quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, the market government set wage and price controls, and decided that benefits weren't part of those controls. The market reacted to government action by starting to increase the benefits offered. One of those benefits was medical insurance.

Don't bullshit me, DS. They were two seperate events. Health benefits did not arise from proactive government action. It arose from the need to compete for labor. Saying that the markets react to something the government did does not assign agency to the government. No part of the Fed Govt required corporations to offer health insurance. Congress did not pass a law requiring corporations to offer health coverage. As an example, if the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates some companies may speed up production of goods anticipating a rise in consumer demand. That doesn't mean the government caused increased production. In the same way the government did not cause companies to offer health insurance. The companies saw an advantage and moved to it on their own volition. What is it in your world? Are corporate CEOs robotic? Can't they make their own decisions? Your viewpoint is a joke.

quote:

As for the unhappiness of the Arabs, there were two major, impactful events. The first was the betrayal in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference where Britain and France carved up the Arab lands to the benefit of the colonial powers while Woodrow Wilson stood silent on his promise of self-determnation for the colonies. The second was the support from the West for the independence of Israel in 1948. In my opinion everything else that swirled through the years was ancillary to those big change events.

quote:

Are those the only reasons they hate us? They don't hate us for arming the rebels (al Qaeda) against Russia and the Afghan government? They don't hate us because of our meddling in Iran, the Iran-Iraq War, etc.? Just because of some things in 1919 and 1948?

Why would they hate us for arming the rebels against Russia? That's a pretty dumb conclusion.

quote:

Then there is this: the French, British, and Russians entered into secret negotiations beginning in 1915 that lead to the betrayal of the Arabs in 1919 with the fleshing out of the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
The agreement effectively divided the Ottoman Arab provinces outside the Arabian peninsula into areas of British and French control and influence.[9] and led later to the subsequent partitioning of the Ottoman Empire following Ottoman defeat in 1918. The Acre-Haifa zone was intended to be a British enclave in the North to enable access to the Mediterranean.[10] The British later gained control of the brown zone and other territory in 1920 and ruled it as Mandatory Palestine from 1923 until 1948. They also ruled Mandatory Iraq from 1920 until 1932, while the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon lasted from 1923 to 1946. The terms were negotiated by British diplomat Mark Sykes and a French counterpart, François Georges-Picot. The Tsarist government was a minor party to the Sykes–Picot agreement, and when, following the Russian Revolution, the Bolsheviks published the agreement on 23 November 1917, "the British were embarrassed, the Arabs dismayed and the Turks delighted."[11]
And this . . .
The agreement is seen by many as a turning point in Western and Arab relations. It negated the UK's promises to Arabs[12] made for a national Arab homeland in the area of Greater Syria, in exchange for supporting the British against the Ottoman Empire.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Are elected officials in DC more or less knowledgeable about the welfare needs of an individual citizen, or locality than the charities that exist in that locality, or are local to that individual?

More Libertarian foo foo, DS. We are no longer living in the era of the pony express traveling the Post Roads. With 21st Century communications it is very easy for Congressional staff to consult with Governors and get a read on the needs of the states and their locales. You are so out of date, my friend. I will try not to chuckle at your ante bellum naivete.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Are elected officials in DC more or less knowledgeable about the welfare needs of an individual citizen, or locality than the charities that exist in that locality, or are local to that individual?

More Libertarian foo foo, DS. We are no longer living in the era of the pony express traveling the Post Roads. With 21st Century communications it is very easy for Congressional staff to consult with Governors and get a read on the needs of the states and their locales. You are so out of date, my friend. I will try not to chuckle at your ante bellum naivete.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Are elected officials in DC more or less knowledgeable about the welfare needs of an individual citizen, or locality than the charities that exist in that locality, or are local to that individual?

More Libertarian foo foo, DS. We are no longer living in the era of the pony express traveling the Post Roads. With 21st Century communications it is very easy for Congressional staff to consult with Governors and get a read on the needs of the states and their locales. You are so out of date, my friend. I will try not to chuckle at your ante bellum naivete.

I will continue to shake my head at your ostrich-like reactions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Are elected officials in DC more or less knowledgeable about the welfare needs of an individual citizen, or locality than the charities that exist in that locality, or are local to that individual?

