Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 18th, 2003, 02:28 PM        Wow. An article from a party website that isn't drivel.
From the LP website:

Libertarian Solutions: How to solve the United States' $6,736,489,356,420 problem
by Bill Winter
LP News Editor


If you had visited the online National Debt Clock at 12:00 noon on August 1, you would have seen this figure: $6,736,489,356,420.66.

That's the amount of money owed by the federal government. (Over $6.7 trillion dollars.)

But if you visited it again just 30 seconds later, you would have seen a different, bigger number: $6,736,489,954,145.59.

That's an increase of about $590,000 -- a half-million dollars -- in 30 seconds.

It's a stark reminder of just how quickly the politicians in Washington, DC are plunging this nation further into debt.

The more time that passes, the scarier that number gets.

If you visited the Debt Clock (at www.brillig.com/debt_clock/) one minute later, the number would have been $1.2 million larger. An hour later, it would have grown by $70 million. A day later, it would have swelled by $1.68 billion.

Over the course of the year, the numbers add up to about $613 billion in additional debt owed by the government.

Yes, the national debt is back. And so are deficits.

Before we go on, let's define our terms: The deficit is the amount of overspending politicians do in one year. In 2003, for example, the federal government will take in $1.75 trillion in tax revenue, and spend $2.21 trillion. The difference -- $455 billion -- is this year's "official" deficit. (We'll examine later why that number is different from the $613 billion mentioned above.)

The national debt, by contrast, is the sum of all the yearly deficits (minus whatever the Feds have paid off). The current number shown on the National Debt Clock -- $6.7 trillion -- is the result of decades of overspending.

As a political issue, deficits dropped off the public radar in the late 1990s. Thanks to a surge in tax revenues and modest fiscal restraint -- prompted by tension between Democratic President Bill Clinton and a Republican-controlled Congress -- the federal government technically "balanced" the budget for four years. (They didn't really balance it, as we'll see in a moment.)

All that changed in mid-July, when the Bush Administration announced that this year's federal deficit will be $455 billion. In raw dollars, it's the government's largest-ever deficit, and it catapulted deficits back into the headlines.

Let's look at that discrepancy now: If the deficit is $455 billion, why does the National Debt Clock say it's $613 billion? Because $613 billion is the real deficit; $455 billion is the phony deficit.

Thanks to arcane accounting policies, the federal government counts Social Security Trust Fund surpluses as an asset, which reduces (on paper) the size of the deficit.

This year, Social Security will take in $160 billion more than it will pay out. That money -- supposedly deposited into the Trust Fund -- is counted against the real $613 billion deficit, lowering it to $455 billion.

The only problem: It's not true. Social Security Trust Funds are immediately spent on general government programs. The government just deposits IOUs (Treasury bonds, which it owes itself) in the Trust Fund. It then counts those IOUs as an asset.

That's like your right hand lending your left hand $10, spending it, and then counting that $10 as an "asset" you owe yourself.

Don't believe that the government could get away with such blatant deception? The proof is in the numbers. In both 1998 and 1999, politicians claimed there was a budget "surplus." Yet, the federal debt increased $120 billion in 1998 and another $162 billion in 1999.

Bottom line: Alleged surplus or acknowledged deficit, the national debt gets larger every year.

So why is deficit spending bad? Here's why:

1) Deficits increase the cost of government.

When the government spends more than it takes in, it sells U.S. Treasury bonds to cover the difference. To get people to buy them, it has to pay interest on those bonds (anywhere from 2% and 12%, depending on when they were issued). With a $6.7 trillion debt, interest payments add up in a big way.

In the fiscal 2003 budget, the Bush Administration allocated $181 billion for interest on the debt. But with the deficit ballooning, interest payments are ballooning, too -- to almost $1 billion a day, according to U.S. House Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS).

"In the first nine months of fiscal year 2003, the Treasury spent $278 billion on interest on the debt," he said. That makes interest payments the federal government's third-largest expense, trailing only Social Security and military spending.

In other words, about 20% of every tax dollar goes to pay interest on money borrowed by politicians 10, 20, and 30 years ago.

2) It crowds out private borrowing, which can cripple business growth and hurt the economy.

As Benjamin M. Friedman, a professor of economics at Harvard University, wrote in the Boston Globe (July 27, 2003): "What's wrong with continual large budget deficits ... is that they take away the economy's means of achieving economic growth.

"When the government spends more than it takes in from taxes, the Treasury has to borrow in the financial markets to cover the overage," he wrote. "This borrowing absorbs some of the saving done by families and firms, saving that otherwise would have remained available to finance investment in productive new plants and equipment."

It's happened before, noted Friedman. During the country's last huge deficit spike, in the 1980s under President Ronald Reagan, "the share of U.S. national income devoted to net new investment in plants and equipment fell to the lowest average level in the postwar period, and real wages -- and therefore the income of the typical U.S. family -- stagnated."

3) It means less money for you and your family.

More federal spending means less money for you to buy what you want, noted the Future of Freedom Foundation's Richard M. Ebeling (January 17, 2003). That's true whether government spending is paid for in today's dollars (via taxes) or tomorrow's dollars (via borrowing).

For example, wrote Ebeling, Bush's $455 billion deficit will cost more that the combined total of all the furniture and household items bought by Americans this year ($319.2 billion), or clothing and shoes ($321 billion), or single-family residential housing ($245.3 billion).

"In other words, these are the kinds of things that Americans will have less of when their dollar equivalents are borrowed away by the federal government to cover the expected budget deficits," he wrote.

4) It makes future generations pay for current spending.

When the government runs a deficit, it is "essentially taking money from one generation and giving it to another," said Creighton University economics professor Ernie Goss in the Salt Lake Tribune (July 20, 2003).

That's because the government has to eventually pay off the money it owes. For example, this year, the Treasury paid off the last of the 30-year bonds it used to finance the final year of the Vietnam War -- in 1973. So, today's young taxpayers are paying for the mistakes of Richard Nixon, just as tomorrow's taxpayers will pay for the mistakes of George W. Bush.

The immorality of deficit spending prompted Thomas Jefferson to write in 1791: "We should consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves."

Jefferson understood that a big-spending government is bad. But a big-spending government that pushes the costs onto the nation's children and grandchildren is even worse.

Given the damage caused by deficits, here's what we should do to start restoring the government to fiscal health:

1) Cut government spending

The "cure" for a deficit is not much different than the cure for obesity, which is: Eat less and exercise more. Translated into fiscal policy, that means: Spend less and exercise more self-restraint.

Politicians don't agree. Republicans say the deficit is caused by a dip in tax revenues and the cost of fighting terrorism. Democrats say the deficit is caused by President Bush's modest tax cuts.

However, in their more honest moments, even the politicians admit the real cause.

"These are spending-driven deficits," U.S. Rep. Jim Nussle (R-IA). chairman of the House Budget Committee, told Fox News on July 16, 2003.

The evidence is clear, reported Bloomberg News columnist Caroline Baum on July 22, 2003.

"The dirty little secret that neither party wants to talk about is that President George W. Bush is a big spender," she wrote. "Stripping out the increase in national defense outlays, discretionary spending rose 12.3% in fiscal 2002 and will rise 12.6% in 2003."

Adding in his 2001 spending, Bush has increased non-defense discretionary spending by 20.8% (adjusted for inflation), noted Baum. That's more than the full four-year term of Jimmy Carter (up 13.8%) or the second term of Bill Clinton (up 8.2%).

Bush has apparently never met a spending bill he didn't like: He has yet to veto a single spending bill. (By contrast, Ronald Reagan vetoed 22 bills during his first three years in office.)

If politicians need suggestions about what to cut, they could look at the Cato Handbook for Congress, which lists dozens of programs that are ripe for the budget ax.

