OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Jenksismyhero]

This implies that cutting certain government programs/funding would, at best, not be detrimental to an economic and societal recovery. Given the context (sequester, shut down), it's a transparently bad argument; cutting funding or programs is obviously going to have a detrimental effect on society/economy. The only way it could be neutral or positive is if that money were instead shifted elsewhere (other programs, or tax cuts) and you could actually show the impacts.

 

As it is, it just looks like a shallow argument that government doesn't do anything useful so who cares if it gets cut anyway.

 

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again - i think what the house repubs are doing is stupid and dangerous. This isn't the best way to reduce spending in government. But I'm not buying the hype that this short term reduction/stoppage is going to royally screw up the recovery.

[southsider2k5]

Which country in the modern era has not been dependent on a functional and robust government?

 

I prefer all knowing and controlling to describe it.

[southsider2k5]

This implies that cutting certain government programs/funding would, at best, not be detrimental to an economic and societal recovery. Given the context (sequester, shut down), it's a transparently bad argument; cutting funding or programs is obviously going to have a detrimental effect on society/economy. The only way it could be neutral or positive is if that money were instead shifted elsewhere (other programs, or tax cuts) and you could actually show the impacts.

 

As it is, it just looks like a shallow argument that government doesn't do anything useful so who cares if it gets cut anyway.

 

Which is exactly how it was set up. The government is now methadone to the American economy.

[StrangeSox]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - i think what the house repubs are doing is stupid and dangerous. This isn't the best way to reduce spending in government. But I'm not buying the hype that this short term reduction/stoppage is going to royally screw up the recovery.

 

It is, like the sequester, a drag on the overall economy, a detriment to overall society and deeply detrimental to many individuals. I don't see anybody arguing that the shutdown will throw us back into another recession, so if that's your argument, I don't think anyone is disagreeing (*provided it doesn't go on for all that much longer). But it is absolutely doing both short- and long-term economic and social damage, and your claim was that it is not. It was stupid and damaging in a boom economy in the 90's and it's stupid and damaging in a protracted recovery today.

[StrangeSox]

Which is exactly how it was set up. The government is now methadone to the American economy.

I'm sorry that an overwhelming majority of people in our democratic society don't share your vision for a minimalist government, instead preferring a government that provides many essential services like national parks and funding for basic scientific research.

[Jenksismyhero]

They're very useful for studying genetics. They're super-cheap to breed and maintain and have such short lifespans that you can go though many generations in a relatively short period. Nothing wrong with not knowing that, but jenks' post echoed the frequent lists of "projects with silly-sounding names proves government is wasteful" that get put out by people who sit on Congressional science committess but apparently have zero understanding or zero interest in the science they're criticizing as useless and wasteful.

http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/c...esearch-no-joke

The media not covering the ins and outs of scientific research is one thing, but isn't necessarily where I was going with that first criticism. Millions of the lower-middle class and working poor have been negatively impacted by the sequester and the shut down, but their stories aren't really covered.

 

First off, stop being an ass and making assumptions about what i'm saying. I never implied that these studies are worthless.

 

Second, for the 4th time, i'm stating that I do not believe that a delay or reduction in spending on these types of studies IN THE SHORT TERM, is really that big of a deal. Obviously the people involved will pay the price, but the economy in general won't. Seriously SS, what's the harm if that research study or others like gets delayed for 2 years. Is that project creating more jobs for Americans? Is it creating technology for a new industry for American companies? No. It's a study that beneficially increases our knowledge of the world but does little to assist with the recovery. In that sense, I'm asking why it's such a big deal, especially if we can take those funds and IN THE SHORT TERM apply it to more beneficial programs for creating jobs or giving people some of their money back in the form of tax breaks/credits.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

First off, stop being an ass and making assumptions about what i'm saying. I never implied that these studies are worthless.

 

You actually have and continue to argue that these studies are economically worthless. That is literally what you are arguing here.

 

Second, for the 4th time, i'm stating that I do not believe that a delay or reduction in spending on these types of studies IN THE SHORT TERM, is really that big of a deal. Obviously the people involved will pay the price, but the economy in general won't. Seriously SS, what's the harm if that research study or others like gets delayed for 2 years. Is that project creating more jobs for Americans? Is it creating technology for a new industry for American companies? No. It's a study that beneficially increases our knowledge of the world but does little to assist with the recovery.

 

On what are you basing any of these assertions? Seriously, why do you believe that it isn't a big deal to delay research for a few years, that this research doesn't provide jobs and won't lead to technological developments?

 

Does a fruit fly study directly lead to marketable technology? No, basic research usually doesn't. But it's the groundwork on which more practical and technological research and development is done, and to that extent, delaying and cancelling research obviously has a negative impact on our economic and societal future.

