jnkyrdoff6

Yeah, that's my bad. I wrote government a lot without specifying that I meant federal government, and I said state without saying state government.

I will not disagree with you on this. We did create it, not me personally, but my ancestors. I didn't create it though, and I'm guessing when a lot of people voted for FDR, they didn't vote for the income tax. They voted for an elected official who represented them. In that sense they created it, but by that same logic, we've created everything in history through our actions, even though many of these things were never intended to happen. We created Hitler and every atrocity man has ever known. When revolutions have happened throughout history, it has then been the creators of government scraping their creations? Did the founders of the Roman republic create the Roman empire? That's kind of a twisted way of looking at it. I'm not going to argue about it, because in a way it's true. You could say the Jews created Hitler because they chose to flourish in a time of German poverty, and inspired his hatred. I don't know. I guess this is kind of a rant, but what I'm really trying to say is that I don't believe what has been created was ever intended. I think politicians like FDR have played on peoples' gullibility during hard times, and tricked them to attain what has been created. I will agree with carlfense when he wrote on a seperate thread that the government hasn't changed much lately, but there is no comparison to the government we (America) had 100 or 200 years ago. Nothing that large is going to change drastically overnight. It's like water wearing away at a rock. -Now on to the second thought (third paragraph)- I must have done a poor job clarifying my feelings on this. You've said you think the government is too big (paraphrase). That's something we agree on. I think it's too big, and would like to reduce it's size. I think if it only collected a small amount of taxes, it wouldn't be able to provide a ton of programs and the problem would be solved, to a degree. Other things would need to be changed too. We'd need to deal with the federal reserve problem so it couldn't print money, in some way. Perhaps we'd go back to the gold standard; I don't know. I do like more than one of the government's services, though, even though I think they're unnecessary and inefficient. Where would those services come from if the government can't afford them? They'd still come from the people. I'm just saying states or cities should provide them. This would create a marketplace for those services. It's not like a state or city, which I've also referred to as a local community, can't function with just as much efficiency as the federal government. My dad worked for the corps. There is no reason states can't hire engineers. There is no reason roads can't be built by states or cities. It's not like the government built the railroad or the canals. There is no reason any of the services you listed above, can't be funded by communities and localized. This system just promotes efficiency. That's all I'm saying. If a community is having trouble with one of it's services it can look at the community that's having the most success. Not only does it promote efficiency, but it allows way more freedom for citizens. If someone doesn't like the policies of his or her community, that person can move. To reiterate, the national government would be funded by a sales tax, and maybe a flat income tax only. Local communities would be funded how they saw fit, and if one of the citizens didn't like the local policy, they'd have the choice to move.

That's fair enough, but what about a person who doesn't want any of the services the government has to offer? He or she still has to pay for all of those services. Thoreau chose not to pay his income taxes, for a different reason I know, but it was still a protest against the federal government. He was put in jail wasn't he? That doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. Now I'll take it one step further and say that the only service I really care about is the military. I haven't been to the hospital in in 15 years, except for sports physicals. Why would I want universal healthcare? Truth be told I'm a selfish person, as I think everyone is at their core. I believe the only people we care about are the people we know, because of ultimately selfish feelings. If any poster wants to respond to this in some self-righteous way, that's fine, but I think you should analyze yourself pretty deeply before you do. I don't really care about someone I've never seen and will never meet, so why would I want to pay for all these myriad services for that person? I may, however, want to pay for services for people in my own community, that I have met. You've implied that the government under-utilizes money, which I agree with. If you believe that and you still want to pay income taxes for government services anyhow because you want some of its services, that's fine, but I would prefer not to. I really don't have a choice though do I? It's like holding a gun to my head, giving me a cyanide tablet, and saying "choose." On a side note, I really like this forum. It's rare that I get to talk politics with anyone who disagrees with me, and is informed.

I understand that, and I did imply that if we were to have a federal government, we would still pay it taxes. I was just suggesting a change in the taxation policy so that the people did have a choice. I, also, am not, entirely, sure the border patrol is necessary, I just said I think the military, in general, is necessary.

