Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-15-2004, 08:50 PM   #1 (permalink)
Mencken
 
Scipio's Avatar
 
Location: College
Reagan quote

It strikes me that Reagan plays in the modern conservative movement a role analogous to that of FDR. Though he wasn't an intellectual, he communicated and condensed a lot of what conservative theorists had been saying for a number of years (people like Friedman and Buckley).

And now the quote, to perhaps start some conversation:

"Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."

I looked it up to make sure I got it right, and found another one that I liked:

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it "

(And if you like the man, or just want to see some of his words, you can go here.)

Before we go off talking about welfare, let us remember that it underwent considerable reform in the 90s. It's no longer a perpetual free-money handout program. There are education and work requirements attached. I'm not saying there aren't loopholes, but welfare is not the handout program it used to be.

Government efforts to reduce its own size tend to have either mixed success, or none at all!

As Reagan said:

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth! "

This is a structural political problem. When a program is cut, everyone in the country saves about $5 (or whatever small amount), but a small number of people who benefit from it, or who work in it have very big incentives to work very hard to keep the program. Even if it is wasteful or unnecessary, programs exist because they seemed like a good idea at one time.

I think it's true that some government programs are bad or wasteful, but they are inevitable in a democracy. It's the cost of the American way. Moreover, I think the proposition that government is useless while businesses are paragons of effeciency is just plain wrong. Lots of bad businesses continue to operate for various reasons. It might take 10 years for a wasteful business to finally be driven out of business. People say the government's problem is no competition. The number of failed privatization projects shows that competition isn't a simple answer. Just look at Enron. Besides, no one pretends that businesses don't go to great lengths to insulate themselves from competition and the threat of going out of business. Diversified companies have less incentive to innovate and excell, because other sectors can bear the cost of relatively poor performance.

Ok, I'll shut up now.
__________________
"Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."
Scipio is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 05:32 AM   #2 (permalink)
Muffled
 
Kadath's Avatar
 
Location: Camazotz
Being a political speechwriter must be tough. The politicians get credit for all your best lines.

To make it as simple as possible, the government's problem is size. Too many levels of useless management make it impossible to get anything done. At least that was the case when I worked there.
__________________
it's quiet in here
Kadath is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 05:54 AM   #3 (permalink)
Insane
 
Big bureaucratic businesses can linger for a while, yea maybe even 10 years, before someone buys them or they go out of business, but little inefficient ones go bye-bye fast.

The federal government is so big, it really can't be expected to do anything very well.

I think we ought to put a cap on the size of the beast. Force it to remain funded at a certain % of GDP and only allow that % to move up and down with a national vote. That way, if it has a good new idea, it has to find funding for the new idea by cutting funding to an old one that isn't working very well.

Ronnie would have liked this.

Thanks for listening.
wwcd101 is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 02:03 PM   #4 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
wwcd101- Your ideas are sound. However, we live in a society of entitlement- and I don't just mean government entitlement. We feel as though we're entitled to Cable TV, or the Internet, or Thai Delivery food. We feel like we've earned the right to relax and watch "24" or "The West Wing" because we work hard.

Why is this important? As time keeps going, new stuff is invented, and new entitlements created. Everyone's going on Atkins now- it must be safe! If it wasn't, the government would tell me! Zicam can't really cure a cold, can it? Why doesn't the government find out if this is a scam? Terrorists are utilizing e-mail! We'd better track it! Bob Dole can't get it up any more? Write him a prescription for Viagra! These are all issues the government has seen fit to dabble in the last few years- and none of these issues were present a decade ago. (Okay, Bob Dole still couldn't get it up...) So how do we pay for the government to test Atkins, Zicam, check billions of e-mails, and provide Bob Dole with another pen holder?

Toss in the huge boon in immigration, which we will pay for in terms of public school, lower wages, so on, and our costs will continue to rise while our.. taxes are cut? Watch that deficit...

Luckily, most Americans are starting to realize "tax and spend" isn't a Democrat thing, it's a politician thing. Democrats control jack squat nationwide, and our spending it out of freaking control. No one left to blame but terrorists.. and we feel entitled to invading Iraq and Afghanistan, too!
Tomservo is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 02:45 PM   #5 (permalink)
Psycho
 
iccky's Avatar
 
Location: Princeton, NJ
Those are good quotes, and actually my liberal Democratic political science professor has the first two pinned up to the wall. The innefficiencies of government programs and the fact that once they develop a constituency they tend to go on forever is something that liberals need to deal with, intelectually, if they want to propose realistic solutions to the county's problems. I say that as a liberal.

