bank secrets

[kandrathe]

People in this thread have kind of already made this point, but why is state so much better than country. Every state has richer and poorer counties, every county has richer and poorer cities, every city... Any organization which contains more than one person and collects taxes will inevitably end up helping one part more than the other when they use said tax. In addition, perhaps, beauracracies have economies of scale (this might just mean that maximum inefficiency is easier to obtain with larger size, but seriously).

In order to realize economies of scale, you need to eliminate the smaller entities. That is the idea behind one large central government, such as was tried in the many communist countries. I'm advocating the reverse, a focus on local taxation and local control.

My local government has many of the mechanisms of my State government, and my State government has most of the mechanisms of the Federal government. By taking the Feds out of the bulk of the domestic side of government we eliminate the redundancy that is already performed at the state level.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Having your cake simultaneously with eating should be impossible as well, although you could perhaps quibble over eaten and uneaten parts of the cake.

From a story in my freshman (HS) lit book: "A man without eyes saw pears on a tree. He did not take pears. He did not leave pears. Now how can that be?"

Sorry. My mind is like an old time cyclotron target. Something goes in, something comes out. There's probably a relationship, but it does seem random. :P

--Pete

[Jester]

In order to realize economies of scale, you need to eliminate the smaller entities. That is the idea behind one large central government, such as was tried in the many communist countries. I'm advocating the reverse, a focus on local taxation and local control.

My local government has many of the mechanisms of my State government, and my State government has most of the mechanisms of the Federal government. By taking the Feds out of the bulk of the domestic side of government we eliminate the redundancy that is already performed at the state level.

There are economies of scale, and there are diseconomies of scale. Larger is not necessarily better or worse, it depends on a whole host of factors. Moving any given function of government up or down in scale may work well, or it may work badly, depending on the function in question, the state in question, etc... I don't think there is any particularly good economic reason to suspect the states will be any more efficient than the feds, or that the locals will be any more efficient than the states. Why move functions universally down or up? Why not assess the efficiency costs each function, and move it appropriately?

Now, you may have a political belief that control should be local, regardless of efficiency concerns. But that would be a different thing.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

In order to realize economies of scale, you need to eliminate the smaller entities. That is the idea behind one large central government, such as was tried in the many communist countries.

I think you are mixing some concepts here. While it is true that most communist countries had a large central government that tried to control everything, it does not follow that their failure was because of the size of the central government. It could have been (and most probably was) because they tried to control too much. Indeed, it is entirely probable that had a communist country tried to maintain the same level of control through decentralized means the situation would have been even worse.

My local government has many of the mechanisms of my State government, and my State government has most of the mechanisms of the Federal government. By taking the Feds out of the bulk of the domestic side of government we eliminate the redundancy that is already performed at the state level.

Again, the argument works both ways. Indeed, it works better if we eliminate fifty state bureaucracies than if we eliminate one federal. Maybe not down at the trench level, where it takes the same number of civil engineers to maintain our roads regardless if they work for one agency or fifty-one. But at the management level, it could significantly reduce the number of drones by eliminating fifty DoT bosses and much of their managerial hierarchy.

You need to be careful in your arguments. To argue that something is good because it makes government more efficient may be a mistake in assumptions. Perhaps it would be better to argue why a non-efficient government is preferable. Remember that throughout history, it has been totalitarian governments that 'made the trains run on time'.

--Pete

[Jester]

Remember that throughout history, it has been totalitarian governments that 'made the trains run on time'.

I don't think this is actually true. Someone (remember hearing, no source) actually studied the famous example, and Mussolini's effect on train lateness was exactly zero. The Soviets were famous for things being grossly off schedule, I presume the trains as much as anything else.

The best government in the world for running trains is probably the Japanese; I don't quite know how to classify that, but I don't think 'totalitarian' is the way to go.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don't think this is actually true. Someone (remember hearing, no source) actually studied the famous example, and Mussolini's effect on train lateness was exactly zero. The Soviets were famous for things being grossly off schedule, I presume the trains as much as anything else.

