Does government spend your money better than you do?

[nextJin]

There are countless different arguments here ranging from Health Care to contract bidding for community/county/state/federal projects to research into individual fields of study or college grants/funds.

I ask this because as a libertarian it baffles me how someone can believe that a dollar sent to the state government, federal government, and dept of education, etc then back down to your locality would still be worth that same dollar.

Take this story for example; http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-virginia-library-runs-a-20000-cisco-router/

The West Virginia state government spent an ungodly amount of money on enterprise class switches which were extremely overblown for their deployment. Any private business would have done the research needed and if they had not, then they would have assumed that debt themselves on their own accord.

And this is not a hit at liberal Democrats either because conservative Republicans are just as guilty especially on the MIC side of the house.

The argument can be made that after standing up the Dept of Education, the education of our kids began to shift downward even with an increasing amount of funding over the past 4 decades. I am a firm believer in education, but I also believe that government involvement has led to dramatic increases in college tuition levels and the same argument could be had for most industries the government is involved in. Just like the story linked above, when companies/institutions know that government will continue to fund them they look at ways to exploit that.

I take online college at the University of Maryland University College and have enrolled in American Military University and Phoenix. The costs associated with these places are astronomical when they shouldn't be. They rely on government tuition assistance and exploit military service members which in turn kill civilians wishing to get the same level of education. They start out at a competitive disadvantage because they are competing against free tuition assistance/GI Bill as fast food workers or single parents trying to better themselves for a degree that really will not help them in the long run.

I'd like to see some counter arguments on when any level of government spends your money better than you do. I do not see it, with the exception of AHCA of which I obviously oppose but see the reasoning behind it.

 

[Double Trouble]

I can't think of any rational way someone could think the government would spend your money better than you do (well, maybe the government loving extreme liberal wing). However, in many cases the money couldn't be used for a particular purpose unless it was pooled with a lot of other money. My preference is to have as much money as possible kept and spent locally rather than up the chain to federal government and then trickle down to the local level, but you have to reach the right balance.

 

[Anarchist420]

Sometimes I wonder if the CSA was right to limit it govt from private contracting.

The problem with the U.S. Constitution is that it's economically fascist... it was supported by economic fascists/nationalists/mercantilists while the laissez-faire liberals opposed it. So we've been having spending problems ever since Washington was in office and a lot of it is due to the public private partnerships and the promotion of big business (which was advocated by Hamilton; the Whiskey Tax wound up costing the govt money).

Good topic BTW.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I can't think of any rational way someone could think the government would spend your money better than you do (well, maybe the government loving extreme liberal wing).

However, in many cases the money couldn't be used for a particular purpose unless it was pooled with a lot of other money.

..

 

[BoberFett]

I can't think of any rational way someone could think the government would spend your money better than you do (well, maybe the government loving extreme liberal wing). However, in many cases the money couldn't be used for a particular purpose unless it was pooled with a lot of other money. My preference is to have as much money as possible kept and spent locally rather than up the chain to federal government and then trickle down to the local level, but you have to reach the right balance.

It is extremely amusing to listen to Democrats blast Reagan and his trickle down economics, then insist that we send vast amounts of money to Washington and hope some of it comes back.

 

[dainthomas]

I have no expertise in building and deploying nuclear powered aircraft carriers, therefore I send my money to the federal government so they can do this on my behalf.

 

[sunzt]

No, thus I should run the government.

 

[cubby1223]

Does government spend your money better than you do?

Yes, yes government does:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/How-Jesse-Jackson-Jr-Spent-His-Money-Feds-191454931.html




To the topic of the thread, they likely bought that switch to finish out their yearly budget. It happens on occasion to private businesses too. A department needs to spend their budget or else they won't have the same budget next year. And maybe they will actually need that budget the next year, you don't know.

 

[TallBill]

Not a chance.

 

[cubby1223]

It is extremely amusing to listen to Democrats blast Reagan and his trickle down economics, then insist that we send vast amounts of money to Washington and hope some of it comes back.

There is a difference between these programs.

Trickle down is where we all give money to businesses in hopes we get some of it back.

Government spending is where we have our elected officials take everyone else's money in hopes we get some of it back.

The typical activist Democrat never says he's the one not paying his fair share. He points and chooses other groups who are not paying their fair share.

 

[actuarial]

You're breaking theory from reality.

In theory, the government cannot spend money as efficiently as I can. In pactice, there are a number of factors the lead to the existence of certain government programs leading me to have more wealth than without them.

A number of those factors deal with the existence of government itself, but since we know they are not going away we have to decide how to live within their structure. The primary ones here are the decision we made as a society that we will not allow fellow citizens to starve, live on the street or be denied life saving medical care regardless of their wealth.

The second deals with specific issues which over time it has been shown there is not an efficient free market solution. These primarily deal with information asymmetry and large natural barriers to entry. For example, I do believe that money sent to the government to build roads improves my standard of living over government deciding to leave road building to be entirely private.

 

[cubby1223]

There are many things I believe government does better than I do. Maintaining a military that mostly protects the interests of the country, for one.

Living near Chicago, they sold off their parking meters to a private firm, and the private firm has been screwing over the residents ever since. I'd rather the city not sold off the parking meters. The city sold one of our interstates and the toll has skyrocketed, and they currently are targeting selling our second airport.


You get the baggage dealing with these scum:
http://www.publicceo.com/2013/02/depths-of-dixon-illinois-embezzlement-scandal-probed/

But some things we just have to accept will happen and do our best to prosecute those found guilty.

 

[piasabird]

The federal govt has a few things that they should be doing. Their only real tasks is Defense and the State Department and the federal banking system. There are some things that maybe we should federalize that arent. For instance Laws about Marriage and managing Transportation laws may lend itself to better control if it was federalized. Other commerce might be federalized like Gasoline, and Professional liceses for doctors. The Idea would be to have the same motor vehicle regulations in every state and a way to track certain activities like Marriage and Divorce, and Doctors.

