Anit-Patriotism
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Tower_Master]Didn't know that thing about Wilson being a bigot, though. Any thoughts on where I could learn more about that?[/QUOTE]
I didn't know about either, for a long time. Mainstream history books in the US discuss him in terms of sainthood. But I began finding hints of cracks in the plaster when I discovered in a book about black servants in the White House (can't remember the title, sorry) that Wilson established large areas of Washington DC as off-limits to blacks. I then did some research, waded through a lot of BS, and hit some gold.
With the advent of the Web, getting data on this is a lot easier, fortunately. Most of it is in tantalizing bits and pieces, unfortunately. Here's one:
For example, Woodrow Wilson was a borderline pacifist and worked very hard for peace in his time and ours, and he signed meaningful legislations that helped people, and he tried hard to leave the country in better shape. But Wilson was a Southern racist, and for the first time since Lincoln, the White House was segregated and denied employment to Blacks. There was no denying this, and there was no denying his efforts to prevent war and to keep us out of it should it happen.
Here's another:
"It was Inauguration Day. Washington rang with happy Rebel Yells, while bands all over town played 'Dixie.' An associate of the new president warned that since the South ran the nation, Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race." This is not fanciful speculation about what things might have been like had Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats prevailed in 1948. It is historian Lawrence Friedman's description of the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Wilson. Intellectual. Pacifist idealist. Democrat. Bigot.
This last example is used as a club to beat Democrats with because of their "deal with the devil" pro-slavery past. Big deal, considering Bush's friends. But the quote is telling.
You can also check this website and do a search on Wilson. What's interesting is how it puts Wilson's views of white supremacy in context against other pseudo-scientific pop culture books offering much of the same at that time.
Consider, too, buying this book, which reveals with exemplary source research both the repellant characters of Wilson and his second wife. It does not focus exclusively on Wilson's racist views, but provides evidence of what the man was like. This is far more than the usual perusal of Wilson that focuses solely on his response to the conclusion of WWI, arguably his single best act in eight years as president.
I didn't know about either, for a long time. Mainstream history books in the US discuss him in terms of sainthood. But I began finding hints of cracks in the plaster when I discovered in a book about black servants in the White House (can't remember the title, sorry) that Wilson established large areas of Washington DC as off-limits to blacks. I then did some research, waded through a lot of BS, and hit some gold.
With the advent of the Web, getting data on this is a lot easier, fortunately. Most of it is in tantalizing bits and pieces, unfortunately. Here's one:
For example, Woodrow Wilson was a borderline pacifist and worked very hard for peace in his time and ours, and he signed meaningful legislations that helped people, and he tried hard to leave the country in better shape. But Wilson was a Southern racist, and for the first time since Lincoln, the White House was segregated and denied employment to Blacks. There was no denying this, and there was no denying his efforts to prevent war and to keep us out of it should it happen.
Here's another:
"It was Inauguration Day. Washington rang with happy Rebel Yells, while bands all over town played 'Dixie.' An associate of the new president warned that since the South ran the nation, Negroes should expect to be treated as a servile race." This is not fanciful speculation about what things might have been like had Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrats prevailed in 1948. It is historian Lawrence Friedman's description of the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson in 1913. Wilson. Intellectual. Pacifist idealist. Democrat. Bigot.
This last example is used as a club to beat Democrats with because of their "deal with the devil" pro-slavery past. Big deal, considering Bush's friends. But the quote is telling.
You can also check this website and do a search on Wilson. What's interesting is how it puts Wilson's views of white supremacy in context against other pseudo-scientific pop culture books offering much of the same at that time.
Consider, too, buying this book, which reveals with exemplary source research both the repellant characters of Wilson and his second wife. It does not focus exclusively on Wilson's racist views, but provides evidence of what the man was like. This is far more than the usual perusal of Wilson that focuses solely on his response to the conclusion of WWI, arguably his single best act in eight years as president.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
It seems like most presidents aren't viewed half as poorly by history as they were by their contemporaries. I would think there are more presidents with skeletons in the closet than that one to be sure.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
I agree, that is a driving factor. What is this PNAC you speak of? It sounds familiar, but the name doesn't come to mind. I'm not a neo-con follower, but I also think Kerry is morally and ideologically unsound.
Kerry is quite "sound." He's a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who has voted for more than 80% of the defense appropriations requested by the executive branch over the years, championed endless vet causes, argued impressively for a balanced budget, etc. If you're conservative, Kerry is your man. I detest him because he's dull and self-righteous, and I knew the latter was going to keep him from getting down-and-dirty enough to win the election. And I said so, here, repeatedly. Personally, I can't stand the man, because I would want somebody to get in office, tear the government apart, and build it afresh, providing vigor, honesty, and a complete reexamination of all the old assumptions. (Support Israel? No fixed tax rate across the boards? Enormous defense budgets? No gold stock? Why?)
Back to PNAC. Here is their website. The first thing that might strike you as you read their statement of principle is that virtually all these people control the executive branch of the US government: Elliott Abrams, William Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dic! Cheney, Eliot Cohen, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Frank Gaffney...just read the names. Back in 1998, they issued the PNAC manifesto, which you can read in that site. In very polite, careful terms it lays out a complete doctrine that involves the takeover and makeover of the rest of the world, starting with the MidEast, in what the PNAC folks call the "Century of America."
By contrast, check out Exposing the Project of the Next Century website for all the dirt on how the PNAC zealots are going about what they're doing, and how filled with doublespeak and global naiveity their ideas are. For example, in an editorial from mid-2004, they quote from an article with this telling sentence:
How, they wonder, did so many conservatives, who normally don't trust their government to run a public school down the street, come to believe that federal bureaucrats could transform an entire nation in the alien culture of the Middle East?
There's a lot more. But basically, I suggest reading PNAC's website, because you'll see that right from the start, the Bush administration was looking to invade Iraq on any pretext, to acquire its resources, and to secure a base from which to launch further attacks. It also mentions the importance of acquiring complete control of the Web (so as to monitor it for the safety of Americans, of course). Read, learn.
Kerry is quite "sound." He's a moderate-to-conservative Democrat who has voted for more than 80% of the defense appropriations requested by the executive branch over the years, championed endless vet causes, argued impressively for a balanced budget, etc. If you're conservative, Kerry is your man. I detest him because he's dull and self-righteous, and I knew the latter was going to keep him from getting down-and-dirty enough to win the election. And I said so, here, repeatedly. Personally, I can't stand the man, because I would want somebody to get in office, tear the government apart, and build it afresh, providing vigor, honesty, and a complete reexamination of all the old assumptions. (Support Israel? No fixed tax rate across the boards? Enormous defense budgets? No gold stock? Why?)
Back to PNAC. Here is their website. The first thing that might strike you as you read their statement of principle is that virtually all these people control the executive branch of the US government: Elliott Abrams, William Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dic! Cheney, Eliot Cohen, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Frank Gaffney...just read the names. Back in 1998, they issued the PNAC manifesto, which you can read in that site. In very polite, careful terms it lays out a complete doctrine that involves the takeover and makeover of the rest of the world, starting with the MidEast, in what the PNAC folks call the "Century of America."
By contrast, check out Exposing the Project of the Next Century website for all the dirt on how the PNAC zealots are going about what they're doing, and how filled with doublespeak and global naiveity their ideas are. For example, in an editorial from mid-2004, they quote from an article with this telling sentence:
How, they wonder, did so many conservatives, who normally don't trust their government to run a public school down the street, come to believe that federal bureaucrats could transform an entire nation in the alien culture of the Middle East?
