Why I hate the government

So we need to think of the Constituion like the SCCA Rulebook. If it doesn't say you can, then get your damn fingers out of my wallet.... or somethign similar.

Bobzilla wrote: So we need to think of the Constituion like the SCCA Rulebook. If it doesn't say you can, then get your damn fingers out of my wallet.... or somethign similar.

++ Grahams number

Amen.

Bobzilla wrote:

GlennS wrote:

tuna55 wrote: I actually agree that the federal government should not run schools

Im glad your not in charge of national policy making decisions. You would destroy this country far more efficently than the people currently in charge.

REally? You sure? They seem to be doing a pretty efficient job. Have you seen the stupidity that is the NCLB act? Trust me when I say it's doing more harm than good at this point. Politicians in Washington have no clue how to run a school in Poduck, USA. Shoot, most can't balance their own check book.

Maybe i should have pulled Tuna55's entire quote over for people who dont want to follow the entire conversation. Tuna said the federal government should not run schools because he thinks that they are unconstitutional. I take that to mean that he doesnt support any government involvement in schools including funding them.

NCLB is an attempt at quantifying the effectiveness of each school and holding schools accountable that continualy under achieve. Maybe you dont like it, thats cool, at least the federal government is trying to demand results for the money its spending.

Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea.

The idea that NCLB will destroy this nation is laughable at best.

GlennS wrote: Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea.

Wrap your head around this. The federal government funds things WITH YOUR MONEY. They don't make any money - they don't have any money of their own. They do this inefficiently, and add tons of corrupt middle men on the way. If they gave it back to you, you could fund the schools when you used them - weird concept.

Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!

GlennS wrote: Maybe i should have pulled Tuna55's entire quote over for people who dont want to follow the entire conversation. Tuna said the federal government should not run schools because he thinks that they are unconstitutional. I take that to mean that he doesnt support any government involvement in schools including funding them. NCLB is an attempt at quantifying the effectiveness of each school and holding schools accountable that continualy under achieve. Maybe you dont like it, thats cool, at least the federal government is trying to demand results for the money its spending. Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea. The idea that NCLB will destroy this nation is laughable at best.

I know this may be hard to comprehend, but a person of my meager education can follow an in depth conversation like this. I know.... usually these are reserved for the more intelligent people amongst the masses. Believe it or not I was trying to offer a little humor with that. But apparently that is not allowed.

NCLB is one of the lamest attempts to make the politicans look like they're doing something. Doing something, anything for the sake of saying that you're doing something is not always a smart thing to do.... in other words don't just do SOMETHING, do the RIGHT thing. Politicians involved in the day to day of public schools would never be considered the right thing. In fact, they've hindered and restrained more schools from achieving higher goals because of it.

tuna55 wrote: ....Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!

I think we (you) need to clarify this. Are you talking about pulling ONLY federal money out of schools and not State money? Or are you saying NO government involvement in schools (state and federal).

The reason I ask is (I don't really know but) I don't think there is a huge amount of federal money put into local schools, I believe it is mostly state money. Now if you want to de-fund schools from a state and federal level, you will very likely create some pretty bad side effects..

tuna55 wrote:

GlennS wrote: Defunding schools because you think they are unconstitutional is a horrible idea.

Wrap your head around this. The federal government funds things WITH YOUR MONEY. They don't make any money - they don't have any money of their own. They do this inefficiently, and add tons of corrupt middle men on the way. If they gave it back to you, you could fund the schools when you used them - weird concept. Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!

tons of corrupt middle men on the way! That sounds like the insurance industry! zing /sarcasm

I think DNE is =/=

Privatizing schools would create a situation where a large percentage of the population wouldnt be able to afford to educate their children effectively creating a permanent underclass.

Sorry to bobzilla, i was being a dick.

aircooled wrote:

tuna55 wrote: ....Pulling federal funding out of schools (where is my "does not equal" button?) DNE defunding anything!!!

I think we (you) need to clarify this. Are you talking about pulling ONLY federal money out of schools and not State money? Or are you saying NO government involvement in schools (state and federal). The reason I ask is (I don't really know but) I don't think there is a huge amount of federal money put into local schools, I believe it is mostly state money. Now if you want to de-fund schools from a state and federal level, you will very likely create some pretty bad side effects..

Lower income areas recieve a larger share of the federal money being spent which are also the schools most affected by NCLB. Dont meet your NCLB requirement and you loose you federal funding or face having your administration and faculty replaced.

stop spending money on everything.. .

