Liberal free for all coming to an end

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Huzzah! The Feds should only be involved in national defense and the wellbeing of the country as it was originally intended. And I quote Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution:

There are only 17 things that the fed has power over, which is mainly dealing with national defense and some regulation of our currency.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

There are a wide spectrum of people. Some like to live completely alone with no one telling them what to do, and they hunt their own food etc. They are perfectly happy like that. At the other end of the spectrum are the French. Like I said, individual freedom isn't for everyone. May everyone find the country that is suited for them.

I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

I have a straightforward question for you, Tracy, and for The Angry Postman. It is a question posed often to politicians who seem to share some of your views, or at least express some similar views. They usually answer "entitlements," although what falls into that category (as generally defined), combined with nearly everyting else outside of the Defense Department, accounts for less than 15 percent of the federal budget.

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Life/health and a busted car are hardly equal.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

The principle is still the same though.

Yes, these are essentially the same thing. Because in America, there is no more a fundamental right to transportation than there is a fundamental right to health care. If your car breaks down and you don't have the money to fix it...You're up shits creek without a paddle. If you have a life-threatening illness and don't have the money/insurance to pay for treatment...You are also out of luck.

And since health care reform is SOOOO expensive, need I remind everyone that America has the highest per capita cost of healthcare of ANY nation in the world, and for far worse outcomes. The statistics would suggest that a single-payer system would actually be far cheaper than the "for profit" model of insurance that we currently have. By removing administrative overlap of multiple insurers, not to mention the egregious CEO salaries, and the billions of dollars of dividends that are paid to shareholders...And you take BILLIONS of dollars out of health care cost. Yes, you "pay" a wage to a doctor for his services. And yes, the doctor must "profit" enough from his procedures to pay his secretary, his staff, and his overhead. But a doctor need not "profit" so much as to make millions of dollars of salary (like a corporate CEO) nor to pay dividends (as corporations do).

I find it funny to hear people say that we can't afford health care reform. Personally, I think we can't afford NOT to reform health care. The current bill was far from perfect, and lacked a lot of cost-containment measures. But according to the only record keeper that really matters (the non-partisan CBO), the current effort at health care reform actually shaves roughly $138 billion from the deficit over ten years.

It's also highly disingenous to suggest that "85% of people are happy with their insurance." It's more appropriate to say that a large percentage of people don't want to have to sacrifice their quality of care for a substandard type of care. Nevermind that many people with insurance are underinsured. MANY people who called for health care reform believe that the legislation did not go far enough...Far more than 15% that Tracy would suggest. Because the fact of the matter is, not EVERYONE in this country believes that a broken down car and life-threatening illness should be the same thing. Some of us believe that health care should be a right.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by GRH

Some of us believe that health care should be a right.

Why is healthcare a right? Shouldn't it be the right of a person to eat healthy and stay fit? Aside from the odd freak accident, alot of health problems can be averted by simple oversight of ones habits. You have the ability to exercise and you have the ability to stuff your face with twinkies until you become a bloated lard with diabeetus and numerous other health problems. If you choose one, you will have to deal with the consequences regardless of the outcome, whether it is good or bad. All these social welfare programs do is absolve those who make bad descisions of their personal responsibilities and pass the buck onto someone else.

I don't know about you but I don't like having money pulled from my paycheck to fund some lazy EBT using asshole and their horrible eating habits just so they can eat themselves into a hospital bed and/or a casket. I should not be responsible for someones well being unless I choose to do so.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

This "states' rights" argument is rather stale coming from more libertarian-leaning people. It's a very shallow fall-back phrase that they like to use...But the truth of the matter is, libertarians have no more use for "states' rights" than they have use for the "federal government." I've found that people that espouse "states' rights" are really just anti-government at heart. Don't let them fool you.

I've never heard of a convincing argument for the libertarian's diet though. I mean, surely libertarians object to the federal beauracracy which inspects meat, vegetables, and food products for safety. I suppose they'd rather live somewhere like China where such inspections rarely if ever happen. Contaminants regularly work their way into the Chinese food supply. And then we get to see the "free market" work it's magic. Thousands of people get sick, and perhaps thousands die. Then the benevolent "free market" punishes the businesses which were lax in their regulation. But it takes THOUSANDS of people getting sick for action to take place. I don't know about you, but me...I prefer a diet where we try to catch instances of contamination BEFORE thousands of people have to get sick and die. But I'm sure libertarians would prefer less intrusion into their diet. I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind if it was their child that died from melanine-tainted milk...Afterall, principles before personal attachments. Their child's death would be one of the cogs in the pseudo-magical "free market."

