jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (156 posts)

Tea Partiers - Are There any Good Federal Agencies?

  1. LiamBean profile image88
    LiamBeanposted 6 years ago

    I'm not attempting to swat a hornet's nest here. I just keep hearing the refrain "no government is good government" or words to that effect.

    According to the tea-party folks I've spoken to government is wasteful, bloated, and ineffectual. Which makes me wonder; where do we draw a line? Is all federal government inherently bad or are some agencies worth keeping?

    Here's the simplest question I can think of:

    "If you had the power to dissolve all federal agencies which ones would you keep and which ones would you create?"

    1. 0
      Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The founders knew that government works best when it's small and power is spread out among the people that's why the constitution grants specific powers to the government. The federal government's original purpose was for national defense and foreign affairs and to manage the territories, but look what it's become!

      Government has ignored the limits placed upon it and has expanded it's powers beyond those granted it, and it continues to do so, most recently with the health care bill that's about to be passed over the objections of the majority of Americans!

      Government is necessary to provide security, justice, and order. It's main purpose is to maintain freedom for individuals, anything more than that is unconstitutional, and undesirable!

      1. 0
        chasingcarsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What do you know about the founders and their ideas of big or little government?  They were trying to pull together a government big enough to handle their needs and  playing hit and miss at it.  They faced  a unique and unprecedented situation.  You guys who so revere "the founding fathers" probably know jack squat about them.  They were not Christians; they were Deists.  They were not saints; Ben Franklin (for one) belonged to the infamous Hellfire Club.  These guys were setting up a government to suit themselves--wealthy, white, males.  If you haven't noticed, the country is much larger, more complex, and  now and requires a much larger government, especially if you continue to want to spend billions on "defense."  Check out Colorado Springs and California--you know, the tax refusers who are wallowing in trash, without adequate police forces, fire departments, adequately funded schools.  We are no longer a rural society.  We have big businesses which depend on the infrastructure provided by our "big government."  Look how well Bush's attempts at reducing government turned out.  The size and complexity of the nation determines the size of a government.  And if you don't want to live in a worn-down banana republic,  you should be prepared to pay your fair share for all of the above and be glad that there is a government there strong enough to protect the individual from the bigger powers, like the banking system you so despise.  Quit whining and pony up your dues.

        1. 0
          china manposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          I am from the other side of the pond but the institutions are the same general makeup - I worked for the government for 9 months until I couldn't stand the boredom any more. The basic work was distributing money to farmers, I forget the actual figures but not the proportion. If we distributed 40 million in our area - then it cost 28 million to do it, figures of that order.  The work that could actually have been done by maybe 5 people took a complex of offices and maybe 60 people.

          Government departments only ever find reason to get bigger, their own existence is their first priority. You will never hear of any officer asking to have his staff cut by half, or making himself redundant.  It is not about the work they do - it is about the unbelievable innefficiency of it. And  of course every innefficient group of waste of time offices has a huge office overseeing it all, and they . . .

        2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Chasingcars, you got it!

        3. Sab Oh profile image60
          Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          " Look how well Bush's attempts at reducing government turned out. "


          What attempts?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Good point. Well, he did try to turn Social Security over to the Wall Street Banksters at Goldmine Sucks.

    2. ledefensetech profile image81
      ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not sure that the government can provide any services well, including defense and police services.

      https://mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_2.pdf

      In libertarian circles there is great debate between anarchisism and what is known as minarchism.  Anarchism being the absence of a governmental body and minarchism looking something like the Constitution as originally imagined.  The only beef I have with minarchism is that it has already been tried and has lead, step by step to the Leviathan we have today.

      Hoppe talks about this a bit in his essay.  What it really comes down to is this.  What is your view of humanity?  Do you believe we naturally all get along and are, for the most part, kind and decent towards one another?  Or do you believe as Thomas Hobbs did that people need some sort of "third party" to enforce a peace of the sword?  I believe the former.

      Um Ralph, remember the question I keep asking you?  How do you keep the people being regulated from joining government so that they don't control the regulatory agencies?  Well looks like we're seeing that sort of thing in action:

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100226/us_ … 1vbmV5bW8-

      You might try being a little less arrogant, because you really do know far less than you think you do.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        You're the one who continually regurgitates lectures from 100 years ago by people who, if they were here today, would no doubt be progressive Democrats or Republicans.

  2. tobey100 profile image60
    tobey100posted 6 years ago

    Two - the Military and the Transportation Department.  The states could do without all the rest and never notice.  (Ooooo, we'd have to do without all those Federal funds and the attached strings that tell us what we have to do to keep getting the 'free' money)

    1. 0
      Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yep smile

      (although the Trans. dept is borderline)

    2. double_frick profile image79
      double_frickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Maybe the transportation dept. LOL!!!
      the vast majority of the military will just follow orders and an unfortunate minority are all about unethical, borderline illegal, orders. hmm

      i honestly heard at one point that the MOST trustworthy is the FBI?? LOL!!! 

      anyways, i don't really trust any org. gov't or otherwise. i trust myself...and i don't really hold any loyalties besides my loyalty for my country...which is not the same as loyalty to my government.

      there is no government organization or agency that is trustworthy. only individuals.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "The Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged"--

      http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opini … ef=opinion

      Representative Steve King, Republican of Iowa, even rationalized Stack’s crime. “It’s sad the incident in Texas happened,” he said, “but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary. And when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the I.R.S., it’s going to be a happy day for America.” No one in King’s caucus condemned these remarks. Then again, what King euphemized as “the incident” took out just 1 of the 200 workers in the Austin building: Vernon Hunter, a 68-year-old Vietnam veteran nearing his I.R.S. retirement. Had Stack the devastating weaponry and timing to match the death toll of 168 inflicted by Timothy McVeigh on a federal building in Oklahoma in 1995, maybe a few of the congressman’s peers would have cried foul.

