I got no response, from my rep, on the most important issue of the decade
And yet, I presume those are the people you want to put in charge of managing that issue? How is that better than the evil HMO? You're just a number to either one, if that.
My best friend was an insulator in the local pipefitters union, working in commercial power plants. He paid excessive union dues (as much as $100 per check at one point) and his pension and retirement are handled by the union boss' brother. Money kept disappearing, but if you ask to look at the books, you get pulled off your job (sorry, the site cut back and you're the one that needs to go) and the union's business manager will suddenly have a hard time finding work for you even though everyone else is working. Everyone in the union gets laid off regularly, even if there's work... just to make sure the members know who the boss is. Again, like other posters, you aren't allowed to work outside the union, you sit at home, collect your unemployment and keep your mouth shut. They take your union dues and contribute to politics with them. You're expected to be a registered voter, and registered to the Democrat Party so you can vote in their primary, or again, you'll have a hard time finding work. The union will sometimes take members out for a day to go protest non-union jobs and, again, if you don't go to enough of the protests, you have a hard time finding work. And of course, if you either leave the union or get kicked out because you disagree with any of that stuff, your "friends" who are also in the union suddenly turn their back on you. My friend left the union last year, became a direct hire to the power plant he liked best, got a $40k a year raise, vacation and other benefits and no longer has to worry about the abuse. The downside? The guys he spent the last decade working with call him a scab, have written him off and give him hell when they meet up at work.
My dad worked for a highway department. After years of trying to pursuade them about how great they were, they signed on with SEIU, who delivered on their initial promise - the workers got a raise, better health insurance and more time off. After that, the union disappeared. They only show up again when it is time to renegotiate the contract or if there are rumblings about decertifying the union since their promises of protection were empty. Boss is having a shitty day and decides to give you three days off without pay? File your grievance and the union ignores it. Get ticketed because the boss forces you to drive overloaded? Pay the fine because the union doesn't give a damn. Deserve a premotion based on your seniority but it's given to a newer guy just because he's politically connected? Again, the union doesn't care. Just shut up and keep paying your dues.
Their stories aren't unique... but especially in the case of my best friend's former union, if you complain, you WILL pay for it. You shut up and take the abuse or you get blackballed. I can imagine back in the John Wayne days, that went doubly, since men were weak and less than men if they complained about pretty much anything. Workers don't always get a vote and the unions can be just as abusive, if not more so, than the employers they are supposedly protecting the workers from.
As for
Got any factual links to back up your claims? Sorry, from years of experience, I've learned most right wingers are compulsive liars and exaggerators, who make up facts, or seriously twist them into disinformation.
ad hominem much? I mean, righties will say the same thing about lefties. How about sticking to the facts rather than political biases? You yourself said that unions can be corrupt and then you summarily dismiss any stories of corruption as being exaggerated, twisted, right wing lies.
Ah, yeah, because the US definitions of politics should be based on the European model... Last time I checked, we revolted and disassociated ourselves with the Europeans a couple hundred years ago, but we should always strive to just be like them instead of ourselves. That's like someone like Bill Gates saying nobody with less money than him can be rich because he defines himself as the center.
Certainly, you have pictures/screencaps of these teabag signs on Fox, right? I mean, citations usually actually come with a reference. And I seem to remember a smug Rachel Maddow being the first to associate the term with the tea party folks and then it spreading to Olbermann and then hopping networks to Anderson Cooper on CNN. Olbermann and Maddow, I can understand - they're partisans being paid to air their views, but Cooper is supposedly a hard news guy.
And what's this "teabag Obama" campaign that I've never heard of, even though I've acted as both an organizer and speaker at tea parties? Surely, you can give me direct references, right?
Where are the legitimate sites with the rallying cries of "teabaggers against Obama"? I mean, they must exist if your view that the tea party folks foisted the term upon ourselves with pride. Or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't take everything you read from whatever sources you read as the complete truth. Even better, maybe you shouldn't be a purveyor of misinformation yourself since it makes you look foolish. "Haha, I made a teabag joke" might be funny in the dorms, but it is really beneath the dignity of people that want to be taken seriously. But if you're cool making a fool of yourself by using the term, more power to you... just don't expect anyone that isn't of like mind to grant you any credibility.
Where were these teabaggers when the white presidents like Reagan were jacking up the debt?
Remind me, who writes the budget (I'll give you a clue, it isn't the President)? Remind me which party controlled that body during Reagan's term. Remind me which party, during the 60s, created a new government welfare system, promptly realized they couldn't afford to pay for it, and followed with legislation to tap the Social Security funds to try to pretend the budget was balanced since they were already hemorraging money even before escalating the war in Vietnam.
The left loves to blame Reagan for the skyrocketing budget deficits during his term, but conveniently like to ignore the toll that entitlement spending has had on the federal budget (and ALWAYS ignore it when talking about the federal budget even though it consumes more than half of it), their role in clearing out the Social Security Trust Fund, and their own spending ways.
Bush was an asshole that spent way too much, created a massive new entitlement program and the Republicans were thrown out of office in 2006 and 2008 for it. So how does that excuse Obama trying to make Bush look like a spendthrift? The tea party folks turned on Bush and the Republicans already. Some of them bought into Obama's Hope and Change rhetoric, thinking he'd be different and they found out he was even worse. If they didn't have a problem with Republicans doing it, why did they turn on Bush?
But don't let logic get in your way... rhetoric and knee jerk ideology is so much better than actually thinking. I mean, it has to be about race (white presidents) or party to you, right? I didn't know Janeane Garofalo posted to slashdot.
As someone who has spoken at several tea parties, as part of the tea party movement, I've never heard anyone on my side refer to us as a tea bagger movement. The term originated on MSNBC and the left wing talk shows as a term of derision. Immature left leaning ideologues then used it to try to mock the tea party folks to get them to shut up, to embarass them, etc.
It's straight out of Saul Alinksky's handbook.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
Care to cite your source that the phrase "tea bagger" appeared within the movement? Ditto for the mods who continually +1 informative/interesting/insightful posts like yours...
So, we spend nothing on Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc? Oh yeah, nanny staters don't like to count THAT spending, just the spending they don't like. Look at how much the government spends on social programs... then factor in the tens of trillions in unfunded obligations those programs owe as well. You may think about the $12 trillion debt, but do you think about the $14 trillion in Social Security obligations, the $19 trillion in Medicare-D obligations, the $74 trillion in Medicare obligations, etc? All of that is going to come due and some of it starts before the decade is out (Social Security and Medicare are essentially insolvent in 2018 and 2017 respectively). You think we've got budget deficits now, just wait until then... plus factor in $2.5 trillion/decade estimated cost on the health care "reform" bill (start counting in 2014 when it starts paying out rather than only counting 6 years of expenditures).
You did it for one or two categories of products (tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia). Amazon sells how many different categories of products that can be taxed how many different ways in how many different jurisdictions?
It's not an O(n) problem, it's an O(n^c) problem.
Is it an impossible problem to solve? No, but it would sap more resources than it is worth. Then there's that whole pesky problem of the Constitution saying that states can't tax imports from other states, so the proper taxing mechanism isn't the seller, but the buyer (via use tax). My state (NY), at a minimum, forces you to pay a use tax on your income tax based on your income or else it's a red flag that increases your chance of an audit (ie, you're presumed guilty if you enter 0 and have to prove your complete tax compliance with every aspect of your income tax, not just prove that you didn't buy anything from out of state (not that you can prove a negative anyway. You might know where my checks and credit charges go, but you don't know where my cash does)).
and how many of them don't have a fridge due to their own choices? Section 8 housing exists and they virtually all come with refrigeration. How many of them live in ultra poor remote areas like Appalachia and refuse to relocate to someplace they could live a better life?
