Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ShumaGorath wrote:

It's been a while since I've heard the Somolia "argument."

And it's been like four hours since I heard the "Cut the government to nothing" argument. I wish it could stop.

I never said cut it to nothing.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Would you care to address the issue of an ever-expanding government? If president X institutes a policy that costs $1 trillion a year, what obligation do future presidents have to maintain and further support that policy, especially if it isn't effective? If they cut that program, should they institute a new $1 trillion/year program to maintain government spending?

Ideally every president from the beginning of this nations history should grow the budget inkeeping with inflation, otherwise the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function. This is an unrealistic expectation as wars or social programs can force a raise and higher then average economic growth can induce a relative fall. Writing a number in the sand then cutting it by 10% arbitrarily and calling it a cut "because it's smaller then before" implies a direct lack of understanding of the subject matter.

You edited your post after I responded to you to add that bit.

Anyway, since I lack understanding of the subject matter, could you explain how our government would lose the ability to function if we reduced spending by 10%? And I'm not talking about specific programs that would have to be cut (obviously if you cut the Ministry of Silly Walks the government would cease to develop and license new and effective Silly Walks), I'm talking total dissolution of the government, dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

biccat wrote:
Yes, there's a distinction between GDP growth and a reduction in spending. However, I pointed out that your chart shows nothing about the values of either.

No, it shows tangential values which play towards the issue. Just like a statement about gross expenditure does.

biccat wrote:
A chart that shows the ratio of X to Y doesn't show anything about X or Y unless there's a predictable relationship between the two.

Wrong. It shows the relationship of X to Y, which is the characteristic relationship between the two; predictable or not.

biccat wrote:
There isn't an easily discernable relationship between GDP and spending, and therefore the most you can say about the data you provided is "spending relative to GDP has done X." This is really quite simple mathematics, I'm frankly surprised you're having such a difficult time with it.

I'm not struggling with anything, you're struggling with the idea that X can be a placeholder for "cut".

biccat wrote:
No, actually it doesn't. All it shows is variation in government spending relative to GDP. Which is irrelevant to the issue of whether government has actually cut spending.

No, it isn't. I would pontificate on why you're wrong, but you are simply incorrect. What you've just said is like saying Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity.

biccat wrote:
I'm not sure what exactly you're saying in that first sentence. Maybe you're missing some punctuation.

Nope, and I can't make it more clear. Thinking in terms of statistics is the only advice I can offer.

biccat wrote:
But like I said above, in modern America, tax revinue is independent of expenditures, and therefore is irrelevant. However, you might reasonably argue that this is a problem going forward.

Right, because no one in the present Congress has argued that the Bush tax cuts were detrimental to state revenue.

biccat wrote:
Not true. If spending were held at a fixed gross dollar amount, it would still vary widely as a percent of GDP. Expenses could have decreased year-to-year and by varying GDP accordingly, you could achieve the same result. Therefore, since we don't know anything about GDP or expenses, the information you provided cannot be used to determine actual changes to expenses.

That method also invalidates your statistics, which explains, at least in part, this discussion.

biccat wrote:
If a graph shows X/Y, then you cannot use that graph to analyze either X or Y without knowing more about either.

Good job, you just discovered the paradoxes of material implication.

biccat wrote:
It's not persuasive argument, you're arguing the fact that government outlays have never reduced year-to-year. I have proven incontrovertable evidence that this is in fact the case (at least since '68, I acknowledge that they may have reduced earlier). A fact you acknowledge following. At this point, you're simply arguing that the metric used doesn't support my contention. But since I gave the metric as part of my contention, I'm not sure what facts you're basing your argument on.

No, that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that what you initially said, that no recent President has reduced Federal expenditure, is incorrect. I've demonstrated this by way of providing a metric which illustrates the possibility of that analysis. It doesn't matter if you don't like that metric, all that matters is that it exists.

I never said cut it to nothing.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:If no president rose government spending government would collapse in line with inflation.

the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function.

It's almost like you're saying these are bad things.

This directly implies that you think the government collapsing and having it's institutions fail is good. If you're not advocating that then you need to sort out what you want to admit to wanting.

ShumaGorath wrote:Would you care to address the issue of an ever-expanding government? If president X institutes a policy that costs $1 trillion a year, what obligation do future presidents have to maintain and further support that policy, especially if it isn't effective? If they cut that program, should they institute a new $1 trillion/year program to maintain government spending?

Ideally every president from the beginning of this nations history should grow the budget inkeeping with inflation, otherwise the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function. This is an unrealistic expectation as wars or social programs can force a raise and higher then average economic growth can induce a relative fall. Writing a number in the sand then cutting it by 10% arbitrarily and calling it a cut "because it's smaller then before" implies a direct lack of understanding of the subject matter.

