The proper role and scope of government

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

It's easy to agree with your first sentence,
but I don't think you want to hang your hat on the second.

Eisenhower recognized and told the US people something about that.
Regan ignored his remarks in striving for his 600-ship navy.
"Star wars" and "Haliburton" are a couple of the more current memes.
It was all about making $ and profits from the common defense.

Popular notion, but I'm thinking in terms of a society's overall creation of wealth, not in soldiers and government contractors getting paid their livings.

The weapons of a state might be analogized with the antlers of a deer: they defend the deer, they aid the deer in promulgating his genes through deer-dom -- but they exact a cost to the deer's metabolism, growth, energy. Such expenditure might have been laid out in some other part of the deer, right? And yet, the deer would not do so well without them, in the end.

Necessary, but not wealth-generating overall; wealth-consuming instead.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Next thing I'll know: said lazy shit will bring up Somalia as my idea of heaven... ...which it's not.

At least one antilibertarian jinglenuts of a writer called places like Somalia, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and upcountry Afghanistan "libertarian heavens," when "libertarian hells" would be a somewhat more accurate description -- and the kleptocracies with the actual local power are not recognizable as libertarians of any description anyway. Not even Anarcho-libs.

Said anonymous jinglenuts seemed out to discredit libertarianism, perhaps by Alinskyite methods. Meh, who knows?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Popular notion, but I'm thinking in terms of a society's overall creation of wealth, not in soldiers and government contractors getting paid their livings.

The weapons of a state might be analogized with the antlers of a deer: they defend the deer, they aid the deer in promulgating his genes through deer-dom -- but they exact a cost to the deer's metabolism, growth, energy. Such expenditure might have been laid out in some other part of the deer, right? And yet, the deer would not do so well without them, in the end.

Necessary, but not wealth-generating overall; wealth-consuming instead.

In summation; castrate the deer, but keep the horns.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Not advocating in particular; just observing. In perhaps missing my point -- I'm not sure whether you have or not -- you've set up a different scenario. Might be fruitful; should we discuss more?

[Griff]

I think we understand each other. I see that our deer is dying. Among other things, we've over invested in horns losing ground to the animals who've put more energy into their bodies. Metaphors aside, we've made a lot of bad investments as a country to the detriment of a couple things only the smallest minority oppose, infrastructure and education. Sensible investment in those two things make us more competitive. We should not lose sight of that during our quadrennial rut.

[Uday]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Popular notion, but I'm thinking in terms of a society's overall creation of wealth, not in soldiers and government contractors getting paid their livings.

The weapons of a state might be analogized with the antlers of a deer: they defend the deer, they aid the deer in promulgating his genes through deer-dom -- but they exact a cost to the deer's metabolism, growth, energy. Such expenditure might have been laid out in some other part of the deer, right? And yet, the deer would not do so well without them, in the end.

Necessary, but not wealth-generating overall; wealth-consuming instead.

But when horns are too big, the animal goes extinct, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Elk

[richlevy]

From here

Emma Sullivan’s trip to Topeka with other high school students to learn about government taught her a few unexpected lessons:

All that resulted from a tweet the Shawnee Mission East High School senior wrote Monday during Brownback’s greeting to young people who were brought in for a closer look at the political process.
“Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot,” Sullivan thumbed from the back of the crowd.
She actually made no such comments.

Brownback’s director of communication wasn’t amused when the tweet was spotted during the routine daily monitoring of comments on Twitter and Facebook mentioning the governor’s name.
“That wasn’t respectful,” responded Sherriene Jones-Sontag. “In order to really have a constructive dialogue, there has to be mutual respect.”

So they tracked her down and forced her school to force her to write a letter of apology. I think what she did was stupid and petty. I think the governors office's response was Orwellian and Nixonian. The next time I hear a complaint about how 'liberal' institutions are stifling conservative students, I think I can bring this item up. Compared to some of the rhetoric about Obama, what she wrote was tame.

[TheMercenary]

Hopey Changey, fail.

CBO: Stimulus hurts economy in the long run

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy.

CBO said that while the Recovery Act boosted the economy in the short run, the extra debt that the stimulus piled up “crowds out” private investment and “will reduce output slightly in the long run — by between 0 and 0.2 percent after 2016.”

The analysis confirms what CBO predicted before the stimulus passed in February 2009, though the top-end decline of two-tenths of a percent is actually deeper than the agency predicted back then.

All told, the stimulus did boost jobs and the economy in the short run, according to CBO’s models. At the peak of spending from July through September 2010, it sustained anywhere from 700,000 to 3.6 million, which lowered the unemployment rate by between four-tenths of a percent to 2 percent.

The Obama administration had promised 3.5 million jobs would be produced at the peak of spending.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...DPn4Q.facebook

[Ibby]

I think that was the point, though, merc, whether you agree with it or not. The idea is, if the government boosts things in the short term, that will be enough to set the ball rolling, and by the time the stimulus starts costing productivity the snowball effect of what it STIMULATED in the -private- sector will more than make up for the eventual lessening of the direct effects. Basically, the idea is, if we can get the economy on track NOW, it will be strong enough to survive the eventual side effects of the drug we used to save it. You can disagree with the effectiveness of that concept, but attacking it as if this wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the stimulus on the part of its proponents is disingenuous.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I think that was the point, though, merc, whether you agree with it or not. The idea is, if the government boosts things in the short term, that will be enough to set the ball rolling, and by the time the stimulus starts costing productivity the snowball effect of what it STIMULATED in the -private- sector will more than make up for the eventual lessening of the direct effects. Basically, the idea is, if we can get the economy on track NOW, it will be strong enough to survive the eventual side effects of the drug we used to save it. You can disagree with the effectiveness of that concept, but attacking it as if this wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the stimulus on the part of its proponents is disingenuous.

