Big Government: Why do you fear it? (or... not) by SignyM

America loves a winner!

"The natural progress of things is for the government to gain ground and for liberty to yield."
Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 3:39 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Thanks for the reply BDN.

I have to ask, though... how do you see "social engineering"? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do you mean the "goal" of getting everyone to behave the same? To believe the same? Or do you mean the "means" of getting everyone to behave/ believe the same ie. re-education camps, punishment, intrusive monitoring etc?

For example, what if you get get everyone to behave the same WITHOUT punitive measures?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 3:44 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy, do you suppose you could be SPECIFIC about the freedoms that you fear losing? For example, are you worried about losing your right to speak freely? To associate freely? To speed through red lights? (I know that's a stupid example, but using the word "liberty" in place of "freedom" doesn't add any more information to the topic.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:20 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There seems to be an automatic assumption... and it really IS an assumption... that "big government" is BAAAAAAD. (Not that the assumption is wrong, but it IS an assumption.)

People FEAR big government deeply. So I want to ask you all: What is it about government (big OR small) that you fear and hate with such a passion?

Is it fear of loss of "freedom"? What freedoms do you think you will lose?

Could you please be specific?

I've had this conversation with several people already - SargeX, Frem, and a few others. Now would be a good time to hear from BDN, Kaneman, Wulf, Rappy, Geezer and others.

Feel free... the floor is yours.

Simple. In my case I feel I was born free. Governmental rules can only chip away at that freedom. Centralized Gov. kills freedom with Soooo many regulations and do nots that it gets crazy.
Humans need rules. I am not for anarchy. I just feel local and state laws are better, because they are easier to fix when it is a bad idea. It seems to me that the further away from the home that the law or regulation comes from the more oppressive it becomes(because of the body and location it comes from) I can't change Washington, but I sure as hell can change school a board decision etc..(well, it was easier before the federal department of education)..
Really, who wants to be controled? That is what government is there to do. Do you believe for one moment our society would collapse with a small federal gov. and stronger States?
I also think the most important power our federal gov. was given was to protect our civil liberties not take them. I believe the founders had it right and we are letting it get away.
And the bottom line is the Federal Government has gotten so large that we can not afford it as a nation. Without a doubt, it is putting a burden on our children that we will be ashamed of when we are older. Not only will they have to pay for all our entitlements they will still have to pay for thiers, because these programs never get repealed.
Lets not even talk about unfunded mandates to the states..Really, talk about insane...

The bottom line is freedom. Government is anti-liberty by defenition. Governments create more government. When do you think the congress will ever go to work and say "things are fine. we are going to keep the same budget, same laws, etc..this year its all okay, lets sit right here for awhile". Never. Thier jobs depend on them making thousands and thousands of pages of new laws and regs. every year.

A great fear early in this republic was that one day the people would realize they could vote themselves entitlements on the dime of another.

I think whenever a big government passes an entitlement, what they are doing is stealing from one man to give to another, wether it's the feds paying student loan interest, subsidizing farmers, or health insurance.. it is paid for by taking one mans money and giving it to another...that is just plain wrong.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:35 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I have to ask, though... how do you see "social engineering"? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do you mean the "goal" of getting everyone to behave the same? To believe the same? Or do you mean the "means" of getting everyone to behave/ believe the same ie. re-education camps, punishment, intrusive monitoring etc?

I would have to say both. You cannot reach your goal without the means to get there.

I know trans fats are bad for me, do I need the government to ban them? Is that a choice I need or want my government to make for me? (I know it's a state issue, thank goodness for that.)

Remember Jack and his thoughts on smoking? What if the smoking 'sin' tax actually went towards smokers healthcare instead of general revenue? Kind of a pay as you go scenario.

Do I need the government to tell me to buckle my seatbelt or is that a choice better left for me?

Should I have to pay for education if I do not have kids? What if I kept that money for a future day when I may have kids.

I'm just kind of spit-balling here so please be kind. I see the need for government to handle a myriad of things that need handling. I am just against an entity which thinks it knows what's best for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For example, what if you get get everyone to behave the same WITHOUT punitive measures?

You can, it's the carrot not the stick. Why punish bad behaviour when you could reward good behaviour. How about not writing random tickets for not wearing your seatbelt. How about writing random checks for seatbelt wearers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:37 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Rappy, do you suppose you could be SPECIFIC about the freedoms that you fear losing? For example, are you worried about losing your right to speak freely? To associate freely? To speed through red lights? (I know that's a stupid example, but using the word "liberty" in place of "freedom" doesn't add any more information to the topic.)

