What should the government pay for?

[Dave Rogers]

In short the government should pay for everything its citizens want to spend money on.

I think you mean "... for everything its citizens want it to spend money on", don't you?

Dave

 

[Meadmaker]

I checked everything, but I want to provide an asterisk. There are some things that I would say they should provide pay very little of. When it comes to health care and welfare, I think it should cover only that which is necesary to sustain life and very slightly more. I think unemployment insurance should be just enough so that people don't have to fear instant poverty as a consequence of being fired.

Bailouts and agricultural subsidies were the most difficult questions for me. There are very, very, limitied cirucumstances where I think those are good ideas, but sometimes I think they are justified.

In every category, I think before public money is provided, there has to be a case made why private money can't do it, and in some of the categories, it's a lot easier to figure out that answer. Private money to fund national defense seems like a bad idea, even if it were possible. Private money to fund arts seems like it ought to be the default option with very rare exceptions.

 

[DC]

In the vast majority of cases, it is better to let the individual citizens spend their own money on the things that they want it spent on; with there being no reason for government to be involved at all.

that is your opinion.
I think if the people decide to pay for something together this is a good thing.

 

[DC]

I think you mean "... for everything its citizens want it to spend money on", don't you?

Dave

i dont know.
im not sure if that it is needed, my english lets me down.
i ment citizens as a community, together spending money on something.

 

[Kodiak]

US Federal Government:

Military
Transportation
Utilities
Disasters
Citizen Protection
VA

 

[Beerina]

keggers

also a manned expedition to Planet X

Manned and womanned, plz.

Unless it's Venus, of course, which only has Amazons who force you to do things to them. Filthy, dirty, vile things.

 

[DC]

Manned and womanned, plz.

indeed, someone has to keep the spacecraft clean.

 

[Tricky]

Are categories here meant as which of these the government should pay for exclusively, or participate alongside other partners where applicable?

I meant it to be should government pay anything for these, not that it paid for everything. Obviously, many kinds of art are self-sustaining. I know government doesn't pay 100% of unemployment because I'm still supporting two out-of-work siblings.

 

[Meadmaker]

that is your opinion.
I think if the people decide to pay for something together this is a good thing.

The problem is that if five people decide that six people should get together and pay, and they will forcibly take the sixth person's money to make it happen, is it still a good thing?

I think sometimes the answer is yes, but if you recognize that is what happens when "the government" pays for something, you might be less likely to get the government involved.



I think my real perspective on the OP is that whatever the government pays for, it really ought to pay for it. For far too long, we have borrowed the money instead of paying for it. I think if we had to acknowledge that arts funding isn't free, and it required higher taxes or less spending elsewhere, some people who say, "It doesn't cost very much" would drop or at least lower their support for it. As long as people can pretend that they are paying, while in reality running up massive debt, people are a lot more willing to support spending.

 

[lomiller]

I think I accidentally voted for farm subsides, when I definitely think they should be abolished. Voted against industry bailouts on the basis it was worded so as to support the industry. This would not seem to apply to the recent financial system bailout, which was aimed at preventing collateral damage to every other part of the economy.

Arts is justifiable especially at the low levels they currently receive. You could lump in sports, recreation, etc. The positive feelings these create does seem to have a positive return on the investment made.

 

[lomiller]

I think my real perspective on the OP is that whatever the government pays for, it really ought to pay for it. For far too long, we have borrowed the money instead of paying for it.

That was my take as well. Also, since you can identify most of these as line items in the US budget this is probably a decent way of approximating how much people really think the US government should spend. This is a nice contrast to the “We should just spend less, but I won’t say what should be cut” approach we usually see.

 

[Praktik]

Oh damn, my option wasn't there! I want the government to spend billions jailing non-violent drug offenders and creating opportunities for criminal gangs!

 

[Drewbot]

You forgot;

Viagra for Sex Offenders

Transgender surgeries

 

[cwalner]

I'm not American, so I ticked them all.

It's not that simple, of course, but there are circumstances in which any responsible government would be expected to contribute some portion of tax revenues to some expense falling into every category on this list.

I am American and yet agree completely with this. I checked them all because everything can be a ligitimate government expenditure in the right context. The most dubious was farm subsidies. Even more so than than bailouts, because as lolmiller already pointed out, they were done to mitigate the damage of the financial collapse on the populace at large.

 

[portlandatheist]

Oh damn, my option wasn't there! I want the government to spend billions jailing non-violent drug offenders and creating opportunities for criminal gangs!

This is stimulus spending to create jobs both in the public and private sectors.

 

[Tricky]

Oh damn, my option wasn't there! I want the government to spend billions jailing non-violent drug offenders and creating opportunities for criminal gangs!

Oops. Forgot prisons. Okay, lump it under police.

 

[drkitten]

That was my take as well. Also, since you can identify most of these as line items in the US budget this is probably a decent way of approximating how much people really think the US government should spend. This is a nice contrast to the “We should just spend less, but I won’t say what should be cut” approach we usually see.

Well, the problem with that is that almost anything that the government does sounds good if you're vague enough about what it's doing and how much it's spending. Who can argue with "economic development," especially in the middle of a recession.

Of course, if it turns out that what "economic development" really means is paying for some lunatic in Wyoming to grow rice and bananas on the taxpayer's dollar, most people will change their minds.

 

[joobz]

Of course, if it turns out that what "economic development" really means is paying for some lunatic in Wyoming to grow rice and bananas on the taxpayer's dollar, most people will change their minds.

Hey, My Bananarice is going to save the economy!

 

[ddt]

i clicked everything only not "Support of major industries in trouble (bailouts)" because im not sure yet if bailouts are a good idea or if there are other solutions (Nationalizing)

When a major industry fails, can't the government just wait until the shares are cheaper than toilet paper and then nationalize the business?

I left it out too, together with the industry and farm subsidies. But then I'm a dirty commie.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well it's not really the government paying for it,
it's the taxpayers paying for it.

If a large chunk of your paycheck is going to the government then
the government damn well better provide some services to you.

This was close to my reaction. I think the question would be better phrased something like, "What services should we as a nation provide?"

I am strongly opposed to Faith Based Initiatives, for example. Not only because of the First Amendment problem (tax money is going to religious organizations that proselytize and are allowed to discriminate in hiring), but also because I think we as a people--as a nation--are abdicating our moral responsibilities when we leave such services, especially services to the poor or less fortunate, to religious institutions. I think those are the obligations we the people have, and not just the religious people.