 

 

In that sense, I'm asking why it's such a big deal,

 

because it's dumb, short-sighted, immediately and long-term detrimental and is being done in the stupidest way possible

 

especially if we can take those funds and IN THE SHORT TERM apply it to more beneficial programs for creating jobs or giving people some of their money back in the form of tax breaks/credits.

 

That was not part of your original statement at all. You responded to a series of posts discussing the impact on the sequester and the shut down on scientific research programs. You asked why we should care if these are shut down and implied that it is somehow linked to the economic recovery.

 

That aside, there's still a couple of problems here. Namely, we don't actually have to cut funding from scientific research (or any other given program) in order to fund jobs programs or give out tax credits. We can also look at economic research and data to determine what the most useful expenditures are, both short- and long-term. Undermining substantial scientific research is going to be terrible long-term, and the economic benefits of tax cuts are pretty minimal at the federal level.

[NorthSideSox72]

Let's be clear about the "dependency" on federal government here...

 

1. As stated earlier, having a stable and effective federal government being necessary to a stable economy is not new, nor unique to the United States.

 

2. The federal government is NOT, in terms of people employed, larger now than it has been. In fact it is quite the opposite. Per OPM data, starting from the early 60's (there doesn't appear to be reliable data before then)... the number of federal employees peaked in the late 60's at approximately 6.6 million, then dropped pretty consistenly (except for a brief spike during the socialist Reagan years in the mid-late 80's) down to a low of about 4.1 million in the mid-2000's. It has now gone up slightly from there to about 4.3 million. In other words, even leaving out the rise in population, the number of people employed by the federal government has dropped some 30% or more since the 60's, and as a percentage of population would have dropped closer to 40-50%.

 

3. In terms of federal SPENDING, it is useful to look at the number as a percentage of GDP, over time, to gauge total economic impact. According to usgovernmentspending.com, the total federal spending vs GDP has been remarkably stable during that same period since around 1960: ranges 17% to 25%, currently in the low 20's. In fact a general trend line since the 80's shows nearly level. It CAN be noted the levels were much lower prior to WWI - it is the period from the late 1910's to the mid-1940's that saw by far the biggest increases. In any case, federal spending as a part of the economy has changed very little in the past 50 years.

 

4. In terms of revenue, the total federal income tax revenue taken in has also been pretty stable over time in the past 50 years, but with a slight downward trend (as a percentage of GDP). Individual income tax revenues are identical to 50 years ago, but business taxes are lower, again as a percentage of GDP.

 

So really, if there is some much larger dependence on federal government than previously, it sure as heck hasn't been in the past 50 years. The federal government employees substantially fewer people, spends about as much and takes in slightly less as a percentage of the economy. One could even argue the problem is that taxes are too low, from this data.

 

If there is a feeling of there being more federal government control now than previously, it does not appear to be financial in nature.

 

Just wanted to set the baseline data here.

 

[EvilMonkey]

Could always take the money spend closing open air national monuments and fund a few science projects.............. (in half green font, if we had one)

[southsider2k5]

I'm sorry that an overwhelming majority of people in our democratic society don't share your vision for a minimalist government, instead preferring a government that provides many essential services like national parks and funding for basic scientific research.

 

National Parks are great. I use mine very regularly, but essential? Um, ok.

[StrangeSox]

National Parks are great. I use mine very regularly, but essential? Um, ok.

 

Should have said "important" there.

 

Regardless, few share your vision of a minimalist government that has a non-measurable impact on the national economy. I don't even know how that'd be possible for any country in the industrialized world, let alone for a country that's one of if not the most technologically advanced, has the world's largest economy and military, is physically as large as it is and has over 300 million inhabitants.

[StrangeSox]

Let's be clear about the "dependency" on federal government here...

 

1. As stated earlier, having a stable and effective federal government being necessary to a stable economy is not new, nor unique to the United States.

 

2. The federal government is NOT, in terms of people employed, larger now than it has been. In fact it is quite the opposite. Per OPM data, starting from the early 60's (there doesn't appear to be reliable data before then)... the number of federal employees peaked in the late 60's at approximately 6.6 million, then dropped pretty consistenly (except for a brief spike during the socialist Reagan years in the mid-late 80's) down to a low of about 4.1 million in the mid-2000's. It has now gone up slightly from there to about 4.3 million. In other words, even leaving out the rise in population, the number of people employed by the federal government has dropped some 30% or more since the 60's, and as a percentage of population would have dropped closer to 40-50%.

