Americans are finally waking up, it's not insufficient taxes, it's excessive spending.
April 29th, 2011 4:25 pm Gallup: 73%-22% Majority Blames Deficit on Too Much Spending, Not Insufficient Taxes
Posted by Timothy Lee (http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/author/tlee/) http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/9498/gallup-73-22-majority-blames-deficit-on-too-much-spending-not-insufficient-taxes/ (http://cfif.org/v/freedom_line_blog/9498/gallup-73-22-majority-blames-deficit-on-too-much-spending-not-insufficient-taxes/)
This is great, considering all the spin in the media that the Pubs will be killing seniors and babies if we don't raise the debt ceiling.
Heres a novel concept, why not simply cut spending?
Nah, what in the Hell am I thinking, the Pubs just want to be loved by the masses, they'll capitulate...
I agree! CUT WASTEFUL GOVT SPENDING!!
Quote from: U_Kay on May 01, 2011, 07:26:23 PM
I agree! CUT WASTEFUL GOVT SPENDING!!
And there's the argument, most folks would say. One man's "waste" is always another man't treasure, and no happy medium is there to be found.
But I think that sticking the word "wasteful" in there defeats what ought to be our purpose as conservatives. The word serves both as a redundancy (all government spending is, by immutable nature and thus by definition, wasteful) and as a self-defeating and false argument, presenting the notion that there might be some other type of government spending, one that isn't wasteful, when there is not.
Government is just a large collection of people, and it has the same character flaws that people tend to have. Handing them our dollars by the trillions in return for, well, very little in terms of real value, has the exact result you'd expect -- they spend every nickel and then some, and come back for even more next time. Today the US population is about two times what it was in 1950, but our federal government spends ELEVEN times the money that it did then, and that's in inflation-adjusted dollars. What that means is that for every inflation-adjusted dollar our federal government spent per person in 1950, it now spends $5.50. If we were trained to think of government as a single commodity product, like gasoline for example, we'd have stopped buying it long ago! If gasoline had increased in cost at the same rate, we'd be forking over about $13/gallon right now.
I prefer a more holistic approach to cutting the federal government. A fair but strict interpretation of the US Constitution would yield a finding that about 90% of what our federal government does is illegal. Huge chunks of government exist outside any constitutional authorization, and those chunks should be carved off and discarded. I don't think we should cut the EPA's budget; I think we should eliminate the EPA completely, root and branch, RTF NOW. Same for the Departments of Education, Transportation, HHS, etc. -- eliminate entirely, root and branch, right the f*** NOW. Medicare and Medicaid -- freeze and privatize. Social Security -- freeze and privatize. Other departments like Treasury would survive, but in much-reduced form and missing certain parts (uh, buh-bye BATFE). Foreign aid? GONE. Agriculture subsidies? NOPE. Unemployment benefits? Cut 'em in half immediately. In my state, they can be as high as $475/week; it's not supposed to be pleasant to be unemployed. PBS/NPR/CPB? History. National Park Service? Outta here.
Many would say that I'm harsh or cruel. But it's not about that, or at least it has to stop being about that. People have to learn that government CANNOT EVER be compassionate or caring. Those are emotions exhibited by individual persons, not by a conglomeration like government.
It's about our survival as a nation. The eight most frightening words in the American lexicon should forever be, "I'm from the government. I'm here to help."
Oh goodness, T. Where do I begin?
Yeah, you are tough and harsh. :P
Btw, what does BATFE mean?
Quote from: U_Kay on May 02, 2011, 08:48:49 AM
Oh goodness, T. Where do I begin?
Yeah, you are tough and harsh. :P
Btw, what does BATFE mean?
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Sounds like a good name for a convenience store, eh?
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 08:52:08 AM
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Sounds like a good name for a convenience store, eh?
:)) Yeah, it does.
I should have spent a lil time thinking about what the acronym could have meant.
Quote from: U_Kay on May 02, 2011, 11:13:35 AM
:)) Yeah, it does.
I should have spent a lil time thinking about what the acronym could have meant.
Now here's a quiz question for you. Why are alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives lumped together under a single bureau? Fifty cents for the right answer....
(Hint: the bureau is an arm of the Department of the Treasury.)
(Another hint: Al Capone.) ;)
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 11:46:25 AM
Now here's a quiz question for you. Why are alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives lumped together under a single bureau? Fifty cents for the right answer....
(Hint: the bureau is an arm of the Department of the Treasury.)