ShumaGorath wrote:I never said cut it to nothing.

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:If no president rose government spending government would collapse in line with inflation.

the strength of the government wanes and it's institutions lose the ability to function.

It's almost like you're saying these are bad things.

This directly implies that you think the government collapsing and having it's institutions fail is good. If you're not advocating that then you need to sort out what you want to admit to wanting.

No, I think that the failure of certain functions the government performs collapsing is a good thing. The Department of Education for example. Or the CPB, and a host of other programs. However, in the interests of fairness, I think we should start with an across-the-board cut (yes, including the DoD) to provide some temporarily relief. Then we can start trimming specific programs.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Anyway, since I lack understanding of the subject matter, could you explain how our government would lose the ability to function if we reduced spending by 10%?

Sure. What program are you cutting? Whatever that program is can no longe work either at all or it's previous capacity, thus it is losing it's ability to function to it's previous intended purpose. Given that 10% is a rather significant cut you're looking at thousands of programs or deep cuts to some very, very big ones. Either way the government is losing capacity to administer it's functions as it had them before the cut. Since you aren't making cuts with an intended aim of reducing the budget to a certain determined level of GDP you're basically throwing darts while blind since you don't know if its enough or too much. It's just a number to you.

You're specifically ignoring my point below, so I'm going to ignore this part. However, the 10% is just a number thrown out there. The scope of the cut should be to reduce spending to approximately the level of either sustainable debt levels (assuming that the GDP and tax base will grow to support new debt) or tax receipts.

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I'm not talking about specific programs that would have to be cut (obviously if you cut the Ministry of Silly Walks the government would cease to develop and license new and effective Silly Walks), I'm talking total dissolution of the government, dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

Oh, well thats too bad. Looks like you're talking past me then since I was talking about cuts to programs and how that effects the governments ability to function. Logically if we did not increase government spending since 1960 the government would have a very difficult time functioning since its budget would be roughly equal to what the power ball winner pulls down.

I think that the government could function effectively at this level. In 1800, government spending was approximately 2% of GDP.

ShumaGorath wrote:My argument as I have now stated three times is that governments need to grow in line with their GDP growth and that cuts should be targeted to maintain a relative expense to GDP ratio.

Actually your first argument was that government spending needs to grow in line with inflation, which is very different than GDP growth. There is no reason that government needs to grow with the size of the economy. At best (worst?), there is an upper limit to the services the government supplies, and therefore it should be capped to an inflation-adjusted dollar amount.

No, I think that the failure of certain functions the government performs collapsing is a good thing. The Department of Education for example. Or the CPB, and a host of other programs.

You... Want the dept of education to collapse? So you're a book burner? The hell kind of agenda is that? Anarchist? Are you so in for home schooling that you'd basically burn down this countries science and education foundation for a repeatedly disproven and logically void ideology founded in anti communist rhetoric sixty years ago? You're hardcore.

Also, thats doesn't matter since what you actually said was that you would aprove of the government collapsing, or at the very least you acted surprised that I thought that was a bad idea. If you had more nuanced opinions you should of posted them in a full response instead of trollishly bread crumbing them along so that they can't be refuted all at once.

You're specifically ignoring my point below, so I'm going to ignore this part. However, the 10% is just a number thrown out there. The scope of the cut should be to reduce spending to approximately the level of either sustainable debt levels (assuming that the GDP and tax base will grow to support new debt) or tax receipts.

So i'm ignoring your point by giving you your point over three posts (during which time you argue against it in oblique and difficult to understand ways). It's not YOUR POINT when I'm the one making it and you tell me im ignoring you then change your line to it.

I think that the government could function effectively at this level. In 1800, government spending was approximately 2% of GDP.

In 1812 the white house was burned down by a foreign power and we were having a hard time dealing with dudes with bows and arrows. I think you're pretty wrong.

Actually your first argument was that government spending needs to grow in line with inflation, which is very different than GDP growth.

You're right. My point was pegging it to inflation and then marginally adjusting it to a correct level of GDP as determined by the situation. I mixed words slightly there. If you peg it to inflation only then you run into issues of government influence weakening in comparison to that of private industry. This isn't that bad of a thing in theory but when you don't peg government growth you run into a situation wherein the governments ability to administer to it's economy is over muscled by the big players within that economy. Take a look at the samsung group an the south korean government to know what I'm talking about.

At best (worst?), there is an upper limit to the services the government supplies, and therefore it should be capped to an inflation-adjusted dollar amount.

