The ever-growing Nanny State and how it came to be

There’s a lot of talk about ‘compromise’ among many moderate conservatives that I don’t really understand. Compromise is what’s gotten us the current bloated government spending (an inherent characteristic of Socialism), where GDP spending by said government is approaching 40% of national output. So, using the example of taxation I’ll try to persuade moderate conservatives to maybe be a little more radical (less moderate) in their views.

1. Taxation is theft – it takes from one person and, usually through a series of unnecessary and wasteful loops/processes, gives to another. This is exactly how taxation functions if looked at in the aggregate view.

This does NOT mean taxation is undesirable – we should all acknowledge to some degree or another it is a cost of participating in civilization. Where individualistic and self-reliant conservatives disagree with their leeching, mewling liberal counterparts is the level of taxation that is acceptable. I would argue that closing on 40% of our national output being due to government spending is way beyond the peruse of reasonable taxation.

If you agree, you’re probably a conservative (or at least have fiscal leanings in that direction). If you disagree, well, despite your bleating about ‘compromise’ and ‘a balance’, you’re entering socialist territory. The latter isn’t really debatable – typical ‘more socialist’ governments in Europe have about 50/50 mixes of government spending-to-private sector spending. Don’t kid yourself – you advocate for socialism and you should show some balls and just openly admit it.

2. We have this bloated government because of ‘compromise’, the thing that many conservatives still espouse even though it’s a rigged game for them. Let me illustrate how government spending has creeped up on us in such a steady manner over time. First, take a look at the graph and you can draw the conclusion for yourself:



So how did this come to happen? This undeniable, ‘progressive’ uptrend in spending? Well, it usually goes like this.

- Mewling Liberal Socialist in sheep’s clothing suggests victim group X is marginalized by society.
- Liberal socialist in sheep’s clothing advocates for funding to group X as a way to Make Amends for perceived transgressions
- Stoic, self-reliant and moderately tempered Conservative initially balks at the idea of government’s power being expanded (via taxation, increasing the national debt in lieu of increased taxation, or both)
- Liberal socialist suggests the virtue ‘compromise’ – in other words give me a little spending here on this new program, and we’ll take off a little (a lot?) less spending on an old program there.
(Note: He/she might try to convince you you’re being ‘selfish’ or, using the more recent tactic, he will condemn you outright for not supporting his/her pet victim class.)
- Stoic, self-reliant and moderately tempered Conservative agrees to the compromise. After all, being the Good Citizen he is, he realizes the need to sometimes compromise with other members of society.

- - - - > the National Spending account slowly creeps up over time

So long story short, maybe reconsider your Moderate stances when attempting to compromise with a group that has no real interest in moderation? I.e. a group that finds 40%+ of spending by government to be acceptable? Just something to consider, here are recent things the Left has openly advocated for:

- ‘Free’ healthcare for all citizens
- ‘Free’ higher-level education for all
- ‘Free’ miscellaneous items – the list is endless - cell phones, subsidized rent up to and including free cars…

Just remember the next time you think you should compromise with these Lefties – if they had it their way pretty much everything would eventually be ‘free’. And they just might get that if we continue to compromise.

 

You start out OK ... but then descend into a partisan diatribe that lacks understanding of reality.

Despite claims of "fiscal conservatism" on the right ... saying and doing are too different things. The left is no better of course but, at least they are honest about it.

Rather than use the term "socialism" which refers to state ownership and wealth redistribution. It is better to just use the term wealth redistribution as this is what you are talking about.

The difference between the right and the left is mostly how that wealth is redistributed and, to be honest there is not as much difference as one would think.

The right tends to favor military spending over healthcare. That is the major difference. Both however are wealth redistribution.

The fact of the matter is that Healthcare spending has not decreased in general under the right and military spending (except in rare instances) has not decreased under the left.

In terms of overall spending. Red has been way worse than than Blue since Reagan. Reagan was the pinnacle of fiscal irresponsibility by any reasonable measure. Deficits (increases in spending above income) were far higher under Red than Blue since Reagan.

The bottom line is that both Red and Blue Establishment loves Big Gov't and big gov't spending. They hate fair and free markets and love the Oligopolies and international financiers that run this nation.