The best government in the world for running trains is probably the Japanese; I don't quite know how to classify that, but I don't think 'totalitarian' is the way to go.

-Jester

Technically, you are probably right. Since I used the expression 'made the trains run on time' as a metaphor for 'government or bureaucratic efficiency or competence (more or less)', the truth of the concept is moot. It remains a fact that a dictatorship is a very efficient form of government in many senses of efficiency. That is why even very democratic/republican countries tend to centralized power under their leader in times of national crises. And often abandon those leaders afterward. Churchill comes to mind. FDR, possibly had he not died. And that's just recently, but examples go back as far as recorded history. The Romans even made it a part of their government, to be used in emergencies, and gave us the word for 'dictator' from 'one who speaks'.

--Pete

[Jester]

I'm betting that the GDP pie will get very big, and a small sliver of the big pie will be larger than the 30% slice of the smaller pie.

That's a bet I'd lay pretty big money down on. If you recouped half your tax cut, you'd be lucky. If you got 75%, I'd say that'd be darn near miraculous. If you got 100% or more, then I'd have to pay up. :rolleyes:

I suspect the actual multiplier at current tax rates is somewhere in the ballpark of 0.4. If you cut taxes by a dollar, government revenue goes down by 60 cents.

Finally, the Laffer curve is not a stable line, which means that depending on the economy the point where taxation becomes a disincentive to invest will move up and down. I intentionally aim at a point lower than the peak point (28%) identified by Laffer, but high enough to collect a reasonable revenue stream for
funding government services.

I think the CATO graph (does that actually come from Laffer?) is dreaming in technicolour. They themselves admit that it is a rare case that a tax cut would pay for itself, yet according to their own graph, that would happen at rates lower than current rates, which are themselves vastly lower than the rates for most of the last half century! Well, which is it, is it rare, or is it what's been happening since the new deal?

Their peak is extremely low at 28%; I suspect, while there is probably a substantial flattening after 50% or so, that the graph does not actually pass the peak until a very late point. This is the point where adding a % of tax earns the government *nothing*. They do not collect a single red cent from a tax hike.

In order to justify this kind of thinking, they give examples, but I'm really not all that convinced. Some of their examples are questionable at best. Ireland's corporate tax revenue went through the roof when they dropped their corporate tax rate, but that's because corporations flooded into Ireland to take advantage of the low rates. You can't replicate this kind of increase on a regular basis, you can only do it once, and only when your neighbours have comparatively higher rates. Just like there can only be one Delaware, there can only be a handful of Irelands. Corporations find the best place to locate for their needs. They do not spring up like flowers following tax cuts. The example of Russia is simply ridiculous; you're talking about the shift from Yeltsin to Putin, the shift from anarchy to order, from poverty to oil wealth. No kidding tax revenue went up.

The Reagan (and Mellon) tax cuts are more complex, and a more compelling argument, but I think the general story there is not that reducing taxes raises tax income, but that plugging tax loopholes makes your tax system stop leaking.

I just don't buy it. The extreme opposite case is certainly incorrect: you cannot simply tax without limit and expect no repercussions on the economy. Every dollar you tax costs the economy more than a dollar. But the laffer extreme is equally wrong. Raise taxes, raise revenue. Lower taxes, lower revenue. And when you're eleven thousand thousand thousand thousand dollars in debt, with wars to fight and bills to pay, I don't think it's a great time to be experimenting.

-Jester

[Lissa]

As with all attempts to create historically accurate indices, it's as much a guessing game as a science. However, the oracle of Wikipedia says Carnegie is second. Astor is not on the list, although I have seen him on other lists.

Regardless, Rockefeller was ludicrously, limitlessly, unfathomably rich. You could have taxed him 200% of his income, and he still would have been the richest person in the world.

-Jester

I do know that Astor was the wealthiest Drug runner ever. History talked about how he did it where he would run between the PNW, England, India, and China (involved Furs, Silver, Tea, and Opium as I recall). The Chinese can really blame Astor for the opium issues in the early to mid 19th Century since he was the primary one running it through his trade groups.