      It is not glib or inaccurate to invoke Oklahoma City in this context, because the acrid stench of 1995 is back in the air. Two days before Stack’s suicide mission, The Times published David Barstow’s chilling, months-long investigation of the Tea Party movement. Anyone who was cognizant during the McVeigh firestorm would recognize the old warning signs re-emerging from the mists of history. The Patriot movement. “The New World Order,” with its shadowy conspiracies hatched by the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. Sandpoint, Idaho. White supremacists. Militias.

  3. 0
    A Texanposted 6 years ago

    The Federal government should provide for the Countries defense and not much else. There are too many agencies to pick from, thats the problem, some agencies exist just to support another agency.

    1. Greg Cremia profile image59
      Greg Cremiaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Keep the military and get rid of the rest. And keep the military home. They don't need to be anywhere else than here to protect us.

    2. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Exactly.  Heard a guy on the radio yesterday say the Federal government was patterned after a 1950's orgy porno.  There's a lot of action but you really can't tell what's going on.  Just a lot of asses.

    3. Ken R. Abell profile image86
      Ken R. Abellposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      This is exactly right.

      There is waste beyond our ability to calculate & fathom in government. It is always way too easy to spend someone else's money & that's what government does. The money it spends is our money, not their money.

      And ultimately they get our money with the threat of jail. There ought to be an expectation that government will at least spend our money wisely & judiciously. Instead, they keep printing more & borrowing more & expect that somehow, the house of cards is not one day going to come crashing down.

      Government, all the multiple layers of government, has no bottomline. There is no motivation for government to balance the books & operate in the black. They can always raise more revenue by taxation.

      Simple proposal. I have to operate my household on a budget. I have to balance my checkbook. So does every other responsible citizen. Why not require the government to function as a responsible citizen--why not require pay as you go budgets?

      Answer: Because government feeds on itself & continually reproduces more agencies & layers that become "essential".

      It was John Adams, a Founding Father, who said: "Less government is best government."

      Made perfect sense 200-odd years ago to those who wrote the Constitution, & still makes perfect sense to me.

      1. tobey100 profile image60
        tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Once again I find myself turning to a religious response.  Amen, Ken.  Amen!

  4. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Who's gonna keep all those great Chinese drugs out, and the toys with lead-based paint? How about our National Park system? Goldmine Sucks and the Wall Street banksters would really go wild without the SEC and the Fed.

    And I hope all you guys are rich enough that you won't have to bother with Social Security or Medicare.

    1. 0
      A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Sure would have a lot more money if we didn't have to pay into broke programs like the ones you mentioned!

      1. 0
        Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, and if it is required of people to grow up and take care of themselves - - gasp! - - - they'll actually do it.

      2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, when the time comes I hope you'll return your Social Security checks and Medicare card.

        1. 0
          A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Why? I paid into it!

        2. 0
          Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Why? HE paid in, he should get it back. Not his fault it's broke.

        3. 0
          Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          This year is the first year it's paid out more than it's taken in. By 2037, I believe, it will be insolvent. Medicare will be insolvent by 2017.

          Obama is determined to make America insolvent by the end of his term. Social security and medicare are the least of our problems, and I'm not expecting to collect on either of them!

        4. SparklingJewel profile image67
          SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          geez, if I thought I was going to see any of the money I have been paying in for years I wouldn't be making a fuss about government...they can have my cards any day!(when i get them !)

      3. SparklingJewel profile image67
        SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        ...sounds like a good place for the free market to create some businesses to provide jobs for Americans...don't ya think ? smile

        1. SparklingJewel profile image67
          SparklingJewelposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          well, what happened to the previous quote that was part of the conversation...this is an easier way  to carry on a conversation??? NOT!

    2. Ken R. Abell profile image86
      Ken R. Abellposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Are you suggesting that there is no waste, abuse or multiple layers of unnecessary bureacracy in these agencies?

      There is an awful lot that private enterprise can do much better & more efficiently than government.

      And as long as we're asking questions about the Chinese, who's going to pay the unfathomably large bill we owe China when they decide that payment is due?

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        No, I'm not suggesting that any government agency is without waste. But neither is any corporation without waste. I've worked for a large multinational corporation, a federal government agency and a state agency. There was a similar level of waste in each of these organizations. In fact the greatest amount of waste was in the corporation, at least until it was swamped by foreign competition.

        1. Ken R. Abell profile image86
          Ken R. Abellposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Corporations have a bottomline. Government does not.

        2. 0
          A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The difference!

