How do we break society off the government teet?

[PokerGuy]

This is a rather unpopular argument with Americans, but it rather seems that you currently need more, better government - not less. Less is what got you here.

No, we've never gotten less government over time, so that's certainly not what got us here. We need more effective government, not more government. Huge difference. Smaller or bigger isn't really the issue, effective or not effective government is the issue. If you have more effective government, it also doesn't need to be as big because fewer resources are wasted.

Alternatively if you took the amount you spend on the DEA and drug war in general and instead used it on regulatory bodies imagine the difference you'd make.

What makes you think even more regulation and regulatory bodies are a good thing at all? Again, effective regulation and enforcement is important, not more regulation.

 

[blankslate]

First thing that should have been done was let the too big to fail banks fail. Then nationalize them with the purpose of breaking them up into smaller institutions that investors would want to buy.

Then jailing any executives that deserved to be jailed.

That would've sent a message that not even the privileged can suck on the government teat without consequences.

Remember President Obama did put Social Security on the table as negotiable but the Republicans couldn't bring themselves to jump on it because lowest taxes possible is sacred to Grover Norquist.

 

[sandorski]

Point 1 is fine. As to point 2, I don't see how the work will get done cheaper as the work will need to be paid for with union wages. We're also crippled by an ever-growing national debt that won't be erased by simply 'taxing the rich'. Furthermore, I have no faith in the .gov executing this as the first 'stimulus' bill was a rousing failure.

Record low Interest Rates.

 

[Mursilis]

I have no answer but I'd really like to hear anyone else's answers.

Society likes to think of itself as benevolent, so it supports all these programs. A simple way to solve this problem would be to force the gov't to balance the books on a regular basis. The working people will get a lot less tolerant of the lazy when they actually have to pay more to support them, vs. floating more debt to cover public assistance.

 

[yllus]

No, we've never gotten less government over time, so that's certainly not what got us here. We need more effective government, not more government. Huge difference. Smaller or bigger isn't really the issue, effective or not effective government is the issue. If you have more effective government, it also doesn't need to be as big because fewer resources are wasted.

What makes you think even more regulation and regulatory bodies are a good thing at all? Again, effective regulation and enforcement is important, not more regulation.

Sure, that's really just an exercise in semantics. Replacing bad government with effective government is just as good.

I specifically mentioned spending. A key issue with government regulators in finance and law is that they tend to be outnumbered and outgunned because the people they're supposed to provide oversight for, the Morgan Stanleys and Goldman Sachs's of the world, have better resources and smarter people working for them. This is almost solely a money issue; why make mid-five figures when you could make high six figures at an investment bank?

I don't think it's realistic to give regulators a million a head, but upping their salaries and resources now so they can head off the next trillion dollar crisis seems entirely sensible.

 

[woolfe9999]

As we stand with the poor economy, unstable job market and rising inflation, more people are turning to the government to support themselves and their families. I 1000% think there should be temporary assistance programs to help people, however we have gone far beyond that.

I am not blaming the individual, the government or any group. Its society that has made it ok for this to happen. Its no longer seen as a bad thing to live on welfare for years or decades at a time. Apparently now Disability is another option for people that don't want to work. Of course not everyone on Disability has this problem (my own mom is on it) but there are plenty of people on it who very well COULD work.

I believe a large number of the people in this situation got there through a form of evolution. Lets say their mom was a single mom and had to turn to the state for food stamps. After a while, the state will offer mom free education, rent and even a car to help. That's not a bad thing. But the child grows up seeing the government as their provider, a father figure if you will. When the child grows up and hits a rough patch, they will turn to daddy for some help. That's completely normal. But this continues the vicious cycle and it goes on and on.

Education has been tried. But there are plenty of college graduates out there getting food stamps and collecting checks. We obviously can't just cut them off and let them starve. But there is no way us working folks can continue to support all the non-working folks. So what do we do?

I have no answer but I'd really like to hear anyone else's answers.

This economy only supports X number of jobs. There is no solution until we can employ more people. Job retraining, yanking benefits to motivate them to find work, none of that matters with high unemployment.

