Why Do People See The President Or The Government As Santa Clause?

[jankren]

People submit their lists of wants and expect him to deliver even if they havent behaved.

I see this pattern everywhere in the world. People always expect their leader to magically change everything the moment they take office. Im from Indonesia and I witnessed this in my own country. Right after we became democratic in 1998, three of the following democratically elected presidents were forced out of office before they even finished their first term due to mass protests by people because they wanted Indonesia to turn into USA overnight. WTF?!?

Why dont people realize that the government isnt some organization filled with wizards? In my opinion change starts from the bottom. I mean I believe that the people in the government are nothing but reflections or products of the rest of the ordinary people in the country. They come from the same pool. For example we keep hearing about people complaining about corruption in the government, but those same people also try their best to avoid paying tax and cheat whenever possible in their business dealings at work. Or we hear about people complaining about the environment while those same people keep on driving their SUVs and littering all over the place. So the people in the government shares the same quality as the average masses.

I believe that the government shouldnt bear too much responsiblity and babysit the entire population. In fact their involvement should be reduced as little as possible to nothing but protecting the border and protecting the rights of the people. They shouldnt even control health care and education. I think the so called free health care or free education is ridiculous because there is no such a thing unless the country is sitting on a sea of oil. For example what is so free about education in USA if Americans have to give a fraction of their salary to the government regularly? Why not just keep all the salary and pay the school directly? That way schools will race to improve their quality so people will send their kids there. The same thing with marriage. I dont think it should be the job of the government to define what marriage is. Marriage should be nothing but a contract between two consenting people. It should be privatized. People should be free to define their own marriage.

Viva Libertarianism!

[Kiljan Arslan]

Umm not really see the government as something where one must show themselves worthy to get. That includes show themselves worthy to vote. One thing I don't understand about libertarianism is it says there's no such thing as a free lunch then says voting is a right.

[jankren]

Umm not really see the government as something where one must show themselves worthy to get. That includes show themselves worthy to vote. One thing I don't understand about libertarianism is it says there's no such thing as a free lunch then says voting is a right.

I dont understand. Elaborate more please.

[Kiljan Arslan]

No such thing as a free lunch basicly is an arghument used to attack welfare because one didn't do anything to earn it yet then why should one be given the right to vote either what did you do to earn that?

[jankren]

No such thing as a free lunch basicly is an arghument used to attack welfare because one didn't do anything to earn it yet then why should one be given the right to vote either what did you do to earn that?

You take that concept too literally. Libertarianism isnt about everything has to be earned. Its about the reduction of government involvement in the daily lives of people both economically and socially. Libertarians are against government welfare program not because they believe that people should earn it but because it shouldnt be the job of the government. The basic concept in terms of economy is that the government wont tax you but the government wont spend on you either.

[Kiljan Arslan]

yeah well we tried that and that was called the Gilded age. Really didn't work out to well.

[jankren]

yeah well we tried that and that was called the Gilded age. Really didn't work out to well.

The Gilded Age was pretty awesome. Its just that some stuff happened along the way.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Really peolpe starving in the streets, children having to work is awesome?

[jankren]

Really peolpe starving in the streets, children having to work is awesome?

To be honest Im not exactly familiar with the Gilded Age. Maybe you wouldnt mind explaining how Libertarianism was reponsible for it.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Hmm a deregulated free market allowed for corporations to basically control Washington, attempts to curb their power pronounced unconstitutional eventually constitutional amendments ended the idiocy.

This was an era where one could be forced into debt slavery. This was an era where when peolpe striked against Palmun for lowering wages he responded by hiering men to brutalize them.

[Georgy Zhukov]

We see them as santa clause cause we pay 45% of our incomes to them and if they dont deliver that makes people angry.

[jankren]

We see them as santa clause cause we pay 45% of our incomes to them and if they dont deliver that makes people angry.

Thats why Im saying we stop giving government money and we stop demanding from them as well.

[Kiljan Arslan]

ando you give that money to your fellow man?

[jankren]

ando you give that money to your fellow man?

Yes, and I have trust in myself that I can spend my money wiser than the government.

