Halliburton and Bechtel Are Nothing

[av8torntn]

OK AV, I'm sorry but refresh me on your suggested cuts. I don't remember seeing them and maybe I'm a bit slow today but I can't find them in any of your post in this thread. Again, I'm in my 50's and do suffer from "sometimers" diseas

Try post number 25. You came back and said something like wah, wah, riots in the streets, wah, wah, republicans, wah wah.

 

[wkmac]

Try post number 25. You came back and said something like wah, wah, riots in the streets, wah, wah, republicans, wah wah.

OK, now I see what you are talking about but first, the wah-wah. Obvious the wah-wah has you p1ssed off and that's perfect. That's the exact effect I was looking for.


Now to your cuts.

I would rather start with medicare, social security, federal government involvement in education, bridges to nowhere, roads to nowhere, farm subsidies, SCHIP, and well that should be enough to finish the war and end the national debt.

Now the cuts for the democrats.

100 million for security at the political party convention.
600 million for drought relief for farmers.
1 billion in total drought relief
1.95 million for the Charles Rangle monument
1 million for a river walk in MA
200,000 for fruit fly research in France
20 million increase for NEA
3.7 million for AFL-CIO

The reason in a sense I read over your cuts in post #25 and looked closer to the cuts just above had nothing to do with favoring one party over the other. The ones above for the democrat were very targeted and specific cuts and I wholeheartedly support all of them. Very nice job. The cuts in post 25 were maybe in your mind specific but they were more general in nature and have for the better part of the previous years in conservative circle been the chief source of big gov't that is pointed at. Since you were so specific with the democrats I thought you would've done the same with the republicans. Repubs I find have a habit of being general and vague in what they want to do so as in the future they think it's harder to pin them down when they do just the opposite of what they said they would do. I can't say this enough, turn off republican radio and start reading the record for a change. Even Rush Limbaugh is waking up and smelling the flowers for what they are and Neal Boortz is now talking about looking at the libertarian candidate in the general election.

Read this Neal: http://www.lewrockwell.com/cox/cox14.html

And for you conservatives consider this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/watts1.html

I mean the bridge to nowhere (benefit of Repub. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska) is an obvious known but you can't peg the dems. on that one other than the fact many went along to get their own "Bridge to nowhere" in their own district. Backwashing is what it is! As for education, Bush and Ted Kennedy did the same thing with one another in the "No Child left Behind" bill a few years back which at the end of the day grew federal powers within education contary to conservative cries to end the Dept. of Education. Can't blame the demmies of that one now can you?

Social Security? Medicare? Which one of the current crop of repub. beauty queens advocate that idea of ending those programs? Only one with not only a plan to end but also a plan to pay for current obligations into the future since the gov't made that promise and you won't for one second consider that individual. So on that point, your likely candidate for whom you will vote as a republican in Nov. will not in any measure consider that point you just made. If you believe that principle, then why vote for them?

Farm subsidies? Oh man, that's nothing but corp. welfare now. My dad is a retired exec. with some major multi-national agri-businesses and some of the stuff he's told me. Food and Drug adminstration? What a joke IMO and case in point the many recent food problems we've had. Oh, I know, Reagan and the repubs' cut them but the dirty truth is, the whole process is lock, stocked owned by the very corporations they oversee. The FDA's real purpose is to limit free market competition.

Ever go to some of the real estate websites especially for land out west and look at land that has government crop support payments? You'd be shocked as I was. A UPS manager a couple of years back was born and raised in Montana but left when a teenager with hsi family. He wanted to move back in retirement and was looking at buying land out there. He was going to several real estate websites with western land for sale and a lot of them included federal crop support payments to not grow certain crops. These payments in many cases were for a fixed set of years but looked fairly easy to renew and I'd guess if you greased the local politicos, it was done. In a major portions of the sales I saw that had price supports, the fed. check annually was about enough to make the mortgage payment of the land itself and who is buying up a lot of this land? Bingo! Uncle Sam pays the rent and Cousin Corporation plants a crop of whatever and makes a killing. Then you and I pay on payday when I check gets hammered for taxes and then we pay again at the grocery store because the market is controlled for the corporations by our good friends the Gooberment! Now it's time to slam D and EZ! I know it's not what they have in mind but there you have the blowback of the democrat solution to all things (it's republican too but I've been rough on ya so I'll give you something to feel good about) and that is let the Fox guard the henhouse because the watchdog took a powder because he's on the International Brotherhood of Foxes Union payroll and while they sit back eating steak and potatoes, we're having our feathers pulled one by one and then striped to the bone. Oh and trust me, the dems. are in on this as well. Odd is it not that in this election unlike pass elections, the larger share of Corp. money is going to the democrats and not to the republicans. Now whose skids are getting greased now! Bush 1 gave us the buzz word "New World Order" but it was the democrats and Clinton who instituted the economics of globalism.

So you think all the money from those mentioned cuts could as you said:

[well that should be enough to finish the war and end the national debt. /QUOTE]

OK, let me be clear of one thing. What you call war, I call an occupation. Saddam and the ruling Baathist party were taken out several years ago and then a US adminstrator was put in charge. Remember Paul Bremer? If Iraq today is a war, then 1946, 1947, 1948, etc. Japan and Germany are still war zones to this day! This is now an occupied land on behalf of the US. gov't and that is what it is. The war ended when Bush made his big aircraft carrier speech.

That said, Iraq has so far in direct cost has come to right at $500 bil so far and most future estimates of total cost see it somewhere in the upper $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion dollar range. Let's go low and say $1.5 trillion for the sake of argument. National debt is right now at $9.2 trillion. so add them and we're $10.7 trillion total. According to the Heritage Foundation (I went to a conservative source on purpose) the US annual toal budget comes to $20k per household. Now I could pour throw census date to get a more exact number but I want to error on purpose the side that gives you the most help to make your case. That said we have about 300 mil people at last count but let's go with 350 million to the high side. Divide that in half at 175 million and that's our number of households. now multiply 175 mil x $20k and what do we have?

Even fudging to give you every advantage to make the satement above true, it still only comes to $3.5 trillion and that's the complete total cost for all of gov't including the defense budget and everything else. Now if all you did was cut as you said:

medicare, social security, federal government involvement in education, bridges to nowhere, roads to nowhere, farm subsidies, SCHIP

$10 plus trillion federal debt including cost of war and killing all of gov't saves only $3.5 trillion, I think just cutting the above programs only to as you say:

finish the war and end national debt

I think me and you and ole' D and EZ are gonna have to pick up some weekend work to make your math work. I mean I admire the thinking, I'm all for ending national debt and being national defense (not occupation) is a true Constitutional mandated action for gov't, I'm all over those ideals.