There's a lot more. But basically, I suggest reading PNAC's website, because you'll see that right from the start, the Bush administration was looking to invade Iraq on any pretext, to acquire its resources, and to secure a base from which to launch further attacks. It also mentions the importance of acquiring complete control of the Web (so as to monitor it for the safety of Americans, of course). Read, learn.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
@jopp: Actually, fable's last post covers part of why I'm convinced that the federal government is a greedy, bloated monster that's been growing by leaps and bounds through every crisis America has faced. It's more a matter of a history lesson more than anything else, since the federal entity certainly didn't gain its broad, sweeping powers overnight (or through the action of one or two sessions of Congress). In a nutshell, whatever powers and advantages the federal government claimed for itself during times of war and national emergencies over the course of our history, it has never relinquished them as was promised at the time they asserted them. Perhaps the most infamous is the federal income tax.
Another little-known example of federal government gluttony was the federalization of State Militias into the National Guard. In the past, each state maintained an independent military force (a state militia). The lesson of the "Civil War" was not lost on the federal entity. With their own military force, a state could more effectively resist the Federal Army. The creation of the National Guard changed everything by putting all full-time and part-time military forces under the direct control of the Federal government. Members of the National Guard are trained, equipped, paid and commanded by the federal government (there were several guys in my Basic Training platoon that were National Guard). Basically, the federal government has a very large garrison in every state. Make no mistake: just like soldiers in the regular Army, each National Guardsman answers to the President of the United States.
Just as well, take a walk by the gate of your nearest US Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine installation. Take a close look at the sign that is posted on the fence every 100 yards or so: This is a Federal Preserve (or something similar to that, it's been a while since I last saw one on my way out ). The property it sits on is the sole property of the federal government. The state in which it sits has no control over that. The state cannot take it back...it buys it from the federal government when it decides to shut it down...
Over the course of time, the states have become so dependent on the good wishes of federal purse strings (thanks in part to the federal income tax), that the federal entity need not even bother menacing uncooperative states militarily when they step out of line. They simply threaten to withdraw all federal money. How often does the federal government do this? Almost daily, if you take the time to browse Legislative Clipping services (doing that for my boss is one of my weekly duties). The most infamous instances were the federally mandated drinking age, and the federally mandated 55 mph speed limit of yore. States who held out saw their federal highway $$$ dry up.
Just an aside for you: the 79th session of the Texas State Legislature took a week off from their session to attend the inauguration of President Bush. They're being paid, naturally, just as if they were in their offices hard at work creating mountains of paperwork and megabytes on websites. Who do you think paid for their travel and per diem? Taxpayers, of course. Their vouchers will pass without comment through the Comptroller's office, no eyebrows raised, no questions asked about mysterious amounts that appear here and there on the totals columns of their voucher paperwork with no receipts to justify them (or explain them). This happens with every session, so don't think I'm just picking on the ones who went to the inaugural party. How, you might ask, can they get away with that? Well, since it's a session, no one in state government will raise a stink for fear their agency's budget will be cut by the 79th Legislature...rear-ends are kissed, literally.
This is turning out to be a long, long post, and I haven't even addressed the American citizens being held without due process in Guantanamo Bay...nor the expanded police powers the FBI enjoys thanks to the Patriot Act. It used to be that when the FBI needed to bypass legal procedures, they called upon a federal Game Warden to do it, and then turn over the evidence they found to their possession. A Game Warden does not need any reason whatsoever to stop any vehicle , or person, and have it (or them) searched. They also do not need a warrant to search your home. I found out about this when my father worked as a contractor for the FBI in the late 80's and early 90's, building communications towers for their nationwide network. One of the top agents in the state HQ became a good buddy, and he related that to my father. Only now, they don't need a Game Warden. The War on Terror.
Another little-known example of federal government gluttony was the federalization of State Militias into the National Guard. In the past, each state maintained an independent military force (a state militia). The lesson of the "Civil War" was not lost on the federal entity. With their own military force, a state could more effectively resist the Federal Army. The creation of the National Guard changed everything by putting all full-time and part-time military forces under the direct control of the Federal government. Members of the National Guard are trained, equipped, paid and commanded by the federal government (there were several guys in my Basic Training platoon that were National Guard). Basically, the federal government has a very large garrison in every state. Make no mistake: just like soldiers in the regular Army, each National Guardsman answers to the President of the United States.
Just as well, take a walk by the gate of your nearest US Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine installation. Take a close look at the sign that is posted on the fence every 100 yards or so: This is a Federal Preserve (or something similar to that, it's been a while since I last saw one on my way out ). The property it sits on is the sole property of the federal government. The state in which it sits has no control over that. The state cannot take it back...it buys it from the federal government when it decides to shut it down...
Over the course of time, the states have become so dependent on the good wishes of federal purse strings (thanks in part to the federal income tax), that the federal entity need not even bother menacing uncooperative states militarily when they step out of line. They simply threaten to withdraw all federal money. How often does the federal government do this? Almost daily, if you take the time to browse Legislative Clipping services (doing that for my boss is one of my weekly duties). The most infamous instances were the federally mandated drinking age, and the federally mandated 55 mph speed limit of yore. States who held out saw their federal highway $$$ dry up.
Just an aside for you: the 79th session of the Texas State Legislature took a week off from their session to attend the inauguration of President Bush. They're being paid, naturally, just as if they were in their offices hard at work creating mountains of paperwork and megabytes on websites. Who do you think paid for their travel and per diem? Taxpayers, of course. Their vouchers will pass without comment through the Comptroller's office, no eyebrows raised, no questions asked about mysterious amounts that appear here and there on the totals columns of their voucher paperwork with no receipts to justify them (or explain them). This happens with every session, so don't think I'm just picking on the ones who went to the inaugural party. How, you might ask, can they get away with that? Well, since it's a session, no one in state government will raise a stink for fear their agency's budget will be cut by the 79th Legislature...rear-ends are kissed, literally.
This is turning out to be a long, long post, and I haven't even addressed the American citizens being held without due process in Guantanamo Bay...nor the expanded police powers the FBI enjoys thanks to the Patriot Act. It used to be that when the FBI needed to bypass legal procedures, they called upon a federal Game Warden to do it, and then turn over the evidence they found to their possession. A Game Warden does not need any reason whatsoever to stop any vehicle , or person, and have it (or them) searched. They also do not need a warrant to search your home. I found out about this when my father worked as a contractor for the FBI in the late 80's and early 90's, building communications towers for their nationwide network. One of the top agents in the state HQ became a good buddy, and he related that to my father. Only now, they don't need a Game Warden. The War on Terror.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
Thanks, a bunch. I don't have time to read it all today, but I will tomorrow. I can see right from the start where it's going though. Both Jeb and his brother were constructed to be political figures, molded from the start. So it's no real surprise. On Kerry, he does have a lot of conservative policies. I just don't like his social spending, or his naseating sanctimony. I really don't think he believes in what he says he does. They're both scumbags IMO though, so no loss. THere wasn't a candidate on the ticket that was particularly impressive. No different than usual.
(Support Israel? No fixed tax rate across the boards? Enormous defense budgets? No gold stock? Why?)
I think our Israel support should be lessened a lot. They need an ally, not a sugar daddy. Bingo on the fixed rate, fair needs to be fair. Defense is always going to be a big spender, and obviously during a war, but we outgun everyone. There's no need for that. No single nation could take the US, and I suspect that won't change soon. I don't see a need for a gold stock, but I'm not opposed to one. We have more common ground than I though.
(Support Israel? No fixed tax rate across the boards? Enormous defense budgets? No gold stock? Why?)
