Quote from: redlom xof on May 02, 2011, 09:43:20 PM
1. 21
2. Not really, which does make me sympathetic to the 'libertarian' stance on welfare. Admittedly I am coming from a rather bitter point of view as I know lots of students who receive weekly financial help from the government but I do not. That makes me a little mad. I do receive a student card which lets me travel on public transport at student/concession prices. This would save me around 5-7 $ a week. Thanks taxpayers !

As for government spending I see most if not everyone has not mentioned the military. That sucks trillions of dollars out of the government.

For one reason, its one of the few things that the Gov is obligated to do under the rules of the Constitution.
Virtually everything is as legal as ...well stealing.

Quote from: U_Kay on May 02, 2011, 08:19:40 PM

I'm impressed! Someone who thinks the government does a fine job on just about everything! That someone is you, Doughboy.

Btw, would you answer a couple of personal Qs?
1) How old are you?
2) Do you collect a check, whether it is paycheck or welfare, etc... from the govt or what?

Your faith in our govt is fascinating. Perhaps that is a little over the top, but the only thing I view the government as doing right would be in the branch of defense dept. (And sometimes the govt is too wasteful in that dept too!)

Any way, you sure dont have to answer my two Qs.

Last but not least, I have found our forum to be more interesting since you have come along. Thx for your difference of opinion.

Age 60+
I am employed by state government, have been for 25 years (10 years prior to that was spent in the private sector)

Not asked, but I am a Viet Nam veteran (infantry, but not a war hero by any means), generally vote Republican on national offices, local offices also but party is less important.  Most democrats here are really conservative on most issues. 

I once thought everything was either black or white, like many young folks.  I thought government was inherently wasteful and bad.  I thought anybody who had a government job was basically a leech.  The older I got, the more gray I saw.  There are issues that are clearly black or white, but most of them are varying shades of gray.  I also know that there are many things government does that it could do better, but we're better off with them than we would be without them.  Like the EPA.  Do they overstep sometimes?  Probably.  But would we be better off leaving that to the private sector?  The record clearly says no.

And where did I indicate I think our govt does a fine job of everything?  I don't.  I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The much vaunted private sector doesn't exactly do a fine job of everything either.  People screw up.

Quote from: doughboy on May 02, 2011, 08:08:48 PM
Seems a tad over the top and unrealistic.  The Cuyahoga River fires, especially the one in 1969, were part of the reason the EPA was created.  It seems the private sector factories along the river didn't really care about the environment all that much.  I know we had it first and our kids and grandkids should probably be responsible for getting their own environment, but absent that, the general welfare section of the constitution would seem to allow for some government intervention in protecting the environment.  And I know there are two schools of thought on that, Madison's being one and Hamilton's the other, with Hamilton's being more broadly constructed.  But it was Hamilton's school of thought that Washington and Adams followed, and they weren't exactly libs. 

And do you not think publicly funded education makes the US a better place?  Sure some changes might need to be made to the federal Dept. of Education, but abolishment?  And abolishing the EPA?  Those seem like cures that are worse than the disease, sort of like cutting your head off so you'll quit smoking. 

It's too bad we can't have an "It's a Wonderful Life" chance with this and the so called "fair tax."  It would be really, really nice to have an alternate reality where there was no EPA, no Dept. of Education, nothing that did not exist in 1787, in short, and where there was a "fair tax" just to see what it looked like.  I bet it would be mighty ugly.  And I bet a lot of people who thought they would love it would not love it at all.

Over the top? Ha. My philosophy on negotiation: If you go in knowing that you NEED the moon, ask for the moon, the sun, and all the stars. You'll get your moon, and probably a few stars on top of that.  ;)

The Burning Cuyahoga was bad. Did it justify the USEPA? Nope. It was a localized problem that could have and should have been addressed by local authorities. Instead, we allowed the federal government to create... a monster that has decided by administrative fiat that carbon dioxide -- a compound I'm exhaling as I write this and without which every green thing on earth would die -- is a "threat" to public health and should be regulated like other toxins, such as DDT. (Don't let me get started on THAT one.)

When you argue for big (national) government solutions, you're simply trading one problem for another, and in the bargain you get a nightmare as certain as sunrise. Public education? I didn't say it's bad. I said get rid of the NATIONAL (NOT federal) Department of Education. We need to understand and accept that national agencies are the very disease the founders designed the Constitution to prevent.

When I was a kid I went with my uncle and some cousins to learn to water ski in the Ohio River. Before I got in the water, my uncle warned me to keep my mouth shut because the water was "nasty." I ended up with blisters all over me from the chemicals in the water. But today I can eat the fish out of that river, not because of anything the USEPA did, but because local governments banded together -- way back in 1948 -- and formed the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, a specific agency with a specific mission. The job got done without big mommy DC.

