Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[Uncensored2008]

See that's the kind of bullshit question that doesn't advance the fucking topic at all.

Yeah, what was I thinking pointing out the connection to Dear Leader?

Of course I don't advocate that.

Where did I claim you advocated anything?

I pointed out a connection between these profits and looting of the US Treasury with the collusion of Dear Leader.

As far as your bailouts...you're cherry picking 5 companies and declaring victory.

Cherry picking? Dude, I took the top five from the list YOU posted.

Hell, I'll even grant you that GE is a behemoth, but compare the total GDP to the contribution from those companies ...then go sit at the kiddie table.

You make no sense, it appears that you are acting out because you got caught.

Of course tax cuts are returning money that doesn't belong to the government. I've explained that myself before in this very thread. (It's amazing how when some people want to get their spew out of their mouth, they disregard the person they're talking to so they can hear themselves talk.)

So, in your mind, there is your position, then the position of everyone else? (The enemy.)

You are off on tangents I said nothing about.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, we all ran up the bill because we don't pay close attention in good times but are focusing on living our own lives working, worshipping, socializing, building, spending, and doing what people do. Meanwhile those in government have been benefitting themselves by capitalizing on our inattention, reassuring us with really noble sounding stuff, and lying about a lot of it. And it got out of hand which is what happens to us when we neglect just about anything important: relationships, our property, our work, our infrastructure, etc.

Then one day the sh*t hits the fan and we can't ignore it any more. We either cave in and allow the worse to happen, or we get busy and set things back on track however painful that might be due to us letting things deteriorate.

Well the fan is pretty shitty now and we either patch up the worst spots here and there and lose the incredible freedoms, opportunities, options, prosperity that has made this such a remarkable and great nation, or we acknowledge we screwed up and do the necessary repairs.

The repair for the nation is to stop and reverse spending and put policies and restraints in place so that this cannot happen again.

 

[Vanquish]

See that's the kind of bullshit question that doesn't advance the fucking topic at all.

Yeah, what was I thinking pointing out the connection to Dear Leader?

Of course I don't advocate that.

Where did I claim you advocated anything?

Without going to the trouble of scrolling back, either I'm responding directly to something you said...or maybe I'm not addressing you/making a new point.



Cherry picking? Dude, I took the top five from the list YOU posted.

And? The discussion is larger than 5 companies. It's about the NATION. Try to keep in your head that you're supposed to be disproving my assertion that the nation's companies are doing exceptionally well, despite the bad economic news. I posted more than just those companies you did...I posted multiple links that give a broader picture. You cherry picked 5 companies.

Hell, I'll even grant you that GE is a behemoth, but compare the total GDP to the contribution from those companies ...then go sit at the kiddie table.

You make no sense, it appears that you are acting out because you got caught.

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesnt mean I don't make sense to other people. Nice of you to admit that you don't understand though. To break it down for you...as a percent of this country's output, even with the bailouts of the 5 companies you cherry-picked (I'm not debating whether bailouts were necessary or even the assumption that a bailout earlier means a company is in dire straights currently - I don't think you'd like the answers)...compared to the larger corporate picture, companies overall are doing a lot better than the economic meltdown news would have you believe.

Of course tax cuts are returning money that doesn't belong to the government. I've explained that myself before in this very thread. (It's amazing how when some people want to get their spew out of their mouth, they disregard the person they're talking to so they can hear themselves talk.)

So, in your mind, there is your position, then the position of everyone else? (The enemy.)

Now you're making no sense. Not only does the sentence above have nothing to do with what I wrote, but it's an unsubstantiated insult.

You are off on tangents I said nothing about.

No, apparently you can't keep track of a conversation or are in over your head.

 

[ShackledNation]

What's immoral about it? If it's at the expense of someone who deserved a promotion, but you give it to your son...that's immoral.

Why are you assuming the son does not also deserve the promotion? As I said, if the son was incompetent and did not deserve the job, his father would be an idiot for hiring him and his company would suffer.

Holy fuck you are annoying. The whole point of what you wrote at the section you wrote it in was that government was somehow more immoral than private business. I'm going to have to scroll back again...and prove you wrong again. It's almost pointless, because I'll do the work of going back and you'll just deny what's in front of your face.

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that government is less efficient.