More Libertarian foo foo, DS. We are no longer living in the era of the pony express traveling the Post Roads. With 21st Century communications it is very easy for Congressional staff to consult with Governors and get a read on the needs of the states and their locales. You are so out of date, my friend. I will try not to chuckle at your ante bellum naivete.

you think ease of communication is a justification for more centralization of power?

but to answer your point, no, the legislators, social service people, charities, neighbors, etc from MY LOCALITY know more about MY LOCALITY'S needs, than do their state level counterparts and than do their federal level counterparts.

each time a layer of distance is inserted, inefficiency, corruption, and other bad things creep in.

I have an idea, lets take lots of money from each local area, send it to the state, and then lets take lots of state money and send it to the federal government, and then create mechanisms and bureaucracies by which those larger entities then give back the money that already belongs to us. that sounds like it will work really well!

and you think that's libertarian foo foo?

if you are really interested in helping people, instead of being a statist shill, do some genuine reading on how large governments actually do harm, and how more or less when people are left alone, they get the job done.

you want to help people---make the federal government smaller and get it off the backs of people.

quote:

you want to help people---make the federal government smaller and get it off the backs of people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

it has nothing to do with finance vince, and everything to do with corruption. the people in gubmint have known what they can get away with, corruption is designed into our system and people generally cant figure it out where, the body is already dying of stage 4 cancer with no treatment in sight.

They make laws to govern us but never laws that prevents 'their' corruption from growing and anyone who tries to make the necessary changes winds up dead.

Thats the real america under the sparkles and glitter that blinds everyones eyes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

it has nothing to do with finance vince, and everything to do with corruption. the people in gubmint have known what they can get away with, corruption is designed into our system and people generally cant figure it out where, the body is already dying of stage 4 cancer with no treatment in sight.

They make laws to govern us but never laws that prevents 'their' corruption from growing and anyone who tries to make the necessary changes winds up dead.

Thats the real america under the sparkles and glitter that blinds everyones eyes.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that many, many people in government and in the private sector are selfish and make decisions based primarily on their own self interest with never a mind for the good and welfare of the populace and especially of the poor and powerless. I don't know what the genesis of that attitude is or from what seam in our culture it arises. Looking back through our history the salient characteristic of our society has been that people in power make decisions favorable to the wealth class and oppressive to the poor. This has been more true on the local level especially where the property owners have formed a mutually protective class. But it is also true on the Federal level where corporations are the mutually protective class who exerts its influence through lobbying and money pay-offs. The difference between big government and local government with respect to corruption is simply a difference in who are the favored constituency. Folks come on here and praise small government in the name of efficiency and ideology without a thought to the benefit it gives one local group over another. In reality local government protects the landowners in the same way that big government protects corporations. They marginalize the working poor and the renter class who are (money) powerless. And they do this laughingly in the name of Liberty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Are elected officials in DC more or less knowledgeable about the welfare needs of an individual citizen, or locality than the charities that exist in that locality, or are local to that individual?

More Libertarian foo foo, DS. We are no longer living in the era of the pony express traveling the Post Roads. With 21st Century communications it is very easy for Congressional staff to consult with Governors and get a read on the needs of the states and their locales. You are so out of date, my friend. I will try not to chuckle at your ante bellum naivete.

I will continue to shake my head at your ostrich-like reactions.

Thinking back at our exchanges here it occurred to me that shaking your head is all you have done, providing nothing affirmative for your side of the discussion and contenting yourself simply to criticize everything I wrote. Get back to me when you are ready to make a case for your foo foo libertarian delusions.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
The problem is that your local people never seem to have the financial means to solve your issues. In many states the local budget is in the shit hole. Watch Indiana teeter on the brink of bankruptcy. While you are at it explain to us why there is so much corruption at the local level if small government is so ideal. Another libertarian delusion.

quote:

quote:

you want to help people---make the federal government smaller and get it off the backs of people.

Yeah, that really turned out well when the Federal troops were withdrawn from the South in 1876 and black people were subject to a renewal of slavery with a different name. Make the Fed Govt smaller so the locals can fuck whoever they want. No thanks.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

You argue as if you don't know what "small" government means. I suppose it's possible. I think it's more likely that you're just arguing that way because you can, and have no other means by which to oppose.

quote:

You think we'd be back to the racism of 1876 if the Federal Government dialed back it's scope/reach? What happened to all the ease of communication and social networking going on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You argue as if you don't know what "small" government means. I suppose it's possible. I think it's more likely that you're just arguing that way because you can, and have no other means by which to oppose.

