Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Ty@50
you do realize that the greatest strength we have is that we can ffed the world. Put free markets aside for a moment. The. Red. States. feed. The. World.

Raises the question of why we don't.

Why, bilmore, why?

S_A_M

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


Blame the Founding Fathers from the several small colonies who insisted that representation must be by state, not just by population.

S_A_M

I don't. I think the compromise was entirely reasonable and sensible. What has undermined it is not the one state/two senator rule, but rather the transfer of power from the States to the federal government. Much of this would be irrelevant if the principle governance was at the state level and the federal government did only those things that required national efforts. I think one could eliminate 75% of the federal government through devolution.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are getting into other issues. I was making the point, that in the more rural areas of America people have a stronger inclination towards limited government. And this is reflected in their size of their state governments. For reasons, that are beyond me this statement was disputed by Sexual Harassment Panda and Ty. The main point of evidence used to dispute my assertion was that most rural states recieve more money from Washington than they send to Washington.

Raises a meta-point about communication in general. . .

If you THINK you were talking about A, or INTENDED to talk about A, but everyone else understood you to be talking about B . . . then what were you really talking about?

The problem was that, as often happens, you and Ty spent a long time beating on each other using slightly different points. You are correct about the psychology. Ty is correct about the hypocrisy and self-interest. The rest is just detail.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you using the Bong tonight. Again, I was pointing out that in the small states the people have inclination towards limited government. Just because some of their politicians representing their states are voting for increased spending during a war at the Federal level does not mean that the citizens of these states have abandoned their anitpathy towards government. Have the state governments in these states started increasing their spending recently? Have they changed their state legislatures from being part time to full time? Just because some of their representatives have voted for increased government spending over the past few years does not mean that the average citizen of these states have changed their inclinations towards small government.

Whatever. I have lived in the biggest state and the smallest state, and some in between, and know rather more about their respective governments than you seem to think. I was making a rather different point, about the hypocrisy of the modern Republican party, who prattle about the virtue of small government while spending more and more federal money, esp. on pork.

No but the statement kiss my ass is just as petty and juvenile as telling me to move to Somalia, and both demonstrate that you are losing the argument and are therefore resorting to juvenile statements.

Somalia is the ultimate in small government, so I thought it had a sort of reductio ad absurdum charm to it, but different strokes, I guess.

We are getting nothing close to Gray Davis budgets. He increased spending by forty percent while he was in office. And it would be nice if the government was spending the money on roads, prisons and schools. Instead it is spending money on bureacracys and no bid contracts.

As I think your answer implicitly suggests, we essentially have had Gray Davis budgets under Arnold, without the cuts in spending that would restore the state's budget to balance. Instead, we get the same sort of tricks -- e.g., deals with Indian casinos, which revenue gets counted all in the first year instead of as it comes in -- to paper over the imbalance.

I am listeneing to what you are saying, but trying to argue that voting population in the rural states are less inclined towards big government is a completely ridiculous position to take. It is completely unsupportable and yet you try and argue it.

Please show me where I said that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think that you, like most politicians, underestimates the displacement effects of such spending. That is, if S.D. didn't have a military base, someone else would employ people there for something else, at least beyond the short term. (In the specific case of military installations, a defense contractor likely would hire many of them; more generally, they'd find jobs doing something else).

I think that you, like most people, have not spent time in western South Dakota. In some areas, what you say is surely true, but in many rural areas, everyone knows all too well that if the military leaves, they're fucked, because there's nothing to take it's place.

That said, your argument that only a 1:1 spending/taxing ratio would not create a subsidy is wrong for broader reasons. Some amount (and we can argue how much) of the $1.10 going to South Dakota has external benefits. Perhaps 5c, perhaps 10c (and it likely differs depending on the nature of the payment). But it benefits people outside of S.D. The value of that money is not fully captured by S.D.'ans (put alternatively, some of the value is reaped by the rest of the US).

Bottom line, you have to look at the types of spending and whether it can fairly be said to benefit just people in the state or benefit more broadly before you call it a subsidy.

We all may benefit from the spending, but South Dakota (e.g.) benefits in a way other states do not from the decision to spend it in South Dakota -- as opposed to spending it elsewhere, not as opposed to not spending it at all -- which is what the $1.10 figure is trying to capture.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think that you, like most people, have not spent time in western South Dakota. In some areas, what you say is surely true, but in many rural areas, everyone knows all too well that if the military leaves, they're fucked, because there's nothing to take it's place.



We all may benefit from the spending, but South Dakota (e.g.) benefits in a way other states do not from the decision to spend it in South Dakota -- as opposed to spending it elsewhere, not as opposed to not spending it at all -- which is what the $1.10 figure is trying to capture.

I'm not denying that a place might be fucked if you take out a military base, but if people choose to get fucked by it, they bear at least some of the blame. First off, they can move to where there is a job. Second, closing bases doesn't always eliminate jobs. Many of the closings simply shuffle personnel around. Sure, there are relocation costs, but long run those are relatively small. I truly believe that the large part of the "subsidy" is simply going to whoever happens to get the employment, not a particular location. (and that's a small part of the overall benefit)

On the second point, I agree, the question is as opposed to not spending. And that's why the $1.10 figure doesn't capture much at all. The question is what we're spending versus spending it elsewhere. You're looking at it from the locals' perspective, which is "I get it all or I get nothing, because it's going to another state." I'm looking at it from the national perspective, which is we need to spend a dollar on the military, where do we spend it. It might waste a few pennies to spend it in S.D. instead of Cal., but otherwise we're getting the benefit of that dollar spent (or most of it). The only "waste" is the subsidy for doing it in S.D. To me, it's pretty unobjectionable (not entirely so) that we might waste a couple of pennies putting a base in S.D. (and it's probably in some ways cheaper than putting it elsewhere). Put differently, you could buy a book at Amazon or City Lights. It will surely cost you more at the latter. The subsidy (if you want to call it that) is not the price you pay for buying it at City Lights. It's the difference in the prices.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are getting into other issues. I was making the point, that in the more rural areas of America people have a stronger inclination towards limited government. And this is reflected in their size of their state governments.