But we're nitpicking corner cases (and yes, 0.7% of the population are corner cases). Your statement was that "but the poor in this country (USA) do not typically own refrigerators." The vast majority of them DO have refigeration and even a majority (67.7%) have air conditioning. 92.4% of them own 1.3 color tvs.
Are there truly destitute people in the US? Absolutely... but many of them have severe mental problems or addictions which cause them to fall through the cracks. In the case of addicts, many of them deliberately fall through the cracks so they can continue using. Most of the poor live a lifestyle similar to those on the lower half of the middle class.
Since you're so focused on your anecdotal experiences rather than the Census Bureau's official measures, I've got a lot of welfare folks in my extended family. They have ALL chosen their lifestyle - none of them are mentally of physically impaired and incapable of taking care of themselves. They have air conditioning, we don't. They have dishwashers, we didn't get one until a couple months ago. They have big screen tvs, we don't. They are so comfortable in their poverty, they don't even try to get out of it.
To you, my family is the exception. To me, your anecdote is the exception. I hope you'll forgive me for going with the numbers from the government agency charged with surveying and calculating such things rather than just taking your word for it.
1998 was the most recent year I pulled up after a quick search. See page 3.
99.3% of all households, poor included, have refrigrators. How do you propose they have fridges without electricity?
As for underfed children, there are food stamps, WIC, free school lunch and breakfast programs, food pantries, etc. What more do you want? The only reason for a child to be underfed in the US is for their parents to not feed them, access isn't the issue.
Only the very rich are become better off, while the middle is clearly declining. As to the bottom? Being broke is being broke.
Many of the homeless are homeless due to mental problems and/or addictions... The homeless aside, the standard of living for the truly poor really isn't all that bad. They've got refrigeration, tv and radio, homes, food, etc. In fact, many of them live adequate lower-middle class lives, mostly limited by their lack of education and/or work ethic, spending habits, etc.
The lower half of the middle class ask themselves why they bother to work at all. They go to work and get stuck paying all these taxes (not just income taxes, there are hundreds of taxes here and there) to provide those that don't want to work with a lifestyle similar to their own. For many of them, it robs them of their desire to work, since it isn't moving them up the socio-economic ladder. Working harder just means losing more in taxes.
The upper-middle class and lower upper class have disposable income and they aspire to more. Taxes are a necessary evil and while they don't want to pay more, the disposable income makes it bearable. Because they aspire to a higher station in life and have all of their needs met, they'll continue to push themselves.
The upper class have accountants, tax lawyers, etc to minimize their tax payments. They're rich and they'll do anything to keep it, so long as it is cost effective. They know they can afford to pay more, but they don't want to, because they don't want other people getting a piece of their turf.
So, much of the burden falls on the middle class. The upper half does well enough to not be affected and some of them make it to the upper class. The lower middle class bears the largest relative share of the burden of supporting the lower class. Under the weight of that burden, many are either driven into poverty themselves or succumb willingly because they've given up aspiring to maintain their own station in life.
Now, the nanny staters will say that the solution is to soak the rich and give it to the poor so the lower classes can thrive. It's a great idea in theory, but it breaks down in implementation and application due to a number of reasons (removing the desire to move up the scale, giving another excuse for the lower middle class to abandon their aspirations, soaking up the capital which ultimately drives innovation and production, etc).
Ben Franklin gave us the solution to the problem... make the poor uncomfortable in their poverty. Make it so people don't want to be poor and they'll get an education, go to work and stop leeching off the rest of society. Obviously, those truly unable to care for themselves will need the help of others. We used to do this through charity, but once government took over the job of taking care of people, those that would donate often decided not to since they're already making sacrifices to the government. With the lower class off their backs, the lower middle class can again thrive and regain their desire to move up the chain.
Welfare has become a lifestyle passed on from one generation to the next and we'll never fix poverty so long as that is the case. The right to a free basic education already exists and those whom apply themselves to the task of educating themselves can get scholarships to achieve the next level. In turn, they can help the rest of their family. We need to teach people the value of self-reliance, the value of taking care of themselves and their family, and that society doesn't exist solely for their benefit, but for the benefit of all (including the rich guy).
Now the only question left, is who has the mod points today, the libertarians or the socialists?
TARP was signed by Bush, but was passed by a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate (including a vote for it by then Senator Obama). Congress authorized the first $350 billion to be spent by the Treasury under Bush and then, in December, Bush asked Congress for the other $350 billion at the behest of incoming President-Elect Obama.
If you have a problem with TARP, don't just blame Bush or the Republicans, blame Obama and the Democrats too. Along with Bush, Obama, the Republicans and Democrats, don't forget the roles played by the Treasury Secretary (Paulson), the head of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernake) and the then head of the NY Federal Reserve/new Treasury Secretary (Geithner).
I could care less about the executive pay situation... what TARP did, was let companies that were already "too big to fail" have cash to buy their former competitors, making them "really too big to fail." The market was concentrated into even fewer hands, which means an even smaller group of people making the financial decisions of the country, and that they are even more insulated (by virtue of being too big to fail) from systemic failures created by them fleecing consumers.
Blame them all, they're all at fault. They all had their hands in the jar. Enough with the "it was all Bush" stuff, it was Bush, Obama, McCain, Democrats, Republicans, et al.
I know it's hip to bash Fox News and all, but maybe you should actually watch it before you repeat what other pundits have said about it. You know, kinda like you should look over the source material for AGW before blindly accepting someone else's interpretation of it.
Gotta love the cop out since the vast, vast majority of the traffic on the interstate highways have no commercial purpose and unless you're using them purely for commercial activity then you are being a hypocrite for using them.
Funny, I don't think I've ever driven down a federal highway and NOT seen commercial traffic. Is there other traffic as well? Yep. But the roads already exist and have been paid for by the taxpayers for the purpose of interstate commerce and mail, so there is no point in keeping them off the roads.
I'd really like to know what world you live in that you don't think interstate roads are used for mail or commerce.
Huh? How am I a nanny stater? Because I disagree with the absurd notion of original intent? The very fact that other founding fathers wrote the anti-federalist papers that had views of the constitution that were in direct opposition to the writers of the federalist papers should be enough to show that the concept is absolute bunk
Remind me again who won the debate... Madison was the primary drafter of the Constitution and was a key author in the federalist papers. Did other opinions exist? Yep, but their opinion wasn't codified in the Constitution for the most part, was it?
Remember, this all comes back to the purpose of general welfare (the post I originally replied to). NOWHERE do the founding fathers, on either the federalist or anti-federalist side, argue that the purpose of the government is to redistribute wealth (the modern notion of general welfare). They ALL universally rejected such notions. In fact, they fought a war over the very issue (the wealth of the colonies was being redistributed to England).
It's also funny in that you know absolutely nothing about my political views and have incorrectly plugged me as some sort of tax and spend liberal which is ludicrous and wrong. I'm not a left winger nor have I voted for a Democrat in my life. But I'm sure your pea-sized brain is unable to cope with the notion that someone might have a more nuanced political philosophy than your "zOMG YOU DISAGREE WITH ME THUS YOU HAVE TO BE A LIBRUL!!!!11ELEVENTYONE" view of the world.
