tgo
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 816
|
Post by tgo on Jun 8, 2006 14:53:07 GMT -5
"mmmm... teamsters, so lazy and surly."
i am fine with paying a toll for every place you go, that would decrease traffic and save the environment right?
you think that dc children have access to public education? how about those in the fiefdom of the la unified monolith? they dont have access to education either.
and lastly, if anyone is going to be big brother, i vote for Cam, I know you would be the cool big brother who takes me to a strip club and buys me a beer at age 12.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2006 15:35:08 GMT -5
"mmmm... teamsters, so lazy and surly." i am fine with paying a toll for every place you go, that would decrease traffic and save the environment right? you think that dc children have access to public education? how about those in the fiefdom of the la unified monolith? they dont have access to education either. and lastly, if anyone is going to be big brother, i vote for Cam, I know you would be the cool big brother who takes me to a strip club and buys me a beer at age 12. True story. You know I'd take good care of you, tgo. But PLEASE don't make me pay tolls every time I drive. If I spent that much time in line for toll booths, I'd seriously road rage. And I use public transportation most of the time and only drive on weekends... And hifi - I'm not in favor of Big Brother. I just think that a lot of Americans who gripe about government being over-intrusive, taxing us too much, etc. need to see the rest of the world and put our system in perspective. Talk to some Europeans someday about how they pay twice as much as a lot of Americans in taxes. A lot of them also have cheap universal health care and free education for all (tangent off at this point to an argument about quality of health care and education - on second thought, don't). So, instead of paying big bucks to health insurers and schools and universities, they pay the government in advance, and the money gets redistributed. Is it the "correct" answer? No, but it has its upsides. So does our system, and I actually think we get better value for our tax dollars overall, more choices and better quality in most things. Overall, though, I guess I'd just rather pay my taxes, trust the government to do good things most of the time, and understand that those things cost money. I also think there are plenty of things our government spends money on that are ridiculous and expensive and Edited me off. I live in the District of Columbia, for crying out loud. I pay a lot of taxes here, and can hardly get my street plowed when it snows. But some of those high taxes also helped the city raise the money to land the Expos/Nationals, and now I don't have to trek to Baltimore to see a baseball game. It's a trade-off, and one that I'll take, considering we don't get much snow here, and I don't drive much anyway. On the other hand, it seems like you want to have your cake and eat it too. And then the cake should regenerate so your children and grandchildren can eat is as well. It looks like you agree with tgo on a lot of things here, which pretty much makes you a whack-job as far as I'm concerned. At least I know and like tgo, so I let it slide from him. Plus, he voted for me for "Big Brother".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2006 15:55:45 GMT -5
|
|
SoCalHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
No es bueno
Posts: 1,313
|
Post by SoCalHoya on Jun 8, 2006 17:24:17 GMT -5
Well, this really has devolved into quite a post, hasn't it?
Anyway, no matter where you stand on gov't action or inaction, I think we can all agree that gov't should make it priorirty #1 to wipe Syracuse off the face of the earth.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 8, 2006 19:36:43 GMT -5
I love how HiFi never once addresses other people's problems, like the 5 billion+ people that do NOT have the privileges we on this board enjoy. Easy for you to talk about getting rid of all services. I'll tell you what, when you walk past the tons of homeless people sleeping outside Lafayette Square every evening, and see the same mentally ill homeless person not receiving treatment, food or shelter for 2 years while working on maybe the most powerful street in the world, K St NW, then you may change your view about things. Now go to Sub-Saharan Africa. By the way, have you EVER spent some time outside the US? And I'm not talking Tijuana or Ibiza, but some real time in a country? A poor country? Have you ever seen inner cities in the US? Have you ever traveled to a country with a more comprehensive welfare state than the shell that Bush has left of the New Deal? Or is this always about you and your well-off white buddies ranting over their beers at the bar?