All those so-called anti-government types learned a little bit about what that really means when Newt shut the government down. It became apparent that their anti-government rhetoric was complete and utter bullshit.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you using the Bong tonight. Again, I was pointing out that in the small states the people have inclination towards limited government. Just because some of their politicians representing their states are voting for increased spending during a war at the Federal level does not mean that the citizens of these states have abandoned their anitpathy towards government. Have the state governments in these states started increasing their spending recently? Have they changed their state legislatures from being part time to full time? Just because some of their representatives have voted for increased government spending over the past few years does not mean that the average citizen of these states have changed their inclinations towards small government.

I am listeneing to what you are saying, but trying to argue that voting population in the rural states are less inclined towards big government is a completely ridiculous position to take. It is completely unsupportable and yet you try and argue it.

I think it's a little unfair to compare the situation in California to pretty much any small state. It's a lot harder to govern California than to govern SD. We have a population much more diverse by any metric you can name - ethnically, by religion, by sexuality, etc.; much greater diversity in occupations (what can you do in SD? Beyond work at the base, farm or greet customers at WalMart); greater disparity in incomes among the populations, etc. than in the red states, which in general tend to be more homogeneous. I'm not saying that corruption and waste are equivalent, but the greater challenges in governing this state have contributed to a larger, more complicated - and yes, probably more wasteful - government. Put another way, waste aside and assuming perfect efficiency, do you think California could provide the same type, level and quality of services to its citizens that SD does, at the same per capita cost? How many Hmong interpreters do the SD courts employ?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Put another way, waste aside and assuming perfect efficiency, do you think California could provide the same type, level and quality of services to its citizens that SD does, at the same per capita cost?

Why are californians so less capable of taking care of themselves than South Dakotans?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why are californians so less capable of taking care of themselves than South Dakotans?

How many Hmong interpreters do the SD courts employ?

eta This is my way of saying there are five other sentences in my previous post, and I would be honored if you would read them in addition to the last one.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
How many Hmong interpreters do the SD courts employ?

eta This is my way of saying there are five other sentences in my previous post, and I would be honored if you would read them in addition to the last one.

Having Hmong interpreters makes Californians less capable of taking care of themselves?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
How many Hmong interpreters do the SD courts employ?

eta This is my way of saying there are five other sentences in my previous post, and I would be honored if you would read them in addition to the last one.

How many does it need to employ?

And I did read the others, and my question still stands. How does diversity of religion, sexuality, employment require more government?

Religion is something the state can't be involved in
Sexuality is, for the most part, similarly irrelevant (I'll grant you a few resources for enforcing discrimination codes--although not granting the need for those codes in the first place)
Jobs--so you need more regulatory agencies?
court translators--what's the Cal. judiciary's budget for this? What part of the state budget is that, %-wise?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How many does it need to employ?

And I did read the others, and my question still stands. How does diversity of religion, sexuality, employment require more government?

Religion is something the state can't be involved in
Sexuality is, for the most part, similarly irrelevant (I'll grant you a few resources for enforcing discrimination codes--although not granting the need for those codes in the first place)
Jobs--so you need more regulatory agencies?
court translators--what's the Cal. judiciary's budget for this? What part of the state budget is that, %-wise?

If you have a given level of government regulation - say the same level of oversight that South Dakotans are comfortable with - the greater number of - what's the word I'm looking for - items? things? - in California to regulate will equal a more expensive government. We have to regulate freighter traffic in and out of the Port of Oakland, a problem SD does not face. We have to provide interpreters in our court systems for a wide variety of languages - a problem that SD faces to a far lesser degree, if at all. We have to employ many more wildfire suppression personnel than most red states do.

These are examples. Each individually does not seem to add much, but they illustrate my point - they do not, and are not intended to, comprise the total of it.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How many does it need to employ?

And I did read the others, and my question still stands. How does diversity of religion, sexuality, employment require more government?

Religion is something the state can't be involved in
Sexuality is, for the most part, similarly irrelevant (I'll grant you a few resources for enforcing discrimination codes--although not granting the need for those codes in the first place)
Jobs--so you need more regulatory agencies?
court translators--what's the Cal. judiciary's budget for this? What part of the state budget is that, %-wise?

If there are not yet Hmong intrepreters in SD, there will be soon. Minnesota is 2nd in terms ofHmong population, and St. Paul, MN has the largest number of Hmong in any city in the country.

http://www.hmongcenter.org/hmonpop.html
http://www.mncn.org/hmongbriefing.htm

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
We agree, then, that the Republicans now running the federal government (at least the executive and legislative branches) have abandoned a century of conservative principles to spend money like drunken sailors, notwithstanding whatever lip service they may pay to the idea of limited government.

I'll agree with this wholeheartedly.

Maybe people answer the poll questions that way, but then when you ask them whether they want to spend money on education/roads/prisons/etc., it turns out that they do. They like the idea of shrinking the size of state government, so long as it doesn't mean that state government stops giving them fewer services. Arnold, like other prominent Republicans nationally, has figured this out and runs on a nebulous package of "reform" and "reducing the size of government" while not actually proposing to do anything of the sort, since that would piss people off. So we get Grey Davis budgets.

"Compassionate Conservatism" is another fine example.