You're the one who immediately jumped to race baiting the Constitution, stating that the founders wrote that the slaves were less than people, implying that all of their ideas were flawed. They fully understood that they couldn't reconcile some of the conflicts that they had at the time, so they gave us the tools to resolve them in the future. In the process, you completely misrepresented their original intent. The only reason to do so, is to try to diminish the value of the Constitution. Why would you do that, unless your purpose is to promote the erosion of natural rights in favor of a strong, unquestionable central government?
I don't care whether or not you've ever voted for a Democrat, it isn't germaine to the issue at hand. Either you support the Constitution and the processes it proscribes or you don't. Personally, I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written and that the farther we stray from it, the less free we become.
Your attack on me is just as laughable as your attack on original intent. That whole 3/5ths thing, along with slavery, was changed by a Constitutional Amendment, the founders' original intention!
So long as those roads are used for shipping mail and connect states to each other, facilitating interstate commerce (to make it regular), they're perfectly Constitutional...
But I love the notion that the nanny staters always go to when the issue of being overtaxed or the government overly intrusive arises... "because you think government doesn't have the power to do (some big idea), good luck without your police, firemen, etc!" It's so demagogic... police and firemen are local issues, not federal ones. Ditto for the vast, vast majority of public roads (most belong to states/counties/towns).
So, what you're doing is presenting one side of a debate that started over 200 years ago. And you're reaching so far back because the the intervening centuries of law have almost consistently sided with the Federalist position, rather than the Antifederalist position you're espousing.
After the Revolutionary War, each state was basically sovereign over itself with a loose Articles of Confederation bonding them in the most trivial manner. It became apparent that the Articles of Confederation couldn't last, so they began debating the formation of a stronger federal government, but with the primary power still being left to the people and the states. In fact, they went so far as to codify that the US government only has 18 powers and, through the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, that all powers not enumerated to the federal government remain solely to the people and the states.
They inherently distrusted strong central governments and believed in the notion that the closer government is to the people, the more effectively it governs. The federal government would consist of officials elected from three distinct competing interests - the House would be elected to represent the people, the Senate would be picked by the states (hence the term "statesmen") and the President would be elected by a group of elected wisemen. The notion of states rights has long disappeared between the Senate becoming popularly elected and the continued erosion of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The founding fathers knew that, over time, too much power in one place would inevitably lead to corruption, so they deliberately tried to check that power. As early as the Alien and Sedition Acts, they already began violating the Constitution and it has only gotten progressively worse there. One only needs to look at FDR and the Judiciary Reorganization Bill to see just how little the Constitution means anymore. If the President doesn't get his way, especially if he has a willing Congress, he'll simply stack the deck with people that will do his bidding.
You can complain all you want about the document created to constrain our government and the people that created it... but one only needs to look to the Fifth Article to know that they understood that it wasn't a perfect document and that they gave us the power to tune it as time goes on. They fully anticipated the need, especially over the slavery issue. Alas, today, the federal government and statists that choose to ignore the perils of a strong central government, continue to ignore the Constitution and refuse to amend it to implement their illegal power grabs, largely because it's easier to just shit on the Constitution than it is to change it. Of course, when your guy shits on the Constitution, that's "good" and when my guy does it, it's "bad." We've ignored the Constitution for so long now, we're reverting from a type of democracy and more into an oligarchy. It won't be too long before we realize that we're just slaves to the government rather than the government being a slave to us.
3/5ths.. and it had nothing to do with whether or not they deserved rights, it was about the slave holding south wanting to count them to gain an advantage in the House even though they denied them the right to vote (amongst pretty much every other right). So, it was a compromise between the free north (who didn't want to count slaves in the census but did want to give them rights) and the slave owning south (who wanted to count the slaves but didn't want to give them rights).
Without that compromise, the south would have dominated the House and emancipation, along with the abolition of slavery may not have come around at all. The founding fathers decided that they could either compromise, saving the debate for some future day, and create the United States or fall apart along with the Articles of Confederation, since the states were too disparate at the time, especially in terms of defense.
But I'm sure you knew that and aren't just spouting off some type of ignorant talking point (especially with the jab at original intent) picked up by some talking head with the goal of discrediting the founding fathers and the Constitution in the name of positivism, right?
And what does "promote the general welfare" mean? Well, if we look to the Federalist Papers, we'll see:
Federalist 23 (Hamilton):
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
Federalist 41 (Madison):
A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurr
Who said being ignorant was an admirable quality? Who said shunning knowledge was a good thing? Strawman much?
I actually consider myself to be fairly smart, but I know my limits. Slashdot is rampant with people who think they know it all, like, oh, you for instance (see, I can play your infantile games too).
All I'm saying is to question whether you really know something rather than assume your expertise in one area makes you an expert in all areas. Everyone is fallible, including smart people, even though they often think they aren't. The only people who should be looked down on, are those who would look down on the ignorance of others while ignoring their own. And yeah, uneducated people do it as frequently as educated ones do... But at least the uneducated ones have an excuse.
Question everything... even your own dogma and assertions. The minute you stop questioning yourself, you start denying your ignorance.
A stop sign WAS already there on the north/south road that leads to the lake. The state road leads east/west and has the hill with the blind curve coming down it. Afterall, do you think there was an intersection with absolutely no stops? I mean, the people of my town are dumb and all but...
The people leaving the lake bitched and moaned about having to wait for the traffic on the state road thanks to the stop sign and demanded the light. The local division of the state highway department approved it without public comment and installed the light without any consideration of what it would mean to put a stop light halfway up a steep hill with a blind curve.
The smart thing to do would to have redirected the lake road to the bottom of the hill (a public road already exists there, but it would have to be extended to the lake road through a house or two) and put the light where it was 1) visible coming down the hill so people have adequate time to stop and 2) didn't force people going up the hill to lose traction when they have to stop.
And for the record, I don't begrudge any rich people their money, though they usually have connections which they abuse to get what they want. I also don't have anything against smart people, though some smart people are often too arrogant and that blinds them to their own ignorance.
But I'm glad you worked so hard to refute me instead of just impugning my character and calling me a liar based on, well, no facts of your own. Why, it's absurd to think that the rich can get what they want and the smart can do dumb things.
But shouldn't a committee, a congress or cabinet if you will, be even brighter than just an individual? Yet, they still made a stupid decision.
Only the most educated people, many of them without degrees, know that they have limits. Intelligent people, especially those that find themselves surrounded by other smart people, often forget they have limits. Who doesn't know at least one really smart person that consistently makes bad decisions outside of their field of expertise? Those who are educated in multiple fields are often more prone to believe they're educated in all fields...
A day doesn't go by here on slashdot where someone who is (or thinks they are) some great engineer, programmer, scientist, or whatever shoves their foot in their mouth because they had to opine on something they actually know very little about.
So yes, there can be such a thing as too educated if, by being too educated, you become oblivious to your own shortcomings.
About a decade ago, they put a new traffic light in my town... the rich people that live and vacation on the lake got sick of having to wait a stop sign when they wanted to leave, so they petitioned the state highway department (it's an intersection involving a state road). Some engineer said "sure, we can do that" and they promptly erected a traffic light.
