[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2010-November-03, 08:13, said:

almost everyone thinks taxes are high enough/too high, almost everyone understands that the constitution was written by people with a vision different from the one held by most of today's politicians, almost everyone understands that entrepreneurs create jobs, not the gov't

Over time, taxes need to be at the level needed to support federal spending, not more, not less. I would be happy to pay lower taxes, but only if the spending is cut first. Set the spending (even if I don't agree with it), then set the taxes. Responsible voters take this position. The free lunch crowd does not.

I agree (necessarily) that entrepreneurs create jobs, but don't get what people mean (if anything) by saying that the government does not create jobs. Highway construction, for example, is just one example of government creating jobs. I thought that the contrary position was only taken by folks, such as Sharron Angle, who are manifestly fools.

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2010-November-03, 09:58, said:

Yes, I think I disagree. I don't see a strong government as necessarily inimical to personal freedom. It can be so, of course. But in my own experience I have seldom or never come to a point of "I would really like to do X but the government won't allow it". Of course there might be the occasional person whom I would like to shoot, but really I don't think I would do so even if it were permitted. I would soon run out of partners if I acted on such desires.

i think history shows that the stronger the central gov't becomes the less freedom the people have... maybe i'm wrong here, but i believe you can come up with many examples that i'm not, if you try...

 PassedOut, on 2010-November-03, 10:33, said:

I thought that the contrary position was only taken by folks, such as Sharron Angle, who are manifestly fools.

what makes them "manifestly fools?" is it simply that they disagree with you?

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2010-November-03, 09:58, said:

I would soon run out of partners if I acted on such desires.

Uh-oh I sleep better since the IAC league has ended .....

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2010-November-03, 10:51, said:

what makes them "manifestly fools?" is it simply that they disagree with you?

No, it is that they say things like "the government does not create jobs," which are manifestly foolish.

[kenberg]

 luke warm, on 2010-November-03, 10:51, said:

i think history shows that the stronger the central gov't becomes the less freedom the people have... maybe i'm wrong here, but i believe you can come up with many examples that i'm not, if you try...

Well, in the mid-sixties my student deferment was revoked and I was reclassified 1-A. In such circumstances one might well free constrained. Ugly as that all was, I don't think I would advocate a total ban on a military draft, now and forevermore. Restraint in going to war would be nice though.

Generally, my complaints about the government are pretty pale compared to my perception of benefits. I went to the University of Minnesota in the late fifties for about $250 a year in tuition. That's for example. I really find it much easier to think of these good examples of government programs than to think of how I have been stifled.

Before we throw the metaphorical baby out with the bath water I really think people should give some thought to their own lives, how they have been helped and how they have been hurt by government programs.

Going back to the local, if one of the candidates for county commissioner had run on a platform of more sidewalks and bike paths, he would have had my vote, be he democrat or republican. He could belong to The Tea Party or the Communist Party. He could even raise my taxes to pay for it.

Business folks may well have some legit complaints about paperwork. I lack the experience to say much here. But then: Recently there was a public meeting about a planned business park. One poor sap lives across the street from the location and was really hoping the planned gas station/convenience store could be reined in a little. I think he got some restriction imposed along the lines of requiring that the sign could only be twenty feet tall and the lighting had to be turned off by 3AM. If a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged, a regulator may be a free-market enthusiast who now lives across the street from a new business park.

[mgoetze]

 luke warm, on 2010-November-03, 08:13, said:

the tea party [...] simply needs to come together and to agree on a platform that makes sense

It would amaze me if the tea party were able to come up with even one statement that makes sense, much less an entire platform.

However, I am all for the demise of the American Empire. Therefore... go tea party!

[kenberg]

I am not in favor of our demise. It is always good to hear from those who are, just so there is no misunderstanding.

[mike777]

 kenberg, on 2010-November-03, 09:58, said:

Yes, I think I disagree. I don't see a strong government as necessarily inimical to personal freedom. It can be so, of course. But in my own experience I have seldom or never come to a point of "I would really like to do X but the government won't allow it". Of course there might be the occasional person whom I would like to shoot, but really I don't think I would do so even if it were permitted. I would soon run out of partners if I acted on such desires.

Of course a strong government impinges on freedom. This was the whole issue with the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington rode out, put it down and it was really the very first act of a strong central government.


As discussed before people are willing to give up some freedom for more security. The question always is how much? In Europe and many other places the answer has been alot.
Today I was just reading how the UK requires people to pay 200$ bucks to buy own a tv. The money goes to the BBC, government run media. Back in the 60's it outlawed private companies and ind. from advertising on "pirate" radio. All of this in the name of improving, protecting and helping society.

----------------


I think the question the USA is facing is how much government are we willing to have to get cradle to grave protection or at least the perception of such safety.

It might be nice to not have to worry about global warming killing us off, free medical, or not having a roof or food on the table or free education or a guaranteed job.

As others have said here, if indiv. dont have money and bus dont spend maybe the govt needs to step in and spend and provide all of this for us.

[mike777]

 mgoetze, on 2010-November-03, 13:20, said:

It would amaze me if the tea party were able to come up with even one statement that makes sense, much less an entire platform.

However, I am all for the demise of the American Empire. Therefore... go tea party!

Dont forget it will be replaced by another empire run by someone else. Hopefully they will do a better job next time.

[helene_t]

Whiskey rebellion .... sorry but this is just like those people who motivate their views on Balkan conflicts (or middle-east conflicts) by referring to something that happened in the 13th century.

21st century politics is about 21st century society. Or at least it should be, IMHO.

[mike777]

 helene_t, on 2010-November-03, 15:51, said:

Whiskey rebellion .... sorry but this is just like those people who motivate their views on Balkan conflicts (or middle-east conflicts) by referring to something that happened in the 13th century.

21st century politics is about 21st century society. Or at least it should be, IMHO.

Principles are the same, so my point. Washington established a strong central government by his personal force and character of will and the use or threat of force.

The trade off of more security at the cost of less freedom. This need not be thought of or characterized as bad or evil or wrong.

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2010-November-03, 15:53, said:

Washington established a strong central government

And isn't Washington the founding father of the US?

[mike777]

 PassedOut, on 2010-November-03, 15:59, said:

And isn't Washington the founding father of the US?

I think so, let me google it.

[awm]

I think there is a difference between "big government" in the sense of a government that takes a lot of my money in taxes and (hopefully) provides a lot of services... and "big government" in the sense of a police state that passes and enforces a lot of laws about how individual citizens should live their lives.

It seems obvious that the latter type of "big government" would tend to reduce personal freedoms. But there isn't necessarily all that much correlation between the two types; one can imagine a country where taxes are fairly low and the government does very little EXCEPT hire military, police, and prison guards to enforce some sort of security... or a country where taxes are pretty high and the government spends a lot of money providing everyone with health care, housing, jobs, etc. but enforces only a fairly lax set of laws on morality.

In the USA, it is interesting that Republicans seem to want the latter type of "big government" (i.e. banning abortion, banning recreational drugs, banning homosexual behavior, banning certain forms of speech like flag burning, spying on and preemptively imprisoning citizens to prevent terror attacks, etc) whereas they constantly claim that "big government" Democrats (who mostly want the first type of "big government" with high taxes and a strong safety net, although there are a few cases like gun laws where Democrats have come out for the police state) are the ones infringing on individual freedoms.

Neither major party in the USA really wants "small government" in both senses of the words (would be a libertarian party I guess) -- they just seem to differ as to what the government should spend money on and how (or perhaps whether) the government should tax in order to fund those activities.

[mike777]

Yes and as I pointed out in previous posts here in this thread the question is how much of a safety net do we want and what is the cost/tradeoff in freedom? To suggest the cost is zero is just plain wrong.

[mgoetze]

 mike777, on 2010-November-03, 15:49, said:

Dont forget it will be replaced by another empire run by someone else. Hopefully they will do a better job next time.

Yes, I am already learning Chinese to prepare myself for the next masters.

[matmat]

 xtimmiex, on 2010-November-02, 05:44, said:

Americans, don't forget to go out and vote for your local congressmen, and U.S. senators!

and foreigners! don't forget to fund your favorite candidate's campaign!


(yes, I know i'm late to the party)

[Winstonm]

Once again America lost the election.

[helene_t]

 mike777, on 2010-November-03, 16:06, said:

I think so, let me google it.

[y66]

 mgoetze, on 2010-November-03, 16:20, said:

Yes, I am already learning Chinese to prepare myself for the next masters.

好主意