Interesting artical about what government can and can't do. It's a bit longish, but worth the read.

jpl458

Well-known member
Local time
, 19:45
Joined
Mar 30, 2012
Messages
1,200

Against nihilism

We live in a time of cynicism about what government can accomplish. Most Americans say they don’t have much trust in Washington, regardless of which party is in charge. Even when the federal government sets out to do something that Americans support, many wonder whether it can succeed.
In today’s newsletter, I want to connect four news stories from the past few years and argue that this cynicism has gone too far — that government can indeed accomplish what it promises. I recognize some readers will support the policies I describe, while others will oppose them. But that’s OK. I’m not trying to persuade you that these policies are good or bad.
The point instead is that the U.S. federal government remains a powerful force that can alter the course of American life. The country has the capacity to address its biggest problems. Whether it does is a different matter.

1. The Covid vaccine

The pandemic was so miserable and divisive that it can be easy to overlook the triumph of the federal government’s vaccine development. Before Covid, the creation of any new vaccine took years. But Operation Warp Speed — a public-private partnership that received $18 billion in federal funding — led to the discovery of a Covid vaccine within months. That speed likely saved millions of lives worldwide.
Yes, the pandemic was also a case study of government failure. Republican politicians (including Donald Trump, who deserves some credit for Warp Speed) refused to embrace the vaccines, leading to hesitancy that cost lives. And many Democratic-run school districts shut down for a year or longer, causing lasting damage to children.
All of this, though, was a reminder of the power of government, for good and ill.

2. Immigration

In the debate over immigration, you sometimes hear the suggestion that the U.S. is powerless to change migration flows. “Border Enforcement Won’t Solve the U.S. Migrant Crisis,” as a typical op-ed argued in 2022. One way or another, according to this argument, people will find ways to enter the U.S.
But that argument is mostly wrong, as the past four years show.
President Biden took office promising a more welcoming approach to immigration than any president in decades. Sure enough, immigration surged. During the first three years of Biden’s administration, annual net immigration (the number of people arriving, regardless of legal status, minus the number of immigrants leaving) averaged 2.4 million, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That’s about three times as high as during Trump’s presidency. It’s more than twice as high as under Barack Obama.
Late last year, Biden changed course. The administration first worked with Mexico to reduce migration flows and then tightened border policies, as my colleague Hamed Aleaziz has explained. Almost as quickly as immigration spiked in 2021, it has fallen in 2024:

[td]
This chart shows monthly encounters at the Southwest border starting at 72,000 in 2020, spiking to 302,000 at the end of 2023, and dropping to 108,000 by August of 2024.
[/td]​
[td width="600px"]
Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection | by The New York Times
[/td]​
A restrictive approach to border security won’t keep out everybody, but it makes a huge difference. Many experts believe that the ideal immigration system would involve both a more secure border and more legal pathways to entry. That combination is well within Congress’s power.

3. Economic policy

Biden’s economic record is obviously mixed. But he made a set of specific promises about using the federal government to rebuild infrastructure, reduce medical costs, promote clean energy and expand certain kinds of manufacturing. In each of these cases, it’s happening.
New semiconductor factories are being built in Arizona, Missouri, Texas and elsewhere. Roads and bridges are being rebuilt. The cost of insulin has plunged for many people. Clean energy production has increased.
Biden’s industrial policy has been a reminder of the vital role that the federal government has historically played in creating industries like aviation, biotechnology, fracking and the internet.

4. Taxes

As with immigration, you sometimes hear the claim that federal laws don’t much matter — and particularly that the wealthy can find ways to avoid any tax increases. That’s not correct.
After Obama raised taxes on wealthy Americans, they paid more in taxes. After Bill Clinton raised income taxes at the start of his presidency, the same thing happened. And after Clinton later cut capital-gains taxes, tax payments fell.

