something must explain why a supposedly free people allow themselves to be ruled and misused this way; why we arrive at a government that can't deliver water to stranded citizens but can build a mini-GITMO in less than five days.
Labels: Pelicans
Friday, November 06, 2009
In-effing-deed
In an important post that you should read more than once, Jeffrey writes:
18 comments
DiggIt!
Del.icio.us
18 Comments:
The obvious solution to a large, powerful, sometimes ineffective federal government?
Well, if I listen to you all, it's easy...
A larger, more powerful, yet somehow more effective (you all just want me to trust you on that one, wink wink) federal government...
It makes perfect sense.
"If I listen to you all..."
But that's the problem, GO. Too often you don't listen. You assume.
If you read YRHT, you'd know that I've never advocated merely for larger government, and never equated a larger gubmint with a more effective one. I've always militated for effective and transparent government. As a liberal, I think government can be part of the solution to some commonly shared problems, but that doesn't necessitate it being "large" or getting "larger". For example, I'm quite convinced that government in Louisiana and New Orleans could shrink wildly and yet still be much more effective.
For me, "larger" government in and of itself is never the solution. Obama's idea of an Ipod government is the right metaphor to aspire towards.
GO, I'm not sure who you are listening to, but I am a daily reader of Jeffrey's and Oyster's blogs. I've never read anything that suggests they believe all of our problems would be solved if the federal government was "larger" and "more powerful."
You miss the point being made here: This isn't about expanding or decreasing the size and scope of government. It's about our shared priorities. After Katrina, the government (mainly the state) was incredibly efficient at building temporary prison facilities (which, if the first-hand accounts are to be taken seriously, were definitely comparable to mini-GITMOs), but as Jeffrey points out, was incredibly inefficient at delivering something as basic and necessary as water.
Do yourself a favor and pick up Dave Eggers's newest book, Zeitoun. Then, I think, you'll be in a better position to understand what, exactly, you're "listening" to.
So Barack Obama is for smaller Government? Seriously? Wow.
I'd ask if you were saying that with a straight face, but you typed it.
I know I give you guys just as much comedic joy/intellectually/idealogical sense of superiority fueled pity as you give to me...
I appreciate YRHT...It's a great place to get a good laugh...as I'm sure you might feel tuning in to my comments can be, as well...
GO: During the last thirty years, which two Presidents are responsible for the largest expansions in government bureaucracy?
Which President said, "The era of big government is over"?
Which President said, "We know that government can't solve all our problems - and we don't want it to"?
Which president ran up more spending in his first 100 days in office than the ridiculously big spender who was in office for two terms before him not accomplish while dealing with the biggest terrorist attack on US soil in history, the greatest natural disaster in US history, two wars in two separate theaters-of his own making, & a small recession thrown in to boot as a result of the terrorist attack?
I'll hang up and listen.
Facts speak louder than quotes.
Dollars speak louder than rhetoric.
The stimulus was not perfect by any measure, but it was done with the aim of injecting capital into an economy that had been pulverized by an administration that turned a projected surplus (expected to be nearly 2.4% of our GDP) into record-setting deficits, an administration that sat idly by as the gap between the rich and the poor became the highest in American history, an administration that directly committed nearly $1 trillion into wars-- one of which was sold to the American public using flawed intelligence.
The fact is: Like it or not, George W. Bush began committing billions of taxpayer dollars in order to bail out banks and other financial institutions months before Obama was inaugurated. Indeed, many economists believe his failure to appropriately intervene in Lehman Brothers (which may have been due to a personality conflict between Paulson and the Lehman executives) dramatically exacerbated an already perilous situation.
How quickly some forget recent history!
Obama inherited the worst economic conditions in America in nearly three decades; some suggest that we faced the worst conditions since the Great Depression.
Again, he didn't create those conditions; he inherited them.
Time will tell if his approach is successful, but after eight years of George W. Bush, clearly, we know what doesn't work.
Here's the economic facts from 1960 to 2002 comparing growth, taxation and government spending between Democratic and Republican presidential administrations.
Real GDP Growth:
Democrat: 4.09%
Republican: 2.75%
Unemployment:
Democrat: 5.33%
Republican: 6.44%
Government Spending:
Democrat: 19.58% of GDP
Republican: 20.87% of GDP
Government Spending With Defense expenditures removed:
Democrat: 13.76% of GDP
Republican: 14.97% of GDP
Deficit Spending:
Democrat: 1.21% of GDP
Republican: 2.74% of GDP
Taxation:
Democrat: 18.39% of GDP
Republican: 18.12% of GDP
Inflation:
Democrat: 3.81%
Republican: 4.85%
Comparing stock market returns over the last century between GOP and Dem administrations is even more lopsided. link
Oh, and the "small recession thrown in to boot as a result of the terrorist attack?" claim is false. The recession began well before 9/11 and ended shortly thereafter.
WTF? Cenlamar and Oyster, don't implicitly cede the absurd point that a government with an activist economic policy is less respectful of individual liberty than a laissez-faire one. The great saint Ronald Reagan got elected by promising to get government off the backs of the people, and he kept his libertarian promises by gutting OSHA enforcement and environmental laws while launching a war on drugs and a crackdown on pornography. It's not because of liberal Democrats marching polluters and dishonest corporate executives off to prison that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world -- several times that of the more socialized countries of Western Europe. No Go, I'm not saying you're a knee-jerk Reagan-worshiper (or even a Republican), but I am saying that the idea that that "big government" always trods on personal freedoms is an absurd one.
