Off With Their Heads!!!!!....

[ygmir]

dang.
I call my self an "anarchist" but, maybe I'm a "social libertarian"

I'm more of an austerity form of gov. person.

"let me swim, or sink, by my own hand, just get out of my way"

"don't take my stuff, and re-distribute it, I'll choose whom I help, and how"

*re-thinking self applied label*

yup, there are basic things gov. does best.
As stated, roads, defense, minimal subsistence for those unable, or unwilling (because, I'd rather see communities and families, step into those rolls, creating a strong fabric for society, instead of looking for the gov. teet to nurse from)

I don't see gov. doing the best job at education, but also realize, folks are lazy enough, they'd not be totally concerned, with educating their children, and, some would not be able, anyway.
So, it is in the best interest of the nation, as a whole, to have good education.
That said, I also question the usual "throw money at the problem" way we view education.
I'd bet it could be done much better, with less money, if handled more on a local level, without all the problems associated with "tenure", multiple layers of administration, ancillary programs and requirements, that suck up money, for no real benefit or return, save for those profiting from said programs and requirements.

[TomServo]

[theCryptofishist]

And I've always said that we should bring back 3" lotuses, but no one listens to me.

the car or the flower?

The foot binding, but I may have skipped a "golden" so I can see why you'd be confused.

[Eric]

"let me swim, or sink, by my own hand, just get out of my way"

"don't take my stuff, and re-distribute it, I'll choose whom I help, and how"

That's pretty straightforward modern libertarianism- the government should be out of the way as much as possible. Taken to it's extreme (which is actually what a lot of the Tea Party has done) it means no social safety net at all (Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare etc), and limited government involvement in things like schooling.

It's basically a philosophy that would have someone like me, who was laid-off through no fault of my own & unable to find work due to a wrecked economy, eating out of garbage cans unless I could beg food off of friends, while the incredibly rich bankers who destroyed the economy and caused me to get laid off in the first-place get to continue living high on the hog. I was a registered Libertarian for a few years, I went to political get-togethers back when I was more of an activist, I know their arguments and I strongly disagree with them now.

yup, there are basic things gov. does best.
As stated, roads, defense, minimal subsistence for those unable, or unwilling (because, I'd rather see communities and families, step into those rolls, creating a strong fabric for society, instead of looking for the gov. teet to nurse from)

Those "safety net" programs were initially created because local communities & families couldn't take care of the poor, the elderly, the unemployed. Who could do it now? My family and community is almost as broke as I am- which of them has to give up the little they have to keep me off of the street while trying to keep themselves off as well? San Francisco has some of the best community-based homeless programs in the country; they are so overwhelmed by the number of people needing aid that they are begging for more assistance. Sometimes the problem is too large for a community too handle- like New Orleans after Katrina. This philosophy taken to its natural conclusion would have them left on their own.

We are either a United Country where my tax dollars can help someone I don't know on the east coast who is also struggling, or we are a random collection of people who are only out for what we can get for ourselves. I don't think the majority on this forum fall into that second category, but if you look at the actual political arguments of the two parties they do boil down to pretty much that. Help a lot of people, or help a few really rich ones. The party that created this deficit is worried about adding to it, unless it helps the rich. All the programs they oppose help the middle class or the poor.

The crux of all these arguments comes down to taxes & deficits, so lets go play with fire (appropriate metaphor, no?):

America is the only industrialized nation where the income inequality has grown since 1980, and a lot of that can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the top income earners having their taxes lowered to the point of stupidity.

Back when they were taxed more it was in their interest to keep the companies strong, the employees happy, the product solid- the money came from your sales, not from how much you didn't re-invest in the company and pulled out to pay your wealthy investors.

From 1947-1960, when America was the undisputed leader in ideas; in products; in the growing middle class; in housing; in people wanting to move here; the top median tax rate was never lower than 90%!!! It didn't go down to 70% until Nixon, and Reagan's much talked-about tax lowering only brought it down to 50%. Now it's at 35%, and they're bitching about it going up to 39.7%- while the economy is in a recession, at a cost of over $100 billion ($100,000,000,000) for just the next two years. Trust me, if they get this rate the Teapublicans will start claiming we can't afford social programs next year.