Yes. We should definitely fear big gov't. The list of 'whys' is endless. There's a reason why the Founders wrote so extensively on the dangers of an ever expanding Gov't. Does it not seem at least curious to you that what was written down over 200 years ago can apply directly to what we're seeing today?

Healthcare is a classic example. We were TOLD( well, told A LOT of lies) but that it was for everyone's access to better healthcare. It isn't. Max Baccus ( D- Montana ) confessed it was about the "mal-distribution of income".

I'm sorry, but that's not healthcare, and that's not the proper function of Government.

Eminent Domain - Granted, the USSC had its roll in this disaster, but allowing a local gov't to seize private land and then turn around to sell it to land developers is pretty damn counter to freedom.

2nd Amendment - I don't own any guns, but I think Thomas Jefferson was pretty damn specific on the significance. There's a reason why free speech is first, and the right to bear arms is second.

Freedom of speech - The 'fairness' doctrine ? Please, there's nothing fair about it. The greatest equalizer is the voice of the public. That means the free market.

And that also falls in with why I hate the McCain / Feingold CFR piece of go se. POLITICAL free speech, more than anything, is what Jefferson and company were trying to impress upon us.

But more to my personal life....

Freedom from hyper taxation, like the Gov't taxing the internet, my 401K, which are both Democratic ideas being pushed now.....

Hell, I could do this all night...

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:43 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Thanks for the reply BDN.

I have to ask, though... how do you see "social engineering"? I'm not sure I know what you mean. Do you mean the "goal" of getting everyone to behave the same? To believe the same? Or do you mean the "means" of getting everyone to behave/ believe the same ie. re-education camps, punishment, intrusive monitoring etc?

For example, what if you get get everyone to behave the same WITHOUT punitive measures?

look at his last line..something like.."Encourage health insurance today...encourage healthy lifestyle tomorrow". I can see it now; "smokers are killing the nations health insurance budget"...Next step...abuse the small unsympathetic smoking minority in the guise of protecting the majority.... ban smoking. When it should be.. protect the minority from the majority. Always remember, that in some area of our lives we are all minorities. Gov. has always used that against us. Split us by our differences for control.
And right now its not the govs business to worry about who smokes, or drinks, eats eggs, fatty foods, etc....but when they are writing the bills beware.
And the goal of social engineering will always change depending on who is in power. If washington don't have the control over an industry, education system, domestic program, it wouldn't matter who is in control to me here in ct. It wouldn't matter that a bunch of liberals from california have power in washington, Or a bunch of texas conservatives. I would know that my way of life in CT. stays what it is... CT life. If I want to live like they want to in San Fran. I 'd move to San fran..... We are a huge nation..huge. What might be wanted in one state may not be wanted in another...it gives us choice. And we should celebrate that not destroy it.

One size does not fit all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 4:44 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
"The natural progress of things is for the government to gain ground and for liberty to yield."
Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours
his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to...the general
prey of the rich on the poor." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward
Carrington, 1787.

To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 5:16 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

"Experience declares that man is the only animal which devours
his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to...the general
prey of the rich on the poor." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward
Carrington, 1787.

To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

Yeah. There are poor people. Have been in every society since the dawn of man. Jefferson recognized this too. Your point ?

He SURE as hell didn't think it was the proper function of Gov't to take from the producers and simply give to the lower class, there by making all slaves to the State. If that's your angle, then you truly are confused.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Actually,

Quote:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

makes me think that Jefferson would take the side of "the worker" over "the owner". Because, yanno, owning, buying, and selling shares is NOT work! And taking from those who work is the perfect description of profit.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:16 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually,
Quote:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
makes me think that Jefferson would take the side of "the worker" over "the owner". Because, yanno, owning, buying, and selling shares is NOT work! And taking from those who work is the perfect description of profit.

Are you mental? He meant the producer over the oaf..but you know that. He was a man of extreme understanding of liberty...so you use the words "those who are willing to work" to mean.. worker and not the person who does the most the OWNER....Have you ever owned a business? the owners job is the hardest.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:19 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually,
Quote:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
makes me think that Jefferson would take the side of "the worker" over "the owner". Because, yanno, owning, buying, and selling shares is NOT work! And taking from those who work is the perfect description of profit.

