Obama's here!!

That would result in an increase in the size of the LOCAL government. You'd simply be shifting the burden. Doesn't intrinsically solve the problem though many 'useless' programs (useless in that particular community, that is) might indeed be axed. Or it might result in huge disparities of services between municipalities the effects of which would vary greatly. The areas that made poor choices would become undesirable destinations and they'd then appeal to....the Federal Gov't for assistance. And how can the Fed Gov't say 'no' to citizens truly in need? They'd then start appropriating Federal monies to the affected areas and..wait....sounds like how all this got started, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NTBluesGuitar

http://www.tjadamowicz.com/img/bumper.jpg

:D

---

Gotta luv it!!

I think it's ignorant oversimplification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hudpucker

Entitlements? Would you include those who 'game' the current tax codes and pay nothing? How about the super wealthy who employ lobbyists to influence politicians to write the tax laws in their favor?

---

The IRS goes away too. The states fund the US government and tax their citizens any way they see fit. Lobbyists can't just target Washington under that system. And the tax code goes away, replaced by state income tax, sales tax, etc. Some states offer better deals tax-wise and people move there but that's much more difficult than finding and exploiting the loopholes in the existing tax code..........Bill

Again..

That would result in an increase in the size of the LOCAL government. You'd simply be shifting the burden. Doesn't intrinsically solve the problem though many 'useless' programs (useless in that particular community, that is) might indeed be axed. Or it might result in huge disparities of services between municipalities the effects of which would vary greatly. The areas that made poor choices would become undesirable destinations and they'd then appeal to....the Federal Gov't for assistance. And how can the Fed Gov't say 'no' to citizens truly in need? They'd then start appropriating Federal monies to the affected areas and..wait....sounds like how all this got started, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hudpucker

I think it's ignorant oversimplification.

---

K.I.S.S. works in every arena. Keeps folks safe and happy.

The only time the US has been out of debt is in Andrew Jackson's administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dubya

K.I.S.S. works in every arena. Keeps folks safe and happy.

---

I concur.

Clearly, I don't have the 'answers'; I'm just trying to illustrate that 'obvious answers' have already been implemented in the past and that our current situation is extremely complex---far more so than simplistic bumper sticker logic would have you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hudpucker

Again..

That would result in an increase in the size of the LOCAL government. You'd simply be shifting the burden. Doesn't intrinsically solve the problem though many 'useless' programs (useless in that particular community, that is) might indeed be axed. .......... Or it might result in huge disparities of services between municipalities the effects of which would vary greatly.

---

You aren't considering the poor efficiency of the federal government and the near total lack of control we have regarding what they do with our money. The savings would be huge because, if we had a choice, we would not fund most of what's being funded or we could choose not fund those things at their current levels. Every federal bill contains spending that has nothing to do with the core issue, it's there to buy votes.

What's wrong with some areas offering different levels of service? That's already the case, this would just broaden that. Live where you want, choose your services and fund them. We can't do that now, we don't have that freedom. I'm sure some of my tax money pays for snow removal in the upper mid-west. I don't care about that problem, let the people that live and work there fund it 100%. I'll vote locally to fund (or not) beach re-nourishment to prop up property values and tourist traffic.......Bill

Actually, I already addressed the inefficiency of the Federal Gov't in a prior post.

And I already stated that the areas that made poor choices with taxpayer dollar spending/appropriation would appeal to.....the Federal Gov't for assistance.


Are you reading the posts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at Redb's suggestion that we are free to vote our freedom away. Doesn't matter I guess, since that is not a real world issue, only an argument for argument's sake...

---

Its very a much a real issue. I see a lot of republicans running with platforms of trying to overturn roe v wade or trying to restrict sales of contraceptives. I see a lot of democrats running on platforms that involve decreased restrictions on search and seizure.

To me, these are freedoms that people not only do vote away but seem enthusiastic to give up. And they can, and they do.

