The problem with America is...

[JackANSI]

I do have to say. this thread is trolling at work. perfect question, no reply. haha!

There are tons of replies.. I think greed is winning in the responses.

[DirtySanchez]

I do have to say. this thread is trolling at work. perfect question, no reply. haha!

There are tons of replies.. I think greed is winning in the responses.

lol. GREED (forgot to make it all red and shit) I imagine beavis' voice shouting it ala "FIRE".

Ok, outta my head now.

[lonewolf]

I do have to say. this thread is trolling at work. perfect question, no reply. haha!

There are tons of replies.. I think greed is winning in the responses.

lol. GREED (forgot to make it all red and shit) I imagine beavis' voice shouting it ala "FIRE".

Ok, outta my head now.

heh heh heh

[grimmbass]

No trolling here. I'm just curious to see what people think are the big problems....and you all have not disappointed with your passionate responses.

I guess that I'll quote John Stewart on this matter: "The problem with moderates is that nobody is taking to the streets and screaming 'let's be reasonable'. "

My point: This country is not pure capitalism or pure socialism. It's both. A system without elements of both forms of government would not resemble the country we live in, and you can say that's positive or negative.

Public schools, roadways, and social security are all socialism at work. Without a public education, many of us would not have gone to school. Regardless of what you feel about public education, literacy is much higher in the US than it was prior to the existence of public schools. Without some level of government intervention (i.e. labor laws) many kids would still be working in heavy industry. Prices on many things (milk, cigarettes, alcohol) have been state/federally regulated for years, yet there still is competition for the best brands.

Free enterprise, small business, and commerce are all capitalism at work. Without a chance to succed on your individual merits and to own property, America would not be the industrial superpower we are. Without successful business, much of our tax base would simply not exist. However, in a purely economic-driven system, many of the benefits we take for granted (unemployment, basic education) would probably not exist either.

At this point, changing to either "pure" method of government would take more than a generation to complete. I don't want the government to own banks or car companies, but I also don't want industry to get away with past abuses of people either.

Let's make the question even more specific: What do you guys and gals think the government should and should not be involved in? What is the right size government?

[slackin@dabass]

it is kinda ironic, isn't it? did you know that i make to much collecting unemployment over the winter to get food stamps? how bout the fact that i have yet another wisdom tooth coming in, and i need to get my tonsils out, but luckily enough for me, i make too much from unemployment to qualify for any kind of help to get these health issues taken care of. the system works! go socialism! helping those who refuse to help themselves but people that try to help themselves and still need help are just too damn well off to get anything. ugh... i'm gonna go try and cut my tonsils out of my head with a kitchen knife and a bottle of scotch...

You know that some forms of employment come with insurance... Just FYI...


I wish I could get free money and bitch about it...

ouch.


i have a seasonal job. i've payed into unemployment just like you have, and every employer has. i work hard enough and make my boss happy enough that he set my unemployment up for me. told me what to do, how to do it and everything else. know what though? it's state unemployment. which is what i support. STATE govnmt handling things... not the federal govmnt.

also, to the thing about robthedrummer working for a STATE prison and how that's socialist... likewise, it's state controlled, not federal. i'm sure they receive some kinda federal funding, though. so i guess i just talked me in a circle

[grimmbass]

So, Slackin', you have no trouble with a "socialist" concept so long as it's carried out by a state, rather than a federal, government? Unemployment wages are not a part of pure capitalism.

[slackin@dabass]

So, Slackin', you have no trouble with a "socialist" concept so long as it's carried out by a state, rather than a federal, government? Unemployment wages are not a part of pure capitalism.

no, i feel that the state government should be the one that people turn to for help. that's how the people that wrote the constitution felt. the states should take care of their people. federal government shouldn't have such a big hand in things. i think that's what's wrong with america right now. big federal government. if the federal government was smaller, it wouldn't be bailing out failing businesses by throwing tax payer dollars at them like it's no big thing, we wouldn't be flushing 8 or 9 billion dollars a year down the toilet known as the "war on drugs" and we wouldn't have americans losing their manufacturing jobs by companies that find it cheaper to move over seas. i've always felt that large federal government cannot end in a good way, but that it should be up to these united states to take care of themselves. the federal governments job is stated very clear in the constitution. and it's not to enforce laws, provide social programs, and bailout mortgage companies.