It is laughable to think that the majority of US tax dollars, or any state's, go to fund bridges in Alaska (enacted by one of the biggest conservative senators by the way). Most tax revenue goes into meaningful services - and paying Halliburton in Iraq of course. Cry me a river about the poor rich folk affected by the evil government. In a world where the 3 richest billionaires have more assets than the 45 poorest countries, I'm really worried about some Wall Street i-banker losing out on a couple of thou. (And as if all their money is even in America. Try off-shore banks in the Cayman Islands).
Big Brother: What is your opinion of the NSA wire-taps? If you understand Orwell, you would know that THAT's what Big Bro is referring to: a police state where people are in secret prisons and tortured in extra-territorial camps, NOT the welfare state.
If you want to cut spending, why not cut the military budget that is more than the next 24 countries combined? Does the US really need another mini-nuke or stealth fighter?
Finally, you really need to read some political philosophy, economics and sociology.
Edit.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 9, 2006 13:38:50 GMT -5
Nitro, I love how you put words in my mouth. I guess you just make it up as you go along. In any case my point in asking the question was to try to get back to the basics. Most everyone here from both sides of the political aisle has mentioned too much government spending. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are immune to this. It seems to me that it is very hard to cut programs, not that it never happens, but it is rare. So once something gets written into the budget it is far more likely to stay there than to go away. Given that we are adding new programs every year, this seems like a formula for the escalating budget that we currently have. If we could "start over" ... and obviously this is theroetical ... what do we need from government? Believe me, it wasn't a baited question. What are my views of the wire taps ... I have mixed views. I have far more trust than I have skepticism. That being said, I don't think there was rampant abuse of the powers. But there could be and that is certainly a danger. I have a different view with regard to privacy. I think that the threat of a danger could give reasonable cause to infringe of privacy for example. But the problem is that it is impossible to devise a formula for which we would all agree. Look at it this way: if I am going on a flight and the airport security gets wind of an unspecifies hijack plan, I have no problem allowing my luggage to be searched. Do I want this to happen? Of course not. But I think there should be a caveat exempting me from charges for a lesser petty "crime" if it is uncovered in that intrusive search. I don't know if this is clear or not but what I am saying is that if there is enough danger to the threat then I don't have a problem compromising my own privacy with the understanding that something minor that arises is overlooked. In other words if they are searching for bombs or weapons then I think that justifies compromising my privacy. But if during the search they see my bag of weed in my toiletries kit, they ignore it. Does that make sense? That being said, I think the dangers of someone abusing their power is great enough to not allow unchecked breaches of privacy. I'm not sure the point of your asking me if I have been to inner cities. Yes I have. I can only presume that you for some reason think I am a golden spoon fed child. You are sorely mistaken. I have been working since I was 14. I have always had to save and buy my own car as well as cover my own expenses -- insurance etc... I know many others can say the same thing, and I am only pointing this out because you seem to have a picture of me living the Country Club life and not knowing how the "other half" live. In any case, presuming you asked about the inner city because you thought I had no idea how poor some people really are, I assure you that is not the case. The fact that there are some who have nothing ... literally nothing other than the rags on their backs ... means what? What is your point in pointing out the downtrodden? Presumably there was some connection between your answer and my question. So what should government do? Your response is ... ? Help the poor? Is it that simple?
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 9, 2006 19:21:55 GMT -5
My point is: who is gonna take care of disadvantaged people? I believe we as human beings are responsible for others less fortunate for ourselves. Some people limit that circle of responsibility to their families or just themselves. I include all human beings. In terms of policy, I use the subsidiarity principle, which determines that whoever is most proximately able to help people in need has the moral duty to do so. I personally feel very strongly about the state (not necessarily at the federal level, could be regional or city government) doing this, because I don't see a realistic alternative. So when I see homeless people without anything, I try and help them, but there really is nothing I can do to change their circumstance on my own.