I understand the belief that these taxes can finance government spending, but government spending is always less efficient than private spending because it does not operate under profit and loss but rather politics and favoritism.

Ok. There you go. YOUR quote. You're saying that private business does not operate subject to politics and favoritism. Quote "the Austrian school" all you want, but if you don't realize that private business can be petty and immoral, then you've got NO grasp on reality

Again, I never said they don't act immoral. I am saying that the primary motive of the private sector is profit and loss, and the primary motive of government is politics. Do you disagree?

I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best means to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.

If you taxed the top 1% at 100%, you could not pay off the debt. Such arguments are in response to those who demand only tax increases and no spending cuts. Also, how to you figure budget cuts mean tax decreases? Increasing the budget obviously has not led to tax increases. What you are ignoring is that tax hikes also have negative economic effects. If the end goal is a better economy, you have to look at all the affects of a given policy on everyone, not just one affect (reducing the debt) on one group (government). You are correct both will speed the reduction of debt, but it does not follow that reducing the debt by any means will equally speed the recovery.


First of all, nobody is advocating that we give the job builders more money. What is being advocated is that we stop taking money from them. The money is rightfully theirs in the first place, not government's. It is their property. I am not a trickle down economist, so appeals against such a philosophy are meaningless to me. I follow the Austrian school. My comment does not presuppose only one option.

So you say, but yet you attribute only single assumptions to me...but mystically you give yourself the benefit of the doubt on what your assumptions were. Quit being a twerp.

In otherwords, you have no argument other than ad hominem. Ok.

There is investment or consumption. Consumption will result in the purchase of more goods and services, thus increasing demand for those goods and services. Investment, another option, is one yo uare probably aware. What you are presupposing is that corporations just sit on their money and hoard it, doing nothing with it. This money is either held in bank accounts, through which it can be loaned to start other projects, or in investments, which also provides funding for production. Money is not hoarded under mattresses. Furthermore, if for some reason money is hoarded under mattresses (which is pretty much never), or if banks refuse to loan (closer to the current situation), it is because certain conditions in the economy are not favorable for investment or business creation. And when you have massive regulations, a Federal Reserve that controls monetary policy and sets interest rates below the market price, and massive new government programs that could change where money must be put, you bet economic growth will be hindered.

Of course, even when not being spent, money isn't put under mattresses. Thanks for being pedantic. You continue to regurgitate the same stuff that I've posted and others have posted earlier in the thread about risk and market uncertainty.

I am pedantic for stating my argument? Would you prefer I call you a twerp instead? So far you have not responded to anything I have said in my last post.

The typical conservative knee-jerk reactions to regulations. Sure, some regulations are bad, some are good. Some protect. Some hinder business. If you'd like to get specific on which ones have what effect, perhaps we can see where we overlap in our thinking. Otherwise, the hackneyed platitudes about regulations are just clutter.

I am not a conservative, first of all. Second, my original comment was simply that corporations make money immorally through government. Of course if they commit business fraud that too is immoral, but such a statement I felt would be obvious and unnecessary to say. In the end they are arrested and prosecuted for business fraud, so they can hardly be said to make money.The fact that government offers this path to making money is not the fault of corporations, but the government.

At least you concede that trickle-down theory doesn't work. Which was the point of what I was saying. If you'd stick to what I was discussing and not bring up other bullshit, you wouldnt have to waste all those kilocalories typing drivel that doesnt impress anyone.

You are stuck in this fairytale world where there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. There are many other schools of economic thought, some in support of the free market, others not, that have differing opinions. If you think that is bullshit, then you are simply wrong and ignorant of reality.

Your argument amounted to strawman after strawman and ad hominem, nothing more. That, my friend, is the definition of bullshit.

 

[Vanquish]

What's immoral about it? If it's at the expense of someone who deserved a promotion, but you give it to your son...that's immoral.

Why are you assuming the son does not also deserve the promotion? As I said, if the son was incompetent and did not deserve the job, his father would be an idiot for hiring him and his company would suffer.

Because it was MY hypothetical. You can come up with all the possible alternative hypos you want...but MINE was in response to a discussion of some dork in this thread saying that politics and favoritism don't exist in private business...which is, frankly an asinine comment.