I guess some libertarians would prefer a "states' rights" approach. I guess they'd settle for a disparate patchwork of regulation that differs between all 50 states. So some states may have safer food than others. Me...I'm glad for the federal standards. I'm glad that our Supreme Court hasn't so narrowly interpretted the Constitution to limit the federal government to 17 duties. Because quite frankly...The libertarian diet sucks.

For that matter, much of the libertarian worldview sucks...A world where there is no safety net...Where the starving are literally left to die in the streets. Of course, without welfare, some of these same libertarians couldn't complain when the peasants rise out of their shackles and take by force what the rich hoarde to themselves. Afterall, the government has no business protecting people's wealth either. It's a harsh, dog-eat-dog world.

[GRH]

I'm always very curious to engage conservatives in conversations about what they value. I mean, supposedly they value low taxes but also value fiscal accountability. The two don't really go hand-in-hand.

Republicans say they want to roll back discretionary spending...Great! That only accounts for roughly 15% of all federal spending.

Republicans say they don't want to cut defense spending, even though it has been our involvement in two wars which has contributed greatly to our deficit.

And Republicans say they want to make permanent the Bush tax cuts...Even though these same tax cuts make up 55% of our deficit.

Sounds to me like they want to have their cake and eat it too. I mean, I don't see it being fiscally responsible to make tax cuts part of your policy, when those same tax cuts are responsible for the vast majority of the deficit. Can someone explain this mystery to me?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by GRH

This "states' rights" argument is rather stale coming from more libertarian-leaning people. It's a very shallow fall-back phrase that they like to use...But the truth of the matter is, libertarians have no more use for "states' rights" than they have use for the "federal government." I've found that people that espouse "states' rights" are really just anti-government at heart. Don't let them fool you.

I've never heard of a convincing argument for the libertarian's diet though. I mean, surely libertarians object to the federal beauracracy which inspects meat, vegetables, and food products for safety. I suppose they'd rather live somewhere like China where such inspections rarely if ever happen. Contaminants regularly work their way into the Chinese food supply. And then we get to see the "free market" work it's magic. Thousands of people get sick, and perhaps thousands die. Then the benevolent "free market" punishes the businesses which were lax in their regulation. But it takes THOUSANDS of people getting sick for action to take place. I don't know about you, but me...I prefer a diet where we try to catch instances of contamination BEFORE thousands of people have to get sick and die. But I'm sure libertarians would prefer less intrusion into their diet. I'm sure libertarians wouldn't mind if it was their child that died from melanine-tainted milk...Afterall, principles before personal attachments. Their child's death would be one of the cogs in the pseudo-magical "free market."

I guess some libertarians would prefer a "states' rights" approach. I guess they'd settle for a disparate patchwork of regulation that differs between all 50 states. So some states may have safer food than others. Me...I'm glad for the federal standards. I'm glad that our Supreme Court hasn't so narrowly interpretted the Constitution to limit the federal government to 17 duties. Because quite frankly...The libertarian diet sucks.

For that matter, much of the libertarian worldview sucks...A world where there is no safety net...Where the starving are literally left to die in the streets. Of course, without welfare, some of these same libertarians couldn't complain when the peasants rise out of their shackles and take by force what the rich hoarde to themselves. Afterall, the government has no business protecting people's wealth either. It's a harsh, dog-eat-dog world.

Bad products are bad for business. The "exploding" gas tank on a Ford Pinto is a good example as well as Olestra potato chips. I am not against some gov. regulations; I am against overly stict regulations that stifle productivity in order to make someone feel good. Your Robin Hood-esque attitude of "Steal from the rich to give from the poor" overlooks the fact that Robin Hood was reclaiming money stolen from the people through taxes and other less than reputable means by the existing government entity at the time i.e. Prince John (The Monarchy) and the Sheriff of Nottingham (The Local Law Enforcement and Military Body).

You are correct that many libertarians are anti-government. Governments always become despotic and oppressive and will use every tool in the book to expand their power including appealing to the "working man" to get their way. Lenin and his Bullshitvik party along with the thought process of Karl Marx appealed to the "working man" to gain control, even though they were a bunch of acedemic buddy fuckers who had never done a days work in their life and look how having a government that provided everything a person needed worked out for them.

