Cons/repubs: how much power do you think the federal government should have?

[Redfish]

TSA is so bad because it is required to be PC. If it would actually perform it's job as Israeli one does, we would have much less nonsense and much less personnel and the results would be much better.

true, if we must have them, give them the ability to do their job, let them profile. young muslim men should be more thoroughly checked than kids and grannys in wheelchairs.

 

[eagle1462010]

18.1% of the GDP and nothing more.

Which has been the average Federal Revenue, irregardless of tax rates since WWII.

We cannot keep spending more than we take in unless we want to eventually collapse Financially.

As far as the FDA...............Basic functions ensuring the food produced and sold are safe to eat such as unsanitary conditions at production facilities. But limited further than that.

EPA..........To ENFORCE CURRENT LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS and to not push ANYTHING without Congress enacting it. aka.........Now they think they are Congress and can push any thing, which I consider an abuse of powers.

TSA..........We should have created laws to increase security and had the Corps and Airports implement them. It didn't need to be Federal. Had we done that, we would have only had to pay for inspections of the same instead of taking over the whole dang thing.

 

[Oddball]

Some things are just common sense. Had we not revamped airport security after 9/11, what would have stopped terrorists from trying again knowing security remained so lax? Think about it. The shoe bomber. The underwear bomber. They had to get creative to carry out their mission.

Your completely subjective notion of what constitutes "common sense" is irrelevant....Security could be carried out by the individual airports and the airlines, to the same or better levels of the TSA, and more than likely at a far lower costs.

Oh, and the shoe bomber and knickerbomber got their devices onto the aircraft...Is that supposed to be evidence of the effectiveness of the TSA?

Why exactly makes your assertion about individual airport security more objective than my assertion about the TSA? You claim the TSA would be less effective, but what is that based upon besides your own assumption?

History and basic economics.

And no, those bombers boarding the plane is an indication that the TSA is not perfect. It is an indication that the TSA must evolve with growing creativity.

How much more Pollyanna can you get?

These are people groping grandmothers and grade-school children and irradiating everyone, rifling through or luggage at will, treating everyone as suspect....So inept and incompetent that pro aircrews refer to them as "Thugs Standing Around", and you say that they need to "evolve with growing creativity"?!?

Wow....Just wow.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

True.

And as one can see from the responses, they still can’t be taken seriously.

In addition to being in conflict with established and accepted Constitutional case law, the libertarian/conservative perception of government’s role is predicated on naïve school boy politics and a reactionary fantasy of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

 

[birddog]

As little as possible. A nuclear strike on D.C. would be a blessing.

The problem with that is that I have a cousin living there. He is the main postal liaison for the Senate, so he's on the Senate floor most days.

 

[Oddball]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

True.

And as one can see from the responses, they still can’t be taken seriously.

In addition to being in conflict with established and accepted Constitutional case law, the libertarian/conservative perception of government’s role is predicated on naïve school boy politics and a reactionary fantasy of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

Actually, America existed just fine for a couple of centuries without the existence of the FDA, EPA and TSA, comrade.

Your lack of basic historical fact is only exceeded by blind hackery.

 

[Cookie]

TSA: The job can and should be done by Customs and Immigration.

EPA: Department of the Interior can handles issues that deal with federally owned land. Civil courts can handle the rest.

FDA: Department of Health & Human Services (which contains the CDC)

Homeland Security: Department of Defense. BTW, the CIA and FBI should be under the Department of Defense, too, and they should be made to work together. As a matter of fact, they should be co-workers in the same agency.

Department of Education: Abolish. The few responsibilities that might remain such as administrating funds to states for special needs services would go to the Department of Health & Human Services

Department of Labor: Responsibilities reduced to statistical information collection and distribution and moved under the Department of the Commerce, which is also responsible for the Census.

There are SO MANY departments, agencies, and bureaus to get rid of. The list is long. Do you know the "First Children" and the "Second Children" have their own official "office"? Really?!?!?!

 

[percysunshine]

"Cons/repubs: how much power do you think the federal government should have?"

Enough to power a coffee maker?


In general, government has too much power when they institute systems where they are exempt (explicitly or implicitly) from the rules imposed on the private citizenry.

Impose Obamacare on the Senate, and see what happens.
Apply RICO statutes to campaign contributions, and see what happens.
Apply anti-trust laws to the budget process, and see what happens.
Try to arrest a Kennedy for DUI and see what happens.