Holy fuck you are annoying. The whole point of what you wrote at the section you wrote it in was that government was somehow more immoral than private business. I'm going to have to scroll back again...and prove you wrong again. It's almost pointless, because I'll do the work of going back and you'll just deny what's in front of your face.

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that government is less efficient.

Having gone back and quoted what you actually said, your other points aren't what's at issue. If you'd like to retract the rather absurd statement, feel free.

Again, I never said they don't act immoral. I am saying that the primary motive of the private sector is profit and loss, and the primary motive of government is politics. Do you disagree?

With this portion typed right above? No. Business is business and government is government. We can both agree that government is, overall, less efficient than private business. Being motivated by profit doesn't make businesses better than private enterprise in all areas because you're comparing apples and orangutans. There are some things that only government has the authority to and silly comparisons to private businesses are failed parallels.


I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best means to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.

No...it's not actually. Because the way you just parsed it out above isn't the way I've heard ANYONE make that argument. Get your head out of your ass.


In otherwords, you have no argument other than ad hominem. Ok.

No, you obviously can't go back and read what you said with an objective eye.




I am pedantic for stating my argument? Would you prefer I call you a twerp instead? So far you have not responded to anything I have said in my last post.

No. You're pedantic for fluffing a paragraph full of kindergarten platitudes and using tonal words to make it sound like you're the only genius who gets them.

The typical conservative knee-jerk reactions to regulations. Sure, some regulations are bad, some are good. Some protect. Some hinder business. If you'd like to get specific on which ones have what effect, perhaps we can see where we overlap in our thinking. Otherwise, the hackneyed platitudes about regulations are just clutter.

I am not a conservative, first of all. Second, my original comment was simply that corporations make money immorally through government. Of course if they commit business fraud that too is immoral, but such a statement I felt would be obvious and unnecessary to say. In the end they are arrested and prosecuted for business fraud, so they can hardly be said to make money.The fact that government offers this path to making money is not the fault of corporations, but the government.

At least you concede that trickle-down theory doesn't work. Which was the point of what I was saying. If you'd stick to what I was discussing and not bring up other bullshit, you wouldnt have to waste all those kilocalories typing drivel that doesnt impress anyone.

You are stuck in this fairytale world where there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. There are many other schools of economic thought, some in support of the free market, others not, that have differing opinions. If you think that is bullshit, then you are simply wrong and ignorant of reality.

Bullshit. Show me where I've ever said that. I know you like to read in crap that's not there. You assume that you know what I'm assuming...and you keep getting it wrong. Oddly, when YOU say something that could be based on more than one premise, you mystically say that I'm reading you wrong. How about you stop mischaracterizing my premises and assumptions.

Your argument amounted to strawman after strawman and ad hominem, nothing more. That, my friend, is the definition of bullshit.

Not really, but if that let's you sleep at night...go for it. Snuggle right in. You condescend as if you're Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and the Oracle at Delphi all wrapped up in one. Here's a wake up call...you're not.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Without going to the trouble of scrolling back, either I'm responding directly to something you said...or maybe I'm not addressing you/making a new point.

It appears your are responding to something said by the voices in your head.

Try to keep in your head that you're supposed to be disproving my assertion that the nation's companies are doing exceptionally well, despite the bad economic news.

Why?

Your need to erect a straw man creates no onus on me to conform to it.

These companies that are doing "exceptionally well" are largely those which received tax payer bailouts.

There MIGHT just be a connection between the two items.

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesnt mean I don't make sense to other people.

You're speaking to points I didn't make, answering that which I didn't assert.


Now you're making no sense. Not only does the sentence above have nothing to do with what I wrote, but it's an unsubstantiated insult.

You have jumbled in your mind, my comments and the comments of all other conservatives/capitalists as if we are all the same person.


No, apparently you can't keep track of a conversation or are in over your head.

I commented on the correlation between the profits of these corporations and the looting of the public treasury.

I understand that you cannot address that, thus your need to delve off into tangents.

 

[ShackledNation]

Because it was MY hypothetical. You can come up with all the possible alternative hypos you want...but MINE was in response to a discussion of some dork in this thread saying that politics and favoritism don't exist in private business...which is, frankly an asinine comment.

Sorry, but a father giving his son a high paying position when the son is an idiot does not happen in the real world. Your hypothetical is meaningless.