What the engineer, in all of his brightness, failed to consider, is that the intersection is on a blind curve on a steep hill which gets very slippery when it rains, snows or ices over. Year after year, cars coming down the hill end up sliding through the intersection, ending up in the ditch, hitting other cars, etc. Going up the hill, people spin their wheels and get stuck, impeding the traffic behind them and sometimes even sliding backward into them, because they lose all traction when they have to come to a dead stop and then begin to accelerate anew.
See, on paper, it seems fine. It's just an intersection, so put up a light like you do at any other intersection... but the engineer failed to use any common sense - something many overly intellectual people are deficient in because they rarely encounter the real world. Book smart as he may be, his action has plagued our town ever since. Fortunately, nobody has died yet, but there has been tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars in damage over the years because of his choice and at some point, someone probably is going to die. Despite repeated petitions by the community, the state refuses to change the intersection now since it would cost more money and some bureaucrat that authorized it would have to admit he was wrong.
So, what it all comes down to, is there are different types of ignorance people are prone to. Some may not know how quantum physics work, others may not know how relationships work and some people can't foresee why putting a light on a steep hill near a blind curve is a bad idea. Nobody can know everything and we shouldn't pretend that anyone does, despite how many degrees they have. Sometimes the stupid people know things that the intellectual elite are too smart to see for themselves, especially when they are so smug and falsely secure in their knowledge that they begin to think everyone else is beneath them.
Currently operating at a loss thanks to market inefficiencies, high labor costs and rising prices forcing people to seek other means (why spend 44 cents to mail in my bill when I can do it online for free? Ditto for a letter and whatnot. People use the net more, USPS raises its prices in response, which causes people to use the net more).
Road/Highway System
Falling apart in most states as the money is diverted to other projects. Bridges are collapsing, levies fall down and many federally funded highways are simply falling apart due to neglect and disrepair.
The Coast Guard.
Guarding the borders are a mandated federal responsibility. Shall we consider the many other ways border control is messed up?
The FBI (though some may debate this).
You already admit its debatable, but you list it in your enumeration of government programs done right... I'd say you're reaching
Cash for Clunkers was successful; if it made things BETTER is a bit unclear.
It pushed up sales at a cost of billions of dollars. Those sales won't come over the next few years now, meaning the jobs will dry up anyway. As an added bonus, we took perfectly good used cars off the street, driving up the cost to get to work and the doctor for the working poor, students, etc. Definitely a WONDERFUL program./cough
Schools.
Seriously? The US has some of the worst schools in the first world despite the fact that it costs significantly more to educate children here.
Just off the top of my head. I don't know why people so love the idea of being under the finger of faceless cartels of multinational companies, who not only make their decisions completely in private, but don't even pretend to let you have a say in what they do, over having an elected government with at least some oversight provide the basic necessities to living a productive life. Why is it we cannot use the same system that has worked just fine for the majority of Europe, when ours has clearly failed?
Just off the top of my head. I don't know why many people so love the idea of being under the finger of faceless bureaucrats and Congresscritters (you know you're 1 of about 650k other faces in the best scenario, right?), who not only make their decisions completely in private (see the closed door meetings on health care), but don't even pretend to let you have a say in what they do (see people like Rep Eric Massa (D-NY) who said he will vote for the health care bill even if his constituents don't support it), over having an elected business (you vote with your dollars) with at least some ovresight (government, you, interest groups, etc) provide the basic necessities to living a productive life (so you're giving me a free house, a $50-100k salary, a vehicle, etc too right?). Why is it that we cannot use the same system that has worked just fine for the majority of Europe (where France has people rioting because they can't get jobs, the UK tells people that they're too old/sick to get needed health services, etc), when ours has so clearly failed (since adopting more and more European philosophy over the last century)?
Didn't we fight a war to separate ourselves from Europe so that they couldn't dictate our way of life to us?
and if I could add one more thing... Remember how, when the Republicans were in power, the Democrats kept talking about how they were wiping their ass with the Constitution? What's the Constitutional justification for TARP (which Obama has continued and then expanded against the will of Congress by refusing to give the paid back monies back to the Treasury)? The stimulus? How about government controlled health care? The storage, maintenance and access of your health care records (also known as personal papers and effects) by the government (wiretaps on calls leaving the country are EVIL! but your health records, what I consider to be my most personal and sensitive information, is a-ok)?
See, the Constitution only has value when the other team is busy violating it... when it's your team doing it, well, it's because your team knows what's best for the little people and the Constitution is just meant to be a guideline, not any type of fixed, defined limit on government or anything.
By giving him endorsements? Do you also think that teabagging is a grassroots movement, when it's sponsored and run by groups like FreedomWorks, formed by and run by long time Republican politicians and operatives who take money from special interests?
Do you think you have any credibility when you refer to people you disagree with as doodieheads? Because you sound like you're about 15 when you refer to them as teabaggers. Cue Beavis "hehe. myah! you said teabaggers."
I've spoken at, and helped organize, three tea parties. We received no money from ANYONE, nor any organizational support. You may want them to be an astroturf group, but you're projecting. The people that came to the tea parties have real lives, real jobs, etc to worry about, etc. You don't get hundreds of thousands of people to take a work day off to go protest (like with the 4/15 parties) unless they actually support what is being said.
Yes, the political math is simple: if the stimulus was a success, Obama would get the credit. If the stimulus was a failure, no Republican wanted to have his vote attached to it. Yet Obama, foolishly, thought he'd get 20 Republican votes in the Senate for it.
Obama routinely shows himself to be a thin skinned narcissist. Of course he expects everyone to fawn over him and his greatness, and he'll use the bully pulpit of the office to go after anyone who disagrees with/questions him (Joe the Plumber, Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck, Fox News, etc).
There was a major backlash on the right side of things last fall when the Republicans supported TARP and the like. Voters continued the purge of Republicans that wanted to be Democrats last year, electing conservative leaning Democrats to fill their seats in many cases. That kinda woke some people up in Washington and they realized that people were sick of the Democrat-lite party (at least on financial issues). Apparently the mass rejection in 2006 wasn't enough of a hint for them...
So who stands in the way of Obama/Pelosi/Reid's current initiatives? There aren't enough Republicans to do ANYTHING to stop them. The House has no rules for filibuster and the Dems severely outnumber the Reps. In the Senate, the Republicans don't have enough votes to filibuster unless they pull over Dems or at least one of the Is (who are essentially Dems anyway).
And why SHOULD the Republicans vote for the Dems bills? The Democrat leadership in both houses have done everything they can to shut out any dissenting views, be they D or R. Look at the Baucus bill, it finally leaves committee and Pelosi and Reid go behind a closed door and completely modify the bill to something other Democrats have said they can't support. Meanwhile, the Republicans can do nothing but file parliamentary measures and amendments which are instantly voted down.
The bitch that comes with having power means you get all the credit when things go well, but it means you get all the blame when things go bad. I do notice, however, that Obama is STILL whining that everything is his predecessor's fault. At what point is he going to stand up and assume responsibility for the country that he's leading? I don't remember GWB or Clinton incessantly whining about the recessions they inherited.
Now, Obama's economic advisor, Christine Romer, said that the stimulus bill's benefits are already drawing to a close and not to expect anything next year even though 85% of the money hasn't been spent yet. Biden quips that what we need is ANOTHER stimulus. Why? 85% of the money hasn't been spent and, if it isn't going to have any benefits why waste it? Who would sign on to such a mess? Oh yeah, because next year is an election year and that 85% of money is a bribe to their constituency.