I still believe they are pried out of our hands unwillingly, because I don't really see the alternative. I'm not really sure how this works. I've never tested this because I don't really believe it's true, but I've heard that the income tax doesn't legally have to be paid, and that there's no law that allows the government to enforce it. I don't know if that's true or not. Again I've never tested it. So maybe we're not forced to pay it, but aside from that, I had always been under the impression that we didn't have a choice there. To the watchdog question, I'd say the people would be. It's ideal I know, but the principle is that there is a choice there. If you choose to continue a contract with one of the privatized organizations, you're saying it did a good job because if it didn't you'd pay some other organization to do it, just as a business would. There would, undoubtedly, be a market for all these services in this model. It's the ultimate in efficiency. I honestly don't know that I'm for all of this. I'm more for the republican form with a government funded entirely by sales tax so it can't get too big. What the government can't afford would be footed by the people. I don't think any of the things you listed are absolute necessities, except for a military. Therefore, I believe communities should hire organizations to provide these services themselves. That also allows the maximum amount of freedom. If a community really places a premium on education, for example, it could hire a single Marshall as law enforcement, and further minimally fund the other services to channel as much funding as possible into education. That's extremely hypothetical though.

Who has been "stolen from?" What is this "robbing" you're talking about? Because if you're talking about taxes, you're first going to have to explain how we can have a government that provides services like the ones I offer without any funding. You act like we're serfs living in some medieval land where the King would send his troops kicking in doors to take the commoners' last farthing. Who has been destroyed so that I can do my job? Outlandish accusations like this require great proofs. I wait with bated breath for your answer. Man this new set up is frustrating me. I don't know if it's my browser or what, but I have to insert the html myself to bold, and I can't find emoticons. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure he is talking about taxes. I believe he says stolen because the people have no choice in the matter as to whether or not they pay them. That's why I've proposed the abolishment of the income tax. I think if we want a federal government, we should fund it strictly with sales taxes. That way the people at least have a choice about how much they fund the government. That or, at the very least, a flat tax. I think the progressive tax is the height of ridiculousness.

I'd like to hear how you think that would work Socal, without people giving that privatized body some sort of authority.

Heeeell Yeah!!!!

I'm almost where Socal is. I can't picture a nation completely without government, at least not right now. My main hangup is where the military is concerned. I don't know that I believe we could farm out something that would be comparable to a military force. I can see privatizing everything else with more success than what the federal government has had. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong, but ideally we wouldn't need to fight wars except to defend ourselves. Even still, if we were to be attacked or bombed, and not just simply invaded, I don't see any way we could privatize anything that could stand up to that. The principle ideas, though, that he has are similar to mine, I think. I certainly don't think a governing body comprised of men, no better than myself, has any right to tell me what to do. I do believe the only laws that should govern man are the rights of man.

In the Politics and Religion sub-forum there are 3 threads and 108 total posts relating to the it. The conversation has kind of moved to general political philosophy, but I guess that should be expected.

About .oooo1%. Little chance of success with the current Supreme Court. That's why I was telling my dad I think it's a possibility that within the next 20 years we might see some states secede, or threaten to at the very least. I'm not advocating anything, but I'm just saying if 38 of the 50 states want this case to be heard by the Supreme Court, and I don't think it will be heard, that's going to stick in a lot of peoples' craws. If they do hear it, I think it'll probably be nothing more than a token hearing. Couple that with the current climate, and I definitely think there is a possibility of some civil unrest here. I don't want to sound like a lunatic or anything, but I'm just saying I think it's possible. You don't sound like a lunatic at all. That's exactly the message the whole states rights movement is threatening. It's scary in a "wow . . . there are a LOT of furious (and largely uninformed) people out there" kind of way. I don't think it will actually go as far as another civil war . . . but I don't doubt that there are plenty of people who want it to go that far. I'm just talking hypothetically here. I don't think it'll ever come to a civil war either. I don't think either side wants that, because I think rebel efforts would be largely successful if it ever came to that. I mean the two sides would be indistinguishable to the naked eye. I think a civil war would involve a lot of terrorist-type bombings, and it would get pretty ugly.

