Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

You know speech, chances are if we all got together and had a beer, we would all enjoy each others company

---

It's funny, but I've said that to ex many times over the years.

Quote:

---

However, when you make statements like that, it is stereotypical of what the rest of the world sees America for

You probably are not heartless, but when you concern yourself with self interest without any care for your neighbour let alone a foreigner, are you then surprised that the US had become targets to extreme Islam

---

That's just it, the stereotype is wrong. It's not that we don't want to help others, we just don't believe more government, more taxation and fewer rights is the answer. It's been pointed out here many times that the US is by far the most generous nation on earth, both privately and publicly, and the hypocrisy is thick on the left for chastising us for not helping our neighbor when the records show liberals are the most miserly among us. They're all about taking my money to give to someone else - with little regard for helping them stand on their own two feet - and I'm all about helping others out of my own free will and generosity while helping them help themselves. The other difference between us is we see what we do for others as between us and them, they like to spread their tailfeathers and boast of their own 'generosity.'

And then there's thing called our constitution which is entirely about limiting government, empowering the people and specifically enumerating government powers. Ex's way disregards the very foundation of this country, and when the feds take my stuff away I won't have anything left with which to help someone else. Charity by compulsion and coercion is not charity and keeping someone bound to the nanny state's apron strings is not freedom.

So then speech, what it comes down to is the fact that the state has not provided a suitable service for the taxes it has taken

The charitable donations which elliot just loves to state to me are certainly generous but they haven't led to the alleviation of social issues

If everybody agrees that social issues are problem and need to be addressed, then how would you go about it

Please consider that regulations have arisen due to the donations not working either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

If everybody agrees that social issues are problem and need to be addressed, then how would you go about it

---

I have already responded to this question in another thread. What I wrote was...

Quote:

---

Well, one way would be to revamp the education system in this country and eliminate the monopoly that the UFT, AFT and NEA have over education... open up more charter schools and allow school vouchers so that everyone can get the education they want/need, instead of forcing them into a failed school system that isn't educating them.

Second, you stop wiping their noses and @sses for them. You stop giving them EVERYTHING. You place time and dollar limits on welfare programs. You eventually cut them off and tell them to get a job and stop leeching off society. If a person is physically capable of a job (ie: he's not crippled beyond the ability to work, he's of the age of majority, and he has no mental illness or developmental illness) then he should be forced to get a job.

In short, the way you teach people to do for themselves is to slowly start forcing them to do for themselves.

It's no different from teaching your own children to become independent... slowly, over time, you grant them their independence and stop supporting them for everything in their lives.

---

You address social issues by getting people to be able to fend for themselves, not by giving them a greater incentive to become reliant on the government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

The alternative is what I have been talking about for the past several weeks with you... limiting the power of government, and making sure that the only things they do are the things enumerated as their responsibilities in the Constitution.

---

I am sure you can appreciate but the finer details of your constitution are unknown to me, I am hoever discussing the fundamentals of what a democracy is

You state, AND MAKING SURE - Who makes sure, what authority do you have to speak on someone's behalf, who checks your checks?

Quote:

---

That's an assumption. Because government has always made the rules, we assume that that is the way it is supposed to be. I question that assumption. I CERTAINLY question whether the FEDERAL government has that power, as opposed to the state and local governments, given the 10th Amendment.

---

Again, finer details here. Before Givernment was Monachy, Despotism, Diarchy etc etc

There as always been, and always will be someone on the top, this is how any human social group works, a structure of belonging. If there was nobody there to take instructions or to instruct we would have chaos. As regards making the rules, who else would make the rules? It is a ponder that you still think industry can be mature and repsonsible in its actions

Just as you state your consititution has checks and balances on the people in office, companies need to be weighed and measured to make sure they are not found wanting

Quote:

---

Only because we have been trained to do so. There was a time that people took responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on government to fix their problems. My suggestion is that we go back to that way of handling our personal affairs.

---

I have no problem with this, especially as I can handle myself and the weak will certainly bow down to me! Come on, are you seriously suggesting that strong rule the weak, because that is what it sound slike there

Quote:

---

What makes democracy work is not having the government limit your rights and then force you to try to change it after the fact. Democracy works best when the elected representatives protect our freedoms BEFORE they are taken away from us. I reject this "reactive" concept of Democracy. True Democracy is PROACTIVE in protecting our freedoms and our rights. That is the very reason that the Founders sought to limit government power.