Again, I never said they don't act immoral. I am saying that the primary motive of the private sector is profit and loss, and the primary motive of government is politics. Do you disagree?

With this portion typed right above? No. Business is business and government is government. We can both agree that government is, overall, less efficient than private business. Being motivated by profit doesn't make businesses better than private enterprise in all areas because you're comparing apples and orangutans. There are some things that only government has the authority to and silly comparisons to private businesses are failed parallels.

Business is private enterprise. What on earth are you trying to say? My argument has consistently been that the private sector is more efficient than government because when the private sector does act immorally there are consequences because of profit and loss. When government acts immorally, that is not necessarily the case.

[quote[I have never heard any person argue that raising taxes will not lower the debt, only that it will not be the best means to lower the debt. Your argumentation is littered with strawman arguments.

No...it's not actually. Because the way you just parsed it out above isn't the way I've heard ANYONE make that argument. Get your head out of your ass.[/quote]
Then you clearly do not understand the arguments of anyone. I, for one, never made the argument in the form you like to posit on everyone else.

No, you obviously can't go back and read what you said with an objective eye.

Whether you like it or not, calling me a twerp and saying my head is in my ass is ad hominem. That is the objective truth of your attitude in this conversation.

No. You're pedantic for fluffing a paragraph full of kindergarten platitudes and using tonal words to make it sound like you're the only genius who gets them.

It does not take a genius to understand them, nor I am the only one that does. But for some reason, you don't.

At least you concede that trickle-down theory doesn't work. Which was the point of what I was saying. If you'd stick to what I was discussing and not bring up other bullshit, you wouldnt have to waste all those kilocalories typing drivel that doesnt impress anyone.

You are stuck in this fairytale world where there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. There are many other schools of economic thought, some in support of the free market, others not, that have differing opinions. If you think that is bullshit, then you are simply wrong and ignorant of reality.

Bullshit. Show me where I've ever said that. I know you like to read in crap that's not there. You assume that you know what I'm assuming...and you keep getting it wrong. Oddly, when YOU say something that could be based on more than one premise, you mystically say that I'm reading you wrong. How about you stop mischaracterizing my premises and assumptions.

Calling something bullshit is not a premise.

Not really, but if that let's you sleep at night...go for it. Snuggle right in. You condescend as if you're Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, and the Oracle at Delphi all wrapped up in one. Here's a wake up call...you're not.

More ad hominem.

Here is how you have presented your position.
1) With a hypothetical that, when questioned about how legitimate it was, you retorted that it was your hypothetical and I cannot question it because it is yours.
2) My head is in my ass.
3) What I say is bullshit.
4) I am not Thomas Jefferson, but according to you I think I am.
5) I am pedantic
6) My arguments are kindergarten platitudes
7) With various strawman arguments, which I call out as such, and after which you follow up by resorting to methods 1-6 above.

 

[Vanquish]

There you go. Cherry picking again.

Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind? Bullshit. Total bullshit.

It makes absolutely no fucking sense that you attempt to disprove my hypothetical by making up another hypothetical that is MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE in its proof!! Dumbed down for yo ass... that at the point I came up with a hypo that disproved your assertion...I won. The additional pieces of shit hypos that you came up with didn't disprove what I said.

Let's recap...

1. You said that government was inefficient because it is rife with "politics and favoritism".
2. I said that private businesses have those too.
3. That assertion, by me, was challenged.
4. I gave a hypothetical situation, very true to life, that illustrated how private business is rife with "politics and favoritism".
5. Some retarded person questioned why my hypo "had to have" nepotism...as if that invalidated the hypo..which it didnt.

Do you see how insane you are?

You can't even defend yourself properly. I've asked you to show me where I said " there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. " I'm still waiting.

Calling something bullshit is not a premise.

I never said it was. You've got to be typing this just to fuck with me. No one can have such poor reading comprehension skills.

 

[Vanquish]

Without going to the trouble of scrolling back, either I'm responding directly to something you said...or maybe I'm not addressing you/making a new point.

It appears your are responding to something said by the voices in your head.

Try to keep in your head that you're supposed to be disproving my assertion that the nation's companies are doing exceptionally well, despite the bad economic news.

Why?

