Going back to the property tax discussion. North Dakota is looking to get rid of theirs all together. Of course supporters of the measure can't explain how they'd fill that $800,000,000 revenue hole. Just because they're running a surplus now doesn't mean they should flush it away in tax cuts...
-
Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!
NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread
- Thread starter imaplanner
- Start date
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
That is the problem with the rationale of the tea party. They want to cut, cut, cut. And are EXTREMELY short-sighted. Instead of getting a cushion that would allow them to function if the economy got worse, they would want the now, now, now response which is to remove more taxation and cut government.
I don't understand why some of the right have such a tough time with the concept of having a surplus. That allows you to pay down debt, budget for the future, and assure the viability of the organizational structure for the long haul. I agree that it seems when surpluses exist that the democrats want to find ways to spend it, but I think having a surplus fund is much smarter than cutting because times are great right now. Things won't be great forever.
It reminds me of a community who lived like kings off of the GM plant that supplied most of the jobs and income for the community. Instead of being fiscally prudent and getting a surplus, they spent extravagantly, lowered taxes for everyone else, and when GM left, were in dire straights. Now they are trying to raise taxes in this economic environment which is difficult to do. In the short term it seems like such a nice thing to do - but in the long term, the more reasonable thing to do would be to keep the surplus.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
That's because on a national scale, the Republicans are only trying to get elected and beat Obama. They know that simply cutting budgets and reducing taxes is not a true answer. Unless they don't know this then they're just idiots.
Bear Up North
Cyburbian Emeritus
- Messages
- 9,323
- Points
- 31
Changing topics, slightly.....still political.....
The TV and radio ads for the November elections are in full-swing here in NW Ohio. Democrats are pushing hard to show that Obama is a friend of the working class guy, including a Toledo dude focused-on in an Obama ad. He is shown driving to work on Toledo's outerbelt, I-475. As this auto-related worker enters his workplace it looks like the big Johnson Control's plant in suburban Toledo. They make batteries and are in the process of a huge expansion. Because northern Ohio has so many auto plant workers and auto parts plant workers they will push their ads highlighting the Obama administration's "help" a few years ago. A big vote for Obama in northern Ohio could very well swing the Ohio electors to the blues and could be the reason O is re-elected. About five more months of these ads. Oh goodie. :-|
Bear
Residing In THE Swing State, Ohio
The TV and radio ads for the November elections are in full-swing here in NW Ohio. Democrats are pushing hard to show that Obama is a friend of the working class guy, including a Toledo dude focused-on in an Obama ad. He is shown driving to work on Toledo's outerbelt, I-475. As this auto-related worker enters his workplace it looks like the big Johnson Control's plant in suburban Toledo. They make batteries and are in the process of a huge expansion. Because northern Ohio has so many auto plant workers and auto parts plant workers they will push their ads highlighting the Obama administration's "help" a few years ago. A big vote for Obama in northern Ohio could very well swing the Ohio electors to the blues and could be the reason O is re-elected. About five more months of these ads. Oh goodie. :-|
Bear
Residing In THE Swing State, Ohio
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
Ohio or not, I do not see how people could vote for Obama. We have less jobs than when he took office, the economy continues to be in shambles, the government and red tape is larger than ever, there is still issues with Iran, and he has spent more in 3 years than it took GWB to spend in 8.... oh and he ciritized Bush for how much he spent.
Romney is not much better, but I think it would get far worse under Obama.
Romney is not much better, but I think it would get far worse under Obama.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
Care to back that up with a fact? I was under the impression that private sector job growth under Obama has been steady after the first part of 2009. While public sector jobs continue to go away, well, isn' that what many Republicans/Tea Partiers/Conservatives want?
WSU MUP Student
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,409
- Points
- 59
Here are the facts (and they do not agree with Michaelskis' assertion) from the BLS and the Current Employment Survey:
- In January 2009, when Obama took office, there were 110,985,000 private sector jobs in the United States
- As of May 2012 (the most recent data available), there were 111,040,000 private sector jobs in the United States
- That's only about 0.05% growth, but it's still growth
If we give Obama a pass on January, since he was only in office for about a week, there were 110,260,000 private sector jobs in the United states in February 2009. The nation has seen a 0.71% increase in private sector employment since then.