[Jester]

I do know that Astor was the wealthiest Drug runner ever. History talked about how he did it where he would run between the PNW, England, India, and China (involved Furs, Silver, Tea, and Opium as I recall). The Chinese can really blame Astor for the opium issues in the early to mid 19th Century since he was the primary one running it through his trade groups.

I was under the impression that the majority of the Opium traded was traded by the British East India Company.

-Jester

[Lissa]

I was under the impression that the majority of the Opium traded was traded by the British East India Company.

-Jester

BEIC took over from him in the mid to late 19th century. In the first part, it was really his groups that were doing the majority of it, that's why he's listed as the wealthiest drug runner ever.

[Hammerskjold]

I think this involves swapping an implicit "then" into the phrase.

"Have your cake and then eat it" is possible, and "eat your cake and then have it" is impossible.

Having your cake simultaneously with eating should be impossible as well, although you could perhaps quibble over eaten and uneaten parts of the cake.

However, the phrase appears to be retrospective: once all actions are complete, it will either be the case that you do not have your cake, or it will be the case that you actually didn't eat it.

Ah, nitpicking. :D

-Jester

So I heard there was an offer of free cake in this thread? As long as you do NOT say all I have to do is go through a weird Portal, I'm very interested in this intriguing idea of free cake.

[kandrathe]

And when you're eleven thousand thousand thousand thousand dollars in debt, with wars to fight and bills to pay, I don't think it's a great time to be experimenting.

...or looking for ways to expand FDR's great society.

[--Pete]

Hi,

BEIC took over from him in the mid to late 19th century. In the first part, it was really his groups that were doing the majority of it, that's why he's listed as the wealthiest drug runner ever.

Interesting. Not what I had remembered, so I checked Wiki. Astor is not mentioned in the article on the Opium War. The article on Astor only mentions the opium trade in a footnote (In 1816, John Jacob Astor of New York City joined the opium smuggling trade. His American Fur Company purchased ten tons of Turkish opium, then shipped the contraband item to Canton on the Packet Ship Macedonian. Astor would later leave the China opium trade and sell solely to England.) which makes it sound like he wasn't involved in it much.

I realize that my references are to Wiki, and all that means. However, years ago I read a couple of books on Chinese history which (of course) included the Opium Wars and don't remember Astor figuring in them at all. The history I remember is more like the outline at this PBS site.

So, it would seem that Astor was indeed involved in the opium trade, but his involvement seems small potatoes compared both to his other investments and the involvement of others. He was indeed very wealthy. Thus, I guess, he could qualify "as the wealthiest drug runner ever." though that seems a bit misleading.

Since my references are web based, they could be suspect. I'd like to hear anything you have backing up your version of the story. Might be a nice background feud behind it;)

--Pete

[Jester]

...or looking for ways to expand FDR's great society.

No question, you're in a tricky bind, as are most countries. At least you're not as (relatively) indebted as Iceland, then you'd owe something like $25 trillion.

I think a stimulus is necessary, but it has to be gauged carefully. There will come a time, not too long from now, when the budget will have to be balanced again, and not just for a year or two. But if you start doing that now, the economy might well stay depressed for much longer than necessary, which would eat into tax revenues in any case.

-Jester

Oh, and the 'great society' was LBJ, not FDR.

[Lissa]

Hi,
Interesting. Not what I had remembered, so I checked Wiki. Astor is not mentioned in the article on the Opium War. The article on Astor only mentions the opium trade in a footnote (In 1816, John Jacob Astor of New York City joined the opium smuggling trade. His American Fur Company purchased ten tons of Turkish opium, then shipped the contraband item to Canton on the Packet Ship Macedonian. Astor would later leave the China opium trade and sell solely to England.) which makes it sound like he wasn't involved in it much.

I realize that my references are to Wiki, and all that means. However, years ago I read a couple of books on Chinese history which (of course) included the Opium Wars and don't remember Astor figuring in them at all. The history I remember is more like the outline at this PBS site.

