airdvr 200 #1 April 13, 2011 The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. BHO 3/6/2006 I post this not as a complete jab at Barry but rather to show the stupidity of our government today. When the R's own the White House the D's cry foul and vice versa. We have a huge problem and raising the ceiling is not the answer.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #2 April 13, 2011 Isn't the whole idea of government to force other people to pay for the things you want? If not, then why do you need a government? Either you want what the government "provides", or not. If you don't want it, why would you want a government to force you to pay for it? If you do want what is provided, then why don't you pay for it yourself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #3 April 13, 2011 Quote The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that “the buck stops here.” Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. BHO 3/6/2006 I post this not as a complete jab at Barry but rather to show the stupidity of our government today. When the R's own the White House the D's cry foul and vice versa. We have a huge problem and raising the ceiling is not the answer. __________________________________________ I agreed with Obama back in 2006 when he said this and i remember being so angry with Bush for the way he increased our debt . Now we have a president who spent more money in February 2011 then Bush did in the entire year of 2007. Obama is obviously a phony liar who said anything to get elected. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #4 April 13, 2011 QuoteIf you do want what is provided, then why don't you pay for it yourself? How would this work (for one example) in relation to the criminal justice system? Let's say your house is burgled. Doesn't "pay for it yourself" mean that you are then faced with hiring some private agency to investigate, track down the perpetrator, and try to get your stuff back? After that, if you want the perp punished, do you pay out of pocket to hire the prosecutor, judge, etc; and if the perp is convicted, do you then have to pay the cost of incarcerating them? Of course you could skip some of that by abandoning your job, devoting yourself to tracking down the burglar, and then administering whatever punishment you feel appropriate. No need to worry about "constitutional rights", just the law of the jungle. Also better hope you're a good enough detective to be sure to get the right suspect. There are many things that virtually everybody needs that can be efficiently provided by working together cooperatively, and almost all of those things would be either prohibitively expensive or outright impossible for each person to do on their own. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #5 April 13, 2011 QuoteNow we have a president who spent more money in February 2011 then Bush did in the entire year of 2007. Source? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #6 April 13, 2011 Hi Don, QuoteHow would this work (for one example) in relation to the criminal justice system? Let's say your house is burgled. Okay. QuoteDoesn't "pay for it yourself" mean that you are then faced with hiring some private agency to investigate, track down the perpetrator, and try to get your stuff back? ... Not necessarily, although that can be a voluntary option for you to decide. Another option is to voluntarily buy into a type of insurance preemptively that would pay for solving crimes and capturing criminals. A third option is to take a collection to offer as a reward to anyone that brings the criminal to justice. A fourth option is to collect restitution from a convicted criminal to pay for his crimes and costs. QuoteThere are many things that virtually everybody needs that can be efficiently provided by working together cooperatively, and almost all of those things would be either prohibitively expensive or outright impossible for each person to do on their own. I completely agree. What I don't agree with is the idea that force is necessary to attain these things. Do you think people should be forced to pay disproportionately to what they consume? In your burglary example, who do you want to force to pay? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #7 April 13, 2011 Quote Quote Now we have a president who spent more money in February 2011 then Bush did in the entire year of 2007. Source? ______________________________________________ There are many when it is the truth...http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2011/03/february-2011-deficit-is-bigger-than-full-year-2007-deficit.html Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 April 13, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Now we have a president who spent more money in February 2011 then Bush did in the entire year of 2007. Source? ______________________________________________ There are many when it is the truth...http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2011/03/february-2011-deficit-is-bigger-than-full-year-2007-deficit.html That doesn't say the same thing. Spending != deficit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #9 April 13, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Now we have a president who spent more money in February 2011 then Bush did in the entire year of 2007. Source? ______________________________________________ There are many when it is the truth...http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/2011/03/february-2011-deficit-is-bigger-than-full-year-2007-deficit.html That doesn't say the same thing. Spending != deficit. Here is a snip from the link that should settle this.. The problem that faces us today is not all Obama’s fault, and it’s not all Bush’s fault, it’s the compilation of two offices that have spent recklessly and left people wondering about the health of our financial future". Blue Skies... " Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #10 April 13, 2011 What's really interesting to me is that the President is arguing that unless the debt ceiling is raised we won't be able to pay interest on the debt we already have and we'll default. Yep - the policy is to borrow to pay interest on borrowing. That's some hardcore fiscal irresponsibility right there!!! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #11 April 13, 2011 no, that doesn't settle it. Bush spent a few trillion dollars in 2007. Obama spent on order of 300-400B in February. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #12 April 13, 2011 QuoteWhat's really interesting to me is that the President is arguing that unless the debt ceiling is raised we won't be able to pay interest on the debt we already have and we'll default. Yep - the policy is to borrow to pay interest on borrowing. That's some hardcore fiscal irresponsibility right there!!! in the 1995 shutdown, the Feds got very close to defaulting, and that would have been disastrous for us. The SecTreas overstepped his authority to make sure this did not occur. We don't want to be paying Ireland type interest rates on our debt. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #13 April 13, 2011 Then we pay debt and don't pay other stuff. Period. We don't pay everything BUT the debt. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #14 April 13, 2011 >but rather to show the stupidity of our government today. When the R's own the White >House the D's cry foul and vice versa. Yep. And in ten years when the GOP is back in power, they will be the ones spending trillions on a few more wars while the democrats become the party of fiscal responsibility. The GOP will call anyone who doesn't support the spending an America-hater who spits on the soldiers; the democrats will call the GOP the "borrow and spend" party. And nothing will change. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hwt 0 #15 April 13, 2011 Quote >but rather to show the stupidity of our government today. When the R's own the White >House the D's cry foul and vice versa. Yep. And in ten years when the GOP is back in power, they will be the ones spending trillions on a few more wars while the democrats become the party of fiscal responsibility. The GOP will call anyone who doesn't support the spending an America-hater who spits on the soldiers; the democrats will call the GOP the "borrow and spend" party. And nothing will change. _____________________________________________ Speaking of wars , let us all remember the promise that Mr. Nobel peace prize winning Obama made to the voters during his campaign about the cost of war. http://www.alternet.org/news/150523/president_obama's_top_5_broken_campaign_promises/?page=2 here is a snip ... " American forces are dropping more bombs on more countries today than at any point during the Bush administration, with continued occupation forces in two massive countries even as they stage aerial bombardments of Pakistan, Libya and Yemen". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #16 April 13, 2011 Hi Adam, Quote...collect restitution from a convicted criminal to pay for his crimes and costs. It's almost always the case that thieves will not have the resources to pay any reasonable restitution. For example, around here we are having trouble with thieves who do an incredible amount of damage to property to steal a few dollars worth of copper, which they sell at metal recyclers. It's not unusual to have tens of thousands of dollars in damage (torn out drywall, or destroyed air conditioning units) to yield less than $100 worth of copper wire. Perhaps you could force the thief to work at a wage-paying job until his debt is paid off, but then you would yourself, or through a proxy you would have to pay, have to make sure the thief does get a job, pay back the money, etc. Perhaps you would care to spend the rest of your days policing the bastard to make sure you got reimbursed, but I only have one life and I don't care to spend it following some thief around to make sure I get paid back. Quote...take a collection to offer as a reward to anyone that brings the criminal to justice. Who would contribute to such a "collection"? Why should one's access to justice be contingent on having a big enough circle of friends/family to be able to raise a big reward? How could you be assured that the suspect brought in by such a process is actually the guilty party, and not just some poor hapless schmuck nabbed off the street to cash in on the reward? QuoteAnother option is to ... buy into a type of insurance preemptively that would pay for solving crimes and capturing criminals. This is exactly what the criminal justice system does. We "buy into" the system by paying taxes. I respectfully disagree with the voluntary part of your answer, though, for the following reasons. Everyone benefits from a system where criminals are at least somewhat dissuaded by the threat of being caught and punished. It's true we do still have criminals, but I think the problem would be much worse in the absence of any meaningful deterrent. Now if "buying in" was completely voluntary, several things would happen. First, a lot of people would not buy in, figuring they could just pay up later if and when they needed to access the system. This would shift the cost of creating and maintaining the system (police, courts, prisons) onto a smaller (possibly quite small) number of people, so the cost to them would be unsustainable and the system would degrade or collapse. Then when something did happen and the "cheaters" (those people who don't pay) try to retroactively buy in, the people who have been paying for the system have two unpleasant choices. They can let the cheater buy in, which just encourages everybody else to cheat too, further decreasing the pool of people willing to pay to maintain the system. Alternatively they can refuse to let the cheater in, which will likely result in no-one investigating