We have a "pay to play" system. It is not for nothing that Hillary gets paid 250K a pop for a 15 min speech at a wall street banker luncheon. What ?? did you think it was for her good looks and charming personality ? ... It is for a job well done. When you play, you get paid and everyone knows it.

It was no accident that Trump tried to make Tom Marino - dude worked with the drug companies - who would actually have the drug companies write the legislation that would then be submitted to congress.... and you wonder why health costs are so high ? The right has done nothing to deal with the anti competitive practices and price fixing that make our healthcare costs the highest of any first world nation - yet, unlike all these other nations we do not have universal healthcare. How the frick does that happen ??

At ever turn the Establishment political elite pad the pockets of the Oligopolies and international financiers that own and run this nation.

This is not a Red vs Blue issue .. this is a "both are hell bent on sodomization of the middle class" issue.

What we have is an Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster ... and that monster is very hungry.

 

The assumption that the Right advocates for as much spending as the Left is patently false and extremely misleading. I suspect you know that, but are unwilling to admit that one side advocates in the aggregate for more spending than the other does. For proof we can take your claims and break them down:

You state:
The right tends to favor military spending over healthcare. That is the major difference. Both however are wealth redistribution.

If we take your assumption to be true, which I agree with, let's take a look at what this means in terms of net spending.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?locations=US&view=chart

First, US military spending only accounts for 3.5% of Gross Domestic Product. This is in contrast to overall government spending which is closing on on 40% - it's a very small fraction of our spending despite the 'MIC' cospiracy theorist (yourself) beliefs. So now let's break down government spending in other programs.



The green part in the top left is military spending - again, a small fraction of total spending. Where the real costs come in are Health Care (as you mentioned), pensions, and Other.

So no, you're not right that both sides advocate for equal spending. <<MOD EDIT - Rule 2 - Insults >> Lee S It's lame to have to prove something that's so obvious - namely that the Left advocates for far more spending than the Right does. Just to reiterate a prior point in the OP:

Just something to consider, here are recent things the Left has openly advocated for:

- ‘Free’ healthcare for all citizens
- ‘Free’ higher-level education for all
- ‘Free’ miscellaneous items – the list is endless - cell phones, subsidized rent up to and including free cars…

We know that conservatives don't support the above, so looked at from that perspective it's also abundantly clear that common sense is right here - the Left advocates for far more spending.

 

The paternalistic Welfare State came to be the moment the General Welfare Clause was deceitfully interpreted to apply to you, me, and the mailman, instead of the confederation of states. Once the central planners accomplished that, all limitations on their authority was effectively removed. Governance became less about protecting equal rights to opportunities, and more about compelling equal outcomes.

All men are created equal.... far too many have been indoctrinated to believe government's primary job is to keep them way.

 

You did not address the main points of my post.

What part of - spending on the right has been far greater = more wealth redistribution via taxation or debt(which will have to be paid back through taxation) than the left.

You use the phrase "the left advocates". Agreed, but this is an absurd deflection. There is what one advocates and what one does.

What does what the left "advocates" have to do with the "FACT" that the right, since Reagan, have increased spending - and spending above income (deficits)- far more than the left ??

You brought up military spending. In 2000, Total Military Spending (not including interest) was roughly 300 Billion.

After 8 years of Bush spending increased to 900 Billion. Revenue for fiscal 2009 (the last fiscal year of Bush was projected to be 2.7 Trillion) roughly 30% of income. As it turned out - due to the crash - revenue dropped to 2.1 Trillion but that is another story.

Under Obama spending increased to over 1 Trillion.

Had we maintained 2000 level spending (increasing with inflation) we could have diverted 500 billion/yr x 16 years = 8 Trillion dollars to infrastructure, technology and ramping up our economy to compete in the third millennium.

Instead we threw this money down the toilet fighting useless war to feed the international financiers and Oligarchs that own and run the Military Industrial Complex.

Interest on our debt is 450 Billion/year x 16 and you can add another 7 Trillion to the above total. Again to feed the international financiers. Thank you Reagan, Bush I and II .. and to some - albeit a lesser degree - Obama.