The government could move the budget solidly back into surplus territory, notes Cato, by moving Social Security toward a system of individual savings accounts; by privatizing all government-operated businesses, such as Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service; and by selling excess federal land and buildings.

Then, to keep the pressure on, the government should "establish a 'sunset' commission to automatically review all federal programs on a rotating basis and propose major reforms and terminations," recommends the Cato Handbook.

2) Don't raise taxes.

As the Cato Institute's Veronique de Rugy wrote (March 24, 2003), raising taxes was tried as a method of combatting deficits during the Great Depression, and it failed.

Faced with a growing deficit, presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt boosted the top income tax rate from 25% to 79%, and corporate taxes from 12% to 25%. They also imposed a new dividends tax, a liquor tax, and a Social Security payroll tax.

The result: The deficit jumped from $2.2 billion in 1932 to $2.9 billion in 1940, wrote de Rugy.

"A key problem in trying to balance the budget with tax increases is that higher taxes fuel more [government] spending," she wrote. "[Also], the hikes contract the tax base by reducing economic growth and spurring greater tax avoidance. As a result, the government gains only a fraction of the revenues it hopes to receive."

For those reasons, de Rugy piquantly noted, "raising taxes to balance a budget is like drinking a six-pack to cure a hangover."

3) Pass a strict balanced-budget Constitutional amendment.

Congress should take a cue from the LP Platform, which gives a prescription for such an amendment.

The LP Platform supports "the drive for a constitutional amendment requiring the national government to balance its budget." To be effective, the Platform says, the amendment should provide:

* That neither Congress nor the president be permitted to override this requirement.

* That all off-budget items are included in the budget.

* That the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

* That no exception be made for periods of national emergency.

Of course, the drawback of a Constitutional amendment is that politicians may simply find ways to evade it, no matter what restrictions are written into it.

Cheating is something politicians are good at. Over the past decade, to evade self-imposed spending caps, Washington, DC politicians pioneered a number of innovative bookkeeping techniques that would have landed them in jail had they worked for a private company.

For example, they slipped the cost of the 2000 Census into an off-budget "emergency spending" bill. (The Census was hardly an emergency or a surprise: It's been conducted once a decade since 1790.)

Politicians also moved spending to the first day of a new fiscal year (rather than the last day of the old year), and lowered estimated expenditures by predicting cost savings through Al Gore-style "Reinventing Government" initiatives. (Not surprisingly, most such cost savings never materialized.)

So, yes, politicians will cheat. But if a balanced budget amendment makes it more difficult for them to spend this nation into bankruptcy, it's worth doing.

Conclusion

In a way, the deficit is the byproduct of a politically schizophrenic American public that is anti-tax but pro-spending.

In other words, most Americans don't want their federal taxes to go up, but they do want to keep receiving federal checks for Medicare, Social Security, college loans, farm subsidies, and so on.

Politicians, eager to please, promise more government programs and benefits, while vowing not to raise taxes. They plunge the government into debt so they can keep handing out goodies.

One example: The $400 billion prescription drug benefit President Bush has promised seniors will be paid for with deficit spending. Although Grandma and Grandpa may not admit it (even to themselves), this means their children and grandchildren will be forced to pick up the tab for their high blood-pressure medication.

That almost irresistible temptation to spend today -- and let someone else pay tomorrow -- may be why Thomas Jefferson once wrote that public debt is "the greatest of dangers to be feared."

Of course, it's not the only danger big government poses. That's why Libertarians want a federal government that is much, much smaller than it is today.

Merely balancing the budget won't accomplish that; a budget balanced at $2.2 trillion would be no victory. However, it would be better than what we have now.

A balanced budget would, at the very least, herald a return to fiscal honesty, would stop boosting the cost of government with exorbitant interest payments, and would stop shifting the cost of today's spending onto tomorrow's taxpayers.

For all those reasons, a balanced budget could be the beginning -- but not the end -- of more fundamental Libertarian efforts to genuinely reduce the cost of government.

BTW: According to the LP website, the Libertarian Party is the third largest in America. It boasts that they hold 595 offices -more than twice as many as all other third parties combined.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 18th, 2003, 06:49 PM       
WHERE WHERE!!!!??? I DON'T SEE IT!

Tell me OAO, does the Libertarian Party have a good dental plan??? I need a visit.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Supafly345 Supafly345 is offline
Slim Goodbody
Supafly345's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More like DIEwan
Supafly345 is probably a real personSupafly345 is probably a real person
Old Sep 18th, 2003, 07:51 PM       
Only idiots post links to articles. I am glad that you are fighting that trend.
__________________
"Quote from some guy I think is funny."
-Some guy I think is funny
Reply With Quote
  #4  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 18th, 2003, 08:56 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
WHERE WHERE!!!!??? I DON'T SEE IT!

Tell me OAO, does the Libertarian Party have a good dental plan??? I need a visit.
No, they don't.

Tell me, why don't you like the article? It's a good bit above what I normally see on party websites. This one actually makes points.

<------------BOW DOWN BEFORE MURRAY ROTHBARD AVATAR!!!!11!!!111!!1111!!1
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2003, 06:55 AM       
OAO, your article goes against the ideals of Socialism and Communism. It, by default, would upset Kevin.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2003, 06:59 AM       
Jesus, should I even respond....? Nah.

OAO, I shall speak after work today. I have to go maintain a room of kindergarteners who are all smarter than VinceZeb.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 19th, 2003, 09:18 AM       
"your article goes against the ideals of Socialism and Communism. It, by default, would upset Kevin."
-Vinth


Do you suppose he noticed that it goes against the policies of W. as well, and in fact points out that we'll be paying for his mistakes for years to come? C'mon, now, Vinth, now. Instead of denouncing people who hve no real power and aren't currently making decisions, why not rip our Prez a new one for being so vehemently anti-Liberatarian?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 19th, 2003, 09:49 AM       
Yeah. The article really does jab at Bush for spending so much money WHEN CONGRESS IS FREAKING DOMINATED BY REPUBLICANS!!! It's really pissing me off. Now is the time for conservatives to work their magic, but it's just not happening.

The sad thing is, I don't think the Republicans will ever go back to a traditionally conservative platform.

Of course, this is probably because Bush wants to get re-elected. Cut some programs, and people benefiting from them won't like you (as well as some other concerned people).

In any case, the end of days may be coming. I get the strange feeling that if we had a Democrat in the White House he would be spending less.

Anyway, I'm sure that Kevin doesn't like the idea of a Constitutional amendment that forces the government to balance it's budget.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 19th, 2003, 10:18 AM       
I think W. popularity, though waning, shows that large number of people who think they actually have political convictions and ideology are actually commited to there party the way sports fans are to their teams.

Any real republican of the Goldwater or even Ginrich stripe (though I don't think Ginrich believes in his twaddle as anything more than a political lever) should be appalled by W.

Any serious Liberatarian should find this administration WAY more threatening than the last.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 21st, 2003, 12:58 PM        Re: Wow. An article from a party website that isn't drivel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
From the LP website:
OAO, my jest was primarily directed at your title. Really? Out of the hundreds of third-parties in America, only the Libertarian Party website provided a substantive piece of policy....? In other words, before I opened your link, I knew exactly which party it would be....


Quote:
Given the damage caused by deficits, here's what we should do to start restoring the government to fiscal health:

1) Cut government spending

The "cure" for a deficit is not much different than the cure for obesity, which is: Eat less and exercise more. Translated into fiscal policy, that means: Spend less and exercise more self-restraint.