So, it would seem that Astor was indeed involved in the opium trade, but his involvement seems small potatoes compared both to his other investments and the involvement of others. He was indeed very wealthy. Thus, I guess, he could qualify "as the wealthiest drug runner ever." though that seems a bit misleading.

Since my references are web based, they could be suspect. I'd like to hear anything you have backing up your version of the story. Might be a nice background feud behind it;)

--Pete

The History channel did a show on him and they mentioned that he was very highly involved in the Opium trade, such that they labelled him the wealthiest drug smuggler of all time. I can't remember the exact title of the show, but it was one of the series that they did on industrial magnets (they also covered Carnegie, Morgan Stanley, and someone else on that episode). The group that produced the episode dug really deep to get information on all of the people involved (and part of the reason I question Rockfeller beating Carnegie as the producers showed that Carnegie had a 10s of millions more than what was listed when he sold American Steel to Morgan Stanely and his group of investors, something along the lines that he was closer to 550 Million to 600 Million when he switched to Philantropy and somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 360 Billion adjusted by inflation). If there is one thing the History channel does right, they dig and dig and dig for information and I think Wikipedia may not have all the information that the Histoy Channel has dug up on some of these subjects.

[Jester]

The History channel did a show on him and they mentioned that he was very highly involved in the Opium trade, such that they labelled him the wealthiest drug smuggler of all time. I can't remember the exact title of the show, but it was one of the series that they did on industrial magnets (they also covered Carnegie, Morgan Stanley, and someone else on that episode). The group that produced the episode dug really deep to get information on all of the people involved (and part of the reason I question Rockfeller beating Carnegie as the producers showed that Carnegie had a 10s of millions more than what was listed when he sold American Steel to Morgan Stanely and his group of investors, something along the lines that he was closer to 550 Million to 600 Million when he switched to Philantropy and somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 to 360 Billion adjusted by inflation). If there is one thing the History channel does right, they dig and dig and dig for information and I think Wikipedia may not have all the information that the Histoy Channel has dug up on some of these subjects.

1) I think you mean industrial 'magnates'. A program on industrial magnets might be interesting, but it would be rather different.;)

2) The problem is likely in the construction of the index for inflation. This is not even close to a trivial problem; you cannot just go back and look at an abstract number and multiply it out through the years. You have to construct a basket of goods, figure out its equivalent throughout the years, etc, etc... and then use that to gauge inflation. Index number problems bedevil even the best economic historians, and there is no right answer. So, comparing "inflation adjusted" wealth across studies is probably a meaningless activity unless you normalized them somehow.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

The History channel did a show on him and they mentioned that he was very highly involved in the Opium trade, such that they labelled him the wealthiest drug smuggler of all time.

Aha! That explains a lot. Although I enjoy the History Channel, I've noticed that they often sacrifice history for drama. They will often focus on a minor point to make a topic more interesting, or exaggerate an event to make a particular show more relevant. Quite often, two of their presentations will contradict each other, each in an attempt at self aggrandizement. After all, it is not the History Channel's purpose to present history, it is to make money.

Even their blurb on Astor makes no mention of drugs, and checking under opium and opium wars on their site brought up no reference to Astor.

If there is one thing the History channel does right, they dig and dig and dig for information and I think Wikipedia may not have all the information that the History Channel has dug up on some of these subjects.

Yes, and sometimes this is good, other times it leads to exaggerations of the importance of some minor detail. Or the presentation of some outré theory by some 'ex-spurt'. My favorite, so far, was their 'exposé' of the English longbow and its use in the Hundred Year's War. According to this 'ex-spurt' the English longbow was an ineffective weapon, incapable of piercing French armor. Unfortunately for the French, nobody told this to the English who used it to obtain decisive victories at many battles, most notably Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. The 'ex-spurt' based his theory on the properties of the weakest of the longbows and the best French (actually Spanish) armor available at the end of the conflict. But he never pointed that out, it was left for the viewer to dig that out for himself.