AV,
I can rip democrats with the best of them and I can pull out hard data from the Congressional record and Federal Register that might have D and EZ paying money to Osama bin Laden to bomb my crazy arse up! But in doing so and to honest to myself, I'd have to do the same with the republicans because contary to popular myth, they are just as bad. Think of this a bit regarding wasteful and unneeded gov't. Since 2000' the number of registered lobbyist in Washington has doubled and that info from a conservative source @ Townhall.com. Now this year to a lot of surprise a nmber of republicans in the Congress are leaving. Some politicos are spinning the story it's because they see the democratic tital wave that will hit in November. Yeah maybe but what about this. In Jan. 2009' a new law takes effect that when a member of Congress leaves, they must wait 2 years before they can lobby in Washington on anyone's behalf! Ignore the democratic spin because it's been proven unless you have a super majority you have to wheel and deal to get what you want. The latter reason is the real one!

To all of you. You wanna know what gives wack jobs like me legs to stand on? What gives tons of support to hardcore anarchists and anti-state people like myself as it relates to letting gov't do this and that on everything? You'd think Homeland Security would be an issue of stern oversight and that ever penny would count. Of all the waste, this one area after 9/11 would be beyond any thought of wrong doing or waste. Well think again. If the terrorist attack in Texas of all places, they won't be cutdown by the best soldier of the best weapons. They'll be mowed down, literally!

http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=1950

Now, wah-wah that!

 

[diesel96]

I hope you understand that those same democrats that you wish to regulate big business are just as willing to regulate you and your gun rights. Gun rights are a big issue for me as well, and that is probably the main reason why my conscience does not allow me to vote for most democrats.

Myth Buster; "Republicans have painted Democrats as people who will take your guns away."

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-democratic-party-of-oregon-needs.html
I'll give you credit though, you consistently paint Democrats with a wide brush.

You're having trouble distinguishing democrats from republicans? That's really not surprising, because in my opinion, there is very little difference these days other than talk.
I'll give you the differences. A traditional republican is generally an economic and government conservative. They believe in very minimal interference of government into the private lives of citizens. A common term they parade around is "big government", they don't want "big governments", they basically want business and the marketplace to regulate itself, without interference with laws and regulations from government. In terms of social issues, a republican believes that governments should not regulate social behavior, but allow the society to evolve. They believe people are decent, not greedy, and honest (HA) in many respects. Many modern republicans (Neo's and far rt wingers) have bastardized this philosophy, in that they are not into limited government in many social issues. In issues such as abortion, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, incorperating religion with Gov't,bldg fences, starting unneccessary wars and meddling into foreign affairs of other nations, they favor as much government involvement as possible.
Democrats basically favor government involvement and regulation, particularly in social issues. They favor equal rights laws, favorable labor laws, publicly funded education, healthcare.. etc. generally endorsing causes for the common good.

Now I know Mr Anarchist (what kind of anarchist are you anyway?) Wkmac rips both parties a new one, and supplies us with his Mt Everest mountain of Ginghriod crap(JK), and injects The Ron Paul theory upon us, which by definition certainly isn't based on Anarchism (although I admittingly like his forgien policy stance). However he does recognize basic social neccessities just differs on how to pay for it thru excess and wasteful Gov't spending. Gov't is harmful but yet neccessary, but do you really support the elimination of Gov't and authority. If so I have one quote for you from Southpark's Cartman "Respect My Authori-ty"

 

[brett636]

Myth Buster; "Republicans have painted Democrats as people who will take your guns away."

http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-democratic-party-of-oregon-needs.html
I'll give you credit though, you consistently paint Democrats with a wide brush.

You're having trouble distinguishing democrats from republicans? That's really not surprising, because in my opinion, there is very little difference these days other than talk.
I'll give you the differences. A traditional republican is generally an economic and government conservative. They believe in very minimal interference of government into the private lives of citizens. A common term they parade around is "big government", they don't want "big governments", they basically want business and the marketplace to regulate itself, without interference with laws and regulations from government. In terms of social issues, a republican believes that governments should not regulate social behavior, but allow the society to evolve. They believe people are decent, not greedy, and honest (HA) in many respects. Many modern republicans (Neo's and far rt wingers) have bastardized this philosophy, in that they are not into limited government in many social issues. In issues such as abortion, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, incorperating religion with Gov't,bldg fences, starting unneccessary wars and meddling into foreign affairs of other nations, they favor as much government involvement as possible.
Democrats basically favor government involvement and regulation, particularly in social issues. They favor equal rights laws, favorable labor laws, publicly funded education, healthcare.. etc. generally endorsing causes for the common good.

Now I know Mr Anarchist (what kind of anarchist are you anyway?) Wkmac rips both parties a new one, and supplies us with his Mt Everest mountain of Ginghriod crap(JK), and injects The Ron Paul theory upon us, which by definition certainly isn't based on Anarchism (although I admittingly like his forgien policy stance). However he does recognize basic social neccessities just differs on how to pay for it thru excess and wasteful Gov't spending. Gov't is harmful but yet neccessary, but do you really support the elimination of Gov't and authority. If so I have one quote for you from Southpark's Cartman "Respect My Authori-ty"

Congrats, you were able to find three pro gun democrats, but why did the article not mention the likes of Sen. McCarthy, Chuck Shumer, Diane Fienstien, Barney Frank, and Nancy Pelosi? All of them are far left democrats and all of them are fiercely anti- gun.

Don't forget where Barak Obama stands on gun control. Linky

• Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
• Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
• Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
• Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Hitlary isn't quite as bad, but she does support gun registration which I do not. Link


The bottom line is the democrats running for President are not pro-gun, but are threats to the very gun rights we have in this nation. I urge anyone who values their gun rights to not vote for either of these two clowns for office in Nov. They are a direct threat to our constitutional rights.

 

[av8torntn]

OK, now I see what you are talking about but first, the wah-wah. Obvious the wah-wah has you p1ssed off and that's perfect.

So you think all the money from those mentioned cuts could as you said:

[well that should be enough to finish the war and end the national debt. /QUOTE]

OK, let me be clear of one thing. What you call war, I call an occupation.

That said, Iraq has so far in direct cost has come to right at $500 bil so far and most future estimates of total cost see it somewhere in the upper $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion dollar range. Let's go low and say $1.5 trillion for the sake of argument. National debt is right now at $9.2 trillion. so add them and we're $10.7 trillion total. According to the Heritage Foundation (I went to a conservative source on purpose) the US annual toal budget comes to $20k per household. Now I could pour throw census date to get a more exact number but I want to error on purpose the side that gives you the most help to make your case. That said we have about 300 mil people at last count but let's go with 350 million to the high side. Divide that in half at 175 million and that's our number of households. now multiply 175 mil x $20k and what do we have?

Even fudging to give you every advantage to make the satement above true, it still only comes to $3.5 trillion and that's the complete total cost for all of gov't including the defense budget and everything else. Now if all you did was cut as you said:



$10 plus trillion federal debt including cost of war and killing all of gov't saves only $3.5 trillion, I think just cutting the above programs only to as you say:



Now, wah-wah that!

First things first you do not have the ability to make me angry. I see you think very highly of yourself. Good for you.

Next what country do we occupy? Surely you are not talking about Iraq. You are right we are not at war with the Iraqi government. I never said we still were but then again you do seem to enjoy doing that don't you?