          Someone was held accountable for the waste in the private sector.

        3. 0
          Madame Xposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          So? That just means they both stink. Where's the confusion?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, it doesn't mean that "they both stink." It merely means that there is a certain amount of waste in nearly all organizations, thanks to human nature, resistance to change and so forth.

            1. 0
              Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              The difference is when there's waste in government there's a bottomless bucket of cash to pay for it and no incentive to reduce it. Business constantly works to cut costs and waste and is always pushed to do so by their competition and by their share holders.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                That is true. Competition and technology do tend to weed out inefficient private organizations. But that doesn't mean that we don't need a variety of government agencies. Leaving it up to private citizens or even the states would be less effective and much more wasteful and duplicative in many if not all cases.
                For example, the auto companies weren't at all happy with the prospect of having to comply with one set of federal emissions regulations and a different set of California regulations. Just imagine multiplying that by 50.

                1. JWestCattle profile image60
                  JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  "But that doesn't mean that we don't need a variety of government agencies. Leaving it up to private citizens or even the states would be less effective and much more wasteful and duplicative in many if not all cases."

                  So, you would no doubt take that argument a step further and be on board for the 'international' governance of the USA by the likes of the United Nations, then we'd really have efficiency and those poor private citizens would never have to use their brain to do anything beyond tie their own shoe-laces. 

                  The EPA is the next great controlling socialistic arm of the federal government in this country, and it is getting all the ammo it needs from the IPCC and the FAO of the United Nations, and in true American political tradition the EPA will milk as much money out of this country as is possible under the premise of Global Warming. 

                  Who knows, maybe it is via the EPA that Obama plans to raise funds to balance his bloated budget.

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Please don't put words in my mouth. Nobody is proposing that the United Nations govern the U.S. let alone me. Some international cooperation and institutions are needed and useful to deal with international problems such as natural disasters, nuclear disarmament, trade and intellectual property regulations, piracy at sea, terrorism, etc. None of these need result in renouncing our sovereignty. Isolationism is no longer a feasible alternative in today's world.

                    I don't have time to run a re-education program for the Tea Party!

    3. tobey100 profile image60
      tobey100posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Adtually Ralph, I am.  I have never depended on the Federal Government for one thin dime.  I was raised to care for my self.  I don't need medicaid, medicare or social security and don't want 'em.  I don't need a nanny state.  Defend me and built interstates and I'll take care of the rest.  I'm not worried about Chinese drugs or lead paint or Wall Street.  We were able to deal with these 'types' of issues before the Feds  stepped in and we can do so again.  Everytime and I mean everytime the Federal governments sets out to protect us or 'help' us, it gets more expensive and worse.  If you can't care for yourself I'll gladly do what I can to assist.  If you're able in mind and body to care for yourself, do it and quit crying to the government to take care of you.

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Well, you deserve a small statue or at least a medal. Not everyone is as independent as you. BTW, please stay out of our federal and state parks.

        1. 0
          A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Stay out of the parks he helps fund? Gee Ralph, who are you to ban someone from parks THEY PAY FOR?

          1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
            Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            He just said he didn't need them. And you as much as said you didn't need Social Security or Medicare.

            1. 0
              A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I don't need SS or Medicare but rest assured I will take my share of what I paid in or they can give me my money back! You are a liberal, I understand that you don't mind paying for something and never receiving anything, its in your DNA to waste money!

      2. PrettyPanther profile image85
        PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So, you'd trust a private agency to provide you with clean water if there were no regulatory agency to monitor it?

        You'd trust a pharmaceutical company to provide you with safe drugs if there were no regulatory agency to make sure they were properly tested before giving them to the masses?

        You'd trust a private company to properly filter our wastewater if there were no  minimum requirements for doing so?

        Seriously?


        Seriously? 

        And you call us liberals foolish.

        1. double_frick profile image79
          double_frickposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          panther! don't you know about our tap water quality and contamination? its appalling, to say the least. any agency that oversees this is either malicious or just plain stupid. hmm
          same with big pharm, in fact, they are much more dangerous and regardless of whether they are simply after money or...something more...i hear whispers of eugenics...well as i said, regardless, big pharm is harming a great many people and should not be blindly trusted. again trust in yourself and make your own decisions.

          I would trust private companies to do a better job than the government because of competition. the government has none, what is their motivation for fixing things or preventing these problems? none, in fact, the opposite. hmm
          this issue came up with privatizing parts of the highway, i'm in favor of that. let private companies compete (keep the roads clean and clear and fast!!!) instead of letting the government try to squeeze ever penny out of us sometimes "getting around" to fixing the shit we PAY FOR.

          LIBERALS indeed. but liberals are the ones who think GOVERNMENT is the answer...not the other way around.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Double_frick!  (just had to add that since you started with an exclamation)

            Re tap water.  As far as I know, tourists don't worry about drinking the water here in the U.S., unlike some other countries

            Re big pharm.  Not sure what you're saying here.  Sounds like you're equating the government with big pharm.  The government regulates big pharm, and I guarantee you if the government didn't regulate big pharm, we would have more problems with it than we now do.

