Mr. David Frum - talking some sense.

I confess to it being a bit of a trick question, designed to reveal peoples' sentiments that they wouldn't admit to honestly stand-alone.

I've found people who don't think government spending should shrink when the economy does are generally people who don't believe the government should have any following of the economic climate of any kind and has some kind of implied 'higher responsibility' to do and not be bothered with the fetterings associated with (big)business. IE, the government is a system outside/above of the economy.

It reveals people's lack of understanding of the economic realities of how the government operates.

for example, it is my firm belief that even if we could get a mutual agreement that healthcare is a right from both sides, that our society is much too immature to acknowledge the real-world cost in taxes they would have to pay to enjoy such a thing. They would just continue to run a debt deficit until we have our own little small European nation crash like the 2 that have in recent years.

Salanis wrote:

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.

I read the article and see scant mention of anyone outside his own party. Yes, many Republican Congressional freshman are entrenched and they have to learn the art of compromise and long-term goals.

The same must be said about the entrenched-left, those who have been in DC for decades instead of eight months. Maybe the problem of inflexibility has deeper roots (over there) but with no will to prune? He!!, just today our VP referred to the Tea Party as terrorists.

Leave it to Joe...............

In reply to madmallard:

So... your point in asking the question was to find dupes so that you could point out that they're idiots who don't understand how government or economies work?

If you'd like me to out my own moronic sentiments, I think the government should act in the opposite of what the economy is doing. It should spend more when the economy is weak, and spend less when it is strong. When the economy is strong, the government should save money and let the healthy market economy take care of people's needs. When the free market weakens, the government should pick up the slack and help invest in things that keep people's morale up, and preferably help train them in new skills.

I would argue that someone who thinks the primary purpose of our government is an economic one is the person who understands government the least. The primary purpose of the government is to protect the citizens. That means military protection. That means limitations on government power. That means limiting the ability of factions to gain power and exert their will on the general populous.

The purpose of government is to protect the well being of its citizens. If that means accruing debt for a period of time, that's fine.

My hope is that people will remember their debt concerns when we emerge from this recession, and take the opportunity to address issues then, when we have the resources.

The danger is less that we will spend to much when we need to, and more that we will not be wise enough to save when we have the opportunity to do so.

Unfortunately, when things are good, the government just tends to spend more on everyone's pet projects.

Salanis wrote: In reply to madmallard: So... your point in asking the question was to find dupes so that you could point out that they're idiots who don't understand how government or economies work?

Well it didn't work in your case because you zeroed right in on an answer that you had already determined in your world view, and thought thru on more than just the most superficial level.

Most folks can't be bothered to offer that kind of effort; it taxes them too much, or after a bit of research it makes them uncomfortable because it runs contrary to their current level of understanding.

If you'd like me to out my own moronic sentiments, I think the government should act in the opposite of what the economy is doing. It should spend more when the economy is weak, and spend less when it is strong. When the economy is strong, the government should save money and let the healthy market economy take care of people's needs. When the free market weakens, the government should pick up the slack and help invest in things that keep people's morale up, and preferably help train them in new skills.

I don't necessarily disagree with some of that, but I don't think the government should back-stop bad decision making. It should protect the people who did not take unnecessary risks first because it is on those backs that all recovery is based.

Risk and failure must be permitted to be more the rule than the exception, otherwise the private investments sit far more conservatively than growth could potentially allow. We're experiencing this now with the bailouts, the union unsecured interest being put ahead of bank interests in a failing company, etc etc.... Behavior thats not risky, was made risky in recent years by the government.

Once that becomes the rule, well, working within that system becomes tantamount to Sisyphus asking you to cover for him for 5 minutes while he takes a smoke.

I would argue that someone who thinks the primary purpose of our government is an economic one is the person who understands government the least. The primary purpose of the government is to protect the citizens. That means military protection. That means limitations on government power. That means limiting the ability of factions to gain power and exert their will on the general populous.

Actually, the purpose of government, regardless of form or type, is to secure more power for itself at any cost so that it may more effectively exert the power and influence it has to govern.

To that end, tools of government always attempt to secure more power, not less, but for the intervention of the governed.

The danger is less that we will spend to much when we need to, and more that we will not be wise enough to save when we have the opportunity to do so.

Like what we've done with the social security surplus for years?

It is my feeling that the federal government has had enough chances to be proven un-trustworthy to actually save. I believe the danger is not that we -will- spend too much, but rather the complacency people have been lulled into about this practice. We've had an entire generation of politicians govern this way as tho it were normal.... -_-

madmallard wrote: 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.

You can disagree. But you'd be in disagreement with pretty much every respected economist in the world. Salanis is spot on. It is simple economics and has nothing to do with political ideology.

are you sure you know what part I was disagreeing with?

....cause I had to go back and look at the context myself.

I was disagreeing with the premise that a government's job is direct interference with the function of the economy, either as a policy of that government, or just by the government itself being a spender in the economy that has the power to loan/print indefinitely.

Because those are the only ways a government can do just that; using laws to promo controlled socio-economic engineering, or by printing money/extending debt and spending itself as a player in the economy.

If respected economists find either of those behaviors favorable nowadays, then yeah, I guess I don't agree with them. I wonder how many of those economists have actually owned or operated a business, or managed a state institution that was not in debt during their tenure. (not running an annual surplus, but actually holding no debt)

but like i said in that post, even if we set that aside and somehow agree that government should be in the game of economic engineering..... thats not what it has been doing for 20 years with the spending and taxing its done. Its been spending and taxing based on more general politcal party ideology than anything, irrespective of the economy.

