Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The US Government Shut-Down - Whom to Blame

Page 10 of 23 [ 361 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 23  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,632
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2013, 9:27 pm

eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But what is essential or non-essential? Plenty of Republicans would say the WIC program is not essential, as it has been (hopefully) temporarily closed down. But tell that pregnant women, or mothers with young children who will go without proper nutrition. Funny that the Republican party, that's so pro-life regarding abortion, sees no problem with jeopardizing the health of expecting mothers and babies.

the righties are demonstrably penny-wise and pound-foolish, stressing short term gain above all else.


From my point of view, both major parties like to borrow money for the purpose of consumption. That is a disaster in the making. How long can we keep borrowing more and more money for consumption?


The question is, how much of that spending is frivolous, and how much of it are genuine investments in our people's futures?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I think that it is pretty much all just consumption. Even an average investment should bring in more money in the future, with interest, than what was spent. Nearly all government spending is pure consumption and very little, if any, could be accurately termed to be an investment of any kind. One of the few areas that MIGHT be termed as an investment is in education but only if kept under tight control.

Another way to look at it is if the United States is a company. Every company has a certain amount of overhead, but any company that spends more on overhead than what it brings in is definitely headed toward financial ruin. Just about all spending by the government is pure overhead and contributes absolutely nothing to the bottom line. You have to have some overhead, but you don't want it to be overwhelming.


When I say investment, I'm talking about investing funds to educate our children and college students, or to provide nutrition for families without the financial means to buy the right kinds of food. That, and providing retraining for workers. Investment in this case means ensuring an educated, healthy populace. And that is money well spent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,632
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2013, 9:34 pm

RushKing wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Cyanide wrote:
The only one to blame for this is the state... for existing...


I suspect you'd miss the state terribly once it's gone. Who is going to protect you from foreign invasion? Or build freeways that actually go somewhere? Or keeps industry from adding weight to products with broken glass, or won't wash off animal feces from meat?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The people

http://abcnews.go.com/US/pothole-robin- ... d8kpfUo4dU


I kinda prefer a professional army defending us, as they have the best high tech weapons and training.
As for roads and infrastructure - I much prefer paying workers to do that, in order to keep people employed, as well as having all the needed machinery and materials available to them.
And health inspectors? Lots of luck getting inspectors into plants where animals are slaughtered for food without the force of law to back them up. And I'd prefer to have trained inspectors who know what it is they're looking for.
There are just things not everyone has the expertize or even the time to do. That's why we have government trained employees to do these things.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The self managed construction firms would still have the same machinery they had beforehand. They don't need the state to figure out how to obtain new equipment. Self managed firms tend to do a better job at regulating themselves, because personal responsibility is much more pronounced in institutions where people have more autonomy. In a private property, someone who is packaging meat with feces on it may think I'm not doing wrong, I'm just taking orders from the top down.


But why would private firms build roads and infrastructure? Who's going to hire them? Who's going to make contracts with them? You need a government for that. Otherwise, a construction company would be doing it out of the goodness of their hearts without any payday at the end. Workers are going to want to be paid, and investors certainly don't want to see their investments go down the toilet.
As for your point regarding the feces drenched meat in unregulated private meat packaging companies - I think you just made my argument for me, which is why we need government regulations.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

03 Oct 2013, 9:55 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
But what is essential or non-essential? Plenty of Republicans would say the WIC program is not essential, as it has been (hopefully) temporarily closed down. But tell that pregnant women, or mothers with young children who will go without proper nutrition. Funny that the Republican party, that's so pro-life regarding abortion, sees no problem with jeopardizing the health of expecting mothers and babies.

the righties are demonstrably penny-wise and pound-foolish, stressing short term gain above all else.


From my point of view, both major parties like to borrow money for the purpose of consumption. That is a disaster in the making. How long can we keep borrowing more and more money for consumption?


