What should governments spend money on?

This is a spinoff of the SOTU-deficit thread, where the discussion turned to the philosophy of government spending and the role of government in society.

I'm going to keep the questions simple:

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

Other thoughts are welcome. Examples drawn from the US budget proposals or other countries budget proposals to back up or accentuate your point are welcome.

This will be another ~ 1 week thread.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I'm a Libertarian. In short, that means I believe government exists to protect people from force or fraud, but not from themselves. Government has no right to tell people what to do in their own homes, as long as they are not hurting anyone else, and they have no right to tell people how to run their businesses, so long as people are behaving honestly and legally. People should be allowed to keep as much of the money they make as possible, and control over social programs should be at the most local level whenever possible.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

-Maintaining a military to protect the population from invasion or terrorism.
-Maintaining a police force to protect the population from crime (state/city/municipal governments only)
-Social Security serves a valuable purpose, but people should be able to opt out in favor of private competitors, similar to how FedEx and UPS compete with the Postal Service.
-While I'm a Libertarian, I was not opposed to all the bailouts. The stimulus to the banks and financial institutions was definitely necessary to prevent an outright Great Depression II.
-Reforms in healthcare, but not complete government oversight as in the current bill. Importing cheaper drugs from Canada and laws regulating private insurers to prevent them from dropping patients or refusing to pay for procedures are changes I would welcome.
-Helping economically-disadvantaged people get educational credentials (GED) and job skills (preferably on state level).

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

-Prosecuting a War on Drugs in which drugs are still available, a black market arises, and violent drug cartels monopolize the market. It didn't work during Prohibition, and it isn't working now.
-Prosecuting people who play poker online or in private card games, or who bet on sporting events, or otherwise choose to gamble. What people do with their own money is not the government's business.
-Prosecuting prostitution, as long as it's between consenting adults.
-Maintaining the Federal Communications Commission to fine broadcasters who display "indecency."
-Remember how I said I was not opposed to some bailouts? I am opposed to others. Helping financial institutions to begin lending again is fine. Bailing out private corporations, particularly those with unions who contribute to your campaign, is not. Particularly offensive was the bailout to GM, removing control from secured creditors to unsecured unions, and Chrysler, which is not even a publicly-held corporation.
-Education, on the federal level. Nowhere in the Constitution does the word "education" appear as the federal government's responsibility. It is the responsibility of the states, and even more so the school districts, not government bureaucrats who think shoving standardized tests down the throats of the principals, teachers, and students will make us competitive.
-Minimal handouts, only for absolute necessities. Most welfare should go to the aforementioned educational and vocational training.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

To adminstrate fair and progressive taxation, state infrastructure and resources, public housing and services, law and order, legislation, a public postal service, a state broadcasting corporation, public education, regulation of business, commerce and trade, emergency services, security/armed forces, and a cradle to grave social health and welfare system

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

Unnecessary wars of aggression, religious matters, excessive spending on defence and foreign aid, bailouts of private businesses, prohibitions or limitations of/on drug use, prostitution and personal relationships.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I'm a Democrat myself... so I tend to think that the role that government should play in society should be a helpful one, not one that's more of a hinderance. As in -- actually having some regulations over what corporations due and don't do and that kind of thing. Not to kowtow to them... which they have been doing for years now...


2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

Health care, getting things back on their feet again in terms of the overall economy, and helping people get jobs.


3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

The rich... that means big CEO's and what not. They made their own bed, and now they should have to sleep in it. Fair is fair there, in my opinion. No more bailing out companies, if all they're going to do is use the money for rewarding others (I can't remember the exact word that CNN used there...)... *cough*AIG*cough*. I see what you did there :no:. And it's just unacceptable.

Also, no more spending money on useless pork projects. What's the point there -- at all -- and especially since the economy is in such bad shape. It just doesn't really make any real sense to me.

To put it succintly, I agree with everything Hanover_Fist said.

However, it also depends on what level of government you're talking about. State government has less responsibility for maintaining a military than the Federal government, for example, and I think more social programs should be State, not Federal, in scope.
We are slowly losing the concept of a "united" (yet sovereign) confederation of States, and becoming more and more of a large, centralized, bloated, monolithic Republic.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I think the government should primarily be a helpful force, but not too much of a controlling one. It should work to protect the interests of its citizens, including minorities and the poor, but should not interfere unnecessarily in people's personal affairs.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

I think health care is important, as is education. I'm in favor of things like social security (though it would be nice if individuals could opt out if they wanted), as well as programs to help the poor. Emergency services and law and order are also important.

I think that, as much as possible, government spending should be about creating a good quality of life for its citizens.

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

I think a lot of the problems with spending isn't so much what money is spent on but how. For example, spending money on education is important, but if public schools don't put the money to good use, or it seems like they should be able to afford more than they can, then budget-makers need to take a good look at the situation.

To put it succintly, I agree with everything Hanover_Fist said.

However, it also depends on what level of government you're talking about. State government has less responsibility for maintaining a military than the Federal government, for example, and I think more social programs should be State, not Federal, in scope.
We are slowly losing the concept of a "united" (yet sovereign) confederation of States, and becoming more and more of a large, centralized, bloated, monolithic Republic.