(Another hint: Al Capone.) ;)
to get excise taxes?? :-\
Quote from: U_Kay on May 02, 2011, 12:21:45 PM
to get excise taxes?? :-\
Very good! (Lemme know where to send the quarters.) The federal government has NO authority under the Constitution to stick its big ugly nose into the alcohol business, the tobacco business, the firearms business, or the explosives business. BUT it has the limited authority to tax these things to the extent that they are imported, exported, or traded between states. THAT is why the BATFE is part of the Treasury Department. THAT is how the feds nailed Al Capone -- on taxes, not on the multitude of murders he performed/ordered/paid for.
Now we can move on to why and how you think I'm such a tough guy when it comes to downsizing the federal government... :P :P :P
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 01:00:55 PM
Very good! (Lemme know where to send the quarters.) The federal government has NO authority under the Constitution to stick its big ugly nose into the alcohol business, the tobacco business, the firearms business, or the explosives business. BUT it has the limited authority to tax these things to the extent that they are imported, exported, or traded between states. THAT is why the BATFE is part of the Treasury Department. THAT is how the feds nailed Al Capone -- on taxes, not on the multitude of murders he performed/ordered/paid for.
Now we can move on to why and how you think I'm such a tough guy when it comes to downsizing the federal government... :P :P :P
:o I won? :o Really? Uhh... If you hadnt mentioned the BAFE was a branch of the Treasury Dept., I wouldnt have guessed this answer, T. I am admitting it! :-[
Know what? Buy yourself a treat from me with my 50 cents. :P
:)) I wonder what that treat will be!
a bubble gum or a peppermint?
*************************
How are you so tough when it comes to downsizing the gov? Surely you are joshing with me, eh? I think that post of yours speaks for itself. You and Paul Ryan want to starve the old people and little children and special needs people, huh? That's what Reid, Pelosi, Obama and their followers would accuse, right? :D
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 02, 2011, 08:36:00 AM
And there's the argument, most folks would say. One man's "waste" is always another man't treasure, and no happy medium is there to be found.
But I think that sticking the word "wasteful" in there defeats what ought to be our purpose as conservatives. The word serves both as a redundancy (all government spending is, by immutable nature and thus by definition, wasteful) and as a self-defeating and false argument, presenting the notion that there might be some other type of government spending, one that isn't wasteful, when there is not.
Government is just a large collection of people, and it has the same character flaws that people tend to have. Handing them our dollars by the trillions in return for, well, very little in terms of real value, has the exact result you'd expect -- they spend every nickel and then some, and come back for even more next time. Today the US population is about two times what it was in 1950, but our federal government spends ELEVEN times the money that it did then, and that's in inflation-adjusted dollars. What that means is that for every inflation-adjusted dollar our federal government spent per person in 1950, it now spends $5.50. If we were trained to think of government as a single commodity product, like gasoline for example, we'd have stopped buying it long ago! If gasoline had increased in cost at the same rate, we'd be forking over about $13/gallon right now.
I prefer a more holistic approach to cutting the federal government. A fair but strict interpretation of the US Constitution would yield a finding that about 90% of what our federal government does is illegal. Huge chunks of government exist outside any constitutional authorization, and those chunks should be carved off and discarded. I don't think we should cut the EPA's budget; I think we should eliminate the EPA completely, root and branch, RTF NOW. Same for the Departments of Education, Transportation, HHS, etc. -- eliminate entirely, root and branch, right the f*** NOW. Medicare and Medicaid -- freeze and privatize. Social Security -- freeze and privatize. Other departments like Treasury would survive, but in much-reduced form and missing certain parts (uh, buh-bye BATFE). Foreign aid? GONE. Agriculture subsidies? NOPE. Unemployment benefits? Cut 'em in half immediately. In my state, they can be as high as $475/week; it's not supposed to be pleasant to be unemployed. PBS/NPR/CPB? History. National Park Service? Outta here.
Many would say that I'm harsh or cruel. But it's not about that, or at least it has to stop being about that. People have to learn that government CANNOT EVER be compassionate or caring. Those are emotions exhibited by individual persons, not by a conglomeration like government.
It's about our survival as a nation. The eight most frightening words in the American lexicon should forever be, "I'm from the government. I'm here to help."
