[Soixante-Retard]

Indeed JasonRaine.

[Rainbow Crow]

Obama is lower than Bush 43 (not sure about 41), but not lower than Reagan or Clinton (in real terms), I think.

Your chart that you posted says Reagan 5.8 for his second term, and Obama is 4.8?

[Soixante-Retard]

^ I was basing my sentence on Dan Mitchell's analysis who delves into inflation-adjusted figures - which my chart doesn't take into account.

[Joe Liberty]

Joe Liberty, would you be surprised to find that if you were to cut the state to the bone and sack lots of social workers, abolish lots of programmes, and then wait six months, that the insurance premiums you have to pay on everything in the country would begin a sharp rise?

I don't see the connection. Enlighten me.

There is nothing for free in life.

I couldn't agree more. Nothing is free, particularly government benefits. They just look free to the people getting them, and to the people using other people's money to pay them. The thing is, they extract more than just monetary costs; they exert pressure on the laws of supply and demand, and they directly affect behavior, economic and otherwise. That's the sole purpose of an income tax, in fact: it's not revenue generation, it's social engineering. I'm not a big fan of social engineering.

I'll repeat, that I'm not (yet) an anarchist. From the terms I've seen bandied about I'd have to peg myself as a Minarchist. I think government serves a purpose, but it must remain a very limited purpose. Because when it comes down to it, government is nothing but the authorized use of force, and force should be used very sparingly and only in response to force. I don't believe that the end justifies the means, so my ability to rationalize the use of force to advance social and political goals is severely lacking.

[Genghis Khan]

I don't believe that the end justifies the means, so my ability to rationalize the use of force to advance social and political goals is severely lacking.

Then you should address my latest post to you in this thread. It might help.

[Joe Liberty]

The money for their salaries is still taken out of the economy

There wouldn't be an economy without them, so it's good that they're taken out of the economy. That's where they should be taken out of.

Again, that doesn't really address the point: the money for gov't salaires must be taken from the economy (or printed from thin air), since their jobs produce no profit. It is a parasitical relationship, by definition.

I've often heard people make the claim that there would be no economy without the government. That's patently absurd. People will trade with each other, that's simply human nature and the result of scarcity of resources. No government is needed for that to occur. Where government adds value (IMO) is the enforcement of property rights. But as the anarchists here will tell you, it can be argued that you don't even need a government per se for that. The statement that "there wouldn't be an economy without government" is just flat-out wrong.

Back to the point: Money removed from an economy, skimmed by bureaucrats, and then redistributed according to some elite's central planning scheme (more likely, doled out to political cronies) is not a recipe for real growth. It will give you the illusion of growth and it will be very very temporary, since by defintion a "bailout" is intended to counter (hide) market forces. It's crony capitalism, it's regulatory capture...it's a lot of things, but it's not "good".

and if you don't produce anything, there is no profit.

I measure benefit for society in more ways than mere monetary profit.

That's awesome, but (again) that's irrelevant to the discussion. We're not talking about how you value benefit to "society", it's about the fact that a government job isn't the same creature as a private-sector job, which cannot exist without profit. Government jobs must subsist on somebody else's profit.

government isn't earning it.

Government isn't a business, so whether or not they produce wealth is not a relevant question.

It is in the context of this discussion. It's the entire point.

and redistribute the rest to pay for jobs that produce no wealth

Government, at all levels, provides services to those who produce wealth, and in many ways enables them to do so.

For which they are already paying handsomely. For which they receive fewer government "benefits" than those who pay fewer taxes.

I'm not arguing against all taxation (although I am arguing against the income tax). I'm arguing that growing government is not the same thing as growing the economy. Government may attempt to control and steer an economy, but it's not really part of it.

That kind of "stimulus" stimulates government, and that's it.

Tell that to the auto workers in Michigan. The auto bailouts were so successful that Romney is now pitifully trying to take credit for them.

I'll tell anybody who will listen. Of course union members will refuse to see it that way because they got pantloads of everybody else's money.

As far as Romney goes, I'm not responsible for him and I don't support him, so I don't give a shit what he says.

IRS employees

Why do you want to talk about them? You'll just tell me that they're basically criminals for stealing money from productive people, I'll tell you that's bullshit because taxation is necessary for a functioning economy, and we'll be in an impasse.

