When it takes your money in the form of taxes, how much of that makes it to the end product/project? All of it? 90%? 5%?
My understanding is about 60%.
So when Government uses your money in such a wasteful way, why would we want to give over even more to it? Why we would let the people responsible for so many catastrophes keep on doing what they are doing?
Liberal politicians believe they know where to allocate resources best. This is one of the cornerstones of Liberal thought...that the Government is wiser than the citizen and knows how to pick the winners and losers.
Conservatives (true conservatives...not the politicians who have had their hand in the cookie jar these past 10 years) believe that the Individual will allocate resources in the most efficient manner by watching out for their own self interest. While some may fail, the winners will help everyone to prosper by creating new industries, jobs and ideas that propel the world as a whole upwards.
I do not like when the Government is run by all of the same political party... Republicans or Democrats. It means there is nobody to keep them from their worst impulses.
This country has a Center-Right leaning to it, regardless of what the San Francisco liberal elite seem to think... yet what is about to happen means that Liberals... very left leaning liberals will control all branches of the government. That means higher taxes and more entitlements... a redistribution of wealth, chosen by these 'progressive' politicians.
Once you hand out an entitlement it is almost impossible for it to be taken away...So this expansion into all avenues of private life is going to be very difficult to undo. We will be suffering through its consequences for generations to come.
Please read the article below for a more detailed description of what lays ahead...
I am filled with trepidation.
DF
-------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122420205889842989.html
A Liberal Supermajority
Get ready for 'change' we haven't seen since 1965, or 1933.
If the current polls hold, Barack Obama will win the White House on November 4 and Democrats will consolidate their Congressional majorities, probably with a filibuster-proof Senate or very close to it. Without the ability to filibuster, the Senate would become like the House, able to pass whatever the majority wants.
Though we doubt most Americans realize it, this would be one of the most profound political and ideological shifts in U.S. history. Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven't since 1965, or 1933. In other words, the election would mark the restoration of the activist government that fell out of public favor in the 1970s. If the U.S. really is entering a period of unchecked left-wing ascendancy, Americans at least ought to understand what they will be getting, especially with the media cheering it all on.
Posts
4 comments:
While I can't prove this, it seems to me that social progressivism comes with the need for government spending. For instance, the Civil Rights Act was not well-received by a large part of the population. Social programs were needed to enforce the paradigm shift.
Anytime you change the rules, inertia keeps people attached to the old way. While it would be great if people could just bootstrap it, we are sometimes slow-moving. I think this is why the balance of power in Washington is so important. Forward thinkers and social anchors keep society moving together.
I think the best way to form my opinion on these issues is to try and ignore dogmatic ideology and look at the data. Taking the national debt from 2 to 13 trillion dollars in 8 years would seem like the most accurate example of a "vast expansion of government" more than anything else done in the last 40 years. In the last century, other than FDR's "new deal" and LBJ's "great society", I'm not sure what "tax-n-spend" periods of liberal federal control you're referring to. I think we'd agree that morally and fiscally the new deal was a necessary component of recovery from the great depression. While the "Great Society" was not correlated with economic growth, it certainly was a giant step in the ethical and moral growth of our country. What other periods were there? I gotta say that the "supply side" argument seems to be running thin on data to back it up:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/supply_side.html
I'd say closer to 10%. Government isn't designed, its organically grown – its a self sustaining entity which has intrinsic upkeep and overhead far greater than any private enterprise.
In most cases governments, through the means of extracting work and wealth from the population, grow unfettered until external pressures form the population reign its size in.
In essence this shaky balance is the compromise, and its high cost is in essence an insurance premium against social and economic collapse.
It follows that vast majority of the taxes paid are wasted. When you add in the exploitation of the system by those who do not contribute, or skim or steal, it becomes less and less of a return to the taxpayer.
While the idea of designing a government is "radical", closing off to that idea is worse. Social organization of scale has only been around for a few 1000 years or so; there's plenty more evolution to come. Its doubtful that it will be an entirely smooth transition.
When the "vast expansion" occurs, I guess we know who will be first in line:
http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/index.html
Post a Comment