I think our Israel support should be lessened a lot. They need an ally, not a sugar daddy. Bingo on the fixed rate, fair needs to be fair. Defense is always going to be a big spender, and obviously during a war, but we outgun everyone. There's no need for that. No single nation could take the US, and I suspect that won't change soon. I don't see a need for a gold stock, but I'm not opposed to one. We have more common ground than I though.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]They're both scumbags IMO though, so no loss. THere wasn't a candidate on the ticket that was particularly impressive. No different than usual.[/quote]
Why is Kerry a scumbag? Granted, Bush's associates pulled the same kind of dirty campaign they've been using successfully since the neo-cons first got a hold on some power back in the early 1980s, but how is Kerry morally deficient? I don't like him. He's dull, unimaginative, and sanctimonious. He's also hard-working, surprisingly naive, intelligent, perceptive, cooperative, and ethical. I don't see why you call him a scumbag.
I just don't like his social spending,
This is, of course, your choice. Just be aware of that if you try to get a home loan, or a college loan, or wonder why the streets aren't well-policed. All of these are part of the "social spending" package that the feds provide to the states, which have been slashed first by Reagan, and then by Dubya. If you've analyzed Kerry's plan point by point and disliked most of it upon reflection, good on you. If you haven't, don't judge without reading. I'm not suggesting I agree with him. But I would suggest never judging a candidate's platform on the basis of what you've heard about him or her from others. Look to their past actions, and their present texts.
Why is Kerry a scumbag? Granted, Bush's associates pulled the same kind of dirty campaign they've been using successfully since the neo-cons first got a hold on some power back in the early 1980s, but how is Kerry morally deficient? I don't like him. He's dull, unimaginative, and sanctimonious. He's also hard-working, surprisingly naive, intelligent, perceptive, cooperative, and ethical. I don't see why you call him a scumbag.
I just don't like his social spending,
This is, of course, your choice. Just be aware of that if you try to get a home loan, or a college loan, or wonder why the streets aren't well-policed. All of these are part of the "social spending" package that the feds provide to the states, which have been slashed first by Reagan, and then by Dubya. If you've analyzed Kerry's plan point by point and disliked most of it upon reflection, good on you. If you haven't, don't judge without reading. I'm not suggesting I agree with him. But I would suggest never judging a candidate's platform on the basis of what you've heard about him or her from others. Look to their past actions, and their present texts.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
As for as social spending goes you know that I'm in favor of less, but specifically I don't agree with the federal government funding items that I think the states should be handling such as police. The states IMO should be handling that. If that means that those states would have to tax more to fund their items, I am less opposed to those taxes than more fed taxes. I would love to see a small State tax in Florida. I think it's rediculous that every time we have a bad tourist season we have to cut several billion out of the budget. A small income tax would make that more dependable. They could even drop the sales tax a bit if people balk about paying more taxes.(6% is pretty good though compared to national average.)
As for moral problems, I don't like how he plays up his military service. He opposed the war very much and openly said he wasn't proud of his service. Now don't get me wrong here, a soldier does not have to agree with the war to do a great job. I personally think his military actions were calculated to get him home ASAP and create a record that looked good on paper.
I also don't like how he claims to be a devout Catholic but openly endorses things that suggest that that isn't true. I'm not saying he has to be the Pope's lap dog, but at least addressing moral concerns with issues like abortion and research would be a good move for him I think. More like how he addressed gay marriage. Basically he said that he doesn't personally think it's legitimate, but he doesn't think an amendment is needed.
He's also, as you said Sanctimonious. Not that Bush isn't, they both have their own flavor of sanctimony. That's a quality I can't stand. He's really ****y too and he doesn't pull it off well.
As for moral problems, I don't like how he plays up his military service. He opposed the war very much and openly said he wasn't proud of his service. Now don't get me wrong here, a soldier does not have to agree with the war to do a great job. I personally think his military actions were calculated to get him home ASAP and create a record that looked good on paper.
I also don't like how he claims to be a devout Catholic but openly endorses things that suggest that that isn't true. I'm not saying he has to be the Pope's lap dog, but at least addressing moral concerns with issues like abortion and research would be a good move for him I think. More like how he addressed gay marriage. Basically he said that he doesn't personally think it's legitimate, but he doesn't think an amendment is needed.
He's also, as you said Sanctimonious. Not that Bush isn't, they both have their own flavor of sanctimony. That's a quality I can't stand. He's really ****y too and he doesn't pull it off well.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
The US pays comparatively less taxes than many countries and also has a smaller government as well. I do not see why so many people balk at increasing taxes for the greater good. Granted it is more hardship but if that money is used on the people and improving the lives of citizens and society then overall it is more beneficial to spend the money. As for state taxing while it is true that basing your budget on a somewhat fluctuating economy is unwise keep in mind the various interest groups that exert pressure on the local governments. Everyone likes small gains now instead of the same or larger gains in the future and everyone loves to be able to spend what money is available to benefit themselves. As such hyperpluralism abounds and nothing gets done. (Ofc this is just an opinion XD)
btw look at swedan, there were 6 people last year who payed over 100% of their Income on their taxes.... huurraays for super progressive taxes
btw look at swedan, there were 6 people last year who payed over 100% of their Income on their taxes.... huurraays for super progressive taxes
Tact is for people not witty enough to be sarcastic
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=Ekental]The US pays comparatively less taxes than many countries and also has a smaller government as well. I do not see why so many people balk at increasing taxes for the greater good. Granted it is more hardship but if that money is used on the people and improving the lives of citizens and society then overall it is more beneficial to spend the money.[/quote]
I couldn't agree more. I would have no problem in paying more taxes--at least, in a nation whose people and government believed in supporting social benefits for all, as opposed to funding huge military adventures to secure fossil fuels.
The problem in the US is the myth that the neo-cons have parroted endlessly over the last quarter-century, that somehow smaller government is better. Sensible people believe this, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In fact, you need just as much government as is necessary to take care of business, and as a country grows and becomes more complex, so does its need for an efficient, well-staffed bureaucracy.
The irony is that the same neo-cons who screamed for years about cutting government have increased its size on an unprecedented scale, thanks to an enormous military budget and the new agency to oversee everybody's lives. But basic services--funding alternate fuel research, medical research, supporting education, welfare, veterans' hospitalization, Medicaire, defense counciling, the prison system, etc--has been cut so badly that very one person is being asked to do the task of many. This isn't wise.
As for state taxing while it is true that basing your budget on a somewhat fluctuating economy is unwise keep in mind the various interest groups that exert pressure on the local governments. Everyone likes small gains now instead of the same or larger gains in the future and everyone loves to be able to spend what money is available to benefit themselves. As such hyperpluralism abounds and nothing gets done.
We may see this in Shrub's second term. Despite all his lies, he can't keep the economy afloat in its current form. There were already some attempts to see how people would view cuts to Social Security; nervously pulled back after it was evident no one would accept this. This leaves the neo-cons in the position of having a war draining the economy, a dollar at an historic low, and a net loss of employment for four years running: a worse situation than even Reagan left his successor. And the Democrats aren't around to clean up his messes. We live in interesting times.
I couldn't agree more. I would have no problem in paying more taxes--at least, in a nation whose people and government believed in supporting social benefits for all, as opposed to funding huge military adventures to secure fossil fuels.
The problem in the US is the myth that the neo-cons have parroted endlessly over the last quarter-century, that somehow smaller government is better. Sensible people believe this, in spite of all evidence to the contrary. In fact, you need just as much government as is necessary to take care of business, and as a country grows and becomes more complex, so does its need for an efficient, well-staffed bureaucracy.
