LGP Political Discussion Thread

[Sarcastic]

With respect to healthcare, should there be a public option there will certainly be rationing. The government wants to control costs, but without tort reform and interstate competition, it isn't the prices that they will reduce, it is the level of service. Under this plan, it wouldn't be the market that is responsible for allocating scarce resources, it will be the government. Assuming that resources are not unlimited, decisions will have to be made regarding where they will best be allocated. How do you think the government will decide on who gets what if not based on a cost/benefit analysis? Would not those who establish the parameters of such an analysis be considered a "death panel"?

Insurance companies already did the "rationing". You sent them money, got deathly sick, they showed you the finger. One of the most heinous issues in the debate. Obama seemed to have changed it, though. Big thumbs up to the pres..

[Sarcastic]

Government action in the market more often than not creates inequalities. Agents of the government use the inherent power (force) of the government to create these inequalities. See the Federal Reserve, for but one example. See no-bid contracts in Iraq for another.

That doesn't make sense. It's the old issue of good vs. bad government. We have to elect honest people. That's it. And what makes you think that heads of big corporations would be any more honest than government agents? At least here we can show our displeasure with the government. Vote people out. Good luck if corporations like Walmart are allowed to govern themselves. Don't even have to look at what if - just look at the slavery they've instituted in their factory plants in Asia. If you don't regulate these people, this is what you get - slavery, similar to the way it was before workers gained any rights. We can talk about bad regulation, but somebody has to regulate this stuff and make sure people play nice.

No-bid contracts were just the Bush folks making money with their friends. Corrupted government. Go stand in front of the White House for a month, demanding they're put on trial. Eh, we Americans don't feel like it.

I believe government's role in the market is to prosecute violations of individuals by other individuals through force or fraud. I don't believe government should be using its power of force to manipulate society according to some perceived notion, such as 'inequity'. If individuals are left to their own abilities, and are ensured prosecution of violations of their liberty through force or fraud, then we have a just society. Government deciding to act on behalf of individuals within one segment of society without violations of their liberty is in itself a violation of the liberty of other individuals, and a more gross one, at that, because government alone is socially-sanctioned to use force. It is by definition brute force.

That is something I could imagine after smoking a large bag of pot. This idea of freedom. I imagine myself running through a field in a hippie costume. It would be Wild Wild West all over again. Just with cell phones and color TVs. You'd be left with 5 or 10 big companies or families who'd manage their way to own everything. People would have no say and no choice to do anything.

There is nothing wrong with a strong and forceful government. It just has to be honest and fair and work for the people. Not the kind that panders to the most powerful, the ones you want to give all the power.

[Guinness]

Would they have funded roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, military , etc? If you think people are driven by self- interest, what makes you think we would do anything, but keep it in our pockets.I'm sure that is what I would do.

Really!? What would be the point of having the money, then?

Are you suggesting that eliminating the income tax would stimulate some societal outpouring of goodwill charity that would pay for community schools, infrastructure, hospitals, and the like with no government involvement? I ask because one of the arguments in favor of cutting spending and taxes always seems to be that private charity will fill the void and probably do it better. What I don't understand is at what point we should expect all this charitable largess to kick in. Throughout WWII and the 1950s, the top rate fluctuated from the high 80s to the low 90s. It fluctuated in the 70s until 1971, when it was cut to 70%. No charitable outpouring. Cut to 50% in 1981. Still nothing. 28% by 1988. Nothing there either. Through it all we managed to develop a $2.2 trillion infrastructure problem in this country, and it sure would be nice if people with means would start adopting bridges or pieces of the power grid or something. What rate would stimulate all the giving? 15%? 10%? 0%? I know you're opposed to any income tax on principle, but this seems to be a practical argument you're making. Am I reading it wrong?

doublem said that he wouldn't spend any of the money he got - that was the point of the response. I'll have to respond later for the rest.