Do explain to me why at 20 I can buy a gun, buy cigarettes, get drafted, be tried and punished as an adult, but I cant buy a bottle of jack daniels.

Its because people voted away the rights of legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21 to drink.

Now please dont get angry at me and think Im saying this is what I think you believe, these are only examples that Im using to make my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hudpucker

Actually, I already addressed the inefficiency of the Federal Gov't in a prior post.

And I already stated that the areas that made poor choices with taxpayer dollar spending/appropriation would appeal to.....the Federal Gov't for assistance.


Are you reading the posts?

---

Yeah, I read them -- and re-read them. Didn't find your solution for government inefficiency, only a mention about needing oversight (please tell me what I missed). I agree we need better oversight but I don't believe it can be done under the system we have now. It's too complicated and convoluted for anyone to truly understand. If more things were done at the local level we could have at least a chance to understand, oversee and control those things.

I don't agree with your second statement. The federal gov't should not be in a position the bail out anyone for a bad choice (state/local gov't or businesses). If it were to shrink to 30% of it's current size it would not be in that position. The only reason they do it now is because it's so huge and powerful that it seems to be the only solution (plus, they can "create" funds out of thin air). They're not there to protect us from ourselves. Stupidity should be rewarded with hard lessons, not taxpayer cash.

I don't think the level of growth of the federal government is sustainable. It will bring this country down if it continues. I actually doubt the size we have now can be sustained. The only ways to change that IMHO would be to shrink it's size significantly or somehow get to the point where the taxpayers get a reasonable bang for their tax buck. ........Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redb

Its very a much a real issue. I see a lot of republicans running with platforms of trying to overturn roe v wade or trying to restrict sales of contraceptives. I see a lot of democrats running on platforms that involve decreased restrictions on search and seizure.

To me, these are freedoms that people not only do vote away but seem enthusiastic to give up. And they can, and they do.

Do explain to me why at 20 I can buy a gun, buy cigarettes, get drafted, be tried and punished as an adult, but I cant buy a bottle of jack daniels.

Its because people voted away the rights of legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21 to drink.

Now please dont get angry at me and think Im saying this is what I think you believe, these are only examples that Im using to make my point.

---

Haven't gotten angry at anything you've said, even the childish insulting things.

Your reductio ad absurdium arguments don't hold water. There are always reasonable restrictions in any civilized society. But, there will never be a majority willing to vote away 'freedom' to the extent of socialism.

Does raise another interesting issue though - 'mob-ocracy.' The founding fathers debated it. As recently as 1960 the USSCT upheld denying illiterates the right to vote. Not the case now, of course.

I suppose you also support the current 'right' to burn the US flag, another IMO argument for argument's sake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwilliamrose

Yeah, I read them -- and re-read them. Didn't find your solution for government inefficiency, only a mention about needing oversight (please tell me what I missed). I agree we need better oversight but I don't believe it can be done under the system we have now. It's too complicated and convoluted for anyone to truly understand. If more things were done at the local level we could have at least a chance to understand, oversee and control those things.

I don't agree with your second statement. The federal gov't should not be in a position the bail out anyone for a bad choice (state/local gov't or businesses). If it were to shrink to 30% of it's current size it would not be in that position. The only reason they do it now is because it's so huge and powerful that it seems to be the only solution (plus, they can "create" funds out of thin air). They're not there to protect us from ourselves. Stupidity should be rewarded with hard lessons, not taxpayer cash.

I don't think the level of growth of the federal government is sustainable. It will bring this country down if it continues. I actually doubt the size we have now can be sustained. The only ways to change that IMHO would be to shrink it's size significantly or somehow get to the point where the taxpayers get a reasonable bang for their tax buck. ........Bill

---

Sorry if I sounded 'bitchy'...I have a whopping headache.

I never attempted to define a solution for governmental inefficiency; I merely pointed out the obvious (that it is indeed woefully ineffecient).