Private companies can do better.

ohh do you really think they can do better? I got $8k in excess and now obsolete face mill inserts in one tiny cabinet in one tiny part of my plant. If I started adding it up, just in say the whole cabinet, I'd say I have over $50k in old and now worthless tooling in a cabinet. Now what if I started adding it up for my other cabinets, cells, business units, and plant wide??? BTW, this is a fortune 50 company. Also as a point of reference, It is the best run company I have ever seen.

The point is, we're human and we make mistakes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Snowdoggie wrote: And since there is nothing in the United States Constitution about the SCCA or Cell Phones, I demand my God given right to drive my race car on the track while texting on my cell phone!!!!!!

You just know there's someone somewhere who made a call while they were on the track.

I am simply saying that some very smart folks wrote the constitution that didn't think the government would be able to run these things any better. The crux that I see, and it isn't by any means the only, or the best argument, is that with a government that gets corrupt and starts appointing people that aren't elected and putting them on the payroll (like the Czars started by Reagan and exploded by Bush and then even more by Obama (all the while criticizing Bush for those very activities), but on all levels, not just the executive branch) the less you, the citizen can do about it, and the less you are correctly represented by your government. The government is intended to be of, by and for the people, after all.

I very explicitly said that education should not be run by the FEDERAL government. The state governments are free to operate within their own constitutions. See the tenth amendment. This leads me to my next point.

If a company really does get corrupt, they rather quickly go out of business (this is assuming, of course, that they don't get giant tax breaks that other companies don't have access to, they don't get 'bailed out' and they don't have some sugar daddy politician getting them sweet deals) to make room for better run companies. You almost always have a choice, even while corrupt companies are in the marketplace. You don't have that choice if the federal government goes corrupt (other than leaving the country, which obviously means you are no longer protected by the constitution, which ruins the point) for instance, my wife and I don't shop at Walmart because we don't agree with the way they run their company.

tuna55 wrote: The "general welfare" statement is broadly disputed by both sides. Modern day congress obviously agrees with you all, but I side with folks that actually were around when the thing was written, like Jefferson and Madison. I would argue that the constitution itself is quite anti-federalist in nature, in general. The term 'welfare', it would follow, doesn't mean "provide for whatever the heck congress thinks you might want".

As do the courts for the past 80 years. You'd think by now that with the big $$ that seem so offended by it, they'd be able to mount a decent challenge.

Or is the real answer that they rant and rave, fully knowing that it's 100% legal and constitutional, just to make people like you mad.

Of course, if we are going to argue that they could not ever have thought of cell phones, then one could make the exact same argument about automatic weapons. Although I wont.

But I suppose if you want to rant and rave about not wanting to help your fellow Americans due to the worst 1% that you observe, you are completely in your right to do so. BTW, for those of you who are that against it, did any of you serve in the military?

tuna55 wrote: If a company really does get corrupt, they rather quickly go out of business (this is assuming, of course, that they don't get giant tax breaks that other companies don't have access to, they don't get 'bailed out' and they don't have some sugar daddy politician getting them sweet deals) to make room for better run companies. You almost always have a choice, even while corrupt companies are in the marketplace. You don't have that choice if the federal government goes corrupt (other than leaving the country, which obviously means you are no longer protected by the constitution, which ruins the point) for instance, my wife and I don't shop at Walmart because we don't agree with the way they run their company.

LOL!!!! Yes, that's exactly how it works. After the government has to step in and break up the illegal monopoly that many of these corrupt companies set up.

The nice thing about if people in the government go corrupt- we can vote them out. Which does happen. Or they go to jail, which also does happen (see the great Vietnam War Veteran, one of the aces of aces, Duke Cunningham).

alfadriver wrote:

tuna55 wrote: If a company really does get corrupt, they rather quickly go out of business (this is assuming, of course, that they don't get giant tax breaks that other companies don't have access to, they don't get 'bailed out' and they don't have some sugar daddy politician getting them sweet deals) to make room for better run companies. You almost always have a choice, even while corrupt companies are in the marketplace. You don't have that choice if the federal government goes corrupt (other than leaving the country, which obviously means you are no longer protected by the constitution, which ruins the point) for instance, my wife and I don't shop at Walmart because we don't agree with the way they run their company.

LOL!!!! Yes, that's exactly how it works. After the government has to step in and break up the illegal monopoly that many of these corrupt companies set up. The nice thing about if people in the government go corrupt- we can vote them out. Which does happen. Or they go to jail, which also does happen (see the great Vietnam War Veteran, one of the aces of aces, Duke Cunningham).

Not only can you not vote out everyone corrupt in the government, but the incidence of a small, out-of-nowhere company taking on the big dogs is much higher than the same thing in politics.

I am starting to see why you and I don't agree in other posts now. Greed over money is easy to understand, to fight, and to fix. Politicians don't care too much about money, they care about power. Power is hugely different. You can't wrestle it out of their hands when they have it, and power enables them to brainwash people into thinking that they are the good guys, and they're "here to help" against those nasty (insert popular big business here).

ignorant wrote: The point is, we're human and we make mistakes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This..... is a good argument against "health-care reform".

But the idea of the gummint providing free cell phones to some people makes sense, and it's it a damn sight cheaper, too.

oldsaw wrote:

ignorant wrote: The point is, we're human and we make mistakes. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This..... is a good argument against "health-care reform".

It could be used as an argument for reform and not overhaul...

tuna55 wrote: Not only can you not vote out everyone corrupt in the government, but the incidence of a small, out-of-nowhere company taking on the big dogs is much higher than the same thing in politics. I am starting to see why you and I don't agree in other posts now. Greed over money is easy to understand, to fight, and to fix. Politicians don't care too much about money, they care about power. Power is hugely different. You can't wrestle it out of their hands when they have it, and power enables them to brainwash people into thinking that they are the good guys, and they're "here to help" against those nasty (insert popular big business here).

??? We have periodic elections. If the news does its job, we find out who is corrupt, and they are voted out. That's the point of the voting.

Your problem is that you think the other reps are corrupt, and not the ones you vote for, which is flawed.

Money = power. Simple as that.

Not all politicians or govenment workers are so dedicated toward power- many are actually trying to look out for the common person, the environment, etc- I know a lot of govenment workers personally, they are all in it to help the country, not in the intrest of making power and scewing the general public.

You see the small part of corruption, and assume that it represents the entire govenment. Just like you see the small amount of people on welfare and govenment assistance who are taking advantage of it and ignoring the ones who have no short term alterntative.

I'm so sick of hearing the "govenment is useless" mantra, it makes me sick. Especially since the most recent movement started under Regan/Bush, which was also the largest expanse of govenment in most of history. What I'm starting to see is that there's bills passed to start a program, and then there's an effort to underfund that exact progam so that it looks usless, and then it can be labled as ineffective government.

Look at the roads, great system of large highways that stretch all over the country. And then funding has been slowly bleed dry so that roads and bridges are not properly maintained. Then bridges have to be closed, sometimes too late, and "government" gets blamed for not doing their job, when, in fact, the legislature didn't fund it. There's this endless fascination with lower lower taxes which totally ignores the maintenece that it takes to keep a country running- schools, roads, bridges, sewers, air, water, etc.

BTW, you still have not cited where welfare is unconistutional, whereas I posted where it is.

Eric

alfadriver wrote:

tuna55 wrote: Not only can you not vote out everyone corrupt in the government, but the incidence of a small, out-of-nowhere company taking on the big dogs is much higher than the same thing in politics. I am starting to see why you and I don't agree in other posts now. Greed over money is easy to understand, to fight, and to fix. Politicians don't care too much about money, they care about power. Power is hugely different. You can't wrestle it out of their hands when they have it, and power enables them to brainwash people into thinking that they are the good guys, and they're "here to help" against those nasty (insert popular big business here).

??? We have periodic elections. If the news does its job, we find out who is corrupt, and they are voted out. That's the point of the voting. Your problem is that you think the other reps are corrupt, and not the ones you vote for, which is flawed. Money = power. Simple as that. Not all politicians or govenment workers are so dedicated toward power- many are actually trying to look out for the common person, the environment, etc- I know a lot of govenment workers personally, they are all in it to help the country, not in the intrest of making power and scewing the general public. You see the small part of corruption, and assume that it represents the entire govenment. Just like you see the small amount of people on welfare and govenment assistance who are taking advantage of it and ignoring the ones who have no short term alterntative. I'm so sick of hearing the "govenment is useless" mantra, it makes me sick. Especially since the most recent movement started under Regan/Bush, which was also the largest expanse of govenment in most of history. What I'm starting to see is that there's bills passed to start a program, and then there's an effort to underfund that exact progam so that it looks usless, and then it can be labled as ineffective government. Look at the roads, great system of large highways that stretch all over the country. And then funding has been slowly bleed dry so that roads and bridges are not properly maintained. Then bridges have to be closed, sometimes too late, and "government" gets blamed for not doing their job, when, in fact, the legislature didn't fund it. There's this endless fascination with lower lower taxes which totally ignores the maintenece that it takes to keep a country running- schools, roads, bridges, sewers, air, water, etc. BTW, you still have not cited where welfare is unconistutional, whereas I posted where it is. Eric

Eric, you make some very valid points here.

However, I would suggest that reduced funding (for projects above and beyond infrastructure maintenance) is based on the expansion and addition of more and more government programs. Even when tax revenues were at their highest historical levels (under W's tenure and attributed to his tax cuts), the money couldn't cover the budget.

Yes, the "great" expansion started with Reagan, but it has continued unabated regardless of what party has been power. Now we have an unprecedented level in government expansion. Even with large tax increases (that necessarily) will be forced on ALL taxpayers, the country cannot pay for federal excess.

Like you said, if the news media does its' job we find out who is corrupt and they are voted out.

Too bad it didn't do that before someone was elected in.

Eric, I did comment of the welfare clause a ways back, but I am in too much of a hurry to go and quote it.

I will scream it from the tops of the mountains: The government is basically useless!

The legislature, that failed to maintain the roads, as you say, is part of the government!

You're wrong on you're money = power argument, but it's tough to prove me right. It's a greed of the most insidious kind, the greed over controlling peoples lives. That is what I rebel against. I like running my own life. This includes spending my own money. All of these programs cost money - all of them are funded by taxation. You have to pay taxes, you don't have a choice, you don't have to shop at Wal Mart.

The news media hasn't done it's job in 20 years. Now that the AP is into 'activist journalism' all bets are off.

Now we have two parties, who have conspired against the American people to maintain the two party system, who basically own and operate the media by pandering to special interests (which means, not our interests). You chose between socialism or socialism "lite" because that policy grants the people already in power the most control over your life, and strips you of the most freedoms possible, for now. We have a noble class, a government class. The worst part is that these guys and gals historically aren't very smart, very honest, very clever, or really outstanding in any way (not my opinion, many studies have been done) and these guys, based on their tremendous greed for power, have taken over while we fight over Republican vs Democrat.

tuna55 wrote: Eric, I did comment of the welfare clause a ways back, but I am in too much of a hurry to go and quote it. I will scream it from the tops of the mountains: The government is basically useless!

True, you commented on the clause, stating that you and other people don't agree with it. But those opinions don't make it unconsitutional. You don't state how welfare is unconsitutional. OTOH, the court opinion consistently sides with it being legal.

If you think govenment is basically useless, then why live here? I'm sure there are places where it is better. Your nevers will be more calmed, etc.

You think money doesn't equal power? Have you been to Wall Street recently? I'm talking Enron greed, not walmart greed. Standard Oil greed, US Steel Greed- both before being broken up.

But hey, we are all entitled to our opinions. Some are just more right than others.

Eric

oldsaw wrote: Yes, the "great" expansion started with Reagan, but it has continued unabated regardless of what party has been power. Now we have an unprecedented level in government expansion. Even with large tax increases (that necessarily) will be forced on ALL taxpayers, the country cannot pay for federal excess. Like you said, if the news media does its' job we find out who is corrupt and they are voted out. Too bad it didn't do that before someone was elected in.

My point about the Regan/Bush era wasn't the start of the great expansion, but the co-incidal start of the "big government it bad" movement. So you have an administration who is trying to convince you that govenment is bad, all the while expanding it at a rate never seen in the past. And then using it's failures as examples of how bad govenment is. Not good. (note- neither Regan or Bush ever sent Congress a ballanced budget, no matter what they said in public about spending).

And what irks me about Bush II was his original stance on a ballanced budget and small government- he did exactly what his father and mentor did- submit deficit spending and pretend to offset that by lower taxes. Even with an increase of revenue- it was never ballanced.

If govenment is bad, then reduce spending and cut programs. Don't do the opposite of what you are trying to convince me of.

Eric

Eric, I won't make arguments on behalf of George W Bush, as that was the last time I will ever vote for the 'lesser of two evils'. I am not privy to much of Reagan's time, but I do know that he did increase the deficit substantially.

What I was saying about the clause you quoted is the majority of those who actually signed the document have spoken out against reading it as you have. I apologize, as I never seem to have enough time to write this all properly, but I am, of course, in a hurry again.

After Reagan, no President or Congress has ever tried to convince the public that big government was bad.

Money does not equal power. There is power that goes along with money, sure, but that's usually fine, and not the crazy power hungry elite class politicians that don't really care for money, even make fun of those that have money, and insist that we should live with less (Al Gore, for instance) all the while building power for themselves. Orwell wrote about this much more eloquently in Animal Farm, it's a quick read, and could do a better job of explaining my position, since I am no literary genius. I'll send my copy to you for free if you want.

As far as "why live here", it's because as bad as our government is, it's pretty much the least intrusive government in the world. That and I understand what the framers did, and would be extremely happy with the country as they laid it out.

Snowdoggie said: Bloody well right!!!! God save the Queen!!!!!!!

Supertraaaaamp!!!!!

alfadriver wrote: But hey, we are all entitled to our opinions. Some are just more LEFT than others. Eric

Fixed that for ya.