[Guinness]

I believe government's role in the market is to prosecute violations of individuals by other individuals through force or fraud. I don't believe government should be using its power of force to manipulate society according to some perceived notion, such as 'inequity'. If individuals are left to their own abilities, and are ensured prosecution of violations of their liberty through force or fraud, then we have a just society. Government deciding to act on behalf of individuals within one segment of society without violations of their liberty is in itself a violation of the liberty of other individuals, and a more gross one, at that, because government alone is socially-sanctioned to use force. It is by definition brute force.

That is something I could imagine after smoking a large bag of pot. This idea of freedom. I imagine myself running through a field in a hippie costume. It would be Wild Wild West all over again. Just with cell phones and color TVs. You'd be left with 5 or 10 big companies or families who'd manage their way to own everything. People would have no say and no choice to do anything.

There is nothing wrong with a strong and forceful government. It just has to be honest and fair and work for the people. Not the kind that panders to the most powerful, the ones you want to give all the power.

That idea of government is something I could imagine after smoking a large bag of pot. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The saying goes, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Good luck finding these angels to govern us...

Change? Warrants are so 'yesterday':

At first glance, one might think the bills are a slippery slope toward requiring telcos to release such information during any criminal investigation, even when there is no pending emergency. But the Obama administration has jumped feet first into that slippery slope, and is seeking such information, without a court warrant, in a pending drug case.

The rest of the story.

Edit to add more angels, both D & R:

This is the meat of it, here.

I would be against any central bank, vigorously. Since 1913, the dollar has lost it's commodity backing, has lost 95% (NINETY-FIVE PERCENT) of it's value, and is about to become worth less than the paper it's printed on. With a commodity backed currency, a central bank is completely unnecessary. Centrally controlled fiat currency has allowed government to wage war without end almost from the day the Fed came into existence, has allowed government to manipulate foreign governments and markets, and has utterly destroyed the value of the money that people hold through inflation. It has too much influence on policy-making. It is an outlet for graft. Paulsen, Bernanke, Geithner, et al, used it to fleece us for 700 billion last fall to protect their friends from the financial ruin we're all likely facing. You may like some of the programs that government has established on account of an increased money supply, but this is what I mean when I say that it is unsustainable - eventually, the fiat currency fails and the government behind it goes bankrupt. Meanwhile, since 1913, Americans have been steadily working harder for less money because of government's currency inflation policy. This really is what is at the heart of our current dilemma and, as much as I hope it isn't - it will be our downfall.

I don't profess to be an expert on this issue, but I'm learning a ton about it and I'm quickly finding that this issue is at the heart of every debate we have in this country about spending, war, freedom... you name it.

[bh]

That idea of government is something I could imagine after smoking a large bag of pot. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
The saying goes, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Good luck finding these angels to govern us...

I think when the founders looked at government 200+ years ago, they tried to come up with a system where power would always be severely limited. I think in the grand sceme of things that they didn't do a good enough job. They didn't expect that lawers could twist words so much to remder state and local government alomst meaningless. They didn't expect the President to be able to wage war without Congress declairing it. Power is the key. We need a government that protects people from private power, but doesn't abuse it's own. To limit the ability to abuse it's own power, checks and balances were instituted but I think that slowly they have been eroding away since the day the Constitution was ratified. Guinness hit the nail on the head with closer government being better government. You do have more say and influence with local than state and state than federal. The federal level just dominates over all other levels now.

[doublem]

I think when the founders looked at government 200+ years ago Thomas Jefferson , they he tried to come up with a system where power would always be severely limited.

True?

[shafnutz05]

I think when the founders looked at government 200+ years ago Thomas Jefferson , they he tried to come up with a system where power would always be severely limited.

True?

Governor Morris wrote the Constitution....Jefferson was in Europe during the Constitutional Conventions. As far as direct control over the system produced, not sure how much influence he had.

But I know that he shared the exact same values of self-government and states' rights that were reflected by many of the founders.

[doublem]

I think when the founders looked at government 200+ years ago Thomas Jefferson , they he tried to come up with a system where power would always be severely limited.

True?