Ditto. I'd say that we have a wonderful guiding light on what the appropriate role for the Federal Government is versus state government. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

As a parents of two children in public school, federal intrusion into education is a huge no no to me.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?

I don't like labels very much, but I guess I'm a liberal (in the European meaning of the word; I think that you Americans give that name to a very different tendency). I think the government should dictate fair play rules and care that everyone abides by those rules. But as long as people respect the rules, the government shouldn't tell anyone how to play. That means that they have the duty of making me pay taxes, but they shouldn't tell me what to do with my money, once I've paid them.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?

Education. Not being able to afford a public school shouldn't mean that you're doomed to mediocrity. On the contrary, public education should be as good as possible, because it's the poor's best chance to have access to a better life. That doesn't mean the government should boycott private schools. And, of course, public education shouldn't mean ideological education. Scholarships for the best students are always welcome. Actually, it's an investment in the future of *** country.

Health. Not everyone can pay a private health plan, and the government shouldn't leave anyone helpless before infirmity.

Investigation. Again, when you take care that your best 'brains' can stay in the country instead of going abroad to work, that's good for the country itself.

Police and Justice. The government must protect its citizens, since they've delegated in it the use of force (and implicitly renounced revenge). So, it must have tools. Policemen should earn decent salaries to lessen the risk of corruption, and justice should be quick in resolving.

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?

I've never understood why here in Spain a sex change operation is paid by the Social Security while the dentist isn't included (and I don't mean orthodoncy; just simple toothache).

Propaganda

Here in Spain, cinema. Part of our taxes are destined to subsidy movies that nobody cares to see. If they made more attractive movies, they wouldn't need subsidies.

And more, bu I don't have time just now...

To adminstrate fair and progressive taxation, state infrastructure and resources, public housing and services, law and order, legislation, a public postal service, a state broadcasting corporation, public education, regulation of business, commerce and trade, emergency services, security/armed forces, and a cradle to grave social health and welfare system

Unnecessary wars of aggression, religious matters, excessive spending on defence and foreign aid, bailouts of private businesses, prohibitions or limitations of/on drug use, prostitution and personal relationships.

I more or less agree with this, except I think foreign aid is important, and I'd also like a state-funded and operated public transport system. I also think it's the government's role to encourage greener living - if we run out of energy or end up submerged under the North Sea, it's going to affect everybody, so I don't see it as an unwarrantable infringement of personal freedom for the government to penalise wasteful or irresponsible behaviour.

But I'm undecided on social care for all elderly people - I know they've been paying into National Insurance all their lives so are entitled to some payback and obviously people who can't pay for it themselves should have it paid and nobody should have to sell a house their partner still lives in to pay for residential care. But I don't know that I agree with the state intervening to avoid a person who will never again be well enough to live in their own home having to sell said home to pay for care. That's basically the taxpayer giving their children a free house.

There are certain things the NHS currently provides that I don't think they should, but I tend to avoid talking about this, because my views on this often offend and upset people. And there are things that the NHS doesn't currently provide, but I think they should.

I more or less agree with this, except I think foreign aid is important, and I'd also like a state-funded and operated public transport system

I also support a public transport system.

My comment about foreign aid was more along the lines of not giving foreign aid to countries that aren't willing to carry out political and economic reforms, otherwise the aid would be wasted.

Increasingly, non-emergency aid from western donors is conditional on the recipient nations meeting benchmarks in human rights and good governance.

It doesn't always work. When most donors pulled aid from Fiji after the latest coup, China increased its aid to Fiji sevenfold.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?
Goverment's role should be one of empowerment and protection for the individual. (And that certainly doesn't mean businesses.)

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?
All that is considered infrastructure (roads, bridges, energy, land management, etc. One shouldn't worry about how clean the air is for breathing or how safe the water is for drinking. That we already have such worry is shameful)

All that is considered for security, internal, national, and international; (military, national guard, emergency services, police force, fire fighting, medical response, hospitals, including a public health care alternative etc..)

All that is considered for a top notch education (including all artistic endeavors, for to forget the various arts is to take one step towards barbarism)

Amend the Constitution to set a monetary limit on all political campaigns. Publicly fund national races with every candidate having a equal amount and equal airtime with other candidates. (this means that funding of any other kind is banned. Period. No options. No "opting out." Getting rid of the profligate waste of "advertising.")

Ban PACs and anything resembling a lobbying organization from Washington DC. (I think this will initially cost money)

Taking care of the elderly. This means Social Security and Medicare. The system should be changed from a retirement plan for everyone to a retirement plan for those who need it. (Future Social Security payments should be ended to individuals and families whose incomes exceed 2 to three times median family income.. Payments would be stopped only after retirees had collected what they had paid into Social Security with interest. This same idea can be applied to Medicare.)

Scientific endeavor and innovation should have a public fund if proven out. (The last true medical cure was the government funded polio vaccine. Now that pharmaceuticals have taken over research...we have yet to see any permanent cures. Just expensive temporary measures that have to be taken or used every so often, which suck for the those ill, but it's "just business ." And great for the stock holder)

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?
Subsidies of any kind need justification. (Farming subsidies..? what the...? I mean really! Paying farmers not to produce? Yeah, I know the economics, but c'mon!)

