I'm not so sure that what you say really contradicts what I've said. First off, you will surely find anecdotes of people who think the government is going to miraculously do everything. You can find anecdotes to support just about any crazy conclusion, so let's leave them aside.
What I was basically trying to say was: While these people do get a little help from the government, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they had such faith in the government that they expect it to miraculously save them from a hurricane/flood. The government couldn't save them from their poverty, why would they expect it to save them from Katrina? The OP's assertion simply doesn't make sense.
Even if you are dirt poor, you can walk.
That's silly. Wealth and mobility are not at all related.
Also, people DID try to walk out of NO. Know what happened? They were fucking SHOT AT.
Except that's not really at all like Mouch. Sure, the attitude is similar, but I don't think the OP is calling for ridiculous profit-sharing laws or requiring Google to sign over their IP to the government, etc, etc, etc..
Wesley Mouch, like most of Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged, is a caricature.
Re:Strawman much? You certainly do
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 1
You mean it's generally not what GOPists complain about. People on the left complain about defense spending all the time.. for instance the billions that we have wasted in Iraq. It's almost 250 billion and the latest appropriation is just about all the way through the Congress so it will certainly go up.
"This is America. This isn't a third-world country. Nothing bad can happen to me. Uncle Sam will figure it out so I won't get hurt"
If you really think this is how people think, you're seriously deluded. We're talking about people that live paycheck to paycheck, with barely enough food to eat that live in structures that you would be hard-pressed to call a house. You really think that they believe nothing BAD can happen to them? After the life of constant poverty that they've been living? What a fucking joke. Open your goddamn eyes man.
The only way that could happen is if home production were outlawed, which would not be true legalization. This is the main reason why most people think it will never be legalized. It is very easy to produce at home.
I personally feel that most people will not want to bother with producing it themselves, much like beer/wine, and really food in general.. look how much money is spent on restaurants when all of that food can be made yourself for much cheaper (i don't mean growing everything yourself..). Same with roll-your-own cigarettes, etc, etc. It's a simple fact that people are willing to pay for convenience. I know I would.
Re:Review of the review
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm unclear how deregulating campaign finance will cause the problem of big money in politics. I agree that Mc-F isn't the solution.. but I really don't understand how you think deregulation will magically fix things.. even if all power was moved locally, money is still there.
As far as social programs being born locally.. certainly an interesting ideal.. however insurance (and this is what most social programs are) really only starts working well when you have a large pool to smooth out the risks and use group power to leverage prices, etc. Exactly how is a 300 person hamlet going to get health insurance? Old age insurance? (aka social security) etc? We all know you are anti-regulation.. how would you feel if every town had wildly different laws and regulations? Have you considered the potential impact on your ability to run your businesses and make money?
"Vote with your feet" is really an idealistic notion. Whatever happened to New Hampshire? Wasn't it supposed to be a libertarian paradise by now? They're still looking for 1,000 people. Just one measly thousand out of 300 million.
The fact is that moving isn't something that people do lightly. There's still Democrats in Kansas and GOPists in Massachussetts.
but under clinton, the agencies were not allowed to share information with each other.
This actually started under Reagan.
Also, it is imporant to remember, that at no time during the past 15 years was there ever an actual surplus.
CNN disagrees. This is the key phrase: "The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt."
Again, you misrepresent Democrats. Show me where in the Democratic platform they are calling for the end of private firearm ownership or thought crimes?
Just because people who call themselves Democrats call for such silliness does not mean that it is the Party position.
A cite for your Koresh claims would be appreciated.
Re:Strawman much? You certainly do
on
Netroots Politics
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You, and many GOPists, make the assumption that all defense spending is de facto good. I submit that this is false.
And it's important to note that while GOPists were all for a BBA in the 90s, the most recent endeavor did not have the same support. Interesting, no?
Re:Private enviro-bacterial research organization?
on
Bacteria Eat Styrofoam
·
· Score: 1
Government very rarely tries to make people "stop polluting". Legislators and regulators understand that industrial processes and many things in our modern life cause pollution. There are only a few examples of 'zero pollution' initiatives, most notably the Montreal Protocol for CFCs, which has been by most accounts a great success, with the ozone hole actually shinking for some years (whether this is a direct result of the MP is yet to be determined, of course).
I know from my experiences that government regulations on polluting seem to have a positive effect of making the world cleaner, but they also have a negative effect of reducing a company's ability to provide their customers with a product or service at the best price.
While thats true re: price, it's simply a function of regulation. I don't think it's a valid argument against enviromental regs. The business community still does, and with each regulation they repeat the same doom-and-gloom "This will put us all out of business!" scenarios.. yet they're still here.
I still have yet to see major pollution reductions or spill prevention initiatives that are not initiated by government regulations, be it direct regulation (thou shalt not emit more than X) or indirect regulation (here's a tax break if you cut emissions by Y).
While driving to the mailbox is certainly ridiculous, from an energy and emissions standpoint it's relatively minor. When people stop commuting 50 miles to work, that'll change things.
the worst polluter in all of history has been the U.S. government
True.
I'm not sure the worst polluter in history is really the best organization to regulate the pollution of private citizens.
Possibly, but it's an irrelevant argument. The government regulates on behalf of the people.
I do believe that there ARE free market ways to control pollution.
Really. What ways are those? How much pollution have they cut?
In the end, pollution can ONLY be controlled through voluntary desire.
False. While voluntary desire can be a strong motivator for pollution control, it is not the only solution. Regulations have provenresults.
If people really want to end pollution, they need to be informed by others in who is the worst polluters, and we need to boycott those companies. If no one boycotts, I can only believe that no one cares, in which case the problem needs to get bad enough for the next generation to realize the error of their parents.
Except people do care, which is why environmental regulations have been enacted.
I can buy pedantic.. but where do you get egotistical? Actually, I can't buy pedantic either. WTF are you talking about? Do you know what these words mean?
Right, it is impossible to draw the line. I personally think campaigns should be 100% fully funded, with advocacy spending (this might include AA) mainly unregulated (but reported, for transparency which I feel is 100% necessary). The only problem with this approach is that limiting self-spending has in the past been ruled unconstitutional.
Why do you think that perception (btw it's not a public perception, it's a media perception) is correct?
Department of Homeland Security: A Democratic idea. Fully funding the VA: A Democratic idea. Providing our troops with the equipment necessary to wage war: A Democratic idea. Port Security: A Democratic idea. Chemical Security: A Democratic idea.
Actually, forget my laundry list. Name one Democratic issue, position, bill, anything, that is weak on national security and I'll be satisfied.
Well first off, analogies in general should be avoided, and maybe my post should have omitted the word 'car'. Analogies tend to steer the discussion towards how accurate the analogy is and not the real issue (how many threads have there been where it goes back-and-forth: "This is like if a car.." "No, it's really more like if a phone company.." "Well I think it is like a car, but slightly different..") Analogies are meant to make a situation more easily understood by someone who is unfamiliar with the subject matter.
Second, the analogy is stupid: "Would it be okay to make the car with a non-functioning radio..." If you had any lick of sense, you'd test drive the car and find out, oh shit! the radio doesn't work! I'm not going to buy this car!
Software bugs, and software in general, are unlike virtually all other product issues, which is why most analogies suck and have to be these convoluted situations that simply do not exist. Look at the full analogy again and tell me how that makes the issues any clearer to anyone:
What if the market place decided that cars will sell best at $10,000? But auto makers want to make $15,000. Would it be okay to make the car with a non-functioning radio, and then tell the consumers "We have an upgrade, it's better", but the new upgrade is a radio you can't turn off, filled with advertising. Or they tell you "we have an upgrade for your engine", but it is a GPS that collects data about where you go, so they can tell if you prefer Best Buy or Circuit City?
Buying time is not 'unheard of'.. maybe to the general public, but in the broadcasting industry buying time is run of the mill.
As for classifying AA as political spending.. then we'd have to do the same for Rush, Sean, Bill and all of their sponsors. I don't think any official Democratic organizations give money to AA.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno, as I haven't read Hard Times.
I'm not so sure that what you say really contradicts what I've said. First off, you will surely find anecdotes of people who think the government is going to miraculously do everything. You can find anecdotes to support just about any crazy conclusion, so let's leave them aside.
What I was basically trying to say was: While these people do get a little help from the government, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they had such faith in the government that they expect it to miraculously save them from a hurricane/flood. The government couldn't save them from their poverty, why would they expect it to save them from Katrina? The OP's assertion simply doesn't make sense.
Even if you are dirt poor, you can walk.
That's silly. Wealth and mobility are not at all related.
Also, people DID try to walk out of NO. Know what happened? They were fucking SHOT AT.
Care to point out any passages that I did not comprehend? Thanks AC.
Except that's not really at all like Mouch. Sure, the attitude is similar, but I don't think the OP is calling for ridiculous profit-sharing laws or requiring Google to sign over their IP to the government, etc, etc, etc..
Wesley Mouch, like most of Rand's characters in Atlas Shrugged, is a caricature.
You mean it's generally not what GOPists complain about. People on the left complain about defense spending all the time.. for instance the billions that we have wasted in Iraq. It's almost 250 billion and the latest appropriation is just about all the way through the Congress so it will certainly go up.
"This is America. This isn't a third-world country. Nothing bad can happen to me. Uncle Sam will figure it out so I won't get hurt"
If you really think this is how people think, you're seriously deluded. We're talking about people that live paycheck to paycheck, with barely enough food to eat that live in structures that you would be hard-pressed to call a house. You really think that they believe nothing BAD can happen to them? After the life of constant poverty that they've been living? What a fucking joke. Open your goddamn eyes man.
The only way that could happen is if home production were outlawed, which would not be true legalization. This is the main reason why most people think it will never be legalized. It is very easy to produce at home.
I personally feel that most people will not want to bother with producing it themselves, much like beer/wine, and really food in general.. look how much money is spent on restaurants when all of that food can be made yourself for much cheaper (i don't mean growing everything yourself..). Same with roll-your-own cigarettes, etc, etc. It's a simple fact that people are willing to pay for convenience. I know I would.
On this, we agree.
I'm unclear how deregulating campaign finance will cause the problem of big money in politics. I agree that Mc-F isn't the solution.. but I really don't understand how you think deregulation will magically fix things.. even if all power was moved locally, money is still there.
As far as social programs being born locally.. certainly an interesting ideal.. however insurance (and this is what most social programs are) really only starts working well when you have a large pool to smooth out the risks and use group power to leverage prices, etc. Exactly how is a 300 person hamlet going to get health insurance? Old age insurance? (aka social security) etc? We all know you are anti-regulation.. how would you feel if every town had wildly different laws and regulations? Have you considered the potential impact on your ability to run your businesses and make money?
"Vote with your feet" is really an idealistic notion. Whatever happened to New Hampshire? Wasn't it supposed to be a libertarian paradise by now? They're still looking for 1,000 people. Just one measly thousand out of 300 million.
The fact is that moving isn't something that people do lightly. There's still Democrats in Kansas and GOPists in Massachussetts.
but under clinton, the agencies were not allowed to share information with each other.
This actually started under Reagan.
Also, it is imporant to remember, that at no time during the past 15 years was there ever an actual surplus.
CNN disagrees. This is the key phrase: "The federal budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 was $122.7 billion, and $69.2 billion for fiscal year 1998. Those back-to-back surpluses, the first since 1957, allowed the Treasury to pay down $138 billion in national debt."
If there was no surplus, how was debt paid down?
Again, you misrepresent Democrats. Show me where in the Democratic platform they are calling for the end of private firearm ownership or thought crimes?
Just because people who call themselves Democrats call for such silliness does not mean that it is the Party position.
