response 179 of 264:

Aug 30 13:29 UTC 2003

Re #164:
                                                                               
                                       
>That argument is easy to make if you look at government spending in
>isolation, pretending that all that money gets poured into a hole >somewhere
and buried.

Government spending can be very destructive, if it chokes out more
efficient ways of providing the same thing.  For instance, you could
"eliminate" unemployment by paying one half of the unemployed people
to dig holes, and the other half to fill them in again.  The problem
is that the supply of goods and services demanded by those make-workers
wouldn't be increased in the slightest by the make-work, and everyone
else (the taxpaying public) gets poorer by the combination of higher
taxes and demand-pull inflation.  If you can get the unemployed into
real jobs making desired goods and services, the public benefits.
                                                                               
                                       
>But the fact is all of it gets spent on services, all of which benefit
>*someone*, and cutting those services is always politically painful.

Was that intended to refute the idea that government money isn't as
good as poured into a hole?  If so, it's a faulty argument.  The
hole-diggers and hole-fillers will militate to keep their arrangement
intact because their senecure is at stake, while the taxpayers have
other concerns.  This does not mean that the hole-diggers and hole-fillers
should not be pink-slipped at the earliest opportunity.  Employing ten
thousand government workers to provide a given service when one thousand
will do IS money down the rathole; the public could otherwise enjoy the
services as well as more money in their pockets from lower taxes.
This is one example where the interests of public "servants" and their
unions are directly opposed to those of the people being "served".
                                                                               
                                       
"We do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." 
Reforming government might be harder than going to the Moon, but it is also
more worthwhile.

Re #166:  I think that the problem is California.  It's so screwy that
a few niggling PC transgressions get you thrown out of the Democrats,
and the Republican party is the only real game left.

response 181 of 264:

Aug 31 22:29 UTC 2003

#179 is such an obvious straw-man argument I'm not sure it's worth
responding to.  It's obvious that a hole-digging/hole-filling project has no
benefits to society at large, but real-life government programs are never
that clearly useless.

response 183 of 264:

Sep 1 01:06 UTC 2003

Really?  _Nothing_ was learned from that venture?

(NB:  I didn't expect a working missile shield from "Star Wars", but I'm very
surprised that nothing new was discovered/invented/worked out.)

response 185 of 264:

Sep 1 01:14 UTC 2003

Such as? (Besides, that it wouldn't  work, which was known before millions
of $$$ were spent.)

response 187 of 264:

Sep 1 01:37 UTC 2003

I'm sure there were at least *some* technological spin-offs.

response 189 of 264:

Sep 1 14:21 UTC 2003

Re #181:
>It's obvious that a hole-digging/hole-filling project has no benefits
>to society at large, but real-life government programs are never
>that clearly useless.
                                                                               
                                       
Consider ethanol subsidies which (at least in some analyses) consume more fuel
in the form of diesel for cultivation and pesticides, and then natural gas for
nitrogen fertilizers and distillation, than the ethanol yields.  (Then there is
the siltation and other environmental damage...)  And that's just one little
part of agricultural subsidies, which is just one little part of government.

The bigger and more complex government gets, the more likely (some would
say inevitable) it is that parts work at cross-purposes to worthwhile
goals and even each other.  Say what you will about private enterprise,
at least it goes out of business if it can't support itself.  Government
has no such reality check, and anything it does beyond maintaining the
level playing field for everyone else requires heavy scrutiny.

response 191 of 264:

Sep 2 00:26 UTC 2003

Re #189:
    I contend that the playing-field-leveling activities of government require
heavy scrutiny as well.

response 193 of 264:

Sep 2 16:35 UTC 2003

It is much more complicated than that. Even the agricultural lobby makes
the main claims for ethanol that it reduces dependence on foreign oil
imports, creates jobs, helps farmers by creating a more stable market and
- yes - reduces some vehicle emissions. There are details at
http://platts.com/features/altfuelvehicle/ethanol.shtml. 

