Another Question Liberals Can't Answer

The success of these programs have nothing to do with the topic (although we could debate that if interested). You made the claim that this has been the largest federal expansion in history. I challenge you to back it up, and I'm prepared to argue that some presidents such as Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and LBJ have all increased the size of gov't more than the current president.

Do you have an income? Do you pay taxes?

It's known as "progressive tax" where people with more "disposable income" pay a higher percentage of that income in tax than do those with less income. It's not proportional to wealth, which, is what I would argue would be the fairest.

FDR especially. We went from the minimalist government of the 20s to near-Socialism in the 30s. To use metaphorical language, our government went from about the size of a pea to the size of a whale during FDR's 100 Days Congress.

And of course, in the end it didn't do a whole lot of good and we just managed to scrape by until World War II bailed us out. In a perverse way we have the Nazis to thank for the end of the Great Depression.

I could make the case for the all of them. Jackson w/ vetoes, displacement of Indians, etc. (though he did veto the 2nd Nat'l bank).

Lincoln with suspension of habeas corpus, Clement Vallandigham and the jailing of dissenters/protestors in Canada, silencing of anti-war press...

Wilson with Federal Reserve, WW1, income tax...

FDR with his deficit spending, alphabet agencies (especially the TVA -- closest thing to Socialism this country has ever approached), and the creation of a welfare state.

LBJ and his "Great Society" which was largely just an extension of New Deal -- essentially solidified the welfare state and created a permanent dependency on government.

I could go into further detail, but you get the point. Above are examples of expansion of gov't. Creating the Dept. of Homeland Security is not akin to any of this.

Very true. I would argue, however, that it was more the mobilization for WW2 then the actual war that brought us out.

That's a good point when you look at the size of gov't in the 20s to that of the 30s. The 1920s was the birthplace of economic conservatism with Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Andrew Mellon...

Except 5 years of gov't expansion led to nothing, as most of it was erased with the 1937 "Roosevelt Recession". We did win the war, help to rebuild Europe and Japan, and as a result came out the Depression.

The interstate highway system was built under Eisenhower, not FDR.

True, but the civil rights movement didn't arise out of the government. It's not like the government was on the forefront, pushing for civil rights. It was reactionary -- a response to the call for civil rights.

But all of this is missing the point -- we can debate each presidency and assess their success in another thread. Here we're talking about which presidnet expanded gov't the most, not who had the most success as a result of the increased government.

Actually, there is a right answer. This is the U.S., where we have a system like no other on earth. We get into all kinds of problems by trying to make ourselves like other countries that are supposedly so successful, yet filled with want and/or lack of freedom. If so many of them were functioning so well, why is it that so many, from so many countries still want to come here? The other countries that have had the greatest success are those who have adopted the American model to some degree. They may not get it perfect, heck WE don't get it perfect! But it's a vast improvement over anywhere.

PHP:

First of all it depends on how you measure success.  Taxing is not implemented to ruin our lives.  It is meant as a redistribution of wealth for our own good.  If you started cutting taxes you would start seein more pot-holes in our roads, our kids would start coming home learning less and less, and all sorts of other government services would be reduced to the point where they would do more harm than good.

No, taxing is not implemented to ruin our lives. That's just the unintended result. Taxation = lack of freedom, lack of personal responsibility. I'm smart. The highways are a Constitutionally mandated responsibility of the federal government. They should keep us pothole free! And I'd guess you're not from Michigan - we've got enough potholes to share with the whole country. In case you haven't noticed, our kids ARE coming home learning less and less. (Generally speaking.) The government schools are an abysmal failure. (Generally speaking, again.) I'll not even go into the other government services. That's just WAY too big a subject.

PHP:

It is easy to say that you deserve to keep your money and you are completely right.  But the reality is that then people start having to pay for schools and people have to start paving their own roads.  And then you can end up with a society with an enormous disparity of wealth reminiscent of Pre-Revolutionary France, South Africa, or the UAE.

As citizens of this country, we all have a responsibility to pay a reasonable portion of our income to the community coffers for the common good. Only the most radical would think otherwise. But the question becomes who controls what? Disparity of wealth isn't a bad thing, of and by itself, in a free system. But, thank you, I don't want the government telling me "Okay, you only make $xxx, and we're going to take the hard-earned money from Joe Blow over here and give you $yyy of it. Now you and Joe both will have $zzz. I simply want the opportunity to earn it for myself, not the government, aka Big Brother to give me it. And WHEN I do make what Joe does, I don't want them to take it from me, either. Wealth redistribution is one of the great evils alive in liberal fallacies.

PHP:

In my view the government's job is to ensure the highest opportunities and quality of life for all its people.  But that means that people need to give the government money in order that it may do that.  A tax-free society would be just as defunct as a 100% tax society.  Money is the most efficient and easy way for the government to procure resources without taking people's time or property.

Actually, the governments job is to provide a save and secure environment for ALL it's people to have the opportunity to prosper. That's way brief, but it's a lengthy subject otherwise.

PHP:

But I do agree that tax increases are not the answer, they delay the problem.  When you look at the operation and bureaucracy involved in government you find atrocious inefficiencies.  All sorts of allocations of funds that hurt the system and damage both sides: an ineffective welfare system, the notorious 'bridge to nowhere' in Alaska, NCLB...the list is endless.  The problem is that politics takes priority over reason and logic 9 times out of 10.  So all that any of us can do is vote for nonpartisan candidates.


Several issues here, but just to say - so true, tax increases are not the answer. And the inefficiencies are indeed outrageous.

PHP:

The reality is that liberals believe that the best good is done by collecting a great deal of funds and then creating equality of possibilities for all americans.  Whereas conservatives believe that humans create their own possibilities.  And you can argue all sorts of ways but in the end you end up with the worker who either says that they need more money to pay for food, but in cutting their taxes you take away their subsidized healthcare or insurance and then he gets sick...I personally take the liberal view because I believe it to be a more secure and balanced approach but opponents are certainly not wrong when they say the government is taking their money away.

I'm just going to have to come back to this one later, or in another thread. I'm up too late now, and the "liberals believe that the best good is done by collecting a great deal of funds" etc is NOT what creates opportunity, equal or otherwise. It creates Socialism, with the state deciding who does what, what you eat, what you wear, what you listen to, where you go, how you go... I don't need to get myself going on that this late. It will cause nightmares.

I think that's a little semantic since we wouldn't have mobilized for the war if it hadn't been happening. Still, there is a level of truth to it - war is blowing **** up whereas the mobilizing the armed forces for total war provides economic stimulation.

I always balk at putting Mellon and Harding in the same sentence. Mellon had a clue. Harding didn't.

Add fat and lazy to that list.
Congress should pride itself on appearing very busy while actually accomplishing next to nothing. If I could master this trick my job would be a breeze!

-Castle

instead of being liberals Democrats should be Intervals