Before the discussion took center stage about this debt ceiling, we were using budget projections and spending money expecting to be collected from the income tax payments of people who haven't been born yet, on track to continue the pattern to cover this level of spending.

In reply to madmallard:

I am with you on pretty much all that. I just don't think government spending should contract during a recession. That is what I thought you were saying.

oh, then that part, yeah. I do think government should contract inward as a reflection of controlling spending when the overall economy shrinks.

certainly hasn't been tried in the last couple generations of politicians.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to madmallard: I am with you on pretty much all that. I just don't think government spending should contract during a recession. That is what I thought you were saying.

The problem (as noted by madmallard) is that current (elevated) government spending has been driven by ideology. It is debatable that the cure has been better than the disease - TARP, Stimulus and HC all included.

oldsaw wrote: The problem (as noted by madmallard) is that current (elevated) government spending has been driven by ideology. It is debatable that the cure has been better than the disease - TARP, Stimulus and HC all included.

You forgot a big one: $1,232 billion

That's $804 billion for Iraq and $427 billion for Afghanistan. I think that conforms with an "ideology".

You could say that the US is almost a military based economy. Sadly no one seems to be paying for our services (with some minor exceptions), and some of that money (how much?) is not going to US workers (solders / contractors).

In reply to aircooled:

You're saying that leaving the Taliban and Al Queda to their own devices was/is a better choice.......... Iraq is more controversial, but the conventional wisdom (circa 2002) was that the foray was warranted.

Isn't it great when hindsight is 20/20?

now now.

lets not skew. The issue is money spent, not justifying ideology.

Because like i said in my previous example, if we flip it around and instead everybody actually agreed the iraq and afghanistan war were necessary, thats still only 1.2 trillion spread out across almost 10 years.

And also, as i've said before, we could -eliminate- the entire regular military budget, from every bomb to general's pension check, from the annual report, and our spending is so high we'd STILL be falling into debt every year. By proportion, the military spending is a pittance compared to everything else.

madmallard wrote: And also, as i've said before, we could -eliminate- the entire regular military budget, from every bomb to general's pension check, from the annual report, and our spending is so high we'd STILL be falling into debt every year. By proportion, the military spending is a pittance compared to everything else.

Now that's overstating it a bit isn't it. The military budget is is almost 20% of the budget. SS is also about 20%, but it is (mostly) self-funded so it can effectively be removed from the equation, thus making the military makes up a very large part of the budget.

I am not recommending eliminating the military, I just want to make sure we keep things in proper perspective.

Otto Maddox wrote: It is simple economics and has nothing to do with political ideology.

Are you freaking KIDDING me?!

Academically, I like Salanis' suggestion of government working as a reverse pendulum. But since DC is run by politicians, it won't work.

As to whether gov't spending is hurting the economy, I think there is a valid argument that it is. That argument is based in consumer confidence. When we see an insurmountable debt that will be laid at our feet, we get fidgety. I know that the current trajectory certainly doesn't have me spending money, and that sentiment, widespread IMO, is hurting the economy.

A couple of things I kept hearing in the Great Debate was social security and medicare as being evil and the cause of all our problems. Weird, since SS i self sustaining and Medicare is supported partially by those recieving SS. I pay,monthly, $97 out of my SS check plus I pay $43 out of my own money. Yes I know that is cheap insurance but not all of it comes out of the treasury. The biggest problem is that each faction has there own agenda and no one wants to compromise to deal with the real problem. A little common sense, which is lacking in congress, is needed.

Duke wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: It is simple economics and has nothing to do with political ideology.

*Are you freaking KIDDING me?!*

No, I am really not. I am just going by the textbooks and the entirety of world history. Nobody has ever contracted themselves out of a recession without a really peculiar set of circumstances.

Otto Maddox wrote:

Duke wrote:

Otto Maddox wrote: It is simple economics and has nothing to do with political ideology.

*Are you freaking KIDDING me?!*

No, I am really not. I am just going by the textbooks and the entirety of world history. Nobody has ever contracted themselves out of a recession without a really peculiar set of circumstances.

But if you think that the actual spending is not motivated by politics, you're sadly mistaken. For one tiny example: in the Big O's stimulus package, no volunteer fire companies received any money for upgrades and expansions. Yet lots of paid fire companies did. Care to guess why? Because unions vote Democrat.

In reply to Duke:

You aren't talking about spending so much as you are talking about allocation of spending. I don't really have an opinion to share on that, too political for me.

...which is precisely why it works in theory but not so much in practice. It's never about solving problems, it's always about buying votes and trading pork.

iceracer wrote: A couple of things I kept hearing in the Great Debate was social security and medicare as being evil and the cause of all our problems. Weird, since SS i self sustaining and Medicare is supported partially by those recieving SS. I pay,monthly, $97 out of my SS check plus I pay $43 out of my own money. Yes I know that is cheap insurance but not all of it comes out of the treasury. The biggest problem is that each faction has there own agenda and no one wants to compromise to deal with the real problem. A little common sense, which is lacking in congress, is needed.

I have to correct and add notes to your observation.

SS is no longer self sustaining. The program has ceased being self-solvent, debateably, between last year and this year.

and every surplus since LBJ has been borrowed against by congress, so there is no SS fund where surplusses were being squirreled away for the last few decades.