I am for limited government GRH, not living in China. Do not confuse the two.

Originally Posted by Sallust

Every bad precedent started out as a justifiable measure

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?

If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?

If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?

Not all states have restrictive regulations. There is variety amongst states; if you don't like how one state does business, move to another one. It's the same reason why we have multiple business chains and shops rather than one monolithic WalMart. Freedom of choice. You can't really do that on a country level when few countries offer the amount of freedoms that we do and the only country that does becomes more oppressive every day.

I will not collect Social Security when I retire. I am 24 right now and by the time I am eligible to collect, there will be no more Social Security funds to draw from. Anyone who thinks about it will realize that Social Security is a massize ponzi scheme and if anyone has been paying attention to the news as of late will know that they are already denying people their SS payments because there is not enough money to keep it funded. Good luck gettin yours. If I didn't have my money taken away from me by the fed, I wouldn't have to even worry about getting back what I put in. I can fare better if I had the money that is deducted from my pay and put into Social Security put into a Roth IRA instead.

http://arthurshall.com/x_social_security.shtml
http://arthurshall.com/x_2010_social_security.shtml

BAN SOCIAL SECURITY

This article is titled "Ban Social Security" and the basic premise is of course that Social Security is the biggest rip off in the history of the world. If you think this is an overstatement, shut up and read on. The first thing we need to look at is the history of this ill-conceived program. This program was designed during the FDR (I won't refer to this communist by name) administration and that is strike one against it. The rational given to the people was it would secure a decent life for seniors but in reality it was a money grab by the administration after the precipitous decline in tax revenues as a result of the Great Depression. They told everyone "Hey give us part of your income and if you are lucky enough to live to 60 (at the time, by no means a given) we will give a measly check every month"!!! Wow, what a fucked-up, cynical system! This concept is nothing but creative wealth redistribution, which of course is every liberal's panacea. FDR was the great Robin Hood of the 20th century and he is celebrated by idiots everywhere. I hate FDR, his ideas and programs created a mushroom cloud of entitlements that threaten to cause a Chernobyl-like meltdown of our economic system.

Now, I feel like I have to give you economically challenged yokels out there a explanation of how this shit works. They take 6.2% of your income and they force your employer (McDonald's or Walmart in your case) to match that contribution. So if you look at it, those fuckers take 12.4% of your income every God damn week. Now I am going to do a calculation for you, I am sure you will not understand it but read it anyway! Now if you make $50,000 per year that means that $6200 of your hard earned dollars go into this program per year. Let's assume we were given $5000 of it and your employer kept $1200 of it to invest in the business to improve operations, hire more workers, or redistribute to shareholders (Hey, liberals… business owners create jobs! Imagine that!! Another bit of Viking wisdom for you). Next lets do some simple math, if you are 25 years old and you invested it at a 5% return (which is far below the median market return over the last 100 years) you would have a yearly income of $160,000 per year after age 65!! Now of course, we have to adjust that for inflation with the assumed rate of 3% you would have roughly $55,000 year. So in other words, by not doing anything but taking back the money that the government stole from you and doing it yourself, you could guarantee a comparable standard of living to what you enjoy now. FUCKING AMAZING!! Now if you were to actually do something extra, 401(k) for instance, your standard of living could actually improve after age 65, something that the modern SSN system is utterly incapable of doing.

I am not writing this to say that the current proposal from the Bush administration is much better than the current system. It is better but it is a stop-gap and does not fix the main issue. The main issue is that our population is aging and soon the money just flat won't be there to cover the payments. One fix for this is for you weak-minded, limp-wristed, testosterone-lacking metrosexuals to actually man up and have kids. We know this won't happen because the same groups (Dumbocrats, they are always fucking things up!) that oppose scrapping SSN are the same groups that advocate abortions for anyone and everyone. That, in combination, with your miniscule sperm count from the infusion of estrogen that you seem to thrive on is the death blow for the correct demographics for this Robin Hood system to continue to function. The only other solution to this issue is to kill the entire program. I can hear the cries from the peanut gallery already "What if the people don't invest the money and they don't have anything when they are old?" or "Who takes care of the poor people that did not do the right thing?” Well, I have a simple retort to that. FUCK EM!! If you are too stupid to take care of yourself and you think that the government should take care of you, guess what we have for you? A one way ticket to North Korea and you can see, first hand, what a government controlled system looks like. If you allow your friends and family to take that extra money and buy more Doritos with it then you deserve to pay when they need insulin to treat their self-induced diabetes. I have a fear that if we give these idiots more money they will buy more DVD's, frozen food and just generally waste all the money. Actually, that is not a fear, I own stock in all companies that take advantage of stupid people and when they are broke, fat and alone I won't be paying thousands of dollars a year to subsidize their self-destructive habits and my dividend checks will grow!! Wow that is great. The moral of the story is that we do not need Social Security and the sooner these bastards in Washington figure it out, the better of we all will be!!! Oh yeah, burn in hell FDR!!!