            Re  private companies taking care of highways.  They would expect to be paid for it, you know.  So, who is going to pay these private companies when they "compete" for our business?  How will they extract payment from the people who use the roads?  If they do a poor job, who will fire them?  Who will hire them in the first place?  Imagine, all roads are toll roads.  You'd really like that?

        2. 0
          A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Water and waste water services are provided by private agencies everyday! The regulating agency is a State Agency not federal! And yes we call liberals foolish and your post is one reason why!

          1. PrettyPanther profile image85
            PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, they do.  Did you actually read what I wrote?  I was talking about regulating agencies.  I didn't specify state or federal.

            Now, sweet Texan, who looks foolish.  smile

            1. 0
              A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Still you, did you happen to notice the title of the thread?

              "Are There any Good Federal Agencies?"

              1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, I did, but the same concept applies whether it's a state regulatory agency or a federal one.

                1. 0
                  A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Same concept, yes! so why do we need the Federal agency?

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image85
                    PrettyPantherposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you really not know the answer to this question, or do you just like to spend your time going around in circles on the internet?

        3. 0
          Poppa Bluesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          How long do you think a drug company would be in business if they sold a product that did harm? Or a water company? How many people have died while waiting for the FDA to act?

          Look at all the poisonous products that have come into this country from China, lead painted toys, cadmium jewelry, contaminated pet food, what happened to the government agencies that exist to protect us?

          For that matter where were the government regulating agencies that were supposed to monitor the banks and protect us form a meltdown? How come none of them saw the crisis coming? How come there wasn't any warning?

          Yes, I'd trust private industry before I trust government, because there's no accountability when government makes a mistake. Look at all the tax cheats in Obama's administration, did anyone go to jail? Pay a fine? Look at Charlie Rangle?

          No. I trust my own judgement and private business. Government is nothing more than a parasite that feeds off the blood sweat and tears of free men. Government is the biggest welfare program in the nation!

  5. 0
    A Texanposted 6 years ago

    Oh liberals, where art thou? Did you run away as your house of cards came tumbling down?

  6. MikeNV profile image77
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    The Government spends like crazy... and all that money goes somewhere... it doesn't just evaporate.

    And that is the real problem with Government and Programs.  It's not the people... it's the flow of money to those who administer the programs.  And when you start to dig in you realize the Investment Banks are the beneficiaries of huge amounts of the Federal Government money.

    State Food Stamp programs are administered by the Investment Banks. Foodstamps are afterall a form of currency. When the Government issues Treasury Bills they are brokered by the Investment Banks.

    Investment Banks would not be raking in the giagantic profits with out the Government.

  7. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Well, which is it for you, Tex, frat boy Perry or loony tunes Medina?

  8. thisisoli profile image64
    thisisoliposted 6 years ago

    Personally England is weighed under by its beurocracy at the moment.  However I like what the country provides, I just think that all good governments need a clean swwp of their processes and departments once in a while. especially when it comes to middle management etc.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Tex, you're ignoring my questions on the Texas governor's race. Are you supporting Perry or Medina? Surely you're not a closet Kay Bailey Hutchinson supporter?

  10. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    The party regurgitation just abounds and astounds.

    The simple fact is this Nation’s government no longer resembles the Republic as devised by the Founding Fathers. The levels of bureaucracy and voluminous laws designed for governmental control and passed under the guise of “public protection” have obscured the Liberties the government was designed to uphold.

    Until our Republic is re-established and reordered as designed, all of the arguing and political infighting will only lead to more of the problem.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      That's because the country no longer resembles the 13 states at the time of our founding fathers. Why is it so hard for you to grasp that simple fact?

      1. readytoescape profile image60
        readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Have our rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution changed because we have grown?

        That has got to be one of the feeblest and idiotic statements I seen you make Ralph, I know you are more educated and informed than that.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          You should stick to something you know something about--the construction industry. Our country and the world have changed dramatically since 1776 and the government has adapted to deal with the changes. Our basic freedoms remain, for the most part, intact.

          1. 0
            A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The "most part"? You wont be happy until there are none, will you Ralphieboy?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Tex, maybe you, like readytoescape, should also stick to something you know something about rather than speculating about what will make me happy.

              1. 0
                A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Nah, I know what makes you miserable so I'll just keep doing that!

          2. readytoescape profile image60
            readytoescapeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Ah, the typical liberal progressive playbook maneuver; when you can’t defend your statement, attack the person not the issue.

            I had hopes you might have been a point of enlightenment that could lead to comprehending your point of view. But as in my first post I read only regurgitation of partisan politics and positions that have no real meaning.

            I think I shall not waste anymore time.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, we are both wasting our time. You should repeat your high school civics class and then we can try again.

  11. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 6 years ago

    Poor Ralph, so one sided in your myopic view you must resort to sophomoric insults, and so liberally characteristic.

  12. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    He never can answer a simple question.  And then he has the utter gall to tell people to review high school civics.  Still let him prattle on.  Like the Democrats he so adores, he just drifts further and further from reality. 