[grimmbass]

So, Slackin, do you feel that state governments are any more efficient than federal governments in doing this? And on a pure idealogical basis, to what extent does any government, state or federal, owe a living to its people? That kind of caretaking sounds like a socialist concept to me.

[DirtySanchez]

No trolling here. I'm just curious to see what people think are the big problems....and you all have not disappointed with your passionate responses.

I guess that I'll quote John Stewart on this matter: "The problem with moderates is that nobody is taking to the streets and screaming 'let's be reasonable'. "

My point: This country is not pure capitalism or pure socialism. It's both. A system without elements of both forms of government would not resemble the country we live in, and you can say that's positive or negative.

Public schools, roadways, and social security are all socialism at work. Without a public education, many of us would not have gone to school. Regardless of what you feel about public education, literacy is much higher in the US than it was prior to the existence of public schools. Without some level of government intervention (i.e. labor laws) many kids would still be working in heavy industry. Prices on many things (milk, cigarettes, alcohol) have been state/federally regulated for years, yet there still is competition for the best brands.

Free enterprise, small business, and commerce are all capitalism at work. Without a chance to succed on your individual merits and to own property, America would not be the industrial superpower we are. Without successful business, much of our tax base would simply not exist. However, in a purely economic-driven system, many of the benefits we take for granted (unemployment, basic education) would probably not exist either.

At this point, changing to either "pure" method of government would take more than a generation to complete. I don't want the government to own banks or car companies, but I also don't want industry to get away with past abuses of people either.

Let's make the question even more specific: What do you guys and gals think the government should and should not be involved in? What is the right size government?

Right on. thought this was anothe rone of those "the sky is blue" threads. haha! You also made the point that I was getting at.

[Banned]

No trolling here. I'm just curious to see what people think are the big problems....and you all have not disappointed with your passionate responses.

I guess that I'll quote John Stewart on this matter: "The problem with moderates is that nobody is taking to the streets and screaming 'let's be reasonable'. "

My point: This country is not pure capitalism or pure socialism. It's both. A system without elements of both forms of government would not resemble the country we live in, and you can say that's positive or negative.

Public schools, roadways, and social security are all socialism at work. Without a public education, many of us would not have gone to school. Regardless of what you feel about public education, literacy is much higher in the US than it was prior to the existence of public schools. Without some level of government intervention (i.e. labor laws) many kids would still be working in heavy industry. Prices on many things (milk, cigarettes, alcohol) have been state/federally regulated for years, yet there still is competition for the best brands.

Free enterprise, small business, and commerce are all capitalism at work. Without a chance to succed on your individual merits and to own property, America would not be the industrial superpower we are. Without successful business, much of our tax base would simply not exist. However, in a purely economic-driven system, many of the benefits we take for granted (unemployment, basic education) would probably not exist either.

At this point, changing to either "pure" method of government would take more than a generation to complete. I don't want the government to own banks or car companies, but I also don't want industry to get away with past abuses of people either.

Let's make the question even more specific: What do you guys and gals think the government should and should not be involved in? What is the right size government?

The simplest answer is that the federal government should be limited to their powers enumerated in the Constitution. When Congress passed the law to limit our toilets to flush only 1.1 gallons of water per flush, do you think that was overstepping their authority? Should that not be left to local governments who know the local water/sewage situation better? That is why Ron Paul has voted "NO" more than any other Congressman in the history of Congress. He weighs each vote on whether Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass the bills they do. Most of the time, they are extra-Constitutional.

Today the Federal government needs about 25% of the GDP to keep its bloated bureaucracies alive. For about 150 years, the Federal Gov. only needed about 4% of GDP (not including periods of wartime). We were still a great country for our first 150 years, everyone wanted to come here.

4% GDP is what I would limit the Federal Government to.

[grimmbass]

Joe:

Are states any more efficient than the Federal government?

Do you believe that states should provide education, unemployment benefits, or social services? If so, how much?

[DirtySanchez]

Joe:

Are states any more efficient than the Federal government?

Do you believe that states should provide education, unemployment benefits, or social services? If so, how much?

Someone please answer this and tell me that it's not socialism if it's the state doing it.

I'm no Obama fan, but he's better than that douche of a governor we got.

[Baceman Spiff]

Good points GrimBass. Yes we are stuck with some forms of socialism. And they have helped alot of people including myself. I would add to the point of unemployment. I believe its called 'Unemployment Insurance' and money is taken out my check to pay for it, if I need it. Like a premium. So in that sense it makes it a capitalist idea, by entering into a contract. If I agree to pay the premium, you agree to pay me when I'm out of work. Maybe I got that all wrong, but thats the way I see it.

But when I hear elected officials talking about regulating all of the banks. And also proposing to cap some CEO's salaries. These are purely collectivist ideas and are at their nature, unamerican. And it just pisses me off to no end. (To the point where Im posting in politically natured threads, something I told myself to stay away from) Even if they only cap some of the salaries, liked has been proposed. They would be inhibiting these companies ability to compete in a fair market. If company 'A' has capped salaries, and company 'B' has no cap. Then company 'A' will not have the best person running their business. Some say "Alright, then cap them all'" But this interferes with people's . Individual right to the pursuit of happiness. Work hard, get an education but you only earn so much. Because its not fair to Joe Dirt, a third generation welfare recipient, who's always complaining he can never get ahead, and never really tried because he never really had to. That is a collectivist point of view, in which socialism is based.

So what Im saying is, yes, we have some socialistic programs that have benfitted people. But lets not add more, and go down that road of Euro-Socialism. Which has not worked. Lets embrace the principals of OUR Constitution and our founders. In which the individual is both the benefactor and guardian of liberty.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


We are the posterity folks. This document wasn't hastily written. It was written and re written several times and each line was debated for monthes. They may not have foreseen everything, but they gave us a damn good guideline to deal with anything that should arise. Its up to us (the individual) to see to it, that we use these guidelines and apply them to our lives. Not the state.

[RobTheDrummer]

Public schools, roadways, and social security are all socialism at work. Without a public education, many of us would not have gone to school. Regardless of what you feel about public education, literacy is much higher in the US than it was prior to the existence of public schools. Without some level of government intervention (i.e. labor laws) many kids would still be working in heavy industry. Prices on many things (milk, cigarettes, alcohol) have been state/federally regulated for years, yet there still is competition for the best brands.

This is not socialism, this is what the government was intended to do. Not what the government wants to do now.

[Banned]

Joe:

Are states any more efficient than the Federal government?

Do you believe that states should provide education, unemployment benefits, or social services? If so, how much?

States are obviously better than the Fed at State issues. California allowed for medical marijuana, but under W, the Fed DEA came in and arrested the owners and users of the med. marijuana shops. The Fed had no Constitutional right to do that.

I think education should go back to the way it was for over 150 years, a local governmental issue.

Unemployment and other social services should be at a State or local levels. We the citizens have more of a say as local and state levels. We have to get from relying on the Big Nanny Federal Gummint.

[grimmbass]

Joe: Specifically, what benefits should the state provide? Should all kids have access to education based on tax dollars? And what do you think about unemployment benefits? Tell me how state-run services are not "socialism".

Rob: Where is there anything in the constitution about paying people who don't have a job? If these kinds of benefits aren't Socialism, then what are they? Explain this to me: Where is the line between helping people out when they're down on their luck and "socialism"? If I pay tax dollars, and I get unemployment that's NOT socialism? How are services in socialist countries funded? Through taxation, the same way our unemployment and welfare programs are funded. So what's the difference? Our unemployment system is government run (state by state) and is NOT private industry. Explain to me how these services are not socialism.

Baceman: I don't think that the Government should have a say in how companies run their business, so long as these businesses don't accept Government bail out money. If these businesses accept taxpayer bailout funds, then the Feds are obligated to make sure it's spent wisely and accounted for. My tax dollars shouldn't be paying for someone's bonus. When I buy stock in a private company, I get voting rights. As a stock owner in these federally subsidized banks (i.e. I pay taxes), shouldn't I get voting rights in those companies too?

And BTW, all financial institutions ARE regulated and insured by FDIC; for that matter, currency is issued by the Government in the first place and the worth of that currency is determined by the Feds as well. Bottom line: If you're dealing in currency, you're dealing with government money. Short of dealing in gold or barter, when you spend currency, you're taking part in an exchange that's federally regulated, insured, and controlled. The free market is governed by the federal government.

[bassist_25]

Question for those saying that government, particularly federal government, is bad: If you lost your primary day gig tomorrow, which is not that far-fetched at the moment, and you were offered a federal position starting as a GS-12, would you turn down the job offer due to your philosophical beliefs about the role of government?