The irony is that the same neo-cons who screamed for years about cutting government have increased its size on an unprecedented scale, thanks to an enormous military budget and the new agency to oversee everybody's lives. But basic services--funding alternate fuel research, medical research, supporting education, welfare, veterans' hospitalization, Medicaire, defense counciling, the prison system, etc--has been cut so badly that very one person is being asked to do the task of many. This isn't wise.
As for state taxing while it is true that basing your budget on a somewhat fluctuating economy is unwise keep in mind the various interest groups that exert pressure on the local governments. Everyone likes small gains now instead of the same or larger gains in the future and everyone loves to be able to spend what money is available to benefit themselves. As such hyperpluralism abounds and nothing gets done.
We may see this in Shrub's second term. Despite all his lies, he can't keep the economy afloat in its current form. There were already some attempts to see how people would view cuts to Social Security; nervously pulled back after it was evident no one would accept this. This leaves the neo-cons in the position of having a war draining the economy, a dollar at an historic low, and a net loss of employment for four years running: a worse situation than even Reagan left his successor. And the Democrats aren't around to clean up his messes. We live in interesting times.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=fable]...The irony is that the same neo-cons who screamed for years about cutting government have increased its size on an unprecedented scale, thanks to an enormous military budget and the new agency to oversee everybody's lives...[/QUOTE]
This is a glaring hole in the neo-con platform that can clue the curious in to the fact that something isn't quite right with the gospel as they proclaim it. Even some casual research will reveal that the deficit balooned during Reagan's two terms, due to increased spending (this is too easily discovered and impossible to hide). This fact, here, is what broke the camel's back for me - and drove me to look further. The things I have learned totally changed how I view things in general.
Unfortunately, the stigmas that are associated with supporting robust governmental programs and policies that assist the people of this country can be a greater stumbling block to some than the misinformation that the neo-cons supply. If a program doesn't involve outsourcing and privatization that isn't making a corporation money, it's socialist. There's an inherent flaw in the privatization of health and human services, and it becomes apparent when corporations, whose only concern is their bottom line, limit or eliminate services to clients in order to deliver a rosy financial report to the fiscal department of the agency that awarded them the contract. To this way of thinking - and it has invaded state levels of government - success = money saved. What's at stake here is not something that spits out of a calculator, and can't be measured by financial performance.
Therefore, it's quite obvious that the real issue is how money is being spent by government. Bush has poured over $440 billion into Iraq. I think blasting away at the non-existent foundation of that invasion is old hat and not necessary anymore. The benefits of this invasion to corporations such as Haliburton simply cannot be overlooked, nor dismissed. Things add up. I suppose several years ago, I wouldn't be able to imagine the day that I would agree with the sentiment, fable, that smaller government does not equal better government.
There, I said it. Now, leave me alone while I go to work and yell at people on the phone.
This is a glaring hole in the neo-con platform that can clue the curious in to the fact that something isn't quite right with the gospel as they proclaim it. Even some casual research will reveal that the deficit balooned during Reagan's two terms, due to increased spending (this is too easily discovered and impossible to hide). This fact, here, is what broke the camel's back for me - and drove me to look further. The things I have learned totally changed how I view things in general.
Unfortunately, the stigmas that are associated with supporting robust governmental programs and policies that assist the people of this country can be a greater stumbling block to some than the misinformation that the neo-cons supply. If a program doesn't involve outsourcing and privatization that isn't making a corporation money, it's socialist. There's an inherent flaw in the privatization of health and human services, and it becomes apparent when corporations, whose only concern is their bottom line, limit or eliminate services to clients in order to deliver a rosy financial report to the fiscal department of the agency that awarded them the contract. To this way of thinking - and it has invaded state levels of government - success = money saved. What's at stake here is not something that spits out of a calculator, and can't be measured by financial performance.
Therefore, it's quite obvious that the real issue is how money is being spent by government. Bush has poured over $440 billion into Iraq. I think blasting away at the non-existent foundation of that invasion is old hat and not necessary anymore. The benefits of this invasion to corporations such as Haliburton simply cannot be overlooked, nor dismissed. Things add up. I suppose several years ago, I wouldn't be able to imagine the day that I would agree with the sentiment, fable, that smaller government does not equal better government.
There, I said it. Now, leave me alone while I go to work and yell at people on the phone.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
I don't think that smaller government is always better than big government, but I do think we need a smaller government than we have now. I think the federal government should be limited to very limited powers that affect the nation as a whole.
States should in turn be responsible for taking care of their people. Obviously the states do most of it now and in some areas more is needed. I don't think the federal government should have any part in it.
I also support a flat tax where the few will not be exploited for the benefit of the many. I was one of those people who rooted for the sheriff in Robin Hood. I realise that many times the rich have taken advantage of people to get the money that they have, but I don't think that justifies overtaxation to those with high incomes. If they have done something wrong then they should be made to pay restitution. Leave those who got their money legitimately alone.
Basically, I don't think the pupose of governments is programs.
The big problem I have with the Neo-Cons is that they spend more money than the liberals do and try to mask it in conservatism. There isn't anything conservative about Bush's spending habit. I expected large amounts of money to go to war. It always does. I didn't expect there to be a lot of other new spending, some of it good some questionable; and a tax cut. I understand wanting the tax cut, I have more money because of it. I just don't think that large of a cut was needed with the current spending. Unless we're doing really well you don't cut taxes and increase spending.
As for other countries paying more taxes than us, I realise this. I think it's rediculous. What benifit did those people who paid 100%+ taxes get? None likely.
States should in turn be responsible for taking care of their people. Obviously the states do most of it now and in some areas more is needed. I don't think the federal government should have any part in it.
I also support a flat tax where the few will not be exploited for the benefit of the many. I was one of those people who rooted for the sheriff in Robin Hood. I realise that many times the rich have taken advantage of people to get the money that they have, but I don't think that justifies overtaxation to those with high incomes. If they have done something wrong then they should be made to pay restitution. Leave those who got their money legitimately alone.
Basically, I don't think the pupose of governments is programs.
The big problem I have with the Neo-Cons is that they spend more money than the liberals do and try to mask it in conservatism. There isn't anything conservative about Bush's spending habit. I expected large amounts of money to go to war. It always does. I didn't expect there to be a lot of other new spending, some of it good some questionable; and a tax cut. I understand wanting the tax cut, I have more money because of it. I just don't think that large of a cut was needed with the current spending. Unless we're doing really well you don't cut taxes and increase spending.
As for other countries paying more taxes than us, I realise this. I think it's rediculous. What benifit did those people who paid 100%+ taxes get? None likely.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]As for other countries paying more taxes than us, I realise this. I think it's rediculous. What benifit did those people who paid 100%+ taxes get? None likely.[/QUOTE]
Many nations with a better social net provide a wide range of services that the US doesn't and never did. They allow their workers shorter work weeks, and better pensions. They support paternal leave for births, federally funded childcare for workers, and incentives to small businesses that the US has long eliminated. And all of that is offered at far less than 100% taxes. But I think Dottie, C Elegans, or someone with actual experience living in the frigid zone can better speak to that.
