That wasn't a rant, Sam, that was a good post. You stated your case very well.
My counter point would be based on one word: debt.
For most of the American expansionist period, the main contribution of the gov't was in non-cash benefits to the recipients. Railways mostly got land, utilities got tax breaks and cash from private bonds.
You made a good case for bennies going to the AE industry, and I won't argue against that being a good cause. Trouble is, it will have to be at the expense of something else. Social spending, defense, etc, etc, all have their hands out and either can make an equally good pitch for their sector, or are funneling cash into the pockets of the decision makers.
We are already at 90% debt to GDP, a no-kidding tipping point. Spending MUST be reduced or the economy would have to grow geometrically if we are to avoid a breakdown in our economy. |