Your need to erect a straw man creates no onus on me to conform to it.

These companies that are doing "exceptionally well" are largely those which received tax payer bailouts.

There MIGHT just be a connection between the two items.

Just because you don't understand what I'm saying doesnt mean I don't make sense to other people.

You're speaking to points I didn't make, answering that which I didn't assert.


Now you're making no sense. Not only does the sentence above have nothing to do with what I wrote, but it's an unsubstantiated insult.

You have jumbled in your mind, my comments and the comments of all other conservatives/capitalists as if we are all the same person.


No, apparently you can't keep track of a conversation or are in over your head.

I commented on the correlation between the profits of these corporations and the looting of the public treasury.

I understand that you cannot address that, thus your need to delve off into tangents.

I never went off into tangents. I quoted you...then replied directly and on-topic. Your attempt to mischaracterize me is simply a retarded excuse for coming back with an actual argument.

I don't erect straw men. That would be a complete waste of time on my part. I come here to discuss things directly and achieve some semblance of forward progress in a discussion. That's not what you want. I get it. You fancy these boards a way to rant and rave and stick it to whomever you think your opponent is that day. That's cool. But at the point where you can't actually hold a worthwhile conversation and devolve into mischaracterizing what I say...don't expect me to continue.

 

[ShackledNation]

Calling something bullshit is not a premise.

I never said it was. You've got to be typing this just to fuck with me. No one can have such poor reading comprehension skills.

You're wasting my time. Goodbye.

 

[Nic_Driver]

America is supposed to be a Republic not a Plutocracy.

We need to end the GOP’s drive to turn us away from our ideals and back into a world of serfs and lords.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

America is supposed to be a Republic not a Plutocracy.

We need to end the GOP’s drive to turn us away from our ideals and back into a world of serfs and lords.

Resisting the left's drive for ever larger government is an attempt to turn us "back into a world of serfs and lords"? LOL!
I know where you stand on legalizing drugs.

 

[Texanmike]

There you go. Cherry picking again.

Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind? Bullshit. Total bullshit.

It makes absolutely no fucking sense that you attempt to disprove my hypothetical by making up another hypothetical that is MUTALLY EXCLUSIVE in its proof!! Dumbed down for yo ass... that at the point I came up with a hypo that disproved your assertion...I won. The additional pieces of shit hypos that you came up with didn't disprove what I said.

Let's recap...

1. You said that government was inefficient because it is rife with "politics and favoritism".
2. I said that private businesses have those too.
3. That assertion, by me, was challenged.
4. I gave a hypothetical situation, very true to life, that illustrated how private business is rife with "politics and favoritism".
5. Some retarded person questioned why my hypo "had to have" nepotism...as if that invalidated the hypo..which it didnt.

Do you see how insane you are?

You can't even defend yourself properly. I've asked you to show me where I said " there are only two opinions. The trickle downers and you. That is not reality. " I'm still waiting.

Calling something bullshit is not a premise.

I never said it was. You've got to be typing this just to fuck with me. No one can have such poor reading comprehension skills.

I think the problem with your hypothetical is that you are arguing that it does happen. In all honesty, I agree it does but I think that you should have provided a real example. I definitely believe that would strengthen your argument.

I will respond to your hypothetical with a modified (namely because I don't have my mouse and scrolling on my laptop fingerpad is a PITA) version.

The problem with government being wasteful and corrupt is that the corruption and inefficiency is unavoidable and unaccountable. You and I cannot avoid corruption in the government, we have no choice to pay for it and on top of that, the government (specifically the federal government) has no profit/loss motive.

Take the father who hires his son. You and I can avoid buying into the system. You and I can simply not do business and not invest with companies we believe operate in that manner. Also, politics and favoritism in a private company, if allowed to run too long (in the case of the idiot son) will eventually be punished at a price to the people that perpetrate the crime. When it happens in government the people are the ones that are punished. That doesn't happen in government. Inefficiency, corruption, favoritism and politics results in an ever increasing debt on the public bankroll which the citizens do not have any choice but to pay.

Mike

 

[Vanquish]

That's a bit better response.

