Thanks.

"You're saying the intrusiveness comes first, then the spending. That's interesting."

I am. When a government lacks the authority to do things, it lacks the authority to spend on those things. The power has to come before the spending.

"[Joking]They should have put something in the Constitution saying federal powers were limited to thinks explicitly called out. :) "

hehe, yeah. And left out the "general welfare" clause.

"That really sound wrong. We have to raise taxes to cut spending?"

Yeah it sounds horribly wrong doesn't it? But the data show it clear as a bell so we have to consider why it might be the case.

My prevailing hypothesis, shared by a few I am aware of, is that it is the result of people either expecting to feel the bite of the taxes, or feeling like someone else will foot that bill.

That is also why I was specific: it isn't just high taxes. It has to be across the board. The Scandinavians have this part figured out, you have to tax the poor almost, if not just as much, as the rich.

Think of how "support for universal healthcare/basic income" is really high until you tell people how much it will cost them, at which point it drops like a lead ball in a pool.

Everybody has an idea of "rich" that - except for the unavoidably rich - does not include themselves. I'm having a buffet of schadenfreude with where I work over it. Mostly a bunch of hard left wing NYers who railed over and over about "Trump's tax cuts for the rich!" who are now complaining about them getting hit by Biden's "taxes for the rich." They are all for more spending and taxing when they aren't the ones getting hit by it.

Now I think there is a way to start down that path without actually raising them: end withholding.

No more big fat "rebates" after a year of not getting to see the money they took from you. Consider how hard people fight sales tax increases. Why? Because they see it.

If you stopped all income tax withholding and people had to pay their taxes when they file their taxes I'd put damned good money on them paying more attention and wanting less tax and spend. That'd be one hell of a start.

When the topic of a national sales tax to replace income taxes comes around, the moment people see the percentage it would take, they stop pushing for it. They know the public would lose their minds over it.

Low taxes, or their appearance, on the bulk of the population hides the cost of spending programs. Make them pay those costs and do it across the board and up front an unmistakeable and public support for spending craters.

Now, there was a time in this union where we had low taxes, those taxes were ONLY paid by the wealthy, and a very hands-off government. The early years of the union. Back then the federal government really had no real power over anything in your life. And the only ones who were taxed were the property owners.

And most people didn't care they didn't get a vote. Because they saw no value in voting in something that didn't affect them - especially given what it took to physically cast a ballot.

I mention that because it is the exception in the data. I also think the uniquely low level of government authority, and thus the virtually absent intrusion into people's lives provides the reasoning behind the exception.

Now, I'd take a few more steps as "king" to bring it under control.
1) stop withholding
2) stop direct federal taxation of people
3) bill the states based on their apportionment of people
4) flatten our tax schedules (make them more Scandinavian >.< )

I've talked about #1 and #4, so let us move to 2 and 3. Stop all income taxes and instead give each state a bill that is their share of expenditures based on their share of population. So if your state is 21% of the population, it gets invoiced for 21% of federal expenditures. And we count everyone for this - legal or otherwise.

Why? First, it removes the personal "I'm going to lower YOUR taxes" crap from the campaign. It also stops hiding the fact that congress critters hide their voting to spend more. It becomes simple enough for any voter to understand: did the bill for their state go up or down, and did population go up, down, or neither.

Then let the states decide how they want to come up with that money - so long as they don't withhold it from paychecks.

This puts the price of spending right in front of people. It is no different than any other economic scenario such as "healthcare." People pay more attention when they are "writing a check" than when they are not.

I'd also put a stop to "10 year budget" plans. We go through that crap every year. Whatever wishful thinking you come up with this year as to what will happen in the next 10, you'll throw it all out for a "new" prediction in less than a year.

Oh, and I'd restore the pre-1980s inflation formula and criteria. Why? Because it will expose just how bad the bulk of the budget the press and pols don't talk about is.

"I think this was an over-reaction. Even after the stay-at-home orders ended, the lingering restrictions seemed even more over-reacted. We had masks. We knew more about how the disease was spread. We leveled the curve. After that it became irrational."

No, we didn't level the curve in any way. The curves of places with the tightest restrictions look just like the ones that had none. I could put them all on a graph and you couldn't tell me which ones were from a state or country that went hard lockdown or which one was an open state or country.

We have known about this for decades. You can't "flatten the curve." You ca make it worse, you can increase the number of people under it, but you can't cut it down in the absence of a prophylactic medical treatment. Areas with heavy mask use see anywhere from a minor increase in infections to up to a 10% increase in infections. Not a reduction.

"I think President Trump was such a disgrace, almost anyone seems dignified compared to him. "

Then understand that is both irrelevant and passing off a lower bar - that is your doing, not his. One could argue quite reasonably that "dignity" is second to performance.

“being centrist isn't exactly something with a great track record either”
The way I’m using it is to mean no radical change or crazy conspiracy theory antics, obviously not fascism

You might be surprised to know that similar claims were made by the Nazis and Fascists.

"I think President Biden is executing a stealth leftwing agenda. I think his critics were grasping at straws when they said that during the campaign, but regardless of whether they made it up or actually knew the truth, it is true."

