Is it time to break-up the Federal government?

[Grenartia]

Yes, decentralization will help the Union survive, for the reasons the OP stated.

I can see that the pro-centralization debaters have left. Good work, OP.

No, we haven't. You are mistaken. I'm just waiting for the OP to address my latest response.

I guess if you're desperate enough "rambled incoherently enough that anyone interested in having a worthwhile conversation wandered off to find more fertile ground" can look like winning.

If you have something substantive objective to offer to challenge my assertions --- than have at it.

We HAVE. But all you do is say "bullshit strawman" (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself if you don't prove how it is so), or post (incredibly ironically) a one-size fits all "refutation" (which is filled with biased and unrealibale sources). And when we consistently point these things out to you, you eitehr blatantly ignore it, keep repeating your "bullshit strawman" catchphrase, or make ad hominems about "the left".

[YellowApple]

So far (as of 23 February 2012 16:49 UTC-8), I have counted a total of 489 instances of the word "shit" in this thread, including the two in this post.



I strongly advise against anyone participating in the above-recommended drinking game unless they want to die from having a blood alcohol content that probably breaks any recorded world record several times over.

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is focused on adding knowledge to the subject matter via objective and substantive presentation of facts, logical arguments and peer reviewed empirical research.

While the leftwing contribution to the discussion is inane retorts, disinformation and a drinking game.

Things never change, do they?

> implying that I am left-wing

[Frisivisia]

So far (as of 23 February 2012 16:49 UTC-8), I have counted a total of 489 instances of the word "shit" in this thread, including the two in this post.



I strongly advise against anyone participating in the above-recommended drinking game unless they want to die from having a blood alcohol content that probably breaks any recorded world record several times over.

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is focused on adding knowledge to the subject matter via objective and substantive presentation of facts, logical arguments and peer reviewed empirical research.

While the leftwing contribution to the discussion is inane retorts, disinformation and a drinking game.

Things never change, do they?

Yeah, we never do seem to take you seriously.

EDIT: Oh, and there are 78 instances of the term "bullshit strawman" in this thread, almost all used by Obamacult.

[Obamacult]

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is focused on adding knowledge to the subject matter via objective and substantive presentation of facts, logical arguments and peer reviewed empirical research.

While the leftwing contribution to the discussion is inane retorts, disinformation and a drinking game.

Things never change, do they?

A rather inaccurate assessment, actually. 'Twould be more accurate to say;

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is repeating the same entitled, selfish horseshit they always repeat.

While the leftwing has grown bored of disproving said horseshit again and again, and has resorted to attempting to make something good out of the whole shebang, as an alternative to taking a Webley and a bottle of whisky out into the woods.

The research I have cited that you claim fallaciously as 'horseshit' is not my own,

it is the recent substantive and objective findings published in peer reviewed economic publications, government and non-government organizations and academia.

Recent academic, NGO and peer reviewed research on the deleterious effects of public debt :

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

In contrast, my assertions and citations have not been countered by a shred of objective and substantive factual, logical or empirically supported evidence.

The question herein becomes, not whether debt is detrimental to societal economic growth, that much is confirmed by facts, logic and empirical evidence.

Indeed, the question then becomes, why do those on the Left reject the preponderance of substantive and objective scientific research that supports the argument that public debt is detrimental to economic growth ?

I don't think they have an answer for that, but maybe some brave and honest soul can speak his mind and enlighten us with something more substantive than inane retorts and drinking games.

[Death Metal]

Because all you really have is lies, fudged numbers, and anti-logic. You keep claiming 1+1=7, and handwaving anything that says otherwise while posting mindless copypasta of outright falsehoods.

There. Are. Four. Lights.

[Obamacult]

Note that the conservative-libertarian side is focused on adding knowledge to the subject matter via objective and substantive presentation of facts, logical arguments and peer reviewed empirical research.

While the leftwing contribution to the discussion is inane retorts, disinformation and a drinking game.

Things never change, do they?