Side note: it's funny how Republicans are all for rights and choices, unless it involves workers organizing.
I'm ALL FOR workers organizing if that's what they want to do. What I'm not for is taking awa
Slashdot Mirror
I got no response, from my rep, on the most important issue of the decade
And yet, I presume those are the people you want to put in charge of managing that issue? How is that better than the evil HMO? You're just a number to either one, if that.
My dad worked for a highway department. After years of trying to pursuade them about how great they were, they signed on with SEIU, who delivered on their initial promise - the workers got a raise, better health insurance and more time off. After that, the union disappeared. They only show up again when it is time to renegotiate the contract or if there are rumblings about decertifying the union since their promises of protection were empty. Boss is having a shitty day and decides to give you three days off without pay? File your grievance and the union ignores it. Get ticketed because the boss forces you to drive overloaded? Pay the fine because the union doesn't give a damn. Deserve a premotion based on your seniority but it's given to a newer guy just because he's politically connected? Again, the union doesn't care. Just shut up and keep paying your dues.
Their stories aren't unique... but especially in the case of my best friend's former union, if you complain, you WILL pay for it. You shut up and take the abuse or you get blackballed. I can imagine back in the John Wayne days, that went doubly, since men were weak and less than men if they complained about pretty much anything. Workers don't always get a vote and the unions can be just as abusive, if not more so, than the employers they are supposedly protecting the workers from.
As for
Got any factual links to back up your claims? Sorry, from years of experience, I've learned most right wingers are compulsive liars and exaggerators, who make up facts, or seriously twist them into disinformation.
ad hominem much? I mean, righties will say the same thing about lefties. How about sticking to the facts rather than political biases? You yourself said that unions can be corrupt and then you summarily dismiss any stories of corruption as being exaggerated, twisted, right wing lies.
Ah, yeah, because the US definitions of politics should be based on the European model... Last time I checked, we revolted and disassociated ourselves with the Europeans a couple hundred years ago, but we should always strive to just be like them instead of ourselves. That's like someone like Bill Gates saying nobody with less money than him can be rich because he defines himself as the center.
Certainly, you have pictures/screencaps of these teabag signs on Fox, right? I mean, citations usually actually come with a reference. And I seem to remember a smug Rachel Maddow being the first to associate the term with the tea party folks and then it spreading to Olbermann and then hopping networks to Anderson Cooper on CNN. Olbermann and Maddow, I can understand - they're partisans being paid to air their views, but Cooper is supposedly a hard news guy.
And what's this "teabag Obama" campaign that I've never heard of, even though I've acted as both an organizer and speaker at tea parties? Surely, you can give me direct references, right?
Where are the legitimate sites with the rallying cries of "teabaggers against Obama"? I mean, they must exist if your view that the tea party folks foisted the term upon ourselves with pride. Or maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't take everything you read from whatever sources you read as the complete truth. Even better, maybe you shouldn't be a purveyor of misinformation yourself since it makes you look foolish. "Haha, I made a teabag joke" might be funny in the dorms, but it is really beneath the dignity of people that want to be taken seriously. But if you're cool making a fool of yourself by using the term, more power to you... just don't expect anyone that isn't of like mind to grant you any credibility.
Where were these teabaggers when the white presidents like Reagan were jacking up the debt?
Remind me, who writes the budget (I'll give you a clue, it isn't the President)? Remind me which party controlled that body during Reagan's term. Remind me which party, during the 60s, created a new government welfare system, promptly realized they couldn't afford to pay for it, and followed with legislation to tap the Social Security funds to try to pretend the budget was balanced since they were already hemorraging money even before escalating the war in Vietnam.
The left loves to blame Reagan for the skyrocketing budget deficits during his term, but conveniently like to ignore the toll that entitlement spending has had on the federal budget (and ALWAYS ignore it when talking about the federal budget even though it consumes more than half of it), their role in clearing out the Social Security Trust Fund, and their own spending ways.
Bush was an asshole that spent way too much, created a massive new entitlement program and the Republicans were thrown out of office in 2006 and 2008 for it. So how does that excuse Obama trying to make Bush look like a spendthrift? The tea party folks turned on Bush and the Republicans already. Some of them bought into Obama's Hope and Change rhetoric, thinking he'd be different and they found out he was even worse. If they didn't have a problem with Republicans doing it, why did they turn on Bush?
But don't let logic get in your way... rhetoric and knee jerk ideology is so much better than actually thinking. I mean, it has to be about race (white presidents) or party to you, right? I didn't know Janeane Garofalo posted to slashdot.
It's straight out of Saul Alinksky's handbook.
RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
Care to cite your source that the phrase "tea bagger" appeared within the movement? Ditto for the mods who continually +1 informative/interesting/insightful posts like yours...
So, we spend nothing on Social Security, Medicare, welfare, etc? Oh yeah, nanny staters don't like to count THAT spending, just the spending they don't like. Look at how much the government spends on social programs... then factor in the tens of trillions in unfunded obligations those programs owe as well. You may think about the $12 trillion debt, but do you think about the $14 trillion in Social Security obligations, the $19 trillion in Medicare-D obligations, the $74 trillion in Medicare obligations, etc? All of that is going to come due and some of it starts before the decade is out (Social Security and Medicare are essentially insolvent in 2018 and 2017 respectively). You think we've got budget deficits now, just wait until then... plus factor in $2.5 trillion/decade estimated cost on the health care "reform" bill (start counting in 2014 when it starts paying out rather than only counting 6 years of expenditures).
You did it for one or two categories of products (tobacco and tobacco paraphernalia). Amazon sells how many different categories of products that can be taxed how many different ways in how many different jurisdictions?
It's not an O(n) problem, it's an O(n^c) problem.
Is it an impossible problem to solve? No, but it would sap more resources than it is worth. Then there's that whole pesky problem of the Constitution saying that states can't tax imports from other states, so the proper taxing mechanism isn't the seller, but the buyer (via use tax). My state (NY), at a minimum, forces you to pay a use tax on your income tax based on your income or else it's a red flag that increases your chance of an audit (ie, you're presumed guilty if you enter 0 and have to prove your complete tax compliance with every aspect of your income tax, not just prove that you didn't buy anything from out of state (not that you can prove a negative anyway. You might know where my checks and credit charges go, but you don't know where my cash does)).
and how many of them don't have a fridge due to their own choices? Section 8 housing exists and they virtually all come with refrigeration. How many of them live in ultra poor remote areas like Appalachia and refuse to relocate to someplace they could live a better life?
But we're nitpicking corner cases (and yes, 0.7% of the population are corner cases). Your statement was that "but the poor in this country (USA) do not typically own refrigerators." The vast majority of them DO have refigeration and even a majority (67.7%) have air conditioning. 92.4% of them own 1.3 color tvs.
Are there truly destitute people in the US? Absolutely... but many of them have severe mental problems or addictions which cause them to fall through the cracks. In the case of addicts, many of them deliberately fall through the cracks so they can continue using. Most of the poor live a lifestyle similar to those on the lower half of the middle class.
Since you're so focused on your anecdotal experiences rather than the Census Bureau's official measures, I've got a lot of welfare folks in my extended family. They have ALL chosen their lifestyle - none of them are mentally of physically impaired and incapable of taking care of themselves. They have air conditioning, we don't. They have dishwashers, we didn't get one until a couple months ago. They have big screen tvs, we don't. They are so comfortable in their poverty, they don't even try to get out of it.
