The fraud of "limited government"

[shira]

I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

The upshot of this strategy is that when one adds up what people would pay in "limited government" taxes PLUS what most of the poor and middle-class would of necessity HAVE to pay for out of their own pockets to fund all of the essential services no longer funded by "limited government," the poor and middle-class would be much worse off. In other words, "limited government" ends up being very much akin to the Bush tax cuts - a further shifting of financial burdens from the rich to the poor and middle class.

A case in point is a proposal made by hard-right conservative Robert F. McDonnell, who is running for governor of Virginia, and who touts the "limited government" shibboleth all the time. One of McDonnell's "solutions" addresses Virginia's vexing transportation problems. He advocates that hard-liquor sales be privatized (currently, all hard-liquor sales in Virginia are made at state-run stores). Ignoring his extremely shaky financial projections and calculations (there is a good Washington Post op-ed piece that shreds his claims), the upshot of his plan is that money from liquor sales would be shifted AWAY from currently-funded, essential social services that benefit the poor and middle class TO road projects. And who would have to pay for those social services no longer funded by the state? I give you one guess.

I have yet to see any SPECIFIC "limited government" proposal that does NOT do this. In effect, "limited government" is a cynical euphemism for heaping more and more costs on the poor and middle class, and relieving the rich of those burdens.

A challenge: If you are a conservative who advocates "limited government," please provide a SPECIFIC example of a change YOU advocate that reduces government spending but does NOT at the same time shift at least the same-size burden onto the backs of the poor and middle class. And, no, the utterly vague phrase "eliminate waste and fraud" does not qualify.

 

[First]

Well, as time goes on it's exposed more and more as an ideology with no real definable or especially practicable application. Save for anarchists, the vast majority of limited gov't persons are only limited gov't until they want a gov't-funded project in their district...or until they want a federally funded project to keep chugging along....until finally they waffle from "Cut that program entirely!" to "Well, maybe we'll help wean people off it" (which of course never happens). The enlightened ones realize that you can't get away from increased gov't spending because that's what Americans want and have been getting since day 1. With the stats showing we've been immensely better off for it the last 100 years or so compared to the previous 100 years. And despite how much these limited gov't guys hate that reality, it's true and it's a painful reminder to them that when push comes to shove, people vote with their pocket books and the results are in.

Americans actually *say* different in polls, they say they want responsible and limited gov't, to varying degrees, but when it comes to their localities (things that actually affect them), they absolutely are all for some gov't spending and some significant gov't spending at that (public transportation, state-sanctioned health care, etc.). It's the same as the phenomenon of how Americans hate Congress as a whole, but have a much higher opinion of their state reps in both chambers. Statistically, of course, that simply doesn't add up.

In the end, the economic and technological numbers speak for themselves and you can argue them reasonably within a certain framework. It's when you get into the conspiratorial stuff from people that think numbers have been fudged or the fringe crazies that want to abolish the Fed or something, that you start to realize you're always going to have people on those extreme fringes that just don't really know what the hell is going on in the first place. On this board you see a significant percentage of them in the form of Truthers, Socialists, Paulbots, etc.

 

[Zstream]

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

The upshot of this strategy is that when one adds up what people would pay in "limited government" taxes PLUS what most of the poor and middle-class would of necessity HAVE to pay for out of their own pockets to fund all of the essential services no longer funded by "limited government," the poor and middle-class would be much worse off. In other words, "limited government" ends up being very much akin to the Bush tax cuts - a further shifting of financial burdens from the rich to the poor and middle class.

A case in point is a proposal made by hard-right conservative Robert F. McDonnell, who is running for governor of Virginia, and who touts the "limited government" shibboleth all the time. One of McDonnell's "solutions" addresses Virginia's vexing transportation problems. He advocates that hard-liquor sales be privatized (currently, all hard-liquor sales in Virginia are made at state-run stores). Ignoring his extremely shaky financial projections and calculations (there is a good Washington Post op-ed piece that shreds his claims), the upshot of his plan is that money from liquor sales would be shifted AWAY from currently-funded, essential social services that benefit the poor and middle class TO road projects. And who would have to pay for those social services no longer funded by the state? I give you one guess.

I have yet to see any SPECIFIC "limited government" proposal that does NOT do this. In effect, "limited government" is a cynical euphemism for heaping more and more costs on the poor and middle class, and relieving the rich of those burdens.