 

3. In terms of federal SPENDING, it is useful to look at the number as a percentage of GDP, over time, to gauge total economic impact. According to usgovernmentspending.com, the total federal spending vs GDP has been remarkably stable during that same period since around 1960: ranges 17% to 25%, currently in the low 20's. In fact a general trend line since the 80's shows nearly level. It CAN be noted the levels were much lower prior to WWI - it is the period from the late 1910's to the mid-1940's that saw by far the biggest increases. In any case, federal spending as a part of the economy has changed very little in the past 50 years.

 

4. In terms of revenue, the total federal income tax revenue taken in has also been pretty stable over time in the past 50 years, but with a slight downward trend (as a percentage of GDP). Individual income tax revenues are identical to 50 years ago, but business taxes are lower, again as a percentage of GDP.

 

So really, if there is some much larger dependence on federal government than previously, it sure as heck hasn't been in the past 50 years. The federal government employees substantially fewer people, spends about as much and takes in slightly less as a percentage of the economy. One could even argue the problem is that taxes are too low, from this data.

 

If there is a feeling of there being more federal government control now than previously, it does not appear to be financial in nature.

 

Just wanted to set the baseline data here.

 

Thanks for this post.

[Jenksismyhero]

You actually have and continue to argue that these studies are economically worthless. That is literally what you are arguing here.

 

 

 

On what are you basing any of these assertions? Seriously, why do you believe that it isn't a big deal to delay research for a few years, that this research doesn't provide jobs and won't lead to technological developments?

 

Does a fruit fly study directly lead to marketable technology? No, basic research usually doesn't. But it's the groundwork on which more practical and technological research and development is done, and to that extent, delaying and cancelling research obviously has a negative impact on our economic and societal future.

 

 

 

 

because it's dumb, short-sighted, immediately and long-term detrimental and is being done in the stupidest way possible

 

 

 

That was not part of your original statement at all. You responded to a series of posts discussing the impact on the sequester and the shut down on scientific research programs. You asked why we should care if these are shut down and implied that it is somehow linked to the economic recovery.

 

That aside, there's still a couple of problems here. Namely, we don't actually have to cut funding from scientific research (or any other given program) in order to fund jobs programs or give out tax credits. We can also look at economic research and data to determine what the most useful expenditures are, both short- and long-term. Undermining substantial scientific research is going to be terrible long-term, and the economic benefits of tax cuts are pretty minimal at the federal level.

 

Ugh, i'm done arguing with you. You're not even paying attention to what i'm saying. There is a very big difference in arguing that scientific research projects are worthless (not my argument, at all) and scientific research being delayed isn't necessarily going to have a negative effect on the economy (my argument).

 

[southsider2k5]

Should have said "important" there.

 

Regardless, few share your vision of a minimalist government that has a non-measurable impact on the national economy. I don't even know how that'd be possible for any country in the industrialized world, let alone for a country that's one of if not the most technologically advanced, has the world's largest economy and military, is physically as large as it is and has over 300 million inhabitants.

 

I think we can do better than to have a population beholden to their federal government. If this demonstration of power and control hasn't bothered you, there isn't much point in discussion.

[NorthSideSox72]

Thanks for this post.

Glad someone read it. I suspect some folks would prefer not to face the actual data.

 

And the data doesn't necessarily mean there isn't some increase in federal control going on - it just isn't about the size, or financial impact, of that federal government. For example, one might argue the feds are trying to regulate a lot more different things than they used to - and I'd tend to agree. But they are doing it with fewer resources, so they probably aren't as effective at any of them. One might also argue over privacy, which is another matter.

 

But the idea that the US economy is more dependent on the federal government now versus 10, 30 or 50 years ago, is just not founded in fact.

 

[StrangeSox]

Ugh, i'm done arguing with you. You're not even paying attention to what i'm saying. There is a very big difference in arguing that scientific research projects are worthless (not my argument, at all) and scientific research being delayed isn't necessarily going to have a negative effect on the economy (my argument).

 

If cutting scientific projects will not have a negative effect, that is, by definition, assigning them an economic worth of "zero" or less than zero.

[StrangeSox]

Glad someone read it. I suspect some folks would prefer not to face the actual data.

 

And the data doesn't necessarily mean there isn't some increase in federal control going on - it just isn't about the size, or financial impact, of that federal government. For example, one might argue the feds are trying to regulate a lot more different things than they used to - and I'd tend to agree. But they are doing it with fewer resources, so they probably aren't as effective at any of them. One might also argue over privacy, which is another matter.

 

But the idea that the US economy is more dependent on the federal government now versus 10, 30 or 50 years ago, is just not founded in fact.