I would like to end medicare, social security, and the department of education(not just no child left behind). I would like to end farm subsidies. I do find it odd that you want to project the deficit and the cost of the war, but not the savings that the elimination off all these programs would incur. While I am not in favor of a line item veto I would like to see all the add on spending items stand on their own merits to an up or down vote. I would like to see a President that was not afraid to veto spending that was not intended for our federal government. While it is true that the cuts I advocate are broad and general it would lead to a more limited federal government which is what I really want. It is also true that I do not believe that having a national debt will lead to all the doom and gloom that you forcast. I also do not think there would be riots in the streets as you said but hey if they were maybe they could use that energy for something a little more productive.


Next the direct cost of the Iraq war has more than likely not cost what you say. I am sure you are probably smart enough to figure that out, but it does sound good to add up the cost of the spending bills titled for the Iraq war.

Since the annual total budget comes to 20k I would like to also pay only my share. Why do I have to pay my share and almost half of someone elses share? Why do we have to divide the number of people in this country in half to determine everyones share? If you choose to have children and or get married why should you get a tax break at my expense?

 

[wkmac]

I see you think very highly of yourself. Good for you.

If you were as perfect as me you'd think highly of yourself as well!

Next what country do we occupy? .......

Yes I'm talking about Iraq. Our war objective was defeat and removal of Saddam and that was completed long ago. We occupy Iraq now for the sole purpose of achieving a western style democracy with several objectives.
1) A footplot in the mideast of which we can garrison troops and then remove ourselves from Saudi soil of which was/is the major sticking point with many sunni jihadist including our friend Osama.
2) Also the Saudi royals feared Saddam so there's some extra there.
3) A western style democracy inside this climate is believed to be a destablizing effect on radicalism across the board.
4) Better positioned to protect Israel and prevent a conflict that could in worse case scenario go nuclear as Israel and Pakistan have the bomb.
5) By manipulating the Shia in the southern areas who control most of the oil land, they also hope to make inroads into Shia thought inside Iran and thus bring that sphere back uder US domain as they had it via the CIA installed Shah and then use this leverage against the Sunni controlled areas in the war for oil.
6) We still are in a type of cold war with Russia as they are still locked in old world type empire and now China who has modernized and take the concepts of Sun Tzu's Art of War into the economic area and is on that battle field with us. Our economy is built on oil and the belief in Washington is that to loose it would mean disaster and there is truth in that.
7) And yes there is more.

Iraq is an occupation in the interest of public policy and not in the interest of humanitarian goodwill or pre-emptive securing of offensive weapons and potential. Also fits the bill in the traditional historical context so there you go!

I would like to end medicare, social security, and the department of education(not just no child left behind). ................... I also do not think there would be riots in the streets as you said but hey if they were maybe they could use that energy for something a little more productive.

So there is good debt and bad debt? Well there is some truth in that and yes having some debt as you say doesn't always mean gloom and doom but let me ask you this. Let's say you have some set amount of debt and things are good but you spend outside your ability to repay within any meaningful timeframe. In other words, the principle and interest are compounding at a fast rate than your monthly payments can keep up with and to make matters worse, you still are borrowing at an ever increasing ratio add more to the debt itself. Is there some point in this picture that you feel we should become concerned or is all this OK? My point in going through the "WAH-WAH" was to suggest that just the programs alone that you suggested we cut is not enough to bring about the Nirvana of "paying for Iraq and (as you said) ending the national debt!!" Even if you took the entire budget, you's only cover a 3rd of the present national debt and the low end projected total cost of the Iraq war. I took a look at the projections because you said it would be enough to pay for the Iraq war and I assumed you meant the whole banana.

As for the cost of the war:

"To date, the President has requested a total of $607 billion for the Iraq war alone since 2003'. This is over 10 times higher than the $50 to $60 billion cost estimated by the adminstration prior to the start of the war."

source: https://web.archive.org/web/2007112...s/Reports/11.13.07IraqEconomicCostsReport.pdf
see page 4, first paragraph. This was a "JOINT" Senate Economic committee report and was released in Nov. 2007'.

If you want current actual costs them there you go so add that to the "known" national debt and the math still doesn't work. Also when the gov't borrows money, it's first obvious choice is our own money markets. Well in doing that, it takes money that otherwise is used in the private sector to keep that economy going out and there is less loan money for private investment. Using supplyside economics, more gov't demand means less private supply so when you still have the same level of private demand but a reduced supply, the cost of that object goes up or in this case interest rates. Now our fed. along with both parties are reacting to the crunch if you will and have artifically lowered interst rates and you have the potential adding to the total money supply and thus the spector of inflation. Inflation in many a sense is itself a tax as we pay it because of the gov't overborrowing in the private sector forcing the money supply to be raised. It further compounded when via taxes we still have to repay the debt.

Next the direct cost of the Iraq war has more than likely not cost what you say. I am sure you are probably smart enough to figure that out, but it does sound good to add up the cost of the spending bills titled for the Iraq war.

You're right, I am smarter than that so let me point our you exact quote from post 25 that led to this.

well that should be enough to finish the war and end the national debt.

Now if you meant to finish the war today, then yes my $1.5 trillion estimate is way out of line. Using the linked Senate report, we could say the cost was $607 bil. However, you said to the end so therefore I not being smart enough (OK my perfection only goes so far) I had to seek out projections of what it might cost in total. In 2006' based on gov't info, a MSNBC piece suggested costs would exceed $1 trillion, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11880954/ a Christian Science Monitor also in 2006' placed it near $2 trillion and a NY Times piece in Jan. 2007' places it at $1.2 trillion http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonhardt.html?_r=1&ei=5090&oref=slogin I saw other projections at $1.8 trillion and some over $2 trillion but all of these are total cost based on future projections. Now sure, it could all end in a couple of months but everyone seems to agree we won't leave at best until 2009' and I'll contend no matter who gets elected we won't leave then. So, the cost goes on. I took the $1.5 trillion as a estimated middle ground and "ASSUMING" your "end of war" scenario wasn't nevt week or next month, I took it from there and came up with what I posted. Again, even on the low end of $500 bil for current costs and the national debt, the math still doesn't work when you cut the entire federal budget so just cutting some programs doesn't work either. Besides to take the entire federal budget for debt and Iraq, you'd have to remove and eliminate all military personal, equipment and property from around the rest of the world and even wacky Ron Paul hasn't asserted that extreme.

Since the annual total budget comes to 20k I would like to also pay only my share. Why do I have to pay my share and almost half of someone elses share? Why do we have to divide the number of people in this country in half to determine everyones share? If you choose to have children and or get married why should you get a tax break at my expense?

