4 ms·

He is definitely on the right track. I'm pleased to see that I share an opinion on this with one of the sharpest programmers on the planet. The reality is that

by ryandvm 16y ago

He is definitely on the right track. I'm pleased to see that I share an opinion on this with one of the sharpest programmers on the planet. The reality is that I have almost zero influence on how a very large portion of my paycheck gets spent from Capitol Hill. Ideally the U.S. would return to the concept of using states as "laboratories of democracy". When you have states with economies that are larger than most countries, there is no reason to be bumping so many responsibilities up to the federal level.

Retric 16y ago
I am in favor of a huge cut in government spending. Unfortunately I know of no politician that thinks that way and has a chance in hell of getting elected. Republicans like to talk about cutting government spending yet they never actually do so and in my lifetime they have dramatically expanded the federal government. Democrats are more than willing to cut expensive programs but they want to replace them with other expensive programs. Over the last few years both party's increased government spending on healthcare, yet somehow the Republican's approach (prescription drug plan) ended up costing more for a smaller benefit? Who exactly should I vote for again?
- dennisgorelik 16y ago
  The underlying problem here is that not enough people care about cutting government spending. Prospective voters put more attention to the issues like gay marriage, war on terror, universal health care, and medical marijuana use. Most voters simply do not pay enough attention on cutting government spending, so politicians can get away with milking people more and more every year.
  - ajscherer 16y ago
    No, the underlying problem is that not enough people all care about cutting the same government spending. If I want to cut my personal spending by 20% next year I can't just wake up on January 1 and do it in one step. I need to figure out what exactly it is I'm going to not buy or pay less for next year. Likewise, Congress can't just pass a law to spend 20% less without identifying exactly what it is going to spend less on and how. Getting people to agree on those particulars is the problem. What makes it worse is that the things you might get wide agreement on cutting generally are things that would save negligible amounts of money. Also, even people who care a lot about the government (one way or the other) generally aren't willing spend time learning all the details of what the government is spending money on. Its really complicated and boring and I think people (especially us hn readers) would rather think of the problem at a higher level of abstraction (and in greatly simplified terms). Unfortunatley that just isn't helpful at this point
  - amalcon 16y ago
    On the contrary, I think people do care about cutting government spending. They just want it cut from very specific places, and there's no widespread agreement on where these places are. Do you want cuts in defense? In social security/medicare? The interstate highway system? Government worker benefits? Unemployment benefits? Veterans' benefits? It's all well and good to cut spending (at pretty much every level), and it's going to have to be done, but every time a serious effort comes along to actually do it, it gets drowned in details.
    - dennisgorelik 16y ago
      If you really want to cut spending, then you would want to cut spending in almost all areas. If majority of voters want to cut government spending in more than 50% of areas, then spending would be cut. In the list you provided I'd say everything should be cut. Say, 10%/year cut until spending is at least 50% lower. My personal preference would be not to cut interstate highway system too much, but everything else deserves at least 50% cut in the next 10 years.
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  I'm pretty sure your reasoning is the entire basis of the Tea Party movement. It is people fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties' outrageous spending, and want a new group of Politicians to be voted in. It is why many of the Tea Partiers running for office have little or no experience and it is what propelled people like Governor Chris Christie to a win last year.
  - Retric 16y ago
    Call me cynical but the libertarian party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_State...) was created by people that believe in small government. And I assume most reasonably well informed people have heard of it because it is afterall the third largest party in the USA. Like many people I view the Tea Party movement as a Republican sock puppet designed to convince voters that this time they really mean it when they say they want small government. PS: I base this on the wiliness of Tea Party members to run in republican primaries.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > I base this on the wiliness of Tea Party members to run in republican primaries. What primaries should they have run in? It's much easier to take over a political party than to start one AND knock out one of the big two. Libertarians and greens have proved that. It would have been absurd to run in democrat primaries. Sharing some libertarian beliefs doesn't imply an obligation to join the LP, especially since the LP has repeatedly demonstrated that it's more interested in making a statement than actually getting elected and changing things.
    - gcheong 16y ago
      You're missing the main reason the Libertarian party was created - to preserve personal freedoms. For example, they also advocate the legalization of drugs.
  - roc 16y ago
    I wouldn't bet any money that the Tea Party-endorsed candidates will vote any differently than Republicans have, once elected. It takes a lot of money to get elected in the US. And you don't get re-elected if you then vote against the interests of your donors. And they certainly aren't donating money so that you'll cut off government spending.