I think you mean "should supply" and unless you're some sort of magical psychic then thats not something you know. I'm sure you want the ideal government to be invisible and tiny (something like that magic 1800 2%), but historically thats led to either disaster or larger governments. Every strong state with high quality of life relative to the world that has maintained it for any stretch of time has always had a strong centralized government.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No, I think that the failure of certain functions the government performs collapsing is a good thing. The Department of Education for example. Or the CPB, and a host of other programs.

You... Want the dept of education to collapse? So you're a book burner? The hell kind of agenda is that? Anarchist? Are you so in for home schooling that you'd basically burn down this countries science and education foundation for a repeatedly disproven and logically void ideology founded in anti communist rhetoric sixty years ago? You're hardcore.

Yes. No. A rational one. Nope. No. And I disagree.

We didn't have a DoE before 1980, and we don't need one now. Note that I'm talking about the federal agency, not the individual state Boards of Education. There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You're specifically ignoring my point below, so I'm going to ignore this part. However, the 10% is just a number thrown out there. The scope of the cut should be to reduce spending to approximately the level of either sustainable debt levels (assuming that the GDP and tax base will grow to support new debt) or tax receipts.

So i'm ignoring your point by giving you your point over three posts (during which time you argue against it in oblique and difficult to understand ways). It's not YOUR POINT when I'm the one making it and you tell me im ignoring you then change your line to it.

No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.

ShumaGorath wrote:

I think that the government could function effectively at this level. In 1800, government spending was approximately 2% of GDP.

In 1812 the white house was burned down by a foreign power and we were having a hard time dealing with dudes with bows and arrows. I think you're pretty wrong.

Note that the "foreign power" was actually the world's superpower at the time.

ShumaGorath wrote:You're right. My point was pegging it to inflation and then marginally adjusting it to a correct level of GDP as determined by the situation. I mixed words slightly there. If you peg it to inflation only then you run into issues of government influence weakening in comparison to that of private industry. This isn't that bad of a thing in theory but when you don't peg government growth you run into a situation wherein the governments ability to administer to it's economy is over muscled by the big players within that economy. Take a look at the samsung group an the south korean government to know what I'm talking about.

You'll have to be a little more specific about Samsung and South Korea and how this supports your point.

ShumaGorath wrote:

At best (worst?), there is an upper limit to the services the government supplies, and therefore it should be capped to an inflation-adjusted dollar amount.

I think you mean "should supply" and unless you're some sort of magical psychic then thats not something you know.

Yes, you're right, I meant "should supply." And I'm not saying I know it, but rather that it is a realistic cap of services a government can efficiently supply. Past this point, spending is inefficient and you're only spending money for the sake of spending money. If your goal is to provide a public sector as a counterbalance to the private sector this is a good thing. Otherwise, it's not.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm sure you want the ideal government to be invisible and tiny (something like that magic 1800 2%), but historically thats led to either disaster or larger governments. Every strong state with high quality of life relative to the world that has maintained it for any stretch of time has always had a strong centralized government.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "strong state," "high quality of life" and "stretch of time." The Roman Empire operated efficiently without deficit spending and with relatively low tax rates (approx. 5%). I think that under any comparison, they would be a strong state with a relatively high quality of life that existed for a stretch of time.

In contrast, modern large governments with massive welfare spending have only been around for (at best) 100 years.

Yes. No. A rational one. Nope. No. And I disagree.

We didn't have a DoE before 1980, and we don't need one now. Note that I'm talking about the federal agency, not the individual state Boards of Education. There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.

Care to state a reason?

No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.

And I never said that a 10% cut would cause the government to fail. So either I'm ignoring you or you're making a ridiculous strawman. Since I responded to every one of your points I think it's the second thingy.

Note that the "foreign power" was actually the world's superpower at the time.

They also had a strong central government. Noticing a trend?

You'll have to be a little more specific about Samsung and South Korea and how this supports your point.

The samsung group makes up roughly a quarter the south korean economy and has repeatedly ignored government authority because it is effectively to large and important for the government to regulate. On numerous occasions it has been caught evading taxes, discriminating, and violating just about every business law SK has. It's heads have been jailed ineffectually and they are always back on top of the company in their nice big skyscraper homes within a matter of days. The samsung group is a multinational conglomerate that among other things is the worlds largest ship builder and manufacturer of toothpaste (aside from all the tech stuff they do). The south korean government is not powerful enough to regulate its economy, and thus it's laws are ignored by the powerful players. There are many, many small state examples of this, usually involving natural resource based companies, but thats usually in south east asia or africa.