Yeah, we never do seem to take you seriously.

EDIT: Oh, and there are 78 instances of the term "bullshit strawman" in this thread, almost all used by Obamacult.

Let's see, I post scientific research published in peer reviewed economic journals supporting my assertion that public debt undermines economic growth.

And I am met with the following post containing:

no facts - check

no logic - check

no empirical evidence - check

no argument, period - check

inane retort - check

red herring discussion on the number of time bullshit is used - check

Yep, it must be Frisivia.

[Death Metal]

Let's see, I post scientific research published in peer reviewed economic journals supporting my assertion that public debt undermines economic growth.

No, the research you posted says the exact opposite.

There are four lights.

[Obamacult]

Because all you really have is lies, fudged numbers, and anti-logic. You keep claiming 1+1=7, and handwaving anything that says otherwise while posting mindless copypasta of outright falsehoods.

There. Are. Four. Lights.

The problem with your fallacious argument is that the empirical findings are not mine -- they are from economists whose work has been published in peer reviewed economic journals, within academia and governmental organizations.

Recent academic, NGO and peer reviewed research on the deleterious effects of public debt :

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

Indeed, if you reject science, then I am challenging you to provide your own sources, other then your personal opinion unsupported by any shred of fact, logic and empirically supported evidence.

[Ensiferum]

More states rights is basically turning the United States of America into the American Union. Terrible idea. Throw in a debt to GDP ratio and you'd get the EU in all it's falling apart glory

[Obamacult]

Let's see, I post scientific research published in peer reviewed economic journals supporting my assertion that public debt undermines economic growth.

No, the research you posted says the exact opposite.

There are four lights.

Let's see, I post scientific research published in peer reviewed economic journals supporting my assertion that public debt undermines economic growth.

And I am met with the following post containing:

no facts - check

no logic - check

no empirical evidence - check

no argument, period - check

disinformation - check

gibberish - check

Yep, it must be Frisivia or Death Metal.

[Obamacult]

More states rights is basically turning the United States of America into the American Union. Terrible idea. Throw in a debt to GDP ratio and you'd get the EU in all it's falling apart glory

Wrong. If an individual state became financially insolvent, it would not be bailed out like Greece.

It's debt would be restructured or forgiven outright and new management would be installed by the Federal government.

Of course, the state government would be dissolved for inefficiency and negligence the same as any private enterprise. And of course any creditors who foolishly and recklessly loaned money to the state would be lucky to receive pennies on their dollar -- but the citizens would be absolved from paying off the debt.

[Death Metal]

No, the research you posted says the exact opposite.

There are four lights.

Let's see, I post scientific research published in peer reviewed economic journals supporting my assertion that public debt undermines economic growth.

Mindlessly parroting posts that are wrong, without a shred of free thought, logic, or any intellectual merit, like the brainwashed slave of the cryptofascist movement he is.

Must be AuSableRiver.

[Ensiferum]

More states rights is basically turning the United States of America into the American Union. Terrible idea. Throw in a debt to GDP ratio and you'd get the EU in all it's falling apart glory

Wrong. If an individual state became financially insolvent, it would not be bailed out like Greece.

It's debt would be restructured or forgiven outright and new management would be installed by the Federal government.

Of course, the state government would be dissolved for inefficiency and negligence the same as any private enterprise. And of course any creditors who foolishly and recklessly loaned money to the state would be lucky to receive pennies on their dollar -- but the citizens would be absolved from paying off the debt.

Greece had the option of a bailout, like you mentioned at the end, or leaving the EU. It's no different even in your own words.

[Obamacult]

Let's see, I post scientific research published in peer reviewed economic journals supporting my assertion that public debt undermines economic growth.

Mindlessly parroting posts that are wrong, without a shred of free thought, logic, or any intellectual merit, like the brainwashed slave of the cryptofascist movement he is.

Must be AuSableRiver.

Are you serious dude?!?