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I will not collect Social Security when I retire. I am 24 right now and by the time I am eligible to collect, there will be no more Social Security funds to draw from.

Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

Humor us. Instead of dodging the real question that I asked, assume there are funds available when you retire. Now answer.

I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur". If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

The people who originally put into Social Security are withdrawing more than they put in. This is something that will not be able to continue for long.

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I don't deal in the "what if" smc nor do I assume about alot of things. I deal with "what is most likely to occur".

You do realize that dealing with "what is most likely to occur" is a form of dealing with "what if," right?

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

If I assume that there are funds available, it also ignores the possibility that I might be well off by the time I retire and won't even have to bother drawing SSN. What is most likely to occur is that there will be nothing for me in the future and I will work until I die. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to retire anytime soon is blind to reality. What is the point of drawing something that I cannot fully collect on? If I could draw all my money out from Social Security, then yes, I would. But getting a measly check that is barely enough to live on back from the fed when I am old and feeble and close to death is just a horrible fallback plan for someone who was too stupid to invest wisely for the past 40+ years. I have 40+ years to invest and save right, so no, I would not.

All of the above, of course, has nothing to do with my question.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Why do you put so much faith in programs that are obvious wealth redistribution and have not provided much in return compared to the amount that is put into them? Social Security, welfare and all these other programs do not induce economic productivity. All they create is dependance on someone (namely the Fed) and punish the people who actually work and put into the system by forcing them to cover the costs. So why are you so adamant about programs that spend your money once it is taken away from you and then promise some of it back when you are near death?

Why do you put words in my mouth? Where did I write that I have faith in any of these programs? I have written about a concept of "social solidarity" but not defended a single U.S. program. I asked YOU what federal spending YOU would cut, since YOU advocate for the federal government to only have its 17 responsibilities related to defense and regulation of currency.

You are more than welcome to make your arguments, but I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me things I did not write. When I express my specific opinion about U.S. government programs, there will be no mistaking it.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Assuming that the collection of taxes by the federal government to fund anything other than defense and regulation of our currency violates the constitution, what part of federal government spending do you propose to do away with? Interstate highways? Biomedical research? Public school aid? The air traffic control system? Financial aid for college tuition? Preservation of national parks? Maintaining the Library of Congress? Should Medicare be shut down, immediately? ...

If I understand what you're saying, it's hard for me to answer that question since I do support taxing for more than just the military and regulation of currency. Of those things I propose to do away with funding for interstate highways. Funding highways forces states to abide by the national speed limit and other regulations that are a one size fits all solution. There are varying environments across the country and states should set their own regulations (although there should still of course be some consistency like signs and symbols, drive on the right, etc) and states are capable of paying for their own highways.

Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.

Biomedical research should be funded. There should be public school aid because there should be national standards in education. Air traffic control system? Of course. National parks should definitely be preserved and protected against republicans. Maintaining the Library of Congress? Sure, why not. Medicare? I'm not up on medicare, but probably.

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I feel that the military should be cut down some but not be ass-raped but cut just enough to function properly. Alot of the stuff you have listed should be done away with along with Social Security, Welfare, and numerous other programs. The government has 17 duties to the American public. Anything else should be left to the states to decide or left alone completely.

Social Security definitely needs to be overhauled. I liked the plan that Bush proposed where SS is phased out based on age. I've heard something about a new plan (by the democrats?) to lower SS benefits on the rich. Fine, as long as they don't have to pay for benefits they don't receive. And welfare... there's a whole buttload of problems there.

Originally Posted by smc

How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a "united states" at all?

Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.

Originally Posted by smc

If you're so against Social Security, are you going to collect when you retire? Sure, the government has been extracting some money out of your paycheck to cover your later draw, but on a principled basis shouldn't you refuse the payback?