Given they were proven correct, perhaps you should revisit your clearly incorrect assessment of them. It does matter, and someone who was warning about that fact, I can tell you we did not make it up. We paid attention. That is the thing about leftists. If you actually pay attention, if you read their words and the words of their predecessors you won't be surprised by their actions.

He has been doing exactly what he said he was going to do. He is not doing what his supporters, and people who just wanted to oppose Trump, claimed he was going to do. He outright said he was going to reverse and oppose everything Trump did. Everything. He said it during the campaign. Hell, it WAS his campaign (what little of it there was). How one could not see that taking such an extreme position opposing what he kept calling a right-wing POTUS showed he was hard left is difficult to grok.

"What worries me the most is the socialists have a plausible narrative that things are changing so fast because of technology and causing higher return on equity and lower cost of labor, and socialism is one way to deal with it."

Go read the older and original arguments they made. They are the same. They aren't changing with the times. As has Sowell said, socialism is appealing to people who do not want to have personal responsibility and to put forth effort on their own behalf. That hasn't changed. It was thought up by children of wealthy people who didn't follow the parables and stories of nearly every culture that your kids need to work hard and understand the value of personal hard work and for not only what hardships are a part of life, but that you can overcome them. It will thus appeal to people who want to be like that.

"There has never been a large political movement that represents my libertarian-leaning techno-optimist view. "

There never will be. Those seem to be diametrically opposed.

Not at all. I might even be interesting in their thoughts about them. :)

I wonder how humanity survived prior to the jabs. Oh , that’s right we have an immune system.

Today Project Veritas released an expose’ of a Houston local FOX reporter who is feed up with the phony narrative she had to portray.

"ZERO videos allowed inside the voting place. It's the law." Understood, which is why I said you'd have to sneak this stuff on video. Very risky, I'm sure.

"I've had lunch with O'Keefe... Great guy." Nice to know and hope you had a good time.

Bill, do you mind if I share your thoughts with some former colleagues?

I've had lunch with O'Keefe... Great guy.

ZERO videos allowed inside the voting place. It's the law. It risks exposing WHO voted, and potentially who they voted for.

But people like myself should be able to provide feedback to affect ALL FUTURE TRAINING! So they know it is not a problem.

Normal? In a nursing home, yeah.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...
There's also more than six trillion reasons to check out his eyes.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...

Looks like you need to sneak this stuff on video like the folks at Project Veritas. Maybe you could work with them to get it out so you can't be identified as the whistle blower.

To this point. DeSantis almost lost his election due to this crap in 2 big counties. Mine being one of them.

He was FIRED UP, and he finally took action. I fault Rick Scott. He KNEW this shit was happening, because my team sent him the details.
He did NOTHING and almost lost his election as well...

Notice how much better Florida performed with a "more fair" (but still messed up election). Let's be clear, as a poll monitor, I was told I am NOT ALLOWED to see anything, like validate the details of the voter being signed in (without interrupting, just sitting close enough to see the Age/Gender/Race etc on the screen). THEY MOVED THE DESKS to prevent me from validating anything.

Meanwhile, the "Democrat" Monitor was TELLING VOTERS (A no-no) where to go to vote, or how to get their voting location changed to this location, etc. etc.
She was getting involved in an outcome, I could not be allowed to effectively MONITOR.

Oh, and a truck shows up outside giving out water, and stuff. NOBODY is interested in finding out of it is legit, if they are breaking rules, etc. This stuff goes on because of the LACK OF GOOD TRAINING, and the fact that the SAME PEOPLE are there for EVERY ELECTION, so the risks are higher...

Putting someone with late stage dementia in front of the public to hide the identity of the real evil behind all the demented politics is Elderly abuse...even for someone that was Never a good normal human in the first place.

"Post Trump are we better off?"

Yes, we are better off than had Hillary taken office, the only alternative. My taxes are lower, China (the real enemy) got to feel some real pressure, and various government agencies backed off executive branch legislation (regulation). Yes, this is better.

However, there may be a case that the polarization the left created (Trump enabled it, but didn't start it) in response to losing in 2016 is worthy of evaluation.
- On one hand it has made the social culture of the US absolutely ridiculous and allowed institutional Orwellian nonsense in government.
- On the other hand, it has exposed the left for what they really are. Not sensitive, caring mothers, but extreme, totalitarian oligarchs. This was always lurking, AOC is an excellent example.

It is arguable that a Hillary administration would have just continued to obscure this diseased mess for another few years to a decade. Is that better? Hard to say. I think not.

After nearly 3 days of thinking about my last post you still can't offer anything of substance. Whatever.

"the same shot they are selling with million dollar raffles,"
The raffles are absurd. They should give them to people who want them. There are plenty of people in the world who don't have the luxury for this nonsense and just need their immunizations.

You're saying the intrusiveness comes first, then the spending. That's interesting.