A challenge: If you are a conservative who advocates "limited government," please provide a SPECIFIC example of a change YOU advocate that reduces government spending but does NOT at the same time shift at least the same-size burden onto the backs of the poor and middle class. And, no, the utterly vague phrase "eliminate waste and fraud" does not qualify.

So you are saying that poor and middle class citizens deserve free goods and services without any responsibility?

Who said the RICH are favored at all, in fact since you are so upset about the poor get nothing for free, then why not change tax % to a flat rate? Why not place the healthcare system on everyone with a flat rate?

You will now get upset at the above paragraph, start choose bits and pieces of the post. You will then say I am a neo-con, then say I am a right wing loon.

*Edited so people stick to the questions asked*

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

The upshot of this strategy is that when one adds up what people would pay in "limited government" taxes PLUS what most of the poor and middle-class would of necessity HAVE to pay for out of their own pockets to fund all of the essential services no longer funded by "limited government," the poor and middle-class would be much worse off. In other words, "limited government" ends up being very much akin to the Bush tax cuts - a further shifting of financial burdens from the rich to the poor and middle class.

A case in point is a proposal made by hard-right conservative Robert F. McDonnell, who is running for governor of Virginia, and who touts the "limited government" shibboleth all the time. One of McDonnell's "solutions" addresses Virginia's vexing transportation problems. He advocates that hard-liquor sales be privatized (currently, all hard-liquor sales in Virginia are made at state-run stores). Ignoring his extremely shaky financial projections and calculations (there is a good Washington Post op-ed piece that shreds his claims), the upshot of his plan is that money from liquor sales would be shifted AWAY from currently-funded, essential social services that benefit the poor and middle class TO road projects. And who would have to pay for those social services no longer funded by the state? I give you one guess.

I have yet to see any SPECIFIC "limited government" proposal that does NOT do this. In effect, "limited government" is a cynical euphemism for heaping more and more costs on the poor and middle class, and relieving the rich of those burdens.

A challenge: If you are a conservative who advocates "limited government," please provide a SPECIFIC example of a change YOU advocate that reduces government spending but does NOT at the same time shift at least the same-size burden onto the backs of the poor and middle class. And, no, the utterly vague phrase "eliminate waste and fraud" does not qualify.

So you are saying that poor and middle class citizens deserve free goods and services without any responsibility?

Who said the RICH are favored at all, in fact since you are so upset about the poor get nothing for free, then why not change tax % to a flat rate? Why not place the healthcare system on everyone with a flat rate?

You will now get upset at the above paragraph, start choose bits and pieces of the post. You will then say I am a neo-con, then say I am a right wing loon. If you want a Utopian society, where everyone is equal... well I LOL at you.

This is why you'll be called a loon. No sane person could get that out of what Shira just said.

 

[Zstream]

Ok,

What about the questions asked?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Zstream

So you are saying that poor and middle class citizens deserve free goods and services without any responsibility?

Who said the RICH are favored at all, in fact since you are so upset about the poor get nothing for free, then why not change tax % to a flat rate? Why not place the healthcare system on everyone with a flat rate?

You will now get upset at the above paragraph, start choose bits and pieces of the post. You will then say I am a neo-con, then say I am a right wing loon. If you want a Utopian society, where everyone is equal... well I LOL at you.

Historically, our system has been progressive (those who make more pay at a higher tax rate than those who make less). The Bush tax cuts - especially when combined with the effects of the (un-amended by Bush) Alternative Minimum Tax - made our system a lot less progressive. Over the last few decades, the disparity between the rich and middle class has grown enormously and (if my memory serves) the "real" earnings of the middle class have remained stagnant for at least the past 20 years. Add these trends up and extrapolate several more decades and we could end up with a system like those in many Central and South American countries, where large majorities of the population lives in poverty, the middle class is very small, and a tiny percentage have 99% of the total wealth.

No one has to SAY the rich are favored. Simply look at realty to see how advantaged the rich are and how well they're doing.

"Limited government" advocates would just accelerate this trend. So would the flat tax you mentioned.

My question to you is: Why would you want to advocate a system where a tiny percentage of the population does well and the rest do badly? Why would you want to live in a place where, in all likelihood, most of your relatives and friends and acquaintances would have to struggle for a decent life?

 

[Atreus21]

What's amazing is that I think I see what's in your head. You have a stereotype of a GOP guy scheming with his pals over a chart that reads, "How to make the poor even poorer."