I was forced in to paying into SS rather than putting that money into investments. Since I will still need that money for retirement and the government has forced that money to be in the form of SS, I have no other choice but to use it.

[smc]

Tracy, I really, really appreciate your thoughtful answer to my questions. Despite what some may think, I am genuinely interested in a rational discourse about these issues. I want to make clear that I am not a liberal; my own political/economic positions put me way outside of the sphere in which liberals are typically situated. I confess to a lack of understanding of where conservatives and libertarians are coming from, outside of what often seems to be a reaction against change, because it seems as if many positions from the conservative and libertarian perspective run contrary to the economic interests of those who profess them, and in fact serve the interests of others in a class the conservative and libertarian can never hope to attain. That is why I really do appreciate real answers to real questions.

That said, I would like to explore your answers a bit more, and pose some additional questions.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Financial aid is a good thing, but there's a problem with it... When colleges see that students are getting financial aid, they see that as an ok to raise their tuition.

I'm glad you see financial aid as a good thing, especially in a country that does not offer free or nearly free tuition and access to higher education (as is the case in many European countries). One solution might be to establish such a system. Independent of that, though, I would be interested in where you have come up with this analysis that links financial aid to tuition increases. You are describing institutions of higher education as if they are profit-maximizing entities.

I have never heard of a causal relationship of the sort you describe. Typically, schools increase tuition because of cutbacks (in the case of public universities) or cost increases (in the case of private institutions), and they typically do not cut back financial aid -- much of which comes via the federal government -- when they increase tuition.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Biomedical research should be funded.

What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Because the reality is that this country is large and diverse. A set of laws for New York may not have any merit in Alaska. California is full of liberal whackos. Fine, they can adopt liberal policies (which is working out quite well for them LOL) without tanking the rest of the country. Or, if a state wants to try something and it actually works out well, then the rest of the country can adopt it.

The quote directly above is your response to these questions I posed: "How is it any more protective of your individual rights and liberties to have government at the state level take care of all these other things? And why have a 'united states' at all?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "liberal policies" -- perhaps you mean with respect to social issues. But putting that aside, let's look at regulation. Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this. Arkansas chicken producers do not provide any label indicating what the chickens are fed, while Georgia producers are required to by state regulation. Even for those who argue "states' rights" here, there is obviously a problem so long as we have cross-state markets. So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

So, do we get rid of all the regulation, or do we get rid of the "united states" and let states negotiate trade agreements with each other that include tariffs dictating things like labels, etc.? How would you handle such a situation.

Thanks again for your answers.

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience”

Albert Camus

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.


If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.


Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.


Albert Camus

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.
If the rest of the civilized world can have universal healthcare why cant we? Oh right, we have to give tax breaks to the rich and spend billions on wars.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.
If the rest of the civilized world can have universal healthcare why cant we? Oh right, we have to give tax breaks to the rich and spend billions on wars.

You do realize that the government by itself does not make much money and the money it does have is collected from you, I and everyone else who either lives in this country or does business with us by the way of taxes and tarrifs, right? So you would be paying for inferior care whether you recognize it or not.

Can you clarify the bolded part? Is that aimed at treatment facilities, health insurance companies and hospitals or is that directed at the government?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Universal healthcare is a good idea but the government should pay for it. Requiring everyone to belong and forcing people to pay for it is a serious abrogation of our liberties.

How does the government pay for it without taxing the people for that cost?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

How does the government pay for it without taxing the people for that cost?

Well, of course we don't get something for nothing. Europeans are willing to pay high taxes for health care because they consider it worth it. It releases them from the anxiety of whether they can afford the healthcare they need to stay alive.
Apparently, in this country, the people who have healthcare don't care whether people without it live or die. I think there is a racial component to this issue along with being "poor".

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I know this was addressed to Tracy but if I may interject.

I am happy with things like food safety regulations but alot of times when there is federal involvement it usually goes from equality of opportunity where there is a level playing field and people are free to make whatever of the opportunities given to them , to determining the outcome for everyone. It is when the fed starts determining the outcome for everyone through programs is when things start becoming problematic. When things are localized, there is more responsibility placed on the individual entities and people. Things become alot more apparent upon a closer view than when looked upon with a broader view.

States and even individual cities have proven themselves capable of balancing budgets and funding programs that accomplish the same if not more than the Federal Government. Why then should the individual states not be able to determine things locally?