Owning, buying and selling IS work, actually. There's value in those things, and to maintain it, requires decision making, planning and carrying out of those plans. You're falling into the trap of the " idle rich ", which isn't at all what Jefferson was talking about.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually,
Quote:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
makes me think that Jefferson would take the side of "the worker" over "the owner". Because, yanno, owning, buying, and selling shares is NOT work! And taking from those who work is the perfect description of profit.

Good point.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 6:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

RAPPY
Thomas Jefferson, against banks

Quote:
If the American People ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the bankers and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs. I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies.

We are completely saddled and bridled, and the bank is so firmly mounted on us that we must go where they ill guide.

The dominion which the banking institutions have obtained over the minds of our citizens...must be broken, or it will break us. -Letter to James Monroe, January 1, 181

Thomas Jefferson, for universal education

Quote:
Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.

Thomas Jefferson, against institutionalized concentration of wealth

Quote:
Experience demands that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the general prey of the rich on the poor.

YOU SAID

Quote:
He SURE as hell didn't think it was the proper function of Gov't to take from the producers and simply give to the lower class

But Thomas Jefferson was for progressive taxation

Quote:
The property of this country is absolutely concentred in a very few hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year downwards... I am conscious that an equal division of property is impracticable. But the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labor and live on.-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, October 28,1785"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Whoa, Rappy... fear not! I will not harm you!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:08 PM

America loves a winner!

Your conclusions of Jefferson's quites leave much to be desired.

I'm certain that, while he favored education, I SERIOUSLY doubt that he'd care very much for the teacher's unions and Gov't school system as we have it today.

With taxation so far more rampant and invasive today,with Gov't being so vastly bloated and confining, I doubt very much if Jefferson would still be of the same opinion. He might keep to the exempting of those in the lower class from paying, I'll agree. I bet he'd like the FAIR Tax, if he saw what we had to deal with today.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Your conclusions of Jefferson's quites leave much to be desired.

I'm certain that, while he favored education, I SERIOUSLY doubt that he'd care very much for the teacher's unions and Gov't school system as we have it today.

With taxation so far more rampant and invasive today,with Gov't being so vastly bloated and confining, I doubt very much if Jefferson would still be of the same opinion. He might keep to the exempting of those in the lower class from paying, I'll agree. I bet he'd like the FAIR Tax, if he saw what we had to deal with today.

So now you presume to think and speak for Jefferson?

What a load of horseshit.

I can just as easily say that he'd take one look around at the tea-baggers and proclaim them a bunch of half-baked fucknuts who should be shot on sight. (Not that I'm advocating violence or anything - that's just what JEFFERSON would say, I'll bet!)

Your conclusions of Jefferson leave much to be desired, too. But I can see why you like him. He was a slave-owner, wasn't he? ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

That works both ways, Rappy. If Jfferson saw the bloated corporations that we have today, and the huge differences in wealth and power between the upper and lower classes, he might rail against corporations. As Jefferson himself said

Quote:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
Source:Liberty Quotes

Quote:
Owning, buying and selling IS work, actually.

No,it is not

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

KANEMAN: In today's society, the person who does the most is the OWNER? Yeah, if you're a small business, But tell me- what has the head of AIG or Goldman Sachs done lately?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually,
Quote:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
makes me think that Jefferson would take the side of "the worker" over "the owner". Because, yanno, owning, buying, and selling shares is NOT work! And taking from those who work is the perfect description of profit.

Owning, buying and selling IS work, actually. There's value in those things, and to maintain it, requires decision making, planning and carrying out of those plans. You're falling into the trap of the " idle rich ", which isn't at all what Jefferson was talking about.

How do you know? You say something "isn't at all what Jefferson was talking about." How do you know that? What special insight do you have on Jefferson's personal views that the rest of us don't have access to?

By the way, wanna see a quote that shows that Jefferson seemed to be in favor of the "death tax"?

Quote:
If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That works both ways, Rappy. If Jfferson saw the bloated corporations that we have today, and the huge differences in wealth and power between the upper and lower classes, he might rail against corporations. As Jefferson himself said
Quote:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1812
Source:Liberty Quotes

Quote:
Owning, buying and selling IS work, actually.
No,it is not

I own Apple stock. I bought it, and sometimes I sell some and buy other stocks. Would you say I work for Apple, Rappy? Would you say I own the company?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So anyway Rappy- we can play dueling quotes all night long. (And apparently, Jefferson hated corporations- by name.) But what I want to know is... what do YOU think?