Many nations with a better social net provide a wide range of services that the US doesn't and never did. They allow their workers shorter work weeks, and better pensions. They support paternal leave for births, federally funded childcare for workers, and incentives to small businesses that the US has long eliminated. And all of that is offered at far less than 100% taxes. But I think Dottie, C Elegans, or someone with actual experience living in the frigid zone can better speak to that.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
[QUOTE=Jopperm2]The big problem I have with the Neo-Cons is that they spend more money than the liberals do and try to mask it in conservatism. There isn't anything conservative about Bush's spending habit. I expected large amounts of money to go to war. It always does. I didn't expect there to be a lot of other new spending, some of it good some questionable; and a tax cut. I understand wanting the tax cut, I have more money because of it. I just don't think that large of a cut was needed with the current spending. Unless we're doing really well you don't cut taxes and increase spending.[/QUOTE]
This is one thing that truly gets me. The national debt is outrageous and something that has been getting worse as a trend for a long time, not the other way around. This needs to be fixed, and yet spending is being increased, and people still clamor for tax cuts and vote anyone with the slightest inclination towards them into power. Funds need to be spent in a much wiser fashion to be more efficient so they can take significant cuts into that debt, not increase spending on unnecessary things and get people to love you for it by putting more money in their pockets short term.
This is one thing that truly gets me. The national debt is outrageous and something that has been getting worse as a trend for a long time, not the other way around. This needs to be fixed, and yet spending is being increased, and people still clamor for tax cuts and vote anyone with the slightest inclination towards them into power. Funds need to be spent in a much wiser fashion to be more efficient so they can take significant cuts into that debt, not increase spending on unnecessary things and get people to love you for it by putting more money in their pockets short term.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
[QUOTE=fable]Many nations with a better social net provide a wide range of services that the US doesn't and never did. They allow their workers shorter work weeks, and better pensions. They support paternal leave for births, federally funded childcare for workers, and incentives to small businesses that the US has long eliminated. And all of that is offered at far less than 100% taxes. But I think Dottie, C Elegans, or someone with actual experience living in the frigid zone can better speak to that. [/QUOTE]
All services I don't want to use. I'm lucky that I live in the US so I don't have to pay for other people's junk. At least not that much.
As for the 100% taxes, I was referring to Ekental's previous comment. I know most people don't pay that, but some do, and many pay as much as 50%.
All services I don't want to use. I'm lucky that I live in the US so I don't have to pay for other people's junk. At least not that much.
As for the 100% taxes, I was referring to Ekental's previous comment. I know most people don't pay that, but some do, and many pay as much as 50%.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]All services I don't want to use. I'm lucky that I live in the US so I don't have to pay for other people's junk. At least not that much.[/quote]
Think this one out, please. On the one hand, many of your European counterparts are going to be able to retire early and receive larger pensions-per-income than you will. If you have children, these Europeans will be able to take off a couple of months to spend time with mother and child, where you won't. If you both need to work at some point to make ends meet and there's no one around to for childcare: tough; those living in Europe with an advanced social net will have that provided. What if you want to start up a business? Oh, that's not a big deal: go to work for a big corporation, and if they can't hire you, well, it's your fault, slacker! Whereas in Europe, startup loans for business are much more frequent--and that might explain in part why we just went through four years of job loss in the US, largely from small-time businesses going bankrupt.
One problem in the US, with respect, is people who hold to your mindset, who can't see the benefit of paying for any social service they don't require now. If it helps someone else, let someone else pay for it. This kind of "me-for-me"ism is again a new spirit in the US, and no one ever seems to possess the imagination to see where they might someday desire the services they wish to deny others--never mind simply providing for everybody what's best for all.
Think this one out, please. On the one hand, many of your European counterparts are going to be able to retire early and receive larger pensions-per-income than you will. If you have children, these Europeans will be able to take off a couple of months to spend time with mother and child, where you won't. If you both need to work at some point to make ends meet and there's no one around to for childcare: tough; those living in Europe with an advanced social net will have that provided. What if you want to start up a business? Oh, that's not a big deal: go to work for a big corporation, and if they can't hire you, well, it's your fault, slacker! Whereas in Europe, startup loans for business are much more frequent--and that might explain in part why we just went through four years of job loss in the US, largely from small-time businesses going bankrupt.
One problem in the US, with respect, is people who hold to your mindset, who can't see the benefit of paying for any social service they don't require now. If it helps someone else, let someone else pay for it. This kind of "me-for-me"ism is again a new spirit in the US, and no one ever seems to possess the imagination to see where they might someday desire the services they wish to deny others--never mind simply providing for everybody what's best for all.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
Some of those things may be nice, but they are all achievable without being forced into it by the government. The bottom line is they want to tell you how to spend your money. As it stands now, I have no retirement. I get little vacation, I've been broke before, homeless even, but those are my options. Well, the broke part was not something I chose, but it was my fault. Also, I wouldn't trust a federal employee to watch my daughter if I had to. No disrespect to feds out there, but I don't leave her with my own mother.
providing for everybody what's best for all.
This is not true. More like taking money from people with it to give to people like me without it.
providing for everybody what's best for all.
This is not true. More like taking money from people with it to give to people like me without it.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
- fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
[QUOTE=jopperm2]Some of those things may be nice, but they are all achievable without being forced into it by the government.[/quote]
Please show me several nations whose vast majority of private corporations have undertaken, entirely on their own and without union, legal and and governmental pressure, to provide shorter hours to their workers at the same pay, paternity leave, child care, etc.
The bottom line is they want to tell you how to spend your money.
They're welcome to do so. (And after all, in small nations, with functioning democracies, people elect governments based in part on what they want their taxes to do.) Before governments got involved in mandatory schooling, most people were illiterate. Before governments used our money to provide health benefits for the elderly and mentally deficient, the former had to fall back on family resources--which were quickly exhausted, assuming family existed. The latter simply roamed the streets, taking handouts until they died. I have no problem with any government taking my money and determining how best it should be spent. My only problem is when I live in a crazed society that believes most of that money should be spent on the military. Otherwise? I wouldn't mind if they docked all Americans for 50% of their wages, including mine. Everybody would be a lot better off for the services provided, assuming we could kick the neo-cons out of power first.
As it stands now, I have no retirement. I get little vacation, I've been broke before, homeless even, but those are my options.
And you mean that you wouldn't have wished that a government run shelter could have taken you in? What about those who turn tricks when they lack shelter? Take to drugs, get AIDS? Are you saying they weren't worth saving, that our dollars are better spent by ourselves on such equally vital culturally sustaining functions as luxury electronic gear?
This is not true. More like taking money from people with it to give to people like me without it.
No, it's not given to you. The tax money that comes from everybody doesn't go into your pocket directly. It goes into services, which anybody who needs them is free to use. And what's wrong with this? Do you think a person on the street deserves to die for lack of a little help? How about the borderline mentally deficient? The poor person accused of a crime, who can't find a lawyer? The elderly person without a family, suffering from Altzheimer's? Or just the person who worked hard for thirty years, only to have their company declare bankruptcy and throw 'em on the street? Tough. They shouldn't be helped. That means taking money away from others. Better they should die with dignity, as the wealthy continue to asssure them.
Our culture is supposedly "Christian." The rising rural tide of people proclaiming "Christian values" follow a leader who spoke of doing unto others as you would do unto yourself, and to recognizing the complete family of humanity as an extension of one's personal self. Yet these same people say it should be left to churches and families, an incredibly simplistic, wholly selfish, and ultimately self-destructive way of dealing with social ills. The old way never worked. It was a recipe for short, miserable lives. If we turn our backs on a federally funded social net, we turn our backs on one of the major positive developments of society achieved in the 20th century, IMO.
Please show me several nations whose vast majority of private corporations have undertaken, entirely on their own and without union, legal and and governmental pressure, to provide shorter hours to their workers at the same pay, paternity leave, child care, etc.
The bottom line is they want to tell you how to spend your money.