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hey, Red. I was asking the two questions to Doughboy. ;)
You ahead of most your age if you are more in line with the Libertarian Party. ;D
The reason I posed those Q's is generally there are two types of Democrats (lovers of big government). One is the young person who is still in school, college, etc... That person has paid enough taxes to snap out of their liberal lala fantasy land taught to him/her by his/her teachers and or family and or friends. The other type of Democrat is usually one who receives some sort of govt check whether it is a paycheck or food stamps, or someone in a union. (The unions faired pretty well after Obama took the WH so they got some nice perks. EX: GM bailout)
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.
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.
What I stated is accurate of the Postal Service. Surely you are not implying I am stretching the truth, right?
A True Story of Our Postal Service....
My daughter, Rachel had entered 11th grade and there was a big meeting on what was being planned for the year so that we could raise money to provide a fun prom for all the kids. The 11th graders in her high school always hosts the prom for the Seniors. (keep in mind she has graduated now and in college and registered to this forum approx 30 minutes ago. She will support my story for you bc she is involved in this. She probably knows more than I do about this event.)
Any way, at the end of the big pow wow meeting, the lady stated that all information plus more detailed information would be mailed to each and everyone of us shortly.
I never got that letter... A year later, when Rachel entered 12th grade, the letter arrived. I looked at the letter very well and noticed it was mailed August of the previous year and it showed my proper addresss. The last stop it made was to Scottsdale Arizona before arriving at my house!
What a trip that letter took!!
And what a bad year I had in 11th grade. I thought the lady simply didnt do a very good job, but had I had the detailed letter, I am sure I would have had a different opinion. It is a good thing I didnt speak negatively of the lady's incompetence! Turns out, the USPS played a large part on this one.
Of course this story is not typical, but if I mail something to New Orleans, it shouldnt take a whole entire week to arrive there! That is ridiculous! That just happened.
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: walkstall on May 03, 2011, 08:55:22 AM
Well now I side with U_Kay on this. The Pony Express had it's problems also and it only operated for 17 months.
So your experience with the post office is mostly bad, too? Come on. I simply don't believe you.
UKay mentioned a $20 fee to replace a lost social security card. Sounds stiff to me, too, but this is what is called a "user fee." Nobody likes to pay taxes, right? So why should all of us who have not lost our social security card pay anything for those that do. Why shouldn't the fair cost of replacing a lost card be assessed to the poor guy that lost it. Maybe $20 is too much, I don't know. But I do know, now that I know it costs $20 to replace it (I've had mine for 45 years, BTW) I'll be more careful about it.
And I have been to the very federal building she mentioned. It's worth $20 not to have to visit it for ANYTHING, in my opinion.
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 08:56:46 AM
What I stated is accurate of the Postal Service. Surely you are not implying I am stretching the truth, right?
A True Story of Our Postal Service....
My daughter, Rachel had entered 11th grade and there was a big meeting on what was being planned for the year so that we could raise money to provide a fun prom for all the kids. The 11th graders in her high school always hosts the prom for the Seniors. (keep in mind she has graduated now and in college and registered to this forum approx 30 minutes ago. She will support my story for you bc she is involved in this. She probably knows more than I do about this event.)
Any way, at the end of the big pow wow meeting, the lady stated that all information plus more detailed information would be mailed to each and everyone of us shortly.
I never got that letter... A year later, when Rachel entered 12th grade, the letter arrived. I looked at the letter very well and noticed it was mailed August of the previous year and it showed my proper addresss. The last stop it made was to Scottsdale Arizona before arriving at my house!
What a trip that letter took!!
And what a bad year I had in 11th grade. I thought the lady simply didnt do a very good job, but had I had the detailed letter, I am sure I would have had a different opinion. It is a good thing I didnt speak negatively of the lady's incompetence! Turns out, the USPS played a large part on this one.
Of course this story is not typical, but if I mail something to New Orleans, it shouldnt take a whole entire week to arrive there! That is ridiculous! That just happened.
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.
Yes, they do screw up. As you say, not typical. UPS loses stuff, too. And the post office volume is many many times that of UPS. People screw up some times. I bet you do, too, sometimes. To the credit of the post office, they didn't just throw it away, did they? It's a big man than can admit a mistake.
Recently, Mrs. Tbone and I embarked on a reorganization project. The "stuff" we had stored in the attic over the years was a jumbled-up mess. We couldn't find anything. Stacks of the usual "grocery store" boxes full of our "stuff" would fall over. "Wouldn't it be nice," she asked, "if all this stuff was in boxes the same size and shape? We could stack 'em like bricks!" "Great idea!" I said. "But where are we gonna get the money to go out and buy a bazillion boxes all the same size and shape?"