Oh I absolutely and completely agree with all of that. I even think there should be no marriage adantage or child advantage when it comes to taxes and I'm married and have 4 kids. But here's you problem. Your war "if you will" (a figure of speech so don't go nuclear) is putting the gov't in a position to borrow large amounts of money to prosecute this operation because under the present system, there is not enough income. In order to insure that there are enough sources of tax revenue in the future, the gov't by current public policy (including tax policy) needs to insure solid future streams of revenue to maintenance the debt created today. to avoid the gloom and doom if you will. How do you insure future tax revenue streams? By making sure current policy encourages the presence of future taxpayers. Where do future taxpayers come from? The Stork! Well in a manner of speaking. Children. Remember all those times I've made comments about the gov't creating markets? Well they do this via subsidation and the marriage and child credits are that subsidation. Why do they give churches who rake in huge amounts of income a pass on taxes? Because it's be shown a society who has a large based religous population is in general a compliant population which lowers overall policing costs for example. It's a good behavior subsidation if you will. Why the focus on health? A sick taxpayer is not only a costly taxpayer but also a dead revenue stream until they recover. Why is education so important? A smarter taxpayer makes MO Money and Mo Money pays MO TAXES! Why the PC and morality push in public education? Church attendance across society is down so moral direction is down, therefore public education has them more during their waking hours because both parents are conditioned into the workforce as gov't revenue streams so someone has to fill the gap so why not in such way in the best interest of gov't and it's future needs. What's easier to manipula.... uh I mean govern, a society of one decided by so-called societal experts, or a society made up of millions and millions of independant, individual thinking people?

AV,
Ever watch the Matrix series? To the so-called societal experts, we are a battery! Most people miss the point because they are to busy with the special effects or the guys checking out Trinity in latex or the hot babe taking them to the Keymaker! Wolf! Wolf!

 

[wkmac]

Now I know Mr Anarchist (what kind of anarchist are you anyway?) Wkmac rips both parties a new one, and supplies us with his Mt Everest mountain of Ginghriod crap(JK), and injects The Ron Paul theory upon us, which by definition certainly isn't based on Anarchism (although I admittingly like his forgien policy stance). However he does recognize basic social neccessities just differs on how to pay for it thru excess and wasteful Gov't spending. Gov't is harmful but yet neccessary, but do you really support the elimination of Gov't and authority. If so I have one quote for you from Southpark's Cartman "Respect My Authori-ty"

The bomb throwing kind of course! Can't you tell?


What has sparked interest in American political underground movements is the Ron Paul manifestation but it really started with Buchanan and Nader. Paleo-conservatives and Paleo-liberals found that in many areas (global economic hegemony ie empire) they were in very much agreement. When they discussed such things as taking care of the poor and disadvantaged, they both wanted the same ultimate goal (end of suffering) but one saw gov't as a solution for good through civic compulsion and the other saw the gov't as the power through compulsion (regulation)behind the very market manipulations that killed their free market ideals while magnifying the problem of the human condition making it worse.

In other words the liberal (if you will)saw things like social security for the good it does and when things go wrong the problem is someone took away and thus we just need more of it. The glass half full approach (making the conservative the opposite with the glass half empty )

The myth about democrats and guns are true but at the same time there is a myth that things have gotten worse because Reagan cut gov't. Truth is gov't has grown to a vast size of what it was or even should be during this entire period and that gov't reduction is in fact a myth.

Paleo-liberals and Paleo-Conservatives (I want to call us if you will, the De-Cons, I love it) are now realizing that in fact gov't is way to large and vastly to broad and at the moment a growning undercurrent among the ranks has them more and more united and talking and in many respects that is what the idea of the Ron Paul campaign was and is about. Unlike the cult of personalities among the rest, outside of Kucinich and Gravel and like Ron in their own way, Paul's campaign is specifically about the message. It's no secret across the broader electorate, the Paul message doesn't work and if he were the typical candidate, what would he do? Yep, change the message. Has he? Did Dennis or Gravel when their numbers were in the tank? No, they stayed true to what they said at the beginning, the middle and to the end. May not agree with them but admire the honesty and at least this instill a measure of trust on my part.

Even Boortz and Limbaugh are twisted on what to do now come November. Even Limbaugh was in a twist when Gingrich stated on one of the Sunday talk shows that the Conservative movement of Reagan was over and that the movement going forward must change as a result. Rush had Newt on his show after that and was just taken back by what Newt said. Having been a close observer of Newt since he first entered Congress back in the 70's, I knew he was no conservative and even when he was my Congressman I didn't vote for him. Wrote in myself one time and Donald Duck another in protest.

Speaking of Reagan and conservative values, I'm going to post a You tube thing in the next post so check it out. It's not really for your benefit but moreso for others. I'm just using you as a diving board.

Again, I like the anti-state views of the anarchist movement with folks like 19th century Lysander Spooner and Randolph Borne and his 20th century thesis, "War is the Health of the State!" http://antiwar.com/bourne.php but I know that a true anarchist (no State) society in not possible. I also like throwing the anarchy bomb because most people fashion libertarians as either anarchist or humanist in the libertine perspective and in most cases, both scenarios are completely wrong. But it doesn't stop me from having my fun from time to time. Besides, accuse me of being gay and I'll grab you on the arse just to cement you in your illusion!


As for bombs, check out my signature link as it speaks volumes and very loudly I might add.

 

[wkmac]

Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul: A Comparison


Damn, love him or hate him, the Gipper was one powerful speaker! Clinton was a good speaker too but the Gip was powerful, no doubt about it!

 

[av8torntn]

Ok if you really want to use projections it does make it more difficult but I will give it the old college try.

You project the total cost of the war at 1.5 trillion.

Social Security is 544 billion a year. Medicare is 325 billion and Medicaid is 186 billion. It becomes very difficult to project the costs of these social security programs and depending on who you read the future costs vary wildly. Also if you stop social security you will eliminate just under 5 trillion from the projected national debt. You can also take the 1.5 trillion the SSA has in its fund.

The most liberal estimate of the direct cost of the Iraq war is 70 billion a year. Ok that is not true but I though for a second if you can project so can I.I know you say they just funded 150 billion for the war. There were significant expenses in all these emergency funding bill that have nothing to do with the direct cost of the war and are only there the skirt the current budget rules. With the elimination of one program in our first year we have now paid for all your projected future costs of the war and paid off half the projected national debt.

Since we are using projections there will be no new national debt after 2012.

If you want to leave people on social security that are on it now but stop all new people we are still left with 608 billion this year.

Now we still have education at 56 billion a year and farm subsidies and other agriculture programs at 20 billion a year. Over the next ten years with very modest increases you can easily knock one trillion off the debt plus have that same one trillion to pay down on the debt.

You project 10.7 trillion total. End social security and you knock out 2.2 trillion they have in assets. You now have 8.5 you subtract the one trillion that is to be spent this year and multiply that to 2012 for a total of 5 years or 5 trillion and you are now at 3.5 trillion. We add in education and agriculture we knock a trillion off and have a trillion to pay on the debt. We are now left at 1.5 trillion your projected cost of the war. I do not feel like going in to the discretionary spending part now but this gives you an idea of where I am going with all this. None of this even includes the projected budget surpluses.

I used the numbers from the OMB since they are non partisan.

You made a reference to an amount that has been requested to fund the war in Iraq. I thought you would be able to figure it out on your own but I saw where you did not. You and others want to take these funding amounts and project them for some kind of direct cost of the war. This is faulty for multiple reasons. You do not know what kind of force agreement we will have with Iraq from year to year. You do not know who our President is. Heck it is even possible that we may break the will of Al Queada in two years.

 

[wkmac]

AV8,

Hey I thought you did pretty good. Better than an old college try. Hat's off to you. OK let me see if this breaks it all down to what you are suggesting.

