4 ms·

It's a shame small government is long gone from the US.

by fallentimes 18y ago

jshen 18y ago
yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education.
- fallentimes 18y ago
  Nice strawman argument.
  - jshen 18y ago
    How is it a strawman? I'm beginning to think your curt answers veil an inability to deal with the complexities of reality.
    - fallentimes 18y ago
      And perhaps your strawman argument veils an inability to debate the topic at hand. I never said anything about doing away with public education. Small government != the doing away of all social programs. "yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education." Your comment superficially sets up an argument I never made, which is the definition of a strawman. Anyways... I'm all for government sponsored programs that work along side the private industry (and force competition) in order to contribute to the general welfare, which is what the constitution states. For example: defense, infrastructure and education among others. However, I'd love to rid our government of all the pet projects, pork, worthless organizations (and employees) and general waste that rape our income. It's near impossible to fire a government worker, which is a crime in and of itself. Our government is so inefficient that consulting firms are rolling out in mass "staff augmentation" programs that take over the responsibilities of a given agency/department. Think about that...you hire government workers to do job X. They are so incompetent at job X you hire high priced consultants to complete job X while not firing any of the workers. The end result? Job X is completed at two - three times the original cost. Ridiculous. If you ever want a first hand look at how inefficient the government is, live in DC for a few years.
      - jshen 18y ago
        "Your comment superficially sets up an argument I never made, which is the definition of a strawman." No, because you made no specific argument. If you make a statement that is so short that it can be interpreted to be anything anyone wants then it isn't a strawman if I fail to read your mind! We all know that government is inefficient, but I think the blame is misplaced. I don't believe it's inefficient because it's a government, but because it's a giant institution. I've worked for the government, for large corporations, and for start ups. Large corporations are equally as inefficient as the government most of the time.
        cstejerean 18y ago
        so a smaller government ought to be more efficient, what exactly does any of this have to do with people affording their education?
        jshen 18y ago
        because it's the government is what makes education affordable.
        justindz 18y ago
        Clearly something isn't working. Look at that sentence.
        jshen 18y ago
        only if you start out with the idealogical position that government is always the wrong answer. Such an ideology is simply the naive opposite of communism.
      - krschultz 18y ago
        Except that the constitution doesn't state anything about education, and defense accounts for nearly 50% of the federal budget. Cutting all the fat and inefficiency does not address the root problem, health care costs and defense spending. If you don't want huge taxes you can't have a military this size, and I haven't a clue on how to fix health care.
- mhartl 18y ago
  Government schooling makes education less affordable. It just hides the costs well.
  - jshen 18y ago
    Less affordable for who? I graduated with a CS degree after going to community college then a state school. I graduated with no loans or debt of any kind. I payed $11/unit at CC and about $800 a quarter at state school. You can't seriously claim that this would have been cheaper for me if only the government had gotten out of education.
    - mhartl 18y ago
      Maybe I should have said "It hides the costs really well." Some people benefit from transfer payments, but much less than they think, and on balance nearly everyone loses. To paraphrase David Friedman, suppose the government takes a penny from each of 100 people, and dumps 50 cents on one lucky winner (that's you)---and then repeats the process 100 times. Everyone feels like they're getting a good deal, but you're still 50 cents poorer. Sum up the total cost of increased prices due to taxation and your personal lifetime tax burden and it's not nearly as clear-cut that you come out ahead with public schools. Add to that the distorting effect of school monopolies on incentives and quality (virtually all public school teachers are in the bottom half academically, etc.) and you've got a shaky argument for government education, even for your case. I'd bet that even you would have been better off if schools were provided on the market.
      - jshen 18y ago
        your paraphrasing fails to deal with the reality of the situation. By "dumping" tuition assistance on me you didn't merely transfer money is a zero sum game. I am now a competitive worker in the global economy, which I wouldn't have been, and I make a far larger salary than I would have. Now I"m paying far more money into the government than I would have in order to enable another person a similar opportunity. This makes us all richer in the long run, and is not the zero sum game you claim it to be.
sdurkin 18y ago
The era of small government was the era of the robber-barons. I'm still amazed some people can look back on a time when children as young as 12 performed industrial labor with nostalgia. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of efficient government. Large transfer payments with less bureaucracy would be preferable to what we've got now.