Talking in the US context, I strongly agree with FDR's 4 economic and social freedoms. Also Cass Sunstein of UChicago's law school has a book out entitled the "Second Bill of Rights" talking about the need to ensure people's economic and social human rights as we attempt to protect their civil and political rights. So my point about knowing in a real way that 45 million people don't have healthcare, and seeing Katrina, is that it makes one understand the need for a state to re-distribute.
If you don't agree, it must be because of the merit principle: I work hard, and they're just lazy. Or it must be because you feel it isn't yours, and by extension the state's, responsibility to take care of the needy. Since you adamantly want to cut social spending, the question is, who then takes on that role, or is everyone their own woman or man? That latter response seems rather chilling to me. But again, it's important to understand the ramifications of cutting spending.
By the way, like I suggested, the US could save immensely if it cut back on its defense spending, which is INCREASING by 10% a year at the moment. Not going to war would help a lot as well ($4-6 billion/month, ouch).
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 10, 2006 12:12:16 GMT -5
My point is: who is gonna take care of disadvantaged people? I believe we as human beings are responsible for others less fortunate for ourselves. Some people limit that circle of responsibility to their families or just themselves. I include all human beings. In terms of policy, I use the subsidiarity principle, which determines that whoever is most proximately able to help people in need has the moral duty to do so. I personally feel very strongly about the state (not necessarily at the federal level, could be regional or city government) doing this, because I don't see a realistic alternative. So when I see homeless people without anything, I try and help them, but there really is nothing I can do to change their circumstance on my own. Talking in the US context, I strongly agree with FDR's 4 economic and social freedoms. Also Cass Sunstein of UChicago's law school has a book out entitled the "Second Bill of Rights" talking about the need to ensure people's economic and social human rights as we attempt to protect their civil and political rights. So my point about knowing in a real way that 45 million people don't have healthcare, and seeing Katrina, is that it makes one understand the need for a state to re-distribute. If you don't agree, it must be because of the merit principle: I work hard, and they're just lazy. Or it must be because you feel it isn't yours, and by extension the state's, responsibility to take care of the needy. Since you adamantly want to cut social spending, the question is, who then takes on that role, or is everyone their own woman or man? That latter response seems rather chilling to me. But again, it's important to understand the ramifications of cutting spending. By the way, like I suggested, the US could save immensely if it cut back on its defense spending, which is INCREASING by 10% a year at the moment. Not going to war would help a lot as well ($4-6 billion/month, ouch). I see some conflicting principles on these related issues frequetly. Church is almost a four letter word to many. The famous separation of church and state mantra is far more often talked about than it is realized as a legitimate threat. The principle that our founding fathers envisioned was one where the people were free to worship as they wanted. The modern view is more one of the government removing any religious factor from our daily lives. I am totally convinced that our founding fathers never intended to virtually criminalize a prayer to start a football game for example. I think the opposite is actually true. I think they would have pictured, if the government were to have any involvement at all, insisting that the coach and players had that right to do so. What is the point in all this? The point is that one of the many activities/services that relidious organizations provide is assistance for the needy. In addition to structured meals etc... the individuals themselves often give person to person help in many forms. So we have on one hand governmental programs to provide assistance and aid to the needy while at the same time "hassling" for lack of a better word, the very organizations who would be giving some of that aid in the first place. There is just too strong of an underlying tone that "religiousl zealots" are out there trying to force their religion on us all. Yes, evangelism is an integral part of most religions. Just today pundits were stressing Bush as being a man of faith and criticizing him for his beliefs. Why? I have gottne off on a tangent, but my point is that "freedom of religion" is now "freedom from religion." It is almost as if government has taken the stance that every individual should be free to go about their daily lives without so much as tangential contact with anything which could be religious in nature. That is a far cry from what Jefferson, Adams and the rest envisioned.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 10, 2006 12:15:08 GMT -5
One more thing. Government seems to be your idea of utopia. The government is NEVER the most efficient way to do anything. Government's mechanism is coersion. That is to say government makes people do that which they would otherwise not do, or prevents them from doing that which they would otherwise do. So the more we "increase" government, fundamentally the more we are limiting our freedoms. Doesn't that go against you basic views?