Giving tax breaks to companies that outsource jobs... (a working tax-payer has to suddenly go on unemployment because the job went overseas...and the tax-payer paid for that to happen via tax incentives...? How does this make sense?)

There are plenty of bad regulations. Any of which that doesn't assure the quality of American life: the food we eat, the medicines we take, the air we breathe and the water we drink should be scrutinized for potential waste.

Now for my Conservative side to come to the forefront:

Healthcare of illegal immigrants needs a great deal of justification. There is good argument that the state of California is a "failed" state. And I believe that one of the biggest things dragging the state down is this very issue, costing the tax-payer billions when such illegal immigrants aren't even protected under our own legal system.

Supporting illegal immigrants in any fashion. Far too many have no interest whatsoever in becoming an American citizen.
I may think of some more later…

This will come as a shock to many, but I agree with MNF on much of this.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?
Goverment's role should be one of empowerment and protection for the individual. (And that certainly doesn't mean businesses.)

I agree, though I'm not sure what empowerment would entail. I would argue that the government needs to stop being a mother to its citizens and empower citizens to make their own decisions - even bad ones.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?
All that is considered infrastructure (roads, bridges, energy, land management, etc. One shouldn't worry about how clean the air is for breathing or how safe the water is for drinking. That we already have such worry is shameful)

I tend to agree that infrastructure that is national in nature (cross country high speed rail, the interstate highway system, etc) are a federal responsibility. I tend to see state and local responsibility for transportation networks within their states / municipalities. If you want a peace garden in your town, then your towns folks should pay for it.

All that is considered for security, internal, national, and international; (military, national guard, emergency services, police force, fire fighting, medical response, hospitals, including a public health care alternative etc..)

I'm not sure we'd agree on how to deliver health care stuff, but I do agree with you on national defense. I tend to the think that police, fire, and rescue are better met at the local level than the federal level, but do agree that they are the responsibility of the government.

All that is considered for a top notch education (including all artistic endeavors, for to forget the various arts is to take one step towards barbarism)

I have a hard time with government in education because I see firsthand what that has turned into. Schools should be accountable to the parents and their children. But when government dictates content and controls funding, the schools aren't accountable to the parents - they're accountable to the government. In districts with more than a few schools one parent, even hundreds of parents, opposed to the programs used in their schools will be unable to force changed because the district doesn't answer to them.

Amend the Constitution to set a monetary limit on all political campaigns. Publicly fund national races with every candidate having a equal amount and equal airtime with other candidates. (this means that funding of any other kind is banned. Period. No options. No "opting out." Getting rid of the profligate waste of "advertising.")

I'll have to think about this one a bit. I have to admit that I do tend to agree with the approach you've suggested here, but I'll need to think about whether such an Amendment would compromise freedom of speech.

Ban PACs and anything resembling a lobbying organization from Washington DC. (I think this will initially cost money)

I'm not sure this would be possible. I'd say we need to severely restrict the gifts and benefits PACS and lobbyists can spend on politicians and their staffers, but I'm not sure we'd be able to ban lobbying. AAA is one of the largest lobbying organizations in the country. They don't endorse candidates, but argue for car and highway safety.

Taking care of the elderly. This means Social Security and Medicare. The system should be changed from a retirement plan for everyone to a retirement plan for those who need it. (Future Social Security payments should be ended to individuals and families whose incomes exceed 2 to three times median family income.. Payments would be stopped only after retirees had collected what they had paid into Social Security with interest. This same idea can be applied to Medicare.)

I'll have to think about this one a bit. What gives me pause is the ending of payments to those with 2 - 3 times the median family income and stopping payments because it almost seems to be a punishment for doing well and living long.

Scientific endeavor and innovation should have a public fund if proven out. (The last true medical cure was the government funded polio vaccine. Now that pharmaceuticals have taken over research...we have yet to see any permanent cures. Just expensive temporary measures that have to be taken or used every so often, which suck for the those ill, but it's "just business ." And great for the stock holder)

I'll have to think about this one as well. I'd also point out that there are a great number of vaccines (DTAP, MMR, HPV, HIB, chicken pox) which are as permanent as they can be and effectively and inexpensively manufactured and distributed by pharmaceuticals.

I'll have to think about this one a bit. What gives me pause is the ending of payments to those with 2 - 3 times the median family income and stopping payments because it almost seems to be a punishment for doing well and living long.
What is being suggested is unfair and is as you say hitting people who have been prudent (and have had incomes at a level for their prudence to be effective). I am a great supporter of universal benefits (ie not means tested) but resources are limited and governments cannot always be fair.

There is a great deal of debate over here about old people having to sell their houses to pay for nursing home care whereas people without houses get it free. That isn't fair but I find it hard to argue that it should be any other way. We cannot allow elderly people with dementia (as an example) to go without care but why should younger people pay for it when the recipient has the capital to pay for it?