Yes, you're right, I meant "should supply." And I'm not saying I know it, but rather that it is a realistic cap of services a government can efficiently supply.

There is no "It". You never gave a cap, you just stated the vague point that there is an up end to the services a government can/should give. It can't be realistic if you don't have any idea what it is.

Past this point, spending is inefficient and you're only spending money for the sake of spending money. If your goal is to provide a public sector as a counterbalance to the private sector this is a good thing. Otherwise, it's not.

I have not in any of these posts espoused "spending money for the sake of spending money". Another strawman.

You'll have to explain what you mean by "strong state," "high quality of life" and "stretch of time." The Roman Empire operated efficiently without deficit spending and with relatively low tax rates (approx. 5%).

The roman tax was significantly higher then the taxes levied in albion or the gothic territories. Higher then most other states at the time in fact. The greeks kept low tax rates funded by war spoils, as did the mongols. But we're not talking about largely agrarian economies whose taxes largely exist to fund war efforts that fund themselves through plunder, are we? Look at the tax rates of Great Britain, the Chinese, the united states, France, etc. The proven successful world powers who lived in a globally connected economic world with cars and medicine n' stuff.

Theres a weird American obsession with comparing us to Rome. We're better then Rome, we have space ships and we don't use lead bowls to eat out of.

In contrast, modern large governments with massive welfare spending have only been around for (at best) 100 years.

Alongside concepts such as universal education, life expectancies breaching 70, the elimination of hunger (in said states), the upward curve of technological innovation (from the wright brothers to landing on the moon in less then a century), globalization, and the generation of global wealth unlike what was seen in any century before.

It's as if the last century was a hell of a lot better then the ones before it, despite the communist rise and fall and multiple world wars.

There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.

If having an accepted standard is a bad thing. Of course, it's not like the DoE we have can actually achieve that end since it lacks the money to even try and I don't think it even has the power to reach that end other than to give everyone a pointless multiple choice test where you can know barely anything and guess half the answers.

further extension of tax cuts for the upper middle class, reduced defense spending. Seriously reduced dense spending seems to be a good way to get the government back on track, but it takes time large scale troop withdrawal after the surge is a set in the right direction. I don't think anyone can honestly think elimination social programs as a means to assist in finding a solution to the national debt crisis can be taken seriously... again Tax Cuts and reduced Government spending seems to be a logical solution.

biccat wrote:
We didn't have a DoE before 1980, and we don't need one now. Note that I'm talking about the federal agency, not the individual state Boards of Education. There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.

We've had a DoE equivalent since ~1870.

DasFluspferd wrote: further extension of tax cuts for the upper middle class, reduced defense spending. Seriously reduced dense spending seems to be a good way to get the government back on track, but it takes time large scale troop withdrawal after the surge is a set in the right direction. I don't think anyone can honestly think elimination social programs as a means to assist in finding a solution to the national debt crisis can be taken seriously... again Tax Cuts and reduced Government spending seems to be a logical solution.

Funny how our taxes are under what they were for clinton when we were drawing a surplus and had robust growth. Why espouse taxes when they are at their lowest point in 30 years and are a direct and major contributor to our debt? The tax boogeyman?

biccat wrote:
In contrast, modern large governments with massive welfare spending have only been around for (at best) 100 years.

Roughly 140, actually. Bismarck and all that.

ShumaGorath wrote:Care to state a reason?

A reason for us to have a Department of Education? OK, how about "to protect public education employees and provide redundant and unnecessary services."

No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.

And I never said that a 10% cut would cause the government to fail. So either I'm ignoring you or you're making a ridiculous strawman. Since I responded to every one of your points I think it's the second thingy.

Note that the "foreign power" was actually the world's superpower at the time.

They also had a strong central government. Noticing a trend?

US central government budget spending has averaged 20.73% of GDP since 1974.

Unfortunately income has averaged 18.2% of GDP over the same period.

If our politiions werent such crooks, we wouldnt have this problem. Take Rick Perry for example(yes I do live in texas and would have voted for him if I was old enough) he started his carrier with next to nothing, and is suppolst to make very little income (enough to support him and his fammily but not much more) as a polition, he now has a masion and several million dollars to his name, the math does not add up, wered the money come from? take a guess, its said that the first year any person begins a carrier in politics, they will comit a crime. its not just Rick, the governer of Texas, look a swartisnager, and that other dude who resigned of a scandle resantly whose name I cant remeber.

They're all crooks, and they need to go, fix that and US will have payed off its debt with in a year.

Can't we all just agree to drive the American economy into the ground like GW is doing to Failhammer?

A reason for us to have a Department of Education? OK, how about "to protect public education employees and provide redundant and unnecessary services."

Thats not a reason, thats something pulled from the tag line of a free republic newsletter. It wasn't even capitalized.

No, I asked, apart from government not functioning in areas designated to agencies that are abolished, how would government fail? You responded by saying that government couldn't function in areas designated to agencies that are abolished.

No, you didn't.

Anyway, since I lack understanding of the subject matter, could you explain how our government would lose the ability to function if we reduced spending by 10%?

You strawmanned, now you're back pedaling. That doesn't work when you don't edit your older posts.

In fact, total spending was around 20% of GDP in 1800, 27% by 1812, and dropped off to 19% by 1818. In fact, it wouldn't clear 20% again until 1915. One wonders what could have caused such a boom.

Probably a chart that doesn't include taxation from colonies.

Are you talking about Lee Kun-hee, who was indicted (not convicted) on tax evasion. He was forced to resign, give up a lot of money, pay back taxes...and yet you identify it as a problem?

On July 16, 2008, The New York Times reported that the Seoul Central District Court found him guilty on charges of financial wrongdoing and tax evasion. Prosecutors requested that Lee be sentenced to seven years in prison and fined $347 million. The court fined him $109 million and sentenced him to 3 years suspended jail time. Lee has not responded to the verdict.

Yeah. Him. Read farther down the page next time to avoid looking like you're just posting the first cached thing in google.

BS. I know that there's a leading edge to the expansion of the universe. Simply because I can't articulate it's value doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

.... So you're comparing your psychic knowledge of the top end of an ill defined political ideological end point to a theoretical and ill defined physical theorem? Thats impressive.

Government has very little that it does to generate wealth. After that, spending is inefficient and destroys wealth. As government takes on more and more roles, it becomes increasingly less efficient.

You're getting a lot of mileage from the newsletter.

It's not a straw man, and I never said that someone was "spending money to spend money." Yes, there are things past a certain point where the government can expand. But it doesn't make any sense for it to do so, unless (and that's an important part of the argument) the purpose is to spend money for the sake of growing government, not providing more services.

Tell that to china or industrial revolution russia. Heavy government intrusion has historically and in many cases greatly accelerated the formation of wealth. The aim of governmental growth is to do whatever the aim is, there is no basic law that says that past a point all you're doing is spending money. Thats purely ideological bunk.

Like post-WWII America, the period showing the the greatest expansion of personal wealth in the history of the world? You're just changing what you mean by "great".

Yes, like that. Great is a relative term. I noted that when I first brought it up.

I don't think there are very many parallels between the US and Rome. I was simply pointing out that Rome had a smallish government, low taxes, and was the greatest empire in the history of mankind.

It wasn't the biggest, longest lived, most technologically advanced or fastest advancing, didn't have the greatest quality of life, etc. See, this is the BS American obsession with rome cropping back up again.

And those living under their control enjoyed a standard of life far superior to that held anywhere else at the time.

Thats plainly wrong.

For Europe, the 19th century was a hell of a lot better than the ones before it. Same with the 17th. And 16th. Although you have to move to Muslim nations if you want to go further back.

The advancement was slow and trends such as longevity or levels of starvation fluctuated on average from century to century. The 19th wasn't bad, but the 20th pushes off a cliff. Globalization, socialism, and technological advancement through the modern scientific method are a really functional combination that ensures stability, wealth, and new economic forms beyond agrarian or industrial.

biccat wrote:
BS. I know that there's a leading edge to the expansion of the universe. Simply because I can't articulate it's value doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Well, no, you don't; because no one knows that. Considering that fact in light of your analogy, well...let's just sya it changes your meaning significantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:
If having an accepted standard is a bad thing. Of course, it's not like the DoE we have can actually achieve that end since it lacks the money to even try and I don't think it even has the power to reach that end other than to give everyone a pointless multiple choice test where you can know barely anything and guess half the answers.

Even if it is a bad thing, there might still be a reason to have a DoE.

Saying that there is no reason for X to exist is a pretty difficult thing to argue, just like any other usage of the concept "no".

LordofHats wrote:

There's very little reason to have a centralized Department of Education.

If having an accepted standard is a bad thing. Of course, it's not like the DoE we have can actually achieve that end since it lacks the money to even try and I don't think it even has the power to reach that end other than to give everyone a pointless multiple choice test where you can know barely anything and guess half the answers.

It doesn't provide standards. It just employs bureaucrats who generate paper for no benefit.

Frazzled wrote:
It doesn't provide standards. It just employs bureaucrats who generate paper for no benefit.

The existence of No Child Left Behind contradicts the first part of your assertion. Whether or not NCLB is beneficial is another matter.