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jun 12, 2006 12:43:25 GMT -5
Democracy isn't SUPPOSED to be efficient.
Democracy is supposed to take time so that people act deliberately, not hastily or without all the facts. It's supposed to protect the weak from the kind of group-think mob mentality that has crushed opposing views for millenia simply because the biggest, strongest group didn't like them, or beacuse the government was too weak to stop them even if they weren't a big group (eg Bolsheviks, military coups, etc.). It's supposed to, in some ways, necessarily limit the scope of certain types of government because it takes too long to address many problems. It's supposed to ensure stability and guard against the undue influence of private interests for the good of the many. Its purpose lies with considering the consequences of legislative, executive, judicial, and administrative actions before those actions are made so that we don't end of screwing people over in the long run and having them come back and overthrow the government violently. Like Hoyatables succinctly put it, "It should do its best to take care of those matters that don't get handled property by the marketplace." And let's face it, there's a LOT the marketplace is no good at handling. It's about working together, not working against. That's both its beauty, and - for those who want business-like efficiency and results-oriented decision-making and evaluation - its curse.
Speaking of freedom - do you mean "freedom" or "liberty?" To me it sounds like you mean liberty. Please explain.
So is government too big? What does too big mean? Big like a McDonald's value meal (i.e. fatty, way too many calories, cumulative toxins, and flatulence producing ingredients)? Big like a muscle car (wasteful but really fun to drive)? Big like a nuclear bomb (so powerful no one wants to use it but everyone wants one to scare the other guy)? Or big like Roy Hibbert (bigger than everybody else, but respected, feared, always improving, hard working, providing both surprises and heartbreak to its constituents, and getting bigger because that's what it takes to win)?
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Jun 12, 2006 13:19:36 GMT -5
Coast, you make some decent points but predominantly with regard to this particular issue you throw a bunch of "good-sounding" but fundamentally shallow ideals out there. Using your logic then Government will do nothing but necessarily continue to grow eventually into its collapse from within. Is that the only alternative or necessary outcome? It's tough to argue any single one of those "feel good" views of government that you suggest, but I think you would understand that if we simply use that logic to justify government involvement in an issue then all we have done is give a blanket approval for the creating of government agencies for anyone's idea of a "good idea."
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jun 12, 2006 16:08:26 GMT -5
Thanks, Hifi. Well, for the first part of that first sentence, anyway. At the outset, let me say that I respect your opinion and the general thrust of your argument. I understand that the extreme of any particular line of argument, unmitigated, will lead to an eventuality at odds with the country's needs. I don't think any of us would practically advocate the type of government you fear we would. However:
(1) Please don't misconstrue my point: if you're going to say something's too big, you have to say why. Maybe the federal government is too big. Perhaps its methods are coercive. Either way, how is baldly stating the idea that "government's mechanism is coercion" any less shallow (by your definition of shallow) when the original argument is about size? Psychologically too, how is that view helpful to better governance in a society based on government by consent of the governed? I think that kind of view breeds apathy. It might be fun to discuss academically, but it won't solve anything.
(2) There's nothing wrong with wanting my government to feel good. Do you think it wrong that I want my government to feel good? Is it wrong that I want to do what I can to make it so? I ask these questions not rhetorically, but because for some the idea of a "feel good" government reads more like "liberal welfare state like Sweden." The way I look at "feel good" government, it starts with good customer service, common sense procedures, keeping sacred that which is sacred (e.g. making Election Day a National Holiday, rewarding hard work, ensuring the best public education in the world, etc.), and providing services no other organization (business, state government, NGOs, non-profits) can or should - national defense, environmental protection, highways, health care, etc. - that EVERY American should be able to use and enjoy.