Dammit. I guess the jig's up.

 

[heyheybooboo]

The Bottom Line

The least among us gain more from a Democrat in the White House than they do with a Republican in the White House.

Those with the 'most' gain either way ---- but they gain more with a Republican in the White House.


Look it up.

(I'm too lazy to do your work this morning)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Zstream

So you are saying that poor and middle class citizens deserve free goods and services without any responsibility?

Who said the RICH are favored at all, in fact since you are so upset about the poor get nothing for free, then why not change tax % to a flat rate? Why not place the healthcare system on everyone with a flat rate?

You will now get upset at the above paragraph, start choose bits and pieces of the post. You will then say I am a neo-con, then say I am a right wing loon. If you want a Utopian society, where everyone is equal... well I LOL at you.

Historically, our system has been progressive (those who make more pay at a higher tax rate than those who make less). The Bush tax cuts - especially when combined with the effects of the (un-amended by Bush) Alternative Minimum Tax - made our system a lot less progressive. Over the last few decades, the disparity between the rich and middle class has grown enormously and (if my memory serves) the "real" earnings of the middle class have remained stagnant for at least the past 20 years. Add these trends up and extrapolate several more decades and we could end up with a system like those in many Central and South American countries, where large majorities of the population lives in poverty, the middle class is very small, and a tiny percentage have 99% of the total wealth.

No one has to SAY the rich are favored. Simply look at realty to see how advantaged the rich are and how well they're doing.

"Limited government" advocates would just accelerate this trend. So would the flat tax you mentioned.

My question to you is: Why would you want to advocate a system where a tiny percentage of the population does well and the rest do badly? Why would you want to live in a place where, in all likelihood, most of your relatives and friends and acquaintances would have to struggle for a decent life?

The answer to that, I believe, is rather simple. The functional logic that leads you to ask that question has, in too many cases, been detrained. The system that we create and has been created for us, a system that emphasizes competition, self reliance, money as a substitute spiritual and or moral values as a source of self respect, etc., creates a system that fosters negative emotions like hate.

Personal insecurity, the fear of failure, the the fear of weakness, the fear of hunger, the fear of sickness, the fear of homelessness, all these things emphasize a focus on self concerns. Our carrots are all the same, the desires for leisure time, fame, consumer goods, etc. all help to and support a tread mill, rat race, life style that is dehumanizing.

We have created a system, in short, that leads to physical ruin and death if you don't play and and a big piece of psychic death if you do but it is all about the individual and his personal triumphs and goals.

The winners vote to reinforce and maintain the system and the defeated are too marginalized to vote.

Why would anyone, with terror behind him and dreams of victory up front think to give anybody else a leg up. Only the survivors of some measure of psychic health would think to do so, in my opinion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Zstream
Ok,

What about the questions asked?

So you are saying that poor and middle class citizens deserve free goods and services without any responsibility?

No I think that is what the system we have created demands, a system that tends to concentrate wealth at the top, especially under the party of the rich, the Republicans.

What they want are bodies to work to produce for them, bodies raised for free and without pay by billions of Moms and Dads on their free time. Let's start paying people for time devoted to families enough that if they do only that they can survive. Why should the rich live in comfort and security on the backs of those who raise decent citizens for free. Let everybody remember that if it weren't for the loving care of those of us left that can provide it, your throat would be ripped out my some raving gang member somewhere, somebody who has mastered a whole different level of competition.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

:laugh: Yeah, that's "REALLY" want to do... :roll: Next time try starting with a premise that will hold up instead of some liberal tripe.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

:laugh: Yeah, that's "REALLY" want to do... :roll: Next time try starting with a premise that will hold up instead of some liberal tripe.

Take off your blinders. The premise holds up just fine. You can nit-pick the semantics of the word "want" to duhvert discussion, but the net effect of the policies advocated by today's right is accelerating the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few elite. This is exactly what those powerful elite want. I'll agree this may not be what rank-and-file conservatives "want" (since they're going to be on the losing end of the deal too), but it's what most of them have been duped into supporting.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

:laugh: Yeah, that's "REALLY" want to do... :roll: Next time try starting with a premise that will hold up instead of some liberal tripe.

