Liberal free for all coming to an end

[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.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by smc

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

Yes. But is is a more solidly and probablility based "what if". What if an asteroid San Diego? What if zombies invaded? What if this happened? What if that happened? You can think of all the what if's all you want and deal with those. I just deal with the most likely ones to happen.

Originally Posted by smc

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

Yes it does. You just don't like that answer I gave you. If you read the last part of the paragraph, you have my answer.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

I answered that:

I answered your question. If you don't like the answers I give you, don't take the conversation in a different tangent and then complain about me not "answering" your question.

And yes, obviously you do support these programs to some degree, otherwise you would not have been pestering me about what I would do and trying to turn it into what I think about this or that. I have made myself pretty clear in my past posts in other threads about my stance on such things. If you are curious, I advise you to reread my previous posts.