With the current system profit is the only game because there's no penalty for taking too much of the cake- so companies are bled dry, employees are treated like cogs & dumped or outsourced, the product becomes secondary to the profit. Anyone who tells you that the top 2% of wage earners deserve to make more than the bottom 50% combined while paying the lowest taxes on them since the 1920's is either one of those 2% or brainwashed by them.

Oh, you do remembered what happened in 1929 after those really low taxes don't you? If this tax rate gets renewed we are in for a long recession, at best.

Wasn't I supposed to stay out of the political threads?

6 pre-posting edits & I still misspell a word. Aargh.

[ygmir]

"let me swim, or sink, by my own hand, just get out of my way"

"don't take my stuff, and re-distribute it, I'll choose whom I help, and how"

That's pretty straightforward modern libertarianism- the government should be out of the way as much as possible. Taken to it's extreme (which is actually what a lot of the Tea Party has done) it means no social safety net at all (Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare etc), and limited government involvement in things like schooling.

It's basically a philosophy that would have someone like me, who was laid-off through no fault of my own & unable to find work due to a wrecked economy, eating out of garbage cans unless I could beg food off of friends, while the incredibly rich bankers who destroyed the economy and caused me to get laid off in the first-place get to continue living high on the hog. I was a registered Libertarian for a few years, I went to political get-togethers back when I was more of an activist, I know their arguments and I strongly disagree with them now.

I think, maybe, you are applying the extreme, and then using it as the norm.
Also, if you use my whole statement:

yup, there are basic things gov. does best.
As stated, roads, defense, minimal subsistence for those unable, or unwilling (eta:) to work (because, I'd rather see communities and families, step into those rolls, creating a strong fabric for society, instead of looking for the gov. teet to nurse from)

you'd see, I don't ask for "no" assistance, at all.
I also think, you underestimate, peoples compassion.
I'd bet, given a circumstance, and even the barest of a "circle of friend/family", a person could make it until they found another job.
I'd bet, that, folks would love to pitch in, help a friend, and so on.
It brings people together, creates friendships, shows trust.
and, if the worm turns, allows the recipient, to not only repay, but, help someone else.
Maybe my faith in humanity, in this sense, is a "Pollyanna" myth? I don't think so, though.
I think folks would look at helping their neighbor, friend, or whatever, as a chance to do some "good"
Of course, some would fall through the cracks. But, in any system, some fall through. It's the way of things, and numbers.
But, the society, community, neighborhoods it would build, to me, would be worth it.
Look to eachother for help, help eachother. We'd need and depend less on, government, if that were the case.
and, it's exactly, what a bureaucrat/politician, does not want, if, they want to justify their existence.

yup, there are basic things gov. does best.
As stated, roads, defense, minimal subsistence for those unable, or unwilling (because, I'd rather see communities and families, step into those rolls, creating a strong fabric for society, instead of looking for the gov. teet to nurse from)

Those "safety net" programs were initially created because local communities & families couldn't take care of the poor, the elderly, the unemployed. Who could do it now? My family and community is almost as broke as I am- which of them has to give up the little they have to keep me off of the street while trying to keep themselves off as well?

but, how do you know, they would not? How do you know, they'd not take great pride, in helping someone, even though it was hard on them?
Would you help a friend, in the same circumstance? Would you feel good about it?
and, would you possibly resent them for not allowing you to help, and show your love for them, as a person, by going "outside" for help?
These are just some thoughts, but, they are thoughts I have.
I would be honored to help a friend even if it hurt.
I'd be honored, if a friend would help me.
and, I'd resent being cheated out of that interpersonal exchange, and a chance to build on, or create, a friendship.




San Francisco has some of the best community-based homeless programs in the country; they are so overwhelmed by the number of people needing aid that they are begging for more assistance. Sometimes the problem is too large for a community too handle- like New Orleans after Katrina. This philosophy taken to its natural conclusion would have them left on their own.

again, though, I think you're painting with the "worst case" and, applying it as a "given".
Of course, "plan for the worst, and hope for the best" and all that, but, well.......maybe give people a chance?