The following is peer reviewed research:

Recent academic, NGO and peer reviewed research on the deleterious effects of public debt :

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

In sum, while your personal polemic opinion is appreciated, it is not considered valid or reliable in the scientific community.

[Obamacult]

Wrong. If an individual state became financially insolvent, it would not be bailed out like Greece.

It's debt would be restructured or forgiven outright and new management would be installed by the Federal government.

Of course, the state government would be dissolved for inefficiency and negligence the same as any private enterprise. And of course any creditors who foolishly and recklessly loaned money to the state would be lucky to receive pennies on their dollar -- but the citizens would be absolved from paying off the debt.

Greece had the option of a bailout, like you mentioned at the end, or leaving the EU. It's no different even in your own words.

Allow me to post the latest revision to the OP with the highlighted sections to show why a decentralized debt burden is better than the 'too big to fail' model we now have:

Fallacy #1 -- empowering the individual states to manage health care, education, retirement, transportation, etc. is a return to the Articles of Confederation

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.

Fallacy #2 -- The Federal government is doing just fine managing health care and retirement.

The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.

Fallacy #3 -- It is incredibly bad to have a short-lived private sector monopoly within a single industry, but the Mother of All Monopolies represented by a leviathan government that lords over virtually all commerce with unchallenged monopolistic tax and regulatory policy is hunky dory?!!

This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.

Fallacy #4 -- Profit is bad.

Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies

Fallacy #5 -- Statists say we should downsize banks so they are not too big to fail, but a huge monopolistic government in Washington that borrows 40 cents on every dollar and is paying interest on debt of over 100% of GDP and growing is fine the way it is??!!

Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.

Fallacy #6 -- The debt doesn't matter because who owe it to ourselves or it won't effect us ?!!

The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.

Fallacy #7 -- Smaller populations and smaller states have less efficient governments ???!!

Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)

Fallacy #8 -- Government that governs closest to the people is NOT the best governance ??!!

How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.

Fallacy #9 -- Choice and competition are not beneficial??!!

This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.

Fallacy #10 -- Obamacult is a intolerant and rigid ideologue.

This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!

Fallacy # 11 -- My vote during Federal elections matters.

This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.

Fallacy #12 -- I benefit more when the federal government spends my taxes.

Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.

Fallacy #13 -- The federal government can more effectively and impartially promote and preserve civil and political rights while managing myriad economic responsibilities at the same time.

Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

[Frisivisia]

Greece had the option of a bailout, like you mentioned at the end, or leaving the EU. It's no different even in your own words.

Allow me to post the latest revision to the OP with the highlighted sections to show why a decentralized debt burden is better than the 'too big to fail' model we now have:

This is a typical strawman argument from the peanut gallery because Washington would still be responsible for national defense and insuring unrestricted commerce between the individual states. Hence, the Bill of Rights would remain intact and life, liberty, private property and contracts would still be protected by the Federal government. The only difference is that governance of most economic issues would return to the states or the individual as was the case for over 100 years after the Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's.



The United States government paid over $400,000,000,000 per year on the average to service a debt of over $16,000,000,000,000 over the last four years. Moreover, the average interest payment for the last ten years is over $350,000,000,000 and growing!

If this doesn't expose the peanut gallery argument that 'the debt doesn't matter' as pure deluded and destructive bullshit, then nothing will. To illustrate the opportunity costs of this expenditure (in 2008 dollars), it would pay the salaries of 4,000,000 teachers, 25,000 junior highs, 8000 hospitals (4-8 stories), 100,000 nursing homes, etc.



This pretty much exposes the ridiculous house of cards ideological foundation upon which statism rests. For example, they become apoplectic when faced with a single monopoly within a single industry that can easily be overcome with competition, boycotts, substitution goods, etc. In contrast, statists fawn over the monopoly in Washington that is protected from competition, boycotts, and substitution goods by threat of violence. If you examine the way Washington does business and how it deals with the citizenry -- it is a textbook example of an unyielding, coercive and destructive monopoly that no private sector monopoly has ever or will ever approach in the size and scope of coercion.