I mentioend them as an example of government employees who don't produce anything. We're already at an impasse because you keep moving the goalposts.

Let's talk about TSA employees.

Without which blowing up a plane would become far less of a challenge.

Oh please. It's security theater. It's an excuse to grow government power. It's an excuse to infringe upon constitutional rights. It's an excuse for perpetual warfare.

Police don't protect you from anything, they mop up after the fact.

Tell that to Newark police. Their presence on the street since Mayor Booker took over has made crime decline very sharply, to the point where Newark had a murder-free month. In Newark!!

So again - You have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh good grief. This is not rocket science. Unless you have a cop stationed at your side 24x7, the police cannot protect you. It's ridiculous and dangerous to assume they do. Further, they have no constitutional duty to do so:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=1

It's impractical, nay physically impossible, to expect the police to protect you.

The same with firefighters. No home I've ever lived in has ever burned down (and even if it had); no firefighter is responsible for anything that I've produced.

So because it hasn't happened to you it hasn't happened to anyone? What is that? Libertarian logic?

You claimed that they enabled my prosperity, when they clearly haven't. You twisted my words and ran with them.

[Genghis Khan]

It is a parasitical relationship, by definition.

Would have been, except that they provide the apparatus through which the private sector operates.

I've often heard people make the claim that there would be no economy without the government. That's patently absurd.

No roads to drive in, no sewer to poop in (would there have been private sewers?), no police to protect you, no firefighters to put fires out, no city engineers to take care of the grid when it's out or needs upgrading etc etc etc. You bet your ass there would have been no economy.

That's patently absurd. People will trade with each other, that's simply human nature and the result of scarcity of resources.

You're talking about the initial drive to create wealth among people. Now apply that to government. What is it that made humanity want to come up with forms of government in the first place?

Money removed from an economy, skimmed by bureaucrats, and then redistributed according to some elite's central planning scheme (more likely, doled out to political cronies) is not a recipe for real growth.

Setting aside the very negative tone through which you're described government action, no one is saying that economic growth is directly created by government, or should be.

It is in the context of this discussion. It's the entire point.

That's awesome, but (again) that's irrelevant to the discussion.

You mean you would like it be irrelevant, because then you can't lose the argument. The question of "why is government even necessary?" cannot be answered by a profit/loss column, nor should it.

Of course union members will refuse to see it that way because they got pantloads of everybody else's money.

Those "union members" were in charge of providing a very valuable service to society. Cars. The relationship isn't one way.

Government may attempt to control and steer an economy, but it's not really part of it.

By definition, it is, since business owners don't distinguish between tax payer money and private funds. Since money coming in to their business is money coming in to their business.

For which they receive fewer government "benefits" than those who pay fewer taxes.

Those who pay fewer taxes do so because they have fewer resources. Assistance is a concept that was invented for those who need it, not for those who don't.

We're already at an impasse because you keep moving the goalposts.

Yes. I'm naughty that way.

Oh please. It's security theater. It's an excuse to grow government power. It's an excuse to infringe upon constitutional rights. It's an excuse for perpetual warfare.

Yeah, you're right. If there's one thing that Americans will always be aware of, is that there's no way on earth terrorists can take over planes.

Oh good grief. This is not rocket science.

No, but you make it look like Voodoo. The way you've completely ignored dropping crime stats is nothing short of magic.

Further, they have no constitutional duty to do so:

There's also no constitutional duty to put cream in my coffee. Doesn't mean I shouldn't.

You claimed that they enabled my prosperity, when they clearly haven't.

Really? What roads have you driven on up until now?

[Joe Liberty]

Would have been, except that they provide the apparatus through which the private sector operates.

As things are now, yes. But you're taking that a step further by assuming that without government, we'd have no roads, no sewers, no infrastructure at all. You must see how preposterous that is.

Government is one way to accomplish infrastructure. But it's nutty to assume that people would be helpless to construct the necessary items of everyday life without a coercive monopoly doing it for them.

You're talking about the initial drive to create wealth among people.

That, and continued wealth creation among people. So you agree with me that government is not responsible nor necessary for trade.

Now apply that to government. What is it that made humanity want to come up with forms of government in the first place?