We are either a United Country where my tax dollars can help someone I don't know on the east coast who is also struggling, or we are a random collection of people who are only out for what we can get for ourselves.

to me, that's a little to "black and white", I think there are a lot of circumstances, and people in between.


I don't think the majority on this forum fall into that second category, but if you look at the actual political arguments of the two parties they do boil down to pretty much that. Help a lot of people, or help a few really rich ones. The party that created this deficit is worried about adding to it, unless it helps the rich. All the programs they oppose help the middle class or the poor.

another thing, I see boiled down here, is wanting big gov. to handle all problems, or, allowing the individuals to react, specifically.
and, no, if suffering is to be had, let it be had by all, but, fairly.
Don't punish someone, for success, is all I'm sayin'



The crux of all these arguments comes down to taxes & deficits, so lets go play with fire (appropriate metaphor, no?):

America is the only industrialized nation where the income inequality has grown since 1980, and a lot of that can be placed squarely on the shoulders of the top income earners having their taxes lowered to the point of stupidity.

Back when they were taxed more it was in their interest to keep the companies strong, the employees happy, the product solid- the money came from your sales, not from how much you didn't re-invest in the company and pulled out to pay your wealthy investors.

From 1947-1960, when America was the undisputed leader in ideas; in products; in the growing middle class; in housing; in people wanting to move here; the top median tax rate was never lower than 90%!!! It didn't go down to 70% until Nixon, and Reagan's much talked-about tax lowering only brought it down to 50%. Now it's at 35%, and they're bitching about it going up to 39.7%- while the economy is in a recession, at a cost of over $100 billion ($100,000,000,000) for just the next two years. Trust me, if they get this rate the Teapublicans will start claiming we can't afford social programs next year.

With the current system profit is the only game because there's no penalty for taking too much of the cake- so companies are bled dry, employees are treated like cogs & dumped or outsourced, the product becomes secondary to the profit. Anyone who tells you that the top 2% of wage earners deserve to make more than the bottom 50% combined while paying the lowest taxes on them since the 1920's is either one of those 2% or brainwashed by them.

Oh, you do remembered what happened in 1929 after those really low taxes don't you? If this tax rate gets renewed we are in for a long recession, at best.

I can't address any of the economic stuff, as "well informed". I read what you say above, and, agree with some. But, feel there are probably more opinions, and points of view, using the same statistics. I just don't know them.


Wasn't I supposed to stay out of the political threads?

6 pre-posting edits & I still misspell a word. Aargh.

I imagine, the above makes me sound "the dreamer", as relates to humans, their willingness to help their neighbor.
Perhaps, I am, and am unrealisitic.
But, really, I don't think so.
I know many, that, when they see someone in need (not want), they try to help.
I think there are more out there, than most want to admit.
and, I think it's counter productive, to those who want "control", for us to depend on each other, instead of "them". So, they work against the idea, to the best of their ability.

**babble/rant off**

[theCryptofishist]

Ta, Eric.

[Eric]

"let me swim, or sink, by my own hand, just get out of my way"

"don't take my stuff, and re-distribute it, I'll choose whom I help, and how"

That's pretty straightforward modern libertarianism- the government should be out of the way as much as possible. Taken to it's extreme (which is actually what a lot of the Tea Party has done) it means no social safety net at all (Social Security, Medicaid, Welfare etc), and limited government involvement in things like schooling.

I think, maybe, you are applying the extreme, and then using it as the norm.

I didn't make myself clear here, I'm sorry. What I was trying to emphasize in the area I've now highlighted is that the Tea Party has taken a lot of those formerly extreme positions as their "normal"- and the Republican have done the same.

Privatization of Social Security- Libertarianism taken to extreme (my retired parents would have lost almost everything in '08 while the Wall Street traders who caused the crash stayed rich)

The war on Welfare- Libertarianism taken to extreme

Holding up benefits for the 9-11 responders unless the very wealthiest Americans get to keep their tax-cut- Libertarianism taken to extreme

Holding up unemployment benefits for over 2 million jobless people unless the very wealthiest Americans get to keep their tax-cut- Libertarianism taken to extreme

Positions that were unthinkable even a decade ago are now becoming the norm.