Hmm a deregulated free market allowed for corporations to basically control Washington, attempts to curb their power pronounced unconstitutional eventually constitutional amendments ended the idiocy.

This was an era where one could be forced into debt slavery. This was an era where when peolpe striked against Palmer for lowering wages he responded by hiering men to brutalize them.

Im pro-minimalization of government interference. But that doesnt mean I want the government to have zero relevance. As I said the job if the government is to protect the rights of people and they are welcome to make laws that prevent exploitation. But their role should stop there. They shouldnt bail out poor performing companies like in USA right now for example. If the companies cant make products that are appealing to customers then they deserve to ing go bankrupt, change ownership, reorganize, and return with better business planning.

[Djûn]

Yes, and I have trust in myself that I can spend my money wiser than the government.

Given the sheer amount of information, manpower and expertise the government has in its spending, I find it highly unlikely that every person can be trusted to spend his or her money wisely, let alone moreso than the government!

Im pro-minimalization of government interference. But that doesnt mean I want the government to have zero relevance. As I said the job if the government is to protect the rights of people and they are welcome to make laws that prevent exploitation. But their role should stop there. They shouldnt bail out poor performing companies like in USA right now for example. If the companies cant make products that are appealing to customers then they deserve to ing go bankrupt, change ownership, reorganize, and return with better business planning.

The government spending money taken from taxes is one of the most certain and efficient ways in modern economics to create an increase in aggregate demand, as well as further growth through the multiplier effect seen in government spending. The problem with cutting them out largely is that not only does it do little to help the redistribution of income, but it also cuts out a large factor which helps to stimulate the economy. I'm not justifying the bailing out of certain recent company as I do not have enough information by any means to do so, but I will defend the benefits drawn from Keynsian Economic theory.

[Nietzsche]

Given the sheer amount of information, manpower and expertise the government has in its spending, I find it highly unlikely that every person can be trusted to spend his or her money wisely, let alone moreso than the government!

The government spending money taken from taxes is one of the most certain and efficient ways in modern economics to create an increase in aggregate demand, as well as further growth through the multiplier effect seen in government spending. The problem with cutting them out largely is that not only does it do little to help the redistribution of income, but it also cuts out a large factor which helps to stimulate the economy. I'm not justifying the bailing out of certain recent company as I do not have enough information by any means to do so, but I will defend the benefits drawn from Keynsian Economic theory.

So will totalitarians. The demand they increase is a false one. Government creates false markets, markets of no real lasting value. One only has to witness the housing debacle sponsored by the Fed to see how that can occur. Homes were given artificial value because the government saw fit to force banks and mortgage lenders to give to those with poor credit. Result: artificially high housing values that forced people into predatory loans and a market crash where millions and millions are now in danger of living on the street.

Additionally, subsidies create artificial markets, artificial prices, and the net result is lack of efficiency and waste. That can be witnessed in the farming market as well as in Detroit. Government cannot direct the economy. It is a system far too complicated with far too many variables to be controlled by central planning. Central planning only ruins markets, ruins business, and ruins lives.

Income redistribution is of no real benefit to anyone either. The amount of overhead the government absorbs from taxes far FAR FAR outweighs the limited benefits of redistribution. It's liberal fallacy.

By your logic, if the private citizen cannot be trusted with their own money, than neither can the government. It's a ridiculous argument. Can I also not be trusted with my rights, or do I need the government to tell me how to employ them?

Money in the hands of the individual has more economic stimulus power, than money in the hands of government. With this bailout, an entire bureaucracy is going to be created to oversee the books. These are people using up resources for no other reason than to spend money that isn't theirs to give away.

[Djûn]

So will totalitarians. The demand they increase is a false one. Government creates false markets, markets of no real lasting value. One only has to witness the housing debacle sponsored by the Fed to see how that can occur. Homes were given artificial value because the government saw fit to force banks and mortgage lenders to give to those with poor credit. Result: artificially high housing values that forced people into predatory loans and a market crash where millions and millions are now in danger of living on the street.

Additionally, subsidies create artificial markets, artificial prices, and the net result is lack of efficiency and waste. That can be witnessed in the farming market as well as in Detroit. Government cannot direct the economy. It is a system far too complicated with far too many variables to be controlled by central planning. Central planning only ruins markets, ruins business, and ruins lives.

