Tea Party

[Faithfulservant]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Saw the signs from the tea party yesterday but got a bit confused. Apparently some thought that Obama was a fascist and some thought he was socialist/communist.
No one on the same page here?

I plead the 5th.. wait.. I still have THAT right dont I?

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I plead the 5th.. wait.. I still have THAT right dont I?

lol...Bush could not risk dumping that right too

[wil]

Originally Posted by Faithfulservant

I plead the 5th.. wait.. I still have THAT right dont I?

I'd like 8th note to be 1st 2 2nd da moshun dat u may go 4th to plead da 5th

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Saying and doing are two entirely different things.

Hence my use of the term "in spirit."

It's not hard for me to say. My answer is a resounding no, small government philosophy is not part of GOP political culture.

Would the average Republican agree with this?

I would say that this demonstrates the correlation between government growth and economic sluggishness.

I think the term we're looking for is 'fiscal federalism.' Does it have a negative economic impact? What does the research tell us? An empirical issue, isn't it?

Who said that allowing conglomeration to nearly gain a monopoly on markets is free-market ideology? That leads to a homogenization of markets, rather than promoting the healthy diversity of markets needed for the free market to adapt to meet both supply and demand, and leaves the markets more vulnerable to manipulation on a wide scale.

I think you might be describing an ideal free market situation. In reality, industry competition invariably seeks to establish a monopoly or a oligopoly. That is, capitalists seek to control the means of production and wealth.

Markets that are this open to manipulation can't really be considered to be free, can they?

It's a good point. But someone could easily argue that policies that allow industry competition should either explicitly or implicitly allow a natural trend toward monopoly or oligopoly. They could even argue that government should assist the success of said trends.

Bigger government does not mean more effective government, any more than an overdose of medicine would be considered more effective than the correct dosage.

True.

I don't know about the Tea Party attendees, but I've been stomping my feet over ever-increasing government spending since I've been nine years old--after doing a school project about economics--without any prompting from political talking heads.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hence my use of the term "in spirit."


Would the average Republican agree with this?

I don't know. Where are the "average Republicans" to survey?

I think the term we're looking for is 'fiscal federalism.' Does it have a negative economic impact? What does the research tell us? An empirical issue, isn't it?

Political motives tend to color this, rather than purely economic need, no? Is there a way to isolate politically biased practice from unbiased, in order to get a reliable measure?

I think you might be describing an ideal free market situation. In reality, industry competition invariably seeks to establish a monopoly or a oligopoly. That is, capitalists seek to control the means of production and wealth.

Gee whiz, so do the socialists and the communists!

It's a good point. But someone could easily argue that policies that allow industry competition should either explicitly or implicitly allow a natural trend toward monopoly or oligopoly. They could even argue that government should assist the success of said trends.

Perhaps while under the influence of political contributions from said potential monopolies?

True.

I'm still stomping my feet!

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Political motives tend to color this, rather than purely economic need, no?

With enough studies, the political motives should get randomized out.

The problem I see with arguing that data are always slanted is that it leads to a generalized rejection of all research evidence. This puts you in a difficult position of not being able to support your contentions and reduces all positions to mere opinion.

I'm still stomping my feet!

Unless you have some data, it's hard to make a compelling argument concerning economics, which deals with numbers.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

With enough studies, the political motives should get randomized out.

The problem I see with arguing that data are always slanted is that it leads to a generalized rejection of all research evidence, which puts you in a difficult position of not being able to support your contentions.

I'm a natural skeptic where government in concerned.

Unless you have some data, that may be all you can do!

Did you see my edit explaining my concerns?

Political motives tend to color this, rather than purely economic need, no? Is there a way to isolate politically biased practice from unbiased, in order to get a reliable measure?

In order to get enough data, you would have to have the practice fairly widespread. Not a good idea if it turns virulent, huh? (OK, I admit that my natural conservativeness is asserting itself here.)

<edit to add: now I'm catching up with your edits:>

Unless you have some data, it's hard to make a compelling argument concerning economics, which deals with numbers.

Optimizing theory and practice can be difficult, no?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Did you see my edit explaining my concerns?