They're welcome to do so. (And after all, in small nations, with functioning democracies, people elect governments based in part on what they want their taxes to do.) Before governments got involved in mandatory schooling, most people were illiterate. Before governments used our money to provide health benefits for the elderly and mentally deficient, the former had to fall back on family resources--which were quickly exhausted, assuming family existed. The latter simply roamed the streets, taking handouts until they died. I have no problem with any government taking my money and determining how best it should be spent. My only problem is when I live in a crazed society that believes most of that money should be spent on the military. Otherwise? I wouldn't mind if they docked all Americans for 50% of their wages, including mine. Everybody would be a lot better off for the services provided, assuming we could kick the neo-cons out of power first.
As it stands now, I have no retirement. I get little vacation, I've been broke before, homeless even, but those are my options.
And you mean that you wouldn't have wished that a government run shelter could have taken you in? What about those who turn tricks when they lack shelter? Take to drugs, get AIDS? Are you saying they weren't worth saving, that our dollars are better spent by ourselves on such equally vital culturally sustaining functions as luxury electronic gear?
This is not true. More like taking money from people with it to give to people like me without it.
No, it's not given to you. The tax money that comes from everybody doesn't go into your pocket directly. It goes into services, which anybody who needs them is free to use. And what's wrong with this? Do you think a person on the street deserves to die for lack of a little help? How about the borderline mentally deficient? The poor person accused of a crime, who can't find a lawyer? The elderly person without a family, suffering from Altzheimer's? Or just the person who worked hard for thirty years, only to have their company declare bankruptcy and throw 'em on the street? Tough. They shouldn't be helped. That means taking money away from others. Better they should die with dignity, as the wealthy continue to asssure them.
Our culture is supposedly "Christian." The rising rural tide of people proclaiming "Christian values" follow a leader who spoke of doing unto others as you would do unto yourself, and to recognizing the complete family of humanity as an extension of one's personal self. Yet these same people say it should be left to churches and families, an incredibly simplistic, wholly selfish, and ultimately self-destructive way of dealing with social ills. The old way never worked. It was a recipe for short, miserable lives. If we turn our backs on a federally funded social net, we turn our backs on one of the major positive developments of society achieved in the 20th century, IMO.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Can I ask how? I think the issue of "charities" and such has already been addressed elsewhere, in a different thread. I know I offered one example of a major health care provider here in Texas who suddenly abandoned the 40 facilities they operated, and filed for bankruptcy while they were at it. The consequence: hundreds of elderly, disabled, and mentally retarded persons were left in the wind, with no place to stay. Every one of those persons were relocated, thanks to the trustee program in place that existed for just that contingency. However, whom do you think paid the bill for this? Who housed them in the meantime, provided for their care, and saw that they were relocated appropriately? No "charitable" organizations paid one cent of the bill, nor provided any assistance. The state of Texas had to pay over 6 million dollars to handle this emergency.jopperm2 wrote:Some of those things may be nice, but they are all achievable without being forced into it by the government.
That just about depleted the trust fund set aside for these emergencies. The trust fund now has approximately 6.2 million dollars....and there are over 30 other providers, each of whom operate 40 + nursing homes and assisted living facilities in Texas, all teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. The agency I work for keeps track of their court cases...I know, since I keep files on every one of them for my boss (I swim in legal papers daily). At any time, another could go belly up. Or two. Or even three of them in a row. What then? And by the way, this isn't a problem that only Texas faces...it's nationwide. Oklahoma, New York, Ohio, Kansas, Massachusetts, California...those are just some of the other states who, like us here in Texas, are racing to figure out what to do before it's too late.
The bottom line is they want to tell you how to spend your money. As it stands now, I have no retirement. I get little vacation, I've been broke before, homeless even, but those are my options. Well, the broke part was not something I chose, but it was my fault. Also, I wouldn't trust a federal employee to watch my daughter if I had to. No disrespect to feds out there, but I don't leave her with my own mother.
I think business in America would love to tell you how to spend your money. They do already. Everyone has ideas on how you should spend your money. That's what this country has become...money. Making money measures one's worth. Basically, as it stands now, only the well-off can afford decent healthcare. If anyone cares to disagree, how about going into a hospital emergency room for something and try paying for it out of pocket. Or...so you have a job, huh? Make too much to qualify for medical assistance (as in, you make money at all), but not enough to afford insurance privately (the rates are outrageous, despite the $99 a month they advertise...look at the fine print)? You're out there, bud. I know, because I was out there for many years. An emergency root canal at a dentist can run you an easy $2000. They want it all in full, too.
The economic striations in this country have been widening since the 80s. There are a growing class of people who can barely stay afloat, and it has nothing to do with abilities, opportunities, or lack of desire to work. It has everything to do with the fact that jobs are hard to come by, and even when you land one, keeping it is even harder. Layoffs are the watchword these days. Downsizing. Outsourcing. Lower paying jobs once offered health insurance to employees who made it through their probationary period. Now, you won't find that...or if you do, the premiums are so ungodly, they are unaffordable. Oh, but it all works out when you work two or three jobs, right? If you can find another job to work on the side, that is. And if you have kids, you stick 'em in daycare, and so both parents work just to afford to pay the bills, and have insurance for their kids (forget themselves, many parents can only afford state-assisted insurance for their children, and go without any). You mention not trusting the feds to watch your kids...so, you're going to trust someone who is paid minimum wage to watch them instead? Someone who quite often doesn't even have a high school education? Have you actually looked into the child care business closely, my friend? They usually don't run background checks on employees...and the stories I have heard, and stats I have looked at, are frightening.providing for everybody what's best for all.
This is not true. More like taking money from people with it to give to people like me without it.
So the way things are going, then, is the way it ought to be. Pretty soon, you won't even be able to afford to pay attention in a doctor's office, much less pay for the physical you'll need at least once a year after you pass 40. That is, unless you don't care about being eaten up by prostate cancer.
I agree with fable: the "me" attitude is just fine when it's not you, or someone very close to your heart. When one finds themselves suddenly wearing the shoes, it all changes. Here's the way I look at it: there are millions of people out there wearing the shoes right now. I might not be wearing them right now myself, but all it takes is a heartbeat, and less than one second of time, and I could be wearing them.
@fable: Well said.
CYNIC, n.:
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.
-[url="http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/devils/a.html"]The Devil's Dictionary[/url]
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
@fable
Please show me several nations whose vast majority of private corporations have undertaken, entirely on their own and without union, legal and and governmental pressure, to provide shorter hours to their workers at the same pay, paternity leave, child care, etc.
I'm not talking about going back to Junglesque industrial revolution employee exploitation. I'm saying that you pay all these taxes to get government retirement, insurance, child care, etc. and you may not use it. I took one day off from work when my daughter was born. I don't use child care at all, I work about 41 hours per week. I don't want any of those services, yet I pay for them all. I'm not rich either. I'm far below median income for the US.
They're welcome to do so. (And after all, in small nations, with functioning democracies, people elect governments based in part on what they want their taxes to do.)
Not welcome by me, but more specifically, you're talking about small nations with more direct democracies. The needs of Brooklyn, NY are way different than the needs of Ames, IA. But Ames ends up paying for Brooklyn.
I think part of the problem is that I haven't made it clear enough that I'm not saying abolish all the programs. I'm saying let the federal government do what was outlined in the constitution, and let the state governments, or even county and city governments take more responsibility for social services, etc. I'm not even opposed to tax increases in areas that would require them in order to pick up the new spending.