The question is, how much of that spending is frivolous, and how much of it are genuine investments in our people's futures?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
I think that it is pretty much all just consumption. Even an average investment should bring in more money in the future, with interest, than what was spent. Nearly all government spending is pure consumption and very little, if any, could be accurately termed to be an investment of any kind. One of the few areas that MIGHT be termed as an investment is in education but only if kept under tight control.

Another way to look at it is if the United States is a company. Every company has a certain amount of overhead, but any company that spends more on overhead than what it brings in is definitely headed toward financial ruin. Just about all spending by the government is pure overhead and contributes absolutely nothing to the bottom line. You have to have some overhead, but you don't want it to be overwhelming.


When I say investment, I'm talking about investing funds to educate our children and college students, or to provide nutrition for families without the financial means to buy the right kinds of food. That, and providing retraining for workers. Investment in this case means ensuring an educated, healthy populace. And that is money well spent.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
To a degree, funds for eduction in some cases might be considered to be investment.

Providing nutrition is not an investment by any stretch of the imagination -- it is pure consumption.

Retraining workers? Maybe in some cases.

I'm not saying that money going to consumption is necessarily a waste, but it is, if unchecked, a drain on the country that cannot go on forever.

Think about it like this -- consumption is the use of resources in such a way that they are gone without provide any substantial long term gain. Investment is the opposite -- it is the use of resources in such a way that it leaves the country much better off than without it.

Everyone consumes, of course. In theory, the intelligent adjust their consumption to fit his resources while the stupid consume more than their resources can support. This country is solidly on the side of the stupid rather than the intelligent.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

03 Oct 2013, 10:00 pm

Let me pose you a question: Can you come up with any real examples where consumption beyond the available resources left a country off better than it was before?

I sure can't think of any and I cannot imagine how excess consumption is positive at all. We are really robbing from the future to pay for the excesses of today. The people of this country a hundred years from now, if it still exists then, will be much the worse off than if we had geared the country toward growth.

Consumption did not make this country what it is today, but it is certainly going to make the country what it is a century from now and that's not good.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,632
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2013, 10:07 pm

People depending on food stamps and WIC in fact are an important part of the economy. The government funds are recirculated back into the economy when food stamps are used to purchase food. Sounds like a substantial investment to me.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

03 Oct 2013, 10:14 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
People depending on food stamps in fact are an important part of the economy. The government funds are recirculated back into the economy. Sounds like a substantial investment to me. Same with WIC and other programs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Oh, come on. It's pure consumption. There is nothing investment about that.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,632
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2013, 10:19 pm

eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
People depending on food stamps in fact are an important part of the economy. The government funds are recirculated back into the economy. Sounds like a substantial investment to me. Same with WIC and other programs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Oh, come on. It's pure consumption. There is nothing investment about that.


It allows people - many of whom are children - to eat. It's an investment so people can go on to work, and children will grow up to be healthy, productive citizens.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Last edited by Kraichgauer on 03 Oct 2013, 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,583
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Oct 2013, 10:19 pm

eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
People depending on food stamps in fact are an important part of the economy. The government funds are recirculated back into the economy. Sounds like a substantial investment to me. Same with WIC and other programs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Oh, come on. It's pure consumption. There is nothing investment about that.

the only alternative is to let the "useless eaters" die. the TP has gone on record as endorsing just that.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

03 Oct 2013, 10:30 pm

auntblabby wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
People depending on food stamps in fact are an important part of the economy. The government funds are recirculated back into the economy. Sounds like a substantial investment to me. Same with WIC and other programs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Oh, come on. It's pure consumption. There is nothing investment about that.

the only alternative is to let the "useless eaters" die. the TP has gone on record as endorsing just that.


Nope. Another alternate is to feed those who can't feed and let those who can work, but don't want to work, get a job.

I am a big fan of Milton Friedman's negative income tax approach. With a negative income tax, it would be possible to get by without working but just barely, but it provides a strong incentive to everyone to work to whatever extent they are able to work. There definitely wouldn't be money left over for fast food meals, big screen tvs, game consoles, etc.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,632
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2013, 10:46 pm

eric76 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
eric76 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
People depending on food stamps in fact are an important part of the economy. The government funds are recirculated back into the economy. Sounds like a substantial investment to me. Same with WIC and other programs.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Oh, come on. It's pure consumption. There is nothing investment about that.

the only alternative is to let the "useless eaters" die. the TP has gone on record as endorsing just that.


