The US is very lucky as a significant amount of people have been taught that government aid/handouts are wrong, as in generally. I'm even impressed Trump spent a few trillion and still didn't get blasted for it by most people. The only two serious politicians who spoke up about it was Ben Sasse who in a conference call with constituents said "he spends like a drunken sailor" and Ted Cruise who at the end with the last aid package voted against it.
What will happen to this country if the next president actually stops spending in order to do what his voters want?
What's funny is the deepest red counties in the reddest states are also the largest recipients of US domestic agriculture subsidies and benefit programs.
Then you have other things like Walmart and similar McJobs where the government is indirectly subsidizing the companies, by various child food aid, healthcare and benefits to employees because the company doesn't pay enough for its employees to live without aid.
That's why subsidies bad and subsidies good are a false dilemma. "Spending money well" might seem like an obvious solution but it runs up against the problem of corrupt politicians, of which there are many. Hence, we have (worldwide) politicians handing out money to places they are (probably) needed (in your example, the agriculture subsidies) and places they are not (Walmart and similar McJobs), and it's possible that the latter receive more than the former.
It's also possible that it's impossible to get subsidies spent in a way that isn't rife with such corruption. I would say that the only way it may be possible is small government. Not because subsidies are bad, but the only way to watch government closely enough to keep corruption low is to make it small enough to watch in entirety.
Like a computer program, if it has less lines and less features, or less overall complexity, it should be easier to spot bugs and egregious mistakes. That's not the same as not wanting features at all. Or, it can become a political version of Zawinski's law where people want more from government and the resulting size and complexity is such that a group of corrupt developers can spread their corruption across so many branches and parts of the project that no one can watch it all (after all, isn't that how the 3 letter agencies undermine security software?)
> would say that the only way it may be possible is small government. Not because subsidies are bad, but the only way to watch government closely enough to keep corruption low is to make it small enough to watch in entirety
Well said, this sort of thinking needs to both be better understood on the right (all gov spending, taxation, and intervention isn’t immediately bad) and on the left (every critique of government doesn’t mean the only alternative people want is some radical anarcho-capitalist zero government fantasy world).
Instead it’s smaller and more effective government but still strongly supporting it where it makes sense ie subsidized education, healthcare, and other places with uncontrolled externalities that markets can’t properly serve.
More about being cheerleaders for what works, not just lazily pushing a government spending free for all nor a “stop everything”
approach where only soft targets get reduced like teachers salaries instead of subsidies to billion dollar companies.
It’s harder and nuanced, but still worth fighting for.
The Democrats don't believe in subsidies for everything all the time, nor do they ever campaign on that. Some republicans simply say "stop government handouts" they don't say "Some government handouts are good but we need to control it"
Were you meant to reply to me? I didn't mention either party and I'm not an American. It may be a serendipitous mistake though, as it has uncovered an obvious bias that you should address.
That’s not how benefits work. Giving free things to the employees makes them richer, which increases their negotiation power, which increases their wages. They would be getting paid less without it, not more.
What can cause this is welfare cliffs and systems with asset tests like SSI.
Bernie does like to say this because it sounds good, but he knows it’s false.
Because given the choice a minimum-wage-paying employer would pay even less. That's not inconsistent with state benefits making employees richer, it's just not making them rich enough to negotiate above that level.
You saw this play out across the pandemic: business owners complained that the increased level of state aid was damaging their ability to employ at the minimum wage level.
Also it's got to be said: some people aren't good at negotiating and/or don't know their value. In aggregate the effect you see is employee supply drying up as the total number willing to work at that level decreases, but in specific there will be individuals who haven't made that choice yet.
You can get paid more or less on the minimum wage by e.g. having more or less working hours given to you. And some people don't use their negotiating power for increased wages, but rather for other preferences (like getting a formal job instead of an informal one, better working conditions, time with their children, etc.)
People in the US are only against handouts to other people who aren't them. I wonder how many people would opt out Medicare or SSI if they could?
My mother in-law complained about letting refugees into the country and says we shouldn't allow due to the cost yet she is a war refugee herself. When asked about her situation, she says she deserved it.
> People in the US are only against handouts to other people who aren't them. I wonder how many people would opt out Medicare or SSI if they could?
> Also how many companies opted out of PPP loans.
This is exactly what I was going to highlight, people who use the narrative that some how a $1200 stimulus check sent nearly years ago is what is keeping people from taking low paying, dead-end jobs are the first to overlook the fact that PPP was the biggest welfare handout to the business class in some time, compounded on top of lower tax obligations. And 75% of the PPP [0] was never actually used for payroll!
It's insulting to working class people to see this narrative be as persuasive as it is, even amongst their own, but if I've learned anything about US culture is that was it 'trashy' for the lower class, is some how 'classy' for the rich. It's a pathetic attempt to divide people into already highly contentious tribes in order to maintain the illusion of business as usual.
What will happen to this country if the next president actually stops spending in order to do what his voters want?