I'm sure that our Right-wingers will disagree but, I also know that their opinions are based on no facts, no data of any kind, and they have nothing that they can point to other than opinion-based fear mongering nonsense. The Case for Big Government This morning, walking dogs, I ran into a neighbor who works for a well-known fashion company. "Business is dead," she said. "I wanna complain about how they're treating us. But I better keep a lid on it." I couldn't have agreed more -- business is dead. Holding a job is the priority. But then she went on. "You know," she said, "there's nothing a president can do about it." That got to me. That's the victory of a simplistic ideology that's dominated America since Ronald Reagan and really got its start in the 1970s. Government is at best a necessary evil. It is the problem not the solution. That we don't have any control over our fate. And on it goes. In truth Reagan introduced the real age of limits. He told us time and again what American society could not achieve. And that is why I wrote a new book, just published, called The Case for Big Government, put out by Princeton University Press. I deliberately term the anti-government attitude an ideology because it is not based on evidence; it is in fact faith-based. Economists and policymakers roll out the platitudes. High taxes undermine growth and incentives to work and invest. Government spending is a dead loss to the economy and undermines productivity growth. Government does nothing right. This book is not about theory but about the hard, empirical evidence -- there are plenty of good theoretical arguments for government intervention in a market economy. And the evidence says the case again government is dead wrong. 1. Statistical cross-county comparisons show that countries with higher taxes and more social spending do not grow more slowly than the U.S. Many have higher productivity and pay manufacturing workers more than America does. 2. American history is also on government's side. American government had a big part in the economy since the beginning: in land regulation, canal financing, public schools, sanitation and sewer systems, central banks, the highways, health research and even the internet. 3. While the free market ideology dominated since the 1970s, the American economy on balance did poorly. If the ideology was right, why didn't we at least equal our former performance? Sure, we had the internet and cell phones. But wages performed remarkably poorly over this period. In the past, we had great new products along with rapid wage growth. And the financial crisis is a direct result of ideological deregulation, of Washington looking the other way, of a national mindset described by of all people Bill Clinton when he pronounced back in 1996 that "the era of big government is over." So I told my dog-walking friend that of course the president could do something about it. We needed a bold stimulus plan, a strong plan to stop defaults on mortgages, and smart re-regulation of finance. And then we have to address areas of such profound neglect that we must climb back a long way: our healthcare system, our infrastructure, our public schools, our energy dependence, and on. I told her I had a new book out. It's about the value robust pragmatic government. But she said she got the idea. "Don't you believe me?" I asked. "I do , I do, but I'm cutting back on expenses," she answered.
You forgot this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-madrick/the-case-for-big-governme_b_143667.html. And, BTW, Reagan told us what we could succeed in doing and he was proven correct. Now Obama keeps telling us what we did wrong and they are becoming self-fulfilling prophecies.
So the FACT that you quoted Huffington is my opinion. Interesting. BTW, I had more FACTS in my post than your entire author's opinionated and biased article.
Big or small, the size of government really has very little to do with the economic growth of the country. Personally I prefer something in the middle. It's the policies that government implements that determine growth. But, when both sides do nothing but push their bloated egos across the table, refusing to even do the simplest things like decide on a budget plan...something every family in America can do in five minutes, then those policies never get enacted and corporations are either forced out of the equation, or opt out, sending jobs elsewhere. If you want to blame someone for the economy, blame them all.
I just find it silly when the Right-wing nuts say that the government is too big all the time. When you ask them how big it should be, they can't tell you. How can something be described as too big when you can't even say what the right size is? They also constantly say that government doesn't work. They they get elected to prove it. Government isn't the problem, Republicans are the problem.
Oh! We tell you all the time what size it should be. You have just decided we are wrong so you "don't listen to anyone on the Right".
Maybe we should use the term "fair share"? That figure has satisfied the lefties for quite some time.
You're way too middle here. You've raised points here that might actually require thinking after all and actually looking at different points of view. It's much easier to just attack with rubbish here. I really do like this point though.... Not sure about every family but I get your point. As families and individuals people budget. Not always good budgets but much quicker that any government. I suppose it means more when it boils down to individual or family survival on a "short term" basisi.
Presidents are required to present budgets by the Constitution. It is Congress' job to pass them. Again, take a civics lesson.
David used the word "serious" to describe the budget to be submitted. I would think a serious budget would get at least a majority of the President's own party. Just how many Democratic votes have the President's budgets received so far?