As for taking a real example, who says I didnt? Would names of people and companies make the situation any less valid? There's no need to have a reaction to the word "hypo" itself. In fact, it could have happened with my father's company and could have involved me

I would put forth that in private companies you and I don't get to vote people in and out...(unless you're a stockholder in a publicly-traded company, but that's not most businesses)...and therefore government is MORE accountable than private business. That's supposed to be the point of government...by the people, for the people, of the people?

But I can't deny that I agree government often seems just the opposite. The state education department here in Alabama is so corrupt that Tony Soprano looks like an altar boy.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the final review, the question is: how much are we willing to turn over of our labor, wealth, options, and opportunities to government to do things for us when it is obvious that government is primarily interested in feathering its own nest?

If you believe you can spend your money more wisely and to your better benefit than the government will do it for you, then you are a fiscal conservative promoting small, efficient, effective government that does nothing that cannot be done better by the private sector.

If you believe in unalienable rights, personal liberties, and that the pursuit of happiness requires you choosing what choices, opportunities, and options you will take advantage of, and the people, not government, should decide what sort of society we will have, you are a free trader and constituional originalist.

A fallacy is that we must allow the federal government to 'do it' because the state governments are so corrupt. In what dream world do people come to the conclusion that the Peter Principle works any better in government than it does in the private sector? A corrupt state politician is not going to miraculously become a virtuous saint if you send him to Washington. If he would be corrupt at home, he will be corrupt anywhere, so. . . .

Why not at least keep the corruption less expensive by keeping more of it in the states and assigning less of it to the federal government just adding more and more layers of an increasingly expensive bureaucracy to it?

And perhaps if the federal government does a whole lot less, and the states are doing a whole lot more of governing, we won't be so likely to just ignore the state mess and look to the federal government to somehow be better. We just might start putting pressure on the local folks to clean up their acts and become honorable public servants again.

And we might again look to the free market to distribute the wealth as the Founders intended. Is it so hard to understand that the more the government has meddled in that, the more unequal the wealth distribution has become?

 

[Uncensored2008]

There you go. Cherry picking again.

Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind? Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Dude, when have you EVER hesitated in insulting me? I mean, i don't care, I have a thick skin - but the victim shit is laughable.

 

[Vanquish]

There you go. Cherry picking again.

Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind? Bullshit. Total bullshit.

Dude, when have you EVER hesitated in insulting me? I mean, i don't care, I have a thick skin - but the victim shit is laughable.

For FUCKS Sake....do you people EVER read the context of a post?

I didn't attack you or him for insulting me. I was RESPONDING to him crying like a fucking baby about my insult. The logic shouldn't be hard to grasp: insults were hurled on BOTH sides. I'm not complaining...so why the fuck is HE complaining??

I'm not playing the victim...I'm simply responding. Holy fuck. Read the post I'm responding to before you go off half-cocked.

 

[Vanquish]

In the final review, the question is: how much are we willing to turn over of our labor, wealth, options, and opportunities to government to do things for us when it is obvious that government is primarily interested in feathering its own nest?

If you believe you can spend your money more wisely and to your better benefit than the government will do it for you, then you are a fiscal conservative promoting small, efficient, effective government that does nothing that cannot be done better by the private sector.

If you believe in unalienable rights, personal liberties, and that the pursuit of happiness requires you choosing what choices, opportunities, and options you will take advantage of, and the people, not government, should decide what sort of society we will have, you are a free trader and constituional originalist.

A fallacy is that we must allow the federal government to 'do it' because the state governments are so corrupt. In what dream world do people come to the conclusion that the Peter Principle works any better in government than it does in the private sector? A corrupt state politician is not going to miraculously become a virtuous saint if you send him to Washington. If he would be corrupt at home, he will be corrupt anywhere, so. . . .

Why not at least keep the corruption less expensive by keeping more of it in the states and assigning less of it to the federal government just adding more and more layers of an increasingly expensive bureaucracy to it?

And perhaps if the federal government does a whole lot less, and the states are doing a whole lot more of governing, we won't be so likely to just ignore the state mess and look to the federal government to somehow be better. We just might start putting pressure on the local folks to clean up their acts and become honorable public servants again.

And we might again look to the free market to distribute the wealth as the Founders intended. Is it so hard to understand that the more the government has meddled in that, the more unequal the wealth distribution has become?

