|
Dean's new economic proposal (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| NeoPhono |
Not ignoring your question, but posing another.
Can anyone give me an example of where big governement has done something effectively and beneficially for the United States?
I can honestly only think of one, and that is the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. I believe it is the only thing that the government has done on a large scale that has actually worked. To me, welfare, social security, medicade/care etc, have all been utter disasters, although I'm assuming some of you would disagree? I'm interested to see if any of you acutally would concur with Dean's "return" to big governemnt. (Sorry, just a liberatrian spewing his madness :) ) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Bigger government = More infringements on individual rights = more power in the hands of a few. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Not ignoring your question, but posing another.
Can anyone give me an example of where big governement has done something effectively and beneficially for the United States?
|
Well you have the post office too. The United States postal office actually makes money for the government too, and is alsmot self-sufficient. It does fairly well in competing with other big corporate names too.
Thats about all I can think of.
As for deregulation I'd say it helps consumers, not the industry:
Airlines for one; and there are some airlines like SouthWestern and Continental that are doing just fine, thank you very much.
Utilities - aside from the scandals, we're getting cheaper phone service and cheaper electricity, cool no?
Wall Street - investors can now put their money into the markets themsleves with low commision fees, pretty damn cool now not only the rich can make money on their money.
Thats just the few I can think of... which other industries have been deregulated? |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Bigger government = More infringements on individual rights = more power in the hands of a few. |
So then Bush's actions for the past several years as president must surely upset you right? ;)
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/...ment030922.html
| quote: | W A S H I N G T O N, Sept. 22— In the midst of debate about the additional $87 billion President Bush has requested for operations in Iraq, last week his administration announced the creation of more government jobs at the Commerce Department.
As promised, on a Labor Day swing through bellwether state Ohio, Bush announced the creation of a commerce assistant secretary for manufacturing. Secretary of Commerce Don Evans also said that his department would also create an office of industry analysis as well as an unfair trade practices team.
For many fiscal conservatives, the moves were disappointing, but not surprising. Under Bush, they say, the era of big government is back.
As a presidential candidate, then-Gov. Bush had strong words on the subject of big government. "Big government is not the answer," he said in his nomination acceptance speech at the Republican convention on August 13, 2000. "I trust people; I don't trust the federal government," he said in an October 17, 2000, debate with then-Vice President Al Gore.
But President Bush's record indicates quite a different view. On the size of government, a recent study by New York University and the Brookings Institution shows there are 1 million more actual government workers today than in 1999. That brings the total to more than 12 million — the most since the Cold War ended.
"If Bush managed the Texas Rangers like he's managing government, you'd just see this whole group of people on the field including lots and lots of coaches and deputy coaches and under-deputy coaches and assistant deputy coaches — but you wouldn't be winning very many baseball games," said Paul C. Light, who authored the NYU/Brookings report.
Cost of Government Also Up
President Clinton declared the "era of big government is over," but the report notes that "some of the post-1999 growth occurred in the final year of the Clinton administration."
However, the report states, "most of the 1.1 million new on- and off-budget jobs appear to reflect increased spending since the Bush administration entered office. Many of these jobs have been added at agencies involved in the war on terrorism, but many have also been added at domestic agencies such as Health and Human Services."
And it's not just the size — the cost of government is also up. Discretionary spending on transportation and other non-military items increased by 21 percent under Bush. The taxpayer watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste also says pork barrel spending is up 48 percent since 2001.
The Congressional Budget Office has projected deficits totaling $1.5 trillion over the decade. While the conservative Heritage Foundation recently blamed a poorly performing economy, the president's tax cuts, and increases in defense spending as having factored into these unprecedented deficits, it also concluded that "one cannot overlook the largest domestic spending spree since the Great Society."
Actions Don’t Match Words
While Bush constantly calls upon Congress to exhibit fiscal restraint, political observers say he has yet to truly push the issue.
At around this time in his presidency, Ronald Reagan had vetoed 22 spending bills. Bush has vetoed none.
Some growth in the government work force is in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. But the fastest growth is in jobs, not spending related to defense and terrorism.
Fiscal conservatives are disappointed in the president.
"President Bush's actions haven't matched his words," says Chris Edwards, director of fiscal policy for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "In fact, he has asked for very large spending increases in areas like education and farm subsidies, transportation and veterans' affairs, and of course defense."