The Fair Tax would be "ugly?" Do you think it would be as ugly as what we have now -- a tax code that requires nearly 70,000 sheets of paper to print and manages to exempt nearly half the citizens in the nation from any income tax obligation whatsoever? Do you understand that the United States of America managed to stumble along for almost 150 years with no federal income tax at all? Do you understand that we are spending ourselves into oblivion with programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, none of which existed before 1935?

I'll paint you an "ugly" picture, if that's what you want. Nearly a billion people on this globe go to bed hungry every night while the national government of the United States forces its citizens to burn more than 5 BILLION bushels of perfectly edible and nutritious corn every year AND robs their wallets to pay for it, all because a few folks with their heads firmly lodged up their asses think Mother Earth will be better for it.

And when you begin arguments with "It's too bad we can't...," you've lost the argument and your audience. 'Bye.

Quote from: doughboy on May 02, 2011, 08:08:48 PM
Seems a tad over the top and unrealistic.  The Cuyahoga River fires, especially the one in 1969, were part of the reason the EPA was created.  It seems the private sector factories along the river didn't really care about the environment all that much.  I know we had it first and our kids and grandkids should probably be responsible for getting their own environment, but absent that, the general welfare section of the constitution would seem to allow for some government intervention in protecting the environment.  And I know there are two schools of thought on that, Madison's being one and Hamilton's the other, with Hamilton's being more broadly constructed.  But it was Hamilton's school of thought that Washington and Adams followed, and they weren't exactly libs.

The problem is a federal agency isn't necessary to deal with a local problem. If the factories along the Cuyahoga River are dumping stuff into the river that damages the interests of those who have riparian rights the courts are the proper venue to put an end to the problem, not the executive branch of the federal government. 

Quote
And do you not think publicly funded education makes the US a better place?  Sure some changes might need to be made to the federal Dept. of Education, but abolishment?  And abolishing the EPA?  Those seem like cures that are worse than the disease, sort of like cutting your head off so you'll quit smoking.

Federal involvement in K-12 education is relatively minor as you'd expect since there's zero rationale for federal involvement in education. Those who look to the federal government as the solution to all problems have found ways around the Constitution but that doesn't mean those "solutions" are necessary or even a good idea.

The DOE, for instance, has been largely useless in improving education in the U.S. The reason I can write that with confidence is that as the amount of federal interference, and federal money, has increased educational attainment has remained, at best, stagnant. I'm not sure "things might be worse" is a good reason for expanding the federal government beyond constitutional limits.

The EPA's reason for existence is even more tenuous.

A fire on the Cuyahoga river is a national problem how? If Los Angelenos have to poke their way through a smog-filled dystopia that's a problem for the citizens of the other forty-nine states how? There may be legitimate reasons for the existence for the EPA but most of those given aren't unless you happen to be of the school of thought that holds that all problems are solvable by making them national.

I'm not.

QuoteIt's too bad we can't have an "It's a Wonderful Life" chance with this and the so called "fair tax."  It would be really, really nice to have an alternate reality where there was no EPA, no Dept. of Education, nothing that did not exist in 1787, in short, and where there was a "fair tax" just to see what it looked like.  I bet it would be mighty ugly.  And I bet a lot of people who thought they would love it would not love it at all. 

You might want to try to fix today's assumptions as firmly as possible into memory because they're in the process of being discarded.

I don't know which liberal icon's going to bite the big one first but before long the DOE or the EPA or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting...oh wait, that's already in process, isn't it?

Point is, faith in mother government is fading and as it fades that alternate reality merges with the "proper" reality of the left. Sorry if that's tough for you to accept but the signs and portents are everywhere.

Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 06:31:21 AM
Age 60+
I am employed by state government, have been for 25 years (10 years prior to that was spent in the private sector)

Not asked, but I am a Viet Nam veteran (infantry, but not a war hero by any means), generally vote Republican on national offices, local offices also but party is less important.  Most democrats here are really conservative on most issues. 

I once thought everything was either black or white, like many young folks.  I thought government was inherently wasteful and bad.  I thought anybody who had a government job was basically a leech.  The older I got, the more gray I saw.  There are issues that are clearly black or white, but most of them are varying shades of gray.  I also know that there are many things government does that it could do better, but we're better off with them than we would be without them.  Like the EPA.  Do they overstep sometimes?  Probably.  But would we be better off leaving that to the private sector?  The record clearly says no.

And where did I indicate I think our govt does a fine job of everything?  I don't.  I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The much vaunted private sector doesn't exactly do a fine job of everything either.  People screw up.

To shoot a hole in your argument, all local police should be an arm of the Fed?