You're asking for the pre-history origins of government? My guess would be that they were motivated by fear of other tribes, so they wanted a "national defense".

Setting aside the very negative tone through which you're described government action,

I tend to view un-provoked coercion in a negative light.

...no one is saying that economic growth is directly created by government, or should be.

Then I misunderstood most of what you've said, apparently. I thought that's exactly what you were arguing.

You mean you would like it be irrelevant, because then you can't lose the argument.

No I mean irrelevant in that you're changing the context of the discussion. You're attempting to dismiss my points by moving the goalposts.

Those "union members" were in charge of providing a very valuable service to society. Cars. The relationship isn't one way.

The company was going under because people weren't buying their cars. The relationship wasn't one-way when they were selling cars to people willing to purchase them. It becamse one-way when taxpayers were forced to artificially prop up their failed business.

I also detect that wondrous assumption that if one car company goes under, suddenly nobody will make cars anymore, forever and ever, amen. Bull hockey.

By definition, it is, since business owners don't distinguish between tax payer money and private funds. Since money coming in to their business is money coming in to their business.

That doesn't make government part of the economy, rather than a parasite on top of it. Something other than regulations and prisons must be produced to count as part of the economy.

Those who pay fewer taxes do so because they have fewer resources.

Another move of the goalpost. We're not talking about why those people pay fewer taxes, I was addressing your point that the wealthy should pay for government. They already do, and they get less benefit from it than the poor do. That was the point.

No, but you make it look like Voodoo. The way you've completely ignored dropping crime stats is nothing short of magic.

I ignored a drop in crime stats in one locality, which may or may not have been affected by the police. You've proven no causality, you simply assumed it. I can show you stats that prove that traffic fatalities were on the decline before seat belt laws were forced upon the States, and then I can show you somebody who (just like you're doing) loves to attribute the drop to seat belt laws. The relationship may be what you claim it is, but you've not even attempted to prove it.

There's also no constitutional duty to put cream in my coffee. Doesn't mean I shouldn't.

Now you're just getting ridiculous.

The police have no obligation, nor the power, to protect you from harm. That is a fact, and that was the point being debated, not your stupid coffee.

This is going nowhere.

[Rei Murasame]

I don't see the connection. Enlighten me.

You actually answered the question in your own post when you talked about social engineering. Without the relative peace caused by the presence of the welfare state, you'd have a lot more social problems to deal with, more health problems, and higher crime.

And thus higher insurance premiums.

[Genghis Khan]

As things are now, yes. But you're taking that a step further by assuming that without government, we'd have no roads, no sewers, no infrastructure at all. You must see how preposterous that is.

Who would build them? And at who's expense? Who would be allowed to use it?

That, and continued wealth creation among people. So you agree with me that government is not responsible nor necessary for trade.

Not for the creation of it, no. Trade can exist without governments, but it could fall prey to a privately owned monolithic entity.

You're asking for the pre-history origins of government? My guess would be that they were motivated by fear of other tribes, so they wanted a "national defense".

Was it just that? No other reason?

I thought that's exactly what you were arguing.

Yeah, a lot of people think I think that, when I don't. By the way, people on the left also don't think so.

No I mean irrelevant in that you're changing the context of the discussion.

We've never defined the context of the argument in the first place. I think there are other variables involved. Introducing them in the discussion, just because you don't want to talk about them, is hardly unfair.

The company was going under because people weren't buying their cars.

Yeah, but why? You can't just cut the context of the discussion at that point and then tell me I'm moving the goalposts when I refuse to cut it there.

Something other than regulations and prisons must be produced to count as part of the economy.

I'd disagree with that, but I'm scared you'll tell me I'm moving the goalposts again.

We're not talking about why those people pay fewer taxes

No. You don't want to talk about it, but I'm not content cutting off the context of the discussion at the point of your choosing. I don't remember agreeing to that.

I ignored a drop in crime stats in one locality, which may or may not have been affected by the police. You've proven no causality, you simply assumed it.

So you're saying it's possible that right around the time that police visibility on the streets increased substantially, criminals have decided, in an unrelated fashion, to take a vacation?

The police have no obligation, nor the power, to protect you from harm.

That's their job!!!