‘More harm than good’

[ProSense]

‘More harm than good’

By Steve Benen

<...>

National Review, meanwhile, asked right-wing financier Charles G. Koch for a reaction to his fellow billionaire’s suggestion. The Koch Industries CEO said:

“Much of what the government spends money on does more harm than good; this is particularly true over the past several years with the massive uncontrolled increase in government spending.”

<...>

This has been debunked before, here and elsewhere, but since ignorance is resilient, let’s take a look at a recent item from Paul Krugman.

(T)he peddlers of this myth point to the fact — which is true — that federal spending as a share of GDP has risen, from 19.6 percent in fiscal 2007 to 23.6 percent in fiscal 2010. (I use 2007 here as the last pre-Great Recession year). But what’s behind that rise?

A large part of it is a slowdown in GDP rather than an accelerated rise in government spending. Nominal GDP rose at an annual rate of 5.1 percent from 2000 to 2007; it only rose at a 1.7 percent rate from 2007 to 2010.

Krugman posted some worthwhile charts on this, but there are basically two key elements to keep in mind. The first is that spending rose as a percentage of GDP, not because of a spending binge, but because GDP went down so sharply during the Great Recession.

But what about the rest? There are safety-net programs — unemployment insurance, food stamps, SSI, refundable tax credits — that respond to help families in need during down times. When the economy gets worse, these programs spend more automatically because there are more people qualifying for the benefits.

more

[gateley]

1. When is enough enough? It's like a sickness! nt

[newthinking]

2. Never - Because it becomes not about money but about power . Money is power

[ProSense]

3. They want

everyone to believe Obama is destroying the country by spending too much, imposing too many new regulations and rolling back the destructive policies of the past. In other words, governing and government are bad!

[saras]

4. Stop it. It's all completely true. IF you share Koch's definitions of "good" and "harm".

Increasing the standard of living for anyone other than the wealthy is "harm". It makes them a less compliant workforce. Workers who are needed should be getting just enough resources to live, no more. Workers that have been reduced out of the workforce should be recycled, as reuse is too expensive.

Any education that is not strictly based in authoritarian obedience has the same problem. It's only "good" for the children of that upper 1%, and "harm" to the rest. Pleasure, too, has no place in the lives of workers except as a reward for work well done. So if you're not needed as a worker, either temporarily or permanently, you have no claim to pleasure, and it is harmful for others to give it to you.

Irving Kristol summarized it quite well. What you and I think of as "truth" is harmful to the vast majority of the public, in their view.

"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."

[applegrove]

5. The Koches are so full of bull****!