Indeed these points are why I do not subscribe fully to the Keynsian model, though you cannot deny the growth which occurs through Government spending and even moreso through the multiplier effect.

Income redistribution is of no real benefit to anyone either. The amount of overhead the government absorbs from taxes far FAR FAR outweighs the limited benefits of redistribution. It's liberal fallacy.

My argument was not 'income redistribution is a goal to be strived for', it was 'cutting out the government would not help with income redistribution'. Your point that 'income redistribution is of no real benefit to anyone either' is a bit of a stretch of the word 'anyone'. Are people who receive benefits not included in the ambit of 'anyone'?

By your logic, if the private citizen cannot be trusted with their own money, than neither can the government. It's a ridiculous argument. Can I also not be trusted with my rights, or do I need the government to tell me how to employ them?

I apologise here, my wording was rather vague. It was meant with relation towards the giving of money to others, raised in jankren's 07.57AM post. To rephrase, the government has far greater ability to determine which sectors require such money than the average citizen. Trying to extrapolate the use of money to the exercising of rights I feel is a carrying the argument several stages too far, however. Attempting to compare the expenditure of money to, for example, freedom of expression is quite a leap.

Money in the hands of the individual has more economic stimulus power, than money in the hands of government. With this bailout, an entire bureaucracy is going to be created to oversee the books. These are people using up resources for no other reason than to spend money that isn't theirs to give away.

Again, I am not trying to defend the bailout, I am pointing out the advantages gained through Government spending through public works. Though I would like to ask you to expand on the point that 'money in the hands of the individual has more economic stimulus... than money in the hands of the government."

[Kiljan Arslan]

how about no to that pab I may disagree with them but I in no way advocate violence against them for disagreement.

[jankren]

Look, Im not advocating zero tax. The government can employ some other tax methods beside obligatory income tax such as property tax, sales tax and fees which can fund their public works such as building infrastructure. Yes the money wont be much but as I said they should also reduce for example social spending. Just let me keep all my money and they dont need to heavily subsidize schools and hospitals beyond basic funding because I will be able to pay for the rest.

I personally laugh at American families who cant pay for their kids college education for example. I mean for 12 years you get ing free education. Shouldnt they have saved enough money by then? The problem is they ing take free education for granted and many of the kids themselves dont appreciate it for they dont realize how lucky they are.

Even in Indonesia we dont have free education at all but many if not most of us still manage to get university degree. But then again we dont have income tax.

[Djûn]

Look, Im not advocating zero tax. The government can employ some other tax methods beside obligatory income tax such as property tax, sales tax and fees which can fund their public works such as building infrastructure. Yes the money wont be much but as I said they should also reduce for example social spending. Just let me keep all my money and they dont need to heavily subsidize schools and hospitals beyond basic funding because I will be able to pay for the rest.

Where do we draw the line of 'basic spending'? Enough for hospitals to slap a plaster on a broken leg and get them out the door? It is irrefutable that education creates a greater economic potential of the work pool, not only increasing the production of a country but also helping to lower the rate of inflation through such a supply-side policy. It is also pretty ridiculous to assume that medical care is freely available to everyone in a privatised atmosphere, particularly those who are in relative poverty. You suggestion not only removes the capacity of hospitals to provide health care to those who cannot afford it but it also denies access to suitable schools for such children who are unable to pay for private education. Or have I misinterpreted your stance here?

I personally laugh at American families who cant pay for their kids college education for example. I mean for 12 years you get ing free education. Shouldnt they have saved enough money by then?

Yeah, who cares about the poor?! The only reason they can't afford college is because they're either sponging off the rest of us or spending it all on drugs anyway!

The problem is they ing take free education for granted and many of the kids themselves dont appreciate it for they dont realize how lucky they are.

Even in Indonesia we dont have free education at all but many if not most of us still manage to get university degree. But then again we dont have income tax.

Have you taken into account the cost of University and the income of people in relative poverty? Indeed, your claim that 'most of us still manage to get a university degree' is highly questionable. Indonesia apparently has a tertiary education enrolment rate of 14.6% (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ed...ary-enrollment).