Exactly. And the tea party people seem to be just as uninformed as the "Hope and Change" Obama crowd. Maybe so. I'm not a tea party goer or anything, but I do agree with some of their stances. I don't think Glen Beck is a libertarian, even though he says so sometimes. I don't watch him that often though. I think really, you're going to find that people are equally uninformed in every party. It's really not possible for anyone to be all-knowing about anything. I came across a website about a year ago that made the claim that the IQ distributions of registered Democrats was something like 115, and that of registered Republicans was something like 95. But, if you dissect it, it's really not possible. If you put it on a Bell curve or any other standard distribution, it would mean that like 30% of registered Republicans are mentally handicapped. I can see how the attitudes of the tea party members might rub some people the wrong way. From what I gather, they probably think they're extremely informed. I can see how that can be seen as them trying to rub it in others' faces. Some of their stances are definitely bogus, in my opinion, but at least they're trying to follow the government like Knapplc said.

About .oooo1%. Little chance of success with the current Supreme Court. That's why I was telling my dad I think it's a possibility that within the next 20 years we might see some states secede, or threaten to at the very least. I'm not advocating anything, but I'm just saying if 38 of the 50 states want this case to be heard by the Supreme Court, and I don't think it will be heard, that's going to stick in a lot of peoples' craws. If they do hear it, I think it'll probably be nothing more than a token hearing. Couple that with the current climate, and I definitely think there is a possibility of some civil unrest here. I don't want to sound like a lunatic or anything, but I'm just saying I think it's possible.

That's how I look at it too, but I have yet to meet an anarchist who feels the same.

I couldnt tell you. I didnt hear too many specifics. They had a big spreadsheet type thing up but I turned it off and didnt pay too much attention to it. My biggest issue with this is Obama and his administration felt the need to rush this through in order to get anything in the healthcare debate passed. IMO, Nancy Pelosi knew for a fact that if this debate literally debated every issue in the 1000+ pages in the bill, it would stand no chance. So now all of us are discussing this issue with limited (or no) information. I watched a video interview with Obama and he was actually getting angry with the interviewer as he would ask about specific pieces in the bill.....Obama didn't know the answers (really apologize, i tried to find it but couldn't). It is just like the government to rush something rather than DO THE RIGHT THING. The right thing might be an overhaul into a socialized system but let's take the time to make sure we do it right. None of the major government programs currently work..... I don't even want to get into where the money will come from. This country was built on the idea of less national government, more state power, and privatization. We became this powerful country b/c of competition in every form of business and we need to remember that. I hear people say this all the time. We monetize our debt in dollars. Because of that, we'll be able to run a national deficit as long as other nations continue to buy our debt. It's hard to say what will happen if that stops. We might just go to war with everyone. :lol, but kind of crying on the inside. I don't agree with our current monetary or foreign policy, but that's what we do. p.s. I haven't been on this site in a while. How do you insert emoticons now? I don't seem to have any user friendly tabs anywhere. If you click the icon's image it should automatically insert itself into your post..... You had to comment on the one thing I said I didn't think should be discussed. And now I have to comment on it........China will not be paying for the healthcare bill. It will start with taxes. I'm sorry. I never saw you say you didn't want it discussed. Well, that's another alternative. We could hike up interest rates and tax like madmen. There's no way, though, that this behemoth of a bill can be totally footed by tax dollars. If it is, other programs will be paid for by foreign nations. I haven't looked up the figures in a while, but I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar our GDP is greatly exceeded by the cost of our social programs. It may start with taxes, but it will end with us selling our debt. If it's not China it will be another nation. We just go with China because they give us the best rate. The international debt market is similar to the national one in that way. We might print way more money too. Like I said we can't go bankrupt, because our money is backed up in dollars. we can hyper-inflate.

I couldnt tell you. I didnt hear too many specifics. They had a big spreadsheet type thing up but I turned it off and didnt pay too much attention to it. My biggest issue with this is Obama and his administration felt the need to rush this through in order to get anything in the healthcare debate passed. IMO, Nancy Pelosi knew for a fact that if this debate literally debated every issue in the 1000+ pages in the bill, it would stand no chance. So now all of us are discussing this issue with limited (or no) information. I watched a video interview with Obama and he was actually getting angry with the interviewer as he would ask about specific pieces in the bill.....Obama didn't know the answers (really apologize, i tried to find it but couldn't). It is just like the government to rush something rather than DO THE RIGHT THING. The right thing might be an overhaul into a socialized system but let's take the time to make sure we do it right. None of the major government programs currently work..... I don't even want to get into where the money will come from. This country was built on the idea of less national government, more state power, and privatization. We became this powerful country b/c of competition in every form of business and we need to remember that. I hear people say this all the time. We monetize our debt in dollars. Because of that, we'll be able to run a national deficit as long as other nations continue to buy our debt. It's hard to say what will happen if that stops. We might just go to war with everyone. :lol, but kind of crying on the inside. I don't agree with our current monetary or foreign policy, but that's what we do. p.s. I haven't been on this site in a while. How do you insert emoticons now? I don't seem to have any user friendly tabs anywhere.

~

Maybe it's because this "tea party" movement is so hypocritical. Funny how they are upset about taxes and spending right after Obama got elected. But absolutely no outrage over the billions spent and the millions unaccounted for during the Iraq occupation under Cheney and W. As far as the health care debate, I sure didn't see a lot of anger about the prescription bill passed by the same republicans who are now fretting about heath care reform now. The bottom line is that these teabaggees are only worried about spending when it's the other side in power. As far as the "ad hominem retoric" about Palin, Hillary Clinton faced the same thing from the right. {and still does} I don't think it's hypocrisy at all for this reason. Many conservatives and libertarians were furious about Bush's spending but it simply wasn't covered. The war in Iraq is not a dollar and cent issue, either. If you believe the war is or was just, cost is no object when it comes to protecting the lives of soldiers. But when you suddenly have a trillion dollar stimulus package followed by another trillion dollar health care initiative during a time of deep recession (remember the Iraq war happened when the economy was sailing smoothly), you're going to get to a point where enough is enough––and that includes BOTH parties. There's nothing particularly Republican about the tea party platform. You rightly point to the Bush spending policies as an example, and if you listen to their message, they haven't forgotten it. But guess who's president now? As for your Palin comment, it's irrelevant. I don't particularly like Palin or Clinton, but citing abuse of one does not justify abuse of the other. Regarding the bolded: I can't agree. The tea party movement is absolutely hypocritical. There were not these tea party protests when Bush II was in office. There were not conservative protests marching on Washington. There was not this blind anger about a government that honestly has not changed as much as the tea party people think it has. I dealt with these people at the state capital . . . and talked with the Oklahoma senator (Key) who is one of the movers and shakers behind the states rights movement. Believe me (at this gathering at least) there were about 10 crazies for every rational thinker. I do agree with Husker_x there, at least to some extent. I still don't know that I buy into everyone calling the media totally biased, but I do know that at least 80% of the people I talked to in 2005, a time-frame when I was really trying to figure out who I was politically, that considered themselves conservatives or libertarians were unhappy with W. Bush. To clarify though, the conservatives that I'm referring to are essentially libertarians with a religious bent. I know for a fact that those attitudes weren't covered by the media. I'm not willing to say, at this point in my life, that it's because of media bias. I think it could be explained by a number of things. I'm more willing to say that those attitudes were like rising lava in an active volcano, and that they've only recently erupted. They've taken the shape in the form of the tea parties, and that's what the media has covered because it's newsworthy. I know I face a lot disagreement on this stance, but I simply don't consider mainstream Republicans to be conservatives. I'm talking about the Republicans carlfense referred to in his Teddy Roosevelt post like a month ago. They're Republicans, sure, but they're far from conservative in many ways. I will agree that those Republicans never criticized W. Bush; my mom is one of them. My dad and I though, my dad being a conservative, and I a libertarian, constantly criticized the Patriot Act every time it was brought up in family conservations. On a side note, I'm really not sure why one of the posters is at a -2 rep for posting his political beliefs. To me, that's just wrong. It just seems low to try to punish someone for stating his or her beliefs, regardless as to whether or not you agree with them.