by ryandvm 16y ago

Retric 16y ago

I am in favor of a huge cut in government spending. Unfortunately I know of no politician that thinks that way and has a chance in hell of getting elected. Republicans like to talk about cutting government spending yet they never actually do so and in my lifetime they have dramatically expanded the federal government. Democrats are more than willing to cut expensive programs but they want to replace them with other expensive programs. Over the last few years both party's increased government spending on healthcare, yet somehow the Republican's approach (prescription drug plan) ended up costing more for a smaller benefit? Who exactly should I vote for again?

dennisgorelik 16y ago
The underlying problem here is that not enough people care about cutting government spending. Prospective voters put more attention to the issues like gay marriage, war on terror, universal health care, and medical marijuana use. Most voters simply do not pay enough attention on cutting government spending, so politicians can get away with milking people more and more every year.
- ajscherer 16y ago
  No, the underlying problem is that not enough people all care about cutting the same government spending. If I want to cut my personal spending by 20% next year I can't just wake up on January 1 and do it in one step. I need to figure out what exactly it is I'm going to not buy or pay less for next year. Likewise, Congress can't just pass a law to spend 20% less without identifying exactly what it is going to spend less on and how. Getting people to agree on those particulars is the problem. What makes it worse is that the things you might get wide agreement on cutting generally are things that would save negligible amounts of money. Also, even people who care a lot about the government (one way or the other) generally aren't willing spend time learning all the details of what the government is spending money on. Its really complicated and boring and I think people (especially us hn readers) would rather think of the problem at a higher level of abstraction (and in greatly simplified terms). Unfortunatley that just isn't helpful at this point
- amalcon 16y ago
  On the contrary, I think people do care about cutting government spending. They just want it cut from very specific places, and there's no widespread agreement on where these places are. Do you want cuts in defense? In social security/medicare? The interstate highway system? Government worker benefits? Unemployment benefits? Veterans' benefits? It's all well and good to cut spending (at pretty much every level), and it's going to have to be done, but every time a serious effort comes along to actually do it, it gets drowned in details.
  - dennisgorelik 16y ago
    If you really want to cut spending, then you would want to cut spending in almost all areas. If majority of voters want to cut government spending in more than 50% of areas, then spending would be cut. In the list you provided I'd say everything should be cut. Say, 10%/year cut until spending is at least 50% lower. My personal preference would be not to cut interstate highway system too much, but everything else deserves at least 50% cut in the next 10 years.
Yzupnick 16y ago
I'm pretty sure your reasoning is the entire basis of the Tea Party movement. It is people fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties' outrageous spending, and want a new group of Politicians to be voted in. It is why many of the Tea Partiers running for office have little or no experience and it is what propelled people like Governor Chris Christie to a win last year.
- Retric 16y ago
  Call me cynical but the libertarian party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_State...) was created by people that believe in small government. And I assume most reasonably well informed people have heard of it because it is afterall the third largest party in the USA. Like many people I view the Tea Party movement as a Republican sock puppet designed to convince voters that this time they really mean it when they say they want small government. PS: I base this on the wiliness of Tea Party members to run in republican primaries.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I base this on the wiliness of Tea Party members to run in republican primaries. What primaries should they have run in? It's much easier to take over a political party than to start one AND knock out one of the big two. Libertarians and greens have proved that. It would have been absurd to run in democrat primaries. Sharing some libertarian beliefs doesn't imply an obligation to join the LP, especially since the LP has repeatedly demonstrated that it's more interested in making a statement than actually getting elected and changing things.
  - gcheong 16y ago
    You're missing the main reason the Libertarian party was created - to preserve personal freedoms. For example, they also advocate the legalization of drugs.
- roc 16y ago
  I wouldn't bet any money that the Tea Party-endorsed candidates will vote any differently than Republicans have, once elected. It takes a lot of money to get elected in the US. And you don't get re-elected if you then vote against the interests of your donors. And they certainly aren't donating money so that you'll cut off government spending.