I don't disagree with most of this post. It is definitely easier to hold state governments accountable...and it's true that all levels of government have become power grabs. That being said, there's a knee-jerk reaction against everything federal going on...whether or not something is constitutional or working right. We've got to cut the federal government...but not at the expense of consumer and industry protections.

I'd say, throughout the history of our federal government, the government has made wealth distribution more equal...if only through MAJOR, LANDMARK reforms like civil rights legislation, worker protections, child labor laws, female enfranchisement...etc.

The people who really get me are the ones who think that ALL (or nearly all) federal controls on companies need to be abolished...and who can never be told that companies will do unscrupulous things if left un-regulated. They just say "you hate Capitalism!! you hate big business!!" No I don't. I just know that companies are run by people...and people, if unchallenged, will do anything to get ahead.

 

[Uncensored2008]

For FUCKS Sake....do you people EVER read the context of a post?

For fucks sake, can you EVER back up what you post?

I didn't attack you or him for insulting me.

Your statement was;

Both you and uncensored have insulted me throughout this thread, but I can't respond in kind?

You can and do respond in kind - with no hesitation at all.

I don't deny that I insult you, but you give as much as you get.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the final review, the question is: how much are we willing to turn over of our labor, wealth, options, and opportunities to government to do things for us when it is obvious that government is primarily interested in feathering its own nest?

If you believe you can spend your money more wisely and to your better benefit than the government will do it for you, then you are a fiscal conservative promoting small, efficient, effective government that does nothing that cannot be done better by the private sector.

If you believe in unalienable rights, personal liberties, and that the pursuit of happiness requires you choosing what choices, opportunities, and options you will take advantage of, and the people, not government, should decide what sort of society we will have, you are a free trader and constituional originalist.

A fallacy is that we must allow the federal government to 'do it' because the state governments are so corrupt. In what dream world do people come to the conclusion that the Peter Principle works any better in government than it does in the private sector? A corrupt state politician is not going to miraculously become a virtuous saint if you send him to Washington. If he would be corrupt at home, he will be corrupt anywhere, so. . . .

Why not at least keep the corruption less expensive by keeping more of it in the states and assigning less of it to the federal government just adding more and more layers of an increasingly expensive bureaucracy to it?

And perhaps if the federal government does a whole lot less, and the states are doing a whole lot more of governing, we won't be so likely to just ignore the state mess and look to the federal government to somehow be better. We just might start putting pressure on the local folks to clean up their acts and become honorable public servants again.

And we might again look to the free market to distribute the wealth as the Founders intended. Is it so hard to understand that the more the government has meddled in that, the more unequal the wealth distribution has become?

I don't disagree with most of this post. It is definitely easier to hold state governments accountable...and it's true that all levels of government have become power grabs. That being said, there's a knee-jerk reaction against everything federal going on...whether or not something is constitutional or working right. We've got to cut the federal government...but not at the expense of consumer and industry protections.

I'd say, throughout the history of our federal government, the government has made wealth distribution more equal...if only through MAJOR, LANDMARK reforms like civil rights legislation, worker protections, child labor laws, female enfranchisement...etc.

The people who really get me are the ones who think that ALL (or nearly all) federal controls on companies need to be abolished...and who can never be told that companies will do unscrupulous things if left un-regulated. They just say "you hate Capitalism!! you hate big business!!" No I don't. I just know that companies are run by people...and people, if unchallenged, will do anything to get ahead.

In my opinion, ALL involvement of the Federal government re wealth redistribution has produced only more inequality--inequality that is artificially created and much more permanently entrenched than would otherwise be the case. And it has skewed the natural market forces through policy and regulation, inappropriate for the federal government, that encourages 'misconduct' by some big business. There is nothing quite like 'free money' from the government to inspire folks to bend and stretch the rules or ethics considerably in order to get it. There is nothing quite like having the ability to dispense 'free money' to corrupt the most pure poltiician.

Nobody is saying that there is no role for the Federal government to provide regulation that protects unalienable rights or safety precautions in areas where the states cannot do that. There is NO legitimate role for the Federal government to tell any of us what sort of society we must have or how we must live our lives, however.

Let the Federal government do that which must be done and cannot be done more efficiently, effectively, and/or economically at more local levels or in the private sector. Otherwise the Federal government should stay out of it.