I'm not advocating that the Fed Gov't bail out anyone for bad choices but if you think that they won't then you are showing your naivete regarding the political process in this country. Allow me to illustrate:

Region A consistently outperforms Region B because of the poor choices B makes with its tax revenue. People then move to Region A in droves. Region B now becomes undesirable with shrinking revenues. Political Party A is 'adopted' by the voters of Region A since their policies most closely align with the views of the voters in that Region. Region B then aligns itself with Political Party B and consistently votes for Party B since Party B sees a political opportunity to 'represent' the disenfranchised voters of that region. Eventually, Party B gains control of the Federal Gov't. Now, Party B is obliged to assist Region B which it then does....

Get it?

I agree that the Fed Gov't is way too large and BOTH parties have a penchant for spending (despite what any party's National 'Platform' may claim).

BTW, "pork" is only pork if it's spending for your district; in MY district it's well-spent monies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

Your reductio ad absurdium arguments don't hold water. There are always reasonable restrictions in any civilized society. But, there will never be a majority willing to vote away 'freedom' to the extent of socialism.

---

Sigh, just because you claim my argument is a logical fallacy doesnt mean it is. I said that voters have voted away freedoms, and I gave examples of it happening. That is hardly proof by contradiction. In this country as little as 100 years ago you could buy cocaine from a drug store with no perscription. It is no large leap to say that we gave up the right to consume cocaine by voting for people who wished to criminalize it. If you think thats a fallacy, well then by all means you are free to think incorrectly.

Quote:

---

Does raise another interesting issue though - 'mob-ocracy.' The founding fathers debated it. As recently as 1960 the USSCT upheld denying illiterates the right to vote. Not the case now, of course.

---

Here's the secret, the restriction of voting rights to more "desirable" members of society is a cornerstone of scientific socialism.

Quote:

---

I suppose you also support the current 'right' to burn the US flag, another IMO argument for argument's sake.

---

Burning a flag is a basic and universally understood form of public dissent. And yes, I absolutely support the right to free speech in almost all cases. I think restrictions of free speech should be limited only in cases where they create danger for other citizens or the exploitation of minors, and since burning a flag does not fall under either of those categories, yes I do support the right for people to burn flags.

I also think thats an important argument to have, if you think its not important, why bring it up anyway?

You were talking about people being free to vote for socialism - to vote away their freedom, notwithstanding many having died to preserve a free way of life. This is, IMO, something that will never happen.

Suddenly, you are no longer talking about this country voting for socialism. You begin using non-analogous examples of other issues as evidence that this country has tended towards voting freedoms away. This is a well-worn-easily-seen-through argument tactic. It's called reductio ad absurdium and is Rush Limbaugh's favorite ploy. Is that really what you want to sound like?

Please don't insult my intelligence by telling me having a drinking age that doesn't match the voting age or other rights is evidence of a country that wants socialism. If you want to argue, please argue intelligently.

Flag burning is childish and serves no constructive purpose. It also insults those who associate it with service to their country. IMO anyone who supports flag burning is a non practical person who likes to argue just for the sake of arguing - a time waster...

No problem hudpucker. This discussion probably contributed to your headache.

I get what you're saying. I do agree that it would be difficult for the feds not to help a region that was screaming for help. I'd want to make it virtually impossible for them to do that. No deficits, no pork (focused legislation) and a relatively trim structure. The nice thing about local government is they can respond fairly quickly -- bad policy can be reversed. Voters wouldn't tolerate poor leadership for long because their mistakes would be more visible.

It's probably not practical with only two parties because neither major party would want to be the one to propose such drastic changes to the "norm". A third big party would have to grow out of voter's dissatisfaction with the way things are with the other two calling the shots.

I think we've about beat this thing to death. I know I'll never see a restructuring of the government in my lifetime but my engineering side doesn't like band-aids. I'd want to go back to some functional point in the design's history and start again. I can't support either party because they have a long history of doing the wrong things and moving us in the wrong direction. I mostly ignore politics because I firmly believe it's hopeless under a two-party system.