1) quite using numbers you do not understand
2) Get a grip and do not use terms you do not understand "MIC conspiracy" what does this even mean ? Do you have any clue what the MIC even is ? Obviously not because it is abject nonsense to suggest that defense contractors and other financial interests (and the bureaucracy pyramid builders) do not influence politics in this nation. Talk about having zero clue how our system works.

Spare me your uniformed insults from the peanut gallery.

 

No need to get frustrated, remember I'm a troll, it's what I do.

Let's go look at this silly graph again because, as specifically stated by you, "The right tends to favor military spending over healthcare. That is the major difference. Both however are wealth redistribution."

Now let's avoid moving goalposts, and take a look at where millitary spending stands to the rest of government spending:


You see how that little green thing in the top left is very small? Well, that's about the only place where the Right advocates for more spending. Now, we can rant on and on all day about "oligopolies" and "monarchies" and "malarkies" or we can cede the obvious (that Lefties advocate for far more spending than the Right) and get back onto the main subject of discussion. That subject being how this bloated government came to be.

Also, you probably are going to try the ol' "but Reagan increased the deficit" - no, the entire Federal government increased the deficit during that era:
a. to fight the USSR (military spending increases, regardless of the merit)
b. on extending social welfare programs during that era.
c. By decreasing taxes - but this has nothing to do with spending, its on the other side of the accounting ledger

So you focus on (a) because it fits your world view but forget to focus on the bulkier (b) and (c) factors. I'll leave you with this:


Notice how military spending has stayed relatively stagnant, even in most of the 80s it was a blip? Well meanwhile the government has been expanding other programs massively. So it's obviously not military spending that's the source of the growth here. Who do you think is responsible for those increases?

 

Something you might find interesting, and demonstrates that this sick process is neither new or healthy, is a quote as follows:

From Alexander Tyler, history professor at the University of Edinborough in 1787, speaking about democracy over 2000 years:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage."


The American republic and democratic nation is now 240 years old.

 

Haha yep, I don't think democracy can last anywhere for an extended duration (multi-centuries) for the same reason. I guess we can hope a Republic works better but I'm not optimistic - freebies will be voted in there too.

edit: Sounds like the whole barbarism --> civilzation --> decadence cycle as described by Nietzsche and Nassim Taleb

 

"Defense Spending" is not Total Military Spending.

Regardless - none of what you are saying addresses the central premise which is that spending during Red Presidents (since Reagan) .. going back to WW2 is silly ... has been greater than Blue.

I gave you the numbers. Total Military Spending was roughly 300 Billion. In 8 years, under Bush this rose to 900 Billion and went over 1 Trillion under Obama.

Regardless of where the wealth is redistributed ... the fact of the matter is that Red increased spending and deficits more than Blue since Reagan.

Do you want me to trot out the spending numbers (income vs spending) ? Its not complicated.

Red Establishment loves Big Gov't and Big spending.

You go on all you like about who advocates what but, it does not change the fact that Red have been bigger spenders.

This is not to say that Blue was not right in there with them as they were ... congress holds the purse strings.. BUT, the idea that Red has not also been right there at the spending trough is patent nonsense.

 

I have already given you the numbers in relation to "Total Military Spending".



This charts goes until 2008. In the last fiscal year of Bush(2009) the deficit topped out at a whopping 1.4 Trillion (600 Billion was due to a decrease in revenue due to the crash so ... was not intentional deficit spending ... 400 Billion was baked into the cake and the other 400 billion was due to TARP (enacted under Bush) and other stimulus spending which can partially be attributed to Obama)

Deficits then go down 1.4 Trillion down to 500 billion in the last fiscal year of Obama. Trump is now increasing the deficit back up to 1 Trillion.

 

Wow, what a barrage of right wing talking points.

In any case, one thing is very clear: The "taxes = theft" nanny state hater tough guys are more than happy to use the benefits of the welfare state when they need them. And needing them is not a question of if, but when.

 

Where’s Obama? Oh, well I guess you forgot to include him. But you know, for accuracy purpose let’s throw him and Clinton into the mix too. Omitting your mistakes:

a. Not factoring in inflation – deficits and spending should be looked at relative to price increases/decreases. Otherwise, the data is meaningless.

b. Not factoring in GDP growth – deficits and spending should be looked at relative to GDP growth/decreases. Otherwise, the data is meaningless.