Yes, there is a lot of good on the History Channel, but it's best to know the history beforehand lest you be led astray.;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

The first half of that statement is true, but the second half is speculation. There is a lot that can be done to reduce government spending. And an economic recovery is entirely possible, even if it takes awhile, so revenues can increase. So to assume that the expenses will forever more be greater than the revenue is, I think, a bit extreme.

Ok, maybe if the whole thing crashes and the US somehow defaults on the debt, then we might get out from under it. But, before last falls borrowing spree, the US was about 12 trillion in debt and debt service ($575 billion) was exceeding 22.8% of tax revenue ($2.52 T). The current proposed budget takes spending(deficit) from $2.9 T to $5.158T by 2019 (and this assumes getting out of Iraq and quickly ending that little terrorist tiff we have in Afghanistan). It also assumes all this financial trouble we are having now is just a little bump in the road, and that the 2009 GDP, and forward will grow by more than 6% per year. Also it is assumed that during this time the projected revenue taxed by the government will grow from %17.7 to about 20% of GDP. Pipe dreams!

The reality is that 2009 revenues will be much lower than projected contracting by %4 or 5%, meaning that with the additional stimulus spending the debt will grow by another 25% to 30% bringing it to over $1.2 T in debt service per year now. If you don't cut anything or add anything different in 2009 you would add the debt service about $1.788 trillion in mandatory spending for social programs and $1.114 trillion in discretionary programs which gives us something just over a $4T US budget. That's right, by 2010, the debt service would be approaching 50% of our spending.

Remember that we collected $2.52 T in 2008, and we are likely to collect just $2.38T for 2009. So now we are adding 1.62 to 2 trillion to the debt every year until we "grow" out of deficit spending. I say we've passed the tipping point here and that the portion of debt added to the deficit each year is greater than our economy can grow and we've moved beyond any possible tax remedy. The options as I see it now are printing money (i.e. inflation), and raising taxes, and drastically reducing government spending. Or, we might try the Saddam approach and actually do as the US has been accused, seize the middle east oil fields. Which do you think will happen? Also, I'm using the governments numbers. If you look at a site like http://www.shadowstats.com/ you would get even more depressed.

Jester has already addressed this. Revenue is determined by the size of the pie and the fraction the government takes. The government has direct control of the fraction it takes since that is just the tax rate (modified by exceptions, etc.) But it only has indirect control over the size of the pie. Tax rate is only one factor there. There are many other factors, not the least of which is the overall outlook of the population.

Yes, although currently the government believes that if they borrow lots of money ($3T) and cast it upon the waters that it will buoy up this sinking ship.

True. However, if we keep things simple, we often keep things wrong. Newton is simpler than Einstein, but it doesn't make him more correct. It was Einstein who pointed out that we should "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." I think some of your ideas cross that 'too simple' line.

I wish economics were physics, and even though some economists like to pretend that economics is like physics it really is not. The only things they really have in common is chaos theory. In the case of government, it should be simple. So simple that someone with an IQ of 100 could understand it. When we make it complicated is when smart people start playing games with it, and turn the functions of government into a robbers den.

Not a valid argument for decentralization since exactly the same thing can be said about the federal government. And I don't think that the incumbent advantage is any less (and probably more) at the state level than it is at the federal. I think you are blaming the government for the failure of the people. As long as the majority of the population votes (if they vote at all) on the basis of party affiliation and name recognition, then I don't much care where the power lies, it will be misused. Since the majority lack the interest, the temperament, and (I'm beginning to suspect) the intelligence to inform themselves, I expect that the condition will not change. In Renaissance Florence, an opponent of democracy called it "a form of government where opinions are counted but not weighed." The charge still stands.

I agree, mostly, however my experience has been that democracy works really well the closer it gets to home. I can actually get in my car and attend every city council meeting, or go and visit with my council member or mayor most anytime I like. When election time comes around, a candidate can drive around over a few weeks and visit every home in their district and get the opinions and ideas of every person they represent. At the state level it is less so, but I still have access to my state congressional people, and I will get a personal reply from the governor on occasion. The federal level takes the stage to the level of Hollywood where once mortal stage actors think they are movie stars, and they literally live that life style. I want to bring back the notion of "servitude" to public service.

