• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. debt ceiling blown away?

MTAtech said:
Is it that the "size of government" increased or is that the price of items, like medical costs, rose? If there is a slump and more people become eligible for unemployment benefits, does that mean the size of government rose?
Click to expand...

Same difference.
 
jonny5 said:
In black, notice the massive increase in federal spending (size of govt)
Click to expand...

Your data is both incomplete and not adequately sourced (piss poor IMO).
 
newpublius said:
Of course, Medicaid is obviously a joint Federal/State program. Essentially what you're saying is a fact situation akin to this.

$100 Medicaid expense, $50 Federal, $50 state. In essence what you're saying is that the state is counting this as $100 and the Feds are counting it as $50 showing $150 in expenditures when in fact only $100 is being spent, right?

I know for a fact that NJ's budget does not inlclude the 'fmap' as to other states, I have no reason to suspect they're double counting.
Click to expand...

Please provide sources.
 
jonny5 said:
LOL, growth rate has decreased. Another good distraction. What else is there to say here?
Click to expand...

So the fact that the rate of government growth per capita has gone into the negative is a distraction?

You people will say anything!
 
Kushinator said:
Please provide sources.
Click to expand...
'

Provide sources they are double counting. Total government spending exceeds $6tn per annum and there are many sources that say this. If you think some portion has been double counted, by all means, feel free to run an investigation, but frankly I cited the stat, I find the sources credible and that the evidence presented generally has weight that a reasonable reader can rely upon. If you doubt the veracity of the stats, or you think that the methodology employed is faulty because of double counting, by all means, YOU provide the sources, but this isn't Alice in Wonderland, I have no intention of going down your rabbit hole or of allowing you to unreasonably shift burdens of proof.

So aside from you attempting to shift the burden of proof. Do you have ANY credible evidence that they're double counting? Yes or no.....
 
Kushinator said:
So the fact that the rate of government growth per capita has gone into the negative is a distraction?

You people will say anything!
Click to expand...

That fact is govt spending per capita has increased. You people will say anything to avoid dealing.
 
jonny5 said:
Same difference.
Click to expand...

same difference? So you are saying that spending of government = size of government?

Therefore if the military decides to purchase 5 billion dollar planes instead of 5 $900,000 dollar plane that makes government bigger.

If instead they changed from $900,000 planes to $800,000 then government just shrank.

This sort of logic descredits other debate points you make. The main point I get from many of your posts is that you think government is spending too much and that this spending needs to be reduced. I agree with this sentiment yet I still have a hard time agreeing with any of the points you make on the subject.
 
newpublius said:
So aside from you attempting to shift the burden of proof. Do you have ANY credible evidence thaYou fallst they're double counting? Yes or no.....
Click to expand...

I already provided a source that dealt with the issue of double counting with respect to both state and local municipalities. Now you are pretending not to see it?
 
jonny5 said:
That fact is govt spending per capita has increased. You people will say anything to avoid dealing.
Click to expand...

It has continued to decline since 2009. Sorry for the inconvenience.
 
Kushinator said:
I already provided a source that dealt with the issue of double counting with respect to both state and local municipalities. Now you are pretending not to see it?
Click to expand...

Your source had nothing to do with governments' cumulative burden on society or that a measure of state spending, or for that matter local spending, would include federal dollars and thus be double counted for purposes of calculating total government spending. Widely cited statistic has govt spending as percentage of GDP at 40% of GDP, +/- -- believe it or don't believe it.
 
rjay said:
same difference? So you are saying that spending of government = size of government?

Therefore if the military decides to purchase 5 billion dollar planes instead of 5 $900,000 dollar plane that makes government bigger.

If instead they changed from $900,000 planes to $800,000 then government just shrank.

This sort of logic descredits other debate points you make. The main point I get from many of your posts is that you think government is spending too much and that this spending needs to be reduced. I agree with this sentiment yet I still have a hard time agreeing with any of the points you make on the subject.
Click to expand...

Correct, spending per person is a good indicator of the growth in the size of govt.
 
jonny5 said:
Correct, spending per person is a good indicator of the growth in the size of govt.
Click to expand...

Umm, incorrect.
spending per person is a good indicator of the growth (or reduction) in government spending.

growth in employees, in departments, in programs are good indicators of growth of government.

see the difference? If I spend $100.00 more per month on food it does not mean my family has grown. If I adopt a child and now we have 5 instead of 4 in my family - that indicates my family has grown.
 
rjay said:
Umm, incorrect.
spending per person is a good indicator of the growth (or reduction) in government spending.

growth in employees, in departments, in programs are good indicators of growth of government.

see the difference? If I spend $100.00 more per month on food it does not mean my family has grown. If I adopt a child and now we have 5 instead of 4 in my family - that indicates my family has grown.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point. If you have another child, then you spend more. If govt adds another dept, it spends more. Which is why spending per capita has increased on a steady curve. Shall I post the graph again?
 
jonny5 said:
Thanks for proving my point. If you have another child, then you spend more. If govt adds another dept, it spends more. Which is why spending per capita has increased on a steady curve. Shall I post the graph again?
Click to expand...