Average Percentage government spending relative to GDP:

Reagan (1981-88 )– 34%

Clinton (93-2000) – 34%

Bush (2001-2008 ) – 34%

Obama (2009-2016) - 38%

Oh well, I guess when Obama was referring to all those Hopey-Changey promises what he really meant was “we’re going to see extremely poor GDP growth and compensate by putting an extra 5% of our economy in the hands of the government. “

But the graph you posted is really cool with all its swirly colors and arrows pointing in random directions. Meanwhile military spending has remained stagnant since the Reagan era and is a small percentage of GDP anyways, but you know, “it’s the Military Industrial Complex, man”…

Meanwhile, we don't factor in the reality that just because the sitting President could be a R or a D, Congress is the one pulling the purse strings for the most part. And where did we see the largest increase in historical spending? That's correct - right when Obama got into office with the help of a plush Blue Congress, ramming the Healthcare Act and other miscellaneous spending propositions down our throats.

 

Perhaps you failed to notice that your chart just kind of stopped short of Obama, who doubled the national debt following Bush?

 

I mention Obama and what is not correct. Why do you keep ignoring the numbers presented you and defaulting to spending as a ratio of GDP - as if this addresses the fact that fiscal irresponsible under Red has been just as bad as under blue. Spending as a ratio of GDP does not tell you whether or not the Gov't is spending more than it is taking in so why are you ignoring the deficit and debt and talking about spending as a ratio of GDP ?

Your claim that Total Military Spending has remained stagnant since the Reagan Era is a patent falsehood.
What part of TMS in 2000 was roughly 300 Billion - and this increased to over 900 Billion under Bush - are you having trouble comprehending ?

Then you repeat a point I have already made - that congress holds the purse strings. This does not make your nonsense premise (its all Blue and not Red) any less nonsense.

 

Perhaps you failed to notice that I commented added the Obama era to the chart verbally. The deficit decreased from 1.4 Trillion down to 500 Billion while Obama was in power.

 

Yes, you added your very unsubstantiated opinion to why the Obama deficits are what they are. I averaged out spending relative to GDP during his term because, as explained, your metrics are not accurate (see post #12, it states why very specifically).

All in the name of "Durr the MIC durr". Shame.

 

How can we have a sensible discussion when you're not factoring in inflation and GDP growth to your deficit figures? Further, a chart showing deficits doesn't tell us anything without reference to the broader economy. That's why I keep posting spending-to-GDP - because it's actually accurate and accounts for all the factors.

Pulling a blatantly misleading chart from google (with funny colors and arrows pointing in multiple directions to give bias to the figure) isn't an argument

 

Your post 12 talks about GDP ? I was discussing spending as related to income and deficits. Don't blame me that you can not handle the raw date in relation to spending above income. Citing GDP ratio's tells us nothing about how much debt is being created.

Then you mumble some incoherent MIC rambling. Have you still yet to figure out that money influences politics in this nation ? Your denial of this fact is akin to denial of "the sky is blue".

You can run to the playground and stick head in the sandbox of denial if you like - this will not change the Fact that Red racked up huge deficits and spend money like princesses with credit cards.

 

Your post 12 talks about GDP ?

Yes, because you need a metric to compare spending or the data is meaningless. We don't just pull random google charts to support our obviously wrong opinions, conveniently leaving out important data (the Obama era) where spending ballooned to a level never seen before (relative to domestic output and adjusted for inflation).

 

There is nothing misleading about the fact that Red ran up huge deficits. A fact that is reflected in the chart presented. Don't blame me that you can comprehend basic math.

Then you blubber on about inflation and GDP without making any comment in relation to how this justified the huge deficits under red which suggests you have no clue about what you are talking about.

Then you make the preposterously nonsensical claim that looking at deficits (the amount of money spent in excess of income) does not tell us anything.

Then you completely fail to explain how inflation and GDP (and you fail to mention "interest rates" which is a key factor) justify these the massive deficits under red.

The fact of the matter is that the money borrowed during the Reagan era was borrowed during a time when interest rates were very high ... like over 10% high. In addition, the economy was doing well and income was increasing during the Reagan years.