What is it that you think "big government" will take away form you? Free speech? Taxes? Fast cars and fatty foods?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:42 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Your conclusions of Jefferson leave much to be desired, too. But I can see why you like him. He was a slave-owner, wasn't he? ;)

I suggest you read up on Jefferson. You clearly have a lot to learn.

Try BOOKS, if ya can. I know it's easier for you to google up a few quotes, and think you have the sum total of the man's views on government and liberty, but ya don't.

Happy reading.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:46 PM

Quote:
Posted by Rappy:

He might keep to the exempting of those in the lower class from paying, I'll agree. I bet he'd like the FAIR Tax, if he saw what we had to deal with today.

So you ARE okay with taking money from some, and giving it to others. You've just said as much. You'd exempt SOME (those in the "lower class"), while you'd take MORE from the rich than from the poor or middle class, even if you do it by a "fair" tax. If you take 10% of someone's income who makes $20,000,000 a year, you're obviously taking more from them than you are from the person making $20,000 per year. You're taking 1000 times more, even though you're only taking 10% from each.

But you've said over and over again that this healthcare debacle is wrong - both legally and morally, according to you - because it takes money from SOME people and gives it to other people. But here you are, trying to justify doing exactly that.

Is it possible that your biggest problem with the healthcare reform bill is that the Democrats passed it, under a black President?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Your conclusions of Jefferson leave much to be desired, too. But I can see why you like him. He was a slave-owner, wasn't he? ;)

I suggest you read up on Jefferson. You clearly have a lot to learn.

Try BOOKS, if ya can. I know it's easier for you to google up a few quotes, and think you have the sum total of the man's views on government and liberty, but ya don't.

Happy reading.

I know YOU think you know all there is to know about Jefferson, but I find it awfully convenient how willing you are to dismiss or outright ignore any of his ideas that don't fit into your Ayn Randian worldview. By the way, Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction, just like Reaganomics and WMD. ;)

And given your propensity for lying and making shit up, you'll pardon me if I don't take your word on anything having to do with anything.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:
Owning, buying and selling IS work, actually.
No,it is not

It's not labor, but it is worth. And worth represents a portion of one's life. Whether one sells groceries, horses, land, or anything. You're offering a service, and for that, you deserve compensation.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 7:51 PM

America loves a winner!

Reaganomics worked, so it wasn't fiction. I know, I lived it.

Those Kurds didn't think Hussein's WMD were too imaginary. ( Saddam, not Barry - sorry )

Paddle back to the shallow end, before you get yourself in trouble, son.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:04 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Actually the most hilarious part of that...

While Jefferson was a good ole dude, he was not without flaw, and when Andrew Jackson actually TRIED to crush that moneyed aristocracy (which by that time Jefferson was part of) via skewering the national bank, Jefferson about hit the roof - he *hated* Jackson quite passionately, despite that due to that very action it was the last time the US Government was ever solvent and running on a balanced budget.

You want some *real* chops busting on the dangers of government, you need to hit up the go-to guy for that one, Patrick Henry.

Kaneman, who has made the best case here and addressed many of my own concerns, is practically channeling the old bastard.

Look up his speeches during the ratification debates.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Reaganomics worked, so it wasn't fiction. I know, I lived it.

It didn't work. I lived it, too, child. It "worked" if you count more than doubling the debt and incurring enormous deficits while spiking the unemployment rates as "working". It was a monumental disaster, and even Bush Sr. called him on it. Now, if you have no problem with massive debts and deficits, why are you now pissing and moaning about Obama's budgets? Is it just because he's black, or is it because he's a Democrat? 'Cause I never heard you utter a peep about how evil Reagan's spending was, or li'l Bush's even worse spending (he nearly tripled his own record-setting deficits on his way out of office, and then the GOP tried to blame it on Obama!)

Quote:

Those Kurds didn't think Hussein's WMD were too imaginary. ( Saddam, not Barry - sorry )

Oh, you mean the ones he completely destroyed after the '91 Gulf War? Those WMD? The ones we KNEW FOR A FACT he no longer had? They weren't imaginary back in 1991; by 2003, they were completely imaginary.

Quote:

Paddle back to the shallow end, before you get yourself in trouble, son.

Awww, you're so cute when you think you know what you're talking about. Why don't you lecture us about the 95% of Americans who don't pay taxes? ;)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And worth represents a portion of one's life

No, "worth" represents a portion of somebody's life... not necessarily your own.

What YOU seem to be afraid of most is not loss of free speech or loss of right to a fair trial or loss of your right to eat fast food but loss of MONEY. More specifically, loss of LOTS of money.. capital gains and/or interest and/or dividends, not loss of a wage.