    And yes, Ralph, I'd rather listen to the timeless wisdom of the giants of philosophy like Locke, Jefferson and Washington to the barbaric writings of Marx, Lenin and Stalin.  Foolish me, I believe human life means something.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, and you should go back to school and take an economics course or two by a reputable 20th century economist. You both are living in a completely unrealistic dream world. Human life means something for those who can afford health care and a roof over their heads. You could not care less about the rest. Go back to making signs for your next Tea Party.

      1. 0
        A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        How do you know this Ralph? Are you able to read minds over an internet connection? I think you are just doing the Democrat waltz, you know, blaming society for the inadequacies of some.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Sheer logic plus looking around at what's happening in our country and the world. It's changed a lot in the last 100 years or so--H-bombs, jet planes, computers, factory farms, international trade, etc. Governmental measures and agencies were created to deal with issues arising out of these developments by our representatives elected in accordance with the Constitution.

      2. 0
        A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        An edit, typical, no argument so do some flaming!

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Tex, pal, you're not exactly known for your cogent arguments.

          1. 0
            A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            By your definition, probably not. But I don't resort to the things you always do, attack the person, why do you do that? Could it be your entire argument is based upon your feelings?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You are attacking me for responding to your constant needling. You learned too much from TK/Sab Oh.

              1. 0
                A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Its your opinion that I am needling, its not a fact. I respond to things you say because I disagree with you, if you don't like people to disagree with you then don't post on this forum, because there are lots who don't agree with you or I. I specifically asked how you knew that ledefensetech didn't care about his fellow man, you stated it as if its a fact, I propose that it is your feelings that govern your political bent not any logical thought.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, you express your disagreement in one sentence jibes, rarelyr giving a reason or explanation. I asserted that Ldt professes but doesn't really care about humanity because he would dismantle virtually the entire government as would you apparently ss well. Neither of you has explained what you would do about air traffic control, piracy at sea, intellectual property, assuring safe food and drugs, trade regulation, consumer protection and so forth. You come back with smart little quips, and Ldt, with condescending, long-winded lectures based on obsolete 18th and early 19th century economic theories which made sense 100 years ago, and then accuses me of being influenced by Marx and Stalin.

                  1. 0
                    A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Can the States not handle air traffic control or any of what you mentioned? We are talking about dismantling Federal Government not all Government. We have doubled up on taxing entities and are receiving less for it, what exactly is not understood?

                  2. ledefensetech profile image81
                    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    Jesus Ralph, you might try reading history sometime.  There's a reason people say it's cyclical.  Just because something is "new" doesn't mean it's obsolete.  Is Gallileo obsolete?  Copernicus?  Their theories are even older than the supposedly obsolete 18th and 19th century philosophers I cite.  Never mind that Mises, Robard and Hayek all wrote in the 20th century, most of it after your precious Keynes.

                    If I accuse you of being influenced by Marx and Stalin, it's because both of them like Keynes wanted someone to control the economy.  It can't be done.  As with CDO's and derivatives, you rightly point out that no regulatory agency can handle.  What you ignore is the role certain rules and regulations had on creating CDO's and derivatives in the first place.

                    Nice to see you've given up your "those philosophers are religion to you", it really was getting old and stale.

  13. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Reputable economist?  That's just code for an economist you agree with.  Unlike you, Ralph, there are those who prefer to use reason rather than sophism to make your arguments.  If you knew anything about economics, you'd know that there are far more economic theories than those espoused by Keynes.  Of them all, only Lugwig von Mises and the Austrian School correctly foresaw the housing crisis.  Keynesians were, as usual, blindsided just like they were in the 1970's.

    You're so economically ignorant, you can't correctly identify why healthcare and housing have gone bonkers.  Until you do expect to get your faulty reasoning called out.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You are the master of insults and ignorance of the modern world.

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Thank you, Ralph, I'm sorry you find someone refuting your dubious points to be insulting, but so be it.  I suppose I should lighten up, after all those who share your viewpoint who are in positions of power are about to find out the limits of that power.  And, in the end, it will probably be a good thing for Americans to have an example of what happens when you let Progressives get just a little power.  It will keep us from making the same mistakes in the future.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Ldt, you haven't even responded to my points, let alone refuted them. You've merely asserted that virtually the entire government is unnecessary and should be dismantled because of your outdated economic theories.

          1. ledefensetech profile image81
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            What points have you made, exactly.  I've looked back at your posts and can't find a single one, only sophism.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              Maybe you need a reading comprehension course along with economics. We are wasting each other's time. You may enjoy exchanging insults. I don't.

              1. 0
                A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                And yet, you are so good at it.

              2. ledefensetech profile image81
                ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Still no points and more sophism.  Perhaps you should be more explicit Ralph, since you obviously think I'm a little slow.

  14. 0
    sneakorocksolidposted 6 years ago

    Dismantle any program giving money away including forgien aid. The government doesn't have any money and never did. Close the damn borders so we aren't responsible for their education, healthcare and criminal activity. Mandatory government service for everyone leaving high school and to help fund their own education and healthcare. No buisness bailouts, period. People first programs to include jobs, resources and development over the animals. I love animals but we allways jump to the stupid card on animals and the enviroment.

  15. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Not really.  There isn't a difference between individuals donating money to causes they support and people doing the same thing via a corporation.  Of course, we both agree I think that such support must be voluntary.  The problem is when legislators become involved in the process, it soon becomes a means of survival for that company to influence the political process.