Take off your blinders. The premise holds up just fine. You can nit-pick the semantics of the word "want" to duhvert discussion, but the net effect of the policies advocated by today's right is accelerating the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few elite. This is exactly what those powerful elite want. I'll agree this may not be what rank-and-file conservatives "want" (since they're going to be on the losing end of the deal too), but it's what most of them have been duped into supporting.

They've been duped because they're only concerned about "keeping up with the neighbor" instead of seeing the big picture.

 

[EXman]

I'd rather have a government that tells me what to do and how my money should be spent. What services I need. That I have limited or no options for any goods and services. That they tell me how much I can make for any profession. The Government knows better then the average Joe. We all need a bailout. Lets just give up being exceptional in everyway it doesn't matter anyways the government gives us everything we need. The government will force innovation. The government is looking out for me and well it is more efficient with time and money so why not folks give them all the power?

 

[sandorski]

Pavlovian Talking Point. Just like Gay Marriage and a bunch of other things. Clearly only a very few using the term have any intention to do it, they just use the term to get Votes.

 

[JD50]

liberals are funny.

 

[monovillage]

The OP asked for one example of "limited Government" How about another topic here at P&N where local, State or Federal Government can take citizens private property and then turn around and sell it to a business that may provide more of a tax base? Eminent domain to expand a tax base is a pretty good example of Government crossing a line from "limited" to unlimited power. No compelling reason for the Public good is needed, just an expansion of revenues.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: monovillage
The OP asked for one example of "limited Government" How about another topic here at P&N where local, State or Federal Government can take citizens private property and then turn around and sell it to a business that may provide more of a tax base? Eminent domain to expand a tax base is a pretty good example of Government crossing a line from "limited" to unlimited power. No compelling reason for the Public good is needed, just an expansion of revenues.

You remember that was the liberal judges that favored that. Very Progressive. Land and property rights got pwned.

In essence Libs want more tax to control more $. more money = more power.

 

[Elias824]

How about social security? It gives people a false sense of having their retirement provided for them, it takes money they could use now to invest themselves in private markets and probably get a far greater return, and promises them a pretty meager living far down the road. We have spend billions on the war on poverty but have things gotten any better?
Another point, when we have to deficit spend to get all of these great programs it really isnt helping anyone, you just devaluing the currency, yes plenty of republicans have done it too and im not defending them. A rational government would really be better for everyone.
Obviously we don't want no government, but we also dont want an unlimited government that does everything "in the name of the poor" there is some kind of middle ground there. I believe we do need to offer some kind of minimum, but not much more then that. Enough to get the poor an opportunity of becoming wealthy or at least becoming middle class, give them the opportunity to improve themselves and if they chose not to then that is their decision. Now what the minimum is can be up to debate.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Elias824
How about social security? It gives people a false sense of having their retirement provided for them, it takes money they could use now to invest themselves in private markets and probably get a far greater return, and promises them a pretty meager living far down the road. We have spend billions on the war on poverty but have things gotten any better?
Another point, when we have to deficit spend to get all of these great programs it really isnt helping anyone, you just devaluing the currency, yes plenty of republicans have done it too and im not defending them. A rational government would really be better for everyone.
Obviously we don't want no government, but we also dont want an unlimited government that does everything "in the name of the poor" there is some kind of middle ground there. I believe we do need to offer some kind of minimum, but not much more then that. Enough to get the poor an opportunity of becoming wealthy or at least becoming middle class, give them the opportunity to improve themselves and if they chose not to then that is their decision. Now what the minimum is can be up to debate.

Yes, money spent on social security has vastly decreased poverty among the elderly.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Elias824
How about social security? It gives people a false sense of having their retirement provided for them, it takes money they could use now to invest themselves in private markets and probably get a far greater return, and promises them a pretty meager living far down the road. We have spend billions on the war on poverty but have things gotten any better?
Another point, when we have to deficit spend to get all of these great programs it really isnt helping anyone, you just devaluing the currency, yes plenty of republicans have done it too and im not defending them. A rational government would really be better for everyone.
Obviously we don't want no government, but we also dont want an unlimited government that does everything "in the name of the poor" there is some kind of middle ground there. I believe we do need to offer some kind of minimum, but not much more then that. Enough to get the poor an opportunity of becoming wealthy or at least becoming middle class, give them the opportunity to improve themselves and if they chose not to then that is their decision. Now what the minimum is can be up to debate.

Yes, money spent on social security has vastly decreased poverty among the elderly.

