An interesting thought

[Tigermike 3,046]

How close to the tipping point are we?

Posted by: McQ

It seems each day we get closer and closer to that theoretical "51%" who will forever ensure a world of big government (not that it is so small now) and an ensuing retreat from freedom, liberty and market capitalism - the principles which have made us a great nation.

The latest indicator of that shift?

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure.

The fact that 29% favor such a thing should be startling and troubling to any American. What in the world are they thinking? Equally disturbing should be the fact that 24% don't know enough to say how bad an idea such a move would be. And lastly, a minority is opposed.

I can actually buy into the belief that a good 20% of this country are committed leftists who see some form of socialism as the ideal way to govern. Regardless of our traditions, history and founding ideas, they believe in a top-down, fairness-over-justice, economics of redistribution and equally drab outcomes for all (well except the ruling elite as in most cases) form of government is best.

And there are probably a like number on the right who, to some degree or another (as in anarchy), want government out of their lives, out of their business and out of their futures. The majority of them want the tradition of a small government of the "night-watchman" variety rediscovered, re-instituted and focused on rights protection, the provision of equal protection under the law and national security. Period.

For most of our history the middle 60% has pretty much fallen on the side of the less government. Because we were a nation of immigrants, and because most of those who immigrated here came from situations in which government was abuse was intolerable, the group in the middle was very wary about granting government increased power over them.

That wariness seems to have evaporated over the intervening years. There are a number of reasons for that being the case. The result is those in the middle now seem to be leaning, ever more slightly each year, toward policies which would eventually establish European style socialism here at the very least.

Frankly, 50 years ago, talking about nationalizing any industry (with the possible exception of during wartime) would have been met with howls of protest and derision from the vast majority of Americans. Cognizant of our history, traditions and what has made us great, they wouldn't have stood for it. Now we only have 47% who find the idea to be repellent and an ignorant 24% who just don't know enough to have an opinion.

For whatever reason, I find those numbers very disheartening.

http://qando.net/

[TexasTiger 12,990]

Bush is a big government guy, my friend. He grew government after Clinton actually shrank it. One day, you'll see it and think fondly of Bill.

How close to the tipping point are we?

Posted by: McQ

It seems each day we get closer and closer to that theoretical "51%" who will forever ensure a world of big government (not that it is so small now) and an ensuing retreat from freedom, liberty and market capitalism - the principles which have made us a great nation.

The latest indicator of that shift?

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 29% of voters favor nationalizing the oil industry. Just 47% are opposed and 24% are not sure.

The fact that 29% favor such a thing should be startling and troubling to any American. What in the world are they thinking? Equally disturbing should be the fact that 24% don't know enough to say how bad an idea such a move would be. And lastly, a minority is opposed.

I can actually buy into the belief that a good 20% of this country are committed leftists who see some form of socialism as the ideal way to govern. Regardless of our traditions, history and founding ideas, they believe in a top-down, fairness-over-justice, economics of redistribution and equally drab outcomes for all (well except the ruling elite as in most cases) form of government is best.

And there are probably a like number on the right who, to some degree or another (as in anarchy), want government out of their lives, out of their business and out of their futures. The majority of them want the tradition of a small government of the "night-watchman" variety rediscovered, re-instituted and focused on rights protection, the provision of equal protection under the law and national security. Period.

For most of our history the middle 60% has pretty much fallen on the side of the less government. Because we were a nation of immigrants, and because most of those who immigrated here came from situations in which government was abuse was intolerable, the group in the middle was very wary about granting government increased power over them.

That wariness seems to have evaporated over the intervening years. There are a number of reasons for that being the case. The result is those in the middle now seem to be leaning, ever more slightly each year, toward policies which would eventually establish European style socialism here at the very least.

Frankly, 50 years ago, talking about nationalizing any industry (with the possible exception of during wartime) would have been met with howls of protest and derision from the vast majority of Americans. Cognizant of our history, traditions and what has made us great, they wouldn't have stood for it. Now we only have 47% who find the idea to be repellent and an ignorant 24% who just don't know enough to have an opinion.

For whatever reason, I find those numbers very disheartening.

http://qando.net/

[Tigermike 3,046]

Bush is a big government guy, my friend. He grew government after Clinton actually shrank it. One day, you'll see it and think fondly of Bill.

Do you think conservatives are not aware of that?

Dude, using Clinton and shrank it in the same sentence is beyond crude! Why would you want to hurt Monica's feelings like that?

[DKW 86 7,438]

Clinton shrank the size of govt?

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Got a link for the actual shrinkage in "actual government" jobs? I mean dont use that ole "slashed the military and I count that as shrinking the govt crap.."

[TexasTiger 12,990]

Clinton shrank the size of govt?

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Got a link for the actual shrinkage in "actual government" jobs? I mean dont use that ole "slashed the military and I count that as shrinking the govt crap.."