    The big fallacy about the credit card thing is that nobody forces you to sign up for it.  So lack of regulation isn't the problem. Nobody makes you sign up for those offers.  The problem is people not paying attention to the terms or people actively trying to cheat and get out of honoring their obligations.  If companies become to "predatory" you can always declare bankruptcy.  If the industry as a whole forces people to do this too much, they go out of business because too many people default.  There really are consequences to your actions in business.

    As for the Great Lakes, the differing polities are confusing the issue.  It's a pretty straightforward issue of property.  In order to manage the Great Lakes, everyone's stake must be taken into account and responded to.  The problem seems to be the Asian Carp, but if you let the EPA into the mess you'll have the sort of nonsense recently seen in concerning farmers and "endangered" fish:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmo … gered-fish

    In that case you have a power 2000 miles away making dubious decisions based on outdated or erroneous data.  Much like trying to conduct a battle away from the front lines, most of the decisions those bureaucrats make will be bad ones.  After all there are few personal consequences for them if they  make a bad decision.  The tax money will still flow and they will still get their budget next year.  Or, more likely, they'll get a little more next year.  That, in a nutshell, is why government does things poorly.  The economic consequence for making bad decisions is not as immediate as it is for business, therefore they are more likely to make bad decisions.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Well, our duly elected representatives didn't agree with you on stopping the credit card companies from screwing their cardholders. A new regulation stopping some of the most egregious tricks and traps went into effect this week.

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Which will just have the effect of damping the supply of credit.  It's one of those "feel good", "we're doing our job" measures that will have little impact on how that industry operates.  Until people wise up and see credit cards for what they are, the industry won't change.

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Well, the supply of credit could stand some dampening.

          1. 0
            A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Only to those who are not worthy of getting credit.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
              Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              That's what I meant.

              1. 0
                A Texanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Then we agree, first time for everything.

  16. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    I agree, except that the Fed is still creating credit.  All that liquidity has to go somewhere, it can't go to stocks and it can't go to housing.  Which industry will be the next bubble?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      It's not going anywhere. The banks are hoarding the money. They need to start lending to small businesses so that they will start hiring. It's hard to get the lending started. My economics professor said lowering interest rates is like pushing a string. That's why the stimulus was needed. It's worked somewhat but was not big enough.

      1. JWestCattle profile image60
        JWestCattleposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        So, it's the failure of banks to lend to small businesses that has caused the complete failure of the 'stimulus' to create jobs? That should be a Democratic party line.........

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          The stimulus has not failed to create jobs. It has not created enough jobs. The banks failure to lend hasn't helped.

          1. ledefensetech profile image81
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            The stimulus hasn't created any jobs.  The White House even reported on Congressional Districts that don't even exist.  Surely you don't consider them a truthful source of information.  Even the AP got the story right.

            http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/10/ … mulus.html

            http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whit … reation-fa

            http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini … 66937.html

            The only thing the stimulus bill did was reward political backers, just like the rest of the President's agenda.

            Here's a hint Ralph, the only thing that can create a sustainable recovery is saving and investment.  Perhaps the Glorious Leader should spend some time thinking that one over before pushing another failed stimulus plan that only rewards the politically connected at the expense of everyone else via higher prices due to inflation.

            1. LiamBean profile image88
              LiamBeanposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              You know you are describing Bush too don't you?

              >Mandatory government service for everyone leaving high school and to help fund their own education and healthcare. No buisness bailouts, period.

              I think this would be a great thing for this country, but it smacks of fascism too.

              1. ledefensetech profile image81
                ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                Of course I am.  And Reagan.  We haven't had a real President who stood for smaller government since before Theodore Roosevelt.  Why is it Progressives like you automatically assume that because I disagree with you, I must always support the opposition party.

                Mandatory government service for everyone is a dumb idea.  For service to mean anything, it has to be voluntary.  That's the secret to the success of our military, it's made up not of conscripts but volunteers.  People who really believe, not people who are arbitrarily out of their lives.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                  Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You mean people who are poor, unemployed, uneducated and can't find a job anywhere besides the military, for the most part. That's why there there isn't a lot of opposition to the war--no increased taxes to pay for it and no draft affecting the children of the middle and upper classes.

                  1. ledefensetech profile image81
                    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No Ralph, what you and your lefty brethren hate is that there isn't any good old lefty "anti-war" demonstrations that are just covers for socialism/communism.  There was plenty of opposition to the war when we things were going badly.  Now that things are getting better, opposition has faded.  Nothing gets the public behind a war like victory.  In many ways that is unfortunate, on a number of levels.

                    People can't find jobs because of governmental action.  It was government policy which created this unsustainable bubble whose collapse we are suffering through and it's governmental action via failed bailouts and "stimulus" that is keeping recovery from happening.

                    I don't know how much clearer I can make it.  In order to see real recovery we need a pool of savings, that pool then needs to be invested in business so that business can expand.  There really is a difference between funding something through investing savings and funding something through debt.  The first is desirable, the latter is not.

              2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                When fascism comes it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross....Sinclair Lewis and/or Huey Long

                1. ledefensetech profile image81
                  ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                  You are aware that fascists like Hitler and Mussolini used Keynes' General Theory practically word for word, aren't you?

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
                    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                    No, I'm not. Keynes was a believer in democratic market systems. He was not a fascist, socialist, communist, nazi as much as you would like to so characterize him.

    2. EmpressFelicity profile image83
      EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Carbon trading.

  17. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    Wrong, the only think keeping inflation at bay is banks "hoarding" money.  The reason they're not lending that money is to cover losses from the housing fiasco.  We're still only about 1/3 of the way through that one.  Alt-A and commercial defaults are coming.  If they lent that money out, they'd not have the reserves needed to weather the losses incurred by those loans resetting and defaulting.

    So the money is going somewhere, into a black hole.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      US bank lending falls at fastest rate in history
      Bank lending in the US has contracted so far this year at the fastest rate in recorded history, raising concerns that the Federal Reserve may have jumped the gun by withdrawing emergency stimulus.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/econ … story.html

  18. 0
    Denno66posted 6 years ago

    Hmmmm, how about the Agency of Common Sense? Ope, no! That one was disbanded centuries ago, my bad. big_smile

  19. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    That will be due to regulation, not excess liquidity, I think.  But you never know what kind of nonsense people will believe.  It's funny to think back a few years ago when everyone was saying that housing prices always went up...except during the Great Depression.

  20. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    No matter what, the economy will fall after stimulus is withdrawn.  The only thing propping up the economy is the spending.  Problem is, that spending is unsustainable.  We can either stop it now, voluntarily, or be forced to stop it when inflation starts to run rampant.  Ralph you lived through 1979-1983, I was a kid.  Don't you remember what happened when Jimmy Carter massively increased the amount of money in the economy?  The only thing that got us out of that was Paul Volcker pushing interest rates to something like 15% and keeping them there for several years.  To give Carter credit he did nominate Volcker for the Fed Chairmanship, prior to that he was listening to Keynesian economists.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      You're sounding like a Keynesian!

  21. barranca profile image72
    barrancaposted 6 years ago

    I don't like the shadow of big government nor the shadow of big business.  And most especially, as recently, how they collude to exploit "the people" or "the consumer" as you like.  I agree in general with the proposition that government in the US has a become self-serving, dishonest and expansionist.  On the other hand, I like efficient, simple laws and government that takes care of basic communal interests such as roads, libraries, police & fire forces, parks, air & water, sewage.  But my biggest concern as an American is Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex which has since morphed into the military-industrial-congressional-lobbyist complex.  Their interest is in continuous simmering warfare and gigantic expenses for R & D, Military bases all over the planet.

  22. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    You need to read the first draft of his farewell address.  It was a congressional/military/industrial complex, but he wussed out at the last second and dropped the congressional part.

    I'd argue that as soon as you let government have a hand in the economy, it cannot become anything but dishonest, self-serving and expansionist. 

    One thing I've been wondering lately is do we even need a legislature?  The consequences of having one are pretty clear.  Laws unending.  Right now I'm sure everyone on this forum is guilty of breaking some law or another.  The only difference between us is the propensity of a prosecutor to try the case in court.  Not exactly the environment of a  free people.  More like a Kafkaesque society if you ask me.

    Why can't we have a society based on a few basic laws protecting life and property while leaving disputes up to the courts and giving the jury final say on the judgment of the court.  Much less the sort of nonsense we see from legislatures in this day and age.

    I'd be curious as to your thoughts on the following article:
    http://mises.org/daily/4147

    1. barranca profile image72
      barrancaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Isn't justice and the courts & the police a function of government?

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Not necessarily.  The problem with government mandated anything is that it is by nature a monopoly.  Monopolies are horrible ways to ensure quality goods and services.  Why do you think there is always a backlog of cases in courts? 

        As for justice, isn't that the province of people deciding through juries what is right and what is wrong?  Why else have jury trials?

    2. barranca profile image72
      barrancaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I think that free-market capitalism is a dream, much like Marx's propertyless utopia.  I love the vision of small time entrepreneurs selling their wares, produced by honest labor, out in the communal marketplace.   It is when business gets bigger, more powerful and exploitative that it simply has to be regulated or we have problems such as environmental rape, pollution, exploitation of labor.  These are simply undeniable facts of business/labor history.  It was the undeniable excesses of capitalism that gave birth to Marx's response, labor unions and collective bargaining.

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        What you don't seem to get is that by intervening in the marketplace government opens itself up to corruption by business.  Do you think, for example, that the East India trading company would have grown more than a fraction of what it did, if it did not have a monopoly over trade with India and China?  It was that monopoly which allowed the Company to grow big enough to field armies.  What other contemporary firm do you think could have done what the Company did?

        More importantly, how do you keep members of the industry from taking over the regulatory bodies that oversee the industry.  On the flipside, if you don't allow anyone with ties to the industry to oversee it, how can you be sure decisions made by people ignorant of the industry will be good ones?  Regulation of industry will always fail.

        Finally let's define some terms.  Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production.  Firms are funded through savings and investment.  By investing people make their savings grow.  How is any of this bad?  A capitalist system is also much more likely to produce sustainable economic growth, increases in production and through the increase of production less expensive goods thus raising the standard of living for everyone.