The cuts:

Social Security: $544 billion per year
Medicare: $325 billion per year
Medicaid: $186 billion per year
Farm: $56 bil per year
Education: $20 bil per year

Equal $1.13 trillion dollars. Yep in about 10 years you have it covered alright and that would also seem to include the $70 bil annual for Iraq. Nice job. Just a quick point of order for the record. Is it you intention or suggestion that 10 years from now Iraq will still cost $70 bil annually and that the war itself will be in the same status and mode as it is today? I know McCain mentioned being there for 100 years so I wasn't sure where you stood on all of that. Outside of that, nice job.

Looking from the above and the conversation I'm betting more than a few people here are bouncing of the walls at this point so let me plays devil's advocate and deal out the questions most often asked of me when I suggest the need to vastly cut gov't down to nothingness and you are far from that my friend. Here goes.

You can cut SS out of the budget and in 2007' Federal budget SS is $586.1 bil to be exact. Your numbers very close and in actual dollars saved the $586 works even better for your argument. Hey, I'm all about helping a brother out!


BTW: OMB is a part of the executive branch and the head a presidential appointment of every adminstration or in other words, their own guy. Not exactly non-partisan IMO. You might be thinking about the GAO or the CRS which are a bit politicized from time to time but overall a fair balance. But the OMB numbers are good for our discussion and I'll stipulate to them although I'm going to try and use actual 2007' federal budget numbers.

Now add the $5.5 trillion in projected SS liability and we're talking $6 tril if my math is right in saving. I say add in the $5.5 because if you kill the $586 bil in the budget annually, you can't meet those future demands anyway so go ahead and just do the obvious. OK, you now just saved not only the $586 bil annually over 10 years ($5.86 tril total) but you also wiped out $5.5 tril in debt obligations so in that one move alone you just completed your solution of killing $10 plus trillion. Nice work my man, nice work.

And now the other cuts become pure savings so let's add them up. I know folks I said devil's advocate so just bare with me. Besides I've got Paul Hardcastle's CD Jazzmaster's 4 on and I'm just a groovin as I type this. LOL! OK, the other cut's you mentioned will give a savings of let's see: $587 bil annually. But let's look closer and make sure we're not leaving money on the table.

Medicare and Medicaid but since you're cutting that deep go for the whole welfare pie and here are actual 2007' Budget numbers.
Medicare: $394 bil
medicaid: $376 bil
unemployment and general welfare: $367 bil
Education: $89 bil (Are leaving federal education in play with only cutting $20 bil or is OMB a bit cheap? LOL!)
Agriculture: $27 bil ($56 bil seems a bit high but hey it works in the wash!)
And last but not least we're eliminating the debt so let's include the interest payments which $243 bil and the grand total is: (somebody wanna get me a drum roll for effect) $1.39 trillion and over 10 years is $13 tril. Man we hit the lottery! Hey how much we take in in income taxes? Yeah, see where I'm going. Yeah! Yeah! let's look at that. OK, here goes. Using 2007' budget data, total income tax receipts annually equal $1.16 trillion. Oh man, above savings is $1.39 tril and the income tax brings in $1.16 tril so kill the tax and we still got $.20 tril folding money in the hole to play with. Damn AV, you're good, I mean real good!

OK, devil time. Sure we can do that and in the libertarian tradition, it fit's like a glove but here is where it takes an anarchist turn which is where none of you (even you AV) don't want this whole thing to go. (Man I'm groovin to Signs of Life, sorry music got me) Anyway, for better or worse we have a controlled economy and if you take the hardline, a large number of people say the retired on SS for example will have a large % if not all of their income stripped from them. What is the ripple effect to the economy at large? Take away medicare and what happens? The gov't a long time ago mandated that medicare by law became the pricipled medical coverage for everyone over the age of 65. The at present is no market mechanism to cover that radical a change that quick so how do you propose to cover the net effect of that?

Also a medical industry if you will has grown around medicare within the private sector as in doctor's offices have personal for example who specialize in claims coding just for medicare. When they are no longer needed, they will be cut and dumped onto the job market which has no unemployment anymore. Also for the time being until more employment is obtained they are out of the sonsumer market driving the economy and thus out of the tax base you've created to end national debt and fun Iraq of whatever military adventures you desire.

Now here's the tail whipper to all of this. You just ended medicare throwing a large aging population in search of insurance coverage. Industry coverage tables are based outside the need to cover beyond 65 because of medicare laws but now in the flash of an eye the industry scrambles to re-calculate the cost ro risk spread and everyone's cost goes up. Going up in a shrinking economy to boot. Yeah shrinking, because all that federal debt you are retiring is removing dollars from the economy so you have the spector of de-flation on top of every thing else.

Couple that with a pharma-keya (greek pronuciation for the Bible word witchcraft, a bit of fun on my part) industry who had built a specific sector of gereatric drug lines after lobbying Congress to have the US taxpayer pay for such giving them another revenue stream as cost to consumer is not a concern. And you think the libs are the only ones pushing Universal med. coverage. Hey EZ and D, wake up! Merck and the boys just love you for it! Kill mediacare/medicaid and you kill those revenue streams as they must now compete in a free market and not a gov't monopolized and controled to their likeing.

Forget the typical liberal whinning of helping out the disadvantage. Our gov't has so monopolized and manipulated everything from A to Z that just cutting our way out of this has adverse conseqences. Now I can handle the anarchist approach if we want to go that route but 5 minutes in everyone would be screaming. I also think if you can bite the piece of wood and work through the pain, it's the quickest but again, any takers? I also wonder how many conservative big talkers here would in the end go along with your cuts once the hardships started setting in? How many in time would stand behind your Iraq war then and feel the cost justified and worth it? Just for the moment let's do this and say Iraq grows and prospers to freedom and economic nirvana under your plan but in return the American people even in the short haul have to suffer, do you honestly believe over time they will stay the course and accept this as worthwhile? I suffer so you can be free and economically grow? Only less than 10% of the colonist originally stood and sacrificed against the British until the tides started turning and then more and more jumped on the bandwagon when they could see the payofff coming. You don't think our country today is more farsighted than the rugged individualists of 200 plus years ago do you?

Don't get me wrong AV, I applaud the effort and the thinking and we need more of that even though your purpose to pay for Iraq is not what I would do with the money. The overall conversation IMO is what is good and the putting of all ideas on the table and discussing is what the Presidential election should be about but sadly certain forces only want to limit what is said and therefore voices are silenced where they can and it happens on both sides IMO. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that I've likely got a few years on you. Since you said you fought in Iraq and I take that to mean the latest operations, I however lived with the spector of Vietnam and in hindsight learned a whole lot about our gov't and how they operate. I heard all about the domino theory and the intenational communist menace which in the final analyst was really empire verses empire while in the middle were business interests making huge sums of money off both sides. And as the song sez, "the beat goes on!"

When it comes to Iraq, I've seen this movie before and the plotline is the same ole story. Get beyond the thinking that in order for you to be righteous, you have to make the gov't policy that took you there righteous also. Forget that because you are righteous and heroic no matter what the foreign policy was. The soldier at Bunker Hill, the Vietnam Vet and the Iraqi Vet in my eyes are all of equal stance. Gov't is a business and it's about making money and obtaining power. In that, certain business interest take advantage of good hearted people with noble ideals in the search of filthy lucer. We call them lobbyist, snakeoil salesman, republican, democrats, liberal or conservative but at the end of the day they only seek one thing and that is to benefit themselves regardless whether you benefit of not. A great man once wrote that All men are created equal and although he fell short in some areas towards this ideal, it was a great ideal none the less. If we are all equal then we are all of status to govern and that means to govern ourselves first and not have some entity placed above us to call the shots according to a select few elites called policy experts who in truth are on the payroll of the business interests to begin with.

Now I'm headbanging to Dream Theater's Score and 6 Degrees of Inner Turbulence!

 

[av8torntn]

AV8,


Equal $1.13 trillion dollars. Yep in about 10 years you have it covered alright and that would also seem to include the $70 bil annual for Iraq. Nice job. Just a quick point of order for the record. Is it you intention or suggestion that 10 years from now Iraq will still cost $70 bil annually and that the war itself will be in the same status and mode as it is today?

BTW: OMB is a part of the executive branch and the head a presidential appointment of every adminstration or in other words, their own guy. Not exactly non-partisan IMO. You might be thinking about the GAO or the CRS which are a bit politicized from time to time but overall a fair balance. But the OMB numbers are good for our discussion and I'll stipulate to them although I'm going to try and use actual 2007' federal budget numbers.

First I do not like using projections because none of us know what is going to happen over there in the future. My point was that you found a projection and I found a completely different one and none of them know. So I just went with the numbers you picked.

Now for the OMB thing you are right there are several positions that are appointed by the President and they report to him. But and this is a big one most of the positions carry over from administration to administration and they look at their job as one to give whoever the President is more unbiased numbers. I did not want to use 2007 numbers because that year has passed so I picked the numbers that they project since you wanted to do that for 2008. If I understood those guys right the directors just instruct them which areas to crunch the numbers for.

All of these things play into my political theory of a limited federal government. If you want to live in a state with one payer health care or one with more freedoms you should be able to but the way things are now you have no chance to escape the reach of the federal government.

As far as your Medicare thing goes I think I could make a good case that this is one of the reasons that health care costs are high. As you might could guess I believe in a free market for health care.

 

[av8torntn]

Ok just one parting shot before I go to the super bowl party.You asked in one post who wants to end social security. The President already tried to end social security. Who led the charge to stop that? You will say he did no such thing. But in allowing people to invest a small part of their social security money and see the effects of this over the long term would have caused people to have less of a dependence on the Federal government as they understood that they could save their own money and do far better than the federal government. People likely over time would start to want out of the social security system. This would have been the slow and less painful approach to ending social security. The democrats feared this. They would have lost control over the poor. While you say they have the best interests of the people at heart I disagree. I think they want to people poor with high taxes so they will be dependent on government.

 

[wkmac]

Ok just one parting shot before I go to the super bowl party.You asked in one post who wants to end social security. The President already tried to end social security. Who led the charge to stop that? You will say he did no such thing. But in allowing people to invest a small part of their social security money and see the effects of this over the long term would have caused people to have less of a dependence on the Federal government as they understood that they could save their own money and do far better than the federal government. People likely over time would start to want out of the social security system. This would have been the slow and less painful approach to ending social security. The democrats feared this. They would have lost control over the poor. While you say they have the best interests of the people at heart I disagree. I think they want to people poor with high taxes so they will be dependent on government.

You're right. I will say he didn't try to end it and you in your above statement proved the point. Ending SS literally means ending the program, dissolving the agency and eliminating the tax. As I understand your proposed cuts earlier stated as relating to SS, you would do the same thing. I mean while kill the $5.5 tril SS Debt if that is not the case?Using what you said above, IMO Bush wasn't planning on ending SS, he would redirect the tax withheld and "allow" the taxpayer to invest in gov't pre-approved investment models. It was called Privatizing and the illusion was that this ended SS. IMO, ending SS meant as I earlier described and now the individual (former taxpayer) is free to do with their money as they see fit. Now that's ending the program.

The republicans you think are the only one's pushing SS privatization but in fact they had a chance before Bush hit the scene and scuddled the opportunity. In 1998' Bill Clinton wanted to start a privatization approach to SS (just one example of that from 1998') http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_n6_v62/ai_20645726 and the republicans instead of being "principled" they went for power and the whole Monica affair took on new light. Besides, had they gone with Clinton and used Monica as leverage to get what they wanted in the bill, the problem for the republicans is Bill and Al would have come out the hero and guess who would sieze the moment to the WH in 2000'? Good ole Al and the repubs knew this. Even ole Al had a privatization plan for SS. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4668

Sometimes it really pays off sitting and lurking out on the net at the hardcore democrat websites and listening and boy what you learn and where to go look for it! So you see both the democrats of the DLC and the Republican of the Neo-Conservative variety for the most part has the same idea for SS. Sure some of the details were different but they are the same. OH, and you were about to ask why the dems. did go along with Bush's plan? Same reason as the repubs in 98'. An election was coming up and if they made Bush look good, Kerry would have had no chance at all. We're being played for suckers as to the folks in Washington, it's all about the party while we sit (to borrow a phrase from Rush) "out in the heartland" the victims of a do nothing gov't. The only time they act in concert is when both parties are threatened, like the recent so-called economic crisis and the emergency bill passed and the surprise cutting of the Fed. rate. Being in the middle of an election cycle, an upset and economically strapped voting public just might open their eyes and become disillusioned and either not vote at all so that who is elected is done so by a very small % of the total electorate or a mass migration to 3rd political parties. It was all about saving themselves and they rised inflation and more federal debt. to covers their !

No AV, I do say wholeheartedly that Bush or Clinton or Gore was never about ending SS. Now in one sense, being the account is individually attacted to you and just maybe in the legislation, the funds are barred from Congress using it as a slush fund (in the same way the mob used Central States, and we call that criminal!) so in the end at least we're not holding gov't IOU's that enslaves our children and grandchildren to pay for so there could be a positive there.

As for the following that you said,

If you want to live in a state with one payer health care or one with more freedoms you should be able to but the way things are now you have no chance to escape the reach of the federal government.

Sounds like we are on the same wave length in many respects. I'm all for citizens in State and local communities doing their own thing if you will. At least in my community where I have been involved and have served on a tax oversight board (we even have a libertarian city councilman in a near by town) the democrat/republican thing is about non-existant. Now you do have your agendas but it's not a result of party affliation but rather the general nature of the beast. I few of them during election time make something of it hoping to ride national coattails but in the day to day happenings, it's nothing. My wife has served as webmaster the last 2 elections for the chairman of our County Commission and although by party he is repubican, you'd never really know it with day to day operations. And yes, I vote for him as well and would do so if he were democrat. My objections to vote democrat or republican holds at the federal level and in some cases the State. In local elections they are so close to home that if they do a bad job, it's much easier to vote them out. At least in our area this is the case.

But I'm going to ask you something in Part 2 that you may not like but I want you to think and consider for a moment.