To you, my family is the exception. To me, your anecdote is the exception. I hope you'll forgive me for going with the numbers from the government agency charged with surveying and calculating such things rather than just taking your word for it.
The folks at the Census disagree with you
1998 was the most recent year I pulled up after a quick search. See page 3.
99.3% of all households, poor included, have refrigrators. How do you propose they have fridges without electricity?
As for underfed children, there are food stamps, WIC, free school lunch and breakfast programs, food pantries, etc. What more do you want? The only reason for a child to be underfed in the US is for their parents to not feed them, access isn't the issue.
Only the very rich are become better off, while the middle is clearly declining. As to the bottom? Being broke is being broke.
Many of the homeless are homeless due to mental problems and/or addictions... The homeless aside, the standard of living for the truly poor really isn't all that bad. They've got refrigeration, tv and radio, homes, food, etc. In fact, many of them live adequate lower-middle class lives, mostly limited by their lack of education and/or work ethic, spending habits, etc.
The lower half of the middle class ask themselves why they bother to work at all. They go to work and get stuck paying all these taxes (not just income taxes, there are hundreds of taxes here and there) to provide those that don't want to work with a lifestyle similar to their own. For many of them, it robs them of their desire to work, since it isn't moving them up the socio-economic ladder. Working harder just means losing more in taxes.
The upper-middle class and lower upper class have disposable income and they aspire to more. Taxes are a necessary evil and while they don't want to pay more, the disposable income makes it bearable. Because they aspire to a higher station in life and have all of their needs met, they'll continue to push themselves.
The upper class have accountants, tax lawyers, etc to minimize their tax payments. They're rich and they'll do anything to keep it, so long as it is cost effective. They know they can afford to pay more, but they don't want to, because they don't want other people getting a piece of their turf.
So, much of the burden falls on the middle class. The upper half does well enough to not be affected and some of them make it to the upper class. The lower middle class bears the largest relative share of the burden of supporting the lower class. Under the weight of that burden, many are either driven into poverty themselves or succumb willingly because they've given up aspiring to maintain their own station in life.
Now, the nanny staters will say that the solution is to soak the rich and give it to the poor so the lower classes can thrive. It's a great idea in theory, but it breaks down in implementation and application due to a number of reasons (removing the desire to move up the scale, giving another excuse for the lower middle class to abandon their aspirations, soaking up the capital which ultimately drives innovation and production, etc).
Ben Franklin gave us the solution to the problem... make the poor uncomfortable in their poverty. Make it so people don't want to be poor and they'll get an education, go to work and stop leeching off the rest of society. Obviously, those truly unable to care for themselves will need the help of others. We used to do this through charity, but once government took over the job of taking care of people, those that would donate often decided not to since they're already making sacrifices to the government. With the lower class off their backs, the lower middle class can again thrive and regain their desire to move up the chain.
Welfare has become a lifestyle passed on from one generation to the next and we'll never fix poverty so long as that is the case. The right to a free basic education already exists and those whom apply themselves to the task of educating themselves can get scholarships to achieve the next level. In turn, they can help the rest of their family. We need to teach people the value of self-reliance, the value of taking care of themselves and their family, and that society doesn't exist solely for their benefit, but for the benefit of all (including the rich guy).
Now the only question left, is who has the mod points today, the libertarians or the socialists?
TARP was signed by Bush, but was passed by a Democrat controlled House and a Democrat controlled Senate (including a vote for it by then Senator Obama). Congress authorized the first $350 billion to be spent by the Treasury under Bush and then, in December, Bush asked Congress for the other $350 billion at the behest of incoming President-Elect Obama.
If you have a problem with TARP, don't just blame Bush or the Republicans, blame Obama and the Democrats too. Along with Bush, Obama, the Republicans and Democrats, don't forget the roles played by the Treasury Secretary (Paulson), the head of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernake) and the then head of the NY Federal Reserve/new Treasury Secretary (Geithner).
I could care less about the executive pay situation... what TARP did, was let companies that were already "too big to fail" have cash to buy their former competitors, making them "really too big to fail." The market was concentrated into even fewer hands, which means an even smaller group of people making the financial decisions of the country, and that they are even more insulated (by virtue of being too big to fail) from systemic failures created by them fleecing consumers.
Blame them all, they're all at fault. They all had their hands in the jar. Enough with the "it was all Bush" stuff, it was Bush, Obama, McCain, Democrats, Republicans, et al.
The WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, also owner of Fox News, can be assumed to to take the climate-denialist position on everything.
You mean like the hour long special from 2005, The Heat Is On: The Case of Global Warming where they were praised by the greens for being biased in favor of AGW?
I know it's hip to bash Fox News and all, but maybe you should actually watch it before you repeat what other pundits have said about it. You know, kinda like you should look over the source material for AGW before blindly accepting someone else's interpretation of it.
Except I did it with the other party in power too. I don't support any usurpation of the Constitution; We have the Amendment process if we need it.
And, since you want to see an accurate presentation of the facts, what did I write that isn't accurate?
Gotta love the cop out since the vast, vast majority of the traffic on the interstate highways have no commercial purpose and unless you're using them purely for commercial activity then you are being a hypocrite for using them.
Funny, I don't think I've ever driven down a federal highway and NOT seen commercial traffic. Is there other traffic as well? Yep. But the roads already exist and have been paid for by the taxpayers for the purpose of interstate commerce and mail, so there is no point in keeping them off the roads.
I'd really like to know what world you live in that you don't think interstate roads are used for mail or commerce.
Huh? How am I a nanny stater? Because I disagree with the absurd notion of original intent? The very fact that other founding fathers wrote the anti-federalist papers that had views of the constitution that were in direct opposition to the writers of the federalist papers should be enough to show that the concept is absolute bunk
Remind me again who won the debate... Madison was the primary drafter of the Constitution and was a key author in the federalist papers. Did other opinions exist? Yep, but their opinion wasn't codified in the Constitution for the most part, was it?
Remember, this all comes back to the purpose of general welfare (the post I originally replied to). NOWHERE do the founding fathers, on either the federalist or anti-federalist side, argue that the purpose of the government is to redistribute wealth (the modern notion of general welfare). They ALL universally rejected such notions. In fact, they fought a war over the very issue (the wealth of the colonies was being redistributed to England).
It's also funny in that you know absolutely nothing about my political views and have incorrectly plugged me as some sort of tax and spend liberal which is ludicrous and wrong. I'm not a left winger nor have I voted for a Democrat in my life. But I'm sure your pea-sized brain is unable to cope with the notion that someone might have a more nuanced political philosophy than your "zOMG YOU DISAGREE WITH ME THUS YOU HAVE TO BE A LIBRUL!!!!11ELEVENTYONE" view of the world.
You're the one who immediately jumped to race baiting the Constitution, stating that the founders wrote that the slaves were less than people, implying that all of their ideas were flawed. They fully understood that they couldn't reconcile some of the conflicts that they had at the time, so they gave us the tools to resolve them in the future. In the process, you completely misrepresented their original intent. The only reason to do so, is to try to diminish the value of the Constitution. Why would you do that, unless your purpose is to promote the erosion of natural rights in favor of a strong, unquestionable central government?
I don't care whether or not you've ever voted for a Democrat, it isn't germaine to the issue at hand. Either you support the Constitution and the processes it proscribes or you don't. Personally, I think the Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written and that the farther we stray from it, the less free we become.