---

If your government was proactive, then it would be fair to say they would act to protect a persons right from being posioned due to poor quality control at a chemical plant

This would involve them making laws to make sure a company that failed to protect the freedom of the people and the company would be accountable for its actions

HANG ON, isn't that what happens already, a proactive government safe guarding the wealthfare of its voters against would be attackers both foreign and domestic

I still not see how you can have a fair system for all people while at the same time allowing companies to self rule, which they have demonstrated time and again to be ruthless, not all but the minority often spoil it for the many

Page from history for you

Back in the 1700s in England, it was common for the people to drink gin instead of water

This was due to clean safe drinking water was not always available and often expensive

However Gin was cheap and in terms of bacteria safe to drink

All of which led to social problems, a great way to explain this is the picture Beer Street and Gin Lane http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d-Gin-lane.jpg

The situtaion was getting worst and social order was breaking down

So the government introduced a tax on Gin which led to regulations for the improvement of drinking water

I am not saying that what the government did was as simple as that, but for me I am happy to drink tap water instead of gin!

Is this really what you wish to go back to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

You address social issues by getting people to be able to fend for themselves, not by giving them a greater incentive to become reliant on the government.

---

And as I have said the repsonsibility of the fortunate is to safe guard the misfortunate - I am all for teaching someone how to fish, but you need something in place to ensure that occurs, and your system of government it does not, it allows the strong to use the weak to their own ends - or has history just passed you by completely?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

And as I have said the repsonsibility of the fortunate is to safe guard the misfortunate - I am all for teaching someone how to fish, but you need something in place to ensure that occurs, and your system of government it does not, it allows the strong to use the weak to their own ends - or has history just passed you by completely?

---

Steve, when people over here discuss the "poor" and downtrodden they are referring to people who in large part have 1 or 2 cars, several TV's, cable, internet, cell phones and their kids wear $100 Nikes. A good portion of them own their own homes as well, so until we narrow the discussion to those who really are misfortunate we'll never get anywhere. For those we're all agreeable to providing a government safety net.

That's not good enough for the left in this country, they want everyone (except them) dependent on government from cradle to grave. It's a cultural problem, it's a mindset that's been carefully cultivated by the left for decades mainly through the education system and promoted in the media. Liberals dominate - and I do mean dominate - both institutions by huge majorities. That's why I would begin the same place Elliot would, in education. Not only eliminating the liberal stranglehold but getting the federal government out of education altogether. Teach our children once again to be hardworking, independent, responsible citizens and as Elliot said, stop wiping their noses and @sses for them.

For those who really need the help, let's help them, but stop telling everyone they're entitled to whatever the heck they decide they're entitled to and stop taking mine and Elliot's money away from us to to give to people who darn well don't deserve a handout to reinforce that mindset.

Quote:

---

The charitable donations which elliot just loves to state to me are certainly generous but they haven't led to the alleviation of social issues

---

It is my view that most charity is misdirected . I think "greedy capitalists" like Paul Polak ,founder of International Development Enterprise (IDE) do more to help the poor worldwide with his business model than all charities public and private combined.
What does he do differently ? He treats the poor as consumers and enterpreneurs .He believes that's the best way for the poor to achieve self sufficency. He sells affordable tools to the poor that they can use to work their own business . These tools include manual-treadle pumps to move water for irrigation during dry seasons , solar-powered water purifiers using ceramic water filters etc. Nurturing these markets will better serve the people than direct donations, financing large infrastructure projects, or relying on government initiatives.

He writes in his book Out of Poverty “The single most important thing they need to get out of poverty is to find a way to earn more money”...“This is so obvious that people tell me that it is a perfect example of circular logic. But the sad fact is that it isn't at all obvious to the great majority of the world's poverty experts.” Out of Poverty

Salvo speech

No problem on defining the definition of poor, I am talking about the people who do everything they can to sustain basic existence, that is food on the table, roof over their heads, and shoes on their feet, but still need help

Choosing between a 40" and a 50" plasma is not the poor I had in mind

I am in agreement with you on the education

When I employed a couple of teenagers in one of my valeting yards years ago, they were 16, just finished part of their schooling, and almost the first line out of their mouths stated they had rights

My reply to them was this, if you want money you will do as I ask, if you don't want to listen to me, then you can leave

The look on their faces was a peach, they weren't expecting a straight forward ultimatium - you want to eat, you work!

What I object to in elliots statement(s) is the out and out dismissal that government intervention is a bad thing

It is like everything else we have, a man made system which has flaws, your own consititution states that if the need should arise, changes can be made to suit the times in question

So my question to you is this, if the eductaion is so lacking, and the lobby has a full majority of backers for the eductaion system, why then are you and elliot in the minority?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Salvo speech

No problem on defining the definition of poor, I am talking about the people who do everything they can to sustain basic existence, that is food on the table, roof over their heads, and shoes on their feet, but still need help

Choosing between a 40" and a 50" plasma is not the poor I had in mind

---

Then we are in agreement so far. Time for that beer, but cold please... no warm beer for me ;)

Quote:

---

The look on their faces was a peach, they weren't expecting a straight forward ultimatium - you want to eat, you work!

---

Would love to have seen it for myself.

Quote:

---

So my question to you is this, if the eductaion is so lacking, and the lobby has a full majority of backers for the eductaion system, why then are you and elliot in the minority?

---

I don't know that we're in the minority and if we are, the tide seems to be turning. But for the main reason the Dept of Education still exists I turn to Reagan...

“No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the closest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.”

Well if you are not in the minority, and the majority speak, how come you have a problem with the eductaion system?

Death and Taxes mate, death and taxes, and the people who run them - so I see yours and reagans point of view

Just because something seems difficult to do, doesn't mean it is impossible

If the majority speak then surely the office will listen?

Or do you see democracy as I do - a way of giving the people a say without the need to listen to them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

Or do you see democracy as I do - a way of giving the people a say without the need to listen to them!

---

That my friend is precisely how our government currently operates.

Hahahaha, that is how every democracy acts

Personally I would like to see a simple performance related pay brought into politics

I don't know about you or anybody else here, but if my company doesn't sell brakes, cars, and oil changes, I don't eat

For politicians, if they don't perform on their promises, they still eat

I think a government full of people who have to provide proof they are doing what they set out to, should then get paid, and not before, do you think the system would suddenly speed up and become leaner

Good concept, I'm just not sure how we would end up defining 'performance' for Congress. For me they perform best when in recess. :D

Hahahaha, I do love the fact that politian jokes are universal, so it is the game that we don't like not the players:D

I posted this somewhere before, but here is what needs to be done:

For every program passed by congress, the percentage of cost overrun should be determined. Then the pay of every senator and congressman who voted for it should be reduced by a corresponding percentage.

They would be working for free in short order!

Salvo Galveston

Now that brings their pay into line with bsuiness without the need to go for cheapest, purely deliver on time - I like that!!

The only problem is Congress will also be in charge of the math, a little "calculator abuse" if you will.

Afternoon Speech

I would say that in that case it is best to have an adisory committee to oversea it, however, following the events of the last week here I the UK and advisory panel on drugs advised against the political thought of the government and as such they fires the top advisor, others have resigned in protest, so yep great system, but yet again we see where political control will influence the outcome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phlanx

I am sure you can appreciate but the finer details of your constitution are unknown to me, I am hoever discussing the fundamentals of what a democracy is

You state, AND MAKING SURE - Who makes sure, what authority do you have to speak on someone's behalf, who checks your checks?

---

This requires the appointment of judges who are strict Constitutional Originalists. Which in turn requires the election of strict Conservatives to Congress. It is the judges, especially the Supreme Court Judges who are supposed to be the "check and balance" that prevents the creation of laws that are unConstitutional or that grab powers not actually granted in the Constitution.

Quote:

---

I have no problem with this, especially as I can handle myself and the weak will certainly bow down to me! Come on, are you seriously suggesting that strong rule the weak, because that is what it sound slike there

---

Where did you get that idea? What I was speaking of was taking personal responsibility for their lives instead of waiting and expecting government to do it for them. Where did you get the idea that that translates to the weak ruling the strong?

Quote:

---

If your government was proactive, then it would be fair to say they would act to protect a persons right from being posioned due to poor quality control at a chemical plant

This would involve them making laws to make sure a company that failed to protect the freedom of the people and the company would be accountable for its actions

HANG ON, isn't that what happens already, a proactive government safe guarding the wealthfare of its voters against would be attackers both foreign and domestic

I still not see how you can have a fair system for all people while at the same time allowing companies to self rule, which they have demonstrated time and again to be ruthless, not all but the minority often spoil it for the many

Page from history for you

Back in the 1700s in England, it was common for the people to drink gin instead of water

This was due to clean safe drinking water was not always available and often expensive

However Gin was cheap and in terms of bacteria safe to drink

All of which led to social problems, a great way to explain this is the picture Beer Street and Gin Lane http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d-Gin-lane.jpg

The situtaion was getting worst and social order was breaking down

So the government introduced a tax on Gin which led to regulations for the improvement of drinking water

I am not saying that what the government did was as simple as that, but for me I am happy to drink tap water instead of gin!

Is this really what you wish to go back to?

---

First of all, can you find for me in the Constitution a requirement of government to regulate businesses for ANY reason? The government's responsibility is to maintain a free market environment, not limit that market in the name of "protecting society". A healthy society protects itself. It doesn't need government to do so.

As for the water argument you put forward, the maintenance of a healthy water supply falls under the government's OTHER responsibility for maintaining the infrastructure of the country. On the other hand, taxing or otherwise regulating gin-manufacturers or purchasers of gin for the purpose of doing so would be outside their authorities under the Constitution.

So the maintenance of a water supply would be a requirement of the Constitution. I've got no problem with that.

Elliot

In my opinion, voting day should be moved from November to April 16th, the day after tax day. That way people would vote based on the amount the government has taken from them in taxes.

This would create an incentive for our elected officials to limit the amount they take from us to the barest minimum in order to get re-elected.

At the very least, it would give us a greater sense of satisfaction when we pull the lever for the OTHER GUY when we vote.

Elliot