Not sure. Btw, I edited one of my sentences.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Not sure. Btw, I edited one of my sentences.

Op-Ed pieces.
Looks like it's time to break out the chocolate covered almonds.

[Netti-Netti]

You previously proposed that there is a the correlation between government growth and economic sluggishness. To assess growth in the long term would require a time series analysis. I don't have that kind of data handy. However, just on logical grounds I'd say it's very hard to generalize. It would depend on how the government spends the money and the allocative efficacy. There are ongoing efforts to track these things. But you gotta put the ideologue role aside for a bit and dig up the studies.

My sense is that people don't like big government because they don't like to pay for it (taxes). Their attitudes might be different if they were aware of the effects of federal expenditures. It's hard to generalize. But there have been numerous empirical studies that look at the effects of spending in specific sectors.

Under Bill Clinton, government expenditures led to increased economic growth, especially from expenditures relating to large scale construction.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/12/art1full.pdf

Public spending on surface transportation systems has been found to have good returns. This kind of spending is effective in increasing economic output, reducing costs prices, and raising incomes and profits.
http://www.apta.com/research/info/on...hy_returns.pdf

Education expenditures are capable of producing increased GDP growth.
http://richmondfed.org/publications/...f/cullison.pdf

On an international scale, it has been found that countries that "spend the most on social programs do not grow the slowest." (Peter Lindert, 1996)

Prof. Lindert has done a lot of work in this area. If you were to look up his research, I think you'd find it very interesting. l8r.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

You previously proposed that there is a the correlation between government growth and economic sluggishness. To assess growth in the long term would require a time series analysis. I don't have that kind of data handy. However, just on logical grounds I'd say it's very hard to generalize. It would depend on how the government spends the money and the allocative efficacy. There are ongoing efforts to track these things. But you gotta put the ideologue role aside for a bit and dig up the studies.

My sense is that people don't like big government because they don't like to pay for it (taxes). Their attitudes might be different if they were aware of the effects of federal expenditures. It's hard to generalize. But there have been numerous empirical studies that look at the effects of spending in specific sectors.

You don't think that the Tenth Amendment has anything to do with it?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Under Bill Clinton, government expenditures led to increased economic growth, especially from expenditures relating to large scale construction.
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/12/art1full.pdf

Public spending on surface transportation systems has been found to have good returns. This kind of spending is effective in increasing economic output, reducing costs prices, and raising incomes and profits.
http://www.apta.com/research/info/on...hy_returns.pdf

Education expenditures are capable of producing increased GDP growth.
http://richmondfed.org/publications/...f/cullison.pdf

On an international scale, it has been found that countries that "spend the most on social programs do not grow the slowest." (Peter Lindert, 1996)

Prof. Lindert has done a lot of work in this area. If you were to look up his research, I think you'd find it very interesting. l8r.

I'm quite favorable regarding improving roads for interstate travel, as long as it is audited properly.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

You don't think that the Tenth Amendment has anything to do with it?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Interesting point. Why don't the states do what the Federal government is doing in the way of stimulus programs?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Interesting point. Why don't the states do what the Federal government is doing in the way of stimulus programs?

Are you aware of anything that is prompting the feds to do this while discouraging the States from tending their gardens? (Perhaps those who prefer centralization that is easier to manipulate?)

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Are you aware of anything that is prompting the feds to do this while discouraging the States from tending their gardens?

An incisive line of questioning. My initial reaction: Preemption has to do with Federal policy/action interfering with the enforcement of state or local laws/initiatives. I'm not aware of a verified instance of preemption in connection with Federal stimulus.

I appreciate the Libertarian antifederalist stance. However, it's very hard to make a compelling case against alleged Centralist tendencies when none have been specificaly established in this context (non sequitur). I might add: some states have their own stimulus plans, at least in certain sectors.

Perhaps those who prefer centralization that is easier to manipulate?

Better to manipulate at the state or local level?

[earl]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Interesting point. Why don't the states do what the Federal government is doing in the way of stimulus programs?

Because most of them are broke/in the red. earl