Right, you can definitely look at regulatory levels, privacy concerns, etc., but the night watchman minimalist state that ss2k5 appears to want hasn't existed in a modern developed country ever, and certainly didn't exist in the US within the last century.

[StrangeSox]

I think we can do better than to have a population beholden to their federal government. If this demonstration of power and control hasn't bothered you, there isn't much point in discussion.

 

The government is beholden to the people. More than can, I think we must have a robust federal government that provides many services to many people and which would be economically harmful if it were dismantled if we are to be a modern democratic state with a powerful economy. I see nothing bothersome about having a significantly large government such that substantial cuts to that government would cause real harm.

 

Can you lay out a basic framework for the type of government you envision such that it's expenditures are insignificant to the economy as a whole?

[EvilMonkey]

Let's be clear about the "dependency" on federal government here...

 

1. As stated earlier, having a stable and effective federal government being necessary to a stable economy is not new, nor unique to the United States.

 

2. The federal government is NOT, in terms of people employed, larger now than it has been. In fact it is quite the opposite. Per OPM data, starting from the early 60's (there doesn't appear to be reliable data before then)... the number of federal employees peaked in the late 60's at approximately 6.6 million, then dropped pretty consistenly (except for a brief spike during the socialist Reagan years in the mid-late 80's) down to a low of about 4.1 million in the mid-2000's. It has now gone up slightly from there to about 4.3 million. In other words, even leaving out the rise in population, the number of people employed by the federal government has dropped some 30% or more since the 60's, and as a percentage of population would have dropped closer to 40-50%.

 

3. In terms of federal SPENDING, it is useful to look at the number as a percentage of GDP, over time, to gauge total economic impact. According to usgovernmentspending.com, the total federal spending vs GDP has been remarkably stable during that same period since around 1960: ranges 17% to 25%, currently in the low 20's. In fact a general trend line since the 80's shows nearly level. It CAN be noted the levels were much lower prior to WWI - it is the period from the late 1910's to the mid-1940's that saw by far the biggest increases. In any case, federal spending as a part of the economy has changed very little in the past 50 years.

 

4. In terms of revenue, the total federal income tax revenue taken in has also been pretty stable over time in the past 50 years, but with a slight downward trend (as a percentage of GDP). Individual income tax revenues are identical to 50 years ago, but business taxes are lower, again as a percentage of GDP.

 

So really, if there is some much larger dependence on federal government than previously, it sure as heck hasn't been in the past 50 years. The federal government employees substantially fewer people, spends about as much and takes in slightly less as a percentage of the economy. One could even argue the problem is that taxes are too low, from this data.

 

If there is a feeling of there being more federal government control now than previously, it does not appear to be financial in nature.

 

Just wanted to set the baseline data here.

If it would have been written by myself of Jenks, SS would be screaming for links right about now.

[EvilMonkey]

I'm sorry that an overwhelming majority of people in our democratic society don't share your vision for a minimalist government, instead preferring a government that provides many essential services like national parks and funding for basic scientific research.

Can you back that up with a link? Just wondering what your definition of 'overwhelming' is.

[bmags]

If it would have been written by myself of Jenks, SS would be screaming for links right about now.

 

Aw, so persecuted.

[StrangeSox]

If it would have been written by myself of Jenks, SS would be screaming for links right about now.

 

I don't think I'd be demanding a link from you or jenks if you made a substantial post (which did include a reference to your data source if not a direct link) that undermined your own arguments.

[EvilMonkey]

I don't think I'd be demanding a link from you or jenks if you made a substantial post (which did include a reference to your data source if not a direct link) that undermined your own arguments.

Well you made a pretty bold claim, back it up please.

[StrangeSox]

Can you back that up with a link? Just wondering what your definition of 'overwhelming' is.

Most people aren't supportive of a minimalist libertarian-style government or a government that is so small that it has a negligible impact on the national economy. You can look to numerous polls on the support for various large-scale government programs (medicare/medicaid, social security, military). I could point you to the NSF's summary of public opinion on science funding, but, shutdown.

 

You can also just look at the political platforms people run on and are elected for. While plenty of conservatives run on a platform of "smaller government," few run on a platform of "virtually no government" and even less (if any) win. Also, many people respond generically in favor of "smaller government," but are much less likely to agree on cutting a specific program. Part of that may be from not knowing or understanding what government actually spends on what, e.g. huge public overestimation of how much we spend on foreign aid.

 

I'm not saying an overwhelming majority of people support the policies I believe in or want a government that's even as big as it currently is, just that few want a government as small as ss2k5 is arguing for.

Edited October 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Well you made a pretty bold claim, back it up please.

 

That was a post by NSS? I didn't make a claim about it except to say "thanks"