Before governments got involved in mandatory schooling, most people were illiterate. Before governments used our money to provide health benefits for the elderly and mentally deficient, the former had to fall back on family resources--which were quickly exhausted, assuming family existed. The latter simply roamed the streets, taking handouts until they died. I have no problem with any government taking my money and determining how best it should be spent. My only problem is when I live in a crazed society that believes most of that money should be spent on the military. Otherwise? I wouldn't mind if they docked all Americans for 50% of their wages, including mine. Everybody would be a lot better off for the services provided, assuming we could kick the neo-cons out of power first.
I agree with this for the most part except for the following:
1> I think a lot of money should go to the military. Not most, not as much as we spend now(well, at least after we get the heck out of Iraq, I don't want our soldiers underequipped while they're there), but I still think it needs to be a lot. Militaries are expensive. I think we need to have the best military in the world bar none. We are the most powerful nation in the world, and I'd like it to stay that way.
2> I wouldn't agree to 50% taxing of wages just because I don't think we need that much. I definately wouldn't agree to it if it was by the federal government. If some areas were really hard pressed(more than any currently are) perhaps a state government could do that.
3> Everyone would not be better off with the services. Only those who need them that cannot now afford them would be better off. Everyone else would have less money and nothing new to show for it.
And you mean that you wouldn't have wished that a government run shelter could have taken you in?
I'm not saying there should be none of this. It shouldn't be federally funded though. I think a better alternative is for city or county governments to give incentives to NPOs that can provide these cheaply and to run shelters when necessary themselves. I never once saw a homeless shelter before age 20 and I saw very few homeless people. Therefore I don't want to pay for shelters that are not going to benefit my area.
What about those who turn tricks when they lack shelter? Take to drugs, get AIDS? Are you saying they weren't worth saving, that our dollars are better spent by ourselves on such equally vital culturally sustaining functions as luxury electronic gear?
In many cases I am saying that. I don't forgive people that turn to crime when things get tough. I would be glad to give them food, shelter, and medical care. In prison where they belong.
No, it's not given to you. The tax money that comes from everybody doesn't go into your pocket directly. It goes into services, which anybody who needs them is free to use. And what's wrong with this? Do you think a person on the street deserves to die for lack of a little help? How about the borderline mentally deficient? The poor person accused of a crime, who can't find a lawyer? The elderly person without a family, suffering from Altzheimer's? Or just the person who worked hard for thirty years, only to have their company declare bankruptcy and throw 'em on the street? Tough. They shouldn't be helped. That means taking money away from others. Better they should die with dignity, as the wealthy continue to asssure them.
It's not anyone who needs them. The rich can't use medicare even if they are unisured. So they end upi paying for a service for someone else who they don't know, and they have no choice in the matter. Most of these services are not available to anyone who needs them. That very idea is completely fallacious. The entire thing is based on some socialist idea that there needs to be some sort of redistribution of wealth to the poor so that everyone is equal. Everyone isn't going to be equal, nor should they be.
Our culture is supposedly "Christian." The rising rural tide of people proclaiming "Christian values" follow a leader who spoke of doing unto others as you would do unto yourself, and to recognizing the complete family of humanity as an extension of one's personal self. Yet these same people say it should be left to churches and families, an incredibly simplistic, wholly selfish, and ultimately self-destructive way of dealing with social ills. The old way never worked. It was a recipe for short, miserable lives. If we turn our backs on a federally funded social net, we turn our backs on one of the major positive developments of society achieved in the 20th century, IMO.
I agree that charity alone won't cover everything needed. I think there should be more charity of course, and perhaps more tax benefit for giving to charity, but I think those services should not be federally backed. With the possible exception of social security. There may be some more that would need some fed money, but I think overall the states should be handling these things.
I want to touch briefly on the comment about companies going bankrupt. This is one thing I think should be handled by the federal government. Specifically I mean paying the obligations of those companies to their employees and creditors. I also think that with that it should be much more difficult for corporations and individuals to file. Also I believe there should be more personal accountability for the management of those companies including possible requirements for those people to pay back some or all of those funds. They should be forced to file along with the company IMO.
Please show me several nations whose vast majority of private corporations have undertaken, entirely on their own and without union, legal and and governmental pressure, to provide shorter hours to their workers at the same pay, paternity leave, child care, etc.
I'm not talking about going back to Junglesque industrial revolution employee exploitation. I'm saying that you pay all these taxes to get government retirement, insurance, child care, etc. and you may not use it. I took one day off from work when my daughter was born. I don't use child care at all, I work about 41 hours per week. I don't want any of those services, yet I pay for them all. I'm not rich either. I'm far below median income for the US.
They're welcome to do so. (And after all, in small nations, with functioning democracies, people elect governments based in part on what they want their taxes to do.)
Not welcome by me, but more specifically, you're talking about small nations with more direct democracies. The needs of Brooklyn, NY are way different than the needs of Ames, IA. But Ames ends up paying for Brooklyn.
I think part of the problem is that I haven't made it clear enough that I'm not saying abolish all the programs. I'm saying let the federal government do what was outlined in the constitution, and let the state governments, or even county and city governments take more responsibility for social services, etc. I'm not even opposed to tax increases in areas that would require them in order to pick up the new spending.
Before governments got involved in mandatory schooling, most people were illiterate. Before governments used our money to provide health benefits for the elderly and mentally deficient, the former had to fall back on family resources--which were quickly exhausted, assuming family existed. The latter simply roamed the streets, taking handouts until they died. I have no problem with any government taking my money and determining how best it should be spent. My only problem is when I live in a crazed society that believes most of that money should be spent on the military. Otherwise? I wouldn't mind if they docked all Americans for 50% of their wages, including mine. Everybody would be a lot better off for the services provided, assuming we could kick the neo-cons out of power first.
I agree with this for the most part except for the following:
1> I think a lot of money should go to the military. Not most, not as much as we spend now(well, at least after we get the heck out of Iraq, I don't want our soldiers underequipped while they're there), but I still think it needs to be a lot. Militaries are expensive. I think we need to have the best military in the world bar none. We are the most powerful nation in the world, and I'd like it to stay that way.
2> I wouldn't agree to 50% taxing of wages just because I don't think we need that much. I definately wouldn't agree to it if it was by the federal government. If some areas were really hard pressed(more than any currently are) perhaps a state government could do that.
3> Everyone would not be better off with the services. Only those who need them that cannot now afford them would be better off. Everyone else would have less money and nothing new to show for it.
And you mean that you wouldn't have wished that a government run shelter could have taken you in?
I'm not saying there should be none of this. It shouldn't be federally funded though. I think a better alternative is for city or county governments to give incentives to NPOs that can provide these cheaply and to run shelters when necessary themselves. I never once saw a homeless shelter before age 20 and I saw very few homeless people. Therefore I don't want to pay for shelters that are not going to benefit my area.
What about those who turn tricks when they lack shelter? Take to drugs, get AIDS? Are you saying they weren't worth saving, that our dollars are better spent by ourselves on such equally vital culturally sustaining functions as luxury electronic gear?
In many cases I am saying that. I don't forgive people that turn to crime when things get tough. I would be glad to give them food, shelter, and medical care. In prison where they belong.
No, it's not given to you. The tax money that comes from everybody doesn't go into your pocket directly. It goes into services, which anybody who needs them is free to use. And what's wrong with this? Do you think a person on the street deserves to die for lack of a little help? How about the borderline mentally deficient? The poor person accused of a crime, who can't find a lawyer? The elderly person without a family, suffering from Altzheimer's? Or just the person who worked hard for thirty years, only to have their company declare bankruptcy and throw 'em on the street? Tough. They shouldn't be helped. That means taking money away from others. Better they should die with dignity, as the wealthy continue to asssure them.