I'm a big supporter of funding at the highest levels on R&D, but I'd note that there's a twofold set of problems with a lack of true cures:

1. Many diseases just aren't amenable to true cures. Viruses and bacteria mutate like crazy (pharma thought it'd solved the antibiotics problems permanently in the 60's and even up to the early 90's, but then drug-resistant strains came in and there's been a scrambling to restart antibacterial programs in pharma and academia that were long dormant), and cancer's such a complex set of problems that the cure for cancer will be many small ones and not one big one.

2. Vaccines have very little profit in them, so there's little incentive to sink research $$ in pharma into vaccines.

#2 touches on one thing I firmly believe governments should invest in: they should research in areas which have a clear public benefit but don't have a clear profit benefit. (I'd even take this a step further: government should intercede and invest and / or regulate when the common good and individual profit motives conflict, like they do on smoking, etc).

**********

Moderator note: I kind of yanked the deficit thread fast, before some things had a chance to get responded to. The Congress thread or this thread can be used to reply to appropriate parts of the debate in there, and I trust people will use good judgement as to which is more appropriate a place :).

There is a great deal of debate over here about old people having to sell their houses to pay for nursing home care whereas people without houses get it free. That isn't fair but I find it hard to argue that it should be any other way. We cannot allow elderly people with dementia (as an example) to go without care but why should younger people pay for it when the recipient has the capital to pay for it?

With individual liberty there also comes individual responsibility. By denying nursing home care and making the recipient pay for it then you are effectively double punishing those recipients. They had to pay for their elders and now have to pay for themselves?

The whole premise behind tax payer funded social benefits is that if you need it it will be available to you. People don't pay taxes out of the kindess of their hearts. They pay because their government forces them to pay with the promise that those benefits will be available to them.

If those funds were not available to them would it not fall under the heading of taxation without representation?

The whole premise behind tax payer funded social benefits is that if you need it it will be available to you. People don't pay taxes out of the kindess of their hearts. They pay because their government forces them to pay with the promise that those benefits will be available to them.

But that is making the argument that welfare benefits are a right and not a safety net.

For all welfare there should be some form of means testing, however assets such as a primary residence should not be part of the calculation.

But that is making the argument that welfare benefits are a right and not a safety net.

There's a difference between a safety net and simply a net. There are people who live their entire lives on government subsidies.

There's a difference between a safety net and simply a net. There are people who live their entire lives on government subsidies.

I think a judicious use of government money is rooting out waste and / or fraud, so that people can evaluate whether these people who spend their entire lives on subsidies are legitimate or just trying to freeload. I'm in favor of making sure that fraud departments at various agencies are fully funded and empowered (with a proper appeals process in place to swiftly render verdicts in case of disputes).

There's a difference between a safety net and simply a net. There are people who live their entire lives on government subsidies.

Inter-generational welfare dependency is relatively rare and combatting it effectively (without allowing people to starve) is an expensive, difficult, long-term and therefore politically unpopular.

Of course, legislating and enforcing minimum wage laws which mean that a person working a full-time job can support and average family would also reduce the "attractiveness" of welfare. (And speaking of someone who has had long term bouts on benefits, it's no picnic.)

It's a similar situation with, for instance, agricultural subsidies. US sugar subsidies to the local industry actually makes sugar almost twice the price it would otherwise be, but it's easier to leave it that way.

On me.

No, seriously, I'm pretty thrifty.

On me.

No, seriously, I'm pretty thrifty.

:lol:

This will come as a shock to many, but I agree with MNF on much of this.
I'm not too surprised.
Talkiing heads and media spinners prefer extreme points of views because such things create conflict and melodrama that sells.
When you take two individuals who can think and speak reasonably and hash out each others views without the venom injected by "extremists," there can be a consensus that both can accept.
I agree, though I'm not sure what empowerment would entail. I would argue that the government needs to stop being a mother to its citizens and empower citizens to make their own decisions - even bad ones.
*shrugs* As long as bad decisions don't affect others.
I have a hard time with government in education because I see firsthand what that has turned into. Schools should be accountable to the parents and their children. But when government dictates content and controls funding, the schools aren't accountable to the parents - they're accountable to the government. In districts with more than a few schools one parent, even hundreds of parents, opposed to the programs used in their schools will be unable to force changed because the district doesn't answer to them.
Okay. I see your point. Basically that education shouldn't be political.
If education standards are accepted in one locale, should it be the same elsewhere? Differing standards can be problematic. Especially if parents are the ones setting the criteria.
I'll have to think about this one a bit. I have to admit that I do tend to agree with the approach you've suggested here, but I'll need to think about whether such an Amendment would compromise freedom of speech.
There's absolutely nothing in the language of the Constitution that equates money with Freedom of Speech. If that were the case, then more money means more freedom. And that is just plain wrong. The amendment would even the playing field. The sad fact that such an amendment is required is disgraceful. (We already have an intimidating amount of money that needs to be raised just to be a contender in a congressional race. Even worse for a presidential run. As it stands now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Campaign _costs), it's ridiculous and a waste.
I'm not sure this would be possible.
It was and can be again. Just need some politico to step up to the plate. It may be political suicide, but it worked out for Teddy Roosevelt.
I'll have to think about this one a bit. What gives me pause is the ending of payments to those with 2 - 3 times the median family income and stopping payments because it almost seems to be a punishment for doing well and living long.
The wealthy receive their money returned to them plus interest. The fact that they don't need additional income could be seen as less a punishment but more of a status symbol.
I'll have to think about this one as well. I'd also point out that there are a great number of vaccines (DTAP, MMR, HPV, HIB, chicken pox) which are as permanent as they can be and effectively and inexpensively manufactured and distributed by pharmaceuticals.
And I believe that the couple you mentioned that were developed fairly recently have also a bit of controversy attached to them. As opposed to the older vaccines that have withstood the test of time...and government oversight.
*shrugs* I might be wrong here but on one hand you have an entity that demands results and is answerable to the public. On the other, you have an entity that demands a good quarterly statement and is only answerable to its stockholders.