Quote from: Solar on May 03, 2011, 07:05:38 AM
To shoot a hole in your argument, all local police should be an arm of the Fed?

That shoots no hole in my argument.  Where did I state all local police should be an arm of the fed?

Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 06:31:21 AM
Age 60+
I am employed by state government, have been for 25 years (10 years prior to that was spent in the private sector)

Not asked, but I am a Viet Nam veteran (infantry, but not a war hero by any means), generally vote Republican on national offices, local offices also but party is less important.  Most democrats here are really conservative on most issues. 

I once thought everything was either black or white, like many young folks.  I thought government was inherently wasteful and bad.  I thought anybody who had a government job was basically a leech.  The older I got, the more gray I saw.  There are issues that are clearly black or white, but most of them are varying shades of gray.  I also know that there are many things government does that it could do better, but we're better off with them than we would be without them.  Like the EPA.  Do they overstep sometimes?  Probably.  But would we be better off leaving that to the private sector?  The record clearly says no.

And where did I indicate I think our govt does a fine job of everything?  I don't.  I just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  The much vaunted private sector doesn't exactly do a fine job of everything either.  People screw up.

D'boy, thanks for your response.

I view much of what you say as pro big government so that is why I consider you as someone who thinks the govt does a fine job. I am sure you view much of what I say as pro smaller government which is definitely true. Why? We have an incompetent government in most everything it does!

Quote from: tbone0106 on May 03, 2011, 06:44:52 AM
Over the top? Ha. My philosophy on negotiation: If you go in knowing that you NEED the moon, ask for the moon, the sun, and all the stars. You'll get your moon, and probably a few stars on top of that.  ;)

The Burning Cuyahoga was bad. Did it justify the USEPA? Nope. It was a localized problem that could have and should have been addressed by local authorities. Instead, we allowed the federal government to create... a monster that has decided by administrative fiat that carbon dioxide -- a compound I'm exhaling as I write this and without which every green thing on earth would die -- is a "threat" to public health and should be regulated like other toxins, such as DDT. (Don't let me get started on THAT one.)

When you argue for big (national) government solutions, you're simply trading one problem for another, and in the bargain you get a nightmare as certain as sunrise. Public education? I didn't say it's bad. I said get rid of the NATIONAL (NOT federal) Department of Education. We need to understand and accept that national agencies are the very disease the founders designed the Constitution to prevent.

When I was a kid I went with my uncle and some cousins to learn to water ski in the Ohio River. Before I got in the water, my uncle warned me to keep my mouth shut because the water was "nasty." I ended up with blisters all over me from the chemicals in the water. But today I can eat the fish out of that river, not because of anything the USEPA did, but because local governments banded together -- way back in 1948 -- and formed the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, a specific agency with a specific mission. The job got done without big mommy DC.

The Fair Tax would be "ugly?" Do you think it would be as ugly as what we have now -- a tax code that requires nearly 70,000 sheets of paper to print and manages to exempt nearly half the citizens in the nation from any income tax obligation whatsoever? Do you understand that the United States of America managed to stumble along for almost 150 years with no federal income tax at all? Do you understand that we are spending ourselves into oblivion with programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, none of which existed before 1935?

I'll paint you an "ugly" picture, if that's what you want. Nearly a billion people on this globe go to bed hungry every night while the national government of the United States forces its citizens to burn more than 5 BILLION bushels of perfectly edible and nutritious corn every year AND robs their wallets to pay for it, all because a few folks with their heads firmly lodged up their asses think Mother Earth will be better for it.

And when you begin arguments with "It's too bad we can't...," you've lost the argument and your audience. 'Bye.

Could have and should have, but didn't and wasn't going to .

Bye. 

Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 07:40:41 AM

D'boy, thanks for your response.

I view much of what you say as pro big government so that is why I consider you as someone who thinks the govt does a fine job. I am sure you view much of what I say as pro smaller government which is definitely true. Why? We have an incompetent government in most everything it does!

Okay.  Let's abolish it and see if it gets better.  I bet it won't, but it might.

I bet you think the post office does a terrible job, too, don't you.  Well, they screw up, but so does UPS and FedEx.  I worked for UPS once.  Anyplace using humans to do work is going to make mistakes.  But you know what?  I trust the mail service to deliver everything I put in the mail for 44¢ and they do it 99.9% of the time.  Even UPS and FedEx use the mails.

I am not pro big government, but neither do I think "we have an incompetent government in nearly everything it does."  But if we do, it's our own fault.   

Quote from: doughboy on May 02, 2011, 08:08:48 PM
It's too bad we can't have an "It's a Wonderful Life" chance with this and the so called "fair tax."  It would be really, really nice to have an alternate reality where there was no EPA, no Dept. of Education, nothing that did not exist in 1787, in short, and where there was a "fair tax" just to see what it looked like.  I bet it would be mighty ugly.  And I bet a lot of people who thought they would love it would not love it at all.

Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 07:45:55 AM
Okay.  Let's abolish it and see if it gets better.  I bet it won't, but it might.

I would love it if we could abolish it and start over by following our constitution. What we have today is a type of perversion of The US Constitution bc there is no respect for it. Ex: TSA groping innocent Americans without a search warrant. What they are doing is unconstitutional! If they want a safer airport, follow the techniques of the Israelis.... Profiling makes complete sense!

Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 07:45:55 AM
I bet you think the post office does a terrible job, too, don't you.  Well, they screw up, but so does UPS and FedEx.  I worked for UPS once.  Anyplace using humans to do work is going to make mistakes.  But you know what?  I trust the mail service to deliver everything I put in the mail for 44¢ and they do it 99.9% of the time.  Even UPS and FedEx use the mails.

I trust the US Mail to to deliver something.... I cant tell you when to expect it to arrive though. Once upon a time, I could do that though. Surely you agree that the US Postal Service is not being managed very well. Although I havent studied why it continues to need bailouts, I have to wonder if the union doesnt have a lot to do with the financial woes.

Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 07:45:55 AM
I am not pro big government, but neither do I think "we have an incompetent government in nearly everything it does."  But if we do, it's our own fault.   

It really is incompetent! I got angry the other over something petty...

My kid lost his SSN card. I went to the govt website to see if I could speed up the process of getting one vs going downtown Jackson, MS to get one. (We live approx 20 minutes from the Fedreal Bldg which is downtown) I learned on the website, they want 20 dollars to issue a new ss card and mail it to me. They stated the reason why they wanted to charge this amount is due to the convenience of having it handled this way. Fact is, it is convenient for them too! I am not in a fed bldg waiting my turn to speak to an employee and wasting his or her turn. I felt that 5 dollars would be a fair price but 20 dollars was over the top!

Please note, I can pay 20 dollars for a ss card! I just didnt want to do it! A fool and his money soon part! I believe in that old biblical saying.

Of course, I am fully aware we do need some govt assistance... We need roads and bridges, police for example. However, the govt has become too powerful and too out of control.

Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 07:34:04 AM
That shoots no hole in my argument.  Where did I state all local police should be an arm of the fed?

By stating that "But would we be better off leaving that to the private sector?  The record clearly says no."

For the same reason the EPA should be a local issue, they have too many teeth, they need them separated from that massive jaw.

Quote from: Solar on May 03, 2011, 08:20:41 AM
By stating that "But would we be better off leaving that to the private sector?  The record clearly says no."

For the same reason the EPA should be a local issue, they have too many teeth, they need them separated from that massive jaw.

My point is that when environmental protection was left up to the locals or the private sector, it didn't happen.  The record clearly reflects that.  Police protection DID happen. 

To those who say we should have a government based on our constitution, I would simply say "we do."  It's not perfect, but it is constitutional.  At least according to the US Supreme Court, and that's the venue, according to the constitution, that decides that. 

Here's something else.  All states have a Department of Environmental Quality or some equivalent to the Federal EPA.  States that do a good job on their own have little to fear from the "teeth" of the EPA.  I know it because I have seen it happen. 

Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 08:05:41 AM
I trust the US Mail to to deliver something.... I cant tell you when to expect it to arrive though. Once upon a time, I could do that though. Surely you agree that the US Postal Service is not being managed very well. Although I havent studied why it continues to need bailouts, I have to wonder if the union doesnt have a lot to do with the financial woes.

Really?  Your experience with the postal service is so different from mine that I wonder if we live in two separate countries.  You really have that much negative experience with the postal service?  I really doubt it.

Part of the postal service problem is congressional oversight.  Every time the post office tries to close a non-profitable post office, congress steps in.  Closing a post office won't mean the mail won't get delivered, it just streamlines.  Congress also controls rates.  Unions might have something to do with it, but UPS is a union operation.  At least it was when I worked for them.  Teamsters.  Don't know about FedEx. 

Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 08:42:43 AM
Really?  Your experience with the postal service is so different from mine that I wonder if we live in two separate countries.  You really have that much negative experience with the postal service?  I really doubt it.

Part of the postal service problem is congressional oversight.  Every time the post office tries to close a non-profitable post office, congress steps in.  Closing a post office won't mean the mail won't get delivered, it just streamlines.  Congress also controls rates.  Unions might have something to do with it, but UPS is a union operation.  At least it was when I worked for them.  Teamsters.  Don't know about FedEx.

Well now I side with U_Kay on this.  The Pony Express had it's problems also and it only operated for 17 months.