The cost of some services (schools) scales with the population. The cost of others (roads) doesn't. Never mind South Dakota (where an argument for 'connectivity' might be made), what about Hawaii? Actually, the whole interstate highway system was a bill of goods sold to the federal government by the trucking industry and the teamsters union. Proposed as a military highway system (in which purpose it fails, since the original requirements are inadequate for some modern military hardware) it caught the fancy of Eisenhower, then in office. It is one of the few decisions he made that I completely disagree with. But when Ahnold's army decides to leave California and conquer New York, it might finally justify its cost. :w00t:

The road system is a great example, because one size does not fit all. Even something simple like SSI, is a much different problem in NYC than it is in Polk, Iowa. Agriculture? nope. Housing? nope. The only things that work at the federal level are those things that should be at the federal level, like national defense, interstate commerce, negotiating trade and treaties. And, if we want to spend some money on promoting things like sciences, arts, or commerce, then choose some billions for discretionary spending on grants and "promotions".

So, in order to avoid giving religion preferential treatment, we should give it preferential treatment?

Sheesh! You atheists always remember the establishment clause, but forget the other part "or that prohibits the free exercise of religion"! :) To be fair, I did say establishment, when I also meant the free exercise part as well. I would say that putting a tax on church revenue inter-tangles church and state to the point of violating the 1st amendment. It is different because it was specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

First, put religion on the same basis as any other not for profit institution. Then do as you wish, if you can't see the need and benefit of such organizations. But destroying, or even severely hampering, groups such as the Red Cross, the ASPCA, the ACLU, the American Cancer Association, etc., because some groups take advantage of the non profit laws is, IMO, an extreme baby/bathwater move. A true simplistic solution that, maybe, could better be solved by something less simple -- possibly a few regulations and enforcement of same.

Since corporations pay no tax, how would it hurt them. They just need to play by the same rules as any other incorporated entity (non-individual).

I think I read that book. Something by Ludlum, isn't it? :whistling:

Actually, I didn't read that book and I'm not sure which one you are referring. I looked at the information on web sites of lawyers offering to handle estate tax issues.

Again, too simplistic. Corporations set up their headquarters and their other facilities on the basis of many factors, of which taxes is but one. If the taxes are very high, then they become the dominating factor. As they get lower, they become less important. While removing them completely does make them, by default, meaningless, that does not mean that it is necessary to do so.

True. There are other factors, like skilled work force and quality of life. My experience in working with executive management gives me some insight in how they think about costs and revenues. I've been involved in helping many corporations "leave" Minnesota due to the business hostile climate that exists in my state.

You propose a maximum total time for elected office, then you say that you can be a career public servant. Do you mean in civil service? Because they are not the ones who actually make the decisions that matter. Again, I fear you are seeing a simple (and wrong) solution to a complex problem. Do we really want our government to be run by amateurs, to get rid of our leaders just as they are developing the experience to do the job right?

Yes, I want government to be run by "The People" which to me means the average person. I don't want there to be a required set of knowledge to qualify for representing the people.

Do we really want our government to be run by amateurs, to get rid of our leaders just as they are developing the experience to do the job right? Is governing so simple that a person can learn it in a few days? And, if so, why do so many do it so poorly?

It happens that way now. Simplify government so that even the common man can do it.

Personally, I think the twenty-second (lame duck) amendment was a mistake. Most of the problem, as I see it, is the incumbent advantage. Another problem, again as I see it, is that elected officials are distracted from doing their jobs during the (ever lengthening) campaign season. Both those problems could be solved by making it illegal for a person holding a public office at any level) to run for another public office until the term for which he was elected has expired (e.g., no resigning a senate seat to run for president). That would mean that a person could not be reelected to the same office twice in a row. It would permit a person of ability to be an elected official for life (with gaps, of course). It would eliminate the incumbent advantage. Yeah, we sure don't want people of Jefferson's, of Madison's, of Hamilton's, of Lincoln's potential to be in government.