It's not anyone who needs them. The rich can't use medicare even if they are unisured. So they end upi paying for a service for someone else who they don't know, and they have no choice in the matter. Most of these services are not available to anyone who needs them. That very idea is completely fallacious. The entire thing is based on some socialist idea that there needs to be some sort of redistribution of wealth to the poor so that everyone is equal. Everyone isn't going to be equal, nor should they be.
Our culture is supposedly "Christian." The rising rural tide of people proclaiming "Christian values" follow a leader who spoke of doing unto others as you would do unto yourself, and to recognizing the complete family of humanity as an extension of one's personal self. Yet these same people say it should be left to churches and families, an incredibly simplistic, wholly selfish, and ultimately self-destructive way of dealing with social ills. The old way never worked. It was a recipe for short, miserable lives. If we turn our backs on a federally funded social net, we turn our backs on one of the major positive developments of society achieved in the 20th century, IMO.
I agree that charity alone won't cover everything needed. I think there should be more charity of course, and perhaps more tax benefit for giving to charity, but I think those services should not be federally backed. With the possible exception of social security. There may be some more that would need some fed money, but I think overall the states should be handling these things.
I want to touch briefly on the comment about companies going bankrupt. This is one thing I think should be handled by the federal government. Specifically I mean paying the obligations of those companies to their employees and creditors. I also think that with that it should be much more difficult for corporations and individuals to file. Also I believe there should be more personal accountability for the management of those companies including possible requirements for those people to pay back some or all of those funds. They should be forced to file along with the company IMO.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
- jopperm2
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 12:00 pm
- Location: I'm from Iowa, I just work in space.. Okay the Spa
- Contact:
@Chanak
Can I ask how? I think the issue of "charities" and such has already been addressed elsewhere, in a different thread.
What I meant was that you could provide things for yourself. Also I just thought of this. I appologize that this is more directed at fable's comment about early retirement and shorter work weeks. I work about 42 hours a week and plan to retire modestly at about 65-70 years old, much better than that is a perk. Not something people are entitled to. Retirement is meant to take place when a person is no longer able to work, not so people can kick back for the last 10 years or so of their life.
Basically, as it stands now, only the well-off can afford decent healthcare.
I'm not well-off and I have decent healthcare for my wife, daughter, and self. That includes dental and vision. It's about managing your money for what is important.
There are a growing class of people who can barely stay afloat, and it has nothing to do with abilities, opportunities, or lack of desire to work. It has everything to do with the fact that jobs are hard to come by, and even when you land one, keeping it is even harder.
I have never found the job market to be particularly bad. Perhaps that's just been the case where I have lived, but at any rate I can't really speak to this since I have never seen it. Obviously it is happening somewhere, but in my experience it is unbelievably easy to get a job in a week or less.
You mention not trusting the feds to watch your kids...so, you're going to trust someone who is paid minimum wage to watch them instead? Someone who quite often doesn't even have a high school education? Have you actually looked into the child care business closely, my friend? They usually don't run background checks on employees...and the stories I have heard, and stats I have looked at, are frightening.
First of all, I don't personally use any form of child care. I don't have to and I prefer whenever possible to raise my own children with my wife. That, and I trust next to no one with my daughter. Obviously though, there are people that do need child care. It's unavoidable. I thought I would need it at one time so I did look into it. All of the places I saw are staffed okay. No high school drop outs, certified by the state, background checks, all of that. I am inclined to think that these things must be required by the state of Florida or the day cares wouldn't do it. Therefore, I would say that the problem lies not in federally funded child care. Rather what is needed is stricter regulations for child care and state assistance to people who need child care in order to work but can't afford the child care for long enough to get a job. I would much rather see state money going to this than for that same family to be on welfare and not producing anything in the economy.
So the way things are going, then, is the way it ought to be. Pretty soon, you won't even be able to afford to pay attention in a doctor's office, much less pay for the physical you'll need at least once a year after you pass 40. That is, unless you don't care about being eaten up by prostate cancer.
This I agree partly. There is a real problem with the rising cost of health care. I don't think the solution is a social insurance plan like Canada or most of Europe has. Perhaps state run insurance plans with resonable rates would be better. You pay a premium based on what your income is, approximately 20%(that's what I pay) and the state pays the rest similar to how a big company would do. The difference is that a big company decides they will pay x% and you pay the rest. With this program, you pay x% of the premium and the state pays the rest. The state could negotiate group rates with low bidding insurance companies the same way a business would. The state should also give tax incentives for businesses that have insurance plans. Many already do. Also I support increasing government grants for state medical school research projects.
Sorry this is so long. These are not simple issue though as you know. Also sorry about the huge post.
Can I ask how? I think the issue of "charities" and such has already been addressed elsewhere, in a different thread.
What I meant was that you could provide things for yourself. Also I just thought of this. I appologize that this is more directed at fable's comment about early retirement and shorter work weeks. I work about 42 hours a week and plan to retire modestly at about 65-70 years old, much better than that is a perk. Not something people are entitled to. Retirement is meant to take place when a person is no longer able to work, not so people can kick back for the last 10 years or so of their life.
Basically, as it stands now, only the well-off can afford decent healthcare.
I'm not well-off and I have decent healthcare for my wife, daughter, and self. That includes dental and vision. It's about managing your money for what is important.
There are a growing class of people who can barely stay afloat, and it has nothing to do with abilities, opportunities, or lack of desire to work. It has everything to do with the fact that jobs are hard to come by, and even when you land one, keeping it is even harder.
I have never found the job market to be particularly bad. Perhaps that's just been the case where I have lived, but at any rate I can't really speak to this since I have never seen it. Obviously it is happening somewhere, but in my experience it is unbelievably easy to get a job in a week or less.
You mention not trusting the feds to watch your kids...so, you're going to trust someone who is paid minimum wage to watch them instead? Someone who quite often doesn't even have a high school education? Have you actually looked into the child care business closely, my friend? They usually don't run background checks on employees...and the stories I have heard, and stats I have looked at, are frightening.
First of all, I don't personally use any form of child care. I don't have to and I prefer whenever possible to raise my own children with my wife. That, and I trust next to no one with my daughter. Obviously though, there are people that do need child care. It's unavoidable. I thought I would need it at one time so I did look into it. All of the places I saw are staffed okay. No high school drop outs, certified by the state, background checks, all of that. I am inclined to think that these things must be required by the state of Florida or the day cares wouldn't do it. Therefore, I would say that the problem lies not in federally funded child care. Rather what is needed is stricter regulations for child care and state assistance to people who need child care in order to work but can't afford the child care for long enough to get a job. I would much rather see state money going to this than for that same family to be on welfare and not producing anything in the economy.
So the way things are going, then, is the way it ought to be. Pretty soon, you won't even be able to afford to pay attention in a doctor's office, much less pay for the physical you'll need at least once a year after you pass 40. That is, unless you don't care about being eaten up by prostate cancer.
This I agree partly. There is a real problem with the rising cost of health care. I don't think the solution is a social insurance plan like Canada or most of Europe has. Perhaps state run insurance plans with resonable rates would be better. You pay a premium based on what your income is, approximately 20%(that's what I pay) and the state pays the rest similar to how a big company would do. The difference is that a big company decides they will pay x% and you pay the rest. With this program, you pay x% of the premium and the state pays the rest. The state could negotiate group rates with low bidding insurance companies the same way a business would. The state should also give tax incentives for businesses that have insurance plans. Many already do. Also I support increasing government grants for state medical school research projects.
Sorry this is so long. These are not simple issue though as you know. Also sorry about the huge post.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security,
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson
will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Thomas Jefferson