Politicians don't agree. Republicans say the deficit is caused by a dip in tax revenues and the cost of fighting terrorism. Democrats say the deficit is caused by President Bush's modest tax cuts.
"Modest" tax cuts that don't get real money circulating on the middle income earners are useless if intended to stimulate the economy, but I digress. Three "modest" tax cuts, eh? Don't you think middle-class Americans would rather have social security benefits there for them, or a reasonable health plan, rather than the couple hundred dollars back to buy, what was it, lots of new furniture...? And often, when this link is made for tax payers, they choose the former.

But all whacky Libertarian tax schemes aside, I agree about the part that the government wastes at a high level. I think it's noticeable even in very small, micro levels. I think Congressional representatives need to have certain job entitlements cut, and I do believe our public servants need to regain a little bit of the humility once posessed by those who served in the past.

Even at work, I watch lots of wasted food get thrown out in a Federal government after school snack program at elementary schools. This program exists across the nation, and it wastes a lot every day. This I'm sure is just one example of many.

Quote:
If politicians need suggestions about what to cut, they could look at the Cato Handbook for Congress, which lists dozens of programs that are ripe for the budget ax.
God bless the Cato Institute. What would we do without them?

Quote:
The government could move the budget solidly back into surplus territory, notes Cato, by moving Social Security toward a system of individual savings accounts; by privatizing all government-operated businesses, such as Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service; and by selling excess federal land and buildings.
Right, we need to move fast on 1.) Destroying the social security program entirely, 2.) Privatize the U.S. Postal service, a reliable and highly functional institution, and make them UNreliable like many of the privatized shipping companies, and 3.) Selling off federal land that may presumably be preserved, but hey, more land polluting factories and highways ae better than a deficit. :/

Quote:
Then, to keep the pressure on, the government should "establish a 'sunset' commission to automatically review all federal programs on a rotating basis and propose major reforms and terminations," recommends the Cato Handbook.
I actually really like this idea. I would fear it in practice, however. This would undoubtedly be either an executive office, or a Congessional committee. Either way, it'd be chaired by a hand picked ideologue, who would preserve or axe legislation spending based upon their own ideology and criteria. Essentially, one jackass could cut the spending on a potentially good program, one that btw was voted on by the democratic body in Congress. This seems undemocratic to me.

Quote:
2) Don't raise taxes.

As the Cato Institute's Veronique de Rugy wrote (March 24, 2003), raising taxes was tried as a method of combatting deficits during the Great Depression, and it failed.
There was no money to tax....?


Quote:
Faced with a growing deficit, presidents Herbert Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt boosted the top income tax rate from 25% to 79%, and corporate taxes from 12% to 25%. They also imposed a new dividends tax, a liquor tax, and a Social Security payroll tax.

The result: The deficit jumped from $2.2 billion in 1932 to $2.9 billion in 1940, wrote de Rugy.
I think cutting payroll taxes on middle-income, hard working Americans, as well as lower-income HARD WORKING Americans, would be a great idea. I think it's also about time we shifted the tax burden back where it belongs, much like FDR did. The corporations carried almost 50% of the tax burden in the 1950s, double that of which FDR put in place. There was no great depression, there was no economic melt down until Vietnam, and the 50s were generally considered are best decade for broad economic stability on all class levels.


Quote:
3) Pass a strict balanced-budget Constitutional amendment.

* That neither Congress nor the president be permitted to override this requirement.

* That all off-budget items are included in the budget.
You like actually having a budget within a reasonable amount of time, right? If all budget expenses were mandated on the budget, there would never BE a conclusive budget. You can't cement all of your budget and have no discretionary spending cash. That would be just plain naive.

Quote:
* That the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
Again, this Grover Norquist kind of argument makes me question the sanity of Libertarians, and other anti-government radicals. Is having a balanced budget a means to an end, or is it merely the end...? Is the whole point in this that we must have balanced budgets because it shows good moral character...? Maybe the argument is ANYTHING that shrinks the government, anything at all, is a good thing....? Does this seem like a mature, or even a rational argument to you, OAO....?

Quote:
* That no exception be made for periods of national emergency.
DING DING DING!! WE HAVE SPOTTED WHACK JOBS, WE HAVE SPOTTED THE WHACK JOBS!!!

Wouldn't this kind of be like your left hand cutting off your right hand, and then telling the right hand "sorry bud! You GOT your $10!!"

I realize that to looney tune Ayn Rand worshipers, the Great Depression gave that rotten Commie FDR the chance the put his socialist agenda in place. THAT is who this clause is directed at, but what about events such as 9/11....? Heck, what about the money Bush wants for Iraq right now...? Should another terrorist attack go down, should our leaders have no grounds to use extra cash to fight or mend the problem...?

Quote:
Of course, the drawback of a Constitutional amendment is that politicians may simply find ways to evade it, no matter what restrictions are written into it.

Cheating is something politicians are good at. Over the past decade, to evade self-imposed spending caps, Washington, DC politicians pioneered a number of innovative bookkeeping techniques that would have landed them in jail had they worked for a private company.
Yeah, kind of like how our top 1% wage earners have found cute ways to evade our tax policies, thus depriving the government, thus adding to the need to push the burden upon the middle-class. They're pretty good at cheating too, but I'll bet the Cato Institute would applaud their creativity. :/

Quote:
In a way, the deficit is the byproduct of a politically schizophrenic American public that is anti-tax but pro-spending.
Very solid point.

Quote:
In other words, most Americans don't want their federal taxes to go up, but they do want to keep receiving federal checks for Medicare, Social Security, college loans, farm subsidies, and so on.
yes....I'm with ya.....

Quote:
Politicians, eager to please, promise more government programs and benefits, while vowing not to raise taxes. They plunge the government into debt so they can keep handing out goodies.
OH! WE WERE SO CLOSE TO AGREEMENT! What "goodies" are being handed out? The tiny scraps in ss that have forced many of our elderly Americans to return to the p/t job market...? Maybe you mean the national health care system we don't have...? Please, SHOW ME THE GOODIES!

And GOD FORBID politicians be eager to please their voters.

Quote:
One example: The $400 billion prescription drug benefit President Bush has promised seniors will be paid for with deficit spending. Although Grandma and Grandpa may not admit it (even to themselves), this means their children and grandchildren will be forced to pick up the tab for their high blood-pressure medication.
And when their children reach that age, they'll want the same cheap blood-pressure medication, and ya know what? GOOD! I'm tired of this bullshit Randist argument that we are beholden only to ourselves. LET my tax dollars go to help the elderly. Believe me, it doesn't do much! (this is coming from someone raised in a family of elerly healthcare providers).

Quote:
That almost irresistible temptation to spend today -- and let someone else pay tomorrow -- may be why Thomas Jefferson once wrote that public debt is "the greatest of dangers to be feared."
And what would my boy Tommy's solution be?? Didn't he envision a small, decentralized, DIY, agrarian-based society...? Now who's the loopy Anarchist, OAO...?


Quote:
A balanced budget would, at the very least, herald a return to fiscal honesty, would stop boosting the cost of government with exorbitant interest payments, and would stop shifting the cost of today's spending onto tomorrow's taxpayers.
The interst payments concern is a valid point (the only one). The government shouldn't be shifting the interest costs of a meager s.s. system onto hard working Americans. They should however recover the tax burden to where it belongs, to those who have the money.

Quote:
BTW: According to the LP website, the Libertarian Party is the third largest in America. It boasts that they hold 595 offices -more than twice as many as all other third parties combined.
Yeah, and as we discussed last time, most of those positions are patronage spots and appointments, not to mention the untold amount of non-partisan races in local communities. Take away those numbers, and then lets see their standing....
Reply With Quote
  #11  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 21st, 2003, 05:07 PM        Re: Wow. An article from a party website that isn't drivel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
OAO, my jest was primarily directed at your title. Really? Out of the hundreds of third-parties in America, only the Libertarian Party website provided a substantive piece of policy....? In other words, before I opened your link, I knew exactly which party it would be....
I imagined everyone would. I don't mean to say that no party aside from the LP has ever posted a good article; what I mean to say it is extremely rare to see a good article on any party website...