Also, if you use my whole statement:

yup, there are basic things gov. does best.
As stated, roads, defense, minimal subsistence for those unable, or unwilling (eta:) to work (because, I'd rather see communities and families, step into those rolls, creating a strong fabric for society, instead of looking for the gov. teet to nurse from)

you'd see, I don't ask for "no" assistance, at all.
I also think, you underestimate, peoples compassion.
I'd bet, given a circumstance, and even the barest of a "circle of friend/family", a person could make it until they found another job.
I'd bet, that, folks would love to pitch in, help a friend, and so on.

As of the end of November there were over 15,000,000 Americans out of work. 15 million people- all needing not only food & a little assistance, but rent or mortgage money, money for their bills, money for insurance if they clung on to that, money money money....

I'm not arguing with your friends-helping-friends, it's gotten me through some tough spots the last 6 months, and I know it's there if I need it while I keep up the job hunt; but my friends don't have money to pay my bills every month, or buy me food- especially when I'm one of a half-dozen in my circle in the same predicament. Now multiply that by the other 15 million..... I don't enough people with enough friends making enough money to get that many people through a recession with no end in site. I'm not saying don't help your friends, I'm saying look at the big picture.

You also need take into consideration what happens when a region of the country is devastated, like the area hit by Katrina and the oil spill or, economically, the Rust Belt. When none of your neighbors have money, who's supposed to help you? When your circle of friends is all in the same area, what happens?

For me these other Americans are my neighbors, I just don't know them. My taxes help keep them on their feet, help keep a roof over their head; and when they have a job again their taxes will do the same for someone else.

The way we know relying on neighbors alone doesn't work is because that was the only option until Social Security & Welfare came into existence; read any book covering the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl, inner-city life (up to and including today- throwing money at a problem while looking away doesn't fix it) and you'll see why it doesn't work. The country was smaller by about 175 million people and we still couldn't take care of the ones in need. The 30's comparison is doubly applicable since this is the worst recession since then, but having the government safety net has kept people like me from roaming the streets begging & living in "Bushvilles", the 2010 version of a Hooverville.

This is much more Pollyanna & simplistic than my full thoughts, and I'm more than happy to discuss this with you. My posts will start getting really long however, and I might have to include foot-notes & references so people can research more. I read like a zombie eats brains- constantly and fanatically.

[Rabbi Dali Rick]

Well we have Schwarzenegger, Senators, School District Supervisors, Mayors, oh, and State Representatives...

Since you Representin'...

Now that's who I think should get the treatment, good or bad, for their job in office.

Hey, lets import the sport of Public Caning.

the rebbi

[ygmir]

Eric:
I so appreciate the dialog. I find, I often learn much, from your wisdom, and reparte'.......

I don't think we're that far apart, really, about this.
But, as you say, it's gonna get long and windy.
and, not being very "educated" I find it takes me forever to digest some of this.
I know this:
if a friend is in need, I will help.
And, I feel, there are many, many more like me.

I see, and understand, what you say about huge, widespread disaster, like natural events and such.
And, agree, there are times, a large gov. presence is the only way to handle it.
But, I think, more often than not, it can be handled better, with the advantages stated, on a more personal level.

[Eric]

Yggy- we're alike in a lot of this, I just disagree on the scale.

Community is great for "small" scale (or tightly localized), short-term problems: a house fire, a small tornado or blizzard, even a smaller earthquake. Once you ramp up the scale it becomes to large for any individual community to handle- that's where we need the government & it's programs. Sadly, it all boils down to the money, which I covered in my last post.

There is just no way even the most well meaning community can handle the size of the current economic crisis. It's just too big.

John & I are clearing out our closets & donating what we can to the local homeless shelters & to struggling friends; being this close to the bottom really makes us aware of how much more even we have than others in our community. We're posting signs in our building to gather donations from our neighbors as well- I am most definitely not opposed to local assistance. I just don't think its enough.

[ygmir]

yer a good man, Eric.