Bush's 2007 Budget

[ssternlight]

Quote from futures_shark:

I know what communism is, do you?

Communism
1. A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

How did I misuse the term? The poster I was referring to seems to think the State has to regulate everything, or in other words, control the economy.

I didn't want to go into more detail for fear of hijacking the thread, but since you mentioned it, maybe you have an example of where government actually solved a problem. And it doesn't count if the problem being solved was caused by government in the first place.

Here's a version based on the original Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels:

An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.

You see it's exactly the opposite of what happened in China and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the term got hijacked...and now people use it as you do to mean an authoritarian command economy setup. Notice that the definition you chose to post was #2 and not #1. Having said that, I agree that there can be too much regulation. However, the nutritional industry is ripe for a bit more based on my own observations.

As to benefits/problems solved by the government. There are many projects which don't provide an immediate economic return but which still make great sense in the long run for a society to support.

A. Public Works [dams, harbor and river clearance, roads, etc...]
B. National Parks
C. Armed Forces [security]
D. Police, Fire, Sanitation
E. Environmental Protection
F. Court Systems
G. Public Universities, Student Loans, etc...

Putting aside the cynicism we all naturally have about our government right now, it's actually been a great idea and for many years was a spectacular success.

BTW, I'd like to apologize for my tone in the last post. It really is just a pet peeve. Sorry to lay it out on you.

Sam

 

[futures_shark]

Quote from ssternlight:

Here's a version based on the original Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels:

An economic theory which stresses that the control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest their labor for production. In its ideal form, social classes cease to exist, there is no coercive governmental structures, and everyone lives in abundance without supervision from a ruling class. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels popularized this theory in their 1848 Communist Manifesto.

You see it's exactly the opposite of what happened in China and the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the term got hijacked...and now people use it as you do to mean an authoritarian command economy setup. Notice that the definition you chose to post was #2 and not #1. Having said that, I agree that there can be too much regulation. However, the nutritional industry is ripe for a bit more based on my own observations.

As to benefits/problems solved by the government. There are many projects which don't provide an immediate economic return but which still make great sense in the long run for a society to support.

A. Public Works [dams, harbor and river clearance, roads, etc...]
B. National Parks
C. Armed Forces [security]
D. Police, Fire, Sanitation
E. Environmental Protection
F. Court Systems
G. Public Universities, Student Loans, etc...

Putting aside the cynicism we all naturally have about our government right now, it's actually been a great idea and for many years was a spectacular success.

BTW, I'd like to apologize for my tone in the last post. It really is just a pet peeve. Sorry to lay it out on you.

Sam

No harm done. I could have phrased that post better to get my point across. However, according to the American Heritage Dictionary I did not misuse the word, although I did fail to capitalize it.

Most of the things on your list only help people in local areas and should not be funded by the federal government. In addition, thoses are all services, some of which could be provided by private enterprise. The court system is the only thing that I would say really should be run by government.

As this thread has gone terribly off-topic let me add something valuable to the actual thread topic here. The full 2007FY Budget document is available here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/browse.html

 

[futures_shark]

Here is a spreadsheet showing federal money going to the states for state programs. Cutting this out would pay for most of the current deficit. I can think of no logical excuse why state programs should be paid for by the federal government.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/8_6.xls

 

[ssternlight]

Quote from futures_shark:

Here is a spreadsheet showing federal money going to the states for state programs. Cutting this out would pay for most of the current deficit. I can think of no logical excuse why state programs should be paid for by the federal government.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/sheets/8_6.xls

Speaking from a blue state that is a net contributor to the Federal Government I'd be inclined to agree.

However, it's too general -- no indication as to what that money is being spent on. No way to make an informed judgement.

 

[ssternlight]

Quote from futures_shark:

No harm done. I could have phrased that post better to get my point across. However, according to the American Heritage Dictionary I did not misuse the word, although I did fail to capitalize it.

Most of the things on your list only help people in local areas and should not be funded by the federal government. In addition, thoses are all services, some of which could be provided by private enterprise. The court system is the only thing that I would say really should be run by government.

As this thread has gone terribly off-topic let me add something valuable to the actual thread topic here. The full 2007FY Budget document is available here: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/browse.html

Well,

National defense?
Roads that transport goods from state to state?
Educational loans?
Universities?
etc...

I don't see any of these as merely local in their impact.

