Where to start?

This site is just begging to be swamped by libertarians.

Welcome to governmentisgood.comWhy a website extolling the virtues of modern democratic government? Because for years conservative politicians and pundits have been disparaging and demonizing government and too little has been done to defend it. The idea that "government is bad" has been one of the overriding themes of the Republican Party; and it has pledged to reduce government programs to a minimum, except for a few areas like the military and national security. And whenever and wherever conservatives have been in power, they have tried to put their anti-government philosophy into practice by cutting taxes, neglecting social programs, and undermining environmental, consumer, and workplace regulations.

This online resource is a response to this political attack on government and an effort to set the record straight about this much-maligned institution. It will show that government is not a scourge on society; it is a valuable and positive force in the life of every American. Government is not the problem; it is actually the only solution to most of the pressing problems we face as a nation – from global warming to our growing health care crisis. If we want an America that is healthy, secure, well-educated, unpolluted, compassionate, prosperous, just, and free, we need a strong, active, and well-funded public sector.

This site challenges many of common criticisms of government – that it is massively wasteful, incompetent, the enemy of economic prosperity, etc. An objective examination of the actual record of government reveals that most of these charges are exaggerated, misleading, or simply wrong. This is not to deny that American government has its problems. For one thing, it is certainly not as democratic and accountable as it could be, and special interests have way too much political power. Such problems need to be fixed, and this site identifies several needed reforms. Nonetheless, whatever drawbacks this institution has right now are far outweighed by the enormous benefits that we all enjoy from a vast array of public sector programs. On the whole, government is good.

If only it were true that the Bush years have been an assault on the power and moral justification of the state. In any way. At all. Even just once.

Brief rundown of counterexamples to this guy's point:

  • Undeclared war in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of casualties
  • Undeclared war in Afghanistan, unknown thousands of casualties
  • first $2 trillion budget (the first $1 trillion budget was during Bush I)
  • Enemy combatants, extraordinary rendition, torture
  • No Child Left Behind, massive centralization of education
  • 'War on Obscenity'
  • SWAT teams in even small backwater legal jurisdictions

The modern Right is apeshit about government. Let's not kid ourselves.

Via Human Iterations, where it's also maintained that the site is not a parody

Share this

I started their government

I started their government IQ thing... so the first question is about local and state governments... they say 2.7M civilians work for the federal government and ask how much work for state and local government.

6.3M
10.2M
18.3M

Ok so I think, government is bad, government is huge, government is omnipresent... I want to pick the highest number 18.3M... but wait, this is a website that shows that government is actually good, so the answer probably reflects that it's not as big and wasteful as I would believe in the first place. Alright let's be fair, I'll let them prove me wrong.

I select 18.3M

And...

CORRECT ! (with a big green tick)... yeaaaah the right answer was the highest number! See how government is good ?

 

 

From the site

In
Europe taxes are not seen as a threat to people’s economic security –
they are seen as providing that security. Europeans do not feel like
they cannot afford to pay those high taxes, rather they feel that they
cannot afford to not pay them – and thus risk losing the crucial
economic safety net that their social programs give them. To
over-simplify only a bit: for Europeans, more taxes mean more economic
security. It is a very different attitude toward taxes than we have
here – but it is one we might learn a great deal from.

 

I don't know if I want to cry because it's stupid or because it's true.

First, do you mean true as

First, do you mean true as in, true what he says about taxes and economic benefit, or do you mean true in that, Yes, Europeans really are that stupid? I hope its the latter..

Take a wild guess :) Many

Take a wild guess :)

Many french people are that stupid, especially the educated ones (it takes a long education to remove the gut feeling that taxes are bad).

Yes they are

The modern Right is apeshit about government. Let's not kid ourselves.

Yes they are. And the modern Left considers the modern Right to be anti-government. What does that tell you about the modern Left...

 

3%

Only 3% of my tax dollars are used for welfare and foreign aid, according to question #2. I believe he defines welfare significantly more narrowly than I do.

I wish that site allowed

I wish that site allowed comments...

There's a convenient contact

There's a convenient contact option.

 

By the way, anyone to register www.governmentisbad.com or www.governmentisdoubleplusgood.com ?