‘Like a Man With a Week to Live’
"In general, Bush has been spending money like a man with a week to live," wrote National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg in a recent column. "The GOP-led Congress deserves some blame, too. But even when they overspend above his overspending, Bush refuses to use his veto power."
Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan recently wrote that, "if we don't cut spending drastically and reform entitlements, we're going to be crushed by taxation in the not-so-distant future."
Soon, Bush is expected to sign prescription drug legislation — the biggest government health care program since the 1960s. After that will come a major federal highway bill. |
|
|
|
| Shakka |
I won't say that they upset me, but I'd certainly prefer less gov't than more. I do appreciate the tax cuts--I'd like to see some gov't cuts to match. Certainly, if geopolitical circumstances were different, I doubt that the Bush administration would have pursued some of the actions that they have due to the whole terror issue, but I guess that goes without saying.
With regards to the deregulation thing--airlines routinely lose money due to the fact that they are heavily unionized. If not for massive government bailouts and subsidies, most of them would go under. They almost always operate in the red. As for some of the newer low-cost airlines like Southwest, Airtran, Jetblue, and Song (and most recently Ted--what a stupid name for an airline!)--well, they're not unionized and they seem to be doing quite well for themselves. Air transportation is simply too important to us though and some industries simply need the government backing to operate smoothly. Just have to take the bad with the good I guess.
As far as deregulation goes, at least in theory and in a more laissez-faire system, it should lead to more direct healthy competition, which ideally leads to better innovation, which ultimately should benefit everyone in the long haul (with the exception of those that fail to innovate). The industries should benefit as well as new products would command better prices, which would hopefully have higher profit margins. Just my quick 2 cents. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
As far as deregulation goes, at least in theory and in a more laissez-faire system, it should lead to more direct healthy competition, which ideally leads to better innovation, which ultimately should benefit everyone in the long haul (with the exception of those that fail to innovate). The industries should benefit as well as new products would command better prices, which would hopefully have higher profit margins. Just my quick 2 cents. |
I've stated this some time ago - I agree with you here when you state in theory. I believe in theory there is good overall production and stability to a society. The reality, however, seems to be something much worse. You only need to draw upon the deregulatory and privatization policies of WTO and IMF to see the harsh realities of overcharging poor countries for their water, electricity, etc.
My question, however, is I wondered if this reality always the case. Some good examples were given to state otherwise. Thanks. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
I've stated this some time ago - I agree with you here when you state in theory. I believe in theory there is good overall production and stability to a society. The reality, however, seems to be something much worse. You only need to draw upon the deregulatory and privatization policies of WTO and IMF to see the harsh realities of overcharging poor countries for their water, electricity, etc.
My question, however, is I wondered if this reality always the case. Some good examples were given to state otherwise. Thanks. |
You're an old fogie, c'mon you don't remember the glory days of Ma Bell and Pan Am??? Also the trucking industry is considered to be an excellent model for an industry that underwent successful deregulation. Eh, it has its failures and its successes. It all depends on how careful you deregulate the industry ... a watchful eye must be kept on oligopoly practices as the industry transforms itself into a perfect competititon market. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| Current efforts underway to try to deregulate the telecom sector would be good in the long run as far as advancing new technology and getting broadband to more people, however there is a lot of lobbying against it and the FCC really f'd up in February when they decided to not completely eliminate UNE-P. I think it's going to be an inevitability, but for now the RBOCs/ILECs will continue to bleed money to the CLECs. I guess the regulation gives consumers a slightly lower cost on long-distance, but the cost is that there's no real incentive for the RBOCs to invest in new technologies which would be more beneficial to all in the long run. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You're an old fogie, c'mon you don't remember the glory days of Ma Bell and Pan Am??? |
Ahh the yesteryears.
LOL. |
|
|
| rizen |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Don't confuse the merits of deregulation with the errors of how derregulation is implemented. |
true ;)
also as for a "new era of big government", Bush has increase government alot more than clinton, and probably alot more if he gets reelected :( |
|
|
| DaveSaenz |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
c'mon you don't remember the glory days of Pan Am??? |
Ah good ol' Pan Am...I feel sorry for all those who bought Pan Am tickets to the moon.:stongue: |
|
|
| devonian rabbit |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Can anyone give me an example of where big governement has done something effectively and beneficially for the United States? |
the creation of the internet
richard |
|
|
|
|