Of course, conservatives overstate the efficiency of big business. People forget that wile competition can spur efficiency, it can also harm it. The reason businesses merge afterall is to cut down on competition so as to more efficiently generate a profit. Frther, the ideal of competition is just that, an ideal, and it rests of several impossible assumptions, the biggest being perfect information. Theres a lot less real competition going on in the business world then conservatives would have you belive.
iccky is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 02:54 PM   #6 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Part of the success of the 90's budget surpluses were due to budget rules you described, wwcd101 - the Congress was forced to find cuts for every new program it implemented (ie, a zero balance change). Unfortunately this budget rule expired in '01, and with no "divided power" government, there is a no-holds-bar feeding frenzy going on the past 3 years, and no check on the excesses of the Republicans.

Kerry in '04
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 03-16-2004, 06:41 PM   #7 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Bowling Green, KY
A funny thing that Reagan did was deregulate the fishing industry and simultaneously subsidize it at Georges Bank. Now there are no fish there.

Reagan also gave domestic business the most import relief than any other president (tarriffs being a form of subsidy).

Do we remember that SDI initiative? That had little to do with putting weapons in space. Its purpose was to use taxpayer money to subsidize the development of the fifth generation of computers.

Reagan talked so much about market forces, but he refused to let them work.

What a tool.
Jizz-Fritter is offline  
Old 03-17-2004, 04:18 AM   #8 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
There is currently no pressure for Congress or the President to cut spending. American voters, while not overly happy with the deficits and national debt, don't really care to do anything about them.

Representatives are applauded for bringing money back to their states while President's are applauded for providing new programs.

There need to be limits on spending and there should be no new taxes until the government is forced to clean house. Just because there was a reason for a program at one time it is not acceptable to allow programs to continue with no oversight as to their success or failure. The government simply passes the costs of its inefficiency on to the taxpayer.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 03-17-2004, 12:06 PM   #9 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
There's a little hope, onetime2. Read on, from today's Post:

Quote:
A Test of Seriousness

Wednesday, March 17, 2004; Page A24

BELIEVERS IN tough budget rules scored a big victory in the Senate last week -- temporarily, at least. By a 51 to 48 vote, senators agreed to revive the "pay as you go" rule, which helped bring the budget into balance during the 1990s. The rule, requiring that any tax cuts or increase in entitlement spending be paid for with spending cuts or tax increases, will be a major step -- if the majority that voted for the rule has enough spine to insist that it be retained in House-Senate conference.

But no sooner had the Senate voted than at least some of the lawmakers whose support was critical were waffling on whether they would insist that the rule be kept. With the administration and the Republican leadership dead set against a real "pay as you go" rule -- one that applies to tax cuts as well as spending increases -- the provision is at risk of being killed in conference. If such senators as Maine Republicans Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins believe, as they said with their votes last week, that a tough enforcement mechanism is key to getting the deficit under control, they should stick to that position and not cave to party pressure. The budget resolution passed the Senate with 51 votes. That's leverage when it comes back for a final vote -- and those who believe in "pay as you go" ought to have the courage to use it.

The picture in the House, where the budget committee is set to take up its own resolution today, isn't encouraging. House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R-Iowa) unveiled last night the "Spending Control Act of 2004," which would apply "pay as you go" only to entitlement spending -- and permit the new spending to be offset only by spending cuts -- no tax increases allowed. Meanwhile, the House version of the budget resolution provides for an additional $153 billion in tax cuts over the next five years. That's discipline? A group of moderate Republicans is to meet today to discuss the budget. They shouldn't support any budget that isn't accompanied by real enforcement rules.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 03-17-2004, 12:30 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
There's a little hope, onetime2. Read on, from today's Post:
Thanks SH, I saw that in another paper. I hope they can iron out the differences and commit to it. I am all for tax cuts (even without the required accompanying cuts) as it forces the government to do equal (or more) with less but at this point it's probably necessary to force spending cuts in association with tax cuts.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
 

Tags
reagan


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:10 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360