 

[Billy000]

Your completely subjective notion of what constitutes "common sense" is irrelevant....Security could be carried out by the individual airports and the airlines, to the same or better levels of the TSA, and more than likely at a far lower costs.

Oh, and the shoe bomber and knickerbomber got their devices onto the aircraft...Is that supposed to be evidence of the effectiveness of the TSA?

Why exactly makes your assertion about individual airport security more objective than my assertion about the TSA? You claim the TSA would be less effective, but what is that based upon besides your own assumption?

History and basic economics.

And no, those bombers boarding the plane is an indication that the TSA is not perfect. It is an indication that the TSA must evolve with growing creativity.

How much more Pollyanna can you get?

These are people groping grandmothers and grade-school children and irradiating everyone, rifling through or luggage at will, treating everyone as suspect....So inept and incompetent that pro aircrews refer to them as "Thugs Standing Around", and you say that they need to "evolve with growing creativity"?!?

Wow....Just wow.

History and basic economics? That's all you have to say on the matter? Nothing has changed. Your assumptions are just as subjective as mine.

That is such a weak criticism of the TSA. Some times yes, TSA employees goes too far with their pat downs, but those are INDIVIDUALS making their own decisions and judgment calls. That doesn't mean the entire administration needs to be abolished. As for rifling through luggage? It is my opinion that sometimes certain, small personal liberties must be sacrificed for the greater good. I definitely find it inconvenient when i go through airport security, but ultimately I am not outraged by it because I know those obstacles serve an important purpose. Everyday life is never perfect.

Does all this make me a fascist? No, I am just a realist. Americans can't have it both ways. If you want to feel safe and secure while you fly, you need to make personal sacrifices.

 

[Billy000]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

True.

And as one can see from the responses, they still can’t be taken seriously.

In addition to being in conflict with established and accepted Constitutional case law, the libertarian/conservative perception of government’s role is predicated on naïve school boy politics and a reactionary fantasy of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

Well said.

 

[eagle1462010]

To me, it would be outrageous to abolish administrations such as the EPA, FDA, or TSA. They are vital for the well being of the American people. That is why i can't take a lot of libertarians seriously when they favor getting rid of them.

True.

And as one can see from the responses, they still can’t be taken seriously.

In addition to being in conflict with established and accepted Constitutional case law, the libertarian/conservative perception of government’s role is predicated on naïve school boy politics and a reactionary fantasy of an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with.

Well said.

LOL

Looney Tunes. Did you people get dropped on your heads at birth.......

LOL

 

[Oddball]

Why exactly makes your assertion about individual airport security more objective than my assertion about the TSA? You claim the TSA would be less effective, but what is that based upon besides your own assumption?

History and basic economics.

And no, those bombers boarding the plane is an indication that the TSA is not perfect. It is an indication that the TSA must evolve with growing creativity.

How much more Pollyanna can you get?

These are people groping grandmothers and grade-school children and irradiating everyone, rifling through or luggage at will, treating everyone as suspect....So inept and incompetent that pro aircrews refer to them as "Thugs Standing Around", and you say that they need to "evolve with growing creativity"?!?

Wow....Just wow.

History and basic economics? That's all you have to say on the matter? Nothing has changed. Your assumptions are just as subjective as mine.

No, they're far more objective than yours....There is not only no economic pressure to control costs in any gubmint bureaucracy, there is actual negative pressure....If you don't spend all your money this year, no matter how foolishly you do so, you don't get a budget increase next year....This is a true economic fact on how it works.

That is such a weak criticism of the TSA. Some times yes, TSA employees goes too far with their pat downs, but those are INDIVIDUALS making their own decisions and judgment calls. That doesn't mean the entire administration needs to be abolished. As for rifling through luggage? It is my opinion that sometimes certain, small personal liberties must be sacrificed for the greater good. I definitely find it inconvenient when i go through airport security, but ultimately I am not outraged by it because I know those obstacles serve an important purpose. Everyday life is never perfect.

Does all this make me a fascist? No, I am just a realist. Americans can't have it both ways. If you want to feel safe and secure while you fly, you need to make personal sacrifices.

All that makes you is a fool to go with being a fascist, no matter how much of a "realist" you claim to be....And nobody made perfection an option.

 

[Billy000]

History and basic economics.


How much more Pollyanna can you get?

These are people groping grandmothers and grade-school children and irradiating everyone, rifling through or luggage at will, treating everyone as suspect....So inept and incompetent that pro aircrews refer to them as "Thugs Standing Around", and you say that they need to "evolve with growing creativity"?!?