Look at the quote that started the debate -- governments that a have a laissez-faire attitude toward helping citizens can be quite adept at imprisoning citizens.
By 
bayoustjohndavid, at
12:20 AM
Oyster,
When did I say I was comparing Republicans from 1960 to 2002 to Democrats from the same time period?
I noticed you say absolutely nothing about the information I posited. You merely ran off as if I was comparing Bush-who spent money like she was a Copeland Wife, Version 2.0 or greater, as you've eloquently shown here in the past-to other Democrats in the past 50 years.
I compared him to the one in office right now, whom in 1/100th of the time in office, spent MORE MONEY than the other drunken sailor spent the ENTIRE TIME he was in office.
But, this is a man who is for "smaller government" according to those in this thread.
I'll Channel Les Miles here.
Certainly, this Registered Independent looks forward to more numerical gymnastics & fiduciary contortionist work from the rest of you. I have a want to believe you. It's just that I look forward to a thing called reality, & living in it daily.
1/100th of the time in office, and he's already SPENT MORE MONEY. He's spent money on the war(s) for 4 months. Bush spent FIVE BILLION A MONTH on Iraq alone, and how long has that been?
But, this is a man who will reign in government bureaucracy, while curing what ails our health system with even more bureaucracy, just a bureaucracy that will somehow magically not add any burden to anyone anywhere that shouldn't already have the burden on them anyway for being so heinously evil & industrious as to be successful (Because we all know affluent people are innately evil, despicable, & deserve to be taxed with a yolk far heavier than the lazy, less industrious, & more risk-averse members of our society. It's just the truth).
You all make PERFECT sense.
Bureaucracy that will suddenly be nothing like any bureaucracy we've seen before out of our Government.
Bureaucrazy is more like it...
This comment has been removed by the author.
No doubt, years of systematic deregulation together with a blind faith in the never-ending growth of the housing sector and a belief in trickle-down economics all worked to create the current situation. (And, to be fair, Clinton did more to enable deregulation than to prevent it).
The point I was attempting to make was this: It is disingenuous and dishonest to suggest that government spending and the powers of the federal government have decreased more under Republican administrations than under Democratic administrations, particularly during the last four or five decades. Oyster provides numbers that clearly demonstrate this.
If the question is about who seeks a larger and more powerful federal government, then I think clearly Republicans have better demonstrated this desire-- not necessarily through their words, but through their actions.
If the question is who better protects individual liberties and freedoms, then I think, as you suggest, you'd really need to look long and hard at the way the political right has championed spending billions of dollars prosecuting and imprisoning people for consensual crimes in the so-called War on Drugs, the way they approach the right to privacy, and their opposition to equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans.
I guess what I'm getting at: I agree with you, bayoustjohndavid.
So...have any of you heard about Representative Barney Frank's longtime boitoy getting busted for the 2nd time in 2 years on pot charges?
First off, how in the world can Frank feign ignorance on this? Oh, yeah...he feigned ignorance for the economy heading into the deucer, as well...So, I'm sure its easy for his main squeeze to hide an illegal grow (for personal consumption, I'm sure) operation from him...
But, this isn't the actual issue at hand. When questioned by police, Frank indicated that he "only smokes Cigars".
No, what I want to know from the readership here is this:
1.) How many jokes can be made from that "defense" from Frank?
2.) Do you guys think that the cops were wondering if Frank was "blowing smoke up their asses"?
Go: I thought a larger presidential sample might be better to use, since we are debating large topics like government growth. The interesting thing, though, is that those stats reveal that government as a % of GDP has been smaller under Democratic administrations.
BSJD: I'm not sure I did "implicitly cede the absurd point that a government with an activist economic policy is less respectful of individual liberty than a laissez-faire one." But if I did, I sure appreciate the correction.
Go: I didn't comment on the 1/100th claim because I don't know how you arrive at that. Are you talking overall Federal spending, and are we just totally divorcing ourselves from the circumstances of the financial crisis Obama inherited (Bush began the bailouts after all). This is a "talking point" sort of claim-- from where does it source, and how was it calculated?
Yes he's conveniently divorcing himself from that fact. Also:
- I compared him to the one in office right now, whom in 1/100th of the time in office, spent MORE MONEY than the other drunken sailor spent the ENTIRE TIME he was in office.
But, this is a man who is for "smaller government" according to those in this thread.
Where did all that money go? It certainly didn't go into creating a larger government now did it? It went to private corporations, i.e., Goldman Sachs, AIG, etc.
If your argument is that he spent a shitload of tax dollars when he first came into office, you're dead on but you're conveniently omitting that money was to plug the pipes to stop the entire economy from going down the shitter.
If you're arguing that Obama is creating a "bigger government" show me where that's happened? Show me the stats which say FEMA's employee numbers have doubled, or the IRS is hiring a lot more agents.
I don't understand how you think the bailout created larger government...what it did was create larger monopolies. You should be happy about that as it seems you ascribe to the belief that unbridled capitalism and the private sector are the panacea to social structure.
Very well said, Dambala.