Right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:42 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And worth represents a portion of one's life
No, "worth" represents a portion of somebody's life... not necessarily your own.

What YOU seem to be afraid of most is not loss of free speech or loss of right to a fair trial or loss of your right to eat fast food but loss of MONEY. More specifically, loss of LOTS of money.. capital gains and/or interest and/or dividends, not loss of a wage.

Right?

To the Gov't, hell yeah. It's not their money. We EARN money, it's not 'distributed' to us by our dear and fluffy Gov't. Money, land, anything we acquire in life represents a portion of our LIVES. It comes down to a simple question.

Who owns you ?

Do you own your life, or does it belong to the State ?

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 8:49 PM

America loves a winner!

Reaganomics was the greatest turn around since the post WW2 economy. It's amazing success carried all the way through Clinton's 2 terms. Obama's budgets and debt are FAR greater than anything Reagan had, and Reagan got us out of Carter's malaise. Obama will only sink us further into depression.

The intel CLINTON had on Saddam must have been imaginary too. Huh? So, Iraq had WMD in Gulf War 1, got rid of it, then got it again( according to Clinton) then it disappeared, as soon as Bush and the U.N. ordered him to show us where it all went, which he didn't.... hell, credit W for making sure we knew for certain just what the the hell Hussein ( Saddam, not Barry ) had!!

Nearly 50% of Americans pay no income tax. Barry is working on the other 45%.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 10:16 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Everybody wants the Founders on their side; but it was a different country back then-- 95% agricultural, low density, highly homogenous, primitive in technology-- and modern libertarianism simply doesn't apply. (The OED's citations of the word for the time are all theological.)

All American political movements have their roots in the 1700s-- indeed, in the winning side, since Loyalist opinion essentially disappeared. We are all-- liberals, conservatives, libertarians-- against the Georgian monarchy and for the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can certainly find places where one Founder or another rants against government; you can find other places where one Founder or another rants against rebellion, anarchy, and the opponents of federalism. Sometimes the same Founder can be quoted on both sides. They were a mixed bunch, and lived long enough lives to encounter different situations

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 26, 2010 11:33 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Pfftth, don't look at me, my forefathers came outta the Watauga Association, didn't give a fuck about the Crown or the Continentals, wanted to be left alone, and anyone who couldn't do that generally got their ass filled with musketballs shortly thereafter.

Hell, some of em are *still* up there in the hills brewing whatever suits em and givin the rest of the world the finger.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2010 8:00 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

At last, a decent discussion. It's great to see reasoned argument put forth to back up people's beliefs. I actually agree with quite a few of the points put forward. However:

I would argue that "carrots" don't work because people are almost invariably short sighted. The idea of gaining something for doing what's right doesn't come into their minds; people just do what they want to do right now. The government is supposed to be there to "promote the general welfare", not let individual people do whatever damaging thing they want for their own self-gratification, at the cost of others.

Corporations will never self-regulate. They will work toward maximum profit with minimum outlay. We've seen it over and over, to the detriment of all those who are not in power; outsourcing is cheaper than paying those in their own country, so, again with the short-sightedness and the concept of "I've got mine; screw you", corporations will take every advantage they can get and rarely care about how they got it.

We've seen what deregulation leads to; that should be argument enough. People who DELIBERATELY harmed others to gain reward have been a prime example of what lack of government oversight has done to us. And, no, trading stocks isn't work, for most. Not to mention that the actual WORK put in to gain those huge rewards was quite deliberately harmful, yet those engaged in it had no problem with that fact.

As to Reaganomics, it hasn't worked, but its proponents will go on believing it despite any facts. This covers both that and some of the arguments in favor of government "providing for the welfare" of the country as a whole:

Quote:
Since 1980, the people of the United States have been fed a great, white lie: greed is good. This notion emerged out of the counterrevolutionary devolution of government that began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and has continued on for nearly three decades now. However, in this state of the Military Industrial Complex where government plays almost no part in economic regulation, a great rift was open.

In recent years, the effects of economic deregulation, Laissez-Faire economics, and the unwillingness of the private sector to make concessions to the people have been felt all too fervently. In times of great crisis, the people turn to the government because the people can choose who is in their government, and will choose the person most likely to provide what the people feel is needed. This idea doesn?t exist in the private sector. You can’t choose CEOs or heads of business like you can heads of state, so the corruption and power of individuals begins to oppress further the average person.