Quote:
"Modest" tax cuts that don't get real money circulating on the middle income earners are useless if intended to stimulate the economy, but I digress. Three "modest" tax cuts, eh? Don't you think middle-class Americans would rather have social security benefits there for them, or a reasonable health plan, rather than the couple hundred dollars back to buy, what was it, lots of new furniture...? And often, when this link is made for tax payers, they choose the former.
Two things:

1. I think you are reading into the comment too much. The point was that the federal deficit is not only there because of Bush's tax cuts.

2. Not a supporter of supply side economics, are we?

I do agree that tax cuts for the middle class are warranted, but I'm the type of guy who sees any tax cut as a victory. It's just pissing me off that Bush seems to be more interested in creating new government programs rather than cutting them...

Quote:
God bless the Cato Institute. What would we do without them?
[/sarcasm]

Quote:
Right, we need to move fast on 1.) Destroying the social security program entirely, 2.) Privatize the U.S. Postal service, a reliable and highly functional institution, and make them UNreliable like many of the privatized shipping companies, and 3.) Selling off federal land that may presumably be preserved, but hey, more land polluting factories and highways ae better than a deficit. :/
1. Destroying SS is the ultimate goal, but as an interum it would be replaced by a market-based system. One would have control over where that money goes so that if it fails it won't be gubbermints fault (of course, most would probably put money into relatively steady businesses).

2. I don't think that is what one could call a top priority, but I would challenge your comment that privatized shipping companies are unreliable.

3. Quite the unfair comment. What would be the point of preserving land that we don't need? Think: this is a libertarian article. Keeping land "just in case" is like having a surplus - it's just means more tempation to expand government. No libertarian wants to see that, so obviously a balanced budget is better from the writer's PoV.

Quote:
I actually really like this idea. I would fear it in practice, however. This would undoubtedly be either an executive office, or a Congessional committee. Either way, it'd be chaired by a hand picked ideologue, who would preserve or axe legislation spending based upon their own ideology and criteria. Essentially, one jackass could cut the spending on a potentially good program, one that btw was voted on by the democratic body in Congress. This seems undemocratic to me.
Even if it is undemocratic, I'd at least like to see it tried in some shape or form. It could be done democratically, but I don't think it would happen for a while...

Quote:
There was no money to tax....?
There are always wealthy people to tax.

Quote:
I think cutting payroll taxes on middle-income, hard working Americans, as well as lower-income HARD WORKING Americans, would be a great idea. I think it's also about time we shifted the tax burden back where it belongs, much like FDR did. The corporations carried almost 50% of the tax burden in the 1950s, double that of which FDR put in place. There was no great depression, there was no economic melt down until Vietnam, and the 50s were generally considered are best decade for broad economic stability on all class levels.
I, personally, prefer the pre-1913 economy. Taxes were low for everyone, and the economy prospered. Government involvement was relatively little.

What exactly do you mean by economic stability? That the earning gap between classes was smaller? That's hardly a way to gauge the economy.

It's time we cut government spending enough that tax's could be relatively low for everyone.

On the Constitutional Amendment: I would like to forward this by saying that just because the article isn't complete drivel doesn't mean that it can't have some bad points.

I think that this amendment is not even worth debating over, since it will never happen. At least, it would not happen in our lifetime. However, I will throw out my opinion on the matter.

In my ideal libertarian budget, I do think that some unspecified money for futher allocations would exist, just in it's own catagory. This could be applied anywhere it would needed. Futhermore, emergency money would exist which could only be tapped into when certain situations arose e.x. war, etc. (NOT economic crisis, btw).

These two parts of the budget would be put at set amounts so as to eliminate corruption: for example, the emergency fund might have it's own 0.5% tax.

Since this budget is inherently flexible, a balanced-budget amendment that forced all off-budget items to be on the budget and did not permit taxes to be raised for the purpose of balancing the budget could work. At least, I think it could.

Quote:
Yeah, kind of like how our top 1% wage earners have found cute ways to evade our tax policies, thus depriving the government, thus adding to the need to push the burden upon the middle-class. They're pretty good at cheating too, but I'll bet the Cato Institute would applaud their creativity. :/
Point being...?

Quote:
OH! WE WERE SO CLOSE TO AGREEMENT! What "goodies" are being handed out? The tiny scraps in ss that have forced many of our elderly Americans to return to the p/t job market...? Maybe you mean the national health care system we don't have...? Please, SHOW ME THE GOODIES!
You just stated a reason why a libertarian would be pissed about these goodies. SS, a program that costs the middle american 6.2% of their income, merely gives out scraps.

Quote:
And GOD FORBID politicians be eager to please their voters.
The term Death by Democracy immediately comes to mind.

Quote:
And when their children reach that age, they'll want the same cheap blood-pressure medication, and ya know what? GOOD! I'm tired of this bullshit Randist argument that we are beholden only to ourselves. LET my tax dollars go to help the elderly. Believe me, it doesn't do much! (this is coming from someone raised in a family of elerly healthcare providers).
The problem is that it's being payed for with deficit spending. Can't you see? It's only going to get more and more expensive over time! The deficit will get bigger and bigger as each generation has to pay more and more interest!

All this, for something that you admitted doesn't even do much good.

Quote:
And what would my boy Tommy's solution be?? Didn't he envision a small, decentralized, DIY, agrarian-based society...? Now who's the loopy Anarchist, OAO...?
His solution would be to cut government programs. I don't think he would even recognize America today.

Quote:
The interst payments concern is a valid point (the only one). The government shouldn't be shifting the interest costs of a meager s.s. system onto hard working Americans. They should however recover the tax burden to where it belongs, to those who have the money.
Why should SS even exist? Is it really the responsibility of the people - even the rich people - to pay for the mistakes of others? I say no, and I say that doing so will only hurt the public in the long run. There are reasons charities exist; they are more efficient than government (something you cannot dispute), and they do not force everyone into helping others. Individualism and equal freedom are what libertarians stand for; apparently you do not. There is nothing else to be discussed here.

Quote:
Yeah, and as we discussed last time, most of those positions are patronage spots and appointments, not to mention the untold amount of non-partisan races in local communities. Take away those numbers, and then lets see their standing....
Look up the facts if you want to. Even on independant polls, libertarians are consistently outnumbering other third party members - including the greens. On some recent polls, they are even scoring in the double-digits.

It's just that the LP has never had a strong presidential campaign.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2003, 07:38 PM        Re: Wow. An article from a party website that isn't drivel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I do agree that tax cuts for the middle class are warranted, but I'm the type of guy who sees any tax cut as a victory. It's just pissing me off that Bush seems to be more interested in creating new government programs rather than cutting them...
And this in itself is the key flaw in radical, Libertarian economics. Again, back to Grover Norquist. Let's get the baby (govt.) small enough to drown it in the bat tub (paraphrase). Why? Is government inherently evil? Most free market liberal thinkers, even Adam Smith, believed even in progressive taxation. Things take money to function. It seems to me that Libertarians would rather have a society with no police, no reliable mail, no libraries, no security services, or ANYTHING governmental in application, JUST as long as they can keep all of their money. This attitude, to me, seems contrary to the very notion of citizenship.


Quote:
1. Destroying SS is the ultimate goal, but as an interum it would be replaced by a market-based system. One would have control over where that money goes so that if it fails it won't be gubbermints fault (of course, most would probably put money into relatively steady businesses).
Steady businesses such as ENRON or MCI perhaps...? What happens when you put people's trust in the hands of people who have only private motivations driving them....?