Thanks, but that wasn't your point. Your point was increased spending per capita was an indicator of Gov't growth, it may or may not be. Adding new programs, new employees, new departments are all indicators of government growth. Spending more on existing programs, if not accompanied by more employees is not an indicator of Govt growth.

It may be possible to add a few employees to a program and because of this reduce the cost to the Government down the road. So in effect you have grown government but reduced the spending. The point is spending and size of Government are not the same thing.
 
rjay said:
Thanks, but that wasn't your point. Your point was increased spending per capita was an indicator of Gov't growth, it may or may not be. Adding new programs, new employees, new departments are all indicators of government growth. Spending more on existing programs, if not accompanied by more employees is not an indicator of Govt growth.

It may be possible to add a few employees to a program and because of this reduce the cost to the Government down the road. So in effect you have grown government but reduced the spending. The point is spending and size of Government are not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Since 1900 we have also added new programs, new employees, new departments. Which caused spending per capita to increase. So, a = c. Spending increases indicates growth in the size of govt.
 
jonny5 said:
Since 1900 we have also added new programs, new employees, new departments. Which caused spending per capita to increase. So, a = c. Spending increases indicates growth in the size of govt.
Click to expand...

You are too much. You refuse to use you logic and common sense. Why can you not just say two simple truthful sentences?
I will quote from your postings where I can, to make it easier for you.
Repeat after me.
Since 1900 we have also added new programs, new employees, new departments. Which caused spending per capita to increase
Click to expand...

good. you are doing well.

One more time
If nothing changes but the cost goes up - the size of government has not grown.
Click to expand...

That was the hard part wasn't it.
 
'I think what the two of you are wrestling about is the definition of the "size of government." If the government started Social Security in 1934, which was basically a tax on employees that was paid to employees, with very little overhead, how is that a growth of government? It's merely transfer payments.
 
MTAtech said:
'I think what the two of you are wrestling about is the definition of the "size of government." If the government started Social Security in 1934, which was basically a tax on employees that was paid to employees, with very little overhead, how is that a growth of government? It's merely transfer payments.
Click to expand...

New laws, new govt workers, administrative costs, functional responsibility. Even a literal an increase in physical size.

altmeyes.gif


Rjay, are you debating my reasonings or the conclusion? Because I could care less if you agree with my reasoning, but the conclusion that govt has grown in size drastically in 150 years would seem indisputable.
 
jonny5 said:
New laws, new govt workers, administrative costs, functional responsibility. Even a literal an increase in physical size.

altmeyes.gif


Rjay, are you debating my reasonings or the conclusion? Because I could care less if you agree with my reasoning, but the conclusion that govt has grown in size drastically in 150 years would seem indisputable.
Click to expand...

I agree, that is indisputable. :)
 
MTAtech said:
'I think what the two of you are wrestling about is the definition of the "size of government." If the government started Social Security in 1934, which was basically a tax on employees that was paid to employees, with very little overhead, how is that a growth of government? It's merely transfer payments.
Click to expand...

It is if the congress doesn't spend the tax money on something else. But that isn't what happened.
 
jonny5 said:
New laws, new govt workers, administrative costs, functional responsibility. Even a literal an increase in physical size.

altmeyes.gif


Rjay, are you debating my reasonings or the conclusion? Because I could care less if you agree with my reasoning, but the conclusion that govt has grown in size drastically in 150 years would seem indisputable.
Click to expand...
Well, if 150 years is the benchmark, yes, government has grown.

150 years ago, there were only 34 states in the U.S.; the U.S. didn't have a Navy with metal ships nor an interstate highway system -- they didn't need it. Cars weren't invented yet.

But if one is saying that as a nation we were better off then, it is indisputable that we are better off now.
 
MrVicchio said:
Abolish SS, Medicare, Medicaide, foodstamps, unemployment, welfare.. Do it over a 5 year period paying SS in block to those oldest first then down ward.

Deficit solved.
Click to expand...

First,Social Security has been off-budget since 1990,so eliminating does nothing about the deficit. In fact, adding the 5 year payout to SS would increase the deficit because without revenue the system has to rely on the Trust Fund which only has about 3 years of reserves.

So I don't think you get the deficit-solved-in-20-words-or-less award...
 
MTAtech said:
'I think what the two of you are wrestling about is the definition of the "size of government." If the government started Social Security in 1934, which was basically a tax on employees that was paid to employees, with very little overhead, how is that a growth of government? It's merely transfer payments.
Click to expand...

It transfers money at the discretion of the government. That is where size comes into question, but of course that is only if you believe in private property.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
It transfers money at the discretion of the government. That is where size comes into question, but of course that is only if you believe in private property.
Click to expand...
Ronald Reagan said, Social Security is "a monument to the spirit of compassion and commitment that unites us as a people." I guess Ron didn't believe in private property.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom