OT - Politics

Page 12 of 15  
Dave In Houston wrote:

I'm all for that... Viva Ron Paul :)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

That's one reasony why the Founding Fathers added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Unrestrained majority rule is a swift and certain path to tyrannical suppression of minorities. Where do you suppose, for example, that the taxes to make those things happen would come from? The tax fairy? The ones who want the benefit, or the ones who have enough money not to need the benefit in the first place? What you actually advocate is replacing capitalism with socialism.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

I've advocated nothing...the hypothetical question here is whether a Government should listen or ignore the will of the people. For those suggesting the governed should not have a voice it seems a bit peculiar. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It does seem reasonable for the governed to have a voice in how they are governed.
Far too many people want the government to listen to the will of the people only as long as the will of the people agrees with their own personal biases.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Your statement was to the effect that if the people want something, the government has a responsibility to give it to them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just Wondering wrote:

Indeed...and notice you didn't say person. Why would anyone have a problem with a responsive, attentive and responsible Government? Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Because we want the governnent to leave us the Hell alone instead of responding and attending?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Because it often is not possible for government to be both responsive and responsible. Which is one reason why such a huge portion of the federal budget is for so-called "entitlements."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Noted
I do not object to taxation per se. I object to taxation beyond that necessary to maintain the liberty in a nation-state. History does indeed show that some kind of government is needed to preserve liberty. But "defending liberty" in terms of monies expended by the US Federal government (for military and the DOJ - the primary instruments thereof) is relatively the smaller of our spendings. Between the social do-gooding that has polluted our government and the consequent debt this created, something well north of 60% of the Federal treasury gets burned down ... for something the Feds have *no* permission to do. It's absurd.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

I'd dispute the lack of "permission" for the most part ....the public has a clear and proper voice and the courts have clearly spoken to the legality. The individual may not approve but we are not a country of one. While one could spend hours discussing Gov. waste, this program or another, the sheer scope of the bureaucracy to manage 300,000,000 people makes it largely inevitable. I'd challenge one to find any household or business that doesn't routinely "waste" money in some fashion or another.....even worse "waste" for one may be a "necessary" expenditure for another.
However one very bad national policy we suffer from is the federal deficit....we should run a deficit when the economy sours, even a large one. In-between economic cycles the budget should be nearly balanced, when in full expansion we should have large surpluses thereby paying back the "sour" deficits.....Such would soften economic extremes and would be fiscally responsible......Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Well, clearly once they were informed "if you don't reverse your ruling declaring this socialist crap to be a violation of the Constitution then we'll add enough more justices to the Court to overrule you and we'll make sure they are all intending to vote _our_ way". That's how Roosevelt got the New Deal through you know.

Where does the Constitution give the government a mandate to "manage" anybody who is not a government employee? The government trying to micromanage the lot of us is part of the problem.

Oh, but according to the people who actually think that democracy works, the pee-pull must want deficits otherwise they'd vote them away.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The pee-pull want deficits just about as much as they want hanging chad and Supreme Court interference in elections.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

That's right - they want economic magic: No deficits AND big fat mooching public entitlements: Taking more out of Social Security than they ever paid in, A drug program for elders that NO one paid into ahead of time, blah, blah, blah ... Moochers Unite ... and then demand that there be no debt. It's pathetic.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Can't get rid of the national debt without privatizing the Social Security Trust Fund as over 40% of the debt is a result of this "intra governmental debt". Part of FDR's new deal mandated that the federal government sell any extra SS taxes (above what was paid out) to the general fund in exchange for an IOU.
And a BTW, there hasn't been a real surplus since 1960 under Eisenhower.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

Translation: The mooching public has convinced the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to ignore the very clear intent of enumerated powers in the Constitution. It has done so dishonestly and has not even bothered to go through the process that exists to change the Constitution legally.

The amount of waste spent on actually running the government itself is tiny. The real abusive spending comes from social entitlements which are huge, out of control, growing, and unsustainable. The head of the GAO says so. Most economists agree. The sheeple mooch on...

Except that households and businesses do not extract money from their constituents at the point of a gun - or, if they do, they go to jail. Big difference.

Which is a *direct* result (primarily) of the mooching public. The something-for-nothing social entitlements are bankrupting the public treasury over time. Wait till the rest of us 'boomers retire - anyone currently under the age of 40 or so, is going to get hit with massive taxation and/or the nation will inflate the currency to pay of the old debt (thereby crushing the economic future of the people) and/or new and interesting wars will be invented as necessary, since they tend to stimulate the economy in the short term. Money is not magic; you cannot spend more and more money you do not have every year and expect economic health. When $1+ Trillion is spent on social entitlement (again, activity which the Constitution does not grant the Feds) the debt grows like crazy. We apparently have the same problem the Communists had in the 20th Century: They thought they could legislate their way out of economic reality. They couldn't, and we can't either.

No. We should shrink the Federal government to its Constitutionally mandated size and quit trying to use government as the uncle with a pocket full of money.
Viva Ron Paul...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ah. Get to a certain age, or have your health fail, and be unable to work and then...Soylent Green.
What horseshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

No. Plan to get old and unable to work so you are prepared for that day. OR ... find people who practice private charity (like me) and ask for their help. Don't go to the government and demand the contents of other people's wallets. That is ordinarily called "stealing".

You advocate the use of (government) force to take assets from one person, lift some of it for government overhead, and give the remainder to some faceless stranger and you cal *my* idea, BS?
FWIW, the "deny them the vote thing" is impractical and anti-Constitutional, so I don't actually support it. The right thing to do is quit wealth redistribution by force entirely. But ... since you apparently are like so many others and are happy to see you government engage in theft on your own behalf, how can you expect those of us who object to this practice to play nice?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And you advocate letting those unable to make enough money to save for their old age starve or die of medical complications. Typical Libertian horseshit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Guess what Sparky, we are ALL gonna die. Better get used to it. No amount of government spending will fix that despite what all the moochers want. The only possible way we might be able to avoid or delay it is to have the morons in government declare a "War On Living". Since they fail at every other "War On ...", perhaps a "War On Living" would prolong our lives, I dunno.
Most of us Libertarians are happy to contribute to decent and useful charities - I am about to do so this weekend. But do please explain to me how it is morally legitimate to yank money out of my pocket by force - so that I cannot spent it on my family - to serve some cause *you* believe in? I don't steal from you. I don't wish my government to do so on my behalf. But you defend this as if it were normal and natural. So do explain: How is theft by proxy morally just? Here is one big hint: Your deep compassion for the elderly underclass is fraudulent if it depends on Other People's Money. If you care so much about others, YOU pony up the money and/or convince others to join you. That's what charities do...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No one mentioned not dying, but there are different ways of dying, and starving to death or dying of seizures because the system you paid into all your life is screwing you aren't those most of us would choose. It's what you're offering to far too many people who didn't start life with your advantages. Of course, as another Libertarian once told me, "They made bad choices." Yeah. The wrong parents.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.