Quote:
2. I don't think that is what one could call a top priority, but I would challenge your comment that privatized shipping companies are unreliable.
A buddy of mine recently payed extra for one (can't recall company, whoever cingular wireless deals through) to send him his new cell phone over night. He payed the extra price, and got it in two weeks. :/

Granted, maybe this is an exception. But have you ever heard the old saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it....? This again brings the psyche of a Libertarian into question. Why shut down a system everyone knows and trusts...?

Quote:
3. Quite the unfair comment. What would be the point of preserving land that we don't need? Think: this is a libertarian article. Keeping land "just in case" is like having a surplus - it's just means more tempation to expand government. No libertarian wants to see that, so obviously a balanced budget is better from the writer's PoV.
Because "rainy days" do happen, in both real life, and government. That isn't being a spend thrift, that's being prudent.

Quote:
Even if it is undemocratic, I'd at least like to see it tried in some shape or form. It could be done democratically, but I don't think it would happen for a while...
Uh huh.....so, uh, democracy goes out the window in a Libertarian utopia...?

Quote:
Quote:
There was no money to tax....?
There are always wealthy people to tax.
Good, we need to start taxing them.

Quote:
I, personally, prefer the pre-1913 economy. Taxes were low for everyone, and the economy prospered. Government involvement was relatively little.
The "economy" prospered...? What about real, living, WORKING people....?

Quote:
What exactly do you mean by economic stability? That the earning gap between classes was smaller? That's hardly a way to gauge the economy.
The gap was smaller, homelessness was down, national production was high, and there was a general sense of well being, at least financially speaking. One spouse could go to work and provide for their entire family, while not exceeding 40 hours a week. This meant they could be home with their families, raising their children, going to ball games on the weekends. This means a hell of a lot more to me than your supposed pre-WW 1 "economic prosperity." Just who exactly prospered then...?

Quote:
It's time we cut government spending enough that tax's could be relatively low for everyone.
Relative to what? We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. Alabama has the lowest taxes in the world, and have kept them so low to the point that the state is devoid of basic infrastructure, and in an economic mess. Is Alabama your national model....?

Quote:
I think that this amendment is not even worth debating over, since it will never happen. At least, it would not happen in our lifetime. However, I will throw out my opinion on the matter.

In my ideal libertarian budget, I do think that some unspecified money for futher allocations would exist, just in it's own catagory. This could be applied anywhere it would needed. Futhermore, emergency money would exist which could only be tapped into when certain situations arose e.x. war, etc. (NOT economic crisis, btw).
We have bloc grants, funded and unfunded mandates, etc. These things exist already, although I don't know that we have an existing "war reserve," I mean, that seems kind of bleak, don't it?

Quote:
Since this budget is inherently flexible, a balanced-budget amendment that forced all off-budget items to be on the budget and did not permit taxes to be raised for the purpose of balancing the budget could work. At least, I think it could.
Re-read what you typed here. It's a contradiction.

Quote:
Quote:
Yeah, kind of like how our top 1% wage earners have found cute ways to evade our tax policies, thus depriving the government, thus adding to the need to push the burden upon the middle-class. They're pretty good at cheating too, but I'll bet the Cato Institute would applaud their creativity. :/
Point being...?
Point being that humans are humans. It isn't the big, evil government alone that wants to ruin your life. That's a bogey man Libertarians have created for themselves. Look at the history of this nation, the consistency of government, and compare it to the history of unmitigated capitalism. Which one do you prefer???

Quote:
The problem is that it's being payed for with deficit spending. Can't you see? It's only going to get more and more expensive over time! The deficit will get bigger and bigger as each generation has to pay more and more interest!
progressive taxation.

Quote:
All this, for something that you admitted doesn't even do much good.
Right, so then are we in agreement that it needs to be more expansive???

Quote:
Quote:
And what would my boy Tommy's solution be?? Didn't he envision a small, decentralized, DIY, agrarian-based society...? Now who's the loopy Anarchist, OAO...?
His solution would be to cut government programs. I don't think he would even recognize America today.
Yeah, Tommy cut programs alright in 1807-1809. He assisted in stripping down our navy, leaving us vulnerable to piracy and war in 1812. Is that Libertarianism?

Quote:
Why should SS even exist? Is it really the responsibility of the people - even the rich people - to pay for the mistakes of others? I say no, and I say that doing so will only hurt the public in the long run.
You're right, if people need to work in unsafe factories or coal mines to pay for food and to educate their children, why should I be bothered with their poor mistakes...? I mean, OSHA has aided in decreasing such conditions, but oops, you hate government, you hate the New Deal, and FDR was a Socialist. So in your ideal Libertarian society, there'd be no OSHA, right? It only drives up costs for employers, right?

I agree, nothing but my own ass is my responsibility. Fuck everybody.

Quote:
There are reasons charities exist; they are more efficient than government (something you cannot dispute), and they do not force everyone into helping others.
If I can't dispute it, I'm asking you then to defend it. Quantify it. Back it up.

I'm currently a national AmeriCorps member. I tutor Kindergarteners in Austin, because illiteracy is rampant. This is just ONE function that this national service project provides. Why are they there? Are they there just for the heck of it? NO. There was a void there, and charities can only do so much, and the private market will do little, if anything. Charities are NOT more efficient than the government, that's why charities apply to the government for grant funding.....!!!!!!!

Quote:
Individualism and equal freedom are what libertarians stand for; apparently you do not. There is nothing else to be discussed here.
Boo hoo. Apparently Libertarians also hate democracy, despise anyone but themselves, and feel there shouldn't be a viable government. Go join an Anarchist colective or something.....

Quote:
Look up the facts if you want to. Even on independant polls, libertarians are consistently outnumbering other third party members - including the greens. On some recent polls, they are even scoring in the double-digits.
Yeah, we need a refresher. I provided the facts last time, FROM the LP website. Go to politics1.com, they have the list there, too. You can read down it, read the titles. "Water Commisioner" is often an appointed position. Small town and hamlet races are often non-partisan, meaning, people don't run on party tickets. How many of those positions are from small communities...?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2003, 08:34 PM       
Quote:
Is government inherently evil?
No. People are inherently evil. And governments are run by people. So in time, yes, all governments will succumb to evil.


Quote:
Most free market liberal thinkers, even Adam Smith, believed even in progressive taxation. Things take money to function. It seems to me that Libertarians would rather have a society with no police, no reliable mail, no libraries, no security services, or ANYTHING governmental in application, JUST as long as they can keep all of their money. This attitude, to me, seems contrary to the very notion of citizenship.
police: required to enforce the law nessecary to protect the citizen from having his inherent rights stripped by another citizen.

reliable mail: What in gods name are you smoking? Private companies are FAR more reliable that government agencies. Why do you think top companies and businesses use Fedex? And why shut it down? BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING FOR IT. WE OWN IT.

libraries: Why would we want libraries to be illegal?

security services: see police

anything governmental: ONLY enough to secure the liberty and property of each citizen and no more.


Quote:
Don't you think middle-class Americans would rather have social security benefits there for them, or a reasonable health plan, rather than the couple hundred dollars back to buy, what was it, lots of new furniture...? And often, when this link is made for tax payers, they choose the former.
YA! THOSE STUPID FUCKERS DON'T HAVE ANY CLUE HOW THEY WANT TO SPEND THEIR OWN GOD DAMN MONEY. What is so terrifying to you people about people being allowed to pay for services they desire when they desire them? Why can I not choose my investments ans retirment plans in place of social security? WHY CAN'T WE MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS????
Reply With Quote
  #14  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2003, 10:12 PM        Re: Wow. An article from a party website that isn't drivel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
And this in itself is the key flaw in radical, Libertarian economics. Again, back to Grover Norquist. Let's get the baby (govt.) small enough to drown it in the bat tub (paraphrase). Why? Is government inherently evil? Most free market liberal thinkers, even Adam Smith, believed even in progressive taxation. Things take money to function. It seems to me that Libertarians would rather have a society with no police, no reliable mail, no libraries, no security services, or ANYTHING governmental in application, JUST as long as they can keep all of their money. This attitude, to me, seems contrary to the very notion of citizenship.
Among the libertarians, there are two distinct types: minarchists and anarcho-capitalists.