Wow....Just wow.

History and basic economics? That's all you have to say on the matter? Nothing has changed. Your assumptions are just as subjective as mine.

No, they're far more objective than yours....There is not only no economic pressure to control costs in any gubmint bureaucracy, there is actual negative pressure....If you don't spend all your money this year, no matter how foolishly you do so, you don't get a budget increase next year....This is a true economic fact on how it works.

That is such a weak criticism of the TSA. Some times yes, TSA employees goes too far with their pat downs, but those are INDIVIDUALS making their own decisions and judgment calls. That doesn't mean the entire administration needs to be abolished. As for rifling through luggage? It is my opinion that sometimes certain, small personal liberties must be sacrificed for the greater good. I definitely find it inconvenient when i go through airport security, but ultimately I am not outraged by it because I know those obstacles serve an important purpose. Everyday life is never perfect.

Does all this make me a fascist? No, I am just a realist. Americans can't have it both ways. If you want to feel safe and secure while you fly, you need to make personal sacrifices.

All that makes you is a fool to go with being a fascist, no matter how much of a "realist" you claim to be....And nobody made perfection an option.

Still not convinced. I asksd you specifically what made your viewpoint on airport security objective and so far you haven't answered the question.

Answer me this, where is the line on fascism? At what point does one's view of the role of government become fascist? Wouldn't you agree that there is a a lot of middle ground? Can't I favor limiting a small number of personal liberties and still value the philosophy of personal freedom in general? What is with this all or nothing thinking?

Trust me, you can live a happy fulfilling life even if you have to endure TSA security.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Constitution as originally constructed was just fine. Every agency has grown monstrously and added more and more responsibilities, failing to carry out their original responsibilities and becoming dictatorial in the process.
Abolish all of them.

 

[Oddball]

History and basic economics? That's all you have to say on the matter? Nothing has changed. Your assumptions are just as subjective as mine.

No, they're far more objective than yours....There is not only no economic pressure to control costs in any gubmint bureaucracy, there is actual negative pressure....If you don't spend all your money this year, no matter how foolishly you do so, you don't get a budget increase next year....This is a true economic fact on how it works.

That is such a weak criticism of the TSA. Some times yes, TSA employees goes too far with their pat downs, but those are INDIVIDUALS making their own decisions and judgment calls. That doesn't mean the entire administration needs to be abolished. As for rifling through luggage? It is my opinion that sometimes certain, small personal liberties must be sacrificed for the greater good. I definitely find it inconvenient when i go through airport security, but ultimately I am not outraged by it because I know those obstacles serve an important purpose. Everyday life is never perfect.

Does all this make me a fascist? No, I am just a realist. Americans can't have it both ways. If you want to feel safe and secure while you fly, you need to make personal sacrifices.

All that makes you is a fool to go with being a fascist, no matter how much of a "realist" you claim to be....And nobody made perfection an option.

Still not convinced. I asksd you specifically what made your viewpoint on airport security objective and so far you haven't answered the question.

Answer me this, where is the line on fascism? At what point does one's view of the role of government become fascist? Wouldn't you agree that there is a a lot of middle ground? Can't I favor limiting a small number of personal liberties and still value the philosophy of personal freedom in general? What is with this all or nothing thinking?

I made the point, you merely refused to accept it.

Begging the question and circular reasoning are poor ways to try and wiggle your way out of your fascistic viewpoint.

Trust me, you can live a happy fulfilling life even if you have to endure TSA security.

Straw man argument, Frau Pollyanna.

 

[Billy000]

No, they're far more objective than yours....There is not only no economic pressure to control costs in any gubmint bureaucracy, there is actual negative pressure....If you don't spend all your money this year, no matter how foolishly you do so, you don't get a budget increase next year....This is a true economic fact on how it works.

All that makes you is a fool to go with being a fascist, no matter how much of a "realist" you claim to be....And nobody made perfection an option.

Still not convinced. I asksd you specifically what made your viewpoint on airport security objective and so far you haven't answered the question.

Answer me this, where is the line on fascism? At what point does one's view of the role of government become fascist? Wouldn't you agree that there is a a lot of middle ground? Can't I favor limiting a small number of personal liberties and still value the philosophy of personal freedom in general? What is with this all or nothing thinking?

I made the point, you merely refused to accept it.