[td]
The chart illustrates a general decline of average tax rates for the top 400 taxpayers from 47.2 percent in 1980 to 23 percent in 2018, with significant reductions during the Reagan and Bush administrations, a slight increase during the Clinton and Obama years, and a steep drop in 2018 under Trump.
[/td]​
[td width="600px"]
Source: Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman | by The New York Times
[/td]​
If Democrats control both the White House and Congress next year, they really will be able to increase taxes on the rich. And if Republicans sweep into power, they will cut taxes on the rich.
The bottom line: The fact that governments remain powerful forces even in a globalized, digitized economy doesn’t answer many of the hard questions about what policymakers should do, of course. But it at least offers an antidote to the nihilism that sometimes dominates political debates.
 
If Democrats control both the White House and Congress next year, they really will be able to increase taxes on the rich. And if Republicans sweep into power, they will cut taxes on the rich.
An absurd prostration. The poor don't pay taxes. In many cases they receive negative taxes (better know as welfare). Consequently the only people who would receive a Republican tax benefit would be rich people. How do you cut taxes of people who pay no taxes?

To be fair, even the poor should pay some taxes. After all, if they don't have "skin-in-the-game", they will have no interest in having a government that spends tax money efficiently.

PS: You also neglect the obvious question of cutting federal spending. The issue shouldn't be always increasing spending as the solution, but actually cutting federal spending by eliminating unnecessary programs. Even implementing austerity, as an extreme example.
 
Last edited:
For those of us with dark themes colored fonts especially dark ones are unreadable.
 
An absurd prostration. The poor don't pay taxes. In many cases they receive negative taxes (better know as welfare). Consequently the only people who would receive a Republican tax benefit would be rich people. How do you cut taxes of people who pay no taxes?

To be fair, even the poor should pay some taxes. After all, if they don't have "skin-in-the-game", they will have no interest in having a government that spends tax money efficiently.

PS: You also neglect the obvious question of cutting federal spending. The issue shouldn't be always increasing spending as the solution, but actually cutting federal spending by eliminating unnecessary programs. Even implementing austerity, as an extreme example.
Steve, there are some on welfare, and other less poor people that do pay taxes. There are gradations of wealth. I assume that you do not subscribe to the Christian concept of "my brothers keeper". Don't you think the super rich should pay some more in taxes? What about the sick and infirm, should they be paying taxes, when they can't work? Your description creates a binary situation. There are only the rich, and the poor. Which is not the case.
 
I assume that you do not subscribe to the Christian concept of "my brothers keeper".

I'm not Christian. I subscribe to the Confucian saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

If we do not somehow persuade people to be contributing members of society, we run towards a society being dragged down by the weight of the useless hangers-on. When there is true illness, certainly we should offer help. Where there is laziness and avarice, pardon my French but screw that.

My wife and I happen to support food-bank charities, so we "offer a man a fish." But if my "brother" is able-bodied, I do him a disservice by keeping him dependent on me when he could have FAR more freedom by working on his own and not having to repeatedly come to me with an empty cup. Further, now that I'm retired, I have to watch my own cup's level a bit more closely, too.
 
I'm not Christian. I subscribe to the Confucian saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime."

If we do not somehow persuade people to be contributing members of society, we run towards a society being dragged down by the weight of the useless hangers-on. When there is true illness, certainly we should offer help. Where there is laziness and avarice, pardon my French but screw that.

My wife and I happen to support food-bank charities, so we "offer a man a fish." But if my "brother" is able-bodied, I do him a disservice by keeping him dependent on me when he could have FAR more freedom by working on his own and not having to repeatedly come to me with an empty cup. Further, now that I'm retired, I have to watch my own cup's level a bit more closely, too.
Doc, I agree with you for the most part. But some cannot help the consequences that they are in. I realize that there are those that game the system, but should we punish the true needy to stop those that cheat?
 
Steve, there are some on welfare, and other less poor people that do pay taxes. There are gradations of wealth. I assume that you do not subscribe to the Christian concept of "my brothers keeper". Don't you think the super rich should pay some more in taxes? What about the sick and infirm, should they be paying taxes, when they can't work? Your description creates a binary situation. There are only the rich, and the poor. Which is not the case.
A carefully crafted one sided sob story argument that only promotes increasing taxation. At some point the nation becomes bankrupt trying to save everyone. Also don't forget, that only targeting the rich means that they will get-up and leave. So who are you going tax then?

You also need to consider taxation a form of theft. While you may want to take care of the poor, stealing from the rich does not seem to be within the concept of "my brothers keeper". People, just because they are poor, does not mean that they have a right to steal.