Your attack on me is just as laughable as your attack on original intent. That whole 3/5ths thing, along with slavery, was changed by a Constitutional Amendment, the founders' original intention!
So long as those roads are used for shipping mail and connect states to each other, facilitating interstate commerce (to make it regular), they're perfectly Constitutional...
But I love the notion that the nanny staters always go to when the issue of being overtaxed or the government overly intrusive arises... "because you think government doesn't have the power to do (some big idea), good luck without your police, firemen, etc!" It's so demagogic... police and firemen are local issues, not federal ones. Ditto for the vast, vast majority of public roads (most belong to states/counties/towns).
So, what you're doing is presenting one side of a debate that started over 200 years ago. And you're reaching so far back because the the intervening centuries of law have almost consistently sided with the Federalist position, rather than the Antifederalist position you're espousing.
After the Revolutionary War, each state was basically sovereign over itself with a loose Articles of Confederation bonding them in the most trivial manner. It became apparent that the Articles of Confederation couldn't last, so they began debating the formation of a stronger federal government, but with the primary power still being left to the people and the states. In fact, they went so far as to codify that the US government only has 18 powers and, through the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, that all powers not enumerated to the federal government remain solely to the people and the states.
They inherently distrusted strong central governments and believed in the notion that the closer government is to the people, the more effectively it governs. The federal government would consist of officials elected from three distinct competing interests - the House would be elected to represent the people, the Senate would be picked by the states (hence the term "statesmen") and the President would be elected by a group of elected wisemen. The notion of states rights has long disappeared between the Senate becoming popularly elected and the continued erosion of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The founding fathers knew that, over time, too much power in one place would inevitably lead to corruption, so they deliberately tried to check that power. As early as the Alien and Sedition Acts, they already began violating the Constitution and it has only gotten progressively worse there. One only needs to look at FDR and the Judiciary Reorganization Bill to see just how little the Constitution means anymore. If the President doesn't get his way, especially if he has a willing Congress, he'll simply stack the deck with people that will do his bidding.
You can complain all you want about the document created to constrain our government and the people that created it... but one only needs to look to the Fifth Article to know that they understood that it wasn't a perfect document and that they gave us the power to tune it as time goes on. They fully anticipated the need, especially over the slavery issue. Alas, today, the federal government and statists that choose to ignore the perils of a strong central government, continue to ignore the Constitution and refuse to amend it to implement their illegal power grabs, largely because it's easier to just shit on the Constitution than it is to change it. Of course, when your guy shits on the Constitution, that's "good" and when my guy does it, it's "bad." We've ignored the Constitution for so long now, we're reverting from a type of democracy and more into an oligarchy. It won't be too long before we realize that we're just slaves to the government rather than the government being a slave to us.
3/5ths.. and it had nothing to do with whether or not they deserved rights, it was about the slave holding south wanting to count them to gain an advantage in the House even though they denied them the right to vote (amongst pretty much every other right). So, it was a compromise between the free north (who didn't want to count slaves in the census but did want to give them rights) and the slave owning south (who wanted to count the slaves but didn't want to give them rights).
Without that compromise, the south would have dominated the House and emancipation, along with the abolition of slavery may not have come around at all. The founding fathers decided that they could either compromise, saving the debate for some future day, and create the United States or fall apart along with the Articles of Confederation, since the states were too disparate at the time, especially in terms of defense.
But I'm sure you knew that and aren't just spouting off some type of ignorant talking point (especially with the jab at original intent) picked up by some talking head with the goal of discrediting the founding fathers and the Constitution in the name of positivism, right?
Federalist 23 (Hamilton):
Defective as the present Confederation has been proved to be, this principle appears to have been fully recognized by the framers of it; though they have not made proper or adequate provision for its exercise. Congress have an unlimited discretion to make requisitions of men and money; to govern the army and navy; to direct their operations. As their requisitions are made constitutionally binding upon the States, who are in fact under the most solemn obligations to furnish the supplies required of them, the intention evidently was that the United States should command whatever resources were by them judged requisite to the ``common defense and general welfare.'' It was presumed that a sense of their true interests, and a regard to the dictates of good faith, would be found sufficient pledges for the punctual performance of the duty of the members to the federal head.
Federalist 41 (Madison):
A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ``to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,'' amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ``to raise money for the general welfare. ''But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the language used by the convention is a copy from the articles of Confederation. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ``their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare. '' The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ``All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurr
Who said being ignorant was an admirable quality? Who said shunning knowledge was a good thing? Strawman much?
I actually consider myself to be fairly smart, but I know my limits. Slashdot is rampant with people who think they know it all, like, oh, you for instance (see, I can play your infantile games too).
All I'm saying is to question whether you really know something rather than assume your expertise in one area makes you an expert in all areas. Everyone is fallible, including smart people, even though they often think they aren't. The only people who should be looked down on, are those who would look down on the ignorance of others while ignoring their own. And yeah, uneducated people do it as frequently as educated ones do... But at least the uneducated ones have an excuse.
Question everything... even your own dogma and assertions. The minute you stop questioning yourself, you start denying your ignorance.
A stop sign WAS already there on the north/south road that leads to the lake. The state road leads east/west and has the hill with the blind curve coming down it. Afterall, do you think there was an intersection with absolutely no stops? I mean, the people of my town are dumb and all but...
The people leaving the lake bitched and moaned about having to wait for the traffic on the state road thanks to the stop sign and demanded the light. The local division of the state highway department approved it without public comment and installed the light without any consideration of what it would mean to put a stop light halfway up a steep hill with a blind curve.
The smart thing to do would to have redirected the lake road to the bottom of the hill (a public road already exists there, but it would have to be extended to the lake road through a house or two) and put the light where it was 1) visible coming down the hill so people have adequate time to stop and 2) didn't force people going up the hill to lose traction when they have to stop.
And for the record, I don't begrudge any rich people their money, though they usually have connections which they abuse to get what they want. I also don't have anything against smart people, though some smart people are often too arrogant and that blinds them to their own ignorance.
But I'm glad you worked so hard to refute me instead of just impugning my character and calling me a liar based on, well, no facts of your own. Why, it's absurd to think that the rich can get what they want and the smart can do dumb things.
But shouldn't a committee, a congress or cabinet if you will, be even brighter than just an individual? Yet, they still made a stupid decision.
Only the most educated people, many of them without degrees, know that they have limits. Intelligent people, especially those that find themselves surrounded by other smart people, often forget they have limits. Who doesn't know at least one really smart person that consistently makes bad decisions outside of their field of expertise? Those who are educated in multiple fields are often more prone to believe they're educated in all fields...
A day doesn't go by here on slashdot where someone who is (or thinks they are) some great engineer, programmer, scientist, or whatever shoves their foot in their mouth because they had to opine on something they actually know very little about.
So yes, there can be such a thing as too educated if, by being too educated, you become oblivious to your own shortcomings.
About a decade ago, they put a new traffic light in my town... the rich people that live and vacation on the lake got sick of having to wait a stop sign when they wanted to leave, so they petitioned the state highway department (it's an intersection involving a state road). Some engineer said "sure, we can do that" and they promptly erected a traffic light.
What the engineer, in all of his brightness, failed to consider, is that the intersection is on a blind curve on a steep hill which gets very slippery when it rains, snows or ices over. Year after year, cars coming down the hill end up sliding through the intersection, ending up in the ditch, hitting other cars, etc. Going up the hill, people spin their wheels and get stuck, impeding the traffic behind them and sometimes even sliding backward into them, because they lose all traction when they have to come to a dead stop and then begin to accelerate anew.
