Big Government Supporters I Have A Question

[IllTestYourGirls]

If you answer "no" to this question it destroys your argument for bigger government and presidential powers.

Do you wish George W Bush had more power?

End of story bigger government is not better.

[doridori]

wow you failed.

[who]

This thread makes no sense.

[tony286]

You see thinking people move and change with the situation. its not static.

[pocketkangaroo]

I don't see how that destroys anyone's argument. People didn't want George Bush to have more power because he was incompetent. There is a difference in the government as a whole and one person.

[IllTestYourGirls]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't see how that destroys anyone's argument. People didn't want George Bush to have more power because he was incompetent. There is a difference in the government as a whole and one person.

Then I should expand it to say the Republican congress and senate

[ADL Colin]

All humans are mortal.
Socrates is human.
So ???

{1} - Socrates is mortal.
{2} - Socrates is Greek.
{3} - None of these validly follows.

[ADL Colin]

I think you are getting opposition because for most people that is a gray issue not one that is black and white.

[pocketkangaroo]

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

Then I should expand it to say the Republican congress and senate

It's just that the term "big government" is extremely vague. There are areas the government should expand on. Areas they should pull back. And areas that are just fine the way they are. You have to be specific with what area you're talking about when you refer to big government. Otherwise it's not much different than saying "cooked food" is bad.

[ADL Colin]

I have mixed feelings. Purely from an economics standpoint ..

I like smaller government in that smaller government means fewer taxes. Private sector decisions are more efficient than government decisions.

However in a recession a larger government can provide a cushion against falling consumer demand. Consider what constitutes GDP. From any general econ textbook:

GDP = C + I + G + (X-M) + Change in inventories

where
C= consumption
I = Investment
G = Government spending
and X-M is exports and imports.

In a recession consumer confidence falls, savings increase and consumption decreases.
So C gets smaller. How about Investment? Well obviously we've seen the housing numbers. And also quite obviously businesses are not expanding with new plants and equipment right now. So I is going to be negative too. X-M is a product of many things but can't be counted on going in any particular direction in a recession. Same with inventories. So that leaves G, government spending.

Incidentally, one can see the breakdown by category by downloading the spreadsheet at
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/nati...ewsrelease.htm

Just click on "Tables only" and then go to table 3 for a complete breakdown.

Personal consumption expenditures. 10058.5
Gross private domestic investment. 2004.1
Change in private inventories... -39.9
Net exports of goods and services. -665.1
Government consumption expenditure and gross investment............. 2883.2
Total: $14.28 trillion

So government consumption and gross investments make up about 20% of GDP. That helps to provide a cushion. From Q3 to Q4 personal consumption decreased 2.3%. Private investment decreased 3%. And that was considered a pretty major recessionary quarter. So let's say the private sector is down 2.5%. If government spending can stay even then
total GDP decreases about 2% - all other things being equal. And if there is additional stimulus spending that will be even less. A frequently used rule of thumb is that a 1% increase in US GDP creates 1 million jobs. So saving 1/2% of GDP saves, on average 500,000 jobs.

Incidentally the actual 4th Q change was -.95% (annualized to -3.8% is the number given in the media. .95*4).

So what makes up government spending? (2008)
National Defense Expenditure. $639 billion
National Defense Investment. $95 billion
Non defense Expenditure. $292 billion
Non defense Investment. $44 billion
State and Local Expenditure. $1.45 trillion
State and Local Investment. $358 billion
Iraq+ Afghanistan. ?????

Everyone these days seems to like comparisons to the Great depression so what did these numbers look like on the eve of destruction?
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2008/08%2..._gdp_nipas.pdf

As you can see government spending in 1929 made up about 10% of GDP vs 20% today. Today we have a better cushion.

Don't get me wrong. I think the private sector is way more efficient than the public one in making economic spending decisions. Capital is allocated best by the private sector. But I also think there is some upside to larger government. I wouldn't want it any larger than today though. For my taste this is "just about right".

[mpahlca]

Originally Posted by ADL Colin

I like smaller government in that smaller government means fewer taxes. Private sector decisions are more efficient than government decisions.

The weird thing about America to me, is Bush de-regulated your economic system and supposedly put the power in the hands of the private sector, doesnt seem to have worked out this time or when it was done in the late 20's early 30's both times you went into a depression.

[ADL Colin]

Originally Posted by mpahlca

The weird thing about America to me, is Bush de-regulated your economic system and supposedly put the power in the hands of the private sector, doesnt seem to have worked out this time or when it was done in the late 20's early 30's both times you went into a depression.

I'd say it is a lot more complicated than just that - in both the present instance and in the Great Depression.

If we limit the conversation to just regulation/deregulation though markets do need regulations and it is difficult to find the right degree of regulation. It can even change over time. If you go back to when the Dutch came to the US and started a market on Wall Street in New Amsterdam (now NYC) it was a very unregulated market. As late as the 1920s public companies didn't need to file accurate quarterly statements. The market crash and Depression taught us that we did need more regulation and thus was born the Securities and Exchange Commission. At one time there was not agreement on what accounting principles to use and thus was born GAAP accounting pinciples.

The same is true of many markets. Regulations and laws protect and direct the actions of those who buy and sell stocks, commodities, currency, bonds, life insurance policies, options and yes, even houses.

Recently we've learned we need regulation over various derivatives and so that will happen. We've also learned that we need new regulations or maybe even re-regulating the housing market.

All markets are constantly evolving - being further regulated and deregulated then regulated again. There have been plenty of mistakes if you want to call them that and it will happen again. More money than ever is chasing assets due to the construction of various legal entities and leverage. I think the first time it occurred to me that something new was going on is when Soros brought down the pound. We will have to be more vigilant than ever.

[_Richard_]

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

I don't see how that destroys anyone's argument. People didn't want George Bush to have more power because he was incompetent. There is a difference in the government as a whole and one person.

i think that's what he's saying.. big government is good in the hands of the right person, but sometime the wrong person is going to take the reigns

[DaddyHalbucks]

When has big government EVER worked?

Every federal entitlement program is bankrupt now.

How is government run healthcare going to be any different?

[KillerK]

Bush was a shitty president (Other then he kept us from getting attacked again)
Obama will be a shitty president (We probably will get attacked or attacked soon after he leaves)

I see no difference, both are going to fuck us hard. Mainly it isn't them though it's the idiots in the house and senate that fuck us.

[TheDoc]

Bush took our Liberties.