Take care.........Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwilliamrose

No deficits, no pork (focused legislation) and a relatively trim structure. The nice thing about local government is they can respond fairly quickly -- bad policy can be reversed. Voters wouldn't tolerate poor leadership for long because their mistakes would be more visible.

It's probably not practical with only two parties because neither major party would want to be the one to propose such drastic changes to the "norm". A third big party would have to grow out of voter's dissatisfaction with the way things are with the other two calling the shots.

my engineering side doesn't like band-aids. I'd want to go back to some functional point in the design's history and start again. I can't support either party because they have a long history of doing the wrong things and moving us in the wrong direction. I mostly ignore politics because I firmly believe it's hopeless under a two-party system.

Take care.........Bill

---

If only everyone had this degree of lucidity of thought and pragmatism, what a great world it would be.

CWR everything you say makes perfect sense, at least to me... :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

You were talking about people being free to vote for socialism - to vote away their freedom, notwithstanding many having died to preserve a free way of life. This is, IMO, something that will never happen.

Suddenly, you are no longer talking about this country voting for socialism. You begin using non-analogous examples of other issues as evidence that this country has tended towards voting freedoms away. This is a well-worn-easily-seen-through argument tactic. It's called reductio ad absurdium and is Rush Limbaugh's favorite ploy. Is that really what you want to sound like?

Please don't insult my intelligence by telling me having a drinking age that doesn't match the voting age or other rights is evidence of a country that wants socialism. If you want to argue, please argue intelligently.

Flag burning is childish and serves no constructive purpose. It also insults those who associate it with service to their country. IMO anyone who supports flag burning is a non practical person who likes to argue just for the sake of arguing - a time waster...

---

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the link between the voting away of small freedoms and how this mirrors a more general social trend to give up larger rights which is in effect a movement towards socialism. If you cannot see such a blatant relationship then any further discussion is wasted on you.

This whole argument has been you attempting to suggest that there is some problem with the link between my arguments and the evidence and devices that I provide to support them, which has two effects.

One, since there is no weaknesses in the links, it makes you seem very silly indeed, and secondly, it suggests that the only thing you have to say about why socialism doesnt work is some unexplained personal experience and how people "died to keep those damn commies out".

You have, and I assume will continue to, suggest that your version of freedom is somehow superior to other people's visions of what that word means, and that I should just accept this because you are right for whatever reason. Enough is enough, you are wrong to project your thoughts onto the rest of us.

Oh and cwill, the sort of minimalist government failed, repeatedly, to keep the economy stable for any period of time. Modern economic and government thinking is a result of the great depression, which followed many near crashes that were a result of non intervention policy. Our current crash is a result of an attempt to return to this supposedly "working" model. If anything, we need to beyond clinton's policy in order to keep some real level of stability.

You live in an alternative reality. I never said any of the things you attribute to me. You really should learn to read without injecting your emotion into it. I mean that sincerely.

However, you are absolutely correct when you say (your) further discussion is wasted on me.

Kind of like watching a tennis match turn into the "Big One"
at Daytona around here.

I suspect most of us agree on one or two points:
1: Throw the bums out
2: The government isn't qualified to do much of anything right.

Have a nice day, y'all!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cygnus X1

I suspect most of us agree on one or two points:
1: Throw the bums out
2: The government isn't qualified to do much of anything right.

Have a nice day, y'all!

---

Gotta agree wif dat, Kev. I spent most of the day on my reloading bench, crankin' out about five hunnert rounds of 5.56 mm (never know when it might "rain").

:D

:bday: an' enjoy them hots. I'm a "brat" man myseff but anythang on a bun wif Gulden's is hokay by me.

:applaudit

Thanks, Rog!

Them whites are like a Bratwurst Lite.
Mmmm good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curtisstetka

I prefer to refer to that side as "leftists" - those who believe that the government can (and should) control ever more aspects of my life.