We have many organizations that are supposed to be all about finding cures for this or that ailment. Billions of dollars being spent...and the last true cure was ...over 4 decades ago? Doctors and med students are remembering their ethics (http://www.darkdaily.com/gen-y-physicians-take-ethical-high-road-with-pharma-and-medical-device-influence-817) (The links in that story are telling. Doctors today may help lead the way, as they once did before.)
:tu:

If education standards are accepted in one locale, should it be the same elsewhere? Differing standards can be problematic. Especially if parents are the ones setting the criteria.

As demonstrated by the Dover school board (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District).

As demonstrated by the Dover school board.

This is more religious based curricula vs standard based curricula in public schools. I think the difference in this case is less to do with government in the schools and more to do with two different philosophies in a public setting. If you compare, say a religious private school and and a nonsecular private school many of the same things are taught. algebra, chemistry, biology etc etc etc are all taught in the same fundemental in both institutions.

Having differing philosophies on education can and is often compromised upon in well run public educational facilities. From my own observance the schools that fail do not have any sort of philosphy at all. From teacher pay, to curricula, to funding, to the students themselves. The government tries to impose a philosophy upon the schools in a way that inhibits compromise and outside discourse instead of helping schools build their own philosophy.

This is more religious based curricula vs standard based curricula in public schools.

It was the direct result of there being no central curriculum with stadardised texts.

1. If possible, can you explain your overall philosophy / opinion regarding what role government should play in society?
I think government should spend money on the bettering of our nation and our people and on helping others in the world.

2. What kinds of things should government spend money on?
- health care for all citizens because a good quality of life should not be a privilege for those who can afford it. It should be a right of all the people.
- programs to assist people who need help, such as WIC for women and their children, CHIP for children's health care, food stamps for working people who can't make ends meet, unemployment compensation for those who have lost jobs or who have been laid off. We need these things to that even those with the least in our society can have some money to contribute positively to our economy and have a basically good quality of life
- maintenance of federal highways and other means of transportation. I know that I for one appreciate the good quality of our roads. I wouldn't want to go back to the dirt highways or drive my car on a highway that is full of potholes. Maintaining the infrastructure in our nation has to be a priority. It is essential for commerce, and by maintaining our infrastructure, there are many people who remain employed.
- assisting people in other nations who are in need of help. Morally, this is the right thing to do. Our government should send resources to places like Haiti to assist with the earthquake, parts of Africa to assist with hunger and disease prevention, and other places where the need is great. We have been blessed with much in the US, and we should help others who are less fortunate.
- Assisting our veterans and their families, as well as the active military members. I fully support programs like VA and the GI bill that are there to help out those who have served in the armed forces. Everyone who has served has given some portion of their life to our country and they deserve to be cared for, and cared about, by the government.
-Loaning, not giving, money to corporations to assist them in getting back on their feet, so long as there are stipulation on that loan. I would have been more supportive of the bailouts in general had those who received tax payer money had there been stipulations on the loans and spending. Companies should not have been able to give bonuses to executives until all the tax payer money was paid back to the government, for example. I don't have a problem with trying to keep companies, and jobs, by assisting them with government loans. I do believe that these loans need to be regulated and monitored.
-Assisting farmers with minimum prices and with tax breaks for their land. Agriculture is a backbone of our economy, and those who are actually responsible for growing the crops and raising the animals don't always have an easy time of things. We should be offering help to them as needed to keep their farm going strong.
-Social Security Benefits for elderly people. There are many who rely solely on this money to survive. We must make sure that they are taken care of. Perhaps the program needs an overhaul to ensure that it there for future generations, but the idea behind it is a good one.
-Protection and preservation of pristine natural areas. To me, this is vitally important. Humans are spreading out. It is good then, that we have places, like our national parks and forests that are available at little or no cost, for people to be able to enjoy the outdoors. Without programs and money to protect and preserve these areas for everyone, they would be lost to us all.