Sure:

Two things that clearly did not cause it are smaller government and lower taxes, because this legendary Reagan revolution barely happened. Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent—a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms—less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent—more than double Reagan's reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind.

Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible President since Eisenhower.

http://www.slate.com/id/100474/

[DKW 86 7,438]

http://economics.about.com/od/howtheusecon.../gov_growth.htm

From 1960 to 1990, the number of state and local government employees increased from 6.4 million to 15.2 million, while the number of civilian federal employees rose only slightly, from 2.4 million to 3 million. Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998. (The number of Americans in the military declined from almost 3.6 million in 1968, when the United States was embroiled in the war in Vietnam, to 1.4 million in 1998.)

The losses in fed govt employment arose from cuts in the military....

We went from 3M to 2.7M AFTER losing 2.2M from the military. Let me do the math for you.

3M( Fed govt height) minus 2.2M (Military cutbacks)=.8M

2.7M (Now in the Federal govt) minus .8M= 1.9M in Fed Govt Growth.

Nice try tho...

You quoted Slate?

[TexasTiger 12,990]

http://economics.about.com/od/howtheusecon.../gov_growth.htm

From 1960 to 1990, the number of state and local government employees increased from 6.4 million to 15.2 million, while the number of civilian federal employees rose only slightly, from 2.4 million to 3 million. Cutbacks at the federal level saw the federal labor force drop to 2.7 million by 1998, but employment by state and local governments more than offset that decline, reaching almost 16 million in 1998. (The number of Americans in the military declined from almost 3.6 million in 1968, when the United States was embroiled in the war in Vietnam, to 1.4 million in 1998.)

The losses in fed govt employment arose from cuts in the military....

We went from 3M to 2.7M AFTER losing 2.2M from the military. Let me do the math for you.

3M( Fed govt height) minus 2.2M (Military cutbacks)=.8M

2.7M (Now in the Federal govt) minus .8M= 1.9M in Fed Govt Growth.

Nice try tho...

You quoted Slate?

I would never come to you for math...or reading. Slate's numbers don't differ from yours, my friend. CIVILIAN numbers rose to 3mil and then dropped to 2.7mil under Clinton.

The drop you cite in the Military is from the 3.6 million that were on duty during 1968-- the height of the TET offensive and is separate from the CIVILIAN FEDERAL EMPLOYEE numbers.

[otterinbham 0]

Clinton shrank the size of govt?

BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!

Got a link for the actual shrinkage in "actual government" jobs? I mean dont use that ole "slashed the military and I count that as shrinking the govt crap.."

Sure:

Two things that clearly did not cause it are smaller government and lower taxes, because this legendary Reagan revolution barely happened. Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent—a whopping one percentage point. The federal civilian work force increased from 2.8 million to 3 million. (Yes, it increased even if you exclude Defense Department civilians. And, no, assuming a year or two of lag time for a president's policies to take effect doesn't materially change any of these results.)

Under eight years of Big Government Bill Clinton, to choose another president at random, the federal civilian work force went down from 2.9 million to 2.68 million. Federal spending grew by 11 percent in real terms—less than half as much as under Reagan. As a share of GDP, federal spending shrank from 21.5 percent to 18.3 percent—more than double Reagan's reduction, ending up with a federal government share of the economy about a tenth smaller than Reagan left behind.

Bill Clinton was the most fiscally responsible President since Eisenhower.

http://www.slate.com/id/100474/

I would actually offer up Gerald Ford through his aggressive wielding of the VETO stamp, but, yes, kind of, sort of. At least for the last six years of his presidency. That's because he did a superior job of playing the hand he was dealt when the Republicans took over Congress. Quite frankly, I doubt you could have made that assertion had Clinton essentially nationalized healthcare in this country. Back when the Republicans actually stood for something besides getting re-elected, Congress actually slowed spending growth to a crawl, and rammed through Welfare Reform, which was probably did more to erase the deficit than anything.

Now, Clinton actually did two very smart things. One, he began listening to Alan Greenspan. Second, he didn't torpedo NAFTA, over the strident objections of his Democratic base.

[Tigermike 3,046]

Now, Clinton actually did two very smart things. One, he began listening to Alan Greenspan. Second, he didn't torpedo NAFTA, over the strident objections of his Democratic base.

Something the dims and the unions have been wanting to reverse ever since. What is Obama's take on NAFTA? "We will take another look and renegotiate." (I may not have the quote exactly right but that is basically what he is saying.) The problem then arrises when those others countries want to renegotiate as well. When they don't care to take a back seat in a trade agreement. The dims killed the Columbian Trade agreement at the pushing of unions didn't they?

[DKW 86 7,438]

Again I bow to Otter. The 94 election of the real Conservative Congress did more than Clinton ever did for the budget. Too bad we cant find them anymore.