Minarchists beleive that the government should exist for the sole purpose of providing a court system, national defence, police, common sense laws (no murder, etc.), and a few other necessary functions (such as producing currency).

Anarcho-capitalists, or Individualist Anarchists believe that the market could privide all of these functions more efficiently, thus making government unnecessary. Exactly how they expect currency to be produce, I'll never know...

I tend to land somewhere inbetween the two.

In addition, many libertarians believe that anyone has the right to leave the union.

Quote:
Steady businesses such as ENRON or MCI perhaps...? What happens when you put people's trust in the hands of people who have only private motivations driving them....?
Um, hello? Mutual funds? Possibly banks?

Quote:
A buddy of mine recently payed extra for one (can't recall company, whoever cingular wireless deals through) to send him his new cell phone over night. He payed the extra price, and got it in two weeks. :/

Granted, maybe this is an exception. But have you ever heard the old saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it....? This again brings the psyche of a Libertarian into question. Why shut down a system everyone knows and trusts...?
This is why it isn't a top priority. It's not even a priority at all except to the extreme anarcho-capitalists. The point is, if it ever becomes inefficient, it might be time for the market to swoop in.

Quote:
Because "rainy days" do happen, in both real life, and government. That isn't being a spend thrift, that's being prudent.
True, but if they sell the land, they get more money for those "rainy days" to use.

Quote:
Uh huh.....so, uh, democracy goes out the window in a Libertarian utopia...?
Depends on what kind of libertarian. However, this is away from the point. What I mentioned is no less democratic than the President's right to appoint judges to the Supreme Court.

Personally, I would like to see it carried out when the art of speedy on-computer (though not necessarily online) voting has been perfected.

Quote:
Good, we need to start taxing them.
We are.

I'll address the rest later, but right now I don't have time.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 24th, 2003, 11:35 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
Quote:
Is government inherently evil?
No. People are inherently evil. And governments are run by people. So in time, yes, all governments will succumb to evil.
Yes, and private industry is likewise run by these very same evil people, only this time, they're evil people who have no other obligation than to their own self-interests. This is the preferable alternative to the Libertarian utopian....


Quote:
police: required to enforce the law nessecary to protect the citizen from having his inherent rights stripped by another citizen.
Right. OAO had posted something not too long ago about privatizing police forces, allowing private contractors to bid for our community's safety and well being. Sounds like another "liberated" place I know of.....

Quote:
reliable mail: What in gods name are you smoking? Private companies are FAR more reliable that government agencies. Why do you think top companies and businesses use Fedex?
Because you pay a higher price, and for that one service, they are generally faster. This however doesn't come CLOSE to the day-to-day consistency of the U.S. Postal service. With the postal service, you pay a flat rate on postage, set by the agency. In a private system, you'd have competing postage costs, some lower, some higher, some more efficient, some less efficient. Guess what people would have easier access to the service with higher efficiency....

Quote:
And why shut it down? BECAUSE WE'RE PAYING FOR IT. WE OWN IT.
That is completely asinine. But thank you for displaying the totally self-destructive nature of the fringe Libertarian capitalist....

Quote:
libraries: Why would we want libraries to be illegal?
We're not talking about illegal/legal, we're talking about private vs. public. Libertarians seem to hate anything with a government stamp on it that goes beyond defense (and even such an important matter as our national and domestic security seems up for sale to them). Libraries are publicly funded. This has to go, it ISN'T in the Constitution.....


Quote:
anything governmental: ONLY enough to secure the liberty and property of each citizen and no more.
Then libraries have to go, as does all forms of public transportation, all public universities and schools, etc. Sounds like a fun place....


Quote:
Don't you think middle-class Americans would rather have social security benefits there for them, or a reasonable health plan, rather than the couple hundred dollars back to buy, what was it, lots of new furniture...? And often, when this link is made for tax payers, they choose the former.
Quote:
YA! THOSE STUPID FUCKERS DON'T HAVE ANY CLUE HOW THEY WANT TO SPEND THEIR OWN GOD DAMN MONEY. What is so terrifying to you people about people being allowed to pay for services they desire when they desire them? Why can I not choose my investments ans retirment plans in place of social security? WHY CAN'T WE MAKE OUR OWN DECISIONS????
So CB, I'm thus assuming that you will not be receiving social security payments when you reach the eligible age...? Also, incase you get hurt at work, I'm assuming you'd rather not have any OSHA regulations or other governmental standards there to insure it....?

Even the article above raised the point, and it's a solid one. People hate taxes, but LOVE safety nets and public utilities. This shows a public disconnect between where are tax dollars go, and a general ignorance about taxes that goes all the way back to our founding.

CB, you said it. Only the preservation of property and liberty. But see, that's Lockean, not American. American values include the persute of happiness, and the preamble to our Constitution states "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare..."

We are not a nation merely built upon militias and stuff. We have a higher purpose than that, one that ultimately requires more civic engagement than any Libertarian seems able to stomach.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Sep 25th, 2003, 12:02 AM       
Its strange to me how all of the responses to arguments I make eventually revert to telling me that thats just not the way things are, so I should accept it. I'm aware of the state our country is in. I'm aware of the motives and intentions of the framers of this country. That is all irrelevant. Ideas and principles have nothing to do with any of that.

Our country is not fully Lockean in principle, that is for sure. However its not fully liberal, or conservative, or republican, or democratic. Thats our jobs. We are supposed to take stands as citizens of our country. Its my duty to uphold what I believe in because I believe in it.

More on the topic: The government operates by forceable coercion. Businesses operate by competition and greed. You'll find no virtue where power is sought, but mark my words the method makes all the difference. I turst the man working to persuade me into letting him serve me more than the man working to persuade me into serving him.

You seem to think that public services can't possibly exist without the involvement of government. I can't even begin to fathom where this came from. There are numerous reasons why private institutions or communities could start libraries or transportation.

Education in my opinion should most definitely have no ties to the government.

You misunderstood me concerning police force. I think thats one of the few institutions that should not be privatized. I thought I made that clear.

Quote:
So CB, I'm thus assuming that you will not be receiving social security payments when you reach the eligible age...?
Where have you been? Of course I won't. I will howver, be paying for my parents who in turn will also not get any.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 26th, 2003, 12:00 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
Its strange to me how all of the responses to arguments I make eventually revert to telling me that thats just not the way things are, so I should accept it. I'm aware of the state our country is in. I'm aware of the motives and intentions of the framers of this country. That is all irrelevant. Ideas and principles have nothing to do with any of that.
Forgive me for discussing matters in a realistic context. :/

Quote:
Our country is not fully Lockean in principle, that is for sure. However its not fully liberal, or conservative, or republican, or democratic. Thats our jobs. We are supposed to take stands as citizens of our country. Its my duty to uphold what I believe in because I believe in it.
This is actually a bit wrong. Even our conservatives, as some scholars have pointed out, are essentially conservative about their liberalism. We are a VERY experimental, and in a sense radical country. Conservatism of the Edmund Burke sense was different than that of the modern American kind. Sure, conservatives are stereotypically "reactionary," but they are so un defense of a nation that was truly radical in its premise. So the argument that conservatism is inherently "American," IMO, is dead wrong.