Profit informs a free society where capital and labor must be allocated to provide the most benefits based on the preferences of free people and NOT some politician or bureaucrat acting in his own interest. Indeed, firms that make the most profit best satisfy consumer preferences in a free society through voluntary exchanges that always benefit everyone involved in the exchange or the transaction would never have occurred.

Without profit, society has no idea of where to allocate scarce resources. Government cannot efficiently or rationally manage societal resources due to the economic calculation problem outlined below:

Economic Calculation Problem of Command Economies



Indeed, my view is that government in Washington is too big to fail and by breaking up this inefficient and oppressive monopoly control over economic issues. Washington still maintains its role protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts by control of the armed forces, federal law enforcement and legal arbiter of last resort. Moreover if a state went bankrupt, the Feds would treat this the same as any large scale private bankruptcy and assume temporary ownership and restructuring responsibility until the state could get back on its feet.



The debt must be addressed and there is only a few ways this can happen:

1) higher taxes that will cause capital and talent to offshore thereby further eroding the tax base. Indeed, there are some drones who say this isn't a problem despite the fact that Obama mentioned numerous times during the recent campaign that it is A PROBLEM.

2) print money that will debase the currency causing interest rates to rise, inflation that is the cruelest tax of all on the poor, debt payments to rise, loss of confidence in the US government and ultimate capitulation.

3) more borrowing that will cause America's credit worthiness to decline, interest rates to rise, debt to increase, further leading to a series of debilitating economic decision that will ultimately be thrust on the lap of Main Street in significantly reduced growth, decreases in discretionary income and declining living standards.

4) eliminate or reduce promised benefits in social security and health care leading to lower standards of living. Indeed, this is generational theft since young people paying into the system today will never get anything close to what they contribute into the system.



Absurd, the geopolitic has myriad examples of governments smaller than most US states that function very well within societies of small populations. Indeed, the ten least corrupt states (Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Singapore, Canada, etc.) all have populations less then many US states. Moreover, many small nations have strong records of economic growth, civil and political rights (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway, etc.)



How anyone can logically conclude that a one-size fits all solution emanating from bureaucrats and politicians in Washington is more accountable and responsive than government from a state capital far closer to the people and more intimate with each states unique problems?

Unfortunately, it is true that many leftwing ideologues think that a bureaucrat or politician thousands of miles removed from society in Washington is better able to decide what a citizen needs or wants than that citizen himself.

This is the very definition of arrogance and tyranny. Nonetheless, I am sure that these leftists can find a state that suits their needs and be comforted in the fact that their state of choice will provide the highest standards of living. Yet we all know that they won't accept this bargain because deep down they fear competition and free choice because it will expose the absurdity and bankruptcy of their ideology.

In contrast, government that governs closest to the people governs best. It is obvious, these politicians will be serving their constituents with money from their district for their district. They know best how to fund and where to fund and what projects to fund. Indeed, every state and community has its own unique problems and strengths that require local experts to address, not some clueless bureaucrat thousands of miles removed from the problem.



This is the typical sentiment of tyrants and their dupes. They reject competition because they know their coercive and destructive schemes would fall like a house of cards if faced with freedom of choice by the citizenry. Indeed, it would be extremely beneficial to have a United States in which the economic services currently mismanaged by the coercive monopoly in Washington was suddenly downsized and broken-up into 50 disparate and competing state enterprises.

We have seen that smaller states can function and manage public goods as efficiently as any large state and in many cases far more efficiently and with less corruption and more accountability. Moreover, the United States would have a supreme advantage over these smaller states in Europe, Latin American and the Asian Pacific Rim in that our competing states would still share the same language, legal system, national defense, and all of its citizens and commerce could travel unrestricted from state to state.

Indeed, the only change would be to transfer economic management of responsibilities to the individual states that all rational, objective and independent thinking citizens recognized that our large and unresponsive Federal government has failed to deliver with any measure of financial responsibility.