---

Unless it's women's reproductive systems, and then you want lots of government control, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phantomman

Au contraire, Doc.

You might explain the benefits (an' costs) of Canada's "GST", and its impact on goods an' services produced or sourced there. As well, it seems a bit incongruous in the 21st century that a Canadian would be forced to wait as long as two years for routine diagnostic tests that generally take a month to schedule and perform here in the US. While you're at it, it might interest you to know that there are more MRI scanners in the city of Philadelphia than there are in your entire country.

You guys got a great health-care system up there......as long as you don't git sick.

---

The GST (a general sales tax) is much debated in Canada. When it was first introduced, the argument was that it simply made hidden manufacturing taxes more visible and more fair across the board. Whether or not that is true, it is very much like the European VAT tax which some people like and some people don't. It annoys me a lot sometimes but on the other hand, it helped the previous government to post a surplus for the first time since ... the 60s? Maybe even longer. And it is a direct tax on consumption which many think is the most equitable form of tax.

As for the medical system, there are definitely problems. However, I have never known anyone who has had to wait that long for a routine test. I get routine tests all the time (routinely, you might say) and there is no wait whatsoever. The lack of MRI's in some regions is definitely a problem. There is a shortage of doctors. Waiting times for a hospital bed can be unacceptably long. Nonetheless, the overall level of health care is extremely good and my main criticism of the American system is, curiously, very much like the one you direct at the Canadian system: you may have lots of high falutin' medical technology, but people who don't have the do re mi don't get to use it. Great system as long as you don't get sick.

I do have to compliment you on your French, Rog!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

You were talking about people being free to vote for socialism - to vote away their freedom, notwithstanding many having died to preserve a free way of life. This is, IMO, something that will never happen.

---

Gris, the one thing that has been bugging me about this debate is the use of "socialism" as the opposite of freedom. I think that we (or at least you) need to define what you mean by this, especially since you argue that so many have died fighting for freedom (and thus presumably against socialism). If you are arguing against the Soviet Communist system of central planning and the elimination of markets, then I couldn't agree with you more. The Soviet system also involved the brutal repression of dissent, a fact that was denied for so long by its western supporters.

However, I get the feeling that you are calling "socialism" just about anything that involves power at the level of the state. For example, virtually every industrialized nation (except the US) has some form of national health care and I get the feeling you think that this is socialism, although I can't be sure.

It would be helpful to me, at least, if you gave me some idea of what this "socialism" entails, in your opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

CWR everything you say makes perfect sense, at least to me... :-)

---

Thanks

We should start that much needed third party and make a run for the White House in 2012! I'd be happy to be your running mate......Bill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwilliamrose

Thanks

We should start that much needed third party and make a run for the White House in 2012! I'd be happy to be your running mate......Bill

---

Sadly, having been privy to the inner circle of JFK's (John Forbes Kerry) run in 2004, and having seen the aternative reality thrust upon John (how the h*ll did a bona fide war hero who volunteered for front line combat become less 'patriotic' than someone who went missing/AWOL during 'nam...!?*@!?), I'll never run for anything myself... :-(

As far as what I define as 'socialism,' I mean it is the classic dictionary most common sense; i.e., governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of all goods and services. As I previously stated, I am all for both universal healthcare and legal representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

how the h*ll did a bona fide war hero who volunteered for front line combat become less 'patriotic' than someone who went missing/AWOL during 'nam...!?*@!?

---

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/...tomo/story.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hudpucker

I think it's ignorant oversimplification.

---

I'm not so sure about that.
In some circles, the larger than standard bumper sticker format you see there, and the presence of ...

FOUR
WHOLE
LINES
OF TEXT

...are evidence of a nuanced and well developed world view.

That guy risked being shunned and given atomic wedgies, by his peers, (who, no doubt, all personally plan, pave and maintain their own roads, pipe clean drinking water directly to their homes from the nearest reservoir, process their own sewage...) for showing off his book learnin' so flagrantly.

