4 ms·

I think are more steelman'ed version of the GOP argument is: when government does things badly, they can go VERY VERY badly. It's a risk viewpoint. Whereas the

I think are more steelman'ed version of the GOP argument is: when government does things badly, they can go VERY VERY badly. It's a risk viewpoint. Whereas the progressive viewpoint letting government do more and more things. The other risk is bloat. Once a government program exists, it is very very hard to stop it and get the funds back ( from a political perspective ). It's unpopular to fire people. When government does bad, it gets more money ( bigger ), to do worse things, or other pathological outcomes. When industry does bad, it merely gets replaced by another company. It's not so much saying that all government is bad, but it's looking at worse case scenarios and balancing risk.

randito 7y ago
> the GOP argument is: when government does things badly, they can go VERY VERY badly. Sounds conveniently like Regulatory capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.
cpuguy83 7y ago
Competition also plays a role here... not that there should be competition in filing simple tax returns... but competition often leads to better goods/services. There is not much to incentivize a government run program to be better other than the current administration cracking the whip so they can get re-elected.
- thenewnewguy 7y ago
  People tell me this, but I've been waiting for years in the US for competition to make our healthcare cheaper/better than other countries, but it never seems to come.
mumblemumble 7y ago
Sure, but that argument just doesn't track. Both parties are similarly aggressive about big government programs and spending. The real variables are what they want to spend money on (health care or national security or schools or the Farm Bill or whatever) and where they think the money should come from (tax the beneficiaries of these programs or tax their children and grandchildren unto the tenth gener-- er, finance it with debt). Different stories get told during election season, of course. One of the most perplexing things about politics, though, is the way that everyone generally acknowledges that all politicians are shameless liars, but not during election season, when the person who's hawking the tastiest-looking pile of horseshit is speaking God's truth, and it's just all the other politicians who are shameless liars.
- pm90 7y ago
  People are irrational and complex. Its not surprising. Whats really disturbing is the amount of "my team is the best" thinking that is out of control, which I believe is learned from the various sports franchises? Regardless, when applied to politics, it can lead to a very unhealthy outcome. The worst that can happen if your team loses in sports is: they lose in sports. The worst that can happen in political battles is that you're economy is hamstrung, your community doesn't get the support it needs etc.
- danschumann 7y ago
  Maybe there have been corrupt wolves in sheeps clothing... but the word "republican" and the word "democrat"... the "republic" is the very few set of rules which usually limit what the government can do, and the "democracy" is all the oodles and oodles and oodles of legal code on the books. So, if the parties respected their names, republicans would be for smaller gov, and democrats for more gov. I would say modern day "libertarians" resemble the republican name most truly.
nicoburns 7y ago
> Once a government program exists, it is very very hard to stop it and get the funds back ( from a political perspective ). Experience in the UK tells me otherwise. Our government has been doing little else for the last decade. > It's not so much saying that all government is bad, but it's looking at worse case scenarios and balancing risk. It's funny how worst case scenarios (like monopolies or oligopolies) aren't considered for private companies. Doesn't seem like a balanced risk analysis to me. Internet service would be a prime example of this in the US. Edit: oh, I forgot about healthcare. You guys are currently living pretty much a worst case scenario (bar there not actually being any healthcare provision).
- strbean 7y ago
  Yeah, I'm waiting on the replacements for BP, Wells Fargo, Comcast, ...
friedman23 7y ago
And even worse if the government institutes some horrible system that benefits some key group it will never be removed.

randito 7y ago

> the GOP argument is: when government does things badly, they can go VERY VERY badly. Sounds conveniently like Regulatory capture: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture.

cpuguy83 7y ago

Competition also plays a role here... not that there should be competition in filing simple tax returns... but competition often leads to better goods/services. There is not much to incentivize a government run program to be better other than the current administration cracking the whip so they can get re-elected.

thenewnewguy 7y ago
People tell me this, but I've been waiting for years in the US for competition to make our healthcare cheaper/better than other countries, but it never seems to come.

mumblemumble 7y ago

Sure, but that argument just doesn't track. Both parties are similarly aggressive about big government programs and spending. The real variables are what they want to spend money on (health care or national security or schools or the Farm Bill or whatever) and where they think the money should come from (tax the beneficiaries of these programs or tax their children and grandchildren unto the tenth gener-- er, finance it with debt). Different stories get told during election season, of course. One of the most perplexing things about politics, though, is the way that everyone generally acknowledges that all politicians are shameless liars, but not during election season, when the person who's hawking the tastiest-looking pile of horseshit is speaking God's truth, and it's just all the other politicians who are shameless liars.

pm90 7y ago
People are irrational and complex. Its not surprising. Whats really disturbing is the amount of "my team is the best" thinking that is out of control, which I believe is learned from the various sports franchises? Regardless, when applied to politics, it can lead to a very unhealthy outcome. The worst that can happen if your team loses in sports is: they lose in sports. The worst that can happen in political battles is that you're economy is hamstrung, your community doesn't get the support it needs etc.
danschumann 7y ago
Maybe there have been corrupt wolves in sheeps clothing... but the word "republican" and the word "democrat"... the "republic" is the very few set of rules which usually limit what the government can do, and the "democracy" is all the oodles and oodles and oodles of legal code on the books. So, if the parties respected their names, republicans would be for smaller gov, and democrats for more gov. I would say modern day "libertarians" resemble the republican name most truly.

nicoburns 7y ago

> Once a government program exists, it is very very hard to stop it and get the funds back ( from a political perspective ). Experience in the UK tells me otherwise. Our government has been doing little else for the last decade. > It's not so much saying that all government is bad, but it's looking at worse case scenarios and balancing risk. It's funny how worst case scenarios (like monopolies or oligopolies) aren't considered for private companies. Doesn't seem like a balanced risk analysis to me. Internet service would be a prime example of this in the US. Edit: oh, I forgot about healthcare. You guys are currently living pretty much a worst case scenario (bar there not actually being any healthcare provision).

strbean 7y ago
Yeah, I'm waiting on the replacements for BP, Wells Fargo, Comcast, ...

friedman23 7y ago

And even worse if the government institutes some horrible system that benefits some key group it will never be removed.