
Using government spending to prop up the economy isn't something I agree with though. Balancing the budget is. Cutting the deficit is. He doesn't sound particularly interested in doing either right now. Wants to put it off till later when times are good. We already know they won't do it when times are good. Both parties have had their chance on that and failed to even try. The latest being Obama and his total control of the house and the senate. Previous to that, Bush and his majorities in the house and senate. Both of them spent like drunken sailors. Fix it now and deal with the repercussions. The next time they get around to even talking about it the problem will be that much worse.
HMMM Govt. debt didn't cause the recession? Govt. spending isn't causing the recession?
Go back to the New Deal days and see the genesis of most of our troubles. The "fix" for the Great Depression is the cause for much of the Great Recession.
I feel pretty confident government spending has little to do with the recession. It's certainly not a good thing for the country in the long run, but causing the recession, no.
The "internet" boom and the recent "housing" boom seemed to sourced a LOT more from the financial sector then the government sector. Although it can sometimes be hard to tell which one some people are working for, it still has almost nothing to do with government spending. (unless you are talking about government people spending the money of the financial industry, but that is a different topic)
madmallard wrote: I have a really basic question I can't seem to get an answer to, when I ask people who don't think government spending is a primary and overwhelming problem. If the economy shrinks from a slowdown (and therefore tax revenues decrease as a result of the lessening of economic activity), why shouldn't the federal government be forced to contract inward in a similar reaction?
In short, to prevent the situation from becoming worse. Because the cost of keeping the economy afloat is less than the cost (both monetary and human) of allowing it to collapse. There is benefit to doing so and the government is capable of shouldering that burden.
Say you have a business, and your usual market takes a hit. Your revenue stream is decreased. You could just tighten your belt, shrink your business, and lay workers off. You'll be less competitive. Alternately, you could take a loan in order to retool equipment and retrain workers to adapt yourself to take advantage of an emerging market. You'll need to pay back loans, which is going to suck, but you will still have the resources ready to take advantage when things turn around rather than trying to build an entirely new business from scratch.
One of the functions of a government (as I see it) is to act as a stabilizing force to control the oscillations of a free market volatility. Pure free markets are very volatile and tend to boom and bust if left to their own devices. The damage of a bust is generally worse than the benefit of a boon. If it were a car suspension, the market economy would be a spring and the government would be the dampers.
Right now, the goal is to prevent the economy from bottoming out. By exerting monetary force you keep the population more stable and preserve the skilled workforce that will go on to strengthen the economy when it rebounds. People are less able to take care of themselves, and so the government is stepping in to pick up the slack.
Similarly, I think the government has a role to monitor and control unstable economic growth. The result of going too high without stability is a spring back in the opposite direction. That's kind of what the housing crisis was, and the government failed to control that.
Now, perhaps you believe more strongly in the virtue of the free market and don't see a problem with free market volatility. Maybe you think that people should be smarter on their own and if they have to suffer in a bust, so be it. Not everyone agrees with you. That's not saying your view doesn't have merit, but there are plenty of other views out there with merit too.
^^^ oops. msg board haet u 
but to the sentiment that did get posted.
I philosophically disagree. But thats irrelevant.
Thats because the government has been spending to socially engineer, not economically engineer. So the topic is not what you've specifically raised.
Even if we accept the idea that the government spending role should be used as an economic engineering machine, the last 20 years have brought to bear that goverment spending largely ignores the economic conditions prevailing, instead focusing on social and political relevance.
madmallard wrote: I philosophically disagree. But thats irrelevant. Thats because the government has been spending to socially engineer, not economically engineer. So the topic is not what you've specifically raised. Even if we accept the idea that the government spending role should be used as an economic engineering machine, the last 20 years have brought to bear that goverment spending largely ignores the economic conditions prevailing, instead focusing on social and political relevance.
I figured we would philosophically disagree. My main goal is not to persuade you, just to answer your question about the reasoning. You said you wanted an answer, not that you wanted to be convinced.
If the government has misspent, that is a different issue. I'm just explaining reasoning why they should spend, not trying to justify the particular manner in which they're spending.
I think you are probably correct that money needs to be spent, and gathered, more wisely. I don't think the answer is to not spend because it's been misspent in the past. I think the answer is to evaluate what the best way to help the economy is, and do that.
madmallard wrote: ^^^ oops. msg board haet u
I hit "add post" accidentally when trying to place my cursor.
madmallard wrote: I philosophically disagree. But thats irrelevant.
I think this actually gets to a bit of what I see as the key point in the article:
You and I disagree. We're probably on different ends of the political spectrum. Except that you're not way out in right field and I'm not way out in left field. We're probably each a short distance from center in either direction. That's also representative of how most people in this country are.
What the article is pointing out is that the voices that are winning out in Washington are the ones that can yell the loudest and most angrily, and those are the ones at the extreme.
Two people across a short gap from each other are able to sit down and compromise amicably. If you and I were both legislators we could probably sit down, pour a few drinks, meet with educated experts and work out something reasonable.
Two people with a wide philosophical gap are just going to yell and do their best to sabotage the other's efforts. They know they can't win, but are so convinced of the righteousness of their ideology that they're happy to watch everything burn rather than make concessions.
That's the biggest problem in Washington right now. Until that is addressed, there is no hope of them being able to fix any other problems.
I hit "add post" accidentally when trying to place my cursor.
Doh.
Well, I object to characterising it as 'mispent' funds because it doesn't address the categorical difference between spending for economic engineering and spending on social engineering.
and with the finished post you have:
I disagree with the 'private business' comparison because the business must get approved by a body with funds on the terms such liquidity is dispensed.
The federal government approves its own loans. It also manages its own revenue stream in no way similar to a business(by force of law), and can print currency on demand.
No other entity in the US has a comparable structure with all 3 of these facets. Some have one or 2, but only the feds have all 3.
States borrowing funds must still get approval on terms, states CAN asses their own taxes, but cannot print their own currency.
Frum's article has some valid points, but they are in the context of working within the "system". The man is a long-established political insider and his vision is restricted by the boundaries he (and his cronies on both sides) have created and perpetuated.
He (and others) may not like newly-elected outsiders to mess with his fiefdom but the area within those walls was poisoned decades ago. Frum fears the fumigators.......
In reply to madmallard:
I'm just using crude analogies. These are bigger problems than I have the answers to. Even if I had the answers I don't have the power (or predisposition to try to attain it) in order to put them into effect. So I'm really not going to bother.
Ultimately, I have only a few strong beliefs in this matter:
All you asked for was someone to give you an explanation. I tried to give you a pretty reasonable one, even though I figured you'd disagree philosophically. Reference #2 above as to why it's probably a good thing that we disagree.
oldsaw wrote: He (and others) may not like newly-elected outsiders to mess with his fiefdom but the area within those walls was poisoned decades ago. Frum fears the fumigators.......
But it's not outsiders coming in that he seems to be speaking out against. He's speaking out against entrenched people with entrenched positions who are unwilling to compromise.
You'll need to log in to post.