With current deficit spending and ballooning national debt, we need to consider austerity.
 
Last edited:
The two authors of the above article have had questionable results.

 
When I was a freshman in high-school, I started doing tax returns for my entire family because my 8th grade math teacher taught us how to do them.
What level of education did your entire family attain that they needed a ninth grade student to do their taxes?

balance a checkbook?
I can't even remember the last time I wrote a paper check. I think I have a blank check in my wallet that's been there about 15 years.
 
My Dad only reached the 8th grade and I'm immensely proud of him regardless. He provided a family foundation of love, moral values and Christianity that has supported his children during tough times of all kinds. Out of that family, supported on little education and a minimum wage, has come a major restaurant company CEO, a community college system President, a stellar public defense Lawyer ... and whatever the heck I am.
He considered marriage to be for LIFE and is still with Mom after a lifetime of togetherness.

He believed that God still does healing miracles and has believed for his and Mom's health all his life, and he is the absolute healthiest 86 yr old man I have ever seen - with zero physical problems and still mows the lawns, including large ditches and hills.

My Dad's lack of formal education did nothing to detract from the amazing foundation he gave all of us to grab life by the horns and take personal responsibility for our choices.

+1 for those who didn't need a formal education to leave a massive legacy!
 
But if my "brother" is able-bodied, I do him a disservice by keeping him dependent on me when he could have FAR more freedom by working on his own and not having to repeatedly come to me with an empty cup.
Couldn't agree more.
Unfortunately in NZ for the last 10 years or so we have had a massive shift away from this thinking. The previous government thought that because certain sections of society fare poorly in loads of statistics, i.e. prison representation, health, dependance on welfare, education, that they decided to legislate towards improving these statistics, but sure enough nothing has changed except the country is now more divided (I for one didn't like finding out that I had to pay to see a doctor, whereas someone else of a different race got this service for free) and the working class has been taxed to the point of collapse.
They literally couldn't understand that whilst you can legislate equal opportunity, you cannot legislate outcomes.
 
What level of education did your entire family attain that they needed a ninth grade student to do their taxes?

My Dad was a young adult during the Great Depression. He had only an 8th-grade education because of family issues including his father's (my grandfather's) early demise from a construction accident in a time when the litigious nature of society hadn't yet reared its ugly head. Granny, who was a ne'er-do-well to begin with, survived because Dad quit school in order to get a job armed only with his 8th-grade education. Damage and wrongful death suits weren't a big thing until much later so to say they were poor just doesn't quite cut it.

Dad eventually got his GED when he was in his 50's, while working for the local fire department, but he was never able to get any advanced job or even a blue-collar skilled job UNTIL he got on with the fire department and took advantage of civil service. For those of us who are ... a bit more senior than others, the possibility exists that our generation WAS far better educated than our parents' generation.

My dear old Dad had many flaws and many foibles but he was an honorable, brave, and caring man. After he retired, he collected money for the Shriner's Children's Hospital and frequently made it to the $2000 (in a year) mark several years in a row by collecting loose change at shopping centers ("shaking his can"). He didn't have a good education - but he had compassion for the poor and the uneducated. When I graduated with a doctorate, it was one of only five times that I saw him cry. I didn't understand then, but do now, that his tears were because he knew HIS son wouldn't have to endure what HE endured in being mostly unemployable.

I have to say, Moke123, that your answer was borderline abusive. It arrogantly makes assumptions that are not appropriate for civilized discussions. You are being excessively judgmental in your comment. It not-so-subtly implies that Pat might have been prevaricating. It is unworthy of you to do so.
 
Yes it didn't come out as intended, belated apologies.
 
To be fair, even the poor should pay some taxes. After all, if they don't have "skin-in-the-game", they will have no interest in having a government that spends tax money efficiently.
Amen.
 
When the government takes money from me to give to someone it deems more worthy, it is not charity, it is theft.
So you disagree with possibly the richest country in the world (USA) helping third world countries by supplying aid. How caring you are.
If you don't like it, why not become an elected government minister and do something about it instead of moaning on continuously about how useless the government/president is?
Col
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom