The argument isnt whether its awful that there are so many people unemployed, or scraping by on low incomes. We all agree that's awful and we would all prefer that it not be the case. The discussion is whether or not a person reliant on subsidy programs would more likely vote to increase or decrease subsidy programs. It extends from there to the realization that if a majority of voters are reliant on subsidies that they are not likely to vote to decrease, then you have found yourself on an unsustainable and self-defeating economic course.
And GM, and GE, and Acorn (although no longer), and SEIU, and and Media Matters, and ACLU, and Planned Parenthood, and Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, and Solyndra, and an appreciable portion of the colleges and universities, and several network news organizations, and a decent chunk of Hollywood?
The 2008 Presidential election was decided on decisive electoral college votes. But the popular vote within many states that swung toward Obama were within very few percentage points, few exceeding 10%. When the outcome of an election can be decided in a 2% swing one way or another a small number of dependents of government can easily tip the scales. We are consistently increasing the numbers of those dependents. Eventually the scale is tipped, if it hasnt already.
You must either dismiss these people as inconsequential, or acknowledge that they impact the national debate.
I'll put aside the poetry in your lack of punctuation or capitalization for a second and simply address the poetry in your ignorance of the limited role of federal government, as defined by the Consitituion.
First, defense is a large contributor to federal spending (24%). And this is exactly appropriate. This is one of the few roles of federal government explicitely defined by our Constitution and it should be a large percentage of federal spending. That being said, defense spending is steamrolled by the combined total spending in Pensions (22%), Healthcare (22%), and Wellfare (%12), none of which are defined roles of the federal government.
Second, the owners of the businesses that are defense contractors are wealtheir than some, but not (entirely) at the expense of the masses. I will concede that there is a degree of corruption in the defense contracting world, but I would ask you to conced that their is equal or greater corruption in the worlds of green energy, public works, law enforcememt, and even welfare. If your issue is corruption then we agree, but you must acknowledge its equal existence in even those areas which you feel should be provided greater funding (in areas not granted authority to the federal government by the Constitution).
Third, I do not fear an educated populace. In fact, quite the opposite, I wish for it desperately. It would be a nice change of pace... But the education system on which you rely is often as guilty of ensuring the ignorance of the masses as you suggest it be their saviour. People don't understand that we're supposed to have a system of checks and balances in our government. It's not the least shocking to them how completely off the rails we have become. Are you aware that the Justice Dept is supposed to ensure that Congress and the President do not violate the Constituion? How is that served when the President appoints the head of the very dept meant to be a check against his power, as well as the FBI who is meant to investigate the President's wrong-doings? People are not being taught this. Instead they are taught that the Constitution is an obstacle that prevents more free stuff being given to the less fortunate. That's the justification that has been used repeatedly by past and present administrations to bend the Constitution, slowly corrupting it and reshaping it with fewer freedoms and less protections for everyone, regardless of their personal prosperity. And you've obviously fully bought the lies....
Lets imagine hypothetically that there are those among that 50% who want to ensure that they keep their authority, and might not be completely ethical. Is it in their interests to increase the wealth or education of those without authority? Is it perhaps appealing to them to reduce the percentage of those whom they must share authority?
How long do you think that balance remains at 50%? How long will it be before some group within the authoritative 50% want more power, or more money, or simply decide that they know whats best for you and they start a process by which they can dictate it?
How great an argument is this when all of what they buy or any tax they pay is from funds they have recieved in the form assistance?
While many of the people who fall into the 47% of those who pay no taxes at least have personal incomes, many others recieve every dollar from the federal or state governments. If I give you $2 and ask you to give me back $0.50 in taxes, have you actually learned the impact of taxation on business or on those that are self-sufficient? Do your personal experiences lend themselves to a properly informed vote on entitlements?
And your solution apparently is to throw your hands up and just give the choice away entirely?
I'll hold onto the tiny impact I and the millions who often believe as I do can have in electing our representatives. If you like I'd be happy to provide you the vote I'd like you to cast in each election if you're not interested in making a choice for your own interests.
Which is proof positive why our founders firmly (and rightly) believed that the power to govern should be largely within the hands of the states rather than the federal government. It is federal overreach that has led to the current imbalance.
When it comes time to pay your taxes, would you rather ask your friends for advice and decide to take the advice that seems most rational? Or cede all say in your finances to someone you can be relatively sure has limited concern for how much money you personally retain because, A) they are commited to giving it to others whom they deem more in need than you (right or wrong), or B) corrupt and willing to take it for himself?
At least if you have taken bad advice the pain of the decision you made will teach you something you can utilize when you make your next comparable choice. Conversely if you have made the one bad chocie of ceding all future choices to others, that knowledge cannot be applied for your future benefit. You're done making choices.
You're ensuring a process by which one demographic (wealthier, more educated) are given all authority over another (less wealthy, less educated). You are ensuring an aristrocracy in which the elite rule the serfs and the serfs have little or no voice.
I get where you're coming from. We are rapidly approaching the reverse of the above where those whom are wholly reliant upon the government for their subsistence will continue to vote to retain (and in fact, increase) that subsidy without regard for the financial feesibility of such a vote.
But in anything other than some variation on Democracy, the citizens have limited or zero voice.
Theocracy? Communism? Monarchy? Each of these are represented in our world today, and in each the people really have no say as individuals. Even collectively the people do not help craft policy in any significant way.
So my premise is sound. Do you help to choose the idiots that lead you? Or do you want no say in the rule under which you will live? A rule that generally does not have your individual freedoms as a fundemental building block of its policy?
The alternative of course, is a completely selfless dictator or some political machine which appoints leaders that will certainly have your freedoms and interests at heart.
I think I'd rather have a idiot running the country bound by law (that's actually enforced) to uphold the Constitution.
I'm going to give you a link to a video of that entire speech. I'm also going to give you a transcript of the relevent portion. I'd like you to show me where I've lied, or omitted pertinent information that somehow changes the basic meaning of that quote in or out of context. This was a statement by Pelosi during the height of the Healthcare Reform debate, and when the Democrats were going to give less than a week of review for anyone, including the Republicans who needed to vote on it, in order to digest and evaluate over 2000 pages of legislative language, links, double-backs, and loopholes.
The basic premise here is that you and I are too stupid to understand a bill before its passed. You cant be trusted to read the bill yourself and judge its contents on its merits and then tell your representative whether you desire them to support or oppose the proposed legislation. Its too inconvenient to delay a vote for a whole week so that everyone knows what is being voted on. They would prefer to pass it and you'll find out how it impacts when it actually impacts you and its too damn late for you to do anything about it. It shows the incredible arrogance of the members of Congress, exhibited both by Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. It shows a disrespect for you, for me, for the process, and for the Constitution these knucklehead swore to uphold. You should be just as pissed about that as I am unless you prefer to live in a dictatorship in which your voice has no meaning and you find out how your rights have changed, for better or worse, AFTER they have done so.
You might trust this President and his administration to make every right choice in your best possible interests. Will you be able to say the same of the next one? Because you're giving that future President just as much power as this one, and you're going to be damn hard pressed to take that power away later when you realize how bad a choice it was to give it away now.
So, please tell me how this basic premise is somehow dishonestly served by showing the quote that I use as my signature and I will remove it. And as far as calling me a liar goes, you are either willfully ignorant about this speech and its content and have allowed biased media to tell you its all just a lie and that we should all just ignore it, or you are among those that understand how damaging this kind of a statement is and want to help hide it.
“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.”
How do you challenge an unlawful order to disperse after the fact if you've been told to forfiet your evidence and leave, and you complied? You werent arrested because you complied, so there is no court case associated with your actions (or lack of). It would go to court only if you filed a lawsuit on your own time and money and it was sent to court by the colleagues of those you mean to sue. If it was corruption of law enforcement that led to the event to begin with what makes you assume there will not be corruption in the mechanism used for reconciliation? And even if it gets to court, you no longer have your evidence.
And this is exactly how unlawful orders by law enforcement become more pervasive. They assume if you are unwilling to stand up for your rights at the moment they are voilated you will also be unwilling to assume the hardship of standing up for them after the fact. And they are right.
Life is finite. Yours, your child's, your grandchild's... Conceeding your freedoms today does so also for your descendants tomorrow. Are you prepared to grow old watching that consequence to those you love?
That's what I said, I just failed to mention the possibility of an invitation to enter. An officer must have a warrant or a legal cause to enter otherwise. A legal cause could be a reason to believe that a crime was being commited or a person was in distress. The implied argument being presented by some here is that if a cop tells you to let him in you have to comply, even in the absence of a warrant or cause.
I believe we're in disagreement mainly because I didn't clarify myself in that I am no limiting my comments to this one case. There are cases in which a cop can lawfully ask people to disperse and those people need to comply. I mentioned that. But I adamantly disagree that just because a cop says you have to disperse it does not inherently mean that he has done so lawfully. Too few people peacefully challenge this because they dont want to deal with the consequences. And as that concession becomes more and more common, it becomes expected by both the citizens and law enforcement. The rights which we rely upon to remain free become effectively void in practice if not in law.
So then your conscience would allow you to watch what you believe to be a crime against your fellow citizen, and you would disperse simply because an officer told you to? I'd rather act on what I feel is right and deal with the consequences than explain away how I didnt stick my neck out for someone in need.
My concern is the overwhelming willingness to be treated unlawfully so as to avoid the consequences, and yet so little consideration is given to the consequences of allowing society as a whole to be consistently treated unlawfully.
In the case of some of the Occupy camps, municipalities justified removal on the grounds of the camps being a "public nuisance", or a public health hazard.
Safety. I mentioned that.
Also, following the directions of law enforcement officers is required in many states and jurisdictions, and this isn't a new or recent construct. There are varying degrees, some of which include provisions for presenting identification and similar. It's your opinion, like the submitter's, that this is somehow "illegal". The rule of law doesn't work when individuals get to decide what applies to them on a whim.
So by your reasoning an officer can show up at your home right now, and tell you to let him in. According to you, you must comply.
This is wholly false. You are protected by law. You have rights. You may legally and rightfully refuse this order from an officer when it voiliates those rights. That officer MUST provide a warrant issued by a court, or have probable cause to enter your home. Period. End of discussion.
Your stance is based on the fact that most people are ignorant, or complacent, or fearful, and do enforce their rights when challenged. The rule of law doesnt work when those enforcing it are above it.
A dispersal order is supposed to be used by officers to difuse a potentially dangerous situation, or an unlawful or unsafe gathering (on private property, or blocking safety exits, for instance). If a cop is telling you that you have to leave only because he doesnt want you to witness his activities then he is wrongfully applying his authority and you are within your rights to decline his order.
If you start down the path of conceeding that you have to do what a cop says just because he said so, you have forfeited your freedoms gauranteed by our Constitution. And you're not likely to get them back.
Slashdot Mirror
So what's your point?
The argument isnt whether its awful that there are so many people unemployed, or scraping by on low incomes. We all agree that's awful and we would all prefer that it not be the case. The discussion is whether or not a person reliant on subsidy programs would more likely vote to increase or decrease subsidy programs. It extends from there to the realization that if a majority of voters are reliant on subsidies that they are not likely to vote to decrease, then you have found yourself on an unsustainable and self-defeating economic course.
And GM, and GE, and Acorn (although no longer), and SEIU, and and Media Matters, and ACLU, and Planned Parenthood, and Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs, and Solyndra, and an appreciable portion of the colleges and universities, and several network news organizations, and a decent chunk of Hollywood?
Yes, all of the above.
And there have never been successful non-military application for any advancements DARPA has been involved in....
The 2008 Presidential election was decided on decisive electoral college votes. But the popular vote within many states that swung toward Obama were within very few percentage points, few exceeding 10%. When the outcome of an election can be decided in a 2% swing one way or another a small number of dependents of government can easily tip the scales. We are consistently increasing the numbers of those dependents. Eventually the scale is tipped, if it hasnt already.
You must either dismiss these people as inconsequential, or acknowledge that they impact the national debate.
Which is it?
I'll put aside the poetry in your lack of punctuation or capitalization for a second and simply address the poetry in your ignorance of the limited role of federal government, as defined by the Consitituion.
First, defense is a large contributor to federal spending (24%). And this is exactly appropriate. This is one of the few roles of federal government explicitely defined by our Constitution and it should be a large percentage of federal spending. That being said, defense spending is steamrolled by the combined total spending in Pensions (22%), Healthcare (22%), and Wellfare (%12), none of which are defined roles of the federal government.
Second, the owners of the businesses that are defense contractors are wealtheir than some, but not (entirely) at the expense of the masses. I will concede that there is a degree of corruption in the defense contracting world, but I would ask you to conced that their is equal or greater corruption in the worlds of green energy, public works, law enforcememt, and even welfare. If your issue is corruption then we agree, but you must acknowledge its equal existence in even those areas which you feel should be provided greater funding (in areas not granted authority to the federal government by the Constitution).
Third, I do not fear an educated populace. In fact, quite the opposite, I wish for it desperately. It would be a nice change of pace... But the education system on which you rely is often as guilty of ensuring the ignorance of the masses as you suggest it be their saviour. People don't understand that we're supposed to have a system of checks and balances in our government. It's not the least shocking to them how completely off the rails we have become. Are you aware that the Justice Dept is supposed to ensure that Congress and the President do not violate the Constituion? How is that served when the President appoints the head of the very dept meant to be a check against his power, as well as the FBI who is meant to investigate the President's wrong-doings? People are not being taught this. Instead they are taught that the Constitution is an obstacle that prevents more free stuff being given to the less fortunate. That's the justification that has been used repeatedly by past and present administrations to bend the Constitution, slowly corrupting it and reshaping it with fewer freedoms and less protections for everyone, regardless of their personal prosperity. And you've obviously fully bought the lies....
Lets imagine hypothetically that there are those among that 50% who want to ensure that they keep their authority, and might not be completely ethical. Is it in their interests to increase the wealth or education of those without authority? Is it perhaps appealing to them to reduce the percentage of those whom they must share authority?
How long do you think that balance remains at 50%? How long will it be before some group within the authoritative 50% want more power, or more money, or simply decide that they know whats best for you and they start a process by which they can dictate it?
How great an argument is this when all of what they buy or any tax they pay is from funds they have recieved in the form assistance?
While many of the people who fall into the 47% of those who pay no taxes at least have personal incomes, many others recieve every dollar from the federal or state governments. If I give you $2 and ask you to give me back $0.50 in taxes, have you actually learned the impact of taxation on business or on those that are self-sufficient? Do your personal experiences lend themselves to a properly informed vote on entitlements?
And your solution apparently is to throw your hands up and just give the choice away entirely?
I'll hold onto the tiny impact I and the millions who often believe as I do can have in electing our representatives. If you like I'd be happy to provide you the vote I'd like you to cast in each election if you're not interested in making a choice for your own interests.
Which is proof positive why our founders firmly (and rightly) believed that the power to govern should be largely within the hands of the states rather than the federal government. It is federal overreach that has led to the current imbalance.
You're right. That is the entire point.
When it comes time to pay your taxes, would you rather ask your friends for advice and decide to take the advice that seems most rational? Or cede all say in your finances to someone you can be relatively sure has limited concern for how much money you personally retain because, A) they are commited to giving it to others whom they deem more in need than you (right or wrong), or B) corrupt and willing to take it for himself?
At least if you have taken bad advice the pain of the decision you made will teach you something you can utilize when you make your next comparable choice. Conversely if you have made the one bad chocie of ceding all future choices to others, that knowledge cannot be applied for your future benefit. You're done making choices.
You're ensuring a process by which one demographic (wealthier, more educated) are given all authority over another (less wealthy, less educated). You are ensuring an aristrocracy in which the elite rule the serfs and the serfs have little or no voice.
I get where you're coming from. We are rapidly approaching the reverse of the above where those whom are wholly reliant upon the government for their subsistence will continue to vote to retain (and in fact, increase) that subsidy without regard for the financial feesibility of such a vote.
Right. I alluded to that.
But in anything other than some variation on Democracy, the citizens have limited or zero voice.
Theocracy? Communism? Monarchy? Each of these are represented in our world today, and in each the people really have no say as individuals. Even collectively the people do not help craft policy in any significant way.
So my premise is sound. Do you help to choose the idiots that lead you? Or do you want no say in the rule under which you will live? A rule that generally does not have your individual freedoms as a fundemental building block of its policy?
The alternative of course, is a completely selfless dictator or some political machine which appoints leaders that will certainly have your freedoms and interests at heart.
I think I'd rather have a idiot running the country bound by law (that's actually enforced) to uphold the Constitution.
The basic premise here is that you and I are too stupid to understand a bill before its passed. You cant be trusted to read the bill yourself and judge its contents on its merits and then tell your representative whether you desire them to support or oppose the proposed legislation. Its too inconvenient to delay a vote for a whole week so that everyone knows what is being voted on. They would prefer to pass it and you'll find out how it impacts when it actually impacts you and its too damn late for you to do anything about it. It shows the incredible arrogance of the members of Congress, exhibited both by Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. It shows a disrespect for you, for me, for the process, and for the Constitution these knucklehead swore to uphold. You should be just as pissed about that as I am unless you prefer to live in a dictatorship in which your voice has no meaning and you find out how your rights have changed, for better or worse, AFTER they have done so.
You might trust this President and his administration to make every right choice in your best possible interests. Will you be able to say the same of the next one? Because you're giving that future President just as much power as this one, and you're going to be damn hard pressed to take that power away later when you realize how bad a choice it was to give it away now.
So, please tell me how this basic premise is somehow dishonestly served by showing the quote that I use as my signature and I will remove it. And as far as calling me a liar goes, you are either willfully ignorant about this speech and its content and have allowed biased media to tell you its all just a lie and that we should all just ignore it, or you are among those that understand how damaging this kind of a statement is and want to help hide it.
Speech Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEeP7bY9Lw
Transcript Snipit:
“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.”
How do you challenge an unlawful order to disperse after the fact if you've been told to forfiet your evidence and leave, and you complied? You werent arrested because you complied, so there is no court case associated with your actions (or lack of). It would go to court only if you filed a lawsuit on your own time and money and it was sent to court by the colleagues of those you mean to sue. If it was corruption of law enforcement that led to the event to begin with what makes you assume there will not be corruption in the mechanism used for reconciliation? And even if it gets to court, you no longer have your evidence.
And this is exactly how unlawful orders by law enforcement become more pervasive. They assume if you are unwilling to stand up for your rights at the moment they are voilated you will also be unwilling to assume the hardship of standing up for them after the fact. And they are right.
Life is finite. Yours, your child's, your grandchild's... Conceeding your freedoms today does so also for your descendants tomorrow. Are you prepared to grow old watching that consequence to those you love?
— wait, what's happening here? A rational discussion on slashdot?!?
Singularity to commence in 3...2... 1....
That's what I said, I just failed to mention the possibility of an invitation to enter. An officer must have a warrant or a legal cause to enter otherwise. A legal cause could be a reason to believe that a crime was being commited or a person was in distress. The implied argument being presented by some here is that if a cop tells you to let him in you have to comply, even in the absence of a warrant or cause.
I believe we're in disagreement mainly because I didn't clarify myself in that I am no limiting my comments to this one case. There are cases in which a cop can lawfully ask people to disperse and those people need to comply. I mentioned that. But I adamantly disagree that just because a cop says you have to disperse it does not inherently mean that he has done so lawfully. Too few people peacefully challenge this because they dont want to deal with the consequences. And as that concession becomes more and more common, it becomes expected by both the citizens and law enforcement. The rights which we rely upon to remain free become effectively void in practice if not in law.
So then your conscience would allow you to watch what you believe to be a crime against your fellow citizen, and you would disperse simply because an officer told you to? I'd rather act on what I feel is right and deal with the consequences than explain away how I didnt stick my neck out for someone in need.
My concern is the overwhelming willingness to be treated unlawfully so as to avoid the consequences, and yet so little consideration is given to the consequences of allowing society as a whole to be consistently treated unlawfully.
In the case of some of the Occupy camps, municipalities justified removal on the grounds of the camps being a "public nuisance", or a public health hazard.
Safety. I mentioned that.
Also, following the directions of law enforcement officers is required in many states and jurisdictions, and this isn't a new or recent construct. There are varying degrees, some of which include provisions for presenting identification and similar. It's your opinion, like the submitter's, that this is somehow "illegal". The rule of law doesn't work when individuals get to decide what applies to them on a whim.
So by your reasoning an officer can show up at your home right now, and tell you to let him in. According to you, you must comply.
This is wholly false. You are protected by law. You have rights. You may legally and rightfully refuse this order from an officer when it voiliates those rights. That officer MUST provide a warrant issued by a court, or have probable cause to enter your home. Period. End of discussion.
Your stance is based on the fact that most people are ignorant, or complacent, or fearful, and do enforce their rights when challenged. The rule of law doesnt work when those enforcing it are above it.
"Yeah, we beat the shit out of him, but while we were hitting him and swung at a cop. So we arrested him for assualting an officer. "
And I'm saying I disagree.
A dispersal order is supposed to be used by officers to difuse a potentially dangerous situation, or an unlawful or unsafe gathering (on private property, or blocking safety exits, for instance). If a cop is telling you that you have to leave only because he doesnt want you to witness his activities then he is wrongfully applying his authority and you are within your rights to decline his order.
If you start down the path of conceeding that you have to do what a cop says just because he said so, you have forfeited your freedoms gauranteed by our Constitution. And you're not likely to get them back.
So conversely thats why we so many police brutality and wrongful arrest prosecutions?