It's a shame small government is long gone from the US.

jshen 18y ago

yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education.

fallentimes 18y ago
Nice strawman argument.
- jshen 18y ago
  How is it a strawman? I'm beginning to think your curt answers veil an inability to deal with the complexities of reality.
  - fallentimes 18y ago
    And perhaps your strawman argument veils an inability to debate the topic at hand. I never said anything about doing away with public education. Small government != the doing away of all social programs. "yeah, we'd be much better off if all these programmers we hire from state schools weren't able to afford an education." Your comment superficially sets up an argument I never made, which is the definition of a strawman. Anyways... I'm all for government sponsored programs that work along side the private industry (and force competition) in order to contribute to the general welfare, which is what the constitution states. For example: defense, infrastructure and education among others. However, I'd love to rid our government of all the pet projects, pork, worthless organizations (and employees) and general waste that rape our income. It's near impossible to fire a government worker, which is a crime in and of itself. Our government is so inefficient that consulting firms are rolling out in mass "staff augmentation" programs that take over the responsibilities of a given agency/department. Think about that...you hire government workers to do job X. They are so incompetent at job X you hire high priced consultants to complete job X while not firing any of the workers. The end result? Job X is completed at two - three times the original cost. Ridiculous. If you ever want a first hand look at how inefficient the government is, live in DC for a few years.
    - jshen 18y ago
      "Your comment superficially sets up an argument I never made, which is the definition of a strawman." No, because you made no specific argument. If you make a statement that is so short that it can be interpreted to be anything anyone wants then it isn't a strawman if I fail to read your mind! We all know that government is inefficient, but I think the blame is misplaced. I don't believe it's inefficient because it's a government, but because it's a giant institution. I've worked for the government, for large corporations, and for start ups. Large corporations are equally as inefficient as the government most of the time.
      - cstejerean 18y ago
        so a smaller government ought to be more efficient, what exactly does any of this have to do with people affording their education?
        jshen 18y ago
        because it's the government is what makes education affordable.
        justindz 18y ago
        Clearly something isn't working. Look at that sentence.
        jshen 18y ago
        only if you start out with the idealogical position that government is always the wrong answer. Such an ideology is simply the naive opposite of communism.
    - krschultz 18y ago
      Except that the constitution doesn't state anything about education, and defense accounts for nearly 50% of the federal budget. Cutting all the fat and inefficiency does not address the root problem, health care costs and defense spending. If you don't want huge taxes you can't have a military this size, and I haven't a clue on how to fix health care.
mhartl 18y ago
Government schooling makes education less affordable. It just hides the costs well.
- jshen 18y ago
  Less affordable for who? I graduated with a CS degree after going to community college then a state school. I graduated with no loans or debt of any kind. I payed $11/unit at CC and about $800 a quarter at state school. You can't seriously claim that this would have been cheaper for me if only the government had gotten out of education.
  - mhartl 18y ago
    Maybe I should have said "It hides the costs really well." Some people benefit from transfer payments, but much less than they think, and on balance nearly everyone loses. To paraphrase David Friedman, suppose the government takes a penny from each of 100 people, and dumps 50 cents on one lucky winner (that's you)---and then repeats the process 100 times. Everyone feels like they're getting a good deal, but you're still 50 cents poorer. Sum up the total cost of increased prices due to taxation and your personal lifetime tax burden and it's not nearly as clear-cut that you come out ahead with public schools. Add to that the distorting effect of school monopolies on incentives and quality (virtually all public school teachers are in the bottom half academically, etc.) and you've got a shaky argument for government education, even for your case. I'd bet that even you would have been better off if schools were provided on the market.
    - jshen 18y ago
      your paraphrasing fails to deal with the reality of the situation. By "dumping" tuition assistance on me you didn't merely transfer money is a zero sum game. I am now a competitive worker in the global economy, which I wouldn't have been, and I make a far larger salary than I would have. Now I"m paying far more money into the government than I would have in order to enable another person a similar opportunity. This makes us all richer in the long run, and is not the zero sum game you claim it to be.

sdurkin 18y ago

The era of small government was the era of the robber-barons. I'm still amazed some people can look back on a time when children as young as 12 performed industrial labor with nostalgia. Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of efficient government. Large transfer payments with less bureaucracy would be preferable to what we've got now.