Keepin' it simple (for the) stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gris

(how the h*ll did a bona fide war hero who volunteered for front line combat become less 'patriotic' than someone who went missing/AWOL during 'nam...!?*@!?)

---

We have the evil "genius" of that great American--Karl Rove--to thank.

Spin doctors suck. They're certainly not a new strain of scum though. Both sides are infected.

Gris, thanks for the response. "Classic dictionary terms" usually suck, but I get your point. We are very likely on the same page, or at least on some of the same paragraphs from that page. I am opposed to the socialism you describe and I also think that universal healthcare is one of the markers of a truly civilized society.

I don't think that redb is in favour of socialism either, btw.

What I find amusing are the exhortations that we must zealously guard against socialism, as though socialistic ideas haven't had a foothold in this nation for the past 50 years. It's not full-blown, means-of-production socialism, but it's also clear this country has become a melting pot in more than ways than one.

But, as someone mentioned earlier, simple is good. Simple lends itself well to perpetual "either-or" ideological conflicts. Simple leaves no room for frustrating gray areas.

Simple is how we end up with "spend" vs. "tax cuts" as the linchpin of our great economic debate.

Simple is what keeps us at each others' throats, while the real problems go unsolved. Hey, if I can score Internet points against some (ideological pejorative) dimwit, I can temporarily forget that China's got us by the shorts and I'm likely to produce a generation of indebted dirt farmers.

I blame the advent of Truck Nutz. Also.

I am with Stoneface on this. Simple is good, but over-simplification leads to ideological warfare and not real discussion.

Hey, I forgot to mention - Obama is HERE tomorrow, for about 6 hours (Ottawa, Canada). Aside from the political implications, traffic uptown will be screwed up for the whole day. A lot of Canadians seem to be really struck by Obama so there will also probably be lots of people lining the route he is to take.

If I see him, I will say hello for the Forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stonetone

What I find amusing are the exhortations that we must zealously guard against socialism, as though socialistic ideas haven't had a foothold in this nation for the past 50 years. It's not full-blown, means-of-production socialism, but it's also clear this country has become a melting pot in more than ways than one. Simple is what keeps us at each others' throats, while the real problems go unsolved.

---

EXACTLY! That is Sean Hannity's dumbed down mantra these days and the polar opposite is the same approach I found offensive in this thread - as if this country would ever go all one way or the other.

Well, Obama IS HERE NOW! About two blocks from my building, if the helicopters are any indication. Security was tighter than ... use you own comparison here. Mine are too rude. But I DID get to walk down the main drag outside my building in the middle of the road. No cars. Just lots of American and Canadian flags. Quite pretty in all the snow.

"I spent most of the day on my reloading bench, crankin' out about five hunnert rounds of 5.56 mm (never know when it might "rain")."

FMJ's?

I need some of those so I'll have something to cling to.:ola

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

Well, Obama IS HERE NOW! About two blocks from my building, if the helicopters are any indication. Security was tighter than ... use you own comparison here. Mine are too rude. But I DID get to walk down the main drag outside my building in the middle of the road. No cars. Just lots of American and Canadian flags. Quite pretty in all the snow.

---

And it was quite the juxtaposition compared to when GWB was here in 2004. No tear gas or police officers being stabbed by protesters this time.

I'm glad Obama got his BeaverTail™...I ended up walking home since the presidential motorcade blocked off the bus route for a good hour.

http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465...n?size=620x400

DD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doc W

We Canadians put maple syrup on everything. Even women, especially after running nekkid through the snow. Try it sometime.

---

i read over 2 pages, and THIS IS THE BEST REPLY

mmmmmm.....maple syrup on nekked womens.....mmmmmm :headbange

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kap'n

No, Bokonon.

---

oh admit it, you meant to say Bukkake :biglaugh:

:lmao: @ Frank!