Begging the question and circular reasoning are poor ways to try and wiggle your way out of your fascistic viewpoint.

Trust me, you can live a happy fulfilling life even if you have to endure TSA security.

Straw man argument, Frau Pollyanna.

Look if you're gonna accuse me of using fallacies, then elaborate. Otherwise, don't bother. So far all you have said for my first point is very vague general beliefs about economics and the federal government.

 

[kaz]

Still not convinced. I asksd you specifically what made your viewpoint on airport security objective and so far you haven't answered the question.

Answer me this, where is the line on fascism? At what point does one's view of the role of government become fascist? Wouldn't you agree that there is a a lot of middle ground? Can't I favor limiting a small number of personal liberties and still value the philosophy of personal freedom in general? What is with this all or nothing thinking?

I made the point, you merely refused to accept it.

Begging the question and circular reasoning are poor ways to try and wiggle your way out of your fascistic viewpoint.

Trust me, you can live a happy fulfilling life even if you have to endure TSA security.

Straw man argument, Frau Pollyanna.

Look if you're gonna accuse me of using fallacies, then elaborate. Otherwise, don't bother. So far all you have said for my first point is very vague general beliefs about economics and the federal government.

Hmmm...OK, I'll point out the obvious

Begging the question: You're assuming the truth of your view that TSA provides better security than the private sector when he's challenging that assumption.

Circular reasoning: Your ongoing use of your assumption in arguments.

Straw man: You mock him for things he didn't say.

 

[Oddball]

Still not convinced. I asksd you specifically what made your viewpoint on airport security objective and so far you haven't answered the question.

Answer me this, where is the line on fascism? At what point does one's view of the role of government become fascist? Wouldn't you agree that there is a a lot of middle ground? Can't I favor limiting a small number of personal liberties and still value the philosophy of personal freedom in general? What is with this all or nothing thinking?

I made the point, you merely refused to accept it.

Begging the question and circular reasoning are poor ways to try and wiggle your way out of your fascistic viewpoint.

Trust me, you can live a happy fulfilling life even if you have to endure TSA security.

Straw man argument, Frau Pollyanna.

Look if you're gonna accuse me of using fallacies, then elaborate. Otherwise, don't bother. So far all you have said for my first point is very vague general beliefs about economics and the federal government.

Your ignorance of flawed reasoning is not my problem....Nor is your ignorance of basic economics, American history and/or the differences between how businesses operate vs. bureaucracies.

The one with all the nebulous hairy-fairy vagaries here is you, with your invocations of "common good", "well being of the American people", "inherently good" "I think it's safe to say...", amongst others.....It is you who is working from the assumption that everyone has to prove you wrong, while you appeal to ignorance (another logical fallacy) as proof that you're right.

 

[Billy000]

I made the point, you merely refused to accept it.

Begging the question and circular reasoning are poor ways to try and wiggle your way out of your fascistic viewpoint.



Straw man argument, Frau Pollyanna.

Look if you're gonna accuse me of using fallacies, then elaborate. Otherwise, don't bother. So far all you have said for my first point is very vague general beliefs about economics and the federal government.

Your ignorance of flawed reasoning is not my problem....Nor is your ignorance of basic economics, American history and/or the differences between how businesses operate vs. bureaucracies.

The one with all the nebulous hairy-fairy vagaries here is you, with your invocations of "common good", "well being of the American people", "inherently good" "I think it's safe to say...", amongst others.....It is you who is working from the assumption that everyone has to prove you wrong, while you appeal to ignorance (another logical fallacy) as proof that you're right.

So you're not going to elaborate? I figured that. I asked you about the merits of an individual airport security system over the TSA's. It's effectiveness. You haven't said anything specific.

You really aren't very logical though. Your perspective on me and fascism is a blatant use of the false dilemma fallacy. You like so many other conservatives cannot seem to be able to avoid black and white reasoning on any political topic. Here is our conversation simplifed:

Me: "I favor the TSA's security procedures."

You: "Then you are a fascist."

Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?

Oh and it was use you that made this argument. Not me. You chose to refute my thread. You wanted the argument before I did.

 

[R.C. Christian]

As little as possible. A nuclear strike on D.C. would be a blessing.

The problem with that is that I have a cousin living there. He is the main postal liaison for the Senate, so he's on the Senate floor most days.

Yeah, that's true, but you know what I mean. A simpler method would entail thousands of people blocking access to congress and shutting it down. That would seriously piss them off.