Nope. Another alternate is to feed those who can't feed and let those who can work, but don't want to work, get a job.

I am a big fan of Milton Friedman's negative income tax approach. With a negative income tax, it would be possible to get by without working but just barely, but it provides a strong incentive to everyone to work to whatever extent they are able to work. There definitely wouldn't be money left over for fast food meals, big screen tvs, game consoles, etc.


People on public assistance don't buy big screen TV's, or game consoles - the notion that they get that kind of money from the government is an untruth meant to vilify the needy. I can remember when Newt Gingrich claimed a food stamp recipient had used his benefits to travel to a tropical vacation. Anyone who even has an inkling about how food stamps work - let alone knows the small amount of money that's on their cards - knows that charge is utter BS.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,583
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Oct 2013, 10:47 pm

why must they vilify the poor? what have the poor done to hurt them [TPers] that they should be so callous towards the poor?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,632
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2013, 10:51 pm

auntblabby wrote:
why must they vilify the poor? what have the poor done to hurt them [TPers] that they should be so callous towards the poor?


Oh, they say the poor are undeserving of help, and that they must be forced to work for their own good. I think a big part of it has to do with their interpretation of Christianity which teaches God rewards the just with material wealth, and punishes the unrighteous with poverty. Not the lessons of Christ I learned in church.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,583
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Oct 2013, 10:52 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
why must they vilify the poor? what have the poor done to hurt them [TPers] that they should be so callous towards the poor?


Oh, they say the poor are undeserving of help, and that they must be forced to work for their own good. I think a big part of it has to do with their interpretation of Christianity which teaches God rewards the just with material wealth, and punishes the unrighteous with poverty. Not the lessons of Christ I learned in church.

such a perversion of Christ's teachings is enough to turn away legions of potential believers, that is the worst thing about the fundies.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,632
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

03 Oct 2013, 11:02 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
why must they vilify the poor? what have the poor done to hurt them [TPers] that they should be so callous towards the poor?


Oh, they say the poor are undeserving of help, and that they must be forced to work for their own good. I think a big part of it has to do with their interpretation of Christianity which teaches God rewards the just with material wealth, and punishes the unrighteous with poverty. Not the lessons of Christ I learned in church.

such a perversion of Christ's teachings is enough to turn away legions of potential believers, that is the worst thing about the fundies.


Absolutely.
By the way, they are the same people who claim Jesus worked as a carpenter to earn his keep during his ministry - not depending on the kindness of others, like the Bible says.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,583
Location: the island of defective toy santas

03 Oct 2013, 11:12 pm

such an emphatically mercenary perversion of the story of jesus is sickening. it is like the fundies can see only through the lens of money. "mediocrity can be only aware of itself and nothing greater."



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

03 Oct 2013, 11:15 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
People on public assistance don't buy big screen TV's, or game consoles -
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


I'm not one to make that argument, as I support social safety net programs, but there is some truth in that. I used to see it firsthand when I worked retail in the White Center neighborhood in Seattle; the first of the month would come, and suddenly I'd have a huge rush of people buying video games that were not at all shy about where the money came from. My very first girlfriend's family were also sort of the arch example, her father was a crack addict that had managed to hang onto his journeyman status with the local labor temple, so he'd get these jobs sweeping the floors in at construction zones at $20 with tons of overtime, but yet still was in section 8 housing and also received all sorts of subsidies for single fathers and such. That was nasty, my GF's little brother would have new shoes every week and every video game he wanted because his dad would just hand him cash, but there was never any food in the house and half the time the heat or the power or both would be out. Giving people money doesn't magically make them responsible, and I think that's the point a lot of people are making when they object to welfare programs.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez