Does government spend your money better than you do?

[actuarial]

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

Holy logical fallacy. Supporting the existence of an entity does not equal supporting every decision that it has made.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

Not all government spending is good spending. Infrastructure spending certainly is, though it has to be in a competitive environment.

You can argue against the SS and Medicare programs, but there is no denying that it lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.

 

[BoberFett]

Holy logical fallacy. Supporting the existence of an entity does not equal supporting every decision that it has made.

Ah, so what you're then saying is that government DOES NOT spend our money better than us. If a hat was passed around to collect money for the Iraq War Fund, do you think we would have gone to war? Probably could have saved a lot of lives and money if a massive, unaccountable federal government wasn't in charge of declaring war. Or not declaring war as the case is nowadays, just invading any damn country we feel like because goddammit we spend a trillion dollars a year on the military and we sure as fuck are going to want to use it now and then. Amirite?

Democrats are such fools. You create a monster and then believe you can control it.

 

[momeNt]

If government wasn't there to spend our money we'd all be speaking German or Japanese.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

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.

LOLOLOL - You're statement should read:

I don't have any experience waging war on brown people so I send my money to the federal government so they can do this on my behalf.

 

[IBMer]

I wonder if a lot of these issues don't stem from the fact that every time there is a new president, a lot of top jobs change leadership. This is also further hindered by the fact that a lot of the people filling these jobs aren't typically qualified for them.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Not all government spending is good spending. Infrastructure spending certainly is, though it has to be in a competitive environment.

You can argue against the SS and Medicare programs, but there is no denying that it lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty.

The problem with your statement is that it is a conditional statement in which one is forced into accepting that government action occurs without any side-effects or consequences, especially in regards to SS, Medicare, etc. In addition to this statement assuming to have actually done so very successfully or that government action is the only way to do this in society at large.

 

[werepossum]

Progressives can show you many studies that "prove" not only is that dollar sent to Washington and then back to you still worth just as much, it actually becomes a Super Dollar now worth much more. However, while I don't think government can spend my money more wisely than can I in general - far, far from it - there are situations where government can spend money I would not spend to achieve a desirable end. The military is of course the shining example; all of us hiring our own private bodyguards would not have thrown Germany out of France either time.

Infrastructure is another place; as miserably as it is run by government, only in a few limited situations can the private sector provide infrastructure as efficiently. Most roads would simply not be economically feasible in the private sector. Many water utilities are private and well run, and many electric utilities, but some areas are not suited for either and require government to exist. An example would be rural electrification; while many of these utilities are still private sector, the project that made them feasible would never have been feasible as a purely private sector venture.

Very basic research is a third; if my corporation is in a competitive market with several competitors, perhaps none of us are willing to spend money on basic research as that expenditure would leave us in a weaker competitive position. If however government takes some money from each of us and spends that money wisely on basic research, we may collectively learn new things that drive progress.

 

[IBMer]

An example would be rural electrification; while many of these utilities are still private sector, the project that made them feasible would never have been feasible as a purely private sector venture.

It is some what ironic that the low population density areas tend to lean towards limited government when their quality of life so heavily depends on government.

 

[actuarial]

Ah, so what you're then saying is that government DOES NOT spend our money better than us. If a hat was passed around to collect money for the Iraq War Fund, do you think we would have gone to war? Probably could have saved a lot of lives and money if a massive, unaccountable federal government wasn't in charge of declaring war. Or not declaring war as the case is nowadays, just invading any damn country we feel like because goddammit we spend a trillion dollars a year on the military and we sure as fuck are going to want to use it now and then. Amirite?

Democrats are such fools. You create a monster and then believe you can control it.

You are really committed to this fallacious reasoning.

If a hat was passed around to collect money for national defense in the 1930s, how prepared would the US have been at the start of world war 2? We can go back and forth here, but your examples will only work in situations where it was better that there would have been no military action.

Again, arguing that the government is more efficient at something than individuals does not mean you are arguing that the government is actually efficient at it.

 

[TallBill]

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 isn't how I interpreted it at all... plus the military has so much oversight from entities such as the POTUS who have never even been in the military. I guarantee that Blackwater has its faults but if fair competition determined private contracts we'd see a huge jump in efficiency.

 

[sourn]

Yes and no. As they do spend some of the money on stuff that most certainly is needed that I myself nor any private company should be able to do.

But at the same time I wouldn't be caught dead giving other people money wither they need it or not if I was in debt up to my eyes. Not to mention all the other crap they waste it on.

The bottom line is we need to go back to worrying about America instead of every other damn country out there. We also need to find away to get in politicians that actually give a fuck and actually try to make the country a better place (much easier said then done).

Right now we're paying for two retards to argue back and fourth without ever having to accomplish shit.

 

[nextJin]

Given that one of the roles of government is to raise an Army I do not include that, much like I would not say our courts should be ran privately.

But things like education, welfare, research, etc are all fair game in my opinion. Some of the greatest inventions to mankind had zero government funding or oversight. We still have poor people in the 21st century and likely just as many as we did in the 20th and 19th centuries given cost of living and certainly education is a prime example. I could write for days on how government involvement has crippled our education.

 

[cubby1223]

I still don't understand the reasoning behind this thread.

Even as a conservative-leaning person, the government and government services are necessary for a productive, prosperous nation.

Most importantly we need honest, fair, and effective law enforcement. No private entity can take on this task.

Government needs to have a role in education and welfare, you're making the leap from "government involvement is crippling us" to "we're better off with no involvement" which I believe is false. Even with the monumental faults, I believe we are better off with bad government involvement than no government involvement.

 

[Ausm]

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.

Didn't come back to you in the form of unemployment checks or did you move in with your Parents and leach off them?

 

[unokitty]

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.

LOL

How do I know that you have never been in the military?

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71