Personally, I would argue that you should probably give the new president a quarter or two because it takes at least that long to begin getting major policies reversed. Since the end of 2009Q1, there has been a 2.18% increase in private sector employment and since the end of 2009Q2 there has been a 3.16% in private sector employment.
stroskey
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 1,212
- Points
- 17
Can't you all see the president really has no bearing on job creation? Unless he personally creates and implements some sort of national jobs program his policies don't matter that much. In fact I believe local business managers have far more control over job creation than the president.
As a family member of "business people", I often hear that reducing taxes won't create more jobs because decreased taxes does not equal increased demand. And we all know a business only hires people when their demand rises. A family member who managed a site with over 500 employees told me reduced taxes might result in higher wages for current but most likely it will result in more profit for the corporate headquarters or bonuses for managers. This man is a republican. This is why I am an independent - the big parties' only job is to bash each other and walk on the same path. If we look through our history books we'll find the best and most beloved presidents did things that had nothing to do with corporate taxes - the only exception might be FDR and the New Deal.
As a family member of "business people", I often hear that reducing taxes won't create more jobs because decreased taxes does not equal increased demand. And we all know a business only hires people when their demand rises. A family member who managed a site with over 500 employees told me reduced taxes might result in higher wages for current but most likely it will result in more profit for the corporate headquarters or bonuses for managers. This man is a republican. This is why I am an independent - the big parties' only job is to bash each other and walk on the same path. If we look through our history books we'll find the best and most beloved presidents did things that had nothing to do with corporate taxes - the only exception might be FDR and the New Deal.
WSU MUP Student
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,409
- Points
- 59
I agree eleventy billion percent that the president has very little control over actual job creation. Unfortunately, folks have liked to use jobs, the unemployment rate, GDP, and a few other economic statistics for a long time as something to measure whether or not the president is doing a "good" job. There is also very good evidence going back to the Truman administration showing strong correlations between the unemployment rate and if a sitting president gets re-elected. In the end, folks will always say that it is the policies that the president sets forth (or blocks) that are affecting job creation but will forget to look at how things are going in the rest of the world, how their local economies are doing, whether or not there is an obstructionist legislature, etc.
Regarding lowering taxes and creating jobs, I agree with you again. Last year (or maybe it was in 2010), I remember there being a big push to reduce the employer payroll taxes and/or provide credits for hiring new workers for small businesses with the reasoning that it would lower unemployment. Every time I heard those plans I wanted to
because I just couldn't see where the demand was going to come from to encourage those businesses to hire some new workers in the first place.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
Your numbers are correct for private sector only. But when you look at total employment, from January 2009 to April 2012, including public sector such as fire fighters, police officers, and such, the total numbers are down by 607,000 people. According to Michael Linden, Director of Tax and Budget Policy at the Center for American Progress,
Combine that with unemployment rate from the BLS, (LINK) it shows there are more people out of work today than 3 years ago and the number coming into the work force is less than the baby boomers retiring.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
No.... the whole point is there are less people working today than there was three years ago. Additionally, part of the increase in private sector jobs is from people loosing their public sector jobs and doing the same job in the private sector, sometime for the same employer.
- Messages
- 8,314
- Points
- 57
Exactly. I would think the GOP would be collectively pinching Grover Norquist's nipples at the thought of the private sector growing as the public sector shrinks.
Plus the public sector ALWAYS lags behind the private sector in job recovery (excluding the Great Depression & New Deal). It was Norquist, after all, who said his goal was to shrink government to the point that he could drown it in a bathtub.
Also, police, fire, teachers, etc. are all almost exclusively in the realm of state or local government control--the Feds don't have any control over their hiring & firing practices. The only issue we've had in Texas is teacher layoffs, which were the direct result of Republican actions to "reform taxes" in a short-sighted manner that resulted in a structural deficit coupled with state funding cuts to local school districts.
Last edited:
I'll admit this is true but this type of argument does annoy me. You have all these people wanting to cut government and claim it cannot create jobs. They then proceed to blame Obama when the job losses in the public sector become a drag on the economy. Substantially cutting public sector positions can create structural unemployment issues since many people don't have a skill set that is transferable to the private sector. Romney just the other day said he wants to get rid of more police, firefighters, and teachers. Where are those people going to find jobs?
- Messages
- 38,514
- Points
- 78
Selling Amway products?
Seriously.
I wouldn't have as much problems with Republicans on cutting government if they weren't so contradictory about it. I just don't see how they can say cutting government and public assistance will help the economy while cutting the military will hurt it. It's especially disingenuous when you consider that the military is essentially a social welfare program not unlike many of the things they want to cut.
I wouldn't have as much problems with Republicans on cutting government if they weren't so contradictory about it. I just don't see how they can say cutting government and public assistance will help the economy while cutting the military will hurt it. It's especially disingenuous when you consider that the military is essentially a social welfare program not unlike many of the things they want to cut.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
There's no point in trying to reason with them. Their whole goal is to get elected, not to do what is right.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
For the most part, I think that is both parties.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
When it comes to election season, I agree.
But not on the issue of cutting bugets as they only way to improve the economy. The Repulicans, at least nationally, seem hell bent that this is the only answer.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
Too many of the Republicans say that, then go and spend as if the money would never stop flowing whereas the Democrats promise new programs and incentives that they claim will improve peoples lives, and don't, which increase the debt or require an increase in taxes. Neither of them is right.
A balance needs to occur. It is like Richard Cobden did with the England's corn laws in the 1800's. The government put regulations to restrict the trade of cheep corn and grain into the country to protect the farmers. It however resulted in limited supply and an increased demand and sky rocking prices. Poor people could not afford grain or corn so they went hungry. A bad year of crops and the potato famine in Ireland was the final straw and Prime Minister Robert Peel repealed the act, and foreign grain flowed into the country which destroyed the agricultural industry. However, some landowners and even some farmers were able to shift gears just in time to catch the industrial revolution.
Same thing happened here with the Fordny - McCumber Tariff act in the 1920's and Smoot- Hawley Tariff act in the 1930's which then progressed into the great depression. A combination of historians and economists note that if the government had not taken any action, both England and the US would have been able to deal with the situation better.
When ever I hear the government say that they are going to 'do something' I cringe because there is a good change it will result in more harm than good long term. Both the R's and the D's say it. If Obama announced tomorrow that he would not do ANYTHING for the next four years other than undo many of the things done in the past, I would likely vote for him.
Ahhh, thanks Butter Cup.You are so adorable
otterpop
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,655
- Points
- 28
I agree. The military-industrial complex is a bloated mess. The huge amounts of money we invest it is squandered to a large part and does not make us safer. The nature of national defense has changed in the past 30 years but we are still spending in ways like it is still the Cold War. We pour money into the Defense budget to protect and increase employment in those areas, but at what cost to the rest of us. Seems like the only manufacturing jobs that are prospering are those devoted to killing people and destroying property.
I agree we need to trim the fat out of the national budget. The defense budget needs to take their medicine with the rest of the programs.
Across the board everyone takes a proportionate hit. Seems only fair.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
Well said! In the information age, a computer can be just as effective as a bomb... but resulting in less killing, less damage, and less environmental damage.
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
Defense spending translates into jobs, both with the bases and weapons manufacturers.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
You can't have it both ways. Either you want job creation or you want the government to be cut. The largest employer in the United States is the government. Fed, State, local, and defense. In the private sector, defense contracts create millions of jobs with "public" money.
If you wanted to trace back where the money came from it would be pretty interesting the "private sector" jobs that are fully funded by the taxpayer. Let's not pretend like government is awful and can't do anything right. Either you want to cut government and accept that jobs are going to disappear as well, you want to reign in spending and reduce the debt, and accept that jobs aren't going to be created, or you want to see more jobs created through government spending. The private sector isn't spending that is for sure.
You can't cut government and expect a huge jump in employment. It is just not feasible without a boom economy.
If you wanted to trace back where the money came from it would be pretty interesting the "private sector" jobs that are fully funded by the taxpayer. Let's not pretend like government is awful and can't do anything right. Either you want to cut government and accept that jobs are going to disappear as well, you want to reign in spending and reduce the debt, and accept that jobs aren't going to be created, or you want to see more jobs created through government spending. The private sector isn't spending that is for sure.
You can't cut government and expect a huge jump in employment. It is just not feasible without a boom economy.
That's an interesting point. The federal government has a history of contracting out a lot of it's functions for the sole purpose of "reducing the federal workforce." For all intents and purposes, these employees are part of the federal workforce and their direct supervisors are often federal employees. The problem is that the contracts are often favorable to neither the federal government nor the employees...
Then of course there's the defense industry where you have companies like Lockheed and Nathrop & Grummen that are largely dependent on government contracts for their continued existence.
otterpop
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,655
- Points
- 28
Which is part of my point. We essentially pump money into the defense industries to protect jobs. It is a mega billion dollar jobs creation project. It is a subsidy. It is welfare.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
It is amazing how much you are missing the point. There are things that the government needs and is required to do. Many of those things they can do quite well. But for just about everything else, it can be done cleaner, better, and cheaper in the private sector. I am not pretending that the government is awful and can't do anything right. But they need to get out of the way of a free economy and stop being an enabler with bloated budgets, inflated pension programs, and redundant employee rolls.
Your right, we can't expect a huge jump in employment. But as I mentioned 4 year ago when everyone was preaching Hope and Change, I mentioned that I hoped we still had some change left in our pockets. I wish everything has gone swimmingly, but as a whole, we are worse off than we were 4 years ago. Additionally, much like the article that was posted in the economics thread, much of the private sector employment is not permanent employment, but short term contracts for government projects from Obama stimulus money, most of which will run out in a few years. What happens then?
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
I don't think this is about "missing the point". I think we all agree that there is a balance when it comes to what all levels of government can do, versus what the private sector can do.
This is about the political talking point of "cut, cut, cut", which is a major talking point of the Republican/conservative/Tea Party movement. Simply cutting government budgets will result in more unemployment, if nothing else is done.
President Clinton wrote a book titled Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy . Say what you will about the man, but the book offers a multitute of ways in which our federal government can become smarter about how it invests in and supports the national economy.
Simply saying that "government needs to get out of the way", is a very simplistic and easy thing to say, and offers no real concrete vision of what needs to be done to help create jobs. Government will always have a role in helping to create jobs, whether the country is socialist, facist, communist, capitalist, etc.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
Clinton is part of the reason that we are in this mess... he and Jim Jones pushed for a change in procedure with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to encourage home loans to be issued to anything with a pulse and changed the debt to equity ratios required by banks. I do have to give him credit for working with the Republican Congress to get budgets balanced and even a surplus, but it was only a fraction of what should be done.
Many people in here view balance the same as Fox News... extremely one sided. The best role is like a 3rd base coach. You know he's there and sometimes he has good ideas, but most of the time, he just keeps to himself.
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
And other people keep saying the same things over and over and over again. Let's agree to disagree. You are trying to do missionary work with people who aren't interested. There are other websites where you will find liked minded people.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
If you want to live in the past that's fine. Every president has done right and wrong. I'm trying to offer ways forward and you start talking about Fox News and baseball.
I agree with you on many political points, but I now think that your sole purpose is to spread your gospel without thinking critically about other poster's comments.
Sigh.
Last edited:
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
Don't forget Obama! It's pretty much Clinton and Obama's fault.
Don't worry. Romney has a plan:
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
Exactly how that is missing the point I am not sure.... do I think the country would be better with Ron Paul in charge? No. Let's start from your angle.
*{Sarcasm On} Let's picture the United States in 12 years, when Libertarianism and the Constitution (as written by guys 200+ years go thought today's world should be) rules!
Do I picture prosperity and roses? Nope.
- I picture an economy that isn't supporting the middle class or the lower class, but the wealthy class is FLOURISHING!
- I picture the environment being ruined, gas prices (and demand) at record highs due to the dwindling supply and increased demand.
- I picture more deaths per year due to cancer, obesity, and food related illnesses.
- I picture the concept of personal responsibility being raised high, with no actual responsibility being expected or requested.
I am sure these are doom and gloom to you, but I mean Ron Paul is promising a better world... and he better produce it or I am going to whine like crazy. Now if we go into a depression or happen to have a technology bubble, that is no excuse. He should fix it. *{Sarcasm Off}
Here is my issue with your comments. You seem to always pretend like you are willing to discuss that actual topics, then throw in jabs that either A.) Are not relevant to the discussion and are just pushing your partisan thoughts, or B.) Are trying to further your point that Libertarianism is the only way to freedom for our country of oppressed millionaires. You also fill your posts with no win situations. You are complaining about jobs not being created, then complaining about the type of jobs being created, then complaining again about the number of jobs being created. The point of my post is that you can't have it both ways. Either you want jobs to be created - and government is phenomenally good at creating jobs - public and private - or you don't. You can't shrink government to the levels which are being proposed by the elite libraterians / tea party / etc. and expect to see job growth. It won't happen when the economy is so weak. This concept that rich people are going to just make jobs because they aren't paying taxes is asinine and has never been proven to have any fact behind it.
Please explain to me (with some actual facts or detail) why again the private sector does things better? Explain to me how the Libertarian Candidate would change our existing conditions to make the situation better for me today.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
The private sector can do ALMOST everything better and more efficient because of the nature of what they do. Private sector uses competition to spur new innovation while reducing costs. That is why Wal Mart is the largest corporation on the planet. Sam Walton got innovative and change the distribution program, cut out some of the middle men, and BOOM, he was the wealthiest person in the US when he died. The combine wealth of his kids put Bill Gates to shame, but that too is another example. Look at the innovations of Microsoft, Apple, and Google... all because they need to compete in an attempt not to be the best, but to stay relevant. The government does not have that same intensive.
Can you tell me any industry where the government can do it more efficiently or better than the private sector? That is why there is a big push for air ports to convert over to private security companies and away from TSA. After all, how many government agencies are there? Here is a list...
However, as I pointed out, there are some things that the Federal Government is required to do, including "Coin Money" and not pass it off to a cartel of private bankers, most of which are foreign owned.
I find your list interesting and in part, I don't argue that there would be difficult times in the sort run. But like an obese person exercising for the first time in a while, the bloated overweight federal government will need to work to shed some of the pounds, and it can not happen over night. It also needs to go in the right direction. Under the existing administration, we are increasing regulation and government spending to new highs.
In the short term, yes, the gap between the wealthy and the poor would likely increase. But why? How did the wealthy get where they were? If it is because of federal programs and lobbing groups assuring particular protections for their clients product while hindering similar development... none of that would be in place. The tax structure would be totally restructured to get it so a 5 year old could do your taxes (and no IRS), so the playing field would be totally leveled. Yes, some would have an advantage with capital and experience, but that is only where they would start.
In terms of the EPA, how many different divisions are there when you include the state requirements too? I frankly don't know by based on the red tape here in Michigan, it is extensive. I agree that there does need to be some level of national environmental protection, but the entire process would be streamlined.
Education, leave it up to the states. Food Quality, come on are you kidding me. Do you know what they serve in public school lunches? PINK SLIME... the chemicals used to process the foods either in finished product or somewhere in the process are some of the same chemicals everyone is worried about being pumped into the ground with fracking.
Personal responsibility is going to be difficult for many to grasp, primarily because we as a society and the federal government has been enabling people to not have it. I pay in quarterlies for my taxes because I own my own firm. My wife is shocked at how much I paid until I asked her to add up the taxes listed on her pay check over the past 3 months. We give food stamps out to everyone, unemployment benefits can actually hinder people from going out to get jobs (there was a story from someone else in the Union Thread), and as was so wonderfully expressed by Peggy Joseph, there is the perception that the government will just take care of us. In 20 years, let me know how Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are working for you?
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
No one is arguing that the federal government should become a grocer or retailer. That's a ridiculous point to make.
Would it surprise you that many of the initial advances in advanced computing was a result of government investment? The federal government doesn't need to become the next Gates or Jobs to have a serious impact on society.
I too work in Michigan, and frankly, I'm not sure what you're referring to when you speak of the EPA. In my 10+ years of working in this state I've never had a negative experience with the EPA.
Education? Why leave it up to the States? Please give me a reason why we should not have a national policy when it comes to educating our society? Isn't the education of our populace a national security issue?
Food quality? Can you imagine what would be in our school lunches if there were NO national standards?
I agree with you that certain segments of our society have an unfounded expectation that the government will take care of them. I work in the county seat of the third most populated county in the State. I understand the impact of social services and the mindset of certain individuals. But again, personal responsibility and the decimation of our federal government are not one in the same. We can accomplish increased responsibility while at the same time having a federal government that is limber, investment-oriented and streamlined.
Can you remember any other federal agencies you want to abolish Rick Perry....errrrr.....I mean m'skis?
Many states drop the ball on certain things and that's why the federal government is involved in the first place. Sure, there are many states that can do things better than the federal government but there's also many who can't. What do we do with those states who think they have a handle on things when they clearly don't? Like states in the South score poorly on a variety of different metrics from education to the prevalence of heart disease. Do you honestly think things would be better in those places without federal involvement?
I'm all for states being able to do things on their own if they're able to meet or exceed federal standards. The problem is that the states crying loudest about states' rights are also the ones failing to meet those standards.
I'm all for states being able to do things on their own if they're able to meet or exceed federal standards. The problem is that the states crying loudest about states' rights are also the ones failing to meet those standards.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
- Most of the inventions of the past 100 years were initiated, funded, or at least started at the government level. Have you heard of NASA? It also seems that certain areas of research and development are not even considered by the private sector unless they get grants or funding by the government. How is that stem cell research going in the private sector? Or the cure for Cancer?
- The governments incentive does not usually involve money, you are correct. It involves moving the country forward. It involves innovation and invention. Apple is great. Google is great. But you do realize that our military helped to create nanotechnology in the 60's right? And the cell phone industry was created by our military first? Internet... yep government funding. GPS, touch screens.... I mean seriously... other than put it together in China, Apple didn't exactly invent much of the technology they use...
- Better yes. Efficiency is really very subjective. Who is pushing for the TSA to be removed? My guess isn't the general public, but more like republicans who think this will "save" money. Doubtful really. And it has been proven over and over that moving government jobs to the private sector costs more.... http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/repo...usiness/co-gp-20110913.html#Executive Summary
- So your argument is that any increase in government regulation just makes the government bloated? I really would like to understand your thoughts on departments that would be removed, and how you would expect that those services would be provided to our country. Please understand that if you say states, you are accepting that there will be no baseline. That argument accepts that we as a country are accepting of States that don't have minimum standards. Your state educates at a level they deem acceptable. Explain to me how this creates a more progressive society. I don't disagree about government spending, but it isn't exactly just this administration. Government spending continually rises with inflation. Not all government spending is bad. As I have explained before. If you want jobs, the government provides those with some of that "bloated" size.
- In the short term? At what point would it just start turning around? So because I can do my taxes easily somehow I now will be at the same level as the guy that makes $24k a year? Doubtful. Your concept would deregulate any ability to provide a safety net to the needy, would allow rampant wall street gambling without any oversight, and would ultimately lead to a much less stable economy. But I am sure everyone will do the right thing and nothing could possibly go wrong.
So you would rather have a lower baseline then what we have now for EPA, Education, and Food quality. I am sure poor states will cut programs they don't need like the EPA and FDA. There people should know better than to eat hamburger made in Alabama which has no regulations. It is cheaper and it is all they can afford, but they should be reading the labels and know that it is unsafe for them.
I am sure that everyone will just home school their kids and education won't be an issue. That way, those who are homophobes, racists, or bigots will never have to share a place or meet people that force them to question their understanding of the world. That will make a MUCH better United States.
I can't argue that the government creates dependency, and that we need to ween people off the government. I don't exactly understand though how you expect to advance our country, raise up the lowest denominator, and continue our world leadership in technology, innovation, and creativity, without government being at the forefront. Your arguments just don't support the concept.
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
Eliminate the following:
US Department of Labor
US Department of Education
US Department of Agriculture
IRS
US Department of Energy
Combine the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, DEA, ATF, FEMA and Homeland Security into Department of Security.
Restructure the Department of Defense to prevent overlap with different agencies.
Restructure HUD and EPA
Also eliminate the Federal Reserve, but that is as federal as federal express.
As for your comments, I don' agree with most of what you said and I am guessing you don't care to consider anything that I have said so it appears that we are at an impasse. My reasoning for most of this is that old dusty 200+ year old document that apparently you don't have interest in and common sense. Not emotional reaction. I guess you have never had to deal with MEDQ, MDNR, or for a while, the MDNRE.
btrage
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 7,282
- Points
- 51
I consider everything you say. That's why I keep responding to your posts. You still didn't answer all of my questions from my previous posts.
Of course I've dealt with the DEQ, DNR, DNRE. But you referred to the EPA. So those State agencies are just as bad as the federal EPA? I thought the States did everything better?
And now I don't have interest in the Constitution? Is that what you're referring to?
Emotional response? Who's the one talking down to people now?
Whose Yur Planner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 14,093
- Points
- 60
Combining the CIA, FBI, SS, DEA, AFT, FEMA and HS is a reallly dumb idea. There are reasons why they are kept seperate and it's not vested bureacracy. Eliminate the IRS, you eliminate the Federal Government, which is your whole idea. As for being at impasse with btrage, you are at impasse with more than just him. Posting anti-government content on a website that is largely populated by government employees is silly. Further, you get the sort of responses that you are getting.
imaplanner
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 6,672
- Points
- 28
True. btrage hates the constitution. So do most people who aren't dyed in the wool conservatives. amiright?
michaelskis
Sawdust Producer
- Messages
- 25,903
- Points
- 74
You know what, your right. Obama and his policies are going to save the country.
I still this that almost everything many of you posteded is 100% wrong, but one thing is for sure, it does not matter who gets elected. We're all screwed. It is however amazing how many times things are repeated. Let me say this yet again, no I am not a republican or a conservative. I don't watch fox news, and I don't want total elimination of the federal government. But it appears that some of you spend so much time tring to bash my ideas that you don't actually read my posts. But you know what, that is what makes this a wonderful world. People can speak their mind, even if they are wrong.
I still this that almost everything many of you posteded is 100% wrong, but one thing is for sure, it does not matter who gets elected. We're all screwed. It is however amazing how many times things are repeated. Let me say this yet again, no I am not a republican or a conservative. I don't watch fox news, and I don't want total elimination of the federal government. But it appears that some of you spend so much time tring to bash my ideas that you don't actually read my posts. But you know what, that is what makes this a wonderful world. People can speak their mind, even if they are wrong.
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
And we end where it all began. You proving my point. You can speak your mind. But if you try and belittle or call names people who probably know as much if not more than you about a topic, and then finish with you are all 100% wrong, we have really just wasted time.
I really think that you need to think about your thoughts and ideas a bit more. Since you don't watch the news, and don't like to use search engines, I don't know how you have formulated these thoughts. I guess you just read books? I thought that I was pretty constructive in my criticism. I asked for answers to questions that it seems you were unable to answer. How that makes me, or anyone else who has called out your inconsistent message wrong, I don't get. If it makes sense in your head, I guess that is all the matters, but on this forum, it would work better if you tried to explain your thoughts without starting (or finishing in this case) by saying how right you are and how everyone else is wrong.
I find it interesting to see how everyone is spinning the Supreme Court's immigration ruling. Republicans are claiming victory despite 3/4 of the law being struck down. Then the fourth provision can potentially be struck down at a later date depending on how the law is implemented. So the most controversial aspect of law currently remains but it otherwise lost all its teeth. Hard to see how this isn't a victory for the Obama Administration.
Bear Up North
Cyburbian Emeritus
- Messages
- 9,323
- Points
- 31
One of the comments I saw indicated that the Dems will use the rules that a driver's license is "proof of citizenship" as a way to press for Latino voters.....stationing themselves at license agencies to encourage voter registration.
Bear
Bear
wahday
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,959
- Points
- 23
In my state, they always have asked if you want to register to vote when you get your license (or get it renewed). They did it in my old state as well (along with the Organ Donor question). Registering folks at driver's license locations pre-dates all this hubbub over illegal immigrants voting. And there is nothing wrong with Latino voters. Its the undocumented they are primarily concerned with and, while you do not need a proof of citizenship to get a driver's license in my state, I seriously think the number of undocumented people who feel confident enough in their presence here in America to go vote is really pretty small. And there are far more documented Latino/Hispanic/Chicano immigrants and their descendants in this country than undocumented ones. Nothing wrong with getting those folks to vote...
I realize this isn't The Bear's opinion, just responding to the comments...
- Messages
- 18,113
- Points
- 66
The fact that the SC also added to the end of the majority opinion of the one section they didn't strike down that it could still be brought back once the law is in place, really does seem like Arizona / Republicans lost this battle pretty badly.
I am not sure what I think about this in terms of a State's rights issue. Personally, I don't think States should have jurisdiction over borders or immigration. I think our Federal government should just do a better job. But I also understand the realities of what they should do and what they are doing. That is tough.
I am not sure what I think about this in terms of a State's rights issue. Personally, I don't think States should have jurisdiction over borders or immigration. I think our Federal government should just do a better job. But I also understand the realities of what they should do and what they are doing. That is tough.
Brocktoon
Cyburbian
- Messages
- 3,725
- Points
- 22
I know this post is a few week old but I just saw it and could not let it slide. The TSA was created because of the failure of the private security companies in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks. In fact it was the last industry to fully nationalize. I have several issues with how TSA does things but it has been far more innovative protecting the sky's of America than the numerous security companies that ran airport security several years back. People complain about the numerous changes and they never know what they can and cannot bring through security. Guess what it is not on accident.
Any agency can do a better job with more resources. How much more should we spend? Being $200 billion worth of goods and services is exported to Mexico each year how do we secure the boarder without impeding commerce or reducing our exports to Mexico worth it? That number does not count the large number of components that are imported to the US and finished into a final product nor the billions spend by Mexican day trippers that come to the US to buy products they cannot get south of the boarder.
How do we address the 50% of illegal immigrants that enter the country legally and then overstay their visas? Also when board security was tightened in the 90's human smuggling became much more of a problem. I have lived in AZ most of my life and the term 'coyote' was a desert pack dog until 15 years ago. You could build a fence from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico but smugglers will take build better tunnels, and take advantage f the millions of trucks, buses and personal vehicles that cross the board each day. In fact more and more drug smugglers are using ships and taking their product to the US via the ocean.
Illegal immigration is a demand problem. There is too much demand for their labor. Until the labor demand for cheap low skilled jobs in argiculture, construction and other service industries we will not see a secure board regardless of the resources deadicated unless we are willing to end nearly all commerce with Mexico.
- Messages
- 5,659
- Points
- 44
I brought this exact point up with Senator Grassley a few years ago. I said that all we needed to do was to make the penalties for hiring undocumented workers large enough that violators' businesses would be threatened if a large number were found on the payroll. Kill the demand kill the problem. His answer? "I agree, but that would make us look anti-business".