[JackANSI]

Of course they would... It directly benefits them.

Greed and/or money before all else.

[Banned]

Of course they would... It directly benefits them.

Greed and/or money before all else.

Feeding your family is greed?

twisted

[slackin@dabass]

grimm - yes, any state social program would be just that... a state social program. yes it would be socialist, but at a state level. not a federal level. once the federal government becomes socialist, the the entire nation would in fact be socialist, whereas a state that has many social programs would just be a state in the united states that has social programs for the people residing in it. i'd prefer things to be at a state level. i'm positive no 2 states would be the same, if you don't like how one state provides social programs and taxes it's people for them, then you can move to a state that dosn't. at least in a perfect world, that's how it would work. if each state handled all these things individually, the federal government wouldn't tax the shit out of everyone and spend the money on stuff that really helps the country out. like bailing aig out. that really helped the country. if pennsylvania handles it's own welfare system from money it taxes people that reside in the state of pennsylvania, then why does the federal government need to be involved?


maybe i didn't understand the question.

[grimmbass]

Slackin': So long as you admit that the programs such as unemployment and welfare are indeed socialist, we're on the same page (somewhat). Generally speaking (especially when it comes to labor law) Federal law is superseded by State law when that law benefits workers. Examples can be found in application of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In other words, state laws governing workers are more powerful than Federal law when it comes to most labor relations.

I don't know of many people who have moved from one state to another simply based upon social programs, but I'm sure there have been cases. Bottom line, imho, is that state laws still directly affect the common person, and the fear of a socialist state (if indeed you fear a socialist state) should also be directed at the state level. It seems like a few of you are saying that socialism (so to speak) is ok at the state level, but not at the federal level. I don't understand the differentiation.

Joe: I'm still awaiting your opinion on what social programs you'd keep or eliminate (

Joe: Specifically, what benefits should the state provide? Should all kids have access to education based on tax dollars? And what do you think about unemployment benefits? Tell me how state-run services are not "socialism".

).

[Banned]

http://www.rockpage.net/phpbb2/viewtopi ... 836#163836

[grimmbass]

Thanks Joe...and I did promise to see you at the Town Hall debates when you run for office. What about public schools? Should we still have public schools paid for from state tax dollars (i.e. Socialism) or should we completely privatize education?

[Banned]

Thanks Joe...and I did promise to see you at the Town Hall debates when you run for office. What about public schools? Should we still have public schools paid for from state tax dollars (i.e. Socialism) or should we completely privatize education?

That is where local government has it's role. Remember we all will have much more available money because Big Nanny Fed is taking much less. We could finance our schools without the interference of the Federal Education Department forcing all the politically correct diversity BS on our kids. We might then better prepare them for life. Oh, we could tell the socialist teachers unions to go jump into a swamp in the West Loop. (apologies to any West Loopers here) The Dems will not like this, the NEA is one of the biggest contributors to the Democratic Party.

In this Constitutionally run country, I do not see much of a role for the modern Democrat Party. Maybe they might change back into the party they were when JFK was president.

[grimmbass]

Joe,

So, if individual states are taking care of their own schools, I assume you're still talking tax dollars (i.e. NOT private schools), so you're still talking Socialism here. That's all I want you to admit. I don't care if it's on a national or state level, government "taking care" of its citizens rather than leaving them to a free market, is Socialism. Education is a state-run industry where money is paid for services. Guaranteeing an education is EXPENSIVE (when you consider 12-13 years of education, we're in the territory of providing universal health care as far as costs go).

From a Capitalist perspective: I don't have kids, so why do I have to pay taxes to send OTHER peoples' children to school? Is education something that we should outsource to private industry?

Without groups such as the NEA, who would be setting the cirriculum? Also without federal standards (as well as standardized exams) how would students transfer between schools when they moved to another state? For that matter, how would they enroll in college? Would you still keep SATs or other national exams?

And what "politically-correct" classes would you eliminate? I hope you're not gunning to cut arts and music education...I couldn't possibly vote for you then.

BTW, one matter on states' rights vs. national powers: One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive is because of the lack of national licenses. If we had national, rather than state-oriented, medical licenses, healthcare professionals could practice in multiple states (as well as use remote medicine). The end result would be better access for the consumer and more competition, which would further bring down the cost.