Hardly "disingenuous" at all. You are making assumptions about my intent. Show me the chorus of people who were saying the Stimulus was a bad idea and compare that to those who said it was a must pass. Remember Pelosi, Reid, and Obama telling us about all those shovel ready jobs? No go back and look at my numerous posts asking what are we going to do when the money runs out. Well unemployment is still at an AVERAGE of 9% and much higher in some states and areas. What did we get? A world record deficit and much of it wasted. Average costs per job created was around $400k each at the best estimate and about $1.2 million per job created at the worst. Now they are considering another failed stimulus package and a further growth of the deficit. Notice how many of these plans, whether for "Job Creation" or Obamacare or whatever all never really kick in till Obama will be long gone from his job.

[classicman]

I think you need to determine how much of the stimulus was for job creation and then recalculate those numbers.
IMO, it will be much more representative of reality.
Then look at the amounts spent on "other" things and assess how well that was spent.

[Lamplighter]

There are several political candidates and pundits who are
advocating the elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

I thought it might be worthwhile to try to have a discussion
of these two entities, and the implications of keeping or eliminating them.

Here is Freddie Mac's website description of what they do:

We participate in the secondary mortgage market by purchasing
mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities for investment and by
issuing guaranteed mortgage-related securities, principally those we call PCs.

The secondary mortgage market consists of institutions engaged
in buying and selling mortgages in the form of whole loans
(i.e., mortgages that have not been securitized) and mortgage-related securities.
We do not lend money directly to homeowners.

Here is the Fannie Mae website's description of what they do:

Marketplace Liquidity

Providing Liquidity and Affordability to the Housing Market

Fannie Mae is working to help the U.S. housing market get back on stable ground.
We do this by replenishing the funds that lenders need to make new loans,
refinance existing loans, and finance multifamily housing at affordable rates.

During the housing crisis, many mortgage investors left the market
or scaled back their activity.
We remain committed to providing liquidity and stability to the housing market
in all economic conditions.

Supporting Homeownership

For Americans who are ready to buy a home, we believe they should
have access to affordable, sustainable options.
We have provided nearly $1.7 trillion in single-family funding since 2009,
while establishing stronger and more sustainable lending standards.
This has helped more than seven million families buy homes or
refinance their loans since the beginning of 2009.

Single-Family
Our single-family acquisitions include several products that address specific housing needs.
For instance, during 2010, Fannie Mae purchased:

* $831 million in mortgages targeted specifically to lower- income
and/or first-time home buyers through banks and state housing finance agencies
* $944 million in mortgages secured by manufactured homes
* $138 million in single-family mortgages in rural areas
<snip>

As I understand the operations of F&F, they are NOT the lending agency when someone buys a home.

Instead, a mortgage is developed by a bank, credit union, etc.
wherein the terms of the loan are defined, and the purchase funds are distributed to the new home owner.

Before the existence of F&F, the bank provided it's own funds and held the mortgage and processed the loan payments.
But with F&F, the bank can now sell such mortgages to F&F,
and thereby replenish the bank's funds to continue creating additional mortgages.

But, F&F do not buy these mortgages one-at-a-time.
Instead, the bank "bundles" several mortgages and establishes
the "quality" of the bundle, and then proceeds to negotiate the value with F&F.

Once F&F own these bundles of mortgages, they sell them to investors,
with assurances of value and quality... and may earn a profit during these transactions.

------------

OK, I hope other Dwellars will add or correct my description as needed,
and contribute to a political discussion of these institutions.
.

[classicman]

That really deserves a thread of its own.

[Lamplighter]

Elsewhere, I posted my concern over Gingrich's intentions for his presidency.
Here are excerpts from the articles I cited.

NY Times Editorial
Dec 10, 2011

Mr. Gingrich’s Attack on the Courts

In any campaign season, voters are bound to hear Republican candidates talk about “activist judges”
— jurists who rule in ways that the right wing does not like.
But Newt Gingrich, who is leading in polls in Iowa,
is taking the normal attack on the justice system to a deep new low.

He is using McCarthyist tactics to smear judges.
His most outrageous scheme, a plan to challenge “judicial supremacy,”
has disturbing racial undertones. If he is serious about his plan,
a President Gingrich would break the balance of power that is
fundamental to our democracy.<snip>

The plan’s centerpiece is an attack on the landmark 1958 ruling in Cooper v. Aaron,
in which the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Arkansas had a duty to follow federal law.
For the first time in the court’s history, all nine justices individually signed the unanimous opinion.

They did so to stress that the “chaos, bedlam and turmoil” caused by
the governor’s refusal to obey the law was “intolerable.”
Unless the court acted as the final arbiter about the Constitution’s meaning,
as Marbury v. Madison instructed, chaos would prevail.

It was one of the court’s most important decisions.

----------------

Here is Gingrich's presentation: - it downloads a pdf file.

21st Century
Contract with America
Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution

NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting
Item No. 9 of the 21st Century Contract with America:

Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated
Constitutional powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or
replace judges who violate the Constitution. <snip>

This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to the
legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial
supremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive
and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes
that more properly rest with Congress.

A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself
and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court
decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s)
whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution.<snip>

The rejection of judicial supremacy and the reestablishment of a constitutional balance of power
among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches will be an intense and difficult undertaking.
It is unavoidable if we are going to retain American freedoms and American identity.

Is anyone still willing to say: "Anyone but Obama"

[Lamplighter]

I wonder how Supreme Court Judge Samuel Alito is feeling about Newt now.
Has he uttered the phrase: "Dear God, what have I wrought"

It was Alito, while working in the Reagan administration,
that expanded the concept of "Signing Statements" which in effect
allowed US Presidents to ignore parts of new legislation the President (by himself) deemed as unconstitutional.