See, on paper, it seems fine. It's just an intersection, so put up a light like you do at any other intersection... but the engineer failed to use any common sense - something many overly intellectual people are deficient in because they rarely encounter the real world. Book smart as he may be, his action has plagued our town ever since. Fortunately, nobody has died yet, but there has been tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars in damage over the years because of his choice and at some point, someone probably is going to die. Despite repeated petitions by the community, the state refuses to change the intersection now since it would cost more money and some bureaucrat that authorized it would have to admit he was wrong.
So, what it all comes down to, is there are different types of ignorance people are prone to. Some may not know how quantum physics work, others may not know how relationships work and some people can't foresee why putting a light on a steep hill near a blind curve is a bad idea. Nobody can know everything and we shouldn't pretend that anyone does, despite how many degrees they have. Sometimes the stupid people know things that the intellectual elite are too smart to see for themselves, especially when they are so smug and falsely secure in their knowledge that they begin to think everyone else is beneath them.
The Post Office.
Currently operating at a loss thanks to market inefficiencies, high labor costs and rising prices forcing people to seek other means (why spend 44 cents to mail in my bill when I can do it online for free? Ditto for a letter and whatnot. People use the net more, USPS raises its prices in response, which causes people to use the net more).
Road/Highway System
Falling apart in most states as the money is diverted to other projects. Bridges are collapsing, levies fall down and many federally funded highways are simply falling apart due to neglect and disrepair.
The Coast Guard.
Guarding the borders are a mandated federal responsibility. Shall we consider the many other ways border control is messed up?
The FBI (though some may debate this).
You already admit its debatable, but you list it in your enumeration of government programs done right... I'd say you're reaching
Cash for Clunkers was successful; if it made things BETTER is a bit unclear.
It pushed up sales at a cost of billions of dollars. Those sales won't come over the next few years now, meaning the jobs will dry up anyway. As an added bonus, we took perfectly good used cars off the street, driving up the cost to get to work and the doctor for the working poor, students, etc. Definitely a WONDERFUL program. /cough
Schools.
Seriously? The US has some of the worst schools in the first world despite the fact that it costs significantly more to educate children here.
Just off the top of my head. I don't know why people so love the idea of being under the finger of faceless cartels of multinational companies, who not only make their decisions completely in private, but don't even pretend to let you have a say in what they do, over having an elected government with at least some oversight provide the basic necessities to living a productive life. Why is it we cannot use the same system that has worked just fine for the majority of Europe, when ours has clearly failed?
Just off the top of my head. I don't know why many people so love the idea of being under the finger of faceless bureaucrats and Congresscritters (you know you're 1 of about 650k other faces in the best scenario, right?), who not only make their decisions completely in private (see the closed door meetings on health care), but don't even pretend to let you have a say in what they do (see people like Rep Eric Massa (D-NY) who said he will vote for the health care bill even if his constituents don't support it), over having an elected business (you vote with your dollars) with at least some ovresight (government, you, interest groups, etc) provide the basic necessities to living a productive life (so you're giving me a free house, a $50-100k salary, a vehicle, etc too right?). Why is it that we cannot use the same system that has worked just fine for the majority of Europe (where France has people rioting because they can't get jobs, the UK tells people that they're too old/sick to get needed health services, etc), when ours has so clearly failed (since adopting more and more European philosophy over the last century)?
Didn't we fight a war to separate ourselves from Europe so that they couldn't dictate our way of life to us?
and if I could add one more thing... Remember how, when the Republicans were in power, the Democrats kept talking about how they were wiping their ass with the Constitution? What's the Constitutional justification for TARP (which Obama has continued and then expanded against the will of Congress by refusing to give the paid back monies back to the Treasury)? The stimulus? How about government controlled health care? The storage, maintenance and access of your health care records (also known as personal papers and effects) by the government (wiretaps on calls leaving the country are EVIL! but your health records, what I consider to be my most personal and sensitive information, is a-ok)?
See, the Constitution only has value when the other team is busy violating it... when it's your team doing it, well, it's because your team knows what's best for the little people and the Constitution is just meant to be a guideline, not any type of fixed, defined limit on government or anything.
By giving him endorsements? Do you also think that teabagging is a grassroots movement, when it's sponsored and run by groups like FreedomWorks, formed by and run by long time Republican politicians and operatives who take money from special interests?
Do you think you have any credibility when you refer to people you disagree with as doodieheads? Because you sound like you're about 15 when you refer to them as teabaggers. Cue Beavis "hehe. myah! you said teabaggers."
I've spoken at, and helped organize, three tea parties. We received no money from ANYONE, nor any organizational support. You may want them to be an astroturf group, but you're projecting. The people that came to the tea parties have real lives, real jobs, etc to worry about, etc. You don't get hundreds of thousands of people to take a work day off to go protest (like with the 4/15 parties) unless they actually support what is being said.
Yes, the political math is simple: if the stimulus was a success, Obama would get the credit. If the stimulus was a failure, no Republican wanted to have his vote attached to it. Yet Obama, foolishly, thought he'd get 20 Republican votes in the Senate for it.
Obama routinely shows himself to be a thin skinned narcissist. Of course he expects everyone to fawn over him and his greatness, and he'll use the bully pulpit of the office to go after anyone who disagrees with/questions him (Joe the Plumber, Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck, Fox News, etc).
There was a major backlash on the right side of things last fall when the Republicans supported TARP and the like. Voters continued the purge of Republicans that wanted to be Democrats last year, electing conservative leaning Democrats to fill their seats in many cases. That kinda woke some people up in Washington and they realized that people were sick of the Democrat-lite party (at least on financial issues). Apparently the mass rejection in 2006 wasn't enough of a hint for them...
So who stands in the way of Obama/Pelosi/Reid's current initiatives? There aren't enough Republicans to do ANYTHING to stop them. The House has no rules for filibuster and the Dems severely outnumber the Reps. In the Senate, the Republicans don't have enough votes to filibuster unless they pull over Dems or at least one of the Is (who are essentially Dems anyway).
And why SHOULD the Republicans vote for the Dems bills? The Democrat leadership in both houses have done everything they can to shut out any dissenting views, be they D or R. Look at the Baucus bill, it finally leaves committee and Pelosi and Reid go behind a closed door and completely modify the bill to something other Democrats have said they can't support. Meanwhile, the Republicans can do nothing but file parliamentary measures and amendments which are instantly voted down.
The bitch that comes with having power means you get all the credit when things go well, but it means you get all the blame when things go bad. I do notice, however, that Obama is STILL whining that everything is his predecessor's fault. At what point is he going to stand up and assume responsibility for the country that he's leading? I don't remember GWB or Clinton incessantly whining about the recessions they inherited.
Now, Obama's economic advisor, Christine Romer, said that the stimulus bill's benefits are already drawing to a close and not to expect anything next year even though 85% of the money hasn't been spent yet. Biden quips that what we need is ANOTHER stimulus. Why? 85% of the money hasn't been spent and, if it isn't going to have any benefits why waste it? Who would sign on to such a mess? Oh yeah, because next year is an election year and that 85% of money is a bribe to their constituency.
Side note: it's funny how Republicans are all for rights and choices, unless it involves workers organizing.
I'm ALL FOR workers organizing if that's what they want to do. What I'm not for is taking awa