OK, Republicans, you have been saying since the year 0001 that we must cut down on our ever-increasing government spending, lest there be rioting in the streets because of widespread starvation. Never mind that we have cut down on government spending. The problem is that you are calculating spending in absolute dollars, forgetting that both our population and our economy have grown. You can only use absolute dollars if you choose some point in the past as your norm. But when would that be? The population and economy grow steadily, and there is the effect of inflation besides. Because of all three, past spending per capita is considerably greater than an equivalent dollar amount today.
We must cut down on our
ever-increasing government spending,
lest there be rioting in the streets.
But you don’t really want to cut government spending, do you. What you really want to do is to trash Social Security, the most popular social program in our history, and Medicare and Medicaid. These services, after all, are only used by people who really need them. The irresponsible ones, the worthless 47%. Most of us, in fact. You think there should be no social services at all. We must all be responsible for ourselves, stand on our own two legs. And if we do that, if we slash government spending to the bone, we will all have enough money and all will be well.
OK, prove it.
What conditions would make it possible to have a viable country with no federal social services at all? How could everyone get medical care when needed, even for a serious condition, and save enough for a reasonably comfortable retirement? Simple. Everyone would earn “enough” money, enough, that is, to pay for all necessities plus a major medical emergency, should it occur. Unfortunately, most people today earn less than they did forty years ago, and millions have no medical care at all. Medical costs are the most frequent cause of personal bankruptcy, causing whole families to lose everything, including the education of their children. That is, our future. People working full time for minimum wage can’t even pay for rent anyplace in the country.
But due to increasing population,
a larger economy, and inflation,
past government spending is actually greater
than an equivalent dollar amount today.
So far, every single bit of evidence we have tells us that the so-called rioting in the streets would be for lack of government spending. Every study we have demonstrates clearly that reduction of government expense and enrichment of the rich leads inexorably to economic contraction and reduced fortune for everyone else. Yet you want actual people to go on a cash diet for their own good, because, after all, every man is an island, and we owe nothing to slackers. But when you cut social programs, everyone will have less money, just when we would all need much more to pay for the services the government now provides. And you say this is supposed to help?
Maybe the most ridiculous parts of what you insist is sound policy is to say that the rich must have unlimited wealth, and spending on the all-American war machine must be uninterrupted. Please tell me how the very wealthy are at present making us all better off, because they have had one enriching break after another for decades, and the result I see is the exact opposite. With unprecedented wealth at the top, very few jobs are being created by the “job creators”. Please show me how the Pentagon budget, which equals the combined military spending of the next 43 countries, accomplishes anything other than draining trillions of dollars from our pockets in order to make unnecessary and immoral wars whose most reliable result is additional millions of people who hate us.
OK. Show me. Go ahead. I’m waiting.
Could it be that the “rat hole”
we are dumping billions into
actually protects millions of Americans?
But why the silence? Could it be because the actual evidence I’m asking from you doesn’t actually exist? That there are actually no studies, scientific or otherwise, that indicate that what you say could possibly be true? That reality is quite different? Could it be that the only reason you have for insisting on stopping (the mysteriously diminishing) “runaway government spending” is that this is an item of faith for the High Holy Republican Church, and cannot be questioned any more than can the ascension of St. Reagan?
Could it be that the “rat hole” we are dumping billions of our hard-earned tax dollars into is actually a conservatively effective design that protects many millions of American citizens from the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune?