The existence of good govt spending does not imply that govt spending is good.
Right now, the potential good spending is being crowded out by a lot of dumb spending. (That's nothing new - we blew hundreds of billions on Carter's synfuels project.)
That's why public employee pension reform in San Francisco is being driven by folks who like govt. They realize that you can't do good govt spending when 20% of your budget goes to pensions.
The same is true of SS (which is bigger) and ordinary healthcare.
Of course, government spending is neither inherently good nor bad.
But the thing to watch is how same cable of rent-seeking corporations that suck-up a good portion of what you aptly-label bad government spending also whips-up the "anti-government" mob when threatened (or simply greedy).
Why is it that an honest-to-God investor in productive enterprises like Warren Buffet can call for higher taxes on the super-rich but the criminal Koch brothers bend all their effort to oppose this? Well, lower taxes for these new American oligarchs is just one piece of their entire campaign of state capture.
I believe it is unfair to assume that all wealthy people must share the same philosophy as Warren Buffet, just as it's unfair to assume that all members of any other economic class should or do think alike.
Careful. Buffet advocates govt policy that puts money in his pocket. (He makes a lot of money off estate taxes, which his estate will never pay.)
> But the thing to watch is how same cable of rent-seeking corporations that suck-up a good portion of what you aptly-label bad government spending also whips-up the "anti-government" mob when threatened (or simply greedy).
Some actual examples would be nice. For example, GE is one of the more successful rent-seekers. Care to provide any examples of it whipping up an anti-govt mob?
Some argue that defense contractors and/or banks are very successful rent-seekers. How about some examples of them whipping up anti-govt mobs?
And no, the Koch brothers have not whipped-up mobs.
BTW - what crimes, other than disagreeing with you and having more money, have the Koch's committed? (Yes, I've googled them and read what I found. It's nothing but accusations by political opponents.)
 I don't consider violating campaign finance laws as a crime because I believe that the first amendment applies to political speech. And, they're not doing anything wrt politics that Soros didn't do before them so unless you regard him as a criminal....
From the Wikipedia page for Rick Santelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santelli):
"Tea Party Patriots wishes to extend a special thank you to Rick Santelli for his rant on February 19, 2009, which started this entire movement. Without Rick's rant, this movement would never have started. Many others will try to take credit but don't be fooled. He was the spark that began this fire."
Santelli was, and is, an editor for CNBC, which in 2009 was owned by General Electric. So an employee of GE, while acting in his capacity as an employee of GE, basically kicked off the Tea Party movement.
Note that the tea party has been specifically negative towards GE's rent-seeking.
True, but it tilts heavily toward waste. You're never as careful with someone else's money as you are with your own.
In economics, "other people's money" is called the principal-agent problem, and it's an interesting one.
ooh, ninja downvotes!
Right now, we don't have a tax problem in America. We have a stupidity problem. Stop spending money on stupid shit, and maybe those evil Koch brothers will fall into line with your views on taxation.
Still, I agree we need a movement which will kick-out rent-seeking entities out of the spending loop. I wasn't so much agreeing with Buffet as using him as an example.
Also, I have no desire for that Koch brothers to agree with me. I would like them to go to jail but the odds look long.
And you, in turn, may be missing the point that this is ridiculous.
The question being batted back and forth between Democrats and Republicans is "raise taxes or print money?"
This is called a "false dichotomy." It's an indication that neither "side" has your interests in mind.