OTOH, you favor "smaller government" without defining it or delimiting it. I can only presume that you do not have a clue. Again, you present nothing positive in your comments. Just another bumper sticker campaign slogan you are unable to articulate or defend. So, what is smaller government, anyway?

quote:

quote:

You think we'd be back to the racism of 1876 if the Federal Government dialed back it's scope/reach? What happened to all the ease of communication and social networking going on?

Are you really that clueless, DS? The internet was not invented in 1876. You are so confused, poor man. Tsk, tsk.

quote:

Lincoln freed the slave is 1865 but the South still needed cheap labor to keep their agricultural economy afloat. In fact, why settle for cheap labor when you were used to free slave labor. Between 1865 and 1876 there were black legislators in the Southern States but the "freed" slaves still needed jobs and the plantation owners still needed labor. A system of share cropping developed , which kept the blacks poor and powerless. When troops were withdrawn in 1876 the Southern States passed "Black Laws" which booted the blacks from the state legislatures and limited the behavior of black people. In 1898 the Supreme Court allowed "separate but equal" under their ruling in Plessy vs Fergusen, which lead to separate water fountains, etc., now know as the Jim Crow Laws. Blacks were "freed" but still subject to white power. To make matters worse many black men were arrested without cause and confined to chain gangs and plantation prisons or rented out to private plantations. Free blacks but still slavery by another name.
It wasn't until the great migration northward for jobs during the Second World War that blacks broke away from southern slavery and not until Brown vs. Board of Education, Topeka, Kansas that "separate but equal" was quashed in 1954. Still, blacks had to enforce the new Court ruling by riding buses through the Southland.
In the meanwhile local governments have resisted the mandates for integration set down by the Federal government, and they do so to this day. That's what small government does, it keeps black people in ghettos. And Thiel says you can find racism where ever you look. That's because small government Republicans have isolated blacks economically and geographically, except black entertainers and sportsmen whose work and talents transcend city limits.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Do you think that if we place limits on the Federal Government, limiting it's reach into our personal lives, and reduce business regulations, that we'll end up with racism along the lines of the times between 1876 and 1954?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
We will not see the extreme apartheid of separate wash rooms again because there would be unending rebellion in the streets before it got to that.

quote:

Now in all fairness let me ask you some questions:
1. How will limited government benefit the poor, the elderly, and the sick?

quote:

2. What is a Conservative interpretation of the Constitution?

quote:

3. How is the federal government reaching into our personal lives?

quote:

4. How do you determine who is truly needy and who is not without public sector workers?

quote:

5. How will limited government prevent corporate monopolies, price fixing, derivative abuses, insider trading, unfair labor practices, the pollution of our common land, air, and water?

quote:

6. How will small [limited] government defend the nation?

quote:

7. How will it provide assistance in major catastrophes?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

You're trying to pigeonhole me, Vince. Good luck with that. I'm very strong in my beliefs. This isn't something I just thought up yesterday.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You're trying to pigeonhole me, Vince. Good luck with that. I'm very strong in my beliefs. This isn't something I just thought up yesterday.

Just trying to get you to elucidate your slogans, DS.
My comments on the history of the oppression of blacks were not hyperbole. What I spoke of are the root causes of Black rebellion in our country. Just keep it in mind the next time you ask yourself "What do they want?" as they protest in the streets.

quote:

How were the sick and elderly taken care of before? They weren't. It was tragic and still is in many cases. It is not the government's job to take care of them? That is your philosophy and it is a cruel one.

quote:

We send kids to fight needless wars and then neglect them when they are homeless and suicidal veterans. Corporations send jobs overseas and 50 year-olds are turned loose to fend for themselves at minimum wages.

quote:

The Founders, Madison, did not foresee industrialization/globalization and the needs of displaced labor. They had slaves to work free in their agricultural economy. So, we are bound by their original words? Nonsense.

quote:

High taxes and needless regulations (like clean environment) are aimed at the corporate spoilers not at individuals.
I could go on, but as you can readily see we disagree on almost all of your points, so no need and no desire to get into a discussion on each one.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Every regulation that is put on business comes at a cost that is borne by the consumer, aka, the individual. Taxes are a cost of business, so it's built into the prices businesses place on their goods. Individuals pay that. It's merely travels through the businesses' ledgers.