The problem that alot of libertarian or conservative types is not the programs themselves but the concentration of power at the highest levels and programs like those are more often than not just a way to increase power. History has proven that when there is a concentration or centralization of power, the likelyhood of corruption and favoritism exponentially increases. The reasoning for states rights is the same reason why businessess have a board of directors rather than one guy calling the shots. At higher levels where there is less familiarity with the people and what they are actually doing, the more potential there is for abuse. When you keep things at a lower level and more spread out, there is alot more responsibility placed on the individuals.

If there is a program such as Social Security or Obamacare that voluntarily allows for me to put in my money, I am all for it. Unfortunately, especially at the federal level, it no longer becomes voluntary and becomes mandatory. If people want to voluntarily put money into a program, let them. Do not threaten them with jail time or fines or increased taxes because they do not want part of your healthcare or whatever program is being pitched.

I am not saying get rid of all the regulation, just get rid of the ones that don't fall within the scope of the powers of the federal government. If states want to regulate commerce between themselves, let them determine their policies. The one-size-fits-all mentality of the fed will only benefit those who can fit in that certain "size" so to speak and only determines outcome instead of opportunity.

The thing that people don't get is that by having a blanket policy of universal healthcare, you do not get Mayo clinic treatment; you get something more along the lines of Soviet Union-esque treatment. There is a saying within the federal government and the military of "Made by the lowest bidder." If that type of policy is rampant among federal institutions, and I ask people honestly, what makes you think that "universal healthcare" would be any different. What is to stop them from handing you Ibuprofen for all your medical ailments and then telling you to go kick rocks? Afterall, they did give you treatement for your medical condition right? Beware what you wish for because you just may get it. There is no checks and balances with federal policies, once instituted you would have a better chance turning lead into gold than getting a policy or program rescinded. Governments are never known for their ability to limit their powers, only their expansion.

Just because it is well intentioned does not mean there is possibility for abuse.


Albert Camus

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

The use of "lowest bidders" is also common in the private sector. Curious you mention the military, seeing as how the US has the most advanced forces on the planet. Need I continue?

As for the tyrant quote, I must call its use absurd. I do not know what the context of it is (though I would hazard that it is referring to REAL tyrants and not democratically elected presidents), but nearly all evil people will try to cover up what they do as being for the good of the people. It is not reserved for what are deemed "liberal policies." And the briefest glance at the rest of the modern Western world will show that you are wrong about doing such things "for the good of the people" inevitably leads to tyranny or are the result of tyranny. Americans are not the sole Keepers of Liberty.

The gov. likes to spend money on stupid high speed shit but does not like to spend the extra dollar on its peons. The cost to get every service member a quality rifle in a better caliber, new ammunition and the training for a new platform would cost less than one F-22 Raptor fighter jet. Look up the DoD statistics in the cost of an F-22 versus the projected cost of purchasing, retooling and training for a new weapon. Why then do they insist on giving soldiers and marines an outdated weapon (M4) that has reduced range, accuracy and killing power, yet they will spend billions on a single fancy airplane?

I have seen the quality of government run healthcare both on active duty and through the VA hospital and it isn't pretty. Their method of helping you is by prescribing pills regardless of your injury and telling you to walk it off. If you think that is bad, you should wait until you you get operated on! Before, soldiers could not sue the doctors at the military hospitals but a lacksadaisyical attitude has become so commonplace that there have been an overwhelming amount of complaints and soldiers can now sue the military for inadequate care and malpractice. Google "Walter Reed Medical Hospital" if you do not believe me. The VA has been having the same shit go on for decades. If they show so much disregard for those that took an oath to serve their country, what makes you think that their attitude towards civilians would be any different?

Again I ask the question. Why is it so wrong to let people decide what kind of healthcare they want instead forcing them to partake in a government healthcare plan?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

What makes biomedical research different than anything else with respect to whether the federal government or states should be the funders?

The biomedical field is a huge driver of the economy and necessary for the health of US citizens. It helps the country to be on the bleeding edge of this field. I still think it should be largely commercial, but if there are technologies in the biomedical field that are too financially risky for companies to take on, but could potentially pay back huge, then it may require the government to provide the funds to get it going.

Originally Posted by smc

Conservatives and libertarians often decry regulation, but it seems to me that there are some types of regulation that must either be established at the federal level or not exist at all. Food safety is an example, and here is a made-up scenario to illustrate my point. Arkansas allows chicken farms to feed their stock with something that is known to be somewhat toxic in humans, while Georgia forbids this.