Then along came my hero, Mr. Zip!
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1103.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fg463%2Ftbone0106%2FMrZip-2003.png&hash=771bde5ac81d181a8b2a499ae46b6824b70e89e0)
Did you know that the U.S. Postal Service will provide you with shipping boxes for free? Did you know that the U.S. Postal Service will deliver those shipping boxes -- in handy cartons of 25 -- to your door for free? Did you know that there's no limit on how many you can get, and no obligation whatsoever to use them for anything related to the post office?
Does this strike you as stupid?
Now our attic is full of our "stuff" all packed neatly in labeled USPS boxes, and stacked in neat, ordered rows. Life is good. God bless the USA. :P :P :P
If first class postage -- three cents until 1958 -- had gone up with the Consumer Price Index, we'd be paying 23 cents for a stamp today. The post office isn't efficient and never will be, simply because it doesn't have to be.
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 09:04:03 AM
So your experience with the post office is mostly bad, too? Come on. I simply don't believe you.
UKay mentioned a $20 fee to replace a lost social security card. Sounds stiff to me, too, but this is what is called a "user fee." Nobody likes to pay taxes, right? So why should all of us who have not lost our social security card pay anything for those that do. Why shouldn't the fair cost of replacing a lost card be assessed to the poor guy that lost it. Maybe $20 is too much, I don't know. But I do know, now that I know it costs $20 to replace it (I've had mine for 45 years, BTW) I'll be more careful about it.
And I have been to the very federal building she mentioned. It's worth $20 not to have to visit it for ANYTHING, in my opinion.
Young man, I have lived way way longer then you. What you believe is your problem. I have lived it. I now drive 60 miles for my mail. Yet my neighbors a mile a way get there mail delivered. I just don't live in there county. By the way did I say they have to drive by my place to deliver there mail. But that ok I only get my mail once a month or so, and they have to us 3 or 4 mail boxs at the post office for all my junk mail. LOL
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 08:56:46 AM
What I stated is accurate of the Postal Service. Surely you are not implying I am stretching the truth, right?
A True Story of Our Postal Service....
My daughter, Rachel had entered 11th grade and there was a big meeting on what was being planned for the year so that we could raise money to provide a fun prom for all the kids. The 11th graders in her high school always hosts the prom for the Seniors. (keep in mind she has graduated now and in college and registered to this forum approx 30 minutes ago. She will support my story for you bc she is involved in this. She probably knows more than I do about this event.)
Any way, at the end of the big pow wow meeting, the lady stated that all information plus more detailed information would be mailed to each and everyone of us shortly.
I never got that letter... A year later, when Rachel entered 12th grade, the letter arrived. I looked at the letter very well and noticed it was mailed August of the previous year and it showed my proper addresss. The last stop it made was to Scottsdale Arizona before arriving at my house!
What a trip that letter took!!
And what a bad year I had in 11th grade. I thought the lady simply didnt do a very good job, but had I had the detailed letter, I am sure I would have had a different opinion. It is a good thing I didnt speak negatively of the lady's incompetence! Turns out, the USPS played a large part on this one.
Of course this story is not typical, but if I mail something to New Orleans, it shouldnt take a whole entire week to arrive there! That is ridiculous! That just happened.
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.
I am unsure how or where that last paragraph came from, but I am not the author of it.
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 09:04:03 AM
So your experience with the post office is mostly bad, too? Come on. I simply don't believe you.
No, D'boy. It is not mostly bad. It is just not the great service I grew up accustomed to for it has indeed declined. Up until the early to mid 80's, if someone stated: "I mailed the $100.00 check to you a day ago." I could then add up when it should arrive. Like clock work, it arrived when I thought it would arrive. Today, forget this! I never know when something will arrive. This doesnt mean I consider USPS as completely incompetent, but it isnt at all what it used to be. No wonder it has $ woes!
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 09:04:03 AM
UKay mentioned a $20 fee to replace a lost social security card. Sounds stiff to me, too, but this is what is called a "user fee."
This is not what the federal SS website called it. You can go see for yourself what their website states pertaining to replacing the card.
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 09:04:03 AM
Nobody likes to pay taxes, right? So why should all of us who have not lost our social security card pay anything for those that do.