But what are these factors that allowed for this immense wealth to be effectively placed into the hands of only a few people? Well, it begins with the assumed notions of Supply-side economics. There are three notions that Supply-side economics take for granted. The first notion is that the market is self regulating, so therefore the government has no place trying to prevent the growth of businesses; the second notion is that the graduated income tax is too focused on the upper class, and by removing the tax burden from the wealthy, they will invest more in society; the third notion comes from the second, and that is if you give a businessmen more money, the wealth they have will trickle down and they will hire more people or pay the individual more.

The notion that wealth will trickle down from the happier wealthy person is a terrible concept just in its conception. The idea that a person who is immensely wealthy, possibly by ruthless or greedy means, is about as likely to share their wealth with the average person as the an average person is likely not to share with a less fortunate person. This just doesn’t happen often enough for it to be an acceptable theory.

Due to the unstable nature of the economy, the government will have to eventually regulate and break down the massive powers held by the industries, corporations and all the other oppressive forces that are keeping the average person from living happily. The government is the only means to which a final solution will be granted to this problem of the fluctuating economy. Even if we can never stop the bad times brought about by poor management practices on the economy, it is clear that the government must support the people when the private sector cannot or refuses to. It is for this reason the rest of the civilized world has endorsed nationalizing monopolistic industries and the United States is falling behind in the world and is looked down upon by other nations. We must modernize or we risk suffering the same fate as other countries that have resisted change: defeat and lots of it.

http://www.wethepeoplepolitics.com/the-weakness-of-reagonomics-and-why
-it-doesnt-work/

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Kaneman- sorry for being away and not answering. I felt I needed to give your post the attention it deserved.

Quote:
"I feel I was born free".

I'm not well-educated in political philosophy, but it seems to me that you're echoing Jean Jacques Rousseau, "Man was born free" (The Social Contract). There is the thought that "in nature" people are free to pursue their individual- although solitary- goals. According to him, we've traded our natural freedom for... quite crassly.. creature comforts: division of labor, advances in technology. An easier life.

Is that what you think?

Quote:
I just feel local and state laws are better, because they are easier to fix when it is a bad idea. It seems to me that the further away from the home that the law or regulation comes from the more oppressive it becomes(because of the body and location it comes from)

One of the funding fathers... I believe it was Madison.. argued strongly and forcefully about the problem with LOCAL PREJUDICES. He believed that a central government, by forcing differing ideas to come together, would blunt the effect of local tyrannies. The most famous example of local control NOT leading to greater freedom is, of course, slavery. How do you solve the problems of slavery, which was a state-supported institution?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2010 3:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Obama's budgets and debt are FAR greater than anything Reagan had

But what abut Bush's? Didn't Bush follow "Reaganomics" to the nth degree? And how did that work out for him?

This is why nobody takes you seriously, Rappy. You spout stuff that has clearly been disproved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2010 4:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BDN:

Quote:
I would have to say both. You cannot reach your goal without the means to get there. I know trans fats are bad for me, do I need the government to ban them? Is that a choice I need or want my government to make for me? (I know it's a state issue, thank goodness for that.)

Remember Jack and his thoughts on smoking? What if the smoking 'sin' tax actually went towards smokers healthcare instead of general revenue? Kind of a pay as you go scenario.

Do I need the government to tell me to buckle my seatbelt or is that a choice better left for me?

Should I have to pay for education if I do not have kids? What if I kept that money for a future day when I may have kids.

I'm just kind of spit-balling here so please be kind. I see the need for government to handle a myriad of things that need handling. I am just against an entity which thinks it knows what's best for me.

I guess there are a lot of different issues in these. The biggest seems o be economic entanglement to the extent that we all draw on common resources.

For example: Trans fats. There are several players in this scenario: Agribusiness, people (collectively AND individually), health insurances, and government.

What are the costs? Individually, poorer health: heart attacks, dementia, heart failure, strokes. Collectively, less productivity and higher health costs. Benefits: Individually - taste and shelf-life. Collectively- freedom of choice. Agribusiness: higher profits. Health insurance companies- no cost, they do their best to shift the costs back to the individual. No benefits.

Now, in this welter of choice, cost and benefit: individual, collective, agribusiness, and insurance... who gets to make which choice? Who gets stuck with the costs? Who gets stuck with the benefits?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2010 5:52 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Thanks for the reply BDN

look at his last line..something like.."Encourage health insurance today...encourage healthy lifestyle tomorrow". I can see it now; "smokers are killing the nations health insurance budget"...Next step...abuse the small unsympathetic smoking minority in the guise of protecting the majority.... ban smoking. When it should be.. protect the minority from the majority. Always remember, that in some area of our lives we are all minorities. Gov. has always used that against us. Split us by our differences for control.