The Unchanging Leftist Agenda

It amazes me how boilerplate these ideas are. Guys like him are incapable either new ideas or of admitting the contradictions of their old ideas. As we know the Government has been increasing in size, power and complexity for a hundred years.But it isn’t big enough. He gives a whole list of problems that compare the US to Europe. Though I am not sure why, Europe is the model we must emulate by spending tax dollars to meet European standards.
He wants more democracy which we don’t have because everything is controlled by business interests. Nothing in the founding documents of the US says anything about equality, but this is a big item for him. Since big business has all the money, they are in control which is unjust. He doesn’t mention the fact that if government wasn’t so friggin big, business people wouldn’t have to go to government agents, hat in hand to get anything done. The fact that they do ask for and get favors is not seen as an indictment of government, but as a reason for government redistribution of wealth.
Once people are equal we will have just government because we will have true democracy.
He doesn’t address what would happen if people wanted more of what they already have. If more government is so good then why not increase the size of the military, the federal prison system and the drug enforcement agency? Don’t not more farm subsidies to help the poor farmer? We might need to subsidize our factories so they can compete against foreigners. We need to raise tariffs to protect our workers and business men. If a factory goes out of business the workers should be giving government jobs. Government could also take a more active role in protecting our morals, such as arresting and jailing people who look at dirty movies. Aren’t these all good things more government could do?
The real meat of his agenda is redistribution of wealth; well just because inequality is unfair. This would be done by the usual means of taxing and spending with distortive fixes imposed to correct the inevitable economic distortions, with the predictable results. They never learn.
Sorry Sir but this has all be tried on the American people before and they don’t buy it. For example here is the tax plan proposed by George McGovern in 1972. Nixon got elected.
“TAXES. McGovern claims that 40% of U.S. corporations paid no corporate income taxes last year. McGovern would raise the corporation tax rate from 48% back to 52%, its level before the tax reform of 1964. He would end investment tax credits, tighten depreciation rules, and gradually eliminate the oil-depletion allowance, now at 22%. These and other changes, he estimates, would add some $17 billion annually to the federal treasury. By reducing corporate profits, they would also reduce dividends to stockholders.
McGovern's aim is to give the Government a far greater voice in the uses to which investment is put; more of the profits of private industry would tend to be taxed away and invested instead as Government chooses. Such resource allocations would mean a different kind of America, more like the mixed economies and relatively paternalistic societies of Western Europe. This is a breathtaking proposition, to say the least, and it is going to require a lot of explaining before the campaign is over.
INCOME. Anyone making over $50,000 a year—earned or unearned —would have to pay 75% of the excess in taxes, no matter what tax shelters might exist. Inheritance taxes would be increased, with a 77% rate on anything over $500,000. He had originally proposed a confiscatory 100% tax on inheritances over $500,-000, but backed down when blue-collar workers in Wisconsin and Massachusetts objected that taxing anybody 100% was unAmerican. Said a bemused McGovern: "I don't know whether people still think they will win a lottery or what." He would abolish welfare payments and substitute minimum income grants with a maximum of about $1,000 per person annually. All told, his redistribute-the-wealth plan would shift $43 billion a year from the more affluent to the relatively poor. In a study for the Joint Economic Committee, Economist Lester Thurow of M.I.T. found that the gap between the mean annual income of the richest 5% of U.S. families and that of the poorest 5% was $27,605 in 1969; it was only $17,057 in 1947 (using 1969 dollars).” www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943431,00.html
The irony is that the economy, tax revenues and government spending exploded after Reagan finally cut taxes in the 1980s.
Dave

The guy, Douglas J. Amy,

The guy, Douglas J. Amy, teaches at Mount Holyoak (a girls college in Massachusetts)...
Let's look at the majors... hum "Gender Studies" (their motto "Research, Activism, Theory, Practice") "Critical Social Thought", they also have a course called "Economics 210, Marxian Economic Theory". In Prof Amy's major you can take "207, Women and the Law", "210, Minorities and the Law", "250, Politics of Black Urban Reform", "117, Globalization and Its Discontents", "221, Marx and Marxism", "233, Invitation to Feminist Theory".

The guy's probably a moderate over there.

(shamelessly translated from an analysis by friend of mine)

Dave says: "Nothing in the

Dave says: "Nothing in the founding documents of
the US says anything about equality, ..."

Not so. The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ...".

The founding document about equality

Here's what I sing to the sheep on the farm while I feed them in the morning:

We the sheeple,
To engineer a more perfect society,

Establish Order,
Ensure Domestic Conformity,

Provide an excuse for Defense
to protect Government Welfare, and

Pervert the meaning of Liberty
for Ourselves and our Posterity,

Do Disdain and Abolish
The Constitution of the United States of America