D'boy, wait a minute please. I look at this entirely different from you. You know what ran through my mind when my boy lost his SS card? Hell! That number is so Uncle Sam can take him to the cleaners yearly! Bet they will furnish him a free card when they want him to pay taxes! What is wrong with my thinking?
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 09:04:03 AM
Why shouldn't the fair cost of replacing a lost card be assessed to the poor guy that lost it. Maybe $20 is too much, I don't know. But I do know, now that I know it costs $20 to replace it (I've had mine for 45 years, BTW) I'll be more careful about it.
D'boy, there is no picture on this plain card nor are there finger prints. It is a simple card with the person's SS#. 20 dollars is absurd when the entire point of the card is to shaft my kid every April 15th?
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 09:04:03 AM
And I have been to the very federal building she mentioned. It's worth $20 not to have to visit it for ANYTHING, in my opinion.
Thank you! They are totally 100% incompetent downtown Jackson at the fed bldg! Frankly, I viewed it as the govt should pay me 20 dollars not to go downtown to that 3rd world backwards building! Geez!
Btw, my boy found his SS card days later after so we were spared.
Quote from: tbone0106 on May 03, 2011, 09:12:14 AM
Did you know that the U.S. Postal Service will provide you with shipping boxes for free? Did you know that the U.S. Postal Service will deliver those shipping boxes -- in handy cartons of 25 -- to your door for free? Did you know that there's no limit on how many you can get, and no obligation whatsoever to use them for anything related to the post office?
Yes, I know due to the fact I am an Ebayer person.
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 09:58:16 AM
No, D'boy. It is not mostly bad. It is just not the great service I grew up accustomed to for it has indeed declined. Up until the early to mid 80's, if someone stated: "I mailed the $100.00 check to you a day ago." I could then add up when it should arrive. Like clock work, it arrived when I thought it would arrive. Today, forget this! I never know when something will arrive. This doesnt mean I consider USPS as completely incompetent, but it isnt at all what it used to be. No wonder it has $ woes!
This is not what the federal SS website called it. You can go see for yourself what their website states pertaining to replacing the card.
D'boy, wait a minute please. I look at this entirely different from you. You know what ran through my mind when my boy lost his SS card? Hell! That number is so Uncle Sam can take him to the cleaners yearly! Bet they will furnish him a free card when they want him to pay taxes! What is wrong with my thinking?
D'boy, there is no picture on this plain card nor are there finger prints. It is a simple card with the person's SS#. 20 dollars is absurd when the entire point of the card is to shaft my kid every April 15th?
Thank you! They are totally 100% incompetent downtown Jackson at the fed bldg! Frankly, I viewed it as the govt should pay me 20 dollars not to go downtown to that 3rd world backwards building! Geez!
Btw, my boy found his SS card days later after so we were spared.
10-4. The thing is, sometimes when people say they mailed a check, they really didn't. But have it your way.
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 10:03:22 AM
Yes, I know due to the fact I am an Ebayer person.
Being an Ebayer, I guess you could use UPS or FedEx, too, right? Do you use USPS, too?
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 10:21:04 AM
Being an Ebayer, I guess you could use UPS or FedEx, too, right? Do you use USPS, too?
I use both UPS and USPS. It just depends.
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 10:25:13 AM
I use both UPS and USPS. It just depends.
Apparently USPS isn't so bad you've gone to UPS exclusively then. Would that be a fair statement?
USPS is down the road from my house. 3 minutes away. ;)
Btw, did you have an answer about the fact they are poorly managed? T gave the example of the fact they brought him a bunch of free boxes to store goods in his attic. :))
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 10:37:50 AM
USPS is down the road from my house. 3 minutes away. ;)
Btw, did you have an answer about the fact they are poorly managed? T gave the example of the fact they brought him a bunch of free boxes to store goods in his attic. :))
Don't have an answer for the boxes. I believe him if he says it's so. All I can say is they must think they generate enough revenue from those that actually use the boxes to send stuff by USPS to more than pay for those few who basically rip them off. Kind of like when grocery stores sell stuff below cost. Is that poor management? Or is it smart business?
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 11:07:31 AM
Don't have an answer for the boxes. I believe him if he says it's so. All I can say is they must think they generate enough revenue from those that actually use the boxes to send stuff by USPS to more than pay for those few who basically rip them off. Kind of like when grocery stores sell stuff below cost. Is that poor management? Or is it smart business?
Well now I use UPS as they come right to my house as needed.