 

[wkmac]

Part 2

OK, leave something like the current SS model to the states or local communties to do and not at the federal level. I like that. We could do the same for welfare right? How about transportation? Energy? I know you'll agree with education! And the list goes on and on. I bet we'll find all kind of common ground and our federal gov't will be in a nice small package and we'll be dancing in the streets.

OK, here's where it gets a bit ugly. The federal constitutuion delegates in Art. 1 Sec. 1 of the US Constitution what is called the "vesting clause" and among that is the power to Congress to declare war. It also turns out that the Executive and Judical branch has their vesting clauses as well in Art. 2 (executive) and Art. 3 (Judical) but for now let's consider on the power of Congress to declare war. Now the Constitution makes no comment on the method or the look of what a war declaration would look or should even say but we can look back and see from past practice but we'll do that later.

Let's move on to the 2nd part of this equation and the executive branch and the powers of the President. What's his role in this? Art. 2 Sec. 2 is the Presidential Powers section and among his authority is the role of commander-n-chief. Here it is:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

Militia, now where have we heard this term before. Could it be here?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now this IMO follows very closely with your ideas of letting the States control the larger parts of governance as in the original, we didn't have mass standing armed forces like we do today. People volunteered for their local militias who were overseen by the State's governors and the President in order to use those forces had by Constitutional law, be authorized with declaration of war to call up those forces for federal serve. This was one of the mainstays of State's rights and in fact the 2nd amendment was a State's rights amendment. The governor's and the Senate until 1913' elected by the State legislatures should be the one's opposing federal gun control laws as this violates the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment State's Rights clause and thus the people of the several states!

A side bar note, I wonder if there was any connection to the fact that in 1913' we eliminated the State legislatures from selecting Senators and going to majority populace vote and also eliminating one of the major tenets of checks and balances, we also got the federal direct taxation of the citizen within the several states via the 16th amendment income tax and then as the year closed in an almost secret session of Congress (most had gone home for Christmas) our money system was monopolized into the hands of a quasi-private banking system known as the Federal Reserve but that's a whole other issue in itself. Congress has the power to coin money in Art. 1 sec. 10 and it's specific as by what measure:

make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts

Most people rarely ever read this part!

OK, back to the point and this is where it gets real tricky. You say the federal gov't shouldn't be in all these other areas and that the States or local govt's should be the final decider of this and in fact IMO the organic constitution fully backs you up on what you say. However, those same powers in those areas reserves for the states also applied in a larger scale when it came to the use of military force at the federal level. It requires the Congress to declare war, in which the President as commander can authorize the governors to send forth the State and local militias for federal service. Outside that declaration, the President has no authority to call forth. In the spirit of checks and balance the governor acts as such outside the Congress having acted.

But let's look at bit closer in Art. 1 Sec. 8 pertaining to the use of an army and the militias.

Consider these for a moment.

Under Sec. 8 the enumerated powers it sez:

"The Congress shall have power, (and now some of those listed powers)

To raise and support armies,but no appropiation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Well what can the President do?

Art. 2 is quoted above and this is the extent of his Constitutional authority as it relates to his duties as commander. He must first be authorized by Congress with a war declaration and then and only then is he free to call forth the militias. As for a standing army, Congress can other authorize this according to sec. 8 powers to last no longer than 2 years or in other words, from my reading of the organic Constitution, there is no authority to maintain a standing army beyond 2 years and then that army is the State militia called into service. But there is authority for a navy because the Federal gov't has authority and jurisdiction over international affairs and as such a Navy is needed to regulate the high seas as those are international. But in the case of a standing army, from my reading that authority is very limited and mostly a function of the States.

Now, going back to what you said earlier:

All of these things play into my political theory of a limited federal government. If you want to live in a state with one payer health care or one with more freedoms you should be able to but the way things are now you have no chance to escape the reach of the federal government.

When it comes to limited gov't, when it comes to the individual within the States how far are you willing to go in allowing them to escape the over reach of what IMO is unConstitutional authority? You seem willing in regards to SS, healthcare, education, etc. but are those just convienent choices based on political belief or agenda? Look I know what I'm suggesting is tough and goes against a whole lot of what we believe and what we have in the real world or at least been led to believe but if we make convience choices regarding the Constitution, then it does come down to the fact that we will be tossed too and fro with the political winds of passion and in time fall further and further into the political abyss.

As for how we defend ourselves under these seemingly limited conditions in today's world? Consider the other Congressional authority within the same Sec 8 as teh power to declare war exists. In total it reads as follows:

"Congress shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of Marque and reprisal and makes rules of capture on land and water."

The letter of Marque and reprisal IMO should have been the proper response to 9/11 and the following actions but the only person to raise such were Ron Paul https://web.archive.org/web/20080409135228/http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm What is a letter of Marque? A rough idea if you like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque#_note-3

So you see, the founders understood that every situation doesn't always require a wholesale Declaration of War and had mechanisms in place for such smaller events below wholesale national invasion. Isn't odd the founders went so far to not have a standing army as this was seen in their day as the first step towards empire. Now we openly accept it as fact and no one challenges to politician who declares himself a follower of the Constitution and even so far as to say he will apppoint "originalists" buzz word for constitutionalist to the high court to further the cause of the limited gov't republic.

Again AV, I don't pretend these are easy choices by any stretch, in fact they're very tough choices but we live in a system of precedense and the very one you set today, your political opposites will use tomorrow to set their own and the visious cycle goes on and on. Where and when do we stand up, take a firm stand even in the face of risk and choose a course for ourselves and not one used against us under the banner of noble collectivism.

Just another POV to consider.

 

[av8torntn]

What was the question?

If it was should congress declare war? My answer is yes.


My point about social security was that if it was held in private accounts this would eventually end the system. Most people know that the social security system is stupid. But no one wants to give it up because they have paid into it their entire lives and they feel like they will lose their money. After a generation of private accounts I think enough people would be willing to give up these forced retirement accounts and save for their own retirement.

 

[wkmac]

What was the question?

If it was should congress declare war? My answer is yes.


My point about social security was that if it was held in private accounts this would eventually end the system. Most people know that the social security system is stupid. But no one wants to give it up because they have paid into it their entire lives and they feel like they will lose their money. After a generation of private accounts I think enough people would be willing to give up these forced retirement accounts and save for their own retirement.

The question? Well declaring war isn't the question but I take your answer is the same conclusion as mine in that Congress has not in fact declared war. We both agree on that although we may disagree on where and who to declare war on.

My point goes back to your comment of limited gov't and to what I assumed was the assertion that gov't should limit itself to it'd duties within the Constitution provided and those left to the States accordingly. In the case of military force or war declaration, it's very specific and the process to follow very clear.

The process of constitutional limitation is on such things as SS, Education, energy and farm subsidy, in fact no authority under the organic constitution for it so would you also stipulate to the same limitations as applies to the Congress in these areas and speicifcally the executive branch of gov't would also apply to other areas where there is equally no expressed authority? If not, why the overstepping of constitutional process and then openly object on the same grounds when the "democrats, liberals" or flavor of the day do the same thing just according to their own agenda and in other areas of which you disagree. Don't sneak and reach in the cookie jar and steal cookies and then tell others what they are doing is wrong.