When I start my federal gov job this fall, I plan to carry my "feel good government" vision into action. I plan to serve my clients vigorously, engage in courteous, responsive, professional correspondence, and diligenty do the task to which I'm appointed. My idea of "feel good" government starts there. I want to be stoked about my government and do what I can to help make it better, not lament its existence. I want to work hard to make the world a better place. If that's shallow, then I'm fine being on this end of the pool.
(3) I certainly don't advocate the creation of agencies for "anyone's idea of a 'good idea.'" Take the many overlapping kinds of intelligence agencies. Or the different agencies tasked with different types of environmental protection with totally different missions (compare the Forst Service with the Park Service with EPA, for example). Besides, with healthy political discourse, you'd never get a proliferation of agencies anyway because the nature of healthy democracy is consensus, not pet projects. Pet projects are the spawn of corrupt and greedy men, not a "liberal" agenda. It happens with both parties regardless of affiliation.
I'd actually like to see fewer agencies overall, with improved definition of responsibilities, interagency cooperation and communication, and something like a "plain English" movement with respect to acronyms and names for offices and departments. I'd also like to see fewer laws on the books at the federal, state, and local levels by way of consolidation and streamlining. Think about it though - if one of the major arguments against "big government" is that it's wasteful, bloated, and slow, think about the financial, human, and temporal resources that would be needed to "shrink" it. Either way, you're talking about a heady investment for the effectuation of long-term goals that many of us share.
(4) If you're looking for specifics, here it is: (1) kill corporate and agribusiness subsidies as much as possible. I'm so tired of big businesses complaining about how they need the government to bail them out, but then complain when that same government argues its right to oversee/regulate those businesses in the name of the public welfare. (2) Reduce defense spending. It should really be called military spending. Really, do we need to spend more $$ than all other G-8 nations combined on the military? Doesn't that send the wrong message to people who are already wary of our unmatched military might? And what happened to the idea that defense begins with diplomacy? (3) Raise taxes on the rich, bring back capital gains and the estate tax, and make it incrementally hard to be a greedy, think-only-of-myself-and-my-condo-at-the-Ritz rich guy (at least until we get out of this deficit/debt hole we're in. Then re-evalute the usefulness of the taxes and how good they are for the country). In terms of personal income tax, do it in a smart way, by increasing the number of tax brackets upward into the $10 million range or something. Having the top bracket tax be at only a couple hundred thousand $ doesn't address the problem of the rich-poor divide from the tax end. And it is a problem that needs to be addressed. A couple hundred thou' doesn't qualify, in my mind, as the apex of personal income anymore.
(5) Simple logic won't create a better American government - mine, yours, or any single individual's or political group's. People can argue logic until they're blue in the face and fix/create/solve nothing. The key is open, respectful, deliberate dialogue that includes logical reasoning as well as the facts pertinent to a particular situation, historical context, a plan, and the guts to see things through. I say drop the party labels and deal with things issue by issue. Like John Maynard Keynes once said: "When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?"
Wow. That was a long post. I really have to get back to studying for the bar now :-).
|
|
|
Post by Nitrorebel on Jun 12, 2006 16:39:36 GMT -5
HiFi: here's a thought. Why not get a little island in Micronesia or somewhere and live without all these pesky fellow human beings. While there, you can spend the time reading "Lord of the Flies."
Personally, I'd prefer to get rid of nation-states in their current constitution and resort to city states or regional governments as envisioned in the original Attican view of democracy. In effect, cities like NYC or London are already city states anyway. That's not gonna happen tho. I'm not a fan of government for government's sake, but because I understand that getting millions of people to live together isn't gonna work smoothly without some sort of centralized administration. Like I've said previously, PLEASE address the concepts of demerit, merit and public goods in any responses. Also, please state what makes religious institutions more trustworthy than civil servants. I'll give my money to the mob to provide government services Godfather-style before giving it to Jim Bakker or Chuck Colson. What makes pastors or imams without any background in economics or political science qualified to distribute resources? What makes you think they'd do so efficiently? Finally, please also state what your normative opinion is of disadvantaged people in society: are they all lazy and free riders, not deserving of help?
|
|