Take the money the elderly has put into SS over x number of years, and conservatively invest that same money using x number years returns and see which egg is bigger. think you missed his point by the way.

Back on topic. There are many things our federal gov't is funding and involved in that, IMHO, has no right to be. Education is one. HUD et al is another.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Elias824
How about social security? It gives people a false sense of having their retirement provided for them, it takes money they could use now to invest themselves in private markets and probably get a far greater return, and promises them a pretty meager living far down the road. We have spend billions on the war on poverty but have things gotten any better?
Another point, when we have to deficit spend to get all of these great programs it really isnt helping anyone, you just devaluing the currency, yes plenty of republicans have done it too and im not defending them. A rational government would really be better for everyone.
Obviously we don't want no government, but we also dont want an unlimited government that does everything "in the name of the poor" there is some kind of middle ground there. I believe we do need to offer some kind of minimum, but not much more then that. Enough to get the poor an opportunity of becoming wealthy or at least becoming middle class, give them the opportunity to improve themselves and if they chose not to then that is their decision. Now what the minimum is can be up to debate.

Yes, money spent on social security has vastly decreased poverty among the elderly.

Take the money the elderly has put into SS over x number of years, and conservatively invest that same money using x number years returns and see which egg is bigger. think you missed his point by the way.

Back on topic. There are many things our federal gov't is funding and involved in that, IMHO, has no right to be. Education is one. HUD et al is another.

If you want to do that, you missed the point of social security by the way.

 

[Starbuck1975]

But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

Isn't that what everyone wants...for their taxes to go towards programs and functions of direct benefit, and either eliminate or shift the source of funding for those services they perceive as waste or not the responsibility of the government?

A challenge: If you are a conservative who advocates "limited government," please provide a SPECIFIC example of a change YOU advocate that reduces government spending but does NOT at the same time shift at least the same-size burden onto the backs of the poor and middle class. And, no, the utterly vague phrase "eliminate waste and fraud" does not qualify.

No one can reasonably answer that challenge. Someone always has to foot the bill...the cost is always going to shift to someone. I could for instance make an argument against Social Security, or Medicare, which would obviously reduces government spending but also place a burden on the elderly. Those with sufficient retirement funds will not feel the impact, but the poor and middle class of the retired population would.

I can play this game too:

A challenge: If you are a liberal who advocates social programs, please provide a SPECIFIC example of a program you would introduce that would greatly benefit the poor and middle class, but does NOT at the same time shift an unfair burden onto the backs of the upper class.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

:laugh: Yeah, that's "REALLY" want to do... :roll: Next time try starting with a premise that will hold up instead of some liberal tripe.

Take off your blinders. The premise holds up just fine. You can nit-pick the semantics of the word "want" to duhvert discussion, but the net effect of the policies advocated by today's right is accelerating the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few elite. This is exactly what those powerful elite want. I'll agree this may not be what rank-and-file conservatives "want" (since they're going to be on the losing end of the deal too), but it's what most of them have been duped into supporting.

wrong. The premise he puts out is that what us "limited government" types "really want" is his liberal load of crap. He doesn't support that at all and it's truly just faulty on it's face. You can say some interests may "really want" what he claims but it's just plain BS for him to put that on "limited government" types.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira
I see a lot of conservatives trot out the trope, "limited government." They say they want to reduce spending and reduce taxes. But when the implications of what they propose are analyzed, it turns out that what they REALLY want is to shift spending (and the taxation that funds it) to government functions they see as important and leave the responsibility of paying for all other essential services to private citizens.

:laugh: Yeah, that's "REALLY" want to do... :roll: Next time try starting with a premise that will hold up instead of some liberal tripe.

Take off your blinders. The premise holds up just fine. You can nit-pick the semantics of the word "want" to duhvert discussion, but the net effect of the policies advocated by today's right is accelerating the concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few elite. This is exactly what those powerful elite want. I'll agree this may not be what rank-and-file conservatives "want" (since they're going to be on the losing end of the deal too), but it's what most of them have been duped into supporting.

wrong. The premise he puts out is that what us "limited government" types "really want" is his liberal load of crap. He doesn't support that at all and it's truly just faulty on it's face. You can say some interests may "really want" what he claims but it's just plain BS for him to put that on "limited government" types.

As long as Republicans elect people like Bush and McCain, you're going to be confronted with those kinds of assessments. Basically, the Republican constituency is showing he's correct, even though he's mostly wrong.