response 195 of 264:

Sep 3 12:38 UTC 2003

I hadn't heard that.  I'd be interested in seeing an article about it,
though.

response 197 of 264:

Sep 3 18:42 UTC 2003

It varies from state to state, depending on how heavily it's subsidized.

response 199 of 264:

Sep 6 07:39 UTC 2003

Compared to the actual cost of gasoline?  (Think taxes)

response 201 of 264:

Sep 6 20:48 UTC 2003

I don't want to buy it as it is - not without a substantial discount which
overwhelms the BTU loss at least, which I never see.

response 203 of 264:

Sep 7 08:42 UTC 2003

From cnn.com, presidential candidate Howard Dean campaigns with Gray 
Davis in California:

"LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Presidential candidate Howard Dean 
Saturday urged Californians to vote against the effort to oust Gov. 
Gray Davis, calling it part of a plan by right-wing Republicans to 
subvert democracy. 

"I think this is the fourth attempt to undermine democracy in this 
country by the right wing of the Republican Party since the 2000 
elections," said Dean. 

Other examples, he said, were the refusal by the "conservative-
dominated United States Supreme Court" to order a recount of the votes 
in Florida during the 2000 presidential election and separate GOP-led 
redistricting efforts in Colorado and Texas that could result in a loss 
of seats currently held by Democrats. 

"I believe the right wing of the Republican Party is deliberately 
undermining the democratic underpinnings of this country," Dean told a 
news conference. 

"I believe they do not care what Americans think and they do not accept 
the legitimacy of our elections and have now, for the fourth time in 
the fourth state, attempted to do what they can to remove democracy 
from America." 

Davis expressed optimism that the voters would allow him to serve out 
his term. 

"This recall is nothing more than an attempt by Republicans financed by 
the right wing to steal an election they could not win. They lost fair 
and square and, I believe, at the end of the day, voters will do the 
right thing." 

Although Davis expressed gratitude for Dean's support, he did not 
reciprocate when asked whether he would support Dean's bid for the 
Democratic nomination for president. 

"I'm taking one election at a time," he said. 

Only after the October 7 recall vote will he decide whom to support for 
the Democratic presidential nomination, Davis said. But, he added about 
the former Vermont governor, "he has precisely the right experience to 
be president." 

The recall effort picked up steam when, shortly after he was elected to 
a second term as governor last year, Californians were told they faced 
a $38 billion deficit. 

Dean said it would be unfair to hold Davis wholly responsible for the 
state's budget deficit, which has since been pared to $8 billion. 

"The deficit that was incurred last year is directly traceable to the 
president of the United States' extraordinary financial policy in which 
he managed to turn the largest surplus in the history of America into 
the largest deficit in the history of America in only two-and-a-half 
years," he said. 

Davis said that since George W. Bush became president, the country has 
lost 3.3 million jobs, equivalent to 3,500 jobs per day. (Full story) 

Asked whether his presidential bid might be adversely affected by his 
support for Davis, Dean responded, "I don't care. My trademark is I say 
what I think, for better or for worse." 

He added, "I'm tired of having this country run by the right wing. That 
is not where most people are in this country, and I think we ought not 
to put up with this anymore." 

Asked whether he believed the White House was involved in the effort to 
unseat Davis, Dean said, "Absolutely. I think [Bush chief political 
adviser] Karl Rove and George Bush have their hand in this." 

The White House has said it is not involved in the race. 

Although Dean is the first of the nine Democratic presidential 
candidates to stump for Davis, all have signed a letter opposing the 
recall effort and others will soon follow Dean's lead, Davis predicted"

Now you can start to understand why Dean is gaining such support among 
Democratic party activists.  Will the other presidential candidates 
stand up and be counted?  I'm waiting to see Kerry, Gephardt and 
Leiberman come out to California and stand next to Davis and call 
things the way they are!