FedX will only come out when they feel like it. Then I have to go down to the main road when they call.
I dont fool with FedEx. I havent anything negative nor positive to say about them. ;D
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 09:37:23 AM
I am unsure how or where that last paragraph came from, but I am not the author of it.
That last paragraph was in my original post. Your response just happened to copy it.
Quote from: walkstall on May 03, 2011, 09:32:14 AM
Young man, I have lived way way longer then you. What you believe is your problem. I have lived it. I now drive 60 miles for my mail. Yet my neighbors a mile a way get there mail delivered. I just don't live in there county. By the way did I say they have to drive by my place to deliver there mail. But that ok I only get my mail once a month or so, and they have to us 3 or 4 mail boxs at the post office for all my junk mail. LOL
Congratulations on a long life. I am 60+. If you are driving 60 miles for your mail, it's by your own choice. Rural free delivery has been around since the 1930's.
Quote from: U_Kay on May 03, 2011, 12:36:47 PM
I dont fool with FedEx. I havent anything negative nor positive to say about them. ;D
I have experience with all three: FedEx, UPS, and USPS. I find them about equal. Sometimes FedEx ground is cheaper than the other two. Sometimes not. I can use all three, so I pick the least expensive one.
Since this is all about anecdotes, here's another real one. Ordered books from Amazon. com and got their free shipping. For some reason, they split the shipment in two and sent one USPS and one UPS. I have no idea why. Maybe they're so big they're getting like government. All I know is, that's what they did. Sent me two e-mails, one for each, telling me when to expect receipt. They were both shipped on the SAME DAY from the SAME PLACE, one by UPS and one by USPS. The estimated dates of receipt were 3 days hence for UPS and 5 days for USPS. The USPS arrived in 3 and the UPS arrived in 5, the exact opposite. And the UPS box was crushed. Book wasn't damaged, but it was beat up. The USPS box looked brand new.
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 12:50:28 PM
I have experience with all three: FedEx, UPS, and USPS. I find them about equal. Sometimes FedEx ground is cheaper than the other two. Sometimes not. I can use all three, so I pick the least expensive one.
Since this is all about anecdotes, here's another real one. Ordered books from Amazon. com and got their free shipping. For some reason, they split the shipment in two and sent one USPS and one UPS. I have no idea why. Maybe they're so big they're getting like government. All I know is, that's what they did. Sent me two e-mails, one for each, telling me when to expect receipt. They were both shipped on the SAME DAY from the SAME PLACE, one by UPS and one by USPS. The estimated dates of receipt were 3 days hence for UPS and 5 days for USPS. The USPS arrived in 3 and the UPS arrived in 5, the exact opposite. And the UPS box was crushed. Book wasn't damaged, but it was beat up. The USPS box looked brand new.
I think I have received one something from UPS that was broken. As for USPS, I think I've received only a couple things that were broken.
I have really had good luck on shipping items with both though.
Quote from: doughboy on May 03, 2011, 12:45:50 PM
Congratulations on a long life. I am 60+. If you are driving 60 miles for your mail, it's by your own choice. Rural free delivery has been around since the 1930's.
You are just a young man and in the learning stage of your life yet. ;D
Quote
Rural free delivery has been around since the 1930's.
Yes it has. But NOT in my area THEY DO NOT DELIVER. We get a( FREE) LOL mail box at the post office so the don't have to deliver. NOT by my choice at 4.599$ a gal for diesel. :o
I'm an Ebayer too, and because I sell and ship mostly small light items, I use USPS almost exclusively. Not only do they provide free shipping boxes, they offer a discount on postage bought online and free "delivery confirmation" (tracking). The mail carrier comes by every single day, and all I have to do is request a pickup online. Oh, it's nice!
Delivery times for stuff I've sent out has been mostly good, occasionally bad, once in a while outstanding. Over the past year, one buyer complained the item I sent him was broken. (I have strong reason to think he was lying, but that's neither here nor there.)
But that's not the point of anything I've said. The USPS is an inefficient monster, and the comparison of USPS to UPS and Fedex illustrates what I'm saying perfectly. USPS has the clear advantage in seniority. USPS has a legal monopoly in some areas of endeavor. USPS has the backing of the US government. And last, but certainly not least, USPS has no need to make a profit. These are all VERY powerful competitive advantages, yet UPS and Fedex (and Airborne Express, to a lesser degree) compete successfully and USPS is crying for -- and receiving -- rate increases every year.