Quote:
I turst the man working to persuade me into letting him serve me more than the man working to persuade me into serving him.
Uhhh, and what does the politician do....?

Quote:
You seem to think that public services can't possibly exist without the involvement of government. I can't even begin to fathom where this came from. There are numerous reasons why private institutions or communities could start libraries or transportation.
And there ae numerous reasons why you wouldn't want a privately motivated interest to do this, such as unfair mailing, compared to the fair and reliable system we have. Our libraries are one of the few things all politicians can agree on, and tend to consistently grant funding for, yet you seem to think allowing a private motive to have reign over public access to knowledge is a GOOD thing....

Quote:
Education in my opinion should most definitely have no ties to the government.
And were this country to accept your theory, millions of Americans would to this day still be denied the right that is education....



Quote:
Quote:
So CB, I'm thus assuming that you will not be receiving social security payments when you reach the eligible age...?
Where have you been? Of course I won't. I will howver, be paying for my parents who in turn will also not get any.
This is yet another fallacy perpetuated by the Libertarian boogey men. Social Security, for the little it gives, has been a consistent return investment, which has still aided in raising living standards for the elderly and retired. Were they to invest in private firms, this guarantee would not be there. SS can and will even out, but we need to re-prioritize our tax system, ie. taxing the people who have the money. :/
Reply With Quote
  #18  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old Sep 26th, 2003, 09:08 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
[This is yet another fallacy perpetuated by the Libertarian boogey men. Social Security, for the little it gives, has been a consistent return investment, which has still aided in raising living standards for the elderly and retired. Were they to invest in private firms, this guarantee would not be there. SS can and will even out, but we need to re-prioritize our tax system, ie. taxing the people who have the money. :/
I'm absoluetly stunned. If you think Social Security is a good investment, then you seriously need to speak to someone that knows a thing about economics.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Sep 26th, 2003, 10:17 AM       
Which thing would that be, Sandy?

This from a man who thinks we are in the middle of world war IV.

Hey, Vinth, has the Canadian Border paid his rent?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 26th, 2003, 03:52 PM       
Vince has a point. Social Security is falling off of a cliff, one that can only be fixed by a) providing an alternative and slowly weaning the amercian public off of it or b) raising taxes and waiting for it to fail again.

The good ole' CATO institute has some info on this HERE.

I also like how Kevin is attacking Bubba even though he hasn't addressed my previous points.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old Sep 26th, 2003, 04:09 PM       
Quote:

Quote:
Our country is not fully Lockean in principle, that is for sure. However its not fully liberal, or conservative, or republican, or democratic. Thats our jobs. We are supposed to take stands as citizens of our country. Its my duty to uphold what I believe in because I believe in it.
This is actually a bit wrong. Even our conservatives, as some scholars have pointed out, are essentially conservative about their liberalism. We are a VERY experimental, and in a sense radical country. Conservatism of the Edmund Burke sense was different than that of the modern American kind. Sure, conservatives are stereotypically "reactionary," but they are so un defense of a nation that was truly radical in its premise. So the argument that conservatism is inherently "American," IMO, is dead wrong.
Um... did you even read what I wrote? Whats this about conservatism? I never specified any way of thinking so why are you acting as if I said the country is Conservative? Seriously, did you read what I wrote??

Quote:
This is yet another fallacy perpetuated by the Libertarian boogey men. Social Security, for the little it gives, has been a consistent return investment, which has still aided in raising living standards for the elderly and retired. Were they to invest in private firms, this guarantee would not be there. SS can and will even out, but we need to re-prioritize our tax system, ie. taxing the people who have the money.
There are two ways SS can exist when I am of age to recieve my returns:

1. MASSIVE taxing.
2.MASSIVE reductions in benifits.

Both of these mean I will not see the same amount of money that I put into it. Taxpayer money would better be left in their own hands to invest as they please.

Quote:
And there ae numerous reasons why you wouldn't want a privately motivated interest to do this, such as unfair mailing, compared to the fair and reliable system we have. Our libraries are one of the few things all politicians can agree on, and tend to consistently grant funding for, yet you seem to think allowing a private motive to have reign over public access to knowledge is a GOOD thing....
I could argue all day about which is more "fair" and "reliable", but thats all relative and fairly unprovable. Libraries will always exist unless we go to some effort to make them illegal. On a somewhat related note, Libraries are becoming somewhat antiquated with the invention of the Internet, which I would think most agree needs to stay completely out of the hands of the government.

Quote:
And were this country to accept your theory, millions of Americans would to this day still be denied the right that is education....
No, they'd be denied the right to the Prussian Militarized style of education that is our public system. I encourage individual learning and privatized schooling.


I'll wait until you adress OAO's comments before I make another post here.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Sep 26th, 2003, 05:38 PM       
You guys should be in politics yourselves. Seriously. It's obvious that you all know a great deal about how the system works (this is not sarcasm), why aren't you (those of you who are old enough) running for office? For city council or school board at least?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Sep 26th, 2003, 06:36 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
I'm absoluetly stunned. If you think Social Security is a good investment, then you seriously need to speak to someone that knows a thing about economics.
I said it was a "consistent return investment."

And please, go find someone who knows something about economics, since you clearly aren't capable of being that person....


Quote:
Originally Posted by The One and Only...
I also like how Kevin is attacking Bubba even though he hasn't addressed my previous points.
"I'll address the rest later, but right now I don't have time."

I figured I'd allow you to complete your thoughts like you said you would, and then respond. However, since you're acting like a sniveling little brat, I guess I'll respond to your incomplete post later. And while you're at it, you should respond to some of my passed-over points, too....

And as for "attacking" CB, please, display an example of this. See, when two people who are in agreement make jabs at someone else, it's called "making points." When someone you disagree with pokes holes in candy land/shoots and ladders ideas, such as cutting programs just for the sake of cutting them, it's called "attacking."

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
Um... did you even read what I wrote? Whats this about conservatism? I never specified any way of thinking so why are you acting as if I said the country is Conservative? Seriously, did you read what I wrote??
Uhhhh, like, seriously, do you find it effective to...uhhmmm....evade points by, uhhh, pretending to be on the defensive...um. (btw, now I am "attacking," OAO, but what's good for the goose....)

Lets go back and examine what you said CB, since you seem to feel like you've been libeled:

"Our country is not fully Lockean in principle, that is for sure. However its not fully liberal, or conservative, or republican, or democratic. Thats our jobs. We are supposed to take stands as citizens of our country. Its my duty to uphold what I believe in because I believe in it."

And the point I thought I made fairly clear, was that even from that varied spectrum of choices you provided, there is STILL a permeating presence of liberalism throughout the country. Even the free market, classical liberals (who were more like today's Libertarians) believed in the prominent role of government, not merely to serve as a lame duck entity, but rather to serve as an active entity in society. Passive and/or weak government doesn't work any better than government that is too interventionist.

Your point was that government should defend property and liberty. That's it. I disagree with this, and as I've already stated, I feel it's contrary to every notion of civic responsibility.


Quote:
There are two ways SS can exist when I am of age to recieve my returns:

1. MASSIVE taxing.
2.MASSIVE reductions in benifits.

Both of these mean I will not see the same amount of money that I put into it. Taxpayer money would better be left in their own hands to invest as they please.
You don't need to add massive taxation, as I've said, you need to shift the tax burden. Our birthrates are declining here in America, which means less people will be retiring in generations following the baby boomers. Scrapping SS would be creating a long term solution for a short-term problem....(and I await Vince's well thought out retort to this).


Quote:
argue all day about which is more "fair" and "reliable", but thats all relative and fairly unprovable. Libraries will always exist unless we go to some effort to make them illegal.
I think the flat out effectiveness and consistency of the U.S. Post office is pretty damn provably, how about we mail each other letters???