 

[options2001]

Ok everyone is bashing the medical system and the doctors, so let me stick up for them. Doctors got to school for 8+ years putting in countless numberof hours in classes and reading. accumulate debt of over $150,000. most of them have no real life. they got to sacrifice having fun and other things most other young kids enjoy, starting from the time they are in highschool inorder to make it thru. Then they have 3-4 years of Residency where they get paid about minimum wage or less working about 80+ hours/week. some of them lots more. if u get 6 hrs of sleep they are lucky. then some go into general practice where they get about 120,000 - 150,000 working about 60+ hrs. pay looks good but consider most get no real benefits no cushy retirement plan like people who work for govt or private companies. The smart ones specialize after residency and spend another 3-6 yrs making about $50,000 working long hours again. then they make well over $200,000. Most of the money people think doctor is actually is making goes to greedy insurence companies and businessmen. What do they get for basically sacrificing thier entire life and their families life. accusations they are greedy and they suck. the patients in general are very ungrateful and are unrealistic about thier expectations. Doctors make mistakes just like everyone else. and guess what they get for thier mistakes. a chance to lose ur license and ur liveleyhood, and ofcourse thats not enough so the greedy freakin lawyers go after their hard earned personal savings.. If a politican fucks up and people die no big deal. if you are some one else makes mistakes while drivng no big deal, no one takes all your money. IF physicians want to find a job they got to go thru recruiters that take about 15% of their salary. If they want to keep their licence they got to take board exams every 7 years which people say is the toughest exam in the world. they also have to spend many many hours each year going to conferences or lectures. What do physicans get for all the sacrifices they make all their life, getting a toungue lashing from everyone and thier mothers calling them greedy and 2nd rate. Ive been to lots of countries and have met lots of physicians. American physicians are head and shoulders above any other country. that includes canada, france, england, and japan. im convinced no other countries come close in any field in medicine. Are there greedy physicans or dumass physicians? ofcourse which field doesnt. NO SMART PERSON SHOULD GO INTO MEDICINE ITS NOT WORTH IT. most people are realizing this and are going into other fields. So guess what if u think doctors suck now wait till next crop of doctors.

 

[futures_shark]

Quote from ssternlight:

Speaking from a blue state that is a net contributor to the Federal Government I'd be inclined to agree.

However, it's too general -- no indication as to what that money is being spent on. No way to make an informed judgement.

What do you mean by net contributor? I'm unaware of any state tax revenue that gets diverted to the federal government.

And it doesn't matter what the money is being spent on. My point is that you pay federal taxes to pay for the federal government and state taxes to pay for the state government. Allowing federal funds to flow back to the states encourages senators & congressmen to steal as much of it as they can(in the form of pork) to ensure they get re-elected. I do not believe that the government was originally designed to operate this way.

 

[ssternlight]

Quote from futures_shark:

What do you mean by net contributor? I'm unaware of any state tax revenue that gets diverted to the federal government.

And it doesn't matter what the money is being spent on. My point is that you pay federal taxes to pay for the federal government and state taxes to pay for the state government. Allowing federal funds to flow back to the states encourages senators & congressmen to steal as much of it as they can(in the form of pork) to ensure they get re-elected. I do not believe that the government was originally designed to operate this way.

Here is a link to help define what I am referring to with respect to net contributors vs net recipients:

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1677

Your perspective on spending is too simplistic I think. There are many projects that it makes more sense for the states to manage but are required/funded by the federal government.

One example that was a big bone of contention was "No child left behind." Another is homeland security funding for cities. Congress passes many laws that require Federal funding to implement whether they actually appropriate that funding or not -- you've probably heard the term "unfunded mandate."

Another example would be projects which are multi-state -- Colorado river management comes to mind.

Having said all that, I do understand where you are coming from and a bottom up review of the system would certainly save billions of dollars.

Gotta hop. Lot's going on today. Have a good one.

 

[Haroki]

Nice chart-

I live in California and always thought that's the way it was. I got in an arguement once with a guy from NM about all that. He was bragging about how good they had it there and all that and I told him yeah, we're supporting you, no wonder.....

I also noticed that a lot of the net positives were lower population density states, isn't that how it's supposed to work? We help them out? ( I know, after the above para, it seems like I'm contradicting myself) ....

Also, it looks like the more expensive states are net losers.....

 

[futures_shark]

That's an excellent article on mises.org, thanks for the link. And I admit I wasn't thinking about federally mandated spending at the state level when I posted that prior info. Although if you match that data with data about the amount of pork spending per state I think the results are interesting.

Citizens Against Government Waste - Pork spending per capita by state (2003)

Here's a summary:

Data for 2003
Per Capita - federal spending	Per capita pork ranking
1  New Mexico        1.90	4
2  Alaska            1.80	1
3  Mississippi       1.75	14
4  West Virginia     1.74	5
5  North Dakota      1.65	11
6  Alabama           1.62	17
7  Virginia          1.53	37
8  Montana           1.52	10
9  Hawaii            1.51	2
10 Kentucky          1.47	16

With the exception of Virginia, the list of the top recipients of federal funds are also tops in pork barrel spending.

From this data, I think it is a reasonable conclusion that by allowing federal funds to flow back to the states the incentive is added for increased pork spending to buy votes for the incumbent senators & congressman.