I'm a guy who has spent time in the dead of winter, or the heat of summer, picketing, rallying, protesting. I talk, write and call state and Federal legislators on any number of things pertaining to the economy, jobs, occupational safety, poverty reduction and more. I get to see the process from close to the inside at times, and see the results on the outside.
Now you've really stirred my curiosity. What is/are the elements you apply in determining something to be a revenue/cost center? Should crime, drugs, and terror be more permissive and tolerated?
Taking note that you have capitalized the word 'Federal' and NOT 'state', is that an indication that you support a strong centralized government as opposed to government originating from and strongest at the local levels who collectively agree on what powers are allowed to be exercised not just locally, but also by State, and ultimately Federal governments?
I may be wrong, but Federal is supposed to be capitalized when referring to the US government. I'm for a strong central government that the US Constitution calls for (Constitution is supposed to be capitalized when referring to the document that the nation's government is based on, but not for state constitutions). Hamilton saw the wisdom in it. Confederation was presenting problems that the Constitution addressed. In fact, when the Southern traitors illegally started their own confederation, Jeff Davis complained he couldn't make the Southern states do what was necessary in order to try to win the rebellion against the US. He deserved it, and deserved to lose and be more than stuck in prison for a few short years.
As a rule I capitalize both State and Federal, but not local, although in my opinion the primary source of powers at all levels of U.S. government should eminate from the people, not from political parties, or elected politicians at the Federal level. I support a strong central government, with very limited areas in which powers can be exercised without first having received the consent of the governed. The problem you seem to have referred to requiring a stronger central government was that of funding and operating the Continental Army. In addition Hamilton proposed a government modeled on the British form of government, with Senators and a National governor chosen by a special election to serve for life, with the people allowed to elect assembly members to serve a 3 year term, and the National governor allowed to choose who would serve as State governors. Thankfully, Hamilton did not have the final word on how our government was formed. I see no point in discussing the Civil war, and wonder if there is any way to return the conversation back to the thread topic, "Why are Federal Deficits Bad?". The wording of the text used in the initial post, "Why do people assert that Federal deficits are, by their very nature, bad?" and "Why are surpluses held to be good?" is somewhat problematic 1. The circumstances relative to creating a deficit can have substantial effect on ones view of a deficit being good or bad. 2. Surpluses too, can be viewed as good or bad depending on their having a reason or necessity to exist. Is an IOU in the Social Security trust fund really a surplus? We tend to have great difficulty communicating with one another today with the words we most often use having different meanings to different people. One example is the word progress, which I find that most who lean/reside Left appear to define simply as "moving forward" as opposed to "stopping", "moving backward" or "moving in a different direction". That always leaves me thinking about a passenger train moving at great speed towards a desired destination with the track ahead switched to a spur containing parked freight cars. Rather than Hamilton, I tend to find the views of Jefferson more acceptable, such as "Loading up the nation with debt and leaving it for the following generations to pay is morally irresponsible. Excessive debt is a means by which governments oppress the people and waste their substance. No nation has a right to contract debt for periods longer than the majority contracting it can expect to live."
Hoover Dam and the Fed generate a profit to defray the expense of government and lower our tax burden.
Are you saying the Hoover dam requires no taxpayer funding? How much 'profit' are you claiming the Hoover dam produces? And how does the Fed generate a 'profit'? The Hoover dam does produce electricity, and according to the usbr it produces an average of about 4 billion KW hours each year. But do we need more hydroelectric dams or multiple Feds? Any product or service which is sold produces revenue, and profits are revenue above and beyond that which is required to meet the expenses both present and those deferred to the future. And what about the cost centers you mentioned; should crime, drugs, and terror be more permissive and tolerated?
Since neither of the terms have clear and concise definitions that everyone agrees on, all I can say is that I find Socialism totally unacceptable when exercised/imposed by a central government upon a large and very diverse population comprised of many societies. On the large scale I would consider myself a capitalist, while on the small scale (the small society/community I live in) I would probably be called a socialist. The only thing that should belong to all the people collectively is/are the government(s) which they have collectively given their consent to represent them among other governments belonging to other people/societies of the same or other nations. Are you saying the Hoover dam requires no taxpayer funding? How much 'profit' are you claiming the Hoover dam produces? And how does the Fed generate a 'profit'? The Hoover dam does produce electricity, and according to the usbr it produces an average of about 4 billion KW hours each year. But do we need more hydroelectric dams or multiple Feds? Any product or service which is sold produces revenue, and profits are revenue above and beyond that which is required to meet the expenses both present and those deferred to the future. And what about the cost centers you mentioned; should crime, drugs, and terror be more permissive and tolerated?
It has to do with making money instead of only spending money. Hoover Dam and the Fed make money. We have a Commerce Clause not a war on crime, drugs, or terror clause.
Again, I may be wrong, but capitalizing State points to an all encompassing totalitarian State, as opposed to a state or province of a nation. We elect representatives to make some decisions for us. Consent of the governed means we get to elect new representatives if we feel the current ones aren't doing it right. and uniformity of some other laws effecting the general welfare of the nation's economy. The view of the commerce clause I take is that the nation as a whole has to prosper, and not be drug down by a few states doing something to harm the nation. States have the right to do their own thing, until it harms the nation. No one is perfect. In Washington's Cabinet, he saw the pitfalls of too little central government. It was an example that highlighted how wrong confederation was. And how wrong it is to apply it to our Constitution based nation. most views of deficits are warped by the mainstream news making the deficits to be a larger problem then they truly are. Years ago, there was a public policy group based in journalism that polled journalists, and it showed most journalists but into the general idea of low taxation leading to better economies, while keeping spending low, and keeping deficits low. The problem is that the view they're taking doesn't have much basis in reality. But they report with their biases, and the public generally feels those biases to be true, without knowing the facts. Social Security isn't collecting IOUs. They are taking the surpluses and buying treasuries, and redeeming them as the revenues for SS aren't meeting the benefit payouts. But, you're right that surpluses can be viewed as bad, since surpluses based in cutting essential services can do more harm than good. generally, liberals move forward by fighting for social justice, general prosperity, and stronger economies. Jefferson said that in the view of specie based currencies, that were cumbersome and could be a drag on the economy. Monetary policy wasn't really fleshed out under the idea of fiat currency. Besides, he certainly put the country into debt by enacting the Louisiana Purchase, so, his words didn't meet his actions, which was good for the country.
I added the above post simply as a reminder of what is being questioned. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm looking at this to be the same as you saying that we need 'more' revenue centers and 'less' cost centers, and all I'm questioning is what determines something to be a revenue center or a cost center. On the surface, that appears to be a quite reasonable response. I'm sure the Hoover dam, producing and selling electricity does make some money but does it actually make a profit? In other words, does it produce enough revenue to fully cover the costs, past, present and future? The Fed makes money. Sadly, the Fed does not make gold or silver, but only prints numbers on a special paper costing an average of about 10 cents each. So I guess from the Feds point of view it is making quite a bit of money, 90 cents for each dollar bill, and 99.90 dollars for eac 100 dollar bill printed. Those bills are then sold at face value, but how does that affect the value of our money overall? Our monetary base, (coins and notes in circulation), in 1994 was about $400 billion, increasing to about $800 billion in 2005, and is now more than $3 trillion. The purchasing power of our dollar compared to its value in 1774 was $0.96 in 1900, and today it is less than $0.03 comparatively. The house I grew up in was bought for $13,000, equivalent to 371 ounces of gold at its market price then. My Dad later sold the house for $60,000, $47,000 more than he paid for it ignoring the bank interest, property taxes, and maintenance and improvement costs over the years, the equivalent value of 372 ounces of gold at the time of selling. The current owner, who is also a friend of my Dads has put the house up for sale, and the asking price is $480,000 about the same as the tax assessed value of the house, and that equates to about 372 ounces of gold at todays price. Of course we're no longer on a gold standard, but does that not give you pause to think about our money and actions of the Fed/government. The property tax on the house is what brought my Dad to sell the house once it became more than he could afford, and is the reason the current owner is being forced to sell as well. The 'Commerce clause' you mention is one of the enumerated powers contained in Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constution, giving Congress the Power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;". While the words 'drugs' and 'terror' do not appear in the Constution, the word 'crime' does and Article 1, section 8 DOES give Congress the Power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;", which does not exclude crime, drugs, or terror, or anything else for that matter.
The United States of America is a Republic, comprised of Republics, which is guaranteed by the Constitution in Article IV, section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence." That, in addition to the 10th amendment seems to sum up the function of the Federal government as originally intended in creating a Nation of free individuals, equal relative to those had governed in the past. Sorry, but I disagree. Words from the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" and the word 'representative' to me implies not making decisions for us but instead to present the views of their constituents, keeping them informed, and working towards achieving solutions acceptable by and for their constituents, who are not just those who voted for them, but also those who voted against them. You've covered quite a broad range of subjects there, but in response to what I've boldened, an individual, a community, or even a State would have little effect on the Nation as a whole compared to the effect the Federal government has when it does something wrong. Many thousands of bubbles expanding and contracting while may have some effect on each other, are much easier to control at their sources than is a single bubble with control being exerted from a distant point by persons who much less knowledgable of the immediate causes and making decisions based on the results which make be generating consequences yet to be seen. State governments should have the greatest responsibility over their States economies, making it possible and desirable for businesses to hire people adequate to provide means of support for their populations. Jobs are produced by businesses, which are usually firmly located, while people are mobile meaning they are much more easily able to move to where jobs are available, and while population growth does indeed give more voting power and Federal resource assistance, it does not necessarily promote adequate employment opportunities to those who are availing themselves of Federal/State government assistance programs. Federal government wealth redistribution programs produce very few if any employment opportunities where they are needed most.