Governor Morris wrote the Constitution....Jefferson was in Europe during the Constitutional Conventions. As far as direct control over the system produced, not sure how much influence he had.

But I know that he shared the exact same values of self-government and states' rights that were reflected by many of the founders.

Jefferson was a states rights guy, but what about Hamilton, Adams, Washington? Not all the founders wanted to limit power, some actually wanted to use it?

[shafnutz05]

I am sure you are right doublem...however, I have a feeling that they could have never predicted that the federal government would turn into the massive, bloated bureaucracy it has become. I think they were thinking on a much smaller scale at that time.

[HomerPenguin]

Governor Morris wrote the Constitution....Jefferson was in Europe during the Constitutional Conventions. As far as direct control over the system produced, not sure how much influence he had.

But I know that he shared the exact same values of self-government and states' rights that were reflected by many of the founders.

Jefferson was a states rights guy, but what about Hamilton, Adams, Washington? Not all the founders wanted to limit power, some actually wanted to use it?

How much of a "states rights guy" could Jefferson have been when he was clearly in support of drafting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation? The Articles were far more protective of states' rights than the Constitution; it was the weakness of federal authority in the Articles that they were trying to fix by replacing them with the new Constitution. Morris wrote the preamble to the Constitution, and on the most pressing states' rights issue of the time he ardently supported federal government abolition of slavery.

[doublem]

Governor Morris wrote the Constitution....Jefferson was in Europe during the Constitutional Conventions. As far as direct control over the system produced, not sure how much influence he had.

But I know that he shared the exact same values of self-government and states' rights that were reflected by many of the founders.

Jefferson was a states rights guy, but what about Hamilton, Adams, Washington? Not all the founders wanted to limit power, some actually wanted to use it?

How much of a "states rights guy" could Jefferson have been when he was clearly in support of drafting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation? The Articles were far more protective of states' rights than the Constitution; it was the weakness of federal authority in the Articles that they were trying to fix by replacing them with the new Constitution. Morris wrote the preamble to the Constitution, and on the most pressing states' rights issue of the time he ardently supported federal government abolition of slavery.

Right. I generally meant about his disagreements with Hamilton. I didn't mean that Jefferson was an Anti-federalist.

[bh]

I think when the founders looked at government 200+ years ago Thomas Jefferson , they he tried to come up with a system where power would always be severely limited.

True?

No, I still think that most all the founders wanted a severely limited government. Washington did not like the articles at all, and wanted something stronger than them but he still believed in smaller central government. Madison was the chief designer of the ideas contained in the constitution and would have thought a little more along the lines of Jefferson. Hamilon was a different animal alltogether. Of course there was debate and argument as to what the proper role of the new government was going to be, but it seems from the wording of the constitution itself that states rights were heavily favored. Jefferson had little to do with the Constitution.

[bh]

Governor Morris wrote the Constitution....Jefferson was in Europe during the Constitutional Conventions. As far as direct control over the system produced, not sure how much influence he had.

But I know that he shared the exact same values of self-government and states' rights that were reflected by many of the founders.

Jefferson was a states rights guy, but what about Hamilton, Adams, Washington? Not all the founders wanted to limit power, some actually wanted to use it?

How much of a "states rights guy" could Jefferson have been when he was clearly in support of drafting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation? The Articles were far more protective of states' rights than the Constitution; it was the weakness of federal authority in the Articles that they were trying to fix by replacing them with the new Constitution. Morris wrote the preamble to the Constitution, and on the most pressing states' rights issue of the time he ardently supported federal government abolition of slavery.

How early the seeds of the civil war were sown.

[doublem]

I think when the founders looked at government 200+ years ago Thomas Jefferson , they he tried to come up with a system where power would always be severely limited.

True?

No, I still think that most all the founders wanted a severely limited government. Washington did not like the articles at all, and wanted something stronger than them but he still believed in smaller central government. Madison was the chief designer of the ideas contained in the constitution and would have thought a little more along the lines of Jefferson. Hamilon was a different animal alltogether. Of course there was debate and argument as to what the proper role of the new government was going to be, but it seems from the wording of the constitution itself that states rights were heavily favored. Jefferson had little to do with the Constitution.

Washington generally sided with Hamilton on policy issues. Jefferson wanted a nation of farmers, Hamilton a nation of manufacturing. Jefferson wrote about individual rights and liberty, so that is why I would say out of any of the founders he supported a limited government more than anyone else. Madison jumped sides, he started out with Hamilton during the Federalist Papers, went with Jefferson after, then back to Hamilton during his presidency becasue of the war of 1812, and the weakness of the federal government. The country was almost split from the very start with the Hamiltonians vs Jeffersonians, after Washington's presidency. The thing about Jefferson is he might have supported states rights in theory, but he was the one that expanded the federal government more than anyone else with the Louisiana purchase. If Hamilton wasn't killed early on, the country might have looked a lot different.

[Sarcastic]

That idea of government is something I could imagine after smoking a large bag of pot. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, we agree. The kind of government we have right now makes me feel I'm stoned out of my mind. I just hope we get better people one day.

The saying goes, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Good luck finding these angels to govern us...

But the same goes to the bankers and CEOs and the super rich. We agree again. I'm saying that we still have some resemblance of strength when we deal with the ones we put into power. Leave that out and we're completely helpless.

[Guinness]

How much of a "states rights guy" could Jefferson have been when he was clearly in support of drafting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation? The Articles were far more protective of states' rights than the Constitution; it was the weakness of federal authority in the Articles that they were trying to fix by replacing them with the new Constitution. Morris wrote the preamble to the Constitution, and on the most pressing states' rights issue of the time he ardently supported federal government abolition of slavery.

My understanding is that Jefferson was luke-warm to the Constitution?

[Guinness]

That idea of government is something I could imagine after smoking a large bag of pot. Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, we agree. The kind of government we have right now makes me feel I'm stoned out of my mind. I just hope we get better people one day.

Hmm... all due respect, I don't think we do.

[Guinness]

[No, I still think that most all the founders wanted a severely limited government. Washington did not like the articles at all, and wanted something stronger than them but he still believed in smaller central government. Madison was the chief designer of the ideas contained in the constitution and would have thought a little more along the lines of Jefferson. Hamilon was a different animal alltogether. Of course there was debate and argument as to what the proper role of the new government was going to be, but it seems from the wording of the constitution itself that states rights were heavily favored. Jefferson had little to do with the Constitution.

Exactly. "More Federal power" in 1789 does not equal "more Federal power" in 2009. They may have wanted the federal government to have more power than it did, but that does not mean that they wanted it to have as much as it does today.

[Guinness]

Really!? What would be the point of having the money, then?

Are you suggesting that eliminating the income tax would stimulate some societal outpouring of goodwill charity that would pay for community schools, infrastructure, hospitals, and the like with no government involvement? I ask because one of the arguments in favor of cutting spending and taxes always seems to be that private charity will fill the void and probably do it better. What I don't understand is at what point we should expect all this charitable largess to kick in. Throughout WWII and the 1950s, the top rate fluctuated from the high 80s to the low 90s. It fluctuated in the 70s until 1971, when it was cut to 70%. No charitable outpouring. Cut to 50% in 1981. Still nothing. 28% by 1988. Nothing there either. Through it all we managed to develop a $2.2 trillion infrastructure problem in this country, and it sure would be nice if people with means would start adopting bridges or pieces of the power grid or something. What rate would stimulate all the giving? 15%? 10%? 0%? I know you're opposed to any income tax on principle, but this seems to be a practical argument you're making. Am I reading it wrong?

doublem said that he wouldn't spend any of the money he got - that was the point of the response. I'll have to respond later for the rest.

As I stated above, I was addressing doublem's assertion that people who have money don't spend it. That's counter-intuitive. Money isn't an end - it's a means to an end.

I personally haven't looked at charitable giving statistics. However, the greater economic freedom people have, the better prosperity exists across classes throughout the country: http://www.freetheworld.com/. I make careful note here that this is a study of economic freedom ONLY.

Irrespective of that, if social programs (and in particular, spending to fund them) didn't exist, people tend to take a greater responsibility for planning for their future. Of course bad things do happen to people, but why is it the job of the Federal government to provide for such instances with so many other layers of formal and informal government exist?

And again, don't discredit the role of the inflationary monetary policy in this problem - which is as much behind the health care situation as greedy insurance companies.

[HomerPenguin]

How much of a "states rights guy" could Jefferson have been when he was clearly in support of drafting the Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation? The Articles were far more protective of states' rights than the Constitution; it was the weakness of federal authority in the Articles that they were trying to fix by replacing them with the new Constitution. Morris wrote the preamble to the Constitution, and on the most pressing states' rights issue of the time he ardently supported federal government abolition of slavery.

My understanding is that Jefferson was luke-warm to the Constitution?

I don't think that reflects in his correspondence with Madison. He thought initially that the problems with the Articles could be fixed by amendment rather than overhaul, but ultimately Madison convinced him and he supported it with the reservation that he wanted to see a declaration of rights attached. The above should read that he was clearly in support of changing the Articles.

[HomerPenguin]

I personally haven't looked at charitable giving statistics. However, the greater economic freedom people have, the better prosperity exists across classes throughout the country: http://www.freetheworld.com/. I make careful note here that this is a study of economic freedom ONLY.

You'll have to point me to the part that talks about better prosperity "across classes." I'd particularly like to know how that better prosperity breaks down for each class.

Irrespective of that, if social programs (and in particular, spending to fund them) didn't exist, people tend to take a greater responsibility for planning for their future.

Really? Because OASDI drastically lowered the rate of poverty among the elderly. In the absence of that program, people were either not taking "a greater responsibility for planning for their future" or taking that greater responsibility wasn't having an impact.

Of course bad things do happen to people, but why is it the job of the Federal government to provide for such instances with so many other layers of formal and informal government exist?

Then again, I was mostly talking here about who's going to fix our bridges, not about welfare programs.

[Sarcastic]

I believe government's role in the market is to prosecute violations of individuals by other individuals through force or fraud.

I want to touch on this really quickly. Who decides what is fraud? If there's fraud, there is regulation. Who provides the regulation? See where I'm going with this? You're going to have a set of rules, regardless. There are two possible sources of regulation I can see: the government or the business owners. Do you trust AIG, Microsoft, Walmart, or Bank of America CEOs? Or do you hope to trust the government more, which is really supposed to reflect the will of the people? I think the answer is very clear. Just because the current government is not ideal, it does not mean we should marginalize government to the point it's completely ineffective.

I believe what you describe in that quote is just a court system, which we do have. That's not too great either, but I guess that's another topic.

[doublem]

Public option back?

http://www.examiner.com/x-6572-NY-Obama ... lic-option" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/ ... -today/?hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is Harry Reid more progressive than socialist Obama?

Shouldn't conservatives be in favor of this since it has a choice of "opt-out"?

[Sarcastic]

I would be against any central bank, vigorously. Since 1913, the dollar has lost it's commodity backing, has lost 95% (NINETY-FIVE PERCENT) of it's value, and is about to become worth less than the paper it's printed on. With a commodity backed currency, a central bank is completely unnecessary. Centrally controlled fiat currency has allowed government to wage war without end almost from the day the Fed came into existence, has allowed government to manipulate foreign governments and markets, and has utterly destroyed the value of the money that people hold through inflation. It has too much influence on policy-making.

I do agree with you 100% on the Federal Reserve. People hear the word "Federal" and think this is a branch of our government. I think everyone should look it up. See what it really is. Who owns these banks. I'll tell you one thing. There were two presidents who wanted to pull away from our dependence on the system: Lincoln and JFK. I have a lot of great links somewhere. I'll try to find a particular one I'm thinking of.

[Sarcastic]

Here. Everyone click on this:

http://www.illuminati-news.com/kennedy-assassin.htm