A cite for your Koresh claims would be appreciated.
You, and many GOPists, make the assumption that all defense spending is de facto good. I submit that this is false.
And it's important to note that while GOPists were all for a BBA in the 90s, the most recent endeavor did not have the same support. Interesting, no?
Government very rarely tries to make people "stop polluting". Legislators and regulators understand that industrial processes and many things in our modern life cause pollution. There are only a few examples of 'zero pollution' initiatives, most notably the Montreal Protocol for CFCs, which has been by most accounts a great success, with the ozone hole actually shinking for some years (whether this is a direct result of the MP is yet to be determined, of course).
I know from my experiences that government regulations on polluting seem to have a positive effect of making the world cleaner, but they also have a negative effect of reducing a company's ability to provide their customers with a product or service at the best price.
While thats true re: price, it's simply a function of regulation. I don't think it's a valid argument against enviromental regs. The business community still does, and with each regulation they repeat the same doom-and-gloom "This will put us all out of business!" scenarios.. yet they're still here.
I still have yet to see major pollution reductions or spill prevention initiatives that are not initiated by government regulations, be it direct regulation (thou shalt not emit more than X) or indirect regulation (here's a tax break if you cut emissions by Y).
Right. And look, you didn't need a convoluted analogy to get your point across!
While driving to the mailbox is certainly ridiculous, from an energy and emissions standpoint it's relatively minor. When people stop commuting 50 miles to work, that'll change things.
You have truly put the fear of god into me and I see the error of my ways. Thank you.
the worst polluter in all of history has been the U.S. government
True.
I'm not sure the worst polluter in history is really the best organization to regulate the pollution of private citizens.
Possibly, but it's an irrelevant argument. The government regulates on behalf of the people.
I do believe that there ARE free market ways to control pollution.
Really. What ways are those? How much pollution have they cut?
In the end, pollution can ONLY be controlled through voluntary desire.
False. While voluntary desire can be a strong motivator for pollution control, it is not the only solution. Regulations have proven results.
If people really want to end pollution, they need to be informed by others in who is the worst polluters, and we need to boycott those companies. If no one boycotts, I can only believe that no one cares, in which case the problem needs to get bad enough for the next generation to realize the error of their parents.
Except people do care, which is why environmental regulations have been enacted.
rofl.. all you can do is agree with an AC? On something that had nothing to do with the point of my post? Again, weak.
You have issues.
That's all you've got? Weak.
I can buy pedantic.. but where do you get egotistical? Actually, I can't buy pedantic either. WTF are you talking about? Do you know what these words mean?
Right, it is impossible to draw the line. I personally think campaigns should be 100% fully funded, with advocacy spending (this might include AA) mainly unregulated (but reported, for transparency which I feel is 100% necessary). The only problem with this approach is that limiting self-spending has in the past been ruled unconstitutional.
(correctly IMHO)
Why do you think that perception (btw it's not a public perception, it's a media perception) is correct?
Department of Homeland Security: A Democratic idea.
Fully funding the VA: A Democratic idea.
Providing our troops with the equipment necessary to wage war: A Democratic idea.
Port Security: A Democratic idea.
Chemical Security: A Democratic idea.
Actually, forget my laundry list. Name one Democratic issue, position, bill, anything, that is weak on national security and I'll be satisfied.
Second, the analogy is stupid: "Would it be okay to make the car with a non-functioning radio..." If you had any lick of sense, you'd test drive the car and find out, oh shit! the radio doesn't work! I'm not going to buy this car!
Software bugs, and software in general, are unlike virtually all other product issues, which is why most analogies suck and have to be these convoluted situations that simply do not exist. Look at the full analogy again and tell me how that makes the issues any clearer to anyone:Huh?
Buying time is not 'unheard of'.. maybe to the general public, but in the broadcasting industry buying time is run of the mill.
As for classifying AA as political spending.. then we'd have to do the same for Rush, Sean, Bill and all of their sponsors. I don't think any official Democratic organizations give money to AA.