the crime that was committed against the cheater. This creates a pool of victims for criminals to prey on, and supports the growth of a criminal element in the population. Ultimately the protective effect of having a generalized deterrent against a criminal livelihood will be lost. QuoteDo you think people should be forced to pay disproportionately to what they consume? In your burglary example, who do you want to force to pay? How do you define/measure "consume"? You might say only those people who are victims of crime are "consumers" of the benefits of the criminal justice system. I would argue that the more you have (material goods, investment wealth, even relationships with family and friends), the more you have to lose to criminal activity, and so the more you benefit by having the justice system keeping most people honest. Just as you pay more for fire insurance if your house is worth more than the average (and so you lose more if it burns down), you should pay taxes in proportion to what you have to potentially lose. Personally, I really do think of a lot of government services as insurance. I support the CDC because of the risk of disease outbreaks. I pay for the sewer system because I am familiar with the risks associated with contaminated water, and because I am sufficiently moral that I do not want to expose people who happen to live downstream to the risk of drinking my shit just so I can save a few dollars every month. I pay for the USDA so that I don't have to pay a lot more to get my food tested for E. coli before I dare feed it to my kids, and I pay for the FDA so I can have some confidence my pharmacist isn't selling me snake oil. I'd rather have an air traffic control system in place than trust pilots to figure out for themselves how to organize takeoffs and landings from busy airports. And so on... Now I can disagree with government spending priorities as much as anybody. I think prisons are full of people whose only crime is to themselves (most drug convictions), and I think we spend too much on the military. What I don't agree with is that people should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of life in an organized society, without paying a fair share of the cost for those benefits. I asked this question in another thread, and I'll ask it of you: What system can you propose that would allow people to opt out of paying taxes, at the cost of not being able to enjoy any benefit, in any manner whatsoever, of any government provided service. So if you want to drive somewhere, you have to buy land/pave the road/build bridges yourself, or only drive on privately constructed roads. No taxpayer funded interstate highways for you. If you run a business, you can't hire any people who were educated in the public schools or state colleges. If you get sick, you can't access any treatments or drugs that were based in any way on any knowledge that was gained through NIH grants or publicly funded research. And so on... How could you do it? How can you build a wall between yourself and each and every taxpayer funded (local, state, and federal) service? If you can't do that, why should you be allowed to benefit from those services and not pay a fair share to support them? Isn't taking something (services) and not paying for it theft? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #17 April 14, 2011 QuoteI asked this question in another thread, and I'll ask it of you: What system can you propose that would allow people to opt out of paying taxes, at the cost of not being able to enjoy any benefit, in any manner whatsoever, of any government provided service. If people had the option to opt out of government, everyone would eventually take that option. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #18 April 14, 2011 >What system can you propose that would allow people to opt out of paying taxes, at >the cost of not being able to enjoy any benefit, in any manner whatsoever, of any >government provided service. Easy. Leave the US. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AdamLanes 1 #19 April 14, 2011 Quote Easy. Leave the US. Really? Its that easy huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #20 April 14, 2011 Quote>What system can you propose that would allow people to opt out of paying taxes, at >the cost of not being able to enjoy any benefit, in any manner whatsoever, of any >government provided service. Easy. Leave the US. What if we made some Pacific territory available to them, sort of a modern day Australia? Or San Clemente Island - all we do is bomb it, right? No services provided, no infrastructure. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,476 #21 April 14, 2011 >What if we made some Pacific territory available to them, sort of a modern >day Australia? Sure; you could then allow them to do whatever they want without the oppressive hand of the US government to make them slaves. Freedom from military support. China could take over if they wanted, unless the people there could repel them. Freedom from rescue, ATC support, FCC services and the CDC. If you want to leave you can - after you sign an agreement to never initiate any legal action based on what happened there, and after you submit to a medical exam for disease and parasites. On your dime, of course. (And if you can't afford it, you can't leave.) You can pollute the ground and water all you like, but if it gets bad enough that people outside notice, then a wall gets built around the place, and no waste is allowed to pass outwards (and no water/fish etc are allowed to pass inwards.) You can pollute the air all you like, but again, if it gets bad, the US uses just enough cruise missiles to stop the source. (Or just drop a dome over the place, whatever's cheaper.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #22 April 14, 2011 Quote Quote Easy. Leave the US. Really? Its that easy huh? GE did it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