If you look at the founders, it was rare for anyone to be in "elected" office for more than 12 years. I have no problem with a person serving in government as an appointee, or as any other civil servant position.

So, since morons got us into the mess, we don't need anything better than a moron to get us out of it? "I think you better think it out again." B)

Again, you might say that the problem is that we don't have smart people. I would say, it is the combination of government that has grown too complicated with too many laws, an apathetic electorate, and a pack of self centered politicians grubbing for power and money.

Give the nation a better class of voters and you would probably get a better class of both politicians and campaigns. What *you* think does not matter to the politician who wants to be elected. What works does. As they say, "nothing succeeds like success."

I would say take the intangible incentives away from the "politician" and you will end up with a representative of the people. Because it takes a billion dollars to get elected to the presidency, is the reason we need to remove money interests from the process. Elections should not be contests between waring coalitions of the rich and powerful, and the corporate interests they represent. I would like to see the USA return to being a representative democracy.

So, insurance is not fair by your definition. You only pay a couple of hundred a year for your home fire insurance. If your house doesn't burn down, you don't get anything back for what you paid and if it does, you get back many times what you paid. The concept of spreading the risk fails your test of fairness, as does the concept of spreading the common costs.

Actually, funny you mention that. Where possible I try to self insure by keeping my own pile of reserve money in case of a catastrophe. I have insurance (by law I have to), but I set my deductibles at their highest point. I also have a rider liability policy that covers me from the lawsuit happy. When insurance is not voluntary, they call it extortion... unless the government does it. When the Teamsters spend your retirement pension, they are indicted. When the government does it, it is called creative accounting.

Or, perhaps, you need a less simple definition of 'get' than I've assumed here. Such as 'get' an educated population, 'get' a decent transportation system, 'get' good police, fire, emergency services. 'Get' all those, even if you personally 'get' none of them.

Yes, I was using the term loosely. I get marginally educated children, however at a premium expense. I get to use the roads with no expense beyond taxation. I have adequate police and fire protection and my garbage and recycling disappears every Wednesday morning (although I also pay the waste management company some money too). Also, when my neighbors lose their jobs, the State government steps in and helps them get re-employed and helps them keep their home and their families insured. These are not bad things. There is a level of reasonableness to living in a compassionate society, although at some point as we move toward socialist thinking, the society becomes more important than the individual.

[Jester]

If you look at the founders, it was rare for anyone to be in "elected" office for more than 12 years.

Not really.

Jefferson was President for 8, Vice for 4, and governor of Virginia for 3. Even not counting his time as secretary of state, or time in the continental congress, that's 15. John Adams served 16 years. John Quincy Adams served over 25 years. James Madison served 16 years. James Monroe served 15 years. George Clinton served over 28 years. Samuel Adams was in one or another elected office for thirty years in Massachusetts.

Would you really have cut off the presidencies of Jefferson? Of Adams? Monroe? Because that's the top of the greased pole, and you only get there at the end of your career. Nobody goes from absolute zero to president, but you still need a president who's not a complete naif.

Or, maybe you don't, if you honestly think that heading the most powerful government in the world should only require someone of 100 IQ and less than 8 years political experience.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Jefferson was President for 8, Vice for 4, and governor of Virginia for 3. Even not counting his time as secretary of state, or time in the continental congress, that's 15. John Adams served 16 years. John Quincy Adams served over 25 years. James Madison served 16 years. James Monroe served 15 years. George Clinton served over 28 years. Samuel Adams was in one or another elected office for thirty years in Massachusetts.

Would you really have cut off the presidencies of Jefferson? Of Adams? Monroe? Because that's the top of the greased pole, and you only get there at the end of your career. Nobody goes from absolute zero to president, but you still need a president who's not a complete naif.

Or, maybe you don't, if you honestly think that heading the most powerful government in the world should only require someone of 100 IQ and less than 8 years political experience.

I wasn't counting State service.