And to reverse roles, I'd ask the same of the otherside of the isle when the "republicans, neo-cons" etc. go their own way on matters? Why can't they when you've done the same thing? Don't crack a door open and then get mad when someone knocks it off the hinges after you having peaked inside and exclaimed it's wonders!

As for SS being privatized. Maybe you an I see things different on this. Ending SS is about ending the tax, letting each person do with that money as they see fit and whatever effects of your decision you live with. Privatizing as you see doesn't mean an ending of the program. SS is funded via a tax on income to the employee and an excise tax on the employer. OK, you idea which is the general idea presented by democrats and republicans is to allow some portion of you tax to be place in private accounts. Those companies providing those accounts will be selected and approved and so also will what you can invest the money in. So several generations from now, these select companies having been firmly established for years with almost monopoly status will of of a sudden give that up to the higher ideal of freedom for everyone in choosing where their money goes. They will stand up and lobby to end the federal taxation in this area and now grant the removal of many accounts to other free market no monopoly status companies after all the effect they went to. SS would no longer be needed as a law?

Ever heard of the REA or Rural Electrication Act from FDR's 1930's? FDR believed electricity in every home and business would change America for the better and I'd agree. With that the REA was passed and electricians on the federal payroll went about the land installing electricity in homes. It also provided jobs during the depression so it had a 2 fold effect. Would be safe to say that goal was accomplished and the need for the REA no longer needed but guess again. Check this legislation out from the US Dept. of Agriculture who now holds jurisdiction over REA. http://www.usda.gov/rus/regs/info/100-1/title_i.htm It's a modification to the 1936' act taking effect 12/31/2000' and is codified in US Title 7.

Ironically the healthcare ideas of Hillary, Obama, Newt and others of the republican side all propose the same idea in this one respect. A federal law would be passed mandating everyone to take part in a health insurance program and within the legislation I'm sure that either certain comapnies will be named as the only provider or a list of requirements to be a federal provider will be listed. How then is this freedom and free market economics if the gov't is mandating how the individual spends his/her own money and where that money is spent? This is still big gov't outside the scope and bounds of Constitutional authority.

AV, nothing of gov't ever goes away but get's recycled into a new and improved version. Privatizing SS will not ensure it's end and I'd contend the politicians know this and have no intention of letting that happen. Privatization is nothing more that a slop trough in Washington for the fat hogs on K Street and their business clients. Once they set the legislation and get the folks to push it through, they will have monopolized this industry as well and they will never give it up. Sorry but I just don't buy that smoke and mirrors.

BTW: I heard good one yesterday at a Super Bowl party. Got some buddies of mine who one is Alabama and the other one Auburn and they go at it all the time. Well the Alabama guy to me that the Auburn folks are being set up by Hillary to not vote for Obama. Seems Hillary was seen in and around Auburn putting out Obama yard signs but writting a Big G before the O to read,

GO BAMA!

 

[av8torntn]

If the question is what am I willing to get rid of.

My answer would be social security, medicare, medicaid, dept of education, national parks, national wildlife preserves, farm subsidies, federal health care, federal funding for labor unions, pell grants, federal backed student loans, HUD, possibly the FBI and plenty of other things.

What I would like to keep but make serious changes to.

Military department except for a couple of parts. DOT, FAA, CIA, State department, and a couple of others. As far as national parks go I would keep some in the DC area. You see how this list is much shorter than the other one.

Our Government wants to spend over 3 trillion dollars next year and plenty of politicians will complain that this is not enough so something has to go. Of course I do not think this will ever happen but I think the general question was what I was willing to let go. The question is a little confusing since you went all over the place with it.

I will guess that you will ask why I am willing to keep those things and not the others. Hey it is my list.

If that was not the question you will need to make it a little simpler for me.

 

[wkmac]

The question is a little confusing since you went all over the place with it.

Hey anything to poke you with a stick to the point you list some specifics for a change and be up front where you are coming from. IMO, you never were that open to specific ideas in other threads so I was glad to hear some of the things you had to say and that we do share some common ground related to limiting gov't. I'm not sure we share the same ideals on the part of gov't to be fiscally responsible and I take that position from you comments in post #8 where you said the:

My point was simple the good far outweighs the bad.

Put another way IMO, "the ends justify the means!" I don't subscribe to that thinking. And when it comes to fiscal matters, I don't subscribe to blank check throwing the money around no matter what the cause or the end gains are. That was the point of this thread in the first place. Sure it got far afield but if you look across the entire BC forum, the vast majority of threads tend to do this after about a page anyway so this one is just following the pattern.

Back to the main point and to tie this whole thing up from my POV, Traditional Conservative principles have at their forefront fiscal responsibility first and foremost and throwing money at welfare bums or Corp. welfare bums is equal in my eyes. If you want to further Privatization if you will, the first rule would be to set a good example and be above board on every little detail and be cost effective down to the penny. Today's so-called conservatives parade the Constitution around as some Holy Grail but my point was, do you even follow it to begin with? Do you advocate it's core principles of government or do you opt out with the so-called political left with the, "well we live in a different world today and those men could not foresee what we are dealing with. Really? I'll discuss that one with you anytime but be ready to dig deep into our history and policy the last 100 plus years.

In the case of Iraq (occupation for democratization) all I hear is a huge sucking sound! If this is the best privatizing can do, then build up our level of armed forces (contary to the authority in US Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 8) and keep those processes gov't. If the privatized way is frought with waste and fraud in Iraq, how can those scared of privatizing SS be assured their retirement is safe from the same abuses? See where that goes in the minds of people? If you can't do it right there with so much on the line, how can you do it here?

At least to them there seems more oversight and you won't have secretaries driving around in "LUXURY" not armoured/high tech, SUV's as a perk rather than a legit need. Besides, what would that $200k have bought our men and women who were living/working out in the field rather than living/working in a private compound. I was shocked of all people that you were never able to grasp that point especially in light of you being a conservative.

Being conservative IMO is way more than talking tough about we can whip anyone's arse, cutting gov't to our delight and seeing the welfare bums out on the street and not sucking us dry of tax dollars. If it was just that easy.

Was there a lot to read in my posts?
LOL! Sure there was but life is not easy and solutions to problems aren't either!

Solutions will never come via a 30 second sound bite. They want to believe that because they want you to leave them to the details because if we knew how those details and who benefitted from those details, I feel very confident that in the blink of an eye, even you and ole' D would have all kinds of common ground. And yes I do believe that.

I use to have your loyality towards many aspects of the gov't but I made a very fatal mistake. I began to read and the worse part with my wife being in the legal profession, I learned to use a law library and began to read gov't records. Like Neo in the matrix, I should have taken the other pill!

 

[av8torntn]

Wkmac

Why is it when you apply the average cost of the vechicles purchased to the lowest cost vehicle it is proof of a waste of money? When I apply that same average cost to the highest cost vehicle would it not be proof that the taxpayers are getting a bargin?

 

[ezmoney5150]

You really have no idea what you are talking about.

If I have no idea what I'm talking about please enlighten me with your intellect.