That's quite funny. Actually while the terms 'war on drugs', 'war on crime', 'war on poverty', and perhaps even others similar are frequently thrown about, I'm unable to find Congress actually having legislatively declared war on those issues, or for that matter war on Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country.
The US is a democratic republic. The states are merely states, in that they have their own republican form of government. But they aren't sovereign unto themselves. Going back to my complaint of the South trying to secede, when states ratified the US Constitution, they agreed to remain a part of the US until the US allowed them to leave. A minority of states saying "That's it, we're leaving when we want to." was never part of the deal they signed onto. The New York State ratification proved it, when their ratification was going to include provisions for leaving if they didn't like the new government under the Constitution. Their ratification wasn't going to be accepted if that language was in it, so they had to change the words to accept that New York couldn't secede on a whim. It was ceding their full sovereignity, as the Federal government is the only entity allowed to make treaties. We're not governed by the Declaration of Independence. I understand your point, but that's not what the US Constitution says. Just like the Federalist and Anti-Federalist opinions aren't law, nor Madison's or Jefferson's or Hamilton's opinions in personal letters. What can I say, except that you may want to see a Constitutional convention to get closer to a confederation than I would. I'll stick with the US Constitution, with it's warts and all. I'd like to see a more proportionally representative republic, with maybe the Condorcet Method of picking the Executive. That would require an amendment. I'm even saying that as an admitted Democratic partisan. The Commerce Clause, and how the courts view it, says otherwise. Besides, most of the progress we've seen has been watching a few states be the laboratory, then seeing later the Federal government follow the lead, and bring the rest of the states along to gain the benefits of the tests already having been tried. - - - Updated - - - Can you believe that doofus George W. Bush lowered taxes after starting military actions against Afghanistan and Iraq?
The U.S.A. is a Constitutional Republic. Somehow I don't think any of the States would have ratified the Constitution if it was to require fully ceding their sovereignty to the Federal government, but yes they did accept the allowance of the Federal government to make Treaties as well as the other enumerated powers contained in the Constitution. That's correct, we are not governed BY the Declaration of Independence, but it explains the reasons, need and cause for the founding of the United States of America. I've not promoted a Constitutional convention, and don't think it would produce any positive results unless we fully dissolved the Union prior to its beginning. I too prefer staying with the Constitution, but returning to the people and the States many and perhaps even most of the functions currently performed by the Federal government, with Federal laws worded more clearly with little interpretation required, allowing for the States and the people to apply and enhance them within the clear definition of the Federal wording. The courts are not perfect. Bush, both father and son are in my opinion simply establishment politicians. For the most part, I find little difference between Democrat and Republican politicians, one seems to be controlled by the strings by the Left hand and the other by the Right hand of the same puppeteers. Seldom do elections provide us with candidates who have no association/funding by those who make up the party establishment.
And so, there's no problem with the Consttitution today. We have the government the Founders started with, and evolved into today's government. At the time. Then the Constitution was written, and here we are. Since the government is mostly stating within the Constitution, OK. I do take issue with hidden funding, when all funding is to be accounted for, publicly. I know the reasons for it, but don't personally accept those reasons for going outside the framework. As I pointed out. But the Commerce clause has been viewed consistently by the courts for the most part. Odd. I always wonder why people can't see the large differences between the two. Well, they are the two parties we have, and being a dependent, whether by not being aligned with a party, or a dependent by being a third party, is self disenfranchising your power as a citizen. But, to each his own.
Shanty, Any comments about Federal deficits? It might be more on topic to address State and local deficits as well.
State and local governments run deficits differently than the Federal government, of course. The Federal government has printing presses to increase currency as needed, while state/local governments do not. So, deficits and debt have much tighter pressures to stay as close as possible to being balanced.
Based on your post above, relative to the thread topic which I think should have been asked as "Are Federal Deficits Bad or Good?", how would you respond? And please account for the effects on State, local, and even individuals posed by "The Federal government has printing presses to increase currency as needed, while state/local governments do not." "So, deficits and debt have much tighter pressures to stay as close as possible to being balanced." Is this made easier by the Federal government printing more currency and accumulating more debt?
I believe the general government is obligated to pay the Debts of the several, United States; especially, when establishing Standards fixed by the general government.
Why do you believe it is not true? Paying the debts of the United States, even in their severalty, is clearly delegated to our federal Congress.
Congress at the Federal level of our government has NOT been delegated to pay the debts as you seem to imply, State and local governments can take on debts that they alone are responsible for repaying. But lets make an honest attempt to remain on topic. Are Federal deficits good or bad, and why?