3. What kinds of things should government not spend money on?
- Unnecessary deployment of the military to fight wars for religious purposes, personal motives, or other useless dribble. The protection of our nation and of other oppressed people should be priority. It has always struck me as odd that Kuwait was such a priority when it was invaded by Iraq, yet Tibet was overrun by China and we have done nothing. The freedom of a people should not be dependent on the natural resources available in their homeland, in my opinion.
- Federally mandated standardized testing in schools. Let the state or local governments handle the education. Spending federal dollars to boost schools by forcing schools and teachers to teach to a standardized test doesn't work. Over the years I had some wonderful teachers who likely wouldn't be teaching today because they did not conduct their classroom according to what was standard. Oddly enough, it is those teachers and their subject matter that I tend to remember the most.
- Nuclear weapons. Why spend billions on weapons that, in terms of the real world, really can never be practically used? Build up of nuclear weapons is just a case of "who has the most toys"....a bunch of little kids thumping their chests because they have the most...forget the fact that they can't use them.
-The war on drugs. It can't be won. In fact, most wars against nameless faceless ideas or things can't be won. This is a waste of money and time. I generally feel the same way about the "war on terrorism" because there will always be people who won't like us for one reason or another. You can't kill an idea, even if you do with the war. The allies defeated the Axis during the second world war, yet there are still people in society who adhere to the principles of the German government of the time. Terrorism, and terrorist ideals are much the same.
- Federal monies being spent on doing studies on silly things. Grant monies for research should be given to medical research first, technology research second. People should not be receiving grants for experiments with Diet Coke and Mentos. (not that this has happened...just an example)
- Pork barrel spending for things that don't benefit society as a whole. There is a place in my hometown that has been given $200,000 in federal dollars when they were trying to get up and running. Yes, it is a resource for our town and for those who visit here, but the money could have been raised through private donations and fund raising, instead of tax dollars. There are a lot of pork projects that fall into this category.
-Faith based programs and private school vouchers. I believe that if your church wants to do something, they should raise the money and do it. Public money should not go to programs that are faith based in origin. This is separation of church and state. It is not right, in my opinion for the state to financially support the efforts of any church. I also do not favor vouchers for private school. I attended a Catholic school for 4 years as a child. My mom and I went without luxury so that I could go to that school. She worked extra hours so I could go to that school. At the time, they had no tuition assistance. The school now has such a program. The private schools that want the students should offer scholarship programs and tuition assistance programs, the tax payers should not have to pay for a child to attend a private school.

It was the direct result of there being no central curriculum with stadardised texts.

Not at all. The quality of a well rounded science education is not dependant on any one philosophy. Given the quality of scientists who have come out of school systems that don't have any one standard on that particular issue, I think one needs to look at the overall curricula and how the parts further that curricula. If creationism being taught was such a detriment to the core of biology classes then why do teachers even present it in class?

Honestly, imho, it's a totally irrelevent example to apply national standards. One could certainly argue it on religious and predjudicial grounds, but in the end, imho, you can't prove that it is detrimental to how kids learn.

If creationism being taught was such a detriment to the core of biology classes then why do teachers even present it in class?

As far as I know no public school in the US presents Creationism or ID as a legitimate scientific theory. That was part of the issue in Dover, teachers being forced to teach something they knew to be false.

Honestly, imho, it's a totally irrelevent example to apply national standards. One could certainly argue it on religious and predjudicial grounds, but in the end, imho, you can't prove that it is detrimental to how kids learn.

It's entirely relevant. A school board voted to introduce a curriculum and text book which presented pseudo-science as a legitimate scientific theory. It's as detrimental as teachng kids that 2+2=5 and the Moon is madeof green cheese.

Not at all. The quality of a well rounded science education is not dependant on any one philosophy. Given the quality of scientists who have come out of school systems that don't have any one standard on that particular issue, I think one needs to look at the overall curricula and how the parts further that curricula. If creationism being taught was such a detriment to the core of biology classes then why do teachers even present it in class?

Honestly, imho, it's a totally irrelevent example to apply national standards. One could certainly argue it on religious and predjudicial grounds, but in the end, imho, you can't prove that it is detrimental to how kids learn.

Hard to argue about the philosophy, since where I'm from, the best education comes from Catholic schools. (They taught Creationsim in religion class, and Darwin's theory in science class)

However, if one school were to teach calculus in Philadelphia in 4th grade (around 9 years old), and another school in Selma, Alabama were to teach addition/subtraction at the same grade/age, then there would certainly be a problem.
:relax:

On me.

No, seriously, I'm pretty thrifty.

As I have 32 inches of global warming piled up on the streets outside my house right now with more expected on Tuesday, and my children will NEVER go back to school and I'm ready to murder them, I think government needs to spend money plowing my street or airdropping large quantities of alcohol and chocolate.

Hard to argue about the philosophy, since where I'm from, the best education comes from Catholic schools. (They taught Creationsim in religion class, and Darwin's theory in science class)

However, if one school were to teach calculus in Philadelphia in 4th grade (around 9 years old), and another school in Selma, Alabama were to teach addition/subtraction at the same grade/age, then there would certainly be a problem.

Unfortunately, in education fads seem to rule the day. For instance, in many districts in the US addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are no longer taught. Children are simply given calculators (in kindergarten) and taught how to perform operations with the calculators. We have a generation of high school graduates who can barely tell you what 8 x 7 or 8 + 7 is without using their fingers or a calculator. For the first time ever there are more non-American's enrolled in US colleges for undergraduate degrees in STEM related fields.

Fighting those fads when they are so heavily entrenched is almost impossible on a local level and practically impossible on a national level.

As far as I know no public school in the US presents Creationism or ID as a legitimate scientific theory. That was part of the issue in Dover, teachers being forced to teach something they knew to be false.