 

[Mursilis]

I don't think it's realistic to give regulators a million a head, but upping their salaries and resources now so they can head off the next trillion dollar crisis seems entirely sensible.

Sure, it seems sensible, but if you do that, people will just continue complaining about overpaid federal workers again...

 

[piasabird]

I think the government will collapse first. For instance what happens if we keep increasing the deficeit and then China just says you cant borrow any more money? I predict this will happen soon. It is a lot easier to change our ways now than to wait till our entire country is in default. Imagine the day whan no one gets any welfare, everyone loses their jobs, and there is no SSN, no medicare and no retirement and all the banks collapse?

It will be like the great depression.

It is already starting. USPS, the post office announced that they are going to default on the retired postal workers health care payments and congress is sending the message that they are not going to bail them out. This is what happens when you let unions run amock. They have union rules that say they cant fire employees, so they are just giving up. I think we could get by with mail delivery once or twice or maybe 3 times a week, but the reality is they may just drop the union's retired workers insurance. This could result in a strike. So what do they do? Lock out all the union workers and hire people at min wage off the street?

http://www.federaltimes.com/article...arns-8216-default-retiree-health-care-payment

 

[nehalem256]

Sure, that's really just an exercise in semantics. Replacing bad government with effective government is just as good.

I specifically mentioned spending. A key issue with government regulators in finance and law is that they tend to be outnumbered and outgunned because the people they're supposed to provide oversight for, the Morgan Stanleys and Goldman Sachs's of the world, have better resources and smarter people working for them. This is almost solely a money issue; why make mid-five figures when you could make high six figures at an investment bank?

I don't think it's realistic to give regulators a million a head, but upping their salaries and resources now so they can head off the next trillion dollar crisis seems entirely sensible.

Or just restrict the salaries of those working in finance. Given the number of problems they have caused and the lack of societal value they create this seems highly justified.

 

[fskimospy]

I think the government will collapse first. For instance what happens if we keep increasing the deficeit and then China just says you cant borrow any more money? I predict this will happen soon. It is a lot easier to change our ways now than to wait till our entire country is in default. Imagine the day whan no one gets any welfare, everyone loses their jobs, and there is no SSN, no medicare and no retirement and all the banks collapse?

It will be like the great depression.

It is already starting. USPS, the post office announced that they are going to default on the retired postal workers health care payments and congress is sending the message that they are not going to bail them out. This is what happens when you let unions run amock. They have union rules that say they cant fire employees, so they are just giving up. I think we could get by with mail delivery once or twice or maybe 3 times a day, but the reality is they may just drop the union's retired workers insurance. This could result in a strike. So what do they do? Lock out all the union workers and hire people at min wage off the street?

I'm pretty sure you've been predicting governmental collapse for about 3-4 years now. Any idea on when this collapse is supposed to happen? Would you care to make any bets on it?

 

[piasabird]

You need to study the history of what happened when the state of New York went into default in the 1970's. There is no guarantee that a state or a country can keep borrowing money!

The Interest on our loans never sleeps. It will eat us alive.

 

[piasabird]

The more we borrow (Trillions), the larger the Interest is on our loans. The higher the interest rate payment is, the less there is left to run the country and pay for things like unemployment and social security and medicare. Eventually we will get to a point when we can not pay our bills and then what? You see every time we increase the defeceit it takes more money to make the debt payment. It also takes more time to collect the taxes it takes to make the debt payment. The higher the defeceit gets the less united states currency will be worth and more money it will take to purchase gas and food. People are being pushed to the edge already.

I am not an economist, but there comes a point at which our country can not pay the debt payment and then we will have to default on our bonds and then we will begin to collapse if no one wants to buy our treasury bonds. We will be like Greece or Spain. Get ready for austerity measures.

 

[IGBT]

4 year life time cap on all entitlements. Tax payers can no longer support social parasites.

 

[umbrella39]

just tax the rich!!!!!

Just continue their Bush era tax cuts so those job creators will keep creating all those jobs with their profits!!!! LOLTrickleDumb

 

[QuantumPion]

first person to talk about race . . .. are you by chance a republican? probably because republicans are racist!