If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights. There should be a united states because each state is not its own country. They are all bound by the US Constitution.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights.

Thanks again, Tracy, for your thoughtful response. It is a pleasure to continue the dialogue in a rational and productive way.

I'd like to ask you a bit more about your answer to my question regarding food safety, which I used as an example for a more general question about regulation.

Your response references the FDA. In the example I gave, it would be a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would handle the issue, at least as the federal government is constituted at present. Nevertheless, my question really is about having regulations in advance of a crisis. You responded about the federal government stepping in once a problem or crisis has been revealed. How do you, as a libertarian, feel about the federal government regulating things to prevent such a crisis. In this case, it would clearly be in the form of federal regulations prescribing certain things to protect consumers from toxicity in food. These regulations supersede states' individual regulations; in other words, a state can have a more rigid regulatory regime, but not a more lax one.

I asked a libertarian colleague about this today and he gave me a convoluted answer that I could only understand as an attempt to agree with the need for federal regulation without endorsing federal regulators -- quite a feat of verbal acrobatics. Where do you come down on this issue?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Your response references the FDA. In the example I gave, it would be a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that would handle the issue, at least as the federal government is constituted at present. Nevertheless, my question really is about having regulations in advance of a crisis. You responded about the federal government stepping in once a problem or crisis has been revealed. How do you, as a libertarian, feel about the federal government regulating things to prevent such a crisis. In this case, it would clearly be in the form of federal regulations prescribing certain things to protect consumers from toxicity in food. These regulations supersede states' individual regulations; in other words, a state can have a more rigid regulatory regime, but not a more lax one.

I'd go along with that. I don't really have anything against the FDA as it stands now.

[jbradhall24]

Hello friend. Thank you so much for posting this as it is extremely helpful.
:frown :

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The biomedical field is a huge driver of the economy and necessary for the health of US citizens. It helps the country to be on the bleeding edge of this field. I still think it should be largely commercial, but if there are technologies in the biomedical field that are too financially risky for companies to take on, but could potentially pay back huge, then it may require the government to provide the funds to get it going.

If there's a danger with toxic food the FDA should step in, or at least mandate that the chicken be labeled stating the potential risk. If there's a risk to the population, the government has a responsibility to step in, while weighing the liberties of Americans and states rights. There should be a united states because each state is not its own country. They are all bound by the US Constitution.

[TracyCoxx]

Remember during the financial crisis in September 2008 when Bush, Obama & McCain got together and worked out a solution to the financial crisis? One of the things they did was to increase the money supply from around $800 billion to $2.4 trillion!

Yay, housing prices stabilized, the stock market came back up, the economy is slowly coming back. We're all good now right?

No. By 2013-2015 double digit inflation is coming. It would have happened earlier, but the Fed has been paying interest to the banks on their extended reserves. Over at least the last 60 years, banks have had nothing in their extended reserves, because they would rather loan that money out and make interest off it. But with the fed paying interest on it, and the banks willing to do the fed a favor after getting bailed out, US banks now have over $1 trillion in reserves. This stalls inflation, but not forever.

So when it comes, expect rising interest rates (also double digit), less spending, the values of homes, stocks, cars will drop like a rock. The dollar will collapse, and then thanks to Obama almost doubling the debt, countries will realize we have no chance of paying off the debt and our credit rating will fall more than it already has.

Soros, Paulson, Buffett and other billionaires already know this. Over the last year they've been dumping massive amounts of US stock. Experts who predicted the 2008 crisis back in 2005 now predict the stock market will lose up to 90% of its value.

I'd almost like Obama to have a 2nd term so he can take the blame for that. He did agree to raising the money supply in 2008 to move the problem to the next term, and raised it again later. Inflation is a certainty now. And, knowing about the gigantic increase in the money supply, he raised the debt several trillion anyways. If Romney gets in and the economy collapses he will surely be blamed for things already set in motion. The country won't elect a republican for 50 years.

[randolph]

Tracy

I'd almost like Obama to have a 2nd term so he can take the blame for that. He did agree to raising the money supply in 2008 to move the problem to the next term, and raised it again later. Inflation is a certainty now. And, knowing about the gigantic increase in the money supply, he raised the debt several trillion anyways. If Romney gets in and the economy collapses he will surely be blamed for things already set in motion. The country won't elect a republican for 50 years.

So we are doomed either way.
Are you going to vote for Obama?