How did they know it to be false? Isn't that attacking religious beliefs? Was it proven that the children were disadvantaged for the rest of class by this one belief system?

It's entirely relevant. A school board voted to introduce a curriculum and text book which presented pseudo-science as a legitimate scientific theory. It's as detrimental as teachng kids that 2+2=5 and the Moon is madeof green cheese.

Honestly? This is really for the education thread but I will say that their is not the same causal relationship between what was proposed in that school and your 2+2=5
scenario.

Hard to argue about the philosophy, since where I'm from, the best education comes from Catholic schools. (They taught Creationsim in religion class, and Darwin's theory in science class)

I think this is a lovely example of private schools being allowed to develop their own philosophies and teaching to those standards. They are allowed to do this because the parents pay into it. What we have to remember is that public school parents and officials also pay into those schools in the form of donations, taxes, and fundraisers. Just because the government makes up the largest portions of funding that does not mean that they are allowed to set standards in my honest opinion.

As I have 32 inches of global warming piled up on the streets outside my house right now with more expected on Tuesday, and my children will NEVER go back to school and I'm ready to murder them, I think government needs to spend money plowing my street or airdropping large quantities of alcohol and chocolate.

I know you're being sarcastic about the global warming piled up on your streets, but at the same time I'd like to point out that government funded research has made a strong case that more extreme weather events (like 2 1/2 feet of snow) are a possible consequence of global climate change - and they said this prior to snowpocalypse and other mass snow events. And further government funded research, which I think is a good use of government money, is being put into trying to get a better handle on regional-scale changes, including areas which paradoxically as a result of global warming get colder. I think that such information is valuable since it could, for instance, let Virginia know that they may need to invest in more snow removal equipment in the future because the winters may be more extreme, as a result of large-scale climate change.

Posted by FirefightingMuggle

- Federally mandated standardized testing in schools. Let the state or local governments handle the education. Spending federal dollars to boost schools by forcing schools and teachers to teach to a standardized test doesn't work. Over the years I had some wonderful teachers who likely wouldn't be teaching today because they did not conduct their classroom according to what was standard. Oddly enough, it is those teachers and their subject matter that I tend to remember the most.

You don't live in a country with nationalist regional governments, do you? I would honestly thank that in my country the government standarized education a bit more. I understand that each region teaches its history and geography and so, but not that the education you receive in one part of the country doesn't have anything to do with your neighbour's. Specially when it means, for instance, that you can't be taught in the common language depending on where you live.

By the way, this system is extraordinarily more expensive than a centralized one.

You don't live in a country with nationalist regional governments, do you? I would honestly thank that in my country the government standarized education a bit more. I understand that each region teaches its history and geography and so, but not that the education you receive in one part of the country doesn't have anything to do with your neighbour's. Specially when it means, for instance, that you can't be taught in the common language depending on where you live.

Well, I think there is a case in multilingual countries for schools in minority language areas to teach in the minority language. I have no sympathy e.g. for English people who choose to move to Wales and then complain that their children "have to" learn Welsh at school - if they don't like it, nobody's forcing them to live there. I think indigenous communities have a right to education in their own language, even if it's not the common language of the state as a whole.

But overall I agree that national government has an important role in standardising education. I remember when the National Curriculum was introduced in England, one of the arguments given was that, without it, it made it very difficult if families move house from one part of the country to another and find that their children are repeating large chunks of stuff they'd already covered or find that what's being taught at the new school bears no relation to, or totally contradicts, what they learnt at the previous school. Obviously, guidelines should be broad and individual teachers and schools should have a lot of leeway as to how they address the topics, but I think it's helpful to have some centralised agreement about which topics/areas of knowledge will be covered and at what age.

How did they know it to be false?

Because their is no scientific basis to ID or Creationism.

Isn't that attacking religious beliefs?

Which is my point. If it is a religious belief it has no place in a science class.

Was it proven that the children were disadvantaged for the rest of class by this one belief system?

I think that the very fact that they were being presented false information in a science class speaks for itself.

Getting back to the point of spending if a person wants to send their child to a private school which teaches such things well and good.

But if the government is spending the bulk of the money in a system which is available to every child, their should be accountability and consistency across the board.

Because their is no scientific basis to ID or Creationism.

Again that is a philosophy. It does not make it wrong. Nor does it cause any sort of direct causal disadvantage. Scientists just don't like it because it offends their principles not because it is detrimental to the students.

Which is my point. If it is a religious belief it has no place in a science class.

Yes. Your point and several others but it doesn't make your viewpoint the correct one.


I think that the very fact that they were being presented false information in a science class speaks for itself.

Again it is only false in the sense that it doesn't follow evolution. I would be fine with both principles being presented since alot of times creationism/intelligent design is often brought up by the students themselves. To simply ignore the issue or give the students no recourse other than independant study (which is totally untempered) is detrimental to the students.



But if the government is spending the bulk of the money in a system which is available to every child, their should be accountability and consistency across the board.

How is that in ayway fair to the parents, children, and towns that also pay into their school systems in the forms of taxes, fundraisers, and donations? I agree with minimum curricular standards (especially in elementary school) but for the government to deny funding because a school does not follow a particular path is flat out wrong, imho. Why is the federal government more qualified than a town adminastration to make the decision. Might is not right.