Moreover, if a citizen does not trust or appreciate the level of government services provided, it is far easier to move across state lines than to move to another nation. Indeed, the Federal government would insure that commerce and labor could travel unrestricted across state lines (commerce clause).

In sum, it is manifestly absurd and delusional to think that 50 states competing for the favors of the citizenry would be less responsive and accountable than a single massive coercive central government monopoly in Washington.




This is laughable and hypocritical coming from a forum that is universally dominated by leftwing dogma while I am generally the only conservative-libertarian arguing for a particular point of view.

In sum, I am the lone conservative voice within a leftwing echo chamber, and yet amusingly, I am called intolerant?!!



This is really an indictment on the absurdity of voting in Presidential elections when your vote is worth 1/120,000,000 and to make matters worse, it is for the lesser of two evils.

Indeed, if power was transferred to the states, your vote would be demonstrably more valuable since it would be among far less competitors. Moreover, it is far easier for a third party candidate or party to make inroads within a targeted state then in a national election. Hence, a transfer of economic power to the states would lend itself to a more responsive and dynamic political competition that would make it easier for third party candidates to leverage an advantage in a couple states with electorates favorable to their policies. Moreover, your vote, while still hardly a determining factor, would still account for more weight than national elections where it is virtually useless, particularly in the 80% of the states that represent non-battleground states.



Wrong, when taxes go to the federal government the benefits are dispersed among 310 million citizens among a land mass that is demonstrably larger than any single state. In contrast, taxpayers at the state level are far more likely to directly benefit from tax expenditures for obvious reasons.



Of course, the opposite is true. When the federal government oversees redistribution of trillions of dollars in tax and regulatory policy -- it invites the kind of corruption that rots and destroys nations from the inside out in a mountain of corruption and cronyism. Indeed, by removing the money from the federal government -- it can more effectively accomplish its primary beneficial responsibility of protecting life, liberty, private property and enforcing contracts.

To use an analogy, the federal government is the preeminent 'referee' in the economy in particular and society in general -- however when this referee enters the game as a profit-seeking 'player' -- then its ability to make accurate and fair calls is severely and irreparably compromised to the detriment of society.

Governments are always to big to fail.

[Frisivisia]

Mindlessly parroting posts that are wrong, without a shred of free thought, logic, or any intellectual merit, like the brainwashed slave of the cryptofascist movement he is.

Must be AuSableRiver.

Are you serious dude?!?

The following is peer reviewed research:

Recent academic, NGO and peer reviewed research on the deleterious effects of public debt :

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

In sum, while your personal polemic opinion is appreciated, it is not considered valid or reliable in the scientific community.

You needed "in sum" on the second line of a two-line post?

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm getting mighty tired of the back-and-forth sniping reports that keep showing up in Moderation. I really don't want to spend a ton of time writing up warnings and such, so I'll just say to everyone on both sides of the argument ...

Knock it off with the sniping.

[Greater Texas Territories]

Is there any overlap in opinions?

Any way to find a middle ground again and evaluate each issue in turn?

If there isn't, then both sides should write this forum thread off.

[Grenartia]

Yes, decentralization will help the Union survive, for the reasons the OP stated.

I can see that the pro-centralization debaters have left. Good work, OP.

No, we haven't. You are mistaken. I'm just waiting for the OP to address my latest response.

If you have something substantive objective to offer to challenge my assertions --- than have at it.

We HAVE. But all you do is say "bullshit strawman" (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself if you don't prove how it is so), or post (incredibly ironically) a one-size fits all "refutation" (which is filled with biased and unrealibale sources). And when we consistently point these things out to you, you either blatantly ignore it, keep repeating your "bullshit strawman" catchphrase, or make ad hominems about "the left".

Again, this is all I'm seeing.

[Obamacult]

No, we haven't. You are mistaken. I'm just waiting for the OP to address my latest response.



We HAVE. But all you do is say "bullshit strawman" (which is a logical fallacy in and of itself if you don't prove how it is so), or post (incredibly ironically) a one-size fits all "refutation" (which is filled with biased and unrealibale sources). And when we consistently point these things out to you, you either blatantly ignore it, keep repeating your "bullshit strawman" catchphrase, or make ad hominems about "the left".

Again, this is all I'm seeing.

I disagree.

For example,

On just this page of the thread, I produced peer reviewed empirical research, academic studies, NGO reports and government research regarding the deleterious effects of high public debt levels on economic growth:

Recent academic, NGO and peer reviewed research on the deleterious effects of public debt :

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

And no substantive rebuttal has been forthcoming, save the typical inane retort, semantic diversion, or unsupported personal opinion. I assert that any objective, rational and independent thinking reader would conclude the same.

Nonetheless, provide your single best argument to rebut the least veracious of my 13 tenets on decentralization, and I will respond.

However, your personal opinion absent any substantive and objective factual, logically supported and empirical evidence, while appreciated, is not considered valid and reliable.

In sum, using the example above, I backed up my assertion that high debt levels (like those currently experienced in the USA) were detrimental to economic growth by citing empirical evidence from peer reviewed academic sources, government agencies, and NGO's.

[Grenartia]

Again, this is all I'm seeing.

I disagree.

For example,

1. On just this page of the thread, I produced peer reviewed empirical research, academic studies, NGO reports and government research regarding the deleterious effects of high public debt levels on economic growth

2. Nonetheless, provide your single best argument to rebut the least veracious of my 13 tenets on decentralization, and I will respond.

1. Fine, I'll grant you that.
2. You mean that one-sized fits all post? How about you post a response to this post, first.

[Obamacult]

@Grenartia,

I posted:

We have little to show for this expenditure. Indeed, the federal government has added over $6 trillion to the national debt for mostly cheap service industry jobs (over $1,000,000 borrowed per job created) and anemic European style economic growth moving forward.

The only thing that happens when government borrows recklessly is that societal resources get diverted to corrupt, inefficient, wasteful and economically unsustainable political uses rather than voluntary, efficient and economically sustainable uses selected by consumers in a competitve and peaceful marketplace.

In response, you posted:

1. I would appreciate a source for the underlined.

My response below:

Debt increased from 10,626,877,048,913.08 to 16,608,318,357,376.54 under Obama (plug in the numbers yourself) - check.

(Image)

Three-fifths of jobs created under Obama are low-wage, low-skilled jobs (source: leftwing NELP.org no less) - check

(Image)

And the logic framework behind the numbers:

What is abundantly clear is that the path we are currently on is not sustainable, nor is the structure of the political debate likely to lead to a solution. The end game of continuing to devolve down to a European model is one that is bound to collapse under the weight of government expropriation of resources and wealth.

USA experiencing anemic European style growth rates under Obamanomics - check

(Image)

Source: CBO, Long Term Budget Outlook (page 21)

High debt appears to reduce growth mainly by lowering the efficiency of investment rather than its volume.

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

Government borrowing and debt is detriment of economic growth - check

I am not going to waste anymore of my time sourcing basic econometric information that any self-respecting first year economic student should know to someone who probably isn't going to change their mind no matter how much factual, logical and empirically supported they are exposed to.

In sum, if you doubt the veracity of any of my data, facts, logic or empirical research -- then do us a favor and present your own in rebuttal.

For example, if you don't believe my charge that the debt has increased $6 trillion under Obama -- provide your own data. If you don't believe that the jobs created are predominately shitty unskilled jobs -- produce your own data. If you can present more substantive research challenging the myriad of studies I have claiming that high debt levels significantly undermine economic growth going forward -- then provide your own data and research.

But I am not going to be your tutor moving forward and source every single basic econometric that most economist students are familiar with.

[Choronzon]

There. Are. Four. Lights.

This is seriously the best refrain to chant at these people ever.

Bravo.