“I’ll have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

--Lyndon B. Johnson, Democrat, President of the United States

 

[FerrelGeek]

So only some people should be forced to be wage "slaves" while others get to sit around be taken care of?

Sounds to me like you want to replace wage "slavery" with actual slavery.

That's progressivism for you.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Record low Interest Rates.

Which will not, and can not, last forever.

 

[fskimospy]

You need to study the history of what happened when the state of New York went into default in the 1970's. There is no guarantee that a state or a country can keep borrowing money!

The Interest on our loans never sleeps. It will eat us alive.

States and the federal government are nothing alike when it comes to fiscal issues. Absolutely nothing alike.

Still though, I keep wondering. You have seemed to believe in imminent catastrophe for approaching half a decade now without it happening. I don't need an exact date or anything, but do you have a range?

 

[dmcowen674]

In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

He hit the nail on the head hundreds of years in advance. We've reached the tipping point where 50% of the people pay no income taxes, and a significant number of people live on the government handout. What incentive is there for those people not to keep voting idiots into office to keep the handouts flowing?

The rich like poster above blames the poor.

The poor don't care either way.

The working Americans (what few are left) blame the rich.

 

[nehalem256]

States and the federal government are nothing alike when it comes to fiscal issues. Absolutely nothing alike.

Still though, I keep wondering. You have seemed to believe in imminent catastrophe for approaching half a decade now without it happening. I don't need an exact date or anything, but do you have a range?

Yep. One of the major difference being that the federal government controls its own currency. If the Chinese were to suddenly decide to drop US Debt than QE3 would be sure to arrive.

 

[Dulanic]

In the words of Benjamin Franklin: "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

He hit the nail on the head hundreds of years in advance. We've reached the tipping point where 50% of the people pay no income taxes, and a significant number of people live on the government handout. What incentive is there for those people not to keep voting idiots into office to keep the handouts flowing?

B. Franklin rep ++

Change the word people to politicians and he also hit that nail on the head too.

 

[yllus]

Sure, it seems sensible, but if you do that, people will just continue complaining about overpaid federal workers again...

Hmm, good point.

Or just restrict the salaries of those working in finance. Given the number of problems they have caused and the lack of societal value they create this seems highly justified.

Salary restrictions have never worked in the history of free nations, I don't expect they'll start to now.

 

[Matt1970]

The more we borrow (Trillions), the larger the Interest is on our loans. The higher the interest rate payment is, the less there is left to run the country and pay for things like unemployment and social security and medicare. Eventually we will get to a point when we can not pay our bills and then what? You see every time we increase the defeceit it takes more money to make the debt payment. It also takes more time to collect the taxes it takes to make the debt payment. The higher the defeceit gets the less united states currency will be worth and more money it will take to purchase gas and food. People are being pushed to the edge already.

I am not an economist, but there comes a point at which our country can not pay the debt payment and then we will have to default on our bonds and then we will begin to collapse if no one wants to buy our treasury bonds. We will be like Greece or Spain. Get ready for austerity measures.

That is the elephant in the room.

 

[alkemyst]

There is no evidence that Ben Franklin ever said such a thing.

regardless, this is a very true statement.

Personally I think it's to late to fix this. We have let individuals/families rise to the power of nations.

 

[berzerker60]

We've reached the tipping point where 50% of the people pay no income taxes,

Christ this is a stupid line that conservatives on this forum love to bring up. Literally true but incredibly dishonest out of its context.

Unfortunately liberals have spent the last half-century eradicating values and destroying families by replacing the father with the government. Straight out of the communist manifesto.

No it's not.

Yep... Because out of the two groups, who uses race to their advantage time and time again?

(opps! It is actually the libs!)

No, racism is an ongoing thing, whether overt (the guys who will walk up to me as I stand by a sandwich shop I like in Virginia to just start talking about how they hate how many 'coons' there are around the shop these days) to more subtle (costing Obama votes he would otherwise have gotten http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/). Republicans use it to their advantage all the time, they just don't outright say it anymore:

In 1981, former Republican Party strategist Lee Atwater when giving an anonymous interview discussing the GOP's Southern Strategy, said: You start out in 1954 by saying, "****** [n-word] ******, ******." By 1968, you can't say "******" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "******, ******."