But overall I agree that national government has an important role in standardising education. I remember when the National Curriculum was introduced in England, one of the arguments given was that, without it, it made it very difficult if families move house from one part of the country to another and find that their children are repeating large chunks of stuff they'd already covered or find that what's being taught at the new school bears no relation to, or totally contradicts, what they learnt at the previous school. Obviously, guidelines should be broad and individual teachers and schools should have a lot of leeway as to how they address the topics, but I think it's helpful to have some centralised agreement about which topics/areas of knowledge will be covered and at what age.

I think that if a school can demonstrate that by the time of graduation that certain subjects will be covered it should not matter at what age the child learns something. Appropriate tutoring/mentoring programs and extra parental involvement could easily take care of any discrepencies in the scenario you propose at far less cost than standardising curricula across a country.



I know you're being sarcastic about the global warming piled up on your streets, but at the same time I'd like to point out that government funded research has made a strong case that more extreme weather events (like 2 1/2 feet of snow) are a possible consequence of global climate change - and they said this prior to snowpocalypse and other mass snow events. And further government funded research, which I think is a good use of government money, is being put into trying to get a better handle on regional-scale changes, including areas which paradoxically as a result of global warming get colder. I think that such information is valuable since it could, for instance, let Virginia know that they may need to invest in more snow removal equipment in the future because the winters may be more extreme, as a result of large-scale climate change.

I actually agree with both you AND Mom. The issue of climate change is not going to go away soon. Better to spend money on preparedness than to bury our heads in the sand.

Again that is a philosophy. It does not make it wrong. Nor does it cause any sort of direct causal disadvantage. Scientists just don't like it because it offends their principles not because it is detrimental to the students.

So why not teach flat Earth science? There are still plenty pf people attached to that idea.

Again it is only false in the sense that it doesn't follow evolution.

Check the transcripts from the Dover case (or an excellent documentary the name of which I don't recall) which debunks the "science" behind ID.

I actually agree with both you AND Mom. The issue of climate change is not going to go away soon. Better to spend money on preparedness than to bury our heads in the sand.

I read an interesting article yesterday where it pointed out two things:
1. The type of weather pattern (shifted jet stream and high moisture content in the air) that produces huge amounts of snow in areas not accustomed to it has been predicted in some of the models, but this does not mean that these snow events are directly tied to global warming; and
2. The likelihood of a second and even third massive snowstorm in such areas dramatically increases in a season with one such storm, because the driving factor in producing the storm is the anomalous weather pattern. So the odds of two "hundred year storms" in the same year is not 1 in 10,000 - it's actually much higher.

I'd be happy to send the link along if anyone's interested. Some of the language used towards skeptics made it unsuitable for linking here, in spite of the scientific points being perfectly valid.

I'd note that if this becomes a pattern - if the mid-atlantic starts getting "hundred year storms" every year or two, then that might be able to be directly related to global climate change. But we'd need to see a multi-year pattern.

Getting back to the issue at hand in the thread, a major weakness in the current climate models is regional-scale modeling. Yet, arguably, this is the most valuable information that the climate scientists can give people, since it allows preparation. That's why I think that it's a valuable use of government resources to invest in such modeling; and even if it's a bit selfish of each country's science foundations to only fund modeling research directed at figuring out what could happen in that country, I would understand that - as long as the tradition of open access to publication results around the globe continues, which I have little doubt it will.

So why not teach flat Earth science? There are still plenty pf people attached to that idea.

Oh come now. :lol: We are venturing way off topic!

Check the transcripts from the Dover case (or an excellent documentary the name of which I don't recall) which debunks the "science" behind ID.

Science has been debunking religion for years. :lol: That doesn't give the government the providence to take taxes from people of faith and deny that faith to them in a public setting just because "it's not scientific". I can see the government mandating that evolution must be taught but I can see no reason, especially from a financial point of view, to deny the school the ability to discuss creationism in class if not allowing schools to develop their own electives to such an end.

In keeping with the main question "What should governments spend money on?" I feel they have responsibilities to spend money on basic society services: public transportation and roads, educational fundings, sanitation and public health issues, common defense, international relations and trade, providing for justice and law enforcement. Beyond that, it should be left to the individual to come up with funding for it.

Examples would include: basic education up through High School, but undergraduate and beyond should not be funded by the government (unless through a program of service like the Montgomery G.I. Bill). The government should not spend money on researching health cases, such as cancer, unless the disease or disorder can be publicly transmitted and poses a general public health risk. Transportation, such as railroads and aviation should be government funded, interstate roads should be funded, but local roads should be funded by local and state governments only, or funded by a useage tax (tolls). The Federal Government should not spend money on issues concerning intrastate or interstate commerce...only on commerce between one state and a foreign government, and then only if it is concerning National Security or national interest. The government should not provide funds for businesses to be established except in the form of SBA loans, which must be paid back; no interest-free loans or grants.

*click*

At some point soon I'll pick another short-term topic :). Expect this to be a recurring theme - shorter-termed threads on potential hot-button topics.