[Grenartia]

@Grenartia,

I posted:

We have little to show for this expenditure. Indeed, the federal government has added over $6 trillion to the national debt for mostly cheap service industry jobs (over $1,000,000 borrowed per job created) and anemic European style economic growth moving forward.

The only thing that happens when government borrows recklessly is that societal resources get diverted to corrupt, inefficient, wasteful and economically unsustainable political uses rather than voluntary, efficient and economically sustainable uses selected by consumers in a competitve and peaceful marketplace.

In response, you posted:

1. I would appreciate a source for the underlined.

My response below:

Debt increased from 10,626,877,048,913.08 to 16,608,318,357,376.54 under Obama (plug in the numbers yourself) - check.

(Image)

Three-fifths of jobs created under Obama are low-wage, low-skilled jobs (source: leftwing NELP.org no less) - check

(Image)

And the logic framework behind the numbers:

What is abundantly clear is that the path we are currently on is not sustainable, nor is the structure of the political debate likely to lead to a solution. The end game of continuing to devolve down to a European model is one that is bound to collapse under the weight of government expropriation of resources and wealth.

USA experiencing anemic European style growth rates under Obamanomics - check

(Image)

Source: CBO, Long Term Budget Outlook (page 21)

High debt appears to reduce growth mainly by lowering the efficiency of investment rather than its volume.

Failing to rapidly begin bending the long-run debt-GDP curve down risks a growth disaster, whose severity could be much worse even than the recent deep recession and tragically anemic recovery. Left unchecked, it eventually risks a lost generation of growth, a long-run growth depression

the evidence, as we read it, casts doubt on the view that soaring government debt does not matter when markets (and official players, notably central banks) seem willing to absorb it at low interest rates – as is the case of now.

Our results suggest that the positive short term economic stimulus from additional debt decreases drastically when the initial debt level is high, and might even become negative. The reverse would imply that when the debt ratio is very high, reducing it would have benefi cial effects for annual growth.

The results, based on a range of econometric techniques, suggest an inverse relationship between initial debt and subsequent growth, controlling for other determinants of growth: on average, a 10 percentage point increase in the initial debt-to-GDP ratio is associated with a slowdown in annual real per capita GDP growth of around 0.2 percentage points per year, with the impact being smaller (around 0.15) in advanced economies.

Historical data from the Index of Economic Freedom show a clear negative relationship between the accumulation of debt and economic freedom. In general, countries with lower levels of public debt as a percentage of GDP tend to enjoy high levels of economic freedom....Faced with such a loss of economic freedom and the negative economic impacts likely to accompany it, the temptation for future generations may be to borrow even more themselves to pay off past debts.

Our examination of debt and economic activity in industrial countries leads us to conclude that there is a clear linkage: high debt is bad for growth. When public debt is in the range of 85% of GDP, further increases in debt may have a significant impact on growth

In the current economic environment, the results represent an additional argument in favour of swiftly implementing ambitious strategies for debt reduction. If policy makers let high debt ratios linger for fear that fiscal consolidation measures will be unpopular with voters, this will undermine growth prospects and thus will put an additional burden on fiscal sustainability. This debt-based argument thus adds to the positive growth effects of fiscal reduction found in the literature for the long term and frequently also in the short term.

Government borrowing and debt is detriment of economic growth - check

I am not going to waste anymore of my time sourcing basic econometric information that any self-respecting first year economic student should know to someone who probably isn't going to change their mind no matter how much factual, logical and empirically supported they are exposed to.

In sum, if you doubt the veracity of any of my data, facts, logic or empirical research -- then do us a favor and present your own in rebuttal.

For example, if you don't believe my charge that the debt has increased $6 trillion under Obama -- provide your own data. If you don't believe that the jobs created are predominately shitty unskilled jobs -- produce your own data. If you can present more substantive research challenging the myriad of studies I have claiming that high debt levels significantly undermine economic growth going forward -- then provide your own data and research.

But I am not going to be your tutor moving forward and source every single basic econometric that most economist students are familiar with.

Well excuse the fuck out of me for not being a 'first year economics student'.