        Finally, how can you exploit labor when people are free to "vote with their feet" and work somewhere else if they don't like the place they are currently employed at?

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image83
          EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It all depends on whether people have the choice, doesn't it?

        2. barranca profile image72
          barrancaposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          It seems to me that we can resurrect our system by taking money out of politics:  run fair publically funded elections with fair, open, rational debates.  Similar issues arise with respect to elected judges be bought by corporate interests.  Presidential authority needs reining in.  Congress needs to starting declaring war again before conflicts begin.  Pay as you go economics.  Senate reform.   None of these "presidential signing statements".  But the basic first issue should be separating money and politics insofar as possible.  We also need to revitalize the process with third party candidates.  Independents not crypto-democrats or republicans.

          1. Sab Oh profile image60
            Sab Ohposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            "It seems to me that we can resurrect our system by taking money out of politics:"

            That is not possible.

          2. ledefensetech profile image81
            ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure that a multi-party polity will be enough.  Granted the UK can other European nations operate under a parliamentary system, but they don't seem to be served very well by a multi-party system.  No matter how we reform the system, the fact remains that as long as we elect people according to party politics and not their character, we'll never see any sort of meaningful reform.  Our system was never set up to deal with the party system in the first place. 

            I'm curious as to what sort of Senate reform you'd like to see. 

            I'd argue that the first thing we need to do is establish a federal system, not this national system we see today.

            Empress, you always have a choice.  Ever read about Diocletian's "reforms" in the Late Roman Era?  That was actually the genesis of serfdom, he basically made your job hereditary so that if your dad was a baker, you wound up being a baker.  That's why the modern world isn't considered to have begun until after serfdom fell by the wayside in the West.  That's also why the frontier was such a boon the US in the early years.  If you didn't like the way people were doing things in your town, you could always pick up and make a new town.  It's that freedom of movement that is one of our most important freedoms.

            Actually what I'd like to see is the elimination of residency requirements for state citizenship.  The results should be instructive and illuminating.  The states, at least, would be forced to limit their actions in order to appease the greatest number of people to declare citizenship an so preserve their tax base.

    3. EmpressFelicity profile image83
      EmpressFelicityposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      "Furthermore, as another Italian theorist, Giovanni Sartori, has pointed out, when legislation is thought of as the primary source of law, citizens become more accustomed to following orders, and thus become more docile, servile, and less independent. Once people lose their rebellious spirit, it is easier and more likely for the government to become tyrannical."

      Another possibility is that people will just ignore the legislation altogether or try to work round it and develop a parallel, "unofficial" society.

      Your article actually hinted at this, when it said that the more legislation there is, the more people will try to get round legislation by avoiding contracts.

      An example of this is where large employers stop directly hiring people and take them on through an agency instead, so that the agency is the one that does the hiring and firing.  I'm sure this is partly due to all the equality-in-the-workplace legislation that we've adopted in recent years.

      I agree that we have far too much legislation at present (in Britain we do, anyway - much of it thanks to the dear old EU).  But I think that like everything in life, this is a cycle which will eventually fall back on itself and implode.

  23. ledefensetech profile image81
    ledefensetechposted 6 years ago

    No Ralph, I'm just explaining how things are going to go using our current economic system.  Keynes ignored the effect of inflation, which will come, sooner or later.  Whether the banks use their money for covering losses from bad loans tomorrow or loan that money out to people today, the end effect will be to inflate the monetary supply thus devaluing the dollar.  You say you're concerned about the poor and those unable to work.  What do you think is going to happen to them when inflation really starts to bite at out purchasing power?  Who suffers the most from inflation?

    Inflation is the second part of the collapse that hasn't happened, yet.  But it will.  When he wrote his General Theory, Keynes deliberately ignored the accumulated knowledge of centuries of economic thought and how monetary policy has played out through the ages.  So no, I'm not a Keynesian, but I can see where their policy will lead us.  Ron Paul, an adherent of the Austrian School, was warning as early as 2003 that the economic policy of the government was going to cause a bubble and crash.  He was getting some airtime in 2005, mostly as some crackpot, but by 2007 he was getting quite a bit of airtime.  Same thing with Peter Schiff.  Who would you rather trust you money to?  Obama or Schiff?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Ron Paul has only one thing going for him, and its not economic policy. It's his opposition to the costly, unnecessary, foolish war in Iraq and the questionable war against the Taliban in Afghanistan.

      1. ledefensetech profile image81
        ledefensetechposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Apparently not, Ralph, he's been consistently against government spending for decades and his constitutients have been sending him back to Congress since he won a special appointment in 1976.  So he won on his own merits in 1978 and has continued to be sent back for 32 years.  Interestingly enough, he did well among mothers, owing to the fact that he delivered half the babies in Barzoria county.



        He seems to have something more than just his opposition to the Iraq War.  He's also, in the past, opposed the draft, Federal Reserve, government spending and has even indicated that he will refuse to accept any sort of pension given to Congresspersons.  He gets reelected because he says what he means and acts on it, not paying lip service to deeds like our current Confounder-in-Chief.

 
working