I think it is stupid to have to license over the road trucks in multiple states. I also think that taxation of certain items has run amuck. The federal govt should limit how much the state can tax gasoline. I think Gasoline tax has gone past the point of extortion. The same could be said for the taxation of Tobacco and Alcohol. Some cars dont even use gasoline but they still use the roads. Then other cars use a lot of gas because they are larger and the smaller cars and hybrids barely use any gas. We probably need Pollution tax, Gas usage tax, and then a Road Tax. The people who are driving hybrids are not paying their fair share of the taxes for roads, but their cars may actually be heavier. Hybrids dont pollute as much, but they ware the roads out faster.

The real problem is that if we have a strong federal govt they could get carried away and start becoming a dictatorship. The federal government thinks it should be able to tax us to death and take away our freedoms. The Federal Government also abuses the people by starting wars in other countries and using out federal resources outside of our country with no Return on Investment (ROI). I think we should not send money to the federal govt for defense. Instead Every state should maintain their own Army. We need to quit sending troops overseas unless the country we are protecting is paying us. We should approach Germany and tell them we plan on pulling out our troops but if they want them troops to stay, they have to pay their salary and purchase their equipment. The USA should not be in charge of the defense of hundreds of other nations that dont pay us anything.

 

[TallBill]

There are many things I believe government does better than I do. Maintaining a military that mostly protects the interests of the country, for one.

Living near Chicago, they sold off their parking meters to a private firm, and the private firm has been screwing over the residents ever since. I'd rather the city not sold off the parking meters. The city sold one of our interstates and the toll has skyrocketed, and they currently are targeting selling our second airport.


You get the baggage dealing with these scum:
http://www.publicceo.com/2013/02/depths-of-dixon-illinois-embezzlement-scandal-probed/

But some things we just have to accept will happen and do our best to prosecute those found guilty.

Lmao that you think that the military is run efficiently. Good laugh.

 

[actuarial]

Lmao that you think that the military is run efficiently. Good laugh.

One process can be more efficient than another without actually being efficient.

 

[TallBill]

One process can be more efficient than another without actually being efficient.

No shit Sherlock. I'm not saying that I could do better, but the DoD is managed horribly.

 

[WackyDan]

Does government spend your money better than you do?

Yes, yes government does:
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/How-Jesse-Jackson-Jr-Spent-His-Money-Feds-191454931.html




To the topic of the thread, they likely bought that switch to finish out their yearly budget. It happens on occasion to private businesses too. A department needs to spend their budget or else they won't have the same budget next year. And maybe they will actually need that budget the next year, you don't know.

Yes... It is called baseline budgeting and happens everywhere... BUT... It is the default mode of spending at the federal gov't and state. Few businesses operate that way for long or at least not without that business unit/dept providing accountability for the funding.

Until we get rid of baseline budgeting in gov't, no there is no chance of them spending more wisely than me.

 

[actuarial]

No shit Sherlock. I'm not saying that I could do better, but the DoD is managed horribly.

The bolded is actually the question of the OP though.

While the DoD may be horribly managed, it is still more efficient than everyone having their own private army, which was the point cubby1223 was making.

 

[blankslate]

Depends on what the Government is spending the money on.

Military for protection of the Nation? Well, individuals just can't spend their money on that because the vast majority of individuals can't spend enough for it. So spending tax payer money on defense is pretty much the only option.

Health Care? well we spend more per capita on healthcare than many other first world nations who have other forms of health care.

The infrastructure? Well, when we were still spending enough to maintain it, in my opinion it was worth the cost.

Some things are too big to be practically run by individuals or businesses.

The answer is it depends on what is the spending on. In most cases the answer will be you spend the money better, because in most cases the question will be about things that solely affect you and no one else.

 

[CycloWizard]

I have no expertise in building and deploying nuclear powered aircraft carriers, therefore I send my money to the federal government so they can do this on my behalf.

The government does not build aircraft carriers. It does not build planes, tanks, or boats either. It doesn't even do the design work on them.

 

[sunzt]

The bolded is actually the question of the OP though.

While the DoD may be horribly managed, it is still more efficient than everyone having their own private army, which was the point cubby1223 was making.

That's the key point many ultra small gobment righties fail to realize. Some services are more efficient when resources are pooled together for a holistic approach such as food and drug inspections, air traffic control services, and military......

Imagine if every state managed their own airspace differently and set rates different rates for air traffic to cross through. The airlines would avoid the costliest states and pass on the extra mileage/fuel costs to passengers, retailers, and ultimately making the economy more inefficient. BTW this is how many Euro countries operate and this is exactly what's happening.

 

[sunzt]

The government does not build aircraft carriers. It does not build planes, tanks, or boats either. It doesn't even do the design work on them.

Nope, but they tell the manufacturers WHAT and sometimes HOW to build.

 

[blankslate]

The government does not build aircraft carriers. It does not build planes, tanks, or boats either. It doesn't even do the design work on them.

The government buys them though. It's still a point that individuals and most businesses either cannot spend the money for or have no interests in those items. Therefore the government is the entity that is responsible for the Armed Forces.

 

[Ryan]

The government does not build aircraft carriers. It does not build planes, tanks, or boats either. It doesn't even do the design work on them.

Without the government pooling money together to fund these projects, none would likely ever get built. The vast amount of engineering knowledge that is a resulte of government spending is largely proliferated to the private sector - without massive spending by the government to companies like Lockheed, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, and Boeing...advancements in the private sector would be much slower and less developed.

 

[BoberFett]

Oh, so you support spending trillions of dollars on the military now? What was all that whining about Iraq then?