And your point about illegality is moot. You said government's role should be defense of liberty and property. Nothing in there about paying for book warehouses....

Quote:
Libraries are becoming somewhat antiquated with the invention of the Internet, which I would think most agree needs to stay completely out of the hands of the government.
Right, but the one thing a REAL, physical building provides is a place for those lacking internet access the ability to have said access. This will become more important as more civic activities, such as voting, move online....

And whether or not libraries are "antiquated" or not is also moot. Point is, they generally get their money. Nobody wants to run on an "anti-library" platform. Well, with perhaps Libertarians as the exception.


Quote:
No, they'd be denied the right to the Prussian Militarized style of education that is our public system. I encourage individual learning and privatized schooling.


"Individualized learning," eh? Well I'm all for that. I just hope the average American, with their work week getting longer and their pay check getting smaller, has the time to teach themselves Spanish, calculus, biology, comparative politics, and engineering on their days off.

And privatized schooling exists, and I'm all for it, providing it doesn't take away tax dollars from public schools through voucher programs. Depending upon a completely privatized system to educate our children, IMO, is crazy.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 28th, 2003, 07:37 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore
"I'll address the rest later, but right now I don't have time."

I figured I'd allow you to complete your thoughts like you said you would, and then respond. However, since you're acting like a sniveling little brat, I guess I'll respond to your incomplete post later. And while you're at it, you should respond to some of my passed-over points, too....
A sniveling little brat? How? Also, please point which points I passed over. It's been a while since I visited this thread because I was away from the computer all weekend.

Quote:
And as for "attacking" CB, please, display an example of this. See, when two people who are in agreement make jabs at someone else, it's called "making points." When someone you disagree with pokes holes in candy land/shoots and ladders ideas, such as cutting programs just for the sake of cutting them, it's called "attacking."
Reading too much into the comment? I just use the term attacking whenever someone comes up with an opposing point/counterpoint.

Quote:
"Individualized learning," eh? Well I'm all for that. I just hope the average American, with their work week getting longer and their pay check getting smaller, has the time to teach themselves Spanish, calculus, biology, comparative politics, and engineering on their days off.

And privatized schooling exists, and I'm all for it, providing it doesn't take away tax dollars from public schools through voucher programs. Depending upon a completely privatized system to educate our children, IMO, is crazy.
Just a question. If the average american doesn't have time to teach himself, how does he have time to go to school? It takes less time to teach yourself than it does to be taught at a school.
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
The One and Only... The One and Only... is offline
Mocker
The One and Only...'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harlem
The One and Only... is probably a spambot
Old Sep 28th, 2003, 08:27 PM        Re: Wow. An article from a party website that isn't drivel.
Quote:
The "economy" prospered...? What about real, living, WORKING people....?
They prospered because the economy prospered. One leads to other.

You see, when technologies advance, everyone advances. Eventually those technologies become so commonplace that even the lower working classes benefit. These technologies typical arise at a faster rate in a capitalist society; I'm sure you know that.

In short, I believe that not only is economic equality inevitable, but also desirable.

Quote:
The gap was smaller, homelessness was down, national production was high, and there was a general sense of well being, at least financially speaking. One spouse could go to work and provide for their entire family, while not exceeding 40 hours a week. This meant they could be home with their families, raising their children, going to ball games on the weekends. This means a hell of a lot more to me than your supposed pre-WW 1 "economic prosperity." Just who exactly prospered then...?
I already addressed the strength of the pre-WW 1 economy, but even so: you do realize that the 1950s had a comparatively low tax burden on everyone in those days, don't you? It's not as if the wealthy payed out half of their income so that the middle class could scrape by on 2-3%.

Quote:
Relative to what? We have some of the lowest taxes in the world. Alabama has the lowest taxes in the world, and have kept them so low to the point that the state is devoid of basic infrastructure, and in an economic mess. Is Alabama your national model....?
Relative to the taxes we currently pay.

Quote:
We have bloc grants, funded and unfunded mandates, etc. These things exist already, although I don't know that we have an existing "war reserve," I mean, that seems kind of bleak, don't it?
The problem is that these bloc grants can be used whenever and wherever quite easily. A special emergency reserve would require a strict set of regulations so that it could only be used when truly warranted.

Quote:
Re-read what you typed here. It's a contradiction.
Okay, I'll clarify. Assuming that these emergency funds were established, a constitutional amendment that requires all currently off-budget items to be on the budget and that the budget must be balanced could work.

Quote:
Point being that humans are humans. It isn't the big, evil government alone that wants to ruin your life. That's a bogey man Libertarians have created for themselves. Look at the history of this nation, the consistency of government, and compare it to the history of unmitigated capitalism. Which one do you prefer???
I don't know about you, but the history of unmitigated capitalism doesn't even appear to exist. The times we have been closer to it, however, do appear to have been happier.

Quote:
progressive taxation.
Pot-shots at economic expansion.

Quote:
Right, so then are we in agreement that it needs to be more expansive???
Nope. Consider how much it would take for it to have a strong effect. Does that really seem like a better alternative to, you know, not having it?

Quote:
Yeah, Tommy cut programs alright in 1807-1809. He assisted in stripping down our navy, leaving us vulnerable to piracy and war in 1812. Is that Libertarianism?
Yes, because we all know that Tommy never did anything right as president. Plus, every libertarian thinks that we should cut military defence as soon as possible.

Quote:
You're right, if people need to work in unsafe factories or coal mines to pay for food and to educate their children, why should I be bothered with their poor mistakes...? I mean, OSHA has aided in decreasing such conditions, but oops, you hate government, you hate the New Deal, and FDR was a Socialist. So in your ideal Libertarian society, there'd be no OSHA, right? It only drives up costs for employers, right?
Yeah, because everyone would work in those unsafe factories were OSHA gotten rid off. I mean, the labor unions would be all over that. Plus, it's not as if some other company with safe utilities and better wages would come along to compete for labor resources.

Aside from all that, you need to get rid of this mentality that every libertarian wants to destroy the government and every law ever formed.

Quote:
I agree, nothing but my own ass is my responsibility. Fuck everybody.
Yeah, no libertarian cares about other people. It's impossible to believe that if people are forced to care for themselves, they will.

Quote:
If I can't dispute it, I'm asking you then to defend it. Quantify it. Back it up.

I'm currently a national AmeriCorps member. I tutor Kindergarteners in Austin, because illiteracy is rampant. This is just ONE function that this national service project provides. Why are they there? Are they there just for the heck of it? NO. There was a void there, and charities can only do so much, and the private market will do little, if anything. Charities are NOT more efficient than the government, that's why charities apply to the government for grant funding.....!!!!!!!
I think you proved earlier that charities are more efficient than government. You admitted that government is wasteful (not sure if it was this thread...?). I don't see charities throwing out perfectly good computers just to get the newest model, etc.

Charities apply to the government for grants because they can use the money. That doesn't prove that they are less efficient: after all, very few organizations would pass up on the opportunity for some free funding.

Quote:
Boo hoo. Apparently Libertarians also hate democracy, despise anyone but themselves, and feel there shouldn't be a viable government. Go join an Anarchist colective or something.....
A nice non-point.

Quote:
Yeah, we need a refresher. I provided the facts last time, FROM the LP website. Go to politics1.com, they have the list there, too. You can read down it, read the titles. "Water Commisioner" is often an appointed position. Small town and hamlet races are often non-partisan, meaning, people don't run on party tickets. How many of those positions are from small communities...?
I'm not talking about the number in office; I'm talking about the number of supporters in polls now...
__________________
I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all is vanity and a chase after wind.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.