Yeah, well it hasn't happened in other countries where there is nationalised health systems, in fact Europeans are massive smokers, I believe.

Most of the smoking bans have been brought about by the desire to cut legal action and compensation claims as a result of passive smoking rather than government trying to socially engineer us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:35 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

America was founded by those seeking to escape the tyranny of oppressive government, and the larger the government the more oppressive it can be, no longer For the People and By the People.
The thoughts and creeds quoted by AURaptor are among those key to the reasons our Country was created.
Ask the same question of the victims of the Holocaust....oh, sorry, you can't - they are yet another example of the Silent Majority. Big Government in America became the next wave of Gun Owner Registration - the only previous example was Nazi Germany, 1937.
Rather than us bleed, many wiser mortals choose to learn from the mistakes of others, meaning learn your history. History is repleat with examples of governemtns which got too big. I'd rather just keep America, instead of letting it get too big and die.

One book which helps expose many of the freedoms we have already given up (before Obamahealthcare creating the first national ID system) is Dark Rivers of the Heart, by Dean R. Koontz.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:12 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by jewelstaitefan:
Ask the same question of the victims of the Holocaust....oh, sorry, you can't - they are yet another example of the Silent Majority. Big Government in America became the next wave of Gun Owner Registration - the only previous example was Nazi Germany, 1937.

Ah Godwin, we hardly knew ye.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 3:50 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Paraphrasing Milton Friedman, "If government exists, someone will buy it."

The bigger the government, the more the laws will reflect corporate interests rather than those of the people.

If the people clamor for regulation, the corporation-bought govt will issue regulation that reigns in smaller competitors, allows loopholes for themselves, and institute new groundwork for immunity from accountability (such as the idea of a corporation being a "person"). The people accept it because they feel some regulation is better than none at all.

If people sink in financial distress in a recession, the corporation-bought govt will bailout the very industries that caused the recession, with a few crumbs falling for the people. The people accept it because some crumbs are better than none at all.

If people cry for health care, the corporation-bought govt will force people to give 10% of their income to the very corporations that caused the unaffordability of health care, with promises of being enslaved to such corporations for the foreseeable future. The people accept it because it is at least a more comfortable slavery than they have right now.

My fear of big government stems from my cynicism that those with legislative power will act on the interests of the people rather than in their own self-interest, and have the intelligence to identify and distinguish between the two.

The freedoms I lose are not theoretical. I feel the loss tangibly everyday.

1. I lose a big chunk of the money I make. Most of that chunk goes towards funding things I don't agree with and sometimes, even morally abhor. MY money is going to Israel to oppress fellow human beings. MY money is going to a war that I feel is reprehensible and a betrayal of our soldiers' sacrifice. I am forced, by big govt, to pay for these and other objectionable projects. The only way I see out of this is not to redirect big govt spending (which will be an endless fight amongst ourselves), but to agree with fellow citizens to not have big govt spending at all.

2. My right to read scientific and medical literature and think for myself is being eroded. I'm losing the right to dissent from popularly accepted propaganda and choose different ways to solve problems than the ones endorsed by government. Laws on schooling and vaccination, for example, increasingly restrict my choices on how to raise my children. Laws on medicine restrict my choices on home births and alternative medicine. If I should have a child with cancer, I am very likely going to be forced to use chemotherapy, even if I interpret chemotherapy literature differently than those who make money off of it. We don't have any CO2 restriction laws yet, but that is coming down the pike. I am losing my rights to dissent.

I would like to send my unvaccinated child to a private school, but I can't. I would like to have a wider choice of homebirth midwives, but there is only one or two in my state because they are being sued or prosecuted so much. So see, big govt limits my life in a very tangible way.

(As an aside, I don't really understand people who distrust corporations with the very fiber of their beings, yet trust the medical/hospital/insurance health care conglomerate with every breath they take. Somehow, the health care industry is exempt from the greed and corruption of other industries. Very curious.)

It might be ok with most others to erode the right to dissent now. But one day, you'll find yourself facing a propaganda restricting your choices from which you'll dissent, but it'll be too late to claim your right to disagree with the govt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:01 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Obama's budgets and debt are FAR greater than anything Reagan had
But what abut Bush's? Didn't Bush follow "Reaganomics" to the nth degree? And how did that work out for him?