So despite having increasing income and a good economy .. Reagan still ran huge deficits. This is the pinnacle of fiscal irresponsibility.

Deficits can be somewhat justified when economic conditions are bad an income is decreasing (such as during the first couple years of Bush 2) but, not when income is increasing and the economy is doing well (Such as what Reagan did and what Trump is now doing).

The massive spending and deficits under Reagan and Bush 1 over 16 years took led us into a huge crisis.

You blabber on about metrics ...OK ... the metric the IMF uses to gauge the stability of a nations debt is the ratio of interest payments on debt to income.

If that ratio hits 30% alarm bells go off - water is coming into the ship faster than it can be bailed out and if something is not done soon the ship will sink.

This is the situation that Clinton walked into. 16 years of reckless fiscal irresponsibility under Reagan and Bush had led to interest payments on our debt going over 25% of income. Not sure how old you are but I was around during this time (and following closely) and the situation was serious. This is when the "Debt Clock" hype was all the rage.

I do not give Clinton sole credit for reducing the deficit. The situation was so dire that Clinton and congress were forced to reduce the deficit ... and they actually managed (in a rare instance of bipartisanship) to get the deficit down.

That Red managed some fiscal responsibility under Clinton ... does not change the fact that during Reagan and Bush 1, there was a complete lack of fiscal responsibility.

As said previously .. I am a fiscally conservative in relation to political strip and believe in the principles of republicanism. This does not blind me to the massive fiscal irresponsibility of Red in the past (and under the current regime).

Your problem is that you are completely partisan to the point of blindness to reality.

 

Please condense your jibber-jabber to paragraphs, this is starting to come across as really ranty. To steal a phrase from a good friend, "You start out OK ... but then descend into a partisan diatribe that lacks understanding of reality." I'll try to condense our dialogue for you:

Giftedone: Deficits are very high during republican presidential terms. Here's a colorful graph I show indicating that

Stoic, rational conservative: Those figures mean nothing without context. You can show deficits all day but they mean nothing if not put in the context of inflation and GDP. I will give you two metaphors to see the error in your thinking.
Metaphor 1: Inflation averages 7%+ per year for 8 years of Reagan and the deficit expands - wouldn't we expect the deficit to expand if inflation is so high? Everything expands. We need to anchor our data based on inflation.
Metaphor 2: GDP grows by a staggering 40% during 8-year term of Reagan. Meanwhile net government spending flatlined relative to our nation's output (GDP). Again, little Giftedone, deficits expanded during the Reagan era, but GDP as a whole matched or outpaced this deficit expansion.

Giftedone *in a squeaky voice*: But uhhh ummmm, here's a chart pulled from Google showing deficits rising! Yeah, take that!

Stoic, rational conservative: No, "Gifted"one. You should take the time to consider how you pull and analyze your data. Raw numbers, with no anchor or baseline, are rarely a good thing to draw conclusions from. I will let you reflect on your poor decisions and make recompense later when you come crawling back.

Giftedone *In an even squeakier voice*: You just don't know math! You never learned math in school!

So yes, gifted one, context does matter. It matters very much. And you provided no context to the graph you pulled from the Images section on google when you searched something like "republican deficit spending"

 

https://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/


there are hundreds of online sources which prove that the wealthy elites are greater beneficiaries of the nanny state than anyone else

 

You say "context matters" but have given none. Further - I gave "context" in the last post which you completely ignored and then built a big strawman followed by insults based on that strawman.

You may now run back to the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial if you like but this will not change the fact that the Republican elite loves big gov't and big spending.

 

A very uncommon succinct and cogent summary of the "problem." I would quibble, and it's not just semantics, that many who are viewed as moderate conservatives are not conservative at all. I do agree that compromise and reaching across the aisle are highly over-rated actions.

 

When I'm referring to context I'm not referring to unsubstantiated opinions on why deficit x was this and why deficits y was that.

I was referring to inflation, gdp growth, you know, objective baselines that need to be used in an analysis of economic factors. Which you didn't apply in any of your discussion (I don't think you even understand why those measures need to be taken into consideration and are important).