This is off topic, but it got me thinking of the day I quit McyDs years ago. This lady was being a real witch to me, and I walked out flipping her off and giving her the suck-it sign all the way to my car with a giant smile on my face. There's a lesson there though. People are a**h*l*s that are motivated by money and sex to their core.

Ain't it the truth. The real tragedy, to me, about all legislation (eg: universal healthcare) is that once it gets in our system we'll never get rid of it. The same can be said about freedoms that are taken away. I said I'd like I candidate who'd, maybe, give me a few freedoms back. I know it's never gonna happen. Governments don't surrender power for the same reason a person wouldn't. Legislation never goes away because there'd be riots in the streets about it. Think about what would happen if the gov't took away welfare, or the disappointing job corps, even though it's probably the biggest failure in the history of gov't social programs. That candidate could kiss his dreams of re-election good-bye.

Ha, never had that one. My mom would rub dish soap in my mouth and wait for me to swallow it. To rawhide, there were a few times I took the belt when I went up to my grandpa's house.

If there was no money, you'd have like ten total people in the world who wanted to go to college and become say actuarial accountants. It's not exactly a glamorous or fun job, from what I hear. Generally, people are motivated by money. If money were meaningless, there would be a huge increase in the number of people wanting to take up cake jobs, think current "underpaid" government employees. Why are they "underpaid"? It's because they can basically do whatever they want and not get fired. I, honestly, think you'd have a lot of people aspiring to be McyD's workers. I've worked there. It's easy as pie, as long as you don't give a sh#t about anyone else. In short, if there weren't any motivation (money) to drive people to go to college and "achieve", very few people would. What problems could that cause? Well, I'd think massive unemployment would be a biggie. But, hey, since everyone would share their food and other goods, no one would care if they were unemployed. You'd have the world's largest welfare system. I could go on and on about the flaws in socialism because, ultimately, money makes the world go round. That is partly why it has become a part of our society. It's a necessary evil.

I'm not sure either, but I've heard one of the things. When they were forming the BIG 12, supposedly, the BIG 8 made a lot of concessions to get Texas into the conference, and basically bent over backwards. I don't know what terms of it were or anything like that.

Okay, but don't politicians find loopholes that allow them to, in effect, circumvent the Constitution fairly often? I'll go with a W. Bush example because I've already stated that I'm less against his administration than the current one. Doesn't the Patriot Act allow the government to conduct warrant-less searches and violate due process for terrorist suspects? I was never against this because I had an immediate fear W. Bush was going to abuse this on me, but isn't it still in place, and won't it still be in place for future Presidents? That's the only reason I'm against this type of thing. I'm forever fearful that things like the definition of a "terrorist suspect" will be broadened to mean anyone with a dissenting opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it just feels like like the prelude to 1984. Again, I'm trying to have a discussion, not a heated debate. I know you'd school me in a heated debate. I'm not a political scholar or anything.

I agree with everything you said except for parts of this. It is constitutional, but then doesn't the constitution also give the government the ability to do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation? When people throw out "unconstitutional" claims, I think they mean that something is opposed to the spirit of the constitution. No, the government cannot do whatever it sees is in the best interest of the nation. The government may not limit the freedoms put forth in the constitution. Many on the left believe that things like restricting free speech and the press with nonsense like the 'fairness doctrine,' and restricting gun ownership are in the best interest of the country. In which case the people have the right and sacred duty to hoist the finger and send them packing. The entire concept of our government is that it cannot do whatever it wants. We would call that a tyranny, and unfortunately our government flirts with the idea far too often. I agree, but in Article I, Section VIII, I believe, it says something like, the government has the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution...powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States." So, all I'm saying is don't loose interpreters often use this to do whatever they want?