This is why nobody takes you seriously, Rappy. You spout stuff that has clearly been disproved.

No it hasn't, not even remotely.

Bush's minor tax cuts worked for 6 years, until the Dems took control of Congress in' 06. Then the decades long policy of free lending w/ little responsibility, started by CLINTON, came home to roost. Despite the dot com bubble burst, despite the 9/11 attack , despite 2 wars, we STILL grew the economy, and kept unemployment down.

There was mismanagement of the war, and that's hard for anyone to debate, but you keep pushing the lie that it was " Bush following Reaganomics " as being the cause of the down turn in the economy, and that simply has no basis in fact.

Anyone who wants to get side tracked w/ rewriting not only history, but the present, can do so all they wish. As for me, and this thread, I'll only add my 2 cents in as to why Big Gov't is bad, and why it should be feared.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Rappy, I'm not going to waste my time posting tables of Federal revenues, Federal deficits, stock market prices, the history of the Gramm Act (hint: it was Phil Gramm, R), the miniscule role of government lending in this latest financial crash, and all the other facts which you choose to ignore. I know you have your idee fixe about it, but you're wrong. Let's move on to the topic of the thread; don't expect a rebuttal from me bc this is and old, useless discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:30 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So CTS, basically the government is like The One Ring: Great power, possibly even meant for good, but inevitably corrupted by the power behind the throne, which in this case is our corporatocracy.

Did I catch the essence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:41 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
I believe in the healthcare thread, Mal stated that she was okay with certain lost liberties because of the trade-offs. Why the need for the trade-offs? Can this stuff not be accomplished privately or through smaller entities (the states)?

I am curious as to how freedoms can be lost to the federal government, but are apparently never lost to smaller govt or to private companies. The question of misuse of state power is harder for me to address, first, because states just don't have lots of power, and second, because I don't know that much about state-level politics. I will know note a freedom I have lost due to local authorities: in Plano TX, I could not order a glass of wine with dinner unless I PURCHASED a drinker ID card that allowed them to track my alcohol intake at restaurants. Similarly, I've heard (this is hearsay...) that in Utah all alcoholic beverages are ID'd and scanned on purchase. A friend of mine had a local authority show up at his door the day after he had a party asking if he needed any help. You know, with that alcohol problem. Because he'd purchased so much in one day.

As far as private companies: I think there's been ample evidence over the past 5-10 years of the willingness of corporations to abuse their power. At least the govt has the Constitution and elections by the people to put some rein on them. If we think they are acting in self-interest, we can vote them out. CEOs, on the other hand, are specifically motivated by self-interest.

I'm really not sure how handing things over to states or companies that can lead to a fairer situation for the Little Guy. It might help you get your way in the present situation, but I very much doubt you'd like where it'd lead in the long run.

As for the need for trade-offs: we live in a society, not all alone in the Wild West. of course there must be trade-offs. The obvious: rules of behavior like no killing, etc. Regulations as to food and drug safety are also key. I see what you're saying about trans-fats - I also think the ban was extreme. I'd have preferred a requirement that food content be clearly posted. Because how can you have the freedom to choose whether to eat trans-fats if you cannot find out which food it's in? In the absence of regulation, who knows what you're getting. Cigarette companies, for instance, tried their damnedest to make cigarettes as addictive as possible.

So yes, there must be trade-offs. Where we disagree is in where we draw the line. Certainly, the govt jailing us for not eating an apple a day would be too far. You'll note that that is not in the health care bill.

What is in the reform bill is the requirement that those who would benefit from health care actually pay into it. If you go to the emergency room, you will be treated. If you get a serious illness, you will be treated.

Perhaps a more "free" system would have anyone who does not pay not get the benefit. You could choose to not have insurance, and not have a tax penalty, if you agree that your broken body should be left on the highway, and that any disease you catch should waste you away if you don't have enough in your bank account to pay for medication.

That would be freedom: freedom for you to be without insurance, and freedom for me not to pay for you if your gamble fails. (For the record, I do not like this option. I really don't want to leave people bleeding on the highway. Which makes me re-consider HK's post on "kindness"... )

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 4:42 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Jewel... you talk about tyranny and oppression, and offer the Holocaust as an example of what "big governments" can do. Nonetheless, there are PLENTY of "big government" around the world which do NOT kill millions of people. So why do you think this is an inevitable consequence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 28, 2010 5:52 AM