"We've lost track of what little the government should be allowed to do and led down a dark trail of simply arguing about how much to spend or what to spend it on."
[Joking]They should have put something in the Constitution saying federal powers were limited to thinks explicitly called out. :)

"if you want low spending you need high taxes"
That really sound wrong. We have to raise taxes to cut spending?

The point is: This is the results of the same shot they are selling with million dollar raffles, free this and that. WHY? No other vaccine in history has been so bad, or so pushed.If you think adverse reactions to a shot that is being forced on people by any means, you are thoroughly compromised.

I don't believe in any of that. I think we have a normal president, at least "normal" with gov't spending being 40% of GDP.

"We've been living through a year where the government was literally allowed to mandate you not leave your home"
I think this was an over-reaction. Even after the stay-at-home orders ended, the lingering restrictions seemed even more over-reacted. We had masks. We knew more about how the disease was spread. We leveled the curve. After that it became irrational.

"No, [the recession of '08 and the economic effects of the pandemic] weren't "solved" at all. "
It was kicking the can.

"The taxation changes under Trump held them at bay,"
I like the structure of the tax cut, but since spending increased, it was just more of the same-- more borrowing. It's hard to imagine getting back to Obama-era deficits and spending.

"We won't really see the effects of that for a decade "
I agree. In parallel screen technology was also a worldwide experiment prior the pandemic. The pandemic made it even worse. My son did sports. That stopped with the pandemic, and he developed borderline high blood pressure. The doctor said the long-term risks of a sedentary lifestyle are worse than the risk for the disease, which are low. His friend who used to be physically active, now meet for online video games. I'm working on getting both kids riding their bikes to their friends. Amazingly, some kids are from homes where they still claim to be afraid of the virus.

"Dignified is not a word that applies to Biden any more than it applied to Trump."
I think President Trump was such a disgrace, almost anyone seems dignified compared to him.

"I also find nothing "center" about [Biden's Administration]"
I think President Biden is executing a stealth leftwing agenda. I think his critics were grasping at straws when they said that during the campaign, but regardless of whether they made it up or actually knew the truth, it is true. We will have to have tax increases and or a fiscal/monetary mini-crisis.

“being centrist isn't exactly something with a great track record either”
The way I’m using it is to mean no radical change or crazy conspiracy theory antics, obviously not fascism. In any case, I’m not a centrist. But I absolutely don’t want the mean-spirtedness or insane conspiracy theory crap.

I’m an optimist by nature, but I’m concerned. There has never been a large political movement that represents my libertarian-leaning techno-optimist view. But at least I thought there was same debate about what to do with the third of the earnings the government takes. Now there’s insanity, and many of the people opposed to the insanity are literally socialists.

What worries me the most is the socialists have a plausible narrative that things are changing so fast because of technology and causing higher return on equity and lower cost of labor, and socialism is one way to deal with it. There’s no William F Buckley supporters to oppose this.

"I was unclear. I meant gov't intrusiveness per unit spending has not gone up. Spending has gone up, and intrusiveness has gone up commensurately "

No you were clear, just wrong, intrusion - using the metric above which I stipulate is incomplete - has increased at a slower rate than annual spending over that same time period. from 2000 to 2013 the annual federal government expenditures (note: NOT "budget"
- that's different) rose from ~2.6T to 3.1T - a rise of only 20%.

Spending only comes after power acquisition. All power acquisition is an intrusion into individuals' lives.

"My implication is we should focus on decreasing gov't spending."

That's the symptom, not the cause. The cause is power accumulation and aggregation. We've lost track of what little the government should be allowed to do and led down a dark trail of simply arguing about how much to spend or what to spend it on.

That power accumulation is the root of the high cost of running for office, the lobbying, the divisiveness, etc.. People like the fiction that corporations buy/rent/lease/own politicians and are "running the government", but the power tree says otherwise.

And here is another head scratcher: if you want low spending you need high taxes - and they have to be across the board. The data clearly shows, despite what I believed unfairly before - that there is a clear correlation between "high/broad" taxes and lower government spending, and that with "low/narrow" taxes comes profligate spending.

Once realizing it, it becomes obvious why in a form of hindsight.

Yes ! The “Uncivil War” rages. We do know the enemy. The enemy has been caught in the greatest sting operation of all time. Plenty of fireworks before the Fourth of July. Election Fraud, Sedition Treason , Russiagate and Durham,
Ghislaine Maxwell, Hunters Laptop, Fauci Covid China Virus. Buckle up.

It’s the history that they don’t tell you that is revealing. Estimates of 1500-1700 NAZIS probably higher. 700 went with Von Braun to NASA. The rest aren’t in the story books. Those are the Alphabet agencies legacies. Anti-American for sure.

"From 2000 to 2013 the CFR grew by 27%."
I was unclear. I meant gov't intrusiveness per unit spending has not gone up. Spending has gone up, and intrusiveness has gone up commensurately My implication is we should focus on decreasing gov't spending.

"I find it a very odd "metric" to try to tie oppression to money spent. "
That's true. You could have a intrusive but low-cost gov't. I agree, contrary to what I applied above, money spent is not a great proxy for measuring intrusiveness.

"substantiate the remark "
Cripes, it's his whole public persona.